In the coming days, articles, tweets and video clips will be distributed ridiculing our politicians as people who say one thing one day and another thing the next. Kadima leader Shaul Mofaz will probably star in most of them. This is the public truth. The hidden truth is that politicians change their public statements at will, not their opinions. Israelis have gotten used to living with a dissonant feeling of a well-defined political identity, the result of the traditional conflict between Mapai and Herut which began during the establishment of the state. This was not in vain, however. In the 1990s, when Labor lost its socialist platform and Likud leaders announced they were willing to accept a plan that would divide the land, the political battle moved to the center. The principle differences among the parties evaporated. Other than character and tactics, what ideological difference is there between Barak's Independence, Lapid's Yesh Atid, Mofaz's Kadima and possibly some new parties that are threatening to arise? All of them are Zionist parties, they purport to represent the secular middle class, they highlight socioeconomic issues and agree to a Palestinian state while politically maintaining the West Bank settlements. In addition, even the Likud's and Labor's moderate wings are in agreement concerning those issues. The Iranian crisis is another issue that the parties agree on politically. The disagreement is in the military and philosophical spheres. Since no one is interested in a nuclear Iran, the question is if a military strike is possible. Are we capable of neutralizing the threat? This primary question is dependent on how we define the term "existential threat." The answer has nothing to do with politics, especially considering the fact that a strike on Iran, whatever the results would be, will force the West to intervene in the Middle East and perhaps advance a peace agreement between Israel, the Palestinians and moderate Arab states, which would seemingly serve the Left, even though a military strike, due to the government's composition, would be associated with the Right. Every elections has its own highlight, and this one is focused on mandatory military draft for all citizens. But, just as in the struggle for the political center, the absurd point is that as all the parties began to proclaim their interest in proposing an alternative to the Tal Law, it soon became clear that they all supported the same alternative. So why do politicians argue with each other before they join each other? They do so to distinguish themselves from the others, and, also, as David Ben-Gurion clarified back in the 1940s: "We are not like the British or other healthier, quieter nations. Our differences do not lie only in our ideas but in our spirit as well. We inject excitement not only in the good things, but in the bad things as well. We are zealots who know no boundaries." So instead of holding our heads in astonishment at these political ploys, we must differentiate between announcements by media advisers, and real positions. Sixty-four years after the establishment of the state, the fact that there is now a broad consensus means divisions and mergers among politicians can become routine. In an ideal situation, we would be able to choose between two large parties politically and economically Left and Right that would embody different versions of the same concept, such as ultra-Orthodox and anti-Zionist. There would also be a place, or at least a hope, for a party that would present an original idea that no one has as yet thought of. Our political system has no lack of new parties, but there is a lack of people capable of implementing their ideas. The problem is that in the current political situation, in which every party is dependent on its constituents, more and more parties are formed, making it hard for politicians to stick to their positions, let alone act in accordance with them. The new unity government is the result of a political ploy and the personal considerations of Netanyahu and Mofaz. But by the same token, those who oppose the government do so also due to personal considerations. It is not difficult to understand why a government committed to changing the Tal Law and the system of government is condemned by the parties that promised they would do the same thing if elected. We may continue to ridicule the cynicism of the politicians, but doing so is becoming boring. We, as citizens, should look on the bright side of the unity government: It will enable us to test Netanyahu under ideal laboratory conditions for a period of one and a half years. If the public isn't satisfied with the way he does his job, a solid opposition of the authentic Left will be waiting for him a Left with a variety of viewpoints but armed with a clear-cut platform that it will present and that others will have to deal with.
