In the last few weeks the theme of anti-Semitism has returned to dominate the pages of Italian newspapers. Two facts in particular have drawn the attention of public opinion. On the first point there is little to say. An on-line blog put together a ‘black list’ of 162 Jewish professors, accusing them of ‘lobbying’ in favour of ‘Zionism’. The list of teaching staff, from La Sapienza in Rome and other Italian universities, also included various professors who were not even Jewish. The amateurism of those who conceived all this, united by a unanimous condemnation of the political, intellectual and institutional world (the site was immediately removed by the Ministry of the Interior and the author later identified), allowed us to witness the occurrence of a depressing but familiar ignorance, and anti Semitist prejudices. The second fact is rather more interesting.
Following the decision of the Turin Book Fair (8th–12th May 2008) to ask Israel as its guest of honour, several representatives from the Italian Communist Party and the Communist Refoundation Party in Piedmont appealed for boycott of the event, unless a Palestinian delegation of equal importance was co-invited. The appeal, which was rejected by Communist Refoundation Party leader Fausto Bertinotti, was supported by various Muslim intellectuals, including Anglo-Pakistani writer Tariq Ali, Genevan philosopher Tariq Ramadan and the Arab Writers’ Union, which emphasised that the invite took place on the 60th anniversary of the birth of the State of Israel, that Egypt were invited initially, and that it was a particularly dramatic moment for the Palestinian situation in Gaza. Ramadan expanded the boycott appeal to the Paris Book Fair (14th–18th March), where the guest of honour is also Israel.
The call to boycott has been met with very reasonable objections, and in our opinion, fair objections (one cannot compare the Israeli government with its writers, and among the authors invited are luminaries such as Amos Oz, David Grossman and Abraham Yahoshua, who have talked about peace and the recognition of a Palestinian state for years). Nonetheless, it’s worth reading into the debate to see how Italian journalists have told and commented on it. We tried to distinguish the various positions, starting with the most provocative. Without doubt these include philosopher Gianni Vattimo, who told La Stampa on 4th February that he supported the ‘political’ boycott of the Fair, because the invite from Fair Director Ernesto Ferrero was in itself ‘political’.
Yehoshua, Fassino and Ben Jelloun against the boycott
Among those who have taken a stance against the boycott, convincing arguments have been put forward by many, from Piero Fassino to Yehoushua to Tahar Ben Jelloun. The former secretary of the DS (Democrats of the Left) wrote in Corriere della Sera on 4th February that “whoever, in affirming the rights of one person denies the rights of another, is not working towards peace but hindering the unresolved conflict which sees more suffering every day”. “I am reading Amos Oz’s latest novel and I’ve put by Amir Gutfreund’s book. If I correctly understand the logic of those launching this campaign for boycotting the next Turin Book Fair, I should be throwing these two books away, perhaps even burning them. Why?” asked writer Tahar Ben Jelloun in La Repubblica on 2nd February, “because they are written by Israelis”. “The boycott is not only wrong but also damaging to the peace process in which everyone has pinned their hopes”, confirmed Yehoshua in La Stampa on 4th February, hoping that next year Palestine will be the guest of honour, ‘in occasion of the first anniversary of its birth’. “We, as Israeli writers and poets, will take part it that event with joy and a firm belief.”
The triumphant campaign of Magdi Allam and Pigi Battista
There is another group, led by two first-rate writers from Corriere della Sera, vice-directors Magdi Allam and Pierluigi Battista. Although they have good reason to be against the boycott, the chance to exploit the occasion has not escaped them, and to ideologically exploit the issue while aiming to feed their old campaign. Magdi Allam especially had always portrayed Tariq Ramadan, his wonted dialectical opponent, as the king of anti-Semitism and ‘cutthroat’ Islamic fundamentalism, the European leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. This time Ramadan has made a mistake and Allam and Battista are celebrating, firing up their triumphant campaign against those who on many other occasions have been viewed as the hope of a moderate Islam in Europe.
In Corriere della Sera on 4th February, Magdi Allam launched his counter-boycott, against ‘those writers and intellectuals who deny Israel the right to existence’. Without holding back he has thrown himself against the ‘Islamic neo-Nazis and Pan-Arabs’, providing an ideological reading on the Israel-Palestine conflict (the events in Gaza, in his opinion, are solely the fault of ‘the dictatorship and terrorism of Hamas’). He called Ramadan a ‘denier of Israel’, ‘more insidious than Islamic terrorists’. Battista also drew from fascist images in his article, Auschwitz and the ghetto in Rome, and he called Ramadan ‘the ideologist of Islamic fundamentalism’, ‘a vulgar anti-Semitist’, ‘warmly welcomed as an exotic creature in the rooms of Italian intelligentsia’.
The (true) words of Ramadan
Yet the philosopher from Geneva has said and written something else. Ramadan was mistaken in calling for a boycott, but he has by no means denied Israel the right to exist. This is what was written on his site: “The Turin Book Fair initially chose Egypt to be its guest of honour, but then it changed its mind and chose to celebrate Israel, because it tied in with the 60th anniversary of the creation of this State. When questioned by the Italian press agency ANSA on this ‘boycott appeal’, I clearly maintained that it could not be normal, nor humanly decent, to celebrate Israel at a time when who knows what politics are driving this State and its government in the occupied and devastated territories. We are therefore criticising the choice of this ‘guest of honour’, not impeding Israeli authors from expressing themselves, or even refuting the idea of discussing issues with them! As a result, false propaganda jumped into motion, saying that we are talking about anti-Semitism! A denial of freedom of speech!” According to Ramadan, we should “boycott the Fair, and even the Paris Fair, if the guest of honour is a country which does not respect peoples’ rights and dignity”, and “refusing to stay silent on the international scene”, is “the only true way to put an end to the violence in the Middle East”. “Refusing to ‘celebrate’ Israel and its oppressive politics has nothing to do with anti-Semitism or the denial of freedom of speech”, declared the theologist, later quoted by Israeli poet Aaron Shabtaï, who will boycott the Fair because he does not think his country deserves ‘to be invited to a cultural week’.
These details did not end up in the blend of anti-Ramadan propaganda in Corriere della Sera, but they have been highlighted by some more attentive observers. Such as Mario Pirani, who in La Repubblica on 9th February spoke not of anti-Semitism, but of “ambiguous indulgence towards anti-Zionism”, on the part of Tariq Ramadan. Like Franz Haas in Neue Zürcher Zeitung, who defined a heading in La Stampa attacking the Swiss philosopher as ‘decomposed’: The Fatwa of Ramadan. Paola Caridi, author of Invisible Arabs, also wrote on Riccardo Chiaberge’s blog, saying that “in Turin, culture has been kidnapped by politics, and it doesn’t known how to return to its original role as a place of assembly, which would have allowed unforgettable debates and duels. David Grossman and Elias Sanbar (the sharp co-author of Etre Arabe), A. B. Yehoshua and Sahar Khalifah, Amos Oz and Elias Khouri”. “I’m not sure how happy Pierluigi Battista would be with these comparisons”, added the writer, who is said to be against the boycott but who wished to assist the chance for true and important contrasts in Turin: “Until we start to listen to both sides, our role will become increasingly less neutral”, concluded Caridi, “and increasingly less critical, as speculated by intellectuals”.
Translation by Helen Waghorn