How about this:

Israeli politicians and parties are beginning to form two groups:
- National-security oriented
- Socio-economically oriented

The first group consists of those persons and parties whose appeal comes from their military background or their positions on national security issues: Barak, Sharon, Olmert, the Likud and the Ma'arach.

The second, younger group is formed from politicians who pretend to be fighters for social causes: Sarid, Lapid, Der'i and Yishai, and their parties.

Behind the scenes there is an ongoing battle between the "security" and "social" politicians, where the formers fear that comprehensive peace will render them useless and lead to their annihilation from the political map.

So if real peace arrives, Barak and Sharon will lose their electoral appeal because voters will become interested in social questions like education and poverty instead of national security. Under these conditions, people like Ben Ami, Sarid and Ovadia will be the chief candidates for prime minister.

Thus, Barak and Sharon act in order to maintain a constant security alert and prevent this shift of focus from happening. They will join forces in the face of an "arab threat" and attempt to form a stable coalition. This will fail because most of the voters don't care anymore about security. The two will then fall together and will be replaced by the "social" politicians who already wait, hungry, behind their backs.

The theory you present in that thread assumes that national security will forever be the main subject in Israeli politics. The problem is that long-term national security goals have lost some importance over time. To take an extreme example, do you think that in Holland the division between the big camps is also on themes of national security? And what about the US?

And a side remark: One benefit of democracy that you haven't acknowledged is reduced proneness for errors. Strangely enough, we are not only electing a prime-minister (the executive) but also a parliament (legislators). What is the purpose of these people? If 61 of them are smart politicians who form the coalition, why do we have to pay the salaries of the other 59 who do nothing but disturb them?
The reason is that these 59 are motivated like hell to find alternative ways to make the public better-off and point out errors of the government. This way, the system as a whole makes less mistakes than what a dictatorship would make.

The view you present there is interesting and thought-provoking, but partial. It is incomplete without an analysis of the actions of our neighboring arab countries in light of the same theory.

Suppose we accept the idea that politicians aim for strategic national goals, not just power. We cannot say, then, that arab countries fight against israel just because their rulers are trying to remain in power by directing people's anger to an external enemy. We must assume that these dictators act for long-term strategic national goals and thus will resign if they find somebody who can make a better job than themselves.

So why do they fight us? And do they want to exterminate israel, as a long-term strategic goal, or not? What does the theory say?