Habermas on Gaza

 In 2023, after the Hamas atrocities & the start of the Gaza war, Habermas & three other German intellectuals published the following statement re. 'Principles of Solidarity'.  

A principle is a 'fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning'. However, whether a principle is applicable in a particular situation depends on the facts of the case as well as the purpose for which it is being applied.

The word 'Solidarity' means- 'unity or agreement of feeling or action, especially among individuals with a common interest; mutual support within a group'. 

One may say that people being attacked are likely to have solidarity more particularly if they can work together to tackle this 'collective action problem'. The same is true of people who wish to attack a particular group. They may ally for particular limited purposes and show a certain amount of solidarity towards each other over the course of the conflict.

Since elderly German pedants were not, as a group, affected in any material way by the Gaza conflict- nor could they affect, in any material way, its outcome- the question arises as to whether this was a case of genuine solidarity or mere moral posturing of a self-aggrandising type. The possibility that this was 'Aumann agreement'- i.e. a consensus based on the facts which thus may have probative value- is ruled out by the following considerations

1) those concerned did not know the facts and were not concerned to discover them. 

2) without knowledge of the facts, the question of what juristic or other norms should be applied remains open. Since agreement is precluded, so is 'Solidarity' as opposed to 'sympathy' or 'concern' or the wish that things might have turned out differently.

I suppose one might say 'these pedants remember a time when Student movement in Germany & America affected political outcomes. Perhaps they have disciples on university campuses who have influence among the rising generation of students and political activists.'

The problem here is that if this is true then there may be a strategic component in what is occurring such that the reactions of these people has been factored in. But, if so, their response needs to acknowledge that possibility. Moreover, it would need to foster an equally strategic alliance. Otherwise, there is no 'Solidarity'. There is merely some ipse dixit, unprincipled, arbitrary assertions.                                                                                                                                                

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.

People being killed don't matter. People, living far away, who talk bollocks for purely narcissistic reasons matter a great deal.  

We believe that amidst all the conflicting views being expressed, there are some principles that should not be disputed.

Even if there is no dispute about principles, there will be disputes as to the facts of the case which in turn determine which principle is applicable.  

They are the basis of a rightly understood solidarity with Israel and Jews in Germany.

Solidarity is solidarity whether 'rightly understood' on not. I rightly understand what it is to give birth to a baby. This does not mean I can or have given birth to a baby. There are people who have given birth who didn't rightly understand what was happening when they gave birth but who became good mothers nevertheless. I 'rightly understand' birth & motherhood but can't be a mother.  Solidarity with Israel would involve shipping them military material and putting diplomatic pressure on the allies of Hamas so as to persuade them to release all the hostages. Solidarity with Jews in Germany might involve helping protect Synagogues & going on marches to the Qatar Embassy demanding the release of the hostages. 

Disapproval of Hamas is not solidarity with Israel. Saying 'anti-Semitism is naughty' is not solidarity. What is it? A way to pass the time; that is all.  

The Hamas massacre with the declared intention of eliminating Jewish life in general has prompted Israel to strike back.

Because it thinks it can win. If it didn't, it might pay to get its people released. As a matter of fact, it is likely to trade some prisoners for hostages. 

How this retaliation, which is justified in principle,

if it can succeed. If it can't, it isn't justified. The facts of the case determine which principle is applicable.  

is carried out is the subject of controversial debate;

meaningless debate unless it features military experts with a profound knowledge of the region 

principles of proportionality,

do not arise if a sovereign power can implement a 'zero tolerance' policy with respect to crimes of murder & kidnap. Here, what matters is whether the matter is justiciable or whether it comes under the rubric of 'political question'. That is a matter for Israeli jurists. The principle of comity of nations applies. There may be jurists or military experts outside Israel whose work Israeli Courts may consider germane.  

the prevention of civilian casualties

by Hamas involves the complete eradication of Hamas. Does it also involve bombing Qatar? Only the Iranians could get away with it. Maybe there's a way to get them to do it.  

and the waging of a war with the prospect of future peace

e.g. the peace that followed the occupation & 'de-Nazification' of Germany?  

must be the guiding principles.

For whom?  Those who deliver pizza in Frankfurt? No. Only those who teach useless shite. 

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.

No. The standard of judgment in the only jurisdiction capable of enforcing it remains the same. 

In particular, Israel’s actions in no way justify anti-Semitic reactions, especially not in Germany.

That is a justiciable matter. It is perfectly legal to be anti-Semitic. Such people are bound to make hay while the Sun shines. Anti-anti-Semites too are welcome to come out to play. 

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.

To be fair, German Jews get even angrier when young girls are raped by asylum seekers. The feeling is Jews can look after themselves. But, if the German public has lost the will to protect its own young people, maybe it is time to think of making Aliyah. 

If Germans won't show solidarity with their own daughters, then that Nation is doomed. 

The democratic ethos of the Federal Republic of Germany, which is orientated towards the obligation to respect human dignity,

especially the dignity of rapists from far away countries 

is linked to a political culture for which Jewish life and Israel’s right to exist

the remedy for that right must be supplied by Israel itself. But, it has to cut its coat according to its cloth. The complicating factor is the American leash on Israel. That is what gives the current situation its game-theoretic complexity.  

are central elements worthy of special protection

what is worthy of special protection is the means to protect. If those means are lost, you can't protect shit. You can merely talk. 

in light of the mass crimes of the Nazi era.

The mass crimes of the Germans are irrelevant. Germany is now part of the comity of Nations. Will it do stupid shit? Probably. But it is what is happening within its own borders- not stuff going down far far away- which matters.  

The commitment to this is fundamental to our political life.

They really aren't. Either Israel prevails or it goes under. If it goes under, there will be a war between one bunch of Muslims & another bunch of Muslims. If it doesn't go under, this will still be the case. Either German political life focuses on solving German collective action problems (& those of the EU) or it doesn't have a political life. It has a bunch of ranters.  

The elementary rights to freedom and physical integrity as well as to protection from racist defamation are indivisible and apply equally to all.

What about the elementary right not to be raped by soi disant 'refugees'?  

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.

Why? If anti-anti-Semites get to roll around in their own shit on the pretext of solidarity with Israel, why shouldn't those they are opposed to do the same on the pretext of solidarity with Gaza?