Philosopher Omri Boehm: “Opponents are Bothered that I Represent the Enlightenment”

Der Standard/ Interview by Ronald Pohl, May 5, 2024

The Israeli-German thinker gives a “Speech to Europe” on Vienna's Judenplatz on Tuesday. He counters criticism with a reference to Kant.

In his book Radical Universalism, he took the wind out of the sails of overly zealous advocates of identity politics with dazzling arguments. Now the Israeli-German philosopher Omri Boehm has received fierce criticism in advance: He is giving a “speech to Europe” on Tuesday evening on Vienna's Judenplatz. The donation of ideas initiated by IWM and Wiener Festwochen is taking place at an allegedly “inappropriate” location. Ariel Muzicant (former president of the IKG) even spoke of a “wrong speech in the wrong place”. The reason: Boehm unwaveringly advocates the future vision of a binational state of Israel. But what does the universalism he advocates mean?

STANDARD: In your book Radical Universalism, you retell an Old Testament biblical scene with reference to Kant: Abraham basically refuses to sacrifice his son Isaac. The idea of absolute justice ranks even higher than God's omnipotence. Is the idea of universal justice only made visible through disobedience?

Boehm: It is not disobedience that makes the difference. The idea of absolute justice is not revealed through it. Obedience always involves various authorities. Disobedience only becomes possible through another superior authority. If we are disobedient, we are obeying someone. Even if Abraham disobeys God, he obeys an even higher authority. This is above God.

STANDARD: Absolute justice.

Boehm: The question arises as to whether this is still obedience. This is where Immanuel Kant comes into play: If I am autonomous, I obey something unconditional, but not in the sense of an external authority, because I obey the rules that I impose on myself. Kant taught us that only a law that we give ourselves can be absolute. However, this does not mean that I merely follow my subjective will or some whim. By giving myself a law and following the categorical imperative, I am following my own will. That is not obedience.

STANDARD: The general, mediated by personal insight into its necessity?

Boehm: Exactly. The beings that are capable of imposing a law on themselves, namely human beings, possess dignity.

STANDARD: You are giving a “Speech to Europe” in Vienna. How do you manage to create a community of like-minded people on a European level? Of people of good will?

Boehm: The idea of equality is of the utmost importance because of dignity. Equality presupposes that human dignity is inviolable. This applies above all to our basic rights. But thank God we are not all like-minded. When we respect the dignity of others, we do so even and especially when we are not of one mind. If a person thinks something completely different from me, the best way to honor them is to acknowledge the following: Their purposes are very different from mine, but they are considered important by me. This is why the idea of friendship, which I tried to explain in my lecture in Leipzig for European understanding, is crucial: it shows us what it means to consider another person's purposes as important, even if they are not our own. We always respect the views of others up to a certain limit, of course. That limit is reached when the opinion in question violates human dignity. I don't accept that, and that makes an opinion illegitimate.

STANDARD: What does this mean with regard to the withdrawal of the Erste Foundation, which suddenly no longer wants to support your “Speech to Europe”? Because Vienna's Judenplatz now seems “inappropriate” as a venue for the event?

Boehm: You should ask the Erste Foundation that. I would add that if the legitimacy of this speech is called into question, it is not because I am against human dignity, but because I support it. This trend should worry us, I think, especially if we are concerned about Europe amid the rise of the nationalist populist right.

STANDARD: What do you mean by that?

Boehm: People like Ariel Muzicant, who complained that I am introducing post-colonial thinking into the Israeli context, are ill-informed. I am a vocal opponent of postcolonialist thinking, theoretically and in the Israeli-Palestinian context. What seems to bother Muzicant about my position is not my alleged “postcolonialism”, but the fact that, with Kant, I advocate Enlightenment universalism. That is of course legitimate, albeit worrying.

STANDARD: With regard to Israel and future coexistence in the Middle East, you propagate a “realistic binational utopia”. Doesn't this seem more utopian than ever after October 7, 2023 and the expansion of the Gaza war?

Boehm: I understand the doubts and questions of the federal direction, which I support. Since October 7, the situation has become unbearable. But it would be much further from reality to speak of a “two-state solution” today. Or that there is no need for mediation. These two illusions have led us to the current catastrophe. My argument was never just “utopian”, but also “dystopian”: if we don't develop alternatives to the widespread illusions, we will cause a catastrophe. People thought I was exaggerating. They should think again when they now offer the two-state solution or no solution and pretend that this is reasonable or somehow realistic.

STANDARD: And we are currently experiencing this catastrophe?

Boehm: Unfortunately, yes. And it is precisely those who cling to the two-state illusion who are making the catastrophe worse by still not calling for a ceasefire. Those who are interested in a political, not a military solution, must begin to steer the talks on two-statehood in the direction of a federation.

STANDARD: What do you do with all the potential partners who don't have the slightest interest in Israel's right to exist?

Boehm: Of course Israel's right to exist is beyond question. The question is how to maintain the vision of a democratic Jewish state, even if there is no two-state solution and the majority of the Israeli population is de facto not Jewish. We need to think in terms of a federation - which, by the way, also touches on the issue of Europe. Such a federation should be based on the idea of human dignity. Every national identity, every commitment to it, should be maintained precisely out of respect for human dignity. Precisely because it is indispensable for preserving his dignity. The recognition of national sovereignty cannot be placed at the beginning - and human dignity only added afterwards. That's what both sides are doing today, and it leads to disaster. That is the logic I am trying to break through, also in my “Speech to Europe”.

STANDARD: Does that mean on a concrete level?

Boehm: Who could be the potential partners in such an agreement? Small steps in the right direction could be taken by the Israeli Palestinians, i.e. by Israeli citizens. There are initiatives such as “A Land for All”, in which Jews and Palestinians have been working together for several years. Those organized there are not explicitly against a two-state solution, but they are not repeating the old rhetoric of the Oslo Accords either. The model for such new ideals of thinking is what I am doing with Haifa Republic. The makers of “One Country for All” are very close to my thinking and we are looking forward to working together. How such thinking can be transferred to the West Bank, to Gaza, is really not easy. It was possible to hold such talks in the West Bank - before October 7, of course. It's just much less realistic not to keep these options.

STANDARD: What would you say to skeptics today?

Boehm: Skepticism is based on the mistaken assumption that reality is simple. The situation is very complex, almost impossible, and therefore it is unrealistic to believe that the solution can be simple and familiar. True skeptics are those who question their own assumptions; the “skeptics” here are too often dogmatists who refuse to do so. If they did, they might take positions that are difficult and far-fetched, but more realistic. (Ronald Pohl, 5.5.2024)

The Israeli-German philosopher Omri Boehm (45) - who teaches at the New School for Social Research in New York - was awarded this year's Leipzig Book Prize for European Understanding for his book “Radical Universalism”. On Monday, he will be speaking about Immanuel Kant together with Daniel Kehlmann at the Volkstheater in Vienna under the title “Der bestirnte Himmel über mir” (8pm).