Head count
Early September will see the first results of Israel’s fifth national census. But what might seem as objective statistics, dry numbers and pure science might also serve as a useful political instrument in structuring a certain image of reality.
Since its inception, the current census remained largely off the public debate. Some, expectedly, contended it breaches individuals’ privacy as well as contradicts several laws, among them the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. Others (justly) complained about the archaic Statistics Ordinance [.pdf file] which incorporates an imprisonment penalty for those who refuse to participate – a measure that has never been employed [H]. But very few addressed the significances and implications of the information the state chooses to retrieve from its citizens, or refrains from.
The Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics is part of the Prime Minister’s Office, just like the Government Press Office, the Government Names Committee and also the Atomic Energy Committee and the Mossad. Therefore, it’s rather clear that the graphs and tables soon to be released – as elaborated as they might be – don’t necessarily mean transparency. In fact, when examining this 90-questions poll [.pdf file], at least part of it is designed to meet particular interests of the state – and its results are more than likely to eventually complement these.
First, forming a question in one specific way is indeed a technical constraint, but it consequently creates deviation, thus preventing a large chunk of information. Religious affiliation is such blunt example when only those who don’t hold an Israeli ID card are required to answer question no. 25 about their religion. The reason is that the census is based on the data in the population registry. Even though the ethnicity (“Le’om”) category is not longer printed on ID cards, this information is still kept in the population registry indicating a person’s ethnic attribution regardless of his or her preference. Therefore, the state isn’t interested in people who consider themselves as secular, ultra-orthodox or atheists, for that sense, as long as the population registry classifies them as Jewish. Nevertheless, in the census survey the variety of options offered is effectively reduced to a person being Jewish, Moslem, Christian, Druze or “Other”.
It’s already given that the Jewish Israelis make the majority of the population in the country, but at the same time, the 
demographic trend of a growth of the resident Arab population outnumbering that of the Jewish one is considered a near future threat for the very being of Israel as a Jewish state. Emphasizing this trend could easily serve as an incentive to very dubious campaigns such as Liebermann’s recent “no loyalty, no citizenship”.
Moreover, as noted by Yaron London, in order to choose the people to be included in the 20 percent sample – also counting my family that was “chosen to influence” – meant to represent the entire population, the ICBS is relying on the previous censuses. This way, it is effectively only re-validating the existing information, but moreover – immortalizing the first one [.pdf file].
Therefore, this so-called empiric demographic study might be leaving out some important elements. In many countries census is a regular practice [.pdf file]. But in Israel, where boundaries – geopolitical and citizenship – constantly prove to be rather dynamic, but without underestimating the basic importance and value of censuses in general, this practice should be better publicly scrutinized.
