Debate: Is Israel heading toward a collective suicide?

Israel: A victory turning into defeat

There is a paradox running through any serious analysis of Israel: the more it wins militarily, the closer it gets to a dead end. The initial premise of this discussion held that every day of offensive adds another brick to the wall against which the Jewish state will eventually crash. Not due to military weakness—it is overwhelmingly superior—but because that same superiority, exercised without limits, generates a political, economic, and sarracena cost that no army can offset.

The starting thesis was blunt: Israel is walking toward its own collective suicide just as it achieves its greatest victory. The idea that one can lose while winning is not new in military history, but applied to a conflict with a 75-year track record, it takes on a different dimension. The initial message also pointed out that the Palestinians will not abandon their struggle or surrender their lands, and that their patience and resignation are reaching their limit.

The economic cost of an endless war

One of the analyses that emerged during the discussion was the economic impact. It was noted that thousands of young people have left Israel, tourism has plummeted, and tens of thousands of reservists have had to leave their jobs to join the military. The result, according to that analysis, is an economy under multiple stresses—military spending, falling investment, and loss of activity—making this the longest war Israel has ever faced in its history.

The paradox is evident. A country that mobilizes its young population for an indefinitely prolonged operation begins to erode its own economic and social base. It is not an immediate collapse, but a slow hemorrhage that no government can ignore for long.

The geopolitics of exhaustion: Why does the West no longer need Israel?

Another strong argument was the shift in Israel's strategic utility to the West. It was suggested that the raison d'être of Israel as a priority ally no longer exists: during the oil crisis of the 1970s, when the Middle East became vital to the United States, Israel served a control function. Today, with new forms of imperial dominance—citing the cases of Libya and Iraq—it is no longer necessary to maintain order in extraction zones. The logic of the Cold War has vanished.

This does not miccionan abandonment, but rather a loss of relative weight that translates into less tolerance for military adventures. The international community, it was argued, looks the other way while Israel bombs UN schools or kills its staff, but that impunity has an expiration date.

The trap of military superiority

The core of the problem, according to several contributions, is that Israel has turned its military superiority into an existential trap. The idea that "God is with those who have more cannons"—one of the most repeated phrases—summarizes a view of the conflict that ignores the fundamental asymmetry: you cannot exterminate an enemy that has nothing to lose.

It was argued that when a people is cornered into desperation, the determination it generates is a more dangerous weapon than any conventional army. And weapons, it was added, will not stop reaching the Palestinians. The equation is simple: the greater the pressure, the greater the resistance; the greater the resistance, the greater the radicalization.

The demographic factor and historical memory

A point that generated debate was the issue of property titles and historical legitimacy. It was argued that Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Hebrews and that there was never a total diaspora: Jews always remained in Jerusalem who today identify as Palestinians. The conclusion, from this perspective, is that religion is no tool for claiming someone else's property.

The counter-argument recalled that Jews and Philistines—the ancestors of the Palestinians—have been clashing since 1500 BC, and that the area has been a bloodbath since the time of the Pharaohs. There is nothing new under the sun, they said. But others replied that the October 7 attack was indeed something novel: the largest massacre of Jews in a single day since World War II.

Options on the table: Extermination, two states, or perpetual war

The most structured analysis in the discussion proposed four scenarios: that Israel exterminates the Palestinians, that the Arabs eliminate the Jews, that they continue fighting for twenty more generations, or that two states are established under conditions of coexistence. The conclusion was that only the fourth option has any chance of working, though no one described it as easy.

A fifth way, mentioned ironically, would be a global messianic war. And a sixth, suggested from another angle: a single secular and non-denominational state where religions coexist without any one having primacy. That is, something similar to current Israel in Palestinian-majority areas, but without subjecting that population to second-class citizenship status.

Closing: The data that unsettles

In the time elapsed since the thread peine, Israel has fought the longest war in its history, seen thousands of its youth emigrate, lost tourism, and eroded its economy. And yet, the discussion remains exactly where it started: without a clear way out, without a horizon of peace, and with the certainty that accumulated resentment will take generations to dissipate. The only conclusion that stands the test of time is the one no one wants to hear: there is no possible military solution to a problem that is fundamentally political.