Pro-Pal rhetoric taken to extremes creates monsters

What is the difference between being a sincere ‘Pro Pal’ and a dangerous ‘Pro Bal’? The story of Youssef Siher, the now-famous 30-year-old man of Moroccan origin living in Italy, who studied political science, undertook an internship at ISPI, has a long history of collaboration with *Il Fatto Quotidiano* (and wrote an article for *Il Foglio* in 2022, on Pakistan, which, incidentally, was excellent), has recently captured the attention of many observers for understandable reasons. The suspicion that a pro-Palestine activist lies behind a social media page linked to the protests in Milan over recent weeks is a matter of interest in its own right, although naturally it will take more than a chat log to substantiate the serious allegations we have seen: incitement to commit a crime, organised violence and terrorism. The interesting aspect of Youssef Siher’s story, however, concerns an issue that perhaps warrants further reflection, and that issue is directly linked to those two words that have been with us for several months now, with all the nuances that entails: pro-Pal. 

The fact that Youssef Siher’s thinking can be identified with one of the most radical versions of pro-Palestinian rhetoric is symptomatic of a problem that far too many people stubbornly refuse to acknowledge. The issue here is not the certain existence of a criminal offence, but the certain existence of an extremist ideology that has transformed the defence of the Palestinians’ right to peace, a future and freedom into a poisonous stew containing much more besides. It contains hatred of the West, hatred of capitalism, hatred of globalisation, hatred of open societies, as well as, of course, everything that fuels the demonisation of the Jewish state and its people: anti-Zionism, which easily turns into anti-Semitism, which easily turns into the promotion of a global intifada. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that the 30-year-old man arrested on Saturday has, in the past, freely expressed his views on social media in the ways we are familiar with. Following the clashes at Milan’s Centrale station in September 2025, he wrote: “The day will come when we will smash that glass wall behind which you hide”, addressing the police officers. In other posts he wrote: “We will not give up; we will win or die.” In 2024, responding to Tajani who had mentioned an Italian-Israeli reservist who had been killed, he commented “Alhamdulillah” (“Thank God”). On other occasions, he has contested the role of the Jewish Brigade in the Resistance and echoed the slogan “From the river to the sea”, understood as the need to grant Palestinians not only the right to have a state but also to do their utmost to wipe Israel off the map.

The problem with the pro-Palestinian algorithm, in its most extreme form, is not, however, that it acts as an incubator for hatred. The problem with the algorithm is its total moral indifference towards that rhetoric, towards that violent language, and towards anti-Zionism that morphs into anti-Semitism, on the part of all those who care about the future of the Palestinian people, who, having little to say in the face of the language of violence espoused by pro-Palestinian extremists, accept that a just cause – that of the Palestinians’ right to a future made up of more than just rubble – can also be represented by preachers of hate. This is not a mere detail. It is a virus – ‘vairus’, as a famous former Foreign Secretary would say – which has been corroding the fabric of our societies for months and which has fuelled a toxic, dangerous and criminal form of denial. It is, in other words, the idea that it is Israel, the West and America that are preventing a future for the Palestinian people, and that to assert this belief, it is more important to turn Israel’s accomplices – including Jews – into targets, rather than trying to work on both sides, on both issues, on both fronts. One can legitimately regard Netanyahu’s presence as a political problem that is by no means secondary to the future of the Palestinians, but one cannot do so by sidestepping the central problem – that of Hamas – which has now been reduced to a secondary issue.

Until pro-Palestinian activists have the courage to demonstrate against Hamas, against terrorists, against those who fund terrorism, against Iran, and against its attempt to export the agenda of the global intifada to the world with the complicity of many ‘useful idiots’, Activists eager to secure a future for the Palestinian people will be destined to be transformed into a faction interested not in securing a future for the Palestinians but in wiping out Israel, striking at its allies, demonising the West, and terrorising open societies. Observers should pay less attention to the ‘Youssef algorithm’ – which, incidentally, is excellent when it comes to Pakistan – and instead follow, for example, the approach of a little-known Palestinian lawyer named Moumen al-Natour, founder of the protest movement ‘We Want to Live’, which – amidst the indifference of pro-Palestinian circles – has for months been denouncing arrests, torture and persecution by Hamas; who has been living in Italy as an asylum seeker since June 2026; and who, in a statement published in July, criticised Western activists who regard Palestinians opposed to Hamas’s rule as traitors; who says that Hamas is not the resistance, who states that Gaza’s civilians are Hamas’s hostages and must be freed, and who claims to be in contact with a network of more than 10,000 people in the Strip: teachers, doctors, engineers and professionals “who hate Hamas and who want to instil in future generations a culture of peace and coexistence”.

The major issue emerging from the proliferation of the pro-Palestinian algorithm is not so much the notion of a cultural battle – who wouldn’t want a free Palestine? – but rather the obscuring of the real crux of the matter: anyone who wants a free Palestine yet fails to stand up to those who use the term ‘pro-Pal’ as a weapon to foster hatred against the West, against capitalism, against globalisation, against an open society – thereby becoming, whether willingly or unwittingly, a mouthpiece for the terrorist propaganda of Hamas and Iran – is not part of the solution but part of the problem. A flotilla against Hamas is needed. Protests against pro-Pal extremists are necessary. Those who, by exploiting a struggle that has its own dignity, have turned the defence of Palestinian rights into a tool of radical Islamist propaganda must be exposed. More pro-Palestinian voices serving the Palestinians held hostage by Hamas; fewer pro-Palestinian voices serving the lies of those who dream of spreading the message of terror from the river to the sea and into the squares of Italy’s major cities.