Even in the community forum, there are concerning tendencies that are all too familiar from the development of discussion culture in social networks. There is an emotional polarization happening that does not promote critical reflection, but rather suspends it. It is understandable that the community editorial team is trying to counteract this, but censorship in the form of deactivating the comment function is usually the wrong or at least suboptimal approach.
Let’s open up the debate that should not be led under the names of Judith Butler and Yuval Harari. Perhaps we can succeed in showing that it is possible to discuss it rationally.
Ich möchte mit zwei Gedanken zu Butler und Harari die hoffentlich entstehende Diskussion einleiten. Dabei möchte ich betonen, dass dies lediglich ein von mir vorgeschlagener Einstieg ist und keine festgelegte Meinung darstellt.
The philosopher demonstrates that it is possible to argue morally without falling into double standards. Allowing, and even confessing, emotional involvement does not negate intellectual universalism. This is how a morally-based politics could look, the opposite of German foreign policy. However, I also draw a conclusion from Butler that can be read as an antithesis. Because appealing to universal emotional involvement initially only leads to a paralyzing lamentation about the pitiful state of the world. Butler does not want that, but how can politics be made from moral outrage? Experience shows that this usually goes wrong. The crucial point, addressed by Butler herself, is the analytical question of why things are the way they are. To do this, one must detach from the emotional level. Only reason can find a way out of self-imposed doom. These two ongoing wars, in Ukraine and the Middle East, demonstrate the inability to find solutions as long as one seeks culprits and punishment.
Harari cannot be accused of conscious one-sidedness; he certainly strives for a „fair“ solution. However, unlike Butler, he is unable to step out of his Israeli perspective and assess the situation more objectively. This is because he assumes a symmetry that is unreal. There are not two parties on equal footing here, not even a confrontation between David and Goliath; Goliath has free reign while David is restrained. If there is a subject in this conflict, it is the Israeli side. They bear the primary responsibility for finding a path to peace.