A comparison of the U.S. and Israel — and their democracies
JERUSALEM–Israel attracts attention like a magnet. Some years ago, at the height of the Cold War, there were said to be more foreign correspondents in Jerusalem than in any other capital except Washington and Moscow.
The weight of Muslims in international forums assures a chronic rate of condemnations. Being the Holy Land contributes to the attention coming from the “religion soaked” United States. Europeans are responding to their Christian roots when they pay attention to Israel, as well as following the lead of whoever is speaking for the United States.
There is no shortage of religious doctrine and moralism in what comes to my mailbox. I read interpretations of Holy Scripture that correspondents are certain bode ill or well for Israel, or well after a severe testing by worldly powers orchestrated by the Almighty. All this is said to follow a plan that I do not see in the Bible (Hebrew Bible or New Testament), but is clear to those who perceive it.
Other correspondents condemn Israel for violating their moral codes. Typically they avoid any clarification of what they mean by right and wrong.. Most are oblivious to the multiple nature of moralities, the complexities in judging a whole country, or its government, in the context of the pressures on them, or the norms as defined by the behaviors of other countries.
A comparison between Israel and the United States is instructive. To be sure, there are no two democracies that are more different. One is huge and rich, and one tiny and on the border of well-being. One is obsessively multi-cultural and the other more nearly homogeneous. One is governed by a president and legislature separately elected for fixed terms, and the other a parliamentary regime where the government’s tenure depends on the continued support of the legislature. The current enemies of one are a half-world away from its homeland, and the enemies of the other are no more than a bus ride of an hour or two from the center of its country.
With all these differences, it is appropriate to compare the United States and Israel as the most active of the democracies in pursuing national security. Israel allocates close to 10 percent of its gross national product to national defense, and the United States between three and four percent. For most other democracies the figure is a bit more than one or two percent. http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/statab/sec30.pdf
Among the founding myths of the United States is the slogan of “no entangling alliances.” That sentiment prevailed from the time of George Washington to the era of World War II, and was prominent in the arguments of those who opposed joining the League of Nations. The theme of autonomy continued in the country’s insistence on a veto for important decisions of the United Nations, and more recently in its refusal to accept agreements for environmental controls, human rights, or the rights of the child that would place its activities under the decisions of an international body. The United States has the economic and political weight to insist that its soldiers be judged only by American military courts.
The damage done to civilians and infrastructure by the American military is greater in absolute terms than that done by the Israeli military. Only part of the difference derives from the larger forces employed by the United States. The numbers are contentious, and do not reflect only deaths directly attributed to the actions of troops. Conservative estimates place the numbers killed in Iraq since the American-led invasion in 2003 at over 100,000, and those in Afghanistan since 2001 at over 20,000. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29
Other estimates are more than 10 times as great.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/iraq
Total deaths associated with recent Israeli military actions are in the range of 2,500 for civilians and fighters killed in Lebanon and Gaza, combined.
Although the body counts are higher for American than Israeli actions, one has to look hard to find the United States being condemned by international forums or the most prominent of the non-governmental organizations. It is not American but Israeli political and military figures who are chary of traveling abroad lest an activist judge signs an order to arrest them for violating what is said to be international law.
Reasoned efforts to compare Israel’s military actions to the those of the United States have not quieted the most intense of my correspondents. It is no surprise that individuals motivated by religion or morality have little tolerance for relativism. Absolutism is their language. It does not diminish their condemnation if other countries, even their own, do what is similar or greater in the direction they consider to be immoral.
Neither does an argument about differential threat impress the critics of Israel. Some of them are certain that the country was born in sin, and continues to violate what they describe as right. Some accusers may derive inspiration from old condemnations of Jews as violators of the Lord. Insofar as foundations of western morality derive from the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, some may think that Jews should be judged by the highest standards, no matter what other people have done, or are doing. Contemporary conceptions of anti-Semitism focus not so much on accusations of Christ-killers or blood libels (although those charges have not disappeared), but on judging Israel by standards higher than used for other countries.
Morals are important in politics. One should not pursue any goal, even one as important as physical security, without calculating its costs in human life and well being, as well as the more mundane considerations of economic outlays and environmental impact. However, simple assertions of one’s most intensely held feelings cannot be the sole guide to behavior. The point is most obvious when intense people proclaim their contrasting views of what is right, or what God ordains.
Israelis who chafe under disproportionate criticism can take counsel from some founding doctrines of the United States. The creators of the democracy widely perceived as a model for the world were suspicious of the people. According to Federalist Papers #10
Americans continue to find protection from the rabble in the Separation of Powers. Likewise Israel. The separation between White House and Congress helps to lessen the madness that can come from any one institution. The complexity of Europe means that demonstrations in the streets or universities are filtered through institutions with several layers before they can affect concrete actions.
Nasty e-mails, screaming crowds, elected demagogues, and out of control professors are worrying, but they do not break my bones.
*
Sharkansky is professor emeritus of political science at Hebrew University
sdjewishworld 
I Stand with Usrael in the belief that GOD. Has set her aside for Himself
God did make Her HIS chosen People –
And what the world thinks is not important – the bible days that Gid will put a hook in the jaw of Israel’s enemy and will destroy that enemy – no matter what – there is a Covenant between God and Abraham and his decedents