I respond to an interesting post by DovBear. He claims Israel’s failed as a state, if its goal was to protect the Jewish people (since according to DovBear, in no part of the world is a Jew more likely to die than Israel).
Why he’s wrong
- Is a Jew more likely to be killed in Israel? In 2007, 335 Israelis were injured/killed in conflict out of 7.2 million (0.0043%), 2239 Palestinians out of 4.1 million (0.0546%). Facts are facts: with a murder rate of 0.0405%, you’re much more likely to be killed in South Africa — whether Palestinian, Jew, whatever (NOTE: this last statistic seems as high as the Palestinian one but it refers to deaths only. Injuries make up the overwhelming majority of the figures for Israelis/Palestinians). This has surely been one of the most blown-out-of-proportion conflicts ever. The same year, probably 80,000 died in Darfur, about 540,000 in the DR of Congo. It’s the coverage of Israel over the above conflicts that makes them more viable (and makes those who overcover Israel and enable the overcoverage complicit in the death of millions).
- Even if a Jew is more likely to die in Israel, this sets up the wrong comparison. Rather than compare Jews in Israel vs. elsewhere we should be comparing Jews in a world with Israel vs. a parallel universe without. One example: Israel had 600,000 flee Muslim countries where they lived in perpetual pogromic dhimmitude. If Israel is now the most dangerous place for Jews it’s a sign of its success, since there are virtually none left in countries where life was much riskier.
- Jews haven’t been specifically involved in major conflict for decades. If a country does decide to rid itself of the baccillus Israel has the capability for military intervention. Whatever you think of the implications and ethics, the chance of stopping a very large number of deaths (even if the scenario is unlikely) can outweigh the current conflict in terms of safety. “Tell that to the parents of someone killed today you heartless bastard!” one might say. But the whole concept of safety is statistical. If our mis-evolved brains have a hard time getting probability it doesn’t change facts.
- Even if in Israel a Jew is most likely to die for being a Jew, the goal is still fulfilled if the overall safety rendered is greater with Israel than without.
Why he still has a good point
- The existence of Israel undoubtedly inflames anti-semitism around the world. “So, because of racists drawing conclusions that are never justified, it has an effect of net harm?” Of course not, but facts are facts. Consider a logically extreme case where Israel was always 100% blameless and critics all 100% bigoted. That this would be unfair wouldn’t change the fact that Israel is indirectly causing harm to Jews contrary to its supposed “goal”.
- If it’s about protecting Jews, Israel would be much better placed in Africa like was proposed. Or are those just my atheist dreams of a land of secular Jewish culture talking?
This leads to an aside about modern statehood
The whole thing presupposes Israel is a state that’s about something, which is a very interesting concept. I don’t think it does but what if it did? As an Australian I don’t feel my country’s about anything (empty concepts of multiculturalism etc. notwithstanding). On the one hand I’m envious of the sense of purpose that living in a state-of-aboutness brings. On the other, states that are about something are typically:
- dictatorships (we’re about refashioning human nature!)
- theocracies (we’re about bringing God’s word to earth!)
- monarchies (we’re about the aggrandizement of the royal family!)
Hmm, not much to emulate.
There’s an advantage to aboutness just like there IS an advantage to not thinking for yourself and deferring decisions to someone else. But is there something inherently sinister in a country with a well-defined, non-vague goal? If so the nihilism of modern states could be a good thing. A lack of direction could come from the myriad individual desires that are a by-product of freedom. Or is can there be a modern state with a goal that’s not demonic, destructive or anathema to personal freedom? (It would then need to be about something other than just personal freedom). What would (does) it look like?
4 comments ↓
The problem lies in the whole concept of a state or nation in the first place. We need a global identity, which means moving away from individual nation states.
The aliens won’t come until we’re a unified planet, people, so get your acts together!
Isn’t asking people to move away from local identity kind of like asking people to move away from family identity?
Of course a global identity is good but it can hardly come at the expense of all nationalism (maybe the more common petty kind). Plus any kind of drastic change whereby we have a world govt will be like the other drastic changes (Mao, Lenin, Hitler, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great) — which isn’t a good thing.
And if we are unified, a PLANET that’s about something could be even more frightening. Potentially, of course.
Well we’re back to particularism and universalism again, aren’t we? Alan’s views of universalism should apply as much on a level of personal identity as on a level of national identity.
Whether particularism is a good idea is a big question. Having an identity can give meaning to individuals’ lives, can give them social support and emotional/psychological strength, and can often provide a positive sense of morality. On the other hand, identity has too often been formed at the denigration of others.
The truth is that this national identity’s there, with or without the State of Israel. The national identity already has a connection to the land. The question is whether the current state manifests (or develops) that identity well (an internal measure), and whether its external influence is positive overall.
People fled to Israel to escape persecution and to escape assimilation (when they wanted to retain a particularist identity for whatever reasons). DovBear seems to have argued that Israelis are still persecuted by their neighbours, more so than Jewish communities elsewhere. One could equally argue that Israelis are just as if not more assimilated in terms of Jewish identity (but not Israeli identity) than other Jewish communities, although this is certainly debatable and very difficult to measure.
I wouldn’t say Israelis are persecuted by their neighbours — they may be at war with them but persecution seems to imply they’re living amongst others who have total power over them and are using this power to make things miserable. This is different from an external conflict, especially since it’s actually not much of a war compared to the 30 or so other conflicts going on in the world.
Leave a Comment