Letters
Letters •
Ilva is set to become the playground of Beppe Grillo’s dreams, to the cry of: “Capitalism has lost”
Who wrote to the editor-in-chief, Claudio Cerasa
12 SEP 26
Translated by AI
Photo: ANSA
To the Editor – Dear Cerasa, the screening of ‘Naza’ (from Nezek Agavi, ‘collateral damage’) at the Venice Film Festival was greeted by the audience with a half-hour standing ovation, whilst Palestinian flags were waved jubilantly in the auditorium and well-known anti-Israeli slogans were chanted. Meanwhile, some of the early reviews are tipping Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor’s documentary as a contender for the Golden Lion. Filmed at night on the rooftops of Tel Aviv, “Naza” brings together the anonymous testimonies of twenty-four intelligence officers and IDF soldiers to reveal, from the inside, the mechanisms behind the deliberate mass extermination of Palestinian civilians in Gaza, even though not a single image of this is shown. In short, the genocide did take place, and the two (Israeli) directors denounce it in no uncertain terms. I do not know what Mariarosa Mancuso thinks of it, but a documentary film putting forward this argument, acclaimed by audiences and critics alike, risks being more powerful than a thousand delusional speeches à la Francesca Albanese. This is a serious matter.
Michele Magno
“I have always opposed, and continue to oppose, a use of the term ‘genocide’ that is not at all analytical, but rather highly vindictive. It is a way of shirking Europe’s historical responsibility, inventing a sort of senseless retribution, a shifting of the blame for today’s Israel – portrayed as a new form of Nazism – onto the victims of Nazism.” Useful quotes to bear in mind for anyone choosing to go and see ‘Naza’. A quote not from a Nazi, indifferent to the ‘Naza’, but from Liliana Segre: 2 August 2025.
To the Editor – I greatly appreciated and agreed with, dear Cerasa, your indictment of the killers at the former Ilva site and your condemnation of the climate of bad faith, opportunism, hypocrisy and institutional coup-mongering that enabled the crime and ensured impunity. I would simply point out that, whilst the largest welfare operation in history was being discussed at Palazzo Chigi, the Taranto Parents’ Association criticised President Antonio Decaro for having changed the region’s stance, linking it to the request – to the Milan Court of Appeal – for the suspension of the decree, rather than ‘seeking to influence its assessment in favour of the people of Taranto’ – that is, to confirm the closure of the plant. Furthermore, an anonymous individual took it upon themselves to send Palazzo Chigi a series of photographs taken from an aeroplane, which apparently clearly show that ‘the Taranto steelworks is an extremely costly piece of scrap that would be impossible to bring up to standard and an ecological time bomb that no new owner can defuse’. In short, the former Ilva must die. And that’s that.
Giuliano Cazzola
Once the hot section of Ilva has been shut down, it will soon become the much-coveted playground dreamed of by Beppe Grillo, allowing ideological environmentalists to declare: ‘Capitalism has lost; we have won.’
To the Editor – Following Carlo Messina’s statements – which came after those of Carlo Cimbri – on the future of the Montepaschi operation – described in detail by Il Foglio – these statements, which fully reassure shareholders, the local community and employees, should put an end to the hasty, pre-emptive criticism regarding an alleged break-up of Montepaschi and other such claims. Attention should now turn to the subsequent stages of the tender procedures, their ‘sequence’ (in relation to the various timelines), and the decisions of the supervisory body and the numerous other competent authorities involved. This latter aspect of the issue is erroneously underestimated in the media coverage. Then, of course, there will be the decisive choices made by the market. In any case, the support Intesa has received from its shareholders is commensurate with its status as Italy’s leading bank, which speaks volumes about the next steps. Best regards.
Angelo De Mattia
To the Editor – Whilst international turmoil rages (ongoing wars and election results in the style of Saxony-Anhalt), a dilemma of truth is once again knocking forcefully at the door of the history of the Italian left. In the 1970s, when inflation was eroding people’s incomes, the largest left-wing party of the time, the PCI, was divided between those who believed it was necessary first to curb the cost of living and then to usher in a period of redistribution (the Giorgio Amendola line) and those who opposed this order of priorities. It was the logic of two stages: first stabilising the overall situation, then securing and innovating social justice. Today, the gathering storm sweeping through liberal democracies presents the same crossroads once more. On the one hand, there are those who argue that the military and strategic response to autocratic regimes and internal destabilisation by the far right is democracy’s primary task; on the other, there are those who reject rearmament and call for all resources to be concentrated on welfare. But reality is harsher than intentions. Ukraine and Israel demonstrate that no advanced redistributive policy is possible unless the survival of the state is first guaranteed. Without security, there is no progress; without defence, there is no social justice. This is why the ‘two-stage’ approach is not a theoretical construct: it is the very condition that makes democracy possible. First, defend; then redistribute.
Alberto Bianchi