Ever since October 7, one narrative has become almost conventional wisdom: Israel is increasingly isolated from the rest of the world. It is repeated by international commentators, amplified on social media, cited by critics of Israel and, perhaps most surprisingly, echoed by many of Israel’s own supporters.
It was made most recently by potential US presidential candidate Rahm Emanuel.
The daily news cycle, dominated by hostile demonstrations, condemnatory UN resolutions and public disagreements with some Western governments, reinforces the impression that Israel is rapidly becoming a diplomatic pariah.
It is an understandable conclusion; it is also an incomplete one.
The danger is not merely that this narrative is inaccurate. It is that it has become so widely accepted that it is beginning to shape perceptions of reality. Those perceptions matter. They affect deterrence, embolden Israel’s enemies, influence investors, discourage potential partners and undermine the confidence of Israelis themselves. When even well-meaning friends repeat that Israel stands alone, they unintentionally strengthen one of the central messages promoted by Hamas, Iran and their allies.
The reality is considerably more nuanced.
Behind the headlines, governments across the world are quietly moving closer to Israel, not further away. While criticism over the war in Gaza has undoubtedly intensified in many diplomatic forums, an entirely different story is unfolding in cabinet rooms, defense ministries and boardrooms.
Countries continue to buy Israeli defense systems. Intelligence cooperation is expanding. Trade is growing. New technological partnerships are being signed. Governments are increasingly separating disagreements over the Gaza conflict from their own long-term national interests.
International politics has always been driven less by rhetoric than by interests.
One of the greatest mistakes in analysing foreign policy is assuming that today’s headlines represent permanent diplomatic realities. Governments change. Elections alter priorities. Public opinion shifts. Strategic interests endure.
Recent political developments illustrate precisely this point. Several governments that adopted some of the world’s strongest anti-Israel positions have either lost power or suffered significant electoral setbacks. Slovenia, Colombia, Bolivia and Ecuador have all experienced political changes that weakened governments whose foreign policies had become among the most hostile towards Israel. Meanwhile, governments in Spain and Norway, two of Israel’s sharpest European critics, now trail in opinion polls.
Perhaps the clearest contradiction to the narrative of isolation can be found in defense cooperation.
Countries do not entrust their national security to partners they believe are isolated or strategically irrelevant. Across Europe, governments continue investing heavily in Israeli defense technology because they view it as among the most advanced in the world.
Germany, Romania and Slovakia have all expanded major defense cooperation with Israel. Greece and Cyprus continue strengthening strategic partnerships that have become central pillars of Eastern Mediterranean security. These are not symbolic gestures designed for favourable headlines. They are long-term commitments involving billions of dollars, decades of cooperation and extraordinary levels of political trust.
Governments may criticise Israeli policies while simultaneously deciding that Israel is indispensable to their own national security. Those positions are not contradictory. They reflect how states actually make decisions.
The same distinction has become increasingly evident in the Middle East.
Following October 7, many predicted the Abraham Accords would collapse under the pressure of public opinion. Instead, the opposite has largely occurred. The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco have continued expanding economic, technological and security cooperation with Israel despite enormous regional pressure.
Business delegations continue travelling. Investment continues flowing. Security dialogue continues expanding. Tourism has resumed. While official rhetoric has sometimes become more cautious, the underlying strategic logic has remained intact.
This represents one of the most significant transformations in modern Middle Eastern politics. For decades, Arab-Israeli relations were largely held hostage to the Palestinian issue. Increasingly, regional governments are pursuing foreign policies based upon their own national interests, economic development and security concerns. That shift appears far more durable than many observers appreciate.
The story extends well beyond Europe and the Middle East.
India continues deepening strategic cooperation with Israel across defense, technology and innovation. Nigeria has expanded important areas of collaboration. Across Africa, countries increasingly view Israeli expertise in agriculture, water management, healthcare and cybersecurity as essential tools for their own development. Meanwhile, Latin America is experiencing its own political evolution. Argentina has become one of Israel’s closest international partners, while electoral changes elsewhere have weakened several governments that built much of their foreign policy around hostility towards Israel.
Increasingly, governments are evaluating Israel not solely through the prism of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but through the practical lens of what Israel contributes to solving 21st-century challenges.
Artificial intelligence. Cybersecurity. Missile defense. Emergency medicine. Precision agriculture. Water scarcity. Intelligence cooperation. Energy resilience.
These are areas where Israel is not simply competitive. In many cases, it is a global leader.
None of this should minimise Israel’s genuine diplomatic challenges. International criticism remains intense. Public opinion has shifted in parts of Europe and North America. Israel continues to face hostile majorities in many United Nations bodies, and some bilateral relationships have become more strained.
Ignoring those realities would be just as misleading as ignoring Israel’s growing partnerships.
But neither should we ignore what governments are actually doing. The distinction between public rhetoric and private policy has rarely been greater.
Diplomatic actions often reveal priorities far more accurately than diplomatic statements.
This is why the myth of Israel’s isolation deserves to be challenged. Not because everything is going well, but because a distorted picture carries real strategic consequences.
Israel’s enemies seek to portray it as abandoned because isolation weakens deterrence and encourages further aggression. If they can convince Israelis that they are alone, and persuade the wider world that partnership with Israel carries unacceptable costs, they achieve an important psychological victory regardless of events on the battlefield.
Israel’s friends should be careful not to reinforce that narrative unintentionally.
The truth is more encouraging, and more useful. Israel is neither universally embraced nor universally condemned. Like every country confronting a major conflict, it faces criticism alongside cooperation. Yet beneath the daily headlines, governments across Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Latin America continue making decisions based on enduring national interests rather than passing political controversies.
Those decisions increasingly point in one direction.
Despite the noise, Israel remains one of the world’s most valuable strategic, technological and security partners. The headlines often suggest isolation. The diplomacy tells a very different story.