top of page
Writer's pictureEPOCHTV

Natan Sharansky on Today’s ‘Evil Empires,’ the War in Ukraine, and the New Antisemitism

“When there is nothing to die for, there is nothing to live for … and that’s why I think that nationalism is a very good word when it goes together with freedom and human rights. The moment you separate them, you’re getting awful dictatorship or empty, shallow, decadent life.”

I sit down with former Soviet political prisoner Natan Sharansky. He is what they call a “refusenik”—a Jew who was once forbidden from emigrating to Israel from the Soviet Union.

“This connection between the desire of people to belong and the desire of people to be free, in Israel is much more full—much more deep—than in any other parts of the world,” says Sharansky.

Sharansky now lives in Israel, where he advocates on behalf of the Jewish people and continues to speak out against the threat of communist and totalitarian regimes.

“Many dissidents, including myself … we were very often upset, and even infuriated, by the readiness of the free world to buy the lies of the communist leaders,” he says.

Sharansky shares his thoughts on Russia, Ukraine, Iran, Israel, and China, and explains his “3D test of antisemitism” and why calling Israel an “apartheid state” is merely a new version of a very old hatred.

“What apartheid? Arabs are sitting on the Supreme Court. In fact, [an] Arab judge sent [an] Israeli president to prison for sexual harassment. And 25 percent of all the doctors are Arab. There is nothing to discuss about,” says Sharansky.

 

Interview trailer:

 

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Jan Jekielek: Natan Sharansky. Such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.

Natan Sharansky: Thank you for inviting me.

Mr. Jekielek: Many people watching this show will be aware of who you are, of course. You were brought up in the Soviet Union and you became a dissident and had many adventures. Please tell me about what it was like growing up in the Soviet Union.

Mr. Sharansky: I was born in the Soviet Union in the city of Donetsk, which then was called Stalino. Today, it is in the center of a war of barbaric aggression by Putin against Ukraine. But in those days when I grew up there, nobody could imagine that one day there would be war between Russia and Ukraine, a Russian-Ukraine war, debasing this global friendship of people by this Soviet empire, the leader of the communist world.

We were a very powerful country which controlled one third of the world. We grew without freedom, because from our very childhood we knew that we could not say publicly what we really think. Without the identity of being a Jew, we had nothing Jewish in our life. We knew nothing Jewish except from antisemitism, and life was full of antisemitism.

After 1967, when Israel’s victory was big, it was a frustration and a failure for the Soviet Union, and Israel entered our life in a very powerful way. Because all the world was looking at us and saying, “How did you Jews do it? You understand that whether you want it or not, to the world, you are connected to Israel, and you don’t know why.

You start reading underground and discover that there is a history, there are people, there is a culture, and there is a faith that you want to be part of it. That’s how I became a Jewish activist and a Zionist. This discovery of my identity also gave me strength to fight for my rights, for the rights of other people, and for freedom. That’s how I became spokesman of two movements; the Jewish movement and the human rights movement in the Soviet Union.

I was accused of being an agent of American imperialism and spent nine years in prison. Because of the pressure of all the free world and President Reagan, specifically, I was the first political prisoner who was released by Gorbachev. I spent nine years in the Israeli government and then nine years as the head of the Jewish Agency. It’s the organization dealing with the connection between Israel and diaspora Jewry. I have two daughters and eight grandchildren that are the great achievements of my life.

Mr. Jekielek: There are so many things I want to touch on, but let’s start here. You said that you started looking at some underground literature. What did you see? Do you remember a specific moment where you had a sudden moment of realization that changed your thinking?

Mr. Sharansky: In fact, the realization that I have to hide my thoughts came very early. I was five years old when Stalin died. My father explained to me, a five-year-old-boy, “You have to remember all your life that a miracle happened just when we Jews were in big danger. Stalin died, it’s good for us, for Jews.” But he said, “Of course, don’t say that to anybody. Just do and say what everybody does.”

I go back to kindergarten and they cry together with all the children about the death of Stalin. They sing the songs about the great sun of all the people, Stalin. I remember that miracle happened, Stalin died, and that I should be happy. I have no idea how many children are really crying or how many are crying like me.

That was the beginning of my life as a loyal Soviet citizen. That’s when I learned that you are not supposed to say what you really think. It was a very uncomfortable feeling that you have to live with this self-censorship. But that’s how loyal Soviet citizens live.

I had no freedom and I had no identity. As I said, there was no value for being a Jew except that it meant that there are restrictions and discrimination. Nothing positive. But I discovered my identity through other people when the victory of Israel happened. They treated you as if it was your victory.

You understand there is a connection and then you start reading the books. You find books like Exodus by Leon Uris, or History of the Jewish People, and you suddenly understand that there is a whole great history, which doesn’t start from communist revolution. It starts from the Exodus from Egypt thousands of years ago. It’s so easy for you, and it’s more natural to feel yourself part of that history and not the history of hiding your thoughts and being afraid of repressions. That was one thing.

On the other hand, when you are not afraid and you start speaking openly your mind, you can finally read the books which are describing real Soviet life. You read Solzhenitsyn about the gulags and you knew about it. You were whispering about it. It was like a non-existent world somewhere behind, like ghosts are in this world. Suddenly, it is your world. It becomes real through these books.

With time, I became like an unofficial spokesman, meaning that I was connecting the dissidents with the outer world. Using some diplomatic channels and some tourists, I was getting different books which we were then distributing all over the Soviet Union. Once I sent a note to my friend in New York who sent us 100 copies of Exodus, saying, “We will make a Zionist revolution here .

It was simply a book about Jewish history, yet it was having such a big influence on people. They were suddenly discovering their own identity, and they felt that it could change all their reality. The same was true of the books of Solzhenitsyn or the letters of Andrei Sakharov and many other great books, which we started reading through samizdat.

Mr. Jekielek: You were playing this dual role. On the one hand, you were working to kindle this sense of Jewish identity among Jews in the Soviet Union, of which there were a significant number. But on the other hand, you were also acting as an anti-communist dissident.

Mr. Sharansky: Yes. I have to say that when I became active in both movements, in the movement of the national revival of Jews, and at the same time was fighting for human rights, there was pressure or warnings from both sides that you have to choose—are you a nationalist or you universalist? Are you concerned only about your own tribe, or you are concerned about everybody? You had to choose.

I felt from the beginning that was absolutely wrong. You don’t have to choose. If in fact I have strengths now to fight for freedom, for human rights for everybody, it’s only because I discovered my own identity. That is the source of my strength. When I was nobody, when I had no identity, the only value in my life was survival.

I learned from childhood that because you’re Jew, you must be the best in physics, mathematics, chess, or whatever, because that’s the way of survival. There are no other values but survival and career. But when you do get your identity, suddenly you want to belong to something bigger than yourself. You have this desire to belong with your people in your history, in your identity, and in something bigger than your own career. You feel yourself strong enough to fight for world values.

I always felt and feel until this day that this attempt to separate and divide the world of identity and the world of freedom is absolutely wrong. The really full enjoyable life is when people satisfy both desires to belong and to be free.

Mr. Jekielek: Absolutely fascinating. I want to talk about this doublethink that you mentioned earlier, because you’ve actually written about this recently in Tablet magazine. You describe that not saying what you think is actually becoming quite prevalent in our society.

Mr. Sharansky: It’s very alarming and these are things that I hoped would disappear with the failure of communism. We defeated communism. In one way or another, this phenomenon of Marxism will be coming back, and this is how it’s coming back to a free society. I see it in these theories that say all the world is divided between oppressors and the oppressed. The oppressed are always right, and the oppressor is always wrong.

They say that human rights are a relative value. They are not an absolute value, because every culture has its own values. It happens that in some cultures, human rights are valued, and in some others they are not. Everything becomes relative, and suddenly, there are no absolute values.

Maybe the most alarming thing about the so-called philosophy of political correctness is that you are not supposed to say things which contradict the official dogma of this moment. As a result, not in the Soviet Union because of the fear of the KGB, but here in free America you see there are more and more people who prefer not to speak publicly about their own views.

I remember it was about 15 years ago when I was traveling over to American universities as a minister in the Israeli government dealing with the question of antisemitism. I was speaking to many Jewish students on the campuses. One of them was explaining to me that she very much wanted to sign the letter in support of Israel, but she knew that her professors would not like it, and it could damage her career. She decided that she would be silent for a couple of years and then she would start speaking when her career was behind her. This was not in Moscow University. It was in Harvard Business School, post graduate, the center of the free world, and the people were afraid to say what they were really thinking. That was 15 years ago. Today it’s even bigger.

Mr. Jekielek: It was at Harvard in the late seventies that Solzhenitsyn gave his address. Everyone was expecting that he would celebrate the West, and talk about how terrible the Soviet Union was. But he actually did something very different.

Mr. Sharansky: I remember the address well, because it was about 1975, just before I went to prison. That is true for many dissidents, including myself. We admired America, and we admired the free world. But we were very often upset and even infuriated by the readiness of the free world to buy the lies of the communist leaders.

I was in prison at the time of President Reagan’s speech about the evil empire, and it was a big relief for us. Because finally, the leader of the free world showed that he fully understands the nature of this regime. Just before this speech I was in prison and I remember we were shocked. A leading pastor from the United States of America comes to the Soviet Union, and the authorities permit him to preach in front of big crowds.

He gives an interview to the leading Soviet newspaper and the prisoners can read it. He says, “You have your problems with human rights. We have our own problems with human rights. We have to accept that all of us are different, and we have problems, but we have to be tolerant of these problems.”

We are trying to explain all the time that it’s principled in different realities, the authoritarian regime and free word. They are absolutely different realities. People in the free world are ready to buy this propaganda; leading intellectuals, thinkers, and priests are ready to buy this propaganda that everything is relative—let’s live in peace together.

Mr. Jekielek: Years ago there was a film that came out called The Lives of Others. I love this film because it was one of the few that could help someone in the free world get a sense of what it’s really like to live in a totalitarian society. It’s very hard to imagine. A lot of these intellectuals that you’ve been describing just now, they had this romantic notion, and they wanted to believe that the system was good.

Maybe some of them were bought off, and maybe some of them were agents. Some of them just really wanted to believe it. They couldn’t imagine what it would be like to really live in a society where you really can’t say what you think, and where you have to hide your identity.

Mr. Sharansky: Yes. I remember this film and I watched it in a cinema in Jerusalem. When the lights went up, and we were leaving, a group of young people saw me and rushed to me and said, “Is it true? Is it true?” I said to them, “Yes, but the reality was much worse.” Because that was happening in East Germany, but the Soviet Union was much tougher, and the KGB was much tougher than that. But it’s good that they really showed us what it is; permanent doublethink, permanent self-censorship, and the knowledge that they hear you, and they watch you.

Mr. Jekielek: You mentioned a Harvard student who was afraid to write something in support of Israel. I’m reminded that you have devised a method of assessing whether something is a criticism of Israel, which is perfectly fine, versus something that is actually anti-Semitic. Could you please explain that?

Mr. Sharansky: When I started dealing with the so-called new antisemitism, I saw how often criticism of Israel turns into another form of antisemitism. I started speaking about it as a minister of Israel’s government. There were many political partners all over the world who told me that they were not anti-semitic. “We are not anti-semites. You are simply using this awful word to stop criticism of Israel.” Of course, it was nonsense.

Israel is full of self criticism. Israel is a very free society. Nobody can stop any Israeli politician from criticizing. In fact, if you want to stop criticizing in Israel, you have no political future in Israel. Of course, the world has a right to criticize Israel. Therefore, I proposed the so-called 3D criteria.

I said, “What is typical for the anti-semite for thousands of years is the demonization of Jews, the delegitimization of Jews, and applying double standards for Jews.” Then, I can give a whole number of examples in these thousands of years. Today we can see that people are not simply criticizing Israel, but demonizing Israel, much like Sartre said, “For all anti-semites, a Jew is the closest to the devil.”

They compare Israel with a satanic force. They delegitimize Israel, saying that Israel is not a legitimate state, or apply standards that are not applied to any other countries. In the most free countries and the most dictatorial countries, these are not applied. That is anti-semitism.

Why did I choose 3D? Because if you go to a 3-D film and don’t put on 3-D spectacles you will not understand what is happening. But the moment you put on the spectacles, you see that’s a horse, that’s a person, and that’s an ocean. I was saying that if you see some criticism of Israel apply this principle.

If somebody says some very not nice nice things about Israel, but it’s not comparing it to something demonic, or that you are Nazis, and if there is no denial of the right of Israel to exist, and if the criteria which applied Israel are the same as to the other countries, then it’s not anti-semitism. But if there is demonization, double standards, and delegitimization, then you are an anti-semite. That’s what I proposed.

Mr. Jekielek: This demonization has almost become a norm here in America and in Canada, my home country. You describe people that you don’t agree with politically as Hitler, or Nazi or far-Right or racist.

Mr. Sharansky: People are less and less ready to go into deep debate and to argue against the arguments of the other side with your own argument. The simplest thing is to simply accuse your opponent of something awful. For 20 years already, Israel has been accused of apartheid, because everyone hates apartheid. We all defeated apartheid, and we are all very happy that it disappeared. Then suddenly today, Israel is today’s apartheid.

It came from South Africa, from the international conference of the United Nations against racism in Durban, and now suddenly, it’s all about Israel having apartheid. You can try to appeal to the logic of the people. Many times on the campuses there is a special apartheid week. I remember how I came upon one young girl demonstrating with the slogan, “Israel is apartheid.”

I said, “You are too young to know. I’m a friend of Nelson Mandela. I was an international observer in South Africa during the first elections. Let me speak to you for a few minutes and describe to you the reality of apartheid, and then you tell me what you see is a similarity. She and all her friends started shouting, “We didn’t come to talk to you. We came to demand a boycott of Israel.“

But then, professors started speaking up, and then the human rights organizations published reports about apartheid. The more they have to deal with the reality of Israel, where is the apartheid? Arabs are sitting in the Supreme Court. In fact, an Arab judge sent Israel’s president to prison for sexual harassment. And 25 percent of all the doctors are Arab. There’s nothing to discuss here, so what do they say?

They say that the very idea of the creation of the Jewish state in 1948, where Jews will have the right to come, is apartheid. Of course, that’s a double standard, because there are so many nation states. Nobody asked why Germany permits Germans from the Soviet Union to come, but not from 200 other nations, to immigrate and get citizenship. This is absolutely arrogant and illiterate. These extreme accusations are used in order not to debate. Then, they are covered by intellectual bodies like think tanks.

Mr. Jekielek: You have made a very interesting parallel of critical social justice or woke ideology to the ideology that you had to live in and escaped from.

Mr. Sharansky: All the other ideologies were declared to be false and bourgeois. You had to study Marxist-Leninist ideology and pass exams. It was like permanent brainwashing, which you have to impose on yourself in order to continue your career. It was all about struggle between the classes that are oppressors, and the oppressed. In order to see the full picture, you have to listen to the oppressed, because they know the truth, and the oppressors are always wrong. Inevitably, there is a revolution by the oppressed against the oppressors.

That’s what brings this absolute happiness of communism. In the modern world, you think all that is already dead, and that communism was defeated, and the Cold War was won by the free world. Then suddenly, in the name of fighting against racism, which of course is a very noble human cause, or in the name of fighting for the rights of women, a very noble cause as well, suddenly there is the same rhetoric.

Take so-called critical race theory. Instead of putting in the word class, as in critical class theory, if you look at the same texts that you studied in school and in the institute as Marxist-Leninist theory about the dictatorship of the proletariat, instead of class, it’s now about race. There is the race of the oppressed, and the race of the oppressors. We have to listen to the oppressed. We should not even permit the oppressors to speak. That is how the world will become better.

Mr. Jekielek: This is a view that’s become common here in the U.S. It’s certainly common in Canada. What about in Israel and in other countries that you visit?

Mr. Sharansky: This is discussed in academia in America, and sooner or later we will also be discussing this in academia in Israel. Israel is part of the free world. Your ideas and dogmas are moving freely. But Israel is unique in its constant effort to connect its identity to freedom.

Israel is a Jewish democratic state, and we are part of the Middle East. The Middle East is the most dense place for all the dictatorships. Look at the picture of the map at Freedom House. The biggest concentration of black spots where there are detentions is in the Middle East. There is a small white spot and that is Israel. The desire of people to belong, and the desire of people to be free, is much more full in Israel, and much more deep than in any other part of the world.

The world is divided between the free world, which believes that freedom should be absolute with no national prejudices, and the world of dictatorships. It is not accidental that an Israeli family brings into the world many more babies than any other family in a free society. It’s not a habit. It’s simply a kind of optimism and a kind of stability. This deep meaningful life of belonging and freedom is expressed in the most natural way in Israel.

Mr. Jekielek: Nationalism isn’t a bad thing, is what you’re telling me.

Mr. Sharansky: Nationalism and freedom, when they go together, are giving real meaning to your life. The life without identity, with only freedom, is the life of decadence. You know that John Lennon wrote that great song, “Imagine.“ He dreams about a world where there are no nations, no government, no borders, no God, and where there is nothing to die for.

When there is nothing to die for, there is nothing to live for. It becomes very decadent, and not so deep. That’s why nationalism is a very good word when it goes together with freedom and human rights. When you separate them, you are getting awful dictatorships, or an empty, shallow, and decadent life.

Mr. Jekielek: You are an unabashed supporter of Ukraine in the Russia-Ukraine war. At the same time some people in America are suspicious of supporting Ukraine, because of the strong backing of these globalist elements. These are people that believe in the nationalist freedom vision that you just described.

Mr. Sharansky: First of all, I’m not against Russia, I’m absolutely against the barbaric aggression of Putin’s regime against Ukraine. I’m glad that the free world finally understands more and more that it’s not about a piece of land between Ukraine and Russia. It’s an attempt by Putin to rebuild the Russian empire, to change the rules, and to go back to the time when their strength was a source of national pride.

This was when nationalism meant colonialism, and national pride meant that you have to occupy those who are around you and bring them back. That is what the Russian Tsars were doing all the time. In order to explain the difference between the nationalism of Russia and the nationalism of Ukraine, I’ll put it in a different way. What is the difference between Russia and Ukraine in terms of how they developed after they became independent? In fact, there are a lot of similarities.

Both countries didn’t have any strong or even weak civil society institutions and they had to develop them. Both societies started dramatic privatization. As a result, there was a new class of oligarchs who were all closely connected with politicians, and there was a lot of corruption. So, where is the difference?

In the last 22 years, there were five presidents in Ukraine. Each one won the right to be the president in a very tough competition. They were accusing the previous one of corruption. The people were also condemning them for being corrupt. You had to win the elections. Then, a year after this you are accused of corruption. People go to the demonstrations and there is confrontation. And then, there are free elections again.

At the same time, in the same 22 years, there was only one president in Russia, who from the very beginning started working on one thing; how to stay president forever. He took control of the press and then he took control of the finances of the parties. He took control so that those who benefit from corruption are all those who are loyal to him and the courts. As a result, we now have two classic examples of nationalism.

There is Russian nationalism or Putin nationalism, which means that he is appealing to the pride of the Russian people. He says. “Look at these neo-Nazis, they are threats to Russian people. They are not a nation. We have to bring them here.”

On the other hand, there is Ukrainian nationalism, which means that we want to live in freedom. We want to live as a free nation with our own history, and our own traditions. This nationalism is a feeling of belonging, which gives you the strength to fight for freedom.

Is there corruption that is not transparent in Ukraine? Yes, but there are ways to deal with it, because it is a free country. Today I hear that we should not support Ukraine, because there is not enough transparency. “Who knows what they’re doing with their money?” You know what? Because it’s a free country you can work to make sure there are enough ways of controlling what they’re doing with your money.

You have to thank God that there are people who are ready to sacrifice their life, to fight, to protect, and to defend the free world. They’re not asking you to fight for them, they’re asking you to give them weapons. Otherwise, if Putin defeats Ukraine, you will have to fight for your freedom. You will have to not only give more and more weapons to this fight, you will have to give more and more lives of your own people.

Mr. Jekielek: You’re the perfect person to ask about this because I’ve heard so many different variations. There are these so-called Azov battalions, the Nazi battalions in Ukraine. Russia uses this as a pretext. You mentioned it earlier as we were talking. What is the reality of that?

Mr. Sharansky: Have you ever had the opportunity to speak with somebody from the Azov battalion? I recommend that you actually speak to them. Some of them are alive, some of them went to the Russian prisons, and some of them continue to fight. It’s true that in 2014 there suddenly was a need to fight against Russia. There was not enough of a regular army, so there were some privately-based regiments created.

There were some anarchists and other elements who joined. In 2014, you could find some with neo-Nazi slogans. In 2016 they already didn’t exist, because the officers of Azov and the government created their own order. If you are speaking about neo–Nazis, they are all over Europe. There are many parties which are competing, and sometimes they are gaining some influence in the parliaments of practically every European country.

In Ukraine, the neo-Nazis tried to compete in the election. They didn’t even get one percent of the vote. They didn’t even get one-tenth of one percent of the vote. Ukraine is the only country in Europe where a proud open Jewish-Zionist person was elected in a free election, with tough competition from at least two very good Ukrainian candidates. This shows that it simply was not even an issue. Of course, it’s absolute nonsense.

But Putin is using it, hoping Americans will believe it. He uses it for his own people, because he wants to give the people this feeling of having a historic mission. “We, the Russians, are the ones who save the world from Nazis.” That’s the official statement. “The Americans and the British were only pretending that they were fighting. The real fight was from our Russian people who saved the world from the Nazis. Today, we have to do it again.”

Mr. Jekielek: One of the things that the president of Ukraine, Zelensky, has been accused of was attacking Israel, and demanding that the Iron Dome be given, and the Pegasus cyberwarfare technology. In fact, he’s often agitating Israel. What do you think about that?

Mr. Sharansky: I met Zelensky. I went to Kiev and met him and we had a very good conversation. He was telling me that as a Jew and as the Ukrainian leader, he is the one who’s speaking all the time about how much Ukraine has to learn from Israel. He cannot understand how Israel, along with Hungary, are the two countries in the free world that have refused to give weapons. I have heard all of the arguments from Israel, but I really felt very uncomfortable, because in fact, I do agree with him.

On the other hand, when I’m speaking with our military experts, with those people who are responsible for defending Israel, it’s very difficult for me to argue with them. What they are saying in Israel is that the public opinion for the support of Ukraine is absolutely unanimous. The humanitarian assistance which the Israeli government and the Israeli people are giving is permanent and constant every day. But Israel refuses to give the weapons.

What do they say to me? “First of all, we have to guarantee the existence of the state of Israel. We have an enemy who openly says and does everything to destroy us, and that’s Iran.” Almost every night our airplanes are attacking Iranian bases in Syria, and the columns of trucks from Iran with weapons for Hezbollah. In the last month there were even targets in Iran. What to do?

It was the weakness and the appeasement of the West which gave Putin control over the skies of Syria, and which permitted Putin to bring in his troops and build his base. As a result, when we are attacking Iranian bases, we need the silence of Putin. We don’t need his assistance, but we need that he will not fight against it. This is an understanding between us, that the moment we start giving weapons to Ukraine, it will be much more difficult for us. Putin will make sure that it will be much more difficult for us to attack Iranian bases.

I speak with all the top politicians in Israel. They say that the United States of America made this terrible agreement with Iran in 2015, which immediately gave Iran billions and billions of dollars, a half-a-billion in a suitcase in cash. It went directly to Hezbollah and turned Hezbollah into a big army. It made the challenge of defending Israel much more difficult, and now they’re going to do it again. Europe and America, those who are responsible for negotiations with Iran, are looking for ways to have this agreement.

You understand correctly that they are uniting in their efforts to fight Russia, but they are ready to leave us alone again with Iran. We have to be ready to fight Iran with all means. Again, I disagree. I have my own arguments. I believe that this is the crucial struggle for the future of the free world. Israel, as part of the free world, has to do more.

But it is also clear to me that this is a situation in which there are two evil empires who coordinate their efforts more and more. The West and America are ready to help Ukraine to fight against Putin, and at the same time are looking for ways to pacify Iran. Israel has to fight Iran, and at the same time is trying to pacify Putin. It is absolutely impossible.

What is needed is that the free world takes a very clear moral position. It needs to make its evil empire speech like Reagan did, saying, “We hear the voices of Iranians, and we hear the voice of Iran’s neighbors. There should be no appeasement with this regime. We are not going to have any agreement with this regime.” If they make this statement, I also expect Israel will make its position morally clear. “We are not going to appease either this dictator or that dictator. We are going to fight against them.” That is the ideal situation.

In the meantime I keep insisting that we have to start giving weapons directly to Ukraine. Our experts are explaining what they are explaining. The fact is in the last few months Iran and Russia are becoming very close. It will help all of us make our positions much more clear.

Mr. Jekielek: Iran and Russia are also getting very close to another dictatorship, which is actually much bigger, communist China. I understand that prior to going to jail, Jimmy Lai was actually in communication with you, trying to figure out how to deal with the predicament in Hong Kong when the national security law was coming into effect.

Mr. Sharansky: First of all, I agree with you that China is potentially the biggest threat to the free world. The free world has to take a much stronger position on human rights with China. Hong Kong is the most recent example. There was a clear understanding between Britain and China that Hong Kong would remain a part of the free world, even when it became part of China. That was violated in the most brutal way, and the world more or less accepts it.

A friend of mine connected me to Jimmy Lai, feeling that my experience could be useful to him. We had three long zoom conversations, during the Covid pandemic. It happened a month-and-a-half before he was arrested. We did not know, but he was actively preparing himself for being arrested. He was 74 years old, the publisher of one of the biggest Internet newspapers, and a leader in this democratic movement in China.

This person had to prepare himself for perhaps spending the rest of his life in prison. He read my books about prison, and he definitely wanted to know how you cope with time, and how you make sure you are strong enough to resist. It was absolutely fascinating, and I really felt such a deep sympathy and love for this person. It really felt like we were kindred spirits.

I told him, “Jimmy, you have British citizenship. You can get a ticket on an airplane. Hong Kong is still not under such an iron curtain as the rest of China. You know that you can be arrested. Can’t you simply go to Britain?” He said “Absolutely not. Because I have been explaining to my people the importance of resisting this. If I run away, what will my people feel about me? What will I feel about myself?”

That immediately gave me such a powerful connection, from all of my past experience of being in prison. I think all the time about what is my place in history at this moment? You would prefer to be a free person rather than in prison. I think about him often. Then, of course, he went to prison. On the day he was arrested, I wrote an article in the Washington Post, I wrote an article explaining why Hong Kong must be the cause of the free world.

We must fight that all these leaders of the Hong Kong democratic movement will be released from prison. I’m sure that’s enough to get the attention of the leaders of the free world. I would like them to have the moral clarity that President Reagan had in dealing with the Soviet union. It is very painful to think that Jimmy will be in prison until the end of his life.

Mr. Jekielek: For the pro-democracy activists, the Tibetans, the house Christians, and the Falun Gong practitioners in China, who are persecuted, some even at a genocidal level, what is your message to all these people?

Mr. Sharansky: Those who live in accord with their deep religious, national, or cultural beliefs, should enjoy their freedom the most, even while living in a dark dictatorial place. The most meaningful and deep experience of a free person I had was in prison. To the free world, these people that know the value of freedom are your main allies. There is a big threat to the free world from these dictatorships. The real allies that you have are these people who insist on being free, even while inside these dictatorships. Every day you have to think about how to help them and how to fight for them.

Mr. Jekielek: Natan Sharansky, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show.

Mr. Sharansky: Thank you.

Mr. Jekielek: Thank you all for joining Natan Sharansky and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I’m your host, Jan Jekielek.


To get notifications about new Kash's Corner and American Thought Leaders episodes, please sign up for our newsletter! Here 👉 Get Alerts


-

PRE-ORDER "The Shadow State" DVD:


The Real Story of January 6 | Documentary BUY Jan 6 DVD:


-

Follow American Thought Leaders on social media:

16 views0 comments

Comments


Post: Blog2_Post

HOT PRODUCTS