In the first two or three quarters of his life, he had belonged to that Germany we loved—the Germany of “Dichter und Denker” (poets and thinkers)—only to end his long existence (96 years) on the side of the “Richter und Henker” (judges and executioners). Jürgen Habermas passed away on March 14. He no longer had the time or the strength to declare his support for Operation Epic Fury/Silent Holy City [sic & resic], unleashed by the well-known duo of executioners against the land that gave rise to Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Omar Khayyam, Rumi, Al-Ghazali, Suhrawardi, Al-Razi, Al-Farabi, Mulla Sadra, and… Ali Shariati. Having become a sacred cow of self-righteous but wrong-acting Germany, Habermas, shortly after October 7, 2023, committed an infamous text of unconditional support for the Zionist killers. This ultimate perversion of his own “communicative action” earned him a stinging response from an Iranian sociologist, a professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Asef Bayat, author of extremely creative works on social movements in the Mashreq and the Maghreb. We reproduce it below in lieu of an obituary, as it was first published in New Lines Magazine.-FG, Tlaxcala
Jürgen
Habermas Contradicts His Own Ideas When It Comes to Gaza
One of the world’s
most influential philosophers has weighed in on the war in Gaza. A Middle East
scholar tells him why he’s wrong
Asef Bayat, December 8, 2023
Philosopher Jürgen Habermas (left) and sociologist Asef Bayat (right). (Louisa Gouliamaki/AFP via Getty Images)
Editor’s note: Jürgen Habermas and Asef Bayat are towering global thinkers. Their books have been translated into multiple languages and are taught in universities throughout the world. Habermas is part of the pantheon of the legendary Frankfurt School of critical theory, along with the late Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer and Herbert Marcuse. Yet he is perhaps best known for his ideas about the “public sphere” — a realm where citizens come together to debate matters of general concern and “public opinion” is formed, which he traces back to coffeehouses and literary salons in 18th-century Europe — and as a defender of liberal democracy against its critics on both the left and the right. He is no stranger to the challenge that Bayat poses in this open letter; his very public debates and intellectual battles over many decades have made him a household name in Germany.
Bayat is a sociologist of the contemporary Middle East best known for his concept of “post-Islamism” and for his textured studies of street politics, everyday life and how ordinary people change the Middle East (the subtitle of his 2013 book, “Life as Politics”). Habermas has been widely criticized for his recent statements on the Gaza war, but what distinguishes this open letter is its immanent critique: Bayat sets out to show how Habermas fails to apply his own ideas to the case of Israel-Palestine. It is a critique from within the logic of Habermasian thought. This gives it a force that will — or should — resonate with Habermas and his defenders. It is more of an invitation than a polemic. It is an attempt to engage, and we publish it here in hopes that it will do just that.-New Lines
Dear professor
Habermas,
You may not remember
me, but we met in Egypt in March 1998. You came to the American University in
Cairo as a distinguished visiting professor to engage with the faculty,
students and the public. Everyone was enthusiastic to hear you. Your ideas on
the public sphere, rational dialogue and democratic life were like a breath of
fresh air in a time when Islamists and autocrats in the Middle East were
stifling free expression under the guise of “protecting Islam.” I recall a
pleasant conversation we had on Iran and religious politics over dinner at the
house of a colleague. I tried to convey to you the emergence of a
“post-Islamist” society in Iran, which you later seemed to experience on your
trip to Tehran in 2002, before you spoke about a “post-secular” society in
Europe. We in Cairo saw in your core concepts a great potential for fostering a
transnational public sphere and cross-cultural dialogues. We took to heart the
kernel of your communicative philosophy about how consensus-truth can be
reached through free debate.
Now, some 25 years
later, in Berlin, I read your co-authored “Principles of Solidarity” statement
on the Gaza war with more than a little concern and alarm. The spirit of the
statement broadly admonishes those in Germany who speak out, through statements
or protests, against Israel’s relentless bombardment of Gaza in response to
Hamas’ appalling attacks of Oct. 7. It implies that these criticisms of Israel
are intolerable because support for the state of Israel is a fundamental part
of German political culture, “for which Jewish life and Israel’s right to exist
are central elements worthy of special protection.” The principle of “special
protection” is rooted in Germany’s exceptional history, in the “mass crimes of
the Nazi era.”
It is admirable that
you and your country’s political-intellectual class are adamant about
sustaining the memory of that historic horror so that similar horrors will not
befall the Jews (and I assume, and hope, other peoples). But your formulation
of, and fixation on, German exceptionalism leaves practically no room for
conversation about Israel’s policies and Palestinian rights. When you confound
criticisms of “Israel’s actions” with “antisemitic reactions,” you are
encouraging silence and stifling debate.
As an academic, I am
stunned to learn that in German universities — even within classrooms, which
should be free spaces for discussion and inquiry — almost everyone remains
silent when the subject of Palestine comes up. Newspapers, radio and television
are almost entirely devoid of open and meaningful debate on the subject.
Indeed, scores of people, including Jews who have called for a ceasefire, have
been fired from positions, had their events and awards canceled and been
accused of “antisemitism.” How are people supposed to deliberate about what is
right and what is wrong if they are not allowed to speak freely? What happens
to your celebrated idea of the “public sphere,” “rational dialogue” and
“deliberative democracy”?
The fact is that most
of the critics and protests you admonish never question the principle of
protecting Jewish life — and please do not confuse these rational critics of
the Israeli government with the disgraceful far-right neo-Nazis or other
antisemites who must be vigorously condemned and confronted. Indeed, almost
every statement I have read condemns both Hamas’ atrocities against civilians
in Israel and antisemitism. These critics are not disputing the protection of
Jewish life or Israel’s right to exist. They are disputing the denial of
Palestinian lives and Palestine’s right to exist. And this is something about
which your statement is tragically silent.
There is not a single
reference in the statement to Israel as an occupying power or to Gaza as an
open-air prison. There is nothing about this perverse disparity. This is not to
speak of the everyday erasure of Palestinian life in the occupied West Bank and
east Jerusalem. “Israel’s actions,” which you deem “justified in principle,”
have entailed dropping 6,000 bombs in six days on a defenseless population;
well over 15,000 dead (70% of them women and children); 35,000 injured; 7,000
missing; and 1.7 million displaced — not to mention the cruelty of denying the
population food, water, housing, security and any modicum of dignity. Key
infrastructures of life have vanished.
