Deepening divisions between religious and secular Israelis are raising fears within Israel’s political and security establishment that the country could face institutional breakdown, widespread civil unrest or even civil war as a decisive election approaches.
A survey conducted for the 2026 Herzliya Conference found that 97 per cent of Israelis were concerned about internal divisions, while Israeli President Isaac Herzog has warned that the country’s deepening social fractures could lead to civil war.
In an extensive investigation published by The Telegraph, journalist Henry Bodkin examined the religious, political and ideological divisions threatening Israel’s internal stability.
The investigation also discussed an alleged confidential assessment attributed to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), suggesting that Israel could struggle to withstand the combined pressures of economic deterioration, political confrontation and growing social fragmentation.
The purported intelligence document has not been authenticated by the US government, although independent analysts cited in the investigation consider the possibility of serious internal instability increasingly plausible.
Religious Divisions Begin to Disrupt the Israeli Military
One of the clearest examples of Israel’s religious divisions emerged in August when soldiers from the Rotem Battalion of the Israeli military’s Givati Infantry Brigade refused to participate in a combat patrol in Gaza.
The dispute centred on the presence of a female combat medic inside a Namer armoured personnel carrier.
The soldiers, who belonged to Israel’s ultra-Orthodox Haredi community, refused to enter the vehicle because of their religious objections to serving alongside a woman in those circumstances.
Despite repeated appeals from their increasingly frustrated commander, the operation was eventually cancelled.
For the soldiers involved, their objection to the medic’s presence took precedence over the possibility of suffering fatal injuries in combat against Hamas.
Sixteen soldiers were subsequently sentenced to military detention, provoking considerable resentment within the Haredi community.
Those soldiers had been willing to participate in military operations provided their religious conditions were respected.
Tens of thousands of other Haredi men, however, have refused military service altogether, maintaining that their religious obligations require them to devote their lives to intensive prayer and the study of sacred texts.
The dispute has become one of the most contentious questions in Israeli politics, exposing fundamental disagreements over the relationship between religious authority, military obligations and the state.
Alleged CIA Assessment Warns of Internal Collapse
With Israel approaching its crucial election on Tuesday, 27 October, these divisions have become a potential source of wider political instability.
The Telegraph identifies several possible flashpoints, including an inconclusive electoral outcome, an attempt by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to remain in power, or the formation of an alternative government led by former military chief Gadi Eisenkot that seeks to suppress Israeli settler violence in the occupied West Bank.
Any of these developments could provoke confrontation between political and ideological factions.
Combined with the economic pressure generated by rising military expenditure, the accumulated crises could threaten not only Israel’s social cohesion but also its internal security.
These concerns reportedly feature in a confidential CIA assessment published earlier this month.
The alleged document claims to have been prepared by the agency’s Red Cell, a unit tasked with challenging established intelligence assumptions and examining alternative scenarios.
However, the document has so far been published only by Drop Site News, and the US government has not confirmed its authenticity.
Nevertheless, some independent analysts believe the possibility of serious unrest cannot be dismissed.
Beth Oppenheim, a researcher at the European Council on Foreign Relations, argued that Israel has become so politically polarised that a violent reaction from one side could follow regardless of whether Netanyahu remains in office.
“There are enormous existential questions about the future of the country at stake in this election,” she said.
Oppenheim also warned of a genuine possibility of confrontation and civil unrest between religious and secular Israelis.
Haredi Conscription Crisis Fuels Confrontation
The increasingly contentious issue of military conscription is already producing confrontations between Israeli authorities and ultra-Orthodox communities.
This week, 42 Haredi men were arrested at Ben Gurion Airport on allegations of evading military service.
Earlier this month, widespread rioting erupted in Modi’in after military police attempted to arrest a suspected draft evader.
The conscription dispute has become particularly explosive in the period following 7 October, during which Israeli reservists have routinely been required to serve more than 100 days annually.
The resulting resentment has begun to reshape traditional divisions within Israeli party politics.
All of Netanyahu’s principal political opponents, including two senior former generals, have adopted firm positions in favour of compelling Haredi men to serve in the military.
However, in Bnei Brak, a predominantly ultra-Orthodox city near Tel Aviv, young men facing possible conscription have warned that attempts to enforce military service could trigger serious unrest.
“If the military police come here and try to take men out of the religious schools, there will be an explosion,” Gavriel Weinberg told The Telegraph.
“I’m 26 years old, I have two children, and I study the Torah. It won’t work.”
A 19-year-old identified as Israel expressed similar defiance.
“They sent me draft papers, but I ignored them, and I’m not worried about it,” he said.
The resistance illustrates the extent to which the Haredi community’s religious commitments have brought it into direct confrontation with the state’s military requirements.
Settler Violence in the West Bank Creates Another Internal Flashpoint
While religious conscription dominates one side of Israel’s internal crisis, escalating settler violence in the occupied West Bank has created another source of political confrontation.
Last week, violence by Israeli settlers reached a level that became increasingly difficult for Israeli authorities to ignore.
Heidi Levine, a photojournalist working for The Washington Post, was severely beaten by settlers in an attack that nearly cost her a finger.
The following day, a delegation of European diplomats was subjected to a similar attack in the occupied Palestinian territories.
A 78-year-old mayor from a small French town was also reportedly beaten with an iron bar.
Ten settlers were eventually arrested, but only after the US ambassador publicly raised concerns on social media, according to the account.
The incidents contributed to the impression that settler violence was becoming increasingly difficult for Israeli authorities to control.
In Israel’s relatively liberal urban centres, particularly Tel Aviv, Haifa and Herzliya, middle-class Israelis have reacted to these developments with anger and alarm.
Many regard the growing influence of ultra-Orthodox communities and nationalist settlers as a direct challenge to what they consider Israel’s national interests.
Their grievances extend across two issues: the refusal of substantial numbers of Haredi men to serve in the military, and the damage that escalating settler violence is inflicting on Israel’s international reputation.
Both communities, meanwhile, are perceived by their secular critics as benefiting from increasing government support.
The prospect of another Netanyahu-led government following Tuesday’s election has prompted some Israelis to consider leaving the country permanently.
Others anticipate the return of mass demonstrations similar to those that swept Israel in 2023, when hundreds of thousands protested Netanyahu’s attempts to weaken the judiciary.
A separate protest movement subsequently emerged under the slogan “Bring Them Home”, demanding that the return of Israeli captives be prioritised over the military objective of defeating Hamas.
These movements exposed divisions over the direction of the Israeli government and the priorities guiding its military campaign.
New West Bank Settlements Reflect the Ambitions of Israel’s Religious Right
During the closing months of the election campaign, The Telegraph visited Israeli settlement communities that have become central to the country’s ideological struggle.
On a hilltop between Jerusalem and Hebron, 13 religious nationalist Jewish families, accompanied by supporters, celebrated the formal inauguration of a new Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank.
The settlement was named Gad Natan.
Shovav Rapoport, whose father was born in Cardiff, Britain, where members of his family still live, described the expansion of settlement construction as the movement’s principal challenge.
“The biggest challenge is to keep building. We have to continue,” he said.
Rapoport indicated that he might vote for Bezalel Smotrich, the finance minister and leader of the Religious Zionism party, or alternatively for Netanyahu’s Likud party.
Since 2022, Smotrich has used his executive powers to transform the development and expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
The settlement inauguration also featured Orit Strock, a minister from the Religious Zionist movement responsible for settlement affairs, who spoke from the podium about the need to abolish the Oslo Accords.
Among those attending was Dvir Glasser, a 28-year-old school counsellor who said he was likely to support Smotrich because he agreed with his proposals for the “transfer” of Palestinians from the West Bank.
Glasser took out his phone and opened Google’s Gemini chatbot.
“You know, I just asked Gemini, ‘What should we do about the Palestinians?’ But Gemini is far too lenient! They hate us,” he said.
Asked whether Palestinians should be expelled, he replied that he would prefer them to leave voluntarily.
“Should they be deported? We would prefer that they choose to leave themselves. We will support that,” he said.
The remarks reveal the political ideas circulating among sections of the Israeli religious nationalist movement, where proposals for removing Palestinians from their land are increasingly discussed openly.
Could a Government Crackdown on Settlers Trigger Israeli Violence?
Gadi Eisenkot, the former military commander seeking to challenge Netanyahu, has pledged to confront what he describes as “Jewish terrorism” in the occupied West Bank.
However, incidents during the summer suggest that efforts to dismantle illegal settlement outposts or restrain violent settlers could lead to direct confrontation between Israeli forces and settler communities.
One example was the episode described as the “siege of Qusra”.
During the incident, violent settlers appeared capable of defending their positions and deterring Israeli soldiers from removing illegal settlement outposts.
The confrontation suggested that any coordinated government campaign against such settlements could rapidly escalate into internal Israeli violence.
Last week, military sources said the Israeli army was reinforcing its presence in the West Bank.
The deployment was intended to guard against an escalation in settler violence and the accelerated construction of illegal settlement outposts.
According to the account, settlers could attempt to establish additional outposts to obstruct any future government seeking to restrict settlement expansion.
The possibility of Israeli soldiers being ordered to confront ideologically committed settlers represents another potential flashpoint in an increasingly divided society.
Ben Gvir’s Political Base Embraces Hardline Policies Against Palestinians
Several days later, at a modern warehouse venue in Tel Aviv’s port district, the question of removing Palestinians from their land resurfaced among a younger audience.
The occasion was a question-and-answer session with Itamar Ben Gvir, leader of the Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) party and national security minister in Netanyahu’s government.
Ben Gvir is a religious nationalist whose political ideas draw upon those of Meir Kahane, the radical rabbi whose Kach party was barred from Israeli elections in 1992 on grounds of incitement to racism.
The United States subsequently designated Kach as a terrorist organisation.
At the Tel Aviv event, Ben Gvir received an enthusiastic welcome as he boasted about the harsher conditions imposed on Palestinian prisoners.
He did not discuss all his more unusual proposals, including an unsuccessful effort to have crocodiles deployed around a prison.
Nor did he focus on the number of firearms whose distribution to Israeli settlers he had authorised.
Ben Gvir has also publicised videos in which he appears mocking Palestinian prisoners inside their cells.
Before he appeared on stage, his spokesperson approached a small group of international journalists and made clear that the minister had no interest in speaking to them.
She said he was unconcerned about their opinions.
“His priority is the Israelis in that room,” she explained.
Nearly all the other party leaders had largely avoided foreign media during the election campaign.
However, the open disregard shown by Ben Gvir and Smotrich towards international opinion marked a distinction between the religious nationalist right and more traditional, non-religious nationalist politicians.
Both ministers are subject to British sanctions.
Unlike the religious nationalist leadership, elements of the secular nationalist right remain more cautious about the international consequences of Israeli government policies.
Liberal Zionists Face a Choice Between Political Resistance and Emigration
For liberal Zionists, the ideological successors of David Ben-Gurion and the Labour movement that established Israel, the approaching election has produced a mixture of hope and apprehension.
Many fear that another government dominated by the religious nationalist right could fundamentally alter the country’s political character.
Among wealthier liberal Israelis, conversations about emigrating have become increasingly common.
An opinion poll conducted by Kan News in August found that 12 per cent of Israelis said the election result would influence their decision on whether to leave the country.
The same survey found that approximately one-third of respondents knew someone who had emigrated during the previous two years.
These findings point to concerns extending beyond ordinary electoral dissatisfaction.
For some Israelis, the election is being viewed as a decision about whether they can continue living under the political and social system that may emerge.
Oppenheim, from the European Council on Foreign Relations, suggested that Israel could look substantially different after October 2026.
Many Israelis, she said, were waiting to see what happened before making decisions about their future.
A substantial wave of emigration following the election would not be surprising, she suggested.
Even Israel’s Far Right Is Divided
Whether the election produces mass demonstrations, civil disorder or an increase in emigration, the underlying divisions between Israel’s nationalist right and liberal centre are already visible.
However, those divisions do not simply separate religious conservatives from secular liberals.
Israel’s far-right political camp is itself deeply fractured.
The question of whether ultra-Orthodox Haredi men should be compelled to join the Israeli military has generated considerable resentment among religious nationalists, many of whom support military service and resent exemptions enjoyed by other religious communities.
That disagreement places two politically influential religious constituencies on opposing sides of one of the country’s most contentious domestic issues.
The resulting tensions complicate Netanyahu’s efforts to maintain a governing coalition that depends on competing religious and nationalist factions.
They also illustrate the broader challenge confronting Israel: a society divided not only over political leadership and the occupation of Palestinian territory, but over military obligations, religious authority, state identity and the future direction of the country itself.
The alleged CIA assessment remains unverified, and the prospect of civil war is not an established outcome. Nevertheless, the religious, ideological and political disputes documented by The Telegraph show why the possibility of serious internal confrontation has become a subject of discussion among analysts, Israeli officials and ordinary citizens.
