With Hezbollah and Hamas defeated, the fight against anti-Semitism continues

Long live Ciociaria!

If necessary, I suggest a brief introduction of a few lines, quoting a spot-on remark by Erri De Luca from a few months ago. “The word ‘Zionism’ refers to Israel’s right to exist as a state. Anyone who supports the need for two states – Israel and Palestine – is naturally a Zionist, as they regard Israel as one of the two states. Anyone who, on the other hand, advocates the eradication of Israel is not in favour of the two-state solution and is aligned with Hamas.”

On this subject, yesterday’s WSJ was spot on, as always: following 7 October, Israel has responded by warding off existential threats (Hezbollah has been wiped out and Iran’s nuclear programme lies in ruins), but the anti-Semitism that erupted three years ago is still present, and defeating it remains a duty of the West.

To the Editor-in-Chief – Dear Cerasa, if I may say so, the rule of law is never a comedy. I can only thank you for the extensive coverage that Il Foglio has chosen to devote to me, to Antonio Ingroia and to the Controcorrente movement. You know, it is by no means a given that a grassroots movement should receive such attention in a national daily newspaper. I also acknowledge that you are one of the most attentive and critical editors in Italy, but, having read the articles, I cannot help but ask you to come to Sicily. I propose we spend a day together – you, me and Alessandro Onorato – and I will take you to see what is happening in this region where, once a month, a member of the Schifani-led majority is arrested. Together we could go over what I have done. Take Mondello, for example: a beach concession, a trivial administrative matter which nevertheless led the state to assign me a security detail. I was just 32 years old and had only been married for a year. Let me be clear, Editor: I’m not telling you this to take credit, but to help you understand that Sicilian politics cannot be portrayed as if it were a normal electoral contest. The moral issue here is a concrete reality, and you discuss it in terms of due process. I, however, see it as a necessity: to distinguish individual responsibilities, to respect due process, and not to be naïve in the face of contexts where organised crime attempts to infiltrate. This, for me, is the meaning of legality. Neither a licence for moral superiority, nor, far from it, a farce. Then there is the passage about Antonio Ingroia, Salvatore Borsellino and Sonia Alfano, reduced to mere ‘icons’ of a political era – which, in my view, means losing sight of the history from which they stem. Ingroia was a magistrate at the Palermo Public Prosecutor’s Office and worked alongside Paolo Borsellino. Salvatore Borsellino is Paolo’s brother and has been fighting for decades to uncover the truth about the massacres. Sonia Alfano, on the other hand, is the daughter of Beppe Alfano, and she brought the Anti-Mafia Commission to Europe for the first time. I am not saying that their political choices cannot be debated; it is legitimate to do so. But personal stories cannot be turned into caricatures. Sicilian history, unfortunately, is made up of names, deaths, trials and parts of institutions that have paid a very high price. However, I would like to address the substance of your article: why have you drawn a connection linking Ingroia, Sicilian politics, Crocetta, Cuffaro, Schifani, legal proceedings and candidacies? A legitimate journalistic construct, but an association, Editor, is not proof. If Ingroia has had a different experience, that should be recounted. But does that automatically mean that those who work with him today are part of the ‘system’? If that were the case, every party would be responsible for the biographies of those who have been part of it and – dear Editor – believe me, this is not due process. Furthermore, in your article, my experience is linked to that of Rosario Crocetta. Let me make this clear: neither Montante nor Lumia is behind me. In fact, I thank you, because you have allowed me to dispel any doubts. We have only free people who have put themselves on the line. One thing, however, I will give you credit for. The article asks what it means to engage in politics in the name of the rule of law. It is a question I ask myself every day and which I would like to see put to those in government, those in opposition, those who speak out, and even those who write and comment. Because ‘the rule of law’ cannot be a term used to discredit someone and then forgotten when it concerns someone else. Dear Editor, it may be that I am naive; it may be that Ingroia was wrong; and it may even be that the project we have built will fail to change Sicily. However, it will be the facts, time and the voters who will decide. And above all, Editor, let us not confuse memory with propaganda. Because in Sicily, men and women have paid the price of legality with their lives. We owe them respect. And as for Ingroia, let me say that he has not asked for a safe seat but will stand his ground based on the preferences in the regional elections. That is no small thing.

Dear La Vardera, I appreciate your acrobatic skills, but when it comes to the rule of law, one ought to be able to distinguish between the ‘anti-Mafia of empty talk’ – which uses rhetoric to further one’s career and play politics – and the ‘anti-Mafia of action’, which prefers results to empty talk. Your beloved champion of the ‘anti-Mafia of empty talk’, Dr Ingroia, is the very symbol of everything politics does not need: using the justice system as a lever for political gain by fabricating reckless investigations aimed at promoting theories without evidence. The investigation into the state-Mafia negotiations was utter nonsense, but the ‘centrism-Ingroia’ negotiations promise to be no better. Thank you for your passionate letter, and good luck.