Anti-Semitism bill, Segre: "It should be approved unanimously, even with amendments." 

This is the new appeal made by Liliana Segre to the political parties, in a statement to ANSA that comes amid the political divisions over the measure.

The senator for life expressed her "incredulousness" at the conflicting views that have emerged on an issue that, in her view, should transcend partisanship. She also cited a precedent she considers particularly significant: the unanimous approval in 2000 of the law establishing Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Segre asks the political forces for "a further effort of generosity and responsibility", inviting them to put speculation aside and to consider what he defines as the "superior interest of the country".

The risk, according to the senator, is that a parliamentary division on such a sensitive issue could end up having consequences that go beyond the immediate political conflict.

"A rift over such a sensitive issue," he says, "would damage Italy's image and contribute to a climate of intolerance and the spread of hatred."

The most delicate point concerns the definition of anti-Semitism and its relationship with the right to criticize the policies of the State of Israel. Segre argues that criticizing the Israeli government does not automatically equate to anti-Semitism, and proposes further clarifying this principle in the text if this helps to build unanimous parliamentary consensus.

The clarification, he notes, would be an "inessential" change, because the text approved by the Senate already contains a reference to freedom of political criticism and expression. Bill S.1004, approved by the Senate on March 4, 2026, and now before the Chamber of Deputies as C.2830, establishes that the fight against anti-Semitism must be carried out "without prejudice to freedom of political criticism and expression," in compliance with constitutional principles.

The measure also adopts the working definition of antisemitism developed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), along with its associated indicators. The definition describes antisemitism as a specific perception of Jews that can manifest as hatred toward them and affects Jewish persons, property, institutions, and places of worship.

Part of the political and cultural debate focuses precisely on the application of the IHRA definition. Segre emphasizes, however, that the IHRA document itself distinguishes antisemitism from criticism of Israel according to criteria applicable to any other state. It is on this point that the senator believes it is possible to intervene, if even more explicit formulation could foster agreement among political forces.
A process still open

The bill reached the Chamber of Deputies after being approved by the Senate on March 4. The text, transmitted to Montecitorio on March 5, is currently under consideration by the Constitutional Affairs Committee, where C.2830 was adopted as the basic text on July 22.

In parallel, other parliamentary texts on the topic were examined. The debate in the committee therefore concerns not only the definition of anti-Semitism, but also how to strengthen the tools for its prevention and counteraction without restricting the constitutional freedoms of expression and political criticism.

In her speech, Segre then returns to 2000, when Parliament unanimously approved the establishment of Holocaust Remembrance Day. The senator recalls the role of then-MP Furio Colombo and his belief that, for an Italy that had passed the racial laws in 1938 and had collaborated in the persecution and deportation of Jews during the Italian Social Republic, that unanimous vote represented a moment of particular symbolic value.

Today, Segre proposes replicating that logic in the fight against anti-Semitism: a shared text, possibly amended on disputed points, rather than a new political divide on an issue he considers essential to the country's democratic life.

The appeal comes as the parliamentary debate continues to divide political forces, and while, on the cultural and academic fronts, the measure has received some very harsh criticism. Repubblica reports an appeal signed by over one hundred academics, including Gustavo Zagrebelsky and Marcello Foa, who challenge the text on grounds of liberalism and regulatory effectiveness.

Segre instead chooses to shift the focus of the discussion from the conflict over the text to the possibility of convergence. "There are issues on which a civilized country should be united, regardless of political affiliation," he states.

And precisely to make that unity possible, he adds, even a change that today seems unnecessary could become acceptable if it served to obtain a unanimous vote. Davide Fent