The ongoing war in the Palestinian territory does not present a clear future. Was it avoidable?  It is worth going back over the last decades, taking a look at the policy that was involved.

I have some personal memories. It was the early nineties when, a delegation from the CGIL composed by the general secretary Lama, national secretaries Trentin and myself, met Arafat in Tunis where his headquarters were.

Yasser Arafat was very happy with the initiative but complained about the position I had expressed writing on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. I had written that there was the chance of a solution on the basis of conclusions of the Oslo international meeting on the peace between Israelis and Palestinians. But Arafat had probably  been misinformed by his advisors on the Italian position in favor of a dialogue with the new government of Israel. The meeting ended with a big hug which demonstrated the interest  of Arafat in the Italian Trade unions position.

The effective opportunity for an agreement had arisen with the Israeli government of Yitzhak Rabin of the Labour party , who in the previous years had taken part as head of the army in the conflict with Egypt led and Syria.  In the following years he had been head of the Israel government, and now he had been elected for the second time at the head of the government , and was convinced of the possibility of an agreement to solve the Palestinian problems.

It was not a case that Rabin invited Arafat to discuss about a peace process. And the most important moment was their meeting in Washinton with Bill Clinton who had recently been elected to the presidency of the United States. The important meeting was celebrated by a commune photo. It seemed to be the start of a new course as prelude to a peace agreement. But Rabin, who had been  awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in November 1995 was killed by a young member of the Israeli right.

With the assassination of Rabin, the peace process lacked its main Israeli protagonist. After an interregnum led by Simon Peres  between November 1955 and  November 1996, the elections brought a right-wing exponent, Benjamin Netanyahu, to government and the peace process remained unachieved.

In those years, approximately one million people of the Israelite faith arrived in Israel from Eastern Europe. But when Arafat asked that 500 thousand Palestinians scattered in neighbouring countries could return to Palestine, the request was denied. The peace process had been blocked by the new leaders of Israel. In 2003 Arafat, who had banked on the agreement, died (many said he was a victim of poisoning) in a Paris hospital.

The end of the peace process had given rise to the second intifada.  In 2005 Abu Mazen took over the governments of  Palestine, while Hamas had taken control of the Gaza Strip. But Abu Mazen considered Hamas an opponent of the government installed in the West Bank, and Gaza was isolated. In essence, the perspective of a Palestinian government became difficult due to  the division of the opposed Palestinian representatives.

The end of the peace process

When I returned to Palestine for a meeting with the resistance leaders, Palestine was essentially under Israeli military command. From the top of a building in the central square we - I was with Renato Lattes – had been stopped by armed Israeli soldiers  to interrogate our Palestinian companion who was driving the car that had taken us through not controlled hilly roads to Nablus in the West Bank. Evidently, they wanted to question him and get to know the people we had been with. In the end we could continue the trip, saying  that he had guided us on our request, and stating that the Italian government was informed of our mission - in reality ignored by the Italian ambassade.

The Israeli-Palestinian war had two features. On the one hand, the West Bank, inhabited by Palestinians,  led by Abu Mazen without any effective power. The Israelis had established about hundred settlements in that territory. The effective  opponent in the conflict was Hamas, confined to Gaza territory, closed, on one side by the Mediterranean see and, on the other, by a desert territory controlled by Israel.

Israel, under Netanyahu leadership, has the armed control of Gaza territory where live 2 million 200 thousand Palestinians. About seven million more Palestinians live in the middle eastern countries, mostly in Jordan.

It is a figure similar to that of the total Hebrew population of 15.7 million people, partly living in Israel, over six million in the United States and a minor percentage in France, Great Britain and Italy.

The conflict

The current conflict doesn’t show a solution. Hamas with the attack on Israel has caused the dead of 1200 Israelis, while around 150 Israelis were prisoner. The reaction is known. The Israeli army could advance into Gaza territory without encountering obstacles. The Palestinian people did not have an army and Hamas militants were partly in the underground network where they held the Israelis prisoner.

The Israeli army could advance into Gaza without obstacles. About one and a half million Palestinians who have abandoned houses, largely destroyed, live in tents set up on the Mediterranean coast.

The novelty is that the conflict has acquired a central role in the new international framework. China and Russia are close to Palestinians; Saudi Arabia has reached an agreement, after about a decade of conflict,  with Iran and the Houthi of Yemen, who control the arc of the Red sea that goes from the Gulf of Aden to the Suez Canal; Iraq, Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Israel has substantial support from the United States and its major allies, centered on Great Britain, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, as well as Australia and Canada. The European Union, part of Nato, is on the side of Israel.

In other words, the conflict has clearly taken on global characteristics.

The Marginality of Europe

Palestine has not been subjugated for more than 70 years. now it is at the center of a conflict that is involving the major world powers. Angela Merkel, when still was German Chancellor, had agreed a deal with Russia  which,in many respects, involved the European Union.II was also the occasion for the inauguration of the second gas pipeline between Russia and German servicing also  other European countries. The meeting in Moscow had ended with a large bouquet of flowers offered by Putin to Angela Merkel. But the agreement was canceled after the end of Merkel's mandate and the American intervention contrary to the agreement between the European Union and the Russian Federation.

In the autumn of 2022, the two gas pipelines intended for the transfer of Russian gas to Europe were - according to Washington Post sources - sabotaged and rendered inoperative by the Ukrainian military command. As we know, for Europe the problem of the lack of gas supply has translated into a sharp increase in its price for families, industry and services, contributing to the reduction of national income.

Economic theory has found a point of agreement between Keynesians and monetarists. In other words, if demand is declining due to the increase in prices and the relative reduction in wages and pensions,” only public intervention can intervene to sustain consumption,  production and growth”. European policy has followed the contrary policy, continuing to pretend the reduction of the public debt – in other words the reduction of public investment, revenues and consumes.

Mario Draghi, former president of the BCE and of the Italian government , has suggested  in the European  meeting of April 15th a common European policy based on increased public expenses. In effect, the policy of the United States with the current major growth among the advanced capitalist countries (3.2 percent last year and a forecasted 2,6 percent the current). But also, a suggestion that  doesn’t take into account the different positions among the EU states and the current economic difficulties of each member state. 

German sorts from a year of recession (a rare event after the second World War)with a forecasted growth of 0.2 percent in the current year. A trend that is reflected in the forecast  growth under 1 percent in France and Italy, the other two main countries of the European Union. among the advanced capitalist countries. In essence, the impoverishment of a growing part of the population has been accompanied by the growth in wealth of 5-10 percent of the population having control of the parties and governments linked to the policy dominated by the European Commission.

The Draghi’ proposition was clearly  linked for his candidature to the presidency of the European Union  after a possible, but uncertain, retirement of Ursula von der Leyen.

There will be European elections in next June with uncertain outcome. But it is a matter of fact that the European Union, in the ongoing context dominated by the war in the Middle east has an economic and political secondary role . Europe has condemned itself to the periphery of ongoing policy. Its economic decline reflects the irrelevance  of the European governments with a secondar position y in the context of the war and new relationships at a global level.