Originally Posted by Buster Brown

Truth be told, within the last two years or so I have sent some very reasoned, temperate letters to the editor of various newspapers, noting how virtually every letter in support of Israel is signed with an obvious, Jewish-sounding name, and wondering why these letter-writers don't seem to regard themselves as Americans first - or, for that matter, Americans exclusively, and nothing else.

You're confusing two different things, nation and country. There is a Jewish nation that has existed for nearly 2000 years, independent of the existence of a Jewish state. Think about that, two thousand years.There is also an American nation, independent of the United States Government, and which could (at least in theory) continue to exist if the USG and the States collapsed entirely. If our state was laid waste, could we retain a sense of ourselves as Americans for that long? I doubt it.

The Jewish nation has endured exile, attempts at genocide, and countless other assaults, and part of the key to their survival as a faith and a people is that recognition of their nationality. Integral to that sense of nationality is the Jewish faith, and integral to that are the ideas of a restored Israel (as a state) and a return to Jerusalem.

Unfortunately, that is in direct conflict with basic Islamic belief.

It's perfectly possible to be a member of two or more nations at once, and yes, it can create conflicting loyalties at times. Note that one can be Jewish by ethnicity and not by belief, and to have no interest in Israel. But such a person is probably not likely to think of himself/herself as Jewish, either.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

You're confusing two different things, nation and country. There is a Jewish nation that has existed for nearly 2000 years, independent of the existence of a Jewish state. Think about that, two thousand years.There is also an American nation, independent of the United States Government, and which could (at least in theory) continue to exist if the USG and the States collapsed entirely. If our state was laid waste, could we retain a sense of ourselves as Americans for that long? I doubt it.

Especially since a certain very vocal element in our society is already trying their hardest to destroy that sense of ourselves as Americans, and has been for the last 35 years.

The Jewish nation has endured exile, attempts at genocide, and countless other assaults, and part of the key to their survival as a faith and a people is that recognition of their nationality. Integral to that sense of nationality is the Jewish faith, and integral to that are the ideas of a restored Israel (as a state) and a return to Jerusalem.

Having said what I said above, I do believe that another element in our society, bitterly hated by the vocal element mentioned above, would retain their sense of themselves as Americans for a longer time than anyone else, in such a situation, partly voluntarily, partly from being brutally reminded of who and what they are every day by their rulers - much as the Jews were likewise brutally reminded of who and what they were all through the Middle Ages by their Christian or Muslim rulers, in the fashion you described above.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Note that one can be Jewish by ethnicity and not by belief, and to have no interest in Israel. But such a person is probably not likely to think of himself/herself as Jewish, either.

Just a nitpick on an otherwise insightful post. You'd be surprised at the number of people who are ethnically Jewish, non-observant and non-religious, but consider themselves Jewish.

On another discussion forum that I participate in at http://www.interfaithfamily.com, the issue comes out where a nominal Jew and a Christian contemplate marriage and the Christian is baffled why the Jew, who never sets foot in a synagogue, eats pork, and has nothing to do with what the Christian perceives as Judaism, suddenly balks at the thought of baptising and raising Christian children and wants such children to be raised Jewish. The Christian is totally confused. This is a very common theme in the discussions.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Note that one can be Jewish by ethnicity and not by belief, and to have no interest in Israel. But such a person is probably not likely to think of himself/herself as Jewish, either.

Just a nitpick on an otherwise insightful post. You'd be surprised at the number of people who are ethnically Jewish, non-observant and non-religious, but consider themselves Jewish.

You're quite right, of course, I spoke too broadly. OTOH, over the course of a couple of generations, will such a person's grandchildren still think of themselves as Jewish, given the starting condition? I mean that as a serious question. The nature and endurance of culture and society is an enduring interest of mine.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Note that one can be Jewish by ethnicity and not by belief, and to have no interest in Israel. But such a person is probably not likely to think of himself/herself as Jewish, either.

Just a nitpick on an otherwise insightful post. You'd be surprised at the number of people who are ethnically Jewish, non-observant and non-religious, but consider themselves Jewish.

You're quite right, of course, I spoke too broadly. OTOH, over the course of a couple of generations, will such a person's grandchildren still think of themselves as Jewish, given the starting condition? I mean that as a serious question. The nature and endurance of culture and society is an enduring interest of mine.

If such a Jew succeeds in insisting on a Jewish religious upbringing for their children (and a number of them do), probably their children will consider themselves Jewish. You'd be surprised at the number of couples that belong to our synagogue and fit into that group. Often the partner who was not Jewish converts and becomes a very enthusiastic member of our congregation.

Otherwise, no.

Case in point. My older sister moved to Stockholm in 1971 and has lived there ever since. She is secular and has married secular Swedes (two of them, in the proper sequence) and has borne and raised three children. When asked on a form to put a religion, she put "Jewish". However, her three children (two are now adults and one is 16) are almost completely ignorant of Judaism and probably think of it as an exotic part of their heritage and nothing more.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

If such a Jew succeeds in insisting on a Jewish religious upbringing for their children (and a number of them do), probably their children will consider themselves Jewish. You'd be surprised at the number of couples that belong to our synagogue and fit into that group. Often the partner who was not Jewish converts and becomes a very enthusiastic member of our congregation.

Indeed, a well-known example of what you're talking about is long-time NFL quarterback Vinny Testaverde, who was raised Catholic but converted to Judaism after marrying a Jewish woman (can't say I have first-hand knowledge as to exactly how "enthusiastic" he is at his congregation though).

But back to the issue of U.S. support for Israel: If for no other reason, we must support Israel to the hilt to prevent treaty revisionism from breaking out elsewhere in the world. If the Arabs are allowed to get away with it - and arguably, the creation of any Palestinian state beyond the borders of present-day Jordan (indeed, the Arabs should be thanking their lucky stars that Jordan itself wasn't made part of Israel as well; after their siding with the Axis during World War II, the Arabs weren't entitled to one square angstrom of the original British mandate - yet due to London's magnanimity they got more than 80 per cent of it, and they still weren't satisfied!) would qualify as just that - what's to stop the Germans from trying to get Pomerania and Silesia back from Poland or the Japanese from attempting to reconquer Korea, North and South? (Who would have dreamed in the mid-1920s that Japan would someday bomb Pearl Harbor?) Admittedly these things would appear to have an extremely remote chance of happening, but only a racist of the crudest sort would completely rule such scenarios out.

And even casting the revisionism issue aside, if Bush shoves a Palestinian state down Israel's throat, he'll be sending one message, loud and clear: Terrorism pays.

Originally Posted by AAA1969

I, myself, support Israel because it is a free democracy, much as I support Taiwan. We cannot permit the light of free democracy to fade in any corner of the world.

The problem with the UN and with popular opinion is that they only see "democracy". Drop the word "free" (as in having protected rights), and you're left with mob rule. The Algerian people tried to elect a theocracy. Without a Bill of Rights in place to prevent such a system to come into being, they have nullified a freely elected (and stupid) government. Now they're in a quagmire.

I hope Iraq institutes a strong Bill of Rights, so that they, too, can become a free democracy, and not a theocracy like so much of the Muslim world.

How do you reconcile your support of Israeli democracy, a correct postion in my opinion, with the increasingly power of the hyper-Orthodox radical right-wing there? From what I see, Israel has a potential to become a theocratic state, too. The religous parties already have a strong control of the "culture" issues, and the settlements are teaming with zealots of both religous and hyper-nationalist stripe.

I suspect that the Israel of today is what it is due in large part to the vehemence of the forces opposing it. With the exception of Irgun, Hagganah and a few other similar groups, few in the original 1948 population were radical. In fact, the populatin as recently as 1967 was still quite European in demeanor and outlook. Of course, that's changed in the interim.

Understanding why things are as they are doesn't solve anything, though.

Originally Posted by David '47

Originally Posted by AAA1969

I, myself, support Israel because it is a free democracy, much as I support Taiwan. We cannot permit the light of free democracy to fade in any corner of the world.

The problem with the UN and with popular opinion is that they only see "democracy". Drop the word "free" (as in having protected rights), and you're left with mob rule. The Algerian people tried to elect a theocracy. Without a Bill of Rights in place to prevent such a system to come into being, they have nullified a freely elected (and stupid) government. Now they're in a quagmire.

I hope Iraq institutes a strong Bill of Rights, so that they, too, can become a free democracy, and not a theocracy like so much of the Muslim world.

How do you reconcile your support of Israeli democracy, a correct postion in my opinion, with the increasingly power of the hyper-Orthodox radical right-wing there? From what I see, Israel has a potential to become a theocratic state, too. The religous parties already have a strong control of the "culture" issues, and the settlements are teaming with zealots of both religous and hyper-nationalist stripe.

I suspect that the Israel of today is what it is due in large part to the vehemence of the forces opposing it. With the exception of Irgun, Hagganah and a few other similar groups, few in the original 1948 population were radical. In fact, the populatin as recently as 1967 was still quite European in demeanor and outlook. Of course, that's changed in the interim.

Understanding why things are as they are doesn't solve anything, though.

Speaking as a Reform Jew, the super-Orthodox have always been powerful in Israel -- many of the things that Reform and Conservative American Jews are fighting for, such as civil marriage (you can only be married by an Orthodox rabbi in Israel), acceptance of conversions under non-Orthodox auspices, and greater acceptance of children of interfaith parents, are battles that must be fought because of the power of Orthodoxy at the birth of Israel.

Another countervailing factor is the rise of a secular party specifically opposed to the theocratic elements of Israeli law.

Israel has always been split, with half the Jews being secular and half being some variety of Orthodox (ranging from Joe Lieberman type of Orthodoxy, where the Jew observes the laws fairly strictly but lives in a pluralistic society, to the ultra Orthodox). The Reform and Conservative movements are growing in Israel, offering Jews a middle ground between non-observance and being Orthodox.

What has changed since September 2000 is that more Jews are pessimistic (understandably so) about the peace process and more hard-line about the response to terrorism. I don't think though that Israel is becoming more theocratic.

One question: How did this thread, originally about the potential Islamic threat to Italy, get diverted onto a topic that more properly belongs on the long-dormant Israel/Palestine thread?

Originally Posted by David '47

How do you reconcile your support of Israeli democracy, a correct postion in my opinion, with the increasingly power of the hyper-Orthodox radical right-wing there? From what I see, Israel has a potential to become a theocratic state, too. The religous parties already have a strong control of the "culture" issues, and the settlements are teaming with zealots of both religous and hyper-nationalist stripe.

I suspect that the Israel of today is what it is due in large part to the vehemence of the forces opposing it. With the exception of Irgun, Hagganah and a few other similar groups, few in the original 1948 population were radical. In fact, the populatin as recently as 1967 was still quite European in demeanor and outlook. Of course, that's changed in the interim.

Since Israel is specifically the 'Jewish state', and the very definition of a Jew is based in a faith and a specific people, there's always been a hint of the theocratic about Israel, even though the original Zionist movement was secularist (or appeared to be, in somewhat the same sense that modern Europe appears to be secularist, and isn't).

If the secularists ever win completely, it's doubtful Israel could long retain its Jewish identity, and in that situation its very reason for existence would suddenly become moot. You can't cut a society off from its foundation and expect it to retain its shape and structure.

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

One question: How did this thread, originally about the potential Islamic threat to Italy, get diverted onto a topic that more properly belongs on the long-dormant Israel/Palestine thread?

Everything connects to everything else.

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

One question: How did this thread, originally about the potential Islamic threat to Italy, get diverted onto a topic that more properly belongs on the long-dormant Israel/Palestine thread?

I think it has something to do with the Brancato Doctrine.

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

One question: How did this thread, originally about the potential Islamic threat to Italy, get diverted onto a topic that more properly belongs on the long-dormant Israel/Palestine thread?

With nearly 400 posts to your name, I'm surprised that you are even asking this question! :lol:

One possible answer to my question could be that the next Arab-Israeli War might not remain localized, as in the past, but might well balloon into a Islamo-Western World War III, with astonishing speed. Thus, the very survival of Israel could become all too relevant to Italy's prospects, with equally astonishing speed.

Remember that at their closest point, Italy and predominantly Muslim Albania are as close to one another as Cuba is to Florida - and that analogy is not haphazard; while a post-World War II sense of guilt over Mussolini's occupation of Albania prompted Italians to look the other way while God only knows how many Albanian "boat people" crossed the Adriatic during the rule of Communist Enver Hoxha, Italy's tolerance of this situation may not last forever (more Albanians sought asylum in Italy during the Serb "ethnic cleansing" of Kosovo in the late '90s). If Arab terrorists are foolhardy enough to launch a 9/11-style attack somewhere in Europe (wouldn't the Eiffel Tower's going the way of the Twin Towers wipe the smirks off their faces in Paris?), the "New Europe" may indeed have no choice but to hold their turned-up noses and join America in its Tenth Crusade against Islam - and on balance, Italy would be even less reluctant to join in than most of the rest of Europe (certainly less reluctant than France and Belgium).

Originally Posted by Buster Brown

If Arab terrorists are foolhardy enough to launch a 9/11-style attack somewhere in Europe (wouldn't the Eiffel Tower's going the way of the Twin Towers wipe the smirks off their faces in Paris?),

Something like that might yet happen. The Europeans are trying to distance themselves from America, but to the rest of the world, America and western Europe (and Australia, NZ, and Canada) all look like 'the West'.

Originally Posted by Buster Brown

Remember that at their closest point, Italy and predominantly Muslim Albania are as close to one another as Cuba is to Florida - and that analogy is not haphazard; while a post-World War II sense of guilt over Mussolini's occupation of Albania prompted Italians to look the other way while God only knows how many Albanian "boat people" crossed the Adriatic during the rule of Communist Enver Hoxha, Italy's tolerance of this situation may not last forever (more Albanians sought asylum in Italy during the Serb "ethnic cleansing" of Kosovo in the late '90s). If Arab terrorists are foolhardy enough to launch a 9/11-style attack somewhere in Europe (wouldn't the Eiffel Tower's going the way of the Twin Towers wipe the smirks off their faces in Paris?), the "New Europe" may indeed have no choice but to hold their turned-up noses and join America in its Tenth Crusade against Islam - and on balance, Italy would be even less reluctant to join in than most of the rest of Europe (certainly less reluctant than France and Belgium).

I do not really fear a Islamist ensurgance in Albania or Bosnia for that matter, both places have large chirstian minorities or majorites and the Muslims are not very devout. Also the Bosnians and Albanians like the Americians for saving them from the Serbs.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Something like that might yet happen. The Europeans are trying to distance themselves from America, but to the rest of the world, America and western Europe (and Australia, NZ, and Canada) all look like 'the West'.

When the right kind of people are in power, the US can expect resonable levels of support from just about every European nation, expect France and a few small ones. At least on a political elite level, the Europeans are more pro-americian, if you see them on a popular level.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

I do not really fear a Islamist ensurgance in Albania or Bosnia for that matter, both places have large chirstian minorities or majorites and the Muslims are not very devout. Also the Bosnians and Albanians like the Americians for saving them from the Serbs.

Oh, really? Then why was there open dancing in the streets and celebratory gunshots fired into the air in both Sarajevo and Tirana after 9/11 happened? By contrast, a candlelight vigil was held in downtown Belgrade - and not surprisingly, one of Serbia's largest daily newspapers carried this headline the next day: "America, We Told You So!" (Can you blame them?).

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

One possible answer to my question could be that the next Arab-Israeli War might not remain localized, as in the past, but might well balloon into a Islamo-Western World War III, with astonishing speed. Thus, the very survival of Israel could become all too relevant to Italy's prospects, with equally astonishing speed.

titus:A.los speaking

The next 9-11 style on U.S/E.U. soil from Al-Qaeda will bring in this

scenario. On Pat Buchanans Death of the West, he warns he warns by

the next 2t, Italy will no longer be Italian, but "MUSLIM".

Turks, Algerians, Egyptians and Sub-Sah Africans have swam illiegally

into Italian soil.

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

One possible answer to my question could be that the next Arab-Israeli War might not remain localized, as in the past, but might well balloon into a Islamo-Western World War III, with astonishing speed. Thus, the very survival of Israel could become all too relevant to Italy's prospects, with equally astonishing speed.

titus:A.los speaking

The next 9-11 style on U.S/E.U. soil from Al-Qaeda will bring in this

scenario. On Pat Buchanans Death of the West, he warns he warns by

the next 2t, Italy will no longer be Italian, but "MUSLIM".

Turks, Algerians, Egyptians and Sub-Sah Africans have swam illiegally

into Italian soil.

My question is how old does Italy's Millennials range from?

Probably much younger than the Americans still.

My question is how old does Italy's Millennials range from?

Probably much younger than the Americans still.

here's another crook....


Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Italy, where anyone who doesn't agree with mdeia mogul Silvio Berlusconi is a liberal, er, communist.

Court Deliberates in Berlusconi Trial

Thu Dec 9, 2:32 PM ET Europe - AP


By VICTOR L. SIMPSON, Associated Press Writer

MILAN, Italy - A court began deliberations Thursday in Premier Silvio Berlusconi's long-running corruption trial, with the billionaire politician at risk of becoming the first sitting Italian leader to be convicted on criminal charges.


The three-judge panel said a verdict could be expected as early as Friday. Prosecutors have asked that Berlusconi, who is accused of bribing judges, be imprisoned for eight years.


Berlusconi, who has maintained his innocence and says he is the target of leftist prosecutors, was not in court during the brief public session before the judges retired to their chambers. He has made only three appearances since the trial began nearly five years ago.


In Rome at a news conference on an unrelated subject, Berlusconi said he was too busy with official duties to follow the trial, read defense memos or even meet with lawyers.


"I have absolute serenity there won't be a sentence that would change today's political situation," Berlusconi said, denying allegations of bribing judges and expressing exasperation with the case.


"For (enduring) this trial, I deserve a medal," he said.


One of his lawyers, Niccolo Ghedini, also kept an upbeat air, telling reporters that "all the conditions for an acquittal are there."


Berlusconi, whose media empire has made him Italy's richest man, has given no indication whether he would step down if convicted. He would certainly face calls from the center-left opposition to do so.


He would not, however, face any immediate risk of being put behind bars. Italy's slow-moving justice system allows for two appeals before a sentence must be served.


Nonetheless, even his lawyers have acknowledged the delicacy of the case. The verdict, said defense lawyer Gaetano Pecorella, "could change the history of this country and leave a mark on Italy's image."


Italy is a Group of Eight country with close ties to Washington, which counts on Italy's participation in the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq (news - web sites) despite wide public opposition in Italy to the war. Berlusconi has forged a friendship with President Bush (news - web sites), and the Italian leader is due to make a high-profile visit to Washington next week.


At the core of the case is the sale in the 1980s of a state food conglomerate, SME, a decade before Berlusconi entered politics.


In 1985, judges blocked the sale of SME to the Buitoni group led by Carlo De Benedetti, a top Italian industrialist, and ruled in favor of a group of magnates including Berlusconi.


The prosecution alleged that Berlusconi gave money to one of his close associates, Cesare Previti, to bribe judges in Rome in an unsuccessful bid to buy the conglomerate.


On a second count in the trial, Berlusconi is accused of keeping another Rome judge, Renato Squillante, on his payroll in case of criminal charges against him stemming from his business empire.


Defense lawyers reject this accusation as well, and say prosecutors have failed to detail cases in which Squillante could have been of use to Berlusconi.


Prosecutors argued for conviction on both counts of corruption and asked for a total sentence of eight years. Conviction on either count could bring a sentence of one to five years.

Of all the other European nations distancing themselves

from America, Italy is still loyal to Pres.Bush and USA.

Silvio Berlusconi is a strong supporter of Bush and an ally

on the war on terror. Italy is in the third turning, yes

they have culture wars going on their right now. Italy is

more Red Zone than some of the other European countries

like Sweden, Germany, Britain and Holland whom are much more

Blue Zone in the culture wars.