Does Israel Make Jews Less Safe?

This essay responds to critiques I received after publishing my recent piece in The Times of Israel about progressive Jews holding antisemitic views. One came from a progressive friend I respect deeply. They argued in good faith and with moral urgency that Israel has not made Jews safer and may even have made things worse:

“The state of Israel does nothing to make Jews more safe around the world, today, and in many respects makes our lives more dangerous… It gives other nations an ‘out’ of saying ‘I support the right of Jews to get the heck out of this country and go to a different one (Israel)’… the state of Israel itself is one where more Jews have to live in daily fear of bombing from their neighbors (more) than anywhere else in the world. I do not believe that Zionism as an intervention to serve Jewish safety has succeeded… It is not at all clear to me that a world without Israel is one where more Jews are killed by non-Jews than a world with Israel.”

I respectfully disagree and argue below that this claim is historically incomplete and rests on assumptions that do not withstand closer examination.

The “Most Dangerous Place to Be Jewish” Myth

The claim that Israel is the most dangerous place to be Jewish because it concentrates rather than disperses Jewish vulnerability, does not hold up to careful analysis, especially when safety is understood more broadly than just counting casualties. Since 1948, approximately 5,000 Israeli Jews have been killed in wars and terror attacks, almost all in the context of armed conflict between states or organized factions, not as personal targeting based solely on their Jewish identity.  In contrast, diaspora Jews have been murdered explicitly for their Jewish identity in religious and communal settings from Pittsburgh and Poway to Paris, Brussels, and Mumbai. The context is vital: diaspora attacks often take place in synagogues, Jewish schools, and kosher markets where Jews express their identity openly and peacefully. Although numerically fewer, these deaths carry enormous psychological and communal weight.

Furthermore, Israel is the only country where Jewish lives are protected by a sovereign state built explicitly for that purpose. No diaspora community has the Iron Dome, the IDF, or coordinated evacuation protocols. Imperfect as it is, Israel’s security infrastructure enables more than seven million Jews to live with a degree of continuity, cohesion, and collective agency that is not possible elsewhere in the Middle East, where Jewish life has been almost completely erased. None of this is to minimize the emotional burden Israelis carry: living under threat, sending children to the army, navigating political instability. But that burden is shared within a national framework committed to Jewish survival, not dependent on the goodwill or stability of host governments.

Finally, the belief that Jews are inherently safer in the diaspora is ahistorical. It overlooks not only the Holocaust ,but also the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands, Aliyah from the former Soviet Union, the airlifts from Ethiopia, and the resurgence of violent antisemitism in liberal democracies. It may feel intuitive to younger generations who didn’t witness those moments, but the historical record and recent events point in a different direction.

The “Out Clause” Isn’t Israel’s Fault

That the existence of Israel may give Western politicians a way to avoid fighting antisemitism at home is a fair concern. But blaming Israel for the cynicism of Western leaders is a category error, like blaming a fire escape for a building that lacks sprinklers. Israel isn’t the excuse – it’s the fallback. A last resort for when things go wrong elsewhere.

None of this is to suggest that Israel is blameless or that its policies exist in a vacuum. Israel’s actions, like those of any sovereign nation, shape global perception and the recent statements and actions of its far right coalition – several of which have been shameful – have been damaging. But to say that Israel contributes to antisemitism is different from saying it causes it – and vastly different from suggesting that its very existence is to blame. That distinction matters a lot. Criticizing a state is fair. Holding a people collectively responsible for hatred directed against them is not.

Doesn’t Israel Fuel Global Antisemitism?

This is where things get more complicated. There’s no question that some antisemitism is framed as opposition to Israeli policy, the rhetoric of its government, or even Israel’s very existence. But that doesn’t mean Israel caused it. Causality isn’t clear and  temporal correlation certainly doesn’t imply it.  Antisemitism long predates the State of Israel and constantly reinvents itself. Today, the old myths of Jewish control have been rebranded as Zionist conspiracy.

But Israeli power does require responsibility. When the Israeli government acts unjustly—or even  appears to act unjustly—diaspora Jews often feel the repercussion. That doesn’t mean Zionism is to blame, but it does mean that Israel’s politicians must be aware of the external consequences of its decisions. Some Israeli policies, particularly when perceived as unjust or discriminatory, rightfully amplify anger. Although that anger can be co-opted by bad actors, it also reflects real concern from allies who care about democracy and human rights. Acknowledging this doesn’t mean abandoning Israel; it means holding it accountable to the values it claims to uphold.

We Don’t Fully Understand Why Antisemitism Rises, So Let’s Not Blame the Victim

As a scientist, I’ve been trained to be humble about what I think I “know,” so let’s try some epistemic humility here. We don’t fully understand why antisemitism spikes when it does, or why it spreads so fast across political and geographic lines. Is it Gaza? The economy? Social media? Historical trauma? Ideological extremism? Probably all of the above. But the idea that Israel’s existence causes antisemitism in Paris or New York edges dangerously close to blaming the victim. It suggests that Jewish sovereignty provokes hatred—and that dismantling it might restore calm.

Zionism Promised Agency, Not Perfect Safety

Finally, Zionism is not a shield. It never promised to eliminate antisemitism. It promised that when antisemitism comes, Jews could act. That promise has been kept. When Jews in France, Ukraine, Yemen, Ethiopia, or Syria needed rescue, Israel came. No one else did. Of course, Israeli leaders can undermine this promise through rhetoric that fuels hostility or alienates diaspora allies. That makes the work harder, but it doesn’t negate the core principle of Jewish agency.

Safety isn’t just the absence of threat, it’s the presence of refuge and knowing that if the world turns against you, there is a place for the Jew to go. Israel’s policies – especially under far-right leadership – can make things harder for Jews abroad, but Zionism remains a vital safeguard for Jewish continuity and survival.

No serious person claims that Zionism or Israel are perfect. But the idea that Israel makes Jews less safe is a distortion that disregards the past, misreads the present, and invites disaster. If you care about Jewish safety, you must reckon with the reality that in a world of rising threats, the problem is not that a Jewish state exists. The problem is imagining a world where it doesn’t.