A dark, tragic anniversary. An anniversary that is rendered even more tragic by the fact that the word everyone hopes for — peace — is still not being uttered. Tomorrow marks two years since the outbreak of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Potential resolutions are by no means guaranteed, notes Alessandro Politi, director of the NATO Defence College Foundation. Noting that the celebrations held on that tragic 7 October two years ago and the rampant hatred that has escalated since then are not conducive to peace, the expert highlights the importance of having the right frame of mind and warns against decontextualising the past. Politi identifies two guiding principles in the search for peace: the unifying role of faith and the universal lesson of “never again” embodied at Auschwitz. However, even the peace plan proposed by former US President Donald Trump risks losing touch with reality due to its failure to address key details, along with its disregard for concrete political conditions and for the Palestinian issue. Furthermore, the need for a broader vision for regional stability, including denuclearisation, is evident, as are Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s tenacious ambitions.
Tomorrow [7 October] marks two years since the outbreak of conflict between Israel and Hamas. What is the meaning of marking this anniversary?
Undoubtedly, anything that stirs up hatred is counterproductive. We need to see how the anniversary will be marked politically. Attention may be focused on the immediate past, resulting in a decontextualised view.
With 9/11, we witnessed the harmful consequences of a solely negative interpretation of that date for democracy, freedom and human rights.
When powerful emotions are involved, it is hard to think clearly and for politics to be constructive. It is a foreseeable risk, but viewing it as inevitable precludes the pursuit of peace.
There are many people out there who are calling for peace.
Many people, I believe, can see an alternative path thanks to a guiding light – known as the “path of Isaiah” in the Bible. The end of war and conflicts, and the destruction and transformation of weapons, are dictated by religious faith, which, as Pope Leo XIV reminds us, is the unifying horizon that transcends division and recognises the full dignity of the three Abrahamic religions. In a region engulfed in conflict like the Near East, this statement appears to be revolutionary, messianic and prophetic. However, in reality, peace is not solely established through concrete negotiations. It also originates from the attitudes of those involved in the negotiations, including public opinion and political forces. Another beacon of light is the lessons of Auschwitz and of the war crimes and crimes against humanity that have been tried in courts of law, which represent a universal heritage.
What does Trump’s proposed peace plan aim to achieve?
For a peace plan to be acceptable, it must be realistic. This one is lacking in a number of essential details. Trump may well be a successful businessman, but business deals are one thing and international agreements are another. The facts show that they are not the same thing.
In Ukraine, Trump’s practical approach has not yet gained traction. Trump starts off with great enthusiasm and determination, but achieving peace is a lengthy process.
Personal convictions are no match for reality, and if a balance cannot be found, peace will not be achieved. I distinctly remember when the normalisation agreements, the so-called “Abraham Accords”, garnered significant interest.
Even Hamas is asking for more time to evaluate the plan.
Coordinating is difficult for the Hamas leadership because they are not all in the same place. Secondly, Hamas has made it clear that it has no intention of unconditionally disarming. Meanwhile, Israel continues its campaign because Netanyahu evidently hopes to find a final solution to the problem. He holds firm to his convictions and is tactically very skilled. He would like to see an Israel stretching from the Jordan to the Mediterranean without Arabs. Incidentally, this was also the intention of Israel’s founding fathers, such as Ben Gurion.
In this context, I wish to emphasise the significance of Pakistan’s presence on the seemingly sealed stage of the Near East and the Gulf.
In political discourse, Pakistan considers itself the standard-bearer of the “Islamic bomb”, which is why serious consideration should be given to the denuclearisation of the entire Middle East, as the Egyptians have wisely been proposing for decades, but to no avail.
Turning to the situation in Gaza, do you see any glimmers of hope?
A minority in Israel continues to support the need for true peace with the Palestinians before the situation worsens. The same is true of Palestinian public opinion. However, these two groups alone are insufficient.
What was the flotilla’s objective, and did it achieve that objective?
The Sumud flotilla achieved its political goal. It was followed by two and a half million people online and in the streets. In Israel, a small country, such numbers cannot be ignored.
