In the past, the unity governments have seen a special contribution in their lives • Not so today • In the current crisis, as in previous crises, Netanyahu gives a lesson in leadership • Interpretation

• PM Benjamin Netanyahu // Photo: Oren Ben Hakun

Panic has no good name. Still, I saw what one of the bright, smart columnists in the American press wrote: "Don't panic, that's not good advice." Old Kissinger was one of the panic advocates, especially at the right timing and dosage. It is worthwhile to have symposiums dealing with the difference between panic and hysteria. All the difference in the world. Israel of 2020, unlike Israel of 1973, responded with panic on October 5, preventing the October 7 disaster.

It was precisely some commentators who were expected to understand it. Instead, those commentators modeled the opposite of panic - hysteria. With hysteria, it is impossible to function. Moshe Dayan, as defense minister in 1973, was late in his panic attack, but in the face of equality of mind, blindness and even defeat in some of the senior commanders, he spoke in apocalyptic terms that only they were able to motivate the forces to respond according to the magnitude of the danger.

So this is what the Israeli government has done, so as not to upset the fools, we will not mention the name of the head. Now, in order to continue the crisis management routine, talk about "emergency government" and preferably "unity government". After the election results, the unity government seemed the right and appropriate solution for the people of Israel.

Since the Corona crisis has worsened, today's situation is rightly compared to past emergencies such as May '67, or '84, and so on until 2009.

But there is a significant difference, and it is not certain at present that what is needed for Israeli society is a unity government. In 1967, there was an attempt to exploit the threatening security crisis to oust the cluster of prime ministers and security files.

In the end, when the National Likud government was established, the government earned Moshe Dayan a defense minister, just as Begin earned him in '77. In 1984, beyond choice, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres had something to contribute to the government. The government earned them, as the Netanyahu government in 2009 earned Ehud Barak with confidence.

What exactly does the state or government gain from the entry of Benny Gantz or Yair Lapid into the government? Especially when they have a claim that Gantz will accept the reins of the prime minister in a timely manner - a year, even two years.

We learned a lot about Benny Gantz in the past six months, especially in the short two weeks since the election. Nobody is really on their toes waiting to ask when Gantz will be the defense minister already, when the health minister will be, when he will be prime minister. Simply because there is no waiting.

In the past, the unity governments have observed a specific contribution of one or two personalities. This is not the case today. In the current crisis, like in the recent and distant crises, Prime Minister Netanyahu is giving a lesson in leadership. Attempts to hurt or weaken his leadership now are pointless.

It would be good if a new government were formed similar to the current government, with a reinforcement, to pass a budget. But if a transitional government is doomed to manage the crisis and work with budget-overriding mechanisms, it's better than the poor option of harnessing wooden horses for a carriage, which will only interfere with galloping horses.