Israeli Elections: Beyond Identity Politics to Policy Accountability
Translated & summarized from Zman Yisrael by baba
Israeli elections are increasingly becoming identity-based rather than policy-based, according to an analysis of the Israeli Democracy Index 2025. A majority of Israelis feel the current government has failed in security and welfare, yet many parties seeking to replace it advocate similar policies. The article questions whether voters are seeking genuine change or just a different presentation of the same approach, critiquing key political figures and their platforms. It emphasizes the need to evaluate policy effectiveness over tribal affiliation to achieve real progress.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Israeli elections are shifting from policy evaluation to identity politics, undermining accountability.
- A majority of Israelis believe the current government has failed in security and welfare.
- Many opposition parties propose policies similar to the current government, hindering real change.
- Voters must question if current policies truly enhance security or if alternatives are needed.
- Genuine change requires evaluating policy direction, not just replacing political figures.
The upcoming Israeli elections should function as a public referendum on the government's performance, a core tenet of democracy known as the "voter's judgment." However, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other populists have transformed elections into demographic surveys, shifting the focus from effective governance to identity and tribal affiliation. This tactic undermines accountability, as voters are encouraged to align with a group rather than evaluate a government's successes or failures.
The Israeli Democracy Index 2025 survey highlights this issue, revealing that a majority of Israelis believe the current government has failed to ensure security and welfare. Specifically, over half feel the state is not adequately addressing security concerns, and about three-quarters believe it is failing in welfare provision. Even within the right-wing political camp, significant percentages express dissatisfaction with the government's performance on these fronts.
The article argues that while a majority may wish to replace the current government, simply changing faces without altering policies will not bring about genuine change. Many parties in the proposed "change bloc" advocate for the same policies: continued conflict with Palestinians and Iranians, maintaining security zones in Syria and Lebanon, expanding settlements, and preserving a neoliberal economic model at the expense of the welfare state.
It questions whether these policies truly enhance security or if alternative approaches, such as pursuing diplomatic agreements and adhering to international law regarding settlements, would be more beneficial. The piece critiques prominent political figures, suggesting that many do not represent a true departure from current policies. For instance, Naftali Bennett's past actions and economic views are compared to Bezalel Smotrich's, and Avigdor Lieberman's security stances and past legal issues are scrutinized. Yair Lapid is described as having weakened the left and shifted votes rightward, with his opposition leadership also deemed ineffective. Gadi Eisenkot is presented as a less polarizing figure, but his right-wing party and commitment to a "Zionist government" excluding Arab citizens are noted as potential obstacles. The article concludes by posing whether Israelis seek actual change or merely a more palatable version of the status quo, highlighting Yair Golan as a potential proponent of a different direction.
Dr. Dror Fietelson, a computer science professor at the Hebrew University, is presented as someone who aims to counter simplistic and biased public discourse by presenting data and challenging unsubstantiated claims. He believes a better future for Israel is possible.
Mentioned
