Israeli politics has undergone radical changes as a result of both geopolitical contingencies (i.e. the uncertainty regarding the Two-States' solution) and domestic developments (e.g. political reforms, social welfare, ethno-social cleavages etc.). These have influenced Israel's "state of mind" (in both terms of diffuse national sentiments and ideological frame). What does the latter mean when applied to Israeli politics and how does it influence Israeli democracy are the main questions this paper wishes to critically discuss. In order to do so, we employ to the Israeli "state of mind" as a conceptual container able to delineate the erosion of some topics and the revival of other salient trends in the arena of Israeli politics. Furthermore, the term ''state of mind'' reflects, to some extent, the identity of political actors, whether individually or collectively. Certainly it is important to state that whereas a "state of mind" presents transient features (in terms of emotions and content); an ''identity'' comprises more solid and structured elements. However, while the latter is tangible with difficulty beyond the observable actions deriving from it, the former is easily contextualized in time and space; a sort of segment of the larger national identity. Hence, dealing with Israeli politics through the lenses of identity and state of mind is a real challenge. In order to succeed, the paper deconstructs this conceptual triad by selecting three aspects which represent current nationally-related trends: 1) political discourse and legitimacy; 2) the perception of Israel's national and social security; 3) antagonistic leadership. The three aspects seem to have become key-elements in Israeli politics, while democratic rule has been continuously challenged by both foreign and domestic difficulties. These three multifaceted features deserve critical discussion based on the dynamics surrounding the electoral event of 17 March 2015; a magnifying glass that formalizes and translates the former into politically democratic choice. The empirical evidence is provided by a process-tracing methodological approach, collecting documentation of a wide range of media coverage of public events and political statements, both at the national and international levels, through which the sociopolitical dynamics prior\post elections were traced, summarized and scrutinized.
Key-words: Israel, state-of-mind, identity, elections, security, discourse, leadership.
