This paper examines the political implications of communitarian theories, using the Israeli Settlers as a case study. Focusing on the thought of Charles Taylor and Alasdair MacIntyre it strives to show that there are distinct similarities between these philosophers’ ontological premises and those of the Israeli Settlers, concluding that the communitarian political model is not necessarily congruent with the modern democratic order. The paper begins by presenting Taylor’s and MacIntyre’s ontological premises. It argues that the two philosophers base their critique of liberal thought on similar perceptions of the modern subject, which consist of two competing manifestations: firstly, the atomist subject, who defies ideals that exceeds her own self-interests, and as a result lacks commitment to any moral idea as such, her life rendered shallow and meaningless. Secondly, the communitarian subject, who shapes her identity through a dialogue with the social communities she is embedded in, and, being committed to her community’s set of values and virtues, achieves authentic moral self-realization. Both Taylor and MacIntyre conclude that a better political order should strive to reflect the particular ‘shared understandings’ of its community members. Hence they defy the moral neutrality of the liberal political sphere, arguing that modern politics ought to reintroduce fundamental moral questions to the life of the modern individual, and thus reawaken her communitarian qualities. Both claim that the political remedies they offer will solve the malaises of modern political order, mainly its alienated nature and lack of democratic participation. However, I would argue that their ontological premises could also lead to highly anti-democratic conclusions, especially in light of their originators’ rather obscure definitions of the community. In order to demonstrate this claim, the paper proceeds to compare between Taylor’s and MacIntyre’s thought and the Israeli Settlers’ worldview. This comparison is conducted through a text analysis of the Settlers’ periodical Nekudah, focusing on the year 1995, prior to the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Exploring the Settlers’ stands in regards to personal autonomy, community and democratic procedures, it reaches the conclusion that the Settlers too present a stratified perception of the self, which echoes that of Taylor and MacIntyre: thus, parallel to the ‘atomist subject’ they portray the secular modern Israeli, and blame her for the deterioration of modern Israeli society; and in contrast they extol the ‘faithful self’, the Pioneer Settler, who is committed to the Jewish nation’s common good, thus alluding to Taylor and MacIntyre’s ‘communitarian self’. Nevertheless, as the third part of the paper demonstrates, contrary to MacIntyre’s and Taylor’s predictions, the Settlers’ ontological premises lead to a clearly anti-democratic critique of Israeli politics: in the name of ‘the Jewish conceptions of the common good’ they demand the exclusion of Israeli-Palestinians from the political sphere. Moreover, the Settlers’ version of the ‘faithful self’, by being so committed to her own set of values, justifies a defiance of the democratic vote once it repudiates the Settlers’ shared set of values. I therefore conclude that the Settlers’ political vision serves as a concrete manifestation of an anti-democratic potential embedded in the communitarian image of the self, a conclusion which calls for a more careful definition of the communitarian philosophers’ liberal commitments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]