Israeli Parties Divided on State's Jewish and Democratic Character

The fundamental tension between Israel's Jewish and democratic identities, a debate dating back to the nation's founding, is once again at the forefront of political discourse ahead of the upcoming elections. Parties were polled on their stances regarding the legal status of the Declaration of Independence, potential amendments to the Nation-State Law, and how to navigate conflicts between the state's Jewish character and its democratic principles.

While some parties, like Yesh Atid, view the Declaration of Independence as a foundational document whose commitment can be expressed through a reference clause, they propose a joint Jewish-Arab team to examine amendments to the Nation-State Law. They advocate for a "both and" approach, emphasizing both Jewish and democratic values.

HaBayit HaYehudi, running with the party Zehut, stated that the Declaration of Independence should be the opening chapter of Israel's constitution, alongside a Basic Law on Legislation to clarify the powers of government branches. They stressed that Zionist success stemmed from unity despite differences.

Israel Beiteinu demands a full constitution to regulate government relations and guarantee individual rights, including freedom from religious coercion, with the Declaration of Independence as its normative basis. They propose the constitution be approved by referendum.

Blue and White believes a binding constitutional amendment requires broad national consensus, starting with a Basic Law on Legislation. They argue that conflicts between core values should be managed through clear rules governing the branches of government, not by permanently prioritizing one principle over another.

The Democrats aim to make the Declaration of Independence's values a binding constitutional basis, ensuring equality, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. Otzma Yehudit, however, opposes giving the Declaration legal force, calling it a declarative and historical document, not a constitution. They assert that Israel's primary identity is as the sovereign homeland of the Jewish people, with democracy as its optimal governing system.

Religious Zionism views the Declaration as historical, not legal, fearing that granting it legal status would empower judges. They see no contradiction between the Nation-State Law and equality, which they believe the courts can already uphold. Zehut, running with Religious Zionism, stated unequivocally that Israel is a Jewish state.

The Joint List supports enshrining democratic values and human rights in a constitution, but opposes any document that doesn't guarantee full civil and national equality for the Arab population, asserting that Jewish self-determination cannot come at the expense of the state's democratic character. Ra'am supports giving the Declaration binding legal status and amending the Nation-State Law to explicitly include equality for all citizens, stating that Israel's Jewish identity does not justify discrimination against Arab citizens.

Likud, Shas, United Torah Judaism, and the Tzahal Reservists-Zalicha and Amcha Israel parties chose not to respond to the inquiries.