Some wars drag on, exhausting the discourse in a long repetition that freezes public attention. Others do not wait for the initial shock to pass or for analyses to stabilize before ending. We had prepared an issue devoted to the war between Israel and Iran, only to discover, on the eve of its publication, that it was already a thing of the past. What we can expect, then, from the articulation of these different voices and perspectives on the war, and from what it has revealed, is—at the time of writing and in the context of a situation that is not immune to possible twists and turns—that the emergence of guidelines around which what has been destabilized could be reconfigured. The first voice, that of K., representing the European point of view, had the advantage of being able to include the ceasefire in its comments. However, this did not significantly alter the meaning of Bruno Karsenti and Danny Trom’s text, since this was precisely what they had hoped for once the Iranian nuclear threat had been averted. In line with their article last week, they question how the suspicion of a militaristic power policy, legitimized in Western opinion by the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza, has become out of step with the unfolding conflict with Iran. What is at stake, then, and what has just been clarified, is the fundamental difference between a war whose objectives are limited to guaranteeing the Zionist promise of a home for the Jews, and a war that has long since gone beyond this principle and can no longer be justified under any circumstances. The question now is whether, in light of this clarification, Israeli society will be able to hold its government accountable in the eyes of the world. To this we can only add a mirrored hope: that Europe, whose inaction towards Iran has allowed an untenable situation to fester, will return to its founding political principles and the responsibilities that flow from them.
The second voice comes from a bombed Israel, but speaks with confidence and clarity. In an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, translated by us, Benny Morris, a leading figure among Israel’s “new historians,” emphasizes the obviousness of war with Iran for large sections of Israeli society and, as a historian, dispels some of the myths surrounding the conflict in the Middle East. What emerges from this Israeli perspective is a clear awareness of what stands in the way of a lasting solution to the conflict and of the facts that the Israelis cannot compromise on.
The third voice is that of Atefe Asadi, an Iranian poet in exile in Hanover, who bears witness to the despair and loneliness of the Iranian people, which the end of the war must not allow us to forget. While we cannot, under any circumstances, agree with the view that the crushing of Iranian sovereignty by the oppressive regime of the Islamic Revolution can be resolved by external military intervention, this does not exempt the Western world—and Europe in particular—from acting in accordance with its principles. For Asadi’s testimony reveals what is absolutely unacceptable: a situation in which the lack of international solidarity has led to Israeli strikes reawakening, in part of the Iranian people, a long-buried hope that is now tainted by ambivalence and humiliation. The flame of freedom still burns in the hearts of Iranians, and it is up to democracies to ensure that their actions and words are consistent so that it is not allowed to be extinguished.
