This week I’ve been in Israel, observing first-hand the continued campaign against Hamas in Gaza against the backdrop of the threat of escalation in the north. The delegation which I was accompanying, which consisted of senior military figures from around the world, met with both Benjamin Netanyahu and the defence minister Yoav Gallant yesterday. This came at a particularly combustible time; a well-publicised row between the two men over the wisdom of withdrawal from Gaza last week had combined with the execution of six hostages to produce furious anti-Bibi rallies across the country.

It is this overheated rhetoric that is tearing the country apart. Those who argue that the IDF must not pull out of the Philadelphi corridor – a narrow strip of land along the frontier between Gaza and Egypt that has long been the main site of smuggling tunnels – are shamefully accused of wishing death upon the hostages, as this would be the price of a deal. No less shamefully, those who insist that releasing the captives should be the priority are smeared as agents of Hamas. The bad blood is poisoning the body politic, making Israel look vulnerable in the eyes of its enemies.

Netanyahu is a stay-in-Philadelphi guy, while Gallant wants to get the hostages out. As a measure of the war of words that has taken place, the prime minister has accused his defence secretary of pushing an “anti-Israel narrative”, while Gallant has reportedly remarked that Netanyahu could make any deal he wants, “including one to kill the hostages”. To suggest that temperatures are running high would be an understatement.

Part of the problem is that according to recent polls, 70 per cent of the public don’t trust Netanyahu. So when he argues that Israeli troops must remain in Philadelphi to ensure that Hamas never regains the ability to rearm by way of smuggling from Egypt, many suspect that he is actually looking after his own political interests. The far-right firebrands who are propping up his coalition government, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich – who have openly called for a reoccupation of Gaza – have vowed to resign if he pulls out of Philadelphi. People say this is all about him.

Of course, the inverse argument may also apply. Leftwingers have been taking to the streets against Netanyahu for years, long before the war, even before he attempted to introduce provocative judicial reforms after he confirmed his hardline coalition last year. Given their longstanding antipathy, some conservatives argue – rightly or wrongly – that the other side is only insisting that the IDF must withdraw from Philadelphi in the hope of causing Netanyahu’s government to collapse.

As Israel faces an existential crisis, this resentment and distrust is a deeply serious matter. As Abraham Lincoln observed after accepting the Republican nomination as senator of Illinois in 1858, “a house divided against itself cannot stand”. Never has this been more comprehensively proven than in the Jewish state, when unprecedented demonstrations against the government set the stage for that depraved incursion by Hamas. Those who know their history look back to the time of the second Temple and recall that Jewish divisions did for them then, and on several times in subsequent centuries.

But aside from the war of words, a serious dilemma confronts Israeli decision makers. At first glance, it looks binary: withdraw from Philadelphi and get some hostages home, remain there and they are never seen again. There is some very broad truth in this, though there are many complicating details, including the notion that the IDF could return to the corridor after an agreed six-week pause in fighting, or the possibility of Hamas changing the terms of the deal anyway.

There are other dimensions to this dilemma, however. Most significant is the situation in the north. For ten months, about 70,000 displaced Israelis have hunkered in hotels in the centre of the country and the south as Hezbollah rains hundreds of rockets on their homes. The Lebanese militia has suggested that it would hold its fire if a deal was reached to end the war in Gaza. Given the degradation of Israel’s armed forces in terms of fatigue and ammunition and the damage the war has done to the economy – most of the country’s younger men have abandoned their jobs for months to serve in uniform – Israel desperately needs time to regroup, resupply and recover before potentially addressing the threat from Lebanon.

This is part of the reason why Gallant is pushing a deal, even at the cost of withdrawing from Philadelphi. The threat may be mitigated via Egyptian security guarantees or even a reduced IDF presence in part of the corridor. But ultimately, he is keenly aware of the greater threat from Hezbollah, which holds a stock of up to 150,000 missiles, a larger arsenal than many countries, and is funded and directed by the regime in Iran.

Immediately after the October 7 pogroms, Gallant argued in favour of a surprise attack on Hezbollah before Hamas was taken on. The idea was vetoed by Netanyahu with support from the Americans and other members of the war cabinet. But it underlines how much more deadly is Hezbollah – which is able to reach every inch of Israel with its rockets – than Hamas.

Ultimately, this all boils down to one question. Do you expend more blood and treasure trying to deliver the coup de grâce to Hamas before turning your guns north, or do you leave them gasping for breath, get some hostages home and start planning to defeat Hezbollah? Do you, in other words, save some lives now or perhaps more later? With its emphasis on the lives of individuals in Gaza, the debate cuts to the heart of a deep cultural instinct to never leave anybody behind. These are the gravest possible national questions and different people will naturally hold different views. The tragedy is that Israeli society is so full of anguish, rage and recrimination that it is tearing itself apart at the same time.

This column was published on Jake Wallis Simons’ Substack