It is troubling to watch the unrest in France and the violence accompanying protests in Italy. What troubles me most is how legitimate concerns about education and the cost of living can become an opportunity for people with entirely different agendas.
Students need teachers. Schools need resources. Families need relief from rising costs. Those are legitimate concerns that deserve a serious response. But how does looting a shop address any of them? How does burning a historic building solve the problem? And when Palestinian flags appear at these demonstrations, what exactly do they have to do with the demands about schools and household bills?
How legitimate protests became violent
On 17 October, demonstrations over living costs and public services in France were accompanied by looting, arson and attacks on police. While many people marched peacefully, violent groups targeted shops and public buildings. The historic town hall in Limoges was set ablaze. The people committing these acts are undermining the very concerns they claim to represent.
Could some of those involved have exploited legitimate protests to advance their own political agenda? Reports of radical far-left involvement in some of the violence give us reason to ask that question, although they do not explain everyone’s motives. In Milan, violence broke out during a march against wars and rising living costs. Shops were looted and property was set on fire.
Reporting published by Le Monde on 20 October described acknowledged failures in intelligence assessments and police deployment. That raises a serious question about how prepared the authorities were to protect the public. For me, the violence also raises another question: has this moved beyond education reforms and the high cost of living?
Europe cannot keep avoiding the immigration question
For me, these scenes raise questions about Europe’s ability to maintain public order. They also prompt broader questions about immigration and integration policies, although the unrest alone does not establish that immigration is the only cause. Who is being allowed in? What standards are they expected to meet? And why should the fear of being called politically incorrect stop a government from asking those questions?
Carrying a Palestinian flag does not turn looting into a legitimate protest. Shouting about oppression does not give anyone the right to smash somebody else’s livelihood. Whatever cause a rioter claims to represent, the destruction remains their responsibility. No slogan should shield them from the consequences.
Anyone who chooses to settle in France, Italy or another European country has a responsibility to respect its laws and the rights of the people around them. Moving to a country does not give a person the right to intimidate its citizens, impose religious rules through coercion or attack its institutions. Respect for the country that receives you should be a basic expectation.
Strong border controls, proper screening and firm integration requirements should be basic responsibilities of government. When immigration policies allow serious security risks to go unchecked, those policies have failed. The reported failures in intelligence and policing leave Macron’s government facing a serious question: did it underestimate the threat, and did complacency play a part?
Beyond these riots, Europe also faces the documented threat of jihadist terrorism. Europol’s 2025 report identified it as the most lethal category of terrorism in the EU in 2024. Islamist extremism is a different kind of “animal” and must be confronted directly. Religious conviction cannot excuse intimidation or violence.
Who listened when Israel warned?
This is where I believe Europe should take Israel’s experience more seriously.
Israel has confronted Hamas’s terrorism directly. It knows what it means to face an organisation willing to attack civilians and take hostages. Its warnings deserve a serious hearing, especially from leaders offering advice from a position of greater security.
At the United Nations General Assembly on 24 September, dozens of delegates walked out as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began speaking. Governments are entitled to challenge his policies. But I question the wisdom of refusing to listen while expecting Israel to accept their judgement about its security.
In an October interview with i24NEWS, Netanyahu recounted a call from French President Emmanuel Macron following the 7 October 2023 attack. According to Netanyahu, Macron spoke about pursuing a diplomatic solution. Netanyahu said he responded with a warning: “If we don’t eliminate them here, you’ll have them in Paris.” That is Netanyahu’s account of the conversation.
My opinion is straightforward: it is easy to be a Macron, advising Israel from the sidelines. The responsibility looks very different when your own citizens are the ones being attacked and abducted.
Listening to Israel does not require endorsing every decision its government makes. It requires recognising that Israel has hard-earned experience of an enemy whose intentions should never be softened for diplomatic convenience.
Hamas’s capacity to terrorise civilians should be dismantled while protecting innocent people.
Tolerance needs boundaries
When leaders hesitate to confront extremism because they fear offending an influential movement or disrupting a fashionable narrative, that is weakness. Calling it tolerance does not make it wise.
Any ideology that glorifies attacks on civilians, targets Jews collectively or silences opponents through intimidation deserves unequivocal condemnation. Those on the left who condemn violence must confront it among people claiming to share their politics. A familiar flag or slogan should never buy silence or softer language.
Europe should take Israel’s experience of confronting terrorism seriously and support dismantling Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure. Its voters should demand leaders willing to enforce the law, control borders and insist on integration.
I’m going to be very unconventional here and reference Greek mythology, particularly because everything I can think of to describe Islamist extremism would be too kind…
Violent extremism is like a hydra: cut off one head while leaving the ideology that sustains it untouched, and another can grow in its place. Tolerance needs boundaries, and leaders must have the courage to enforce them.