By Ameer Makhoul, Progress Center for Policies
In his speech on September 15 at the Department of Accountants General in the Israeli Ministry of Finance, Netanyahu outlined the features of the future and a fundamental dimension of his vision and policies, which are based on the permanence of war, saying: “Dangers do not disappear, they only change.” Netanyahu emphasized the new orientation of countering international isolation by pivoting toward self-reliant military manufacturing.
It is not clear whether Netanyahu’s speech, which coincided with the Arab-Islamic summit in Doha and the visit of the U.S. Secretary of State, was related to these two events in terms of timing.
In the analysis:
Netanyahu openly acknowledges the isolation surrounding Israel, while his conclusion is to further entrench policies that amount to comprehensive gambling and perpetual war until “decisive victory.” He appears convinced that Israel is capable of achieving this, bolstered by the declarations of Marco Rubio, who has adopted Israel’s stance and narrative. Effectively, Netanyahu rejects any Arab hand extended toward understanding or peace, regardless of its form or substance.
More dangerous is Netanyahu’s statement, in the context of Israel’s achievements in the war against Iran, that there are new threats facing Israel. He added: “Even when one force is eliminated, other forces rise to the surface… I won’t name them.” He continued, addressing senior Finance Ministry officials: “Think among yourselves about the dangers. Dangers don’t disappear, they only change.” Netanyahu is implicitly hinting at both Egypt and Turkey, as well as justifying a strike against Qatar.
The issue of independent military manufacturing arose during Biden’s presidency, when he banned the supply of massive bombs to Israel before its occupation and comprehensive destruction of Rafah. Biden’s consideration was that the Israeli army would use them against civilians, while the U.S. provided Israel with even more lethal bombs and equipment for the war against Hezbollah and Iran. Trump has since lifted Biden’s ban.
Germany followed this line, halting the export of certain weapons of mass destruction and munitions that could be used against civilians in “Operation Gideon’s Chariots 2,” according to the German stance. The UK and France took similar measures, while Spain went further by prohibiting the use of its ports for transferring U.S. weapons to Israel, later followed by Italy.
The War of Civilizations and “Greater Israel”:
Netanyahu attributes Israel’s isolation to two main reasons: the first is “the unlimited migration of Muslim minorities into Western European countries. They are not yet a majority, but they are an influential, outspoken, and effective minority, and this deters governments. These matters affect leaders, and they do not deny this in private conversations.”
Official Israel and its media machine responded conspicuously to recent racist demonstrations in Britain against immigration, expressing support for them. They also sought to stir up European populist discourse against migrants, portraying them as anti-Semitic, anti-Western civilization, and manipulative of European positions. This rhetoric resembles the hate speech once directed at European Jews during the rise of anti-Semitism.
Netanyahu and his government see the visit of Rubio, the U.S. Secretary of State with his ideological positions aligned with Trump against immigration (which he calls a “national security threat”), as an opportunity to urge both of them to rid themselves of the “danger” by forcibly expelling migrants. For Netanyahu, the issue of deporting migrants logically aligns with his intentions to displace Gaza’s population and even the West Bank.
The second message, directed primarily at Trump and his administration, was Netanyahu’s claim: “Countries such as Qatar and China influence public opinion through massive investments in social media campaigns. This changes Israel’s international standing. We will have to invest enormous sums in this.” This message was also aimed at the Finance Ministry to allocate budgets for this purpose.
Netanyahu effectively transitions in his speech from the doctrine of the globally and domestically open free market to the doctrine of a closed economy based on self-sufficiency and defensive insularity. This is not an end in itself, but part of a vision that accepts perpetual wars as reality. He stated: “At least in the coming years, we will have to defend ourselves and know how to strike the enemy.” He added that Israel must be managed like “Sparta,” which fought many wars against Athens: “We will have to develop arms industries here. We will be both Athens and a great Sparta. We have no other choice.”
Conclusion:
Netanyahu acknowledges that Israel’s current international isolation is not temporary or fleeting, but constant and sustainable, while he bets on Trump’s values and on European populists.
Should he remain in power, Netanyahu’s approach to facing international isolation is to entrench himself behind intentions of permanent war, relying solely on military solutions without any political avenues. He is not interested in normalization or even the Abraham Accords.
He implicitly threatens both Egypt and Turkey, signaling that Israel’s military operation in Doha is not the end of the road.
He challenges arms-exporting countries by insisting on independent production of Israel’s military arsenal, which would require unprecedented and possibly unavailable budgets, even with major changes in the economy.
Netanyahu aligns almost completely with Trump’s agenda and administration on hostility toward immigrants, Islam, and China, embracing xenophobia and a theory of sustained “clash of civilizations.” He positions himself within European populist forces—even those that are anti-Semitic—so long as their rhetoric is anti-immigrant, aiming to provoke internal European clashes with pro-Palestine movements.
By exploiting the issue of Palestinian and Arab/Islamic immigrants in Europe and demanding large budgets for propaganda to promote Israel’s narrative, Netanyahu seeks to open a direct front against solidarity movements with Palestine, demonizing them with racist rhetoric as the product of immigration and as a threat to the “white European” stance according to colonial discourse.
In parallel with the isolationist MAGA movement (“Make America Great Again”), Netanyahu promotes his isolationist “Spartan” doctrine, which could be summarized as MIGA – “Make Israel Great Again.”
These ideological shifts in Netanyahu’s rhetoric confirm that the changes in international stances in favor of Palestinian rights are increasingly isolating Israel. Yet Netanyahu’s conclusions will only deepen and worsen this isolation, proving it is not a passing phase.
