Netanyahu's "Super Sparta" Israel
Bibi Netanyahu announced his "Sparta" vision a month after October 7, but then he did nothing about it. Julian Borger reported for The Guardian that Netanyahu braced his country for a future of mounting economic isolation, urging it to become a 'Super Sparta' of the Middle East.
"We will increasingly have to adapt to an economy with autarkic features," Netanyahu said at a conference in Jerusalem, because "we may find ourselves in a situation where our defense industries are blocked. We will have to develop indigenous defense industries. We will have to become Athens and Super-Sparta. We have no choice. At least in the coming years, we will have to deal with these attempts at isolation. What worked until now will not work from now on."
The far right believes that Israel can serially defeat all its enemies. "First we destroy Hamas in Gaza; then Hezbollah in Lebanon; then Syria and then Iran." Few outside of Israel, the official said, grasp the seriousness of this plan, particularly the then-Biden administration. The success of military operations in Gaza and Lebanon, plus the fall of the Assad regime in Syria and the perceived success of military strikes against Iran have bolstered support for this strategy, even as masses of Israelis demonstrate weekly against the Netanyahu regime and 70-80 percent of Israelis want an end to the war and a return of the hostages.
The Economic Implications
In a speech at the Accountant General's Conference, Netanyahu said, "We will increasingly have to adapt to an economy that has autarkic characteristics" - that is, without foreign trade. Regarding the political isolation, he said, "It changes Israel's international situation, including in its ability to import weapon parts and ammunition." Opposition Chairman Lapid responded: "A crazy statement. Isolation is not a fateful decree."
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has a grim forecast: "We will increasingly have to adapt to an economy that has autarkic characteristics [without foreign trade]," the prime minister warned in his speech at the Finance Ministry's Accountant General's Division conference held today (Monday). "We are going to be Athens and Super-Sparta. We have no choice." Netanyahu's harsh words come as threats of economic sanctions against Israel from Europe are intensifying in light of the initiative to occupy Gaza City.
Following the words, trading on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange changed direction and began to decline, and the dollar surged against the shekel. Netanyahu claimed in his remarks that European governments are greatly influenced by the immigration of Muslims who put pressure on them to act against Israel. "It bends their policy and it creates all kinds of sanctions and restrictions on Israel, it's happening," he said.
"It's a process that has matured over the last 30 years - even more so in the last decade - and it's changing Israel's international status. It's crystal clear. Also in the ability to import weapons parts, or weapons systems or ammunition. And they're already threatening us with economic sanctions. That's a given, it's very difficult to influence."
Blame and Propaganda
Netanyahu continued his remarks by accusing China and Qatar of funding anti-Israeli propaganda: "The second statistic that is difficult to influence is that in the digital revolution, both third-sector organizations and countries like Qatar and China have invested and are investing huge sums to influence Western media with an anti-Israeli agenda. With bots, with artificial intelligence, with publications."
"You see this first and foremost on TikTok, and it biases the traditional media, which joins the Islamic elements that bias Western countries. It puts us in a kind of isolation. Can we fight this isolation? Yes. We will have to invest very large sums against this media intimidation and bias."
The Vision for Self-Sufficiency
The Prime Minister continued with what he sees as the consequences of these moves: "We will increasingly have to adapt to an economy in certain things that has autarkic characteristics. The word I hate the most is 'an economy that feeds itself without dependence or trade with the world.'"
According to Netanyahu, "We could find ourselves in a situation where our weapons industries will be blocked. We will need not only research and development, not only excellent technology, but the ability to produce in quantities everything we need. We are Athens and Sparta. But we are going to be Athens and Super-Sparta. We have no choice, at least in the coming years when we will be forced to deal with these isolation attempts."
Israel will strive to build an independent defense industry because it does not want to face any restrictions in this area, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday. "Citizens of Israel, first of all, I want to say that I have full confidence in the Israeli economy. The Israeli economy is very strong ... I see a factor in the defense industry that could decline. We can certainly face political restrictions during a war ... If we learned one lesson during the war, it is that we do not want to be in a situation where we are restricted, and therefore we want to achieve independence in the defense sector," Netanyahu said at a press conference on the economy.
Historical Pattern and Blame
Two years ago he gave the same speech and has done nothing since. Netanyahu blamed foreigners for Israel's increasing isolation, which he referred to as "a siege that is organized by a few states". "One is China, and the other is Qatar. And they are organising an attack on Israel, legitimacy, in the social media of the western world and the United States," he said.
To the west, he added, the threat was different but equally pernicious. "Western Europe has large Islamist minorities. They're vocal. Many of them are politically motivated. They align with Hamas, they align with Iran," Netanyahu declared. "They pressure the governments of western Europe, many of whom are kindly disposed to Israel, but they see that they are being overtaken, really, by campaigns of violent protest and constant intimidation."
The Reality of Netanyahu's Vision
The IDF began the ground operation to occupy Gaza last night – and at the same time, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu informed the Israeli people that he had decided for them how and where they would live: in a state similar to the city of Sparta in ancient Greece, and in an autarkic economy. In other words: Netanyahu informed the citizens that his vision for them is to live in perpetual war, in an army that is a state, in international isolation and ostracism, in an autocracy that is not a democracy in any way – and in economic poverty.
Opposition Response
Opposition leader MK Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid) posted on his X (former Twitter) account that "This is a crazy statement. Isolation is not a fateful decree, it is the product of a wrong and failed policy by Netanyahu and his government. They are turning Israel into a third world country and are not even trying to change the situation. It is possible otherwise."
MK Ram Ben Barak (Yesh Atid) added, "North Korea, we are on our way to you. Thank you Bibi!" Democratic Party Chairman Yair Golan tweeted: "Netanyahu 'greets' the citizens of Israel on the occasion of Rosh Hashanah: To keep my seat, I need eternal war and isolation. And you will sacrifice the country, the economy, the future of your children and your connection to the world."
MK Merav Ben Ari (Yesh Atid) tweeted that "It amazes me that there is no one next to him, in the government, in the coalition, in his office, not a single person who is able to tell him, 'Stop, you are destroying the country, we don't have to live like this, lepers and isolated.' There is not a single person with a backbone, within this terrible coalition, who is able to tell him, enough is enough, stop the war and save the country. One."
Economic Concerns
President of the Manufacturers Association, Dr. Ron Tomer, said that "the Prime Minister has publicly expressed what we feel and warn about. The Israeli brand of creativity, demand and success has been severely damaged in the world. Israeli industry will always ensure that nothing is lacking - not in security, not in food, nor in any manufacturing sector that is essential to the Israeli economy. However, an autarkic economy would be a disaster for the Israeli economy and would affect the quality of life of every citizen. Exports are Israel's main growth engine, and giving up on them is giving up on our future in Israel."
Analysis: Israel as Super Sparta
Strategic Vision and Historical Context
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's invocation of Israel as a "Super Sparta" represents far more than political rhetoric or historical analogy. It constitutes a comprehensive strategic vision that seeks to define Israel's position in one of the world's most volatile regions through the primacy of military power and deterrence capability. The comparison to ancient Sparta, a city-state renowned for its military excellence and citizen-soldier culture, suggests a society organized around perpetual readiness for conflict, where military considerations permeate every aspect of national life. This self-identification reveals a profound understanding of Israel's geopolitical predicament, acknowledging that the Jewish state exists in an environment where conventional diplomatic norms often prove insufficient for ensuring survival and security.
The Super Sparta concept crystallizes decades of Israeli strategic thinking that has evolved from the country's founding circumstances. Born from the ashes of the Holocaust and immediately thrust into existential warfare, Israel developed a security doctrine premised on military Superiority as the ultimate guarantor of national existence. This doctrine has been refined through successive wars, intifadas, and asymmetric conflicts, creating a sophisticated military apparatus that combines advanced technology, intelligence capabilities, and tactical innovation. Netanyahu's formulation elevates this historical trajectory into an explicit ideological framework, suggesting that Israel must not merely maintain military parity with potential adversaries but achieve overwhelming Superiority that renders any contemplated aggression futile before it begins.
The terminology itself carries significant weight in contemporary discourse. Sparta's historical legacy encompasses both admiration for its martial prowess and cautionary tales about the limitations of a society overly focused on military strength at the expense of cultural flexibility and diplomatic engagement. By embracing this comparison, Netanyahu signals a willingness to accept the trade-offs inherent in such a strategic posture. The Super Sparta model implies a nation where military service remains central to citizenship, where defense spending commands substantial portions of the national budget, and where security considerations shape political decisions across virtually every policy domain. It suggests a state perpetually mobilized, constantly vigilant, and unwilling to compromise its defensive capabilities even in the face of international pressure or economic costs.
Mobilization of Israeli Society
The Super Sparta vision functions as a powerful instrument of social mobilization within Israeli society, reinforcing collective identity around shared security concerns and military service. Israeli society has long been characterized by the centrality of the Israel Defense Forces in shaping national consciousness, with compulsory military service creating common experiences across ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic divisions. The Super Sparta framework intensifies this existing dynamic, elevating military excellence from a practical necessity to an ideological cornerstone of national identity. It validates the sacrifices demanded by universal conscription and extensive reserve duty, framing these burdens not as unfortunate necessities but as expressions of national virtue and existential commitment.
This mobilization operates on multiple levels simultaneously. At the most immediate level, it justifies continued high defense expenditures and technological investments in military capabilities, positioning these allocations as essential rather than discretionary. It creates a social climate where questioning fundamental security policies can be portrayed as naive or even dangerous, narrowing the space for dovish alternatives in political discourse. The Super Sparta concept also reinforces the prestige associated with military service and combat units, maintaining the social hierarchy that elevates those with distinguished service records and marginalizes conscientious objectors or those advocating for diplomatic solutions to regional conflicts.
However, this intensive mobilization generates internal tensions within Israeli society. The Orthodox Jewish community, many of whose members receive exemptions from military service to pursue religious studies, finds itself increasingly at odds with secular Israelis who bear disproportionate security burdens. Palestinian citizens of Israel, who are generally excluded from military service, remain structurally outside the core identity that the Super Sparta model cultivates, reinforcing their marginalization within Israeli political culture. Moreover, the emphasis on perpetual readiness and military strength can produce psychological strain, particularly among those who have experienced combat or lost family members in conflicts. The Super Sparta model offers meaning and purpose to these sacrifices, but it also perpetuates a siege mentality that may prevent the emergence of alternative visions for Israel's long-term future.
Palestinian Anxieties and Response
For Palestinians living under Israeli control or in contested territories, the Super Sparta declaration amplifies existing anxieties about their political future and physical security. The concept suggests an Israel that defines itself primarily through military dominance rather than accommodation or compromise, implying that Palestinian national aspirations will be managed through Superior force rather than negotiated settlement. This perception reinforces Palestinian narratives about Israeli intransigence and the impossibility of achieving self-determination through conventional diplomatic channels. When Israel's leadership explicitly embraces a Spartan identity centered on military supremacy, it validates Palestinian arguments that only external pressure or sustained resistance can alter the fundamental power imbalance that structures their relationship.
The Super Sparta framework also affects the internal dynamics of Palestinian politics, strengthening factions that advocate for armed resistance over those promoting diplomatic engagement. If Israel presents itself as a fortress state oriented primarily toward military solutions, Palestinian leaders who counsel patience and negotiation find their position increasingly untenable. The concept provides rhetorical ammunition to groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which have long argued that Israel respects only force and that armed struggle remains the sole viable path to Palestinian liberation. Even among Palestinians committed to nonviolent resistance, the Super Sparta vision reinforces skepticism about Israeli willingness to make the territorial and security compromises necessary for a viable two-state solution.
The lived experience of Palestinians under occupation or blockade intensifies these anxieties. Military checkpoints, security barriers, settlement expansion, and periodic military operations in Gaza and the West Bank embody the Super Sparta concept in daily practice. When Israeli political leadership explicitly frames these measures as components of a broader strategy of permanent military dominance, it strips away any pretense that such arrangements are temporary or aimed at eventual political resolution. Instead, they appear as manifestations of a deliberate strategy to maintain indefinite control through superior force. This realization feeds cycles of despair and radicalization, particularly among younger Palestinians who see no prospect for meaningful change within their lifetimes and who increasingly view violence as the only available response to their circumstances.
Contradictory Reactions in the Arab World
The Super Sparta concept generates complex and contradictory responses across the Arab world, reflecting the profound transformations that have reshaped regional politics in recent decades. Traditional Arab nationalist discourse has long portrayed Israel as an illegitimate colonial implant sustained by Western support, with the Palestinian cause serving as a rallying point for pan-Arab solidarity. Within this framework, Israel's explicit embrace of military supremacy appears to confirm longstanding accusations about Zionist aggression and territorial ambitions. State media in countries like Syria, Iraq, and Algeria, along with non-state actors such as Hezbollah, seize upon the Super Sparta language as evidence of Israeli expansionism and permanent hostility toward Arab peoples. For these actors, Netanyahu's formulation validates their own military buildups and resistance ideologies as necessary responses to an implacably aggressive adversary.
Simultaneously, however, significant segments of the Arab world have recalibrated their relationship with Israel based on shifting geopolitical calculations rather than ideological commitments. The Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Gulf states including the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, reflect a pragmatic recognition of shared interests in confronting Iranian regional influence and developing economic partnerships. For these countries, Israel's military capabilities are not primarily threatening but potentially useful as a counterweight to Persian ambitions in the Gulf and beyond. The Super Sparta concept, from this perspective, represents a reliable security partner rather than an existential threat. These states may privately welcome Israeli military strength as a regional stabilizing force, even as they maintain public solidarity with Palestinian grievances for domestic political consumption.
This divergence creates profound fault lines within the Arab world itself. Countries that have embraced normalization with Israel face accusations of betrayal from populations that remain sympathetic to Palestinian nationalism and hostile to Israeli policies. The Super Sparta rhetoric complicates efforts to sell normalization to skeptical publics, as it appears to confirm that Israel has no intention of making substantive concessions on Palestinian statehood or occupied territories. At the same time, the failure of decades of Arab military confrontation with Israel, combined with pressing domestic challenges and the rise of non-Arab regional threats, has convinced many Arab governments that endless hostility toward Israel serves no practical purpose. The result is a fractured regional landscape where official policies often diverge sharply from popular sentiment, with the Super Sparta concept serving as a catalyst that exposes and intensifies these contradictions.
Great Power Interests and Responses
The Super Sparta vision intersects with the strategic calculations of major powers whose interests in the Middle East remain substantial despite shifting global priorities. The United States, Israel's most important ally, faces a delicate balancing act in responding to this strategic doctrine. American support for Israeli security remains bipartisan and deeply institutionalized, reflected in billions of dollars in annual military assistance and diplomatic backing at international forums. The Super Sparta concept aligns with American interests insofar as it describes a capable regional partner able to defend itself without requiring direct American military intervention. A militarily dominant Israel serves as a stabilizing force that deters aggression from hostile actors and reduces the likelihood of regional conflagrations that might demand American involvement.
However, the Super Sparta framework also generates concerns within American foreign policy circles about its implications for broader regional stability and American diplomatic objectives. An Israel explicitly committed to permanent military supremacy over its neighbors may prove less amenable to the diplomatic compromises necessary for conflict resolution, potentially undermining American efforts to broker peace agreements or reduce regional tensions. The concept's emphasis on unilateral military action rather than multilateral diplomatic engagement complicates American attempts to build regional security architectures or integrate Israel into broader Middle Eastern frameworks. Moreover, an increasingly militarized Israel focused on deterrence through overwhelming force may take actions, such as strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities or expanded operations in Syria and Lebanon, that risk escalation beyond manageable limits, potentially forcing American intervention in conflicts it would prefer to avoid.
Other major powers view the Super Sparta concept through their own strategic lenses. Russia maintains complex relationships throughout the Middle East, including with both Israel and Iran, and generally prefers regional configurations that enhance its influence while limiting American dominance. A hyper-militarized Israel locked in permanent confrontation with Iranian proxies creates opportunities for Russian mediation and arms sales, but also raises risks of destabilization that could threaten Russian interests in Syria and energy markets. China, increasingly active economically throughout the region, generally favors stability that facilitates its Belt and Road initiatives and energy security, viewing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and regional militarization primarily as obstacles to economic development. The European Union, traditionally more sympathetic to Palestinian statehood than the United States, regards the Super Sparta concept with particular concern, seeing it as antithetical to the two-state solution that remains official European policy and as a barrier to the diplomatic engagement Europeans prefer to military confrontation.
The Risk of Strategic Isolation
The Super Sparta model, while offering short-term security benefits and domestic political advantages, carries substantial risks of long-term strategic isolation that could ultimately undermine the very security it seeks to guarantee. International opinion, particularly in Europe and significant portions of the developing world, has grown increasingly critical of Israeli policies regarding Palestinians and military actions in neighboring territories. An explicit embrace of permanent military dominance and Spartan values may harden this opposition, making Israel an increasingly controversial partner for democratic nations that face domestic pressure to distance themselves from perceived human rights violations and occupation policies. The Super Sparta concept provides critics with a clear narrative framework for portraying Israel as a militaristic state fundamentally opposed to peaceful coexistence and diplomatic resolution.
This isolation manifests in multiple dimensions simultaneously. Diplomatically, Israel could find itself increasingly marginalized in international organizations and subject to resolutions condemning its policies at the United Nations and other multilateral forums. Economic isolation may follow as calls for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions gain traction, particularly if the Super Sparta posture is associated with expanded settlement construction or military operations perceived as disproportionate. Even security cooperation may erode if intelligence sharing and military partnerships become politically toxic for countries facing domestic criticism of their relationships with Israel. While Israel has demonstrated remarkable resilience in the face of international criticism, prolonged isolation could exact cumulative costs that affect economic growth, technological development, and ultimately military capabilities.
The psychological dimensions of isolation present equally significant challenges. The Super Sparta concept inherently assumes a hostile external environment that validates military-first policies, but this assumption can become self-fulfilling as aggressive postures and military actions alienate potential partners and confirm adversaries in their hostility. A nation that defines itself primarily through military strength and perceives itself as surrounded by enemies may struggle to recognize or pursue diplomatic opportunities when they emerge. The siege mentality cultivated by the Super Sparta model, while effective for social mobilization, can also produce strategic rigidity that prevents adaptation to changing regional dynamics. Nations that view themselves as permanently embattled tend toward worst-case scenario planning and preventive action that often escalates tensions they aim to deter.
Endless Conflicts and the Sustainability Question
Perhaps the most profound challenge posed by the Super Sparta concept concerns the sustainability of perpetual militarization and conflict readiness over multiple generations. Ancient Sparta, despite its legendary military prowess, ultimately declined and disappeared as a significant power, partly due to the internal contradictions of a society organized entirely around warfare. Modern Israel faces analogous questions about whether a nation can maintain indefinite mobilization without exhausting its human and economic resources. Military service disrupts education and career development, reserve duty strains family life and economic productivity, and the psychological toll of perpetual conflict affects mental health and social cohesion. While Israelis have demonstrated extraordinary resilience, the cumulative burden of generation after generation bearing these costs raises questions about long-term viability.
The Super Sparta model also implies resignation to endless conflict rather than pursuit of fundamental resolution. By defining national identity primarily through military excellence and deterrence, it naturalizes warfare as a permanent condition rather than a temporary aberration requiring political solution. This framing risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, as policies designed to maintain military supremacy through deterrence may actually provoke the very conflicts they aim to prevent. Arms buildups trigger regional arms races, preventive strikes generate desires for retaliation, and demonstrations of overwhelming force can produce radicalization rather than submission. The paradox of security through strength is that beyond a certain threshold, additional military capability may generate more threats than it deters, trapping nations in spirals of escalating confrontation.
Economic sustainability presents another dimension of this challenge. Israel has achieved remarkable economic success, developing a dynamic high-tech sector and maintaining living standards comparable to advanced Western nations. However, this prosperity coexists with defense spending that absorbs substantial national resources, potentially crowding out investments in education, infrastructure, and social welfare that might yield greater long-term benefits. The Super Sparta vision implicitly prioritizes military spending over competing national priorities, potentially creating tensions as different constituencies demand resources for non-security purposes. Moreover, perpetual conflict and regional isolation may limit Israel's economic growth potential by restricting market access, deterring foreign investment, and compelling expensive security measures that would be unnecessary in a more peaceful regional environment.
Alternative Futures and Strategic Choices
The Super Sparta concept represents one possible trajectory for Israeli strategic development, but not the only one. Alternative visions emphasize diplomatic engagement, regional integration, and conflict resolution through negotiated compromise rather than maintained military supremacy. These alternatives rest on the premise that genuine long-term security requires addressing the underlying political conflicts that generate violence rather than simply managing violence through Superior force. From this perspective, the Super Sparta model mistakes tactical military success for strategic victory, achieving battlefield dominance while perpetuating the political conditions that make conflict inevitable. A truly secure Israel, according to this view, would be one integrated into regional economic and security structures, recognized by all its neighbors, and no longer requiring perpetual mobilization because fundamental grievances have been resolved through political accommodation.
The tension between these visions reflects deeper debates about Zionism's ultimate objectives and the nature of a Jewish state in the modern Middle East. Does Israel's survival require permanent military dominance over Arab populations, or can security be achieved through political arrangements that address Palestinian national aspirations while protecting Israel's legitimate security interests? Can a state maintain Jewish demographic majority and democratic governance while controlling millions of Palestinians, or does the Super Sparta path ultimately force choices between Jewish identity and democratic values? These questions have no easy answers, and the Super Sparta concept essentially represents a decision to prioritize immediate security through military strength over longer-term political resolution with its attendant risks and uncertainties.
International actors, particularly the United States, face crucial decisions about how to respond to Israel's strategic direction. Unconditional support for the Super Sparta vision risks enabling policies that perpetuate conflict and undermine peace prospects, potentially damaging American interests in regional stability and relationships with Arab partners. However, pressure on Israel to modify its strategic posture risks being perceived as undermining a democratic ally's legitimate security concerns and may prove ineffective given Israel's capacity to act independently on matters it deems existential. The challenge for external powers lies in supporting Israeli security while encouraging policies that address root causes of conflict rather than simply managing their symptoms through military Superiority. This requires sustained diplomatic engagement, security guarantees that reduce Israeli threat perceptions, and willingness to address grievances from all parties rather than allowing the status quo to calcify into permanent arrangements.
Conclusion: The Super Sparta Paradox
The Super Sparta concept encapsulates fundamental dilemmas facing Israel and the broader Middle East in the twenty-first century. It offers a clear, compelling vision of security through strength that resonates with Israeli historical experience and current threat perceptions. It provides ideological coherence to military policies and social mobilization, creating shared purpose across diverse segments of Israeli society. It projects deterrence to adversaries and communicates commitment to allies. Yet it also carries profound risks of isolation, perpetual conflict, and internal exhaustion that may ultimately undermine the security it promises to deliver. The question facing Israel and the international community is whether military dominance can substitute indefinitely for political resolution, or whether genuine long-term security requires addressing the underlying conflicts that make such dominance seem necessary.
The historical analogy to Sparta carries cautionary implications that merit careful consideration. Ancient Sparta achieved unmatched military excellence but ultimately proved unable to adapt to changing strategic circumstances, its rigid social system and narrow focus on warfare leaving it vulnerable when confronted with more flexible adversaries and evolving challenges. Modern Israel possesses far greater adaptability and has demonstrated impressive capacity for innovation across military, technological, and economic domains. Nevertheless, the Super Sparta concept's emphasis on permanent military readiness and deterrence through overwhelming force could produce strategic rigidity that prevents recognition of diplomatic opportunities or alternative security arrangements. The challenge lies in maintaining necessary defensive capabilities while avoiding the trap of defining national existence solely through military terms, preserving space for political imagination and diplomatic flexibility alongside military preparedness.
Ultimately, the Super Sparta vision reflects both Israel's genuine security challenges and particular political choices about how to address them. The Middle East remains a dangerous region where military weakness invites aggression and deterrence remains essential for national survival. However, the question remains whether eternal vigilance and military supremacy can produce genuine security, or whether they merely postpone rather than resolve fundamental conflicts. As Israel navigates these strategic crossroads, the international community must recognize both the legitimate security concerns that drive the Super Sparta concept and its potential to perpetuate the very conflicts it seeks to deter. Finding pathways toward sustainable security that addresses Palestinian grievances, integrates Israel into regional structures, and reduces the burden of perpetual mobilization represents perhaps the most critical challenge facing Middle Eastern politics in the coming decades.