Category: Pick

  • Reason of state OR constitutional state

    Andreas Engelmann: Über die erstaunliche Rückkehr der Staatsräson im Gewand der Moral [On the astonishing return of reason of state in the guise of morality], Etos, August 22, 2024.

    In their first semester, law students learn something that we have always taken for granted in the Federal Republic of Germany: that the state’s monopoly on the use of force differs from that of a robber baron through the rule of law, through the state’s commitment to justice and the law – and through nothing else. Andreas Engelmann, a professor of law, takes a legal and historical approach to the concept of raison d’état, which dates back to feudal times (Macchiavelli!), and is surprised by its renaissance today. The fact that it appears “in a moral guise” today in connection with Germany’s special obligation to the State of Israel does not change its predatory nature: it legitimizes the fact that state and government interests can be placed above the law, above justice, and even above morality. Without legal constraints, there is nothing to prevent a government from becoming criminal. The anti-Semitism resolutions of the German parliament are only superficially about protecting Jewish life; in fact, they allow the state and politics to place the wishes of the government above the constitution. Using the tool of the resolution, which is supposedly non-binding, the state can avoid judicial review of the enforcement of its interests vis-à-vis individuals and groups. The fact that the state expects citizens to believe that it only wants good is part of the problem. “When dealing with a gang of robbers, you have to prove that you are ‘on the ground’ of the order they have set. What does it mean when the government provides for a check on whether its citizens are ‘on the ground of the constitution’? In a constitutional state, you don’t have to prove anything to the government. Whether this also applies to the Federal Republic of Germany is becoming more doubtful by the day.”

    https://etosmedia.de/politik/ueber-die-erstaunliche-rueckkehr-der-staatsraeson-im-gewand-der-moral/

  • “Just say genocide” – the politics of invitation/disinvitation as a game of institutional self-assurance

    Avgi Saketopoulou, Just Say Genocide: The Problem of Truth Sadism, The Battleground, November 28, 2024.

    For The Battleground, psychoanalyst Avgi Saketopoulou describes her experience with the Sigmund Freud Museum in Vienna, which first invited her for an interview, and then canceled it when she described Israel’s war in Gaza as “genocide.” Why, she asks, does this happen? Why do institutions invite voices of solidarity with Palestine only to then shut them down? For her, this politics of invitation/disinvitation is a symptom of an attempt to deal with the growing cracks and contradictions in the institution’s own narrative about Israel/Palestine by allowing others to bring them up—instead of seriously addressing them oneself—and then rebuking or excluding them with all the power of the institution. For people in solidarity with Palestine, this raises the question of what critical cooperation with such institutions might look like without playing this game of institutional self-assurance.

    https://thebattleground.eu/2024/11/28/just-say-genocide/