Journalist based in Ukraine. DM me for comment/assignment. Byline @Domanigiornale @RSIonline. Podcast "Guerra" @Internazionale
Kyiv
Joined October 2011
- Tweets32.1K
- Following1.9K
- Followers18.5K
- Likes7.8K
Pinned Tweet
Vivo in Ucraina da tre anni, come la penso davvero su guerra, negoziati, pace e riarmo 👇
dmdl.substack.com/p/come-la-…
It’s telling how among mainstream punditry the phrase “the best arrangement is demilitarization” has become a controversial statement deserving scathing replies
Just two hours of light since 7 AM, and no light for the rest of the waking hours. That's the blackout plan for our apartment in the center of Kyiv, a relatively privileged area. In the last 72 hours, we had water for maybe half the time. And November has just begun, the situation is going to get worse as winter progresses. If Russian attacks continue at this pace, we could reach the point where in Ukraine's capital there will be electricity only for essential services
Davide Maria De Luca retweeted
Un vicepresidente repubblicano arriva a nominare, pubblicamente, l'alleanza con Israele come una delle concause principali della sconfitta elettorale, insieme alla guerra scatenata contro l'arcinemico iraniano. Al netto della possibile ipocrisia di JD Vance, e del suo occultare altri malesseri dell'elettorato, è un fatto dirompente, per il discorso pubblico statunitense: il segno del crollo di tabù decennali.
Se prima del 7 ottobre 2023 la Questione Israele era relegata alla sola sinistra radicale - cioè nascosta sotto un tappeto - e dopo il cessate il fuoco-farsa dello scorso autunno molti scommettevano (o speravano) in una sua definitiva liquidazione, tramite conformismo violento, oggi invece si ha una conferma della sua ineludibilità. La sinistra socialista può festeggiare una innegabile vittoria, un cambiamento profondo dell'opinione pubblica e una spaccatura nella destra che dovrà capitalizzare.
È, ovviamente, anche un capolavoro politico in negativo dei gruppi filo-israeliani intransigenti. E forse pure l'inizio della campagna elettorale di Vance contro il suo stesso presidente.
One of the things the data analysts on our side obsessed over was "composition"—whether the electorate looked close enough to 2024 for Republicans to win. And despite polls that showed a Democrat blowout, the data kept on telling us the same story: in some states turnout was merely OK, in other states it was downright amazing, and in no state was it catastrophic. There was a genuine sense of optimism on our team: our people were showing up.
So, I asked the smartest data guy I know, does that mean we're going to shock the world? "No," he told me. "We might do better than the polls suggest. But the data is telling us that a lot of Trump/Vance 2024 voters are pissed and planning to vote for the other guys. Our voters are turning out, but they may not vote for us."
Well, that looks prophetic now. Our voters did show up. In Florida, for example, the electorate was 9 points more Republican than Democrat, just a couple points worse than 2024. Undoubtedly there were places we could have done better on turnout. But the main problem is not turnout. The main problem is that many people who voted for Trump/Vance in 2024 voted for Democrats in 2026.
There will be a lot of infighting and arguing over what happened and why that is. One of the pollsters I really respect told me that our economic messaging wasn’t sharp enough down the stretch. I’m sure that’s true.
But the real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone.
Another pollster—one of the smartest people I know in politics, told me yesterday we’d lose the generic ballot by 13 points. I felt negative going into Tuesday, but even I was shocked by this. In his polling, he saw that a lot of Trump 2024 voters were angry and planning to vote for Democrats. He asked those voters who had abandoned us what would cause them to come back on our team. The top four answers, accounting for nearly all of the responses were:
1) End the war
2) Focus on cost of living/inflation
3) Put America First
4) Change our relationship to Israel
Our voters showed up. And the above four reasons are why many of them voted for Democrats. This is according to a pollster who nailed the results. While many spent Monday attacking Rachel Campos Duffy for calling for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, it turns out her political advice was sound. (She’s also a great person.)
In the next few months, there's going to be a lot of gaslighting. Expect to hear any number of establishment politicians say the solution to our woes is amnesty. I'm open to the idea that we should change enforcement—by focusing more on businesses that hire illegal labor, for instance. But anyone pushing amnesty is lying to you.
The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night.
If you'd like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that's at least honest.
But everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there.
I remain hopeful about our country. To the people who are pissed off and want to say, “I told you so”: you’re right, you did tell us so. Take that energy into electing Republicans who share your worldview. To the people who are just pissed at the results, you should be. Let’s take that anger and get back to the work of saving our country.
Today is Italy’s Armed Forces Day, which is a good opportunity to remember, as professor @PietroGraglia pointed out on Facebook, that since its unification, Italy has waged nothing but wars of aggression.
First came the 1866 war against Austria, followed by at least two colonial wars, in East Africa and Libya, and some minor other adventures (mainly in China in 1900). Then, in 1915, Italy declared war on its former ally, Austria. Fast-forward to 1936 and another colonial war, this time against Ethiopia. In 1940, Italy declared war on France (and in 1945 on Japan). Finally, Italy took part in the first invasion of Iraq in 1991 and in the 1999 NATO air campaign against Serbia.
We can say that for the last 150 years, not a single time the Italian army was used to defend the country against an unprovoke aggression.
Davide Maria De Luca retweeted
Useful observations
A few observations on what happened in Petropavlivska Borshchahivka:
1. The bare-bones facts
Yesterday a crowd gathered in front of a private house near Kyiv that was being used by the 1st NG Azov Corps to detain soldiers, especially deserters and possibly mobilized people. The crowd accused the military inside of torturing their prisoners and demanded their release. Clashes ensued, with police and national guardsmen firing in the air and using tear gas, while the crowd threw stones, tried to topple a bus and force its way into the premises. At some point, dozens of people in dark clothes came into the area chanting patriotic slogans, and they beat and pushed some members of the crowd.
In the end, four of the people detained inside the house were hospitalized, while the others were transferred to another facility. The SBI announced an investigation for excess of authority or official powers by a military official. Another investigation has been opened into the behaviour of the crowd and of the people accused of staging the protest (more on that later).
2. The context
The house was an example of a well known "grey area" in the military mobilization and discipline pipeline, where many abuses have already be denounced, very often by the Ukrainian press. At present, the mobilization system in Ukraine is the result of four years of ad hoc, often bottom-up, improvisation that happened while the central political leadership tried in every way to stay away from an issue considered vital yet politically toxic.
The exact extent of the abuses perpetrated in the Petropavlivska Borshchahivka house is yet to be determined, while police and media are saying that some of the most outrageous claims (rape, torture, blackmail) have alreay been disproven.
3. A "Russian info operations"?
Many in the Ukrainian press and commentariat are claiming that the episode was staged. Suspicions are focusing on the behaviour of some members of the crowd, judged excessively aggressive by journalists present at the scene, and on the pseudo-paramedic who apparently was among the first to come to the house and that livestreamed a great part of the confrontation. Investigative journalists discovered that in early October she was involved in a failed pro-peace protest in Kyiv and that when at the house she pretended to be a paramedic, while she apparently owns a beauty clinic with no connections with emergency services. Yet, as other episodes have proved in the recent past, in Ukraine there’s a real and popular anger about the mobilization and the abuses by which it is often accompanied. The large crowds that quickly gathered in many of such episodes and the attention they always gain on social media show that the issue is real enough for many Ukrainians.
4. The authorities
The authorities in Ukraine are clearly taking this kind of protest seriously, especially if they happen near Kyiv, always a very politically sensitive city. Within a couple of hours of the first news of the clashes, first General Oleksandr Pivnenko, commander of the National Guard, and then Kyrylo Budanov, Zelensky’s chief of staff, came to the spot and tried to defuse the situation. They spoke with journalists, let some members of the crowd inside and they fundementally acted as if the protest was legitimate. Their presence tells us that they themselves thought that at least some of the accusations were plausible and that the leadership didn’t see the issue as a purely public order problem, to be solved just by the deployment of riot police.
5. What was it about?
What happened in Petropavlivska Borshchahivka seems to have less to do with Russian influence operations or the abuses during the mobilization process (both things which are absolutely real in present Ukraine) and more with the ever-growing rift opening in Ukrainian society, making people polarized and more and more ready to believe the most outlandish claims about the other side (that the government rapes 14-year-old boys, or that hundreds of their compatriots are ready to march in the streets at Moscow’s order).
It’s a complex rift that doesn’t run along the usual political lines, it's not simply about East and West, Russian or Ukrainian speaker (at the confrontation, almost everyone, on every side, spoke Russian), or even class, which is only one part of the explanation. It’s a product of the war that, after pushing the Ukrainians together, is now tearing them apart, between the ones who found something in the invasion, even just a sense of meaning and community, and the ones who are starting to think that fighting, or at least the current fight, is just making them lose more and more.
Davide Maria De Luca retweeted
Worth reading @DM_Deluca
A few observations on what happened in Petropavlivska Borshchahivka:
1. The bare-bones facts
Yesterday a crowd gathered in front of a private house near Kyiv that was being used by the 1st NG Azov Corps to detain soldiers, especially deserters and possibly mobilized people. The crowd accused the military inside of torturing their prisoners and demanded their release. Clashes ensued, with police and national guardsmen firing in the air and using tear gas, while the crowd threw stones, tried to topple a bus and force its way into the premises. At some point, dozens of people in dark clothes came into the area chanting patriotic slogans, and they beat and pushed some members of the crowd.
In the end, four of the people detained inside the house were hospitalized, while the others were transferred to another facility. The SBI announced an investigation for excess of authority or official powers by a military official. Another investigation has been opened into the behaviour of the crowd and of the people accused of staging the protest (more on that later).
2. The context
The house was an example of a well known "grey area" in the military mobilization and discipline pipeline, where many abuses have already be denounced, very often by the Ukrainian press. At present, the mobilization system in Ukraine is the result of four years of ad hoc, often bottom-up, improvisation that happened while the central political leadership tried in every way to stay away from an issue considered vital yet politically toxic.
The exact extent of the abuses perpetrated in the Petropavlivska Borshchahivka house is yet to be determined, while police and media are saying that some of the most outrageous claims (rape, torture, blackmail) have alreay been disproven.
3. A "Russian info operations"?
Many in the Ukrainian press and commentariat are claiming that the episode was staged. Suspicions are focusing on the behaviour of some members of the crowd, judged excessively aggressive by journalists present at the scene, and on the pseudo-paramedic who apparently was among the first to come to the house and that livestreamed a great part of the confrontation. Investigative journalists discovered that in early October she was involved in a failed pro-peace protest in Kyiv and that when at the house she pretended to be a paramedic, while she apparently owns a beauty clinic with no connections with emergency services. Yet, as other episodes have proved in the recent past, in Ukraine there’s a real and popular anger about the mobilization and the abuses by which it is often accompanied. The large crowds that quickly gathered in many of such episodes and the attention they always gain on social media show that the issue is real enough for many Ukrainians.
4. The authorities
The authorities in Ukraine are clearly taking this kind of protest seriously, especially if they happen near Kyiv, always a very politically sensitive city. Within a couple of hours of the first news of the clashes, first General Oleksandr Pivnenko, commander of the National Guard, and then Kyrylo Budanov, Zelensky’s chief of staff, came to the spot and tried to defuse the situation. They spoke with journalists, let some members of the crowd inside and they fundementally acted as if the protest was legitimate. Their presence tells us that they themselves thought that at least some of the accusations were plausible and that the leadership didn’t see the issue as a purely public order problem, to be solved just by the deployment of riot police.
5. What was it about?
What happened in Petropavlivska Borshchahivka seems to have less to do with Russian influence operations or the abuses during the mobilization process (both things which are absolutely real in present Ukraine) and more with the ever-growing rift opening in Ukrainian society, making people polarized and more and more ready to believe the most outlandish claims about the other side (that the government rapes 14-year-old boys, or that hundreds of their compatriots are ready to march in the streets at Moscow’s order).
It’s a complex rift that doesn’t run along the usual political lines, it's not simply about East and West, Russian or Ukrainian speaker (at the confrontation, almost everyone, on every side, spoke Russian), or even class, which is only one part of the explanation. It’s a product of the war that, after pushing the Ukrainians together, is now tearing them apart, between the ones who found something in the invasion, even just a sense of meaning and community, and the ones who are starting to think that fighting, or at least the current fight, is just making them lose more and more.
A few observations on what happened in Petropavlivska Borshchahivka:
1. The bare-bones facts
Yesterday a crowd gathered in front of a private house near Kyiv that was being used by the 1st NG Azov Corps to detain soldiers, especially deserters and possibly mobilized people. The crowd accused the military inside of torturing their prisoners and demanded their release. Clashes ensued, with police and national guardsmen firing in the air and using tear gas, while the crowd threw stones, tried to topple a bus and force its way into the premises. At some point, dozens of people in dark clothes came into the area chanting patriotic slogans, and they beat and pushed some members of the crowd.
In the end, four of the people detained inside the house were hospitalized, while the others were transferred to another facility. The SBI announced an investigation for excess of authority or official powers by a military official. Another investigation has been opened into the behaviour of the crowd and of the people accused of staging the protest (more on that later).
2. The context
The house was an example of a well known "grey area" in the military mobilization and discipline pipeline, where many abuses have already be denounced, very often by the Ukrainian press. At present, the mobilization system in Ukraine is the result of four years of ad hoc, often bottom-up, improvisation that happened while the central political leadership tried in every way to stay away from an issue considered vital yet politically toxic.
The exact extent of the abuses perpetrated in the Petropavlivska Borshchahivka house is yet to be determined, while police and media are saying that some of the most outrageous claims (rape, torture, blackmail) have alreay been disproven.
3. A "Russian info operations"?
Many in the Ukrainian press and commentariat are claiming that the episode was staged. Suspicions are focusing on the behaviour of some members of the crowd, judged excessively aggressive by journalists present at the scene, and on the pseudo-paramedic who apparently was among the first to come to the house and that livestreamed a great part of the confrontation. Investigative journalists discovered that in early October she was involved in a failed pro-peace protest in Kyiv and that when at the house she pretended to be a paramedic, while she apparently owns a beauty clinic with no connections with emergency services. Yet, as other episodes have proved in the recent past, in Ukraine there’s a real and popular anger about the mobilization and the abuses by which it is often accompanied. The large crowds that quickly gathered in many of such episodes and the attention they always gain on social media show that the issue is real enough for many Ukrainians.
4. The authorities
The authorities in Ukraine are clearly taking this kind of protest seriously, especially if they happen near Kyiv, always a very politically sensitive city. Within a couple of hours of the first news of the clashes, first General Oleksandr Pivnenko, commander of the National Guard, and then Kyrylo Budanov, Zelensky’s chief of staff, came to the spot and tried to defuse the situation. They spoke with journalists, let some members of the crowd inside and they fundementally acted as if the protest was legitimate. Their presence tells us that they themselves thought that at least some of the accusations were plausible and that the leadership didn’t see the issue as a purely public order problem, to be solved just by the deployment of riot police.
5. What was it about?
What happened in Petropavlivska Borshchahivka seems to have less to do with Russian influence operations or the abuses during the mobilization process (both things which are absolutely real in present Ukraine) and more with the ever-growing rift opening in Ukrainian society, making people polarized and more and more ready to believe the most outlandish claims about the other side (that the government rapes 14-year-old boys, or that hundreds of their compatriots are ready to march in the streets at Moscow’s order).
It’s a complex rift that doesn’t run along the usual political lines, it's not simply about East and West, Russian or Ukrainian speaker (at the confrontation, almost everyone, on every side, spoke Russian), or even class, which is only one part of the explanation. It’s a product of the war that, after pushing the Ukrainians together, is now tearing them apart, between the ones who found something in the invasion, even just a sense of meaning and community, and the ones who are starting to think that fighting, or at least the current fight, is just making them lose more and more.
Lubinets said today that the Sky News video shows demining equipment that returned to base after the operation.
Yet, I’m pretty sure the Russian army used the truce to strengthen their positions. And everyone can be pretty confident that the Ukrainian didn’t stand idle either
Sky News journalists reported that during the ceasefire, Russian forces brought heavy equipment into Oleshky and neighboring villages. They also brought weapons and ammunition. They returned lost positions. So people in Kherson will soon feel the increased shelling.
Sky News contacted the Russian Ministry of Defense for a response to the allegations of ceasefire violations.
Yes, it was the price of saving people in Oleshky - at least someone. As we already know, not everyone who wanted to evacuate was taken out.
People's lives are an absolute priority. Therefore, it is necessary to use the slightest chance to save people. Always.
It took me literally 30 seconds to google "people marching in nazi uniform" to find half a dozen examples from around the world.
It takes even less to notice that people dressed in a 1918 costume cannot be "dressed up as literal nazi".
(Disclaimer: Should people talk about political extremism in Ukraine? Yes, of course. Should peope discuss it without being incredibly sloppy and lazy? Also yes)
Davide Maria De Luca retweeted
Low chances of this happening, but if it does, it will inject more supply to the energy market and might enable the looming confrontation with Iran.
US officials are promoting a plan for Russia to resume sales of natural gas to Europe via pipelines running through Ukraine, the WSJ reported
🇺🇸🤝🇷🇺
The scheme would involve selling Russian gas via a US intermediary to avoid European restrictions
wsj.com/world/europe/u-s-pus…
Davide Maria De Luca retweeted
1/ I profili del centro radicalizzato - anonimi come i bot che denunciano, attivi solo su X, fissati con il complotto russo come chi non ha strumenti per interpretare il reale - applicano al dissenso sociale le stesse categorie del putinismo: chi protesta è manovrato dal nemico.
Davide Maria De Luca retweeted
A thread with some disjointed thoughts on this week's evacuation from Oleshky, as the ceasefire that allowed the humanitarian operation is set to expire tonight:
Davide Maria De Luca retweeted
Molto interessante.
Più che il grande supporto per la causa palestinese che ha investito le nostre società, ciò che trovo sorprendente, e rivelatore, è l'appoggio e la difesa d'ufficio che continuano a ricevere il governo israeliano e la sua politica.
Non parlo solo dell'appoggio ufficiale dei governi, ma di quello di giornalisti, intellettuali, semplici cittadini. Un sostegno che, ci dicono i sondaggi, non è mai stato così basso, ma che pure resta vocale, visibile e ben più forte di quello che ricevono altri paesi in situazioni simili: nostri alleati geopolitici ma impegnati in conflitti moralmente discutibili.
Non è un fenomeno consueto e non si spiega con cause elementari, rubricabili sotto questa o quella cospirazione di potenti. Paesi come l'Arabia Saudita o gli Emirati Arabi Uniti spendono nel soft power e nelle operazioni di influenza risorse superiori di almeno un ordine di grandezza rispetto a Israele, ma non ottengono una frazione della sua difesa d'ufficio.
E il fatto che gli Stati Uniti abbiano un numero probabilmente comparabile di vocali difensori è comunque abbastanza incredibile, considerato che stiamo affiancando un paese relativamente periferico di 10 milioni di abitanti con la superpotenza egemone per gli ultimi 40 anni.
Mi sembra difficile capire qualcosa di come la questione palestinese viene affrontata nei nostri paesi se non ci rendiamo conto che scegliere una parte in questo conflitto si è da tempo completamente saldato con la nostra realtà politica quotidiana ed è diventato il primo banco di prova su cui si misura ogni orientamento politico.
E in questa funzione di cartina tornasole la posizione che ognuno assume sulla questione palestinese ha un enorme successo perché ha effettivamente uno straordinario potere predittivo. Prendiamo un difensore delle attuali politiche israeliane e troveremo probabilmente una persona scettica se non proprio avversa alle proteste in Europa di queste settimane; scettica se non proprio contraria alle azioni radicali per contrastare la crisi climatica; una persona che probabilmente ha i "populisti" piuttosto in alto nella lista delle sue preoccupazioni e così via.
È questo il modo in cui, da sempre, le cause distanti diventano popolari. Quando per una ragione o per l'altra le persone iniziano a proiettarci sopra i loro problemi quotidiani, quando nel piccolo della loro quotidianità ritrovano le divisioni e gli schieramenti delle grandi questioni.
E se in un certo senso è vero che, come dicono alcuni con disprezzo, esiste una "religione pro-pal", nel senso che molti hanno abbracciato la questione palestinese non solo per virtù della causa, ma perché è parte di una coerente visione del mondo, lo stesso accade a molti dei difensori di Israele, che abbracciano non lo stato ebraico in sé, ma la sua potentissima funzione di simbolo vivente dello status quo.
Davide Maria De Luca retweeted
[...] lo stesso accade a molti dei difensori di Israele, che abbracciano non lo stato ebraico in sé, ma la sua potentissima funzione di simbolo vivente dello status quo.
Più che il grande supporto per la causa palestinese che ha investito le nostre società, ciò che trovo sorprendente, e rivelatore, è l'appoggio e la difesa d'ufficio che continuano a ricevere il governo israeliano e la sua politica.
Non parlo solo dell'appoggio ufficiale dei governi, ma di quello di giornalisti, intellettuali, semplici cittadini. Un sostegno che, ci dicono i sondaggi, non è mai stato così basso, ma che pure resta vocale, visibile e ben più forte di quello che ricevono altri paesi in situazioni simili: nostri alleati geopolitici ma impegnati in conflitti moralmente discutibili.
Non è un fenomeno consueto e non si spiega con cause elementari, rubricabili sotto questa o quella cospirazione di potenti. Paesi come l'Arabia Saudita o gli Emirati Arabi Uniti spendono nel soft power e nelle operazioni di influenza risorse superiori di almeno un ordine di grandezza rispetto a Israele, ma non ottengono una frazione della sua difesa d'ufficio.
E il fatto che gli Stati Uniti abbiano un numero probabilmente comparabile di vocali difensori è comunque abbastanza incredibile, considerato che stiamo affiancando un paese relativamente periferico di 10 milioni di abitanti con la superpotenza egemone per gli ultimi 40 anni.
Mi sembra difficile capire qualcosa di come la questione palestinese viene affrontata nei nostri paesi se non ci rendiamo conto che scegliere una parte in questo conflitto si è da tempo completamente saldato con la nostra realtà politica quotidiana ed è diventato il primo banco di prova su cui si misura ogni orientamento politico.
E in questa funzione di cartina tornasole la posizione che ognuno assume sulla questione palestinese ha un enorme successo perché ha effettivamente uno straordinario potere predittivo. Prendiamo un difensore delle attuali politiche israeliane e troveremo probabilmente una persona scettica se non proprio avversa alle proteste in Europa di queste settimane; scettica se non proprio contraria alle azioni radicali per contrastare la crisi climatica; una persona che probabilmente ha i "populisti" piuttosto in alto nella lista delle sue preoccupazioni e così via.
È questo il modo in cui, da sempre, le cause distanti diventano popolari. Quando per una ragione o per l'altra le persone iniziano a proiettarci sopra i loro problemi quotidiani, quando nel piccolo della loro quotidianità ritrovano le divisioni e gli schieramenti delle grandi questioni.
E se in un certo senso è vero che, come dicono alcuni con disprezzo, esiste una "religione pro-pal", nel senso che molti hanno abbracciato la questione palestinese non solo per virtù della causa, ma perché è parte di una coerente visione del mondo, lo stesso accade a molti dei difensori di Israele, che abbracciano non lo stato ebraico in sé, ma la sua potentissima funzione di simbolo vivente dello status quo.
Più che il grande supporto per la causa palestinese che ha investito le nostre società, ciò che trovo sorprendente, e rivelatore, è l'appoggio e la difesa d'ufficio che continuano a ricevere il governo israeliano e la sua politica.
Non parlo solo dell'appoggio ufficiale dei governi, ma di quello di giornalisti, intellettuali, semplici cittadini. Un sostegno che, ci dicono i sondaggi, non è mai stato così basso, ma che pure resta vocale, visibile e ben più forte di quello che ricevono altri paesi in situazioni simili: nostri alleati geopolitici ma impegnati in conflitti moralmente discutibili.
Non è un fenomeno consueto e non si spiega con cause elementari, rubricabili sotto questa o quella cospirazione di potenti. Paesi come l'Arabia Saudita o gli Emirati Arabi Uniti spendono nel soft power e nelle operazioni di influenza risorse superiori di almeno un ordine di grandezza rispetto a Israele, ma non ottengono una frazione della sua difesa d'ufficio.
E il fatto che gli Stati Uniti abbiano un numero probabilmente comparabile di vocali difensori è comunque abbastanza incredibile, considerato che stiamo affiancando un paese relativamente periferico di 10 milioni di abitanti con la superpotenza egemone per gli ultimi 40 anni.
Mi sembra difficile capire qualcosa di come la questione palestinese viene affrontata nei nostri paesi se non ci rendiamo conto che scegliere una parte in questo conflitto si è da tempo completamente saldato con la nostra realtà politica quotidiana ed è diventato il primo banco di prova su cui si misura ogni orientamento politico.
E in questa funzione di cartina tornasole la posizione che ognuno assume sulla questione palestinese ha un enorme successo perché ha effettivamente uno straordinario potere predittivo. Prendiamo un difensore delle attuali politiche israeliane e troveremo probabilmente una persona scettica se non proprio avversa alle proteste in Europa di queste settimane; scettica se non proprio contraria alle azioni radicali per contrastare la crisi climatica; una persona che probabilmente ha i "populisti" piuttosto in alto nella lista delle sue preoccupazioni e così via.
È questo il modo in cui, da sempre, le cause distanti diventano popolari. Quando per una ragione o per l'altra le persone iniziano a proiettarci sopra i loro problemi quotidiani, quando nel piccolo della loro quotidianità ritrovano le divisioni e gli schieramenti delle grandi questioni.
E se in un certo senso è vero che, come dicono alcuni con disprezzo, esiste una "religione pro-pal", nel senso che molti hanno abbracciato la questione palestinese non solo per virtù della causa, ma perché è parte di una coerente visione del mondo, lo stesso accade a molti dei difensori di Israele, che abbracciano non lo stato ebraico in sé, ma la sua potentissima funzione di simbolo vivente dello status quo.
Davide Maria De Luca retweeted
🚨Лубінець заявив, що не знав, як в Україні відреагують на його гуманітарну місію, але запевнив, що навіть заради одного врятованого українця пройшов би той самий шлях⤵️
🗣️"Я щасливий, що повернувся [...] особисто підходив практично до кожного. Деякі люди казали, що хочуть лишитись. Ті, хто сказали, що хочуть в Україну, от сьогодні ви бачите їх тут. Там були люди, які сказали, що хочуть поїхати на територію рф. Я сказав, що це їхній вибір. Ми готові в тому числі й вам допомагати".
Davide Maria De Luca retweeted
Chissà cosa porta Vannacci a questa posizione sacrosanta. O a rifiutare l'abominevole importazione della definizione IHRA da noi. Non credo voglia fare il Carlson Tucker italiano, -cioè un boicottatore di Meloni - é che abbia contezza del filoarabismo di una parte della destra meridionale. Ma è grave ci si debba appigliare alle divisioni tra fascistodi e postfascisti per difendere un po' di cultura davvero liberale tra i nostri conservatori.
Davide Maria De Luca retweeted
Updated schedule for tomorrow, of questionable reliability (it's 10.10pm and light still isn't back, despite what the schedule says):
Davide Maria De Luca retweeted
Just happy that Oleshky people are back in Ukraine. I have lots to share and will do so soon but tonight let’s just enjoy one good moment.
I gave 18 interviews in 3 days so need to sleep on it before I report again.
Doing a BBC interview while filming red zone in Kherson.
