Participation in demonstrations abroad
Hello Rabbi. Do you think it is morally permissible to demonstrate against a country and try to influence it from the outside, when you are not part of it, i.e. you live abroad? I am not talking about a country that is undergoing moral injustices, but more about political considerations. One example is the reform, but not only that, of course.
On the surface, this is really problematic, because you are making demands and not dealing with the results. But it is difficult to say that it is morally wrong. Protests are beautiful, but the state in question is the one that makes the decision whether to respond to the protesters and what to do in practice with their demands. Therefore, they are only expressing a position, and it is legitimate. If they were to impose it, it would of course be problematic.
But this question is completely hypothetical. I don’t know of a case where there is a demonstration against a state and it’s not a moral issue. For example, they might demonstrate against Britain for driving in the left lane of the road or because King Howe is 75 years old and not 50. As far as I can think of, demonstrations against a state are always on the moral plane.
A. Nevertheless, in my understanding, it does seem to be possible to divide issues that are essentially moral, and let's take genocide as an extreme example, and issues that have a moral dimension, but that's not the heart of the debate. You'll agree with me that it would be strange for you if a French citizen who has no connection to Israel were to express a position on reform, even though it also touches on moral matters. But you wouldn't find it strange if he were to demonstrate against the Chinese…
B. Regarding your words about doubt and statistics, that the power of a response is greater. The question is whether there is no place to limit this, because influence can be measured in several ways. For example, there is no doubt that whoever founded Zaka contributed a lot to the country, and yet his power to disable systems is low. And the fact that a response can disable systems does not give him priority, because they are looking for moral justification for his being more worthy.
A. If they demonstrate, it will be because some moral issue bothers them. The dosage can be debated. A French citizen expressing a position is not at all problematic. We are talking about a French citizen demonstrating against the reform. It does not seem strange to me at all, and certainly completely legitimate. Certainly as long as there is no agreement in Israel about it. The Frenchman is protesting against the harm to Israeli citizens and their trampling by the majority. What is the problem with that?
B. There is room for limiting all power. I came out against the idea that in a democracy there must be absolute equality between all citizens. Whoever contributes more naturally has greater power, and that is perfectly fine in my opinion. By the way, according to the law, power gives loyalty (“in hand”, which according to the President is a state of ownership).
A. Well, it is natural that some cases can still be divided. B. The question is whether the fact that there are so many ways of influencing, in any case, makes the proposal to give more power to the influential theoretical, since it is really impossible to determine who is more influential, compare spheres of influence, etc.
I have not written anywhere a proposal to give excessive power to anyone. The fact is that the distribution of power is not equal. This is not a proposal but a fact. What I wrote is that if someone has excessive power, it does not necessarily violate the principle of equality and there is no need to be alarmed by it.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
