In this era of war, public opinion in Western democracies plays a crucial role in shaping the evolution of global conflicts. This proposal represents a “peace offensive” aimed directly at the conscience and reason of Western citizens, intended to foster meaningful initiatives for freedom, justice, and human rights in the Middle East.
Viewing the truce between Israel and Hamas as the end of the war would be a grave mistake. As Radical Europe, we believe it is essential to clarify the premises of our position. To date, international diplomacy has focused merely on demanding temporary ceasefires, which serve only as brief pauses before fighting resumes. This stems from the fundamental nature of the conflict: Hamas defines its core purpose as the destruction of the Jewish state, an objective fully backed by the Iranian regime. As long as these conditions persist, the underlying causes of war remain intact. Ending the conflict requires addressing its underlying causes; so long as fundamentalists are dedicated to Israel’s annihilation, war remains the inevitable outcome. As Marco Pannella used to say, we must pit the “possible” against the “probable” – fostering an informed debate in the West to empower those in the Middle East who recognize that peace requires the marginalization of extremists blinded by ideology.
The attack on October 7 marked a tragic and horrifying turning point. It was not merely another act of terrorism, but a practical demonstration of what Hamas means by the “destruction of the State of Israel”: not replacing it with a multi-ethnic state where Jewish people can coexist, but pursuing the total extermination of the Jewish population. Hamas has repeatedly framed the killing of Jews as a religious duty. October 7 proved that this is not empty propaganda, but an active military objective. Through massacres, desecration, and the kidnapping of hundreds of hostages, Hamas demonstrated its commitment to translating ideological proclamations into military action.
Faced with such a threat, no Israeli government could tolerate the presence of an armed force with such goals on its border. A state’s primary duty is to ensure the survival of its citizens. Consequently, military intervention in the Gaza Strip was unavoidable, however tragic and deeply contradictory. Given Gaza’s high population density and Hamas’s deliberate placement of military assets within civilian infrastructure, the campaign resulted in a civilian death toll that appalls human conscience. This human tragedy risks proving fatal to Israel by fueling hostility in Western public opinion and undermining historic U.S. support. It is highly probable that Hamas planned the attack precisely to provoke this reaction, thereby bearing primary responsibility for the suffering in Gaza.
This analysis is confirmed by a clear reality: while Israel’s actions have sparked widespread international outrage and calls for an immediate ceasefire, critics have failed to offer any alternative solution to ensure Israel’s security and survival against Hamas and a nuclearizing Iran. The absence of realistic alternatives underscores why military action appeared to Israel as an inescapable path.
In this context, the role of anti-war and pro-Palestinian movements in the West has proven ambiguous and counterproductive. The slogan “From the river to the sea,” widely used in street demonstrations and university occupations, effectively calls for the elimination of Israel. By denying the Jewish state’s right to exist, these protests leave Israel with no choice but to defend itself by force, paradoxically producing the exact opposite of true peace.
Italy and Europe must spearhead an initiative for a substantive peace process that goes well beyond fragile ceasefires. The essential prerequisite for negotiations is that both sides formally renounce the destruction of the adversary and mutually recognize each other’s right to exist, following the precedent of Israel’s historic peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. This demand must be directed at Hamas and Iran to abandon their destructive ambitions, and equally at Israel, which must accept the creation of an independent Palestinian state that poses no threat to its security.
Achieving this goal faces immense obstacles. For Hamas and the Iranian regime, eliminating Israel is not merely a political strategy – unlike the national aspirations of Arafat’s PLO – but is seen as a religious duty. Because they view Palestine as sacred Islamic land, sovereignty over it is a non-negotiable religious dogma, placing theology above pragmatic political compromise. When religious dogma overrides political reason, compromise becomes virtually impossible.
Consequently, the Middle East faces two distinct conflicts: a national political struggle and a religious war. Political disputes can be resolved through compromise when both parties act in their national interest, as seen in past negotiations like the Oslo Accords. Religious wars, however, admit no mediation.
It must also be acknowledged that fundamentalist tendencies exist within Israel, represented by extremist groups that claim the entire region based on divine mandate and promote unacceptable settlement policies in the West Bank. Israel must dismantle such destructive settlement and expropriation policies in the West Bank to achieve peace. However, a crucial distinction remains: Jewish extremists represent a minority within a democratic framework and can be politically sidelined through democratic elections. In contrast, religious extremism currently holds political and military dominance on the Palestinian side in Gaza.
While a true peace process may seem nearly impossible, it remains the only viable path forward. Western democracies must challenge simplistic, anti-Western narratives that single out Israel while ignoring fundamentalist aggression. Instead, we must build a transnational secular alliance involving Israelis, Palestinians, and the wider Arab world. By politically isolating religious extremists on both sides, secular political leadership can restore political pragmatism and negotiate based on human rights and mutual interest. Only by placing politics at the center and reaffirming the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – beginning with the fundamental right to life – can stability, justice, and peaceful coexistence be achieved in the Middle East. That must be our goal.
