Question

I listened to the latest lecture on mysticism. A very important lecture. Thank you very much for it. 
Indeed, I agree that one should not make practical decisions based on mysticism. It cannot be considered a practical consideration.  And that is true both for Religious Zionism and for anti-Zionists. 
There is a similar story about Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, who heard that a rabbi had separated couples based on their names. And he told him that even if he knows such things, and even if there is divine inspiration, one cannot determine Jewish law on that basis. That knowledge must be ignored completely. End quote. At the same time, it can influence practical considerations. And I will explain…
The Rabbi argued that there is no point in fulfilling the dream, like Joseph who fulfilled his dream. But if we take the dream as a vision, then certainly when one sees the possibility of realizing the dream, one should do so. The dream or the vision, or mysticism, can serve as practical inspiration—to move us toward the values of mysticism. But it cannot serve as an indication of whether something is possible in the practical world or not! But once there is a possibility of doing it, then certainly one should act toward it.
So too, Kabbalah can serve as our ideological map of values. But when it comes to a halakhic ruling, that map must be translated into halakhic considerations alone.
From this we should ask about the establishment of the state. Was Ben-Gurion right to establish a state? He understood that practically he would not have another opportunity. And so he declared a state even though the practical considerations seemingly did not fit. One could say that, practically speaking, living without a state was not an option. I heard that the problem with Bar Kokhba was indeed that he did not act according to sufficiently realistic realpolitik considerations, and therefore he failed. By contrast, we saw that Ben-Gurion did not fail.
There is another example where it is clear that one should also listen to mysticism—and that is to heed the words of the prophet. So the question is whether there can be a possibility in which mysticism does in fact penetrate the practical world, similar to a prophet.
Ben-Gurion said: I have no bread, but I do have a vision. There is power in vision. Vision can create a driving force that brings out hidden strengths, until it turns out that what had seemed unrealistic is completely realistic. By contrast, living without a vision leads to depression and in any case also to practical failure. Being realistic without a vision leads to October seventh. Because in the end, if there is no vision of Torah, there is a vision of snakes and scorpions. 
And therefore it may be that sometimes mysticism too has a realistic necessity—not because it teaches us whether an act is realistic or not, but because we understand that if we do not act in its direction, we will live without a vision, and such a life is itself unrealistic. It recalls the self-sacrifice of the visionary Ishmaelites. And from Ishmael, Isaac learns to sacrifice himself. 
Therefore, I suggest that as long as the vision is present, it should remain only in the category of inspiration. But if the vision becomes meaningless, then maintaining the vision at least as a vision becomes a practical need—not for the sake of mysticism, but because in order to survive one needs a vision.  A leadership vision that unites the entire people in its light.