Israeli journalist Gideon Levy, one of the most outspoken moral critics within Israel itself, once summarised what he called the “three core values of Israeli society”: the belief that Jews are the chosen people; that they are the world’s ultimate victims; and that Palestinians are not equal human beings.

While harsh, his words illuminate how the ideological framework of the Israeli state continues to justify ongoing violence and domination over the Palestinian people.

The current war on Gaza, marked by mass civilian deaths and destruction of infrastructure, cannot be understood without recognising these underlying myths. They have shaped Israeli policy for decades, enabling its leadership to act with impunity, to dismiss international law and to frame even the most disproportionate assaults as moral necessity.

The myth of chosenness: Exceptionalism and impunity

Israel’s self-definition as a “Jewish state” has long merged nationalism with theological exceptionalism. From early Zionist ideology to modern political rhetoric, the idea of a divinely sanctioned mission has lent moral cover to the dispossession of others. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu frequently invokes Israel as a “light unto the nations”, implying a moral superiority that overrides external criticism.

This belief in exceptionalism extends into state policy. Israel remains the only nuclear power in the Middle East and refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It routinely ignores United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding an end to settlement expansion and occupation. Successive governments have justified these positions as necessary for the survival of a people uniquely threatened – a nation that answers only to its own moral code.

The result is an enduring culture of impunity. When international organisations, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Israel’s own B’Tselem, labelled the system of control over Palestinians as apartheid, Israeli officials dismissed the findings as “antisemitic propaganda”. The reflexive rejection of accountability rests on the conviction that Israel’s moral standing is unassailable – that its very existence places it beyond ordinary judgment.

The myth of perpetual victimhood

The second belief identified by Levy — that Jews are the ultimate victims — is rooted in genuine historical trauma. The Holocaust remains one of humanity’s darkest crimes. But over time, Israeli leaders have transformed remembrance into political capital. The invocation of Jewish suffering now often serves to neutralise any critique of Israel’s actions, implying that a people once marked for extermination can never again be aggressors.

This framing appears whenever Western governments declare that “Israel has the right to defend itself”, even as thousands of Palestinian civilians are killed. The disproportionate suffering of Palestinians becomes invisible, displaced by the narrative of eternal Jewish vulnerability.

The myth of victimhood also helps sustain domestic cohesion. By portraying every critic as a potential antisemite or every Palestinian as a potential terrorist, the state reinforces the sense that Israel is perpetually under siege. Within this siege mentality, moral limits dissolve: bombing refugee camps, blocking humanitarian aid and demolishing homes are reframed as acts of defence.

The dehumanisation of Palestinians

If Israel sees itself as both chosen and victimised, it must see its opponents as less than fully human. This third pillar — the denial of Palestinian equality — is the foundation upon which apartheid and occupation stand.

From the beginning of the occupation in 1967, two separate legal systems were created in the West Bank: one for Jewish settlers and another for Palestinians. Roads, checkpoints and military orders control every aspect of Palestinian life. Inside Israel’s recognised borders, Palestinian citizens face systematic discrimination in housing, land ownership, and public spending.

Nowhere is this dehumanisation more visible than in Gaza. For nearly two decades, more than two million people have lived under blockade – deprived of free movement, clean water and reliable electricity. Israeli officials have spoken of “mowing the lawn” in Gaza, a phrase that reduces human lives to vegetation periodically cut back. During the current war, entire neighbourhoods, hospitals and universities have been levelled. The civilian death toll, including tens of thousands of children, is defended as unavoidable collateral damage in the battle against Hamas.

Such reasoning is only possible when a society has been conditioned to see the other side not as equals, but as a demographic threat or as terrorists from birth.

Hamas as a convenient pretext

Israel insists its campaign is directed solely against Hamas. Yet, the devastation of Gaza far exceeds any military objective. What is being destroyed is not only a movement but the conditions for Palestinian life itself.

Hamas’s attacks on 7 October 2023 were brutal. But the Israeli response — an assault that has killed far more civilians than combatants — reveals a wider aim: to make Gaza uninhabitable and to render Palestinian sovereignty permanently impossible.

Israel’s own history with Hamas complicates its current claims. In the late 1980s and 1990s, Israeli authorities tolerated — even quietly encouraged — the rise of Hamas as a counterweight to the secular nationalist Fatah movement. This policy divided Palestinian politics, ensuring no unified front could emerge. The existence of Hamas, therefore, has long served Israel’s strategic interests: it allows the government to argue that “there is no partner for peace”, and to present its wars as battles against terrorism rather than colonial domination.

Western complicity

None of this could continue without Western support, particularly from the US. Washington provides Israel with more than US$3.8 billion in annual military aid and routinely blocks UN Security Council resolutions calling for ceasefires. European Governments issue statements of “concern” but continue arms exports to Israel.

This political shield enables Israel to act as if international law does not apply. The International Court of Justice’s provisional measures ordering Israel to prevent genocide in Gaza have been ignored; so have UN experts’ findings of collective punishment. Western leaders justify their inaction as solidarity with a democratic ally, yet it is a solidarity that undermines the very international rules they claim to defend.

Repeated sabotage of peace moves

The pattern is consistent: whenever the possibility of peace arises, Israel ensures its collapse. During the Oslo process, settlement construction accelerated. After the 2000 Camp David talks, Israel blamed the Palestinians while launching a military reoccupation of the West Bank. Even the 2020 “Abraham Accords”, which normalised relations with several Arab states, bypassed Palestinian rights entirely.

Every time Palestinians accept a framework for peace, new preconditions are introduced, or provocations occur that derail talks. The narrative then flips – Israel becomes the victim of Palestinian intransigence. This cycle allows the status quo of occupation to persist indefinitely.

What would real peace require?

Some now argue that Hamas should surrender to end the suffering. But even if it did, would Israel accept genuine peace – one that includes Palestinian statehood, equal rights and adherence to UN resolutions? The evidence suggests otherwise. The ideological foundation of Israeli policy depends on maintaining Jewish exceptionalism and Palestinian subjugation.

Real peace would require dismantling these myths. It would mean acknowledging that no people are chosen, that no nation owns perpetual victimhood, and that every human life — Israeli or Palestinian — is of equal worth. It would also require Western Governments to stop shielding Israel from accountability and to uphold international law without double standards.

Until that reckoning occurs, the region will remain trapped in a moral and political stalemate: a state that defines itself through its trauma, sustained by its own sense of righteousness and opposed by a people who refuse to disappear.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.