Where are Jews physically more safe? In Israel or in a cosmopolitan liberal democracy? The answer that jumps out at most people, Jewish or not, is that the former answer is correct. Exhibit A in this regard is the fact that Germany was once upon a time, before the rise of Hitler, precisely a cosmopolitan liberal democracy (the Fuhrer took power not as the result of a coup, but on the basis of a free and fair election).
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
However, this thesis must confront a very powerful objection. That goes as follows:
"On the basis of pure empirical evidence, there are serious doubts about the argument that Jews can be safe only in a Jewish state, never in a cosmopolitan liberal democracy. On a per capita basis, which Jewish communities have had a higher rate of violent death since 1948: those in the US, Canada, UK, Western Europe, etc., or those in Israel? Any bets going forward?
"Nor can it seriously be maintained that for a few hours, in the immediate aftermath of the brutality of October 7, 2003, we saw with utmost clarity what it means to be Jewish without Israel, and especially without the Israel Defense Forces. Actually, we saw precisely what it means to be Jewish in Israel, and with the IDF having responsibility for Jewish safety. It was hardly comforting. Au contraire, there is a lot to be said for the safety of Jews not in Israel, but in the underappreciated cosmopolitan liberal democracies."
We must concede at the outset that we would lose our shirts if we took that specific bet. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics, but in the present case, the statistics do not lie. Despite the present outbreak of anti-Semitism seemingly worldwide, many fewer Jews have been murdered in places like the US, Canada, Britain, Japan, and Australia in the last little while, either absolutely or relatively.
We would also lose the wager if we chose Jewish deaths in Israel vis a vis those in Germany right before Hitler came to power.
However, Israel is like an insurance policy for Jews. If things get too rough "in a cosmopolitan liberal democracy" like Germany was for a long time, we can at least potentially always access our bolt hole. It is thus very nice indeed to have one such, even perched in the midst of many enemies in the Middle East.
Speaking of wagers, we bet that the author of this objection lost many annual fees by purchasing fire insurance for his home. We assume that his house never actually burned down. But, still, it was nice to be insured, right?
If the claim was "that Jews can be safe ONLY in a Jewish state" for ALL times and places, we would obviously be wrong. But that is not at all the contention of the Jews who look to Israel for safety, despite recent statistics lending support to the cosmopolitan liberal democracy thesis.
Also, for many years, Israeli politicians have released thousands of Arab Palestinian criminals in return for a very few captive Jews. One of the present Hamas leaders, Yahya Sinwar, is a case in point. Before this recent despicable attack on the part of these terrorists, the response to provocations of the IDF was far less harsh than justified. If they had been a bit tougher, ok, ok, a lot tougher, there would have been many fewer Jewish deaths in Israel.
Regarding protection against fires, continues the objection, "such insurance would have to take into account of correlated risks. Fire insurance is hard to obtain in Berkeley Hills, California and soon may be impossible, because if one house burns, they all will. In a hypothetical world in which the United States and Europe resemble Nazi Germany, they presumably would also withdraw all support from a Jewish state, and might even support its attackers. In that world, how safe would Jews be in Israel?"
Of course, not very safe. However, that is not the proper comparison. Rather, it should be phrased in this way: Given Nazification almost everywhere, would the Jews be safer with or without the existence of Israel? When put in such terms, the answer is obvious: with Israel, thank you very much. The IDF is reputed to be one of the most powerful armies on the planet. It could make a credible threat to all of these others all of them put together: Sure, they could conquer Israel. But if they do, it would not be that easy. Israel would fight back with everything it had. Without the existence of this nation, no such threat could even come close to being made.
Further, it is not the case that Jews cannot live a decent and secure life in the liberal West (this is certainly so), but it is that Israel guarantees that they will not have to outsource their ultimate safety to these societies. As in the 1938 Evian conference, where Chaim Weizmann explained that the world was divided between countries where Jews could not live and those where Jews could not enter. Israel is not only a safe haven but also a concrete political entity which defends Jewish communities in the Diaspora as a matter of foreign policy. In this respect, both things are true: Liberal democracies are essential for Jewish communities existing in the Diaspora, and, also, Israel is essential for Jews to be respected as human beings with a right to exist at all, whether the former fail or not.
In other words, the relevant comparison is not between Jews living in Israel and Jews living in enlightened liberal societies, but between Jews living in Israel and Jews living in any kind of non-Jewish society. This is applicable to Venezuela, Ira,q, or Nazi Germany. In whatever world Israel doesn't exist, and liberal society fails (Nazy Germany), or cannot be restored (Venezuela,) or never existed (Iraq), Jews are ultimately doomed. So, it is not the case that Jews are just better off in a liberal society as such, but they are much better off in a liberal society with Israel existing as well.
Also, this objection is a bit tautological. This is so because, as long as we are talking about a liberal society, it is expected that Jews, as other minorities, will not be persecuted. But the countries mentioned were liberal democracies (for instance, in Western Europe) at the beginning of the 20th century and these fell. The Holocaust was the result (with Israel non-existent at the time). The tautology comes from the claim that these were precisely not liberal democracies. So, liberal democracies are better, and if these disappear, it was not liberal democracies that failed but society as such that did. Hence, liberal democracies would always be better positioned compared to the Jewish state as a less deadly scenario, on a per capita basis. But the entire point is: What happens when and if liberal democracies disappear? All things considered, the numbers would change. Take, for instance, what would happen if Islamists increased their influence in Europe. Jews are not safe there even now, so their position would become even more precarious then.
Regarding the IDF, there is no dispute. This is why Israel would not be able to serve its purpose if it becomes a binational state. Israel is the IDF. Israel is Jews having the capacity to defend themselves. The short period of 10 hours when the army failed is what shows what Israel's essence really is and why in its absence Jews are fundamentally doomed. The location (of Israel) is irrelevant, what is relevant is its position of power.
To put it differently (akin to a Biblical expression), weakness is an abomination. The purpose of Israel is to be the opposite: Jewish strength. Not to inflict damage on others, but to exercise that which cannot be exercised in the absence of a (functioning) army: self-defense.
It cannot be denied that enlightened liberal democracies are proper, rational, and fundamentally human political systems worth fighting for to guarantee human flourishing (Jewish and non-Jewish alike). However, this does not refute the fact that there is also a Jewish need for the existence of Israel. More so, because it is a liberal democracy itself. It performs both functions: it defends Jews and allows for human flourishing and respect for individual rights.
Consider the situation of Jews in 1938 in Germany. Then, the entire world rejected u and condemned some 1/3 of our people to be slaughtered. As the Evian example shows, by then, the world was divided between countries where Jews could not live and countries where Jews could not enter. Would Israel have been a refuge if it were in existence at the time? Of course, as it was for the nearly half a million Jews who were in Palestine then. Many more could have been saved were it not for the British white papers thwarting immigration.
In other words, even in a Nazi world, Israel makes sense, as it is the ultimate line of defense for us. On the other hand, what could Jews expect outside of Israel in that scenario? Europe of 1939-1945.
Any possible or thinkable world seems to support the necessity of a Jewish State for the very survival of Jews.
Perhaps the critic sees this scenario as involving not primarily defending enlightened liberal democracies, but we can have our cake and eat it too: Both Israel and liberal democracies could and should be defended for the same reasons. Israel is a liberal democracy.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
