The Hannoun Case, the School Threats, and the Struggle to Expose Terrorist Support Networks Without Fracturing National Cohesion
From the proceedings concerning alleged Hamas funding networks to bomb threats targeting schools: Italy faces a strategic question.
How can it defend its national interests without allowing the conflict in the Middle East to become a factor that fractures domestic cohesion?
A Change in the State’s Language
There are institutional decisions whose significance goes beyond their immediate legal consequences. The Italian Government’s decision to join the proceedings against Mohammad Hannoun and five other defendants as a civil claimant could be one of them.
On 12 November 2026, the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and the Ministry of the Interior were granted permission to join the ongoing preliminary hearing in Genoa as civil claimants.
The Government submitted a compensation claim of €18.5 million, citing damage to Italy’s international image and the costs incurred for investigative activities, including more than €745,000 in overtime payments for personnel from the Digos and Counterterrorism units.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office has requested that all six defendants be committed for trial. The charges concern the alleged diversion of funds collected through charitable organisations to Hamas, or to entities linked to it.
According to the prosecution, more than €18 million was collected between 2001 and 2025, of which more than €7 million allegedly reached Hamas, directly or indirectly.
These are allegations that must be examined by the courts, not criminal liabilities that have already been established. The preliminary hearing is still ongoing, and the defendants must be guaranteed the presumption of innocence.
The Government’s decision, however, carries significance that goes beyond the amount being claimed.
In these proceedings, the State is not merely supporting the prosecution through its judicial bodies: it is formally asserting that direct damage has been caused to its image, its institutions and the resources deployed for national security.
The dispute therefore concerns not only the possible unlawful financing of a terrorist organisation. It also involves the relationship between domestic security, international credibility and State responsibility.
It is an important institutional signal.
The Shadow of the Moro Understanding
To understand why this decision may represent a change of course in Italy’s approach, it is necessary to return to one of the most controversial chapters in the history of foreign policy and national security: the so-called Moro Understanding (Lodo Moro).
The term refers to a set of informal, confidential arrangements that developed during the 1970s between Italian state apparatuses and Palestinian organisations associated with the PLO.
The historical context was one of deep concern that the Arab-Israeli conflict might spill over into Italian territory. The underlying logic was to protect national interests through discreet communication channels and forms of political accommodation, based on the belief that maintaining dialogue and understandings with Palestinian actors could reduce the risk of attacks against Italy.
The precise nature, institutional evolution and scope of those arrangements remain subjects of historical reconstruction. Research based on declassified documents has shown that it is inaccurate to reduce the Moro Understanding to a single formally signed treaty.
Rather, it was an articulated practice that developed through the relationship between diplomacy, intelligence and government institutions.
The Moro Understanding therefore represents a particular conception of national security: managing external threats through discretion, negotiation and political containment.
It would be historically inaccurate to claim that the Italian Government has now simply revoked an agreement that was still in force, or that the Hannoun proceedings demonstrate the existence of a similar arrangement in contemporary times.
The comparison nevertheless raises a legitimate strategic question:
Is Italy moving from a tradition of discreet accommodation towards a more explicit policy of institutional action against networks suspected of providing material and financial support to terrorist organisations?
The decision to join the proceedings as a civil claimant suggests a greater willingness to make the State’s position public and assert its interests before the courts.
The difference is not merely rhetorical. It concerns the relationship between diplomacy, intelligence, law enforcement and judicial accountability.
A State that, in a profoundly different historical context, had sought to contain certain risks through confidential dialogue now publicly claims compensation in proceedings concerning alleged funding for Hamas.
The contrast between these two approaches deserves analysis.
From the Battlefield to Financial and Logistical Networks
Contemporary terrorism cannot be understood solely through the actions of its operatives.
Organisations such as Hamas depend on political, financial, logistical and communications environments, as well as fundraising networks. Some of these activities can take place far from the territories in which the organisation operates.
The distinction between legitimate humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian population and material support for a terrorist organisation is therefore essential.
It is equally essential that this distinction be established through evidence, financial traceability, judicial scrutiny and individual accountability, rather than on the basis of political affiliations or ideological associations.
The Hannoun proceedings place this distinction at the centre of the Italian debate.
If the prosecution’s allegations are confirmed, the implications would extend beyond the position of the individual defendants. They would concern the ability of terrorist organisations to exploit European fundraising structures, transnational associations and networks of intermediaries.
The State’s decision to join the proceedings as a civil claimant adds another element: the State is asserting that the alleged conduct would have entailed costs not only for the judicial and investigative system, but also for Italy’s international credibility and its ability to protect its institutions.
There is also a possible indirect consequence that deserves attention.
A high-profile judicial proceeding can bring the relationships, organisational structures and political circles surrounding the defendants under greater public scrutiny. It can prompt associations and individuals to clarify their positions, relationships and the nature of their activities.
This does not mean that the civil action is an investigative tool designed to identify further supporters. There is no evidence to suggest that this is its purpose. Nor does political solidarity with a defendant demonstrate criminal complicity.
The greater visibility of the proceedings, however, may make the environment in which the alleged activities developed more exposed to public and institutional scrutiny.
The School Threats: A Different Form of Pressure
While the Hannoun proceedings concern alleged terrorist financing, Italy has simultaneously found itself facing a very different security challenge.
On 11 November, a threatening email, signed by a self-proclaimed Mikhail Andropov, was sent to schools in several Italian cities. The message claimed that an explosive device had been placed inside the buildings and used deliberately theatrical and intimidating language.
The following day, a second wave reportedly affected around 3,800 schools. Reuters reported that the first wave had involved approximately 6,300 schools and that, following a review of response procedures, only 77 evacuations took place during the second wave.
The threats also reached schools in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
The Italian authorities have not attributed the emails to a terrorist organisation or a foreign government. There is no public evidence linking them to the Hannoun investigation, Hamas, Iran or any specific actor.
The international dimension nevertheless remains relevant.
Reuters and the Associated Press placed the incidents within a broader European context characterised by disruptive cyber activities, false threats and attempts to interfere with public services.
Some European officials have expressed suspicions of possible Russian involvement in wider disruption campaigns, but those suspicions do not establish Russian responsibility for these specific emails.
The Italian Government’s response has also evolved. Following the significant disruption caused by the first wave, the authorities sought to avoid automatic evacuations in the absence of concrete indications of danger.
This is not merely an operational adjustment. It reflects a central problem in contemporary security management: how to protect citizens without allowing repeated false alarms to paralyse essential public services.
Schools are particularly sensitive targets because they involve children, families, teachers and local communities. Even a threat that proves unfounded can have considerable social and institutional consequences.
The operational damage may be limited. The psychological and organisational impact can be much broader.
Two Different Cases, One Strategic Environment
The Hannoun proceedings and the threats against schools must not be regarded as parts of the same operation.
There is no public evidence of a common command, a shared organisation or a direct operational link between the two phenomena.
The absence of a demonstrated connection, however, does not prevent us from examining the broader environment in which both are taking place.
Italy is having to manage an increasingly complex combination of factors:
• alleged financial and logistical support networks connected to international terrorism;
• political and social mobilisation linked to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict;
• attempts to influence public perceptions of the conflict and of Italian foreign policy;
• threats capable of disrupting schools and other essential public services;
• the possibility that hostile actors may exploit domestic political divisions.
These phenomena require different investigative methods and institutional responses. Their effects, however, may converge.
The Hannoun case brings the issue of terrorist financing to the centre of the debate, as well as the boundaries between political activity, humanitarian work and material support for terrorist organisations.
The threats against schools test the resilience of public services and the authorities’ ability to communicate risk without generating unjustified panic.
Both incidents may also fuel political polarisation.
In the first case, the debate risks becoming trapped between two opposing narratives: one that regards the investigation as an essential measure for national security, and another that interprets it as an attack on solidarity with the Palestinian people.
In the second, the discussion may shift from identifying the perpetrators to accusations of institutional inefficiency, political manipulation or deliberate amplification of the alarm.
This is precisely where the cognitive dimension of security becomes relevant.
A hostile actor does not necessarily have to control every event or coordinate every individual involved. It may be enough to exploit pre-existing divisions and encourage reactions capable of increasing distrust.
The strategic question is therefore not only who initiated a particular incident. It also concerns the possibility that the institutional and political response may create new vulnerabilities.
The Danger of Two Opposite Mistakes
Italy must avoid two symmetrical mistakes.
The first is underestimation: treating every network suspected of providing support as an ordinary political or humanitarian initiative without examining the evidence and the possibility that it may have been exploited by terrorist organisations.
The second is generalisation: allowing allegations directed at individuals or organisations to turn into suspicion towards entire communities, religious groups or political movements.
Neither approach strengthens national security.
A credible counterterrorism policy must be based on individual accountability, financial transparency, judicial independence and the reliability of intelligence. It must also protect legitimate humanitarian activities and the right to support the rights of the Palestinian people.
The same principle applies to the threats against schools. The authorities must establish the origin of the emails, determine whether the incidents are connected and identify those responsible.
At the same time, they must avoid prematurely attributing them to a foreign power or a terrorist organisation.
The State’s credibility depends on its ability to distinguish what it knows from what it suspects.
Italy’s Strategic Test
The most important aspect of the Hannoun case may ultimately not be the amount of compensation being claimed.
It may be the political and institutional message the Government intends to convey: alleged support for terrorist organisations is not regarded solely as a matter for criminal investigation, but also as a possible injury to the interests of the State.
This is a stance different from the logic of discreet containment historically associated with the Moro Understanding.
This does not mean that diplomacy has become irrelevant, nor that Italy has abandoned the need to maintain channels of dialogue in the Middle East.
It means that the State appears more willing to publicly assert that its institutions, its reputation and its security are directly involved when allegations of terrorist financing emerge.
The threats against schools reveal a parallel challenge: preventing relatively inexpensive acts of intimidation from producing disproportionate consequences for public life.
In both cases, the decisive factor will be institutional credibility.
Italy must be able to investigate without politicising justice, protect humanitarian activities without tolerating terrorist financing, defend Israel’s security without denying the rights of the Palestinians, and guarantee public order without allowing fear to dictate the functioning of the country.
The true measure of national resilience will not be the intensity of government statements.
It will be the ability to establish responsibility, demonstrate the evidence, protect citizens and prevent internal divisions from becoming an instrument of external pressure.
A State does not defend its sovereignty by choosing between security and democratic freedoms. It defends it by demonstrating that it can protect both.
Final note – A political setback?
The Government’s decision to join the Hannoun proceedings as a civil claimant may also have political consequences, particularly for Giuseppe Conte, Elly Schlein, Nicola Fratoianni and the other political forces that have promoted a policy of strong pressure on the Israeli Government and initiatives in support of recognition of the Palestinian State.
Their positions are not identical, and support for Palestinian rights or criticism of the policies of the Israeli Government cannot be confused with support for Hamas. Nevertheless, the parliamentary and political initiatives promoted by these forces have outlined a recognisable political line.
On 4 May 2026, a bill was introduced in the Chamber of Deputies seeking to prohibit the import and advertising of goods and services originating from Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.
The initiative was promoted by Angelo Bonelli and also signed by Giuseppe Conte, Elly Schlein and Nicola Fratoianni, together with other members of parliament.
On 3 November, Conte addressed the issue again, stating that a future government led by his coalition would recognise the State of Palestine and terminate the military cooperation agreement with Israel.
These are documented political positions and proposals, which form part of legitimate parliamentary debate and must be assessed on their merits.
The Hannoun proceedings nevertheless introduce a new and potentially uncomfortable element into this debate.
When the Italian Government formally asserts that the alleged financing of Hamas may have damaged the State’s international image and entailed significant security costs, the political discussion can no longer be confined solely to the diplomatic and humanitarian dimensions of the conflict in the Middle East.
It also becomes necessary to address the distinction between support for the Palestinian population, opposition to the policies of the Israeli Government, and the financing of or material support for an organisation designated as terrorist by the European Union.
This may create a political setback for the opposition: it will have to explain more clearly how support for Palestinian rights and criticism of Israel can be reconciled with an unambiguous rejection of Hamas and with the need to effectively counter terrorist financing.
It would be incorrect to claim that the Government’s civil action was conceived to place the opposition in this position. There is no evidence demonstrating such an intention.
The political effect, however, could be significant.
The deepest historical contrast remains the one with the Moro Understanding. In the 1970s, the priority was to prevent the conflict in the Middle East from spilling over into Italian territory through confidential political and intelligence channels.
Today, the Government is publicly asserting the State’s right to obtain compensation in proceedings concerning alleged funding for Hamas.
The question for Italian politics is whether the country is witnessing an actual change in the way the relationship between the Palestinian question, national security and the responsibility of its institutions is conceived.
The answer will not depend on political slogans, but on the evidence that emerges in court and on the consistency of the State’s actions.
