October 7th and the war in the Middle East

By Uriel Kashi, historian, city guide and tour guide for the Israel seminar tours, Israel 

In an unprecedented escalation of violence, the terrorist organisation Hamas launched the so-called “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood” on October 7th, 2023. The attack began with wide-scale and sustained rocket fire into the Israeli heartland, with around 3,000 rockets being fired at Israel in the first four hours alone. At the same time, Hamas militants attacked the security barriers on the Gaza Strip using explosives, drones and bulldozers. Around 2,000 terrorists managed to infiltrate up to 24 kilometres deep into the Israeli heartland. Some of the terrorists focussed on taking over and destroying Israeli military and police facilities. Hamas’ primary focus, however, was on attacks inside Israeli cities and kibbutzim, where they murdered 1,200 people – including entire families with small children, within a few hours. The massacre at the Nova music festival, in which around 364 mostly very young party guests were killed, caused tremendous outrage. This is not the only place where Hamas committed mass, sexualised violence and numerous rapes against Jewish women. A third goal of the Hamas terrorists was to kidnap Israelis in the Gaza Strip. The 253 people originally abducted in the Gaza Strip included numerous children, young people and senior citizens. Since the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, Israel has not fought street battles against its opponents on its own territory. The pogrom-like terrorist attack by Hamas marks an unprecedented tragedy in which more Jews were brutally murdered in one day than ever before after the Holocaust. 

By Noam Yatsiv, tour guide for the Israel seminar tours specialising in geopolitical and historical tours, teacher and freelance writer, Israel

Hamas (acronym for “Islamic Resistance Movement”) is an Islamist, nationalist, political and military Palestinian movement that was founded in the Gaza Strip at the end of the 1980s. It emerged from a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza, and focussed on social policy in its early activities. Despite its fundamentalist ideology, Israel had initially granted Hamas freedom for its activities as a counterforce to Yasser Arafat’s PLO (“Palestine Liberation Organisation”). Hamas pursues the goal of establishing a nationalist Islamic state to replace Israel. Their central tactic to achieve this is the targeted assassination of Israeli civilians by their military wing, the “Kassam Brigades”. It is, therefore, classified as a terrorist organisation by large parts of the Western world. 

Since 1993, Hamas has carried out suicide attacks to prevent the peace process between the PLO and Israel, and has regularly bombed Israeli territory with rockets from Gaza since 2001. Following Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005, it won the last Palestinian national elections to date the following year. Some observers saw the election result as an expression of protest against the corruption of the “Fatah” party. This was followed by unrest and violence between Fatah and Hamas. 

In June 2007, Hamas took over the entire Gaza Strip and established a government independent of Fatah in the West Bank. In response to this development, Israel – in cooperation with Egypt – imposed a blockade on the Gaza Strip, thereby largely isolating the coastal enclave. Since 2008, ongoing tensions have led to five wars between Hamas and Israel. 

By Helga Embacher, University of Salzburg, Institute for Contemporary History, speaker at the preparatory weekends for the Israel seminar trips

Israel’s war of defence against the genocidal attack by Hamas quickly developed into a war on several fronts: from Lebanon and Syria, the Iranian-controlled “Hezbollah” bombarded the north of the country; the “Houthis” – who emerged from the civil war in Yemen and were also supported by Iran – fired rockets at Israel’s southern tip on the Red Sea and attacked merchant ships. On April 14, Iran launched its first large-scale attack on Israel from its own country, which was justified by Israel’s killing of seven Iranian officers in a building attached to the Iranian embassy in Damascus. The damage was minimised thanks to the active support of the USA, France, Great Britain and Jordan, which concluded a peace treaty with Israel in 1994. 
In the current situation, some see a window for a coalition between Israel and other Arab countries – such as the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain – which signed the “Abraham Accords Declaration” with Israel in 2020, and Saudi Arabia, which was on the verge of an agreement with Israel in 2023. All of these countries show little sympathy for Hamas, and maintain ambivalent relations with Iran, but are calling for a solution to the intolerable situation being inflicted on the Palestinians. Egypt, in turn, concluded the “Camp David Accords” with Israel back in 1979, and has repeatedly mediated between Israel and Hamas. However, the country currently finds itself in a catastrophic economic situation with an uncertain outcome. 

Due to the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza, the USA urged a ceasefire, demanded early elections in Israel and the inclusion of the Palestinian Authority for a post-war solution. The USA has also repeatedly criticised the hugely inflammatory escalations in the West Bank and even announced sanctions against the ultra-Orthodox military unit “Netzah Yehuda”, which has been accused of human rights violations. 

The development of this unstable situation in the region remains difficult to assess. Furthermore, other stakeholders – such as China, Russia, Turkey and Qatar – which supports Hamas financially, on the one hand, and acted as a mediator after the terrorist attack, on the other, must also be taken into account. 

By Uriel Kashi, historian, city guide and tour guide for the Israel seminar tours, Israel

On 8 October, the Israeli security cabinet officially declared a state of war. The army mobilised over 300,000 reservists – the largest mobilisation since the state’s founding. In order to protect the civilian population, 29 Israeli villages near the border with the Gaza Strip were evacuated. As the Iranian-financed terrorist organisation Hezbollah intervened in the conflict from Lebanon with artillery and drone attacks, numerous villages on Israel’s northern border were also evacuated. On October 7th, the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) launched Operation Iron Swords, a ground offensive in the Gaza Strip with the aim of neutralising Hamas’ military capabilities and freeing the hostages still being held.

International reactions to Israel’s military action are divided. On the one hand, a large part of the Western world supports Israel’s right to self-defence; on the other hand, there is clear criticism of the Israeli airstrikes in the Gaza Strip, which have also killed numerous Palestinian civilians. After Israel, Hamas is guilty of abusing the Palestinian civilian population through the use of human shields, in order to isolate Israel internationally through high civilian casualty figures.

At a diplomatic level, the UN Security Council passed resolutions in favour of humanitarian aid for the Palestinians, a limited ceasefire and the release of all hostages kidnapped by Hamas. South Africa’s complaint to the International Court of Justice against Israel over the accusation of genocide – which was largely supported by countries in the Arab world and Africa, but clearly rejected by Western nations – is noteworthy. 

By Noa Mkayton, Director of the Overseas Education and Training Department at the International School for Holocaust Studies, Yad Vashem, Israel

The Hamas attack on southern Israel was unprecedented in the history of the State of Israel. The attempt to categorise this drastic excess of violence in Israel has often led to parallels being drawn with the “Shoah” or Holocaust. On an emotional level, such analogies are understandable, especially when they are linked to the personal experience of the victims directly affected. Stories of children who had to hide for hours to avoid being discovered by the murderers, and of entire families who were executed, reactivate latent traumas from the time of the Shoah.

Nevertheless, as Yad Vashem’s chairman, Dani Dayan, clearly stated: the events of October 7th in Israel should not be equated with the Shoah. Dayan points out that, during the years of persecution by Nazi Germany and its allies, the Jewish communities in Europe and North Africa completely lacked armed defence and any form of political self-determination. They were entirely at the mercy of the local population’s favour (or disfavour), who in most cases (though not always) advocated, actively supported or were at least indifferent to the persecution and murder of the Jewish minority. And even if the response of the Israeli security apparatus was, in part, tragically too late and ultimately ineffective, the mere existence of a powerful Israeli army and an Israeli civil society that is fully empathetic and willing to help marks a clear difference to the experiences of violence that the Jewish people have had to endure over their millennia of diaspora. 

By Deborah Hartmann, Director of the “House of the Wannsee Conference Memorial and Educational Centre”

The massacre perpetrated by Hamas and its supporters on October 7th – and the reactions to it – have left many Jews around the world feeling unsettled and traumatised. On the one hand, Jews are asking themselves whether the state of Israel can still be a safe home and refuge from anti-Semitism. On the other hand, many Jews lacked any understanding of how they should deal with the lack of empathy they were met with by close friends and colleagues.

If there was ever a real sense of security, of trust for Jews in Germany and Austria, then it has been deeply shaken after October 7th; just as shaken as the fundamental sense of trust of the Israelis, which Hamas deliberately wanted to destroy with its attack. The fact that this also happened in the heart of Europe – and that the Jewish post-war experience is now divided into a time before (and a time after) October 7th – is also due to society’s failure, to show real solidarity with Jews, beyond good words and assurances, be it just with small gestures of understanding and compassion. It is, therefore, unsurprising that everyday actions are now being scrutinised once more, and life-restricting measures are being taken to protect oneself and one’s own family. Are we really going to this theatre play? Should I enter my name when ordering? Do I send my child to school? 

Many Jewish students do not feel comfortable at their universities. Israeli scientists are considering whether to travel to international conferences. It’s not always just about the fear of personal attacks. In most cases, it is simply a disturbing unity in the perception of Israel that leads to a feeling of being excluded and not being understood. 
The war in Gaza that followed October 7th and the undeniable suffering of the Palestinian civilian population, has become a vehicle to justify, trivialise and ultimately articulate seemingly legitimate anti-Semitism without restraint.

By Lisa Schulz-Yatsiv, “Centre for Humanistic Education, Lochamej haGeta'ot / Ghetto Fighters House, Israel”

The events of October 7th sent shockwaves through Israeli society, leaving many deeply terrified and shattered Israel's sense of security. In the immediate aftermath, there was a surge in solidarity with those directly impacted by the attacks, as well as with the armed forces. Hundreds of thousands mobilized, volunteering and coming together to offer support where it was needed most. The subsequent war against Hamas was overwhelmingly viewed as justified and necessary by a majority of Israelis. However, even from the outset, voices were questioning the efficacy of military action alone for achieving a lasting solution.

Today, Jewish-Israeli society finds itself divided into various fractions regarding the ongoing war. Much attention is focused on Benyamin Netanyahu and his government's failure to put forward viable suggestions for the post-war Gaza Strip. The plight of the Palestinian civilian population receives little coverage in Israeli media and most Israelis distrust information coming from Palestinian sources. Nevertheless, there have been Jewish Israeli voices working to raise awareness within Israeli society about the fate of Gazan civilians.

The central issue within Jewish Israeli society as of now is the debate over the "price" Israel should pay in a deal with Hamas that would release the remaining hostages. After months of war, this has become a divisive topic, with some advocating returning the hostages at all costs, while others believe only sustained military pressure will lead to results., and that Israel cannot commit to unilateral withdrawal that would allow Hamas to regain full control, as on October 6th.

A sense of profound uncertainty, anxiety and the erosion of trust in the state have remained largely unchanged within Israeli society, if not intensified, over the last months.

By Noha Khatib Centre for Humanistic Education, Lochamej haGeta'ot / Ghetto Fighters House, Israel

Since October 7th, Arab society has been grappling with a profound crisis—a crisis that has deepened existing fractures in trust towards the state and its institutions.
Immediately following the events, the Arab community underwent a period of stifling silence, characterized by intimidation and restrictions on freedom of expression regarding the ongoing war. This stifling environment made it challenging for diverse perspectives to emerge, as silence effectively neutralized opinions and activism on the matter. The relative quiet in Israeli-Arab society is, therefore, most likely due to two factors – the genuine confusion, shock and ambivalence as a group that can relate to "both sides", and a chilling effect on free speech that makes people think twice before demonstrating, posting on social media, etc. Still, there are voices and demonstrations from Arab society, speaking out against the war and demanding an immediate ceasefire. Preliminary studies* have shown that Arab society within Israel felt strong solidarity with the victims of the October 7th attack and have condemned it. Having said that, the same studies also point to a fear of voicing criticism of Israel's military response. In many Israeli institutions, there were instances of Arabs being accused of voicing support for Hamas, even though in many cases that wasn't at all the case. Courts have so far ruled in favor of the individuals who were unjustly sanctioned, but the atmosphere in Israel has changed nonetheless. 

*Israel Democracy Institute: Most Arab Israelis: October 7th Attack Does Not Reflect Islamic, Palestinian, or Arab Society Values. Public Opinion Survey of Arab Society in Israel on the War in Gaza November–December 2023

By Noha Khatib and Lisa Schulz-Yatsiv, Centre for Humanistic Education, Lochamej haGeta'ot / Ghetto Fighters House, Israel

First and foremost, it is crucial to acknowledge the inherent challenge in assessing the current events and their impact on Jewish-Arab dialogue. We find ourselves amidst ongoing events, with much uncertainty about where they will lead us. Immediately following October 7th, most Jewish-Arab dialogue initiatives came to a halt. The shock of the events and the pervasive uncertainty about the future left many paralyzed. 

Due to the intimate familial relations that most Jewish-Israelis have with IDF soldiers, and in light of the nature of the October 7th events, most Israeli Jews feel personally attacked by any criticism of the IDF's conduct and are triggered by accusations of "genocide". They are deeply consumed with endless stories of horror and heroism from October 7th and are shattered by news of hundreds of soldiers falling in battle and the plight of the Israeli hostages. Arabs, on the other hand, are exposed to social media with widespread questioning/denial of crimes committed by Palestinians on October 7th, and intense reporting on the plight of civilians in Gaza – two parallel worlds.

The ongoing war, reverberating through society in various ways, continues to hinder our ability to resume our programs. As the war continues, the perception of the ongoing events, as well as the reasons at the root of the current conflict, become more divergent, making dialogue nearly impossible. The different narratives on what led to the current events and who is to be held responsible for these developments are leading to a deepening chasm between Jews and Arabs within Israel.

As advocates for dialogue, we hold onto hope for rebuilding these connections through empathy, active listening, and understanding, despite the current challenges we face.

By Helga Embacher, University of Salzburg, Institute for Contemporary History, speaker at the preparatory weekends for the Israel seminar trips

With Israel’s occupation policy after the “Six-Day War” of 1967, and especially with the failure of the Oslo Peace Accord in the 1990s, left-wing movements and human rights organisations, in particular, (e.g. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or Israeli organisation „B'Tselem“) compared Israel to an apartheid system. Without explicitly mentioning it, it is usually associated with the South African apartheid state, but without naming parallels and differences. 

In the occupied West Bank (and in annexed East Jerusalem), there are, in fact, two different legal systems for Israeli citizens and stateless Palestinians due to the occupation. For the Palestinians, this means human rights violations – such as severely restricted freedom of movement, different access to water and roads and the expropriation of Palestinian land. Despite existing overlaps with definitions of apartheid under international law, it is not possible to maintain an equation with the South African apartheid state. There can be no talk of institutionalised racism in Israel. The current, untenable situation of the Palestinians, on the other hand, is the result of a complex history of claims over land and the failed peace process, in which Palestinian terrorism is one of many factors. However, statements such as those made by current Security Minister, Itamar Ben Gvir, according to which his family – because they are Jews – would be entitled to more rights in the West Bank than their Arab neighbours, are proving to be extremely dangerous. 

By Noam Yatsiv, tour guide for the Israel seminar tours specialising in geopolitical and historical tours, teacher and freelance writer, Israel

Following the terrorist attack on October 7th, the Israeli government declared two seemingly contradictory goals: the final overthrow of the Hamas regime and the simultaneous release of all hostages. Despite extensive air strikes and a sustained ground offensive by the IDF (“Israel Defence Forces”), neither of these targets was able to be reached even after months. One partial success was the release of 112 hostages in exchange for 240 Palestinian prisoners as part of an agreement brokered by Qatar in November 2023.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s current political priority is to maintain his far-right coalition at all costs. However, the associated price is high, as it isolates Israel in many parts of the world and blocks serious debates on pragmatic initiatives and proposals for the “day after the war”. The “peace process” has barely existed for 15 years, and a two-state solution has receded into the distant future. Nevertheless, the most obvious option would be to use the “Palestinian Authority (PA)” – based in the West Bank – for the purpose of self-administration in Gaza. However, the PA is not an option for Israel’s government. Just as unpopular for most Israelis, however, is Israel’s direct control over Gaza. In view of the shock and fear triggered by the terrorist attack and the subsequent war, the Israeli public remains rather passive when it comes to finding solutions.

At present, it remains to be seen as to how the situation on the border in the north will develop, and whether this too will lead to a regional war. Despite everything, perhaps in the long term, it is precisely this feeling of hopelessness that can revive support for a two-state solution. 

By Gabriel Dreier, accompanying team of the Israel seminar trips and secondary school teacher Vienna

While anti-Semitism – especially in its form relating to Israel – has long been present in Austria’s schools, a lot has changed since October 7th. The “war of images” in Gaza is incredibly present in social media, from which the majority of students get their information and news. More countries than ever before are criticising Israel for the military operation in Gaza, and the line between anti-Semitism and permissible criticism of the Israeli government, its actions in Gaza and its relationship with the Palestinians in general, is becoming increasingly difficult to discern. 
Our pupils are now caught in the middle of this confusion that entails both information and disinformation. Some have family roots in regions where anti-Semitism – particularly in relation to Israel – has a long tradition and is part of everyday propaganda. While the Jewish victims of the Hamas attack are barely present, images of suffering or dead children, women and men from Gaza are now being flushed into mobile phones on TikTok every single day. This makes it increasingly difficult for pupils to recognise and categorise the conflict’s complexity. They identify with the victims and mix their suffering and helplessness with their own experiences of flight and marginalisation. It should, therefore, come as no surprise that this personal outrage is also reflected in their statements. A rather one-sided view ultimately dominates, and that is precisely why it is important to talk to them on an equal footing, with understanding and empathy, to de-construct and contextualise content and information from social media, and to show them that the conflict does not follow a good/bad dichotomy. We teaching personnel should treat pupils with the openness, curiosity and tolerance that we expect from them when dealing with other religions, cultures and world views. 

By Julia Mayr, Network Coordinator ERINNERN:AT Upper Austria and former course participant

During a trip to Israel in the summer of 2022, I was able to meet Eyal Naveh, one of the authors of the book “Side by Side – Parallel Histories of Israel-Palestine”. “Side by Side” topicalises individual periods in the history of the Middle East – such as the War of Independence and the “Nakba” (expulsion and flight of the Arab population) – from a multi-perspective viewpoint. This multi-perspective approach is reflected in the title and inside the book, which is divided into three columns. The left column describes the Israeli perspective, the right column the Palestinian perspective and the centre column consists of blank lines inviting readers to reflect on their own perspective. This multi-perspective and participatory approach does justice to the fact that, in Israeli-Palestinian history, there is often still no narrative on which all parties have agreed, meaning that it is important to put several points of view in writing, in order to do justice to as many people as possible and to reach a diverse audience – such as that of a classroom. 
Following the brutal terrorist attack by Hamas on civilians, there have been events that are incompatible with the values of our society and demand a clear position. This includes condemning terror and anti-Semitism and recognising that those affected deserve protection. However, it is important to name the terror of October 7th and its perpetrators – namely Hamas – and not to equate them with all Palestinians.

By Adelheid Schreilechner, head of the course “Holocaust. Cultures of Remembrance. History Teaching” at the Salzburg University of Education, in the context of which Israel seminar trips are organised

We live in a time (and in a society) in which images and news come at us unfiltered and unrestricted by the constraints of time. On social media channels, attitudes and behaviour are constantly confirmed and reinforced according to the prevailing algorithm. One-sidedness and “emotionalisation” are the result. 
In lessons, one should work in three steps: 
1. Collecting, 2. Objectifying, 3. Drawing conclusions.

1. Collecting
A school can (and must) be a neutral place where people can express what they have experienced and heard without being immediately corrected or judged. This affords young people an outlet for what they are exposed to. 

2. Objectifying 
Teachers look at the conflict with the pupils on a meta-level, talking about facts instead of dwelling on emotions or reinforcing them. The discussion surrounding the conflict could, for example, be introduced as follows: “We are dealing with a conflict that goes far back into history. So let’s try to clarify what it’s all about and how it got this far.”

3. Drawing conclusions
At the end of the substantive work, there should be conclusions drawn, i.e. findings. Nobody has to (or should) take sides. Rather, we learned something about Israel and Palestine, about Jews, about Palestinians and about conflicts in general. 
The more varied the learning outcomes, the more differentiated and successful the lessons were. And improvements are always possible! 

By Stephan Scharinger, former course participant and teacher training college in Tyrol

Our students come to class with previous experiences and judgements that have been shaped by their families and the media, for example. The school’s task must be to convey facts and circumstances, as well as to provide a space for the exchange of opinions, in order to be able to reflect on one’s own judgements and adapt these if necessary.
An initial step can focus on media research: the students follow the media available to them for a week and note down headlines that concern them. In class, the media reports are then enriched with historical and political knowledge. Depending on the age of the pupils, terms such as “Hamas”, “Gaza Strip”, “hostages”, “Palestinians” or “anti-Semitism” need to be clarified, in order to create a common basis for discussion. Finally, the students formulate written questions about the Middle East war on post-its or in a digital forum. The questions remain visible to everyone during the lesson.
In order to understand the Middle East war, it is important to categorise it from a multitude of different perspectives. The conflict is explained with the help of age-appropriate and suitable information materials (texts, explanatory videos). Simultaneously, media didactic considerations on (dis)reputable media and fake news are necessary. Possible guiding questions for the media analysis could be: who are the authors? Are figures/data/facts provided? Are sources or experts indicated? Is the video’s aim to provide factual information?
Finally, the students’ open questions are answered. Fact-based discussion means clearly stating the facts and distinguishing between facts, opinions and emotions. It is hugely important to remain in dialogue with the students as equals, and not to relinquish the relationship level, even if different points of view clash.