Each in Our Own Victory: An Israeli Identity Crisis

During the June 2025 campaign against Iran, a nationwide survey revealed a deep identity fracture.

In the summer of 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon. What began as a “limited operation” to push Katyusha rockets away from the northern border quickly morphed into a full-blown campaign: the capture of Beirut, the installation of Christian allies, and an ambitious – some would say delusional – attempt to reorder the region. It was the first time the IDF fought beyond the broad consensus of the Israeli public, and the first time its actions were broadcast in real time to a global audience. Images of refugees, wounded civilians, and dead children from the Sabra and Shatila massacre shocked the West. The Reagan administration condemned. Protests broke out across Europe. Even many in the Jewish diaspora began to waver.

At the center stood Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who had launched the war with moral absolutism and descended, slowly and painfully, into deep depression. His reaction to the international backlash came in a single, haunting phrase: “Goyim kill goyim, and the Jews are blamed.” That sentence captured a fracture in Israel’s wartime identity—whether international criticism is a threat to manage, or proof of righteousness to double down on.

Nearly half a century later, Israel is preparing for a different kind of war – this time, against Iran. Once again, global attention has turned to the region. And once again, the Israeli conversation over how to conduct war collapses into its familiar, corrosive binaries.

As part of my fellowship at the Institute for Liberty and Responsibility, I analyzed public attitudes surrounding one of the most significant security developments in recent Israeli history: the June 2025 military campaign against Iran. A survey conducted by iPanel on behalf of the Institute during the course of the fighting sought to understand what Israelis believe should guide wartime decision-making – especially when it comes to international constraints.

The survey results expose deep internal divisions within the Jewish public.

When asked whether U.S. demands should influence the conduct of the war, 58% of the general public said they should to a large or very large extent. Among opposition voters, that number rises to 71%, while among coalition voters, it drops to 53%.

When it comes to European positions, only 23% of the public believe they should be seriously considered. The gap here is particularly striking: 31% of opposition voters support giving them significant weight, compared to just 10% of coalition voters.

International law tells a similar story. 47% of the public believe that the laws of war should significantly influence military conduct. Among opposition voters, that number reaches 64%; among coalition voters, it falls to 33%.

Israel’s international image also reflects a deep divide. 48% of the overall public believe the country’s global reputation should factor heavily into how a war with Iran is conducted. That includes 58% of opposition voters, versus 39% of coalition voters.

Economic concerns show the same trend. 54% of Israelis think maintaining trade ties and attracting foreign investment should be an important consideration during wartime. That includes 68% of the opposition and 44.5% of the coalition. On the question of avoiding a global economic crisis, 53% of the public think this should be a serious consideration – 62% of the opposition agree, compared to 43% of the coalition.

It’s tempting to read these numbers through the familiar hawk-dove lens. But that misses the deeper fault line. What we’re seeing is not just a debate over military tactics, but a confrontation between globalists and isolationists. Between those who see Israel as a participant in an international web of interdependence – diplomacy, trade, legitimacy – and those who see it as a solitary fortress, permanently encircled, destined to survive alone. “A nation that shall dwell alone,” as the verse goes, “and shall not be reckoned among the nations.”

To the globalist camp, the United States is not just a strategic partner – it’s a moral compass. To isolationists, America is a fickle patron at best, its loyalty tied to the whim of whoever plays Caesar that day. International law, to globalists, is a framework Israel must uphold to remain both democratic and Jewish. To isolationists, it is coercive and anti-Semitic by design. Globalists want Israel to take its place in the world. Isolationists want the world to leave Israel alone.

These two axes – globalist vs. isolationist, pragmatic vs. Tribal – don’t always align with military hawkishness. Some globalists believe in using overwhelming force, but only when backed by allies. Some isolationists want the war to end, not because they believe in peace, but because they refuse to ask anyone for permission. In the end, the real question is simple: Who do we listen to? The world – or only ourselves?

And that’s where the consequences begin. Diplomatically, isolationism is already pushing Israel away from its most essential partners – Washington, Riyadh, Brussels – at the precise moment it needs them most. Planning and executing a campaign against Iran would require unprecedented coordination, support, and legitimacy. Economically, the same mindset is translating into lost investment, waning international confidence, and basic trust erosion among global firms operating in Israel. And militarily, the implications are even more dangerous: the more the world is framed as the enemy, the easier it becomes to justify breaking the rules. The more Israel breaks those rules, the more likely it is that arms shipments will be grounded before takeoff. This isn’t just a moral risk. It’s strategic.

The debate now unfolding in Israel is not just about how to wage war with Iran – but what kind of country is preparing for it. Is Israel a small Western democracy striving to remain in the community of responsible nations? Or a proud, defiant state convinced that eternity is in its back pocket, determined – again – to prove it can survive alone? Is power measured only in tanks and drones, or also in legitimacy and alliances? Is Israel acting out of shared purpose—or out of resentment, grievance, and rage?

The fault lines revealed in this poll aren’t incidental. They’re diagnostic. They reflect a national identity crisis, and a society that hasn’t yet decided what kind of story it wants to tell itself on the day after.