Unlike the barbaric pogrom on October 7, discussions about the war in Gaza are not morally unambiguous. But if different opinions are allowed, a free exchange of ideas must also be possible.
October 7, 2023, will go down as one of the darkest days in the history of the Jewish people. Not only because of the bestial murder of around twelve hundred Israeli civilians, but also because of the joy expressed about it worldwide.
The celebrations on Berlin's Sonnenallee or the campus of Cornell University made it clear that hatred of Jews was evidently not limited to a group of fanatical Islamists in the Gaza Strip. In the aftermath of the massacre, the number of antisemitic crimes skyrocketed. The German police statistics paint a clear picture. Not only in Germany, but worldwide, Jews feel more threatened than they have for a long time.
Unfortunately, in the eight months that have passed since then, the situation has not calmed down but has become even more heated. Most recently, clashes at many universities in Europe and the USA have led to threats against Jewish students, resulting in many students no longer feeling safe at their universities.
What can be done? First of all, we should realize that we are dealing with different phenomena that require different responses. October 7, 2023, was one of those rare events that defied the usual grayish ambiguity of political analysis. In the face of Hamas' unbelievable terror, there was no room for the usual "one side versus the other." Everything was black and white. I lack any understanding for anyone who does not unequivocally condemn the murder of young people who were in the midst of celebrating, the murder of harmless civilians, and even pregnant women. Anyone who acts in this way is beyond any kind of dialogue, and I am afraid it's pointless to have a conversation with such people.
However, this does not mean that the same applies to the context or consequences of October 7. Of course, the question of how the radicalization of the population of Gaza came about, which made it possible for Hamas to recruit so many volunteers in the first place, is open to debate. Certainly, opinions can differ as to whether Israeli action against the radical Islamic terrorist organization has resulted in the deaths of too many innocent civilians. It is also completely understandable that these discussions are emotional; in view of the terrible casualties on both sides, it can hardly be otherwise.
These discussions also defy moral clarity. Here, many things are no longer black or white, but gray. This must therefore characterize the style of the discussion: only one opinion is morally permissible on the subject of October 7, but not on Gaza. But if different opinions are permissible, it must also be possible to exchange such views freely. In view of the intensity of the current debate, this demand may seem naive. Defenders and critics of Israel are shouting at each other; self-appointed advocates of the Palestinians speak of "genocide" and call for an "intifada," while their opponents accuse them—often quite sweepingly—of antisemitism.
Both sides therefore have reason to de-escalate and should also have an interest in doing so. After all, the loudly expressed differences of opinion will not easily be resolved, and the parties involved will not allow themselves to be silenced. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is over 100 years old and, unfortunately, will not be resolved in the coming years, especially not to the complete satisfaction of both sides. Moreover, the most recent disputes have reached a meta-level that goes beyond the concrete differences of opinion. I am talking about the issues of freedom of expression, antisemitism, legitimate criticism, and hate speech.
Any discussion should therefore begin with the presumption that both sides have a genuine interest in the matter. We should believe that those who advocate a ceasefire in Gaza are genuinely concerned for the lives of Palestinian civilians and are not partisans of Hamas. Likewise, opponents of an immediate ceasefire should not be judged as indifferent to the suffering of innocent Palestinians but as having a genuine interest in Israel's security and the rescue of hostages.
The second prerequisite for a dialogue based on mutual understanding is the effort to avoid anything that triggers a sense of either side feeling threatened. It goes without saying that threats of violence or even physical violence are completely unacceptable. Yet even beyond that, I suggest avoiding anything that could be perceived as a threat. I am aware that "intifada" does not necessarily mean an armed uprising. However, since the Second Intifada, during which suicide attacks cost the lives of more than a thousand Israeli civilians, the violent variant has not been ruled out. Is it not possible to find a different, clearer formulation if you feel obliged to call for civilian Palestinian resistance?
The same applies to the infamous slogan, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." Instead of explaining after the fact that this is not a call for the ethnic cleansing of Israel, merely a demand for equal rights for all people living between Jordan and the Mediterranean, or a call for a two-state solution, it would be possible to choose a formulation that avoids threatening ambiguities.
In some cases, this may be unthinkable given the heated nature of the situation; in others, the people addressed will refuse to engage in dialogue, but in still others, it may succeed and contribute to a deeper mutual understanding. Only then will we also be able to explain where Israel-related antisemitism really begins, why Israel continues to be a “life insurance” of sorts for us Jews despite everything, and why the demand that all Israelis should return to their "home countries" 75 years after the founding of the Jewish state is simply nonsense, even from the perspective of an anti-Zionist. It is almost superfluous to point out that, conversely, this also requires empathy for Palestinian suffering.
The history of conflict in the Middle East is also the history of simplistic, one-sided explanations and finger-pointing. We should help to change this. This will also help us recognize who the real antisemite is. To my great regret, they are numerous enough.
This editorial was originally published in German in Cicero Online.
