How difficult and even impossible it is, often, in the territorial annexations of a victor," wrote Meinecke in his great work of 1924 dedicated to the reason of State, "to distinguish what is a practical political necessity and what is mere complacency in the increase of power".
For the German historian, the State is an “amphibious” organism, animated by two types of impulses: the “ethical” ones, which are embodied in law and are related to spiritual values, and the other “natural” ones, linked to power. and his gadgets, war above all.
It belongs to the ruler, according to Meinecke, “to coldly and rationally discover the objective interests of the state, trying to free them from all emotional ingredients: for, as Bismarck said, hatred and revenge are bad advisors in politics.”
It is, by the way, a somewhat equivocal vision of the reason of State, where the one who decides is more similar to Machiavelli's Prince than to a democratic government and where his ethical impulse seems destined, fatally, to succumb to "objective interests." of the State”, another at least ambiguous concept.
History teaches us that their different appearances, far from being based on objective elements, are rather rooted in prejudices and biased perceptions, outdated world views and opinionated opinions of that part of the population, sometimes small, who, at a given historical moment and for certain circumstantial reasons, it manages to configure its content.
In particular, pursuing these “objective interests” with wars never served the attacker and seriously harmed the defender and its allies (no one knows this better than Germany).
However, many in Europe are still trapped in this deadly interpretation of reason of state.
So much so that, in comparison, Bismarck's call seems irrefutably progressive;
I wish certain politicians were careful not to fall into the trap of hatred and revenge.
Perhaps it is no coincidence that from the same land of Bismarck, we receive one of the versions of the most audacious and brave reason of state, enunciated by Merkel in 2008, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel, and taken up more once by Scholz in recent months: it is about considering Israel's security as a crucial element of Germany's reason of state (Staatsräzon).
It is not possible to understand this call without referring to the notion of Vergangenheitsbewältigung, one of these extraordinary German compound words imbued with history and rigor, which could be translated as “facing the past”, in the sense of assuming it and trying to work it out through the medium. , among others, of public policies.
This is what all countries should do with their History or, more properly, with the stories of which their past is composed, since all History is marked by struggles and confrontations, repressions and suppressions, forgetfulness and found memories.
This is precisely what Argentina knew how to do when facing its last dictatorship – one of the high points of this process being the Trial of the Juntas of 1985. It is what Italy never achieved in the face of its own fascist past and, on the contrary, yes, achieved in the case of the discrimination experienced by the German population that remained within its confines after the First World War;
It did so, in this case, with legal instruments and strong and memorable institutions, which still accompany a daily and patient exercise of coexistence.
At the level of the European Union, it is beginning, cautiously, to promote shared visions of traumatic events of the past inside and outside its confines (linked to wars, migrations or colonialism), in order to remember them together and find measures of “historical justice.” for the processing of processes, compensation or amnesties.
It is an uphill road and the strengthening of racist far-right parties, some of which have come to power with free elections, clearly shows this.
But it is the only way to consolidate the foundations of real security inside and outside the EU.
The past to which Merkel and Scholz refer is obviously that of Nazism and the Shoah and the attention paid to avoiding its repetition is, according to the prominent journalist John Kempfer, a “moral compass for the German state and society” that commands respect. and admiration (The Guardian, 11/4/2023).
But…how to do it?
I do not want to comment on the “cultural war” that has spread in Germany and the United States between those who, in advance, label any criticism of the Netanyahu government as anti-Semitic and those who, on the contrary, read the Arab-Israeli conflict in light. of the categories of imperialism and colonialism (of Israel and all that support it).
I want to refer rather to the issue of how Germany and Europe as a whole can contribute to Israel's security.
The crucial factor is not the defense of the borders, but the coexistence of peoples: the security of the Israelis is nothing more than the other side of that of the Palestinians, since all security, at a personal and state level, cannot be neither particular (exclusive to one), nor absolute, but has to be based on collaboration, reciprocity, mutual recognition;
It has to encompass containment and compassion in equal measure.
It is impossible to talk about this to the military leaders, but, when they return to their barracks, peace will have to be molded with that mass.