The new global Intifada unfolding before us

Indifference, in its own way, can become a cultural manifesto, a reflection of a historical era, an indicator of society’s decline. Indifference, at times, lies in the details, in a refusal to face up to these declines, extremisms and the scars inflicted on our freedom. Indifference, to put it plainly, lies in superficiality, in distraction, in the flippancy with which news stories such as those reported in recent days are treated. Two days ago, in Rome, a 22-year-old Frenchman, a tourist, was targeted by four people in the streets of the historic centre. He is Jewish and was wearing a kippah covering his head. They were rowdy and struck him whilst shouting “Free Palestine”. A few days earlier, on 2 August, in Umbria, a pub displayed a sign near the till reading: “Israelis are not welcome in this establishment”. On 16 July, a mural dedicated to Anne Frank and Primo Levi was vandalised in Milan. Three days earlier, in the province of Pavia, the words “Nien Juden raus” appeared on a sign at the entrance to the town hall in Cilavegna – an explicit reference to the Nazi slogan “Juden raus”, meaning “Jews out”. On 2 July, in Naples, members of the Jewish LGBTQ+ group Keshet were insulted and spat on during Pride. On 21 July, in Varallo Sesia, Piedmont, the mayor of the town – which is home to a community of Israelis – was sent a bullet accompanied by a threat: “This is the only warning before we start shooting”. On 15 June, in a block of flats on Via Martin Lutero in Milan, a swastika appeared alongside the words: “Death to the Jews”.

Outside Italy, in the last two months alone, the incidents have been even more serious. On 4 August, in Sofia, Bulgaria, a group of young people from the Italian Jewish community were besieged in a hotel by a group of neo-Nazis. On 27 July, unknown individuals broke into the Great Synagogue of Levallois-Perret, on the outskirts of Paris, and stole more than twelve Torah scrolls. On 25 July, in France, six people were arrested on suspicion of plotting an attack on a synagogue in Sarcelles. On 20 July, in Antwerp, a man threatened Jews whilst brandishing a hammer. On the same day, also in Germany, a 15-year-old was accused of planning an attack on a synagogue in Augsburg. On 17 July, in Montenegro, a group of Israeli tourists was attacked by more than ten young people in the resort town of Budua. On 15 July, a woman hurled anti-Semitic insults at pupils outside a Jewish secondary school in London and assaulted the father of one of the pupils. On 6 July, the Federation of Jewish Communities in Spain reported a serious anti-Semitic incident involving a group of French Jewish visitors in Barcelona. The point is always the same: what are the risks of remaining indifferent? What are the risks of looking the other way? What are the risks of closing one’s eyes and thinking, in the back of one’s mind, that, after all, today’s anti-Semitism is nothing more than an additional form of anti-Israeli resistance, for which the blame lies not with those who carry out the violence but with those who, if anything, provoked it? Livia Ottolenghi has been president of the Union of Italian Jewish Communities since last February and is deeply concerned. She has long maintained that public opinion is becoming accustomed to a form of low-intensity anti-Semitism, which it has chosen to regard as an almost physiological phenomenon. And this complacency, this normalisation, this underestimation, according to Ottolenghi, is leading Italy into a situation similar to that of 1982, when the young Stefano Gaj Taché was killed in the attack on the synagogue in Rome. Ottolenghi agreed to a lengthy discussion with Il Foglio on these issues and begins by addressing this very point: is there today a real fear that threats and intimidation could once again lead to acts of violence similar to those experienced by Italy in 1982?

“If I were to base my assessment on certain events that preceded the 1982 Palestinian terrorist attack on the synagogue in Rome, I would say that the atmosphere is very similar. Even more intense.” Do you not recall the coffin that, a few days before the attack – whilst the war in Lebanon was raging – was thrown in front of the Great Synagogue during a trade union march? “That was a terrible sign. Today, thanks to the police, the risk of similar acts of violence is limited, but I think of that when I read the reasons for strike action cited by some trade unions in recent years. And unfortunately, I see the same demonisation of Israel, branded as a colonising power, a Western ‘fungus’ on foreign soil. Or the pro-Palestinian demonstrations, almost always marked by vile slogans, as well as the violence against Jewish students and those who try to engage in dialogue. I wonder where all this can lead. According to official figures, acts of anti-Semitism are on the rise. In Italy, the figure is up by over 400 per cent compared with last year, and the trend is worsening in many European countries. I want to emphasise one point: behind those figures are real people: fathers, mothers, children, brothers, sisters and friends.”

“They all carry within their very DNA a memory of persecution. Those figures can never fully convey the astonishment – as free citizens in a democratic state – at having been insulted, the pain of having been attacked, the indignation at not being able to wear religious symbols, or the uncertainty of living in fear of having to give in to bullying. They do not convey it fully, but we know it all too well.”

If we were to identify the words, phrases and euphemisms through which anti-Semitic language is normalised and made socially acceptable today, which ones should be singled out and jotted down in a notebook? “I’ll be honest: it’s not possible to make anti-Semitism socially acceptable, yet I see a brazen form of anti-Semitism that absolves itself, often disguised as the defence of rights, but evoking Nazism. The problem – or rather, the major new development in these ominous times – is precisely this. There are no longer any barriers, safeguards or caution. There are different forms, and this depends on the speaker: the intellectual articulates their thoughts using erudite references, which are difficult for the average listener to grasp and refute; the analyst paints scenarios in which the villain is always the same, or conducts one-sided investigations, which—more or less consciously—have disruptive effects. The most visible form is online, where anti-Semitism is unvarnished, explicit, immediate and direct. Accepted.” We ask Livia Ottolenghi whether the idea that one can be guilty simply for being Jewish has returned to the mainstream. And we also ask her: to what extent has the slogan ‘globalise the Intifada’ contributed to turning every Jew, even outside Israel, into a potential political target? “It is not we who say that we are guilty simply for being ‘Jewish’: we endure it. And that is an indisputable fact. I’d like to draw your attention to one aspect: in recent years we’ve seen long-standing friendships suddenly fall silent. As if a screen or a curtain had suddenly been drawn. At best, some of these friendships may have endured, but certain topics have become taboo. Our being Jewish has led others to harbour an unjust belief that meaningful dialogue is impossible. There is no doubt that the ‘globalisation of the Intifada’ – to use your own term – has played a decisive role in turning every Jew into a potential target. How else could one explain the militarisation of our synagogues, schools, institutions and even cemeteries? Are you aware that, at every religious festival we celebrate, our first thought is to ensure the safety of the worshippers who, as in any religion, comprise families, children and the elderly? And this applies even to a simple children’s camp, a reception or a day trip out of town. It is difficult to get used to this, just as it is difficult to accept such a situation. Do you remember what happened at Bondi Beach in Sydney last year during Hanukkah? This is the reality Jews face around the world.”

But has anti-Zionism become the shield behind which anti-Semitism can be legitimised? Where, in practical terms, does the line lie between criticism of Israel – however harsh – and hostility towards Jews? Is there a connection between the xenophobic language of ‘remigration’ and the new anti-Semitic rhetoric? Are these two distinct lexicons, or two forms of the same policy of exclusion? ‘Of course, anti-Zionism has become the shield behind which anti-Semitism seeks legitimacy. There is no question of everyone’s right to criticise those in power in Israel. Incidentally, I would like to point out that when it comes to protests against Netanyahu’s current government, the opposition in Israel is second to none. What is being called into question today, however, is the very existence of Israel. Everything is being lumped together, and demands are being made of Israel that would never be made of any other country. Because it is the very presence of the Jewish state that is being contested – not this or that government, but the country itself! And this is where things get serious: the prejudicial rejection of Zionism has become a badge of supposed democratic credentials. And this is generally done without knowing anything about Zionism, its values, its ideas, its origins or its motivations. In universities and schools, in the highly questionable post-Gaza publishing scene, in debates and at festivals, people speak of colonialism, ethno-nationalism, and the West’s ‘reward’ for the Holocaust at the expense of the Palestinian people. Like a mushroom – I repeat – that has sprung up out of nowhere. History is distorted; indeed, it is bent to suit preconceived notions and the most pernicious ideology. As if the Jews had not always been present in that area, as if they had never lived, thought or theorised about returning from where they were driven out. Giuliano Ferrara’s recent observations on remigration and anti-Semitism have given me food for thought, even though I have not yet reached a conclusion. But in general, these days, complexity has given way to simplification, and slogans to discussion and debate.”

Is this a reference to the famous slogan ‘from the river to the sea’? ‘But in your view, what does “from the river to the sea” – shouted at demonstrations – mean, if not the eradication of Israel? And furthermore, why should those who profess support for the two-state solution not admit, without fear, that they are Zionists, given that this political and diplomatic line consists precisely in the presence – and I emphasise presence – of two states, one of which is Jewish? I have no difficulty in admitting that the Israeli government can be criticised, even harshly and thoroughly. But what does this have to do with boycotting universities, academics, lecturers, research centres, and even life-saving medicines, as in the case of the Israeli company Teva? People denounce apartheid yet forget the thousands of Israeli Arabs who live, work, study and build careers in the country’s universities, hospitals, start-ups and even within the IDF itself. I would remind the critics – and this is just a small example – that street names in Israeli cities are written in Hebrew, English and Arabic, just as they are in the centre of Palermo. I do not recall the same situation in apartheid-era South Africa. On 7 October, Hamas attacked Israel. On that day, the age-old anti-Semitism resurfaced, fuelled by a mix of ideology, ‘woke’ thinking and Third Worldism. Whilst every country is subject to criticism, only Israel’s very right to exist is called into question: its right to have a state, an army, a culture and a sporting identity. It is in this sense that I say Captain Dreyfus has returned to the dock: back then, he was an innocent Jew, wrongly accused of betraying his country; today, it is the entire State of Israel, portrayed as guilty of every evil and a traitor to humanity. In this way, the pogrom of 7 October, the massacre, the violence and the suffering of the victims and hostages are swept under the carpet, to the point of justifying those horrors as a consequence of Israel’s desire to exist and defend itself. It is an aberrant ideology, which has transformed Israel into the absolute symbol of evil and has won over a section of the younger generations, led by bad mentors. As a Union, in the face of this situation, we have held meetings with representatives from the media, highlighting what we believe to have been, and to be, distortions. There is no intention to censor, nor to remain silent in the face of what we consider to be blatant inaccuracies in reporting.”

Why are Jews increasingly being asked to pass a preliminary ideological test – ‘tell me what you think of Israel and Netanyahu, then you can speak’ – which is not imposed on any other minority? ‘The situation today has been turned on its head to the point where every Jew is required to state their views before any discussion can take place. We have been witnessing this unacceptable preliminary ideological test for some time now. Every debate begins with the question: ‘Are you for or against Netanyahu?’, or rather, ‘First tell me what you think about Israel, and then we’ll talk’. We’ve seen this in various forums. The most recent instance was what the Jewish LGBTQ+ organisation had to endure at Rome Pride. It’s a sort of contract: you must denounce the alleged genocide taking place in Gaza, and only then can you join the parade. Otherwise, you stay at home – and it doesn’t matter if Israel is perhaps the most gay-friendly country in the world; it doesn’t matter if, in the West Bank or Gaza, or in Iran, homosexuals are persecuted, beaten or killed. It doesn’t matter. That test marks the entrance to the world of those who are on the ‘right’ side. What about the Jewish women driven out of feminist demonstrations against violence? Or the signs in some public establishments warning that ‘Zionists are not welcome’? They remind me so much of old signs on shop fronts from another era, in times of different forms of discrimination and persecution… This very same test is also applied to those who are not Jewish and whose only ‘crime’ is to stray from the current mainstream. I’m thinking of Erri De Luca, De Gregori, Boy George. Or certain journalists who ask a few more questions.”

You also speak of a ‘theological attack’ on Judaism. In which circles, discourses and representations do you recognise this? Is religious anti-Semitism making a comeback? ‘It is true, I have spoken of a theological attack on Judaism itself. There is no shortage of examples. What else is one to think when the Christian God is spoken of as the God of love and the Jewish God as the God of vengeance? What are we to make of certain positions that emphasise only the New Covenant and overshadow God’s Old Covenant with the Jewish people? Or when people remain silent in the face of claims regarding a ‘Palestinian Jesus’? I would like to point out – and the Church itself says this – that Jesus was born, lived and died as a Jew, and any doctrine to the contrary is a historical falsification. But there is more: recently, a new form of Jewish faith has been theorised. That of ‘Israelism’ – a political, nationalist and militarist offshoot linked to the sacred texts and distinct from the authentic ‘spiritual flame’ of Judaism. Our rabbis have responded with indignation, but the fake news has taken hold. What are we to make of it when we hear the concept of the ‘election’ of the Jewish people distorted, transformed from a heavy responsibility and a testimony of faith into a claim to human superiority?”

What does the inversion of the Holocaust entail, when the vocabulary of Nazism, extermination and racial persecution is automatically applied to Jews or Israel? Do you also think this is a way of turning yesterday’s victims into today’s perpetrators? “Rhetorical inversion consists of transforming the victims of the Holocaust into the new perpetrators, exploiting terms such as genocide, extermination and concentration camps for ideological and propaganda purposes. It is a reversal of history, made all the more serious because it occurs before any definitive legal findings have been established. Karim Khan himself – former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague – has acknowledged the lack of evidence of genocide. But propaganda disregards the facts and needs to foster consensus; it does so unscrupulously, aiming to demonise Israel, delegitimise its existence and its defence, to the point of making Jews, wherever they may be, the guilty parties by definition.” In practical terms? “In practical terms, it means both ridding oneself of a guilt complex that has not been fully come to terms with, and easing one’s conscience regarding a crime inherent in European history, one with very specific roots, ideologies and thinkers. In this sense, the far right aligns with the far left: both bypass proper analysis. They often share the same slogans, the same arguments, the same watchwords. To draw a parallel, one could say that the former hate the Jew as such, whilst the latter (and I am not referring to legitimate criticism of the government) hate the Jewish state.”

What is the responsibility of talk shows and the media when they treat the demonisation of Jews, insults or collective blame as just another viewpoint? Where does pluralism end and the normalisation of hatred begin? “Discussing the media – both traditional and online – since 7 October and the war in Gaza means opening up a chasm. Let’s start with the sources: a terrorist group has been turned into a primary source; entities in the Gaza Strip – hospitals, the police, the army, A&E, the civil defence service – have been referred to as entities independent of Hamas; data and statistics have been reported without independent verification, even by supranational organisations. But the lowest point was that, with a few exceptions, it was never made clear that the facts could not be independently verified. I do not wish to downplay for a single moment the gravity of the situation and the suffering endured by the people of Gaza – far from it. No people should be singled out for their suffering. I simply wish to emphasise how this war – perhaps the most widely reported and experienced in real time thanks to social media – has been narrated in an almost one-sided manner. With all that has followed. For years now, on television programmes, at university conferences and in newspapers, there has been no room for opposing views; it has proved impossible to explain and contextualise what is happening across the entire region, not just in Israel. Claiming to be democratic simply for having invited someone who does not share the presenter’s views: an age-old media ploy that is still frequently employed. The media have therefore played a role – whether intentional or not – in this vast communication bubble. And it has often been a negative role which we fear has contributed to the spread of anti-Semitism. No less important is the issue of social media: a disturbing media landscape. It serves as both a stage and an incubator for the phenomenon of anti-Jewish discrimination and anti-Semitism, which very often – partly thanks to the use of artificial intelligence – spreads false images and information at the speed of light. ‘Likes’ and the algorithm reward the worst forms of malice. On social media, the line between ‘saying’ and ‘doing’ is becoming increasingly blurred. This is an area of communication that the Union is also monitoring very closely, through institutional partnerships in Italy and across Europe.”

Following the events in Sofia, you have once again called for legislative action in Italy and urged that the draft bill against anti-Semitism, already approved by the Senate, be taken forward. Why, in your view, does that draft bill not restrict criticism of the Israeli government and does not introduce ‘thought crimes’? And which parts of the text would be dangerous to water down during its examination in the Chamber of Deputies? “The bill on anti-Semitism is an act of justice. But I would like to emphasise that, contrary to what some would have us believe, the bill approved by the Senate is neither repressive nor punitive. It does not impose penalties. It sets out the boundaries that distinguish what is rightly defined as an anti-Semitic act from normal – and even harsh – criticism of a group of people, a nation or a state. The bill adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which has been adopted by 34 countries; in Italy’s case, this was done by the Conte government in 2020. It defines with great care – whilst ruling out any attempt to censor freedom of criticism – when such criticism crosses the line into prejudice. I hope that the Chamber of Deputies will pass this bill as quickly as possible.” But if you had to name three measures to be adopted immediately – one political, one cultural and one educational – which would you choose to prevent today’s alarm from turning into tomorrow’s violence? “A political one: to pass the anti-Semitism bill swiftly and establish a system for monitoring social media to combat hate speech and fake news. A cultural one: to create opportunities to reaffirm universal rights, responsibility, respect and the freedom to express one’s identity. To learn more about Italian Judaism, 6 September – European Day of Jewish Culture – offers a good opportunity. An educational one: to learn the meaning, significance and history of words, starting with the media and continuing with courses for teachers and pupils. Words carry weight – for everyone.”

Why do you see demagoguery in the call to nominate the children of Gaza for the Nobel Peace Prize? “I find it deeply saddening to turn children into a tool for the political representation of the conflict. If one wishes to attribute genuine symbolic value to the Nobel Prize and transform it into a universal message of peace, the picture must necessarily be broader. Even in the case of this war, which began with the bloody attack on 7 October 2023 perpetrated by Hamas, we must remember all the innocent victims: the children of Gaza, but also those in the Israeli kibbutzim, including the abducted children. All are forced to endure the trauma of losing loved ones, the destruction of their homes and the fear. A credible message of peace should therefore acknowledge the suffering of all the children involved, without turning the Nobel Prize into a tool for implicitly attributing responsibility to just one of the parties. Not to mention that, according to the latest UNICEF estimates, over 400 million children worldwide live in war zones and should not be distinguished on the basis of the conflict or the party involved.”

Ottolenghi, could you describe some scenes from everyday life – in schools, synagogues, whilst travelling, at religious festivals or in private homes – that illustrate the level of fear and vigilance in which many Italian Jews live today, and which the rest of the country often fails to notice? “The wave of hatred and prejudice has profoundly changed Jewish life. Despite all the attention and intervention from the state and the police – to whom we extend our heartfelt thanks – Jews today live in a state of constant self-restraint, aware that they may be the target of hostility in schools, universities and any place where people gather. For years now, Jewish religious leaders have been heckled, verbally attacked and forcibly removed, and we believe that the incidents reported to the Anti-Semitism Observatory represent, particularly for young people, only a fraction of the phenomenon.” The solution lies right before us. Do not turn a blind eye so as not to forget. Do not grow complacent so as not to legitimise it. Do not remain indifferent so as to avoid turning anti-Semitism into a legitimate weapon of the new and terrifying global Intifada.