The news about former minister Limor Livnat's joining the speakers in the protests against the government's legal reform added a considerable comical dimension to the event.
If the first time Livnat came out against the right-wing camp, to which she belonged until then, it still sounded like a matter-of-fact criticism, then most of the times she publicly announced "not to vote for Likud anymore", her effort to present herself as a right-wing ideological marker lost all connection to reality and became a sad joke.
What remains is mostly a pathetic attempt to start publications on the standard of a former Likudnik, like her friends for this dubious title - Ehud Olmert, Dan Meridor and Tzipi Livni.
Just like Olmert, Meridor and Livni, Livnat makes a career - at least in the media - of switching sides.
Had she not come from the national camp and demonstrate an acrobatic reversal of changing positions, she would not have been invited to the broadcast studios, and her opinion on any subject would not have been of interest to anyone except her relatives.
It is no coincidence that we have not heard any original argument against the reform from her.
She only repeated the false scaremongering about the impending "loss of democracy", in the style that was voiced when she was a senior member of Likud and the accusations were directed at her.
Just like Olmert, Meridor and Livni, Livnat made the transition to the left at a time that is not accidental, after she was ejected from the top of the Likud and lost any chance of moving up the political ladder of the camp in which she grew up.
In other words, her political "disenchantment" is self-interested from start to finish.
And finally, just like Olmert, Meridor, and Livni, Livnat comes from among the "princes" - that rather limited group of sons and daughters of the founders of the revisionist camp, Etzal men dedicated to the idea and the path, who raised a second generation that turned out to be devoted mainly to itself. Although not all the "princes" "They crossed sides when they learned that the butter is spread better on the other side (Uzi Landau and Yossi Achimair are examples of personalities who did not sell the truth, even when the possibilities of advancement in their movement were blocked to them). However, the abandonment rates of the "princes" are so high, that the question of why exactly cannot be ignored They were often tempted by the caresses of the left.
Convincing answers have already been given to this question.
Some of them dealt with the psychological aspect and explained that the "princes" sought acceptance at the hands of left-wing elites, to compensate for the sense of persecution of their ancestors;
Others focused rather on the inability of the fathers to instill in their children a solid ideological charge, which would protect them from the temptations of the environment, and on the naive reliance on the assumption that those who grew up in a revisionist home simply nursed the belief in Jabotinsky's teachings with their mother's milk.
No matter how good the explanations are, there is no escaping the fact that the reason for the disloyalty of many of the "princes" lies in the essence of the phenomenon itself: the situation in which family closeness alone paves the way for progress is not healthy, and ends up exploding inside.
Princes did not please the ancestors back in the days of the Bible (ask David about Absalom), and 3,000 years later the situation has not changed.
From the distance of time, it is clear that family lineage - and not qualifications - were the significant element in the rise of most of the "princes" to the top of the Likud.
The family name was their entry ticket to the corridors of public affairs.
It was enough to get on the list of candidates for the Knesset in the days when the list was compiled by the organizing committee, and even after the system was switched to elections at the Likud center.
The "princes" knew that the attribution to the father of the Etzal arranged the career in the parent party, as long as they spoke in accordance with the ideology, so they said. Olmert vowed to settle, Meridor brought up the integrity of the country as a miracle, Livni condemned Oslo, and Livnat spoke in favor of a legal reform that would restrain the Supreme Court.
But these were idle talks: in the first serious test, the ego of each of them won a knockout, and the ideology from Abba's house was sold for a smidgen of applause from the left.
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us