There are many reasons why people take part in calls for peace. Some are here in support of the Palestinian struggle for liberation; some are here because they cannot remain apathetic in light of Israel’s mass murder campaign against women, children, and men exacted on Gaza with the complicity of our government; some are here because they believe in the fundamental moral principle that violence is wrong and aggression against violence is wrong, yet others join because they are increasingly worried by the Austrian government’s crackdown on free speech and freedom of assembly; some are here because they believe every single atrocity, every war crime ought to be condemned whomever is the perpetrator or the victim. The Geneva Convention either holds for everyone, or it holds for no one! While we might differ in what drove us here today; we are all united by our goal, that is a call for peace and justice for all People “from the river to the sea”!
Just as we unite around the belief that peace, international law, and equal rights for everyone ought to be upheld, the Austrian media and government, without exception, unite behind Israel, furnishing it with impunity backed by an unprecedented diplomatic and media support campaign. In a recent press article an Austrian establishment journalist worries about “the moment when one realizes that Hamas’s atrocities cause less horror than Israel’s retaliation”, constituting “a reversion to barbarism”. 1 The article was published at a time when it was widely reported that Israel murdered more than 12,500 children in 150 days of unrestrained state terror, or more than 80 children per day. To give you an idea, on October 7th, Hamas killed 36 children. This means that Israel killed almost three times as many children every day for 150 days straight. This somehow did not factor into establishment media assessments as they were still elucidating that Hamas’ attack “wasn’t a terrorist attack”, but “an explosion of violence that wiped out centuries of civilization – out of pure pleasure in dehumanization and brutality.” One could cite many more similar comments from the media, but it is depressing to continue. What is even more appalling is that despite such levels of journalistic malpractice, the authors of such articles are still honored with awards for extraordinary journalistic achievements. 2
In terms of diplomatic support, “Austria is the only Western European nation whose government [was] actively shielding [Israel] from sanctions by the European Union over Netanyahu’s plan to annex parts of the West Bank [already before October 7].” It can easily accomplish this task, as “new sanctions […] require [full] consensus among its […] members.” 3 As voting got underway at the United Nations on October 27, 2023, on a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, David Roet, former Israeli ambassador to the UN, praised “Austria for standing for what Austria believes and voting against that resolution” together with only 4 other EU countries. 4 On December 12, 2023, another UN Emergency Special Session was called as the ongoing crisis in Gaza showed no signs of abating, voting for a resolution demanding an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”, the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages as well as “ensuring humanitarian access”. Again, Austria voted against that resolution, this time with only 1 other EU country, namely its neighbour Czechia. 5
In both cases, Austria’s chancellor Karl Nehammer defended its rejectionist stance by highlighting that “a resolution in which the terrorist organization Hamas is not named, in which the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7th are not condemned and in which Israel’s right to self-defense, which is enshrined in international law, is not stated – […] cannot be supported by Austria”. 6 Official doctrine holds, “irrespective of the fact, that Israel is dedicated to the highest moral values and “purity of arms””, defending itself from “the Palestinians, the very epitome of extremism, terrorism, and barbarity”. 7(p.36) Hence, Nehammer does not even conceive objecting to the omission that Israel as a terror state is not named, and its vastly disproportionate and brutal mass murder retaliation campaign is not condemned; and while it is true that a state has the right to defend itself against criminal attacks, it does not follow that it has the right to defend itself by force. “That goes far beyond any principle that we would or should accept. Putin had no right [to invade Ukraine despite NATO’s aggressive encroachment or] to use force in response to the Chechen terror. Kristallnacht not justified by Hershel Grynszpan’s assassination of a German Embassy official in Paris”. 9 (p.116) However, any such “rational assessment, giving an accurate portrayal and analysis of the scale and purpose of the terrorism of the emperor [Israel] and the pirate [Hamas], is excluded a priori, and would indeed be barely comprehensible, so remote would it be from received orthodoxy.”
Further commenting on Austria’s rejectionist stance, foreign minister Alexander Schallenberg expounds that “of course it is the goal to reach a ceasefire agreement at some point, however, the question is all about timing”, and now is simply not a good time. 10 Unfortunately he does not mention how many more people have to be slaughtered until he regards the timing for a ceasefire to be propitious. Howbeit one can logically conclude from the overall doctrinal framework that Schallenberg refers to a successful ethnic cleansing campaign by expelling Palestinians from Gaza, when he seeks to explicate and contextualise his thoughts on the importance of “good timing”. One might argue that Schallenberg’s conclusion regarding the timing for a ceasefire is repugnant, but one can’t fault him for being without logic; it is obvious that a ceasefire agreement in Gaza on terms favourable to Austrias partner Israel is much “easier” to achieve once the population has been expelled, as there is no one around to counter it. To ensure Austria’s concerns for the region are not misunderstood, chancellor Karl Nehammer adds that “Austria has always advocated a balanced position in the Middle East conflict and stressed the importance of treating both sides of the conflict fairly. Furthermore, Nehammer emphasized that the rejection of the [UN] resolution should not be understood as a lack of solidarity with the Palestinian people.” 11 The level of cynicism in those statements is suffocating, especially in light of the fact that “some new term is needed for the sadistic and cowardly torture of people caged with no possibility of escape, while they are being pounded to dust by the most sophisticated products of US military technology – used in violation of international and even US law”. The fact that Nehammer’s statements can even be made without evoking ridicule is another sign of the extraordinary success of the system of indoctrination.
In concert with international diplomatic support for Israel via rejections of inconvenient UN General Assembly resolutions, Austria’s government excercised prudence at the legislative level by elevating Hamas to the same level as the Nazis in an unprecendet expansion of its 12 national Prohibition Act. The Prohibition Act was originally aimed at denazification of Austria by punishing any trivialization or relativization of the Nazi holocaust or other Nazi crimes against humanity. “Anyone who publicly wears [Nazi] badges or Hamas symbols in the future should be punished equally severely.” 13 Legislation of this ilk is installed as a backup, in case the power to rationalise Israel’s mass murder campaign fails to fulfil its primary function to keep the public minds from being cluttered with inconvenient facts.
The famous philosopher Bertrand Russell once said that „in a democracy, it is necessary that people learn to endure having their sentiments outraged.” 14 (p.448) For this reason, it is imperative to restore freedom of expression in Austria, as it represents the basis for rational decision-making, especially in conflict situations. At the same time, the stigmatization and criminalization of solidarity and peace advocates must end, and Austria must return to diplomacy and compliance with international law.