התרגיל המסריח של ליברמן מוכיח דבר אחד: כל מה שעברנו היה סתם

The article criticizes Avigdor Lieberman's recent willingness to negotiate with ultra-Orthodox parties, arguing it negates his long-standing public stance and the political turmoil it allegedly caused. For seven years, Lieberman reportedly made his refusal to sit with Haredi parties a central tenet of his political platform, contributing to multiple election cycles. This stance was presented as a core principle, a red line that prevented governments from forming and fueled national debate, particularly regarding the conscription of Haredi men into the IDF.

The author contends that Lieberman's shift signifies that his previous opposition was not a fundamental principle but a political tool. This is compared to Naftali Bennett's actions in 2021, who also compromised on campaign promises to form a government. However, the article suggests Lieberman's case is more egregious because his refusal to compromise with the Haredim was a primary driver of repeated elections.

The piece extends this criticism to the broader "Change Bloc," accusing them of hypocrisy. Politicians and activists who vehemently advocated for Haredi conscription and criticized their exemption from military service are now reportedly willing to form a government with these same parties, seemingly shelving the issue of conscription for political expediency. The author questions whether the urgency of military needs, such as the burden on reservists and the IDF's need for soldiers, has disappeared.

Furthermore, the article predicts that this perceived "capitulation" to the Haredim could cost the "Change Bloc" in future elections. Having built their platform on changing the relationship with Haredi parties, their ability to campaign on this issue again will be undermined if they are seen as succumbing to political blackmail. The author concludes by demanding that Lieberman explain not why he changed his mind, but why he initially led the country into prolonged political instability over this issue, implying that if compromise is possible now, it was possible before.