The war has also shown that the accusations of war crimes and genocide, some aspects of which are subject to international legal proceedings, are no longer confined to limited political or human rights circles, but have become part of a broader global discussion about Israel's responsibility for its actions.
This shift cannot be explained as a position towards Netanyahu alone. It is true that his government bears direct political responsibility for its decisions and choices, and the statements of some of its extremist ministers have contributed to deepening the criticisms, but reducing the crisis to the person of the Prime Minister ignores the fact that broad sectors of the Israeli political establishment adopt similar positions regarding the continuation of military operations, the expansion of settlements, and the rejection of political tracks capable of ending the conflict on a basis that guarantees Palestinian rights.
Here, the occupied West Bank emerges as an additional test of Israel's credibility before the world. The continuation of settlement expansion, the escalation of settler terrorism, attacks on Palestinians and their properties, and restrictions on movement and daily life, reveal that the crisis is not only about the war in Gaza, but also about a broader policy system that affects the basic rights of the Palestinian people, undermines the chances of establishing an independent Palestinian state, and the criticisms directed at the Israeli forces' handling of settler attacks raise questions about the responsibility of official institutions for protection, accountability, and law enforcement.
In this context, the repercussions of the decline in popular and even official support go beyond the moral dimension to affect economic, diplomatic, and security relations. The escalation of calls for boycotts, the discussion of imposing sanctions on entities linked to settlements, and the widening of criticism within Western societies, are all indicators that the continuation of current policies may impose an increasing cost on Israel, even in its relations with countries with which it has strategic partnerships.
This also embarrasses countries in the region that have diplomatic relations or are about to have them, because these policies contradict the principles of international law and the legal charter adopted by the United Nations and its affiliated organizations, and even the understandings and peace agreements, which threatens to undermine all attempts to integrate Israel into the region and its acceptance by the Arab and regional environment.
None of this means that international positions have become unified, or that political and security support for Israel has ended, but it indicates that this support is no longer immune to popular, legal, and political pressures, and that the gap between the positions of governments and trends in sectors of public opinion may turn into a factor influencing decision-making in the future.
Therefore, the essence of the crisis is that Israel is facing a decline in its image not only due to media failures, but also due to a growing contradiction between its political discourse and its practices on the ground. Shameful human rights violations, and changing the discourse or replacing one government with another will not be enough to restore confidence unless it is accompanied by a real review of policies, the cessation of violations, the accountability of those responsible for them, respect for international law, the end of the occupation, and the recognition of the Palestinian people's right to freedom, independence, the establishment of their independent state on Palestinian soil, and the right to self-determination, on par with the rest of the world's peoples.
In conclusion, Israel must know that international standing is not achieved by force alone, nor is it regained by pre-paid public relations campaigns, but by policies that respect human rights and provide a fair basis for peace for the future of the region's peoples. Without this, the crisis of support for Israel will be deeper than the crisis of Netanyahu, and will remain linked to the path of the state and its institutions and choices towards the Palestinians, the region, and the world.
