ITALY – A successful campaign against the pro-Israel IHRA definition of antisemitism
In Italy, the DDL (Bill) 1004 – known as Bill on Antisemitism – would make the IHRA definition of antisemitism law of the country. It means that any attack against Israel will be prosecuted as anti-Semitic.
The Bill passed in the Senate in March 2026, where the Democratic Party, supposedly in opposition to the fascist Meloni government, abstained. It was supposed to be tabled for discussion in the low chamber on 2 October, for discussion and approval on 12 October.
None of this happened. The movement’s campaign didn’t allow it. It was a major victory against the Bill, forcing the Democratic Party to declare its opposition.
It seems it has fallen off the political radar, no one talks about it anymore and supposedly it will be discussed on November 6, although no one is sure that this is really going to happen. The government is too busy repressing the massive demos by the students about the cost of living. On the 30 October, the dockers launched an international strike, closing 100 ports, from Oakland in California, to Mexico, to India against the shipping of arms to Israel and any war. Also, a general strike is going to bring Italy to a halt as it happened five times last year and at the beginning of 2026.
Oakland – Jewish Voice for Peace
As part of this campaign, Payday and Meri, a woman organiser from Cagliari, compiled a list of recent legal victories in many countries. This list was also republished in L’Osservatorio sulla Repressione.
The context
DDL 1004 (Romeo, Northern League, text), approved by the Senate in March 2026, aims to make the IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism law in Italy, with its “operational examples”. On 2 October, it was presented in the Chamber of Deputies. Source: ANSA, basic text in the Senate
It is not an isolated case: the same definition is proposed in many countries, in laws, universities, hospitals and courts. There is an international campaign against it. When civil society has moved, and where the courts have been called upon to evaluate it, it has been rejected or downsized. Here are the main cases.
The victories
France · Yadan Law has been withdrawn
The bill presented in October 2024 by MP Caroline Yadan was intended to punish the “implicit” apology of terrorism and introduce the crime of publicly invoking the destruction of a state recognized by France. It did not incorporate the IHRA definition, but had the same effect as DDL 1004: to confuse criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. A petition against the law has exceeded 700,000 signatures. On April 16, 2026, the promoters withdrew it, before the debate in the chamber. Source: Wikipedia, “Yadan bill”
United Kingdom · Doctors against the IHRA
At the end of June 2026, the British Medical Association, the union of British doctors, approved a motion calling for the mandatory adoption of the IHRA definition in the public health service to be revoked, due to its “intimidating effect” on freedom of speech. It is a victory for the campaign conducted within the BMA by the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN) and others: Jonathan Fluxman tells it in a Subtitled speech. Sources: Middle East Eye · video by Jonathan Fluxman
Australia · Judge Fagan
On August 17, 2026 (Farhat case), Justice Desmond Fagan of the Supreme Court of New South Wales called the IHRA definition “long-winded and imprecise” and “disconnected from reality”. And he wrote: “Political criticism of Israel, however inflamed, is not by its nature a criticism of Jews in general.” Source: Sydney Criminal Lawyers
United Kingdom · Judge Chamberlain
In two High Court rulings (March 2024 and May 2025), Justice Chamberlain ruled that courts must be very cautious in applying IHRA examples, and that what matters are the language used and the context. He also said that calling Israel “an apartheid state,” however offensive it may be, falls in principle within the freedom of expression protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Source: Britain Palestine Project
United Kingdom · Anti-Zionism is a protected belief
On August 4, 2026, the British Labour Court of Appeal confirmed that anti-Zionism is a philosophical belief protected by the Equality Act 2010. The appeal of the University of Bristol, which had dismissed lecturer David Miller for his positions, was rejected on almost all points. Source: Judgment [2026] EAT 84 (PDF)
United Kingdom · Tony Greenstein acquitted
On August 21, 2026, the jury of the Kingston court unanimously acquitted Tony Greenstein, an anti-Zionist Jew, of terrorism charges for some posts published on October 7, 2023. From his address to the jury: “If the devil exists, he is among those who ban anesthetics from entering Gaza, so that children have to undergo amputations without painkillers. He is among those who deliberately starve children.” Sources: The Canary · The Speech to the Jury
Germany · Comparing Israel to Nazism is not a crime
At the beginning of August 2026, the Zweibrücken Court of Appeal acquitted a woman fined for two Instagram posts that compared Israel’s actions in Gaza to those of Nazi Germany. For the court, this is protected political expression: harsh criticism of a state is not enough, in itself, to trivialize the Holocaust or incite hatred. It is a ruling that directly refutes one of the “examples” of the IHRA definition. Source: Middle East Eye
Why it matters
These cases show two things. First, the IHRA definition, when examined by a judge, does not hold water, because it confuses political criticism of a state with hatred of Jews. Second, mobilization works. In France, for example, the Yadan law was withdrawn under pressure from hundreds of thousands of people.
Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitism. We are not anti-Semites because we oppose genocide and rape and other torture of Palestinian women, children and men in Israeli jails.
Campaign promoted by giovedibianco.it · #NoDDL1004 · #LaPalestinaCiLibera, with contributions from Payday men’s network