Sofia’s neo-Nazis: children of an era of rampant anti-Semitism

Those young people dressed in black gathered outside the hotel entrance, shouting “Sieg Heil” and giving the Nazi salute, are not “madmen”. They are the children of a century in which anti-Semitism has once again become dramatically widespread and very real. On the right, it is the usual suspects who explicitly target Jews simply for being Jewish. On the left, they are the usual unknowns, who use anti-Zionism to legitimise anti-Semitism. Germany in 2026: 8,725 anti-Semitic incidents in a year, 24 a day, more than triple the figure for 2022. United Kingdom: 3,700 incidents, the second-highest figure ever recorded, with a monthly average of 308 cases, which is exactly double the figure prior to 7 October 2023. France: anti-Semitic acts account for 53 per cent of all anti-religious incidents, despite Jews constituting a small minority of the population. Italy: 963 incidents, almost four times the 241 recorded in 2022. Do not forget, do not underestimate, do not downplay.

The explanation is probably a combination of factors. A court ruling that encouraged people to set off by sea. A flippant statement from those with a vested interest in exploiting the notion of easy entry into Europe. The often underestimated desire to come to Europe. And the deliberate lack of commitment on the part of the Moroccan security forces, intent on sending a subtle message to their Spanish ‘friends’, who had been caught cosying up to their Algerian ‘enemies’.

To the Editor – I read your editorial “Vaccines against the lies about migrants” with interest. I found it thought-provoking because it highlights the need to tackle the issue of migration by starting from reality rather than ideological simplifications. Precisely for this reason, however, I would like to offer a reflection. In describing the Danish Prime Minister’s approach, you highlight the need to control migration flows, combat irregular immigration, distinguish between the right to asylum and economic migration, and manage the phenomenon without succumbing to slogans. These are principles that echo many of the points also advocated by the Meloni government. This is where my question arises. If a significant part of the Danish Social Democrats’ migration policies aligns with those of the Italian government, would it not be useful to acknowledge this explicitly? Not to attribute merit or blame, but to contribute to a public debate that is less bound by labels. I get the impression that, all too often, the same proposal is judged differently depending on who puts it forward: it becomes pragmatism if it comes from a Nordic left-wing party, whilst it is labelled as ‘sovereignism’ or ‘populism’ if put forward by the Italian right. Perhaps the real antidote to ‘nonsense’ lies not only in correcting narratives about migrants, but also in freeing political debate from the conditioned reflexes that prevent us from recognising points of convergence when they actually exist. The strength of democratic debate does not lie in defending one’s own political affiliations, but in recognising when reality compels different political cultures to come together.