וַיִּרְא֥וּ בְנֵֽי־בִנְיָמִ֖ן כִּ֣י נִגָּ֑פוּ וַיִּתְּנ֨וּ אִֽישׁ־יִשְׂרָאֵ֤ל מָקוֹם֙ לְבִנְיָמִ֔ן כִּ֤י בָטְחוּ֙ אֶל־הָ֣אֹרֵ֔ב אֲשֶׁר־שָׂ֖מוּ אֶל־הַגִּבְעָֽה׃
Then the Benjaminites realized that they were routed. Now those on Israel’s side had yielded ground to the Benjaminites, for they relied on the ambush that they had laid against Gibeah.
(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation—an adaptation of the NJPS translation—showing a slight modification made in October 2023. Before accounting for this rendering, I will analyze the plain sense of the Hebrew term containing אִישׁ.)
When a referring expression includes אִישׁ in construct with a group name, such as אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל֙, our noun marks its referent’s defining participation in the depicted situation. Here, in the context of intergroup hostilities, it labels the assembled militia in terms of its role as a party to the conflict with Benjamin. The militia’s members are construed as a unit—hence the singular noun. This usage regards them as one of the two opposing sides, as warring parties. This is one of the instances where a “collective” usage of אִישׁ is clearly evident from the three plural governing verbs. On the meaning of this conventional usage in the context of hostilities, see further my comment at Josh 10:24.
As for rendering into English, the NJPS ‘the Israelites’ recognizes a collective usage, but without a situational orientation. See my comment at Josh 10:24. Meanwhile, the fact that women are not in view can go without saying, because it is self-evident from the military context.