The shock about the escalation in the Middle East is great, and public discussion is difficult. Hamas’ terrorist attacks are almost unanimously condemned, but this is often followed by a “yes, but…”
How can we still talk about the war in the Middle East? The German-Israeli philosopher Omri Boehm advocates clear words – and the preservation of humanity.
SRF: What went through your mind when you first heard about the brutal Hamas attack?
Omri Boehm: The first reaction was not rational, but physical. It was a state of shock, anger, disgust at what was happening. Thinking came later.
Especially in Western intellectual circles, one quickly hears “Yes, but…” when it comes to the attacks.
Sometimes you just hear the “but”. There is a widespread reluctance to take a clear stand against Hamas. Often even the act itself is condoned.
Legend:
An Israeli citizen in a Hamas-hit building in Tel Aviv.
KEYSTONE/EPA/ABIR SULTAN
Does the need for contextualization come too quickly in the face of acute evil?
I think it is our duty to sort things out quickly. This does not mean contextualizing the unspeakable horror of the Hamas murderers – to justify it or to explain it. Even if we feel that the right response to these horrors is silence, we need to talk about the context in order to address the situation politically and rationally.
Contextualization experiences a kind of scandalization. Isn’t that amazing?
Yes, but we need to understand the meaning of context from the other side too. Israel’s bombing of the Gaza Strip suggests a serious violation of international law. Should we contextualize this or not? Can it be argued that this is a response to Hamas’ actions and that Israel is striking back to protect its citizens? Saying this is important.
The most important political question must be what form of life allows us to live in peace in this place.
On the other hand, this does not justify war crimes, crimes against humanity, or turning off the water in Gaza. This should be absolutely condemned, but only a few do it. I am concerned that European authors and politicians are not demanding that Israel comply with international law.
Why is it so difficult to contextualize?
Anyone who puts Hamas’ actions into context assumes that Israel has no right to bomb them. Conversely, anyone who contextualizes Israel’s actions assumes that Hamas had every right to attack Israel. Both are wrong.
Legend:
Peace is difficult to imagine: destruction in Gaza City after the Israeli attacks.
KEYSTONE/EPA/MOHAMMED SABER
Many people find it difficult not to lose faith in humanity, as writer Thomas Meyer recently said in an interview.
I object to denying Hamas any humanity. We must understand how vile Hamas is and that she is human – that people are capable of such things. I have an obligation to myself to preserve my own humanity.
We should make a clear distinction between fighting Hamas and seeking peace with the Palestinians. Despite all the danger, despite the atrocities of Hamas, a political solution must be sought with the Palestinians. The most important political question must be what form of life allows us to live in peace in this place.
Do you see hope?
I see isolated signs of hope wherever Jews and Palestinians come together and clearly denounce the violations on both sides, for example in Haifa. These people exist.
The interview was conducted by Barbara Bleisch and Wolfram Eilenberger.