In politics, it is an accepted fact that there will be gaps between the declarations politicians make and the facts on the ground. In less cynical terms, one could say that politicians frequently face a tricky choice between their pledges and their interests, and end up acting differently than they have said they will.

Yet there are some lines most do not cross – for example, regarding Jerusalem. One is unlikely to find a politician who would argue against the primacy of Jerusalem. Even representatives of the left-wing parties avoid doing so loudly and clearly, usually preferring to make vague remarks about the need to consolidate the city economically and socially.


Think others should know about this? Please share