On 22 September: A Political Strike for Palestine

After months of preparation, on September 22 a political strike was called in Italy by the grassroots unions in solidarity with Palestine. Its extraordinary outcome took not only the ruling classes but even the demonstrators themselves by surprise. In the following days, as the Global Sumud Flotilla approached the coast of Gaza, a major wave of mobilization ignited across the country. It culminated in two days of blockades after the flotilla’s arrest, a general strike of two million people, including the Italisn General Confederation of Labor (CGIL) and a demonstration of over one million people in Rome. In this interview with Teiko, a militant journal, Davide Gallo Lassere (speaking on behalf of the French Magazine Contretemps discusses the strike’s origins, the events of 22 September and what is to come next.

Teiko: How did we get to the events of 22 September? Abroad, even more than in Italy itself, it was described as a spontaneous mobilization, reflecting the sheer indignation at what is happening in Gaza, and the West’s complicity therein. Is this really accurate? Is it right to call this spontaneous? And what were the main social and political factors behind the events of 22 September?

DGL: The theme of spontaneity/organization is quite complex, and here we will not attempt to address it from a “theoretical” point of view. But one first thing we can say is that, as Teiko, we dedicated our project’s “issue zero” [the inaugural issue, published before the start of the numbered series] to the enigma of organization. In this sense, we sought to create an investigation into how this issue has arisen over the last decade, in various contexts and across different latitudes. Taking that as a starting point, we think that it’s useful to try to go beyond a Manichean view of spontaneity and organization as dichotomous, clearly separable or opposing moments. There are clearly organized forms, which may (or may not) function as an “ecosystem”, to use the terminology proposed by Rodrigo Nunes, just as there are “spontaneous” forms, if by this we mean “unexpected social eruptions”. But the dynamics of social conflicts are always very complex.

More specifically, Italy has always had very strong and deep-rooted forms of internationalist solidarity with Palestine. Including over the last two decades, every Israeli bombing of Gaza has been met with mobilizations (though these have involved different social actors and degrees of intensity). Since October 2023, there have been several moments of mobilization: that autumn, a prominent role was played by the peripheries, by Arabic-speaking actors, by the so-called “second generations”, and a militant political framework. From February 2024 to spring that year, the mobilizations were led more by young people linked to schools and universities, with protests against RAI (the Italian public broadcaster) for its coverage of the Palestinian question, and with the camps that May, which were replicated at a transnational level. From autumn-winter 2024 until summer 2025, there were many moments of mobilization. This especially took the form of national marches, but within the more familiar parameters of mobilization linked to parties and trade unions, the Giovani Palestinesi (“Young Palestinians”, an organization formed in 2023) and social centres and collectives. This background of mobilization must be borne in mind, as should the gradual growth of indignation in society faced with the genocide and the West’s complicity and support.

[book-strip index="1"]

That said, to speak of a “spontaneous” mobilization risks being misleading. On the one hand, there is no doubt that 22 September was a huge surprise to everyone in terms of the numbers involved and the radical nature of the protests. The events that day far exceeded the boundaries of organized forms, and “broke the mould”. If that means “spontaneous mobilization”, then yes, that’s it. But this also risks overlooking a number of factors that are fundamental to understanding the success of 22 September. In addition to the aforementioned previous mobilization, we must take into account the role of the Global Sumud Flotilla, an organized political initiative that acted as a catalyst. We must consider the importance of the huge march in Genoa that accompanied the departure of some of the fleet's boats, at the end of which the CALP — a collective of port workers — launched the appeal to “block everything”, which circulated widely. Similarly, we could mention the major march in Venice during the Film Festival, which coincided with the one in Genoa. Nor should we underestimate the fact that without the strike called by many base unions, the mobilization would not have happened, just as many movements and collectives played a role in giving 22 September wider resonance. In short, rather than asking whether it was organized or spontaneous, it might be more useful to map the multiplicity of paths and factors that made it possible. There was a powerful fusion of day-to-day militant activity, social mobilization, the ability to “seize the moment”, the indignation in society, the orientation of the media sphere, etc. Still, the events on 22 September “overflowed” all this, going beyond the sum of all the actors mentioned. It is not a question of “spontaneity”, but of an upsurge, a real dynamic of social mobilization that has opened up a new horizon.

As for the question of the social forces involved, it is difficult to provide a precise analytical picture in such a short space. We also need to reckon with the fact that the social composition of Italy is highly varied across geographical space. So, basing ourselves above all on rough estimates and impressions, at the social level, the “subject” that most defined the mobilization was people employed in the public sector, and primarily various kinds of schools. There was also an extensive youth element involved, ranging from very young people to university students, but also significant numbers of thirty- or forty-somethings, mostly employed in the third sector or self-employed, or in what we might call — in terms that are surely satisfactory today — “precarious” work. However, there was also significant participation of “cross-cutting” subjects who cannot be immediately reduced to any organized categories.

In any case, the experience of the protests in the streets and squares was mostly unbound to occupational affiliations or individual organizations. Given both the limits placed on the general strike by the legislative framework (in Italy, the “right to strike” has been ever more limited by decades of restrictive policies) and the conflict between trade unions, the protests saw very little participation from workers employed in the private sector (primarily factories and logistics, which had played a prominent role in other, past mobilizations). As already mentioned, at the organizational level, the strike was called by many base unions, starting with the Unione Sindacale di Base (USB), and by a whole galaxy of collectives, movements, small parties and organizations. It is worth noting that Italy's main trade union, the CGIL, hastily called a strike of a few hours on 19 September in an attempt to “take credit” for the action in competition with the base unions. This move backfired badly and was challenged by its base. Still, we should not underestimate the reality that the CGIL continues to represent a section of the working class. Indeed, a significant part of the CGIL’s base was in the streets on 22 September despite the leadership's instructions.

What main forms of action marked 22 September? In France, on 10 September, there was a significant mobilization under the slogan bloquons tout (“let’s block everything!”). Did blockades also play a significant role in Italy? What relationship was established between the “political strike” and the wide range of actions we saw at work? To what extent is the sequence of events that began on 22 September in Italy the result of struggles circulating across borders? What is the relationship between the Global Sumud Flotilla and the mobilizations of recent days?

The day saw large demonstrations in some eighty towns and cities of various sizes, with an estimated total participation of between half a million and a million people. In the larger cities, the main actions were all aimed at blocking ports, motorways, ring roads, and stations. Blockades were therefore crucial. Practices of blocking schools and universities also spread in various contexts, albeit in embryonic form, and mostly at the hands of militants.

There were some echoes from France. Still, it must be said that both the “enemy” of the mobilization (which was wholly “domestic” in France — against Macron and what he represents; and wholly “external” in the Italian case — against Israel, and for Palestine) and the evolution of social conflicts over the last decade (powerful in France, very weak in Italy) mean there is no immediate parallel between the two contexts. Nevertheless, the issue of blockades was crucial. The slogan of the day was explicitly “let's block everything”, and the mobilization took place on that basis on a mass level. Even the most intense moments of conflict, such as the clashes at Milano Centrale railway station, on the motorway in Bologna, or even at the port of Venice, saw widespread youth participation but also strong support from the entire march. This is another sign of the strength of the social upsurge we mentioned earlier, with families with children effectively taking to the streets to do what the day called for, that is, a “blockade”.

One issue that needs exploring further, as mentioned, is how the forms of blockade and strike have been positively combined. In the last fifteen years, the two steps have only rarely gone hand-in-hand in Italy. The student movements from 2008 to 2010 had called for strikes but had essentially practised mass logistical blockades. The tides of transfeminist protests, as well as the climate strikes, mostly carried out in the form of demonstrations taking to the streets, without blocking the flow of crucial logistical hubs. Even strikes by trade unions have rarely used blockades, with the exception of struggles in the logistics sector organized by base unions and a few sporadic episodes. In this regard, it is perhaps worth mentioning that, this summer, the CGIL, which is Italy's main trade union, blocked the Bologna ring road in defiance of a new government decree that increases the penalties for offences related to blockades. This is a policy that Italian governments have been pursuing for many years now.

The strike, as you say, was “political” if by this we mean not directly related to working conditions. However, it remains to be investigated what kind of impulses were behind the success of the mobilization. The theme of the demonstrations was entirely and explicitly linked to the rejection of genocide and solidarity with Palestine. However, what is implicit remains to be explored, in a context in which Italy has been experiencing years of substantial lack of movement in society despite a situation that is certainly not rosy in terms of living conditions. For example, how can the mobilization in the ports be traced back to issues rooted in the problems of the world of work? How can the participation of schools be linked to other issues? How can the impulse to block a symbolic site such as Milano Centrale also be rooted in the daily exclusion of young proletarians from access to this station?... This is a whole context to be explored. Drawing on the apparatus of Italian revolutionary workerism, the task is to imagine paths of co-research with these social subjects. What is for sure is that 22 September was the most powerful approximation of what a real “general strike” could mean today.

To conclude, 22 September was, as already suggested, a combination of multiple trajectories. Undoubtedly, it was the biggest day of “self-organized” struggle, promoted by base unions and collectives/social centres. But there is much more to it than that, and it can hardly be reduced to the actors who convened the mobilization. The “tidal wave” of taking over cities and the practice of blockades and strikes, the previous pro-Palestine mobilizations, etc. have all been circulating. The Italian political context, in which the main trade unions and opposition parties were essentially unable to read the situation, should probably also be taken into account. The CGIL (which is not the same as France’s CGT, and it should also be noted that base unionism does not really exist in France) did not strike, and this for essentially “sectarian” reasons, out of rivalry with base unionism. Similarly, the Partito Democratico or other left-wing parties in Italy are certainly not La France Insoumise. It should also be said that in the days that followed, they have been trying to catch up with the mobilization.

In short, as mentioned above, the Global Sumud Flotilla was the central catalyst for the mobilization. Without it, the 22 September events would not have taken on this new quality. Sumud functioned both as a symbolic element, as part of the collective imaginary, and as a concrete practice that could relaunch and give meaning to internationalist solidarity with Gaza. The ability to build a political narrative linking the Sumud Flotilla’s journey to Gaza with the creation of a “land crew” to support it was important in building the mobilization. In any case, we can safely bet that what we have experienced so far is only the beginning...

[book-strip index="2"]

Filed under: article-author-scholars-in-solidarity-with-palestine, israel-palestine