Regarding the political situation.

Hatred spoils the line. “Things you see here, you don't see there” is irrelevant here because the external circumstances haven't changed. It's clear that whoever promises something like this here is promising it even when he doesn't have a Jewish majority (only in that case does the promise have any value in the first place) and also at the cost of a fourth election. The thing is that in the first place, there's not much value to a politician's word. And the truth is that whoever believed him in the first place is a fool. Because hatred also makes people gouge out one of their own eyes if they can gouge out two of their opponents' eyes. And unfortunately, I believe that in this sense, he didn't deceive any of the voters because almost everyone there is simply crazy “just not Bibi” and at some point they will also be willing to sacrifice their eldest son to this idol (every time there's some other idol. Once it was Mollah Hashalom. Since that one failed them, they found this idol for themselves). And the danger that these madmen (of which the Rabbi, on this specific issue, is unfortunately one) will run the country is even more dangerous than the Joint List.

And it seems to me that the story with gouging out an eye is the other way around. That hatred makes people willing to gouge out both of their eyes if they could gouge out one of their opponents' eyes (this is an answer to the question asked of someone who hated someone else what he was willing to give the person he hated (it was supposed to be money or something good) if they gave him twice as much of the same thing), which of course raises the level of madness even further.

Ayalon
A. Do you condemn lying as a moral offense in isolation, or do you argue on its basis that they do not have a public mandate to form a government with the support of the Joint Committee because their voters did not want it? In the polls, the support of the non-Bibi bloc was not damaged. Or do they not have a public mandate because if they had not promised, then the right-wing voters would have come out even more en masse? It is clear that lying as a moral offense in isolation should not affect the decisions of the representatives when it goes against the good of all (or most) citizens in their opinion.

B. So what is your proposal? To ban support for the Joint Committee in an absolute manner, and then the Likud-Religious-Haredi bloc will rule forever? If there is a price to pay for this moral principle (not to receive support, God forbid, from the Joint Committee), then the price should be divided equally between both sides.
I once read a great parable about a rich man who rented an apartment to a poor family and one day ran out of money. The rich man wanted to take the family out into the frozen street and their cries went up to heaven. They went to the local rabbi and he ruled that, according to the law of mercy and protection of life, etc., the rich man was forbidden to take them out. The rich man replied and said, If the rent for this family must be donated according to the law of mercy, etc., then why should I donate? The community fund (= the entire community) will be honored to pay me the rent, and I will also participate in paying for myself. In the rabbi's story, some lunatic sold him that this event had been brought to him from heaven, but in my opinion this is a very solid argument.

Yehoshua, this is what the poskim wrote about stealing a kidney from a healthy person because of my own pikuach nefesh. Or robbing a bank to finance a life-saving surgery.
And regarding the lies in Beirut, it is worth reading Amaranttbesh Shlomo Piotrkowski: https://www.makorrishon.co.il/opinion/212085/

I don't know the words of the jurists (I would be happy to refer to them, I couldn't find them on Google), but I will speak from the moral side, because if the claims are from a halakhic point of view only, then the criticism of Blue and White is of course greatly reduced.
Stating in law that it is permissible to steal kidneys (and nuts) is not good, because the suffering that will be caused to all healthy people who will fear for the fate of their kidneys every day is worse than the suffering of the soul. But whoever manages to steal a kidney in secret (if it is announced that there is such a gang of thieves, then it is as bad as a law) certainly (in my opinion, etc.) has committed a great mitzvah, and his part will be his part. The moral distinction between standing up and doing and sitting down and not doing is (in my opinion, etc.) a fruitful root and anthill that I have no words to describe how much evil it causes, and I have not yet found anywhere that is relevant to me.
But I understand that this position is perceived as delusional (it has not yet been confirmed) and therefore I do not use it as an argument, although it does stand in the background for me. If the opponents say that in a different constitutional framework in which Gantz had to practically oppose the support of the joint party so that they would not support him for prime minister - they had no criticism, and the entire argument is about the action (and not about the result of a government with the joint party), then from my point of view we have passed an important stage in the discussion. Since the opponents do not argue this way, the example of the rich man and his family seems appropriate to me. I assume that even those who advocate the importance of the action admit that in the case of the rich man, everyone should initially participate in the payment.

Piotrkowski's articles are always interesting (I accept Professor Haidt's theory, which I think I encountered in Moshe Kopel, as describing it correctly), and this article is appropriately and appropriately divided into two parts: a complaint about the lie on the one hand and a complaint about the essence on the other. Although the contradiction between the promises exists from the moment of the promise itself and did not arise surprisingly only after the election results, this case is unique. (Many have commented on this). The problem I can see in a public representative's lie is not his personal moral offense (it has no weight in policy matters) but the validity of the public mandate. If we assume that no one in the country would change their vote if there were a repeat election today, then the complaint about the lie is completely erased.

And if I have already filled pages with statements of my personal opinion, I will also say that for me the main problem in a government with the support of the Joint (when they are a negligible minority in the Knesset) is the presence of Meretz and Labor.

Yehoshua,

I brought up a ‘parable’ and it was rejected outright (in the response before the previous one).

But this is a true story, and the teaching was accompanied by a halachic view (and not a ‘quotation’, as you say).

The honorable and the following is a postponement to the evidence of the ’Imrei Emet’:

https://www.dirshu.co.il/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99-%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%92%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%96%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%9C%D7%93%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99/

Aharon.

Correction: ‘you brought’ and not ‘I brought’

Thanks for the link! I read this story in my childhood (age 8-9-10) in a book of parables and parables, and I attribute to it the first serious thoughts I ever thought in my life. I admit that the halakhic approach refers to a host of other principles besides the result and also attributes enormous importance to the act, and I do not deal with it (if everything there is against Blue and White is evidence from the Gittite tradition, then our situation is excellent). I did not understand the specific evidence attributed there to Amiri Emet at all, because there the slave writes him a bill for half of his blood. If the master receives the money instead of half the slave, then it is like being paid in zibbur instead of in idit.

Yehoshua,
I think that the Tzitz Eliezer permits risking one's life for the public. As is known in the Gehemi P. A. Mahal; a murderer brings from Jerusalem that it is permissible to risk one's life for any single person. In Frankel there you will surely find more references.
I have written about Heit here more than once.
I do not have time and this is not the place to enter into a discussion here about consequential and utilitarian morality. This has been discussed here more than once in the past.

Thanks, I'll look there.
In practice, do you think the rich should avoid evicting the family and the community fund shouldn't participate?

I don't think he has such an obligation. Absolutely not. The community should be respectful and share in the expenses.

And similarly, will Likud also be honored and bear the expenses of upholding the principle that it is forbidden to sit with the joint party (let's assume that this is a terrible and terrible thing)? Or, assuming that sitting with them is terrible and terrible, then it's like stealing a kidney, Blue and White is forbidden and therefore they will pay the entire price for this principle alone?

Exactly like that. And that's what I wrote and said more than once. Bibi explains to us that the Kholovans are destroying the country through the coalition with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but he himself is not willing to do anything to free them from it. And that's what it is.

And so it should be discussed that if in a normal unity government the roles are divided 50/50, then here in order to share the payment on the very important principle mentioned above, Blue and White should receive another half of Likud's share and a total of 3/4 for Blue and White.

This is assuming that they could indeed form a government with the joint coalition. It was probably not possible for them. It should be remembered that in principle the Likud could have also, but it just didn't want to. So if we're talking about power, they have a chance that they could also turn to the joint coalition.
And there's no room here to dwell on that any further.