In the High Court of Disengagement some 15 years ago, Supreme Court Justice Edmund Levy left an interesting legacy on the most political issue: the relationship between the party's platform and its representatives' promises - and its actual policy. "It is conceivable that situations where deviation from a political platform and basic principles of a party will be so crude and difficult," he wrote, "that it is unreasonable to state that it is unreasonable." These cases are worthy of intervention if it is shown that "the breach of the platform touches on a central commitment that the party has assumed," and that "the deviation from this commitment is as a material distortion of the will of the electorate, so that it should not be considered a natural consequence of a democratic process." Ariel Sharon, as I recall, was elected by voters with one position - and implemented the policy of the opposing party that lost the election - but Justice Levy then remained single-minded, arguing that the disengagement was one of those rare, gross breaches of election promise, to the point of undemocratic disconnection between statements The party to its policy.

Examining a party's statements in an election campaign is a complicated and complicated matter to measure. But the current case of blue and white is simple: the public has been exposed to the countless times that party representatives have made it clear that they will not form a government or rely on the joint list. And the more senior members of a party reiterate a particular message, the more substantial and central it becomes. Representatives of the "soft right" in the list were also sent to the information front, and even starred in the Zionist-religious sector leaflets whose affiliation with the national camp is the most significant. They were not raised in the election, as were quite a few of the left's representatives in the party. Denying the shared list repeatedly.

Against this background, it is clear that some voters supported white and blue only because of the same promise that became a significant consideration in their voting. Were it not for her promise, she would probably not have supported it, which was evident in the harsh criticism to the point of abandoning activists and candidates in the party. To this should be added the fact that there is not a single commentator and voter in the entire country, who for a moment estimated that white blue could most often be reached without the common list. The blatant lie was known, planned and clear in advance. The call to the joint was quick and immediate, with no shadow of any other experience, even if it seemed obvious. Netanyahu's overarching goal turned out to be purifying and training everything.

On the left is the argument in the Israeli election system that the mandate is partisan and not impersonal. This is true in general, but completely detached from the context of elections. Heavy pressure is exerted on delegates who remain loyal to securing the central election, align with the planned lie or resign and return the mandate to the list under which they were elected. In other words: Once you have been at the forefront of the election, cooperate with the big lie or resign. In public law, this lie will not pass.

Prof. Asher Cohen is Head of the School of Communication at Bar-Ilan University