Europe

Habermas: Getting rid of the Holocaust, embracing colonialism

Published

24.03.2026 13:21

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.

Up Next

Slovenia caps fuel sales, becomes first EU state to introduce rationing

Don't Miss

BBC faces tribunal over Gaza coverage and alleged restrictions on journalists

Erman Çete

Europe

German officials urge fighter jet alliance with Sweden and Spain

Published

20 hours ago

22/10/2026

Harici.com.tr

German Defence Ministry officials have advised Berlin to form a new fighter jet partnership with Sweden and Spain rather than join an existing UK-led consortium.

Internal ministry assessment notes obtained by Politico state that a trilateral arrangement among Germany, Sweden, and Spain represents a “more advantageous and promising” approach than joining the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) run by the UK, Italy, and Japan.

The proposal outlined in the document does not yet represent a final government decision, nor does it contain any indication that German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius has approved the recommendation.

The advice was drafted after Germany’s flagship project with France to build a next-generation fighter jet collapsed in June following years of industrial infighting.

Initiated in 2017 and later joined by Spain, the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) was conceived as a showcase initiative for European defence cooperation. The partnership aimed to develop an aircraft to replace Germany’s Eurofighter fleet starting in 2040.

However, the initiative foundered on disputes over operational control and workshare between France-based Dassault and Germany-based Airbus Defence and Space. Following unsuccessful rescue attempts at the political level, Berlin withdrew from the joint fighter project this year.

UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham raised the prospect of Germany joining GCAP during an 8 October meeting in Berlin with Friedrich Merz. The two leaders agreed that officials should continue discussions.

For Berlin, the choice carries implications that reach far beyond which model its air force will fly. The decision will determine who controls future military technology, which countries secure production contracts, and whether a new European partnership can avoid the frictions that dismantled FCAS.

Ministry assessment keeps distance from UK-partnered GCAP project

The ministry assessment listed several reservations regarding the GCAP project. The report argued that the existing programme focuses on operations beyond Germany’s capability requirements, whereas Berlin needs an aircraft better suited for missions over continental Europe.

The document also noted that German manufacturers would struggle to secure a significant share of development and production work within an already established partnership.

Invoking past experiences with the Eurofighter programme, which was developed in the 1990s and entered service in the early 2000s, the document took direct aim at British defence contractor BAE Systems.

The German Defence Ministry assessment accused BAE Systems of prioritizing exports over the development interests of Germany and Italy, warning that British dominance would prove incompatible with an equal partnership.

By contrast, the document stated that the military requirements of Germany, Sweden, and Spain align closely and that their starting positions are well balanced.

The assessment proposed an industrial partnership between aerospace giant Airbus and Sweden’s Saab, while recommending that the Saab-manufactured Gripen E fighter jet serve as a technological stepping stone until the new aircraft is developed.

The German Defence Ministry declined to comment on the matter. A separate ministry note, however, recorded British efforts to integrate Germany into GCAP as an observer or participant, asking German officials to examine potential industrial roles and military requirements.

An Airbus spokesperson said the company was “generally open to cooperation”, provided that German and Spanish industry secured a “substantial and equal role” across development, production, and operational phases.

“Purely political decisions without an industrial foundation remain insufficient,” the spokesperson said, urging authorities in Berlin and Madrid to clarify the path forward swiftly.

In an interview published in Handelsblatt on Monday, Airbus defence chief Michael Schollhorn pointed to ties with Saab, noting that the two companies have always worked well together.

A Saab spokesperson also indicated that the company is receptive to broad defence cooperation, including in fighter aircraft.

Emphasizing that large-scale collaborative projects are handled at the political level and that participation decisions rest with the respective governments, the spokesperson said: “All questions regarding potential Swedish participation should be directed to the Swedish government. Saab stands ready, as always, to support Sweden’s future fighter aircraft requirements.”

Europe

EU reopens debate on naming envoy for Ukraine talks with Putin

Published

20 hours ago

22/10/2026

Harici.com.tr

The European Union has returned to the idea of appointing an envoy to hold talks on Ukraine with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

According to sources familiar with the matter who spoke to Politico, this search gained fresh momentum following a visit to Russia by Steve Witkoff, the US special envoy.

During his trip, Witkoff proposed to Putin that Russia, the US, and Ukraine hold trilateral talks.

European countries, meanwhile, fear that Washington could accept terms unfavourable to Kyiv in negotiations that exclude them.

Sources speaking to Politico said the names being discussed for the envoy role include European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, European Council President António Costa, and EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas.

Some European diplomats believe Finnish President Alexander Stubb may be the most suitable candidate for the post.

Stubb’s good relations with Trump and Finland’s experience in dealing with Russia are cited among the factors setting him apart.

An unnamed EU diplomat described Stubb as the only European politician so far to have demonstrated senior-level leadership.

Another group of diplomats argues that Costa should lead the talks. European leaders asked Costa during last week’s EU summit in Brussels whether the time had come to speak with Putin.

Politico’s source recounted that exchange: “Costa said no, saying he would not speak to Putin right now. But if we want to play a role in the negotiations, Costa still needs to initiate dialogue with Putin.”

According to an assessment by another source, the European Council president could serve as a more neutral mediator than von der Leyen or Kallas, who are seen as overly focused on supporting Ukraine.

“Three or four people cannot go there with each of us speaking on behalf of the European Union,” one of the sources told the publication. “Ultimately, the choice of who represents the EU must be based on maximum efficiency, not on a personal power struggle or someone’s narcissistic ambitions.”

Politico previously reported in January that the EU was considering appointing a special representative for Ukraine negotiations. At the time, the initiative drew support from several European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.

Putin said he was ready to negotiate with European countries, but asserted that Europe had “no peace agenda” and stood “on the side of war”.

The Russian leader also named former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder as Moscow’s preferred negotiator from Europe.

Kallas ruled out such an appointment, noting that Schröder was “a lobbyist for Russian state companies” and would sit “on both sides of the negotiating table”.

Stubb details obstacles to talks and Oslo diplomatic drive

Finnish President Alexander Stubb said the principal obstacle to ending the war between Russia and Ukraine was the territorial issue.

Stubb took part in talks in Oslo with US envoy Steve Witkoff, who subsequently travelled to Saint Petersburg to meet Vladimir Putin.

As reported by the newspaper Helsingin Sanomat, Stubb stated that advancing the peace process required either bilateral talks between Russia and Ukraine or trilateral negotiations involving the US.

The Finnish president listed the other major items to be addressed within a settlement as US security guarantees for Ukraine and the construction of a new European security architecture after the war ends.

Without stating it outright, Stubb implied that the core issue within this framework was Ukraine’s NATO membership. The Finnish leader pointed to monitoring the ceasefire, establishing the line of contact, ensuring energy and food security, and exchanging prisoners as practical tasks.

Stubb also detailed the talks held in Oslo on 20 October, which included Witkoff, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre.

The discussions, which spanned approximately eight hours across various formats, had three objectives: to lower tensions in public discourse, to convey European and Ukrainian proposals to the US envoy before his visit to Russia, and to determine the next steps toward a peaceful settlement. Stubb announced that these goals had been achieved.

Moscow ready to resume trilateral talks in November

Witkoff met Putin in Saint Petersburg on Wednesday.

Following the meeting, Russian presidential aide Yuriy Ushakov announced that Moscow was prepared to resume trilateral negotiations with the US and Ukraine during the first half of November.

Ushakov also said that the EU and NATO had begun to “take a more serious approach” to Kremlin proposals on Ukraine, adding that “matters” were moving toward an end to the conflict.

Witkoff described the meeting as “constructive”.

Sources told Bloomberg in September that Putin continued to insist the Donetsk region must come fully under Russian control, expressing confidence that the territory would be captured within the next six months.

Putin previously set conditions for ending the war, demanding that Ukraine abandon plans to join NATO, maintain a neutral and non-nuclear status, and that anti-Russian sanctions be lifted.

Europe

Trump midterms calculus halts Israeli strike plan against Iran

Published

2 days ago

21/10/2026

Harici.com.tr

A comprehensive military operation planned by the Israeli military for 10 October did not take place because US President Donald Trump chose to avoid a broad conflict before the 3 November congressional midterm elections.

Preparations had been made on the orders of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for an aerial bombardment meant to last several days, according to a report by the Financial Times citing sources familiar with the matter.

The list of targets included nuclear facilities and locations associated with the Iranian leadership, along with power stations and other civilian infrastructure sites.

The planned strikes were projected to exceed the joint operation launched by the US and Israel in February in terms of intensity.

White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly told the newspaper: “The United States is not going to strike Iran at any point before the midterms.”

Kelly argued that the administration in Tehran was in distress both economically and militarily, adding that the blockade imposed on Iranian ports and US efforts to secure oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz were producing results.

Speaking to the newspaper, one source addressed the possibility of strikes resuming in the coming weeks, saying: “There’s either going to be a deal or a strike.”

The same source reported that Washington aims for a comprehensive settlement that resolves the conflict over both the Strait of Hormuz and the nuclear programme, although it remained unclear whether the US would have participated directly in the cancelled operation.

Another source said the preparations for the operation might have served as leverage to pressure Tehran in negotiations, adding that the final decision on any new military step rests with the US president.

Hegseth reviews updated target list in Israel

An Israeli official said US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth visited Israel on 19 October to meet with Netanyahu and senior representatives.

Another source stated that the Israeli side presented an updated target list to its American counterparts, compiled with fresh intelligence and incorporating civilian infrastructure sites that had not been struck earlier this year.

The Pentagon did not respond to questions regarding the meetings, while Netanyahu’s office and the Israeli military declined to comment.

Despite the postponement of the operation, Trump and Netanyahu continued to issue military warnings to Iran in public.

In a video released on 19 October, Netanyahu addressed Trump, saying: “Donald, you said we need to finish this, and we will finish it together.” Speaking on speakerphone, Trump responded: “You’re a great warrior, and we’re going to prove it very soon.”

These engagements between the leaders coincide with critical election cycles in both countries.

Parliamentary elections in Israel are scheduled for 27 October, one week before the vote in the US.

Most public opinion polls in the country show the opposition bloc holding a narrow lead over Netanyahu’s coalition, though neither side commands a clear majority.

Axios, a US-based news outlet, previously reported that the Pentagon instructed military planners to finalize strike plans against Iran, though the directive specified no date and Trump had not reached a final decision.

On 15 October, CNN reported on plans to use the GBU-43/B munition, known as the “mother of all bombs”, against Iranian nuclear facilities, with US officials who spoke to the broadcaster expressing scepticism about the weapon’s ability to destroy deep bunkers.

While Tehran announced that it remains open to a diplomatic solution, it declared that any potential operation would draw a fierce response.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stressed that if its adversaries chose military conflict, the response would be “much harsher than before”.

Following the joint operation launched by the US and Israel on 28 February, Iran retaliated by striking targets across the region and restricting maritime passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

Although the parties reached an agreement in June covering a ceasefire and negotiations to lift the blockade in the strait, reciprocal strikes between the US and Iran have not ceased.