Politics

As Israel’s operation to decapitate the Tehran regime and target its nuclear program continues, triggering a response across the entire territory of the Jewish state, Bruno Karsenti and Danny Trom question the political significance of this major turning point in the Middle East conflict. Compared to the distortion of Zionism represented by the current conduct of the war in Gaza, the war against Iran takes on a whole new meaning, both for Israelis and for the entire Jewish world.

To better convey and circulate K.’s ideas, we are currently working on designing a new website for the magazine and commissioning new content. To bring this project to life, we need your support. Every donation will help keep K.’s texts and reflections alive and expand their reach.

The antisemitism that hangs in the air today, to the point of making it unbreathable, is primarily a matter of signs that we learn to recognize. Signs that must be deciphered, but which, for those with memory, appear shrouded in the ominous halo of the obvious. The testimony that Boris Schumatsky gives us in this text reminds us that this world saturated with disturbing signs has the power to suffocate us. It therefore raises the question – what is the meaning of the fight we are waging against it?

Since the attack on October 7 and Israel’s war in Gaza, the word “genocide” has become a touchstone in public debate. A symbol of uncompromising commitment for some, it is no longer a matter of law, but an absolute moral imperative. In this article, Matthew Bolton analyzes the shift in meaning of this term—from legal accusation to ontological condemnation—and shows how its use, fueled by the theory of “settler colonialism,” leads to cutting off any possibility of political action against the war of destruction being waged by the Netanyahu government in Gaza. For by positing that Israel is acting on a logic of annihilation intrinsic to its very existence, the equation “Israel = genocide” becomes the axiom of an ideology that rejects any political solution to the conflict on principle.

Israeli journalist and former reporter for Yediot Aharonot and Haaretz, Meron Rapoport co-founded the initiative A Land for All with Palestinian Honi Al-Mashni, which proposes a unique solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: two fully sovereign states, but linked by a confederation, with Jerusalem as a shared capital, an open border, and a negotiated right of return for both sides. In this interview, Rapoport looks back on his personal journey, his break with the paradigm of separation, and the need to think beyond the logic of exclusion and toward a future based on sharing, reciprocity, and democracy.

As the situation in Gaza worsens and the Israeli political debate becomes increasingly radicalized, any plan for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems out of reach. Yet many are working to prepare for the future. One political project, A Land for All – Two States, One Homeland, deserves special attention. It proposes two sovereign states linked by a confederation, each recognizing the national legitimacy of the other and organizing coexistence throughout the disputed territory. In a context marked by military deadlock, democratic fatigue, and the rise of anti-Zionist interpretations in Europe, including of this project, what can we make of such a utopian construct?

As Sweden is marking 250 years of Jewish life, the reactions to the October 7th massacre, the war in Gaza and the tone of the rhetoric in the public debate are reasons to be concerned about Swedish antisemitism. But what is the true extent of this scourge, what is its impact on Sweden’s Jewish community, and how is it being addressed by the authorities? By placing these issues in a broader historical context, David Stavrou’s investigation, which we are publishing as part of our partnership with the DILCRAH, seeks to answer these questions.

On May 1, cries of “dirty genocidal Zionists” and violence from hooded far-left activists targeted not only Jérôme Guedj, who is becoming accustomed to such treatment, but also, for the first time, several elected officials present at the Socialist Party’s stand. Bruno Karsenti provides a timely clarification and analysis: the logic of contemporary anti-Zionism does not merely lead to antisemitism; it is irresistibly anti-socialist.

The contemporary anti-Zionist left has decided to reject the idea that one can be both Zionist and left-wing. Yet this possibility is clearly attested to by a whole section of Israel’s political history, as well as by the political movements to which many Jews in the diaspora adhere. Julien Chanet, drawing on sources and references found in Paris and Brussels, examines the causes and consequences of this “anti-Zionist truism” that insists that “left-wing Zionism” is an oxymoron. By choosing to denigrate this reality rather than consider it, anti-Zionism not only aims to make Jews a little more alien to the left, but paradoxically becomes the objective ally of reactionary Zionism, blocking any prospect of a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.