Conflict in the Classroom: Navigating the Israel–Palestine Issue with Integrity and Care

The Israel–Palestine conflict is not a remote historical dispute. It is an ongoing tragedy involving real people. Many of them are dying right now. For some students in our schools, this is not a topic on the news or in textbooks, but a personal reality. They may have family in Gaza, friends in Tel Aviv, or deep connections through faith, heritage, and identity. In the classroom, we are not dealing with an abstract debate. We are dealing with grief, trauma, and sometimes rage. As school leaders, we cannot afford either silence or simplicity. But nor can we pretend that we can resolve this with a single lesson or well-meaning assembly.

Why It Matters in Schools, But Not in Every Lesson

When conflict escalates, schools feel it. Students may arrive carrying anger, fear, or sorrow. Some will want to talk about it. Others may not. And staff, too, may feel pressure from students, parents, or their own consciences to respond in some way. But not every response needs to be public. Not every lesson needs to be a forum.

In fact, one-off assemblies or drop-in lessons led by even the most well-intentioned staff may do more harm than good. Simplified narratives can entrench division, and emotionally charged sessions without clear boundaries can unintentionally trigger distress, defensiveness, or harm.

Instead, the goal should be to empower teachers to make judgments in the moment. That might mean saying, confidently, “This is a maths lesson. We’re not discussing this now.” That is not avoidance. It is professional clarity. But it might also mean knowing when a legitimate connection arises, for example in History, Politics, RS, or PSHE, and feeling safe to acknowledge it. Teachers shouldn’t fear this. Schools need a culture where difficult topics can be engaged with. Not because these issues are fashionable or trending, but because they matter and because we are prepared. School can be one of the few places on earth where students have the chance to think this conflict through in a safe, measured, and genuinely educational way.

What the Guidance Says

The Department for Education (DfE) makes it clear. Schools can discuss political and global issues like Israel–Palestine. But they must do so with political impartiality, ensuring multiple perspectives are shared and no partisan view is promoted. Schools should also ensure that discussions are age-appropriate and grounded in factual understanding, not ideology.

This doesn’t mean we should never talk about it. It means we must be thoughtful, proportionate, and anchored in curriculum purpose. Teachers should not feel pressured to invent learning moments where none exist. But nor should they feel muzzled when opportunities arise naturally.

Silence Isn’t Safety, But Structure Matters

There’s a temptation to say nothing at all. To avoid the subject entirely, hoping it will blow over. But silence can suggest indifference, especially to students in pain. At the same time, unstructured conversation can be just as risky.

So what’s the middle path? It is structure. It is preparation. It is knowing that while a five-minute conversation in a lesson won’t solve a generational conflict, it can model compassion, intellectual discipline, and respect.

That begins by recognising the safeguarding dimension. The DfE and Prevent guidance are clear. Schools must be alert to any form of hate speech, whether antisemitic, Islamophobic, or otherwise. This includes slogans or memes that dehumanise, blame, or glorify violence. Responding quickly and proportionately is part of our duty of care.

But we also have a responsibility to pastoral sensitivity. Students may be carrying grief. They may be confused or afraid. They may have questions, and we need to be ready. Not with all the answers, but with the ability to listen, to hold space, and to point them towards constructive, compassionate ways to engage.

What We Can (and Can’t) Do

We cannot teach the entire history of the Israel–Palestine conflict in one session. We cannot give students all the tools they need to unravel generations of pain and politics. But we can:

• Ensure subject specialists have time and support to teach key historical and political developments within the curriculum.
• Equip form tutors and generalist teachers with the language to acknowledge pain and redirect respectfully. For example, “That’s an important issue. Let’s discuss it in the right place.”
• Model respectful disagreement.
• Call out hate clearly, consistently, and fairly.
• Help students think critically about what they see and share online, including recognising biased sources and emotional manipulation.
• Maintain a whole-school culture of empathy, safety, and dignity for all.

And we can remind our students, and ourselves, that caring about injustice doesn’t always mean taking sides. Sometimes, it means asking better questions. Sometimes, it means sitting with discomfort. And sometimes, it means simply saying, “I don’t know, but I see you.”

Conclusion: A Professionally Brave Approach

The Israel–Palestine conflict will not be solved by a worksheet, a tweet, or a circle time discussion. But schools are not powerless. We cannot solve everything, but we can model something better. Not silence. Not slogans. But clarity, compassion, and courage.

We do this by recognising our limits, and our influence. We don’t need to turn every classroom into a battleground for global politics. But we can be ready, when it enters our schools, to meet it with professionalism, humanity, and hope.