Israeli Parties Clash Over State Identity, Constitution, and Declaration of Independence

Israeli election campaigns have brought to the forefront a debate over the legal status of the Declaration of Independence, potential amendments to the Nation-State Law, and the balance between Israel's identity as a "Jewish state" and its democratic character. Parties are divided, with some advocating for a constitution based on the Declaration of Independence, while the far-right rejects granting it binding legal status, prioritizing the state's Jewish character.

The Telem party, led by Gadi Eisenkot, stated that recognizing the values of the Declaration of Independence would be a condition for forming a government post-election. However, they clarified this does not necessitate direct constitutional or legal status, suggesting instead a legal reference clause similar to "Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty." Telem also called for a joint committee to study amendments to the Nation-State Law and affirmed a stance of "both, Jewish and democratic, in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence."

The Yamina party, headed by Naftali Bennett, proposed the Declaration of Independence as the "opening chapter of Israel's constitution," defining Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people while ensuring social and political equality for all citizens. They also plan to enact a "Basic Law: Legislation" to define the powers of government branches.

Yisrael Beiteinu demanded a full constitution, including a charter of individual rights and freedom from religious coercion, with the Declaration of Independence as its normative basis. They intend for this constitution to replace existing basic laws and be put to a public referendum.

Blue and White, led by Benny Gantz, believes granting the Declaration binding constitutional status should be part of a broader, widely agreed-upon constitutional process. They prioritize enacting "Basic Law: Legislation" first and argue against permanently prioritizing either the Jewish or democratic character of the state, calling for checks and balances.

The Democratic party aims to make the Declaration's values a binding constitutional basis, guaranteeing equality, freedom of expression, and religion. They seek to establish "democratic values" as the state's constitutional foundation.

Otzma Yehudit rejected binding legal status for the Declaration, calling it a "declarative, historical, ethical, and foundational document, but a declaration, not a constitution." They emphasized that Israel was founded "first and foremost as the national and sovereign home of the Jewish people," viewing democracy as a method of governance rather than a national identity.

The Religious Zionism-Zehut alliance echoed this, deeming the Declaration historical, not legal. They warned against judicial overreach if it were given legal force and saw no conflict between the Nation-State Law and equality. Zehut leader Moshe Feiglin stated starkly, "The State of Israel is a Jewish state, period. There are not two principles at the same level here."

The Joint List supports a constitution enshrining democratic values and human rights for full equality but rejects any document that doesn't guarantee complete civil and national equality for Arab citizens. They stated that Jewish self-determination cannot come at the expense of the state's democratic character.

The United Arab List supports giving the Declaration binding legal status as a foundational document and amending the Nation-State Law to explicitly enshrine equality. They see no contradiction between Israel's identity as a Jewish nation-state and its democratic nature, asserting that Jewish identity should not justify discrimination against Arab citizens.

These differing party stances place the fundamental questions of state identity and constitutional rules at the center of the upcoming Knesset's political disputes, concerning the status of the Declaration of Independence, the Nation-State Law, and the principle of civil and national equality.