First of all, there are polls indicating that they will pass the electoral threshold, and even in polls where they don’t pass it, they’re the highest party below it, so given the margin of error they also pass it.
Second, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I know many people who would be interested in voting for them, but because of this claim they refrain from voting for them, thereby fulfilling the prophecy of the polls.
In my opinion, if everyone who wanted to vote for them actually did so, they would win at least twice as many seats.
In addition, there’s another reason not to believe the polls: they don’t survey them at the same level they survey other parties; that’s a fact.
Therefore the public should be rebuked (and the Rabbi as well) on two counts: a. voting for them. b. making a claim like this that fulfills itself.

How does the Rabbi know this prophecy that they won’t get in? Is it because “the righteous decrees and the Holy One, blessed be He, fulfills it”?
And if the Rabbi is in doubt about it, then the categorical imperative obligates him!

I expected both comments. 🙂
There’s a tendency in every party to embrace the optimistic polls. From what I’ve seen, the prevailing polls put them somewhere at the very bottom of the barrel, far, far from the electoral threshold. Not margin of error and not anything of the sort. In my non-professional estimation, it’s only going to drop further. All the struggling parties explain to us that they have polls, and that the pollsters are biased against them, and that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and so on. Sorry, maybe that’s a good way to motivate activists, but I’m not buying it.
As for the categorical imperative, it has nothing to do with whether I’m in doubt or not. Even if it were clear that they won’t get in, I would still be supposed to vote for them. And in fact I am considering voting for them despite the assessment I expressed here, both because of the categorical imperative and because in any case there’s no one else to vote for. But to do propaganda work and invest energy in a hopeless mission because of the categorical imperative sounds excessive to me. As I wrote, maybe I’ll write a post about it; it’s no worse than any other interesting topic.
And beyond all that, their ability to make such a substantial and dramatic change exists only if they bring in more than 20 seats (and even then, in my opinion, the chance is tiny). Five seats—even if an even greater miracle than the splitting of the sea were to occur and they got them—would change nothing in terms of the grandiose plans they present. Their platform is revolutionary, and five MKs do not make such revolutions, nor even ones much smaller than those.
I’ve had a long-standing dispute with Feiglin (once, many years ago, we were even interviewed together on the radio and talked about it): whether a change like this is made top-down or bottom-up. I think only bottom-up, if at all. He’s a top-down person, and in my opinion that’s delusional.

I have to note that with that kind of ambition there is indeed less chance.
But that way we’ll never manage to change anything that is accepted by the public, in any area of life (including in Jewish law, by the way).
In addition, it’s a fact that they’re being skewed against. I myself am not an activist for the party; I got a poll question by message asking whom I intended to vote for, and I came to enter Zehut, and whoops—it wasn’t offered. The Jewish Home was there, the New Right was there, but not them…
In my opinion, even if they really don’t pass, they’re on the border, and the efforts invested could help them cross it.
As for the Rabbi’s last claim (the potential to accomplish things in the Knesset relative to the number of seats), I understand from this that the Rabbi sees fit to vote only for the big parties. If I’m wrong, then there is a contradiction in the Rabbi’s approach.
Of course they have fewer means to change things with only five seats, but first of all they can start with changes in the easier areas, and if we had a voucher system in the Ministry of Education and not a professional army, that would already be enough for us.

In addition, little by little you can reach the straw that breaks the camel’s back. For example, they’re not the only ones in favor of a professional army; there are others too, and together with them—even if not now, still “in the course of time, from the gathering of the hidden lists,” something will penetrate society and the Knesset, “and it will turn into another public.”
Another point: if they now get five seats, there’s a better chance that in the next election they’ll be able to get double that. But if they aren’t elected now, there’s a good chance that in the next election they’ll disappear from the political map altogether.

Reuven, with the ambition or without the ambition, there is no chance. When the ambition is derived from an assessment of reality, it’s ridiculous to say that with that kind of ambition there’s no chance. If you suggested that I start a party that would make people fly, I’d have the same ambition, and then too you could say that with ambition like mine we won’t be able to get people to fly. That’s ridiculous logic as an argument.
Your second claim is also unfounded. I didn’t suggest voting only for big parties. On the contrary, I said that I’m considering voting for them. My claim was that someone proposing a revolution can do it only within the framework of a large party. A less revolutionary platform can be realized even within a smaller party. In my estimation, they won’t be able to do any of their changes, even with ten seats. That’s the price of thinking big. Big changes are made only by the bottom-up route (I know that sounds contradictory, but it isn’t).
Your claim that Zehut doesn’t appear on the form also has no significance. When they survey Zehut, they get data. When they survey other parties, they indeed don’t publish data on Zehut. That says nothing about the reliability of the polls regarding Zehut.
Notice that all your arguments here were unfounded on their face, and it’s clear that your excessive motivation (which is worthy of praise) is causing you bias. Even if the goal is lofty and worthy, it’s advisable to think about it in a balanced and considered way.

Rabbi,

It isn’t clear to me whether the lack of a response regarding what I asked about the instruction of the rabbi from Breslov means the answer is yes or no..

Truth be told, I’m just thirsty for another interesting post about politics and gossip, so I’m not sure my motivation is really worthy of praise…

To the honored Rabbi,
At the outset I’ll thank you for the open rebuke (open love, too..).

Now to the matter itself,
One can make lomdus and pilpul on my words without end.
Let me set out my words properly:
First of all, you didn’t answer my last two claims (or perhaps you were satisfied with a representative sample from the rest..).
As for my first claim, the case is not comparable to the proof. Here, my claim is that they are bordering on the electoral threshold even in the polls that don’t put them over it, and therefore with a bit more effort it’s possible to help. And to that, ambition can contribute.

As for the claim about the big parties, the depth of what I meant was that either way, the Rabbi’s claim about the power to change is not valid.
Either way: if you hold that they have no ability whatsoever (not even the tiniest shift), then there is no point at all in voting for small parties. And if you think that although small parties don’t have great power, they do have some power, then one can still vote for them, and they can begin with the smaller revolutions.
I understand that you are claiming that they do indeed have a little power, but Feiglin always tries to act as though he has great power and doesn’t grasp that, and therefore there is no point in voting for him. It seems to me that in this Knesset (if he’s in it, of course..) he’ll already learn how much power he has.
So these claims still stand and remain in place.
As for dismissing the argument about the polls, there you may be right. That’s a piece of data I didn’t know. I didn’t know that sometimes they survey only certain parties. If so, then indeed there is no proof.

Sorry that I’m sending this in several messages, but there’s some technical glitch on the site, and when I write too long a comment the option to post disappears (or maybe that’s a subtle hint…)

There’s no hint here. It’s been a glitch on the site since its inception.
As for the matter itself, as I wrote, they are far from the electoral threshold by five hundred parasangs. It can’t see that threshold even with a telescope. So I didn’t bother answering again what I had already written.
As for the pilpul that follows, I suggest you answer it yourself. It’s really not difficult.
Forgive me, but I think we’ve exhausted this boring topic.

Surely you meant a microscope, because with a telescope you דווקא do see fairly large things…

I meant a telescope, since its role is to bridge a great distance between the observer and the object (five hundred parasangs).

Does the fact that the party leader has a problem with political conduct carry no weight in the decision whether to vote for it, and only the categorical imperative does?

Of course it does. The categorical imperative is also supposed to take that into account.

https://www.kan.org.il/item/?itemId=48160
In connection with the Rabbi’s prediction regarding the electoral threshold.

Interesting.

In all the recent polls, Zehut is above the electoral threshold. It seems to me that by now it’s very realistic to talk about voting for Zehut. And if the Rabbi’s post will bring in more voters—then all the better, and sooner rather than later.