The Trojan Horse of Progressivism

For eight nights, we celebrate the victory of a ragtag band of rebels defeating the mighty Greek empire. But that’s just one part of the story. The harder truth is this: the Maccabees weren’t just fighting soldiers. They were fighting ideas so seductive that most Jews had already surrendered to them willingly.

That same battle rages today.

Throughout history, the Jewish people have faced two types of adversaries. The first seeks physical destruction—typified by Haman in the Purim story. These enemies recognize that every Jew carries a moral spark that threatens their worldview. Their solution is simple: annihilation.

The second enemy is far more subtle. It doesn’t want to kill us—it wants to remake us. Its weapons? Ideas, philosophies, and cultural pressures that erode Jewish purpose. This enemy whispers: “You can survive, even thrive, if you become just a little less Jewish. Embrace our values. Adopt our practices.”

History teaches that while the first enemy unifies us in survival mode, the second divides us in confusion. Are these ideas really antithetical to Judaism? Perhaps they’re something we can accommodate?

The Hanukkah story captures this perfectly. The Greeks didn’t arrive in Judea planning genocide. They came bearing philosophy, art, and science. Most Jews eagerly embraced Hellenism. It seemed sophisticated, universal, and enlightened. Only a small band—the Maccabees and their followers—recognized the existential threat hidden beneath the appealing exterior and were willing to fight it.

Jewish tradition compares this deceptive danger to the pig: it has split hooves like kosher animals, appearing acceptable on the outside, but lacks the internal sign of kashrut. The Greeks looked civilized and rational, but much of their universalism fundamentally contradicted Jewish particularism. Their multi-god worship could include all other religious orientations—except the Jewish one-God view.

More recently, Nazi Germany sought pure annihilation—no negotiation possible. Communism was willing to let Jews live if they abandoned their beliefs. One threatened Jewish bodies, the other Jewish souls.

Today we face both types of enemies simultaneously, and it’s paralyzing.

From the Arab-Muslim world comes the clear, violent danger. October 7th reminded us that there are millions who seek Jewish death, not Jewish reform. This enemy is straightforward to identify—so long as we don’t convince ourselves otherwise, as the defense establishment did before October 7th.

Yet we find ourselves unable to achieve decisive victory against this obvious threat. Why? Because the second enemy—the modern equivalent of the Greeks—has tied our hands from within.

The hyper-progressive left doesn’t seek to kill Jews. Like the Greeks and Communists before them, they want to reform us, to make us embrace their vision. While some elements of progressivism are well-intentioned, consistent with Judaism and advance humanity. There are elements that are not, elements that if adopted threaten Israel’s ability to defend itself militarily and for the Jewish people to thrive as a holy nation serving God.

Consider the progressive attitude toward nationhood: Nations are artificial constructs. Israel as the home of the Jewish people is inherently racist; limiting the right of return only to Jews as defined by Jewish law is an attack on anyone who simply identifies as Jewish. Objective identification violates the progressive ideal of fluid identity based on feelings.

For progressivism, conflicts aren’t between right and wrong but between oppressors and victims. In this narrative, Israel—powerful, successful, Western-aligned—can only be the oppressor. The Arabs in Gaza, by definition, are victims giving their violence legitimacy.

Aspects of the ideology don’t just distort the conflict; but also prevent its resolution. Progressive thought holds that wars shouldn’t end in victory but in negotiated settlements and international agreements. The strong must restrain themselves. The weak need to be perpetual victims—this, in a nutshell, is the short history of Jewish-Arab relations for the past 50 years. It all but guarantees future wars, since Arab adversaries know they’ll never be allowed to really lose and Israel never allowed to win – no matter how just the war may be.

Civilian casualties—as defined by many progressives—are absurdly broad, including active terrorists without official rank who are simply on a lunch break. Their deaths must be avoided at nearly any cost. The result? Israel maintains the lowest civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio in modern warfare but achieves this by sacrificing hundreds of its own soldiers to protect enemy “civilians.” This may sound noble, but it’s profoundly unjust. It prolongs wars, emboldens terrorists, and is paid for with Jewish lives.

Alleged IDF abuses of Hamas prisoners? Sure, both sides do it— a typical progressive narrative of moral equivalence. For them, there’s no real difference between Israel and Hamas; both sides commit abuses, just a matter of degree. Except that Israel has a progressive prosecutorial apparatus to hold the “abusers” accountable, even at the expense of damaging the war effort and spreading a blood libel. The case later fell apart, and the prosecutor is facing charges.

But the clash between progressive ideology and Jewish tradition extends far beyond warfare—touching religious practice, family, health, education, and the very definition of Jewish identity. Not every progressive idea threatens Jewish values but extra vigilance is required 

The Maccabees won their war, but the battle against Greek influence was shorter-lived. We celebrate their courage to push back against the incompatible elements —the hope that a little light can dispel much darkness. That same clarity is needed now. The Arabs’ genocidal hatred must be defeated, but the progressive assault is more dangerous because it paralyzes our defense and confuses the well-intentioned. The menorah burns not as a quaint symbol, but as a call to guard the light of Torah against seductive ideologies that promise enlightenment but extinguish ours.