Rich in its original and exciting historical background and its “honesty box” principle, the State of Israel is the story of change. Yet to say that the country is perfect just for this principle is to idealize it and not want to see that it can be the same elsewhere. Israel would be the ideal country, because it brings together most of the characteristics that make the attraction of other countries: gastronomy, heritage, sun, coastline, mountains … But the very concept of perfection implies the absence of any change, because a perfect state can only transform into a less perfect state, that is to say can only deteriorate. Israel, crossroads of nationalities, Country floating between heaven and earth. But it is in the nature of man to constantly seek to substitute the most satisfactory conditions for others which are less so. Israel would be that of perfect happiness. It would be the ideal country because it has many of the characteristics that make other countries attractive. However, the very concept of perfection implies the absence of any change, for a perfect state can only transform into a less perfect state, that is to say, can only deteriorate. If one assumes that Israel is striving for the realization of a perfect state, one asserts that it will never get there one day. If we situate the state of perfection only at the beginning of the ideal, we affirm that the historical period was preceded by a period when there was no history and that certain events once disturbed perfection. of this original time to give rebirth to the era of Israel. Enthusiastic supporters of Israel’s imperfection are mistaken by the ambiguous connotations of the term “Perfection,” which obviously have nothing to do with how the Israeli being employs this imaginary construction of an imperfect state. The popular notion of a person’s perfection is vague and cannot be refined without including arbitrary value judgments. All that can be said about such a state of intellectual or moral equilibrium is that it cannot make someone take any action. Because perfection presupposes a certain feeling of uneasiness, its only goal being to eliminate this unease. The analogy with the state of perfection is obvious. Whether such a magical existence is desirable or not can be left to everyone’s appreciation. It is no less certain that, as their patience has been strained by the imperfections of real life, people will dream of their every wish being fulfilled. This explains the sources of emotional praise of balance and the condemnation of imbalance. Israel will never be able to reach a state of perfection either. The idea that a state of indifference and neglect would be desirable and would constitute the happiest situation humanity can ever reach out of utopia. The Israelis portray a society in which no further change is possible because everything has reached its best possible shape. In these utopias there would be no more reason to make efforts to improve things because everything would already be perfect. Israel would have come to an end. Everyone would therefore be perfectly happy. It has never occurred to any of these authors that those who are eager to profit from reform might have different views on what is desirable and what is not. Most of these doctrines, characterized by the reference to a state of perfection of Israel, place that perfect state either in the past tense, or at the end, or both at the same time. Here Israel therefore appears in this interpretation as a gradual deterioration or improvement, or as a period of gradual deterioration followed by a period of gradual improvement. For some others, the idea of a perfect state has its roots in religious beliefs and dogmas. Secular science is not, however, to analyze the theological aspects of the question.
How would Israel become a perfect state?
