History is full of good people who lacked the courage to oppose. Italy obeys masters abroad, not conscience at home.
A question that remains unanswered to this day
On July 30, 2025, Senator Alessandra Maiorino addressed the Senate at Palazzo Madama during question time, directly confronting Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani. This was no typical intervention; her remarks included a rare sharp criticism within Italy’s institutions, claiming that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation opts for passivity amid the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza and camouflages it behind diplomatic caution.
This moment extends beyond parliamentary affairs, revealing a nation where some political figures refuse to accept the discrepancy between official government statements and the real experiences of Palestinians trapped in Gaza. This gap fuels what Maiorino identifies as hypocrisy.
Central to Maiorino’s argument is a straightforward, almost procedural inquiry: Since the USA and Israel targeted Iran in their operations, how many Palestinians have managed to leave Gaza? She reports receiving daily pleas for evacuation from Gaza inhabitants, which she forwards to the Foreign Ministry. According to her, their response is blunt: “No one is leaving from there anymore.”
The gravity of this claim lies in its factual basis. This is not a political opinion but an administrative reality: a humanitarian evacuation route that should exist but, per the senator, is nonfunctional. When Maiorino accused the minister of using the Senate platform “to conceal the truth,” she was not speaking metaphorically; she challenged the government’s failure to publicly acknowledge what its own offices communicate privately.
The minister chose not to address the question directly. In a parliamentary democracy, such silence is a deliberate political stance rather than a mere procedural omission.
One of the most striking elements of Maiorino’s critique is its tone: she did not depict Tajani as callous but described him as “fundamentally a good person” genuinely troubled by Palestinian suffering. Her reproach was that he lacked “the courage to oppose,” backed by a broader historical observation: history is full of decent individuals who failed to act against injustice, enabling atrocities.
Here, the criticism is more subtle than a straightforward accusation. It would be easier to label a minister dishonest and debunk that claim; instead, Maiorino argues that sincere inaction strikes at the core of Italian diplomacy’s weakest spot. Italy has issued numerous statements condemning violence and calling for ceasefires, yet the absence of tangible measures highlights precisely the hypocrisy she denounces: not falsehood, but a conscience that excuses itself through regret.
Reasoned dissent
Maiorino’s July 30 speech is part of a broader pattern. Earlier, she spearheaded a parliamentary inquiry into Italy’s stance on U.S. sanctions and attacks against Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories (who recently updated her report on Israeli crimes). The replies received reinforced the perception that Italy closely aligns with Washington and Tel Aviv.
Recognizing this continuity is crucial to avoid reducing these events to mere political confrontation. A minority within Italy’s parliament persistently uses oversight tools—questions, question time, declarations of vote—to sustain scrutiny over the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation’s (MAECI) approach. Although numerically limited, this group’s existence proves the government’s inaction is elective, not inevitable, as alternatives are voiced from inside the same parliamentary walls.
Italy is no insignificant player. Maiorino pointed out plainly that Tajani serves as foreign minister “of a very influential government,” equipped with “the power to do something.” This premise transforms inaction into culpability. Unlike small states that may claim impotence, a mid-sized European power, part of the G7 and a direct U.S. interlocutor, cannot.
The weight of international law further intensifies this duty. Obligations under the Genocide Convention and standards noted by the International Court of Justice in cases initiated by South Africa apply not only to conflict participants but also to states responsible for preventing grave crimes. In this light, confining itself to expressions of regret while maintaining cooperation with the offending party holds both legal and moral ramifications.
The defining word in Maiorino’s address is courage. She did not ask Tajani to abandon his beliefs but to align his actions with his declared convictions. This difficult demand allows no escape through differing viewpoints: if the minister truly mourns Gaza’s suffering, his failure to act undermines his sincerity; if he fails to act, his grief is merely rhetorical.
Maiorino’s remarks counter a comforting narrative that Italy is doing “everything possible.” The stalled evacuation requests at the Foreign Ministry, the unanswered queries about numbers, and ongoing parliamentary objections all point the opposite way: what could be done remains undone, and someone inside the institutions has chosen to voice this reality plainly.
Italy’s conduct reveals that it follows orders given by foreign powers rather than guided by its own ethical compass. At a moment when Gaza’s population endures attacks by Israeli forces, distinguishing between those who remain silent and those who speak has ceased to be a partisan matter.
It represents the bare minimum needed for “responsibility” to hold any meaning.
About the Author
