Mutual De-Radicalization: The Post-War Task
A program for the mutual de-radicalization of Israelis and Palestinians is urgently needed as we enter, hopefully, a post-war era.
Reconciliation processes are inherently fragile when large segments of society remain steeped in vengeance, hatred, and blanket demonization of the other. Sadly, these explosive elements are deeply present in our case. That is why a mere declaration in President Trump’s 20-Point Plan is not enough—it must be translated into a concrete roadmap, backed by incentives and, if need be, firm international pressure to make it real.
Point 18 of Trump’s plan offered a strong hint at the need for mutual de-radicalization:
“An interfaith dialogue process will be established based on the values of tolerance and peaceful co-existence to try and change mindsets and narratives of Palestinians and Israelis by emphasizing the benefits that can be derived from peace.”
But without a detailed and thoughtful plan, grounded in past lessons and successful models, this good intention risks remaining empty rhetoric.
Why Mutual De-Radicalization Is Needed
The first reason is obvious: both societies are radicalizing. We are witnessing widespread dehumanization, documented in surveys of both publics. For example, 59% of Palestinians in the West Bank and 37% in Gaza said the October 7 massacre was the “correct” decision (though a year earlier support was even higher, and despite much of the Arab media falsely portraying the attack as primarily against military targets, this is still alarming). Meanwhile, 76% of Israeli Jews endorse the claim that “there are no innocents in Gaza.” Both societies have reached a moral low point, with extremist attitudes expanding into outright denial of the other’s humanity.
These dynamics could intensify further. It is therefore unrealistic to expect leadership on either side to initiate a comprehensive de-radicalization program—especially when all governing actors in this conflict have at times actively fueled dehumanization: Hamas through its remnants of governance, Israel through its far-right leadership, and the Palestinian Authority as well.
Effective international pressure is therefore essential to compel both the Israeli government and the Palestinian leadership to adopt a mutual de-radicalization program at the state level. Civil society initiatives, while important, are not sufficient on their own—though they must play a role in shaping and sustaining such a program.
Why Mutuality Matters
The dual nature of this program—addressing radicalization on both sides—is crucial not only because extremism is rampant in both societies, but because radicalization functions in a loop: each side’s extremism fuels fear, anger, and hatred in the other. Addressing both sides simultaneously is therefore essential.
A bilateral program also enjoys greater legitimacy. In each society it can be framed as protecting us from extremists, not merely protecting “the other.” This sense of fairness and balance is critical, even if extremists hold more power on one side due to their role in government and asymmetries of control.
Beyond Education
Finally, mutual de-radicalization cannot be limited to educational campaigns. At its best, it must be multi-dimensional: monitoring leaders’ rhetoric, evaluating policies that either encourage or neutralize radicalization, and applying rewards or sanctions based on their likely impact. It would be futile to teach against extremism while policies of discrimination, oppression, or violence simultaneously fuel anger, fear, and hatred.
The Pro-Human Campaign is currently developing a detailed plan for mutual de-radicalization, alongside a strategy to promote it and enlist powerful actors to help push it forward.
If we are serious about preventing another cycle of mass violence, this is the name of the game.
