Voting Considerations in Elections (Column 511)
A Look at Two Thinking Fallacies
With God’s help
Disclaimer: This post was translated from Hebrew using AI (ChatGPT 5 Thinking), so there may be inaccuracies or nuances lost. If something seems unclear, please refer to the Hebrew original or contact us for clarification.
In light of discussions held in recent days, and in particular in light of a column by Shmuel Faust in Makor Rishon that I received, in which he explains why this time he will vote for Likud, I thought it appropriate to clarify a few important points that many ignore as we approach voting day. My personal leanings and my attitude toward Bibi and his clique are well known and are evident between the lines, but my goal here is mainly to focus on the principled points and leave you to draw the appropriate conclusions. Even those who don’t agree with me about Bibi and his horror-show coalition can consider the arguments on their own terms, in their own direction.
Two opening notes: Telling the truth and party platforms
It’s well known that parties don’t really have platforms, and even when they do it doesn’t mean much beyond a basic sentiment. This is true of everyone, and it should be kept in mind when looking at a platform or principled declarations. This stems both from a failure to tell the truth (the desire to attract this or that group of voters) and from the fact that there are no real differences between the parties on the general, principled level, and thus they issue statements whose purpose is not to convey information or a message but to draw a contrast, harvest votes, or serve any other goal (other than conveying information). Even between the political extremes the differences aren’t as big as we imagine. That’s why in recent election cycles voting has become increasingly personalized (beyond the current division of the political map around the one and only watershed: yes/no Bibi), and under current conditions that’s how it should be. So bear in mind: there’s no point looking at platforms or even expecting a platform that clarifies policy. For the same reasons, it’s also clear there’s no point paying attention to pre-election promises, and all attempts to extract such promises are nothing but filler for talk shows and current-affairs programs. This too is true for all sides.
By the way, from here one could perhaps also infer that there’s little point in continuing with the party system. We should elect individual candidates and that’s it (perhaps in a regional-proportional system that has a personal component within the parties). But that probably won’t happen any time soon and of course requires a separate discussion.
The first conclusion for our purposes is that the important question we should consider when deciding is what, in your estimation, the party will actually do. Not what it declares, and not even what its basic sentiment is. Regarding the parties and political figures on today’s map, we already have experience from previous years. Almost none of them are new to us. Therefore, it’s fairly easy to know in broad strokes what each will do (in fact, on the overwhelming majority of issues, almost all of them will do almost the same thing. Circumstances are the main factor dictating what will be done, not ideology or worldview—if such even exist).
Whether to vote
Once you conclude that there are no significant differences between the parties, and that even between individuals the differences aren’t that great, the question arises whether to go vote at all. I’ve written more than once that in most election cycles I thought there was no point in going to vote because it doesn’t change anything anyway. Not because of the consideration that my single vote changes nothing (see on this in the columns on the categorical imperative, such as 122 and others), but because everyone does and will do more or less the same thing, and they’re all equally bad. In column 127 I discussed situations in which there’s no difference between the options I’m supposed to choose or decide among (Swiss referenda), and I brought the story of the post in Burma. A man arrived in a remote village in the jungles of Burma (today’s Myanmar) and saw on the wall many mail slots divided by continents and countries. He was amazed by the granularity in a remote post office where no one ever sets foot. When he approached the service window, he saw on the other side of the wall of boxes a large sack into which all the letters dropped into the various boxes fell. That’s roughly what happens to our vote in elections here.
Fine, but there are situations in which there are differences between the parties yet they’re all bad. Here the consideration of the “lesser evil” would seem to enter. In column 189 I talked about such considerations and explained why in principle I oppose them (except in cases of “the good within the bad.” See there). Seemingly, in the absence of a party it makes sense to vote for, the conclusion should be a blank ballot or not voting. So when your brain is being washed with slogans about the civic duty to go vote, remember that in many cases our civic duty is not to vote and not to yield to those stupid slogans. See that column.
I’ll just note that the option of casting a blank ballot is off the table as well, because our lowlifes have decreed that blank ballots aren’t counted. They look out for themselves and neutralize our ability to protest against them and demand improvement. For the same reason they also exclude political material from the spam law. Everyone is forbidden to send spam—except our lawmakers. We’re all eating the results in these last days. Bon appétit. These are the folks you want to vote for.
We’re left with not voting at all. That is indeed the appropriate conclusion if in your view there are no differences or all options are bad—and of course if you think your choice has no effect (see, for example, a reasoned position in favor of a blank ballot here). In my opinion, that was indeed the case in most previous cycles. But I have the impression that this time the situation is a bit different. This time voting could make a difference, at least in a certain sense, and it’s important to clarify the difference between two types of consequentialist considerations.
Above I spoke about a situation in which, in my view, all parties will do the same thing. That consideration indeed neutralizes the categorical imperative and cancels the duty to vote. On the contrary, I would want the universal law to be that everyone not vote in such a situation. The anarchy that would ensue would be better than the current scandal, at least in the long run. The same goes for the lesser evil, as I explained in that column. But here I’m talking about a different kind of consequentialist consideration. One can say that, practically, the results of the upcoming elections are fairly clear. There are only two reasonable possibilities: either a government of Bibi-Haredim-Smotrich-Ben-Gvir (perhaps with a few additional appendages or a party they manage to bribe), or another round of elections. The chance of a third option seems to me slim to nonexistent. Therefore, in such a situation one might say there’s no point going to vote because your vote won’t affect anything. At least if you believe in one of the parties in the “No-Bibi” bloc, it looks like a rigged, pointless game. What could possibly happen?
I claim that in such a case it’s precisely wrong, in my view, to act according to the practical outcome. The duty to vote by virtue of the categorical imperative stems from the fact that there’s an obligation to do what I would want to be a universal law. If in my view a given party ought to receive the mandate, then I must vote for it. I’ve clarified more than once that the consideration here isn’t consequentialist; that is, the duty doesn’t depend on my action advancing that outcome, but on the fact that if everyone did this, it would lead to that outcome. This is a hypothetical, theoretical consideration, not a practical one (see, e.g., column 122 and others; there I showed that ultimately this can also lead to a practical result). Therefore, if there is a party that you think can promote ideas that seem right to you, you should vote for it and not refrain from voting because “there’s no chance.”
Of course one can consider “the best within the bad,” meaning not voting for parties that won’t pass the electoral threshold (because it’s a waste of a vote), though even here it’s not clear that the categorical imperative doesn’t tell us to vote for whom we believe in. But that applies to not voting for a party that won’t enter the Knesset. A party that will enter the Knesset and express your views but has no chance of winning power—this, in my view, is not a valid reason. There is more to analyze here and to sharpen the intuition that distinguishes between these two situations, but I lack the space.
But those are considerations I’ve mentioned before. Beyond them, I wish to address two additional points that are important to keep in mind and that many miss, and where, in my opinion, consequentialism is indeed important and relevant.
The similarity fallacy
Many people explain that they will vote for So-and-so or for such-and-such party because they like them and their outlook resembles theirs. There are people there with kippot, or without kippot; they are right-wing or not right-wing to my taste; they are liberal or conservative religiously—again, to my taste—and so on. Thus, for example, Shmuel Faust in his article above explains that Likud is the people of Israel in all its hues (Yesh”I—Yachad Shivtei Yisrael, “Together the Tribes of Israel”), and it also leans right and advances Jewish identity, so why not vote for them?! After all, we won’t find a party tailored exactly to our measurements, he writes, and expecting that is childish. Similarly, many say they’ll vote for Ayelet Shaked and her colleagues because she favors a moderate Jewish identity and is right-wing in her views. So what’s wrong with that?! (For the sake of discussion, let’s leave the threshold aside.)
At the base of many of these considerations lies a fallacy. The result of your vote—what will actually happen—isn’t determined by the worldview of the candidate or party you voted for. And not only because of other parties. Their worldview also doesn’t determine what they themselves will do. For example, suppose you voted for Ayelet Shaked as one who represents a moderate and liberal Jewish identity. But she has already solemnly declared she will join a coalition of Bibi-Smotrich and the Haredim. What do you think that coalition, including Shaked and her colleagues, will do on matters of religion and state and liberalism? Nothing, of course. The same for someone who votes for Ben Gvir because he’s right-wing. He will, of course, get Goldknopf and Gafni and Deri—the Haredim—who will exclusively determine everything that happens on matters of religion and state (as has been the case every time before). I’ve written more than once that the (now defunct) Jewish Home of Bennett and Shaked, led by a religious leader (Bennett) and a liberal (Shaked), behaved in practice like a Haredi party in every respect. In all their Knesset votes on religion-and-state issues and on attitudes toward the Haredim you won’t find a sliver of difference between them and the Haredim. The coalition decides policy and imposes coalition discipline on these matters.
So: you voted Ben Gvir—you got Gafni. You voted Shaked—you got Gafni. You voted Bibi—you got Gafni. I’m speaking, of course, only about what will happen in religion-and-state matters and regarding the Haredim: subjects like core-curriculum studies (cf. the deal between the Lithuanians and the Hasidim regarding Belz, inspired by Bibi), budgets for the Haredim, drafting Haredim and yeshiva students, attitudes toward LGBTQ people, the Western Wall compromise, the Chief Rabbinate’s monopoly, conversion policy and acceptance of immigrants/refugees, and the like. Therefore, Shaked’s religious moderation is not a relevant consideration for voting for her. A person who votes for Shaked because she represents a value world close to his and speaks to him is making a mistake. He is voting for Gafni, even though Gafni speaks to him less. We’re dealing with a single bloc that will act uniformly—at least in these areas—and it makes no difference whom you voted for. Of course in other areas there may be some differences, and I’ll touch on that below. Rabbi Medan called this morning to vote for Ayelet Shaked (I must say it’s a truly bizarre post). He did write that she will break the political tie and enable a Bibi coalition to form, but you can achieve that with any vote for that coalition (and do it better, since Shaked won’t make it in). But I’ve no doubt this call is also based on his view that the direction of Jewish Home and Ayelet Shaked is close to Rabbi Medan’s heart. He wants to advance that direction. But he should note that a vote for Ayelet Shaked will take us farthest from the Gavison-Medan Covenant that he likely believes in, and farthest from the direction it represents. Not because Ayelet doesn’t want it—I’m sure she does. But in this context, a vote for her is a vote for Gafni and Goldknopf. Give her your vote and you’ve given another vote to the Haredim. So vote directly for Goldknopf or for Bibi. All those votes are de facto identical, at least on domestic issues, the Haredim, and religion and state (except that a vote for Shaked is tossing your vote in the trash).
The upshot is that your vote should not be directed to someone who resembles you, whose views or sentiments tend toward the directions you believe in. That’s not a reason to vote for them. The more important question is what is expected to happen in practice if you vote for them. And again, I’m not talking about breaking promises or telling lies. I’m talking about what’s already clear today that they themselves will do. No liberalism in religion-and-state matters will happen if you vote for any of these obscurantists (including Shaked and Bibi), even if they themselves are great liberals. You’ll get social backwardness; non-integration of Haredim socially and economically; budgets that entrench distorted social structures; opposition to reforms in “kosher” (filtered) phones—all this when you voted for right-wing religious liberalism. Try examining the rationales given for supporting this or that person or party and you’ll see that in most cases they don’t hold water. And not because there’s a mistake in understanding their positions, but because their positions don’t reflect what they themselves will do.
Just for impression’s sake, I highly recommend watching this segment. Try to ignore Lior Schleien’s venom and anti-religious tone (mostly justified) and focus on what Goldknopf says. Isn’t it horrifying? This is primitivism you won’t find in the depths of the Amazon. Giving this creature political and economic power is simply suicidal. Note that this is what you get when you voted Shaked, Bibi, Smotrich, etc. Most of these are liberals and secular to traditional. Truly Yesh”I. A note to Shmuel Faust: he’s voting for a party that espouses a unifying traditional Jewish identity—and he’s getting Goldknopf, whose beard may be long but whose visage is not particularly pleasing to me (cf. “A Flat for Rent”).
Bottom line for our purposes: you can ignore the party names in my arguments here and the anger my views arouse in you, and focus on the principled, logical considerations. Even if you don’t agree with my assessments and, for some reason, Goldknopf in your eyes is a prodigy—mathematically, morally, and economically—and deserves to be given the keys to the universe forever (not just for seventy years as he requested), you should vote for him and not for Shaked or Smotrich. You should examine my principled claim: your vote cannot be determined by the persona or outlook of the party you vote for, but by what it will do after it is elected. That’s really not the same thing—and not because of lies and broken promises. On the contrary, it’s precisely because of the promises we’re already getting from them now. I promise you faithfully that these promises they will keep scrupulously.
That is the similarity fallacy. And now to the “focus on the main thing” fallacy.
Is it right to focus on the main thing?
My argument implicitly assumes another premise we should consider, and this is the second fallacy. It’s true that in certain areas compromise is needed. In politics we don’t achieve all our desires, and it’s no wonder we have to compromise. If so, one could argue that even if on religion-and-state issues we won’t get what we wanted, at least we’ll have the Right, a thriving economy, national pride, superb security, a genius trans-galactic policy, and so on. So what are a few more billions and a few exemptions for Haredim, or harm to LGBTQ people or to women? Isn’t that worth the greater achievements? The question that arises here is, essentially, what are the more important issues and what can be compromised on. I focused on religion and state, but time and again I’m told that maybe I’m right, but this isn’t the central and most important issue today. Therefore many tell me: you may be right, but we’re prepared to compromise on that.
But that’s a mistake again. One can argue about whether and to what extent the issue of religion and state and human and civil rights is important (to me—very). But let’s assume for the sake of discussion that this is indeed a secondary issue, at least compared to policy, security, and the economy. I still contend it’s not right to choose a party according to those issues. Focusing on the “main thing” is the second fallacy. Sounds strange? I’ll try to explain further.
Why not focus on the main thing
First, note that even on these issues there isn’t a real difference between the sides. In security policy, in surrender to terror and threats, in attitudes toward Arab citizens of Israel, and in all other matters, there’s no difference between Likud/Bibi and Lapid/Gantz. They do more or less the same things—that is, very little—but they talk a great deal and lofty talk when they’re on the opposition benches. Bibi is the master of surrender to every passing wind, explaining to us that he is Mr. Security and the father of counterterrorism. The man who did nothing regarding governance in the Negev, who failed in the May 2021 riots, who capitulates to Hamas at every step (the Shalit deal) and did nothing against the rockets (apart from transferring protection money and various benefits), who froze settlements, who personally blocked changes to the justice system—now speaks without batting an eye about being Mr. Security, about national backbone, about refusing to surrender to terror, and so on. Just last night I saw on my favorite, Guy Zoaretz’s program, things Netanyahu is now saying about having transferred and continuing to transfer billions to Arabs. Recall his criticisms of the current government on that very issue (see here from 5:20).
Beyond all this, even if we accept the complaints about the “change coalition” surrendering to the Arabs and transferring budgets to them, on the other side (=the Other Side) the same thing happened and will happen far more grandly for the Haredim (and also for the Arabs, at least if they’re needed). So it’s more important to me to save the Haredim from themselves than to worry about what will happen if they benefit the Arabs a bit through Ra’am. On the contrary: supporting the Haredim is a disaster, and supporting the Arabs is an obligation and blessed. Not because I prefer the Arabs, but because of the results expected from those budgets. Even if I won’t endorse every shekel transferred to Arabs, I explained in column 507 why in my opinion it’s important to equalize their status and advance Abbas’s Ra’am, whereas when it comes to Haredi budgets I won’t sign off on almost any shekel. Every shekel transferred to them is social and economic destruction—for the state and even more for the Haredim themselves.
So if there’s no difference between the two blocs on the “main” issues, why not focus on the “secondary” ones—namely, religion and state and the Haredim? Note: even if I accept the hierarchy of main and secondary, it still doesn’t follow that I should vote according to the “main” issues. Sometimes your vote there doesn’t change anything, and therefore it’s better to vote according to the “secondary” issues (which, in my view, aren’t secondary at all).
Now I’ll present this point from a slightly different angle. Suppose there are differences between the blocs even on the main issues, the question still remains: what’s the likelihood that any of them will actually do anything on these matters? If none of them will advance their position on those issues, why vote for them? To vote for party X because of issue A, I must assume that A is important, that there is a difference between this party’s position and others on A, and that it will indeed advance its position on A. These are three different, almost independent assumptions, and to neutralize this consideration in choosing a party it’s enough for me that one of them is false. But ironically, Providence has spared us the dilemma: in most cases all three assumptions don’t hold for the “central” issues.
If so, why should I focus on the main thing when choosing a party?! Absolutely not. I should focus on what is changeable—on what there is some chance the party will push in the direction I desire. That’s true even if the issue is marginal and less important than the central issues (if they’re even central). The relevant question for voting is not necessarily what is the most important issue, but no less: where do I have the greatest chance to influence. This is the “focus on the main thing” fallacy, which I’ll now sharpen via a management theory chapter.
On bottlenecks
To sharpen the matter, I’ll preface with an interesting management thesis. As is known, every three letters in English is a management method. Less well known is that this field is usually a collection of trivial clichés that any sensible person understands. True, sometimes even simple things require sharpening and concretization, and therefore perhaps there’s some value in studying and researching management theories (though in most cases I think it’s garbage—akin to gender studies).
An Israeli physicist named Eliyahu Goldratt proposed his own management policy that received strong resonance and standing in industry and management research. Of course there are a few three-letter acronyms there—don’t worry—but I’ll spare you those. A clear and interesting description can be found in his book The Goal, which was translated into Hebrew. A clearer and much more concise description I also saw here. The gist of it is viewing an industrial production line as a chain made up of links, one after another (and in parallel). For example, when assembling a car, each screw, wheel, piston, headlight is produced, assembly occurs, etc. There are dependencies between the links: wheel assembly can be done only after the screws and the wheel itself have been produced, and also if the axle on the car onto which you’re installing the wheel is there. So it is with the engine and every other component. Managers seek to improve production processes—that is, increase throughput, improve quality, reduce costs. Suppose I’ve found a way to produce screws faster; I’ll immediately upgrade the department that produces screws to achieve the desired improvement. But if the pace of wheel assembly hasn’t changed, then increasing the pace of screw production won’t change anything. Instead of four screws per second I’ll have a hundred, but wheel assembly is one wheel per second, so the remaining 96 screws will sit there forever. Increasing screw production was a waste of money and contributed nothing to the production process.
The implication is that when you look at such a chain, there’s no point optimizing any of the links unless it’s the bottleneck. You must always focus on the slowest link in the chain, for it determines the production rate. Improving any other link is a waste of time and money. Goldratt argued that at any given time one should improve only the link that is the bottleneck. Once we improve it, another link becomes the bottleneck, and then we must look for ways to improve that one.
By the way, the link we improve can be marginal and not important at all. Producing screws or assembling wheels are trivial stages in building a car, and so we easily dismiss them. What are they compared to producing the engine or the transmission?! But if the simple stages are the bottleneck, then it’s very important to focus on them rather than on the core stages that require advanced, sophisticated technologies.
Sound very simple? It is—but it turns out that in practice many managers overlook this simple idea and waste time, resources, and energy addressing any link for which they happen to think up some improvement. Naturally they focus on the core stages of the process. No wonder Goldratt was paid a fortune for each lecture, since in practice this method apparently led to significant efficiency gains in many plants. That’s the beauty of theoreticians. Sometimes they speak disconnected nonsense and their ideas aren’t really applicable, but sometimes their insights—despite their simplicity, or precisely because of it—can yield huge improvements that the person in the trenches wouldn’t think of. He’s busy with the day-to-day and has no mental bandwidth to think abstractly. He simply isn’t looking in the right direction.
Incidentally, Goldratt begins his treatment of the issue with a description of a class hike marching in a single file. The slowest is the fat rabbi, who finds it hard to move at a reasonable pace. Where would you place him? The simple tendency is to put him at the head of the line. But note: if he’s at the head, the line will begin to arrive at the destination when the rabbi arrives, and everyone else will stream in after. The rabbi’s pace is the lower bound on arrival time. By contrast, if we put him at the end, the line will finish arriving when the rabbi arrives. His pace will be the upper bound on arrival time. Now think what you’d do if you could hurry someone in the line whom you see “daydreaming.” Would you do it? Clearly there’s no point. The line will arrive when the rabbi arrives, and there’s no benefit in hurrying the other children. They aren’t the bottleneck. The best thing to do is to put the rabbi at the end and take off all the weight he’s carrying and distribute it among the other children. Again, simple ideas (and of course not entirely accurate in practice: if the rabbi is at the beginning maybe he’ll move faster because they’ll push him; the weight distribution may slow others and make them the bottlenecks; etc.), but they can yield significant improvement and save us mistakes and wasted energy at the cost of some detached thinking and a small shift in our attention.
Back to us
Returning to our case: there are big, important ideas we care about. We want them advanced. But there’s almost no chance anything will happen regarding them. In such cases, voting for a party that promises to advance the core ideas is an effort misplaced in the right direction. It’s like improving a link that isn’t the bottleneck. It won’t change anything, and the improvement won’t benefit us at all. By contrast, if we focus on links that can move and yield results—even if they aren’t important—that effort bears much more fruit. We must identify the issues that are bottlenecks and choose whom to vote for accordingly.
So if in the diplomatic, economic, and security realms it doesn’t really matter who sits there because everyone does (or doesn’t do) the same thing, why not focus on matters of religion and state where there might be a chance to change something?! There there are differences, and there there might be a chance something will actually be done. Even if you think the first condition doesn’t hold (they aren’t important), if the other two hold (there’s a difference between parties and a chance the matter will be advanced), that’s worth a vote.
Summary and conclusions
If you now reread Shmuel Faust’s article, you’ll see that he chooses the “main thing” even though it won’t change a thing, and he suggests choosing a party whose direction appeals to him and seems right. These are two faulty considerations—even by his own lights. In my view, none of the three conditions holds here; but even by his view that the first condition holds, the second and third clearly do not, and therefore there’s still no valid rationale to vote as he proposes. His words suffer from the two fallacies I’ve described here: the similarity fallacy and the “focus on the main thing” fallacy. Needless to say, Faust is just my “victim” here simply because I happened to read his words now. But what I’ve said applies to most of the rationales I read—for and against—across the board.
One more remark regarding Ra’am and Mansour Abbas, may he live long. In column 507 I noted that a vote for Abbas seems to me a very logical option in the current situation—of course not for those who think it’s harmful. But let’s assume for now that it isn’t harmful and even helpful (that’s my opinion). Two questions arise here that touch on the two fallacies I’ve described.
First, there’s a recoil because he’s not at all like me and not close to my views. He doesn’t wear a knitted kippah and sandals (although neither do I), but a keffiyeh; he prays five times and not three; and he even identifies with our enemies. True—so what? I don’t fall into the similarity fallacy. What matters to me isn’t whether his doctrine resembles mine and appeals to me, but whether the results of his election will be positive from my perspective. That’s for the similarity fallacy.
In addition, I’ve been asked more than once whether promoting the Arabs is the most important issue for me. Now you can answer yourselves: not really (though it’s certainly important). But it’s an issue that might move given the power Abbas would receive, and therefore even if the issue isn’t the most important in my eyes, it makes sense to choose a party on that basis. I avoid falling into the “focus on the main thing” fallacy. On issues that seem important to you (and less so to me)—policy, security, economy, and the like—in my view there’s no significant difference between the options; and even if there are differences in nuances, neither side will significantly advance its direction. From time immemorial, circumstances dictate what our government does (Kissinger said that the State of Israel has no foreign policy, only domestic policy. He was wrong: it has no policy at all). So why choose a party on that basis?! Therefore, in my view it makes perfect sense to choose whom to vote for according to social conceptions regarding religion and state, civil rights, advancement of the Arab population—even if these issues are “secondary” in your eyes. Even there I wouldn’t recommend choosing the party and figures who “think like you” (the similarity fallacy), but those who will advance what you want done.
To conclude, I’ll just note there is a certain difference between the two considerations. Religion-and-state matters likely won’t change in any scenario, because a Bibi coalition won’t touch them (except perhaps to make them worse), and the other coalition simply won’t form (certainly not without the Haredim). But advancing the Arabs has a chance of success, since Abbas can join either bloc and get from both what he demands (from Bibi he will, of course, get more and with greater ease). So here there’s even a chance to see results. What’s bad about that?!
There are also practical differences between the parties on economic issues, as evidenced by all the struggles within the current coalition regarding the agricultural import reform.
You will find small differences in all sorts of details between any two people. You will not be able to know what this or that government will do regarding this particular matter, even if you think it is decisive.
We learned from our elders that nothing is 100 percent, but when it comes to economic issues, there are significant differences between the parties that are actually being eliminated and that have real potential for policy change.
I really disagree. And it's probably not a difference between the blocs. But if you think so, you can apply my logic to these assumptions.
It actually seems that Lieberman did promote a free market in the outgoing government and even has a platform (not much, but there is one and it is long, link: https://beytenu.org.il/%d7%9e%d7%a6%d7%a2-%d7%9c%d7%9b%d7%a0%d7%a1%d7%aa-%d7%94-25/)
Lieberman is the best option after all the sleaze.
Is there no place for the categorical imperative in choosing a party? That is, let's say you like what the Republicans will actually do, but if everyone votes for the Republicans then you no longer think it's good (because you also agree that they identify with the enemies). So apparently you shouldn't vote for them, right?
And an anecdote, in chemical mechanisms there is something similar to Goldert. There is a stage called the rate-determining stage, which is actually the slowest stage (requires the most energy) and according to which the speed of the reaction is determined (this helps in studying the mechanism and optimizing the reaction).
It is impossible to apply the categorical imperative here literally. I would not want any party to have exclusive control. The imperative here perhaps means that everyone will vote for what they believe in.
The bottleneck is the judicial system.
And there the three conditions are met. There is a trait among a number of significant politicians on this issue.
Even if the change is minimal and the government that is formed manages to do little, it will be the bottleneck of the country in the coming years that hinders development on other issues.
All your points are correct, and that's why I'll vote for Lieberman.
He also doesn't intend to sit in Bibi's coalition (apparently, there's no telling), he also promotes right-wing economic policies, and he also wants what I want in matters of religion and state.
All right. Good luck.
No. He is not right. The anti-Bloc is pro-progressive and he is anti-Jewish. And the Bibi Bloc is not. And that is the main difference even before security and certainly before religion and state.
There is one main difference between the camps, who will promote/prevent Israel from becoming a “progressive” state (for some reason it is called progressivism, in practice it is a dark and anti-democratic sect that advocates silencing and coercion) like Canada, where people with depression are found and executed by doctors who decide it is appropriate and at the same time earn money for it.
“enlightened” countries that force parents to change the sex of their confused children with surgeries and drugs whose effects are irreversible.
Countries that pass laws that anyone who disagrees with them and says it out loud will go to prison.
If you are referring to women's rights, in these enlightened countries men can compete in women's sports if they want, they can choose to be in women's prisons even if they are sex offenders and also enter women's services if they choose to.
Gafni is a knight of women's rights next to the ”progressive” danger that could also reach Israel.
In my opinion, Lapid and Gantz will only take us in this direction. On the other hand, the right-wing bloc will delay the slippery slope that most of the West is already approaching its bottom.
Therefore, I will vote for the right-wing bloc, I completely agree with you that there is no difference who I vote for, you can roll the dice on the ballot for one of the 4 parties in the bloc.
Contrary to what your column implies, I am far from agreeing that the most significant thing is Gafni, Gafni, Gafni, and Goldknopf. The Haredim have been in an advanced modernization process of entering the labor market and getting an education for years. There is no need for coercion, if anything, the opposite.
I think you're exaggerating. What does it mean that the country will become progressive? You won't be able to marry as you wish? This is the situation today when the country is under the rule of religious coercion. It's mainly about not being able to force others. It's not bad at all, even if on the fringes there are annoying phenomena like a fine given by a (religious) judge to a cashier who insisted on treating a transgender customer as a man. These are phenomena on the fringes and they are really not on the scale of the problems caused by the opposite bloc. By the way, Lapid and Gantz are really not like that and I don't think they will lead the country there. Maybe Meretz and maybe Labor. But these are insignificant fringes. There's no need to exaggerate with the hysteria. These are ridiculous and delusional phenomena, and sometimes annoying, and that's it. Not a terrible problem at all. When it becomes like that, we can definitely think about an appropriate vote. That's not the case today.
Anyway, for our purposes, it's enough for me that you accept the principled logic. I said that everyone will draw their own conclusions based on their own values and assumptions.
There is no exaggeration or hysteria here,
I gave you examples from around the world. Have you read them at all?
These are laws that have already been passed in other countries and you tell me “ridiculous and bizarre phenomena and sometimes annoying and that”.
Your lack of knowledge about what is happening in the world in this area is really striking and this is not the first time it has come to light.
I suggest you examine the issue objectively, the achievements of progressives and liberals and extreme feminism in the world, the ”sometimes annoying” laws that have been passed in Canada, England, the US, and more.
Their effects in schools, the experiments being done on teenagers these days with drugs that have never been tried before in this way.
It's not a shame, I wasn't aware of these things either until the last two years.
If you trust Lapid to stop this, then I really have no words. He is the greatest populist in history. If this is what Hollywood is selling, he will happily buy it.
I read the examples and I know the situation as well as you do. And as I wrote, this is a clearly hysterical description.
The main issue is not security or peace policy, etc., but whether the state will belong to the Jewish people or not. And that's what the elections are about. The right is the Jewish people. The left is against the Jewish people. And that's it. In other words, the elections are about whether to overthrow the dictatorial rule of the leftist bureaucrats or not.
On the freedom of the Jewish people
In short, the central and most important point that Rabbi Michai left out of us or disappeared from him himself (look what the briber does, he hates the Haredim more than the Arabs)
Emmanuel, your expected response was not long in coming. I will just draw your attention to the fact that lies are not positions. When you want to express your (stupid) position, express it freely. I grit my teeth and insist on letting you do so. But don't express my own positions and certainly don't lie.
Why a lie? (And what kind of lie exactly. I said a few things). This is my assessment of reality. This is what I estimate the rabbi thinks (or believes in). Even if he is not aware of it. And in relation to the hatred of the Haredim over the Arabs - the actions of the human being indicate what he really thinks. Not what he says. Those who are in favor of budgets for the enemy Arabs (and in the best case (and least likely) foreigners who do not care about our fate) the barbaric and primitive criminals just so that the Haredim do not receive budgets (which they really do not deserve. But they did not take it by force. This is what they want to get in exchange for their fingers. What can be done that those who work for the god of democracy give them (and the Arabs) citizenship and voting rights) - this is what it is. It is simply incomprehensible the attitude of the left and the rabbi towards this group that murdered so many Jews throughout the years of the existence of the Jewish Yishuv. Simply incomprehensible. A real betrayal of the Jewish people.
Why do you think that if I vote for religious Zionism and as a result a right-wing government is formed,
the main things will not be achieved.
Regarding Bibi, I agree, but why is it not right to compromise on the secondary issues of religion, state and society, in exchange for changes in the legal system and security?
I explained. In my opinion, there will be no such changes, neither in the justice system nor in security. We have many years of experience that clearly shows this.
Why do you assume that a government with Ben Gvir Smotrich, the Haredim, and Bibi will not change security and legal policy? If such a government is formed, then it is the most extreme government that has ever existed, and it seems to me that there has never been a government (if one is formed) that does not have any trace of a central/moderate element (Bibi is not right-wing, but he is not centrist either, he adapts himself to circumstances in order to remain in power) so I am not at all sure that the policy on the above issues will not change. Where do you assume this from? (On issues of religion and state, the monopoly will undoubtedly remain with the Haredim, but if security and law are more important to me...)
Poke guess what happened so far.
Yes, but until now, there has never been a government formed that is only extreme right-wing (the Haderas are indifferent to security issues so they will not prevent reforms and changes), so the induction is incorrect.
So can we conclude with certainty that the rabbi will vote for Rem?
not.
A little defense of politicians: They lie because we demand it of them! We want the good father who will stroke our heads and assure us that everything will be fine. Example 1: Until 2000, all politicians (from Hadash to Kahane and Gandhi) promised us peace and security - if only we would elect them! There were only slight differences in the way to achieving the goal. Did they believe in themselves? The sane ones, probably not. But what would have happened to a candidate who had told the truth: "Forget about peace. We are just trying to survive." Who would have voted for him?
Example 2: France had a president named Sarkozy. He realized that he had a terrible crisis ahead of him with the pension funds and national insurance. He proposed to handle it in a similar way to what Bibi did here (and successfully). The French public was furious: huge demonstrations and strikes. In the elections that followed, Sarkozy was defeated and Hollande (the French pronunciation of Hollande) was elected. He promised that everything would be wonderful with him, and he won. How did he intend to fulfill his promises? By taking out huge loans. No one was stupid enough to lend him money. Did he believe in himself? I don't know. He has long since ceased to be president, and the crisis has not been fixed. Sarkozy tried to run again, but was badly defeated in his party's primaries. Voters will never forgive him for daring to tell the truth.
A word in stone.
According to this logic, anyone who cares about changing the legal system should definitely vote for one of the right-wing parties (Likud, Smotrich, or Shaked). It's important, it's possible (the Haredim will not oppose change, and Netanyahu, who once blocked it, will no longer do it. It could be for personal reasons, but who cares). And there is a huge difference on this issue between the liberal left and the conservative right.
The problem is that conservative days are not Bibi's coalition. Lieberman and Saar want such a change no less, and they are definitely not leftists. And on the other hand, I don't agree that there will be a difference with respect to the judicial system. What was is what will be, as in previous terms.
Lieberman and Saar may want such a change, but they themselves say that the main priority right now is to prevent Netanyahu from coming to power and that the rest of the reforms will wait patiently. So the only bloc that at least declares that it will make reforms is Netanyahu's bloc. The rest are openly saying that there will be no reforms.
Good luck. We'll wait and see.
Saar was given the opportunity to team up with Ayelet Shaked and Simcha Rotman on the judicial appointments committee and promote right-wing and conservative judges, and instead Saar teamed up with Hayut. We have already seen the agenda of the minister he appointed.
And the truth is that Saar wants first and foremost to survive. He has burned his base on the right and knows full well that he has no chance of passing the threshold on his own. All his political vitality is to be a right-wing puppet, who will attract votes for Gantz and Eisenkot. Will he dare to change the judicial system?
Lieberman certainly has no agenda other than accumulating political capital. His tactic was to stir up resentment and hatred. It used to be against the Arabs. Today, it is against the Haredim. With the dubious cloud hanging over him, he certainly won't dare get involved with the ‘gatekeepers’.
The truth is, I don't expect greatness from the right either. To carry out a real legal revolution, you need a government that relies on a solid and united majority. But when you have a government and a Knesset that leans to the right against an extremely corrupt legal system, there are a few checks and balances.
Best regards, Yifa”r
Paragraph 4, line 2
… But still, when faced with a leftist legal system…
We need to revolutionize the entire bureaucratic system in the country (the judicial system, security, healthcare, welfare, etc.). Fire everyone who sits there and appoint clear right-wingers (and more importantly, those who respect the people's choice) down to the level of the clerk who sits behind the counter if necessary. Without this, even if a government is formed purely on the right, even without the ultra-Orthodox, it won't help. They will continue to do what they see fit and will not follow any instructions from the political echelon. Otherwise, it would be better to go to some Satmarr in Jerusalem on election day and earn 500 shekels.
On the 20th of Tishrei, our Prime Minister Yair Lapid made it clear at the UN General Assembly: He is going to establish a Palestinian state. The US President not only supports this but is pushing in this direction, and no less so is the European Union. And at home, his partners support him: Ezinckot (and probably Gantz as well), Labor, Meretz, Ra'am Hadash and Ta'al. And Yair Lapid has proven himself to be a quick man at his job, as he showed in negotiating the gas on the Lebanese border. He will do everything to earn praise in the enlightened West.
Opposite this side stands Benjamin Netanyahu, who knows how to withstand international pressure. To declare that he supports in principle the ’two-state vision’, but to condition this on the other side's willingness to make a real peace that includes abandoning terror, and ’if they don't give, they won't take’. In this way, Netanyahu managed to freeze and censor the ‘two-state vision’ for many years, and despite heavy and relentless pressure from within and without – he managed to bring the country to economic and political prosperity.
This is the choice that will be decided in the upcoming elections: whether we will rush into a terrorist state that will continue to demand the ‘right of return’ for millions of items, and encourage Israeli Arabs to demand ‘national rights’. Or will we receive a strong right wing that can withstand the pressures and maintain the country's security and prosperity.
Best regards, Yaron Fishel Ordner
Paragraph 2, line 3
… and unceasingly at home and abroad…
Obviously. Lapid supports a Palestinian state, but Netanyahu, on the other hand, supports a Palestinian state. The difference is enormous. It's a shame there's no bullet against bias. Whoever invents one will be the new Zuckerberg.
And if there was a pill against trendiness, would you agree to take it? After all, the dose you need would kill you.
If so, then I probably wouldn't take it.
No. The question at hand is whether or not there will be a state for the Jews at all. That is the question.
There is no such question on the agenda. Even Mansour Abbas recognized the State of Israel as a Jewish state.
These are empty words. You can say anything. The problem is not Abbas (who is generally a Palestinian right-winger) but the progressive left and the left in general that aspires to a state for all its citizens and not a state for the Jews. The left (Israeli and global) that hates nationalism in general and Jewish nationalism in particular. The disciples of communists and socialists for generations. People of form and not of content. The empty, power-hungry and irresponsible lovers of the state (its institutions and officials) and haters of the Jewish people. I look at actions and not at words and this is really in depth (or not in depth) what all these recent election campaigns are about. Therefore, in practice, Naftali Bennett betrayed the Jewish people (and all the other right-wingers who flatter the left)
The amount of slogans and nonsense you write here really proves that you can say anything.
Wow. You really showed me what it is. Another pseudo-intellectual. Is that all you have to say? Slogans? Whose exactly? Am I quoting myself? How full of content your response is. Never mind that all the left's activity in the government actually shows clearly where they want to go. The progressives are the disciples of the communists. Only on steroids.
What a slack mind
To Emmanuel – Greetings,
Mansour Abbas is not really a ‘Palestinian right’. He is committed to the ’Islamic Covenant’ which explicitly states that integration into the state is intended to advance the goals of the original owners of the land. To establish a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, to bring the right of return and civil and religious national gains to the Arab citizens of the shrinking State of Israel.
The only difference between him and the common people was that he did not declare his goal in Hebrew, but acted within the possible framework to advance it. His activity to whitewash illegal Arab construction is a step in the direction of ’national autonomy’ for the Arabs of Israel. His activity to increase the approvals for ‘family reunification’ For orders of magnitude of thousands, it is a step to advance the ‘right of return’.
And now that Lapid has raised the flag of ‘two states for two peoples’ again; it is clear that Abbas will do everything to support Lapid and the entire left bloc to advance the long-awaited vision of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital and Al-Aqsa Mosque under Palestinian sovereignty.
The change that has occurred in Arab politics is that both Hadash and Ta”al have seen the benefits of joining the Jewish left-wing government (and on this basis have separated from Balad).
Greetings, Shams Razal Al-Fanjar-Najmawi
Abbas's political system (which was accepted by his rabbi Abdullah Nimr Darwish) parallels the "Faqah al-Aqliyat", the "Lead of Minorities", which was also supported by Yusuf Qaradawi, the rabbi of the "Muslim Brotherhood", according to which Muslim minorities should be flexible in order to integrate into Western countries in order to conquer them for Islam by force of spirit (and to impose violent jihad against the US and Israel). Darwish renewed that the "Lead of Minorities", and the armed struggle in the occupied territories, would also operate within the "Green Line".
Paragraph 4, line 1
… that both Hadash and Ta'al discovered the advantages…
. Well, this is a Palestinian right. A right of another people. What did you think I meant? That he is OK? That he is a right-wing Arab?
A wise man says, "I have not heard," and the opposite is "I have not heard." It is better for wise men to focus on topics they have specialized in rather than to have (strong) opinions on topics in which they have little understanding (in the language of "little," "very little"). Not every "original" opinion (which is not original at all; Joel Teitelbaum and his group have already expressed similar opinions about the futility of elections in addition to their prohibition, in their opinion, decades ago) is also wise and correct.
I do not have the time or strength to respond to the entire collection of magnificent nonsense listed above, which once again demonstrates Lenin's well-known saying about Western academics who were fascinated by the wonders of socialism ("useful idiots"), some of whom are at least intellectual giants (such as Bertrand Russell). I will mention only one example that I chose at random.
The author writes that Bibi surrendered to terror like Lapid, and therefore there is no difference between them. Well, I fully share the criticism of the Shalit deal and other steps taken by Netanyahu. However, these days, the Lapid government is engaged in promoting a shameful surrender agreement with a country that, in all practical respects, does not exist and is unable to pose any real threat to Israel due to threats from a terrorist organization that is itself an Iranian agent. As part of this agreement, not only did the “change” government waive all of Israel’s claims to the Dana advance and agree to all Lebanese demands, but it also went the extra mile and agreed to give up about 10 kilometers of Israeli sovereign territory over which there was no dispute in the first place (which probably constitutes an act of treason under criminal law and the AML). Indeed, Netanyahu was unable to reach this magnificent agreement with Lebanon in all his years in office because… refused to give in to these demands. It remains only to pray that such a display of weakness and colossal stupidity on the part of the government of "change" will not exact from us a terrible and terrible price in blood (literally) in the future, Your Excellency.
So the conclusion is that there is no difference.
PS, indeed, it is a pity that there is no bullet against such bias. I have only one question: Did Your Excellency follow the Netanyahu trial and the horrifying revelations that were revealed not about the defendants but about the accusers? Did the fact that after spending a quarter to a third of a billion shekels, this is the meager harvest that the prosecution managed to bring (an indictment that does not reveal guilt, I read the whole thing, and even then not a single fact mentioned in it has yet been proven) amid horrific criminal offenses by the investigators and prosecutors, not cause the Honorable Minister to have any second thoughts on the matter? Can the Honorable Minister guarantee that if such an investigation had been conducted against him, they would not have found at least what they “found” about Netanyahu? I will accept an honest answer.
Oh, I have never voted for Likud and I have no intention of doing so in the upcoming elections. Thank you for asking.
We'll wait for the trending balls.
Thank you for your honest answer.
In the year 2021, the strong will have a year of great actions
Ramda ”a – Hello,
Being a ball rolling aimlessly, with every slight push diverting a person from his or her path – is a very big problem. A person needs to have a direction in life that he or she strives for. And when a person defines his or her direction for himself or herself – he or she will be able to find the best way to achieve it.
The precious direction requires a person to be alert and always attentive to what is happening, and to correctly assess the chances and risks, because a slight mistake may throw us away from our goal. Therefore, it is precisely the tendency that gives rise to responsibility for correctly judging reality.
Since leaders are driven by a trend, it is important to distinguish clearly the differences in trends between them, and to treat their statements very seriously, albeit with suspicion. There are indeed many cases where a leader utters slogans without any cover. But there are quite a few cases in which it turns out, to the surprise (of the surprised ones), that he who barks – may also bite 🙂
For our joy, Yair Lapid is honest to the point of blatant cruelty, and he makes his goals crystal clear. During the days of the expulsion, he made it clear that even without a security benefit, there is value in ’teaching the oppressors a lesson’. The desire to please the ‘enlightened world’ also occupies a central place in his considerations. And therefore, I have the impression that he will run with all his might to establish a Palestinian state, which will also ‘teach the settlers a lesson’and also win him the ’Nobel Peace Prize’.
On the other hand, it is precisely Netanyahu's 'cunning' that has saved us so far from the nightmare vision of a Palestinian terrorist state that will return us to the dangerous '67 borders, awaken the aspirations of the iridescent desires of a million Palestinians within the 'Green Line', and also lead to the deterioration of internal security in Israel, which is shrinking to levels much more serious than we have seen recently.
Therefore, I see that in the upcoming elections it is incumbent on us to make the right decisions: whether to choose a leader who will guide us towards a Palestinian state, or a leader who will do everything to smear and smear the 'two-state vision'.
Best regards, Shraga Feibel Halevi Konkator
Paragraph 4, line 2
… There is value in ’teaching the settlers a lesson’…
I completely agree with the principles of the column, but a few comments on the calculations and conclusions:
1. Since the choice is between a Bibi/Haredi government and a continuation of Lapid's transitional government and more elections, we need to decide whether it is better to have a bad and relatively stable government (by Bibi) or a continuation of Lapid's transitional government (which also won't change anything in matters of religion and state) and more elections. In my opinion, Bibi's government is the lesser evil between these two options, but I agree that there is no point in voting for the lesser evil.
2. There is no chance that Abbas will join Bibi, not because Bibi doesn't want to but because Smotritz won't allow it and Bibi doesn't have 61 without Smotritz. There is also no chance that the other bloc will have 61 even with Ra'am, so voting for Abbas won't do anything.
3. To express protest, there is the option of voting for a tiny party that will certainly not pass the threshold. I'm considering voting for Abir Kara and Gilad Alper's party, if I vote at all.
Does the categorical order mean that everyone must actually do the act in question? Because if so, you wouldn't want the Ra'am party to have 120 seats.
https://mikyab.net/posts/78280#comment-66611
I wouldn't want everyone to be a doctor or a rabbi or a lawyer. And yet, there's no problem with anyone who wants to do it.
Okay, of course you're right
But I asked how this fits in with Kant's categorical imperative
What's the question? I explained.
Politicians in a Jewish state are supposed to be:
A. God-fearing, honest, and averse to greed. And if these are too lofty demands, at least honest public figures with the common good in mind.
B. Modest, moderate, and attentive people whose intention is to serve the public and not to pursue power.
C. Those with the skills to run a modern Jewish state.
D. Those with a vision or ideology, or at least plans for developing infrastructure and addressing existing problems.
E. Leaders capable of uniting and strengthening the degree of internal peace in Israel.
Utilitarian considerations are also important, but in a Jewish state, unlike a shtetl, the activists, the tycoons, and the marketing people of all kinds are not so suited to leadership.
You forgot the Oslo Accords so quickly? Who would have believed in the elections in the early 1990s how much death a left-wing vote would bring upon us?
The first role of a state is to protect us from our enemy. Hate Bibi, but Bibi is not “peace sick” with the Palestinians. I fear that the Lapid-Makatz-Abbas coalition will bring about recognition of the islands of Palestinian autonomy and bring upon us Oslo-style terror. That is why the right-wing votes
It's good that you reminded me. For a moment I forgot. I also forgot Begin's peace agreements, Sharon and Bibi's disengagement, Bibi's Wai agreements, and more. As soon as I remembered them all, then great. Now it's clear that I will vote for Bibi.
The parties of Bloc A declare that they are in favor of establishing a terrorist state 8 km from Netanya. The parties of Bloc B oppose it, or are much, much less eager about it. But according to your claim, once, Bloc B said against it and in the end did for it, so in essence they are the same thing, and everything is the same, and there is no political right and left. And there is nothing between Meretz, Labor and Likud regarding a Palestinian state.
I disagree.
It's not just that. Bibi is not obsessed with evicting settlers from their homes (like the left). He mainly cares about not making a mess. During his time, settlements were not evacuated just like that. Only when the High Court forced it, and even then, did he know how to compensate the settlers with alternative construction elsewhere
https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/SkMnhBSsO
An article by Hagai Segal, who is not suspected of Bibbism and leader worship, but rather a true and practical right-winger
https://www.makorrishon.co.il/opinion/534075/ I would be happy if the rabbi could read and respond
According to the column, maybe it's worth voting for Hadar Mukhtar? She probably won't pass and won't have any impact, but the claims themselves are still true (apartment prices, etc.).
Speaking of Netanyahu's lies, etc., a must-watch for everyone: https://twitter.com/shemeshmicha/status/1584231224188755970?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Classic flattery for leftists
Ultimately, this article and other articles like it on the holy site here fall into the same trap as the political interpretations of the Haredi rabbis. All the arguments and explanations in themselves are plausible or even wonderful (the voter will choose), but the lack of connection to reality is what makes them unfounded.
Is the rabbi aware of the rampant illegal construction in Area C (which has increased dramatically since the beginning of the Bennett government), and its direct impact on the lives of the settlers?
Is the rabbi aware of the radicalization of the Arabs (and Bedouins) of Israel and understands what pouring billions into their education systems will cause?
Is the rabbi aware of the thought processes that brought about the gas agreement with Lebanon, processes that, if they continue, will impose Oslo 2 on us?
Is the rabbi aware of the frivolity of Lapid and his gang's security considerations? This is not about surrendering here and there to terror, but about who will lead the country when dramatic decisions are needed, with long-term strategic implications.
Bibi was bad, there is no doubt about that. But instead of sliding at 20 km/h into the abyss, we are at 200 km/h.
In the medium to long term, there are two major strategic threats to the country. One is economic (mainly due to haredi unemployment) and the other is security/Arab (from within and without). The first is something we can live with, even if it is hardly increasing, but the second is a near-term threat to our very existence here.
Bibi has done almost nothing and probably will not do anything to solve the first, and too little about the second.
Lapid and Co. are perhaps doing something about the first (not that we have seen any dramatic change on the ground so far), but are greatly accelerating the second.
Full disclosure:
I am Haredi myself and am very happy with the imposition of government control over the sector, as happened somewhat in the last government (for example, with kosher phones), but the price for this is unacceptable. We will not survive another four years like this.
I am well aware that it is all demagogy. Unless you have special information that Levi did not have in my eyes. With Bibi, the situation was worse and certainly no less good. It is possible that you are drawing your information from Moti Bibi's sources. We are sure that we will completely survive another hundred years like this, much longer than Bibi's five years.
The only issue I can agree with the writer on is a realistic view of what the party I vote for can really achieve from the issues it promotes and what it is bound by. But for some reason the writer thinks we are all stupid and do not look at it this way but rather vote based on a sense of closeness to the party (as he writes about Rabbi Medan, I am sorry but he is delusional and probably did not read what Rabbi Medan really wrote. Rabbi Medan was mainly concerned with the terrible option from his point of view of an Arab and leftist government and preventing it, and not just because he thinks Shaked is close to his position and will promote his desires). There are clear considerations and unfortunately there are concessions (such as on issues of religion and state) due to coalition discipline, etc. But the logic is clear - the larger the party I vote for and the greater the pressure it can exert, the more it will be able to promote! There are issues that will be taboo even from small parties that the coalition needs, but on many issues the party you gave enough power to will decide. This is about policy and legislation, not to mention ongoing activity in government ministries.
It is worth seeing the implications of choosing the Bibi-Haredim-Smotritz bloc here: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02pcCPFx1SGW3tyyJ1uVXMwJN4vjW7cjo7Nf1jEEiE8gePeFDxtZgp1LXTQz6qxiQbl&id=629129764
Can you share with us your final decision - who will you vote for?
Can you?
To this day I did not understand what was said in the name of the prophecy that the (religious) Mizrahniks are worse than the secularists. Now that I read the article and some of the comments, I realized how right he was, and all to help and benefit the Haredim.
He bestows favors.
I'm glad I won. But the fact that you're doing favors is the problem itself. Your understanding is also a bit flawed: no one wants to do you favors. They simply don't want to hold you anymore and don't want you to hold hostages who aren't interested in it. If you want to commit suicide, be respectful and do it alone and for yourself.
I feel sorry for you, my brother Michael, you have completely lost it. In a chain of arguments, you have reached the ingenious conclusion that we should actually vote for the Israel-haters who want to impose Sharia law here. How did I not think of this before?!
It is really tempting for me to take the path of confronting your arguments one by one. Experience shows that this is a hopeless path – I am sure that I will not convince you. I can only marvel at one of the alarming examples of how the will rules over the mind, and how strong negative emotions can lead a person, even the most intelligent, to a pitfall, when he is stretched with rational reasoning all the way down.
I feel sorry for you, my brother Michael.
On the eve of the 2018 elections
Regev – Hello,
It is precisely the rule of Sharia law in the State of Israel that can help Judaism, because according to Sharia law, Jews should be given protection as long as they pay their taxes. Muslim protection is the best protection against terrorist attacks.
Furthermore, not only will the physical security of the Jews be guaranteed under Muslim rule. The spiritual existence of the Jewish religion will also be guaranteed under Islamic rule, since protection is only given to members of the Jewish religion, so that an Islamic state will oblige all Jews to observe the commandments of their religion.
But I am still afraid to vote for the Ra'am, because in the current situation they do not have the power to establish an Islamic state here, and they will only strengthen the rule of the Jewish leftists, and the Shura Council.
With greetings, Sheba from Shura, the Shura Council
Now that the results are known, I have no choice but to send here what I sent to our rabbi, the blog owner
😭😭😥😢 May God have mercy on us, Satan's work has succeeded, and those who blaspheme God and corrupt people who destroy every good plot have risen, and about this King David said in the Psalms, "Have not those who hate you lifted up their heads?" etc. We need to organize a mass prayer rally and outcry (of the other side of the map that lost, which are all those righteous people and people who do the work of God's temples) and repent for what God has done to us, so that such a terrible and terrible decree has been decreed upon us, "Is it not God that we have sinned against him?" etc. And with God's help, through repentance and good deeds, our ('them') sin will be atoned for. And because of this, God will have mercy on us (meaning actually ‘on them’) and will soon fulfill in us (‘in them’) the verse “And Zion (Balfur) will be redeemed in judgment, and her captivity in righteousness” (and in the translation: ‘in the cord’), etc. And if God wills, we will soon see the downfall of all those corrupt blasphemers of God, and as the above verse continues, they will fulfill in them (‘in us’?) “And those who forsake God will be able to” and we will be worthy to see with our eyes the prophecy of the prophet “There will still be old men and old women and old men from the community of the Lahtavim in Jerusalem” and will not add to the burden any more. Amen and Amen😉
To Shmuel, in the readers of his name, – Peace and great salvation,
I fear that the left's prayer rally will not help, because ’Israeli criminals’ are only on the right, and after all, any fast that does not include –Israeli criminals– is not a fast.
But we are not exempt from drawing lessons. We failed by not going out en masse to strengthen Balad, which was known to be liable to fail to pass the threshold. This trouble came upon us.
But this is our consolation in our case, that the people of the right all have a fanatical ideology without compromises that they will fight for ‘every thorn of Yod, when each one will fight a ‘world war’ for the ’nuance’ Shalev’, and therefore they will have difficulty forming a coalition of ‘right on full’ and in the end they will also join Gantz and/or Lapid, and come to Zion Goel 🙂
With greetings, Shimala Left-Winger, Givat Baladim
I was not comforted.
And in general, there is nothing to worry about, we have already been taught by Begin that there are judges in Jerusalem; aren't they the members of the Supreme Court, who uphold the guidance of our dear friend: "Let him wear black, wrap himself in black, and do whatever his heart desires" 🙂 They, together with the Speaker of the House and the attorneys, will ensure that the Knesset and the government do not go too far to their right, and I urge Benjamin Netanyahu to be careful not to stretch the rope too far.
The only things that will change are: stopping the rush to establish a Palestinian state, which Lapid was eager to accelerate, and stopping Liberman and Matan Kahana's rush to destroy the status of the Chief Rabbinate. The Minister of Religious Services' energies will be directed towards improving the state kashrut and conversion systems, and those who wanted alternative conversion and kashrut will be able to continue to benefit from the 'food inspection day' and 'conversion according to law' that have already been de facto established by the courts. Perhaps the taxes on disposable utensils will be abolished.
So there doesn't seem to be any reason to worry!
Best regards, Shraga Feybel Halevi Konktator