Reflections on Our Attitude Toward the Persecution of Falun Gong in China (Column 491)
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).
Discussion
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, by contrast, even if the Chinese authorities are mistaken, evil, etc. etc., they are killing them for practical reasons. Second, the Nazis’ goal was to kill every Jew on the face of the earth; in this case, by contrast, the Chinese authorities are not bothered by the existence of such organizations in the U.S. (unless they conquer the U.S., in which case the situation would be different). That is also why I object to the term “the Armenian Holocaust,” because although a great many people were murdered there, the Turkish motive was different from the motive in the Holocaust, which was destruction for the sake of destruction.
Dear Rabbi Michi, thank you very much for making a clear and lucid voice heard on this issue. I’ve never delved deeply into this topic (apparently also because the media makes an effort to hide it), but I had heard about it, and in my view the indifference to what is happening there is truly a disgrace. To me it also joins the tendency of the most moral army in the world to sell weapons to regimes that carry out one atrocity or another. I’ll just add in passing a remark that may be somewhat tangential, but not entirely – labeling them as “New Age” seems to me both irrelevant and unfair. First, because it really doesn’t matter what their belief is, and even if it is foolish, that is not the issue at all (this may just be another way of dismissing them as some eccentric cult). Second – although Falun Gong is a new movement, it did not come out of nowhere. It is a branch of a tree whose roots go deep into Chinese Buddhism, and to the best of my admittedly limited knowledge – it was established as a way to “go with it (the ancient religion and practices) and feel without it,” so as not to anger Mao, though that didn’t help much. “New Age,” in my view, refers to the way the West takes these ancient teachings, flattens them, and turns them into something worn-out, easy to digest, and devoid of any nutritional value. But here we are talking about a new vessel filled with old content. As stated – it is not very relevant, because it does not matter what they believe, but it seems to me that when one stands by them, it is proper to grant them this respect as well.
The question is – why does it matter so much to find the differences? Fine, the Holocaust was unique and we’re the greatest victims. But all this effort to keep finding why the Holocaust was the worst is futile and diverts the discussion from the main issue. All these comparisons are for historians. From the standpoint of the individual human being, he is not interested in the motives behind the persecution and torture, and morally speaking it also makes no difference at all.
A nice pilpul. The kind of pilpul I expected would come up here. The question is: how does any of this bear on the suffering of the people and on their innocence? These people endanger the Chinese regime about as much as the Jews endangered the Nazi regime. The Chinese claim they endanger them, but the Nazis too claimed that the Jews endangered the world. I see no essential difference whatsoever.
I wrote explicitly that my attitude toward them, and the fact that they are New Age, changes nothing whatsoever about the injustice they suffer and the duty to stand by them. Your distinction between the use of these teachings in the East and their adoption in the West, which alone is New Age, seems quite right to me. From my own standpoint (that is, when I adopt this), it is New Age, and that is also how I saw the Israelis who practice it. Regarding the Chinese, I do not know, so it really is not necessarily so. But as stated, that does not matter. On the contrary, I wrote this to sharpen the point that even though this does not speak to me, that has nothing to do with identification and the duty to help and protest.
I completely agree; this really is a marginal remark, and you did indeed address it. Thanks!
I hope the automatic translation plugin, which translates among other things into Chinese, won’t bring Chinese government hackers to crash the site 🙂
https://mikyab.net/zh-CN/%E8%81%8C%E4%BD%8D/77015
With God’s help, 26 Tammuz 5782
There are two separate issues here:
A. Harvesting organs from those sentenced to death for transplantation. This is a moral question that should be discussed; one could argue that since the person is going to be killed anyway – at least let his organs save others. In any case, the Israeli government forbids importing organs from places where they use the organs of the executed, and this includes a ban on bringing organs from China.
B. The persecution of ethnic and/or religious minorities inclined toward separatism. Such as the Tibetans, the Uyghurs, and the Mongols, who on that background also stage riots and even acts of terror. Besides these separatist groups, there is also persecution of the people of Hong Kong, who grew accustomed to a free regime under British rule.
The ‘Falun Gong’ are not merely ‘people practicing meditation exercises.’ We are talking about a group of tens of millions holding a religious worldview, opposed to vaccines, to evolution, and to ‘racial mixing.’ When a Chinese professor wrote against them that their irrational views endangered public peace – they held demonstrations of thousands of people outside his university and in the capital, Beijing.
Regarding how to deal with them, there was a dispute in 1999 between the prime minister of China, who sought to reach understandings with them, and China’s leader Jiang Zemin, who demanded to ‘crush them’ with an iron hand; and his approach was adopted by his successors as well. Perhaps a Chinese translation of “No man has power over the spirit” will open the eyes of the leadership in China 🙂
With blessings, Qing-Chung-Chi of La-Wing
Incidentally, among the ethnic and religious minorities that do not enjoy the favor of the Chinese authorities are the Jews of Kaifeng, who have been living in China for more than a thousand years. The roughly one hundred families remaining there can maintain Jewish life only in secret. Even immigration to the Land of Israel is not simple, because for centuries they practiced Judaism as passing through the father, and therefore they are not recognized as Jews and must undergo conversion.
It’s nice that you care about what’s happening at the end of the world, but why go all the way to China over something that has nothing to do with us in any way when right here the Israeli government transfers millions every month that go to the Palestinian Authority, which directly supports terror!!!! Isn’t it more moral to care first about what is happening here among us?! Where is 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/
Many thanks for the information. But in my opinion, even if you are right (I do not know), it does not really change anything. First, even nonviolent separatist groups must 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 vaccines, that is certainly no justification for perpetrating a holocaust against them. As we know, the Nazis too explained that the Jews had terribly harmful effects on the world. Incidentally, they indeed did (they were dominant among the creators of communism and anarchism), they blemished the perfect Aryan race, and so on.
There is a political-security consideration there that prefers quiet and various arrangements over unrest and direct war. This has been the policy of all Israeli governments of every stripe. I do not agree with it (at least not with the dosage between stick and carrot), but this comparison is idiotic in my opinion.
By the way, regarding the sale of arms to problematic regimes, the central activist on this issue is Eli Yosef, and he was one of the speakers at the above-mentioned demonstration.
https://news.walla.co.il/item/3314968
It is worth noting that Epoch magazine (full disclosure: I write for it) consistently addresses the persecution of Falun Gong, and more generally the crimes of the Chinese Communist Party; in fact, it was founded against the backdrop of the struggle against them. So if you are looking for a media outlet that addresses the issue, there you go.
A. You said this is like the Holocaust; in my opinion it isn’t. I agree that this does not change the basic fact that people are suffering, but the phrasing we use matters. The reason the phrasing matters is that when you call everything a Holocaust, the force of the word diminishes, and when there really is a Holocaust, your ability to rally public opinion will be reduced.
B. As for the matter itself of going to the demonstration, I also disagree. You can prattle on until tomorrow about the categorical imperative; in practice, this did not improve the situation in the slightest, and it would have been better if the time you devoted to going to a demonstration, etc., had been spent at a food distribution project for the needy.
One can of course argue that this is not contradictory and that one should do both, but it is. First, because a person has limited time resources, and if you are already going to volunteer, do it somewhere useful. Second, because the mental capacity to pay attention to many things is limited. When you go to demonstrations like these, you are in fact choosing the easy path: you shout about how immoral it is, while even you know that your actions have no effect whatsoever, and that is how people become moral without doing anything (it reminds me of whites in the U.S. who busy themselves with all kinds of nonsense about wording and what may and may not be said so as not to offend Blacks, while none of them actually does anything). If one invests one’s emotional energies in moral wrongs, it is right to do so where it has an effect. Saying how wrong it is is nothing.
I’m conflicted.
At first I was persuaded by your words and thought: what can be done? (write about it to a few opinion leaders, etc.)
But when I saw that they are anti-vaxxers, I understood that this is a group that truly poses a danger.
When I saw that they oppose evolution, I understood that this is a group that is truly pitiable and dangerous (through ignorance and backwardness, which always bring trouble and evil).
Opposition to race-mixing? I don’t really know what that means.
That they demonstrate against scholars who explain that they are dangerous – that is an action that here and in other democracies could be considered legitimate, and perhaps in China it shows great daring and future potential for violence?
True, one can judge them favorably and say that they err and do not understand how much evil and suffering their doctrine may bring upon the world, and upon the nation among whom they live.
Perhaps they really are like children taken captive.
Still, they pose no small danger to the nation among whom they live.
True, democratic policy has accustomed us to containing groups that endanger or exploit society at large.
But who is to say that China is bound by precisely what democratic states have grown used to tolerating?
Correction
*But who is to say that China is bound by exactly what democratic states have grown used to tolerating?
I confess that my knowledge of Falun Gong is very meager, and I do not know why the Chinese authorities persecute them. But I know that China’s rulers are Communists, and from the book of the Sun of the Nations, Stalin (which I received as a bar-mitzvah gift from my late uncle, the last Communist in the Holy Land, of blessed holy memory), I learned that a Communist does not really need a reason in order to persecute someone. In one of the classic speeches printed in that holy book, Stalin explains that it is better to murder a few thousand innocent people who in any case will not be able to take revenge on you over mere suspicion, than to leave one potential enemy alive, who knows, perhaps one day…
But I have always wondered whether opposition to evil regimes stems from this or that deed (persecuting Jews or, mutatis mutandis, persecuting Falun-Gongists, or persecuting Armenians, etc.), or from their very being evil regimes, even if for the moment the evil lies dormant. Does one smash the snake’s head only when it bites, or because it is a snake? “A stubborn and rebellious son is judged on account of his future,” etc.
Hitler was wickedly evil even before World War II broke out and before the systematic extermination of Europe’s Jews began, and communism is pure evil (no less than Nazism, and its blood-account is much longer), and therefore one should struggle against every communist government, even if it persecutes Falun Gong no more than others (as the saying goes: an anti-Semite is someone who hates Jews more than necessary). Certainly there is no justification for the persecution of Falun Gong, but the implied reduction (even if unintended) of the struggle against communism to a struggle against the persecution of Falun Gong seems to me morally mistaken and perhaps politically mistaken as well. One need not identify with Falun Gong in order to fight communist evil. And communism will remain evil even if the Chinese government yields to international pressure and eases off (temporarily) from Falun Gong. The actions described of the Chinese authorities against Falun Gong are horrific. But the heart of the problem lies in the satanic evil on which Marxism is based, not in the whim of this or that dictator currently ruling China.
And one more thing for the information of those planning a trip to China: I heard of an Israeli who traveled to China, felt unwell, was hospitalized there, and underwent an “emergency life-saving operation.” Only about a year after he returned home was it discovered that he had only one kidney in his body… I have not checked the truth of this story, but I have heard it many times from different sources.
In my opinion, bringing the Holocaust into the subject is really beside the point. The duty to protest this evil does not depend in any way on whether it is as bad as the Holocaust or not. As for the argument that “but we are exempt, because we are the greatest victims,” I do not know anyone who argues that. Unless you brought evidence that this is a prevalent claim in the Israeli public (even if you found some comedian who said something similar), it seems really out of place to present it as an argument of Israeli society.
Wise and dear Rabbi Michi.
First of all, strength to you and blessings. A horrifying matter, and it is good that from yet another direction they remind me of this disaster.
I won’t get into the whole “let’s compare it to the Holocaust” business with you: 1) they’ve already gotten into that with you and it won’t help. Besides, “you started it,” so I won’t continue.
As for the concept of “we won’t leave things dirty because that is a desecration of God’s name,” the real meaning is: “we’re religious and people hate us,” and we won’t leave the secular any good reason to continue the stigma against us. Even though, according to your view (I know you do not really think this, but sometimes nonsense slips out of you, for after all you are human), intelligent Western secular people are never driven by stigmas and see religious people as human beings just like themselves, so why should one think at all that they will hate religious people because they are religious.
Most important: it is astonishing that you did not mention how Eng. Claude Langenauer, known as Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, who is a Kahanist, fanatic, Hardali, and the rest of it, who did not merit to attain the moral heights of our liberal brethren, nevertheless already in the early 2000s wrote publicly about the issue, and every few years mentions it in his Shabbat leaflet. I attach a video from 2008: “You don’t need Torah for this; no normal person would accept it” (ibid.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WomrgNlzqiE (lest he become conceited, for … you preceded him)
And meanwhile in Germany Nazism continues as usual:
https://anatperi.blogspot.com/2022/07/15.html
In short:
The persecution is not the lot of Falun Gong alone. The Uyghurs, the Mongols, the Tibetans, the residents of Hong Kong, and ordinary Chinese regime opponents also suffer persecution. Along with them, tens of millions suffer violent oppression in North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran, the Arab countries, and many countries in Africa.
A solution to the problem will come only if the free world unites and initiates a Third World War that eradicates all oppressive regimes. But a ‘free world,’ by its nature, does not initiate wars. No Western country will start a war so long as it is not directly attacked; cf. Pearl Harbor. What guides the Western world is the aspiration for quiet that brings economic prosperity, and from the standpoint of economic and political interest – it is preferable to maintain proper relations even with dark and murderous regimes. For now, this is ‘what there is’ until the coming of the righteous redeemer, speedily in our days.
The charge against the free world during the Holocaust is:
A. That they refused to take in Jewish refugees who stood before total annihilation, unlike most of the oppressed under Nazi Germany. Some of the Jews sought to flee, and the ‘free world’ almost hermetically shut its gates.
B. Once they had already gone to war against Nazi Germany and mercilessly bombed military and civilian targets – they refrained from bombing the railway lines that led Jews to Auschwitz, and thus the trains continued to bring about 12,000 Jews ‘day by day’ to extermination; and so the defeated Germans still managed to destroy hundreds of thousands of Jews from Hungary over the course of about two months. A few bombings of the railway line would have prevented this.
Even today the free world is concerned for the murderous terrorist regimes of the PLO and Hamas, and condemns Israel when it defends itself while taking the utmost care not to harm ‘uninvolved’ civilians.
With blessings, Qing-Tsung-Tsi of La-Wing
The unique problem in China that distinguishes it from other dictatorial regimes is that usually political oppression is also bound up with economic backwardness, so that the regime may collapse because of the dreadful economic situation, as happened in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
The Chinese managed to combine economic freedom with political dictatorship, and when the people are satiated and doing well economically – ‘a lion does not roar out of a basket of straw.’ When the Chinese citizen is doing well economically – he is calm.
With blessings, Tz.Tz. Tza’alu
Were slight changes made throughout the post (and in the title) after comments had already been written?
Yes. An error occurred and an outdated version was published.
Respect on the diet, Rabbi. It’s been years since I last saw you live, and the difference is truly night and day.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways.”
Let me just clarify that this is not a diet but surgery (followed by a diet). Lest you attribute to me, in my many sins, what I do not possess.
And what about the organizations defined as terror supporters by the Israeli government that receive funding from the European Union? First demonstrate outside the EU offices before you worry about what is happening in China; it is certainly more moral to care first for your own people.
Menachem, I’m sure that you of course demonstrate both there and there (and also donate to the efforts and boycott European and Chinese products), and don’t merely cluck at others who are doing something. Such clucking is the usual technique of people swollen like a wineskin, so that they can go on telling themselves they are not just stinking egoists like 99% of the world.
Why are you so cynical? I simply can’t understand those who worry about others first (I don’t demonstrate against the EU because in any case it won’t help) rather than caring about their own people here at home.
P.S. Could it be that demonstrating against the European Union’s support for terror doesn’t photograph so well, especially for a bearded man with tzitzit hanging out? Just thinking out loud.
So what do you want from the Chinese? After all, here too they harvest organs 🙂
With blessings, Be’eri Atri
There can be all sorts of reasons, for example that it is obvious that an Israeli demonstrating in favor of Israel is something less significant when the elected government of Israel itself expresses its support for Israel. Also, in the eyes of the European Union, Israel probably bears major blame for continuing the settlements, so to demonstrate against them as an Israeli would look rather ridiculous. But the point is that one doesn’t need reasons. Let each person do as his heart moves him, and the main thing is that he do something. To start telling others who are doing something, “why aren’t you doing something else,” is ridiculous. And in my view it stems first and foremost from an attempt to justify oneself and say: yes, that person who is doing something does so because of all sorts of petty and self-interested motives, and here is proof, since he is not doing something else more important; therefore it is clear that I, who do not have those petty motives, may sit with one leg over the other and do absolutely nothing except cluck my tongue, and I am perfectly fine, no less than he is.
Do you turn to everyone who engages in some activity and ask, “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 the study of Tanya, will you tell him, why not raise money to strengthen the practice of reading the weekly Torah portion twice and the Targum once? And when he switches to raising money for twice-scripture-and-once-translation, you’ll tell him daf yomi would be better. And when he raises for daf yomi, you’ll say better for establishing study halls. And then better for supporting kollels. And then better for widows blessed with many children. Even if there are personal motives in the action, and one chooses what is easy and respectable and whatever else one can think of, that is still far less important than the very fact of doing something. As said: the main thing is to do something.
Why are you so worked up?!
It turns out that the Chinese also have their own “ultra-Orthodox and Rabbenu Reshit,” and they are translating your posts into practice. They’re like you, only braver.
P.S.
Advice to the members of Falun Gong: let them honor their parents, and thus their days will be lengthened backward.
Wise Chinese man, when will you stop violently robbing old women???
Any reasonable rabbi does not necessarily appear as the representative of Judaism on earth but as a public figure, a leader, a person people listen to. Therefore there is no need to exaggerate the significance of his presence as a rabbi. Of course, I say this subject to the fact that I wasn’t there, so I have no idea what was said.
The examples you gave are not similar; the comparison is to someone who helps needy people all over the world but abuses his own brother.
Abusing is problematic regardless of helping other needy people. Though even the abuse in itself does not diminish the value of his helping the needy.
You sharpened our disagreement nicely. In my view, someone who worries about the whole world and lets his brother starve to death is a bad person, and it is legitimate to ask what his motives are; in your view, pointing that out is merely an excuse for why I don’t help the needy…
The Chinese Communist regime opposes every independent movement, new religions, heterogeneous methods of study, idealism, theism, and above all any 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 they call their war against it: the war of science (that is, the enlightened communist regime) against rural superstitions (that is, morality and religion). The communist regime in China has a long history of bloodshed. Mao was responsible for the brutal slaughter of 30–45 million people in the years 1958–1962, and before that murdered 46,000 scholars. In the years 1966–1976, anyone suspected of being traditional, or an educator, or an intellectual, was persecuted; millions were imprisoned and tortured in reeducation camps, and about half a million to two million people were murdered or forced to commit suicide, among them famous scholars and scientists. Since then, China has gradually shifted to a market economy, but the worldview of the Communist Party has not changed. The Chinese regime is still totalitarian, still cruel. To our sorrow, there is nothing new under the sun.
Incidentally, in recent years, because of their Muslim religion at least a million and a half Uyghurs have been sent in China to reeducation camps, prisons, and forced labor in factories. Women have been systematically raped and tortured, and tens of thousands of people have been murdered and their organs trafficked. The Uyghurs are forced to live in China under technological surveillance that makes George Orwell’s book “1984” look like a picnic. There is no difference whatsoever between the Nazi regime that persecuted Jews and the Chinese Communist regime that persecutes Uyghurs and other minorities. As has been proved in recent generations, in every country where there is no freedom of religion, where the regime opposes moral ways, where one may not think any thought other than that of the bureaucrats, where the only “religion” is nationalist worship of a totalitarian clique, there is a wicked regime of savage brutes persecuting human beings.
It is good that Rabbi Michi wrote the post.
Hi Miri, a very interesting post. And above all, honest, authentic, and very piercing, as expected from you. And I say this without a drop of cynicism. It’s very nice to read your articles, because they are usually free of excessive caution, apologetics, or political correctness, and thus they provoke a few points for thought.
1. You mentioned the Holocaust, the certain resemblance between what is happening there today and what happened there to our people.
Without getting into the question of how similar these cases are or are not, because I think that is not the main point of the post.
Rather, the question is why, as Jews, we do not cry out. And not necessarily why, as religious people, we do not cry out, but why there is not in every religious Jew also a simple human dimension, independent of religion or nationality, that naturally recoils from these acts.
I think that when it comes to the accusing finger pointed at the Allies and the nations of the world around them who did not intervene with the intention of saving Jews from the claws of the Nazis, there are several different kinds of accusations from different circles:
– There are some who criticize the nations of the world for their conduct at that time. Some of them are commandment-observant people from circles that tend to disparage universal human morality, and therefore do not see Gentiles and Jews as sharing even in a superficial and basic way any common principles. If so, one wonders why they complain about the Gentiles not helping the Jews. People of this sort, in my experience, judge the nations of the world through their own lenses and come to convey a certain message: Did you think the world had become more moral, progressive, and enlightened? Leave aside what the Torah has to say about that. Had the Gentiles truly been progressive and moral, it is quite possible that we would, against our will, have had to share with them some of the principles, to help them as they help us, at least in moral areas where there is no explicit contradiction to the Torah. But look: a terrible disaster happened. Millions of our people were slaughtered, murdered, tortured, raped, robbed, and no nation as a nation, as a collective, came to help – in the best case; and in the worst case was sometimes an active partner in that horror. The cloven hooves of the pig that presents itself as pure were exposed. Therefore, we have no basic human obligation to the values of the surrounding nations, because all their values are in any case hypocritical and do not hold water, mere appearance.
Such people will say that they will not protest that atrocity, since according to their approach they do not find in the Torah an obligation to protest it. And since all the values of enlightenment will turn out to be a falsehood,
there is also no external logical source that obligates this.
– There are those who claim that the Holocaust was really a kind of religious sin on the part of the nations of the world: that the murder itself and the horrors that came in its wake are shocking not because the Gentiles murdered human beings, but because they murdered members of the chosen people. Their claim against the nations is on the religious plane and in the environment they created. In their non-protest and non-meriting to stop it, the murder of Jews by Gentiles is a million times graver than the murder of Gentiles by Gentiles. And also because there is no Torah source that says to protest such wrongs when Jewish power is not in force.
— The rest of the post is criticism that I agree with to a great extent, concerning the denial of completely natural human morality. I would only note that there is probably something more here. I think that all those who find no point in protesting wrongs done in the world as human beings because they do not feel that such protest is part of their value-world, will nevertheless protest wrongs done to their neighbors and their own people, as human beings and as Jews, independent of religion. The rape cases of Chaim Walder and Yehuda Meshi-Zahav, may the name of the wicked rot, drew protest in almost all religious circles, from the greatest liberals to the most devout conservatives, and on grounds too of murder of souls, inability to contain monstrosity and cruelty, and not only because of religious reasons of sexual prohibitions and desecration of God’s name.
– In this context I will just say, without getting into psychological theories, that geography in my opinion has an effect. Religious Jews who live in foreign countries, and receive good and decent treatment from the local populations for a long time and consistently, often do tend to see themselves as partners in the social and moral problems of the country in which they live, and sometimes really to see themselves also as sons of that nation alongside their religious and ethnic belonging to the people of Israel.
People like Ben Shapiro, for example, or by contrast a thousand distinctions in quality and style, Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, of blessed memory, are a clear example of this.
I completely agree. I’ll just say that Meshi-Zahav and Walder harmed Jews, and therefore the protests against them do not represent anything deeper.
Indeed, they do not represent some moral conception from which a vision of tolerance and/or importance for every person in distress and persecution could be reflected.
I mentioned this because if even in such cases the official reactions of the more conservative publics had dealt only with the value of violating sexual prohibitions / corrupting the sinner’s good character traits / desecration of God’s name / causing people to leave and abandon religion as a result of such acts by many,
that situation would have worried me quite a bit personally, as a person who aspires to be religious and humane at the same time. And the very fact that there is spontaneous and natural recognition that such acts are also monstrous and murderous shows good basic sanity in my eyes, even if for now that recognition comes mainly when we are dealing with inhuman atrocities against Jews.
The question one needs 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 came to power instead of Mubarak. Sometimes the existing situation is the lesser evil.
With blessings, Shraga Faivl Halevi Konnektator
The Chinese regime commits serious crimes.
The Holocaust of enlightened Western Europe is also mentioned in the present article.
Let us recall:
the mass Slavic slaughter taking place these days in Eastern Europe.
In the U.S. there is no shortage of lunatics who murder.
And on the moral level of Muslims and Africa we will not elaborate.
But Michi still maintains that he sees no moral difference between Gentiles and Jews. No difference at all.
How manifold are Your works, O Lord!
There is something more infuriating about human evil than about natural evil (in your terms). Human evil such as the terrible persecution you described in the post, and natural evil such as disease, hunger, and misery, which are common in some countries in Africa (for present purposes that ‘counts’ as natural evil, at least to a certain degree). One can think of several differences 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 putting the ark in the town square (that is, whether the protester is dealing with himself or with the future). D. perhaps some contributory fault of the suffering group. E. punishment deserved by the creators of the evil. F. the superfluousness of the matter, meaning that it could have been otherwise, and so one compares it to utopia.
But all these do not seem sufficient to explain the significant difference in the way outside observers relate to them. I have not managed to sharpen this for myself to the point where it becomes a distilled question, but I think it is a thought-provoking issue.
With God’s help, 29 Tammuz 5782
To T.G. – greetings,
The hunger, backwardness, and disease in the ‘Third World’ are not a ‘natural phenomenon.’ Those countries sit atop many natural resources, and with the quantities of water that flow there it would have been possible to develop flourishing agriculture and industry.
The reason for the backwardness in those countries is the legitimacy that the West gives to backwardness and to corrupt and failing dictatorial regimes, which do not care for the development of their countries and invest their resources in external and internal wars, in setting up mechanisms of oppression, or in Swiss banks.
And the West sees and accepts it. For what can one demand of Asians and Africans who did not merit the light of Western enlightenment? And what can one demand of nations that suffered colonial oppression? True, fifty years or more of political independence have already passed, but the ‘trauma of the conquered’ has not passed. And why should it pass? After all, it is easier and more convenient to milk a West haunted by feelings of guilt than to develop and achieve economic independence.
It would be worthwhile to suggest to the rulers of Asia and Africa that they learn from the Chinese, who, despite having suffered colonialism, and Japanese occupation during the world war, and the communist economy in Mao Tse-tung’s days that brought famine, nevertheless managed to implement a market economy that turned them into an economic, political, and military power. As a strong power, one can come to them with claims (justified ones!) about the horrors of their regime, but of course do nothing substantive so as not to be dragged into a world war 🙂
And to the Chinese it should be suggested that just as they saw economic blessing in instituting a free economy – so too they would see political and social blessing in instituting a fully democratic regime, or at the very least tolerance toward ethnic and religious minorities. But I fear that ‘in this generation there is no one who knows how to rebuke.’ Perhaps they will translate into Chinese the words of Rabbi Gershon Edelstein, who teaches that specifically an attitude of ‘respect and friendship’ brings closer one who has left the ideological path? 🙂
With blessings, Qing-Chung-Chi of La-Wing
Loewing is a village in southern China on the Burma border where ‘Squadron 113 – the Flying Tigers’ operated, in which American and British pilots served who volunteered to help the Chinese army in its war against the Japanese. During the Japanese occupation of Burma, the squadron operated from a base established in ‘Loewing.’ When the U.S. entered World War II following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the ‘Flying Tigers’ were incorporated into the U.S. Air Force.
I, the undersigned above – who writes his family name as Loewinger – have raised the conjecture that the family originated with a Chinese Jew, ‘Qing Chung Chi,’ who came from the village of ‘La-Wing’ and supplied paprika from the Far East to the Jews of Hungary, and remained there. When he came to the synagogue, the sexton wished to call him up to the Torah and asked his name, and he answered ‘Qing Chung Chi.’ So the sexton, who did not understand Chinese, called out: ‘Let R. Shimshon Tzvi rise…’ 🙂
Thank you, R. Qing.
As to the substance of your words, they require consideration, and from my colleagues I have heard that many pens have been broken over the question of why the West and Asia advanced so much while Africa remained behind.
But in any case, even if people led to the situation, the situation is now before us. By way of analogy: a violent man came and cut down most of the produce of the field, and now the whole village is hungry. The cause of the suffering is natural, namely hunger, and the cause of the cause is human, namely the burning of the field. Not so with a violent man who comes every single day and takes the bread from their hands, where the cause of the suffering is human. Though of course the main pain of the hungry person is one and the same in both cases.
To T.G. – greetings,
About the situation in Africa and its causes, one can read the Wikipedia entry ‘Economy of Africa,’ and Dr. Benny Feirst’s article, ‘Why Was the Black Continent Left Behind?,’ on the ‘Economarx’ website. It seems there has been improvement in recent years.
With blessings, Tz.Tz. Tza’alu
Basic things I know, and perhaps a bit more too (such as Guns, Germs, and Steel). But what practical difference does that make? Especially regarding the goal of helping the persecuted, the type of persecutor – man, lion, volcano, or drought – is of no importance. But it seems that the whole world, myself included, feels more urgency when the persecutor has free choice, and that is a point that for me at least requires searching inquiry.
An interesting thing that the president of Malawi did, contrary to the advice of American economists, was to subsidize fertilizer, thereby encouraging the villagers to fertilize their fields and thus increase yields. Improved agriculture together with improved transport conditions will bring about the transformation of Africa into a granary of food, first of all for local consumption, and in the next stage for export.
Encouraging the villages will also prevent the process of flight to ‘slums’ on the outskirts of the cities, a destructive phenomenon both from a health standpoint – crowding that leads to disease – and from a cultural standpoint: mass migration to poor suburbs causes the migrants to lose their tribal tradition without truly absorbing Western culture. Open spaces and clean air are good for health and can also significantly boost tourism.
It is a pity to give up agriculture, the villages, and tribal traditions. Industry and Western education are good, but in measure and with caution, so as not to completely dismantle the old frameworks and their values: respect for elders, communal solidarity, and family loyalty.
With blessings, Adam She’altiel Dorfman
China’s economy too would benefit if the residents were given more cultural and religious freedom. A person occupied with matters of ‘spiritual work’ is less embittered and more inclined to be compliant toward the authorities. And Karl Marx already noted the calming effect of religion on the masses.
So even from a purely utilitarian point of view – it would have been preferable had the position of China’s prime minister in 1999 prevailed: to let Falun Gong live according to their customs. It is a pity that his position was not accepted.
With blessings, A.Sh.D.
What happened in 1999 was that Falun Gong held huge demonstrations against the position of the authorities. In response, China’s leader (against the position of his prime minister) ordered that they be ‘crushed with an iron hand,’ and since then a ‘vicious circle’ of hostility has been raging. The authorities intensify the oppression, and they intensify the international protest.
There is no way out of this except mediation that will bring about dialogue that will bring about an arrangement for living together. Falun Gong will clarify that they are not fighting the regime, and the government will allow them to live according to their custom – and a redeemer will come to China 🙂
With blessings, A.Sh.D., may he live long
And at the meeting they should also bring light refreshments in order to open hearts.
To tea-rgitz – greetings,
Of course, at the Chinese reconciliation meeting they will serve China’s traditional drink, green tea, with the addition of onion juice, pickle juice, and ginger.
Nothing is like tea for dispelling the sediments of bitterness and connecting a person to his ‘true self,’ as explained in the article ‘Traditional Culture: China’s Tea Culture’ on the Falun Dafa website, and in the article ‘A Guide to the World of Tea’ on the Masa Acher website.
And may it be God’s will that for the Chinese there be fulfilled: ‘Great is drinking, for it brings the distant near,’ and may this hour be an hour of mercy and favor and reconciliation.
Warm regards
Adam She’altiel Dorfman, may his light shine
Alongside the tea, crackers will be served, for ‘cracker’ translates as ‘gritz,’ and so we have: ‘tea-gritz.’ Or perhaps ‘pie’ will be served, to fulfill: ‘he takes out all year with chai-pie’ 🙂
May the merit of Aaron, lover of peace, stand for them, whose yahrzeit is tomorrow, the merciful new moon of Av.
With blessings, A.Sh.D.
The murdering lunatics in the U.S. are exceptions, and it is not right to judge the whole by them.
In Britain and Canada there are far fewer murders (to the best of my recollection), and they too did not participate in the Holocaust.
If you want to say that the people of Israel are better on average than the Gentiles, or that among the nations they are relatively more decent, fine – but I do not see here some general difference between Jews and all the Gentiles.
Arik, I usually do not bother answering questioners of this sort.
Whichever way you look at it: either they really believe what they wrote, in which case I can only point to differences in intelligence between Jews and Gentiles; or they are intelligent and do not really believe it, in which case there is no attentiveness and no substantive discussion, and again there is no point in answering.
Kidney donations, families of widows, organizations like Yad Sarah, Zikhron Menachem… where are the religious and where are the secular?
Paragraph 1, line 1
Alongside the tea, there will be served…
Truthfully, I had a discussion about this in the family, and I’m quite opposed to the whole thing (though of course I sympathize with Falun Gong).
1) The important question that lies at the foundation of the discussion here is whether a non-democratic regime has legitimacy. Suppose – a monarchy. Is the institution of monarchy legitimate (a real monarchy, not like in Britain) and the king at its head legitimate, or should we judge the king according to current culture and say that he is an illegitimate ruler? (Let us narrow the question to Gentiles only, so as not to get into the question of monarchy in Israel.)
2) If your answer is that monarchy is illegitimate and a king is an illegitimate tyrant, then I have no dispute with you regarding Falun Gong (I have another dispute; let’s set it aside for now – see the note at the end).
3) But: if you recognize the legitimacy of non-democratic regimes – then you cannot object to their persecution of Falun Gong.
4) In every state, the ruler’s word is the law (it’s just that in a non-democratic state this has no connection to the citizens).
5) In every state, violating the law is a criminal offense that carries punishment.
6) There is no binding international standard as to the level of punishment – the same offense is treated leniently in one country and very severely in another… even when comparing democracies.
7) One point is indeed the same in all states: in every state it is strictly forbidden to rebel against the regime (even in a democracy it is forbidden to act to abolish the system of government, and sometimes even to act against the elected government – regards to Feiglin from “This Is Our Land”).
At the same time, in accordance with section (6), each state has a different interpretation of the prohibition on rebellion and a different punishment.
8) Now practically speaking:
If a non-democratic state is legitimate, then it has a right to exist =>
-then it has a right to defend itself against threats, for example rebellion =>
-then it has legitimacy to define by law what rebellion is, and what its punishment is =>
-and of course it has legitimacy to try and punish under that law the rebels, just like the rest of the criminals.
9) So Falun Gong: as I said, I sympathize with them; that’s easy… a group of people fighting for their faith against a non-democratic communist regime. But insofar as a regime that is not a democracy has legitimacy, then of course it is forbidden to rebel against it. And with all the sympathy, one cannot ignore the fact that this is exactly what Falun Gong are doing:
10) They perform rituals that were forbidden by the authorities, regularly, as part of their daily routine. Where possible, they do them in a large group and in public. When a large and distinct group of people violates the law as a group, demonstratively, in public, and regularly – this can easily be seen as an attempt at rebellion… With all the sympathy, the Chinese regime has full legitimacy to catch and punish them (of course, in a non-democratic state, the very act of demonstrating against the regime is itself rebellion – for the central difference between democracies and non-democracies is the ability to replace the ruler peacefully).
11) Of course, one can argue against the severity of the punishment (which is horrifying!), but even that is eye-rolling. As stated in section (6), even among democracies there is great variation in the severity of punishment for the same offense – and there is no state that does not agree that rebellion is an offense worthy of severe punishment…
12) A few more points to complete the picture: hovering above this entire event is the choice available to every Falun Gong practitioner:
If the practitioner wishes – he can abandon his faith / keep it to himself / emigrate from China, etc. – and live out the rest of his life in peace with all his internal organs. If he does not wish to – may Allah have mercy on him.
A) – The persecution of the practitioner is goal-directed – to bring the practitioner to abandon his faith. Once he does so, they leave him alone, and no one prevents this.
B) – No one can prevent the practitioner from practicing in his own home behind closed shutters, so long as he does not create a Falun Gong organization.
C) – No one prevents the practitioner from emigrating from China to a more tolerant country.
If we connect all these points together, we get a new and interesting picture:
13) The persecuted Falun Gong practitioners are persecuted because they are being deliberately defiant:
– specifically in an organized fashion
– specifically in public
– specifically in China, which as a non-democratic state wishing to survive as such must see every demonstration as rebellion against the regime and punish accordingly.
14) Now, after we have put things in order, it remains for us to clarify what led Michael Abraham (and many other good people) to the mistake of such an exaggerated attitude toward such a normal issue. In my opinion, this is the characteristic error of our generation, the generation of mass communication – the error of visuality. The moment we picture in our imagination a concentration camp for harvesting organs (which, as far as we know, really exists! and this is indeed terrible) our mind immediately looks for an association to connect to that horror – and finds it in the Holocaust…
Whereas instead, we ought to examine the story logically, through the accepted values of law and morality – and understand that indeed such a camp most likely exists, but it is not so much a concentration camp as more like the death-row wing in a prison for dangerous criminals.
15) If I now need, after reframing the story, to find a similar case for the sake of association – perhaps, perhaps I would compare it to the persecution of religion among Soviet Jews – though there the situation was much worse in terms of (12)B): one could not keep religion to oneself when, for example, one was required to work on Shabbat; and also in terms of (12)C): one could not leave the Soviet Union as one wished – there was the Iron Curtain. That is, even that persecution was far more severe, and there is certainly no connection to the Holocaust, or the Khmer Rouge massacre, and the like.
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 do not want to live in a dictatorship.
But one cannot ignore the fact that most countries in the world are not democratic – and if one examines history, the situation is even worse.
So, argument number
1) – Practicality: it is hard to ignore most of the states in the world, and they cannot be boycotted. Failure to boycott implies a kind of legitimacy, whether we like it or not.
2) As far as justice is concerned, the debate has never been settled: what is more correct / more just – that an individual / an elitist group should rule, or all the people. Ostensibly, democracies seem to win in the test of results, by measures such as economy and quality of life; but precisely China and India show that it is not always so, and the debate is still open (though I am on the side of democracy, of course).
This message is one of the loftiest and most bizarre peaks on this site, despite no small competition from several other messages in the past.
Let me preface, with permission of our masters and rabbis, the sages of political science and those who know religion and law, that this entire discussion has not the slightest shred of connection to the question of the legitimacy of a non-democratic regime. Even with a microscope I cannot discern such a connection.
So despite the feeble 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 entirely legitimate. The question still facing us is whether a legitimate regime, democratic or not, has permission to abuse its citizens. And if not – does the fact that it legislates this into law make it legitimate? To the best of my slight and unlearned understanding – definitely not. To the best of your learned understanding – definitely yes.
I would note that even Hazal, who certainly recognized the legitimacy of a non-democratic (monarchical) regime, nonetheless limited the rule “the law of the kingdom is law” by requiring that the law be fair and just, and not “the extortion of the king.” But what do they understand?!
In any case, I understand that in your opinion Hitler acted rightly in legislating enlightened laws and using them to persecute and destroy all sorts of groups he did not like. He even explained that they posed a threat to the state and the world, no less than Falun Gong. I wonder why the Nuremberg trials did not accept that argument (“I was obeying the law”)? Well, jurists do not know everything, especially since this modern doctrine of morality and state was not before them. I’m sure that if the people there in Nuremberg had thought of it, everything would have looked different, and they would have done justice to the democrats and their helpers. Ah, I momentarily forgot the brilliant distinction between a state that lets you leave and a state that doesn’t. Not that I understand the logic behind that distinction, but at least in the early years the Nazis certainly did allow Jews to leave.
You know what? I can also think of a state that forbids its citizens to breathe and walk. It will even agree that they may leave the state (provided they leave their property behind, of course), so long as they do not breathe or walk on the way to the airport. They can get there with artificial respiration in a chest, box, or tower.
Now I have thought of another interesting model. A thug arises and takes over all the land in the neighborhood and the property of its residents, and appoints himself king of the neighborhood. He then legislates a law according to which everyone transfers his property to him and moves into scout tents. But in his great enlightenment he allows anyone who wishes to leave the neighborhood or the state. The police who come to enforce the law there he drives away with cannons he got from allies beyond the border. Who could dispute the legitimacy of such a regime and such behavior?!
I can think of all kinds of other models of states that would fit the marvelous doctrine you have presented here, but I will spare the public my depraved imaginings.
What remains for me to wonder is only why you yourself write that you prefer to live in a democracy. Very surprising and incomprehensible. Well, that is probably the least incomprehensible thing in this bizarre message…
Come on now… I really did try to stay substantive…
To the point:
1) Of course it is connected to the question whether a non-democratic regime is legitimate or not – because if it is legitimate, then surely it has the right (and the duty, if it wishes to survive) to persecute its opponents.
2) I did my best, with my limited ability, to keep the discussion away from Hitler, and you gladly dived headfirst into that cesspool…
Again, there is no connection between the cases, only an external similarity: – Hitler persecuted people because of their race! Not because of their faith or actions. Nothing they did / refrained from doing would have satisfied him.
Whereas here we are talking about a group of people choosing to rebel against China’s laws.
-With Hitler, the concentration and death camp was not punishment for something you did, but the law itself (if you will, punishment for the very existence of the Jew).
Whereas here we are talking about a punishment that is grossly disproportionate for rebellion, which is a very serious offense.
That in general; now to the details of your reply:
You wrote, “The question still facing us is whether a legitimate regime, democratic or not, has permission to abuse its citizens. And if not – does the fact that it legislates this into law make it legitimate?” and from there you went on to Hazal, extortion of the king, the Nuremberg trials, and laws against walking and breathing air.
With respect – you missed the point.
-We are talking about rebellion against the regime. A law against rebellion against the regime is the most legitimate law there is, and it exists one way or another in every state in the world. (Assuming the regime itself is legitimate.)
To forbid rebellion against the regime – is that abuse of citizens?!
Is that extortion of the king?!
Are those the Nuremberg Laws?!
Are those laws against walking / breathing air?!
Just as a king – any king – will forbid waving the enemy’s flags or singing its anthem, so the CCP decided that the idea of Falun Gong is its rival. That’s all.
And now to the thug model you presented:
I hope you will forgive me if I say I find nothing in it, but with your permission I will divide that nothing into two parts:
1) The thug model – in effect, you have defined here, by the way, the model of the non-democratic state… while defining it as non-democratic in that same aside. So what is new? That is the basic question.
2) A law against taking out property: now that is more interesting – is there such a law in China? From the little I know, there is a law forbidding Chinese citizens from holding foreign currency (as in Israel until the 1990s). I do not know a law forbidding emigrants from taking out property, but I would be happy to learn. In any case, confiscation of property (insofar as it exists, and effectively) is indeed a significant barrier to emigration that changes the general picture somewhat – but only somewhat.
Why do I write that I prefer to live in a democracy? Come on now… the truly important question is why people prefer to live not in a democracy… and to that I have found no satisfactory answer.
With God’s help, 13 Av 5782
On Shabbat, a copy of Makor Rishon happened to come into my hands, and I read the article “How Do You Say Demonstration in Chinese.” It describes how the authorities disperse demonstrations by force, but immediately afterward proceed to examine the claims of the demonstrators and solve the problem that led to the demonstration.
So too acted China’s prime minister in 1999, who sought to solve the problem of the Falun Gong people by peaceful means, but the hand of China’s leader, who demanded that they be dealt with forcefully and ‘crushed,’ prevailed. 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.’
Perhaps Naftali Bennett, who showed his strength as head of the ‘government of healing and repair’ and as a mediator between Russia and Ukraine, will enlist for the mission of making peace between the Chinese authorities and Falun Gong? 🙂
With blessings, Chiang Not-Available
Reality has proved that in a large part of the world, smashing a dictatorial regime led not to a democratic regime and the development of the state, but to anarchy and decline (perhaps regarding China this does not apply, but certainly regarding some of the countries you mentioned. So it is not only a matter of initiating war; it is also a commitment to enlightened (relatively) colonialism in the spirit of the mandates after World War I. Of course there is no chance that this will happen, so a murderous dictatorial regime and suffering are preferable to anarchy and suffering a thousand times worse.
I disagree on both counts: 1. Factually, I am not sure that in most cases the results are worse. 2. Even if that is true, it follows that we should never act against a cruel regime. Highly unlikely, certainly according to the categorical imperative.
I agree with what was said; I’ll only try to judge Rabbi Cherki favorably. I had the privilege of sitting and listening to his classes in my youth (that is, live and not via the angel of Zoom), and I would interpret his remarks as an attempt to awaken his own public to the issue by way of allusion.