Correct, but he was quoting one line, which was “And for that exact reason, the Rebbe didn’t want politicians running for office to appear at Chabad events” and about that, my point is correct

you didn’t answer his ta’anos and the rebbe in the beggining encouraged everyone to publicize mihu yehudi and only told shluchim to stop when it was affecting there shlichus etc. and wasn’t getting anywhere and the point stays the same

the article is in regards to ben gevir which is not just a elected official but also a minister in the goverment in eretz yisroel

My point was not that what happens in 770 will not go around the world. My point is, is that while in a chabad house there might be a need to take certain precautions etc, but by HQ that doesn’t exist.
Mihu yehudi was a constant topic in 770, and yet at the same time the rebbe told certain shluchim not to engage publicly in it.

while in theory you are right, and you are 100% right about residents of Crown Heights for the rest of us who don’t live there it is a good discussion because they are not our rabbonim and to say what you want to say would be to say that because the rabbonim in crown heights decided one thing now we must all listen including all rabbonim throught the whole world so we are disscusing from the perspective of someone not bound by the rabbonim of crown heights what would you do if they wanted to bring ben gvir to your city what would you do so this is not neged the rabbonim of crown heights and not neged the kavanah of the rebbe and its a good discussion

2. Therfore, I’m not sure this is the place for such a debate.

3. There are many valid points being brought up on both sides.
The writer wrote that he is uncertain.

4. (Although I’m leaning toward the opinion of “he can speak”)

I THINK WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE REBBE’S DIRECTIVE AND HAVE THE RABBONIM DECIDE!

AND WHAT THEY DECIDE WE SHOULD ACCEPT!

the fact that we have had other people speak means nothing also who let them (goyim) make rally’s outside 770 and also whether or not we can learn from him or vice versa doesn’t change the fact that it can be merachek people from chabad

there is no point in mentioning what other people do without bringing their reasons

i dont think anyone will think chabad is anti semetic

you brought up very good points and i have to agree aside from one point which is that i think left wingers are more likely to be put off from chabad from these reasons than right wingers so there is (sort of) a difference between politicians

I am sorry, but you completely missed the point because the author was talking about officialls RUNNING for office and all the points you brought up are about already elected people

B”H.

I don’t have much time now, but I will try to address what you wrote quickly.

You made two separate points.

1. Some people are are a bigger turn off.

2. One wrong does not justify other wrongs.

Response:

1. Davke because Ben Gvir is vilified, Davke because of that reason we should davke not Passel him (even if personally I feel that he is an ineffective person).

To paste what I wrote to others:

Basically they built this narrative, that Ben Gvir is not legitimate (he by the way thinks that eliyahu is ok, but ben gvir is somehow a problem), and we have fallen for it.

I was actually upset that Gallant was invited to speak, but then I thought, if the rebbe could allow chaim cohen, then we can also allow gallant, but this writer somehow thinks that gallant is fine, but ben gvir is not. that itself is crazy.

my comment however, is a another point, that basically the crazy left and also the deep state, has this idea, that there are two sugim, sug alef and sug beis, sug alef always has standing and sug beis never does (And neither do their votes count or their petitions to the supreme court).

that is terrible

2. The question is not about doing two wrong. But rather once Gallant spoke, and then don’t let ben Gvir speak, you create the perception, that one party is more legitimate then the other.

P.S. Some people have written to me personally, arguing on my points, both from a rational or factual basis. One can argue about those points. But these two points that you made, dont even start.

B”H.

According to the Yumanim of the time, it was done with the Rebbe’s initiative.

First of all he was placed to sit behind the Rebbe by the Farbrengen and the Rebbe called him over and honored him with a L’Chaim, and the Rebbe reminded him that he had promised him that he will ultimately be the winner in the internal party politics to become the party head because he did what the Rebbe wanted. So the Rebbe himself took part in celebrating him at the time and that’s why he was invited to speak later for the crowed.

Secondly, in general in those days if anyone dared do something like this and the Rebbe was not pleased he would let us all know about it, and if was advertised in advance it would be scrapped per the Mazkirus or Vaad Hamesader. 770 is not a place of rallies and Hefkeirus.

Third, I can’t say with 100% certainty because I don’t remember all the details, but I remember that the Rebbe was actually interested that we should help him and honor him in a very public way, and inviting him to speak at a Farbrengen was part of it.

The point is, that inviting politicians during election season was an absolute no no, because then Lubavitch seems to endorse a candidate for elections, but to honor a politician for doing the right thing even if it’s not popular by some, the Rebbe was for it all the way, in order to encourage them to hold strong and continue on the right path, and the politics of looking good in the eyes of others was not a consideration.

2 wrongs don’t make a right plus the fact that there is a difference between shuls (i am not sure if you refer to lubavitch shuls/chabad houses or not) and the international center of chabad 770

“a similar anology can be like the announcment of yechi…” we see clearly that this announcment causes a chilul hashem and in general anything that happens in 770 everyone finds out about for example the tunnels so please open up your eyes look around and see

the point stays the same

he clearly pre-empted your question in his article which is that we won’t stop anyone from coming etc. but to bring him to speak is another level

the fact is that some politicians will turn people off and some won’t plus just because we did something wrong a couple of months ago doesn’t mean we can do it again

was it with the Rebbe’s consent? because if not it means nothing and the fact that other people did something wrong doesn’t mean that now we can

It is very naive to think that what happens in 770 will stay separate from the world.

As the Rebbe once wrote to a publication that was labeled “Pnimi” (that it’s only menat for internal Lubavitch, “Who are they fooling?”…

A similar analogy can be like the announcement of Yechi after davening. When you’re in a distant place on shlichus, and you have worries and חששות and you’re not sure how it will be accepted, there are reasons for and against. But in 770? To argue against saying Yechi on the grounds of possibly(???) having an adverse effect on someone across the globe, is meritless.

At home we do not mince words. Sometimes when going out, one must put on a tie etc, but that the same attitude should become our standard כלפי פנים, is worrisome.