We kinda went through this with South Africa.

The only thing saving Israel is the US protection and the nukes. US protection can change. Nukes are harder.

South Africa successfully utilized "strategic ambiguity". They never explicitly acknowledged they had the weapons, while making sure world leaders knew they were a credible threat.

during South Africa's border wars (specifically against the Cubans in Angola), there were internal discussions about deploying tactical nuclear weapons. Because world leaders viewed that threat as entirely credible, it gave South Africa massive leverage.

Feels like world leaders view modern Israeli threats through the exact same lens and i'd agree given recent covert operations like the beeper bombings hence this UN posture.

Could we replicate the SA situation? probably not but maybe partially?

When the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended, South Africa’s strategic leverage evaporated overnight. The US and UK no longer had a reason to shield them from crippling global economic sanctions.

Feels like we are watching this in real time with Israel post Iran war. If the US entirely removed its diplomatic shield and allowed full global economic isolation to set in, the economic cost of maintaining a pariah state might eventually outweigh the perceived security benefit of the weapons. ('might' doing a lot of heavy lifting there)

Also SA was also motivated by fear of the nukes getting in the hands of the incoming leftist government, Israel does not have that fear.

Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal on earth, and we have no issue sanctioning them excessively.

Not sure if it used to be the case with South Africa too, but I'm baffled how much ideological support Israel still has, in various population groups. There are at least two religious groups who seem to view it as integral part of a divine plan that trumps all other considerations. ("mainstream" Orthodox Jews and Evangelical Christians)

Then there various secular narratives around the Jewish homeland, the rebirth (and Germany's redemption) after the Holocaust etc.

For western politicians, it seems far easier to chime in to the dehumanization of Palestinians and either paint the daily suffering there as "tragic but necessary", make fun of it or dismiss it completely - than to object to those stories.

This seems to work on a different layer than geopolitics, so I have doubts that a shift in geopolitics alone would change this. (I may be wrong)

Though maybe the changed perception of Israel after the Gaza war might change it.

It is funny how much hand wringing is done with nuclear weapons. like they are this big line in the sand when really the same result happens with or without them. Gaza looks as wrecked as Hiroshima or Dresden. Doesn't matter it seems in terms of the function. I guess the bigger risk is really the implication vs the action. It is like Kayfabe for the political class.

Might really is doing some heavy lifting here. If the UN turns on Israel and they become sanctioned by the west the most likely outcome is that Israel turns to China. China needs stabilizing forces in the Middle East because of their lack of domestic fossil fuels. They also see similarities between the Gaza situation and Taiwan. The Israelis are fiercely aggressive on security issues. They will not give up on that because of sanctions I think. What US backing is really doing is mostly just making it cheaper for Israel to defend itself so that the Israelis feel less pressure to be aggressive with making buffer zones. Without the US funding the iron dome we would see a real genocide in Gaza.