After the Hamas attack on Oct. 7, 2023, when Israel was at its most vulnerable and became consumed with trying to reassert its power, its leaders set the bar for success impossibly high: invincibility.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talked about “total victory” and proceeded to unleash a campaign that destroyed Gaza. He then moved on to Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, parts of Syria and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The ability to continue fighting without constraints, both internal and external, became his administration’s goal in and of itself. And as war became the new default state of the nation, being pro-Israel has come to mean supporting — or at least not questioning — this security doctrine.

So it is understandable that Israelis have observed with shock and indignation the daylight that now shines between the Trump administration and the Israeli government. We have heard it everywhere, from President Trump’s leaked comments to Mr. Netanyahu in early June over Israel’s escalation in Lebanon — reportedly calling him “crazy” and saying that “everyone hates you now” — to Vice President JD Vance’s recent efforts to put Israel in its place.

Though Mr. Netanyahu has so far been careful not to show any dismay, his champions in the Israeli media have not held back. A far-right TV talk show host, Yinon Magal, called Mr. Vance “scum” and used a pejorative word for Jews to describe Mr. Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. Another prominent Israeli personality and Netanyahu ally told The New Yorker he was “in shock” over the deal Mr. Trump made with Iran, and that Mr. Netanyahu was most likely shocked as well. A poll conducted in Israel after the U.S.-Iranian memorandum of understanding was signed shows a huge drop in Mr. Trump’s popularity among Israelis.

It’s premature to declare a full rupture in the U.S.-Israeli alliance or the relationship between the country’s two leaders. But they are, no doubt, at a crucial point. Israel’s outsize role in U.S. politics, its military and economic dominance in the region, buttressed and enabled by the United States for so long, and the success of the pro-Israel lobby are all now in flux. Israel put all its capital on the table in this last round of war on Iran and has come up short.

The crack in the relationship is most visible in Mr. Vance’s statements. He recently said to the Times Opinion columnist Ross Douthat that he would tell Israel’s far-right ministers who have criticized the deal with Iran, “You can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have.” Then at a White House press briefing, the vice president continued on the same tack, saying, “If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world.”

Indeed, it has at times seemed as though Mr. Vance is advancing a new Israel doctrine for this administration. He said on a conservative Christian podcast last month that while “sometimes criticism of Israel bleeds into Jew hate,” pro-Israeli voices in the United States make the mistake of “conflating criticism of a particular government with Jew hatred. Because if everything is Jew hatred, then nothing is Jew hatred.” He also noted that is a mistake to think U.S. and Israeli interests are always aligned.

It remains to be seen whether U.S. policy on Israel will actually change — on military aid or diplomatic cover or the refusal to rein in Israeli measures to foil a Palestinian state through settler violence and annexation of the West Bank. But Mr. Vance has spotlighted a real issue that left-wing American Jews have been raising alarms about for a long time: If everything is a threat to Jews, then it becomes practically impossible to distinguish real threats to Jews. By the same logic, if Israel is at war at all times and with everyone, it becomes impossible to distinguish between genuine and overblown threats or between when Israeli military force is necessary, effective and justified and when it is just a reflex and a way to avoid any negotiated agreement.

This is the fundamental flaw in Israel’s current modus operandi that whoever wins the parliamentary elections this year — whether it’s Mr. Netanyahu or someone else — will have to confront.

Israel is not only not invincible; it must seriously consider changing its strategy. There is not a military solution to every problem. The zero-sum understanding of what it means to be pro-Israel has gone so far that it is now alienating Israel’s staunchest supporters. Israel’s embrace of total war and permanent military force, without an achievable endgame, is backfiring, undermining its very effectiveness and utility.

Nowhere is that more apparent right now than in Lebanon. While Israel has been forced into yet another cease-fire brokered by the United States, it continues to keep troops in large parts of southern Lebanon and still launches strikes it deems defensive. This is a well-tested recipe for protracted hostilities. Mr. Netanyahu and his defense minister insisted repeatedly in recent days that the Israeli military will remain in a “security zone” until Hezbollah is disarmed, which effectively means indefinitely.

Mr. Netanyahu has created a situation in which any significant withdrawal or concession will signal weakness and capitulation to Israelis and Americans alike.

If Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance are serious about stabilizing relations between Lebanon and Israel, figuring out the best way to achieve a full Israeli withdrawal must be a top priority. It is in Israel’s interest to find ways to initiate and carry out that process on its own, rather than be compelled to do it.

So far, the United States has made a rhetorical pivot but has yet to fully force Mr. Netanyahu’s hand. Just as important, it is as yet unclear if Israelis themselves will start to question and challenge Israel’s zero-sum logic. Israelis face a major turning point as they get ready to vote and as they try to figure out how to move on from almost three years of open-ended war, increasing international isolation and a tragic paucity of leaders offering any alternative.

Source photograph by Eric Lee/The New York Times.

Mairav Zonszein is the senior Israel analyst with the International Crisis Group, a nonprofit think tank dedicated to conflict prevention.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.