The great mystery of our political arena is why and how does the Likud movement not disintegrate in the face of the intensity of the pressures exerted on it by the political and social forces that have banded together to collapse the movement, externally or internally?
What is the compromise of the mystery of the 35-30 seats cast together in the loyalty that the Likud has?
When the Likud was the dominant component in the right-wing coalition, we were told early in the morning and evening that these cohesions and loyalties are an outgrowth of the pleasures of the government that he distributed to his supporters and hence the explanation for their loyalty.
Today, the Likud in opposition and the pleasures of power have moved far to the left, and yet all possible manipulations for its dissolution are not working.
why?
As I understand it, the main target of Likud attackers has never been Benjamin Netanyahu.
This has always been an idle goal.
Netanyahu is the means designed to advance the strategic goal of the attackers, which was and still is the dissolution of the party into quarrelsome parts with each other, thus dissolving the movement.
The intention of the attackers is mainly to seek the dismantling of the idea of internal democracy that is rooted in it.
The dream of the attackers, which Yair Lapid is currently leading, is the creation of a collection of ideological hollow party particles, such as a new and right-wing hope, that revolves around the percentage of blocking the Knesset election, and fighting each other until bloodshed and their disappearance.
The goal is to create the same pattern of parties, right and left, that operate around the blocking percentage and that their weakness requires them to concentrate around it.
However, it is also clear to Lapid that the political structure he has created, and on which he leans, is a table with three legs, sometimes two, and his shakiness is paralyzed by the stability and presence of the Likud movement.
Moreover, the trial against Netanyahu, which was supposed to be the breaker of political equality and the crushing of the Likud, did not succeed either. The country was divided into two: those who believe in Netanyahu's innocence and those who storm to remove him and establish his guilt even before the evidence of his guilt is heard. When the cloud of justice led by the attorney general becomes clear, it becomes clear that the attorney general announces that Netanyahu's removal was handed over to him as a mission from God to save the "Jewish people." But the same people, on whose behalf the counselor speaks, stand amazed in front of the circus of idle proofs that fade away in the face of every breeze. In any case, that part of the Jewish people, the Likud members who were expelled from the whole of Israel by the wise adviser, persists in his support for the Likud. The political-legal attack did not create the erosion and crisis it foresaw.
A similar result was the whole effort that Lapid and his party made to try to transfer some of the Likud members to it.
It has repeatedly been suggested to senior officials and juniors in the Likud that the whole world should leave the Likud and join its ranks.
The result, by and large, was a yoke.
Gideon Saar's party, with its failed princes, believed that Likud members would follow in their footsteps.
In practice, Saar has long since dissipated as an alternative to the right.
In the case of Naftali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked, their abandonment led to the status of state administrators, but also proved that they had abandoned any promise and political idea in whose name they had called before.
The right reacted accordingly and condemned them from within.
Even when Saar and Bennett are "on horseback", the public on the basis of which they were elected moves away from them and sees them as the worst combination in relation to the image of Israel.
If so, what is the secret of the mystery to the power of the Likud?
Simply put, the Likud is the only arena of national, pluralistic and democratic dialogue that creates a dialogue for sharing between diverse groups on the nature of society and culture in Israel.
On the left, the central discourse is that of oppression of the other, its silence and disappearance under the guise of progressiveness, while the Likud movement does not operate on a masterly basis of silence and exclusion, but sees the growth of national participation as the central part of its activities.
When the Likud movement runs an egalitarian democratic culture, and is faced with Lieberman and Saar, Bennett and Lapid, with whom the outcome of any activity in the party is known in advance, the Likud becomes a center that still sweeps and unites its members, whether in coalition or opposition.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us
