Hamid Dabashi’s critique—or more accurately, his attack—on Hegel in the article “War on Gaza: How Hegel’s Racist Philosophy Informs European Zionism”[1] represents an emerging trend in certain intellectual circles: dismissing European philosophy as fundamentally racist while advancing exclusionary regional ideologies, often excluding nations like Kurds and Jews by denying their identities and national aspirations. While Dabashi ostensibly raises valid concerns about colonialism and Eurocentrism, his interpretation—or more accurately, his misinterpretation—of Hegel is selective, reductive, and deeply entangled with a postcolonial hostility to the radical Enlightenment tradition embodied by thinkers such as Spinoza, Kant, and Hegel.
Drawing on the more nuanced readings of scholars like Susan Buck-Morss (who is misrepresented by Dabashi in the same article), Shlomo Avineri, and Domenico Losurdo, this response argues that Dabashi distorts Hegel’s philosophy and, in doing so, perpetuates the ideological prejudices embodied by pan-Iranism, pan-Arabism, pan-Turkism, and Islamism. Furthermore, I will explore why Hegel’s thought, as a philosophy of emancipation, holds critical significance for the self-determination of historically oppressed nations, particularly the Jews and Kurds. I begin by discussing how Dabashi misrepresents Hegel’s philosophy to advance his own chauvinistic and antisemitic agenda, while also indirectly exposing his fear toward Hegel as a thinker whose ideas could support both Kurds and Jews in their pursuit of statehood and nationality. Dabashi, an Iranian-American professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature at Columbia University, frequently writes about topics such as Palestine, Israel, Kurdistan, and Iran, consistently intertwining them with Iranian nationalist chauvinism, antisemitism, and antikurdism, all disguised under the facade of progressive leftist ideas—a facade that must be unmasked.
Hegel: A Contextualized Thinker, Not a Colonial Apologist
Susan Buck-Morss: Reinterpreting Hegel’s Universality
It is clear to both Hegel specialists and enthusiasts that Dabashi has likely never engaged with Hegel’s works directly and may have only consulted obscure, outdated texts that are largely unknown. This indicates that he has no meaningful access to contemporary Hegel studies. Furthermore, he references only one recognized Hegel scholar, Susan Buck-Morss, and misrepresents her work to suggest she supports his claim that Hegel was a racist philosopher. Why is this misrepresentation so problematic and dangerous?
Buck-Morss’s Hegel, Haiti, and Universal History[2] offers a critical but constructive approach to Hegel, acknowledging his Eurocentric limitations while emphasizing the revolutionary potential of his dialectical method. Buck-Morss highlights how the Haitian Revolution—an anti-colonial struggle—challenges the Eurocentric narrative embedded in Hegel’s philosophy. She suggests that Hegel’s master-slave dialectic may have been indirectly informed by the global dynamics of slavery, which expose the universal nature of freedom struggles.
Buck-Morss critiques Hegel’s failure to explicitly acknowledge non-European histories, but she also reframes his ideas as tools for deconstructing oppressive systems, including colonialism. This perspective stands in stark contrast to Dabashi’s wholesale dismissal of Hegel as a “chief ideologue of German colonial conquest.” By focusing exclusively on Hegel’s Eurocentric biases, Dabashi ignores the dialectical method’s capacity to critique the very ideologies he associates with it.
Shlomo Avineri and Domenico Losurdo: Hegel’s Critique of Colonialism
Shlomo Avineri and Domenico Losurdo contextualize Hegel within the intellectual currents of his time, showing that his work, while Eurocentric, was not a justification for colonialism or racism. Avineri emphasizes that Hegel’s philosophy of history is not an anthropological dismissal of non-European peoples but a flawed attempt to trace the historical development of freedom. Similarly, Losurdo argues that Hegel condemned the inhumanity of colonial practices and that his dialectical framework allows for a critique of his own Eurocentric assumptions.
Avineri acknowledges that Hegel, like many philosophers of his era, had a limited and often problematic view of non-European cultures. For example, Hegel’s Philosophy of History includes a critique of Africa, which reflects the prejudices common in European intellectual circles at the time. However, Avineri argues that these views should be understood within the historical context of nineteenth-century European thought rather than as a direct endorsement of racism. Hegel’s philosophy, Avineri suggests, should not be reduced to his personal views on race.[3] One of Avineri’s key points is that Hegel’s philosophy, particularly in his notion of Spirit (Geist), is centered around the idea of freedom and self-determination. Hegel saw history as the unfolding of human freedom, with different cultures and states contributing to this development. Avineri contends that Hegel’s conception of freedom, as expressed in his political philosophy, is not racially exclusive. Instead, it is a universal concept that transcends specific ethnic or racial groups.
Another significant Hegel expert is Domenico Losurdo, an Italian Marxist philosopher who emphasizes the importance of understanding Hegel’s views within the historical and intellectual context of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. While Hegel’s Philosophy of History contains Eurocentric and problematic statements about non-European societies, Losurdo argues that these views must be understood as a product of the colonial mindset that was prevalent during Hegel’s era, rather than as an endorsement of colonialism or racism. In this sense, Losurdo does not excuse Hegel’s views, but he stresses that these views were far from being a consistent defense of colonial domination.
Contrary to the claim that Hegel was an apologist for colonialism, Losurdo points out that Hegel criticized European colonial practices in some of his works. In The Philosophy of Right, Hegel discusses the violence of colonialism and slavery, condemning the treatment of indigenous peoples and the system of slavery in the Americas. For example, in his analysis of European imperialism, Hegel recognizes the brutality of the colonial system and slavery, viewing them as violations of human freedom. Losurdo interprets this as Hegel’s critique of European colonial actions, even if Hegel himself did not entirely reject the Eurocentric framework of his time.
As Losurdo notes, in The Lectures on the Philosophy of History Hegel comments favorably on the “recent efforts for the constitution of autonomous States” that had taken place in Latin America. In addition, Hegel’s indirect support for the colonies’ right to revolution emerges from his blunt description of colonial domination: the Spaniards took possession of Latin America “to dominate and grow richer, both through political offices and through oppression. As the motherland upon which they depended was far away, their will could expand widely and freely, and thanks to their strength, ability, and self-confidence, they largely prevailed over the natives. Everything that is noble and magnanimous in their character the Spanish did not carry to America” (Hegel, Die Vernunft in der Geschichte, 201, 205).[4]
Dabashi’s claim, depicting Hegel as a cornerstone of European racism and a defender of colonialism, overlooks nuanced interpretations, lacks proper contextualization of the philosopher, and neglects to directly examine Hegel’s work in relation to the historical events of his time. It conflates Hegel’s philosophical shortcomings with the distortions of his ideas by later thinkers, such as those who used Hegelian concepts to justify imperialism. By reducing Hegel’s philosophy to a static ideology of oppression, Dabashi erases its dynamic and self-critical dimensions.
The Problem of Iranian Ideological Racism
While Dabashi accuses Hegel of fueling European Zionism and colonialism, his rhetoric reflects a troubling pattern in contemporary Iranian intellectual discourse: the demonization of Kurds, Jews, and other marginalized groups. Dabashi’s framing of Zionism as a continuation of European colonialism overlooks the historical agency of Jewish communities, who sought refuge and self-determination in the aftermath of centuries of persecution. His narrative dismisses the diversity of Jewish experiences and reduces Israel to a colonial project, ignoring its complex historical roots.
Moreover, Dabashi’s silence on the systemic oppression of Kurds within Iranian and regional contexts reveals a selective moral outrage. Just as he critiques European philosophy for excluding Africa from “universal history,” Dabashi’s own discourse marginalizes the Kurdish struggle for recognition and autonomy. This selective framing perpetuates a regional chauvinism that mirrors the Eurocentric exclusions he decries.
Hamid Dabashi’s article “On the Kurdish Question” is a troubling example of how intellectual discourse can be weaponized to delegitimize national aspirations. Dabashi not only dismisses the Kurdish struggle for statehood and national identity but also reduces the rich and complex five-century history of Kurdish resistance under the Ottoman Caliphate to a conspiratorial “Zionist plot.” In doing so, he perpetuates a dangerous rhetoric that demonizes both Kurds and Jews, portraying them as destabilizing forces in the Middle East rather than acknowledging their rightful indigeneity to the region.
Dabashi’s framing casts Kurds as “second Jews” and envisions a hypothetical Kurdistan as a “second settler-colonial Israel.” This analogy is deeply flawed and historically untenable. It denies the shared reality of oppression faced by Kurds and Jews, instead painting their pursuit of self-determination as tools of imperialist machinations. His accusations that the establishment of Kurdistan would contribute to the “Israelification of the Arab and Muslim world” reduce Kurdish and Jewish aspirations to existential threats to Middle Eastern stability—a narrative steeped in antisemitic and antikurdish tropes.
In my article “The Left and Islamism: Antisemitism and Antikurdism,” published in Telos Insights, I delve into the ideological foundations of such chauvinistic views. These ideas often emerge from an intersection of leftist anti-imperialist rhetoric, Islamist narratives, pan-Iranian ideology, pan-Arab nationalism, and pan-Turkism; all of them frame Jewish and Kurdish struggles through the lens of conspiracies rather than as legitimate quests for self-determination. This convergence has led to a deeply ingrained hostility that rejects the right of both peoples to autonomy and perpetuates their marginalization.
Dabashi’s perspective exemplifies the intertwined ideologies of antisemitism and antikurdism that plague much of the discourse surrounding the Middle East. By framing Kurds and Jews as foreign elements destabilizing the region, he not only ignores their historical and cultural ties to the land but also aligns with reactionary forces that perpetuate oppression and erasure. Such rhetoric must be challenged, not only for its historical inaccuracies but also for its perpetuation of prejudice against two peoples with a long and painful history of struggle.
Beyond Reductionism: A Call for Constructive Critique
Dabashi’s call to “bring down” European philosophy, including Hegel, reflects an ideological purism that undermines productive engagement with the global intellectual heritage. As Buck-Morss, Avineri, and Losurdo demonstrate, Hegel’s philosophy offers tools for critiquing not only colonialism but also contemporary forms of oppression. To dismiss Hegel entirely is to ignore the transformative potential of his dialectical method, which has inspired movements for emancipation across the globe, as I explore in the context of both Kurds and Jews.
Furthermore, Dabashi’s framing risks reinforcing a polarized narrative that divides the world into monolithic “Western” and “non-Western” blocs. Such dichotomies obscure the interconnections and mutual influences that have shaped global intellectual history. By demonizing European philosophy as inherently racist, Dabashi ironically mirrors the exclusivist tendencies he attributes to Hegel. So why is Dabashi afraid of Hegel?
Hegel’s Philosophy and Its Impact on Kurds and Jews
Hegel’s philosophy of nationhood, freedom, the state as the realization of freedom, and history offers significant insights into the struggles of stateless nations like the Kurds and Jews. For nineteenth-century Jewish intellectuals such as Nachman Krochmal, Heinrich Graetz, Moses Hess, and Zionist leader Theodor Herzl, Hegel’s ideas were influential early on, shaping revolutionary shifts in Jewish history and identity. His impact persisted, influencing later generations of labor and socialist Zionist thinkers in Israel.
In contrast, Hegel’s influence on Kurdish thought emerged much later. It is only in recent years that Kurdish scholars, including my own work, have begun applying his ideas to Kurdish history. My forthcoming book Phenomenology of the Kurdish Spirit and the recently published Kurds and the Experience of Statelessness: Phenomenology of Subjugation (both in Kurdish language) are among the new contributions in this area. These works demonstrate Hegel’s potential as a dialectical framework for understanding the Kurds’ struggle for liberation, statehood, and national identity—despite the fact that Hegel himself never mentioned the Kurds. The following explores these insights further.
Statehood as Freedom
Hegel viewed the state as the ultimate realization of freedom, embodying collective will and ethical life. For Kurds, the lack of full sovereignty, despite partial autonomy (e.g., the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq), leaves their aspirations incomplete. For Jews, the establishment of Israel in 1948 fulfilled Hegel’s vision, enabling their historical self-realization and moral flourishing.
National Consciousness
Hegel argued that national identity arises through shared history and destiny. Kurds, despite marginalization, have fostered unity through cultural revival and political movements. Similarly, Jewish Zionists emphasized cultural renewal, tying identity to their historical homeland. Both movements demonstrate how national consciousness is key to statehood.
History as Freedom’s Progress
Hegel’s view of history as a dialectical process aligns with the struggles of both nations. For Kurds, resistance against regional imperialism, occupation, and Arabo-Islamic colonialism reflects necessary steps toward freedom. For Jews, the establishment of Israel marked the resolution of a historical arc of exile and alienation and marked the true way of decolonization.
Recognition and Oppression
Hegel’s master-slave dialectic illuminates their struggles for recognition. Kurds challenge oppressive policies to gain first autonomy and then full sovereignty—though this remains unrealized. Similarly Jewish Zionists have sought full recognition, which requires sovereignty, achieved through Israel’s creation. Both demonstrate how recognition is essential to overcoming oppression.
Overcoming Alienation
Alienation, a key Hegelian concept, could be use as definition of the statelessness of nations. Kurds strive for statehood to reintegrate into modern history, while Jews overcame diaspora alienation by reestablishing a homeland, reconnecting with their ethical essence.
This brings us to the conclusion: it’s no wonder Dabashi holds such disdain for Hegel.
Conclusion: Reclaiming Hegel from Misrepresentation
Hamid Dabashi’s critique of Hegel, laden with selective misinterpretation and ideological hostility, reflects broader patterns of intellectual reductionism. By framing Hegel as a symbol of European racism and colonialism, Dabashi not only distorts the philosopher’s legacy but also weaponizes this distortion to serve exclusionary regional ideologies. His rhetoric marginalizes the aspirations of stateless peoples like the Kurds and delegitimizes the Jewish state, perpetuating a narrative that erases their legitimate struggles for recognition and statehood.
In contrast, a nuanced understanding of Hegel reveals the transformative potential of his ideas for historically oppressed nations. Hegel’s dialectical method offers a framework for critiquing systems of domination and envisioning paths to liberation. Jewish intellectuals and Zionist thinkers harnessed his philosophy to redefine Jewish identity and achieve statehood, while emerging Kurdish scholarship is beginning to explore his relevance for their own national aspirations. These applications underscore Hegel’s enduring significance as a philosopher of emancipation and freedom.
By reducing Hegel to a caricature and dismissing European philosophy as inherently oppressive, Dabashi undermines the possibility of constructive critique and dialogue. Instead of fostering an inclusive intellectual landscape, his approach mirrors the very chauvinism he seemingly purports to oppose, reinforcing divisive narratives that perpetuate the marginalization of Kurds and Jews.
The task before us is not to abandon Hegel but to engage critically with his work, separating its Eurocentric limitations from its universal insights. Only by doing so can we reclaim his philosophy as a tool for liberation and resist the ideological prejudices that continue to deny stateless nations their rightful place in history. This, perhaps, is the true challenge that Dabashi seeks to evade—and the reason he fears Hegel’s emancipatory potential.
Peshraw Mohammed, born in southern Kurdistan (Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq), based in Berlin, is a freelance author and translator specializing in German philosophy, antisemitism, and the cultural history of National Socialism. Since October 7, he has been writing regularly for German platforms and delivering speeches on antisemitism across various political spectra, including the right, the left, and Islamism. He is currently working on his forthcoming book, Genealogy of Demonization: The Interconnectedness of Antisemitism and Antikurdism (in English).
1. Hamid Dabashi, “War on Gaza: How Hegel’s Racist Philosophy Informs European Zionism,” Middle East Eye, March 15, 2024, https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/war-gaza-hegel-racist-philosophy-informs-european-zionism-how.
2. Susan Buck-Morss, Hegel, Haiti, and Universal History (Pittsburgh: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, 2009).
3. Shlomo Avineri, Hegel’s Theory of the Modern State (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1972).
4. Domenico Losurdo, Hegel and the Freedom of Moderns, trans. Marella and Jon Morris (Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press, 2004), p. 99. The passage by Hegel is quoted by Losurdo.
Leave a Reply