Pesach seems at first (and second, and third) blush to be about Big Things. You don’t get much bigger than slavery and freedom, than exodus and liberation. But reading the story reminds us that most, if not all, big things are composed of an array of little things. The happenstance witness of an injustice leads to an intervention that ultimately changes history; a lost animal leads to an encounter with God; Nachshon’s boldness enables the crossing of the sea.
Here are some little things of our own time that add up to a Big Thing, a big thing that endangers Israel’s future.
In 1965, I was one of four or five American Jews who met with then-prime minister Levi Eshkol. During the course of our meeting, one of Eshkol’s aides entered the room and handed him a report, apparently a report he’d ordered up on demographic developments in the Galilee region — specifically, its large and growing Arab majority. Eshkol glanced at it, and whether because he did not realize there were Hebrew-speakers among his visitors or because he did not realize the importance of what he was saying, remarked to his aide, “Ah, then we’d best accelerate the program for Judaizing the Galilee.” No talk of greater autonomy for the Arab citizens of Israel, no talk of building bridges between Arabs and Jews, Israelis all. Just: Let’s make sure to outnumber them.
Little thing: The words of Israel’s anthem, “Hatikvah,” are not words that are sing-able by Arab citizens of the state. A Jewish soul that yearns, a 2,000-year-old dream? These are lyrics for Jews to sing and mean, but no Arab can even lip-sync them.
Little thing: Umm al-Fahm. It is the largest city in the heavily Arab Wadi Ara region, that area of Israel the new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, wants to transfer to a future Palestinian state (in return for Israeli sovereignty over Jewish settlement blocs now part of the West Bank). Umm al-Fahm has become, in many ways, the focal point for the rising tension between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs.
On March 24, Baruch Marzel, a notorious Israeli provocateur who spent 10 years as top deputy to the notorious Meir Kahane — and who makes Avigdor Lieberman seem like an enlightened moderate — led a demonstration in Umm al-Fahm. Marzel and some 50 others — kept four football fields distant from the residential sections of Umm al-Fahm, with 2,500 police deployed to prevent violence — were, in effect, playing the race card. And, predictably, there was violence. Some Palestinians threw stones at the demonstrators from nearby rooftops, the police intervened, there were some injuries, and for several hours after Marzel and his people had done their 30 minutes of provocation, unrest persisted.
Umm al-Fahm is often described as a hotbed of Palestinian nationalism. But it is a curious kind of nationalism: The residents of Umm al-Fahm have repeatedly asserted their desire to remain part of Israel. Their preference, of course, is for an Israel that is “a state of all its citizens” rather than a Jewish state, but, one way or another, they are Israeli citizens, even as they feel themselves connected to the larger Palestinian people.
Altogether, the March 24 demonstration was a shabby affair. Not many demonstrators (their number limited by the police), not so many stone-throwers, a few handfuls of Jewish counter-demonstrators, residents of nearby towns who have ongoing relationships with Umm al- Fahm, plus a cohort of Peace Now activists. Not much ado about nothing; little ado, in fact, but about something, something big and growing — to wit, the unresolved dilemma of the place of some 20% of Israel’s people (i.e., Palestinian citizens of Israel) in the Jewish state.
But do not despair. Pesach forbids despair. On April 5, a group of Orthodox Jews, largely from Rehovot, along with New Israel Fund activists, held yet another demonstration in Umm al-Fahm, this to counter the Marzel provocation. They came with signs of friendship and inclusion, and they were greeted by the residents with flowers.
There are, in fact, hundreds of groups in Israel that in one way or another engage in bridge-building, seeking reconciliation between Arabs and Jews. The tides of the day move in quite the opposite direction; inter-communal suspicion and hostility grow, the belief in peace becomes more and more porous, dreamy. And those hundreds of groups that persist in reaching out, in creating and sustaining real relationships are, typically, small, and in the prevailing climate perhaps even fringy.
But: Not far from Umm al-Fahm, there’s an Arab town called Kafr Kara. In Kafr Kara, there’s a bilingual school — Bridge Over the Wadi, it’s called — where some 200 children, Jewish and Arab, learn together. It’s one of four such schools sponsored by Hand in Hand, an Israeli NGO that refuses to concede the future to the likes of Marzel.
And who can safely say that the future belongs to Marzel and Lieberman rather than to Hand in Hand and others of similar noble disposition?
Let's remember the memo by Theodor Meron, Israel's legal advisor, which says that the settlements were illegal from the beginning. Thanks to Gershom Gorenberg for finding it:
Israel took control of and occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip after the 6 Day War in June 1967. The legal adviser to the Israeli government, Theodor Meron, delivered an opinion on a question asked by the Prime Minister's Office regarding the legality of civilian settlement in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. His conclusion, simply stated in the cover note to the opinion, was that "civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention". http://www.soas.ac.uk/lawpeacemideast/resources
Leonard Fein mentions that the words of Ha-Tiqva are meant only for Jews. But what is his conclusion? Is he hinting that there should be a new national anthem that both Jews and Arabs could sing together? Well, perhaps he hasn't given another "little thing" some thought: "Israel" is the name of the Jewish people. Should we now consider changing the name of the state in order to have a more inclusive name? And what about the flag? It has a Magen-David on it, and its blue stripes are the symbol of the "ptil-tkhelet" (the blue string of the tallit as described in the Torah). And what about the very symbol of the state? It is an exact copy of the menorah that appears on Titus' Arch in Rome. In other words, it is meant to evoke the memory of the destruction of the Temple and the Jewish Exile - and therefore to symbolize the age-old aspiration to return to Jerusalem. This symbol appears on all our coins. Should we consider changing this symbolism as well? Would the changing of symbols lessen the conflict of interests between two national identities?
I really don't know why Mr Fein has even raised the issue of Ha-Tiqva. From reading his weekly column, it's clear that he agrees to the existence of a Jewish state and that this Jewish state is the central drama of contemporary Jewish history. There is no need to feel uneasy about its obvious Jewish expressiveness. Indeed, feeling uncomfortable about ourselves is no "little thing".
France is the homeland of the French people, but they don't have a right to pass laws that discriminate against other people.
Germany is the homeland of the German people, but they don't have a right to pass laws that discriminate against other people.
So even if Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, they don't have a right to pass laws that discriminate against other people.
Or do you believe that the Germans had a right to pass the Nuremburg laws?
What laws would that be Norman. Give me another example where a minority that is hostile to the very existence of the country is treated has well as arabs in Israel. Just one
So, Bill, you are saying that if the German Jews were hostile to the very existence of Nazi Germany, the Nazis had a right to treat the Jews the way the Israelis are treating the Palestinians?
Norman - You should keep the Holocaust imagery out of the political debates. Criticize whatever it is that you wish to criticize in its own context. Evoking comparisons with the Holocaust era would mean that either you are very ignorant of this central chapter in Jewish history - or you are trying to be extremely hostile (beyond the realm of real criticism).
Israel is a state that was created for the Jewish people as a homeland for the Jews thougout the wold as a refuge from the most horendous crime ever commited against Human Race.
Anything the various Governments do to protect this country from any form of threat is not only reasonable but is absolutely neccesary. If the Arab Population, by their support of enemy Arab or non Arab entities, should be subject to Laws of the State that proposes to protect the country from these vile traitorus actions.
You, sitting comfortably in the USA, can preach your magnanamous noble crap about rights of minority populations that preach traitorus actions to its own country have probably never experience the need to confront a survival situation for yourself or your country. When that happens your noble thoughts go down the toilet and you do what you have to do to survive. WW II proved that.
Norman, one other point I had no room for in my first post, is that if you have served your Country in time of survival I retract the statement about your sitting safely in the USA so you can be magnanamous about minority rights. Otherwise I will consider you to to be a Leftist, Liberal, Progressive, J Street. self hating Jew which you probably are.
Norman, one other point I had no room for in my first post, is that if you have served your Country in time of survival I retract the statement about your sitting safely in the USA so you can be magnanamous about minority rights. Otherwise I will consider you to to be a Leftist, Liberal, Progressive, J Street. self hating Jew which you probably are.
Leonard-Those of us who support J Street love being Jewish and Medinat Yisrael as well. Please do not lower yourself by using such hateful rhetoric.
Sephardiman:
I am long past the age of being fearful of using hateful language. I believe it is pragmatic language, and you who support J Street are of the kind of Jew that Germany had prior to the Holacuast. You believe foolishly that you can assimilate into a Gentile Society and you will be accepted for what you are rather then thw label that is attached to you at birth.
My History goes back to years before WW II, for which I fought 3 1/2 years. I was sent to the Pacific and as a good soldier I caaried out my assignments there. If you didn't think we were fighting for our survival as a Jew, even more so then the non Jew Soldier, you would have missed historicaly what would have happened to the rest of the Jews world wide.
This world, I am convinced, will always be fearful of Jewish people for certainly my lifetime and certainly yours. Get used to it. The only thing that will save us a is a tough, strong military that are Enimies are fearful of. Apeasement, will lead to disaster as it did for Britain, and EU, and to date has caused untol misery for Israel. Finaly, Israelie realize that "might is right" and we will survive if we remain stronger nad make them more fearful of what will happen if they attempt Israel's destruction. I have been a hawk ever since I was belittled as a kid for being a Jew. For your information, J Street was formed as a counter weight to Aipac, who has done more for Israel's survival then any Organization that I am aware of and I am aware of most. I smell a "shah" jew somewhere here. If you know what a "shah" Jew is then you know where I am coming from.
thank for your service mr.eisenstein.Aipac people if they love israel so much why don't they move there.you say we nonjews fear jews well look at pollard the rosenbergs,stealing of nuclear material,etc.
Members of my mother's village were killed during the pogroms, and during the Second World War.
I met people who fought in the Warsaw Ghetto, and their lesson for me was "Never again!" For them, "Never again" means that, as Jews, we should fight to make sure no one will ever treat human beings the way the Nazis treated Jews. That is the lesson they taught me about what you call the Holocaust.
That's why Jews fought against the Vietnam war.
That's why Jews founded Amnesty International.
Israel gives certain rights to Jews that it denies to its Arab citizens, such as the right to live and own land in certain places. That's racism. That's what the Nazis did to the Jews. The Nazis starved the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, just as the Israelis are starving the Palestinians. That's wrong. We as Jews must fight it.
The IDF is killing Palestinian children, just as the Nazis killed Jewish children. You don't have the excuse of not knowing. It's in the Amnesty International reports. http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE02/005/2002 There is no difference between Nazis killing innocent children and Jews killing innocent children. I am morally obligated as a Jew to fight them both. That's what the Warsaw Ghetto fighters taught me, and they're the ones I follow.
If you don't like the Holocaust comparisons, make the Israeli government to stop killing children, and we won't have grounds to compare them to the Holocaust.
Mr Eisenstein sees Israel as a refuge for the Jewish people in the wake of the Holocaust. One hears this view very often. Indeed, it is true that the majority of Holocaust survivors arrived in Israel - and yet refuge is not the essence of modern Israel. Tel-Aviv, "the first Hebrew city", is today celebrating 100 years since its founding. This celebration hints at the very character of the modern-day return to Zion. The revival of Hebrew and the creation of a Jewish culture based on a Hebrew-speaking society - this is the true drama of Israel's renaissance.
Norman - Your opinions are based on hostility towards Israel. You don't feel such a hostility towards the USA, hence you wouldn't evoke the memory of the Holocaust when protesting the death of innocents in the war in Iraq, for example. For reasonable people, any comparison with Nazi Germany is seen as ludicrous, based on total ignorance of a rather recent historic reality. The comparison is made only in the framework of hate propaganda. The really interesting question is a sociological one: why is it that a son of a Holocaust survivor is himself dedicated to hate-propaganda?
Members of my mother's village were killed during the pogroms, and during the Second World War.
I met people who fought in the Warsaw Ghetto, and their lesson for me was "Never again!" For them, "Never again" means that, as Jews, we should fight to make sure no one will ever treat human beings the way the Nazis treated Jews. That is the lesson they taught me about what you call the Holocaust.
That's why Jews fought against the Vietnam war.
That's why Jews founded Amnesty International.
Israel gives certain rights to Jews that it denies to its Arab citizens, such as the right to live and own land in certain places. That's racism. That's what the Nazis did to the Jews. The Nazis starved the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, just as the Israelis are starving the Palestinians. That's wrong. We as Jews must fight it.
The IDF is killing Palestinian children, just as the Nazis killed Jewish children. You don't have the excuse of not knowing. It's in the Amnesty International reports. http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE02/005/2002 There is no difference between Nazis killing innocent children and Jews killing innocent children. I am morally obligated as a Jew to fight them both. That's what the Warsaw Ghetto fighters taught me, and they're the ones I follow.
If you don't like the Holocaust comparisons, make the Israeli government to stop killing children, and we won't have grounds to compare them to the Holocaust.
Mr. Eisenstein-I find J Street to be a patriotic alternative to the dual loyalism espoused by groups like AIPAC. There is no grand narrative to the Middle East question. You ultra-montaigne Zionists are not the only people who love Medinat Yisrael, and the "might is right" paradigm created the mess the US now finds itself in Iraq. At some point the Israelis and Palestinians will reach a reasonable settlement. When that happens, I hope the "Arutz 7" crowd will recognize their mistakes, among them their sorry invalidation of everyone who doesn't agree with them.
I think both Norman and Mr. Eisenstein outcry their cri-de-coeur out of despair, and without bothering about any discussion at all. In some dimension, one could contemplate Mr. Eisenstein's slogan "might is right" more seriously, if Israel would be as populous and as vast as, say, China. However, Israel remains Israel, together with its divided Diaspora making a population of hardly a Hungary; it dictates totally different approach, whatever the boiling feelings of Mr. Eisenberg would be.
Norman: Israel is indeed a merciless mess of problems; your comparisons with the Nazis only prevent serious struggle for a long-awaited change.
Sephardiman: I am afraid Israelis and Palestinians will not achieve a peace among them in any foreseeable future at all. The completely confused Israelis are in the grip of their religious right-wingers (the settlers and the supporting army structure) and the Palestinians are in the grip of the formidable Hamas religious doctrine, and its military arm. The peace can come only when our region becomes part of a strong outside military supervision, with entirely newly made structures for Palestinian armed forces, and with restructuring of Israeli society. Meanwhile nobody has the right vision for that, and we shall bleed and bleed (and Norman will be angry) and some will run out.
Shlomo - People like to equate our society with Palestinian society, as if they are mirror images. Perhaps, it is PC to give each side its equal share of the blame. It's not the true picture of the situation. We are not in the grip of the religious right (a false parallel to the Hamas which is an Islamic regime). Israel has made the decision in the past to evacuate territory, and this evacuation was done despite the very strong protest of the religious right. We saw this in the evacuation of Sinai in 1982, and in the evacuation of Gaza in 2005. The government has the power and the ability to impose its decisions on all of Israeli society. If there would be a peace treaty, the government would impose its full implementation, including the evacuation of settlers. Religious soldiers, probably with tears in their eyes, would also follow orders and participate in the dramatic decision of the majority.
It is a conflict about legitimacy. So far, the Palestinian side rejects the legitimacy of the Yishuv (the Hebrew-speaking community that sees itself as a nation, and is therefore entitled to self-determination).
It is a very low-intensity conflict. The reason is obvious. The conflict is perceived as a multi-generation confrontation, and no one can live in a reality of real warfare as a permanent fact of life. Hence, the war is very moderate. It might flare up for a brief moment (a few weeks at most), and then it returns to a level that is much less intensive than the crime level in an American city. Most of the animosity is expressed in the realm of propaganda (i.e. the struggle over legitimacy).
A cooperative peace is the only hope for Israeli and Palestinian security and prosperity. The current suicidal stupidity of both is of concern to all, but Israel’s honor is of concern only to us Jews.
Mr. Eisenstein: Many of us are Zionists because we still hope that Israel will lead the moral and cultural advance of Judaism. Presently, however, we have the policies and actions that you justify: corruption and defiance of the law by government agencies; wanton destruction of Palestinian crops; assaults upon territory Palestinians and upon Palestinian-Israeli citizens; theft of Palestinian lands, and oppression of Palestinian children.
By the criteria of Jewish morality, these actions are abominable, and, by advocating them, you have lost your right to call yourself a Jew. Please, stop and thereby ease our shame.
Joel A. Levitt - You do not have the right to attack the Jewish identity of Mr. Eisenstein. You have the right to debate with him, but he is still part of the Jewish story. By the way, I don't agree with a word that you say either. Your description of Israel is total nonsense. This is an armed conflict, so both sides resort to some level of violence. Israel uses force in a reasonable attempt to protect its citizens, but all in all the level of violence is very low. You speak of "the criteria of Jewish morality". I suppose if you live in a Jewish community that does not have to make any life-and-death decisions, then your community doesn't have any moral dilemmas nor does it make any bad decisions. How convenient. Our community faces a hostile world, and we have to make dramatic life-and-death decisions. I think that we do a fine job (although there is always room for criticism).
I don't really know what you mean by saying that "many of us are Zionists". I always thought that Zionists were the ones who actually take upon themselves to shoulder the responsibilities of Israel's society. They are the ones who actually shape our society, make its tough decisions, and face the consequences thereof. Now, I see that a Zionist for you is merely one who hopes "that Israel will lead the moral and cultural advance of Judaism". No responsibility, no personal commitments, no sharing the burdens of Jewish sovereignty. It's not a very impressive definition of an ideology that is meant to change the reality of the Jewish collective existence.
Yehudah: The closest that I have come to physical involvement in Israel was to be unable to get from Greece to Israel during the Six Day War. As to other involvement, why, other than Zionism, do you think that I bother with columns like this or with responding to you?
You may agree or disagree with my judgment of Mr. Eisenstein, but who are you to think that you can define my rights?
Now as to important matters, the wanton destruction of Palestinian crops, assaults upon territory Palestinians and upon Palestinian-Israeli citizens and the theft of Palestinian lands have nothing whatever to do with, as you put it, Israel’s “attempt to protect its citizens” or with its need to “make dramatic life-and-death decisions.”
From your comments, it is clear that you are not stupid; apparently, you think that the rest of us are.
No one is questioning your IQ, Joel, however I do raise a question as to your understanding of the conflict. That's not quite as unusual or strange as your questioning the Jewish identity of Mr Eisenstein. As to your understanding of the Zionist ideal - here too I question the seriousness of your definitions. Zionism does not mean that you express concerns or pass judgment while someone else has to perform. Call yourself a "concerned Jew", and that would be fine. A person who almost reached Israel during the Six-Day War is worthy of praise for his sincere concern, but it's not quite the same involvement as one who actually participates in this drama. Did you succeed in coming here since then?
I deeply respect Mr. Levitt's indignation. His ideals are meant to serve human society - Israelis of all kinds, and the Palestinians - in the best way. Yehuda, I did not suggest to look at the Israelis and Palestinians as the mirror images; however, your mentioning of this concept is partially right: in the eyes of legitimacy-shaping international community, the Israelis and the Palestinians are if not mirror images than Siam twins.
And this touches your another observation, that Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a very moderate low-intensity war (whatever the meaning of the words "very moderate" would be). Yes, in comparison with Iran-Iraq war of the eighties it is a low-intensity conflict. Nevertheless, its wounds are very deep. It is a conflict of Siam twins – its attrition causes mental degradation to all. It exhausts everybody even in the intermissions between wars. The State of Israel cannot function as an enclave whose undeclared but very real purpose is to degenerate Jews (and Palestinians en route). But in practice this is what happens (and hundreds of thousands of Israelis who left for USA could serve as the best evidence for that). We are here in fact victims of our own grandiose folly.
Every discussion that disregards the human dignity and his (her) right to a decent, self-actualizing life in the context of Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its possible solution, and speaks "for the nation", or "for survival" actually indicates that human being is not at the centre of such discussion; it is a negative input in already demented discourse.
The settlers and the associated army structure, Yehuda, are tremendously strong. Only Sharon who commanded the imagination of the majority of Israelis with savage force could actualize evacuation (and in 2005 he performed truly idiotically). There are not only tears of religious soldiers involved in evacuations. There is the humiliation of the settlers themselves, and there are killings of innocent Arabs to prevent withdrawals. There is acute bullying pressure of the settlers on the army officers and on Palestinians, and on the media, and on the education system to prevent any evacuation. And they are helped by many "idealist" American Jews, by their money and by their loudspeakers. It is all-embracing, Orwellian indeed; the time has come to realize it, Yehuda. Unless you look at it without wanting to see.
To Joel Levitt:
In Fact I believe you are an "Almost Zionist" by your own definition. Anyone who believes that Zionism means Advancing Moral and Cultural elements of Judaism is being a Zionist is either very niave or is not aware of what the real world is all about. How dare you judge my Jewish Creedentials. In that comment you expose what a phony pseudo elitist who is the know all of what anyone is. I called you an almost Zionist because, by your own words, you almost reached Israel durring the Six Day War. You remind me of the almost Hero who almost saved the child from drowning or the Almost,Almost, Almost. Almost don't count. Surprised you even made that statement. Shows what courage you really have. One more question, are you an Academic? You sure sound like one. You live in a world of imagination, filled with noble causes that don't exist in the real world. Now don't get me wrong. Some of my best friends are academics. I myself received a Bachelors degree back in 46 when any College Degree meant something. It is the current Ivory Tower "intelects" that get me going. As for Shlomo, I will take care of in my Post II
Shlomo: Your knowledge of Military History is miniscule. When Yehuda speaks of Low Intensity he speaks of the Skirmishes, not including the 1948 WAR, or the Six Day War, or even the 73 War. These were Wars for Israels very existence. If they lost there would be no second chance. Since then the 1st and 2nd Lebanon Wars were not of the same nature. These were not Wars of finality. Also true of the Gaza War, and the Infatadahs. These could be classed as low intensity, and I don't want to call them Wars. Now calling the Two Iraq Wars anything like high intensity actions and I am identifying Intensity with casualties inflicted. The first Iraq War had 123 Americans killed. Rather very low intensity as far as Americans went. Not so for the Iraqies. The second Iraq War has had 5000 casualties in five years. Thats 1000 deaths per year, hardly high Intensive. In WW II at IWO JIMA we had 7000 killed in three days with 30,000 wounded over 23 days. Thats high intensity. From your comment to Yehuda I gather you are a Sabra. Did you take part in any of the Israelie Wars? If so you know that there are no good Wars. For those who partake it is hell on Earth for periods of time. Being a soldier you would know that Combat envolves a great deal of waiting, and then all hell breaks out. Consequently, any combat you took part in was not low intensity. All fighting is high intensity but statistically high intensity is high casualties Yehuda, amen to everything you wrote. Appreciate it.
Mr. Eisenberg, Thank you for taking care of me. Your comments are really informative for everyone who did not participate in ground battles. However please read again what I have written, good? Regarding (and contrasting) the term "low-intensity" I wrote about Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988. Your comments completely miss the point.
Shlomo: Your knowledge of Military History is miniscule. When Yehuda speaks of Low Intensity he speaks of the Skirmishes, not including the 1948 WAR, or the Six Day War, or even the 73 War. These were Wars for Israels very existence. If they lost there would be no second chance. Since then the 1st and 2nd Lebanon Wars were not of the same nature. These were not Wars of finality. Also true of the Gaza War, and the Infatadahs. These could be classed as low intensity, and I don't want to call them Wars. Now calling the Two Iraq Wars anything like high intensity actions and I am identifying Intensity with casualties inflicted. The first Iraq War had 123 Americans killed. Rather very low intensity as far as Americans went. Not so for the Iraqies. The second Iraq War has had 5000 casualties in five years. Thats 1000 deaths per year, hardly high Intensive. In WW II at IWO JIMA we had 7000 killed in three days with 30,000 wounded over 23 days. Thats high intensity. From your comment to Yehuda I gather you are a Sabra. Did you take part in any of the Israelie Wars? If so you know that there are no good Wars. For those who partake it is hell on Earth for periods of time. Being a soldier you would know that Combat envolves a great deal of waiting, and then all hell breaks out. Consequently, any combat you took part in was not low intensity. All fighting is high intensity but statistically high intensity is high casualties Yehuda, amen to everything you wrote. Appreciate it.
Mr. Eisenstein, Please forgive me for misspelling your name. For some reason you repeat your posts. As I have indicated, you miss the point.
Shlomo, if I repeat myself it is for emphasis. You and Joel have a nice day.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.