I hate to be a killjoy but a possibly flawed premise is the concept that smaller states on Rome's border could survive in the long-term, barring a much more powerful ally close at hand or powerful defenses and probably both. In the earlier days Rome had many client states on the shifting border yet ultimately all of them were absorbed. There was also the possibility of offending Rome, with Rhodes as the classic example.
Armenia had a strong military tradition, exceptionally rugged terrain, and Persian support on the border yet found it difficult to survive at times. Judea could not have had the second or third and the first would inevitably have reflected a smaller area/population base.
Even if we assume that the Jews somehow earn special favor from one emperor you still have a puny state of less than a million, perhaps far less, with Roman borders north and south, a series of Roman clients to the east and southeast, no allies within reach AND serving as the one great blot on Rome's utter control of the Mediterranean, said control being vital to Roman trade and commerce. Considering how the island of Britain wound up being conquered to give a dull and accidental emperor a bit of prestige...
As to population the entire Roman Empire is believed to have peaked at 60 million, with Egypt having between 20-25 percent of that total. Given the massive inherent advantage of the Nile River leading to easy population control and exploitation of wealth, Egypt has always dominated the region in population.
As an example, with all of the modern technology and oil wealth which might even out the situation, Egypt has almost twice the population of Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Jordan, the Palestinians, Iraq AND Saudi Arabia combined to this day.
In the halcyon days when conversion was common there may have been as many as five or six million Jews throughout the empire but one wonders how sincere many of them were and how many, having converted in living memory to Judaism, found Christianity more appealing. Also the number is probably wide open to interpretation and could be cut in half without any difficulty. Certainly the tiny Jewish state, comparable to the West Bank in size, couldn't have had more than one million people, probably far less.
Recall that the size of Roman client state was because Rome gave a large piece of land to expand the state. Then took it away soon afterwards.
One more plausible way might be to destroy the Hasmonean dynasty, the reputed family of Matthias and his son, Judah Maccabee. By any objective standard of power the revolt against the Seleucids was deranged and the success seen as divine support, leading to most unfortunate attitudes when another vastly more powerful empire(Rome) came along.
The Seleucids were not very powerful and were a dying empire facing not only a puny Jewish revolt but a vastly more powerful Parthian revolt.
The success of the Parthian revolt left the entire Seleucid Empire smaller than the former Parthian provinces, by the by. Not to mention that the Parthians only briefly stopped the pressure for more territory. With such events in the east it should be no surprise that other local revolts were able to succeed. Unfortunately religious fanatics convinced so many Jews that this was divine intervention rather than success due to the ruling empire being smashed by not one but two more powerful states(Rome AND Parthia).
Note also that what little the Seleucids did manage to send against them was impressive enough that the Hasmoneans considered survival to be miraculous.
If the Jews had simply waited and quietly armed another 10-15 years without the revolt it is likely they would have regained a state by default.
So...if a lucky band of Seleucids were to kill Matthias and all of his sons and key followers early on, might the result be a more prudent Jewish society?