Eichmann and Netanyahu in Jerusalem: Arendt and Thinking Justice for the Other

The coexistence of the self and the other as/remaining “completely other” has been one of the

most debated issues by philosophers, especially during the 20th century. Jewish philosophers, due

to their existence as other in European and Anglo-American societies for centuries, considered the

issue of self and other as the fundamental problem of morality and never dropped it from their

agendas. Although significant names such as Rozensweig, Buber, Arendt, and Levinas agreed to

think about the moral dimension of human relations regarding the problem of otherness, their

perspectives were quite different. This difference was also reflected in their political stances, and

their views on Israel and its official ideology, nationalist Zionism, diverged significantly. Arendt

advocated an anti-nationalist and leftist type of Zionism. She believed a two-nation, equal state

would be established in Palestine before World War II. However, Israel preferred to continue its

presence in the region as a colonial and invasive entity.

Arendt followed the developments closely and criticized the embodiment of Zionism in a

nationalist and imperialist Israel at every opportunity. These criticisms put her in a “suspicious”

position among Jewish thinkers. However, after the publication of Eichmann in Jerusalem: A

Report on the Banality of Evil, in which she wrote her observations about the process of

Eichmann, the mentor of the “Final Solution” plan that was presented to Hitler as a detailed report

on the need to destroy the Jews en masse and put into practice, was captured in Argentina in 1960

and tried in Jerusalem, Arendt became the focus of an intellectual lynching attempt. This situation

did not cause the philosopher to back down, and eventually, it strengthened the philosophical basis

of her criticism. She re-evaluated the writings of the architects of Zionism, such as Herzl, and

closely followed the policies of Israel. According to her, the Israeli state was both completely

losing the legitimacy of its own existence by usurping the Palestinian people’s freedom of self-

determination and keeping its own people in line with the basic weapon of totalitarian structures,

i.e. the horror. The claim of endless anti-Semitism and tribal nationalism that was constantly fed

ensured the continuation of this fear. My aim in this talk is to shed light on the course of Arendt’s

critique of Zionism and to underline her moral and political approach that did not sacrifice her

intellectual responsibility to tribal concerns. To this end, I will subject Arendt’s works and the

studies conducted in the secondary literature on her critique of Zionism to a critical reading. With

this, I aim to reach two conclusions. The first is to criticize philosophers such as Habermas and

Benhabib, who cannot condemn the ongoing genocide and occupation that was launched,

especially after October 7, and cannot get rid of bias. The second conclusion that the talk aims to

reach is about the historical significance of the blockade of Gaza. The Netanyahu government is

not only turning Palestinians’ lives into hell with its policies before and after October 7. It is also

condemning its own society to endless chaos, and by carrying the war to neighboring countries, it

is becoming the primary source of instability in the region. Experts point out that it is impossible

for Israel to last long with these policies, and scenarios of a two-state or two-nation egalitarian

state governing the region are being discussed separately. At this juncture, I contend that Arendt's

critique of Zionism holds the potential to profoundly inform the efforts of both societies to realize

self-determination while preserving their commitments to justice, security, and stability.