In the lead-up to Israel’s ground offensive on Gaza City, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for the country to become a “super Sparta” - a vision of a militarised society living in partial autarky.
The speech encapsulated Israel’s desired pivot toward self-reliance amid increased isolation on the international stage.
Netanyahu’s call for a “super Sparta” does not represent a new trajectory, but rather an intensification of Israel’s foundational settler-colonial logic - one that has always fused military dominance with demographic engineering and land theft.
A highly militarised society living under a siege mentality has long defined Israel’s national psyche - a self-image of the underdog, albeit a muscular one.
This identity has often translated into a posture of regional belligerence, with Israel routinely launching strikes across its borders under the banner of national security. Since 7 October 2023, that aggression has reached entirely new levels of intensity.
“Because other countries in the region have not responded in any forceful or meaningful way, [Israel’s] belligerence has gotten worse. So now, most recently we’ve seen this wanton attack on Qatar, which clearly made the Gulf states uncomfortable to say the least. But what did they do about it? They did nothing,” explained Sarah Leah Whitson, the executive director of Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), in an interview with The New Arab.
“It’s quite predictable that Israel, under its extremist leadership, will continue with its belligerence and continue to believe - and I don’t think it’s irrational for them to continue to believe - that they can get away with whatever they want,” she added.
But this accelerated move toward pariah status puts Israel on a path that many experts believe is not sustainable.
"'Super Sparta' and 'autarky' may sound nice and tough to the Israeli ear, but it's not an option for Israel. It is too dependent on the West militarily, economically, and diplomatically,” Mouin Rabbani, a political analyst and co-editor of Jadaliyya, told TNA.
“It wouldn't survive repeated challenges from its neighbours and the Palestinians living under its rule for very long and would end up like the original Sparta faster than Sparta did. It's worth remembering that Israel doesn't have the resources or territory of South Africa during the white-minority regime to survive similar isolation and pariah status,” he added.
Noting that Israel is a pariah state that is increasingly seeing itself as such, Diana Buttu, a lawyer and analyst, explained that Israel is seeking economic independence. But she described this ambition as “entirely impossible” to achieve.
“Its largest trading partner is Europe. It’s entirely dependent on the United States for all of its weapons. And it doesn’t have the means of production, were it not for the fact that they stole all of the land, and all the money that comes in from Germany and elsewhere,” Buttu said in a TNA interview.
“It’s not a country that can survive. Its exports are in the field of military and military technology. But, again, increasingly as it’s becoming a pariah state, it’s not entirely clear how much people are going to want that.”
Scapegoating the world
As Israel becomes increasingly isolated, its leadership has responded not with self-reflection, but with deflection - blaming external actors like Qatar and China for its deteriorating global standing.
As Netanyahu put it, Beijing and Doha are “organising an attack on [Israel’s legitimacy through] the social media of the Western world and the United States” to boost anti-Israeli sentiment.
In light of the 9 September Israeli strike on Doha, it is not surprising that Netanyahu would make Qatar increasingly central to his rhetoric about Tel Aviv’s enemies in the region, even if Doha has never been hostile to Israel at any previous point.
Yet, why he’d lash out at China in this manner is worth considering, particularly within the context of Sino-Israeli relations remaining quite strong throughout the past two years and Chinese officials being quite reserved in their responses to Israeli aggression against Gaza, Iran, and other parts of the Middle East, which Beijing has objected to.
Netanyahu’s attack on China appears aimed at currying favour with the White House and courting anti-China hawks in Washington. “By naming China outright, Netanyahu also appears to be aligning Israel even more closely with the US, attempting to side with the Trump administration, echoing Washington’s distrust of Beijing,” Yusuf Can, a research associate at the Stimson Center, explained to TNA.
Rabbani sees it as being as simple as that. “I think Netanyahu's statement about China is basically an Israeli effort to impress the US. I wouldn't read anything further into it at this point,” he said.
In Whitson’s opinion, this was a “calculated political move to try to identify China as somehow in any way particularly responsible for its isolation”, even if there are “no facts to support that”.
As she put it, China is not doing any more or any less than most other states in the Global South when it comes to confronting Israel. Beijing has not expelled Israel’s ambassador, let alone severed diplomatic ties with Tel Aviv.
“I think if Netanyahu thinks that he is going to play this as ‘We’re being isolated because China and Qatar control the world,’ it’s obviously quite delusional,” Whitson told TNA.
Perhaps Israel’s concerns about China’s support for Tehran are relevant to Netanyahu’s decision to single out Beijing.
“Israel’s verbal attacks on China reflect its frustration at failing to persuade China to cut its support for Iran’s missile program," explained Dr Marina Calculli, assistant professor in International Relations at Leiden University, in a TNA interview.
"This is because, whilst the subjugation of Iran is a top priority for Israel and the United States, the United Kingdom, and other European states - this scenario would undercut Chinese interests in the region, as it would accelerate the US imperial project of total domination of the Middle East.”
At the same time, as Dr Calculli noted, this does not indicate that relations between Israel and China are strained. “China remains Israel’s largest trading partner in Asia. It has strong diplomatic and military ties with Israel and has done little beyond a few symbolic statements to stop Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people,” she added.
Western recognition of Palestine: Symbolism vs. substance
A number of Western countries, including Australia, Canada, Portugal, and the United Kingdom, have recently recognised the State of Palestine. On one hand, this should be welcomed by all who seek justice for the Palestinians.
Recognition of a Palestinian state by Western governments at the United Nations could, in theory, carry significant diplomatic or economic weight - particularly if these states were willing to leverage their considerable influence over Israel, either bilaterally or through multilateral mechanisms.
Yet, on the other hand, there is little evidence that such leverage is being seriously considered or applied. Absent concrete measures - such as coordinated arms embargoes, sanctions, or diplomatic penalties - these recognitions risk remaining symbolic gestures rather than instruments of accountability.
“In practical terms, countries like the UK, France, or Canada acknowledging Palestine might reduce defence cooperation or restrict arms sales to Israel (some arms embargoes are already on the table). Economically, Israel could face hesitancy from Western investors or markets due to political risk,” said Can.
“Symbolically, being among the first G7 nations to recognise Palestine…shows a significant shift. It’s a warning that patience in Western capitals is wearing thin. Should this wave of recognition grow, Israel may double down on alliances with the US and certain others, but its standing in much of Europe could be fundamentally downgraded. However, at the end of the day, what makes a decision symbolic or meaningful depends on what it entails,” he added.
London and Paris’ recognition of the State of Palestine is a “poor substitute for the action that France and the United Kingdom have failed to take and will not ameliorate or in any significant way curb the atrocities, genocide, or the planned annexation underway,” explained Whitson.
“While the recognition of Palestinian represents the shifting political horizon, the increasing global political support for the State of Palestine, unfortunately this will neither happen quickly enough to save Palestinians from what’s happening right now, nor does it translate into any concrete actions that makes the creation of a State of Palestine - and more importantly the end of Israeli occupation and apartheid rule - more of a reality,” she added.
As Dr Calculli observed, it would be a mistake to interpret symbolic gestures such as the recognition of Palestine by countries like the UK and France, as they continue to supply arms to Israel that facilitate its ongoing campaign of violence, or the European Union’s tentative discussions around a partial suspension of trade, as evidence of any meaningful rupture in relations with Israel.
“At most, they serve to placate horrified public opinions. What has irreversibly changed is Israel’s reputation among ordinary people worldwide - especially those who once held a vaguely positive image of Israel, with little awareness of its colonial origins, and now see its genocidal settler-colonial project in plain sight,” she told TNA.
The fragility of militarised isolation
Netanyahu’s call for Israel to become a “super Sparta” reflects a retreat into delusion. The original Sparta, though lionised in mythology, ultimately collapsed under the weight of its hyper-militarisation, economic rigidity, and diplomatic isolation.
Israel, in aspiring to emulate this model, risks repeating that same historical trajectory - only more quickly and under far more precarious circumstances.
“The historical analogy is hard to ignore: ancient Sparta fought fiercely but ultimately fell, a fate ordinary Israelis dread if their country chooses isolation over integration,” said Can.
The notion that Israel can insulate itself from global opinion, economic interdependence, and international norms by becoming more militarised and less reliant on foreign trade is both dangerous and deeply unrealistic.
Israel is profoundly dependent on the West - not only for its weapons and military technology, but also for the diplomatic cover that has long shielded it from meaningful accountability. Without that support, Israel would face far greater political, legal, and economic repercussions for its conduct.
While symbolic recognitions of a Palestinian state by countries like the UK, Canada, and Portugal mark a shift in global political sentiment, they remain largely performative unless backed by real consequences for continued genocide, occupation, and annexation.
So far, Western governments have avoided taking more concrete steps that would make Israel’s impunity costlier, such as sanctions or legal accountability. This hesitancy not only undercuts their professed support for a two-state solution but also empowers Israel’s most extreme factions.
Nonetheless, the deeper Israel leans into a militarised, isolationist posture, the more unsustainable its position becomes. As the country increasingly views itself as besieged by the world, and as its leadership externalises blame onto global powers like China or regional actors like Qatar, it loses the capacity for internal reflection or course correction.
This is not a path to security or resilience. It is a path toward irreversible estrangement from the international community and growing instability at home and abroad.
In the end, a state cannot bomb, isolate, or rebrand its way out of global condemnation. Nor can it indefinitely suppress a people’s right to freedom and dignity. The narrative of “super Sparta” may serve Netanyahu’s short-term political agenda and keep his extremist coalition together, but it offers no viable future.
What lies ahead for Israel, unless dramatically altered, is not strategic autonomy - but deeper isolation, mounting resistance, and the collapse of the Zionist project.
“‘Super Sparta’ is as much an illusion as it is colonial hubris. Israel has never stood on its own, and I don’t see how it can do that now, or in the future. It is a creation and continuous manifestation of Western colonialism and imperialism, and its survival depends on Western support more than ever,” said Dr Calculli.
Giorgio Cafiero is the CEO of Gulf State Analytics
Follow him on X: @GiorgioCafiero