Israel is approaching another election, and once again the political temperature is rising. Israelis will argue about Benjamin Netanyahu, the opposition, security, religion, the judicial system, the future of Gaza, Judea and Samaria, and almost every other issue imaginable.

That is democracy. Israelis have every right to have those arguments.

But those of us who advocate for Israel abroad should ask ourselves a different question: Are we defending Israel, or are we defending our preferred version of Israel?

The distinction matters enormously.

The recent move of prominent Arab Israeli advocate Yoseph Haddad toward politics makes that question particularly relevant. Reports this week indicate that a new party called Israel Be’ometz, or Brave Israel, has been registered on his behalf, while discussions about possible political partners continue. Haddad has publicly acknowledged for months that he was considering entering politics.

I want to make something clear from the beginning. This is not an attack on Haddad’s right to enter politics. He is an Israeli citizen, an IDF veteran who was wounded during the Second Lebanon War, and a man who has spent years publicly defending Israel. He has every democratic right to stand for election, establish a party and try to convince Israelis to vote for him.

But his transition from advocacy to politics illustrates something I have believed for a long time.

Advocacy and politics are not the same profession.

In fact, Haddad himself once understood this dilemma remarkably well. In an earlier interview, when discussing offers from political parties, he explained that publicly identifying with one political camp would undermine his ability to represent Israel more broadly.

That observation was correct.

Once an advocate becomes a politician, everything changes.

A politician must choose sides. A politician must compete. A politician must attack opponents, defend positions, negotiate coalitions and convince voters that his or her political vision is better than another Israeli’s political vision.

An advocate for Israel has a fundamentally different responsibility.

Our job is not to tell Israelis how to vote.

Our job is to explain why Israel deserves to exist.

That principle has become increasingly important to me during years of advocacy. I have never believed that standing up for Israel should mean becoming a branch of Likud, the opposition, the religious parties, the secular movement, the Christian Zionist movement or any other political or religious camp.

Israel advocacy should not be about Bibi fans.

It should not be about Bibi haters.

It should not be about Christians trying to interpret Israel through Christianity, Muslims trying to interpret Israel through Islam, or secular activists deciding that Judaism should disappear from the story altogether.

And it should not become a personality contest between advocates competing over followers, television appearances, invitations, donations or recognition.

Israel is bigger than all of us.

I have sometimes disagreed strongly with Haddad’s style of advocacy. When he travelled to Auschwitz with a delegation of Arab Israelis and described the visit as making history, I personally disliked the framing. I have also experienced the frustrating side of the advocacy world myself. When I encountered serious problems with LinkedIn and reached out to him, I received no response.

Those experiences shaped my opinion, but they are not the reason for this article. Personal irritation should never determine someone’s political legitimacy, nor should it erase the work that person has done for Israel.

The larger issue is what advocacy is supposed to accomplish.

We desperately need to rethink it.

For years, Israel’s enemies have understood something that Israel’s supporters too often forget. Their message is incredibly simple. They repeat a handful of words endlessly. Apartheid. Genocide. Colonialism. Occupation. Settlers.

The accusations may be historically distorted, legally disputed or simply false, but repetition gives them enormous power.

Meanwhile, Israel’s supporters frequently spend their energy fighting among themselves.

One advocate is not sufficiently religious. Another is too religious. One supports Netanyahu. Another despises him. One supports annexation. Another supports separation. One thinks the government is too cautious. Another thinks it is too aggressive.

Before long, we are no longer advocating for Israel.

We are exporting Israel’s domestic political arguments to the rest of the world.

That is a serious strategic mistake.

Israel does not need millions of foreigners deciding which Israeli politician should become prime minister. Israelis are perfectly capable of making that decision themselves.

What Israel needs abroad are people willing to defend something far more fundamental.

The right of the Jewish people to live peacefully, securely and freely in their ancestral homeland, Eretz Israel.

That is the foundation.

We should talk about the extraordinary country that was built there. A country where Jews returned from Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, Ethiopia, the former Soviet Union and communities around the world. A country where Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouins, Circassians and others live within the same society.

We should talk about Israeli medicine, agriculture, science, technology and innovation.

We should explain Jewish history rather than allowing people to pretend that Jewish history began in 1948.

We should explain why Jerusalem, Hebron, Judea, Samaria, Safed and the Galilee appear throughout Jewish history long before the modern political conflict existed.

We should defend Israel when it is falsely accused, while retaining enough intellectual independence to recognize that defending a country does not require agreeing with every decision made by every government.

That last point is essential.

Supporting Israel does not require supporting Netanyahu.

Opposing Netanyahu does not require opposing Israel.

Being Christian is not the reason Israel has a right to exist.

Being Muslim does not invalidate someone’s ability to love Israel.

Being secular does not erase Jewish history.

And being Jewish does not require belonging to one particular political movement.

Perhaps some advocates eventually belong in politics. Haddad may discover that politics is exactly where he can contribute most effectively. If so, voters will judge him like every other candidate. His advocacy record can be part of that judgment, but it should not exempt him from political scrutiny.

Yet the moment an advocate crosses that line, the distinction should be acknowledged.

Because advocacy needs people standing outside that political battlefield as well.

People whose message remains the same regardless of who sits in the Prime Minister’s Office.

People who can say that they stand with Israel when the right governs and when the center governs, when they agree with Jerusalem and when they disagree with Jerusalem.

That is the advocacy movement I want to see.

Less ego.

Less political tribalism.

Less competition over who is the greatest defender of Israel.

More history. More facts. More strategy. More cooperation. More Israel.

Because ultimately this was never supposed to be about us.

It is about a small country carrying thousands of years of history, surrounded by enormous challenges, that has nevertheless built one of the most innovative and diverse societies in the world.

It is about the Jewish people’s right to self determination.

It is about their right to security.

It is about their right to live in their ancestral homeland without having to apologize for existing.

No more.

No less.