The Fracture of the Judeo-Christian Order

Low U.S. public support marks the split between the West and Israel.

Constantin von Hoffmeister argues that Israel’s entrenchment in Gaza and Syria, combined with collapsing U.S. public support, signals a split in the Judeo-Christian alliance and the rise of Darwinian multipolarity.

Israel stands on the edge of a new reality. Its leaders speak openly of the permanent occupation of Gaza and even parts of southern Syria. Netanyahu has warned that the country must prepare for isolation, for a siege economy, for industries that produce everything inside the fortress. This is not rhetoric but preparation for a world where sanctions could come not from Arab states, long dismissed, but from the very West that once secured Israel’s survival.

The moves on Mount Hermon, the highest peak in the Levant on the border between Syria and Lebanon, the annexation of the Golan Heights, a fertile plateau taken from Syria in 1967 and recognized by Washington in 2019, the alliances with local councils in Suwayda, a Druze-majority province in southern Syria, and the prospect of a corridor through Daraa, the adjacent province known as the birthplace of the Syrian uprising in 2011, show a clear pattern: take, hold, normalize. Israel no longer hides its intent. Territory becomes theology, mountains become covenants, and geography fuses with ideology. What was once seen as temporary defense now hardens into permanence.

This shift coincides with a profound fracture in the West itself. The post-1945 order dissolves before our eyes. At the same time, the moral frame of “Judeo-Christian” solidarity that bound Israel to the West begins to break. Polling in the United States shows support for Israel collapsing: Gallup reports only 32% of Americans approve of Israel’s actions in Gaza, while 60% disapprove. A Quinnipiac poll finds 60% of Americans oppose sending more U.S. military aid, with only 32% in favor. This erosion is strongest among young people and independents, groups that will shape the future electorate.

Here lies the deeper meaning. The alliance was built not only on strategy but on shared identity. Israel was framed as the living outpost of a “Judeo-Christian” civilization. Churches, synagogues, and political pulpits all sustained this vision. Now the vision fades. Images of bombardment outweigh sermons. The covenant dissolves in the public conscience. For the first time, the Western public questions whether Israel’s actions fit the values its leaders once proclaimed.

This is the mark of Darwinian multipolarity. Power now belongs to those who adapt, who carry strength and credibility together. Borders shift again, alliances mutate, and symbols lose their automatic force. Israel may still act, may still occupy, and may still entrench, but it cannot count on the same moral shield from the West. A rift opens in the heart of the alliance, and through it the old world order drains away.

The future will be written not in treaties or sermons but in force, in public perception, in shifting loyalties. The “Judeo-Christian” label that carried the West and Israel together for generations weakens. What comes after will be harsher, shaped by power alone.