That large section of the left that is not voting for the Anti-Semitism Bill

There are other priorities, we know – there are electoral laws to be finalised, potential prime ministerial candidates to be identified, coalitions to be finalised, populist movements to be managed, and amendments to be fine-tuned – but amidst the chaos at the end of the parliamentary term, there is an important and far from symbolic issue that we have come to know through the use of a dry, bureaucratic term: the Anti-Semitism Bill. We know a great deal about this bill – or at any rate, a great deal has been said about it. It is a cross-party bill, first sponsored by Maurizio Gasparri (Forza Italia), which has not particularly divided the right but has violently torn apart the centre-left, and which has been supported – including in its drafting – by a number of PD senators (Delrio, Malpezzi, Alfieri, Bazoli, Casini, Rojc, Sensi, Verini, Zampa), by one senator from Italia Viva (Scalfarotto) and by several senators from Azione (Calenda, Lombardo). (continued on page four)

The centre-left’s decision – to put it bluntly – not to present a united front in support of the bill has both an explicit and an implicit reason. The explicit reason has a certain romanticism about it, even a liberal one: combating anti-Semitism is important, they say, but it is unacceptable for the fight against anti-Semitism to turn into a ban on criticising Israel’s policies. The implicit reason, on the other hand, has a blatantly illiberal toxicity: our electorate has learnt to hate Israel so much that it has reached the point of not tolerating any special focus on anti-Semitism; indeed, behind closed doors, it asks us to be free to regard today’s anti-Semitism as a reaction – if not legitimate, then at least understandable – to the atrocities committed by Israel, and to imagine that someone might be punished for shouting in the streets ‘Free Palestine from the river to the sea’ means wanting to regard anti-Zionism as a close relative of anti-Semitism, and frankly, no, we’re not having any of it. This article could end with a simple ‘that’s not true’. It is not true, that is, that there is a single passage in the draft bill on anti-Semitism where criticism of Israel’s policies could be considered a criminal offence. Not in a single passage. Quite the contrary. The bill specifies that, of course, “freedom of political criticism and freedom of expression” remain unaffected.

The same applies to the baseless claim that the bill would introduce new offences and is therefore repressive. This, too, is false. The bill does not introduce any new offences. Current legislation, beginning with the well-known Mancino Act, already punishes propaganda based on racial or ethnic hatred, incitement to and acts of discrimination on racial, ethnic, national or religious grounds, incitement to and acts of violence for the same reasons, as well as organisations whose purpose is to incite discrimination or violence. The real novelty of the bill is that it clearly defines when the state must regard what it is faced with as anti-Semitism. And to do so, the bill draws on a precise definition provided by the IHRA: the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The general definition is as follows: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews that may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Verbal and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed towards Jews or non-Jews and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and buildings used for worship”. The definition of antisemitism was adopted in Bucharest on 26 May 2016, ten years ago. Along with the definition, a number of concrete, codified examples were provided that day in Bucharest to help determine whether or not one is dealing with an act of antisemitism. Inciting the killing of Jews. Demonising them. Accusing them as a people. Denying the Holocaust. Accusing them of being more loyal to Israel than to their own country. Denying Jews the right to self-determination. Applying double standards towards Israel. Using symbols associated with anti-Semitism to characterise Israel. Drawing comparisons between Israeli policy and that of the Nazis. Holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s actions. Stop.

The IHRA has always been praised for clarifying what constitutes antisemitism and, as is clear, criticism of Israel does not fall under any of these categories. The IHRA is, of course, open to debate, but it is curious that it is the opposition leaders who are doing so. On 29 May 2017, the EHRA definition was adopted by the European Parliament through a well-known resolution: B8-0383/2017. The resolution called on Member States and European institutions to “adopt and apply the working definition of antisemitism used by the EHRA”. Among the signatories to the motion for a resolution, on behalf of the Socialist Group, was a young Socialist MEP named Elly Schlein. A year later, in Parliament, on 4 October 2018, during sitting no. 56, the Chamber examined the Carfagna et al. motion on combating antisemitism. The first commitment called on the government to “recognise and adopt the working definition of antisemitism proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance”. A well-known MP chose to abstain on the preamble to the motion, but then decided to vote in favour of the commitment “to adopt and implement the IHRA definition”. A familiar name: Nicola Fratoianni.

A few years later, Italy chose to officially adopt the IHRA definition. On the day the definition was adopted, Palazzo Chigi proudly stated: “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews that may take the form of hatred, and its manifestations may be directed against Jewish people, property, institutions and places of worship”. It was 27 January 2020, and Giuseppe Conte was leading the government. The draft bill on anti-Semitism will, of course, not change the world, but should it ever be passed (the Chamber of Deputies’ calendar lists 3 October as the date), it may help shed some light on the reasons why a section of the progressive political elite is hesitant when it comes to combating anti-Semitism, on the reasons that have driven a section of the progressive political elite into the arms of movements which do not merely limit themselves to legitimately defending the rights of the long-suffering Palestinians but hope to see a Palestine stretching from the river to the sea, and on the reasons that have led a section of the progressive world to legitimise the use of anti-Zionism as a substitute for anti-Semitism. Of course, if one were to examine the points with which the IUHRA exposes anti-Semitic tropes, many on the left would, unfortunately, feel called out. But if there are those who believe that drawing a parallel between Israel and Nazism does not fuel anti-Semitism, it does not take much to realise that this is one more reason – not one less – to regard the draft bill against anti-Semitism as a matter of urgency; whilst it will not stem the hatred against the Jewish people, it is true, it will nonetheless have an effect: naming a spade a spade and holding up a mirror to those who, in the years since 7 October, have not merely criticised Israel but have chosen to play a significant part in denying its right to exist and in treating every Jew as guilty until proven innocent.