# 173 / Editorial

During this summer break, the magazine will pause its regular publications. Don’t worry, however: until the new season arrives, we’ll be offering our readers a weekly feature exploring an important theme that has mobilized us this year and which, in our current context, remains topical. An opportunity to discover the article you missed, to rediscover the one that caught your eye, and to share some of K. ‘s publications with your friends who don’t yet know us. As a reminder, our archives are open, and we invite you to browse through the hundreds of texts we’ve already published over the last three and a half years, all of which bear witness to the magazine’s ambition: to move between topicality and historical depth, to take account of contemporary issues that call for reflection on the situation of European Jewry.

This week, we return to the discursive confrontations surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For the most part, they have been at the heart of post-October 7 debates. The aim is to discipline the words that inflame the conflict: dehumanizing insults and contentious qualifications. And, conversely, it will be a question of destabilizing the too well-established meanings, the supposedly unproblematic genealogies and the self-evident political appellations. In a word, to ensure that language is a tool for resolving and clarifying, rather than aggravating and obscuring.

This summer, as we prepare for the new school year, we’d like to take this opportunity to thank all our donors, and invite regular readers who haven’t yet done so to support us (via PayPal or helloasso). We are currently developing projects to give the magazine a greater impact, which we feel is more necessary than ever in these troubled times. We know that many of our readers share this view, as K.’s audience has more than doubled since October 7th brought the Jewish world to its knees and to the center of national debates, as witnessed by the recent elections across Europe.

Wishing you a good summer and happy reading!

The Editors

Politics
“Apartheid” or the denial of politics in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

In issue 129 of K., we discussed the open letter, entitled “The Elephant in the room”, denouncing the State of Israel as an apartheid regime. The petition was signed by more than 2,500 academics, bringing together, in a combination unthinkable only a few months earlier, committed Zionists and avowed anti-Zionists. We gave the floor to several of our authors, who explained why they had signed even though they did not agree with the use of the word apartheid. The following text is intended to explain why such a characterization is historically and politically inappropriate, counter-productive and the fruit of an absolutely impracticable analogy, unless one wishes to discredit the history and very existence of Zionism in bad faith.

History
“A Land without a People for a People without a Land”

Did the early Zionists really believe that Palestine was a deserted, uninhabited land? For some, that’s what the phrase ‘a land without a people for a people without a land’ implies. Tracing the origins and use of this phrase, Diana Muir shows that to do so would be both to put Zionism on trial and to evacuate the question of the construction of Palestinian national identity.

History
Hayot Adam (“wild beasts in human form”), a cry against humanity

In the aftermath of the October 7 attack, the expression “hayot adam,” used by several Israeli leaders to describe Hamas terrorists, shocked the public and stirred controversy. Variously translated as “animals,” “wild beasts,” and “human animals,” the phrase is striking for its symbolic violence and, for those sensitive to the resonances of the Hebrew language, for the echoes it finds in biblical and rabbinic texts. David Lemler undertakes an archaeology of this problematic term, drawing on the memory of pogroms and Nazism as well as the deeper roots of the representation of the non-Jew in traditional sources.

Politics
“Never again!” a genealogy

What is the “it” whose repetition the slogan “Never again” seeks to ward off? At a time when the use of this phrase is becoming commonplace, to the point where some are turning it against the State of Israel, Danny Trom traces its genesis, beyond the reference to the Holocaust. Questioning the way in which Zionist pioneers appropriated the story of the fortress of Masada’s heroic resistance to the Roman legions, he sheds light on how the slogan relates to the Jewish condition, and how it can still inform our perspective on the current situation.

Politics
Anti-Zionism: a realistic option?

“We have to differentiate between anti-Zionism and antisemitism”, say those who don’t like being called antisemitic. On the face of it, there’s nothing foolish about this demand: it’s necessary to distinguish between legitimate criticism of the Jewish state and dubious feelings towards Jews. But is it really necessary to invent a specific word for this criticism? Philosopher Julia Christ traces the various possible uses of the notion of “anti-Zionism” and asks under what conditions, and in what context, criticism of the State of Israel can legitimately be called anti-Zionist. This brief analysis of state criticism and its modalities provides a clearer picture of when anti-Zionism is just another word for antisemitism.

With the support of:

Thanks to the Paris office of the Heinrich Böll Foundation for their cooperation in the design of the magazine’s website.