Now that the finishing touches can be welcomed, one can also see more clearly the inner contradiction that was embodied in the ultimatum Gantz set for Netanyahu. What were his basic assumptions? Give me what I need from you, and we will start together, hand in hand, as partners. So far, good and beautiful, mature and unifying, considerate and responsible. But let's look at the other side of the condition: If you don't give me what I need from you politically, I'll pass a personal law against you and get you out of the political field.

Gantz did not hint or stutter it - he said it directly and openly to any media or political media he was willing to listen to. In fact, he kept repeating it over and over again.

It is important to understand what Gantz actually said here, and it is even more important to understand who things were meant to be. It is true that the threat was addressed to Netanyahu as a means of negotiating pressure. But not only to him, but to the two million Israeli citizens who voted for the right-wing bloc.

Sometimes realistic illustration is required to understand a conceptual threat, so here is the most accurate illustration in his words: my parents. Mercy and Leah Atbrian will go to the polls, put a "Likud-led Benjamin Netanyahu" ballot in the envelope, and then Benny Gantz, along with the top judges, will remove the (unholy) curtain from their hands and tell them - sorry, but Netanyahu You will not be allowed to choose. We are generous enough to allow you to choose Likud, but we have decided that you can no longer choose Netanyahu. Now choose, we won't disturb you.

The thing is that Mercy and Leah Atabrian fled Iran because they were promised a Zionist and democratic state. If they knew that in Israel, too, they would have to live under a black-robed oppressive regime, they might have opted to stay in Iran, where the pistachios are wonderful and the honey is sweet.

To put legislation into political conflict is a terrible categorical error, to introduce personal legislation that is already an anti-democratic sin that only judicial activism in Israel allows.

When Benny Gantz threatened with this weapon and directed a direct arrow into the sacred sacred of democracy - the right to choose and be elected - he would have been better off with good, rare, extreme, one-time and absolute reasons like Plato's ideas; Reasons to make it clear to everyone beyond any doubt that Netanyahu the man simply does not deserve to serve as prime minister. But he wasn't backed up for such reasons, and probably didn't believe it either. In fact, when consensus was reached, he put this anti-democratic nuclear nucleus on the floor. 

The obvious implication is that Gantz, the "good boy" of the Israeli media, was, theoretically at least, ready to shatter the foundation stone of democracy in Israel and take my parents hostage along the way, not for a material reason related to Netanyahu, but for negligible political gains. The real trouble is that he knew he would get out of it without any harm, because the media and the supreme would already pave the way for him, and wash away all his sins.