In one of his recent columns, journalist Amit Segal claimed that there are currently two active religions in Israel: "only Bibi" and "only not Bibi". Netanyahu's outspoken supporters, like his outspoken opponents, are - according to this equation - tainted with religious, emotion-based, irrational and utilitarian logic.

This comparison reminded me of one of the highlights of the staff at the news company: When Eitan Cable's investigative transcripts were first circulated, everyone compared them to the 2000 case, as both in the case of Cable and in the case of Netanyahu, who sat in front of them and discussed them with positive coverage in Yedioth Ahronoth “There was Noni Moses. But Segal realized that what really should bother any Israeli citizen who is afraid of rule of law is a comparison between cable investigation and file 4000. In file 4000, police and prosecutors had to recruit state witnesses, shake them up, undermine them, extract questionable ways from them, forcibly compose the words of Witness A in the words of witness B to indicate in a circumstantial and faint manner some precedent bribe that never took place. In the case of a cable, however, the person sits in front of his investigators and almost submits to them, without the need for any state or circumstantial witnesses who depend on the reasonable (yes or no) or proportionate (yes or no) of the court, the deal between him and Moses .

Segal wondered afterwards how it could be that in the light case of a cable, where the positive coverage is clear and proven, the police closed the case, while in the case of Netanyahu, with no interrogation transcript directly involving Netanyahu and no proof of positive coverage - the prosecution decided to prosecute.

This wonderment of faculty leads directly to what is becoming known to many as the sewing workshop on Salah a-Din Street, whose hard work has worked to overthrow the right-wing leader by improper means such as selective enforcement. If this impression is correct, then supporting Netanyahu is anything but a religious ritual, but a prudent necessity, not to mention a civil obligation on every Israeli who wishes to continue living in a democratic state.

So why is it "religion" anyway? According to Segal's explanation, if Netanyahu is unable to form the next government, other alternatives should be prepared for this. The difference between Netanyahu's "ritualistic approach" and the "rational approach" suggested by faculty is a fundamental utilitarian difference.

But what right-wing slander can emerge after Netanyahu, assuming the coup is successful? And why do people who are not among the believers in the Biblical Church, such as Professor Ruth Gavison or Professor Daniel Friedman, cry out against the coup as the last believers? Most importantly - how useful would the next right-wing government be, assuming the national camp will turn a blind eye to the fact that a prime minister is forcibly resigning from his office just because of his political positions?

The most sensible, most utilitarian and virtuous thing is to fight the governing coup you are convinced of, and the most effective way to do that is by ballot. It is the only ritual of worship in this religion that believes in the sovereignty of the people. This religion is called democracy.