The real danger at the PM's residence: not the outbursts of rage, but the people who remain in the room | Dr. Liraz Margalit

Recently, another testimony from an employee at the Prime Minister's residence was published. Even if we account for the fact that some descriptions may be exaggerated or biased, it is difficult to ignore recurring motifs: outbursts of rage, extreme preoccupation with small details, demands perceived as disproportionate, and employees describing a feeling that they must be on edge at all times.

You can call it psychopathy or narcissism, but these labels explain little. In fact, they allow us to stop being interested in the mechanism that produces such behavior. I want to offer a different reading: not to diagnose Sara Netanyahu, which is impossible without a professional assessment, but to analyze the pattern emerging from the behaviors attributed to her over the years.

Perhaps the need for control is related to a sense of threat. In psychology, there is a concept called Hostile Attribution Bias. This is the tendency to interpret ambiguous behavior as if it were directed against us: an employee who forgot a task is disrespecting me; someone who didn't respond fast enough is not respecting me; a small deviation from an instruction is a personal slight.

When this is how a person interprets reality, the world becomes a place requiring constant vigilance. People are not neutral; they are potential threats until they prove their loyalty.

Control as a way to cope with anxiety

Since it is difficult for a person to bear uncertainty, they try to reduce it from the outside. If I know exactly who is around me and what they are doing, I feel protected. Therefore, things must be done in a specific way, and people must behave predictably.

The problem is that this mechanism feeds itself. The more I suspect people, the more I supervise them. The more I supervise them, the more tense they become. Some distance themselves, some leave, and some eventually talk about me. And now I have the proof I was looking for: people cannot be trusted.

The battle for the title

It is worth dwelling on the detail that Sara Netanyahu emphasizes she is a psychologist. In past recordings, she was heard demanding that Nir Hefetz highlight this in the media, describing herself as smarter and more educated than journalists. Literature on "vulnerable narcissism" suggests a complex possibility: when self-worth depends heavily on external validation, a need arises to maintain it through titles and proximity to power. A paradox is created: I need others to confirm my worth, but those same people hold the power to undermine it. Therefore, I both need them and fear them.

This explains how grandiosity and anxiety coexist: "I am better than everyone" and "everyone is trying to hurt me" are two ways to protect the same vulnerable self.

---

What happens when this system is next to a Prime Minister?

Here the story stops being about Sara Netanyahu. The important question is: what happens when a person who experiences their environment in terms of threat, loyalty, and control is for years next to the person who makes the most important decisions in the country? Influence can happen one step earlier: who even reaches the position of influence.

Just two months ago, it was reported that Sara Netanyahu spoke with Brigadier General Guy Markizano when he was a candidate for Military Secretary. The next day, he was chosen. Previously, Guy Tzur testified that in 2012, Sara interviewed him for about 45 minutes while her husband left the room. What these examples share is not necessarily direct control over the decision, but screening based on loyalty.

Learning to be silent

Here we must talk about Benjamin Netanyahu. A leader never sees reality directly. He depends on advisors, professionals, and intelligence heads who decide what information will arrive and whether it is allowed to tell the leader something he does not want to hear.

As loyalty becomes a central criterion, the risk is not only that the wrong people are appointed. The risk is that the right people learn to be silent. If criticism is experienced as betrayal and unpleasant information as a threat, the circle around the leader becomes homogeneous. Spouses confirm reality to each other: if one says "everyone is against us" and the other agrees, the suspicion is strengthened.

In my opinion, the real danger is not an outburst of rage at the residence. The danger begins when the division of the world into "us" and "them" becomes the principle by which the people who bring reality to the Prime Minister are chosen. Because a Prime Minister does not make decisions based on reality, but on the reality that passed through the people he agreed to leave in the room.