Hatred distorts judgment. "Things seen from here are not seen from there" is not relevant here, because the external circumstances did not change. After all, it is obvious that when someone makes such a promise, he is making it even for a case where he will not have a Jewish majority (only in such a case does the promise have any value in the first place), and even at the price of a fourth election. The point is that from the outset there is not much value to the word of politicians. And the truth is that anyone who believed him in the first place is a fool. Because hatred causes people to gouge out one of their own eyes if they can gouge out two of their rival's eyes. And unfortunately I believe that in this sense he did not deceive any of his voters, because simply almost all of them there are obsessed with "anyone but Bibi," and at some stage they would even be willing to sacrifice their firstborn son to this idol (every time there is some other idol. Once it was the Moloch of peace. When that disappointed them, they found themselves this idol). And the danger that these fanatics (of whom 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 reverse: that hatred causes people to be willing to have both their own eyes gouged out if they can gouge out one eye of their rival. (This is an answer to a question they asked someone who hated someone else—what would he be willing for the person he hated to receive (it was supposed to be money or something good) if he himself would be given twice as much of the same thing.) Which of course raises the level of madness even more.

Ayalon
A. Are you judging the lie as a moral offense in itself, or are you claiming on its basis that they have no public mandate to form a government with the support of the Joint List because their voters did not want that? In the polls, support for the anti-Bibi bloc was not harmed. Or do they have no public mandate because if they had not made that promise then the right-wing voters would have turned out in even greater numbers? It is clear that a lie, as a moral offense in itself, should not affect the decisions of representatives when it stands against what they believe is the good of all (or most) of the citizens.

B. So what is your proposal? To ban Joint List support across the board, and then the Likud-religious-Haredi bloc will rule forever? If a price has to be paid for this moral principle (heaven forbid to accept support from the Joint List), then the price should be divided equally between the two sides.
I once read a wonderful parable about a rich man who rented an apartment to a poor family, and one day they ran out of money. The rich man wanted to throw the family out into the freezing street, and her cry went up to heaven. They went to the local rabbi, and he ruled that by the law of mercy and saving life and so on, the rich man was forbidden to throw them out. The rich man replied and said: if the rent for this family has to be donated by the law of mercy and so on, then why should I specifically be the one to donate it? Let the community fund (=the public as a whole) kindly pay me the rent, and I too will participate with my share in paying myself. In the story the rabbi sold him some line that from heaven this event had been rolled specifically to him, but in my opinion this is an extremely solid argument.

Joshua, that is what the halakhic decisors wrote regarding stealing a kidney from a healthy person because of a life-threatening need of mine. Or robbing a bank in order to finance a life-saving surgery.
And regarding the lies in politics, it is worth reading an article by Shlomo Pyotrkovsky: https://www.makorrishon.co.il/opinion/212085/

I am not familiar with the words of the halakhic decisors (I would be happy for a reference; I did not find it on Google), but I will speak from the moral side, because if the claims are only from the standpoint of Jewish law, then of course the criticism of Blue and White shrinks dramatically.
To legislate that it is permitted to steal kidneys (and walnuts) is not good, because the suffering that would be caused to all healthy people who would fear for the fate of their kidneys every single day is graver than the saving of lives. But someone who has the ability to steal a kidney in deepest secrecy (if it becomes known that there is such a gang of thieves, then that is as bad as a law) is certainly, in my opinion etc., performing a great commandment, and may my portion be with him. The moral distinction between positive action and passive omission is, in my opinion etc., a root bearing poison and wormwood; I have no words to describe how much harm it causes, and I have still not found any place where it seems relevant to me.
But I understand that this position is viewed as crazy (the generation is not yet fit), and therefore I do not use it as an argument, though it indeed stands in the background for me. If the opponents were to say that under a different constitutional framework, in which Gantz would have had to actively oppose support from the Joint List in order for them not to support him for prime minister—they would have had no criticism, and their entire claim is only about the action (and not about the result of a government with the Joint List), then as far as I am concerned we have passed an important stage in the discussion. Since those making the claim do not argue this way, the example of the rich man and the family seems fitting to me; I assume that even those who maintain the importance of the act agree that in the case of the rich man, everyone should from the outset participate in the payment.

Pyotrkovsky's articles are always interesting (I accept Professor Haidt's theory, which I think I encountered אצל Moshe Koppel, as describing things correctly), and this article is divided, as it should be, into two parts: a complaint about the lie in itself, and a complaint about the substance in itself. Although the contradiction between the promises existed from the moment of the promise itself and did not suddenly arise only after the election results, and therefore this case really is unique. (Many have pointed this out.) The problem I am able to see in the lie of a public representative is not his personal moral offense (it has no weight in matters of policy), but the validity of the public mandate. If we assume that no one in the country would change his vote if repeat elections were held today, then the complaint about the lie disappears completely.

And since I have already filled pages with declarations of my personal opinion, I will also say that as far as I am concerned, the central problem in a government supported by the Joint List (when they are a negligible minority in the Knesset) is the presence of Meretz and Labor.

Joshua,

I brought a “parable” and you brushed it aside with straw (in the comment before last).

But this is a true story, and the ruling was accompanied by halakhic proof (and not a “line,” as you put it).

Please go ahead and present a refutation of the proof of the Imrei Emet:

האדמו"ר בעל ה'אמרי אמת' מגור האזין לדבריה והורה לקרוא לבעל הדירה שמיהר להתייצב לפניו. שאלו הרבי: "כיצד אתה מוציא אלמנה מדירתה?"

Aaron.

Correction: “you brought,” not “I brought.”

Thanks for the link! I actually read this story in childhood (age 8-9-10) in some book of parables and lessons, and I credit it with the first serious thoughts I ever had in life. I admit that the halakhic approach takes into account all sorts of principles besides the result, and also assigns enormous importance to the act, and I do not deal in that (if all there is against Blue and White is a proof from a Mishnah in Gittin, then our situation is excellent). The specific proof attributed there to the Imrei Emet I did not understand at all, because there the slave writes him a deed for half his value. If the master receives the money instead of half the slave, then it is like they paid him with inferior-quality land instead of superior-quality land.

Joshua,
I think the Tzitz Eliezer permits risking a life for the sake of the public. As is known, in Hagahot Maimoniot, chapter 1 of the laws of murder, he brings from the Jerusalem Talmud that one may risk a life for any individual person. In the Frankel edition there you will certainly find more references.
I have written here more than once about Haidt.
I do not have time, and this is not the place, to get into a discussion here about consequentialist and utilitarian morality. That has already been discussed here more than once in the past.

Thank you, I will look there.
Practically speaking, in your opinion, should the rich man refrain from evicting the family while the community fund should not participate?

I do not think he has such an obligation. Not at all. Let the community kindly participate in the expenses.

And similarly, should Likud also kindly bear part of the cost of preserving the principle that one must not sit with the Joint List (assuming that this is a terrible and awful thing)? Or, on the assumption that sitting with them is terrible and awful, is it like stealing kidneys, so Blue and White is forbidden and therefore they alone must pay the entire price for this principle?

Exactly so. And I have written and said this more than once. Bibi explains to us that Blue and White are destroying the country through a coalition with the Joint List, but he himself is not willing to do a thing to relieve them of it. That is exactly the point.

If so, then one could argue that if in a normal unity government the positions are divided half and half, then here, in order to share in paying for this very important principle, Blue and White should receive another half of Likud's share, for a total of three-quarters to Blue and White.

That is assuming they really could have formed a government with the Joint List. That probably was not possible for them. One should remember that in principle Likud could also have done so; it just did not want to. So if we are dealing with strong-arm tactics, they have a migo that they too could have turned to the Joint List.
And this is not the place to engage in further pilpul about it.