Only a few years earlier, he had returned to Israel from the UN, joined Likud, and decided to take the party by storm in an American style his rivals had never encountered.

The “Likud princes,” including Bennie Begin, Ehud Olmert, Dan Meridor, Roni Milo, Limor Livnat and others, saw him as a threat. In their eyes, he was a phony opportunist, a foreign agent who had come to carry out a hostile takeover and was trying to exploit the defeat by Rabin to seize control of the party. To their astonishment, Netanyahu rapidly gained popularity and took the lead in the race. Even he had not expected his plans to materialize so quickly.

Netanyahu decided not to give in to the blackmail. Instead, he chose to get ahead of the blackmailer and confess live on television. He arrived at the studio, where news anchor Ya’acov Ahimeir and police affairs reporter Uri Cohen-Aharonov were waiting for him, and told the nation that he had indeed cheated on his wife. It was a telenovela broadcast live. In the same breath, he accused a “senior Likud politician,” meaning David Levy, of attempting to blackmail him, and said he was surrounded by “a gang of criminals,” meaning Ya’acov Bardugo and the late Moti Mishani.

Israel had only one television channel at the time, with a 100% rating. The uproar was immediate. The entire country talked about the incident, after which Netanyahu was thrown out of his home by his wife Sara, with no intention of allowing him back. But, as usual, he returned. Crawling.

That tape was never published, for a simple reason: There was no tape. Someone had either played a prank or threatened Netanyahu with a cap gun. That was enough to send him racing to television to confess live on air that he had cheated on his wife.

Dr. Ruth Bar’s name was indeed published at the time, but there were no social networks and there was no digital media. Bar managed to disappear back into anonymity, from which she never again emerged. She continued her work as a psychologist and strategic consultant specializing in branding and decision-making, working with senior politicians including Shlomo Lahat, known as Chich, former Ramat Gan mayor Zvi Bar, Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert, Dan Meridor and Gabi Ashkenazi. Her past clients included brands such as Osem-Nestlé, Tivall, Sabra, Strauss, Jafora, Materna, Tara, Nirlat, Electra and others. In the financial sector, she worked with Bank Hapoalim, Bank Leumi, Clal, Psagot, Gazit Globe, the Tourism Ministry and others.

Bar conducted a very long series of scientific studies to substantiate the theses and theories she developed over the years. She never gave an interview, never appeared before a camera, microphone or reporter’s notebook. Not off the record, not on the record. Very few political journalists, if any, know her.

Over the years, she focused on research, during which she cracked the formula that makes it possible to influence the brain and the decision-making mechanism. The same mechanism causes us to choose one particular product when we stand in front of a supermarket shelf, or one particular ballot slip at the polling station.

Now she is talking. For the first time ever.

This interview is not about politics, nor is it about the election. Bar is reluctantly giving up her anonymity. Her life’s work, a book of more than 600 pages, is being published after years of work. That is the reason for the timing.

Bar’s testimony has particular significance because she was part of the small team that shaped Netanyahu’s political persona at the beginning of his career, when it was still in its infancy. As you will understand later, everything roiling our lives in these years was already sown and planted back then, in those days.

Ruth Bar has been married all her life to the same husband, Dr. Shmuel Bar, who was also her husband during her affair with Netanyahu. He is an ophthalmology specialist who became known as an airborne physician with the 669 rescue unit and was the first to perform a full surgical tracheotomy on the battlefield.

Their marriage survived that trauma, “mainly thanks to my husband,” she says, but that was only the preview. Later, two of their three children were killed, one in an accidental shooting and the other in a traffic accident. It is almost impossible to recover from a blow like that. They did. Ruth and Shmuel Bar somehow managed to pull themselves out of the abyss, overcome depression, cling to life and move forward.

This is the first interview she has ever given, 33 years after a single television broadcast turned her into the most famous woman in Israel, apart from Sara.

“We have known for several decades that we have two decision-making systems. The first system is unconscious, intuitive, associative, simultaneous and very fast. It absorbs information and at the same time produces meaning from it. Then, what is in front of your eyes is what determines things. It isn’t short-term memory, it is truly immediate. This system doesn’t retrieve information from memory, only what is happening in front of your eyes, here and now. This system is very dominant. The second system thinks in a more logical, sequential, systematic way, and it is more critical. The first system is not critical. It is intuitive and unconscious. The second one is.”

“There is an important model I developed called the ‘survival layers model.’ You have to understand, this model is backed by dozens of scientific studies I conducted over many years, with hundreds of respondents and hundreds of situations. According to this model, human perception is wired according to four survival layers. Nothing is accidental in the way we perceive events or brands. The first layer is impression, the second is the relations layer, the third is protection, and the fourth is emotions.

“Every experience, every event, everything receives a score in these four layers. Impression is how much this event impresses me. Relations is how much it relates or is connected to me. Protection includes values such as security and peace of mind. Emotions are the emotions the event generates in me: joy, hope, hatred, fear. This is where our processing begins, until the decision is made.”

“I started my career at the Warshavsky advertising agency as head of the marketing department, and from there I moved to Ariely Advertising, which sent me for professional training in Manhattan to entice me to join them. I arrived at a place that was the pinnacle of the advertising world. I studied under the greatest people in the field, and I had some nice successes in building brands. I worked with politicians. I came up with the phrase ‘Lahat does Tel Aviv’ for Shlomo Lahat, Chich, and Ariely loved it and turned it into a slogan.

“By 1989, I had already done my first political study. We didn’t exactly know who it was being done for, but I assumed it was for Netanyahu, who had just returned to Israel and joined Likud. At one stage, we ran a campaign for Zvi Bar, who was then running against Ramat Gan mayor Uri Amit. Eyal Arad was on Bar’s team, and they brought me in. Bar was trailing Amit by 20%, and in the end he won. On the day of the municipal election, Bibi Netanyahu unexpectedly arrived at the headquarters. That was our first meeting.”

“There were other people there. I was writing the numbers on the board, the results started coming in from the polling stations, and suddenly Bibi walked in. He started asking all kinds of questions, and I answered. A few days later, Arad approached me and asked whether I would be willing to meet Netanyahu. Of course I agreed.”

“We met in an apartment in Tel Aviv, I think at Eyal’s place. They told me Bibi wanted me to watch his television appearances and analyze them, the advantages and disadvantages. They put in a tape and I watched. He was good, but there was a lot to correct. He listened to all my comments.”

“Yes. After that I started doing political research for him. Intensive, in-depth research. At the time he had a ‘submarine,’ a close and secret group of advisers. Eyal Arad was there, Ivet Liberman was there, Ya’acov Akst was there, and others. One day Bibi and Ivet had an argument, and Bibi threw him out of the submarine. I was the one who convinced him to bring Liberman back. I told him: ‘Ivet is very smart and very important to the campaign. Get over your anger.’ And he got over it. Fortunately for him, because Ivet was a very important factor in Bibi’s system.”

“Yes. Bibi would also call me privately and consult me. He asked me to come to his events in front of audiences and analyze those too. I did. At one of those events, in front of an audience of Likud members, he got a little lost. There was noise, the audience wasn’t listening, they weren’t impressed by him. We worked very hard on that. He wasn’t the Bibi of today. He was at the beginning of his path. He was carving out his way. He needed help. He knew he intended to climb all the way to the top, to the highest floor.”

“More than three years.”

“Of course I was paid. I have invoices. The payments went through the law office of Von Weisel, Fischer, Shimron.”

Bar will not say a word about the affair between them. Contrary to what the public understood, the affair lasted almost as long as the professional relationship. It was not a momentary slip. It ended only with that televised uproar.

To the best of my knowledge, after the television uproar there were other scenes as well, including loud telephone conversations between the betrayed wife and the mistress. But Ruth Bar will not say a single word about that either. There is no point trying to persuade her. When asked why she is unwilling to talk about the affair itself, she answers dryly: “Ask him. After all, he’s the one who ran to television to talk about it.”

“I was his adviser and pollster for three years, and the first thing I noticed about Bibi was his extreme sense of superiority. It was a sense of deep, almost frightening superiority. He was certain he was above everyone. He dismissively called everyone else ‘clerks.’ You could hear the contempt even in his tone of voice. All his rivals, in his eyes, were small, pathetic and insignificant. That was my first impression of him, and I remember it to this day. Not long ago, Yoav Horowitz, who was his chief of staff, called him an ’emperor.’ I saw it even then, long before he became prime minister.”

“I had thoughts in that direction. But I have to admit that the professional temptation to work with him was enormous. Working with Netanyahu was an incredible school for me. I learned a great deal from working with him. It was the first time I had worked with someone who appeared on television with such high frequency, and that enabled me to build, implement and test all my models and theories. He was my training ground, and he was perfect for that purpose.

“I did a huge number of studies with him. We tested before an appearance, after an appearance, I wrote a great many theses and documents. He also asked me to come to his public appearances and analyze them, asked my opinion about the quality of the appearance, the messages, the body language, everything. I also conducted regular studies for him throughout that period on all his rivals in Likud. In those studies, you can see what position he starts from against them, and how he advances and overtakes them one by one as if they don’t exist.”

“When you work on a brand, and Bibi was a brand, you need to examine the level of its brand equity. Where it is strong, where less so. And examine the rivals. I examined Bennie Begin, Olmert, Katsav, Meridor, and later, of course, Levy as well. We mainly surveyed the younger figures: who was most highly regarded, who was most popular, who was best suited to Likud. And you can see how Bennie Begin, for example, starts out highest and then declines, and how Bibi starts in the middle, but takes off and leaves all of them behind.”

Bar has documentation and records. The studies she conducted for Netanyahu are laminated and arranged in order.

One examined the “authoritativeness” of the younger Likud candidates. In October 1989, Bennie Begin led the table with a score of 30.6, while Netanyahu had only 22.9. Moshe Katsav had 5, Olmert 6.9, and Meridor 13.3. Moving forward, Netanyahu steadily closed the gap. By the end of May 1991, Begin had fallen to 25.7, while Netanyahu had surged to 42.9. On charisma, Begin began with 32.8 and declined to 25.6. Netanyahu began at 32.4 and soared to 51.6. The same pattern appeared across all the other categories.

Bar also has documents she wrote for Netanyahu about the quality of his appearances and ways to improve them. One, for example, is titled “Ways to strengthen the image of the comprehensive expert.” It stresses the need for clear and unequivocal messages, the need to sound forceful and in command of the material, and not to appear like a student being questioned by the interviewer. Instead, Netanyahu should seize the initiative and dictate the pace of the interview, so that the interviewer would be perceived as an “acolyte.”

Another document, which may explain the beginning of the construction of Netanyahu’s famous “base,” on which he still relies, is titled “Ways to increase charisma.” It contains the following jaw-dropping statements:

“Satisfying the need for self-admiration: Admiration of the leader causes the individual excitement and pleasure, since admiration of the leader satisfies the need for self-admiration (narcissism), through the mechanism of ‘transference.’ In order to strengthen the satisfaction of this need, beyond strengthening admiration for the leader, it is recommended to create a blurring between the leader’s ‘I’ and the audience’s ‘I.’ In this sense, it is important to emphasize the dimension of ‘we’… In the realm of charisma, the emphasis is on emotional rather than rational content. Emphasizing the superiority of ‘us,’ or alternatively emphasizing the inferiority of the hated others.”

Another subsection reads:

“Satisfying the need for forcefulness. This need is especially prominent among floating voters and Likud voters. Satisfying this need by demonstrating force and control definitely strengthens the leader’s attractiveness. Emphasizing nationalism that conceals ultranationalism also serves this purpose. However, it should be remembered that the message must remain national, because then it serves both purposes: the need for nationalism, which carries a positive label, and the need for ultranationalism without the negative label.”

The document later deals with “satisfying the need for national pride,” as well as “satisfying the need for belonging,” and “satisfying the need to remove inhibitions.” This is done through the dimension of charisma, which operates mainly by stimulating the pleasure center. Part of creating pleasure comes from satisfying forbidden needs, or alternatively from removing inhibitions. “Therefore, the more correctly one works in this direction, under the protection of a positive label, the more one can increase the candidate’s attractiveness.”

“It reminds me of something he said to me back then, in one of our meetings. He told me, ‘I’m looking for someone with high verbal ability who can formulate a devastating verbal attack against my competitors.'”

“I didn’t react. I probably repressed it. In retrospect, I understand that this idea, which entered Netanyahu’s mind more than 30 years ago, is what lies at the foundation of what is now called the ‘poison machine,’ which floods life in the State of Israel with venom and poison. Now I understand the power of it. This machine activates the emotional layers so that the positive ones fall silent while the negative survival-emotion layers come to the fore.

“It floods people with negative thoughts and harms the target, undermining his spirit and also damaging his perceived brand equity, meaning his image, thereby harming his chances of defeating Netanyahu in an election. For example, everything they did at the time to Benny Gantz, with the alleged stutter, the ‘Yoo-Yoo-Nit’ interview, and the rumors. It is very important to expose the poison machine, explain how it works and how dangerous it is. They target someone and start crushing him. It looks instinctive and driven by impulse, but it is scientific. Completely scientific.”

“Everyone. Military people and chiefs of staff as well, of course journalists and media people, all his political rivals and colleagues, and the voters too, including his own voters. His superiority extends over the president of the United States as well. He is above everyone.”

“He spoke about it explicitly. He said it in his own voice. The tone and manner every time other people were discussed. Who are they, anyway? They are all dwarfs. Clerks. And because he sees himself as above them, he can also influence them and control them, in his view. Look, I have worked with many politicians, brands, authors, professors, banks, and I have never encountered a person with such a sense of superiority. To his credit, he knows how to hide it.”

“Think about what that means. If he is above everyone, he can influence their minds, mold their personalities. The means is to have a dominant presence in the media. He understood that first. I didn’t teach him that. He came to me with it. I learned it from him. That is why working with him fascinated me so much. Suddenly you see that you can give a client instructions according to your model and see how he implements them, how he corrects himself, in real time, like in a laboratory.”

“He understood how the media operates much better than others. What distinguished him from others and contributed significantly to his success from the very beginning was the enormous importance he attributed to prominence in the media. He understood that it had enormous significance, and he was the first and only one who understood it. That is where his advantage over everyone else begins. There is a precise Archimedean point at which he simply passed all the others, when he recognized how important media dominance is. He truly lives it.”

“At one of our working meetings, he was in a gloomy mood, when suddenly he noticed a photograph of himself in the newspaper. And suddenly, all at once, his face lit up. He was glowing with happiness. That reaction was purely emotional. It wasn’t a pose. It was authentic. He was genuinely happy. It changed his mood. And I, as a psychologist, connect that reaction with his sense of superiority and his obsessive need to be above everyone. Rationally, he understood the enormous influence the media has on people’s minds. He also understood it intuitively and acted accordingly.”

“And that is why he said at the time that when he came back, he would come with ‘my own media.’ That is how his enormous motivation to control the media and suppress the free press was built. The Communications Law now is an expression of that.”

“It is a dramatic influence that the media has in real time. At the very moment when things are published or broadcast before the public’s eyes. What you see at that moment on television affects you immediately. We talked about this at the beginning of the interview, the intuitive, immediate, fast system. Bibi understood it first, and from that he understood that controlling the media means controlling people.

“I know, from conversations with him, that he doesn’t get overly excited by something very bad or something very good. He understands that everything passes, everything is a matter of images, and in the end the only question that matters is how it is presented on television and in the media. He didn’t understand the psychological mechanisms behind it, which I understand from the research. He grasped it intuitively. What you see now is what influences you. What you see later is what will influence you later. So there is no reason to panic over something bad, because it can be repaired afterward. When you control what people are shown, you control people.”

“Look, we once used to say that it doesn’t matter what people say, what matters is what they do. People would say it doesn’t matter what the gentiles say, what matters is what the Jews do. With him, it is the opposite. It was already the opposite 30 years ago. It doesn’t matter what you do, what matters is what you say. He understood that words are the drug that acts on the brain, and that the story you tell through them is the most powerful drug.”

“Of course.”

“I have more severe traumas. But it was very unpleasant. I received a warning that he was going to television. Someone from his circle told me it was happening.”

“It was a rash decision that came out of panic. Through that decision, you can understand his personality. How he activates his strategy in real time.”

“Reactivates. From his perspective, in order to influence, he has to be the one dictating the pace and leading the story in the media. To lead, not to be led. At that moment, he was convinced there was a tape of him.”

“Yes. So he has to take control of the event and lead it. True, on the one hand, it drew a lot of ridicule. People asked, why on earth are you running to television to confess that you cheated on your wife? On the other hand, it generated emotional involvement among a huge number of viewers.”

“Bibi’s great asset is the survival layer of impression. The image of being big, successful, a leader, impressive, in a different league. That is what dictates everything. His weak layer is the relations layer. This is credibility, caring, compassion, personal connection. Especially credibility. I identified that back then, 30 years ago. Even today, go look at studies about him and you will see that credibility gets the lowest score.

“The relations layer is almost nonexistent for him. Everything is centered on the impression layer. In relations, he is simply disabled. And that is why he ran to television to babble about an extramarital affair, in order to take command of the event. That is impression. In the end, on the one hand, he got enormous ratings, and people were impressed that here was a man coming to confess. On the other hand, that is where his disability in the relations layer begins to emerge, and it continues to this day.”

“It’s simple. When something happens, when an issue comes up in the public sphere, it belongs to one of the four layers. The candidate who is stronger in that layer is the one who benefits more from it. Take the haredi draft-evasion law. It belongs to the relations layer. That is why it hurts Netanyahu, who is weak in that layer.”

“Because it deals with equality and fairness within society. By the same principle, every time we reached the issue of security or protection, Netanyahu led. That is the protection layer, where he is strong. And he has an advantage here because, as prime minister, he is responsible for these issues.”

“Severe damage. He was hurt both in the protection layer and in the impression layer. Until then, he had a huge advantage in both. Now, no longer. It is still considered a strong point for him, but not like it used to be. The advantage is no longer unequivocal. Once, he played alone on that field.”

“Exactly. And that is critical. Control of the agenda is control of people, because you put on the agenda issues from the layers in which you have an advantage. That is one of the reasons there should be a two-term limit.”

“Of course. Each survival layer has a hormone that corresponds to it. It is all hormones. Because he has been badly damaged in all the survival layers, even when there is a war, which is entirely in the impression and protection layers, he cannot leverage it into an advantage. And you see that even at peaks of the war he did not manage to rise in public opinion for any sustained period, unlike in the past.”

“Of course you have to work at it. Netanyahu, for example, was not afraid to enter confrontations with almost every chief of staff he had. Maybe except Aviv Kohavi. He would enter confrontations with them, come out on top, and mark another target. That way, instead of them being Mr. Security, he became Mr. Security and Mr. Impression. It is a technique. I win, I dictate.”

“Take two examples. In the 2019 election, Gantz established Israel Resilience and released a video with a counter showing the number of terrorists killed while he was chief of staff. It was a security video par excellence. It was supposed to boost Gantz, but that did not happen. Because that is the impression and protection layer, and Netanyahu is strong in those layers. After the video, Gantz stayed at 13 seats and Netanyahu rose.

“Want another example? On March 25, 2019, Hamas fired missiles from Gaza toward central Israel, Gantz gave his famous ‘Yoo-Yoo-Nit’ interview, and Donald Trump recognized the Golan Heights. Bibi strengthened in the polls and widened the gap because all three of those events belong to his strong layers. And so, despite the missiles on central Israel, Bibi was not hurt. Missiles belong to the protection and impression layers, which are strong layers for Netanyahu.”

“Less so. The fact is that he failed to rise even when there was a sense of victory over Iran and Hezbollah. Suddenly it didn’t help him. He lost his excess dominance in those areas. It doesn’t benefit him as it did in the past. Although, from his perspective, it is still better to raise those issues than, for example, the relations layer, such as the draft-evasion law.”

“That is a mistake. I call them ‘jumping votes,’ and they are very significant. Some people call them the ‘switchers.’ Let’s go back to Bibi for a moment. When I worked with him, during the period in which I examined all the young Likud leaders over a year and a half, he gave me completely free rein in the research. I did whatever I wanted, and among other things, I conducted repeated studies among the same respondents over a long period. I didn’t change focus groups. I examined the same people over and over again.

“I discovered that even among regular respondents, people you return to again and again, between 10% and 15% can change their minds within a month. Move from supporting Bennie Begin to supporting Bibi Netanyahu. From one end to the other. At first I didn’t believe it, and I focused on it, but it is a fact. I continued with it later in my doctorate as well. I did dozens of studies on it. I developed a model that can quantify what percentage of people’s positions are stable, and what percentage can be influenced until the very last moment. I told Bibi about it, and he was pleased.”

“Later, I developed the model in my doctorate, and discovered that besides the fact that there is a scale for people’s level of stability, and it depends on personality traits and several other things, there is a number of people who completely change their position as a result of external influence at any given moment, including at the very last moment. I called them the ‘jumping votes’ even during my time with Bibi. They exist in every layer and in every party. They are capable of changing their position not just along a continuum, but of actually jumping to the other side.”

“They are wrong. You remember that in 2015 all the polls showed a victory for Bougie, and in the end Netanyahu won by a large margin. There were jumping votes here. He brought them over through the statement that Arab voters were coming out to the polling stations in droves. That is the impression layer. The Arab enemy is charging at us. In the third election, in March 2020, he did the same thing to Gantz through Ahmad Tibi. He powerfully leveraged the impression layer and reactivated the message that without Tibi, Gantz has no government.”

“It depends on Gadi and his strategists. Netanyahu is strong in the impression layer, but inferior in the relations layer. Even very weak. Recent events have weakened him even further in that area. The abandonment of the residents of the South and North, for example. The abandonment of reservists and fighters when it comes to enlistment.

“Gadi has a major advantage in the relations layer. Netanyahu whispered into Rabbi Kaduri’s ear, told Orna Peretz, ‘You’re boring us.’ Eisenkot let Gantz become chief of staff before him, he has a human and modest presence, the bereavement of his son. All those things built him a powerful image when it comes to relations. Therefore, Eisenkot needs to constantly raise issues from that layer. The classic one is haredi enlistment. When the relations layer is on the agenda, Gadi Eisenkot gets stronger. And he must not be dragged after issues from the impression layer, which play into Bibi’s hands. Gadi is stronger in the relations layer than Bennett too, who is branded more as a strong right-winger and is trying to compete with Bibi in the impression layer.”

“It’s hard to be both. It was clear to me that the connection with Lapid would hurt him in this respect. You cannot connect two opposite layers and hope it will work. Lapid is much more in the relations layer, Bennett in the impression layer, which is associated with the Right. When that is joined together, there is a collision. It creates terrible confusion.

“It was clear to me in advance that the connection with Lapid would hurt, and not for the reasons discussed in the media. You can’t take two different layers at equal strength. One layer activates one set of associations, and the other layer activates another set, as well as different hormones. Lapid is positioned in the center and is much more in the relations layer. Bennett is positioned in the impression layer, which is characteristic of the Right. So it clashes. It creates terrible confusion.”

“I’m saying that there are deeper layers here than we are aware of. Impression and relations are different things.”

“There is, but it depends how. One layer has to be dominant, and the others complement it, but do not compete with it. Eisenkot is positioned in the relations layer, his party is called ‘Yashar!,’ and he was also chief of staff. That is completely opposite to Bibi. You can take values from another layer and put them alongside your dominant layer, add a shade, but not instead of it. Alongside. If, for example, Gadi now starts talking about security and mentioning that he was chief of staff and focuses on that, it would be a mistake. He would leave the layer where he has an advantage and enter the layer where Bibi has an advantage. And vice versa.”

“Say Gadi cares about people, Gadi will take care of security. The word ‘cares’ belongs to relations. That is how you bring security values into the relations layer. Gadi has to remain in the relations layer. All the parties in the bloc need to be there. And attack only Netanyahu. Eisenkot needs to focus only on him.”

“No. Netanyahu is an external body. The relations layer is within your own bloc.”

“Of course. We talked about the hormones. Each layer has the hormones identified with it. And I am talking to you about hundreds of studies in which this emerged. The impression layer is centered on sex hormones. In men, it is testosterone, and in women, two hormones, estrogen and estradiol. In the relations layer, it is the hormone oxytocin. When you caress your daughter, your oxytocin rises.”

“In the book, I analyze all the election campaigns here since 2019. There was an episode with Trump’s Deal of the Century, when Gantz was ahead of Netanyahu in most of the polls, and with Shlomo Filber it was the opposite. What did I discover? Before Filber asked about voting, he asked two questions about Trump’s Deal of the Century. Those questions brought the impression layer to the surface. He essentially primed the impression layer. It was a manipulation. One question was about the Trump plan, and a second question about applying sovereignty to the Jordan Valley and the Israeli communities. That raised Bibi.”

“Very. The jumping votes, by definition, are the people easiest to influence, even at the last moment. When you see movement from small parties to large parties, those are the jumping votes. The atmosphere of victory, momentum, those are factors that influence them.”

“It depends what happens. If things happen in the impression layer, Bibi can get jumping votes. If things happen in the relations layer, Eisenkot will benefit.”

“Demonstrations, for example. They are very important for victory. I think that if people take to the streets ahead of the election, it will help. It focuses the media, gives expression to the things being said, to the leaders participating. The messages gain dominance. And who is influenced by that dominance? The jumping votes. It also strengthens and amplifies your ‘home audience,’ who will come out to vote, raising turnout on your side.”

“Absolutely not. They do not say ‘I don’t know’ or ‘I haven’t decided yet’ in a poll. They identify as the audience of a particular side. But they can move to the other side. They have no inclination toward the other side. So when you move them from one side to the other, it has a double effect. Every bloc has potential jumping votes, between 5% and 15%. They belong to a brand’s home audience, but are capable of leaping to the competing brand. Your job is to keep your own jumping votes with you and bring jumping votes from the other side over to you. That is what Netanyahu did in 2015. He transferred Herzog’s jumping votes to himself.”

“They could, and therefore it depends on the messages. If you’re talking about the change bloc, then the demonstrations need to be about enlistment, about a state commission of inquiry. Not about other issues. Control the messages, go for issues that are in the consensus. Large demonstrations mean major emotional involvement with a dramatic influence on the jumping votes, and they must contain the emotions layer. It is the strongest element that turns an ‘exclusive preference’ for a particular brand into a ‘stable exclusive preference,’ which is the strongest preference, the preference that influences actual behavior, meaning going to the polling station.”

“Yes, of course.”

“Yes. Everyone cut off contact with me. I haven’t heard from them since.”

“I watched Peres make a mistake in the campaign with the slogan ‘A strong Israel with Peres.’ He went into the impression layer and played into Netanyahu’s hands, where Netanyahu had an enormous lead over him. He entered Bibi’s home field, while Bibi went after him with ‘Peres will divide Jerusalem,’ which also belongs to the impression layer, in the negative.

“Bibi also made a mistake with ‘Making a secure peace,’ which meant going into Peres’s layer. Netanyahu’s research showed that the word ‘peace’ drove voters away. Peace is the relations layer. They greatly reduced the use of the word ‘peace’ as the campaign progressed. The word ‘peace’ made Netanyahu voters uncomfortable, and strengthened Peres.”

“Shmuel and I lost two children. Two very heavy disasters came down on us. Shoham, our daughter, was killed on April 30, 2004, in a road accident in India. Two months earlier, in February, we came to visit her there, in India. She was 21 and a half, and had gone on a post-army trip with her boyfriend. We spoiled her. We bought her a car in Israel. We made her swear not to travel in anything, only in a car. They rented a motorcycle. He was driving, and she was killed. Eleven years later, in 2015, our son Omer was killed in a handgun accident. An accidental discharge. He was 37.”

“After Shoham was killed, we were in a state of shock that is difficult to describe. It took us months just to digest it. But we chose life. And believe it or not, we had a son. Yes, after Shoham was killed. I was already 50. It was a very difficult pregnancy, and Matan was born. As impossible as it sounds, he filled the house with joy. The human brain is very focused on what is in front of it. The immediate experience. That is system number one we talked about. And the immediate experience with Matan was so powerful that it literally flooded us with happiness, which came within the endless bereavement we were living through.”

“That’s right. In the brain too there is competition over which issue controls the agenda. As sophisticated and intelligent as the brain is, it is also stupid. What is present before its eyes is what activates and defines the experience. And because the experience of the new child was fresh and present, it gave us strength, both personally and as a family, to continue functioning for ourselves and for others.”

“That’s right. An extremely hard blow. But we had no choice. There was a small child at home. We clung to life. In bereavement, there is a phenomenon of clinging to pain. When you cling to the pain over the child who is gone, it is as though you bring him back to life. He is present. The pain keeps the loss alive. We decided to let go of that.

“For me, my children have a transcendent existence. Like transcendental meditation. Descartes explored this, that things have a spiritual existence even if they have no physical existence. They are present in the soul, in the mind, in the heart. I feel that my children, whom I adore and love so much, are here next to me all the time. And I never feel alone.”

“The main advice I can give is to give yourself permission to live. Give yourselves a break. Live. Love yourselves. Tell yourselves that you were excellent parents, that you did everything, that you gave everything. Don’t sink into feelings of guilt. That is what the children would have wanted to happen.”

“If it were up to me, he wouldn’t leave the house and wouldn’t move away from me for a minute. Thanks to my husband, he is allowed to do as he pleases. As he gets older, he is so charming, and we enjoy him so much. He radiates, he’s handsome, excels in his studies, is in the Academic Reserve. Everyone loves him very much. We wish only one thing for him: a long life.”

“Of course. Anyone who can should do it. Matan knows there is a lot of responsibility on him, he understands the situation, but he receives so much love, and it doesn’t make him spoiled.”

“That’s right. Shmuel is a veteran and respected eye surgeon. We met when we were very young, 22 or 23. I knew from a very young age that I would go into academia and earn a doctorate. Education plays a leading role for me. I used to go on dates according to the man’s education. I wasn’t interested in money, only education. When I met Shmuel, he was already a doctor. We have something like 20,000 books at home. Shmuel has read all of them.”

“Usually it doesn’t. Marriages don’t survive something like that. We survived largely thanks to him. He has self-confidence, he is a successful and very handsome man, and he decided he wasn’t prepared to lose me. And he doesn’t regret it, I think.”

“Yes, very much.”

“Yes, very much. I once had a conversation with Netanyahu that shocked me deeply. He said there is no such thing as justice. And I was unwilling to accept that. As our acquaintance deepened, I understood that he doesn’t aspire to justice either. The concept of justice is supposed to be protected at the core of the survival relations layer. When a person like Netanyahu, with an extreme sense of superiority, heads a country and does not believe in justice, it raises real concern. It is a very basic matter. It is enough to look now at the laws his government is passing in order to preserve its rule to understand that if he is elected once again, democracy in Israel will be in existential danger.”

“Yes. With a person whose survival relations layer is very weak, it is doubtful whether he will care for the citizens of the country more than he cares for himself. That means concern for the citizens’ security is not in good hands either. With Netanyahu, he is always the victim. He is focused only on himself, on the aspiration to preserve power, on the deep conviction that the power belongs to him.”

“No. I have an entire chapter in the book about what he did to make that happen. Once that is your supreme and almost only goal, and your entire system is subordinated to it, there is a chance you will reach the goal. He worked only on that. He dropped to 17 seats and managed to climb back up.

“He focused on dismantling all the other factors, placing responsibility on everyone else, preventing a commission of inquiry that could become an influential external factor, and clinging to the base. He understood that in order to survive, he had to divide the people into two polarized camps, and he did it. He bet on his base, and it was the right bet. Some of them are still with him. If he had spread his efforts elsewhere, he would have lost. He has no problem tearing the public into pieces, bringing us to the brink of civil war in order to survive. And that is frightening.”