The great temptation for left-wing forces to fish in the waters of the new antisemitism in search of votes is nothing new. It costs little; the Jews pay the price. In Rome, there is an eagerness to cast aside the common sense demonstrated by the Italian government, in coordination with Germany, and embrace this easy and politically rewarding line—this time by following Britain in imposing sanctions against Israel. Ignorance and double standards provide the backdrop. The ambition to embrace a new crusade against Israel emerged immediately after British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, announcing sanctions concerning Judea and Samaria, told Parliament that Israel is engaged in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and attempting to erase the two-state solution, writes Fiamma Nirenstein.

This, of course, ignores repeated Palestinian rejections of peace proposals and the reality created by the 7 October 2023 Hamas massacre. At the same time, British politicians have presented themselves as champions of human rights while ignoring monstrous violations committed by Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. Now that Britain has announced sanctions on products from Judea and Samaria, and has been followed by a procession of European countries driven by the pursuit of left-wing votes and fear of their growing Muslim populations, the parliamentary group leaders of Italy’s Democratic Party (PD), Five Star Movement (M5S) and Green and Left Alliance (AVS) on the Chamber of Deputies’ Foreign Affairs Committee have demanded urgent consideration of legislation imposing similar sanctions.

Angelo Bonelli, co-leader of AVS; Elly Schlein, leader of the Democratic Party; Giuseppe Conte, leader of the Five Star Movement and a former Italian prime minister, and others have signed on. Indeed, they consider it “shameful” that Italy, of all countries, is missing from this campaign. The document speaks of “illegal occupation” and offers other banal examples of the ignorance of those who wrote it. It also demonstrates the irresponsibility of a move whose primary consequence will be to further fuel mass antisemitism. We have already seen another demonstration of this phenomenon at a protest against legislation addressing antisemitism, where Hamas and Hezbollah flags were brought into Parliament. Only ISIS was missing.

Why is the path of sanctions wrong? First, those responsible for violent acts should be punished. But contrary to the propagandist image being presented, they constitute a fraction of the roughly 500,000 Israelis living in Judea and Samaria, a population representing a wide variety of cultural and social backgrounds. Most condemn violent extremists and are themselves the targets of thousands of Palestinian terrorist attacks each year. Israel prosecutes its own criminals. Some are in prison; others are standing trial. But Judea and Samaria are not territories “illegally occupied” by Israel. The area was occupied by Jordan, whose annexation received almost no international recognition, until Jordan attacked Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War and was defeated. After repeated Israeli attempts to exchange land for peace, the Oslo Accords of 1993 and 1995 divided Judea and Samaria into Area A, under Palestinian control; Area B, under Palestinian civil control and Israeli security control; and Area C, under Israeli control. Israel has the right under those agreements to build in Area C, which also includes the E1 area between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim.

Some of the greatest conflicts arise when Palestinians attempt to expand into Area C. Expelling Jews from Judea and Samaria would risk producing the same disastrous result as Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza Strip—the creation of the conditions that eventually produced Yahya Sinwar and Oct. 7. There is another British mistake. It concerns the safety of Britain’s own citizens. Israel has helped protect Britain from serious terrorist threats. In 2015, for example, British authorities discovered three tons of ammonium nitrate stored by Hezbollah-linked operatives in London after receiving information from Israel. On the basis of what unfounded prejudices should a relationship encompassing security, science and culture be dismantled? Associating Israel with “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” is a lie.

Forcing Israel to surrender is unthinkable. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, with Israel’s decision to close the British Consulate in eastern Jerusalem, has delivered the first clear response. But the larger answer must be equally clear. Neither Miliband nor Schlein will draw the borders of a Palestinian state. It is absurd to imagine that they can. Only Israelis and Palestinians can negotiate those borders; they cannot be imposed from London, Rome or anywhere else. And no sanctions campaign can erase a fundamental historical truth: The Jewish people are not strangers in Judea and Samaria. Their roots there reach back thousands of years. Whatever the future of this land may be, it cannot be decided over the heads of the Jews whose history, identity and destiny are bound to it.

Israel’s embassy  in Belgium stated that the Israeli team ”is an example of coexistence in Israeli football. The team includes three Arab-Israeli players: Muhammad Abu Rumi, Mohammed Kna’an and Zahi Ahmed. Politics should never be allowed to interfere with sports,” writes Yossi Lempkowicz.

The ban, imposed by the mayor of the Belgian city of Leuven on the soccer match  between a Brussels-based team and an Israeli one ”is an expression of antisemitism” said the Coordinating Committee of Jewish Organizations in Belgium (CCOJB).

The match between Union Saint Gilloise and Hapoel Be’er Sheva is scheduled to take place on 22 October as part of the Europa League. Since Union’s stadium in Brussels does not meet UEFA standards, the club cannot play there. For the European competition, it  had to turn to the Leuven stadium for all its home games.

However, last Tuesday (1 September), the mayor of Leuven, Mohamed Ridouani, ordered the cancellation of the match for ‘’security reasons’ due to the risk of unrest linked to the visit of an Israeli club, against the backdrop of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The mayor is a member of the Flemish Socialist party Vooruit.

The CCOJB condemned the reasons cited by the mayor of Leuven for prohibiting the match, particularly those related to security. “It is the mayor’s responsibility to ensure public safety and it is irresponsible to shirk that responsibility,” states the organization. adding that the decision was driven more by “hatred of Israel.”

A spokesperson for the embassy of Israel in Belgium stated that the Israeli team ”is an example of coexistence in Israeli football. The team includes three Arab-Israeli players: Muhammad Abu Rumi, Mohammed Kna’an and Zahi Ahmed. Politics should never be allowed to interfere with sports.”

Israeli players “should be judged by their professional abilities, not by politics or political views. Sport should remain sport, free from political agendas”, the embassy said on X.

The spokesperson offered that Israel’s Ambassador-designate to Belgium David Saranga meet with the Leuven mayor.

An Antwerp-based group, JID vzw – Stop Antisemitism,  has formally filed a complaint against the mayor  decision of the mayor of Leuven.

”We request that the decision and the complete accompanying administrative and security file be obtained without delay and that the decision be reviewed in light of the law and the public interest. If the required legal, factual, and proportional basis is lacking, we request that the supervisory authority annul the decision,” it said.

The Durban Conference in South Africa in September 2001 was not just an event; it was a turning point. It was the modern-day Wannsee that planned the contemporary destruction of the Jewish people. I was there for the Italian newspaper, La Stampa. The stench of something rotten was already emanating from the preparations for the great gathering “against racism” convened by the United Nations, with the participation of an enormous number of NGOs—some 3,000—all of them with knives between their teeth, determined to demonstrate that, under the banner of human rights, the real enemy was Israel, writes Fiamma Nirenstein.

It was there, even more than with the U.N.'s “Zionism is racism” resolution of 1975, that Stalin’s path was resumed. In 1952-53, he had initiated and theorized a new great hunt against the Jews, inventing the blood libel of the “Jewish doctors’ plot” and staging the Slánský trial. The systematic murder and deportation of Jews were interrupted by the dictator’s death in 1953. But with theorists such as Maxime Rodinson and Francis Crémieux, the premises were laid for declaring Israel the new enemy of humanity.

The positions that ultimately led to Durban maintained that “the Israeli government has long been simply an agent of American imperialism.” The supposed proof lay in the malign role of Jews in the world. The doctors accused in the so-called conspiracy—all innocent, their confessions extracted under torture—became “identical to the Nazi doctors of Dachau,” in the pay of the Americans. The inversion begins This was the beginning of the inversion that, on Oct. 7, 2023, led to Israel and the Jews being accused of genocide instead of the evident intentions of Hamas and its barbaric determination being condemned. At Durban, the death sentence against Israel went hand in hand, for the first time, with the preemptive legitimization of terrorism, now carried out by “freedom fighters” rather than the terrorists of Munich or Fiumicino.

At a demonstration along the battered streets on the outskirts of Durban, just days before Sept. 11, the crowd marched behind portraits of its mastermind, Osama bin Laden. Along the dusty road, young NGO activists called—as their documents did—on “all of civil society,” from the Maya to the Tibetans, everyone oppressed by racism, to embrace the struggle against Israel and transform it into the fundamental human-rights struggle. When I told the editors at my newspaper, La Stampa, they replied that I had an obsession with that poor Saudi shepherd. The conference was organized by a United Nations that had by then been captured by the great Third World and Islamic blocs that had reliably provided the Soviet Union with a majority. “Zionism is racism,” the 1975 resolution, was an addendum to the death sentence against Judaism following Hitler’s attempt to eliminate it from the planet.

Israel was the new target of antisemitism, invariably linked to anti-Americanism and viewed as the spearhead of the colonial and imperialist West. Every truth was erased. Israel’s almost desperate attempts to share the territory and make territorial concessions to the Arab world were rejected time and again. In 2000, after Arafat had been brought back despite his appalling embrace of terrorism, the Second Intifada erupted. By the time Durban took place, we were in the midst of the Intifada—a preliminary 7 October.

Its preparatory documents had been written and discussed in Strasbourg, Santiago and, astonishingly, Tehran, where since 1979 an Islamist regime had ruled whose foundational principle was the destruction of the State of Israel. Israel as absolute evil In Durban, Fidel Castro, Yasser Arafat and Robert Mugabe converged, and the Jewish question was inserted into the heart of demands for billions in reparations for slavery. Israel obviously had nothing to do with this history, but it was portrayed as absolute evil. The Palestinianism of Durban held that Israel was racist, imperialist, colonialist and genocidal—and therefore even a slave-owning power. All these adjectives are meaningless when applied to a country that represents the miraculous return home, disarmed and hungry, of the people indigenous to that land, armed only with hoes and books.

They armed themselves only when, awakening from the dream, they realized that their lives were once again at risk. And even then, Israel continued to surrender large pieces of territory in the search for peace. I was there In Durban, I rented a room inside a compound surrounded by high walls. I shared it with a journalist from the Italian left-leaning daily, La Repubblica, who was thrilled by the opportunity to encounter Castro and the other idols of the era in the corridors—and, with a little luck, perhaps Nelson Mandela as well. There was the official conference, the domain of Mary Robinson, who purported to moderate the international proceedings and restrain them from excessively harsh resolutions that had in fact been planned from the beginning.

Then there were the stadium and other NGO gathering places, where antisemitic hatred was expressed in every possible way: leaflets, speeches, songs and actual physical hunts for Jews. Several times I had to run away and seek refuge in a building belonging to the local Jewish community, where one could also find something to eat. Thousands of NGO members wore T-shirts bearing the image of Mohammed al-Dura alongside the conference logo. The production of leaflets about Palestinian suffering was endless. Jews were depicted with missiles and knives, blood dripping from their mouths and murdered children. The word “genocide” was already commonplace. From the podium, in a crowded, darkened hall, Fidel Castro, while demanding financial reparations for entire continents for slavery and colonialism, spoke of “the terrible genocide being perpetrated today against our Palestinian brothers” by Israel’s then-prime minister, Ariel Sharon, whom he described as a far-right leader acting in alliance with the “hegemonic superpowers.” Arafat celebrated the universal acceptance of his worldview, describing the situation as the “expression of the racist colonial conspiracy” to uproot the Palestinians and conquer their land. In short, the troops of that global war had finally assembled—a war that only days later would find its expression in the attack on the Twin Towers. That was the true meaning of Durban.

And the Palestinian cause, together with the destruction of Israel, was baptized as the indispensable prerequisite for every revolutionary struggle. The astonishment and disbelief in Israel and the United States were enormous. After everything the Jews had endured, and while they were suffering through the Intifada, finding themselves once again facing such a broad and senseless assault on their right to self-determination and self-defense, their right to return home and the very liberal-democratic nature of their country seemed like a nightmare. The two delegations under attack took days to decide to leave. Israel continued to insist, as Diaspora Affairs Minister Michael Melchior said, that racism—the supposed subject of the conference—was so important to Jews that the country wanted to participate in the discussion and the decisions. In the end, the United States and Israel had to walk out. Canada and Europe remained, but the European position sought an impossible compromise. It proposed restoring the Holocaust to the final documents as the worst expression of racism.

The interventions by Italy’s Renato Ruggiero, Germany’s Joschka Fischer and, in the corridors, the excellent Margherita Boniver—the only one who understood fully, to the point of tears—were hesitant and moderate. Fischer had the strength to say that the right of the Jews to their own state was indisputable. But he returned to the Palestinians’ right to a state and once again forgot that Israel had never called that right into question since 1948, despite its countless offers. ‘Did not happen in a vacuum’ By contrast, the denial of the Jews’ right to have their own state like every other people reached its paroxysm on Oct. 7. And once again the United Nations lined up against Israel, as it had at Durban. So it was with the words of U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, who, instead of expressing horror and condemnation, responded with his infamous statement that the 7 October attacks “did not happen in a vacuum”. It is true: They did not happen in a vacuum. Durban is a milestone in the antisemitic catastrophe that once again torments the world today, and the United Nations is its prophet.

It is a mistake to respond to antisemitic accusations, writes Fiamma Nirenstein.

Would responding have served any purpose at the time of the racial laws and the deportations? No. The intention is the same: to eliminate the Jews and their independent state, Israel.

There is no point responding to those who claim on social media that organs are removed from children killed by Jews—an accusation that echoes the ancient blood libel of Jews murdering children for their blood.

Nor is there any point arguing with professors who describe an all-powerful “Israeli lobby” controlling Italian politics.

Who is going to reason with the owner of yet another Swiss hotel that expels Israeli tourists? Or with the thugs who beat up a family on the streets of Athens?

Who will argue with United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, who, together with the UN General Assembly president, Annalena Baerbock, recently lit a memorial flame for deceased UN personnel, including Imad El Samhouri, a United Nations Relief and Works Agency employee who was also a Hamas terrorist and whose videos invoked death as a shahid?

And who wants to shout themselves hoarse arguing with Hollywood, Turkey, Canada and the rest? Don’t answer them.

In Hollywood, more than 200 figures from the worlds of film, music and culture backed a campaign calling for the release of Marwan Barghouti from an Israeli prison, including actors Benedict Cumberbatch, Mark Ruffalo, Cate Blanchett and Tilda Swinton. They neglect to mention that Barghouti is serving five life sentences after an Israeli court convicted him in 2004 of five murders and involvement in a string of terrorist attacks during the Second Intifada.

We must stop feeling obliged to argue that Jews are good, that Jews are innocent or that Israel has the right to defend itself. Anyone genuinely interested in the evidence can find it. The facts are available to everyone.

The accusations of colonialism, genocide, racism and systematic cruelty directed at Israel are contradicted by history and by evidence that has been documented and quantified.

Consider the United Nations.

In 2025, the U.N. General Assembly adopted 15 resolutions singling out Israel, compared with 11 concerning all other countries in the world combined, six of them concerning Russia.

That disparity illustrates how politics manufactures hatred of Jews.

Antisemitism today is not simply a matter of prejudice or ignorance. It has become a political instrument. It is used to obtain votes, influence, positions, money and power.

The United Nations exploits it in its alignment with the Third World and Islamic blocs. Turkey and Iran exploit it through Islamism. Political movements exploit hatred of Israel while claiming to champion human rights.

In reality, hatred of Israel has become both a substitute for human rights and their graveyard.

That is why explanations are not enough.

What is required is political struggle: criminal complaints where laws are broken, legislation where protections are inadequate and serious scrutiny of the political and financial interests behind campaigns targeting Israel and Jews.

It also means defending the rights that Israel’s enemies so often disregard: the rights of children, women, gays and political dissidents.

It means defending security, of which Israel remains a guardian.

It means reclaiming universities and political parties from ideologies that have transformed hostility toward Israel into an acceptable political creed.

And it means establishing institutional boundaries for businesses, hotels, media organizations and cultural festivals that discriminate against Israelis or legitimize antisemitism.

Italy has even witnessed a general strike directed against Israel. Nor is there any point arguing with those who describe an all-powerful “Israeli lobby” controlling Italian politics, supposedly headed by none other than Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani.

This is no longer merely a debate about foreign policy. It is a political war.

The battle against antisemitism cannot be won by endlessly answering every lie. It must be fought where antisemitism now operates: in politics, institutions, universities, international organizations and culture.

The fight against antisemitism can restore the human rights that have been buried beneath the genocidal slogan: “From the river to the sea.”