ISRAEL’S GREATEST THREAT: THE ENEMY WITHIN

PELONI:  Must read article by Michel Benchimol exploring the effects of internal divisions while facing existential threats while also emphasizing the importance which unity will play towards Israel’s survival.

Three Thousand Years of Jewish History, the Dangers of Division, and the Fight for Israel’s Survival

Michel Benchimol

Click Image to Enlarge. Image created via AI.

I am often asked whether I believe Israel will survive.

My answer is that Israel’s greatest existential threat may come not from the enemies surrounding its borders, but from divisions among Jews themselves, both inside Israel and throughout the diaspora.

When I speak of the Jewish people, I mean all Jews—those living in Israel and those living throughout the diaspora. We may have different citizenships, different political views, and different recent experiences, but we share thousands of years of history, heritage, and collective memory. The divisions I fear are not limited to Israel’s borders. They concern the Jewish people everywhere, because what threatens our unity ultimately concerns us all.

Israel faces formidable enemies. Hamas committed the atrocities of October 7, 2023. Hezbollah has threatened Israel from Lebanon, while Iran has supported armed organizations committed to confronting the Jewish state.

These threats are real. But Israel possesses a powerful military, advanced technology, sophisticated intelligence capabilities, and a population determined to defend itself.

What concerns me is something no missile defense system or fighter aircraft can prevent.

What happens when a nation begins to weaken itself from within?

This question runs through nearly three thousand years of Jewish history. Our enemies conquered us with their armies, but at critical moments, our internal divisions helped create the conditions in which those armies prevailed.

THE FIRST GREAT MISTAKE: DIVIDING ONE KINGDOM INTO TWO — APPROXIMATELY 930 BCE

Following King Solomon’s death, the united kingdom divided into Israel in the north and Judah in the south. According to the biblical account, Rehoboam refused to ease the people’s burdens, prompting ten tribes to follow Jeroboam.

One kingdom became two competing states, sometimes fighting one another instead of confronting common threats.

In 722/721 BCE, Assyria conquered the northern Kingdom of Israel. In 587/586 BCE, Babylon conquered Judah, destroyed Jerusalem’s First Temple, and sent many Judeans into exile.

These were conquests by powerful foreign empires. Yet the question remains: Would a united kingdom, with one government, one military, and one strategy, have been better positioned to resist?

We cannot know. But division deprived the Jewish kingdoms of advantages that unity might have preserved.

THE DESTRUCTION OF THE FIRST TEMPLE — 587/586 BCE

Judah’s final years were marked by political instability, rebellion against Babylon, and bitter disagreements over national strategy. The prophet Jeremiah warned against rebellion, but his warnings were rejected.

The consequences were catastrophic. Jerusalem fell, the Temple was destroyed, and many Judeans were exiled.

Babylon was responsible for the destruction, but Judah’s political decisions contributed to the circumstances preceding it.

Courage without judgment is not enough. National survival demands leaders who place their people’s future above political ambition and pride.

THE HASMONEAN CIVIL WAR: WHEN JEWS OPENED THE DOOR TO ROME — 67–63 BCE

This may be the clearest example of internal Jewish conflict contributing directly to the loss of independence.

After Queen Salome Alexandra died in 67 BCE, her sons, Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, fought for control of the Hasmonean kingdom. Rival factions sought Roman intervention.

In 63 BCE, the Roman general Pompey entered Jerusalem and established Roman supremacy over Judea.

The Hasmoneans had fought to restore Jewish independence. Yet their descendants became so consumed by rivalry that they helped create an opportunity for a foreign empire to dominate their country.

Rome did not invent the Jewish civil war. It exploited it.

Rome might eventually have intervened regardless, but Jewish political division made its task easier.

When political ambition becomes more important than national survival, a people risks becoming an accomplice to its own loss of independence.

JERUSALEM, 70 CE: THE MOST TERRIBLE WARNING

The Great Jewish Revolt against Rome began in 66 CE. As Roman armies approached Jerusalem, rival Jewish factions led by John of Gischala, Simon bar Giora, and Eleazar ben Simon fought one another for control.

The historian Josephus described internal bloodshed and the destruction of vital food supplies. The Talmud, in Gittin 56a, preserves a similar account.

Imagine the insanity: Roman legions were approaching Jerusalem while Jews were killing Jews inside its walls.

Instead of unity, there were competing leaders, rival ambitions, and wasted resources. In 70 CE, Roman forces under Titus captured Jerusalem and destroyed the Second Temple.

Rome possessed overwhelming military strength, but internal Jewish conflict made its victory easier. Our sages associated the catastrophe with sinat chinam—baseless hatred.

Would a united Jerusalem have survived? We cannot know. But division weakened its defenders when unity mattered most.

The same question applies to the divided kingdom and the Hasmonean civil war.

History teaches us that unity cannot guarantee victory, but division can help turn a military threat into a national catastrophe. Our enemies conquered us from outside, while our divisions weakened us from within.

MODERN ISRAEL: A NATION THAT LEARNED TO DEFEND ITSELF

On May 14, 1948, Israel declared independence. After centuries without sovereign national power, Jews once again possessed a state capable of defending Jewish lives.

Israel survived the wars of 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973, developing extraordinary military, scientific, and economic capabilities.

Then came October 7, 2023.

The Hamas-led massacre occurred while Israel was experiencing an extraordinary internal crisis over judicial reform. Massive demonstrations, bitter political confrontations, and tensions affecting military institutions had divided the country.

It is a serious possibility that these divisions distracted Israel’s leadership, diverted attention from external threats, and created an impression of weakness that Hamas sought to exploit.

Although it has not been established that the political crisis caused the intelligence and security failures of October 7, its possible contribution to Israel’s vulnerability deserves serious investigation.

The historical parallel is disturbing: while Israelis were fighting bitter political battles among themselves, their enemies were preparing an attack from outside.

THE MODERN DANGER: JEWS DIVIDED AGAINST JEWS

Today, internal division extends beyond Israel into Jewish communities throughout the United States, Canada, Britain, France, and elsewhere.

Jewish political disagreement is nothing new. Debate has always been part of Jewish life.

But there is a fundamental difference between criticizing an Israeli government and challenging the legitimacy of Jewish national self-determination.

Every Jew has the right to criticize Israel’s leaders, settlements, military policies, or judicial reforms. Legitimate public criticism is essential to democracy.

However, when Jewish politicians, academics, and activists condemn Israel, their statements can be selectively amplified by organizations seeking Israel’s destruction and presented as evidence that even Jews have abandoned the Jewish state.

The responsibility is not to remain silent, but to distinguish criticism of a government from rejection of a nation’s right to exist.

ANTI-ZIONISM: THE MODERN FACE OF ANTISEMITISM

Antisemitism has changed its language throughout history.

Jews were once persecuted for their religion, later for their ancestry, and repeatedly portrayed as outsiders who could never truly belong.

Today, some of that hostility is expressed through opposition to Israel and the legitimacy of Jewish national self-determination.

Anti-Zionism becomes a modern expression of an ancient prejudice when it singles out Jews for the denial of national rights recognized for others.

The establishment of Israel in 1948 ended nearly two thousand years without independent Jewish national sovereignty.

Why should Jewish national self-determination be denied while the national aspirations of other peoples are recognized?

Anyone advocating the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state must explain what would replace it and how the rights and security of Jews would be guaranteed.

Without credible answers, such demands offer no convincing alternative.

JEWISH IDENTITY: ONE PEOPLE, ONE HISTORY, ONE DESTINY

I increasingly hear American Jews insisting that being an American Jew should not be confused with being an Israeli Jew.

I understand the distinction between citizenship and nationality. American Jews are Americans, Canadian Jews are Canadians, and French Jews are French.

But I reject the suggestion that these differences divide us into separate Jewish peoples.

A Jew is a Jew, whether living in New York, Toronto, Paris, London, or Jerusalem. Citizenship does not erase history. Geography does not erase ancestry.

For nearly two thousand years, Jews preserved their connection to Jerusalem. At the conclusion of the Passover Seder, generations repeated L’Shana Haba’ah B’Yerushalayim—“Next year in Jerusalem.”

They said those words across Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and the Americas, often without ever having seen Jerusalem.

Why preserve that longing for centuries if Jerusalem had nothing to do with Jewish identity?

Israel’s establishment in 1948 did not invent the Jewish connection to Jerusalem. It gave modern political expression to a connection preserved across generations.

We may carry different passports, live in different countries, and hold opposing political convictions. Our recent histories may differ, shaped by the countries in which we live, but our deeper history is one and the same.

For three thousand years, we have shared a common heritage, endured persecution, survived exile, preserved our traditions, and maintained an unbroken connection to the land of Israel.

We may be Americans, Canadians, French, or Israelis, but before these modern national identities existed, we were already one people.

Our differences belong to the present; our shared history reaches back thousands of years.

No political disagreement, geographical distance, or national border can erase that inheritance.

We did not always share the same country, but we share the same origins, the same historical memory, and a common destiny. We are not separate peoples brought together by Israel. We are one people whose history long preceded the modern State of Israel—and whose future remains profoundly connected to it.

WHEN JEWISH VOICES ARE USED TO CHALLENGE ISRAEL’S LEGITIMACY

Prominent Jewish figures including Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, and Bernie Sanders, along with organizations such as Jewish Voice for Peace, have become influential critics of Israel.

Their positions differ significantly. Sanders supports Israel’s existence while criticizing its government and military policies. Chomsky has advocated alternative political arrangements. Finkelstein has challenged arguments defending Zionism, while Jewish Voice for Peace openly identifies as anti-Zionist.

These distinctions matter.

But when Jewish identity is invoked to give political arguments additional credibility, it is important to remember that being Jewish does not automatically make someone’s position representative of the Jewish people.

Jewish critics have every right to express their views. Those advocating an end to Jewish statehood, however, must confront the practical consequences for millions of Jewish Israelis.

Criticism is easy. Explaining how Jewish lives, rights, and security would be protected without Jewish sovereignty is a far more demanding responsibility.

THE AMERICAN JEWISH VOTE: POLITICAL LOYALTY AND NATIONAL SECURITY

For generations, American Jews have overwhelmingly supported the Democratic Party. A 2020 Pew survey found that 71 percent identified with or leaned toward Democrats.

But the party’s relationship with Israel has changed dramatically.

In February 2026, Gallup found that 65 percent of Democrats sympathized more with Palestinians, compared with only 17 percent who sympathized more with Israelis. In 2014, a majority had favored Israelis.

The shift has reached Congress. In November 2024, nineteen Senate Democrats supported efforts to block certain weapons sales to Israel. By July 2025, twenty-five supported restrictions on another arms sale. The 2024 Uncommitted movement further demonstrated growing opposition to traditional American support for Israel.

What was once a marginal position has become a significant force within Democratic politics.

The party has become substantially more critical of Israel, while some progressive activists openly reject Zionism.

No political party deserves unconditional loyalty. Its actions today matter more than its reputation yesterday.

SINAT CHINAM: THE HISTORICAL WARNING

Nearly two thousand years ago, Jerusalem faced Roman armies while Jewish factions fought one another within its walls.

Our sages associated the destruction of the Second Temple with sinat chinam—baseless hatred.

The danger arises when political rivalry becomes so destructive that a people loses the ability to confront common threats.

Modern Israel is immeasurably stronger than ancient Judea. Yet the principle remains.

A nation that allows internal hostility to overwhelm its common purpose risks surrendering advantages that no external enemy could otherwise take from it.

WILL ISRAEL SURVIVE?

I return to the question with which I began.

Will Israel survive?

The Jewish people endured the destruction of two Temples, Roman persecution, centuries of exile, expulsions, pogroms, and the Holocaust.

Against extraordinary odds, they restored their sovereignty in 1948.

Today, Israel possesses military, scientific, and economic strength earlier generations could scarcely have imagined.

But strength alone does not guarantee survival.

Israel requires responsible leadership, strong democratic institutions, credible security policies, and a people capable of maintaining solidarity despite profound political disagreement.

That responsibility extends to Jewish communities throughout the world.

Unity does not require unquestioning obedience to any government. It requires recognizing that political rivalries must not endanger the institutions, independence, and security upon which millions of lives depend.

History cannot prove that unity would have prevented every Jewish catastrophe. But it repeatedly shows that internal divisions compounded the dangers posed by foreign enemies.

Their armies delivered the defeats. But at decisive moments, our divisions contributed to the weakness those armies exploited.

After nearly two thousand years, the Jewish people regained their sovereignty. We must never underestimate the value of what was recovered.

And so, when someone asks whether Israel will survive, my answer remains:

I fear the weapons of our enemies. But I fear even more the possibility that, once again, our internal divisions will make their victories easier.

We must never allow the Jewish people to become the architects of their own national tragedy.

---