TNA Staff
The Palestine Chronicle / September 5, 2026
Italy’s proposed antisemitism law could restrict criticism of Israel, prompting warnings over Palestinian advocacy and a nationwide protest in Rome.
Italy’s parliament is preparing to resume consideration of a controversial antisemitism bill that rights groups, journalists, academics and Palestine solidarity organizations warn could severely restrict criticism of Israel.
The measure is widely known as DDL 1004, its original designation in the Italian Senate. DDL is an abbreviation for disegno di legge, meaning draft law or bill.
After being approved by the Senate on March 4, 2026, the legislation moved to the Chamber of Deputies, where it is now formally designated C.2830.
The Chamber’s Constitutional Affairs Committee is scheduled to resume its examination of the bill on September 9 at 2:30 pm, with votes expected, according to the official parliamentary schedule.
The legislation has prompted more than 100 organizations to call for a national protest outside the Italian parliament on the same day.
Critics say the bill’s stated purpose of combating antisemitism masks a broader attempt to blur the distinction between hatred of Jewish people and political opposition to Zionism, Israel’s occupation and its actions against the Palestinian people.
What does DDL 1004 do ?
The bill applies the working definition of antisemitism adopted in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, commonly known as the IHRA definition.
The IHRA describes antisemitism as a “certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.”
That definition is accompanied by 11 illustrative examples. Seven concern Israel, including allegations that could encompass denying Israel’s claimed right to self-determination, describing the establishment of Israel as a racist endeavour or applying standards to Israel that are not demanded of other states.
The IHRA text says criticism of Israel comparable to that directed at any other country cannot be considered antisemitic. Opponents argue, however, that its Israel-related examples create sufficient ambiguity to enable institutions to characterize anti-Zionist speech, support for Palestinian rights or condemnation of Israeli policies as antisemitism.
The Italian bill contains language formally protecting freedom of political criticism, expression, assembly and association. Critics maintain that this safeguard is undermined by the broad definition and by the mechanisms through which it would be implemented.
The measure would require the Italian government to adopt a national strategy against antisemitism every three years, following a proposal prepared by a national coordinator appointed by the prime minister.
Its areas of intervention would extend far beyond the prosecution of violent or explicitly discriminatory acts.
The strategy would include monitoring alleged antisemitic incidents through a national police database, measures targeting online speech, training for teachers, police officers, military personnel, magistrates and prefectural officials, public information campaigns and initiatives within sporting and cultural organizations.
Schools would be expected to implement educational and monitoring measures, while universities would be encouraged to conduct research and seminars, monitor alleged antisemitic incidents and appoint internal figures responsible for overseeing compliance with the national strategy.
The law would therefore establish a framework capable of influencing policing, education, academic research, journalism, broadcasting, online platforms and public debate.
From a working definition to a binding law
Speaking during a Dignità TV discussion on the legislation, international law expert Michela Arricale warned that the bill would transform a formally nonbinding working definition into a standard carrying legal and institutional consequences.
“This law has a purpose, and this law is binding,” Arricale said. “Laws are binding. There is no such thing as a nonbinding law.”
“If they adopt it, there will be consequences,” she continued. “Every time the term antisemitism is used, it will have to be interpreted according to this definition.”
Arricale argued that the proposed framework could create a system in which criticism of the Italian government remained legitimate, while similar criticism of the Israeli government could be treated as an expression of racial or religious hatred.
“In Italy, it will be possible to criticize the Italian government legitimately, but it may no longer be possible to do the same with the Israeli government,” she said.
“If you criticize that government, call it genocidal or say the things that we normally say every day, you could be accused of hate speech or hate crimes aggravated by antisemitism.”
The bill approved by the Senate consolidated several legislative proposals originating from both Italy’s governing right-wing coalition and sections of the parliamentary opposition.
Arricale stressed that resistance to the measure should therefore address not only the government but also center-left politicians who have supported it or treated the matter as an issue of individual conscience.
“This is not an ethical question on which parties can simply allow a free vote,” she said. “This is a question of rights and freedom of expression. These are democratic necessities.”
Constitutional concerns
Arricale said the bill raised possible constitutional concerns, particularly regarding freedom of political criticism.
Challenging the law before Italy’s Constitutional Court, however, would not necessarily prevent it from causing harm.
Ordinary citizens cannot directly ask the court to review legislation simply because they consider it unconstitutional. The issue would generally have to emerge in an actual legal proceeding after the law had already been applied.
“We citizens cannot simply take the law to the Constitutional Court,” Arricale explained.
“We would have to wait for it to produce effects against someone, for someone to be sent to trial, and then for the constitutional question to be raised within that proceeding.”
During that period, she warned, the legislation could encourage both direct repression and widespread self-censorship.
“If it passes, it would mark a dividing line between a before and an after for our freedom of movement and our political ability to act as opponents of this government and of the State of Israel,” Arricale said.
The ‘weaponization’ of antisemitism
Romana Rubeo, managing editor of The Palestine Chronicle and co-editor of Gaza Rising, linked the Italian bill to broader international efforts to use accusations of antisemitism against Palestine solidarity movements.
She recalled that Kenneth Stern, the lead drafter of an earlier version of the working definition, has himself opposed its use as a legal or campus speech code.
“The principal drafter of this working definition, Kenneth Stern, has challenged what he himself calls its ‘weaponization’ – its transformation into a weapon,” Rubeo said.
Stern has publicly written that the definition was originally developed to assist European data collectors, not to suppress political speech. He later warned that turning it into a hate-speech code would threaten academic freedom and Palestinian advocacy.
Rubeo said Western governments were participating in precisely the process Stern had warned against.
“Western governments are becoming complicit in using the definition of antisemitism, and its conflation with anti-Zionism, as a weapon,” she said.
Antisemitism must be confronted as a form of racism, Rubeo and Arricale argued. Their concern is that expanding its meaning to encompass political criticism of a state weakens that struggle while providing Israel with protection from accountability.
Boycotts and criticism of illegal Jewish settlements
The potential consequences extend to campaigns supporting boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel, commonly known as BDS.
The IHRA definition refers not only to attacks against Jewish people but also to their property and community institutions. Opponents fear that this language, combined with the Israel-related examples, could be used to challenge boycotts of Israeli companies, institutions or goods produced in illegal settlements.
Rubeo noted that Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank are recognized as illegal under international law. Nevertheless, she warned, campaigns against settlement products or calls for institutional boycotts could be recast as discriminatory attacks.
“Those actions could also be declared illegal,” Rubeo said, referring to restrictions on settlement goods and individual boycott campaigns. “This could affect states adopting measures such as import bans, but also individuals who decide to boycott or promote boycott campaigns.”
According to Rubeo, the deeper issue is the right of Palestinians to describe their history and lived reality in their own political language.
“Palestinians have already been robbed of the right to express in words what they are experiencing,” she said.
“Since 1948, they have not even been allowed to say that they were subjected to oppression, that the Nakba took place, that there was a catastrophe and ethnic cleansing, because the accusation of antisemitism has always been brought in to override their account.”
“As a result, universities, journalists and activists will have less and less freedom of speech,” Rubeo added. “But above all, Palestinians, who have already lost so much, could be prevented from even describing their tragedy in words.”
Fear in schools and universities
The proposed law’s reach into education has generated particular concern. The legislation envisions training programs, educational initiatives and monitoring mechanisms in schools. Universities would be expected to adopt measures to prevent and track antisemitism and could designate internal officials to oversee their implementation.
Rubeo said signs of anticipatory censorship were already visible in Italian schools.
“I have been invited over the years by teachers and principals who were particularly sensitive to the Palestinian cause,” she said.
“Now they tell me, ‘We would like to invite you, especially at this moment, but circulars are being distributed telling us to be careful.’”
“This self-censorship already exists,” Rubeo continued. “Imagine what could happen if it is given a legal instrument.”
She also described how the fear of legal consequences could deter young people from participating in demonstrations or expressing solidarity with Palestinians.
“Imagine a 19-year-old Italian student who attends a demonstration because he feels it is his moral duty at a historical moment like this, and then receives a complaint, a lawsuit or some other legal action at home,” Rubeo said.
“Even if there was no self-censorship before, fear would then intervene and stop him from expressing his humanity through the means he had used until that point. This is an extremely dangerous operation.”
Threat to independent journalism
The bill could also affect how Italian journalists and independent publications report on Israel and Palestine.
Rubeo cited the experience of The Palestine Chronicle in the United States, where the publication was targeted by legal action attempting to conflate its journalistic work with support for terrorism.
“We were accused of material support for terrorism through this overlapping of categories and this legislative confusion,” she said. “The argument was that if you published an article and paid a journalist in Gaza whom someone believed, without evidence, might be involved in something, then you were supporting terrorism.”
Even when such claims do not result in a conviction, Rubeo explained, the cost of defending against well-funded legal attacks can destroy a small publication.
“The risk for independent publications is simply death – suppression,” she said. “Without sufficiently strong protection, independent publications would collapse. The Palestinian narrative, which has played a very important role in developing critical consciousness, would face an extremely dangerous halt.”
September 9 protest at Montecitorio
More than 100 organizations have called for a national protest against the legislation on Wednesday, September 9.
The demonstration will begin at 1 pm in Piazza Capranica, near the Italian parliament in Rome, ahead of the Constitutional Affairs Committee session.
Promoters include Amnesty International Italy, the Italian Federation of the Press, ARCI, Article 21, BDS Italy, trade unions, journalists’ associations, Palestinian organizations, anti-Zionist Jewish groups and networks representing teachers, university staff and researchers.
The organizers described the event as a “marathon protest” defending freedom of expression, academic freedom, press freedom and solidarity with the Palestinian people.
They argue that opposition to the bill does not diminish the importance of combating genuine antisemitism.
Instead, they say, antisemitism must be confronted without converting criticism of Israeli occupation, apartheid, colonialism and genocide into a punishable or institutionally suspect form of speech.
“The solidarity movement is not the only thing at stake,” participants stressed at the end of the Dignità TV discussion.
“What is at stake is the way a democracy defines the boundaries of dissent.”
(The Palestine Chronicle)
