“There is no such thing as a pure, unambiguous history. In every struggle, there are competing narratives, and no one side holds all the truth.” – Jon Meacham, American historian.
The Israel-Hamas war has polarized every part of the world, and Vanderbilt University is no exception. As today marks the war’s first anniversary, it is appropriate to analyze student perspectives on a multitude of issues, from the initial attack to Israel’s response to how Vanderbilt has handled the issues that have arisen from this conflict.
On October 7, 2023, Hamas, defined by Encyclopedia Britannica as a “Palestinian nationalist and Islamic movement in the West Bank and Gaza Strip,” led a coordinated strike against Israel. At 6:30 AM, it fired more than 2,000 rockets, overwhelming Israel’s Iron Dome defense system and killing nearly 1,200 Israeli citizens. In addition, Hamas operatives took more than 240 Israelis into the Gaza Strip as hostages.
However, to frame this attack as having happened in a vacuum would be disingenuous. Decades of history give context to the conflict between Israel and Palestine, leading to a variety of different interpretations of the attacks. With that in mind, I asked Vanderbilt students to recall their initial reactions to the war’s outbreak.
What were your initial reactions to the October 7 attack?
“The October 7 attacks happened on Simchat Torah, a time of celebration for Jews throughout Israel and the world. When the country of Israel was in celebration, Hamas came in and massacred civilians at random and took hostages. We couldn’t believe it was real, and we were utterly appalled by the violence on that day. We also hoped that the world would rally around Israel and the Jewish people after a day of celebration was besmirched by suffering. As Jews, we fight darkness with light, so I would say there was also some determination there.” – Micah Liss, Class of 2026
“When I first heard about the attack on October 7, I was shocked. Although I was generally aware of the conflict between Israel and Palestine, I recognized right away that this attack would probably lead to a full-scale conflict in Palestine and may cause instability throughout the Middle East (what we are seeing now in Lebanon). I was genuinely frightened about the families in the area, especially the children, and wondered what the unforeseeable future would look like.” – Anonymous
Two days after October 7, Israel ordered a “complete siege” of the Gaza Strip. According to the Gaza health ministry — using metrics from August 15, 2024 cosigned by the United Nations — more than 40,000 people have been killed since the start of the conflict, with 56% of casualties being women and children. The high death toll among Palestinians has led to protests worldwide calling for a ceasefire, as many believe Israel’s retaliation has gone too far. Others believe that Israel has a responsibility to defend their citizens.
What are your thoughts regarding Israel’s retaliation to October 7?
“Keeping in mind the Jewish people’s historic residence of the land, Israel’s reaction is justified. In the Torah, God commands if someone is planning to attack, you must strike first. Hamas is putting civilians in harm’s way, and Israel is doing the best it can to minimize civilian damage. We can see the pager strike in Lebanon as an example of a precise strike that only attacked militant targets. While Israel has not been perfect, they have done a lot better in mitigating civilian casualties than other Western nations, and there exists a pretty significant double standard in response to Israel protecting their people.” – Micah Liss, Class of 2026
“Israel’s response has absolutely gone too far. Israeli leaders talk about fighting a ‘moral war,’ yet they lost their moral high ground after killing more than 1,200 Palestinian civilians. Israel has proved to the world that they are capable of carrying out targeted strikes, yet they continuously make the conscious decision to use imprecise methods that kill hundreds at a time. Israeli leadership consists of racists who want to inflict pain on Palestinians, Hamas or not. They claim their war is against Hamas, yet they continue to destroy civilian infrastructure in the West Bank. They claim their war is against Hamas, yet they enable (and encourage) settler violence in the West Bank, which has claimed hundreds of Palestinian lives. They claim their war is against Hamas, yet they have killed dozens of journalists, bombed a UN convoy, and killed doctors and aid workers in the Gaza Strip. Their war is not against Hamas.” – Anonymous
Israel’s retaliation has expanded beyond Hamas and Palestine to other sovereign nations within the Middle East, most notably Lebanon. Lebanon is home to Hezbollah, a Muslim political and militant group allied with Hamas. Since October 7, “4,400 rocket, missile, and other stand-off attacks” were launched combined between both parties. Israel recently began a ground offensive into Lebanon, which supporters claim is an effort to return the 63,000 Israeli citizens who have been displaced by Hezbollah’s threats to bomb the Israel border. Critics, however, assert these actions only escalate the region’s tensions.
What are your reactions to Israel’s response to other countries in the region? Do you see it as defensive or escalatory?
“Israel’s actions in Lebanon, while difficult, are necessary in ensuring regional stability. Hezbollah’s influence has been destabilizing the Middle East for years. Addressing the threats posed by this terrorist organization is not only vital for Israel’s security but also for the safety and well-being of both civilians and democracy throughout the region.” – Benny Rogowsky, Class of 2027
“Israeli aggression towards neighboring regions fails to achieve any progress in de-escalation. It’s clear that their actions are pointing to a greater agenda of control and domination in the Middle East, which Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu has verbalized on various occasions, most recently during his speech at the UN General Assembly, where he described neighboring countries as a ‘curse.’ As such, these militaristic attacks should be considered actions of war. Innocent lives from every background have been lost due to Israel’s actions. One of the [characteristics] of a just war is the notion of proportional response, which is nonexistent when looking at Israel’s responses, retaliations, and attacks. Far too many innocent lives have been taken under the guise of self-defense that it begs for a reconsideration of the intent of their actions.” – Anonymous
Many have criticized the Biden administration for funding arms shipments to Israel, with more than ten billion dollars of aid being promised to Israel — $6.5 billion from October to June, and a deal for $3.5 billion signed on August 10. While President Joe Biden has sharpened his criticism of Israel’s actions, some voters who support Palestine are still hesitant to vote for Vice President Kamala Harris given her relatively neutral stance in holding Israel accountable.
On the other side of the aisle, some Republicans criticize the administration for not supporting Israel enough, with former President Donald Trump saying that, under a potential Harris presidency, “Israel is gone.”
What are your thoughts regarding U.S. support of Israel? Is there a need for this aid or is it excessive?
“It is in the United States’ national interest to maintain and even bolster our support for Israel. As a longstanding ally and the only democracy in the region, Israel faces complex security challenges that impact broader Middle Eastern stability. It is [the United States’] moral obligation to stand with a nation that upholds shared values of freedom and human rights, particularly in the face of persistent threats. Our increased assistance would not only ensure the defense of democratic values but also reinforce our commitment to countering terrorism and fostering peace in an otherwise volatile region.” – Benny Rogowsky, Class of 2027
“In an ideal world, support for Israel would not be unconditional. There is no reason why our government should continue to sign blank checks and continue to arm a genocidal state. Criticism of the current Israeli government is not an indictment of Jews or Israelis at large — far from it. It’s an indictment of those currently in power, and those people [in power] do not deserve any more support.” – Anonymous
“While I don’t have a perspective on the conflict, I think it’s bullshit that we keep sending money over there [Israel] and yet have stopped funding for hurricane relief.” – Anonymous
Vanderbilt University has played a pivotal role in this story for many students. From protests on campus to the university’s policy of “institutional neutrality,” this war has impacted many students on this campus and shaped their political ideologies. Vanderbilt prides itself on a policy of free expression, and part of this free expression policy includes having difficult conversations with dignity, respect, and open dialogue between contrasting viewpoints. Still, many on both sides have criticized the administration’s handling of the conflict.
How has Vanderbilt responded to the Israel-Hamas war?
“At the end of last semester, I witness[ed] a hostile and intimidating pro-Palestine protest. It was the first time non-students were allowed on campus for a protest, despite the administration assuring us they would not let this happen. I have always felt fairly safe as a Jewish student at Vanderbilt, but hearing about violence against Jewish students at other campuses scares me. To hear protestors at Vanderbilt chanting ‘f*** peace’ was very alarming. Calls for an Intifada and violence on this campus must be taken seriously by the Vanderbilt administration if we are to remain an environment that is safe for all.” – Anonymous
“From a pro-Palestinian perspective, I believe that it is important that we remain open and inclusive to all opinions. The campus’ actions of stopping the protest seemed to be a partisan decision when the school made a stance that it did not take a side. The institutional neutrality message felt more like a political statement than a legitimate call for understanding and nonbias. It seemed that the ‘neutrality message’ never allowed any calls for a ceasefire or support for the Palestinian side to come across. Vanderbilt must address this issue, as students must protect their First Amendment right to free speech and continue sending a clear message of support for the Palestinian people. We are not spreading a message of hate or disrespect to any community but calling for humanitarian aid. [Vanderbilt], based on its founding principles and core beliefs of collaboration, advocacy, and change, should support this message rather than preach this biased neutrality.” – Anonymous
In gathering these opinions, I talked to many students with insightful perspectives on the Israel-Hamas war. Unfortunately, a common sentiment I received was that these students did not feel comfortable giving their point of view for fear of backlash. By limiting these perspectives through fear of public intimidation, we only further divisions between our opinions and stray further from a solution.
The students quoted in this article are fellow members of the Vanderbilt community and do not deserve backlash for expressing their political opinions. On the contrary, we should celebrate the opportunity to have these conversations, strive towards achieving an understanding, and work towards a peaceful solution. As a campus community, students and administration alike must do a better job of allowing students to express their beliefs without fear of backlash, and that starts with respectful dialogue.
