Since the creation of K., we have strived to provide a clear-headed analysis, from our European perspective, of Zionism, its historical significance, and its future. However, following the recent Israeli elections, the most “right-wing” coalition the country has ever seen has embarked on an aggressive judicial reform, polarizing Israeli society as never before. Religious Zionism plays an important role in this, permeating even the Likud party, so it is up to us to understand this dangerous shift in all its aspects. For it is the very meaning of Zionism and its product, the State of Israel, that is at stake here. This week, we are therefore presenting the first installment of a new series on religious Zionism, which is set to grow. We spoke about this movement, its origins and its orientations with Yehudah Mirsky, a specialist in the history of Zionist thought. We felt it was necessary to shed light on this issue in order to understand what is currently at stake within Israeli society: without doing so, it is impossible to comprehend the challenges of the battle over the nature of Zionism, or the means to combat the slide that is taking Israel away from modern democratic norms. The dialogue between Yehudah Mirsky and Danny Trom, without glossing over their disagreements, provides an opportunity to take a step back and look at the historical foundations of religious Zionism and the multiplicity of its political expressions, including liberal ones. The contrast between their perspectives highlights the fundamental alternative to which we must return: with the realization of the Zionist national movement in the land of Israel, did modern Jewish politics make use of messianic expectations, or was it the other way around?
Last week, we published the first part of Rafaël Amselem’s investigation into the Brusselmans affair, which shed light on the shortcomings of Belgium’s handling of the fight against antisemitism. After noting that it was possible in Belgium to publicly express fantasies of stabbing Jews in the street without triggering any media, political, or legal backlash, the investigation continues with a deep dive into the inner workings of the Belgian institution responsible for combating discrimination: Unia. In short, what we are talking about is a disappointment: that of Belgian Jews who hoped to find institutional support for their defense but have been left feeling abandoned. Reporting on the confusion affecting Unia’s understanding of antisemitism, and drawing on past cases to question its apparent reluctance to act in the Brusselmans case, Amselem highlights the aporias of a fight against discrimination that proceeds by double standards.
Between the rise of the far right and a background of antisemitism that is never questioned, the atmosphere is heavy for Jews in East Germany. Following the electoral successes of authoritarian and xenophobic parties, Antonia Sternberger questions their ideological roots in the former GDR and how Jewish life is affected. How can one hold fast in a political climate where everyone claims to have learned all the lessons of Nazism and then Soviet dictatorship, yet where ambivalence toward the democratic framework suggests that some would gladly return to the past?
