The CGIL likes to call itself the voice of the workers and the civil conscience of the country. But when one looks at its stances on major international conflicts, an obvious double standard emerges that questions its credibility.

In the face of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with the massacres of civilians in Mariupol, Bucha, Izyum and the daily bombing of Kyiv, Odessa or Kherson, Maurizio Landini ‘s union has never proclaimed any major mobilisations. No symbolic strike, no parade comparable in strength and visibility to those that have accompanied other international causes over the years. Only generic declarations ‘for peace‘ and a few solidarity initiatives, without ever clearly naming Moscow’s responsibility.

The attitude towards Gaza is quite different. A strong, clear, media mobilisation, which shook the political debate and provoked indignant reactions from the government.

The disproportion is obvious. Why Gaza yes and Kyiv no? Why take to the streets against Israel but not Russia? Did the defence of Ukrainian civilians massacred in their villages not deserve the same attention as Palestinian victims?

The most plausible answer is political. The CGIL has inherited from the Italian left a tradition of sympathy for the Palestinian cause, rooted in the memory of pacifist and anti-imperialist movements. Ukraine, on the other hand, is a more uncomfortable terrain: siding clearly against Moscow would mean breaking the ‘pacifist’ equidistance and recognising that the war is not the result of abstract war logic, but of the aggression of an authoritarian regime against a free people.

But selective pacifism does not stand the test of facts. If peace is a universal value, it must always apply, not only where it coincides with one’s own ideological tradition. The risk is to appear as a union that raises its voice when the cause is ‘sympathetic’ and is silent when it is divisive.

This inconsistency undermines the very credibility of the CGIL. In a Europe that has seen the defence of Kyiv as the defence of the international order, the silence of the main Italian trade union is read by many as an implicit favour to Putin. It is not enough to proclaim oneself ‘against all wars’: it is necessary to have the courage to say who unleashes wars, and who suffers them.

The mobilisation for Gaza has gathered consensus and solidarity. But the question remains, inescapable: what value do those same flags of peace have if they are only half hoisted?