4. Syed Ahmed Ali-Pax Judaica-Oped thumbnail-March-2026-APP

Israel’s aggressive settlement expansion and blatant disregard for international law have contributed towards the fragmentation of the international rules-based order. In the midst of this upheaval, Tel Aviv has cemented itself as the dominant power in the Middle East, creating what commentators term “Pax Judaica”. This regional order is dominated by Israeli perceptions of security threats which it must eliminate for the preservation of the Jewish state. Israel’s limited strategic capacity is compensated by leveraging its political lobbies, intelligence networks and ideological support of the Zionist movement embedded deep within Washington. This allows the Israeli defence forces unmitigated access to technology, financial support and military cooperation with the West. Consequently, the Middle East reflects an asymmetrical security architecture where the rest of the region is vulnerable to Israeli territorial expansion, pre-emptive strikes, regime changes and genocide, all in the garb of self-defence.

Israel’s actions in the Middle East particularly in Gaza, constitutes as a crime against humanity and are in clear violation of the first three article of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The UN commission confirms that Tel Aviv has been responsible for killing at least 64,964 people and the destruction of 90% of civilian infrastructure Israel’s actions have set a dangerous precedent for the global security community in Sudan, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) adopted the Israeli policy of shrinking civilian space in the battlefield, which allows security personnel to use overwhelming force on residents. According to a report, nearly 500 people have been killed and thousands internally displaced as the RSF had declared Zamzam a military warzone. Similarly, India’s consul general in New York, Sandeep Chakravorty, has signalled to enforce demographic change policies by using Article 35A and 370 as legal instruments, which closely mirrors Israeli policies in Gaza.

The legalisation of international violence has led Israel to challenge international institutions. In 2023, Tel Aviv was brought into question over concerns of genocide during the war in Gaza, which was subject to a trial by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The court issued a provisional order which directed the Israeli court to ensure humanitarian aid to Gaza and prevent all actions that could lead to genocide. The Israeli government paid no heed to the ICJ’s rule; consequently, on 21 November, 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chief of Defence Yoav Gallant. The Israeli government rejected the jurisdiction of the ICC and openly defied its arrest warrants by travelling to the US, followed by Hungary. The lack of cooperation by states has created political space for the accused to disregard international courts. However, it is important to mention notable exceptions like Turkey, which has also issued an arrest warrant for crimes against humanity.

Israel in a bid to eliminate its perceived threats has blatantly disregarded the international law, which is clearly reflected in its treatment of international bodies. On 16 November, 2025, UN peacekeepers reported heavy artillery firing by Israeli tanks on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) positions. These forces were tasked to stabilise Southern Lebanon under Security Council Resolution 1701. Israel’s belligerent behaviour has not even respected international protocols and norms. Tel Aviv’s recent strike on Qatar is a violation of the Vienna Convention of 1961, which forbids the attack on diplomats. Such attacks risk the erosion established conventions and sets a dangerous precedent in the international community. The use of deception and the weaponisation of diplomatic negotiations was also seen in the recent Iran-Israel war. Where the Trump administration used the guise of the sixth round of talks as a cover for Israeli led operation ‘Rising Lion.’ This has created a world where there is no trust between international actors, as such conflicts cannot be halted by ceasefire mechanisms or confidence-building measures when each side anticipates bad faith.

Israel’s policies in the Middle Eastern region come at the expense of international norms, which often creates dangerous precedents which are promptly adopted by other states. The destruction of the Arab world is fuelled by an absence of balance of power in the region, which has created a power vacuum, which is filled by the rise of Pax Judiaca. Washington’s partisan behaviour and the absence of any meaningful international body to monitor Tel Aviv’s actions leave Israel with virtually no oversight. As a consequence of the international system’s inability to safeguard sovereignty and basic human rights, regional states may turn to broader alliances to guarantee their security. This reflects a broader trend in the international community where international organisations are replaced by regional and extra-regional alliances. It should be noted that Israel’s behaviour is a product of the relentless pursuit of state interests and extremist ideologies. It has often pushed the soul of humanity to the brink of collapse. The question then arises: have we finally gone too far?

Syed Ahmed Ali is a research assistant at the Centre for Aerospace and Securtiy Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. The Article was first published by Middle East Monitor. He writes on technopolitics and can be reached at [email protected]


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The US-Israel War on Iran: Objectives, Strategy, and Escalation Management

Zahra Niazi
‘States tend to overestimate themselves or the benefits and swiftness of war, and to underestimate their opponents’ capabilities, intentions, or the costs and duration of war.’ If anything, the 2026 war initiated by the United States and Israel against Iran shall be remembered in the annals of warfare among the most visible manifestations of this dynamic.
The war, immediately preceded by the January mass protests in Iran, did not represent a sudden rupture but rather the continuation of a 47-year-long confrontation and a more intense phase of the June 2025 war.
The US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, defined the war’s objectives as being laser-focused: to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities and its security infrastructure, while ensuring that it could never develop nuclear weapons. Beyond these stated objectives, among the priorities on the continuum also lay the objective of regime change, with both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu explicitly calling on the Iranian population to take over the government at the outset of the war.

Read More »

Marka-e-Haq to the Peace Talks: Pakistan’s Middle Power Status

On 7th May 2025, Pakistan’s military forces took the international security community by surprise when it demonstrated operational superiority against its larger belligerent adversary India with its rapid and coordinated response. The Four-Day conflict proved to be a watershed moment for Pakistan, marking its rapid emergence as an important player in the region. In recent years, amidst the ongoing global competition between the United States and China, Islamabad has adopted a position of ’Strategic Balancing,’ where it maintains ties of cooperation with both Beijing and Washington. Deft diplomacy, emphasis on geo-economics, and credible conventional and strategic deterrence have remained the foundational pillars for Pakistan’s ambition as a rising middle power

Read More »

Debunking the S-400 Shield: Lessons from the India-Pakistan Conflict

Air defense has always been a central aspect of warfare. In South Asia, the phenomenon carries immense significance due to compressed reaction times. In this context, one of the most-hyped systems is the Russian-made S-400, touted by New Delhi as a one-stop solution to counter aerial threats from both Pakistan and China.
The 2025 conflict between India and Pakistan marked an important chapter in testing the S-400 technology. The conflict began on May 7, when India attacked what it alleged were terrorist targets in both Pakistani-held Kashmir and Pakistan proper, using drone and missile strikes. The conflict lasted for four days, culminating in a U.S-facilitated ceasefire. However, the brief conflict debunked a lot of the myths regarding the S-400 technology.
First, India claimed that the mobile S-400 would be able to control Pakistan’s airspace. In contrast, Pakistani aircraft continued to operate freely, according to official briefings by the Pakistani military. Although the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) aircraft were in their own airspace, they were still within the air defense range.

Read More »