Neither Right nor Left: The October 27 elections are about the question of who we are | Dr. Nissim Katz
The election campaign has turned into a war of identities. Most candidates do not present work plans, but focus on proving their tribal affiliation.
October 27 is marked on the political calendar as a day of dramatic national decision. However, a citizen who looks for the familiar debate at the ballot box regarding tax rates, housing prices, or the right way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may discover that these issues have been pushed to the sidelines.
The current election campaign is no longer about the question of "how" — that is, in what way it is correct to manage the state and its resources — but about the question of "what," which concerns its very essence and existence. More than ever, the elections will be an arena of frontal collision in the built-in tension between defining Israel as Jewish and defining it as democratic.
In the past, Right and Left clashed sharply over the borders of the state, the future of the settlements, and the method of fighting terror. On the economic level, the debate moved between social-democratic concepts and a capitalist vision. These were sharp and deep ideological disagreements, but they were conducted under a common premise regarding the rules of the democratic game and a broad consensus on the basic character of the state.
Today, the rules of the game themselves have become the subject of the main debate. The elections act as a mirror placed in front of Israeli society, and it reflects a deep and worrying identity rift. On one side of the barricade stands the camp that raises the banner of "statism" (mamlakhtiyut). For it, democracy is not limited to a mere technical procedure of realizing the will of the majority at the ballot box, but constitutes an all-encompassing essence based on full civil equality, protection of the minority, absolute independence of the judicial system, and the preservation of liberal values.
In the eyes of its supporters, Israel must be an enlightened Western democracy, where Jewish identity provides cultural and national depth, but does not dictate the way of life or the structure of government and law.
On the other side stands the camp that seeks to emphasize the Jewish component and place it above the democratic one. For large parts of it, the supreme and leading value is religious, halachic, or national-particularistic identity. From their point of view, democracy is a worthy tool for expressing the will of the majority, but it is subject to what they perceive as the eternity of Israel, as the tradition of the fathers, as a historical right.
This clash turns politics from a substantive arena into a personal and existential struggle. When we argue about value-based identity — there is no room for compromise. This is a cruel zero-sum game: if the state is perceived as "more Jewish," it is experienced by one side as "less democratic," and vice versa.
The election campaign has turned into a war of identities (Identity Politics) in its deepest and most divisive sense. Most candidates no longer bother to present detailed work plans, but focus on proving their tribal affiliation. The only question that remains is whether you belong to the liberal-secular camp, or to the conservative-religious-traditional camp.
The elections are not about managing the state, but about defining its face and image for generations. The voter will vote for the reflection of their identity, which will determine the policy, and the question "who are we" will leave the question "what will we do" in the shadows.
The author is an expert in communications and politics.
