Nihilism is often described as ‘a philosophy of rejection, rejection, or rejection of some or all aspects of thought or life’ [Craig, Edward, ed. 1998. “Nihilism.” In the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge]. It has been interpreted from its earliest days as a complete disregard for all forms of authority – whether that authority be God, a sovereign, or a moral code. Specifically, the concept of nihilism emphasized the link between authority and the power of translation, political supremacy, and hermeneutic ability. My article attempts to present both conceptual history and its implications for current theory. While introducing key strategic objectives – investigated by a team of researchers under my direction at the Jerusalem Van Leer Institute in 2010 and half of 2011 – I hope to clarify what makes this concept relevant to a younger generation of critics and scholars. As shown in this article, conceptual history has always marked the limits of formal analysis, that is, it reflects the boundaries of political discourse and marks those of its ‘outsiders’, dissidents or those who create a hypothetical threat beyond the core of political rhetoric. In short, nihilism is where any discussion about ‘the limits of political analysis’ should begin. My article shows – at the same time from a broader perspective on the history and diminished reality of Israel – that nihilism is closely related to the time of stasis (political disability or suspension), on the other hand, and in an attempt to open up new hermeneutics. of effective and effective analysis, from outside the common political language, to another.