Future historians will look back at this period with disbelief. They will conclude that the government of Israel had two different Haim Katzes and two different Yariv Levins. How else can you explain that the two Likud ministers picketed the home of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and presented a list of demands from the very government they are part of? Such behavior is not acceptable in any democracy worth its salt. Levin, Katz, and the other ministers who criticized the government were essentially trying to panhandle for votes within their own parties. Education Minister Naftali Bennett and Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked hope their extreme rhetoric will convince Likud voters to "come home" to Habayit Hayehudi. In Likud, the wheelers and dealers want to bolster their power in the party's Central Committee. But if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (who is backed by Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon) appealed to the Central Committee members and told them how obstructive Levin and Katz were to his efforts to steer the government to a safe harbor, those two ministers would actually see their popularity inside the party drop. They would not pass that test. The conduct of the opposition parties, who have demanded that Netanyahu eradicate terrorism, has been as bad. Is Opposition Leader Isaac Herzog trying to become a replica of Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Lieberman? Does Herzog want Zionist Union members to behave in the same unruly way as Habayit Hayehudi MK Mordhay Yogev, who was seen accosting a Palestinian woman walking peacefully in Jerusalem? The Israel Defense Forces, the Israel Police and the Shin Bet security agency have tried to fight back against this "outbreak" (Channel 2's Ehud Yaari said this is what the latest conflagration is called on the Palestinian street), even as they evaluate the overall political calculus. This is in keeping with their conduct during Operations Protective Edge and Cast Lead. The Israeli security forces would like to restore order without creating a tidal wave of mutual animosities between the two peoples, all the while bolstering Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and stopping young thugs from overtaking refugee camps in Judea and Samaria. The name of the game is chess, not checkers. An intelligent public doesn't get carried away by emotions, and it knows that you can only do so much. It knows full well that the international community will tolerate self-defense measures, but it will not tolerate an Israeli effort to use the bloodletting as pretext for issuing new construction permits in Itamar. The real debate will unfold over the next few days, alongside the strategic brainstorming. In the meantime, Israel has a crisis to deal with. "When the cannons are heard, the muses are silent," goes the famous cliche, but that is not what I am advocating. What I would like to see is a substantive debate about the limits of power; a debate that acknowledges that Israel's political algebra comprises many unknown variables, not just one. On Tuesday, Ya'alon was quoted as saying the IDF doesn't need to go on the offensive -- because it has been on the offensive ever since Operation Defensive Shield in 2002. He should have added the following: The IDF's conduct has produced many successes, but there is no such thing as a war with zero casualties and zero mistakes.
