Year XXXVIII, Number 3, November 2025

Federico Tosi,

Member of the Federal Committee of JEF Europe, Co-chair of the Task Force on Global Federalism.

Dvir Aviam Ezra

Member of the Executive Board of JEF Europe, co-chair of the Task Force on Global Federalism of JEF Europe, former Editor in Chief of The New Federalist, Lawyer.

Younes Ahmad

Co-founder of the Democracy & Federalism Hub. Geopolitical advisor and reconciliation facilitator.

Federalism as a path, a continuous laboratory, and an ideology capable of offering answers to today’s challenges: this is what the Federalist Peace Forum (FPF) set out to present and has begun to show to our community. Held in Ventotene from 7 to 11 September 2025, the FPF was organized by JEF Germany, Italy, and Europe, together with the UEF and Challenge, a long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict transformation organisation that serves as an umbrella for activists on the ground, as the first step of a broader project co-financed by the Council of Europe. The Forum brought together over twenty five participants from Europe, Israel, and Palestine to discuss peace and explore how federalism can serve as a concrete tool to achieve it.

For most of the Israeli and Palestinian participants, this was their first encounter with federalism. This is where the European participants played a key role in mediation and guidance, sharing both theoretical knowledge and practical political experience. As a result, the two emerging groups from Israel and Palestine are now tasked with the long-term objective of building and structuring self- sustainable federalist political movements within their respective contexts.

The FPF was structured around three pillars: peacebuilding, federalism, and capacity- building. Yet beyond the formal sessions, what was experienced in Ventotene made it clear that a federalist approach to the conflict - one that avoids nationalistic lenses - is essential for challenging dominant narratives and exploring both innovative and concrete solutions.

Several significant challenges emerged for the organizers and participants, both in Europe and in the field.

Starting with the role of Europeans, their position as mediators and facilitators immediately clashed with the difficulty of intervening in contexts where the colonial past of the old continent is the primary factor of the ongoing conflicts.

Even without receiving explicit feedback in this regard, acting as a European in post-colonial geographical contexts cannot, and should not, leave one indifferent. In this sense, an approach based on awareness of one’s own past, combined with the willingness to turn a page in history, is fundamental, both as a matter of principle and to restore credibility to any prospective European foreign policy.

Within this framework, the European component – widely perceived as credible by both sides, partly due to its internal diversity – was compelled to engage in a process of self-reflection. This resulted in a clear repositioning: not as a provider of ready-made solutions, but as a contributor of questions, ideas, and sustained political effort aimed at de-escalation through care, support, and long- term commitment.

Finally, on the internal side of the European federalists, the main challenge has certainly been the need to translate federalist ideology into a context different from that of Europe. While the goal is widely shared within the European federalist community, it has become clear that the tools and doctrine currently available for such an effort still struggle to be consistent and effective. Through these lines, the hope is to reactivate the academic and intellectual effort of federalists to position themselves as an ideology that is both globalist and anti-colonial, universal yet respectful of all local geographical specificities.

On the Israeli side, the main challenge has been organizing effective opposition to the current government and the war in an increasingly restrictive political environment,despite the inherent heterogeneity among participants and within Israeli society as a whole.

This effort goes hand in hand with rethinking the meaning of Zionism: on the one hand, affirming the majority view in Israeli society of Zionism as a legitimate national movement, while on the other hand, confronting the atrocities committed under nationalist interpretations of Zionism, which have led it to be seen as a racist stream of thought among both many Palestinians and progressive political forces worldwide.

Simultaneously, there is a search for a new identity or outlook for Israel’s image: notably, participants emphasized their desire to preserve unique Jewish cultural and national identities, while also highlighting the need to find an inclusive identity that could pave the way for a federalist framework.

As one might easily imagine, many challenges also arose on the Palestinian side. The main difficulty was certainly discussing peace in the context of the situation in Gaza. Reconciling a federalist perspective for the region while acknowledging the unbearable humanitarian catastrophe and the profound collective trauma experienced by Palestinians was highly ambitious, yet necessary.

Clearly, the main obstacle was the potential accusation of normalizing the enemy, which the project sought to counter by emphasizing its aim to redefine coexistence based on justice, shared rights, and mutual accountability, rather than domination or denial.

This also reaffirmed that Palestinian liberation and self-determination need not be framed in exclusive or ethnonational terms. Through a federalist lens, sovereignty can be reimagined not as separation but as shared governance. To address the challenge of aligning this idea with the legitimate needs and demands for self- determination, a special focus was given to demonstrating that the federalist concept does not contradict this principle. This included explicitly incorporating recognition of the State of Palestine into the federal plan.

Finally, as a team, participants faced many collective challenges and shared fears across all three countries. Above all, the fear of returning to one’s home context with new ideas, radically transforming the existing paradigm, was central for both conflicting groups, and also raised concerns on the European side. For the Israeli and Palestinian participants, this fear stemmed mainly from apprehension toward their own authorities and social environments. For the Europeans, however, it was more about an awareness of the current extreme polarization of the public debate, often devoid of sustainable proposals and driven by rigid ideological positions. In this sense, European federalists will face the challenge of completely reshaping the narrative around conflict resolution, while still incorporating the demands and concerns of European (and global) public opinion, which must become their primary counterpart in the process.

In general, participants left the island with the awareness that the desire for dialogue between the two sides is, and must remain, stronger than all the difficulties. Understanding how this dialogue is made impossible by the restrictions on the movement between Israel and Palestine highlights the lack of real political will to find sustainable solutions within the current paradigm. This is why creating neutral spaces for people to meet is essential. This awareness was the compass of the three days in Ventotene, helping participants grasp the significance of what they were doing. They knew they would not agree on everything, that the road ahead is long, and that the political, personal, and emotional challenges are immense, yet the will to engage in dialogue remains stronger. With this spirit, on the final day of the seminar, the two groups unanimously voted for a starting document, neither exhaustive nor final, giving written form to this commitment. Thanks to the commitment of the European partners, the results achieved in Ventotene were presented to the Italian Senate on 12 September, in the presence of several members of Parliament. This event is part of the broader European effort to publicize the project and its ideas to the widest possible audience of European policymakers, who are considered key actors in influencing the course of the conflict.

The abovementioned challenges were tackled successfully. Despite difficulties, participants came together, deepened their understanding of Federalism and agreed on a common vision outlined in the FPF concluding declaration. As mentioned before, there were challenges on Ventotene itself, including heated discussions, mutual disappointments and complaints, and emotionally charged moments. These were overcome by the participants with the support of the facilitators.

It is evident that the challenges faced in Ventotene were significant, just as organizing such a historic event was a major accomplishment. The parallel with the prisoners of 1941, who wrote about a united and democratic Europe free from nationalism, and the experiences of this September is direct and emotionally powerful.

The path has been set, but it requires continued work and strong support.

As a federalist network, we are called to play our part, united, in supporting this initiative, and potentially similar efforts in other regions of the world. With this in mind, the organizers also launched the Expert Track of the FPF. This group, which also met in Ventotene, is intended to continue working online, offering support and recommendations to participants, helping to disseminate the work, protect those involved, and contribute to political thinking on conflict resolution.

While the present may seem dark, as federalists we must be ready to set the agenda for a future beyond the nationalistic paradigms, the very world in which we are called to carry out our transformative project.