<p>This study examines the theoretical implications of divergent great power strategies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, analyzing how the contrasting approaches of the United States and China challenge fundamental assumptions in neorealist theory. Through a comparative analysis of American military primacy—characterized by substantial military aid and diplomatic support for Israel—and Chinese economic engagement—manifested through Belt and Road initiatives (BRI) and strategic equidistance—this research reveals critical limitations in both offensive and defensive realist paradigms. While American strategy exemplifies offensive realism's emphasis on power maximization through military predominance, China's approach reflects a sophisticated synthesis of defensive realist principles with economic statecraft. However, the limited efficacy of both approaches in fostering conflict resolution reveals what we term the <i>intervention paradox</i>: the inverse correlation between material capabilities and the ability to shape local political outcomes in identity-based conflicts. This study critiques the assumptions of neorealism, arguing that traditional power politics are inadequate for resolving such conflicts. Instead, it calls for new analytical frameworks that integrate local political dynamics and normative considerations into a broader model of multipolar engagement.</p>