Israeli Society in the 21st
Century - Immigration, Inequality, and Religious Conflict. Calvin Goldscheider. Brandeis University Press, Waltham ,
Massachusetts. 2015.
This work intrigued me as it is obviously
supportive of the Israeli position in the Middle East and at a quick glance
would illuminate something new about the state of Israel and the State of
Israel. Unfortunately it does neither.
Calvin Goldscheider is a professor of
sociology at Brown University, and unfortunately sociology, from my experience,
is probably the weakest of the social sciences, is not a science at all really,
and ranks beneath both political ‘science’ and economics as fields of rational
study. My definition of sociology is that it is the art of taking something
that could be explained through common sense and common language and
transforming it into something pseudo-scientifically profound. This is done
through the use of a particular lexicon, and the lengthy creation of
repetitious and supposedly neutral academic explanations that are not
academically tested.
Having said that, it can be assumed that I
would be a ‘hostile’ reviewer, but rather I was simply bored - until I arrived
at the end where Goldscheider concludes “our exploration of emerging Israeli
society by unpacking the influence of external factors.”
Boredom
The boredom derives directly from
Goldscheider’s methodology. As he states himself in the preface “The evidence
presented in this book is primarily based on the official statistics of Israel
located in the Statistical Abstracts of Israel of 2013 and 2014.” In a
brief Appendix he reiterates this, saying “I have relied on the excellent
statistical materials presented in yearbooks of the Central Bureau of
Statistics [named above].”
In essence, he did nothing scientific, no
original research, and performed only two tasks: first, writing out longhand
all the statistics that would have been way better presented in graphic form
(graphs of some kind); and secondly, writing out very poor analysis in lengthy
terms that could have all been done with more basic language annotations under
each graph.
The statistical information is obviously
very comprehensive and covers many if not most aspects of life in Israel. The
sociological lexicon makes any explanation of those statistics repetitive and
lacking in common sense. Part of the effect of the sociological lexicon is the
sterilization of the information, making it dispassionate, a facade of
intellectual rigour making the ordinary complex.
For example, Goldscheider writes,
“Vulnerability
among Arab Israelis stems from the fact that segregations intensifies and
magnifies any economic setback and builds deprivations structurally into the
socioeconomic environment. The costs of segregation are exacerbated by the
economic dependency of Arab Israelis.”
A rather fancy set of terms that seems to
say that Arab Israelis are subject to racism. The definition is reiterated on
the next page,
“Residential
segregation is a structural condition, making deprived communities more likely;
combined with social class disadvantage, ethnic segregation concentrates income
deprivation in small areas and generates structural discrimination.”
It doesn’t sound like racism, doesn’t look
like racism, but if translated into common English, it is racism with all that
implies for laws, policing, and opportunities.
Narratives, lies, and
mythology…
Occasionally within the writing there are
short moments of lies, sterilized commentary, and the traditional Israeli
narrative. They are not truly surprising but do allow glimpses of how the
Israeli narrative can be carried forward so easily in a pseudo-scientific
manner:
(1) The
Jewish migrants were “working in agriculture to develop barren wastelands.” Not
true.
(2) In
1948, “there was an exodus of Arab residents...as territorial control was
transferred ….” A good sterilized narrative.
(3) The Jewish migrant is a “fact that
Jews returning to the state of Israel descended from ancestors who had not
lived there for almost 2,000 years.” Essentially mythological without the
scientific proof that a ‘science’ should demand.
(4) “...administered
territories [do not imply] long term possession or control...since there was a
clear recognition that control was “administrative,” not ideological.” This
goes against all historical records in particular from Zionists wanting all of
Eretz Israel for their homeland.
(5) Further,
“The control is political and firmly anchored in history, religion, and
legitimacy.” Yes, political, but mainly military, and also economic. Yes,
anchored in history, the history of military wars against the Arab indigenous
populations. Legitimacy is part of the religious narrative of which the author
says the territory is “named by its Hebrew-Judaic origins is part of a gift of
God to the Jewish people.” This could lead to many arguments about the biblical
legitimacy, as it does internally within Israeli Jews, and externally.
But
accepted that it is “god given” could it not also be “god taken?” Are the
current possessors of the land living the will of a just and peaceful god or a
god of retribution and violence?
(6)
Finally - but not completely - the author mentions “forays from Israel to
population centers in Gaza have become routine and costly in human lives,
property, economic growth, and trust between neighbors.” Forays!! Umm, perhaps
full out military invasions with aerial support from Apache helicopters and
fighter jets. Costly - obviously - but trust? The latter is not even to be
considered between Israel and Gaza as witnesses from the manner in which Gaza
has been made into an open air prison/concentration camp.
Either way, not good.
Even if you are an ardent Jewish Zionist
supporter, this is not a good read. It would be much better to go to the
Israeli statistical records that are referenced and simply read them. It will
save much time and agony from trying to read through a sociological lexicon
that speaks volumes but says little.
Along with the poor writing, Israeli
Society in the 21st Century provides poor analysis and sterilizes the
Israeli narrative of occupation and settlement, not surprising considering its
origins.
Source URL
|