A March of Two Cities
Call it a case of concurrent compassion or simultaneous sympathy. The fact is that without any parallel planning, as if transported by telepathy, on Monday at midday (4/15/02) while tens of thousands of Americans united on Capital Hill for a Pro-Israel demonstration, thousands of Italians met on Rome’s Campidoglio for a peaceful sunset march through the Jewish ghetto. They bore small stones as symbols in memory of the dead, which they deposited in front the Synagogue.
If the demonstration in Washington was organized and promoted by Jewish organizations and overwhelmingly attended by Jewish Americans, not so for the march in Rome. The idea for a Pro-Israel day in Rome was advanced by Massimo Teodori, editorialist for Il Giornale and professor of American History at the University of Perugia. He threw the ball at newspaper editor, Giuliano Ferrara, and Giuliano caught the ball and ran with it using his newspaper, Il Foglio, as a forum for supporters of a public demonstration of solidarity toward Israel.
Il Foglio is probably an excellent exception to the rule that you can’t judge a book by the cover. Il Foglio, which means The Page, is all cover. It is literally one folded four-sided sheet, with an occasional insert. However, what it lacks in copious quantity, it provides in quality content. Like the Parisian salons of the past, it is often a breeding ground for the most stimulating political debates among the Italian intelligentsia.
This isn’t the first time Ferrara has used his newspaper as a public rallying ground. It was his idea to organize the pro-USA day in November when public support for the US battle against terrorism had begun to wane.
As more and more letters began pouring in every day from adherents to the idea of holding a pro-Israel Day, dissenters complained that the demonstration was unilateral since it didn’t pronounce a pro-Palestinian agenda.
Although the organizers recognize the need for establishing a Palestinian state, they were adamant in their insistence that the rally was to have one agenda only: support for Israel, it’s right to exist, and it’s right to provide for its own security. They refuted all political or polemical repercussions. No party flags. No public debates. A rally FOR Israel. NOT AGAINST anything or anyone.
The rally was indeed peaceful. There were no slogans. No negatives. However, the inspiration for the march was indeed AGAINST a number of things. It was a reaction to a troubling wave of events full of trepidation in a world where sound reasoning and values seem to have gone haywire.
It was a counterstatement to the disquieting growth of anti-Semitism, particularly disturbing to Europeans when it occurs on European soil: 450 incidents in France alone. The burning of synagogues. The terrorization of Jews. The profanation of cemeteries. An unthinkable awakening of ghosts of the past.
It was meant to counteract the cockeyed reasoning of the Catholic Church that confounds its criticisms: The Franciscan brothers held captive in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem that condemn the Israeli tanks while condoning the two hundred armed terrorists, not recognizing that the latter are the cause and the former the effect.
It was meant to condemn the escapades of so-called Italian pacifists,
who confuse the victims with the victimizers. It was abhorrence for
the abomination of their presence in “peace” demonstrations in the piazzas
of Italy donning kaffiyehs, masquerading as kamikazes, and chanting “Death
to Israel.”
It was a refutation of several irreverent decisions taken recently
by some of our most respected institutions: The grotesque decision
made by the Nobel Prize committee to consider withdrawing the Peace Prize
from Shimon Perez. The revolting resolution made by the European
Parliament in Strasbourg to apply an embargo against the State of Israel.
The proclamation pregnant with partiality made by the United Nations Human
Rights Committee that condemned Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory,
but made no mention of suicide terrorist attacks on Israeli soil.
It was a refusal of the faulty logic that condones suicide bombers as the poor man’s army and only alternative. It was the recognition of the fact that the greatest enemies of the right of the Palestinians to a homeland are the Palestinians themselves and their Arab brothers: For refusing the UN proposition in 1947, which was accepted by Isreal. And for turning down the Clinton accord in 2000, which offered Arafat a Palestinian State on a silver platter and a portion of Jerusalem to boot.
It was in defense of our common ideals: democracy and the rule of law, the only country in the area where these values reign. And in recognition of our shared heritage that begins with the Ten Commandments. The Decalogue contained not only religious rules, but rules that govern social relationships. The inclusion of elements regarding social behavior acted as a precursor to humanism and secularism, the separation of church and state, the very fundamentals that form the foundation of Western Civilization.
April 2002
Return to home page Return to list
Editors interested in subscribing to this syndicated column may request information by sending an e-mail to: giogia@giogia.com