Identity and choices

First of all, there are polls that indicate that they will pass the threshold, and even in the polls that they do not pass, they are the highest from the bottom, so according to deviation errors they still pass.
Secondly, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, I know many who would have been interested in voting for them and this claim is why they refrain from voting, thus fulfilling the polls' prophecy.
In my opinion, if everyone who wanted to vote for them had voted for them, they would have won at least twice as many seats.
In addition, there is another reason not to believe the polls, they do not survey them at the same level as other parties, this is a fact.
Therefore, the public (and the rabbi) must be proven for years – A. Voting for them. B. Such a claim is self-fulfilling.

Where did the Rabbi get this prophecy that they would not enter? Is it because a righteous man decrees and God fulfills?
And if the Rabbi is uncertain about something, then the categorical decree binds him!

I expected both comments. 🙂
There is a tendency in every party to embrace the optimistic polls. From what I have seen, the prevailing polls put them somewhere at the bottom of the barrel, far, far from the blocking percentage. Not a sampling error and not a guarantee. In my unprofessional assessment, it will continue to go down. All the struggling parties explain to us that they have polls, and that the pollsters are biased about them, and that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and so on. I am sorry, this may be a good way to motivate activists, but I do not buy it.
As for the categorical mandate, it has nothing to do with whether I am satisfied or not. Even if it is clear that they will not enter, I am supposed to vote for them. And indeed I am considering voting for them despite the assessment I expressed here, both because of the categorical mandate and because in any case there is no one else to vote for. But doing propaganda work and investing energy in a hopeless task because of the categorical mandate sounds excessive to me. As I wrote, I might write a post about it, without detracting from any other interesting topic.
And beyond all, their ability to make such a fundamental and dramatic change exists only if they bring in over 20 seats (and even then, in my opinion, the chance is tiny). 5 seats, even if a miracle greater than the splitting of the sea happens and they receive them, will not change anything in terms of the grandiose plans they present. Their platform is revolutionary, and five MKs do not make such revolutions, nor are they much less great than these.
I have a long-standing dispute with Feiglin (once, many years ago, we even did an interview together on the radio and talked about it), whether such a change is made using a top-down or bottom-up method. I think only bottom-up, if at all. He is a top-down man, and I think it is delusional.

I must point out that with this ambition there is indeed less chance.
But in this way we will never succeed in changing something that is accepted by the public, in every area of life (including in Halacha by the way..).
In addition, it is a fact that they are being swayed, I myself am not an activist of the party, I received a survey question in the message about who I would vote for, and I came to write down Zehut, and oops, it is not offered, there is the Jewish Home there, there is the New Right, but there is no them…
In my opinion, even if they do not pass, they are on the border, and the efforts that will be invested could help them pass.
Regarding the rabbi's last argument (the potential for action in the Knesset in relation to the number of mandates), I understand that the rabbi sees fit to vote only for the major parties, if I am wrong, then there is a contradiction in the rabbi's way.
Of course, they have fewer means to change things with only five seats, but first of all, they can start with the changes in the easy things, whereas if we had a voucher system in the Ministry of Education and not a professional army, that would be enough.

In addition, slowly we can reach the straw that breaks the camel's back, for example, they are not the only ones who are in favor of a professional army, there are others, and together with them, even if not now but “at many times, from the grouping of the disappearing lists” something will penetrate society and the Knesset, “and a different public will become”.
Another point, if they now receive five seats, there is a greater chance that in the next elections they will be able to receive twice as many, but if they do not vote now, there is a high chance that in the next elections they will disappear from the political map altogether.

Reuven, with or without ambition, there is no chance. When ambition is derived from an assessment of reality, it is ridiculous to say that with such ambition there is no chance. If you had suggested that I establish a party that would make people fly, I would have had the same ambition, and even then you could have said that with ambition like mine, we would not be able to achieve that people would fly. This is a ridiculous logic of argument.
Your second claim is also unfounded. I did not suggest voting only for the big ones. On the contrary, I said that I was considering voting for them. I argued that someone who proposes a revolution could only do so within the framework of a large party. A less revolutionary platform could also be realized within the framework of a smaller party. In my opinion, they would not be able to do anything with all their changes, even with ten seats. This is the price of thinking big. Big changes are only made bottom-up (I know that sounds contradictory, but it is not).
Your claim that identity does not appear on the form also makes no sense. When you survey Zehut, you get data. When you survey other parties, they do not publish data on Zehut. This does not say anything about the reliability of the surveys regarding Zehut.
Note that all your arguments here were unfounded on their face, and it is clear that your excessive motivation (which is commendable) causes you to be biased. Even if the goal is lofty and worthy, it is worth thinking about it in a balanced and calculated way.

Rabbi,

It is not clear to me whether the lack of response to my question regarding the instruction of the Rabbi of Breslov means that the answer is positive or negative.

The truth is, I'm just thirsty for another interesting post of politics and gossip, so I'm not sure my motivation is praiseworthy.

To Rabbi Shalit,
First of all, I would like to thank you for the open rebuke (from an open lover..).

Now to the defendant himself,
You can endlessly debate and argue about my words.
I will state my words correctly:
First of all, you did not answer my last two arguments (or you settled for a representative sample of the rest..).
Regarding my first argument, the defendant is not like evidence, here, in my opinion, they are limited by the percentage of blocking even for surveys that do not pass them, therefore with more effort, it is possible to help. And ambition can contribute to this.

As for the big parties' claim, the gist of my point was that the Rabbi's claim about the power to change is invalid.
If you hold that they have no ability (even a very small revolution) there is no point at all in voting for small parties, and if you believe that although small parties do not have great power, they do have some power, then it is still possible to vote for them, and they will start with the smaller revolutions.
I understand that you claim that they do have little power, but Feiglin always tries as if he has great power and he does not realize this and therefore there is no point in voting for him, it seems to me that in this Knesset (if he is in it of course..) he will already learn how much power he has.
So these claims were made and also stood up and still stand.
Regarding the rejection of the claim of the polls, you may be right there, that is a fact that I did not know, I did not know that sometimes only certain parties are polled. If so, there is indeed no evidence.

Sorry, I'm sending multiple messages, but there's some kind of technical glitch on the site, and when I write a comment that's too long, the comment option is deleted (or is it a subtle hint?)

There is no clue here. This has been a glitch on the site since its inception.
As for the matter, as I wrote, they are far from the percentage of blocking a horseshoe distance away. She can't see this percentage even with a telescope. That's why I didn't bother to answer again what I already wrote.
As for the further chatter, I suggest you answer it yourself. It's really not difficult.
Excuse me, but I think we've exhausted this damn topic.

You probably meant a microscope, because with a telescope you actually see pretty big things.

I meant a telescope, since its function is to bridge a large distance between the observer and the object (a horseshoe).

Does the fact that the party leader has a problem with political conduct have no bearing on the decision whether to vote for her, but only on the categorical imperative?

Of course it is. The categorical order is also supposed to take this into account.

https://www.kan.org.il/item/?itemId=48160
Regarding the Rabbi's prediction regarding the electoral threshold.

Interesting.

In all the recent polls, ‘identity’ is above the threshold. I think it is already very realistic to talk about voting for –identity. And if the rabbi's post causes more voters – then it would be nice to have it one hour earlier