Voting Considerations in Elections (Column 511)
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?!
Discussion
You can find small differences in all sorts of details between any two people. You won’t be able to know what this or that government will do about such a detail, even if in your view it’s decisive.
From our rabbi we have learned that there is no 100 percent certainty in anything, but when it comes to economic issues there are significant differences between the parties that are actually expressed in practice and have real potential to change policy.
Is there no place for the categorical imperative in choosing a party? That is, suppose you like what Ra’am will actually do in practice, but if everyone voted for Ra’am then you would no longer think that was good (because even you agree that they identify with the enemy). So seemingly one should not vote for them, no?
And an anecdote: in chemical mechanisms there is something similar to Goldratt. There is a stage called the rate-determining step, which is basically the slowest stage (the one that requires the most energy), and the reaction rate is determined by it (this helps in studying the mechanism and optimizing the reaction).
All your points are correct, and that’s why I’ll vote for ליברמן.
He also does not intend to sit in a Bibi coalition (probably; you never know), he also advances right-wing economic policy, and he also wants what I want on matters of religion and state.
I really don’t agree. And that certainly isn’t a difference between the blocs. But if you think so, you can apply my logic to those assumptions.
You can’t apply the categorical imperative here in a simple straightforward way. There is no party I would want to rule exclusively. The imperative here perhaps says that everyone should vote for what he believes in.
Quite all right. Good luck.
There is one main difference between the camps: who will promote/prevent Israel’s becoming a “progressive” state (for some reason this is called progressivism; in practice it is a dark, anti-democratic cult that advocates silencing and coercion), like Canada, where people with depression are put to death by doctors who decide that this is appropriate and at the same time make money from it.
“Enlightened” countries that force parents to change the sex of their confused children through surgeries and drugs whose effects are irreversible.
Countries that pass laws under which anyone who disagrees with them and says so out loud will go to jail.
Since you refer 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 prison even if they are sex offenders, and can also enter women’s bathrooms if they so choose.
Compared to the “progressive” danger that could also reach Israel, Gafni is a knight of women’s rights.
In my opinion, Lapid and Gantz will only take us in that direction. By contrast, the right-wing bloc will slow the slippery slope that most of the West is already nearing the bottom of.
Therefore I will vote for the right-wing bloc. I completely agree with you that it makes no difference which party there I vote for; you could throw a die in the ballot box among the four 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 already been in an advanced process of modernization for years, entering the workforce and higher education. There is no need for coercion; if anything, the opposite.
The main issue is not security policy or peace and so on, but whether the state will belong to the Jewish people or not. That is what these elections are about. The right is the Jewish people. The left is against the Jewish people. That’s it. In other words, the election is about whether to topple the dictatorial rule of leftist bureaucrats or not.
For the freedom of the Jewish people
Why do you assume that a government with Ben Gvir, Smotrich, Haredim, and Bibi will not change security policy and judicial policy? If such a government is formed, then it will be the most extreme government there has ever been, and as I recall there has never been a government (if it is formed) with not even the slightest trace of a central/moderate factor in it (Bibi is not right-wing, but he is not center either; he adapts himself to circumstances so that he will remain in power). So I am not at all sure that policy on those issues will not change. Where do you get that assumption from? (On matters of religion and state the monopoly will undoubtedly remain with the Haredim, but if security and law are more important to me…)
No. He is not right. The anti-Bibi bloc is in favor of the progressives and is anti-Jewish. And the Bibi bloc is not. And that is the main central difference, even before security and certainly before religion and state.
So can one conclude with certainty that the rabbi will vote for Ra’am?
A bit of advocacy for politicians: they lie because we demand it of them! We want the good father who will stroke our heads and promise that everything will be fine. Example 1: until the year 2000 all the politicians (from Hadash to Kach and Tzomet) promised us peace and security – if only we elected them! There were only slight differences in the path to achieving the goal. Did they believe themselves? The sane ones among them probably did not. But what would happen to a candidate who told the truth: “Forget peace. We are only trying to survive.” Who would vote for him?
Example 2: France had a president named Sarkozy. He understood that there was a terrible crisis ahead involving the pension funds and social security. He proposed dealing with it in a way similar to what Bibi did here (successfully). The French public went wild with rage: huge demonstrations and strikes. In the elections that followed, Sarkozy was defeated and Hollande was elected. He promised that everything would be wonderful under him, and he won. How did he intend to fulfill his promises? By taking out enormous loans. No one was stupid enough to lend to him. Did he believe himself? I do not know. He has long since ceased to be president, and the crisis was not fixed. Sarkozy tried to return and run again, but was badly defeated in his party’s primaries. Voters will never forgive him for daring to tell the truth.
In short, Rabbi Michi either concealed the most central and important point from us, or it escaped him himself (see what bribery does: he hates the Haredim more than the Arabs).
Actually it seems that Lieberman really did promote a free market in the outgoing government, and he even has a platform (not amazing, but he has one, and it’s 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/)
Why, in your opinion, if I vote for Religious Zionism and as a result a right-wing government is formed,
the main things will not happen?
As for 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 judicial system and in security?
By this logic, anyone who cares about changing the judicial 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 so. It may be for personal reasons, but who cares). And there is a huge difference on this issue between the liberal left and the conservative right.
I think you’re exaggerating. What does it mean that the state will become progressive? You won’t be able to marry whom you want? That is the situation today when the state is under a regime of religious coercion. The main point is that you won’t be able to coerce others. That’s not terrible at all, even if on the margins there are annoying phenomena like the fine a judge (a religious woman) gave a cashier who insisted on referring to a transgender female customer as a man. These are marginal phenomena, and they are really not on the scale of the problems raised by the opposite bloc. By the way, Lapid and Gantz are really not like that, and I don’t think they will lead the state in that direction. Maybe Meretz and perhaps Labor. But these are unimportant margins. There is no need to exaggerate with the hysteria. These are ridiculous and bizarre phenomena, and sometimes annoying, that’s all. Not a terrible problem at all. When it becomes one, then certainly one can think about voting accordingly. That is not the situation today.
In any case, for our purposes it is enough for me that you accept the principled logic. I said that each person will draw his own conclusions according to his values and assumptions.
Emanuel, your predictable response was not long in coming. I’ll 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.
I explained. In my opinion there will be no such changes, neither in the judicial system nor in security. We have many years of experience showing this clearly.
Go out and see what there has been until now.
No.
A word set in stone.
The problem is that a conservative right is not Bibi’s coalition. Lieberman and Sa’ar want such change no less, and they are definitely not left-wing. And besides, I do not agree that there will be a difference regarding the judicial system. What was will be, as in previous terms.
With God’s help, 25 Tishrei 5783
Our prime minister Yair Lapid made it clear at the UN General Assembly: he is going to establish a Palestinian state. The president of the United States not only supports this but is pressing in that direction, and no less so the European Union. And at home his partners support it as well: Eisenkot (and apparently also Gantz), Labor, Meretz, Ra’am, Hadash, and Ta’al. And Yair Lapid has proved himself “a man swift in his work,” as he showed in the negotiations over the gas border with Lebanon. He will do everything in order to win praise in the “enlightened” West.
Opposing this side stands Benjamin Netanyahu, who knows how to withstand international pressure. To declare that in principle he supports the “vision of two states,” but condition it on the other side’s willingness for genuine peace that includes abandoning terror, and “if they do not give – they will not receive.” Thus Netanyahu succeeded in freezing and stalling the “vision of two states” for many years, and despite heavy and unceasing pressure from within and without, he succeeded in bringing the state to economic and diplomatic prosperity.
This is the choice that will be decided, with God’s help, in the coming election: shall we rush toward a terror state that will continue to demand the “right of return” for millions of individuals, and encourage Israel’s Arabs to demand “national rights”? Or shall we merit a firm right wing that can withstand the pressures and preserve the state’s security and prosperity?
With blessings, Yaron Fish"l Ordner
Yes, but until now there has never been a government made up only of the far right (the Haredim are indifferent to security issues, so they will not prevent reforms and changes), so the induction is incorrect.
Paragraph 2, line 3
…and unceasing from within and without…
Lieberman and Sa’ar may want such change, but they themselves say that the main priority right now is to prevent Netanyahu from returning to power and that the rest of the reforms will wait patiently. So the only bloc that at least declares it will carry out reforms is Netanyahu’s bloc; the others openly say there will be no reforms.
Good luck. We’ll wait and see.
Of course. Lapid supports a Palestinian state, but Netanyahu, by contrast, supports a Palestinian state. The difference is enormous. Too bad there’s no pill against tendentiousness. Whoever invents one will be the new Zuckerberg.
Sa’ar was given an opportunity to join forces with Ayelet Shaked and Simcha Rothman on the committee for appointing judges and to advance right-wing and conservative judges, and instead Sa’ar joined forces with Justice Hayut. We have already seen the agenda of the attorney general he appointed…
And the truth is that Sa’ar wants first and foremost to survive. He “burned” his base on the right and knows very well that he has no chance whatsoever of crossing the electoral threshold on his own. His entire political life is to be a right-wing puppet that will pull votes to Gantz and Eisenkot. So will he dare change the judicial system?
Lieberman certainly has no agenda other than accumulating political capital. His tactic was to stir resentment and hatred. Once it was directed at the Arabs. Today it is directed at the Haredim. With the dubious cloud hanging over him, he certainly will not dare tangle with the “gatekeepers.”
The truth is that I do not expect great things from the right either. To carry out a real judicial revolution, you need a government resting on a solid and united majority. But when a radically leftist judicial system stands opposite a government and Knesset tending to the right – there is a bit of checks and balances.
With blessings, Yefa"or
Paragraph 4, line 2
…but all the same, when facing a leftist judicial system…
No. The question on the table is whether there will be a state for Jews at all or not. That is the question.
Why is it a lie? (And which lie exactly? I said several things.) This is my assessment of reality. This is what I assess the rabbi thinks (or believes). Even if he is not aware of it. And regarding hatred of the Haredim over the Arabs – a person’s actions testify to what he really thinks, not what he says. Someone who supports budgets for enemy Arabs (and in the best case, and less likely, foreigners who do not care about our fate), criminals, barbarians, and primitives, just so the Haredim will not receive budgets (which in truth they do not deserve, but they did not take them by force; that is what they want to receive in exchange for their votes. What can be done when the worshipers of the god of democracy give them, and the Arabs, citizenship and voting rights) – that is what he is. The attitude of the left and of the rabbi toward this bunch, who have murdered so many Jews throughout all the years of the Jewish settlement’s existence, is simply inconceivable. Simply inconceivable. A real betrayal of the Jewish people.
There is no such question on the table at all. Even Mansour Abbas recognized the State of Israel as a Jewish state.
Those are empty words. You can say anything. The problem is not Abbas (who is in any case a Palestinian right-winger) but the progressive left and the left in general, which aspires to a state of all its citizens and not to a state of the Jews. The left (Israeli and global) that hates nationalism in general and Jewish nationalism in particular. Students of the communists and socialists through the generations. Men of form and not content. Empty people thirsty for power and lacking responsibility, lovers of the state (its institutions and bureaucrats) and haters of the Jewish people. I look at actions and not words, and this really is, deep down (or not so deep down), what all these recent election campaigns have been about. Therefore in practice Naftali Bennett betrayed the Jewish people (and all the other right-wingers who kowtow to the left).
The quantity of slogans and nonsense you write here really proves that one can say anything.
To Emanuel – greetings,
Mansour Abbas is by no means a “Palestinian right-winger.” He is committed to the “Islamic Charter,” 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 about the right of return, and to secure national, civil, and religious rights for the Arab citizens of the diminished State of Israel.
The only difference between him and the Joint List was that he did not declare his goal in Hebrew in the past, but rather 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 Israel’s Arabs. His activity to increase approvals for “family reunification” on the scale of thousands is a step toward advancing the “right of return.”
And now that Lapid has raised again the flag of “two states for two peoples” – it is clear that Abbas will do everything to support Lapid and the entire left bloc in order to advance the longed-for vision of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital and with the al-Aqsa compound under Palestinian sovereignty.
The change that has taken place in Arab politics is that Hadash and Ta’al too have discovered the advantages of joining the Jewish left-wing government (and against this background they split from Balad).
With blessings, Shams Razal Alfang'ar-Najmawi
Abbas’s political method (which he received from his teacher Abdullah Nimr Darwish) parallels fiqh al-aqalliyat, minority jurisprudence, which was also supported by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the rabbi of the Muslim Brotherhood, according to which Muslim minorities should be flexible in order to integrate into Western countries so as to conquer them for Islam by the power of the spirit (while setting aside violent jihad with respect to the U.S. and Israel. Darwish innovated that within the “Green Line” as well, “minority jurisprudence” would operate, and armed struggle in the “occupied territories.”
Paragraph 4, line 1
…that Hadash and Ta’al too have discovered the advantages…
And if there were a pill against tendentiousness, would you agree to take it? The dosage you need would kill you.
If so, then apparently I wouldn’t take it.
A wise man says of what he has not heard, “I have not heard,” and its opposite in… (Avot). It is preferable for wise men to focus on subjects in which they have expertise and not express (forceful) opinions on subjects in which their understanding is slight (to put it mildly). Not every “original” opinion (which is not original at all; Yoel Teitelbaum and his circle already expressed similar views about the uselessness of elections, in addition to their prohibition in their opinion, decades ago) is also wise and correct.
I have neither the time nor the strength to answer the entire magnificent collection of nonsense written above, which once again illustrates Lenin’s famous remark about Western academics enchanted by the wonders of socialism (“useful idiots”), some of them at least intellectual giants (such as Bertrand Russell). I will note only one example chosen at random.
The author of the article writes that Bibi yields to terror just like Lapid, and therefore there is no difference between them. Well then, I fully share the criticism of the Shalit deal and additional steps by Netanyahu. But these days the Lapid government is engaged in advancing a shameful surrender agreement vis-à-vis a state that, in every practical sense, does not exist and is incapable of posing any real threat to Israel, because of threats from a terror organization that is itself an Iranian agent. Within the framework of this agreement, not only did the “change” government relinquish all of Israel’s longstanding claims and agree to all the Lebanese demands, it even went further and agreed to give up about 10 square kilometers of sovereign Israeli territory over which there was no dispute to begin with (which apparently constitutes an act of treason under criminal law, but I am no expert). Indeed, Netanyahu did not manage to reach this splendid agreement with Lebanon throughout all his years in office because… he refused to surrender to those demands. It remains only to pray that such a colossal display of weakness and stupidity on the part of the “change” government will not exact from us in the future a terrible and horrifying price in blood (in every sense), God forbid.
So the conclusion is that there is no difference. QED.
P.S. Indeed, too bad there’s no pill against tendentiousness, as above. Just one question for you: did you follow Netanyahu’s trial and the horrifying revelations exposed in it not about the accused but about the accusers? Did the fact that after spending about a quarter to a third of a billion shekels this is the miserable yield the prosecution managed to produce (an indictment that reveals no guilt—I read the whole thing—and even so, not a single fact mentioned in it has still been proven), along with horrifying criminal offenses by the investigators and prosecutors, not cause you any second thoughts on the matter? Can you promise that if such an investigation were conducted against you, they would not find at least what they “found” on Netanyahu? I would appreciate an honest answer.
Ah, I have never voted Likud and have no intention of doing so in the coming election. Thanks for asking.
Wow. You really showed me. Another pseudo-intellectual. Is that all you have to say? Slogans? Whose exactly? Am I quoting myself? What substance your response is full of. Never mind that all the left’s activity in the government actually shows very well where they want to go. The progressives are disciples of the communists. Only on steroids.
What mental feebleness
We’ll wait for the tendentiousness pills.
. Well, that is a Palestinian right-winger. The right wing of another people. What did you think I meant? That he’s okay? That he’s a right-wing Arab?
Many thanks for your honest answer.
With God’s help, 25 Tishrei, may it be a year of great deeds
To Ramda – greetings,
To be a ball rolling aimlessly, such that every slight push knocks a person off his course – that is a very big problem. A person needs to have a direction in life toward which he strives. And when a person defines his direction for himself – he can find the optimal way to achieve it.
That precious direction requires a person to be alert and always attentive to what is happening, and to assess correctly the chances and the risks, for a slight mistake may fling us far from our goal. Therefore it is precisely directionality that gives rise to the responsibility for a correct judgment of reality.
Since leaders are driven by direction, it is important to discern carefully the differences in direction between them, and to take their declarations very seriously\though with suspicion. There are indeed many cases in which a leader throws out slogans without substance. But there are quite a few cases in which it turns out, to the great surprise of the surprised… that one who barks may also bite 🙂
Fortunately for us, Yair Lapid has honesty to the point of bluntness, and he makes his goals clear without equivocation. In the days of the disengagement he made it clear that even without security benefit there is value in “teaching the settlers a lesson.” The desire to win favor in the eyes of the “enlightened world” also occupies a central place in his considerations. Therefore I am impressed that he will run with all his might toward establishing a Palestinian state, which will both “teach the settlers a lesson” and win him the “Nobel Peace Prize.”
By contrast, it is precisely Netanyahu’s “craftiness” that has saved us until now from the nightmare vision of a Palestinian terror state that would return us to the dangerous ’67 borders, stir up the irredentist aspirations of a million Palestinians inside the “Green Line,” and also bring about a deterioration in internal security within the diminished Israel at levels far more severe than what we saw not long ago.
Therefore I see that in the coming election it is incumbent upon us to make the right decisions: whether to choose a leader who will drive us toward a Palestinian state, or a leader who will do everything to smear and dissolve the “vision of two states.”
With blessings, Shraga Feivel Halevi Konnektator
There is no exaggeration or hysteria here,
I brought you examples from the world—did 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, that’s all.”
Your lack of knowledge regarding what is going on in the world in this area is really glaring, and this is not the first time it has come to expression.
I suggest you examine the issue objectively: the achievements of the progressives and the LGBT movement and extreme feminism around the world, the laws they have passed in Canada, England, the U.S., and more that are “sometimes annoying.”
Their effects in the schools, the experiments being conducted nowadays on adolescents with drugs that have never before been tried in this way.
It’s no shame; I too was not aware of these things until the last two years.
If you trust Lapid to stop this, then I really have no words. He is the biggest populist in history; if that is what Hollywood is selling, he will buy it gladly.
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 the continuation of Lapid’s caretaker government plus more elections, one has to decide whether a bad but relatively stable government (Bibi’s) is preferable, or the continuation of Lapid’s caretaker government (which also will not change anything on matters of religion and state) and more elections. In my opinion Bibi’s government is the lesser evil between those two options, but I agree there is no point in voting for the lesser evil.
2. There is no chance whatsoever that Abbas will join Bibi, not because Bibi does not want it but because Smotrich will not allow it, and Bibi does not have 61 without Smotrich. There is also no chance that the other bloc will have 61 even with Ra’am, and therefore a vote for Abbas will do nothing.
3. To express protest, there is the option of voting for a tiny party that certainly will not pass the electoral threshold. I am considering voting for the party of Abir Kara and Gilad Alper, if I vote at all.
I read the examples and I know the situation as well as you do. And as I wrote, this is a plainly hysterical description.
Does the categorical imperative say that everyone really has to do the act in question? Because if so, then you would not want Ra’am to have 120 seats.
https://mikyab.net/posts/78280#comment-66611
I would not want everyone to be doctors or rabbis or lawyers. And still, someone who wants to engage in that has no problem whatsoever.
Politicians in a Jewish state ought to be:
A. Capable men who fear God, men of truth, hating unjust gain. And if these are demands that are too lofty, then at the very least upright public servants with the public good before their eyes.
B. Modest, moderate, and attentive people, whose intention is to serve the public and not to pursue power.
C. People with the skills to run a modern Jewish state.
D. People with a vision or ideology or at least plans for developing infrastructure and dealing with existing problems.
E. Leaders capable of uniting and strengthening the measure of internal peace in Israel.
Utilitarian considerations are also important, except that in a Jewish state, unlike a shtetl, fixers and rich patrons and marketing people of all kinds are not so suitable for leadership.
Did you forget the Oslo Accords so quickly? At the beginning of the nineties, who believed in the elections how much death choosing the left would bring upon us?
The first role of a state is to protect us from our enemies. I hate Bibi, but Bibi is not “peace-sick” with the Palestinians. I fear that a Lapid-Meretz-Abbas coalition will bring recognition on the ground of Area A as a Palestinian autonomy and bring Oslo-style terror upon us. Therefore I vote right.
Good thing you reminded me. For a moment I forgot. I also forgot Begin’s peace agreements, Sharon’s disengagement, Bibi’s Wye agreements, and more. Now I remembered them all, so excellent. Now it’s clear that I’ll vote Bibi.
It’s not only that. Bibi is not obsessed with evacuating settlers from their homes (like the left). He mainly makes sure there is no chaos. During his time they did not evacuate settlements just like that. Only when the High Court forced it, and even then he knew how to compensate the settlers with alternative building elsewhere
https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/SkMnhBSsO
An article by Haggai Segal, who is not suspected of Bibism and leader-worship but is a real and matter-of-fact right-winger
https://www.makorrishon.co.il/opinion/534075/ I’d be glad if the rabbi could read and respond
According to what is said in the column, perhaps it would be worthwhile to vote for Hadar Muchtar? She probably won’t get in and won’t affect anything, but the claims themselves are still correct (housing prices, etc.).
The parties of Bloc A declare that they support the establishment of a terror state 8 km from Netanya. The parties of Bloc B oppose it, or are much much less eager for it. But according to your claim, once, Bloc B said no and in the end did yes, so basically they are the same, and everything is the same, and there is no diplomatic right and left. And there is no difference whatsoever between Meretz and Labor and Likud on the issue of a Palestinian state.
I do not agree.
Speaking of Netanyahu’s lies etc., must-watch for the rabbi and everyone:https://twitter.com/shemeshmicha/status/1584231224188755970?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Lieberman is the best option out of the whole range of options
In the end, this article and other articles in this style here on the holy website fall into the same failing as the political interpretations of the Haredi rabbis. All the arguments and reasoning in themselves are plausible or even wonderful (the reader may choose), but the lack of connection to reality is what makes them absurd.
Is the rabbi aware of the rampant illegal construction in Area C (which has greatly increased since the beginning of the Bennett government), and of its direct effect on the lives of the settlers?
Is the rabbi aware of the radicalization of Israeli Arabs (and Bedouin) and does he understand what funneling billions into their education systems will cause?
Is the rabbi aware of the thought processes that led to the gas agreement with Lebanon, processes which, if they continue, will bring Oslo 2 upon us?
Is the rabbi aware of the recklessness in security considerations of Lapid and his friends? This is not about yielding here and there to terror, but about who will stand at the head of the state when dramatic decisions with long-term strategic consequences have to be made.
Bibi was bad, no doubt about it. But instead of hurtling into the abyss at 20 km/h, we’re doing 200 km/h.
In the medium to long term there are two main strategic threats to the state. One is economic (mainly because of Haredi idleness) and one is security/Arab-related (from within and without). With the first one can live, though with growing difficulty, but the second is a near threat to our very existence here.
Bibi did almost nothing, and apparently will do nothing, to solve the first, and too little regarding the second.
Lapid and company perhaps are doing something regarding the first (not that we have seen a dramatic change on the ground yet), but are greatly accelerating the second.
Full disclosure:
I myself am Haredi and very pleased with the imposition of government authority on the sector, as happened a little in the last government (for example with kosher phones), but the price for that is unacceptable. We will not survive another four years like these.
I am well aware, and it is all demagoguery. Unless you have special information that was not exposed to my eyes. Under Bibi the situation was worse, and certainly no better. It may be that you draw your information from pro-Bibi sources. We will certainly survive perfectly well even another hundred years like these, far more than five years of Bibi.
Okay, obviously you are right
but my question was how this fits with Kant’s categorical imperative
What is the question? I explained.
The only issue on which I can agree with the author is taking a realistic look at what the party I vote for can actually achieve out of the issues it promotes and what constraints bind it. But for some reason the author thinks we are all fools and do not look at things this way, but rather vote according to a feeling of affinity with a party (as he writes about Rabbi Medan; sorry, but he is the delusional one and apparently did not read what Rabbi Medan actually wrote. Rabbi Medan dealt mainly with the dreadful possibility, in his view, of an Arab-left government and preventing it, not simply because he thinks Shaked is close to his position and will advance what he wants). There are clear considerations and unfortunately concessions (such as on matters of religion and state) because of coalition discipline, etc., but the logic is clear—the larger the party I vote for is and the greater its leverage, the more it will be able to advance! There are issues that will be taboo even for small parties that the coalition needs, but on many issues the party to which you gave enough power will determine matters. That is on questions of policy and legislation, not to mention ongoing activity in government ministries
Paragraph 4, line 2
…there is value in ‘teaching the settlers a lesson’…
Classic pandering to leftists
A revolution has to be carried out throughout the bureaucratic system in the country (the judicial system, security, medicine, welfare, etc.). Fire everyone who sits there and appoint unequivocal right-wing people (and more importantly, ones who respect the people’s choice), down to the clerk sitting behind the counter if necessary. Without that, even if a purely right-wing government were formed, even without Haredim, it would not help. They would go on doing what seems right to them and would not carry out any instruction of the political echelon. Otherwise it would be better to sell the ID card on election day to some Satmar guy in Jerusalem and make 500 shekels
It is worth seeing here the implications of choosing the Bibi-Haredim-Smotrich bloc: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02pcCPFx1SGW3tyyJ1uVXMwJN4vjW7cjo7Nf1jEEiE8gePeFDxtZgp1LXTQz6qxiQbl&id=629129764
Could you share your final decision with us – who will you vote for?
Could you?
Until today I did not understand what was said in the name of the Hazon Ish, that the mizrachnikim (the religious Zionists) are worse than the secular. Now that I have read the article and some of the comments, I understand how right he was, and all for the sake of helping and benefiting the Haredim….
I waive your favors.
How fortunate I am to have merited this. Except that your waiving favors is itself the problem. And your understanding is also somewhat deficient: no one wants to do you any favors. They simply no longer want to support you, and do not want you to hold hostage people who are not interested in this. If you want to commit suicide, be so kind as to do it alone and to yourself.
I am sorry for you, my brother Michael, you have completely lost it. Through a chain of arguments you reached the brilliant conclusion that one should essentially vote for haters of Israel who seek to impose Sharia here. Why didn’t I think of that before?!
It is very tempting for me to go down the path of addressing your arguments one by one. Experience shows that this is a foolish path – I am fully confident that I would not persuade you. I can only stand amazed at one of the frightening examples of how the will rules over the intellect, and how strong negative emotions can lead a person, even the most intelligent one, to the abyss, with rational arguments in his bag all the way down.
I am sorry for you, my brother Michael.
With God’s help, election eve 5783
To Regev – greetings,
Actually, imposing Sharia in the State of Israel could help Judaism, since according to Sharia one must grant protection to Jews so long as they duly pay the tax. Muslim protection is the thing that best protects against terror attacks.
Moreover, not only would the physical security of the Jews be guaranteed under Muslim rule. The spiritual existence of the Jewish religion would also be guaranteed under Islamic rule, for protection is granted only to members of the Jewish religion\so an Islamic state would obligate all Jews to observe the commandments of their religion.
Yet all the same I hesitate to vote for Ra’am, because in the current situation they do not have the power to establish an Islamic state here, and they would only strengthen the rule of the Jewish leftists, and this requires further consideration
With blessings, Shiva Mikhshora, Shura Council
The bottleneck is the judicial system.
And there all three conditions are met. There is momentum 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, this will be the bottleneck of the state in the coming years, weighing down development in other areas.
Now, after the results have become known, I can only send here what I sent to our rabbi, the owner of the blog
😭😭😥😢 May God have mercy; Satan’s work has succeeded and desecrators of God and corrupt people who destroy every good plot of ground have prevailed, and about this King David said in Psalms, “Have not Your enemies raised their heads” etc. We need to organize a mass prayer rally and outcry (of the other side of the map that lost, namely all those righteous people and people of deeds who sanctify God’s name) and repent over why God has done this to us, that such a terrible and awful decree was decreed upon us: “Is it not the Lord, against whom we have sinned?” etc. And with God’s help, through repentance and good deeds our sin will be atoned for (their sin), and by this merit God will have mercy on us (that is, really on them), and in us (them) the verse will soon be fulfilled: “And Zion (Balfour) shall be redeemed with justice, and those who return to her with righteousness” (and in translation: “with schnorring”) etc., and if God wills we shall soon see the downfall of all those desecrators of God and corrupt people, and as the continuation of the above verse it will be fulfilled in them (in us?) “and those who forsake the Lord shall perish,” and we shall merit with our own eyes to see the prophet’s prophecy: “Old men and old women shall yet sit, old women and old women from the LGBT community, in Jerusalem,” and she shall no more know sorrow, amen and amen😉
To Shmuel, when I read his name – abundant greetings and salvation,
I fear that the left’s prayer rally will not help, because the “transgressors of Israel” exist only on the right, and every fast day that does not include some of the transgressors of Israel – is no fast day.
\But we are not exempt from drawing lessons. We deluded ourselves by not going out en masse to strengthen Balad, when it was known that it might not pass the electoral threshold. That is why this trouble has come upon us.
But this is our consolation in the matter: all the right-wing people are ideologues without compromise who will fight over “every jot and tittle,” each one waging “a world war” over his own “nuance,” and therefore they will have difficulty forming a coalition of “full right,” and in the end they too will join Gantz and/or Lapid, and a redeemer comes to Zion 🙂
With blessings, Shimala Left-Winger, Givat HaBaladim
I was not comforted
And in general, there is nothing to worry about. Begin of blessed memory already taught us that “there are judges in Jerusalem,” namely the members of the High Court, who fulfill the instruction of our Sages of blessed memory: “let him wear black and wrap himself in black and do what his heart desires” 🙂 Together with the attorney general and the prosecutors, may they live long, they will make sure that the Knesset and government do not go too far in their right-wingness, and Benjamin Netanyahu can be trusted to be careful not to “stretch the rope” too far.
The only things that will change are: stopping the dash toward establishing a Palestinian state, which Lapid longed to accelerate, and stopping the dash of Lieberman and Matan Kahana to destroy the standing of the Chief Rabbinate. The energy of the minister of religious services will be directed toward improving the state kashrut and conversion systems, and whoever wanted alternative conversion and kashrut can continue to enjoy “Tzohar Food Supervision” and “Conversion According to Halakha,” which have already been de facto validated by the courts. Maybe the taxes on disposable utensils will be canceled…
So it does not seem there is any reason for concern!
With blessings, Shraga Feivel Halevi Konnektator
There are real differences between the parties on economic issues too, as all the struggles within the current coalition over the agricultural import reform attest.