The savage terrorist attack by Hamas and the brutal response of the Israeli government set off an avalanche of competing opinions in radicalism. On the one hand, the condemnation of the terrorist act quickly became a position of rejecting the presence of the Palestinian population in Gaza, and even denying the Arab people as a whole. On the other hand, the rejection of the Netanyahu government’s response provoked demonstrations in favor of the terrorist group, which identified itself with the municipality of the Palestinian people, and went so far as to condemn the existence of the State of Israel. Both reactions removed the possibility of finding a solution.

The origin of these extreme positions is found in the explosive and toxic combination of religion and race as the basic elements on which the people are based for the formation of the nation and the building of the state. If taking race or religion as the unifying element of a community sows the seeds of conflict, to combine the two is to be prepared to live eternally in conflict with others. Identifying racially (or ethnically, in more academic terms) is a primitive way, overcome by the validity of values ​​such as legal equality, pluralism and multiculturalism. Turning religion – which is an absolutely individual and voluntary option – into an obligation to be part of a collective space is also a retreat towards primitive forms that have been overcome thanks to mutual tolerance, freedom of thought and recognition of free will.

The origin of the undeclared war that the two nations have been waging since the creation of the State of Israel – and which was reactivated by the terrorist incursion and the excessive response of the Netanyahu government – is the existence of sectors that, from within each of them, encourage racial and religious fundamentalism. Islamic radicalism is just as responsible as its Zionist counterpart. Both rely not only on racial and religious dogmas, but mix them up until they are considered people chosen by the respective god (who is historically the same). With this justification, they return to ancient times in which unlettered tribes, unable to understand natural phenomena, built eschatological visions that could be maintained only at the cost of eliminating the other.

Although these radical groups are a minority in each sector, they have a powerful instrument of violence with which they can impose themselves. The rest, the majority who bear the consequences on each side, have a duty to disarm these visions or, at the very least, push them to a place where they can no longer cause harm. This can begin with the removal of Netanyahu’s government and the strengthening of the Palestinian Authority’s control over Gaza. The first would be relatively easy after these episodes, but the second requires intensive work in every sector and decisive action by the international community. Full and mutual recognition of both peoples, without racial and religious burden, will not lead to coexistence under a single Palestinian-Israeli state, which would be ideal, but will lead to the neighborhood of Israel and Palestine. It is necessary to give a firm yes to Israel and Palestine, and never to Hamas, Hezbollah and Zionism. (OR)