A debate on the left regarding the anti-Semitism bill

‘I won’t be voting for this law,’ says Marta, placing the anti-Semitism bill on the table.

“Why?” asks Paolo. “I’m against anti-Semitism, but I don’t want to hand the government a tool to silence those who defend the Palestinians.”

Adopt the definition provided by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), including the examples relating to Israel.

The text approved by the Senate on 4 March expressly protects the freedoms of political criticism, expression, assembly and association. Nor does it introduce any new offences. A university can intimidate a lecturer without sending them to prison. An ambiguous definition may lead to self-censorship.

A serious objection. A clause on freedoms does not eliminate every risk. But it matters: we must demand that it be respected, not describe a law that protects criticism as if it were prohibiting it. And we must distinguish between a possible abuse and a prescribed abuse.

No. You do not need to attach a certificate of previous events to the sign. The examples should be assessed in context, not used as a ‘one-size-fits-all’ means of condemnation. The IHRA itself excludes from the definition of antisemitism criticism of Israel that is analogous to that directed at other countries.

This is not a matter of personal annoyance, nor is it the government’s. We need verifiable criteria. To challenge a military operation, call for sanctions, or defend the equality of Palestinians: these are political choices we are discussing. To demand that an Italian Jew be held accountable for that operation simply because he is Jewish: this is to attribute collective responsibility to him. To recognise this distinction, we do not have to endorse Israeli policy.

Not all anti-Zionists are anti-Semites.

Certainly. And calling oneself anti-Zionist cannot be a pre-emptive absolution. If you ask a Jewish colleague to distance themselves from Israel before considering them a discussion partner, you are imposing a test on them that you do not impose on others. It is conditional citizenship. Paolo hands her another sheet of paper. The CDEC recorded 963 anti-Semitic incidents in 2025, 643 of which occurred online. These are not 963 physical assaults; let’s not confuse the categories. But nor is this a discussion fabricated to put us in a difficult position.

That is correct; however, it should compel us to explain what to do immediately, not merely because every available answer makes us feel uncomfortable.

It was not invented by the Italian right. The Conte government had already adopted it in 2020.

There are Jews who oppose this bill.

They must be listened to. Just as the young people of the UGEI who are calling for its approval must be listened to. The Jewish community is not a parliamentary group bound by a voting obligation. The dissent of some does not invalidate the request for protection made by others, and neither position exempts us from reasoning.

I would have supported it. However, the general protection afforded to criticism does not disappear simply because they refuse to specify how it applies. I do not need to justify every decision made by the majority in order to deem the text worthwhile.

On the contrary. Clear implementation guarantees, control over results, resources for training. The text claims to work without imposing new burdens: this is an area where we must press the government. I want this policy to work; I do not want its inadequacy to become my excuse.

A victory over whom? Over us, because we’ve decided that protecting a minority has become their job? Bear in mind that opposing the government does not mean handing over ownership of what is right to them. If they exploit anti-Semitism, you take away their monopoly on it. You don’t hand them the keys.

I concur with that stance. And precisely for that reason, I will not permit their freedom to be wielded as a licence for prejudice. I do not place my trust in Israel. I assert a responsibility here, towards people who should not have to earn our protection by guessing the right stance on the Middle East.

No. That would constitute a form of blackmail that is unworthy. I take issue with the political choice; I do not accuse you of harbouring hatred. However, I fear that in an effort not to do the right wing a favour, we end up doing it the greatest favour of all: abandoning a battle that is ours.

With conviction, not with embarrassment. I do not want to have to choose between the freedom of the Palestinians and the security of the Jews. I want a left-wing movement that does not ask me to choose.

“So are you satisfied with that?” “On the contrary. Clear implementation guarantees, control over results, resources for training. The text claims to work without imposing new burdens: this is an area where we must press the government. I want this policy to work.”