Many have been talking in recent years about the loss of the left's path.
Not only because of the electoral deterioration of the Labor Party in its various incarnations, but also because of the narrowing of its range of values and its ideological priorities.
Since the collapse of the Oslo Accords, no new overall concept has been built.
And although social and economic statements are also heard here and there, it seems that all that remains of the same path is a struggle to finance sex reassignment surgeries and the visit of the living and the dead to the Muqata.
The ideological change that took place at that time on the right, was almost reversed. The right, which has always been asked "but what is the alternative", which used to present itself as opposed to the left's proposals, understands a new paradigm in everything related to the Palestinian issue, foreign relations, security and the economy of the State of Israel. And as the basket of values on the right grew, so did the electoral map.
However, with the formation of the 36th government, it seems that there are those who are trying to reduce the demarcation boundaries of what is perceived and defined as "right".
Ideological and practical reduction that is a mirror image of Meretz.
The right-wing suddenly returns to the borders of opposition to Oslo and a Palestinian state, only.
And accordingly, if settlements are not evacuated, if there is only another symbolic visit to Ramallah - everything is fine.
If there is no political catastrophe now - all is well.
When Bennett did not talk about the Palestinians at the UN, he briefed behind the scenes that he was doing so precisely because he refused to define Israeliness out of the prism of referring to the Palestinians. Certainly not worrying.
It is quite clear why the right and new hope produce this discourse.
But it is not at all obvious why there are still "right-wing" voices in the media and the local political system joining this?
Under this ideological umbrella, it no longer matters what the broad set of values is and government policy as a whole: in the Negev, in law, in the economy, in immigration, in foreign relations - the (ideological) world has become so small and so limited. Our map is so narrow that only one issue enters its gates and is also in the most superficial sense. The rest of the ideology, all the other values of the national camp - are left out.
Even if a government has been formed with all the left-wing parties and with Knesset members who see terrorists as martyrs; Even if the law of nationality loses all its essence with the equality clause; Even if the Basic Law on Immigration is converted into Palestinian family reunification policy in Judea and Samaria and Israel; The Islamic Movement's leadership, even if hard-earned economic achievements over the years could be harmed; And above all, no territories ("my settlement status" version) do not care.
Years of preaching morality from the right, have educated the liberal national right, which has a clear ideological hierarchy.
The territories, the settlements, the settlement, are the certificate of integrity, training, the stamp of ideological validity.
It was not just a question of who was more radical on the scale of adherence to the country, it was a moral matter of who was more worthy.
North of Ofra, a smaller settlement than Yitzhar - and your place on the higher scale of values.
A certificate of appreciation from the Samaria Regional Council, was a coveted paper.
Even today, and always, the issue of settlement is important and central to the national camp, but hoisting this flag in the narrow, and almost technical way in which it happens today, and at the cost of censoring an entire national values world, is a double-edged sword.
When the Jewish and democratic character of the entire State of Israel changes - not Yitzhar, Itamar or Eviatar - they will remain intact.
The real right-wing parties in the national camp have an important ideological task: to expand and strengthen their national ideological foundations.
