Celebrating Israel in a Globalized World

       The process of globalization is one with many advantages. It allows for the interchange of ideas, products, and world views between many different nations. It also lets these nations communicate with each other in a much easier way. But one of the disadvantages of globalization is that it often discourages individuality within a nation’s culture. Whether it is intentional or not, globalization often results in the spread of western ideas and culture. Many countries around the world have lost their individual culture in favor of a more westernized one. This is what makes the country of Israel so impressive.

       In an age of globalization, Israel has managed to build up their individual culture. The Jewish people were often criticized for failing to have a nation-state, but have formed one in the most difficult of times. Israel was founded as a Jewish state in 1948, and while it does not fit the usual definition of a nation-state, it has the essential elements of one. Not only has Israel built up their cultural identity, they have blended the benefits of globalization within that culture. There is no doubt that Israel is one of the most democratic and free states in the Middle East. They are an incredibly successful democracy, all while maintaining close proximity to countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. It is very impressive that the people of Israel have managed to build such a successful democracy, all while maintaining their individual cultural identity.

       In his book How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization, Franklin Foer dedicates an entire chapter to what he calls the “Jewish Question”. He quotes University of Chicago political theorist Mark Lilla, who said, “Once upon a time, the Jews were mocked for not having a nation-state. Now they are criticized for having one” (Foer, 84). Many globalized Europeans cannot understand the concept of Israel as a nation. They do not understand how the people of Israel could be proud to be a nation-state. This is one of the problems with globalization. People who step outside of the bounds of the process are thought of as odd. Others don’t understand why they would be proud to be different. They think that the globalized way is the only way, but Israel is proving that it is not.

       Foer also explains that there is a hint of irony with the Europeans’ misunderstanding of Israel. European soccer clubs like Tottenham and Ajax are thought of as “Jewish” clubs, but still think of the Jews in Israel as outsiders. It’s almost as if globalization brings about resentment of one’s historical past. While this process certainly has its benefits, we can see how some might question some of its results. In this age of constant globalization, we have to celebrate Israel for what it has accomplished.

Source: How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization (Franklin Foer, 2004).

Nuclear Weapons: The Ironic Necessity?

            The arms race has built up drastically within the past half century due to the immense progress in creation of nuclear weapons across the world. As nuclear weapons have become more powerful over the years, having the ability to kill thousands of people and tremendous portions of land at once, some people have become fearful of the threat the weapons may pose to the future of mankind. Some have proposed the idea of a world with complete nuclear disarmament, implying that a “nuclear-free” world would be a safer world. However this plan concerns me and I do not believe it would make us safer, but in fact hurt us and force us to lose all trust for other states, and live in a “nervous world”, as Thomas C. Schelling argues in his article, A world without nuclear weapons?

            In a situation where someone, such as the United Nations, attempted to create some type of system to eliminate all nuclear weapons, I believe it would ultimately eliminate all allies and positive international relationships between states. I completely agree with Schelling's argument in his article, which states that this is because everyone would always be in constant fear that other states secretly had weapons, and they would persistently accuse one another of possessing them, without any way of knowing true facts. Every state would always turn against each other, and the world would very well possibly end in some colossal war due to lack of trust. As Schelling further suggests, “Just as today’s intelligence agencies and their clandestine operators are devoted to discovering the location of terrorist organizations and their leaders, in a non-nuclear world the highest priority would attach to knowing the exact locations and readiness of enemy nuclear mobilization bases.” (127) 

            Though obtaining nuclear weapons may not have been a necessary defensive safety tactic a hundred years ago, they have been created and their existence is inevitable. The safest scenario is to leave the arms race untouched and let those who can obtain nuclear weapons keep them, because assuming all states will act rationally with the proposed movement is not a reliable strategy, since everyone defines ration differently. I often classify myself as a constructivist, and this is a clear example of a topic where I take a quite constructivist stance, as I argue that all state actors have had different experiences and, in this case, different experiences with nuclear weapons, and therefore may all have different ideas of what acting rationally means when it comes to things like atomic bombs.
            This claim I make that relying on states to act rationally is not dependable can be further illustrated by the prisoner’s dilemma, which ultimately suggests that when two criminals are being held captive, they will both “rat” each other out because they will not trust each other because they won’t know what the other will do. Similarly, in a nuclear-free world, all states will essentially constantly be “held captive” of one another, not knowing if the others will secretly obtain nuclear weapons or not, and will lose all trust for each other. Eventually, I believe we would end up in a much less safe place than we are now, for every state would solely be focused on “ratting” each other out, or getting ready to fight. We would live in constant fear, similarly to how people may have felt living during the Cold War during the beginning of the nuclear arms race, or how Israelis and Palestinians live every day not knowing what the other party has planned. But even Schelling admits when describing a nuclear-free world, “I believe that a “responsible” government would make sure that fissile material would be available in an international crisis or war itself. A responsible government must at least assume that other responsible governments will do so.” (126)

            Though a world free of mass destruction may seem utopian, unfortunately nuclear weapons have already been invented and instead of trying to fight against them as a society, we must accept the fact that they have a place in the future of our society. We must focus on sensible negotiation plans to enhance international relations, and focus on re-building international trust. We cannot change the past, but I believe there is hope for the future. 


Work Cited: Schelling, Thomas C. “A World without Nuclear Weapons?” Daedelus 138, no. 4

(2009): p. 124–129. (ELMS)

Contemplating A World Free of Nuclear Weapons

If there is one idea that continues to remain present throughout this class it is the idea that countries will never feel secure enough to let their guards down militarily. In my first blog post, I mentioned Meirsheimer and spoke of how he reiterated the role of fear in international conflicts. He talked about how since no country can ever be sure if another country is planning to attack, they must be militarily prepared to attack and fight for their country at all costs, at all times. Now when asked to consider whether or not there can/should be a world without nuclear powers, I can’t help but think back to this idea of fear and security that Meirsheimer put forth.

In Thomas Schelling’s article, “A World Without Nuclear Powers”, he mentions how officials all over the world have been recently coming together to speak about the potential for a world free of nuclear weapons. At one conference, it was even reported that “participants were in general agreement that complete and eventual disarmament … is the objective”. Now in theory, this sounds great. If our final goal is a peaceful world, it seems only fitting that we put an end to the presence of nuclear weapons once and for all. However, then Schelling presented a question that made me think. In regards to research representing the desire to remove nuclear weapons globally, Schelling writes: “None explicitly addresses the question, why should we expect a world without nuclear weapons to be safer than one with (some) nuclear weapons?

            While the sound of “nuclear weapons” often sends a chilling fear down our spines, we mustn’t forget that even with multiple countries in possession of nuclear weapons, it’s been nearly 70 years since a nuclear weapon has been used in warfare. With this in mind, many may then wonder, “well, what’s the point in even having them?” And that all comes back to Meirsheimer’s view that countries will never feel secure, unless they are in the best spot militarily. And in this case, what that means is having access to the strongest, most detrimental weapons--- nuclear weapons.

            The reason the US has been able to stay one of the leading powers of the world for so long is because we have access to these nuclear weapons, which make us a large threat to any country contemplating engagement in war with us. In 1945, the US used nuclear warfare against Japan, killing hundreds and thousands of Japanese citizens. And the idea that at any moment, the US could do that again to any country that poses a threat to us, causes many countries to reevaluate starting conflict with us. So considering this idea, I can only wonder what would happen if the US didn’t have nuclear weapons to ensure destruction of any who dare mess with us. And I can only assume the result would be chaos. This would mean weaker countries without nuclear weapons could now engage in conflict with bigger countries, without the fear of being completely destroyed.

           While it may sound bad, personally, I think the threat of nuclear weapons is necessary in keeping world order. In order to feel secure, powerful countries need something in order to deter other countries from starting conflict. Although there’s no guarantee these countries will continue to not use their weapons, I think conflict is seriously less likely to occur with the fear of engaging in war with a country in possession of a nuclear weapon. Otherwise, what’s stopping every country from going to war with each other if they see it fit?

Schelling, Thomas C. “A World without Nuclear Weapons?” Daedelus 138, no. 4

(2009): p. 124–129. (ELMS)

International Organizations: The United Nations Power

            The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945 after the Second World War to prevent another World War from erupting. It’s core objective is to maintain international peace and security by creating alliances among states. The international organization has to an extent been successful and no Third World War has occurred since its existence. But a question we can all ask ourselves is, how much global power and influence does the UN actually have.

            Arguably within the organizations not all members have the same power over decisions. Within in the UN Security Council only 5 out of the 15 members have permanent veto power. In the UN a trend and the truth is the world powers have more of a say then the small states. The U.S., Russia, China, France, and England are the typical leaders within the international organization. There economic, military and influential status allows them to take the for front in decisions. This may not seem fair in certain circumstances but their power to influence brings greater gains in the end.

            The only real power the UN can have is to call for economic sanctions on those states that do not practice the beliefs of the UN and disturb the peace. But even with this situation it is all about influence. And those individual states with power have the most influence. The UN is a platform for the powerful global powers to influence and control the smaller states. If a state can appeal both the members and the news media with an issue then maybe the global population can see a change caused by the UN.

            For example earlier this year actress Emma Watson spoke in front of the UN General Assembly to address the issue of violence against women and gender equality. Her message was heard globally. People all around the world showed support for the issue with the hash tag HeforShe. It sparked the conversation that this is not only women’s problem but also men’s.  Even though Emma Watson is not an individual state she is a prime example that those who have power and influence will gain attention and potentially cause change. The nations with the status will influence the world to follow their steps in decision-making.

            So I personally can not measure the power of the UN. But instead have concluded that those with power can use the UN to influence other states. The U.S. is just one of the states who is a member of the UN, but it holds more power within the international organization then many of the smaller countries. This was not just an easy given power. But because of the history and richness in economy it has gained the power to influence over the members. The United Nations gives nations an institution to backup their security, peace and level of power.