אחווה ביקורתית, תחושת שייכות כלפי מי שהצביע אחרת

The article discusses the concept of "brotherhood" (אחווה) in the public discourse in Israel, arguing that it has been overshadowed by hostility, suspicion, and generalizations. It posits that political opponents are increasingly viewed as enemies, and criticism is perceived as betrayal, with individuals judged by their group affiliation rather than their actions. The author suggests that the biblical story of Cain and Abel highlights that biological kinship or tribal identity does not guarantee moral responsibility. The piece critiques the superficial use of "unity" as a political tool, especially when it aims to silence dissent and maintain existing power structures. Drawing on the ideas of philosopher Avishai Margalit, the article proposes a "critical brotherhood", a sense of responsibility towards others that is not conditional on agreement. This concept emphasizes recognizing the humanity of the other, even when disagreeing with their views or condemning their actions, distinguishing between rejecting a stance and rejecting a person's inherent worth.

Social psychologist Yair Halperin's research on the mechanisms of intergroup hatred, such as generalizing the 'other' into a uniform category and attributing negative traits to their inherent character, is presented as a counterpoint. Critical brotherhood, conversely, involves acknowledging individual complexity, understanding actions within their context, and seeking factual information over imagined stereotypes. This approach requires resisting the asymmetry of explaining one's own group's wrongdoings by circumstances while attributing the other's to inherent bad character.

The article further explores brotherhood as a principle of "non-abandonment" (אי-הפקרה), citing Albert Camus's "The Plague" and Emmanuel Levinas's philosophy. This principle suggests that responsibility towards others precedes agreement or belonging, and that responsibility can, in turn, establish brotherhood. The failure of the state to protect its citizens on October 7th is presented as a breach of this fundamental civil contract, making the return of hostages a supreme moral obligation rather than a strategic calculation. The article also acknowledges the exceptional acts of brotherhood shown by citizens, including Arab citizens, on October 7th, but stresses that this should translate into civil equality in routine times. The true test lies in whether this sense of partnership is institutionalized and ensures full civil status for all, including those beyond the immediate in-group, while maintaining the crucial moral distinction between combatants and non-combatants, even in war.