Europe
Habermas: Getting rid of the Holocaust, embracing colonialism
Following Jürgen Habermas’s passing, faz republished the article he wrote as a student in 1953, titled “Thinking with Heidegger against Heidegger,” which made him “famous overnight.”
How could a thinker like Martin Heidegger (whose Being and Time, according to Habermas, was the most significant philosophical event since Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit) stoop to Nazism and fall prey to such blatant primitivism?
In essence, Habermas posited that Heidegger aligned himself with Nazism because he unburdened himself of “rational” and Christian counterweights, rather than viewing his own philosophy—anti-decadent, an escape from the mass man, an “elegy to the forgetting of being”—as the continuation of a specific trajectory. The concepts that the “last modern philosopher” appropriated from Heidegger’s toolkit (the resemblance between the Husserl-inspired concept of Lebenswelt—lifeworld—and Dasein is evident) indicate, in my view, that his dialogue with this Nazi-existentialist was profoundly more positive and deeply rooted. But let us set that aside: according to Habermas, the fundamental flaw in Heidegger—which culminated in the Holocaust—was his lack of “reason” as a counterweight; for the issues he highlighted (the dominion of “technique,” the impending re-emergence of “being” in Europe, etc.) were not entirely misplaced. Heidegger’s ultimate failing was his antipathy toward the Enlightenment and the West.
Over time, these dichotomies in Habermas’s thought, inherited from liberalism, would calcify into a closed system where no alternative to liberalism could even be conceived. On one side stood the “system” dominated by money and power, and on the other, the lifeworld forming the bedrock of communicative action; on one side lay law and institutions as “fact,” and on the other, the “norms” that determined them—this was the truth of the modern world.
Tellingly: Habermas also formulaicized Marx’s discussion of value in Capital at this juncture, resorting to the oversimplification of presenting use-value as “essence” and exchange-value as “appearance.” However, just as the separation of politics and economics in bourgeois society was not a mere essence-appearance duality, the value examined by Marx actually manifests itself through necessary forms of appearance as the analysis deepens. In other words, Habermas grasps the theory of value rather perfunctorily and, truthfully, puts forth a model concerning the separation between state and civil society that is even more regressive and impermeable than Hegel’s, thereby imprisoning truth itself within a nonexistent dichotomy. He loses the necessary forms of appearance of the essence in bourgeois society (for instance, exchange-value as the necessary form of appearance of value, money as its necessary form of appearance, price as its necessary form of appearance, …) within the analytical chasm between essence and appearance.
While the ostensible distance between facts and norms is severed in thought, in reality, this is accompanied by the total alienation of the “people” from, say, economic decision-making processes. The mammoth bureaucratic machinery of the European Union and the surging power of technocracy and modern central banks, where economic policy is “depoliticized,” correspond exactly to this process.
The “post-national consensus” embodied the European “lifeworld” within the EU against both the march of finance and waves of migration, echoing (as Perry Anderson noted) Karl Polanyi’s narrative in The Great Transformation. In his book Eurowhiteness, Hans Kundnani points out that the EU is less a post-national endeavor than a post-imperial construct, and that nationalism, rather than being transcended, is reproduced as a pan-European regionalism.(1) Conceding the impossibility of Kant’s world federation and perpetual peace, Habermas thus assumed the mantle of elevating Europe’s “domestic policy” into a set of “global values.”
This frantic defense of bourgeois society against fascism, and particularly against Carl Schmitt, was ultimately a middle path arrayed against “all extremes” (even against the “fascism” of the extra-parliamentary left during the ’68 protests!). Habermas, who in 1953 was somehow capable of tracing the imprints of Nazism within Western thought, eventually ended up reproducing the very colonial mindset that had filtered down from the era of liberal imperialism to culminate in Nazism, all in an effort to “exonerate” that same Western thought from Nazism. By now, Holocaust memorials were being erected across Germany and Europe, and the fight against antisemitism was morphing into a (belated) European value; yet, the vibrant spirit of the anti-fascist struggle and the heroes of the war against the final iteration of German colonialism within Europe were being relegated to oblivion.
While “German responsibility” had long mandated silence regarding the annihilation of the Jews after the war, the tables suddenly turned, and the anti-fascist resistance across Germany, Europe, and the Soviet Union became equatable with Nazism through the sleight of equating hands. Tell me, wasn’t Habermas objecting to the “relativization” of Nazism while simultaneously trading away the Holocaust to acquire colonialism? Ernst Nolte’s narrative, which framed Nazism as a reaction to Bolshevism, was staging a grand comeback, planting itself right at the epicenter of the German psyche.
We heralded its arrival above; now let us fast-forward the tape and arrive at Habermas’s most monumental political intervention: the renowned Historikerstreit, or the “historians’ dispute,” which defined the latter half of the 1980s.
In short, according to the historian Ernst Nolte—known to be quite close to CDU Chancellor Helmut Kohl—the Holocaust was, in fact, a response to the “massacres” perpetrated by the Bolsheviks following the October Revolution: race extermination countering class extermination. The annihilation of the Jews was essentially the byproduct of a broader, (ideological) world war spread across vast fronts, with Germany on one side and the Soviet Union on the other.
Habermas vehemently contested this thesis. By relativizing the Holocaust as “just another one of the 20th century’s massacres,” Nolte was downplaying Germany’s role in the genocide, emboldening German nationalism, and derailing the country from its goal of European integration. This, in turn, would pave the way for the resurgence of the “German question.”
Yet, during that very same period, Ronald Reagan, visiting West Germany at Kohl’s behest, toured the Waffen-SS cemetery in Bitburg, audacious enough to declare that it was no different from visiting Auschwitz and that those German soldiers were as much victims of Hitler as the Jews themselves!
Today, the Historikerstreit and Habermas’s intervention remain of critical importance in the formation of various laws and formal or informal codes regarding this issue. Under Section 130 of the German Criminal Code, which regulates the crime of inciting hatred against a segment of the population (Volksverhetzung), it is currently a criminal offense not merely to deny the Holocaust, but also to “trivialize” (verharmlosen) it. Beyond the juridical realm, this stricture has effectively circumscribed nearly the entirety of the German intellectual sphere and public opinion. As officially formulated by Christoph Heusgen, once an advisor to Angela Merkel, Israel’s security is deemed Staatsräson—that is, “reason of state”—for Germany. The existence and security of Israel occupy a highly exceptional position on the roster of Germany’s “national interests.”
In the infamous text he signed in 2023, Habermas(2)—who could never fathom affixing the label of “genocide” to Israel’s actions—spoke from within the very dungeon he had imprisoned himself in, asserting: “When genocidal intent is attributed to Israel’s actions, standards of judgment are completely lost.” Confronted with the reality in Gaza, the prisoner of liberalism, Habermas, uttered not a single word of protest as norms devoured facts.(3)
Under normal circumstances, the resistance of the Palestinian “lifeworld” against the “system” embodied by Israel ought to have been hailed by Habermas, ought it not? But Marx’s words on the critique of religion draw us a little closer to the truth: The purpose of criticism plucking the imaginary flowers from the chain is not so that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or religious consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. So long as/because Habermas—rightly dubbed the “last modern philosopher” by Le Grand Continent—did not wield his “critique” to shatter the chains, he ultimately began preaching a religious and mystified liberalism solely to defend the very chains forged by Israel (and the EU).(4)
One cannot help but view Perry Anderson’s assessment of Habermas, made back in 2013, as profoundly prophetic: “The result is a theory that discharges the responsibility neither of accurately describing the real world nor of offering critical proposals for a better one.”
(1) Kundnani further writes that the founding nations of the European Economic Community (EEC) possessed colonies even then, exerted every conceivable effort not to lose them, and viewed and utilized the EEC as an anchor for their own post-imperial states. Consequently, from its very inception, the EU has consciously chosen to remain at least “blind” to colonialism (and the decolonization process).
(2) Even more intriguing for our purposes is the ambiguous reference to the Palestinian people as a “Palestinian population” within the text signed by Habermas. Because Palestinians are not deemed a people, they cannot avail themselves of Habermas’s normative rights in the way Israelis can. Refusing to recognize the Indigenous inhabitants as a people endowed with legal rights is quintessential colonial behavior.
(3) In a more recent article, after stating that Trump flouts “international law” and seeks to marginalize domestic opponents through slander, Habermas—evidently unforgetful of the backlash to the aforementioned declaration—cannot resist taking a jab at American university campuses: “The most astonishing and hitherto inexplicably plausible aspect of this insidious yet resolutely pursued power grab is the cowardice of a broadly unresisting civil society; not to mention the propensity for conformity among students and professors who had previously maximized cost-free resistance on their campuses against Israel, the so-called colonial power.” In the same article, he also critiques the German government’s pledge to build Europe’s most powerful military. To his mind, this is a hypocrisy that is merely “rhetorically pro-European”: to avoid hypocrisy, one must accept France’s blueprint for “deeper integration.” The fact that France’s push for this is an attempt to position Europe militarily and economically against the US and China is of no consequence to him. Indeed, immediately following this, he chides the German government for opposing Eurobonds, declaring that “there is no concrete sign that it is taking serious steps to realize a European Union effective in world politics.” Ultimately, Habermas does nothing more than advocate for an even greater concentration of power in Brussels so that the EU might “break away” from the US and amplify its global clout.
(4) I am firmly convinced that Habermas increasingly shares the backward(-looking) reaction that Heidegger and Schmitt harbored toward technique, science, mass culture—in a word, toward “bourgeois civilization.” I believe that Habermas’s scheme to “democratize” Heidegger culminated in a fiasco precisely because both thinkers leveled their critiques of bourgeois society not to break its chains, but to forge them ever stronger.
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has hit back after German Chancellor Friedrich Merz threatened to veto the EU budget unless funding for Ukraine is secured.
Merz said he would block the EU’s seven-year budget if no agreement is reached on financial assistance for Ukraine.
The chancellor’s intervention has angered Central European leaders who are net beneficiaries of EU funds but do not want to take part in the next round of funding to support Ukraine’s war effort.
“What the chancellor is doing is typical blackmail, and I will not bow to it,” Fico told reporters in Bratislava.
Fico spoke alongside his Czech counterpart, Andrej Babiš, whose government has refused to participate in a future loan to Ukraine.
“I do not know why he said this,” Babiš said, referring to Merz’s stance.
Merz wants EU leaders to discuss Ukraine’s financing needs at a summit in Dublin on Friday.
In a letter to European Council President António Costa, who will chair the meeting, obtained by The Guardian, Merz wrote:
“We must maintain our support for Ukraine in its struggle to defend itself. This is our shared vital interest. Yet bilateral aid provided to Ukraine is distributed unevenly, with the burden shouldered mostly by only a few member states.”
The EU agreed last year to provide a €90 billion loan to Ukraine, intended to cover two-thirds of its military and civilian spending for 2026 and 2027.
Since then, however, Russia’s relentless bombardment has placed a heavier financial burden on Kyiv, prompting President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to ask for €70 billion to plug the budget deficit.
The EU has endorsed Zelenskyy’s figures and pledged to find €45 billion. Ukraine’s other allies, such as Britain and Canada, are expected to cover the rest.
Last year, Merz launched an initiative to tap €210 billion in frozen Russian state assets held in the EU, but the plan fell through due to opposition led by Belgium, which holds most of the funds in Brussels.
The €90 billion loan was the backup plan. Having opted out of that loan, Hungary, Slovakia, and Czechia indicated that they would not take part in the next round either.
Bulgaria joined these three member states following the election of Prime Minister Rumen Radev last April.
The question of funding for Ukraine is now spilling over into the fraught negotiations on the 2028-34 EU budget.
Germany, the largest net contributor, wants substantial cuts to the proposed budget and opposes the EU providing generous funding to member states that refuse to contribute to Ukraine’s financial needs.
Merz states in his letter that a “collective commitment without exceptions” is a “fundamental prerequisite” for closing Ukraine’s financing gap and for “discussing other matters, particularly those with financial implications.”
He also notes that, in the context of the EU’s next seven-year budget, known as the Multiannual Financial Framework, all member states must contribute to a “robust” financial perspective for Ukraine from 2028 onwards.
A German government official said:
“For the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) to be successfully concluded, it is vital that all EU member states provide financial support to Ukraine.”
Berlin is also aiming to shift decision-making on funding for Ukraine from unanimity to qualified majority voting, in an effort to prevent a single government from blocking EU decisions.
The letter reflects mounting frustration among the EU’s northern member states, Ukraine’s most generous backers, over lower contributions from other EU countries in Central and Southern Europe.
The task of brokering an agreement on the budget falls to Costa, the former Portuguese prime minister.
Costa wants a deal by the end of the year, ahead of elections in France, Poland, and Italy in 2027 that could complicate the process.
A spokesperson for Costa confirmed receipt of the letter without elaborating on details. “President Costa will dedicate time to the Ukraine issue at the informal European Council meeting in Dublin this week,” the spokesperson said, adding that funding for Ukraine would be addressed at a dedicated summit on the EU budget scheduled for 26-27 November.
The EU expects the next Israeli government to mend its “difficult relationship” with Brussels and adopt a more constructive approach toward Gaza and illegal settlements.
Israeli President Isaac Herzog tasked Gadi Eisenkot, the leader of the anti-Netanyahu bloc, on Sunday with forming a government.
Eisenkot stated that the country faces a “catastrophic diplomatic crisis” as traditional allies begin to reassess their relations with Israel.
Speaking to Rapporteur, several European diplomats stationed in Tel Aviv said they expect ties to get back on track.
“Whatever government comes in, we can try to revitalize relations because Israel is clearly a very important partner,” one European diplomat said, adding that Brussels expects the next administration to be “less aggressive”.
The diplomat noted that relations with Europe are currently “not very good”.
Israel cut off communication with Kaja Kallas, the EU high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, after Rapporteur revealed in June that she had compared Israel to apartheid-era South Africa during a visit to Mexico.
The diplomat stated that this decision, taken ahead of elections, was political in nature. A second European diplomat based in Brussels explained that the announcement came only a few days before an official visit by Dubravka Šuica, the European commissioner for the Mediterranean.
“This could have been interpreted as a tactic to divide Europe, but Israel had asked Kallas to deny the report; she did not do so,” the second diplomat said.
Brussels has repeatedly voiced its frustration with Israel over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the expansion of West Bank settlements.
However, EU governments blocked almost all sanctions proposed by the European Commission.
A third diplomat said opposition parties would “almost certainly take the issue more seriously” when it comes to tackling violence by West Bank settlers:
“We see Palestinians being expelled from their homes and new illegal settlements being built in the West Bank. There is a reluctance on the part of the current government to address this issue, which causes problems in our relations.”
The new government is expected to ease pressure on Palestinians and halt construction of the E1 settlement project, a controversial plan to build settler housing in the West Bank east of Jerusalem.
“They will probably try to deal with the problem of extremist settlers in the West Bank,” the diplomat added.
On Gaza, the diplomat described the situation as “a complete nightmare”, with two million Palestinians crowded into an area that accounts for roughly 35% of the territory.
“There are not enough tents for the winter, and not enough vaccines are reaching the area despite an increase in diseases,” the diplomat said.
The European official argued that Donald Trump’s peace plan met all the conditions for Europe. Although the EU had much to offer, neither the US nor Israel appeared interested in EU involvement in the process.
“We are currently training Palestinian police in the West Bank, and if permitted, we could do the same in Gaza,” the diplomat said.
The diplomat disclosed that Israel had agreed with Šuica that Europe would finance two projects aimed at improving sewage and water infrastructure in Gaza, continuing:
“However, none of these projects has started yet because there is a serious problem with dual-use goods. Getting materials into Gaza is very difficult because the Israelis say they could be misused if they fall into the wrong hands of Hamas.”
Israel insists that Hamas must be disarmed before subsequent phases of Trump’s plan can proceed.
With disarmament unlikely to happen in the near term, the EU argues that certain measures can be carried out in parallel.
“We can begin rebuilding sanitation systems in Gaza. We can start building desalination plants. We can begin providing energy and water to Gaza,” one diplomat said.
While Brussels hopes for progress on Gaza and the West Bank, it maintains that expectations regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state need to be “managed”.
The EU continues to advocate a two-state solution, yet most leading Jewish parties oppose the creation of a Palestinian state.
The diplomat noted that the next Israeli government will likely have “a very slim majority and not much room for manoeuvre”.
There is also a “major misunderstanding” between the EU and Israel that must be addressed. According to the diplomat, Europeans fail to recognize the “psychological impact” of 7 October on Israelis.
“This event changed the country and made the two-state solution even more distant than before,” the diplomat said.
In return, some Israeli politicians believe Europe has betrayed Israel despite what they view as a fight against “Islamist terrorism”.
“Their argument is that European politicians are somewhat afraid of the Muslim population in Europe,” the European diplomat said.
Europe strongly opposes Iran and the possibility of Tehran acquiring nuclear weapons, imposing sanctions in response.
However, the diplomat argued that the EU would not participate in a war because it lacks a common army:
“We are a diplomatic and economic power, which is why we resort to sanctions and diplomacy. The expectation that we would take part in a military operation is unrealistic.”
Germany has threatened to veto the European Union’s joint budget for the 2028-2034 period, which is currently under negotiation, unless every member state commits to providing financial support to Ukraine in 2027 and subsequent years, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned.
According to a report by the Financial Times (FT), Chancellor Merz set out Berlin’s condition for the budget talks in a letter addressed to European Council President António Costa.
In his letter, Merz wrote: “A collective commitment that every single one of us, without exception, will make a fair contribution to closing Ukraine’s budget deficit is an indispensable prerequisite for resolving this budget issue and, in particular, for addressing subsequent matters that carry financial implications.”
The German Chancellor stressed that a formula backed by all member states must be established to provide Ukraine with a reliable, multi-year financial perspective starting from 2028.
Merz also insisted that any agreed solution must cover the interest payments on debts incurred to finance the assistance provided to Kyiv.
Conversely, several countries within the bloc have cut financial aid to Ukraine, and the number of capitals adopting this stance is projected to rise next year.
In December 2025, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic approved the EU’s 90 billion euro loan package for Kyiv only on the condition that they would not contribute to its costs themselves.
Alongside these three countries, Bulgaria has also stated that it does not plan to participate in subsequent financial assistance packages for Ukraine.
In France, far-right leader Marine Le Pen, who could potentially win the presidential election scheduled for spring 2027, recently told the FT that Paris has run out of funds.
Le Pen assessed: “The honest approach is to tell Mr Zelensky clearly, and even warn him: ‘Look, we cannot do more. We have already allocated the 90 billion euro EU loan, in which France’s share amounts to 18 billion euros. 18 billion euros is genuinely a huge amount of money.'”
The EU’s 90 billion euro loan, covering the 2026-2027 period, aims to meet two-thirds of Ukraine’s financing requirements.
Brussels expects the remaining 45 billion euros to be covered by other partners, including Canada, the UK, Norway, Japan, South Korea, and Australia.
Germany remains the largest net contributor to the EU budget.
In contrast, the four Eastern European countries seeking to avoid financing Ukraine rank among the largest net beneficiaries of the bloc’s budget.
Leveraging this balance, Chancellor Merz aims to use his influence in the EU budget negotiations to secure uninterrupted support for Kyiv in 2027 and the years beyond.
According to the FT, Berlin is also demanding that future aid packages be decided by qualified majority voting rather than unanimity, which is required under the current system.
A German government spokesperson told the newspaper:
“The issue of Ukraine’s financial needs must be resolved within the framework of the next EU budget. Financial support for Ukraine from all EU members is decisive for the successful conclusion of the budget talks.”
IRAM expert Oral Toğa assesses Middle East shifts after US vote
Netanyahu Arab party attack triggers crisis over coalition
Fico accuses Merz of blackmail over threat to veto EU budget
US Senate panel seeks records in Trump-linked crypto investigation
Europe ready for arms and missile control talks with Russia, FT says
-
Diplomacy1 week agoSecular dress code dispute exposes deeper Türkiye-Azerbaijan strains
-
Russia2 weeks agoUS and Russia weigh energy deals and corporate return in peace talks
-
Europe6 days agoEU urges citizens to prepare 72-hour survival kits for crises
-
Middle East2 weeks agoUS warns Gulf allies of possible Iran strikes after midterms
-
America2 weeks agoBolsonaro reportedly leaves Brazil on jet linked to scandal-hit firm
-
Asia1 week agoChina expands Africa arms sales, displacing France and Western rivals
-
Europe2 weeks agoEU prepares Ukraine peace mission to Abu Dhabi led by Björn Seibert
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoSteinmeier seeks to de-escalate German-Chinese tensions on visit
