Notes on dealing with the conflicts and wars in the Middle East
I have been a passionate university lecturer for over 12 years, enjoy teaching in the lecture hall and also like controversial discussions and passionate debates. For me, they are part of good teaching as well as democracy education. There was only one time in recent years when I had an irrepressible feeling of anxiety when I went to the lecture hall early in the morning. That was on the Monday after October 7, 2023 - the day Hamas launched its barbaric attack. It was clear to me that the students rightly expected orientation, classification and perhaps also space to sort out their opinions, perspectives and emotions. And it was also clear to me that very different perspectives, biographical references and narratives would clash. What's more, I'm not an expert on the Middle East. I am roughly familiar with the conflict situations there, but I haven't done any research, I haven't read everything I need to know and I have my own biographical references that I can't ignore. So how was this supposed to work?
On Monday, the students made it easy for me. They wanted to understand what had happened. They were careful with each other and didn't want to hurt each other. But you could also feel the fear here - fear of saying the wrong thing, fear of committing oneself, choosing the wrong term and possibly being labeled as either "anti-Semitic" or "racist".
Uncertainty in dealing with the conflict in the Middle East
Over a year later, the uncertainty in dealing with the conflict in the Middle East has not disappeared at the university. Quite the opposite: it is bubbling underground and in private. Many only talk about what they think about it or what they wonder within their closest circle of friends. Only a few dare to take a stand in public. Every now and then it finds space in seminars and can be discussed there quietly. Nevertheless, there is a sense that the famous elephant is still dancing in the glass box that is the university and it keeps making its presence felt. We also look at other universities and the conflicts, occupations, open letters and political directives there. It is a loud, seething silence - more explosive than sovereign and therefore not very suitable for universities.
Guidelines for corresponding discussions at universities
There is therefore still time to define guidelines for corresponding discussions at universities. My proposal for discussion is as follows:
Higher education is not a place that protects against opinions, but freedom of opinion. For me, this has two limits: One is defined by the rule of law and the other by humanity. Anti-human ideologies and statements have no place at a university, even if they fall below the threshold of prosecution under the rule of law.
My university is located in the Ruhr region and the students are as diverse as the Ruhr itself. Young and older people with different religions, family backgrounds, sexual identities and political attitudes come together here. This also means that Jewish students with family ties to Israel, for example, learn and discuss together with Muslim students with family ties to Gaza or the West Bank. They often learn about the conflicts in the Middle East from completely different sources and have barely compatible narratives and interpretations of current events. These then clash with emotional force at university - or are painstakingly concealed and circumvented.
Students expect a content framework
So what is my answer to this? First of all, factual clarification is the central task of the university. Then there is the teaching of methodological tools and theories in order to learn how to systematically analyze conflicts. Different interpretations are both desirable and to be expected. However, students also rightly expect a content-related framework. For me, this is as follows:
For me, basic human rights and international law are central guidelines for assessments. They apply to all people and can be used to formulate criticism in concrete terms. The right of peoples to self-determination, for example, is an elementary component of international law and applies to both Israelis and Palestinians. Both have a right to statehood. If this is called into question, it must be criticized. In the case of Israel, there is also the direct connection between the founding of the state and the Holocaust, as well as the Jewish self-image. Anyone who disputes Israel's right to exist is generally also acting in an anti-Semitic manner. At the same time, the Palestinian side also has a right to protection, security and culture. Positive references to the Palestinian side or to Palestinian culture and their desire for development and protection are not automatically directed against Israel or even against Judaism. I also think it is a serious mistake not to give space to emotions that are only understandable in view of the drastic images. The pain of the Palestinian mother over her lost child is just as deep as that of the Israeli mother mourning the death of her child. Both deserve to be heard and empathized with. Humanity and humanity in a comprehensive sense are still a reliable basis for our own assessments, especially when words fail and attitudes and positions are being fought over.
Human rights and international law allow the formulation of explicit criticism of the actions of political actors
It is also hard to overestimate how overwhelming the unfiltered images are for many students. Wounds that seemed to have healed long ago are opened up. For refugee students, memories of war come flooding back. However, I am also increasingly experiencing a new helplessness, especially among Muslim students. They are unsure whether and, if so, how they can show solidarity with the Palestinian population without either being labeled as anti-Semitic in relation to Israel or being mentally associated with Hamas, which they reject. They discuss among themselves to what extent they are even wanted in this country. This is also where influences become mixed. Many feel that their position on the conflict in the Middle East is not valued enough and at the same time are reacting to racist discourse in the center of society and the parties that support it, as well as to the election results of an extreme right-wing party in the East. All of these factors contribute to a feeling of being unrecognized and increasingly unwanted. We also need to respond to this in the lecture hall.
What is important to me here is that human rights and international law permit the formulation of explicit criticism of the actions of political actors. These standards are in turn indivisible and all sides must be measured against them. Human rights violations must not be relativized by referring to the other party. It also makes no difference whether they originate from democratically legitimized actors or from authoritarian regimes. Democracies, however, allow criticism and public debate in their own country - authoritarian regimes, on the other hand, counter this with violence. The context is therefore different - but this does not change the human rights violation itself.
Dealing with specific accusations difficult
It is difficult to deal with specific accusations. This includes, for example, the Palestinian interpretation of Israeli behavior in the Gaza Strip as genocide. I disagree with this interpretation when I hear it and explain the legal criteria of the term, its history and the danger of using it in an inflationary way to relativize previous genocides and not do justice to their victims. At the same time, I also examine who uses the term and why. Is this done out of ignorance, out of emotional overwhelming in view of the images and death figures or as a means of political persuasion, e.g. in support of Hamas structures? This does not change the contradiction in content, but it helps me to classify what is being said and opens up different strategies for dealing with it.
Fear inhibits any democratic discourse
These basics help me in the lecture hall today. That doesn't change the fact that I am not and will never be an expert on the subject. That's why I avoid making any major commitments. Who would I have to be to trust myself to make conclusive judgments? Nobody in the Middle East is waiting for my interpretation either. The same applies to almost all conflicts and wars in the world. But the students can expect something from me, namely: space for enlightenment, fear-free debates, scientific instruments and theories to understand and explain conflicts and wars and to learn how conflicts can be resolved and how peace can be created. However, this is only possible if courage conquers fear in the university, if we promote and support public and free debate - and if we forgive ourselves a mistake, an unfortunate formulation, a different point of view or even a few emotions in order to clearly oppose and contradict any form of misanthropy. Courage for humanity arises through concrete solidarity and a desire to understand the other side. Fear inhibits any democratic discourse, leads to isolation and also repeatedly allows radical groups and voices to pick up the fearful in order to win them over to their misanthropic cause.