An article titled After October 7: how not to understand explores the complex emotions and moral challenges faced by individuals and societies in the wake of the events of October 7. The piece focuses on the Israeli perspective, examining the difficulty of expecting those who have survived attacks to immediately empathize with the people among whom their attackers were hiding. It critiques Western moralists for what it calls a "quiet obscenity"—a kind of moral complacency in a world that no longer knows fear, war, or survival. The article argues that empathy is not something that can be demanded or decreed; it is something that is earned in times of peace, which it claims no longer exists because an entire people has chosen to align with Hamas, embracing death, hatred, and the illusion of jihad. The article also questions the expectation that Israelis should be exemplary in their behavior, comparing it to asking a Holocaust survivor to love their executioner. It criticizes the West for offering sympathy and moral sermons from a position of comfort and security, while simultaneously demanding that Israelis adhere to principles of moderation, proportionality, and international law as they grieve the loss of their loved ones. The text suggests that in this context, empathy has become a luxury of the wealthy—a moral stance that lacks the courage required in such dire circumstances. The article includes images of Greta Thunberg, the Swedish climate activist, alongside pro-Palestinian activists, highlighting the convergence of global social movements with the ongoing conflict. It argues that the West has forgotten the necessity of sometimes being unjust in order to survive and that one does not reason with those who engage in jihad; instead, the text claims, one must either fight them or be eliminated. This perspective challenges the idea that moral clarity is always the best approach in times of war and survival. The article concludes by suggesting that those who ask Israelis to love their attackers forget that it is already a miracle they have not gone mad. It emphasizes the raw, brutal, and instinctual desire for survival that drives human behavior in the face of extreme danger and loss. The piece ultimately calls for a deeper understanding of the psychological and emotional toll experienced by those living through such conflict, urging a more nuanced approach to empathy and morality in times of crisis.