Guidelines for discussions at universities on the war in Israel

Acts of profound inhumanity and barbaric behavior leave people silent: For some incomprehensible things, there are no words that seem appropriate. In the case of relatives directly affected by war dead, one can only be there for the other, because every word will sound wrong when the pain is too great and it is absolutely clear: the pain will never go away and the survivor can only learn to live with it. In this situation, the only thing that helps is the signal of closeness, of not being left alone and the strength to somehow be able to absorb or at least bear emotional outbursts of deepest grief.

Beyond this personal situation between two people, there is a great need these days to talk, communicate, sort out thoughts and process images. When it comes to war, this is always difficult and there is a great desire for clear categorizations of "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong". However, the conflict zone in the Middle East is complex and not easy to penetrate, even for experts. However, if higher education aims to offer spaces for well-founded discourse and not to protect against other opinions or controversies, it makes sense to proactively encourage such discussions. But what could be the guard rails of thought and discussion within which this exchange should take place? By guard rails, I mean principles and positions against which statements, discourse, thoughts or actions can be measured. They set boundaries, but above all they also provide an open framework within which positions can be debated. In this article, I would like to make an initial suggestion. My standard-setting guidelines are

• The starting point of my thinking remains the principles of humanity, as formulated for me in the inalienable human rights. They are indivisible and apply to all people on all sides of a conflict and also in war.
• People have a right to live in statehood. For me, Israel's right to exist is just as self-evident and unquestionable as the Palestinians' fundamental right to one or more states of their own. States are fundamentally obliged to facilitate peace both internally and externally.
• In the event of an attack, every state has a right to defense within the framework of international law. This explicitly includes military operations and deployments.
• All relatives of victims of violence have an individual right to mourn and must be allowed to express their grief publicly.
• Terrorism is targeted and symbolic violence, not a struggle for liberation, and can neither be justified nor excused. It can be explained in order to better understand it and thus reduce or prevent it - but it can never be legitimized, especially if it is directed against third parties or instrumentalizes third parties as a shield and thus deliberately endangers them. Terrorism must also not be relativized by injustice suffered.
• The special German-Israeli relations cannot be understood without the Holocaust.
• Humanitarian aid is a perpetual and unbroken humanitarian mission, even during war. Ideas of starving a population or depriving it of water, vital medicines etc. are always inhumane and incompatible with the principle of humanity.

In my view, there needs to be room for exchange and the search for individual attitudes and positions. I assume that there will always be people among us who are directly affected and have their own individual views. Their position deserves to be heard, even if it is formulated individually or emotionally and does not immediately fulfill all facets of consideration and classification. Teachers are there to ensure that the guidelines are adhered to. Global lines of conflict are also reflected in the modern immigration society here and come to light at universities. Here it will be important, on the one hand, to remain in dialog and to adopt an attitude of understanding for the other. On the other hand, clear boundaries are also needed. Above all, this includes anything that incites violence or hatred towards people, questions the basic values of democracy or attempts to undermine the rule of law.

These are my first guidelines for encouraging dialog during the crisis. Are there other, better ideas or experiences? I would welcome a critical exchange.

Dierk Borstel(Opens in a new tab)