I can’t find the exact quote, but Rabbi Meir Kahane once said not to bother destroying the Mosque(s) on the Temple Mount, since the Israeli government would surely rebuild it, but more handsome than before…
I found a source in Chazal for this reasoning on Hyehudi.org, page 3 of Kedushas Tziyon #12 here:
הוא היה אומר אל תסתור במותיהם שלא תבנם בידך אל תסתיר של לבנים שלא יאמרו לך בא ועשם של אבנים
Avos Derabbi Nosson version 2, chapter 31
The rest of the Torah article is well worth the time invested.
How do I know if the facts are accurate?! And I have no comment on bans in general at the moment. But I do notice this sentence:
וכן כותב נגד שרים ופאליטישאנס שאנו תחת חסותם כדי להבאיש ריחם, והחילול השם נורא ואיום.
Nu. It is a desecration of God’s name to flatter the wicked. Besides, isn’t the idea of democracy that the politicians are under the peoples’ thumb, and not the other way around, as in Monarchy? And if the signers are aware we live under a ruling class, how do politicians fit into this? Politicians are mere front-men for the Deep State! Perhaps they hold that “Eved melech, melech”?
Sha’arei Teshuvah 3:148 says:
ונאמר (משלי כז, כא) מצרף לכסף וכור לזהב ואיש לפי מהללו. פרושו, מעלות האדם לפי מה שיהלל. אם הוא משבח המעשים הטובים והחכמים והצדיקים, תדע ובחנת כי איש טוב הוא ושרש – הצדק נמצא בו, כי לא ימצא את לבו רק לשבח את הטוב והטובים תמיד בכל דבריו, ולגנות את העברות, ולהבזות בעליהן (מבלי מאוס ברע ובחור בטוב), ואם יתכן כי יש בידו עונות נסתרים, אבל מאוהבי – הצדק הוא, ולו שרש בבחירה. והוא מעדת מכבדי השם. והמשבח מעשים מגנים או מהלל רשעים, הוא הרשע הגמור והמחלל את עבודת השם יתברך
If you’re anything like me, you want to know the real history your teachers’ teachers kept from y’all.
So here is a great summary of a book discussing the good, the bad, the ugly and especially the surprising Halachic customs. Written with special interest in the Ezras Nashim experience of course. Did you know women would do Sandaka’us (I did)? Divorce was insufficiently stigmatized? About Zimun of women and men (I should really write about that topic sometime)? The reason Yibbum was first discouraged? And more.
Like all other groups and individuals, the Arabs are both harmed unjustly and benefited unjustly by the Israeli state in various ways. We anyway ought to shrink the state! So why not let Arabs hear all about it and get some votes, too? We can promote a more peaceful situation with the Arabs based on the near-universal wish for justice, law and order, and free markets. Although we may not become personally close to non-Jews, which is why their wine and bread etc. were banned, we can certainly make alliances if we’re careful.
The article doesn’t go far enough. The point is larger and more sensible than politics, whether municipal or national (which is mostly a delusion). I cannot include excerpts because it’s too good; just read it all!
What the doctrine of balancing budgets over a period of many years really means is this: As long as our own party is in office, we will enhance our popularity by reckless spending. We do not want to annoy our friends by cutting down expenditure. We want the voters to feel happy under the artificial short-lived prosperity which the easy money policy and rich supply of additional money generate. Later, when our adversaries will be in office, the inevitable consequence of our expansionist policy, viz., depression, will appear. Then we shall blame them for the disaster and assail them for their failure to balance the budget properly.
It is very unlikely that the practice of deficit spending will be abandoned in the not too distant future. As a fiscal policy it is very convenient to inept governments. It is passionately advocated by hosts of pseudo‑economists. It is praised at the universities as the most beneficial expedient of “unorthodox,” really “progressive” and “anti‑fascist” methods of public finance. A radical change of ideologies would be required to restore the prestige of sound fiscal procedures, today decried as “orthodox” and “reactionary.”
Such an overthrow of an almost universally accepted doc trine is unlikely to occur as long as the living generation of professors and politicians has not passed away. The present writer, having for more than forty years uncompromisingly fought against all varieties of credit expansion and inflation, is forced sadly to admit that the prospects for a speedy return to sound management of monetary affairs are rather thin. A realistic evaluation of the state of public opinion, the doctrines taught at the universities and the mentality of politicians and pressure groups must show us that the inflationist tendencies will prevail for many years.
