In November 2023, four German philosophers, including Jurgen Habermas, posted the following:
‘The current situation created by Hamas‘ extreme atrocity and Israel’s response to it has led to a cascade of moral and political statements and protests. We believe that amidst all the conflicting views being expressed, there are some principles that should not be disputed. They are the basis of a rightly understood solidarity with Israel and Jews in Germany.
The Hamas massacre with the declared intention of eliminating Jewish life in general has prompted Israel to strike back. How this retaliation, which is justified in principle, is carried out is the subject of controversial debate; principles of proportionality, the prevention of civilian casualties and the waging of a war with the prospect of future peace must be the guiding principles. Despite all the concern for the fate of the Palestinian population, however, the standards of judgement slip completely when genocidal intentions are attributed to Israel’s actions.
In particular, Israel’s actions in no way justify anti-Semitic reactions, especially not in Germany. It is intolerable that Jews in Germany are once again exposed to threats to life and limb and have to fear physical violence on the streets. The democratic ethos of the Federal Republic of Germany, which is orientated towards the obligation to respect human dignity, is linked to a political culture for which Jewish life and Israel’s right to exist are central elements worthy of special protection in light of the mass crimes of the Nazi era. The commitment to this is fundamental to our political life. The elementary rights to freedom and physical integrity as well as to protection from racist defamation are indivisible and apply equally to all. All those in our country who have cultivated anti-Semitic sentiments and convictions behind all kinds of pretexts and now see a welcome opportunity to express them uninhibitedly must also abide by this.’
Nicole Deitelhoff, Rainer Forst, Klaus Günther and Jürgen Habermas
If Jurgen Habermas were to die tomorrow this is something like the obituary that the legacy media and the intellectual establishment would write about him:
‘The world of philosophy has lost one of its most profound and influential thinkers with the passing of Jürgen Habermas, who died peacefully at his home in Starnberg, Germany, on 5th August 2024, at the age of 95. A towering figure in contemporary philosophy, Habermas was best known for his contributions to critical theory, discourse ethics, and the concept of the public sphere. His intellectual legacy, spanning over seven decades, has left an indelible mark on social and political thought, shaping the way we understand democracy, communication, and rationality.
Born on 18th June 1929 in Düsseldorf, Germany, Habermas grew up during a turbulent period in European history. The horrors of the Second World War and the moral and political collapse of Nazi Germany profoundly influenced his early thinking. These experiences led him to engage critically with the ideas of the Enlightenment and the promises of modernity, setting the stage for his lifelong project of reconciling reason with the complexities of contemporary society.
Habermas rose to prominence in the 1960s as a member of the Frankfurt School, where he succeeded his mentor, Theodor Adorno. His work, however, marked a departure from traditional critical theory, as he sought to develop a more optimistic and constructive approach. His magnum opus, The Theory of Communicative Action (1981), introduced the concept of communicative rationality, positing that true understanding and social coordination can only emerge through free and equal dialogue. This idea would become the cornerstone of his philosophy, underpinning his vision of deliberative democracy, where citizens engage in rational discourse to shape the policies and institutions that govern their lives.
Habermas’s influence extended far beyond the confines of academic philosophy. His ideas resonated with political theorists, sociologists, legal scholars, and activists, earning him a reputation as one of the most important public intellectuals of his time. His writings on the public sphere, in particular, have become foundational texts in the study of media and communication, highlighting the importance of an open and inclusive arena for public debate in democratic societies.
Throughout his career, Habermas remained committed to the ideals of democracy, human rights, and social justice. He was a vocal critic of authoritarianism, neoliberalism, and the erosion of public discourse in the face of market forces. His defence of the European project, particularly during the financial crises of the early 21st century, reflected his belief in the potential of supranational institutions to uphold the values of solidarity and mutual respect among nations.
However, Habermas was not without his critics. His support for Zionism and his stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict sparked controversy, leading some to question whether his political commitments were always consistent with his philosophical principles. Yet, even his detractors acknowledged the depth of his thought and the sincerity of his convictions.
In addition to his scholarly achievements, Habermas was a dedicated teacher and mentor. He held academic positions at several prestigious institutions, including the University of Frankfurt, the New School for Social Research in New York, and the University of Chicago. His students, many of whom have become prominent thinkers in their own right, remember him as a generous and challenging mentor who inspired them to think critically and independently.
Jürgen Habermas was awarded numerous honours throughout his life, including the Theodor W. Adorno Award, the Holberg International Memorial Prize, and the Erasmus Prize. Despite his fame, he remained a modest and private individual, dedicated to his family and his work.
He is survived by his wife, Ute, and their two children, Rebekka and Tilmann. The philosophical community, along with countless others who have been touched by his ideas, mourns the loss of a brilliant mind and a compassionate spirit. Habermas’s work will continue to inspire future generations, reminding us of the enduring importance of reason, dialogue, and the pursuit of a just society.’
What they will miss out tells us everything about the cover up of Habermas’s betrayal of the ideals of western philosophy. However, those who can claim to be true intellectuals untouched by establishment censorship have a different version. One that updates and reconsiders in the light of Habermas’s desire to abandon his universality by siding with the barbarism of Israel against Palestinians. The following has been rewritten and originally published in Reset Dialogues.
The statement issued by Nicole Deitelhoff, Rainer Forst, Klaus Günther, and Jürgen Habermas (above) in defence of Israel, which failed to distinguish between the Israeli authority and its people, similarly failed to differentiate between Hamas and the Palestinian people. This lack of distinction led to victims being portrayed as criminals and criminals as victims. Those who work in philosophy in many countries and have been particularly inspired by the writings of Habermas and Forst in critical theory and their new promises for the project of human emancipation, have been deeply disappointed and frustrated by the above statement.
The statement lacked justice and solidarity towards the Palestinian people. It failed to uphold the principles of solidarity, despite the title of the statement. Habermas has defended the right of Jews to protect themselves, their right to freedom and physical integrity, and to enjoy human dignity. He has declared that political life in Germany is linked to a political culture that considers Jewish life and Israel’s right to exist as fundamental elements deserving special protection in light of the mass crimes committed against Jews during the Nazi period. But disappointingly, he has neglected to apply the same principles and rights to the Palestinian people.
What is worse is that he did not condemn Israel’s brutal retaliation; instead, he argued that this brutal retaliation is justified in principle and is a subject of controversial discussion, thereby evading condemnation. For you, the killing of 15,271 Palestinians, including 6,403 children and 3,561 women (as of 18 November 2023), is an act that cannot be condemned because it is a controversial topic of discussion. It appears that the colonisation of the lifeworld by instrumental rationality has caused a defect in moral standards that his critical writings have not addressed.
The sensitivity as German people towards anything Jewish, under the burden of a complex of guilt for what the Nazis committed against the Jews is understood. But this sensitivity should also make him aware of human rights violations, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, or he will find himself under the weight of a new guilt for siding with Jewish criminals. The intellectual projects, in which he has worked to inspire, stand as evidence against this statement. This response could be titled “Habermas vs. Habermas,” as Habermas did in his book “Heidegger vs. Heidegger,” to remain faithful to those that have been inspired by in his philosophical projects.
In his statement, he condemned Hamas’ intention to eliminate the Jews, but did not condemn the statements of Israeli ministers from the extreme right, who describe the Palestinians as wild animals, nor those who call for their extermination with a nuclear bomb. There are parties in Israel whose slogan is “Israel from the River to the Sea,” which is an explicit call for the annihilation and displacement of the Palestinian people. The statement did not mention a single word about the occupation, its crimes, or the Palestinians’ right to their own state, as if this conflict had only begun on 7 October. The statement did not address the settlements being established in Palestinian territories or the ongoing violations and murders committed by settlers against Palestinians, which continue to this day.
Let us be unequivocally clear: if Israel has the right to defend itself, then the Palestinians have the right to resist the occupation, as recognised by international law. With the same clarity, we must all condemn the killing of civilians on both sides and insist that crimes committed against civilians must stop immediately. If solidarity campaigns are to be genuine, they must demand an immediate ceasefire and a political process based on the adoption of a two-state solution.
How Habermas has betrayed western philosophy
Jürgen Habermas, who at the time of writing is still alive, is one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th and 21st centuries. He is known for his extensive contributions to critical theory, discourse ethics, and the concept of the public sphere. His work has shaped contemporary social and political thought, particularly in the context of democracy, communicative action, and rational discourse. However, Habermas’s position on Zionism, Israel, and the broader Middle Eastern conflict has sparked considerable debate, leading some to argue that his stance represents a betrayal of his philosophical principles.
To understand the critique, it is essential first to grasp the philosophical foundations of Habermas’s work. Central to his thought is the idea of communicative rationality, where truth emerges from the free and uncoerced exchange of ideas. Habermas envisions a “public sphere” where individuals engage in rational discourse, free from domination and power imbalances, to arrive at consensus and mutual understanding. His emphasis on deliberative democracy rests on the belief that through rational dialogue, societies can resolve conflicts and achieve social justice.
Habermas’s commitment to these ideals is rooted in his broader philosophical project, which seeks to reconcile the Enlightenment’s emancipatory promise with the realities of modernity. He has consistently advocated for the importance of universal human rights, democratic governance, and the rule of law, all of which are underpinned by his belief in the power of rational discourse.
Habermas’s stance on Zionism and Israel has been historically complex. While he has expressed support for the state of Israel and its right to exist, he has in the past also been critical of some of its policies, particularly in relation to the Palestinian territories. However, his overall support for Zionism, understood as the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in Israel, as we have seen above, has been seen by some as inconsistent with his philosophical commitments.
Critics argue that Zionism, as it has been implemented, involves the exclusion and displacement of Palestinians, which runs counter to the ideals of universal human rights and justice that Habermas espouses. They contend that the creation and maintenance of a Jewish state in a region with a significant non-Jewish population have led to systemic inequalities and a conflict that undermines the possibility of rational, equitable discourse. From this perspective, Habermas’s support for Zionism and his support for Israel’s mass killings of Palestinians in Gaza, appears to betray his commitment to a public sphere where all participants are treated as equals.
The critique that Habermas’s Zionism betrays his philosophy centers on several key points:
- Contradiction in Universalism: Habermas’s philosophy is built on the idea of universalism—the belief that moral principles apply equally to all humans, regardless of nationality, religion, or ethnicity. Critics argue that Zionism, by privileging the Jewish people’s right to self-determination over that of the Palestinians, contradicts this universalist ethic. The preferential treatment of one group over another, particularly in a context of ongoing conflict and occupation, seems at odds with Habermas’s commitment to universal human rights.
- Public Sphere Exclusion: The ideal of the public sphere, as envisioned by Habermas, requires the inclusion of all affected parties in dialogue. However, the reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict involves significant power imbalances and exclusionary practices, particularly towards Palestinians. Critics suggest that Habermas’s support for Zionism overlooks these exclusions, thereby undermining his vision of a genuinely inclusive and rational public discourse.
- Rational Discourse and Power: Habermas has consistently argued that for rational discourse to be meaningful, it must be free from coercion and domination. Yet, the ongoing Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, the unequal power dynamics between Israel and the Palestinians and the mass murder by Israel and their allies challenges the possibility of such discourse. Critics claim that by supporting Israeli Zionism, Habermas is implicitly endorsing a situation where power imbalances prevent genuine dialogue, which contradicts his own philosophical principles.
Those who defend Habermas, argue that his support for Zionism can be understood within the context of his broader commitment to preventing atrocities like the Holocaust, which shaped much of his thinking. Habermas, born in 1929, was deeply affected by the moral and political failures of Nazi Germany, and his support for Israel can be seen as part of a broader commitment to ensuring that the Jewish people have a secure homeland where they can protect themselves from persecution.
Moreover, defenders might argue that Habermas’s support for Israel does not equate to uncritical endorsement of all its policies. His critiques of specific Israeli actions suggest that he remains committed to the principles of justice and human rights, even if his support for Zionism is seen as a pragmatic stance in light of historical injustices against Jews. This though appears to be contradicted by the content of the letter he put his name to at the beginning of this article.
Up until the letter he co signed in November 2023, his defenders may have had some sort of a case. Now though his critics, who argue that Habermas’s Zionism betrays his universalist ethics, the ideal of the public sphere, and the necessity of power-free discourse, all of which are central to his philosophical project, have very much the upper hand. How much of this is due to Habermas carrying around the German holocaust guilt has to be evaluated. However, universality and rational thought cannot be caught up in nationalistic or patriotic sensibilities. By doing so Habermas has betrayed not only his own philosophical theorising but western philosophy generally.
He still has time to ensure that his obituary is credible by re thinking his joint statement and welcoming the Palestinians into the fold. Over to you Jurgen.
KEEP US ALIVE and join us in helping to bring reality and decency back by SUBSCRIBING to our Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ1Ll1ylCg8U19AhNl-NoTg AND SUPPORTING US where you can: Award Winning Independent Citizen Media Needs Your Help. PLEASE SUPPORT US FOR JUST £2 A MONTH https://dorseteye.com/donate/
