Academic Paper: Operation al-Aqsa Flood and Israel’s International Status Indicators

Reading Time: 18 minutes

By: Prof. Dr. Walid ‘Abd al-Hay.[1]
(Exclusively for al-Zaytouna Centre).

Introduction

The literature on international relations has yet to agree on a clear definition of international status or on a procedural approach to measuring and determining it. Furthermore, the unit of analysis for international status also varies: it may be measured individually, in isolation, by tracking the rise and fall of the status within a single state over time, or comparatively, by assessing how a state competes with others for rank through its interactions with them. Thus, we have two models: one compares the state own status over time, while the other compares it to other status of other countries using the same measurement indicators. This is referred to as “individual and relational status.”

Click here to download:
>> Academic Paper: Operation al-Aqsa Flood and Israel’s International Status Indicators … Prof. Dr. Walid ‘Abd al-Hay (17 pages, 2.2 MB)

A state that consistently achieves annual economic growth tends to perceive this as an enhancement of its international status, and vice versa. Likewise, a state that refuses conditional foreign aid may be perceived more positively by the international community, reflecting what is known as the individual level of international status. In contrast, a state that is a member of numerous international organizations—or of exclusive groups requiring high institutional or societal standards, such as the G7 or G20—strengthens its status not only through the prestige of these affiliations but also by leveraging them to expand its international engagement in ways that serve its national interests.

Therefore, movement on the international status ladder can influence the standing of other countries. A state’s progress in a particular field may elevate its rank at the expense of another, even if the latter’s position on the measurement indicator remains unchanged. This occurs when the first state’s advancement surpasses that of the second. The interplay between individual and relational status determines a country’s international status. For example, a state’s international status can be assessed by its degree of respect and influence. In addition, status is measured by how much a state shapes global affairs, influences the behavior of other states and international organizations, impacts economic conditions, and affects the decisions of other international actors.[2]

Measures of status differ across models, with variations in the weight given to indices and indicators. However, the key focus lies in the quantitative assessment of a country’s international status, particularly its progress or decline as time progresses.[3]

The international status of a state—its rank among other nations—is closely linked to what is known as Country Reputation. This reputation is shaped by the image the state projects in the minds of other societies, including authorities, elites and the general public. Indicators of countries’ reputation are calculated on the basis of 16 attributes within three groups:[4]

1. Effective government: safe place, ethical country, responsible participant in the global community, progressive social and economic policies, operates efficiently, favorable environment for business,

2. Appealing environment: friendly and welcoming, beautiful country, appealing lifestyle, enjoyable country.

3. Advanced economy: contributor to global culture, high quality products and services, well-educated and reliable workforce, well-known brands, values education, technologically advanced.

Based on the above, a country’s international status may shift depending on how it engages with a local, regional, or international events, and how this is reflected in the indices and indicators outlined above. Accordingly, this study seeks to examine the extent to which Operation al-Aqsa Flood and Israel’s response to it have influenced its international status, using these indices.

International Status Indicators

Some models for measuring international status assess the overall interaction of multiple status indicators and their implications in both conflictual and cooperative interactions.[5] In contrast, other models focus on specific aspects of international relations, such as political stability, social peace, the state’s image abroad, foreign public opinion trends, the nation’s brand, or its foreign policy, among others. This study compiles available measurement models to assess the overall international status of Israel, relying on the indices most frequently used across these models, as will be shown later.

Due to the overlap among indicators within the models used to measure the indices, we will present these indices and assess the degree of positive or negative change in Israel’s overall international status. The assessment will focus on Israel’s status immediately before and after Operation al-Aqsa Flood, specifically comparing its status in 2021–2022 with that of 2023 through early 2025.

First: Models for Measuring Individual International Status: Reductionism

There are many models for measuring international status, with their indices and indicators now exceeding 200. Given the uniqueness of the Israeli case, we focus on the models most attuned to its specific context, relying on a self-defined indices and its related indicators:[6]

1. International Status Index: Israel has fallen to an all-time low in reputation rankings, dropping 42 places to 121st, alongside a notable decline in the 2025 Global Soft Power Index.[7]

2. Global Peace Index: Israel dropped from 134th in 2022 to 155th out of 163 countries in 2024, a 21-place decline.[8]

3. Net favorability: It is the percentage of people viewing Israel positively after subtracting the percentage viewing it negatively. It dropped globally by an average of 18.5% between September and December 2023, decreasing in 42 out of the 43 countries polled.[9] “Sympathy for Israel in the US peaked at 62% between 2010 and 2019 but has dropped every year since, falling to just 46% in 2025, the lowest since 2001.” Meanwhile, sympathy for the Palestinians in the US hit a record high of 33%.[10] The shift in European public opinion is evident in a poll conducted in five European countries and published in April 2024, which gauged views on two issues: banning arms trade with Israel and condemning Israel for the crime of genocide. The results were as follows:[11]

Table 1: European Public Opinion Toward Israel After Operation al-Aqsa Flood

Country	Support a ban on arms trade with Israel %	Believe that Israel is committing genocide%
Italy	65	49
Belgium	62	43
Sweden	50	46
France	51	34
Germany	49	33

4. Some analysts cite the performance of Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs as evidence of the country’s declining international standing, a trend confirmed by academic Israeli studies. According to the Israeli Foreign Policy Index 2024, Israel’s global standing dropped from 5.85 to 4.31 (out of ten), marking a 26.3% decline in foreign policy performance roughly one year after the start of Operation al-Aqsa Flood. Public satisfaction with the government’s foreign policy performance also fell, reaching 3.84—the lowest level since 2013—down from 5.53 in 2022, the year preceding Operation al-Aqsa Flood.[12]

5. The decline in Israel’s standing is further underscored by the Nations Brand Index, which evaluates countries across six dimensions of a nation’s “brand strength”: exports; governance; culture; people and society; tourism; and immigration and investment. In 2024, Israel ranked last[13] among the 60 countries assessed, having fallen from 44th place in 2022 prior to Operation al-Aqsa Flood, reflecting a drop of 16 positions.[14]

Second: A Holistic View of Israel’s International Status

The holistic perspective is grounded in the principle that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This contrasts with the reductionist approach, which aggregates values by focusing on individual components, thereby overlooking the effects of interactions between variables, their increased significance, and their unique properties. For instance, water, composed of hydrogen and oxygen, exhibits characteristics not found in either element alone. Thus, the combined effect of indices of regression or progress results in an outcome that exceeds the simple sum of individual measurements, as the interplay between individual and relational indices amplifies their impact.[15]

Thirteen indices were selected, reflecting a significant alignment between the models of international standing. The “average” weight of each index across these models was calculated, and the degree of change—whether negative or positive—for each index was assessed.[16] This enabled the calculation of the overall change in Israel’s standing before and after Operation al-Aqsa Flood period, based on the following two equations:

1. (Israel’s rank in 2022 – its rank at the end of 2024) × index weight = total points of negative or positive change.

2. Total negative change × 100 ÷ (total points of negative and positive change) = percentage of negative change in ranking (this is repeated for positive change). See Table 2.

Table 2: Israel’s International Status Ranking Across Indices Before and After Operation al-Aqsa Flood

No.	Index	Israel’s ranking 2022	Israel’s ranking 2023–2024(post-Flood)	Ranking change (+/−)*	Weight Index (Triple Likert Scale)**	Total
1	Political stability	129	173	−44	3	-132
2	Democracy	31	30	−1	2	-2
3	Corruption	30	31	+1	2	+2
4	Globalization	39	40	−1	2	-2
5	Military Strength	18	15	−3	1	-3
6	Gini	101	67	+34	2	+68
7	Crime	109	108	+1	2	+2
8	Human Development	29	25	+4	3	+12
9	Research & development expenditure (% of GDP)	1	1	N/C	2	0
10	Best Country in Perception	36	46	−10	2	-20
11	Avg. No. of countries voting against Israeli policies at UN	114	149	35 more countries oppose Israeli policies	2	-70
12	Global Peace	134	155	−21	2	-42
13	Nation Brand [17]	43 countries	1	Decline in 42 out of 43 countries	1	-42
14	Total					-313 +84 decline by 78.8% in international status

⁎ Progress and regression in the index depend on its nature.
⁎⁎ We used a three-point Likert scale (High 3 – Medium 2 – Low 1).

Analysis

Upon examining the measurement results of the thirteen indices immediately before and after Operation al-Aqsa Flood, the following is evident:

1. Israel’s ranking has improved in four indices: Corruption, income distribution fairness (Gini Index), Crime, and Human Development. These are “internal” indices, not external, reflecting an adaptive capacity developed in response to the potential disruption caused by the shockwaves of Operation al-Aqsa Flood. It is well known that the “aware” leaderships of most societies focus on internal adaptation whenever they sense a negative shift in their regional or international environment. Renowned American political scientist James N. Rosenau, in his study on political adaptation, argues that small states adopt one of six strategies to respond to changes in the international environment. Among these, the strategy of “internal coherence”[18]—achieved through appeasing different societal groups by distributing various benefits—is most applicable for understanding Israel’s political adaptation in the post-Operation al-Aqsa Flood context. This is evident in the four positive indices we have highlighted.

2. Israel’s ranking declined in eight indices, namely:

a. Political Stability Index: The weight of this index for Israel has dropped by 132 points, due to several factors, including the war on multiple fronts and internal divisions on how to handle the situation, particularly between the military and political levels, as well as within each camp. This is reflected in changes in leadership across the army, security and judicial bodies, along with mutual accusations of responsibility for the current crisis. There have also been shifts in government members, disputes over certain political and military strategies, and disagreements over recruitment policies, particularly regarding the integration of Haredim, among other issues. Furthermore, some facilities and institutions, especially in the north and south of Israel, have been paralyzed.

b. Democracy Index: The weight of this index has decreased slightly by two points. It is generally acknowledged that during wartime, a country tends to implement measures that restrict freedoms, such as media censorship on military news, emergency laws, and similar regulations.

c. Globalization Index: Although countries at war remain focused on international affairs, they often scale back less strategic activities in favor of those more critical for managing the conflict. This, however, can result in a decline in certain indices of strategic globalization, particularly within international organizations. This may help explain why Israel’s engagement in this regard has been limited (two points).

d. Military Strength Index: The depletion of human resources, including thousands of casualties, the wounded, and displaced individuals, along with equipment losses and the multiple combat fronts—Gaza Strip (GS), the West Bank (WB), Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq—coupled with the unexpected shockwave caused by Operation al-Aqsa Flood’s impact on Israeli military deterrence, are significant challenges for the military institution. However, this shift resulted in only a modest three-point decline, largely due to US and European intervention, which provided Israel with financial, logistical, political and media support to mitigate its losses.

e. Best Country in Perception Index: The decisions of international courts, notably the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alongside reports from reputable governmental and non-governmental organizations, the widespread images of Israeli brutality, and threats such as nuclear strikes on GS, calls for starvation, displacement and the killing of civilians, have significantly undermined the positive image Israel had worked to cultivate. As a result, Israel’s image has undergone a dramatic shift, with a notable change of 20 points. It is noted that the best state measurement model reveals that Israel ranks among the top three countries with the greatest decline in status among the 89 countries assessed in 2024. As a result, Israel’s ranking dropped from 36th in 2023 to 46th in 2024. This sub-trend is part of a broader pattern indicating a decline in Israel’s status since 2016, when it ranked 25th globally. However, the most significant decline occurred between 2023 and 2024, coinciding with Operation al-Aqsa Flood.[19] This aligns with the prevailing sentiment in Israeli public opinion, as 58% of Israelis in 2024 believe that Israel has lost global respect.[20]

f. UN Voting Index: Israeli policies in managing the Gaza war have put many of Israel’s allies, or neutral countries, in a difficult position. These countries struggled to justify Israel’s actions to their own societies, particularly evident in the response of many European countries. Consequently, Israel’s standing suffered a significant decline, dropping by 70 points.

g. Global Peace Index: The violence in GS, unrest in Israel, protests in numerous countries—particularly within Western universities—disruptions in maritime navigation, and their consequences on international trade, prices, and air and sea transport have posed challenges for the international community, especially due to Israel’s reluctance to accept repeated ceasefire calls. This has resulted in a significant 42-point drop in Israel’s contribution to global peace.

At this point, it is important to note that the Political Stability Index measures “peace” within a specific state, while Global Peace Index assesses the impact of instability in a given country on global peace as a whole.

h. Nation Brand Index: All indices reflect either a positive or negative stance on international public opinion. Given that most indices are unfavorable to Israel, this has influenced international public opinion, as detailed in the individual measurement model. The shift was significant, reaching 42 points.

3. The Fixed Index: The expenditure on scientific research, as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), remained unchanged. Israel ranks prominently in this field, leading the world with a rate of 5.56%.

4. Applying the referenced equation, it becomes evident that Israel’s overall decline in international status amounts to 313 points, compared to a total of just 84 points in gains. This reflects a significant deterioration in Israel’s global standing, with expected strategic and tactical repercussions over the medium and long term.
Our findings align with the warning memorandum issued by Assistant Secretary of State Bill Russo, who oversees Global Public Affairs at the US Department of State, in March 2024. In it, he noted, “The Israelis seemed oblivious to the fact that they are facing major, possibly generational damage to their reputation not just in the region but elsewhere in the world. We are concerned that the Israelis are missing the forest for the trees and are making a major strategic error in writing off their reputation damage.”[21]

Israeli historian Ilan Pappé envisions a future centered around what he terms the “collapse of Zionism.” He identifies six indicators of this impending collapse, including “Israel’s growing international isolation,” “the fracturing of Israeli Jewish society,” economic crises, the weakness of the Israeli army, “the sea-change among young Jews around the world,” and, conversely, the “renewal of energy among the younger generation of Palestinians.”[22] Some Israeli media outlets echo Pappé’s perspective, pointing to signs of declining international support for Israel, as reflected in several developments, such as:[23]

1. The repeated withdrawal of foreign airline companies from Israel’s main airport (Ben Gurion Airport), where prior to the war, 66 foreign airlines operated in Israeli airports; today, only 14 remain, alongside Israeli carriers.

2. The suspension of arms sales to the Israeli government by several countries.

3. The cancellation of art exhibitions featuring Israeli artists.

4. The suspension of academic cooperation with Israeli universities across various regions of the world.

5. The withdrawal of international infrastructure construction companies from several Israeli projects.

6. The arrest warrants issued by the ICC against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant have impacted foreign investment in Israel. This is compounded by rulings from the ICJ, which deemed Israel’s policies “genocidal.” The ICJ imposed binding “provisional measures” requiring Israel to prevent genocide and described South Africa’s case as “plausible.” An academic study found that the volume of foreign investment increases by 27% when the Nation Brand Index increases by one-point.[24]

7. Over 300 Israeli researchers have faced an academic boycott since the outbreak of the war on Gaza in October 2023. This included a ban on publishing research, the cancellation of lectures and conference participation, and the revocation of research grants for Israeli academics.

8. Israeli reports have indicated that sports clubs in Israel are struggling to secure contracts with foreign celebrity athletes.

9. The tourism sector has been severely impacted, with 90 hotels closing their doors since the start of the war, accounting for 20% of Israel’s hotel industry.

Pnina Sharvit Baruch, Director of the research program “Israel and the Global Powers” at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)—Israel’s top-ranked research center—and former lecturer at the faculty of Law at Tel Aviv University, presents a comprehensive report on Israel’s growing international isolation as a result of the war in Gaza. She highlights:

Israel’s strength is deeply tied to its integration within the international system, but this connection is currently under significant threat. The country is confronting an unprecedented international campaign that surpasses previous challenges in its scale and intensity across political, media, and public spheres. This sustained effort has resulted in a marked demonization of Israel and a notable decline in its global standing. Failing to effectively address this campaign poses risks to Israel’s economy, national security, and ability to meet its military objectives, potentially setting back its progress on all fronts. Addressing these challenges requires fundamental changes in Israel’s approach.[25]

Conclusion

While international status measurement models and similar frameworks have faced some methodological critiques,[26] their implications remain significant, especially regarding trends in the measured phenomenon (such as international status, the focus of this study). International status is an intangible asset of a state, not directly observable; it reflects the mental image societies form of one another, shaping patterns of interaction. The communications revolution, along with the widespread sharing of information and images and the dismantling of media monopolies, has provided a clearer understanding of reality. This shift has deepened awareness of Israeli policies, resulting in a 79% change in the perception of Israel. What stands out in the Israeli retreat is that indices unrelated to Operation al-Aqsa Flood, such as cultural aspects or food diversity, did not impact Israels international status. In contrast, the sub-indicators or indices linked to the Flood’s aftermath showed the most significant change. This is evident in the US News & World Report 2024 ranking, which evaluates 10 thematic subrankings (comprising 58 sub-indicators), revealing that the greatest impact on Israel’s status was in those related to Operation al-Aqsa Flood.[27]

An analysis of Israel’s international status shows a decline in 8 out of 13 indices, or 61.5%, despite the fact that official Arab support for the resistance—especially in the media—was at its lowest point. In fact, some Arab actors were more openly critical of the resistance than in previous periods.[28] This indicates that Arab policies, media outlets, and certain elites linked to these policies failed to capitalize on the favorable international environment to exert more pressure on Israel. Instead, they helped slow the decline in Israel’s status by clinging to normalization, and even increasing it in some areas.

This study revealed that the comparison of negative and positive changes in Israel’s status within the international community indicates that negative change accounted for 78.8%, while positive change accounted for only 21.2%.

Given that international support, particularly from major powers, is a key factor in the continuity of the Zionist project, the rift caused by Operation Al-Aqsa Flood in the structure of this support represents a strategic factor whose effects are expected to become evident over the medium to long term.

The retreat of Arab and Muslim countries from the path of normalization, and at the very least, the suspension of relations with Israel, deepens its isolation and weakens its international status. Moreover, supporting the Palestinian people establishes the groundwork for amplifying the strategic effects of Israel’s decline in stature, as we have outlined through its indicators.

Recommendations

A country’s international status influences several aspects of its global interactions, either strengthening or weakening:[29]

1. Diplomatic negotiations and bilateral or multilateral partnerships.

2. The ability to attract foreign direct investment by fostering a favorable business environment.

3. Tourism by shaping a positive or negative image of the destination.

4. The country’s status in international organizations and global decision-making forums.

In light of the scope and findings of this study, it is imperative to:

1. Strengthen the efforts by pro-Palestine forces to further undermine Israel’s international status by curbing the hostile discourse of official Arab media toward the resistance and steering it toward a stance of at least “scientific neutrality.” This entails accurately conveying the impact of Operation al-Aqsa Flood on Israel’s global status.

2. Broaden media outreach in non-Arabic languages and encourage greater contributions from principled intellectual and political figures outside the Arab and Muslim worlds, in order to deepen the analysis of Israel’s declining international status and its potential future consequences.

3. Pursue in-depth investigative research into the fabric of Israeli society and institutions, in order to correct global perceptions of Israel. This requires exposing its racist policies and highlighting its position as the state with the highest rate of United Nations resolution violations, thus posing a serious threat to international peace and security. Notably, in the year following Operation al-Aqsa Flood (2024), UN condemnations of Israel were nearly three times greater than those issued against all other countries combined.[30]

4. Expand the body of political analysis by Arabs, written in Hebrew for the Israeli public, emphasizing Israel’s declining international status through objective and balanced analysis.

[1] An expert in futures studies, a former professor in the Department of Political Science at Yarmouk University in Jordan and a holder of Ph.D. in Political Science from Cairo University. He is also a former member of the Board of Trustees of Al-Zaytoonah University of Jordan, Irbid National University, the National Center for Human Rights, the Board of Grievances and the Supreme Council of Media. He has authored 37 books, most of which are focused on future studies in both theoretical and practical terms, and published 120 research papers in peer-reviewed academic journals.

[2] Lauren Ferry and Cleo O’Brien-Udry, “International Status: Concept meets Measurement,” site of Cleo O’Brien-Udry, March 2022, https://cobrienudry.github.io/files/Status_011222.pdf

[3] For more information on measurement models and related issues, particularly the identification of indicators and methods for assessing international status (or international presence, as some researchers refer to it), see Iliana Olivié et. al., “Measuring the international presence of countries: the Elcano Institute’s IEPG Index methodology revisited,” site of Elcano Royal Institute, 27/7/2012, https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/work-document/measuring-the-international-presence-of-countries-the-elcano-institutes-iepg-index-methodology-revisited; and Global Measurements & Indices, site of University of South Florida Libraries, https://guides.lib.usf.edu/global-data

[4] Danuta Szwajca, “The Importance of Reputation of a Country in the Process of Building its Competitive Advantage on the Global Market,” Scientific Journal, No. 1, 2017, p. 107.

[5] A researcher conducted a study examining the relationship between reputation and change. The study aims to assess this relationship in two contexts: during periods of cooperation and during periods of conflict. The researcher seeks to quantify the relationship to determine which factor—reputation or change—holds more significance in each case. For details, see Ekrem T. Baser, “Reputations and Change in International Relations,” International Studies Quarterly, vol. 68, no. 3, 24/6/2024, pp.7-14.

[6] For details about these models: Catalogue of Indices 2016: Data for a Changing World, site of IPI Global Observatory, 28/9/2016, https://theglobalobservatory.org/2016/09/catalogue-indices; Country Rankings, Chandler Good Government Index, site of Chandler Institute of Governance, https://chandlergovernmentindex.com/country-rankings; and Rankings, Sustainable Development Report, https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/rankings

[7] Global Soft Power Index, site of Brandirectory, https://brandirectory.com/softpower

[8] Global Peace Index 2022: Measuring Peace in a Complex World, site of Institute for Economics & Peace, June 2022, https://www.economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/GPI-2022-web.pdf; and Global Peace Index 2024: Measuring Peace in a Complex World, Institute for Economics & Peace, June 2024, https://www.economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/GPI-2024-web.pdf

[9] Anna Gordon, New Polling Shows How Much Global Support Israel Has Lost, site of Time, 17/1/2024, https://time.com/6559293/morning-consult-israel-global-opinion

[10] Mitchell Bard, Public opinion for Israel shows an alarming trend, site of Jewish News Syndicate (JNS), 26/3/2025, https://www.jns.org/public-opinion-for-israel-shows-an-alarming-trend; and Megan Brenan, Less Than Half in U.S. Now Sympathetic Toward Israelis, site of Gallup, 6/3/2025, https://news.gallup.com/poll/657404/less-half-sympathetic-toward-israelis.aspx

[11] Public Opinion Poll: How 5 European countries see Palestinian issues, site of The Palestine Institute for Public Diplomacy, 16/4/2024, https://www.thepipd.com/resources/polling-2024

[12] The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies—Mitvim and Friedrich Ebert Foundation, The Israeli Foreign Policy Index for 2024, site of Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES), September 2024, https://israel.fes.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Mitvim_Israeli-Foreign-Policy-Index-2024.pdf

[13] Idan Eretz, Israel in last place in Nations Brand Index, site of Globes, 4/2/2025, https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-israel-in-last-place-in-nations-brand-index-1001501235

[14] Nation Brands Index 2022, site of Ipsos, 2/11/2022, https://www.ipsos.com/en/nation-brands-index-2022; and Rock bottom: Israel ranks last on Nation Brand Index, perceived as ‘chaotic’, site of Ynetnews.com, 4/2/2025, https://www.ynetnews.com/business/article/ryeyskkf1l

[15] Stanley Krippner, “The Holistic Paradigm,” World Futures journal, vol. 30, no. 3, 1991, pp. 133–139.

[16] The models, measurement results, calculation methods, and weight assignments vary. To address this, we employed multiple models for each index, calculating the standard deviation between them to determine the relative weight of each index. In cases where certain models uniquely represented specific indices, we adopted those models and their corresponding weight assignments. For more details, refer to these various models in:

Political stability – Country rankings, site of TheGlobalEconomy.com, https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/wb_political_stability; Fragile States Index 2024, https://fragilestatesindex.org/global-data; Democracy Index 2024, The Economist Intelligence Unit, https://image.b.economist.com/lib/fe8d13727c61047f7c/m/1/609fbc8d-4724-440d-b827-2c7b7300353d.pdf?utm_campaign=MA00001514&utm_medium=email-owned&utm_source=eiu-marketing-cloud&RefID=&utm_term=20250226&utm_id=2064759&sfmc_id=00QWT00000J2uGH2AZ&utm_content=cta-button-1&id_mc=279801853; Israel, Globalization Index, site of Maxinomics, https://www.maxinomics.com/israel/globalization-index; Israel’s Gini Coefficient, site of World Economics, https://www.worldeconomics.com/Inequality/Gini-Coefficient/Israel.aspx; 2025 Military Strength Ranking, site of GlobalFirepower (GFP), https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php;

https://www.google.com/search?q=gini+index+ranking+by+country+2022+to+2024&oq=gini+index+ranking+by+country+2022+to+2024&gs_lcrp=; Global Fire Power Ranking 2022, site of Kaggle, https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/mickaelandrieu/global-fire-power-ranking-2022; Corruption Perceptions Index, site of Transparency International, https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022; Israel, site of World Economics, https://www.worldeconomics.com/country-reviews/israel; Crime Index by Country 2022, site of Numbeo, https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp?title=2022; Crime Rate by Country 2025, site of World Population Review, https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country; List of countries by Human Development Index, site of Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index; HDI By Country, site of Data Pandas, https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/hdi-by-country; Research and development expenditure (% of GDP), site of World Bank Group, Data360, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS; Israel’s innovation system, Global Innovation Index (GII), site of WIPO, https://www.wipo.int/gii-ranking/en/israel/section/innovation-trends; 2022 UNGA Resolutions on Israel vs. Rest of the World, site of UN Watch, 14/11/2022, https://unwatch.org/2022-2023-unga-resolutions-on-israel-vs-rest-of-the-world; and 2024 UNGA Resolutions on Israel vs. Rest of the World, UN Watch, 3/11/2024, https://unwatch.org/2024-unga-resolutions-on-israel-vs-rest-of-the-world

[17] The Nation Brand Index is the public perception of a state, which is shaped by surveys, measures of satisfaction with its overall image, the frequency of protests against it globally, and its portrayal in films and literature, among other factors.

[18] James Rosenau outlines six strategies for small states to adapt to a changing international environment, whether the change is in security, politics, or economics. In such cases, a small state may adopt a combination of strategies. For more details on these strategies, see James Rosenau, The Study of Political Adaptation (London: Frances Pinter, 1981), pp. 117–123.

[19] Trevor Bach, Israel Falls in Best Countries Rankings Amid Continued War in Gaza, site of U.S. News, 11/9/2024, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2024-09-11/israel-falls-in-best-countries-rankings-amid-gaza-war

[20] Laura Silver and Maria Smerkovich, Amid war in Gaza, 58% of Israelis say their country is not respected internationally, site of Pew Research Center, 11/6/2024, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/06/11/amid-war-in-gaza-58-of-israelis-say-their-country-is-not-respected-internationally

[21] Daniel Estrin, A State Department official warns Israel of ‘major’ reputational damage in Gaza war, site of NPR, 22/3/2024, https://www.npr.org/2024/03/22/1240148688/israel-gaza-war-state-department-memo-damage-reputation

[22] Ilan Pappé, The Collapse of Zionism, site of Sidecar, 21/6/2024, https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/posts/the-collapse-of-zionism

[23] Israel faces growing isolation over Gaza war, site of Anadolu Agency, 29/11/2024, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/israel-faces-growing-isolation-over-gaza-war/3409027

[24] Adina SĂNIUȚĂ, “The Impact of a Country’s Reputation in the Economic Development of a Nation,” site of STRATEGICA International Conference, https://strategica-conference.ro/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/59-1.pdf

[25] Pnina Sharvit Baruch, “Israel on the Dangerous Path to International Isolation,” site of The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), 4/7/2024, https://www.inss.org.il/publication/isolation

[26] See for example Bjørn Høyland, Karl Moene and Fredrik Willumsen, The tyranny of international index rankings, Journal of Development Economics, vol. 97, issue 1, January 2012, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304387811000198

[27] Israel drops 10 spots in ranking of best countries based on global perception, site of The Times of Israel, 11/9/2024, https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-drops-10-spots-in-ranking-of-best-countries-based-on-global-perception

[28] Bob Woodward, War (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2024), Chapters 44, 45, 46 and 48.

[29] To understand the effects of status in the network of international relations, see 7.5 Country reputation management, https://library.fiveable.me/international-public-relations/unit-7/country-reputation-management/study-guide/iyqSUZt395Ozsqdy

[30] UN Condemns Israel 17 Times, Rest of World Combined 6 Times, UN Watch, 19/12/2024, https://unwatch.org/un-condemns-israel-17-times-6-on-rest-of-world-combined