In the run-up to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the U.S. Congress, many pundits have focused on how Netanyahu turned Israel into a partisan issue in Washington. Some like to talk about Netanyahu’s terrible relationship with President Obama and his disrespect of internal American politics. Others claim thatNetanyahu and the Republican Party are attempting to sabotage Obama’s foreign policy on Iran, a dynamic that creates a partisan split with respect to Israel, as well. These arguments are surely true; Netanyahu is putting Israel in a difficult position. But this is not only a conversation about politics, it’s also about policy. And while support for Israel’s right to defend its citizens should remain bipartisan, many issues within Israel are by their very nature partisan. Moreover, how to achieve Israel’s security, and what a secure Israel means is also intrinsicallya partisan question.

Israel is in the thick of a very close election in which Iran is by no means the most important issue concerning Israeli voters. Netanyahu’s rightwing government has stances and a track record on issues which Israelis feel every day, and are much more real to them than an abstract nuclear threat which might become real in a few years. What’s really on the minds of most Israelis are actually a set of issues that every progressive in the world holds dear: economic inequality.

Median income in Israel remains almost unchanged over the last decade, even during times of growth. Government services are eroding. Parent’s financial involvement in our children’s education has grown by 66 percent in the last five years. The price of housing is unbearable. This is what brought half a million people to the streets of Israel’s cities in protest just three years ago (there has never been a protest on Iran in Israel). Not only is the middle class in Israel going through a rough time, but the poorer sectors of Israeli society are suffering. The OECD recently declared Israel the country with the highest poverty rate in the Western world, and our social security department recently released a report that one out of every three children in Israel is poor.

During these times, special interest groups are thriving, with our top 1 percent receiving considerable tax benefits, and West Bank settler lobbies diverting public funds into their institutions. There are still substantial wage gaps between men and women in the workplace. We are also going through an intense period of discoveries regarding corruption in state ministries, and right wing members of parliament constantly find themselves under police investigations. The Israeli left’s demand for increased transparency in government institutions, especially regarding diversions of funds, is a hot election topic.

There are also important civil issues being discussed in Israel. There are no civil marriages in the country—all couples need to marry through the rabbinate, leaving tens of thousands of couples without the ability to marry in Israel. This, of course, means that LGBT couples have no chance of getting married. Minorities are increasingly marginalized by bills proposed by Netanyahu and his coalition. Religion has a creeping influence over Israel’s military and education system, giving what many argue is too much power to the religious right.

All of this doesn’t even take into account Israel’s ongoing military rule over the Palestinians, which represents a huge gap between left and right in Israel. It is very clear that a vote for Netanyahu means a continuation of this status quo. It means growing investment in settlements, and a stronger presence of the settlement lobby in government.

In short, a lot is going on here that has nothing to do with Iran.

All of the above does not mean that Israel is not a democracy, or that we are on the verge of ceasing to exist. It does mean that we are a real country with real problems and real consequences at stake in the coming election. And while Netanyahu is Israel’s chief spokesman, he is also a politician, and one who is running a campaign, by, among other things, rallying support from “both sides of the aisle” in the U.S. to show Israelis his power in the world. To put it bluntly:Netanyahu’s visit to the U.S. is partly a cynical tactic aimed at positioning himself as a strong leader in the eyes of Israelis. It’s not about Obama, or Iran—it’s about the Israeli voter. Members of Congress need to think where this places them.

This is why the question of American progressive response to Netanyahu’s speech becomes so important. American progressives have to understand that there are many in Israel who share their values. But when they stand up and applaud Netanyahu on Iran, particularly during an election period in Israel, they are also applauding the crushing of organized labor in Israel. When they applaud his over-the-top rhetoric comparing Hamas to ISIS, they applaud the weakening of LGBT rights in Israel. When they applaud his constant references to the Holocaust, they applaud perpetual military occupation and denial of human rights.

That’s not to say American progressives need to be overly involved in supporting our progressive causes in Israel. They have a lot to deal with in their own country, and Israelis need to be capable of changing the political dynamic in Israel on our own. At the very least, though, they should try not to hurt our efforts, which is what they’ll be doing by applauding Netanyahu.

Mikhael Manekin is the managing director at Molad, The Center for the Renewal of Israeli Democracy.