Reflections on Our Attitude Toward the Persecution of Falun Gong in China (Column 491)
With God’s help
Disclaimer: This post was translated from Hebrew using AI (ChatGPT 5 Thinking), so there may be inaccuracies or nuances lost. If something seems unclear, please refer to the Hebrew original or contact us for clarification.
This past Wednesday I got the impression I’d been appointed deputy to the Dalai Lama. In the photo here, His Exaltedness, the Dalai-whatever, delivering remarks:
It was a demonstration held in front of the Chinese embassy, where the protesters—mainly a few dozen practitioners of Falun Gong in Israel together with a few innocent citizens like me—protested the persecution of their comrades in China. The organizers invited me to speak there, and I gathered from them that demonstrations on this matter were held around the world that same day.
A Note on the Media
I assume most of you didn’t hear about these demonstrations at all—just like me. Had they not approached me, I wouldn’t have heard about it and certainly wouldn’t have taken part. It seems to me that such coverage did not appear even in a tiny corner of the back page of Israel’s most marginal media outlet. Well, after all, we’re talking about a group of a few hundred thousand people (some estimates say millions) whom the Chinese authorities have been slaughtering for roughly thirty years, locking up in concentration and “re-education” camps, harvesting their organs, and abusing them to death (and then some). So what is there to report, really? Anyway, it’s not a reality show in which a lesbian chef chooses a gay singer and the two of them go off to compete in a nude survival contest in the Caribbean. Here it’s just a little “Shoah-lette” happening to a few people—so what could there possibly be to report?!
The Persecution of Falun Gong
This is a group that advocates practices and meditations aimed at achieving truth, tolerance, and compassion. The largest concentration of practitioners is in China, but there are such groups around the world. As far as I understand, it is not some religious cult but a spiritual practice—New Age, it seems—and you can assume it’s not exactly my cup of tea. But when they reached out and asked me to come speak, I read some materials about the group and about the terrible persecutions it suffers, and I was horrified. I saw no connection between whether I “connect” to this practice—or even if it were idolatry (which, even in our tradition, isn’t supposed to get particularly warm treatment)—and my duty to participate in this protest.
In China they customarily persecute, to varying degrees, different religious groups—Christians, Muslims, and others. This stems from the fanatical communism that still reigns there, but also from the authorities’ view that any organized group as such is a kind of threat to them. All the more so if it’s a group that develops independent thinking—heaven forbid—with a concern that its members won’t agree to be zombies led by government directives. It should be noted that Falun Gong is a peace-seeking group, and to the best of my understanding it poses no real danger to China, since their main concern is personal spiritual practice (again, innocent New-Age compassion and tolerance that themselves evoke compassion). As far as I know, they have no political aspirations and do nothing against the state and the regime, though their tenacity in their outlook inspires my admiration. Nevertheless, in the 1990s the Chinese authorities began to persecute them with a very heavy hand—apparently because they felt threatened by the movement’s growth. The only “group” permitted there is the Chinese Communist Party.
Among other things, they put thousands of members of this group into re-education camps, where they undergo horrific abuse until they express remorse for their “crimes” and are “re-educated.” Many stand courageously by their convictions, and not a few have lost their lives in those camps and beyond. There are clear testimonies about people who were killed so their organs could be harvested and sold to whoever would pay. An Israeli doctor was shocked to hear that his patient was being scheduled two weeks in advance for a transplant in China. Needless to say, transplants are always done in real time, because when someone dies you must rush to summon the transplant candidate and quickly harvest the organs. If a transplant surgery is scheduled two weeks ahead, it means they already know today when the “donor” is going to die. You can figure out for yourselves the source of this “gift of prophecy.” I’ll note that following international investigations and collected testimonies, many countries (including Israel) have banned the purchase of organs from China. I won’t go into further details here; you can read much more in the Wikipedia entries cited above.
Comparison to the Holocaust
In my remarks there (as did other speakers), I compared what’s happening there to the Holocaust. It’s just as well there was no media coverage—otherwise they’d have crucified me by now and buried me on the Avenue of the Lousy Among the Nations at Yad Vashem. We’re talking about systematic persecution, torture unto death, using human beings as raw material for medical needs, and other hallmarks of the “unique” Holocaust that was only ours. I’m sure all the amateur researchers will immediately pop up to explain to me how this is nothing like it. We are the most suffering people in the world, and there have never been nor will there ever be sufferers like us (“Haven’t the Jewish people suffered enough?”, in the immortal words of The Cameri Quintet)[1]; therefore we have absolute exemption from addressing other people’s troubles.
Our indifference—as a state, as a public, and as individuals—to the atrocities taking place there is, in my view, a scandal. When our parents were tormented in the camps, they longed for someone to intervene and do something. Even after the Holocaust, to this day, we condemn the cruel world that did nothing to save the wretched. But we are exempt, because we’re the most wretched of all. Needless to say, I don’t expect us to bomb China—that’s unrealistic. I’m not even sure to what extent we can demand that our prime minister condemn them or act against them politically. The responsibility on him is not on me, and it’s easy for me to be righteous from the armchair. But mustn’t we at least raise our voice? Come to a demonstration? Cry out? Protest? Forget all that—at least publish a news item in the paper about their deeds and about the demonstrations against them? Is even that unrealistic?!
I must say that, unlike the absolute zero we are doing regarding the Chinese Holocaust, in our Holocaust there were indeed many who intervened and fought the Nazis. They didn’t necessarily do it to save Jews, but in the final tally millions from the Allied forces fell, and in practice they saved many, many Jews.[2] And after all that, we still come with complaints against them. But of course we’re exempt from everything, because after all—they didn’t save us.
Those Falun Gong people told me they approached other rabbis, public figures, and academics to come participate in the demonstration, and were turned down. And, as noted, the media also utterly ignores a veritable Holocaust that has been unfolding in China for decades. It’s hard to deny the feeling of helplessness underlying the matter. It’s quite clear there isn’t much to be done in the face of these horrors. China doesn’t exactly quiver at public criticism, and its allies—like Russia and various axes of evil—will support it in any struggle against the liberal, democratic West. Even so, this indifference is, to me, disgraceful. At the very least, I would expect a Western consumer boycott, or other political and economic measures that can indeed be taken.
Returning to the demonstration: the Falun Gong practitioners stood there quietly and gently with photos of tortured victims from the camps and with lit candles, meditating in front of the Chinese embassy. That building stood opposite them like a fortified, sealed compound with no opening to the public domain. It radiated menacing silence and complete apathy to the protest and to its surroundings. My heart really ached at that quiet, and at the fact that public relations are apparently not the strong suit of these pleasant, gentle people. It was clear to me they had no chance of getting any attention in our raucous public discourse. Their voice cannot be heard in an Israeli public square roaring with stupidity, MasterChef, and Survivor. Simply awful.
Participation in Demonstrations
When this demonstration was mentioned on WhatsApp, I was asked what happened to my declared policy of not participating in demonstrations. I replied that I meant demonstrations with political aims—for or against someone or something. But demonstrations protesting wickedness are of a different order.
Generally, demonstrations don’t help and have no real efficacy. Beyond that, participating in a demonstration gives the feeling of being a small, faceless cog in a large, uniform collective, with the stage (and the fools upon it—like me) speaking in its name and on its behalf. All these are good reasons not to participate. But in demonstrations against evil and injustice another consideration enters: the categorical imperative. Even if my personal contribution is negligible and there’s no chance it will move anything, the categorical imperative says I should act in a way I would want to be a universal law. If the whole world showed up to such demonstrations, it would indeed help—so it’s appropriate to participate even if it won’t help. Beyond that, in column 122 I explained that the only way to move something is for millions of people actually to show up and protest. But millions are made up of millions of individuals, each of whom must decide to come. Therefore, obedience to the categorical imperative is, in the end, also the only way to achieve results. See also columns 252–253.
Suddenly I better understood the Haredi maxim (whose source is in the Talmud, of course; see Ta’anit 15–16) that in a time of trouble “one must bring the Ark into the town square.” The meaning is that there is value in the very public outcry against wickedness and injustice,[3] even if in the end it won’t help. At least our own hearts won’t remain numb to such phenomena. Beyond that, perhaps those unfortunates will hear that there are people who share their pain and act on their behalf—something the tortured in the concentration camps of the Holocaust didn’t have. That’s why it is very hard for me to accept the dreadful silence that prevails among us in the face of these dreadful phenomena.
Is There a Religious Dimension to Participating in Such Protests?
Despite the general apathy, I find it hard to shake the (unverified) impression that on such topics apathy is greater in the religious public than in the general public. It reminds me of the well-known religious indifference to animal suffering. There are various explanations for this—better or worse—and yet it is infuriating. When I speak with people, they explain to me, just as with animal suffering, that as is known one shouldn’t believe the media (after all, we see what the world’s media does to us), and who says that’s really the situation in China?! Suddenly ironclad proof is required (which, of course, can never be provided) just to decide to go out and protest. Suddenly the world’s media isn’t only persecuting us out of antisemitism, but also the righteous Chinese, for no wrongdoing. These excuses give us a blessed inertia, allowing us to go on focusing on our ultimate suffering—of which there is none but ours (and of course on MasterChef and Survivor). By the way, why should the citizens of the world have believed the media that reported on the Nazis’ deeds? Maybe it was just smearing them?! I’m sure people then had similar excuses.
Against this backdrop, I must note that at this rally there were actually quite a few religious speakers. Before me spoke a religious China scholar named Noam Orbach (who described how academic researchers ignore these topics, inspired by the Chinese authorities). After me spoke my friend Prof. Hillel Weiss, one of the founders of the Sanhedrin (who has already taken a few hits from me over that folly). I saw that in the past Rabbi Sherki also participated in such a demonstration. The common denominator between the latter two is that both are active in Noahide organizations, and it was quite evident from their words that they mainly came to state the Torah’s position regarding the horrific events in China. I found it hard to shake the impression that their appearance there was meant to bolster the Sanhedrin’s standing and the activists for the Noahides, and to present the position of Torah and Judaism regarding them. I don’t mean personal honor, but rather to make a kiddush Hashem.
By contrast, yours truly began his remarks by saying that although I was invited to speak in the “rabbi” slot, I find that embarrassing. I don’t think one needs to be a rabbi, or to hold any ideology or religion, in order to participate and protest such horrifying deeds. I said I was speaking there as a human being—not as a Jew and not as a rabbi. What I didn’t say there, but I assume most of you know, is that in my view morality does not belong to Jews, and there is no such thing as “Jewish morality.” Moreover, in my opinion Jews are not particularly outstanding in this area. My moral commitment stems from my being a human being, not from my being a Jew.[4] Therefore I also don’t believe in the great “good news” that the Torah supposedly bears to the Noahides (which underlies the above activities). There is no such message. What’s required of them is to be human beings—and they know that perfectly well without us. If only among us everyone understood this as well as we expect of the gentiles.
A Note on Morality, and on Sanctifying and Desecrating the Name
Usually, when I hear a demand from a religious public—or from religious students—to behave nicely, politely, and morally in order to avoid a desecration of God’s name or in order to sanctify God’s name, I see red. For example, at the end of a ceremony for the students of my sons’ cheder that was held at the community center in Yeruham, the cheder principal took the stage and said we mustn’t leave the community center dirty, and that it is important to collect the leftovers and wrappers so there won’t be a desecration of God’s name. I’m used to this distasteful style, but I still can’t shake the nausea I feel when I hear such things. Not only because, in my view, this behavior is not connected to Torah and Judaism but to humanity as such, but also because such justification conveys the message that there is no simple human obligation here, only a religious need (chillul or kiddush Hashem). It is a denial of human morality and its replacement with religious laws and values. In my eyes this is faulty education.
I know that in the Sages and in the early authorities one can find dozens of such expressions, but I think they lived in a time when there really was a difference in moral behavior between Jews and gentiles (at least so they thought). In such a situation there is room to see in the Torah a moral message for all humanity. But thank God, we’re beyond that. One could say we succeeded in instilling this in the world (with the generous help of quite a few gentiles), and therefore today’s situation is completely different from what was known to the Sages and early authorities—both on the gentile side, which has advanced, and on the Jewish side, whose moral and human condition is not always stellar relative to others.
As far as I know, the Falun Gong protests were not initiated or led by Jews. In the end they managed to bring about ten Jews and a few dozen Falun Gong practitioners. So to show up at that very demonstration in order to proclaim into the microphone the Torah’s message—as if we are the ones bringing the moral good news and bearing the flag of morality and humanity to the world—is irritating, disconnected condescension. My apologies to Prof. Hillel Weiss and Rabbi Sherki, both of whom I very much esteem and respect, but after the apathy and moral failure I’ve described—which are expressed, among other things, precisely on this issue—to come and claim the moral crown for ourselves is, in my view, the height of chutzpah and disconnect.
Think what you would say if a Christian organization came and told you it isn’t trying to convert you—only to make you human. Its goal is to bring to the primitive Jews the Christian message of humanity. I’m sure you’d cordially invite them to speak from your synagogue or yeshiva podium…
[1] This refers to the famous sketch in which members of Israel’s Olympic delegation request a running advantage for one of the competitors. They hurl accusations at the German judge about his people’s deeds in the Holocaust and cry out one of the most memorable lines: “Haven’t the Jewish people suffered enough?”
[2] It’s worth recalling the dispute among the Tannaim in Shabbat 33b regarding the appreciation due to the Romans for what they did for us:
Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosi, and Rabbi Shimon were sitting, and Yehuda ben Gerim was with them. Rabbi Yehuda opened and said: “How pleasant are the deeds of this nation! They established markets, established bridges, established bathhouses.” Rabbi Yosi was silent. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai answered and said: “Everything they established, they established only for themselves: markets—to seat prostitutes; bathhouses—to pamper themselves; bridges—to collect tolls.” Yehuda ben Gerim went and reported their words, and they were heard by the government. They said: “Yehuda, who praised—shall be promoted; Yosi, who was silent—shall be exiled to Tzippori; Shimon, who disparaged—shall be executed.”
Rabbi Yehuda teaches us that gratitude does not depend on motives. Indeed, R. Shimon disagrees (and it has already been written that this aligns with their positions in disputes about acts done without intent and about “melakha she’eina tzricha legufa”—whether one takes intentions into account or not.
[3] Though among the Haredim every little “achoo” is wickedness and injustice that warrants bringing the Ark into the town square. See the preface to Amnon Levi’s book HaHaredim, which I have mentioned here before (for example in column 161).
[4] Although I have written more than once that for it to be binding it requires belief in God (see, for example, column 456).
I agree with what you said, I will just try to teach a lesson about Rabbi Sharky, who I had the privilege of sitting and listening to in my younger days (that is, live, not via the Zoom angel), and I will interpret his words as an attempt to arouse his own public on the subject by way of a hint.
I think the difference between the Holocaust and this case is twofold. First, the goal of murdering Jews in the Holocaust was not because they posed a danger to the regime, but because they were Jews. In this case, on the other hand, even if the Chinese authorities are wrong, evil, etc., etc., they kill them for practical reasons. Second, the goal of the Nazis was to kill every Jew on earth, in this case, on the other hand, the Chinese authorities do not mind that there are such organizations in the United States (unless they occupy the United States, then the situation is different). That is why I also oppose the concept of the Armenian Holocaust, because it is true that a great many people were murdered there, but the Turkish motive is different from the motive in the Holocaust, which was extermination for the sake of extermination.
The question is – Why does it matter so much to find the differences. Okay, the Holocaust was special and we are the most miserable. But all this effort to always find why the Holocaust was the worst is futile and diverts the discussion from the main issue. All these comparisons are intended for historians. From the perspective of the individual person, he is not interested in the motives of persecution and torture, and from a moral point of view it does not matter at all.
Nice chatter. The kind of chatter I expected to see here. The question is how does all this relate to the suffering of the people and their lack of guilt? These people endanger the Chinese government about as much as the Jews endangered the Nazis. The Chinese claim that they endanger them, but the Nazis also claimed that the Jews endanger the world. I don't see any fundamental difference.
A. You said it's like the Holocaust, in my opinion it's not, I agree that it doesn't change the fact that people are suffering, but the wording that is used does. The reason the wording changes is that when you call everything a Holocaust, the power of the word is reduced, and when there really is a Holocaust, your ability to mobilize public opinion will decrease.
B. As for the fact of going to a demonstration, I also don't agree. You can ramble on until tomorrow about the categorical order, in practice you didn't help the situation in the slightest, and it would have been better if you had spent the time you devoted to going to a demonstration, etc., in a factory distributing food to the needy.
Of course, it can be argued that this is not contradictory and that both are necessary, but it is, firstly because a person has a limited time resource, and if you're going to volunteer, do it in a useful place. Secondly, because the ability to mentally pay attention to many things is limited. When you go to demonstrations like this, you are essentially choosing the easy way out, you are shouting how immoral it is, when you also know that your actions have no effect, and that is how you become moral without anything (reminds us of whites in the US, who deal with all sorts of nonsense in terms of language, what is allowed and what is not allowed in order not to offend blacks, none of whom actually do anything). If you invest your mental energy in moral wrongdoing, it is right to do this in places with influence, to say how wrong it is, it is nothing.
Dear Rabbi Michi, thank you very much for speaking out clearly and distinctly on this matter. I have never delved into this subject (probably partly because the media is trying hard to hide it), but I have heard about it, and in my opinion, ignoring what is happening there is truly a disgrace, which in my opinion also adds to the tendency of the most moral army in the world to sell weapons to regimes that commit such and such atrocities. I will just add a side note that is perhaps a bit biased, but not entirely – labeling them as ”New Age” is in my opinion both irrelevant and unfair: first, because it doesn't matter at all what their belief is, and even if it is nonsense, it is not the issue at all (this is perhaps another way to dismiss them as a strange sect). Second, – Although Falun Gong is a new movement, it does not come out of thin air. It is a branch of a tree whose roots reach deep into Chinese Buddhism, and to the best of my knowledge (which is really limited) – it was established as a way to “go with (the ancient religion and practices) and feel free” so as not to upset Mao, although it didn't help much. “New Age” refers to the way the West takes these ancient teachings, flattens them and makes them worn out, easy to digest and devoid of any nutritional value. But here we are talking about a new pot full of old. As mentioned – It's not very relevant because it doesn't matter what they believe, but I think that when you stand next to them, it's also appropriate to give them this respect.
I wrote to Heida that my relationship with them and their being New Age does not change the injustice they suffer and the obligation to stand by them. Your distinction between the use of these teachings in the East and their adoption in the West, which is only New Age, seems to me to be absolutely correct. As far as I am concerned (that is, when I adopt it), this is New Age, and so I have also seen the Israelis who practice it. As for the Chinese, I do not know, so it is really not necessarily so. But as mentioned, it does not matter. On the contrary, I wrote this to clarify that although it does not speak to me, it does not concern identification and the obligation to help and protest.
I completely agree, this is really a minor comment and you did address the points. Thank you!
Speaking of selling weapons to problematic regimes, the main activist on this issue is Eli Yosef, and he was one of the speakers at the aforementioned demonstration.
https://news.walla.co.il/item/3314968
I hope the automatic translation plugin that translates into Chinese, among other things, won't cause Chinese government hackers to crash the site 🙂
https://mikyab.net/zh-CN/%E8%81%8C%E4%BD%8D/77015
In the 26th of Tammuz, there are two separate issues here:
A. The harvesting of organs from those sentenced to death for transplantation. This is a moral question that must be discussed, and there is reason to argue that since the person is going to be killed anyway, at least his organs will bring salvation to others. However, the Israeli government prohibits importing organs from places where organs are used for execution, and in particular prohibits bringing organs from China.
B. The persecution of ethnic and/or religious minorities who tend to separatism. Such as the Tibetans, the Uyghurs and the Mongols, and against this background riots and even terrorist acts are carried out. In addition to these separatist groups, there is also persecution of the people of Hong Kong, who were accustomed to a free regime during British rule.
The Falun Gong They are not just ‘practitioners of meditation exercises’. This is a group of tens of millions of people with religious views, who oppose vaccinations, evolution and ’race mixing’. When a Chinese professor wrote against them that they were endangering public safety with their irrational opinions – they held demonstrations of thousands of people in front of his university and in the capital Beijing.
Regarding the treatment of them, there was a dispute in 1999 between the Chinese Prime Minister, who sought to reach agreements with them, and the Chinese leader, Chiang Kai-shek, who demanded to ‘crush them’ with a hard hand, and his path was also adopted by his successors. Perhaps a Chinese translation of ‘No man can master the spirit’ Will open the eyes of the leadership in China 🙂
With greetings, Ching-ching-ching, a man from Le-wing
By the way, among the ethnic and religious minorities that do not enjoy the sympathy of the Chinese authorities are the Kaifeng Jews who have lived in China for more than a thousand years, and the approximately one hundred families that remain there - can only maintain a Jewish life in secret. Immigrating to Yiddish is also not easy, because for centuries they have practiced that Judaism follows the father, and therefore they are not recognized as Jews and must undergo conversion.
Thank you for the information. But in my opinion, even if you are right (I don't know), it doesn't really change anything. First, even non-violent separatist groups should not be treated this way. Second, this is not a separatist group in the political sense, but a group that believes in spiritual techniques. Even if they oppose vaccinations, this is certainly not a justification for carrying out a Holocaust against them. As I recall, the Nazis also explained that Jews have terrible harmful effects on the world. By the way, they did (they were dominant among the creators of communism and anarchism), they touched the perfect Aryan race, and so on.
In short:
Persecution is not just the lot of Falun Gong. Uyghurs, Mongols, Tibetans, Hong Kong residents, and ordinary Chinese dissidents also suffer persecution. Along with them, tens of millions in North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran, Arab countries, and many African countries also suffer from violent repression.
A solution to the problem will only be if the free world unites and initiates a third world war that will eradicate all oppressive regimes, but the ‘free world’ by nature does not initiate wars. No Western country will initiate a war unless it is directly attacked, as in Pearl Harbor. What guides the Western world is the desire for peace that brings economic prosperity, and from the perspective of economic and political interests – it is better to maintain normal relations even with dark and murderous regimes. This is for now ‘what is there’ until the coming of the Savior of Justice in the Bible.
The lawsuit against the free world during the Holocaust is:
A. That they refused to accept Jewish refugees who faced total annihilation, unlike most of those oppressed under Nazi Germany. Some Jews sought to escape, and the ’free world’ closed its doors almost hermetically.
B. When they had already gone to war against Nazi Germany and had severely bombed military and civilian targets without mercy – they refrained from bombing the railroads that carried Jews to Auschwitz, and so the trains continued to Hubin carrying about 12,000 Jews ‘every day’ for extermination, and so the defeated Germans managed to eliminate hundreds of thousands of Jews from Hungary over the course of about two months. A few bombings on the railroad would have saved that.
Even today, the free world is concerned about the murderous terrorist regimes of the PLO and Hamas, and condemns Israel, which is defending itself while taking utmost care not to harm those who are not involved.
Best regards, Ching-Chong-Chih, Le-Wing
The unique problem in China that distinguishes it from other dictatorial regimes is that usually political repression also involves economic repression, and thus there is a situation where the regime collapses due to the dire economic situation, as happened in the USSR and Eastern Europe.
The Chinese have managed to combine economic freedom with political dictatorship, and when the people are full and doing well economically – and ’there is no lion growling from a haystack’. When the Chinese citizen is doing well economically – he is calm.
Best regards, Ch”ts Zal”u
The question to think about is whether the fall of a dictatorial regime will not lead to the rise of a worse dictator. We saw what happened in Russia when the Tsar was replaced by communism; what happened in Iran – when the Shah was replaced by Khomeini; and what happened in Egypt – when the ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ replaced Mubarak. Sometimes the existing situation is the least bad.
Best regards, Shraga Faybil Halevi Konkator
In the 19th century, I came across a copy of Makor Rishon and read the article "How to say demonstration in Chinese". It describes how the authorities forcefully disperse the demonstrations, but immediately afterwards they proceed to examine the claims of the demonstrators and solve the problem that led to the demonstration.
The Chinese Prime Minister also acted in this way in 1999, who sought to peacefully resolve the problem of the Falun Gong practitioners, but the Chinese leader prevailed, demanding that they be dealt with firmly and "crushed". Now, after 23 years in which the conflict between the Chinese authorities and Falun Gong has become an international controversy, It is already doubly difficult to ‘turn the wheel back.
Maybe Naftali Bennett, who showed his strength as the head of the ‘government of reconciliation and healing’ and as a mediator between Russia and Ukraine – will enlist in the mission of making peace between the Chinese authorities and ’Falun Gong’? 🙂
Best regards, Chiang unavailable
Reality has proven that in much of the world, the crushing of a dictatorial regime has led not to a democratic regime and the development of the country, but to anarchy and decline (perhaps this does not apply to China, but certainly to some of the countries you mentioned). So it is not only the initiation of war, it is also a commitment to (relatively) enlightened colonialism in the spirit of the mandates after World War I. Of course, there is no chance of this happening, so a murderous dictatorial regime and suffering is a thousand times better than anarchy and suffering.
I disagree in two ways: 1. I'm not sure that in most cases the results are bad. 2. Even if that's true, then it follows that we should never act against a brutal regime. Very unlikely, certainly according to the categorical order.
It's great that you care about what's happening at the end of the world, but why go all the way to China for something that has nothing to do with us if right here the Israeli government transfers millions every month that go to the Palestinian Authority, which directly supports terrorism!!!! Isn't it more moral to worry first about what's happening here?! Where's the protest? Even the “right-wing” Netanyahu went along with it.
https://jcpa.org.il/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%AA%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%91/
There is a political-security consideration there that prefers peace and various agreements over unrest and direct war. This is the policy of all Israeli governments of all kinds. I disagree (at least not in terms of the balance between the carrot and the stick), but this comparison is absurd in my opinion.
And what about the organizations that are defined as supporters of terrorism by the Israeli government that receive funding from the European Union? First protest at the EU offices before you worry about what's happening in China. It's certainly more moral to worry about your own people first.
Menachem, I'm sure you're of course protesting both there and there (and contributing to the efforts and boycotting European and Chinese products) and not just chirping at others who do. Such chirping is the usual technique of puffed-up people so they can continue to tell themselves that they're not just stinking egoists like 99% of the world.
Why are you so cynical? I just can't understand those who care about others first (I don't protest against the EU because that wouldn't help anyway) who care about their own people here at home.
PS Maybe protesting against the EU's support for terrorism doesn't take such good photos, especially for a bearded man with a turban outside? Just wondering out loud.
There could be all sorts of reasons, for example, that it is clear that an Israeli demonstrating in favor of Israel is something less significant when the elected Israeli government itself expresses its demonstration in favor of Israel. Furthermore, in the eyes of the European Union, Israel is probably largely to blame for continuing the settlements, so that demonstrating against them as an Israeli would seem quite ridiculous. But the point is that there are no reasons needed, everyone will do whatever their heart desires and the main thing is to do something. And to start telling others who are doing it why aren't you doing something else is ridiculous. And in my opinion, this stems first and foremost from an attempt to justify and say yes to the person who is doing this because he has all sorts of petty and self-serving motives and here is evidence that he is not doing anything else more important, and therefore it is understood that I do not have these petty motives, so I sit cross-legged and do nothing at all except snort, I am perfectly fine, no less than him.
Will you approach everyone who does any activity with the question, "What about something else?" Why doesn't he invest the same efforts in an activity that seems more important to you? If someone raises money to encourage Tanya learning, tell him why he shouldn't raise money to strengthen the reading of two Bibles and one Targum. And when he moves on to raising money for two Bibles and one Targum, tell him that a daily page is better. And when he raises money for a daily page, tell him that it is better for establishing seminaries. And then it is better for supporting kollels. And then it is better for widows to have children. Even if there are personal motives in doing something and you choose what is easy and honorable, and whatever comes to mind, it is much less important than the actual doing. As stated: the main thing is to do something.
The examples you gave are not similar. The comparison is to someone who helps the needy all over the world but harasses his own brother.
A bully is problematic regardless of helping others in need, although the bullying itself does not diminish the virtue of helping others in need.
You've sharpened the argument between us nicely. In my opinion, someone who cares about the whole world and lets his brother starve is a bad person, and it's legitimate to ask what his motives are, and in your opinion, commenting on him about it is just an excuse for why I don't help those in need.
It is worth noting that Epoch magazine (full disclosure: I write for it) consistently addresses the persecution of Falun Gong and the crimes of the Chinese Communist Party in general, and was in fact founded against the backdrop of the fight against them. So if you are looking for a media outlet that addresses the issue, please.
I'm confused.
At first I was convinced by your words and thought about what could be done? (Write on the subject to some opinion leaders, etc.)
But when I saw that they were anti-vaccination, I realized that this was a truly dangerous group
That they were anti-evolution, I realized that this was a truly dangerous and dangerous group (in ignorance and backwardness that always brings trouble and evil)
Opposition to racial mixing? I don't really know what it is.
That they are protesting against scholars who explain that they are dangerous, this is a language and while democracies can be considered legitimate, and perhaps in China it shows great audacity and future potential for violence?
It is true that we can rightly argue that they are mistaken and do not understand how much evil and suffering their system could bring to the world, and to the nation in which they live.
Maybe they are really captive babies.
And yet they pose a considerable risk to the nation in which they live.
It is true that democratic policies have become accustomed to containing groups that endanger or exploit the general public.
But who is the one who is committed to what democratic states have become accustomed to?
Correction
*But who would argue that China is committed to exactly what democratic countries have become accustomed to accommodating?
I admit and confess that my knowledge of Falun Gong is very limited, and I do not know why the Chinese authorities persecute them. But I do know that the Chinese authorities are communist, and from the book The Sun of the Nations Stalin (which I received as a bar mitzvah gift from my uncle, the last communist in the world, Zetkull), I learned that a communist does not really need a reason to persecute someone. In one of the classic speeches printed in the above-mentioned book, Stalin explains that it is better to murder a few thousand innocent people who will not be able to take revenge on you for a mere suspicion, than to leave one potential enemy alive, who knows, maybe one day.
But, I have always wondered whether the opposition to evil regimes stems from one act or another (persecution of Jews or, by contrast, persecution of Falun Gong, or persecution of Armenians, etc.), or from the very fact that they are evil regimes, even if for now the evil is dormant. Should the head of a snake be crushed only when it bites, or from the very fact that it is a snake? A disobedient son and teacher are doomed to their own end, etc.
Hitler was an evil man even before the Second World War broke out and before the systematic extermination of European Jews began, and communism is pure evil (no less than Nazism, and its bloodshed is also much longer) and therefore every communist government must be fought, even if it does not persecute Falun Gong more than others (as the saying goes: an anti-Semite is someone who hates Jews more than necessary). Of course, the persecution of Falun Gong cannot be justified, but the implicit (even if unintentional) reduction of the fight against communism to the fight against the persecution of Falun Gong seems to me morally and perhaps also politically wrong. One does not have to identify with Falun Gong in order to fight communist evil. And communism will continue to be evil even if the Chinese government succumbs to international pressure and (temporarily) relents from Falun Gong. The described actions of the Chinese authorities against Falun Gong are horrific. But the heart of the problem lies in the diabolical evil on which Marxism is based, and not in the whim of this or that dictator who currently rules China.
And something else for those planning a trip to China: I heard about an Israeli who traveled to China, felt unwell, was hospitalized there and underwent “emergency surgery to save his life”. Only about a year after he returned to Israel was it discovered that he only had one kidney in his body... I have not checked the veracity of this story, but I have heard it many times from various sources.
In my opinion, bringing the Holocaust into the subject is completely irrelevant. The obligation to protest against this evil does not depend on the question of whether it is as bad as the Holocaust or not in any way. The argument that ”but we are exempt, because we are the poorest” I don't know anyone who claims that. As long as you haven't provided evidence that this is a widespread claim among the Israeli public (even if you found some comedian who said something similar) it seems to me to be completely irrelevant to present it as an argument of Israeli society.
The wise and dear Rabbi Michi.
First of all, strong and blessed. A shocking matter, and it is good that I am reminded of the above disaster from another direction.
I will not enter into the matter with you, let's compare it with the Holocaust, 1) You have already entered into it with you and it will not help. Chutzmiza “You started” So I will not continue.
Regarding, the concepts of ”We will not leave it dirty because it is blasphemy” The real intention is, “We are trampled and hated” And we will not leave secularists a good reason to continue the stigma against us, even though of course according to you (I know you don't really think so, but sometimes you spout nonsense because you are human after all) intelligent Western secularists are never deterred by stigmas and see dogs as human beings like themselves, so why should we even think that they would hate dogs because they are dogs.
Most importantly. It's strange that you didn't mention how Engel’ Claude Langenauer, known as Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, is a quack, a fanatic, a mustard seed and other vegetables, who did not achieve the moral excellence of our liberal brothers, in fact he was already writing about the subject as a public figure in the early 2000s, and once in a few years mentions it in his Shabbat bulletin. Attached is a video from 2008. “You don't need Torah for this, any normal person wouldn't accept” (Ibid., Ibid.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WomrgNlzqiE (Don't let his mind wander, for he is ahead of you)
Meanwhile, in Germany, Nazism continues as usual:
https://anatperi.blogspot.com/2022/07/15.html
Were minor changes made throughout the column (and to the title) after comments had already been written?
Yes. A mistake was made and an outdated version was published.
Fuck the diet, Rabbi. It's been years since I last saw you live, and the difference is literally like heaven and earth.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways.
I'll just clarify that this is not a diet, but a surgery (followed by a diet). Don't blame me for what I don't have on my sins.
So what do you want from the Chinese? They also do limb amputations in Israel 🙂
Best regards, Barry Atari
What are you excited about?!
It turns out that the Chinese also have their own “Haredim and Rabbinical First”, and they practically translate your columns. They are like you, only braver.
PS.
Advice to Falun Gong members, to respect their parents and thus their lives will be extended.
Chinese wise man, when will you stop violently robbing old women???
Any reasonable rabbi does not necessarily appear as a representative of Judaism on earth, but rather as a public figure, a leader, a person whose words are listened to. Therefore, the significance of his presence as a rabbi must not be exaggerated. Of course, I say this within the confines of the fact that I was not there, so I have no idea what was said.
The Chinese communist regime opposes any independent movement, new religions, heterogeneous teaching methods, idealism, theism, and especially morality that contradicts the principles of Marxism. When they came to power, they confiscated the Confucian writings, the foundation of ancient Chinese moral wisdom. And in the last 50 years, Falun Gong has been perceived by them as the greatest threat to the regime, and their war in which they call: the war of science (i.e. the enlightened communist regime) against rural superstitions (i.e. morality and religion). The communist regime in China has a long history of bloodshed. Mao was responsible for the brutal massacre of 30-45 million people in the years 1958-1962 and previously murdered 46,000 scholars. From 1966 to 1976, anyone suspected of being a traditionalist, an educator, or an intellectual was persecuted, millions were imprisoned and tortured in re-education camps, and between half a million and two million people were murdered or forced to commit suicide, including famous scholars and scientists. Since then, China has gradually moved to a market economy, but the outlook of the Communist Party has not changed. The Chinese regime is still totalitarian, still cruel. Unfortunately, there is nothing new under the sun.
By the way, in recent years, because of their Muslim religion, at least a million and a half Uyghurs have been sent to re-education camps, prisons, and forced labor in factories in China. Women have been systematically raped and tortured, and tens of thousands of people have been murdered and their organs have been traded. The Uyghurs are forced to live in China under technological surveillance, which is compared to George Orwell's book “1984” Picnic. There is no difference between the Nazi regime that persecuted Jews and the Chinese communist regime that persecutes Uyghurs and other minorities. As proven in recent generations, in every country where there is no freedom of religion, where the government opposes moral ways, where it is forbidden to think differently than the officials, where the only ”religion” is nationalistic worship of a totalitarian sect, there is an evil regime of cruel savages who persecute people.
It's good that Rabbi Michi wrote the column.
Hi Miri, a really interesting column. And above all, honest, authentic and very poignant, as expected of you. And I say this without a drop of cynicism. It is very nice to read your articles. Because they are usually free of excessive caution, apologetics or political correctness, and thus provoke several points for thought.
1. You mentioned the Holocaust. The extreme similarity between what is happening there today. And what happened there. To our people.
Without even going into the question of how similar these cases are or not. Because I think that is not the main point of the column.
But the question is why as Jews we do not cry out. And not necessarily why religious people do not cry out. But why does not every religious Jew also have a simple human dimension, regardless of religion. Or nationality, that naturally revolts against these acts.
I think that when it comes to the issue of pointing the finger at the Allies and the nations of the world around them who did not intervene intentionally to save Jews from the clutches of the Nazis, there are several different types of accusations from different circles:
– There are some who criticize the nations of the world for their behavior at this time. Some are observant of the circles who tend to disdain universal human morality and in any case do not see the Gentiles and the Jews as sharing even a superficial and basic share in common principles. If so, the question arises: why do they complain about the Gentiles who did not help the Jews? People of this type, in my experience, judge the nations of the world through their own glasses and come to convey a message from the end: Did you think the world would become more moral, progressive, and enlightened? Leave aside what the Torah has to say about it. If not, the Gentiles would truly be progressive and moral. It is very possible that we should have been forced to share with them some of the principles. Help them as they help us. At least in moral areas that do not explicitly contradict the words of the Torah. But here, a terrible disaster has happened. Millions of our people have been slaughtered, murdered, tortured, raped, robbed, and even a nation as a collective Did not come to help. In the best case. And in the worst case. She was sometimes an active participant in that atrocity. The hooves of the pig that appears pure were exposed. Therefore, we have no basic human obligation to the values of the peoples around us. Because all their values are hypocritical anyway and do not hold water. Appearance.
Those people will say that they will not protest that atrocity because they do not find. According to their system, it is obligatory in the Torah to protest it. And since all the values of the Enlightenment will be revealed as its burdens
There is also no logical external source that requires such a thing.
– There are those who claim that the Holocaust was actually a kind of religious sin on the part of the nations of the world. That he himself was murdered and the horrors that followed him are shocking not because the nations murdered people. But because they murdered the chosen people. Their claim to the nations is on the religious level and the environment that they created their lack of protest, the lack of victory. The murder of Jews by Gentiles is a million times worse than the murder of Gentiles by Gentiles. And also that there is no source of support that says to protest against such injustices while Israel has no hand to attack.
— The rest of the column is a criticism that I agree with in large part about the denial of completely natural human morality. And I will only comment that there is probably something more to it. I think that all those who do not find it interesting to protest against injustices that are done in the world as human beings. Because they do not feel that this protest is part of the moral high ground. They will protest against injustices that are done to their neighbors and their people. As human beings and as Jews regardless of religion. The rape cases of Chaim Walder and Yehuda Meshi-Zhaaf are wicked Jacob. They have attracted protest in almost all religious circles. From the greatest liberals to the most pious conservatives and arguments also for the murder of souls. Inability to contain monstrosity and cruelty. And not only for religious reasons of sexual offenses and blasphemy.
– In this context, I just want to say, without going into psychological theories, that geography, in my opinion, has an effect. Religious Jews who live in foreign countries are treated well and decently by the local populations. For a long time and consistently. Yes, they often tend to see themselves as partners in the social and moral problems of the country in which they live. And sometimes they actually see themselves as sons of the same nation alongside their religious and ethnic affiliation with the people of Israel.
To tears like Ben Shapiro for example. Or to distinguish thousands of differences in quality and style. Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sachs, the late, is a clear example of this.
I completely agree. I'm just saying that the Golden Fleece and Walder harmed the Jews, so the protests against them don't represent anything deeper.
Indeed, they do not represent any moral concept that could reflect a view of the value of tolerance or importance for every human being who is in distress and persecution.
I mentioned this because even in such cases the official reactions of the more conservative public were to deal only with the value of violating the prohibitions of incest/corrupting the sinner's virtues/blasphemy/causing many to leave and abandon religion as a result of these actions.
The situation would be quite worrying for me personally. As a person who strives to be religious and humane at the same time. And the fact that there is a spontaneous and natural recognition that such acts are also monstrous. And murderous. shows good basic sanity in my eyes. Even if this recognition comes at the moment mainly when it comes to inhuman atrocities against Jews
The Chinese regime is committing serious crimes.
The Holocaust of enlightened Western Europe is also mentioned in this article.
Let us recall:
The mass Slavic massacre that is currently happening in Eastern Europe.
In the US, there is no shortage of murderous lunatics.
And we will not elaborate on the moral level of Muslims and Africa.
But Mikhi still believes that he sees no moral difference between Gentiles and Jews. There is no difference at all.
How many things have you done, O God!
The murderous lunatics in the US are the exception and it is wrong to judge the generality by them.
In Britain and Canada there are far fewer murders (as far as I remember) and they did not participate in the Holocaust either
If you want to say that the Jewish people are better on average than the Gentiles or that they are among the relatively improved nations then fine but I do not see a general difference here between Jews and all Gentiles
Eric, I usually don't bother answering these types of questions.
What's your point, either they really believe what they wrote, and then I can only point out differences in intelligence between Jews and Gentiles, or they are intelligent and don't really believe it, and then there is no attention and no substantive discussion, and therefore there is no point in answering again.
There is something (more) outrageous about human evil than about natural evil (in your terms). Human evil such as the terrible persecution you described in the column, and natural evil such as famine and misery that are widespread in several countries in Africa (for the sake of this, it is ‘considered’ natural evil at least to some extent). One can think of several differences between them to the detriment of human evil. A’ The severity of the damage. B’ The ease of repair. C’ The issue of protest as you wrote about the box on the street of a city (i.e. the protest is about oneself or about the future). D’ Perhaps the group of sufferers is partly to blame. E’ Punishment that the creators of evil deserve. F’ The unnecessary things in the matter, i.e. it could have been different and therefore compared to utopia.
But all of these seem insufficient to explain the significant difference in the attitude of outsiders. I haven't been able to refine it for myself so that it boils down to a question, but I think it's a thought-provoking matter.
On the 29th of Tammuz, February 2
Telg – Hello,
The hunger, backwardness and diseases in the ’Third World’ are not a ‘natural phenomenon’. These countries sit on many natural resources, and with the amounts of water that flow there, it would be possible to develop a thriving agriculture and industry.
The reason for the backwardness in these countries is the legitimacy that the West gives to backwardness and corrupt and failed dictatorial regimes, who do not care about the development of their countries, and invest their resources in external and internal wars, in establishing mechanisms of oppression or in Swiss banks.
And the West sees and adds. And what should be demanded of Asians and Africans who have not been enlightened by the enlightenment of the West? And what can be demanded of nations that suffered from colonial oppression? Although a jubilee of more than a century of political independence has already passed, the ‘trauma of the conquered’ has not passed. And why will it pass? After all, it is easier and more convenient to milk the West, haunted by feelings of guilt, than to develop and achieve economic independence.
It is worth suggesting to the rulers of Asia and Africa to learn from the Chinese, who, although they suffered from colonialism, from the Japanese occupation during the World War, and from the communist economy during the time of Mao Zedong, which led to famine. And yet they managed to lead a market economy, which turned them into a political and military economic power. As a strong power, we can lash out at them with (justified!) claims about the atrocities of their regime, but of course not do anything tangible so as not to be dragged into a world war 🙂
And the Chinese should be offered that, just as they saw an economic blessing in leading a free economy – This is how a political and social blessing would be seen in leading a completely democratic regime, or at the very least tolerance towards ethnic and religious minorities, but I fear that there is no one in this generation who knows how to prove it. Perhaps they will translate into Chinese the words of Rabbi Gershong Edelstein, who teaches that it is precisely an attitude of ‘respect and friendship’ that brings those who have abandoned the ideological path closer together? 🙂
With greetings, Ching-Chong-Ching, a Loewing man
Loewing is a village in southern China on the border with Burma, where the ‘113th Squadron –Flying Tigers’ operated, in which American and British pilots who volunteered to help the Chinese army in its war with the Japanese served. During the Japanese occupation of Burma, the squadron operated from a base located in Loewing. With the US entry into World War II following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Flying Tigers were integrated into the US Air Force.
The author of the above article, who writes his surname Loewinger, hypothesized that the family originated with a Chinese Jew named Ching Ching Ching, who came from the village of Lewing and supplied Hungarian Jews with paprika from the Far East and remained there. When he came to the synagogue, the gabbai asked to take him to the Torah and asked his name and he replied ‘Qing’Qing’Qing’. Then the gabbai, who did not understand Chinese, called out: ‘R’ Shimshon Zvi…’ will stand up 🙂
Thank you R’ Ching.
The body of your words should be read and from my friends I have heard that many quills have been broken over why the West and Asia have advanced so much and Africa has been left behind.
And even if people led to the situation, here is the situation before us now. For example, a man comes and harvests most of the field's crops and now the entire village is hungry, the cause of suffering is natural, namely hunger and the cause is human, the burning of the field. What is not true is that a man comes and takes their food from their hands every day, that the cause of suffering is human. And indeed, the main sorrow of the hungry man is this and that.
T”G – Hello,
You can read about the situation in Africa and its causes in the ’Wikipedia’ entry ‘African Economy’, and in Dr. Benny First's article, ‘Why Did the Black Continent Leave Behind?’, on the ‘Economarks’ website. It seems that the situation has improved in recent years.
Best regards, T”Czech Tsal’
I know basic things and maybe a little more (like guns, bacteria, steel). But let's not get into that. Mainly, the goal is to help the persecuted. It doesn't matter what kind of person is pursuing a person, a lion, a volcano, or a drought. But it seems that the whole world and I in general feel more urgency when the pursuer has a choice, and this is a point that, for me at least, is a point of no small importance.
An interesting thing that the president of Malawi did, against the advice of American economists, was to subsidize fertilizer, thus encouraging the villagers to fertilize their fields and thus increase their crops. Improved agriculture together with improved transportation conditions – will lead to Africa becoming a granary of food, first for local consumption, and then for export.
Encouraging the villages – will also prevent the process of flowing into ’slums’ on the outskirts of the cities, a phenomenon that is destructive both in terms of health – overcrowding leads to morbidity – and culturally, mass migration to slums – causes immigrants to lose their tribal tradition without truly absorbing Western culture. The spaces and clean air are also good for health, and can also significantly increase tourism
It would be a shame to give up agriculture, villages and tribal traditions. Industry and Western education are good, but to a certain extent and with caution, so as not to completely dismantle the old frameworks and their values: respect for the elderly and community solidarity and family loyalty.
Best regards, Adam Shaltiel Dorfman
China's economy would also be better off if more cultural and religious freedom were given to its residents. A person who is engaged in "spiritual work" is less resentful and more inclined to be accommodating to the authorities. And Karl Marx already emphasized the calming effect of religion on the masses.
So even from a purely utilitarian perspective, it would have been better if the position of the Chinese Prime Minister in 1999 had been accepted, to let the "Falun Gong" live according to their own customs. It is a pity that his position was not accepted.
Best regards, Ash
What happened in 1999 was that the Falun Gong held huge demonstrations against the authorities' position, in response the Chinese leader (contrary to the position of his prime minister) ordered them to be "crushed with force", and since then a "vicious circle" of hostility has been taking place. The authorities are intensifying the repression and they are intensifying the international protest.
There is no way out of this except through mediation that will lead to dialogue that will lead to an arrangement of living together. The Falun Gong will make it clear that they are not fighters in the regime and the government will allow them to live according to their customs, and a savior has come to China 🙂
Greetings, Ashkenazi
And at the meeting, it's also a good idea to bring light refreshments to open hearts.
For tea-regitz – Hello,
Of course, at the Chinese reconciliation meeting, the traditional drink of China will be served, green tea with the addition of pickled onions and ginger juice.
There is nothing like tea to dispel the bitterness and connect a person to his ’true self’ as explained in the article ‘Traditional Culture: The Tea of China’, on the ‘Falun-Daf’ website, and in the article ‘Guide the Confused to the World of Tea’, on the ‘Another Journey’ website.
May the Chinese have a ‘great sip that brings the distant ones closer’ and may this hour be an hour of mercy and a time of will and reconciliation.
Warm regards
Adam Shaltiel Dorfman, the
Alongside the Bible, crackers will be served, because ‘cracker’ translates to ‘greech’, and this is: ‘ti-greech’. Or if you say ‘pai’, you will say: ‘mefki kuli shta cha’i-pai 🙂
May the cham stand for its rights, the peace-loving Aaron, whose day of command is tomorrow, the month of Av Har-Rahman.
With blessings, Ashࢭd
Paragraph 1, line 1
Along with the tea will be served…
Kidney donations, foster families, organizations like Yad Sarah, Zichron Menachem... Where are the religious and where are the secular?
Actually, I had a family discussion about this, I'm quite opposed to this whole story (although of course, I sympathize with Falun Gong)
1) The important question that underlies the reference here is whether an undemocratic regime has legitimacy. Let's say a monarchy. Is there legitimacy to the institution of a monarchy (a true monarchy, not like in Britain) and to a king who heads it, or should we treat the king according to current culture and say that he is an illegitimate ruler? (We will limit the question to Gentiles only, so as not to get into the question of the monarchy in Israel)
2) If your answer is that a monarchy is illegitimate and a king is an illegitimate tyrant, then I have no argument with you about Falun Gong (I have another argument, let's put it aside for now – see the note at the end)
3) But: If you recognize the legitimacy of undemocratic regimes, then you cannot oppose the persecution of Falun Gong.
4) In every country, the ruler's word is the law (only in a non-democratic country this has nothing to do with the citizens)
5) In every country, violating the law is a criminal offense with its own punishment.
6) There is no binding international attitude to the punishment threshold - the same offense is treated with leniency in one country and with very severe punishments in another country… even when comparing democracies.
7) One point is the same in all countries: in every country there is a strict prohibition on rebelling against the government (even in a democracy there is a prohibition on acting to abolish the system of government, and sometimes also acting against the elected government – D”S Feiglin from ”This is our country”)
However, in accordance with section (6) each country has a different interpretation of the prohibition of rebellion and a different punishment.
8) Now to sum up:
If a non-democratic state is legitimate, then it has the right to exist=>
-Then it has the right to defend itself against threats, for example rebellion=>
-Then it has the legitimacy to define in law what rebellion is, and what its punishment is =>
-And of course it has the legitimacy to judge and punish rebels according to the aforementioned law, just like other criminal criminals.
9) So Falun Gong: As mentioned, I sympathize with them, it's easy… a group of people who fight for their faith against an undemocratic communist regime. But, to the extent that there is legitimacy for a regime that is not a democracy, it is, of course, forbidden to rebel against it. And with all the sympathy, it cannot be ignored that this is exactly what Falun Gong do:
10) They perform rituals that are banned by the government, regularly, as part of their daily routine. Where possible, they do them in large groups and publicly. When a large and distinct group of people violates the law: as a group, demonstratively, publicly and regularly – it can easily be seen as an attempt at rebellion… With all the sympathy, the Chinese regime has full legitimacy to arrest and punish them (of course, in a non-democratic country, the very act of demonstrating against the government is itself a rebellion - after all, the main difference between democracies and non-democratic ones is their ability to peacefully replace the ruler).
11) Of course, one can argue against the severity of the punishment (which is shocking!), but this is also an eye roll: as stated in section (6), even among democracies there is a great difference in the severity of the punishment for the same offense - and there is no country that does not agree that rebellion is an offense that deserves severe punishment.
12) A few more points to complete the picture: Above all this incident, hovers the choice that every Falun Gong practitioner has:
Whether the practitioner wants to – leave his faith / keep it between himself / emigrate outside of China, etc. ’ – and live the rest of his life in peace with all his internal organs. He will not want to – May Allah have mercy on him.
a) – The persecution of the practitioner is aimed at getting the practitioner to abandon his faith. When he does so, he will be left alone and no one will prevent him from doing so.
b) – No one can prevent the practitioner from practicing in his home with the blinds closed, as long as he does not create a Falun Gong organization.
c) – No one will prevent the practitioner from emigrating from China to a more tolerant country.
If we connect all these points together, we will get a new and interesting picture:
13) The persecuted Falun Gong practitioners are persecuted because they do precisely:
– Precisely in an organized manner
– Precisely in public
– Precisely in China, which, as a non-democratic country that wanted to survive in this way, must see every demonstration as a rebellion against the government and punish accordingly.
14) Now, after we have made a tidy up, we are left to find out what led Michael Avraham (and many others) to make the mistake of focusing so much attention on such an ordinary subject. In my opinion, this is the typical mistake of our generation, the generation of mass media - the error of visuality. As soon as we picture in our imagination a concentration camp for organ harvesting (which, as far as we know, really exists! And it is indeed terrible and horrible) our mind immediately looks for an association, to connect it to this horror - and finds it in the Holocaust…
When instead, we must examine the story logically, through accepted legal and moral values – and understand that indeed such a camp most likely exists – but it is not so much a concentration camp but more a death row ward in a prison for dangerous criminals.
15) If I now have to, after reframing the story, find a similar case for the purpose of association – Maybe, maybe I'll compare it to the religious persecution of the Jews of the Soviet Union – although the situation there was much worse in terms of (12)b) you can't keep your religion between yourself when you are forced, for example, to work on Shabbat; and also in terms of (12)c) you can't leave the Soviet Union at will - there is the Iron Curtain. In other words, even this persecution was much more severe and certainly has nothing to do with the Holocaust, or the Khmer Rouge massacre, etc.
A note regarding the legitimacy of non-democratic regimes:
First, it is clear that I am a democrat in my worldview, if only for reasons of convenience - I don't want to live in a dictatorship.
But, it is impossible to ignore the fact that most countries in the world are not democratic - and if we examine history, the situation is more difficult.
So, argument number
1) – Practice: It is difficult to ignore most countries in the world, and they cannot be boycotted. Not boycotting means a kind of legitimacy, whether we like it or not.
2) When it comes to justice, the debate has never been settled - whether it is more right / more just, a single person / elitist group will rule, or the whole people. On the surface, it seems that democracies win in terms of results, in indicators such as economy and quality of life; but China and India show that this is not always the case and the debate is still open (although I am on the side of democracy, of course)
This message is one of the lofty and illusory peaks of this site, despite considerable competition from several other messages in the past.
I will say in advance, with the permission of the wise men and rabbis of political science and religious law, that the entire discussion here has no connection whatsoever to the question of the legitimacy of a non-democratic regime. Even with a microscope, I fail to discern such a connection.
So, despite the poor arguments presented here in favor of the legitimacy of such a regime, let us assume for the sake of discussion that a non-democratic regime is completely legitimate. The question that remains before us is whether a legitimate regime, democratic or not, has permission to abuse its citizens? And if not - does the fact that it legislates it by law make it legitimate? To the best of my limited and uneducated understanding - absolutely not. To my understanding, to the best of your educated understanding - absolutely yes.
I will note that even the sages who absolutely recognized the legitimacy of a non-democratic (monarchical) regime, nevertheless limited the rule of dina demalkuta dina by requiring that the law be fair and just and not khamsnuta demalka. But what do they understand?!
In any case, I understand that in your opinion Hitler did well to enact enlightened laws and use them to persecute and destroy all sorts of groups that he did not like. He even explained that they constituted a threat to the state and the world, no less than Falun Gong. I wonder why the Nuremberg trials did not accept this argument (I fulfilled the law)? Well, jurists are not omniscient, especially since they were not presented with this modern subtext of morality and state. I am sure that if the society there in Nuremberg had thought about it, everything would have looked different and they would have given justice to the democrats and their helpers. Oh, I forgot for a moment the brilliant division between a state that allows you to leave and a state that does not allow you to leave. Not that I understand the logic behind this division, but at least in the early years the Nazis definitely allowed Jews to leave.
You know what? I can also think of a country that forbids its citizens from breathing and walking. It will even agree that they leave the country (as long as they leave their property behind, of course), as long as they don't breathe or walk on the way to the airport. They can get there with an artificial respirator in a chest and a tower.
Now I thought of another interesting model. A thug rises up and takes over all the land in the neighborhood and the property of its residents and makes himself the king of the neighborhood. Now he enacts a law according to which everyone transfers their property to him and moves into a scout tent. But in his great enlightenment he allows anyone who wants to leave the neighborhood or the country. He takes out the police who come there to enforce the law with guns he received from allies across the border. Who can dispute the legitimacy of such a regime and behavior?!
I can think of all sorts of other models of countries that would fit the wonderful alternative you presented here, but I'll spare the public my perverted imaginations.
What I'm left to wonder is just why you yourself write that you prefer to live in a democracy? Really surprising and incomprehensible. Well, that's probably the least incomprehensible thing in this delusional message…
Come on, really… I actually tried to stay relevant…
On topic:
1) Of course this has something to do with the question of whether a non-democratic regime is legitimate or not - because if it is legitimate, it certainly has the right (and duty, if it wants to survive) to persecute its opponents.
2) I did my best, in my meager capacity, to keep the discussion away from Hitler, and you, happily, jumped headlong into this nonsense…
Again, there is no connection between the cases, just an external resemblance: – Hitler persecuted people because of their race! Not because of their beliefs or actions. Nothing they would do/avoid doing would satisfy him.
Whereas here we are talking about a group of people who choose to rebel against the laws of China.
-With Hitler, the concentration camp and death were not a punishment for something you did, but the law itself (if you like, a punishment for the very existence of the Jew)
While here we are talking about a disproportionately severe punishment. For rebellion, which is a very serious offense.
That's it in general, now to the details of your answer:
You wrote ” The question that remains before us is whether a legitimate regime, democratic or not, has permission to abuse its citizens? And if not – does the fact that it legislates it by law make it legitimate?” And from there you advanced to the Sages, Hamsanota Demelka, the Nuremberg Trials and laws against walking and breathing air.
Excuse me - you missed the point.
-We are talking about rebellion against power. A law against rebellion against power is the most legitimate law there is, and exists in one way or another in every country in the world. (Assuming that the regime itself is legitimate)
Is forbidding rebellion against the government an abuse of citizens?!
Is this a royalist treason?!
Are these the Nuremberg Laws?!
Are these laws against walking/breathing air?!
Just as a king - any king - will forbid waving an opponent's flag or singing their anthem, so the CCP has decided that the idea of Falun Gong is its opponent. That's all.
And now for the thug model you presented:
I hope you'll forgive me if I say that I find nothing in it, but with your permission I'll divide the nothing into two parts:
1) The thug model – you've basically defined here, by the way, the model of the undemocratic state… while defining it as undemocratic at the same time. So what's new? That's the basic question.
2) Law against the confiscation of property: This is more interesting - is there such a law in China? From the little I know, there is a law that prohibits Chinese citizens from holding foreign currency (as in Israel until the 1990s). I don't know of a law that prohibits the seizure of property by immigrants, but I would be happy to learn. In any case, confiscation of property (to the extent that it exists, and in an effective manner) is indeed a significant immigration barrier that slightly changes the overall picture - but only slightly.
Why do I write that I prefer to live in a democracy? Really? The really important question is why people prefer to live outside of a democracy, and I haven't found a satisfactory answer to that.