The past few weeks have seen growing outrage at the situation in Gaza from representatives from across the European Jewish landscape. Starting off this strong wave of condemnation in April was an open letter signed by 36 members of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, expressing that they cannot “turn a blind eye or remain silent at this renewed loss of life and livelihoods”. Following this letter, which was published independently, after the Board of Deputies did not speak out against Netanyahu’s decision to resume the war in Gaza, as was demanded by the signatories, the Board is now undertaking an investigation into the deputies, with the vice-chair of the international division already having been suspended.
Following on, last week the prominent French rabbi and co-leader of the Liberal Jewish Movement of France Delphine Horvilleur published an op-ed entitled “Gaza/Israel: ‘(Truly) love your neighbor, refuse to stay silent.’” In it, she expressed her dismay at the situation in Gaza, denouncing Israel’s “political rout” and “moral bankruptcy,” while affirming that “the future of the Palestinians and that of Israel are linked.”
And just yesterday the president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany Joseph Schuster has called on the Israeli government to allow aid deliveries into the Gaza strip, saying that “Prime Minister Netanyahu’s cabinet must accept that it also has a responsibility for the civilian population in Gaza”.
This call to action and to “no longer remain silent” that has affected a large part of the European diaspora, to the point of dividing it, has been generally met with two violent injunctions to silence. On the one hand, there was the anti-Zionist condemnation for speaking out too late, which sees this gesture as nothing more than opportunism aimed at rehabilitating oneself: it decrees, as a matter of principle, that these words are null and void, because attachment to Zionism can never be forgotten or forgiven. On the other side, there is the accusation of betraying Israel, of selling out to anti-Zionist world opinion: for supporters of Netanyahu’s hardline stance, any criticism of his warmongering policy, pursued in defiance of international humanitarian law and responsible for the death of Palestinian civilians in unjustifiable numbers, must be silenced, because condemning it would be a breach of loyalty to the Jewish state and would make them “collaborators” with antisemites. This, then, is the panorama of our damaged public debate, where factions seek to silence Jews who condemn what is objectively condemnable.
It is necessary that, from the experience of the Jewish diaspora, a position be heard that both defends the legitimate existence of Israel and uncompromisingly criticizes the policies of its current government. This is a difficult task in the current political climate. It requires that the voice that carries it not allow itself to be silenced by the forces that seek to suppress it. In last week’s editorial, we mentioned the obstacle represented by the extreme left, which holds any lucid and fruitful criticism of Israel hostage, making Jews fear that expressing their condemnation of the Netanyahu government will fuel antisemitism. Ultimately, it is despite the trap of a paradoxical injunction that those who criticize the war waged by Israel, while remaining faithful to the Zionist spirit, must make their voices heard.
Indeed, this “no longer remaining silent” is stated as if it had been preceded by a guilty silence, from which one could only emerge under pressure from external circumstances and has provided ammunition to those who are waiting for the slightest misstep. However, many Jews across Europe have not waited until May 2025 to condemn Netanyahu’s policies. Besides, why should we speak out now? Admittedly, it is unacceptable that the situation of the Gazans is worsening day by day, that the risk of widespread famine caused by the blockade of food aid is growing, and that the specter of ethnic cleansing looms large. But why is this unacceptable to us? Is it because, even though we are deeply committed to Israel, we have decided to join the camp of pure humanism against it, thus offering the world the spectacle of a belated conversion to the universal values of love for one’s neighbor? No, and on this point we at K. believe that there can be no compromise: it is in the name of the Zionist political project itself that this is unacceptable. In other words, criticism of the war in Gaza stems from the same ideal as the constitutional reform sought by Netanyahu and his coalition: they are our enemies from the outset, because under their government, Zionism has been led astray, and Israel is no longer Israel.
This is the trap that readers of K. must avoid at all costs: defending both the legitimate existence of Israel and criticism of its current government, as if this were a contradictory position, a tragic tension between two incompatible demands. In this regard, Delphine Horvilleur has expressed herself clearly for those who are willing to listen: “I will therefore continue to speak out of love for Israel, out of Zionism and out of attachment to the ethics and sacred teachings of Judaism.” If we cannot maintain the profound coherence of this line, if we allow ourselves to be caught up in the internal conflict between loyalty and moral and political demands, we condemn ourselves to remain unheard. Anti-Zionism and the Jewish far right agree on one point: Zionism can only exist as something guilty. To this, we must respond with all necessary clarity, based on the Jewish diaspora experience from which Israel emerged: no, being Zionist does not mean condemning oneself to silence and deafness in the face of the fate of the Palestinians. It is a coherent political position that also requires recognition of the legitimacy of the Palestinian national claim. From this perspective, calls for silence from those who defile the Zionist flag and those who condemn its existence on principle are certainly unpleasant and loud, but they miss their target. This is the position that K. has always held and will continue to hold.
When it comes to thumbing his nose at both anti-Zionism and the Israeli far right, David Lemler’s text elevates this exercise to an art form. His interpretation of Yehuda Halevi’s Kuzari—a text claimed by some to support their “Khazar hypothesis” and by others to justify their religious messianism through the idea of the intrinsic superiority of Judaism—allows him to dismiss both sides as equally deluded by “originariness.” Restoring the paradoxical logic of the text, David Lemler highlights its critical significance: the Khazar utopia allows us to imagine a Jewish politics that is not reduced to reasons of state.
In a completely different vein, that of autobiographical meditation, we are publishing a few excerpts from the book by philosopher François-David Sebbah, His Lives in Africa, which will be published by Éditions Manucius next fall. It explores and reconstructs a Jewish lineage, transposed between France and Algeria, through a fragmentary memory that strives for the fullness of childhood but is irrevocably separated from it.
With the upcoming release of the Eric Heinze’s new book “Coming Clean: The Rise of Critical Theory and the Future of the Left”, published with MIT Press, we are resharing his insightful article, co-authored with Renan Antônio da Silva for K., on Brazilian president Lula’s rabid anti-Zionism, going so far as to compare Israel to Nazi Germany, and the paradoxes facing Brazilian Jews, caught between Scylla and Charybdis.
