Skip to main content
Log in

Levinas, Israel and the Call to Conscience

  • Published:
Law and Critique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article argues that Gillian Rose’s critique of Levinas’s marriage of political commentary to his thinking on ethics is misplaced in that it fails to identify the nature and essence of his project. I demonstrate that Rose’s complaint rests upon Levinas’s refusal to contextualise his ethics, which she perceives as a betrayal of modernist philosophy. I reject this analysis and demonstrate how clearly it misses the mark when she takes Levinas to task for his supposed ‚exoneration’ of Israel. Levinas’s position on Israel is, on an initial superficial reading, ambivalent but within that ambivalence he has clearly identified the gap that exists between Israel as a political entity and Israel as a spiritual community. It is precisely the very diremption, to which Rose takes such exception, that opens up the possibility of calling the state of Israel to moral accountability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amanda Loumansky.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Loumansky, A. Levinas, Israel and the Call to Conscience. Law Critique 16, 181–200 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-005-8374-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-005-8374-z

Keywords

Navigation