The truce between Israel and Hamas, which recent developments suggest may be short-lived, is making for a deplorable spectacle. On both sides, the grim reality of the situation is obscured by boastful proclamations. On the Hamas side, they cry “victory” over a field of ruins and corpses, with utter disregard for the fate of the Gazan population for whom the group has no other agenda than that of martyrdom. On the Israeli side, even as society is moved by the parade of emaciated hostages organized by Hamas, Netanyahu and his allies are rejoicing in the parodies of “solutions” announced with unheard-of levity by President Donald Trump. For a misguided Zionism, any evasion of the Palestinian question is already a victory in itself. Therein lies the secret intelligence that unites the contrasting plans for the future of Gaza: whether the terrorists dig their tunnels again under the feet of destitute civilians, or whether Gaza becomes an ultraliberal paradise for tourists after a forced displacement of its population, it is the political character of the situation that will have been obliterated. Because, on both sides, the aim is to establish a simple balance of power between powers measuring themselves against their capacity for destruction. Faced with this brutal depoliticization of the issues, and their derealization, we wanted to present another depiction of the situation, which cannot be described as a victory for anyone. K. therefore acts as a conduit for a Palestinian voice, that of Ihab Hassan, first published in the American magazine Liberties, who thinks in the only politically viable terms: those of a conflict between two equally just national claims, pointing to the prospect of a two-state solution.
Since this issue seems decidedly devoted to the political question and the difficulties of relating to otherness, we are publishing a reflection on a philosopher who articulated the responsibility involved in confronting the face of the other in its destitution. In his text, Jean-François Rey shows us that Levinas’ thought, far from being confined to the sphere of ethics, has a truly political dimension, which places it where one would not expect it.
Finally, why do some historians of antisemitism absolutely reject any analogy between October 7 and historical anti-Jewish persecution? Matthew Bolton situates this debate, with its far-reaching political implications, on an epistemological level, explaining why “historicists” refuse to conceive of antisemitism as “eternal hatred”. In return, he exposes the flawed nature of their method, which ends up dissolving the very concept of antisemitism by obliterating its historical necessity.
