How Can We Talk about This War?

Hamas' brutal terror attack on Israel on October 7, 2023 pushed the Middle East into a deep crisis. The ongoing war in Gaza has resulted in thousands of casualties and over 100 Israeli hostages are still being held by the radical Islamic group Hamas. The conflict is not only a concern for politicians and academics, but is also fueling the socio-political debate in Germany.

The current discourse falls back on arguments that have always characterized the debate on Israel and Palestine: On the one hand, there are Germany's political responsibilities towards Israel, arising from the historical debt of the Holocaust; on the other hand, the lessons of the past highlight the universality of human rights and the importance of international law. Furthermore, there is an ambivalent relationship to the Arab world in German discourse, which is reinforced by Islamophobic stereotypes. At the same time, antisemitic continuities persist, while the simplification of de- and post-colonial patterns of interpretation favors a dualistic confrontation and categorization in friend-or-foe schemes. “No matter how hard you try to take a differentiated and balanced position, there are always attacks from both sides,” reflects researcher Dr Irene Weipert-Fenner.

Since October 7, however, it has become apparent that the discourse arena is continuing to shrink and the political fronts are starting to heat up. The tone and manner of debate have become “much harsher, sharper and more polarized, which encourages pigeonholing,” summarizes Dr Claudia Baumgart-Ochse. However, this not only complicates scientific observation and analysis, but also increasingly prevents constructive public debate.

This is also reflected within school settings, as confrontations with the war also take place in the classroom, the schoolyard, or the staff room. How can this complex situation be addressed in schools? How can the real-life interests of pupils be accommodated? How can their need for conversation, their questions and also their emotions be properly addressed?

Often there is a lack of differentiated knowledge about the history of the conflict or previous efforts to resolve it. Historical knowledge is crucial for being able to understand current events.

Claudia Baumgart-Ochse

In light of this, educational formats that counter the destructive culture of conflict with informed dialogue and open discourse are becoming all the more important. To this end, PRIF's Knowledge Transfer department organized the discussion format “Frankfurt Ideas for Peace” in cooperation with a Frankfurt high school in December. Under the guidance of two academics, Dr Claudia Baumgart-Ochse and Dr Irene Weipert-Fenner, two high school political science courses addressed the current armed conflict in Israel and Gaza in December 2023.

Using material provided beforehand, the students were able to familiarize themselves with the conflict, its history, and how it is embedded in the regional order of the Middle East. On this basis of background knowledge, the event itself took place within a two-hour period, primarily providing a space for exchange, questions and discussion. “It was important for us to seek dialogue outside of the school setting and to remove the discussion from the confines of the graded school context,” explains Yvonne Blum, knowledge transfer officer at PRIF. “Although the teachers take part, they are asked to only listen and not ask any questions. This allows us to reduce pressure on the students.”

The workshop is not geared towards the learning objectives of the schools and the accompanying researchers merely present a thematic framework. Within this general scope, there is room for the students' questions and comments, as well as for controversy and emotions, so that they can shape the course of the workshop themselves based on their previously acquired knowledge. All in all, the workshop intends to encourage them to share their diverse questions and perspectives. “The students each bring different topics for discussion depending on their own context. That's why it's important to make them feel that their perspective is also seen,” summarizes Dr Irene-Weipert-Fenner.

However, the researchers do not take on a role as teachers. Instead, they engage with the pupils as peers and act as moderators: they facilitate the discussion, answer questions and contextualize statements. “It's not about acting as an all-knowing expert and presenting a ready-made solution,” emphasizes Weipert-Fenner. Instead, the researchers can also learn something themselves in the dialogical format. “The students' ability to reflect critically was impressive. Hearing what concerns them is also fascinating input for me and my research,” reflects Dr Claudia Baumgart-Ochse.

How can we increase the visibility of young people in public discourse? If we allow a wide array of perspectives in the debate, we may also be able to overcome polarization.

Irene Weipert-Fenner

Unlike previous events in the series, however, this year's workshop took place without public participation. “Our aim was to create an atmosphere in which all students felt comfortable,” explains Yvonne Blum. “On the other hand, it was important for us to also provide a safe space for our researchers when discussing this sensitive topic.” After all, in a polarized debate, conversations can quickly turn unobjective and result in verbal abuse or hatred.

Accordingly, transfer formats also have to establish a practice of dialogue that demonstrates a genuine willingness to listen to different perspectives, but is equally open to scientific facts and approaches its own standpoint self-critically. This enables the reflection of simplistic schemata and the questioning of polarizing thought patterns, while at the same time revealing the complexity of the conflict with its nuances. In order to support this process, it is essential to have a constructive moderation of the discussion that both contextualizes and intervenes: misinformation must be clarified and all dehumanizing, antisemitic and Islamophobic narratives must not remain uncontradicted. However, the Israeli state's right to exist, the Palestinians' right to self-determination, nor the standards of international law are debatable.

One particular challenge, however, arises from the almost simultaneous dissemination of unfiltered information on social media. Pupils are not only confronted with a vast flood of information, they also receive explicit and often distressing footage from the war zone. It is true that discussion formats can serve as a scientific corrective by providing orientation for knowledge. Yet these important transfer formats can have limits. After all, it is not always possible to obtain reliable information within the limited time available and in light of dynamic conflict developments in order to provide differentiated and evidence-based conclusions. This highlights the importance of strengthening students' media resilience and their ability to critically analyze facts in digital spaces.

Transfer formats are unable to address the major challenges of war for research, political practice and social discourse in full. However, they offer a space for students' experiences in conversation, show appreciation for their perspectives and can strengthen mutual understanding. In doing so, they point the way towards bridging the dehumanization in the debate as well as an empathetic and constructive discourse. (hfr)