If peace is treason, why don’t the merchants of hatred send their own sons to the front lines? If dialogue with Jews is a crime, why don’t those who forbid it cease engaging with a world that differs from them in religion, culture, and politics? If coexistence is a conspiracy, why do extremists fear people getting to know one another? These are not trivial questions. They dismantle the foundation of a discourse that has long thrived on transforming humanity into the enemy, religion into a battleground, and history into a permanent license for hatred.

In the Middle East, hatred is no longer merely a political stance or an emotional outburst. It has become a full-fledged industry — one that manufactures fear, mobilizes the masses, keeps wounds festering, and provides extremists with a permanent job. An extremist needs not only followers but also a permanent enemy, one with whom he cannot speak, understand, or approach, because when a person truly knows another, the lie begins to crumble. This is precisely where peace becomes dangerous: not to religions, but to those who exploit them; not to identities, but to those who turn them into battlegrounds; not to just causes, but to those who have turned just causes into tools for justifying hatred and controlling people’s minds.

A Question the Extremist Cannot Answer

In this context, Tom Wagner, founder of the Abrahamic Movement, poses a question that transcends individuals and projects: can a person be faithful to their religion without being an enemy of the followers of another religion? For reasonable people, the answer is clear. For extremists, simply posing the question appears as an existential threat. The Abrahamic Movement does not ask Muslims to abandon Islam, Jews to abandon Judaism, or Christians to abandon Christianity. It puts forward a more provocative idea: that religious difference grants no one the right to monopolize truth, nor a license to hate another human being.

And this is where the real battle begins. The extremist wants you to believe that loving your own identity requires hating the identity of others, that defending your cause necessitates demonizing an entire people, and that every Jew can be conflated with the Israeli government, every Muslim with extremist groups, and every Christian with the history of conflicts perpetrated in Christianity’s name. He wants you to believe that every individual is responsible for the actions of others simply because they share a religion or nationality. This is the essence of manipulation: when a person is reduced to a group, it becomes easy to hate them; when they are stripped of individuality, it becomes easy to target them; and when they are stripped of humanity, it becomes easier to incite violence against them.

“Peace does not mean relinquishing Palestinian rights. Coexistence does not mean erasing history. Dialogue does not mean abandoning Jerusalem.” Mohammed Akin, Faith & Freedom News

But here, something must be said that may not please many: peace does not mean relinquishing Palestinian rights, coexistence does not mean erasing history, dialogue does not mean abandoning Jerusalem, and recognizing the humanity of others does not mean agreeing with all their policies. True peace cannot be built on injustice, the denial of rights, or the elimination of a people.

Morocco’s Model: Rights and Reconciliation Together

Here, the Kingdom of Morocco, under the leadership of His Majesty King Mohammed VI, Chairman of the Al-Quds Committee, stands out as a model distinct from the logic of empty slogans. Morocco has not reduced its support for the Palestinian people to emotional rhetoric, nor has it confined peace to ignoring the humanitarian tragedy. Rather, it has combined defense of Palestinian rights with humanitarian action, adherence to a political solution, and rejection of the continuation of war. Rabat’s position has remained steadfast in its call for a ceasefire, the protection of civilians, the delivery of humanitarian aid, and its commitment to a two-state solution and the establishment of a Palestinian state within the June 4, 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Herein lies the paradox that the merchants of hatred must confront: one can defend Palestine without hating Jews, defend Jerusalem without hating Israelis, reject a government’s policies without turning millions of people into born enemies, and remain loyal to the Palestinian cause without becoming a prisoner of hatred. This is not betrayal. It is mature politics.

The Kingdom of Morocco needs no further pronouncements to demonstrate its position on Palestine. Political stances are declared, diplomacy is active, humanitarian work is present, and Jerusalem occupies a permanent place in Moroccan policy. At the same time, the Palestinian cause is not used as a pretext for excluding others or justifying collective hatred — a point extremists refuse to acknowledge, because they seek to monopolize the definition of solidarity: either you hate as they hate, or you are a traitor; either you reject peace as they reject it, or you are an agent; either you echo their rhetoric, or you are outside the group.

But Morocco, with its history, identity, and civilizational depth, offers a different model — one that says defending Jerusalem does not require hatred of Jews, that supporting Palestine does not require denying Israel’s existence, and that demanding the rights of the Palestinian people does not mean rejecting peace. A just peace is the path that guarantees Palestinians their rights, Israelis their security, and a regional future not governed by funerals.

The Fear of Being Known

It is precisely here that the Abrahamic Movement’s project becomes part of a larger discussion. The problem is not that people disagree — disagreement is natural. The problem is believing that difference grants the right to eliminate others: seeing every Jew as responsible for every Israeli decision, every Muslim as responsible for every crime committed in Islam’s name, every Christian as responsible for every crime committed in Christianity’s name. This is not justice. It is extremism in its purest form.

The extremist does not fear the other because he knows him, but because he fears being known. Knowledge destroys myths; dialogue dismantles stereotypes; getting to know one another deprives the instigator of his most potent weapon — ignorance. The most dangerous thing, for the merchants of hatred, is for Muslims, Jews, and Christians to sit at the same table, not to abandon their religions, but to discover that their differences do not negate their shared humanity.

They may differ in belief, in politics, in history — but they can differ without turning one another into monsters. This is precisely where the power of peace lies. Peace does not ask anyone to forget, but to avoid turning memory into a prison for the next generation. It does not ask anyone to relinquish rights, but to seek a path that secures rights without burying new generations in graveyards.

“The true equation is not: either Palestine or peace. That is a political and moral lie. The true equation is Palestine, justice, and peace.” Mohammed Akin, Faith & Freedom News

Who Gave Extremists the Right to Choose Our Enemies?

Tom Wagner and the Abrahamic Movement pose a troubling question, while Moroccan diplomacy, under King Mohammed VI, offers a practical lesson: peace does not mean abandoning rights. Extremists on all sides want people to choose hatred, because hatred is easier — it requires no thought, no knowledge, no responsibility. It is enough to point at the other and declare: they are the enemy.

But the question that must be asked today is this: who gave extremists the right to choose our enemies? Who gave them the right to speak in the name of God? Who decided that defending Palestine requires hating Jews, or that defending Israel requires denying Palestinian suffering, or that peace can only follow the disappearance of one side? These are the questions the merchants of hatred fear, because they confront them with a simple truth: peace does not defeat religions, identities, or history. It defeats those who have made religion, identity, and history into tools for manufacturing enemies.

Perhaps the most provocative question of all is this: if peace is a conspiracy, why do extremists fear it? The answer may be clearer than it first appears — because peace offers Palestinians and Israelis a different future; because dialogue allows people of different faiths to know one another; because that understanding dismantles the images upon which extremists have built their empires; and because when people truly know each other, hatred becomes far harder to sustain.

A Legacy Worth Choosing

The real battle today is not between one religion and another, nor one people and another, but between those who want humanity to know one another and those who want it to hate; between those who want Jerusalem to be a symbol of peace and those who want it to remain eternal fuel for war; between those who believe Palestine deserves freedom, peace, and dignity, and those who need Palestine to remain an open wound so they can continue peddling hatred. In this battle, the question remains: will we bequeath to our children only our faith, or will we also bequeath them our hatred?

The Kingdom of Morocco, under King Mohammed VI, declares through its positions and actions that defending Jerusalem and Palestine is not incompatible with peace, that peace cannot be just if it ignores Palestinian rights, and that true solidarity is expressed not through rhetoric alone, but through action, humanity, and diplomacy.

And herein lies perhaps the most unsettling message for extremists: one can be Moroccan, Muslim, loyal to Jerusalem and Palestine, believe in the Palestinian people’s right to their own state, and be a defender of peace at the same time. Proving love for Palestine does not require hating Jews. Defending Palestinian rights does not require demonizing Israelis. Loyalty to a just cause does not require rejecting peace.

Hatred is not a measure of loyalty. Shouting is not proof of patriotism. Extremism is not evidence of faith. Peace, on the other hand, may be the most courageous stance in a region long accustomed to rewarding hatred and punishing reason. This is why the question the merchants of hatred refuse to answer remains: if their faith is so strong, why are they afraid of people getting to know one another? Perhaps they are not afraid of losing their religion, Palestine, or Jerusalem. Perhaps they are simply afraid that people will discover the hatred they inherited was never divinely ordained — but a human construct that extremists have long exploited.