Letters
letters to the editor •
It is possible to discuss anti-Semitism without mentioning Netanyahu
Who wrote to the editor, Claudio Cerasa
14 AUG 26
Translated by AI
Photo: ANSA
To the Editor – Giuliano Ferrara is right. It is Valter Lavitola who has emerged with the greatest dignity from the farcical spectacle in Pomezia, having sought to take full criminal responsibility for the affair (if the investigators are satisfied with the flimsy grounds provided during the preliminary hearing). Admittedly, Sigfrido Ranucci, in his account of the events, does not come across very well as an investigative journalist who fails to notice what is happening right under his nose. But nobody is going to prison just because he’s a bit of a hothead.
Giuliano Cazzola
The latest instalment of the legal hawks enlightened by Ranucci on the path to due process is marvellous. Once upon a time, half a statement to the prosecutors was enough to establish the truth. Today, in the age of Lavitola and Ranucci, no – you can’t be trusted; caution is needed; you have to put things into context. Relevant hashtag: #lavitolaindiretta.
To the Editor – What upsets me most about this affair is not so much Lavitola; the history of this country is full of swindlers, wheeler-dealers and unscrupulous characters. What really strikes me is the number of Italians who, over the years, have come to internalise a political culture based on a constant narrative of conspiracy: dark plots (and not just dark ones), rogue secret services, occult powers, and masterminds hidden behind other masterminds. This has given rise to a sort of sectarian view of reality, a way of interpreting Italy in which nothing ever happens simply for what it is, and behind every event there must necessarily lie a greater, invisible and unspeakable design. Once again, the script is the same: the search is on for the ‘mastermind behind the mastermind’, with Ranucci portrayed as the victim of a system that seeks to eliminate him. And this is precisely what I find most worrying: a deeply populist drift on the part of those who proclaim themselves opponents of populism, yet have ended up fully adopting its language, its mechanisms and, perhaps, one of its most pernicious forms.
Matteo Zilocchi
To the Editor – I agree with many of the points raised by Livia Ottolenghi in our lengthy interview with her, particularly the importance of not underestimating the seriousness of the numerous incidents of anti-Semitism and the abhorrent mistake of confusing criticism of a government with the demonisation of an entire people. These should be matters of common sense, but evidently this is not the case. Nevertheless, I believe that the president of the UCEI could and should have shown greater courage in criticising Netanyahu and some of his ministers, highlighting their crimes and expressing ‘felt’ grief for the 73,000 civilian deaths in Gaza. There is no mention whatsoever of malnutrition, the collapse of the healthcare system or the destruction of infrastructure in the Strip. Perhaps it is this deafening silence, this ‘near-erasure’ of an uncomfortable truth, that has caused ‘long-standing friendships to fall silent’ and that the identity-based link between the diaspora community (Judaism) and the State of Israel (Zionism) is emerging so clearly, almost by osmosis. We shall see what response the Israelis choose to give at the ballot box next October, and above all whether the Jewish state will have the strength to show no leniency towards its prime minister (who has been on trial, to no avail, since 2020). Reconciliation and an admission of guilt are needed from everyone. Only then can anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism be considered synonyms by those who are intellectually dishonest.
Roberto Remondi
Dear Roberto, thank you for your letter. I am replying by offering you a point for reflection: to consider it necessary to talk about Netanyahu in order to discuss anti-Semitism means accepting that the resurgence of anti-Semitism is a reaction to the wars fought by Israel since 7 October. I do not believe this to be the case. And I believe that the anti-Semitism hidden within the Trojan horse of anti-Zionism is also fuelled by this misconception: the view that hatred towards the world’s Jews stems not so much from the global Intifada as from Israel’s wars. In one instance, there is a tendency to accept the idea that anti-Semitism is the result of a reaction rooted in resistance. In another instance, it is thought that anti-Semitism is the result of an action fuelled by ideology. It is clear that you believe anti-Semitism is the result of an action, but failing to mention Netanyahu when discussing anti-Semitism is not an oversight: it is a choice. Best wishes and thank you.