25.03.26
Editorial Note
Jürgen Habermas, widely regarded as one of the most important social thinkers of the second half of the twentieth century, passed away at the age of 96 on March 14, 2026.
Habermas was the last surviving member of the Frankfurt School, a group of largely Jewish, neo-Marxist intellectuals who fled Nazi Germany and found home in The New School in New York (NSNY). The New School hosted other Frankfurt School luminaries, including Max Horkheimer, the Director of the Institute of Social Research, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse. Unlike his much older Jewish peers, Habermas, a Protestant, did not settle in the United States and spent most of his academic career at the University of Frankfurt. His major opus, the Theory of Communicative Action, postulated that to sustain a democracy, the public discourse needed to be characterized by honesty, reason-driven, and openness to criticism. He occasionally delivered lectures at the New School and had contacts with the new generation of scholars there.
The German philosopher’s iconic status among critical theorists and the New Left lasted until the Hamas attack in Gaza on October 7, 2023. Five days later, he and three other German scholars published a Statement on the online publication Normative Orders of the University of Frankfurt.
The “Principles of Solidarity” expressed solidarity with Israel and Jews in Germany. The statement reads: “ The current situation created by Hamas’ unparalleled atrocity and Israel’s response to it has led to a cascade of moral and political statements and demonstrations. We believe that for all the conflicting views being expressed, there are some principles that should not be disputed. They form the basis of a rightly understood solidarity with Israel and Jews in Germany. The Hamas massacre with the declared intention of destroying Jewish life in general has prompted Israel to retaliate. How this principally justified counter-strike is carried out is the subject of controversial debate; principles of proportionality, the avoidance 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 judgment slip completely when genocidal intentions are attributed to Israeli action. 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 self-image of the Federal Republic of Germany, which is based on 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 coexistence. The elementary rights to freedom and physical integrity as well as to protection from racist defamation are indivisible and apply equally to all. This must also apply to those in our country who have cultivated anti-Semitic affects and convictions behind all kinds of pretexts and now see a welcome opportunity to express them uninhibitedly.”
This statement infuriated some in the New School. James Miller, a Professor of Politics and Liberal Studies there, and an executive editor of the New School’s journal Public Seminar, published an editorial on November 27, 2023. He stated that “Because the resulting open letter is a significant intervention in a fraught public debate, prominently involving members of the philosophy department at The New School, we have decided to bring it to the attention of our readers, and publish as well the full list of signatories. As executive editor of Public Seminar, I also think it crucial to facilitate an informed debate over the very complex questions surrounding how to interpret, and uphold, international laws that both prohibit war crimes and genocide—but also entitle nations to act in self-defense when they are attacked. Read the open letter to the Principles of Solidarity statement, signed by over 100 academics from around the world.”
The academic controversy surrounding Habermas’s statement quickly spread to various media outlets.
The London-based anti-Israel media, the New Arab (Al-Araby Al-Jadeed), founded and funded by Qatar (and run by Azmi Bishara, an ex-member of the Israeli Knesset, wanted in Israel for treason and espionage for Hezbollah), summarized the scholars’ critique: “The passing of Jürgen Habermas, the last titan of the Frankfurt School, marks the end of an era for modern philosophy. While his legacy of ‘Communicative Action’ and ‘Deliberative Democracy’ shaped the late 20th century, his final months were overshadowed by a profound ‘ethical lapse’ that sparked unprecedented division in the global academic community.”
For the New Arab, Habermas et al. were “expressing unconditional support for Israel as a ‘national interest’ of Germany, rooted in the historical responsibility for the Holocaust. This stance triggered a fierce backlash, culminating in a global academic petition signed by hundreds of prominent scholars. They accused him of ‘double standards’ and ‘moral blindness.’ The petitioners dismantled Habermas’s logic, questioning how the philosopher of ‘Universalism’ could ignore decades of occupation and the immense suffering in Gaza. The critique argued that Habermas applied a ‘selective morality,’ categorizing victims based on political leanings rather than universal human dignity. For many in the ‘Global South,’ this was seen as a collapse of Western philosophy into ‘Eurocentrism,’ where the ideals of freedom and dialogue seemingly stop at the borders of the Western world. What do you think of Habermas’s stance on the genocide in Gaza? Share your thoughts in the comments.”
No doubt that Qatar is the culprit here, as Doha has extensive ties to the New School. Qatar’s anti-Israel sentiments have persisted for decades, and Qatar is the largest donor to US campuses. Evidently, social sciences and some law schools in the West, primarily the United States and Great Britain, have adopted a key principle of antisemitism, namely that Jews should be judged by a different standard than others.
It should be seen within a wider picture that the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood and the Shiite Islamic Republic of Iran cultivated a campaign known as “civilizational jihad.” The end goal of this plan is to influence the academy and the civil society, most notably civil rights and humanitarian groups, including the United Nations, to perpetuate the view that Jews and their collective embodiment, Israel, is a bloodthirsty, genocidal society.
At the same time, the “civilizational jihad” makes every effort possible to hide the true nature of the Islamists, be it Hamas or Iran, where recently some thirty thousand civilians were massacred as a result of public protest. To make the point, most of the academy was conspicuously silent about these events.
Habermas advocated for a free, rational, and unfettered discourse, which hardly exists in many Muslim societies, especially in the brutal Islamist theocracy in Iran, where peaceful protest has been brutally suppressed. Those who buy into the “civilizational jihad” against the Jews or keep silent about the wave of antisemitism not seen in the West since the 1930s in Europe should be reminded that Jews have been the proverbial canary in the coalmine. The civilizational jihad’s ultimate goal is to spread many of the Islamist standards within the West to remedy it from perceived moral corruption.
The New School scholars need to be aware of two things: First, both Qatar and Iran have sponsored, trained, and facilitated Hamas’s terrorism infrastructure in Gaza for two decades, culminating in the October 2023 massacre. Second, the accusations against Israel of genocide do not fit the definition of genocide in International Law. Repetition of an accusation does not transform it into a legal fact.
REFERENCES:
15 March at 12:30
The passing of Jürgen Habermas, the last titan of the Frankfurt School, marks the end of an era for modern philosophy. While his legacy of “Communicative Action” and “Deliberative Democracy” shaped the late 20th century, his final months were overshadowed by a profound “ethical lapse” that sparked unprecedented division in the global academic community.
In November 2023, Habermas co-authored a statement titled “Principles of Solidarity,” expressing unconditional support for Israel as a “national interest” of Germany, rooted in the historical responsibility for the Holocaust. This stance triggered a fierce backlash, culminating in a global academic petition signed by hundreds of prominent scholars. They accused him of “double standards” and “moral blindness.”
The petitioners dismantled Habermas’s logic, questioning how the philosopher of “Universalism” could ignore decades of occupation and the immense suffering in Gaza. The critique argued that Habermas applied a “selective morality,” categorising victims based on political leanings rather than universal human dignity. For many in the “Global South,” this was seen as a collapse of Western philosophy into “Eurocentrism,” where the ideals of freedom and dialogue seemingly stop at the borders of the Western world.
What do you think of Habermas’s stance on the genocide in Gaza? Share your thoughts in the comments.
==================================================================================
Jürgen Habermas: Humanist except for the suffering of Palestine
Habermas championed Western rationality but ignored Palestinian suffering, exposing limits of his universalist principles, argues Professor Emad Abdel-Latif
By Emad Abdul-Latif
21 Mar, 2026
One of the most prominent philosophers of recent decades, German thinker Jürgen Habermas (1929–2026), passed away recently. He made significant contributions to philosophy, sociology, communication studies, and political science. He was widely known for his role in developing the German critical school, also known as the Frankfurt School, for founding the Theory of Communicative Action and for advocating rational and free dialogue.
For decades, Habermas was seen as an icon of rationality and enlightenment in the contemporary world. But after his death, debates emerged among Arab intellectuals and academics, particularly regarding his political biases. Central to these discussions was Habermas’s continued support for the occupation of Palestine and his unconditional backing of the Zionist settler war against the Palestinian people, the indigenous population of the land.
His position on the past two years of Gaza’s devastation and siege drew criticism and scrutiny from many thinkers worldwide.
The fundamental question is why a philosopher who dedicated his life to defending democracy, rationality, and free communication would support a settler-colonial occupation founded on historical fabrications and religious myths. Indeed, Israel’s occupation directly contradicts the intellectual project Habermas championed.
It also clashes with other instances in which he adhered to his “principles,” such as his 2021 rejection of the Sheikh Zayed Book Award. After an article in the German magazine Der Spiegel highlighted repression, the denial of freedoms, and the lack of justice in the United Arab Emirates, he refused the award. This stance was seen as evidence of Habermas’s consistency in defending democracy and freedom.
In the case of the Israeli occupation, however, Habermas denied that the war on the people of Gaza constituted genocide, despite the unprecedented scale of the killings, accompanying massacres, war crimes, forced displacement, and starvation. Over 10% of Gaza’s population was killed or injured, and the death toll exceeded 72,000, mostly children, women, and the elderly, according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (16 March 2026).
Some analysts explain this contradiction between Habermas’s stated principles and his political alignment with the settler-colonial occupation of Palestine as a product of the local context of the German elite. For decades, this elite has carried a profound sense of guilt stemming from the Nazi legacy and its crimes against Jews.
Part of contemporary Germany’s attempt to atone for Hitler’s crimes has been unconditional support for the Israeli state, which positioned itself as the official representative of Holocaust victims and their reparations.
Others attribute this stance to the influence of the German pro-Israel lobby over state institutions, to the point where some describe Germany as effectively under a combined U.S.-Israeli tutelage, limiting its autonomy.
This explanation is reinforced by the positions and rhetoric of current German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, which some see as echoing that of convicted war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as by the German government’s repressive policies against Germans opposing the Gaza killings. These policies, in many cases, rival the brutality of authoritarian regimes in what they call the “Third World”.
Beyond these explanations, another interpretation sheds light on the gap between Habermas’s principles and his actions regarding Palestine. This view considers the contradiction not as unique to Habermas or to German thinkers and politicians but as pervasive throughout Western thought historically, with few exceptions.
The reason for this inconsistency is what the author calls “exclusive humanist principles”, where a group adopts values and ethics for its own members but abandons them when dealing with people outside the group. In other words, Western ethics and principles remain universal in discourse only; in practice, they are applied selectively to those recognised as belonging to the in-group and ignored entirely for the “Others”.
The brutal history of colonialism offers stark evidence.
While the French professed fraternity, justice, and equality among citizens in France, they simultaneously annihilated entire populations in the Americas, Africa, and Asia.
Britain portrayed itself as a defender of human rights and minority freedoms while killing millions worldwide to seize wealth, without seeing a contradiction with human rights principles.
This model extends to the modern U.S. empire, which justifies resource plundering under the banner of spreading democracy and free-world values, sending armies to kill and destroy.
Western philosophers, thinkers, and reformers produced tens of thousands of texts on European humanist principles over centuries of colonialism, largely ignoring their application in occupied countries, and those few who noticed faced harsh local criticism.
The concept of exclusive humanist principles applies to all “non-Western” peoples, including non-European residents of Western countries. Even those with citizenship face forms of discrimination and racism contrary to Western humanist ideals.
Right-wing ideologies express this bias overtly, and the U.S. administration’s rhetoric against immigrants exemplifies these selective humanist principles, often justified by myths of European white supremacy and calls for globalising Western culture.
As such, Habermas did not betray his principles by supporting the killing of Palestinians. Rather, he remained faithful to the Western exclusive humanist principles, which only recognise humanity when reflected in the in-group.
Habermas did not advocate for global rationality and democracy or defend free communication worldwide. His defence of these values was limited to the Western sphere; outside it, Western principles do not exist.
Emad Abdul-Latif is Professor of Rhetoric and Discourse Analysis at Qatar University
======================================================
https://www.alquds.com/en/posts/101708
Habermas’s blind loyalty to Zionism.. How did Oct. 7th expose Western political and moral system?
Translation for “Al-Quds” dot com
Opinion Writer
By Alsahabi Al-Majri
The French philosopher and sociologist Raymond Aron says: Many left-wing intellectuals did the same thing as my experience: “They forget for a while imperialism and the colonial reality, remember their origins, and find themselves, to their astonishment, Jews.” This matter was revealed unequivocally in the statement issued by the most important philosophers today, Jurgen Habermas, the philosopher of critical theory and one of the most important philosophers of communicative theory and dialogue ethics, and one of the most influential philosophers currently on the philosophical debate about public space and post-secularism, and one of the symbols of post-modernism.
Today, Habermas reveals that talk about universal values, humanity, and coexistence are nothing but empty slogans when it comes to protecting Israel in the face of what Habermas considered in his statement the brutality of the unprecedented attack launched by Hamas, and that everything that is happening now in Gaza is borne by the resistance alone, and that the Israeli occupation does not bears the burden of the genocide in Gaza while expressing some concern for the fate of the Palestinian population.
Rather, he went further than that, as he considered the democratic spirit of the Federal Republic of Germany to be linked to a political culture that considers Jewish life and the right of the Israeli occupation to exist as two basic elements that deserve special protection, and that adherence to them is essential to our common political life, such that political life cannot be sustained without it, and this approach will continue. When former Chancellor Merkel said that Israel’s security is a “national interest”; she considered that the reason for Germany’s existence was Israel and not the other way around.
It is blind loyalty to Zionism that does not befit someone of Habermas’ stature. We do not find in the statement signed with a German elite of global stature any reference to the genocide in Gaza, but we find in it all possible justifications for this genocide, and all possible legislation in the name of self-defense to kill children, which is fundamentally inconsistent with philosophical thinking.
The guilt complex from the Nazi period is what moved the German political mind towards the Zionist movement, which called for the establishment of a state for the Jews on usurped land. Today, it is once again allied and colluding with a fascist occupation that commits massacres in Gaza to push the Palestinians there to emigrate outside it, and the more the people of the land cling to their land, the more the machine abuses them. The Israeli war, while defending its crimes against civilians in Gaza, are defended by politicians, philosophers, thinkers and intellectuals in the West, ignoring all the human values that they defended in their speeches.
We will discover in the end that this speech is directed only to Western people and that it does not look at the rest, especially the people of the Middle East. However, they are part of that human being. Just as they defended genocide in Fallujah, Iraq, they today defend genocide in Palestine, claiming that Israel’s goal is to achieve peace in the future, since it is a war, as Habermas says in his statement, accompanied by the possibility (not certain) of peace in the future. When was peace achieved under the fire of genocidal cannons?!
The absolute war practiced by the occupation cannot achieve peace, given that it is a brutal war whose goal is to completely crush the other in order to completely nullify his resistance. While realistic war aims to push the other to accept peace and ward off harm. The statement legislates for the first and contradicts the second, and thus it becomes a philosophical discourse that opposes philosophy itself, considering that it is a speech for peace and not for war, whether absolute or realistic. The goal of philosophy is to liberate man from the state of nature, where war of all against all prevails, to the civil state, where peace prevails, which can only be achieved by rejecting hatred. The absolute war practiced by the Israeli occupation is based on absolute hatred for the enemy, while realistic war whose goal is peace ends with hatred, and just as peace replaces war, love replaces hatred. The genocide practiced by the occupation cannot in any way achieve the desired peace, but rather makes exiting from the natural state impossible.
The attack on October 7th on the occupation settlement outposts in the occupied land of Palestine is considered a landmark event that will have major repercussions on the region as a whole and will change the face of future alliances in the world. This event, which represented a huge shock from a military and political perspective, revealed the truth about the positions of the Western powers, led by the United States and the old colonial countries, in absolute support of the Israeli occupation that has occupied Palestine for nearly a hundred years, and the background of this support, which is based on some religious foundations, no matter how some try to deny it. The absolute Western support can be understood from Bush Jr.’s slip of the tongue after the events of September 11 when he spoke of a crusade, and Western support is part of that war and is the motivation for all positions of Western countries. Today we see how the Zionist movement is allied with the extreme right, which dominates most Western governments and controls the Western media, which adopts the Israeli vision of what is happening in Palestine.
What happened in Palestine changed the face of the world and revealed everyone’s true positions, and confirmed that freedom cannot be guided, but rather taken away by force, and that the only option to liberate Palestine is armed resistance inside it and peaceful resistance outside it to liberate the Arab peoples from the internal colonialism crushed by the occupation.
Peaceful popular resistance is the only way for people to liberate themselves from that colonialism. It is not in the interest of the people to engage in armed resistance from which only those with interests can benefit. Perhaps what happened in Syria, Yemen and Libya is evidence of that. Only those loyal to tyranny and neo-colonialism benefited from the movement for liberation from tyranny. It is also not in the interest of the people to destroy the infrastructure of the state, which is in fact the property of the people and not the property of the ruler, no matter who that ruler is. Peaceful resistance, as the spring of 2011 proved, is capable of achieving what is required, but only that the people must not hand over their revolution except to those who deserve it, so that the forces of the counter-revolution do not infiltrate it and contribute to its destruction from within, as happened with the Egyptian revolution and after it the Tunisian revolution. It is a lesson that must be remembered in the upcoming wave of revolutions that are approaching.
The liberation of Palestine inevitably comes with the liberation of the Arab and Islamic peoples from the agents of neocolonialism and from the intellectual elites affiliated with them, who are trying in every way to direct public opinion towards burying the Palestinian issue, and seducing it with imaginary economic gains from normalization with the Israeli occupation, which violates the sanctity of Palestine, while the reality reveals those countries will only turn into a vast market for goods for Israel, as it will remain the sole beneficiary, while the normalizers’ sole goal is to possess more tools for monitoring and abusing their people and to obtain complete American satisfaction, even if their practice is completely inconsistent with all the values that the West defends.
When the interests of the peoples of the region conflict with the interests of Washington, it becomes the greatest supporter of the most repressive regimes in the world, and perhaps recent history bears witness to this in Africa, South America, and the Middle East. How many democratic governments and projects to build a democratic state were aborted with the full blessing of the United States and the Western powers, which falsely claim defending the values of freedom, dignity, and the right of peoples to self-determination, and defending the great lie about the right of peoples to rational and just democratic rule that achieves dignity for peoples and equality before the law, whereby people are transformed from subjects to citizens.
Since the overthrow of the Mosaddegh government in Iran until today, Western powers have been the largest supporter of repressive regimes and tyranny, because this serves their interests in plundering people’s wealth through their local agents. Perhaps the example of France in Niger is the greatest evidence of this, as it was plundering its natural wealth while fully supporting an oppressive rule that impoverished the people and filled the coffers of Paris.
Africa has begun to be liberated from neo-colonialism and liberated from Western hegemony, and the next turn is for the Arab and Islamic countries, whose time has come for their liberation. What happened in Palestine marked the beginning of the liberation of those peoples. The new generation that blessed and supported the resistance is not governed by the ideologies of the dominant regimes and elites. Rather, it does not believe in those elites at all and disbelieves in them and all their imaginary projects for a better future. Rather, they believe that they are an obstacle whose time has come to disappear and set so that a new sun can rise that will pave the way for liberation. Saladin would not have liberated Jerusalem if he had not liberated the surroundings of Palestine from all the rulers who had ties with the Crusaders.
Seven years ago today, Ari Shavit wrote an article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, in which he pointed out that Israel is breathing its last, despite all the propaganda machine and military arrogance. We add that the decline of Israel will be accompanied by the decline of the Orientalist elites and pro-colonial regimes. The time has come when these people die. Their last breath, they have no future, just as they have no present, because normalization does not come from the vision of the people, and the normalized elites use all tools of oppression and arrogance to prevent their people from expressing their position rejecting normalization, but for how long?
The lesson of Palestine revealed that there is no invincible enemy.
The resistance attack revealed the fragility of the occupation, despite all the arrogance with which it deals with the Palestinians and peoples in the region every day. Perhaps the massive support of the Western powers for the occupation is due to the fact that what happened sent them a warning of an existential threat to the occupation and its interests in the region. If only a thousand fighters caused all this, what if that force was in the tens of thousands, ending colonialism from its roots in one day?
The Western support we see today may postpone the inevitable, but it will happen in the end. No matter how much Western countries try to protect the occupation, in the end it will breathe its last, with all the tyrannical regimes in the region. There is no future except for the forces of freedom and dignity.
Source:Arabic Post
====================================================
Luis Fleischman
15 March at 15:38
The publication The New Arab condemned the great thinker Jurgen Habermas , who passed away on Saturday for his “unconditional support “ of Israel . The New Arab is seeking signatures to condemn Habermas . This shows the barbaric and uncivilized nature of the Palestinian and Arab propaganda . It is to this propaganda that a large sector of our academia subscribes, including professors at the New School for Social Research , where Habermas has had tremendous influence . The New School is also my alma matter . I am not proud of the current Academic status of the New School . In fact, I am not proud of Western academia in general . Habermas was an outstanding exception . May his memory be blessed !
================================================================================
13.11.2023
Principles of solidarity. A statement
The current situation created by Hamas’ unparalleled atrocity and Israel’s response to it has led to a cascade of moral and political statements and demonstrations. We believe that for all the conflicting views being expressed, there are some principles that should not be disputed. They form the basis of a rightly understood solidarity with Israel and Jews in Germany.
The Hamas massacre with the declared intention of destroying Jewish life in general has prompted Israel to retaliate. How this principally justified counter-strike is carried out is the subject of controversial debate; principles of proportionality, the avoidance 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 judgment slip completely when genocidal intentions are attributed to Israeli action.
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 self-image of the Federal Republic of Germany, which is based on 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 coexistence. The elementary rights to freedom and physical integrity as well as to protection from racist defamation are indivisible and apply equally to all. This must also apply to those in our country who have cultivated anti-Semitic affects and convictions behind all kinds of pretexts and now see a welcome opportunity to express them uninhibitedly.
Nicole Deitelhoff, Rainer Forst, Klaus Günther and Jürgen Habermas
Principles of solidarity. A statement
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 oriented 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
=========================================================================
We Need to Facilitate Informed Debate about Israel-Palestine
A preface to the open letter in response to “Principles of Solidarity”
Image Credit: Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, October 1914/UAF Abt. 850 Nr. 40
On November 13, the online publication of the Normative Orders research center at Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main posted a statement outlining “Principles of solidarity” with Israel and Jews in Germany. This statement—and particularly a key paragraph—caught the attention of a great many philosophers and friends of critical theory around the world, coming as it did from the Frankfurt School, the home of critical theory, and signed as it was by Jürgen Habermas, long regarded as Europe’s leading public intellectual, as well as by Nicole Deitelhoff, Rainer Forst, and Klaus Günther, all currently affiliated with the Frankfurt School:
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. [Emphasis added.]
A number of philosophers were also concerned about an absence: while key principles of international law are alluded to in this paragraph, the authority of international law—so often contested—is not explicitly affirmed.
Because the resulting open letter is a significant intervention in a fraught public debate, prominently involving members of the philosophy department at The New School, we have decided to bring it to the attention of our readers, and publish as well the full list of signatories.
As executive editor of Public Seminar, I also think it crucial to facilitate an informed debate over the very complex questions surrounding how to interpret, and uphold, international laws that both prohibit war crimes and genocide—but also entitle nations to act in self-defense when they are attacked.
November 22, 2023
Read the open letter to the Principles of Solidarity statement, signed by over 100 academics from around the world.
James Miller is Professor of Politics and Liberal Studies and Faculty Director of the MA in Creative Publishing and Critical Journalism at The New School for Social Research.
James Miller
Professor of Politics and Liberal Studies and Faculty Director of the MA in Creative Publishing and Critical Journalism, New School for Social Research
========================================================================
A Response to “Principles of Solidarity. A Statement”
Human dignity for all
November 22, 2023Public Seminar
We the undersigned are deeply concerned by the statement “Principles of solidarity” published on the website of the Normative Orders research center at Goethe-Universität Frankfurt on 13th November 2023, signed by Nicole Deitelhoff, Rainer Forst, Klaus Günther and Jürgen Habermas.
We join the authors in condemning the killing and taking hostage of Israeli civilians by Hamas on 7th October 2023 and we fully agree with the vital need to protect Jewish life in Germany in the face of rising antisemitism. We also agree with the statement’s grounding of these positions in the respect for human dignity for all people as a central part of the “democratic ethos of the Federal Republic of Germany”.
However, we are deeply troubled by the apparent limits of the solidarity expressed by the authors. The statement’s concern for human dignity is not adequately extended to Palestinian civilians in Gaza who are facing death and destruction. Nor is it applied or extended to Muslims in Germany experiencing rising Islamophobia. Solidarity means that the principle of human dignity must apply to all people. This requires us to recognize and address the suffering of all those affected by an armed conflict.
The statement claims that, “the standards of judgement slip completely when genocidal intentions are attributed to Israel’s actions”. There is ongoing discussion among genocide scholars and legal experts whether the legal standard for genocide has been met. Human rights groups have filed lawsuits alleging genocide at the International Criminal Court and a federal court in the US. Omer Bartov, professor of Holocaust and Genocide studies at Brown University, has recently reminded us: “We know from history that it is crucial to warn of the potential for genocide before it occurs, rather than belatedly condemn it after it has taken place. I think we still have that time.” Showing solidarity and respecting human dignity means that we must heed this warning and not close down the space for debate and reflection about the possibility of genocide. Not all signatories believe that the legal standards for genocide have been met, nevertheless, all agree this is a matter of legitimate debate.
The statement mentions three “guiding principles” for military action: “principles of proportionality, the prevention of civilian casualties and the waging of a war with the prospect for future peace”. We are concerned that there is no mention of upholding international law, which also prohibits war crimes and crimes against humanity such as collective punishment, persecution, and the destruction of civilian infrastructure including schools, hospitals and places of worship. Being guided by principles of international legal standards, solidarity and human dignity compels us to hold all participants in the conflict to this higher standard.
We cannot allow the atrocities to force us to abandon these principles.
- Adam Tooze (Professor of History, Columbia University)
- Samuel Moyn (Professor, Yale University)
- Amia Srinivasan (Professor of Social and Political Theory, University of Oxford)
- Nancy Fraser (Professor of Political and Social Science, New School for Social Research)
- Jay Bernstein (Professor of Philosophy, New School for Social Research)
- Alice Crary (Professor of Philosophy, New School for Social Reserach)
- Juliane Rebentisch (Universität Offenbach/University of Princeton)
- Chandra Talpade Mohanti (Distinguished Professor, Syracuse University)
- Diedrich Diederichsen (Professor for Theory of Contemporary Art, Academy of Fine Arts, Vienna)
- Beate Roessler (Professor of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam)
- Quinn Slobodian (Professor of History, Wellesley College)
- Michael Hardt (Professor, Duke)
- Franco Bifo Berardi (Philosopher, Napoli)
- Frederick Neuhouser (Professor of Philosophy, Columbia University)
- Linda Zerilli (Charles E. Merriam Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science University of Chicago)
- Paul Preciado (Philosopher, Paris)
- Nikhil Pal Singh (Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis and History, Chair of the Department of Social and Cultural Analysis, New York University)
- Dr Scilla Elworthy (Founder, The Business Plan for Peace)
- Rosalind Morris (Professor of Anthropology, Columbia University)
- Albena Azmanova (Professor, University of Kent)
- W. J. T. Mitchell (Professor, University of Chicago)
- Daniel Loick (Associate Professor of Political and Social Philosophy, Universität Amsterdam)
- Steven Klein (Senior Lecturer in Political Theory, King’s College London)
- Robin Celikates (Professor of Philosophy, Freie Universität Berlin
- Esra Özyürek (Professor, University of Cambridge)
- Jeanne Morefield (Associate Professor of Political Theory, University of Oxford)
- Katrin Flikschuh (Professor, London School of Economics and Political Science)
- Melissa Williams (Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto)
- Alison M Jaggar (Emerita Professor of Distinction, University of Colorado Boulder)
- Fumi Okiji (Assistant Professor, UC Berkeley)
- Eli Zaretzky (Professor of History, New School for Social Research)
- Zeynep Gambetti (Associate Professor, Istanbul)
- Bruno Leipold (Fellow, The New Institute)
- Anselm Franke (Professor, University of the Arts Zurich)
- Tobias Müller (Fellow, The New Institute)
- Akwugo Emejulu (Professor, University of Warwick)
- Eva von Redecker (Berlin)
- Maeve McKeown (Assistant Professor of Political Theory, University of Groningen)
- Manuela Bojadžijev (Professor, Humboldt-University)
- Dirk Moses (Spitzer Professor of International Relations, City College of New York)
- William Clare Roberts (Associate Professor of Political Science , McGill University)
- Erin R. Pineda (Phyllis C. Rappaport ’68 New Century Term Assistant Professor of Government, Smith College)
- Alasia Nuti (Senior Lecturer in Political Theory, University of York)
- Henrike Kohpeiß (Postdoc, Free University, Berlin)
- Matthias Lievens (Assistant Professor, Institute of Philosophy, KU Leuven)
- John Smith (Professor Emeritus of Fine Art, University of East London)
- Oreet Ashery (Artist)
- Mason Leaver-Yap (Postgraduate Studies, Glasgow School of Art)
- Eyal Weizman (Professor)
- Angela Dimitrakaki (Art historian and novelist)
- Yaiza Hernández Velázquez (Lecturer, Goldsmiths, University of London)
- Marina Vishmidt (Professor of Art Theory, University of Applied Arts, Vienna)
- Cecile Malaspina (Directrice de programme, College international de philosophie, France)
- Gabriëlle Schleijpen (Artistic director | head of program DAI Roaming Academy)
- Larne Abse Gogarty (Head of History and Theory of Art, Slade School of Fine Art, UCL)
- Peter Osborne (Professor of Modern European Philosophy, Kingston University London)
- Mirjam Müller (Jun.- Professor of Feminist Philosophy, Humboldt University of Berlin
- Charles Esche (Professor, University of the Arts, London)
- Marion Detjen (Bard College Berlin)
- Sultan Doughan (Lecturer, Goldsmiths)
- Claire Bishop (Professor, CUNY Graduate Center)
- David Lloyd (Distinguished Professor of English , University of California, Riverside)
- Alice von Bieberstein (Humboldt Universität zu Berlin)
- Paul Apostolidis (Professor, LSE)
- Aurelia Kalisky (Berlin)
- Maurizio Lazzarato (Philosopher, Paris)
- Alberto Toscano (Professor of Critical Theory, Goldsmiths, University of London / Simon Fraser University)
- Ana Teixeira Pinto (Professor HBK/Dutch Art Institute)
- William Callison (Postdoc, Uppsala University)
- Nadim Khoury (Associate Professor, Inland Norway University of Applied Science)
- Natasha Lennard (Associate Director Critical Journalism, The New School, New York)
- Volkan Çidam (Assist. Prof, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul)
- Jacob Blumenfeld (Fellow, Centre for Social Critique, HU Berlin)
- Anya Topolski (Associate Professor in Political Philosophy, Radboud University)
- Antke Engel (Institute for Queer Theory, Berlin)
- Thomas Locher (Artist)
- Denise Ferreira da Silva (Professor, University of British Columbia)
- Paula Chakravarttu (James Weldon Johnson Associate Professor of Media Studies, New York University)
- Alexi Kukuljevic (Assistant Professor, University of Applied Arts Vienna)
- Giovanna Zapperi (Professor, University of Geneva)
- Frieder Vogelmann (Professor for Epistemology and Theory of Science, University of Freiburg)
- James Cochrane (Emeritus Professor, University of Cape Town)
- Enzo Rossi (Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Amsterdam)
- Siddharth Soni (Research Fellow, University of Cambridge)
- Franz Knappik (Professor of Philosophy, University of Bergen)
- Daniel James (Postdoc, Technische Universität Dresden)
- Eyja Brynjarsdottir (Professor of Philosophy, University of Iceland)
- Hanna Meißner (Professor, Technische Universität Berlin)
- Su Ming Khoo (Associate Professor, University of Galway)
- Timothy Waligore (Associate Professor Political Science, Pace University)
- David Welch (Professor of Political Science, University of Waterloo)
- Giovanni Mascaretti (Postdoc, University of Bergamo)
- Peter J. Verovšek (Assistant Professor, History and Theory of European Integration, University of Groningen)
- Amy Reed-Sandoval (Associate Professor, University of Nevada, Las Vegas)
- John Pringle (Independent Researcher)
- Assel Tutumlu (Associate Professor in Political Science, Near East University)
- Tirdad Zolghadr (Guest professor, University of the Arts Berlin)
- Mathelinda Nabugodi (Lecturer, University College London)
- Doriane Zerka (Assistant Professor, University of Cambridge)
- Sina Kramer (Associate Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies, Loyola Marymount University)
- Chady Seubert (Actress)
- Diana Abbani (Researcher, Forum Transregionale Studien)
- Eddie Bruce-Jones (Professor of Law, SOAS, University of London)
- Vanessa E. Thompson (Assistant Professor, Queen’s University, Canada)
- Thandeka Cochrane (Research Associate, King’s College London)
- Christine Schwöbel-Patel (Professor, Warwick Law School, University of Warwick)
- Lily Crawford (Graduate student, University of Oslo)
- Gerard Delanty (Emeritus Professor of Sociology, University of Sussex, UK)
- Joel Whitebook (The Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research,
Columbia University)
Read a preface to this open letter by James E. Miller, executive editor at Public Seminar
israel-academia-monitor.com 