Liliana Segre asks the parties to unanimously approve the anti-Semitism bill. To this end, he explains, "it would be appropriate to open up", if necessary, to the "inessential modification" of the text to specify the possibility of criticism of the State of Israel as for any other country without automatically considering it anti-Semitic. With this move, the senator for life, a Holocaust survivor, suggests a meeting point to reach the widest possible green light. But the walls that the text has erected between the political forces, for now, seem insurmountable and, in the Chamber, everyone remains on their positions: the majority defends the measure released by the Senate, already the result of a "synthesis", Avs and M5s remain clearly against it, the Democratic Party is oriented towards no in the absence of changes (but is divided and tormented internally). While mutual accusations fly between the two sides of not wanting to collect Segre's words. The debate is also alive within the Jewish world itself: several Jewish intellectuals have signed a document against the text under discussion which "smuggles the delegitimization and criminalization of every more or less radically anti-Israeli public position into the fight against anti-Semitism". Once the law passes, says Anna Foa, one of the signatories, "the only battle left is to challenge it at the Constitutional Court", she announces.
The invitation from the Ucei is of a completely different nature, which in appreciating Segre's intervention, points out that the bill is already "the fruit of expert work aimed at combating anti-Semitism and does not introduce any ban on criticism of the State of Israel or its governments": "Approval should be reached as soon as possible". The majority struggle to move. The idea of a modification amendment on the same day would have been evaluated (there is time before the green light from the House) but for now the clearly prevailing hypothesis is that we will continue in this way. From this perspective we can read the words of the rapporteur in the Constitutional Affairs commission Paolo Emilio Russo (FI) who, in thanking Segre, underlines the "synthesis between majority and opposition texts" already made in the Senate and the "constant dialogue with the associations and organizations committed against anti-Semitism". From the Democratic Party, after Emanuele Fiano announced his farewell to the party in the event that the Democrats reject the text in the Chamber, voices critical of the no line are once again making themselves heard. For Piero Fassino "welcoming Segre's appeal is an act of responsibility", while Graziano Delrio underlines the seriousness of the provision. Meanwhile, the Dems, during the session of the Justice Commission of the Chamber, meeting in a consultative session on the bill, abstained, announcing that, in the absence of changes, they will vote against it in the Chamber.
"Liliana Segre's appeal goes in the same direction as what we addressed to the majority in recent days. It is necessary to modify the text", Federico Gianassi maintains the point. That said, if the group votes no, it is almost certain that there will be defections. The initiative of AVS and M5S fits into this context, joining forces and organizing, at the Cinema Adriano in Rome, the screening of "Naza", the docufilm awarded in Venice containing the testimonies of IDF soldiers on the Israeli attacks on Gaza. The Democratic Party is 'only' invited, but in the end all four leaders of the broad camp enter the room: Giuseppe Conte, Angelo Bonelli, Nicola Fratoianni and Elly Schlein. "We immediately decided which side we were on", claims the five-star leader. Meanwhile, an interview by Francesca Albanese caused controversy when she declared that anti-Semitism "is not just discrimination against Jews" but "it is discrimination against Semitic strains", "in fact when they were taken to the gas chambers" by the Nazis, the Jews "were called 'Muslims'". There were several indignant reactions, including that of the Jerusalem Post which accused her of "distorting history". She then apologised, explaining that she had misunderstood the term 'Muselmann'.
