Mr. Rosenberg, I am interested in your assertions. I despise bigotry and having been a victim of anti-semitism i am particularly sensitive to this (in my opinion). Would you please be specific. Where has anti-semitism specifically occurred? Greenbaum for example has accused me of being anti-semitic (go look it up on the Baer post "Where is W"? Is my post the sort of remark you are referring to. Or is this a blanket charge? Or are there a lot of anti-semitic comments that are beyond the pale? Which is it? Can you please give some specifics?

I very much appreciate you writing this essay of your impressions and Josh Marshall giving voice to it with front-page placement.

Ir seems to me that it has been typical for most political blog sites to ignore the hate of all kinds being exchanged in comments under each post in the interests of "freedom of speech." But if the main contributors never address or challenge the nastiness going on beneath their publications, all they end up doing is creating two classes, one having civilized discourse via links back to other contributors's posts, and the other having bar room brawls that often ignore the original framing. The problem is that it is not just ugly, the problem is that there is no chance of learning and improvement. If you don't want to confront the "noise" your own writing produces once in a while, why are you doing it? Just to talk to others of your same "class"? The public interactivity of the "net" brings more responsibilties for writers, no? Not to just ignore like private hate mail?

You know, Mr. Rosenberg, the point of this site is to encourage and foster free, intelligent (hopefully), and calm discussion of political ideas, even difficult ones. I can think of no quicker way to corrupt that purpose than this type of screed. I have no doubt that many people and/or posters have crossed the line into anti-semitism, but you make no effort to identify those, or to cull out those posters who disagreed with you for legitimate reasons. By blasting out indiscriminately in this manner, you've certainly left the implication that to criticize your earlier post is to be a "Jew-hater." I'm sure you understand that this is a tactic that is not unknown in the annals of debate over the Middle East.

You're obviously offended by what some people have written you, and no doubt in some cases you have every right to be. But I think you have a higher responsibility, as one who has gotten prominent placement here, to respond in a more reasoned, careful manner. Your response, in other words, was disproportionate and undifferentiated, and I for one find it wholly inappropriate. Perhaps you should count to 10 before your next post.

Now I understand you Jew-haters out there prefer the term anti-Zionist. Yeah, yeah. But this litle device is about as convincing as when white supremacists, homophobes and other haters argue over semantics. If you want to see the State of Israel eliminated, a nation with 6 million Jews living in it, you are advocating the mass murder of Jews. And you know that.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Aren't many of the Aryan Nation types big supporters of wars and bombing brown people?

Many on this site admire the courage of Uri Avnery and Gush Shalom.

Photo's of peace demonstrations in Israel by Rachel Avnery at link. 

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

I hope everyone just heard the Prime Minister of Lebanon's plea to the world to be rescued from the predatory Zionist entity - the Butchers of Beruit  

How long America must we fund this criminal enterprise and tolerate their insults?

Letter From IsraeL
The Great Fiasco - The Army Wanted Action

Ran HaCohen

Hosea 8-14

Set the trumpet to your lips! One like a vulture is over the house of the Lord, because they have broken my covenant, and transgressed my law. 2Israel cries to me, “My God, we—Israel—know you!” 3Israel has spurned the good; the enemy shall pursue him. 4They made kings, but not through me; they set up princes, but without my knowledge. With their silver and gold they made idols for their own destruction. 5Your calf is rejected, O Samaria. My anger burns against them. How long will they be incapable of innocence? 6For it is from Israel, an artisan made it; it is not God. The calf of Samaria shall be broken to pieces. 7For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind. The standing grain has no heads, it shall yield no meal; if it were to yield, foreigners would devour it.

Securing the Realm
Israel Crosses the Line

Israel Bombs Civilian Convoy, 17 Killed

Relations between the United States and Israel are crucial to stability in the Middle East, where the road to peace and prosperity continues to be fraught with many obstacles.  In this regard, Congress has placed considerable importance on the maintenance of a close and supportive relationship with Israel. Dianne Feinstein

If you want to see the State of Israel eliminated, a nation with 6 million Jews living in it, you are advocating the mass murder of Jews. M.J.Rosenberg

Substitute "whites" for "Jews", and isn't that what the Nasionale Party of South Africa said for forty some years?

Is the advocacy of a single-state solution, by definition, anti-Semitic?

N.B. "6 million Jews living in [Israel]" -- unlikely to be accurate but a tres sneaky way of reminding us of the Holocaust. 

Oops! Thanks, I should have provided the link.

Yet again with the generic "some posts" etc. The classic way to end all debate and paint all your opponents as racists.

Unless you cite specific posts to object to then your entire rant is worthless and you are simply trying to shut down debate.

Well, frankly, I am glad to see this:

What's my definition of anti-semite? Simple, you simply want the Jews dead. You advocate reform or revolution everywhere else but for Israel only destruction. And you love chortling over the deaths of six million Jews in the holocaust?

Why am I glad to see it?   Because I am sick of Israel constantly provoking problems in the world.  I am sick of Israel getting the highest per capita financial aid from us, which they then use to build up their army and weapons.  I am sick of the attitudes of both victimization and superiority that comes from their every proclamation. 

I am glad to see your definition because I was sure you would label me a "jew hater" or "anti-semite" before I read it.  I don't want jews dead.  I don't hate jews, nor do I wish them so much as bad luck!  I want them to behave like civilized human beings.  I don't think anything about the holocaust was funny, and I don't think it is funny what the Isrealis are doing to the Palestinians, which is another kind of holocaust.

By the way, I think that over in Iraq, where "people" are beheading those they disagree with are also uncivilized and  I can't imagine what is wrong with their minds that they gleefully kill and maim.  I don't wish them dead either.  I also want them to behave like civilized human beings.

Sometimes I fantasize that a chemical cloud would render everyone in the Middle East with religious amnesia.  No one would be able to remember who they hate.  What a concept! 

Jan Knaus

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

It's so funny I forget to laugh...the US Sec of State gets bitch-slapped by the cimrinal sadist Olmert and Bush like a puppet on Israel's string, as the world's condemnation builds and the PM of Lebanon cries for help, what do we hear from Rosenberg???

The same old Lobby Shit

Anti-Semitisim Lives!

But what I see here is pure and simple race hatred. Frankly, if I saw any of you walking down the street, I'd hide my kids. You are old fashioned anti-semites, what my father-in-law would have called pogromchiks. I suspect Jews are not the only minority you despise. Haters don't usually confine themselves to one group.

 What is HERE?  Are you saying that you see anti-semites when you walk down the street, and hide your kids from them?

Man, you are at LEAST paranoid, and a very hate-filled person yourself.  You need to get a grip, grow up, and maybe move somewhere (like a jewish gated community) where you will not feel so fearful. 

Jan Knaus

Sorry to torture you with another anecdote, Howard, but you reminded me of Captain Shestople.  He worked for the Post Engineers in Cholon, and one morning he showed up and someone had put a swastika on the glass of his cubicle.  He was devastated - I was there.  I could just see him sink into himself, as if someone had let all the air out of him. But I'll tell you, about everyone in the office consoled him.  I was really impressed.

Neoboho

Artappraiser: …some people need to be told how ugly they sound to some others.

Mr. Rosenberg (and your apologists)-this is ugly:

Simple, you simply want the Jews dead. You advocate reform or revolution everywhere else but for Israel only destruction. And you love chortling over the deaths of six million Jews in the holocaust?

… about as convincing as when white supremacists, homophobes and other haters argue over semantics. If you want to see the State of Israel eliminated, a nation with 6 million Jews living in it, you are advocating the mass murder of Jews.But what I see here is pure and simple race hatred.

Frankly, if I saw any of you walking down the street, I'd hide my kids. You are old fashioned anti-semites, what my father-in-law would have called pogromchiks. I suspect Jews are not the only minority you despise. Haters don't usually confine themselves to one group. Get yourselves over to Aryan Nation where you belong.

For those who are stressing a requirement of specific examples from Mr. Rosenberg to go along with his interpretation, note that there aren't any here, either. Though not using the anti-Semitism word, he doesn't limit it to hatred of Israel, using the term "to see Jewish evil":

....But on a day like today I see a different picture, though magified perhaps by the febrile intensity of email. It comes when I'm again exposed to the other side of the coin. American politics leans heavily in Israel's direction; and so does the American media. But there is out there a broad constituency of ignorant and malevolent hatred of Israel and, really, Israelis, that, I think, masks its malevolence even to itself through being awash its own self-righteousness. I think I understand the Palestinians' rage. In any case, I respect it. For this trash from Americans who only seem able to see Jewish evil in the midst of this protracted conflict I can't have anything but contempt. And it puts me on my guard.

-- Josh Marshall
Talking Points Memo
July 15, 2006 -- 12:40 AM EST

I'd suggest that Jews get a grip on demographics and consider how far you can push the overwhelming majority of Americans.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Obviously you didn't agree with my comment in the original thread about the dangers of positioning. What's afoot here, in my opinion, is the arrival at a critical discursive crossroad - that to challenge the primacy of Israeli policy is or is not equivalent to challenging the existence of the state.

Here's my concession to your arugment: some commenters here are possibly not looking at the far reaching implications of their challenge to existing policies. It's a complex situation. People (meaning us here at TPMC) bring all sorts of subsiderary issues to the table, which in turn shape individual positions. It's complex to the degree that there is no totalizing super-position, such as "anti-semitism".

I think, therefore, that you are correct to remind everyone that a certain position if played out in real-world politics whould destroy Israel. But I just don't think the clarion "anti-semitism" can substitute argumentation and debate.

Why don't you instead ask participants here "How many of you support the notion of the survival of the Jewish State, Israel?" It's obvious that the overwhelming majority would support that. Maybe everyone, in fact.

That said, any of us - perhaps by measure of our expertise - are apt to to write something here that someone with greater expertise would see as dangerous to the survival of the Jewish State. Perhaps we are more concerned with indirect issues such as the eruption of chaos in Western Asia, or fear an invasion of Iran or Syria, and see Israel as doing the exact wrong thing that exacerbate the dangers we perceive. I'm just trying to lay out alternatives to "anti-semitism", you see. "The arugment "yes, but if Israel doesn't do x, then y will happen" is perfectly good. Anti-semitism is not. It's a show-stopper. Howard says (with merit) it's a semantic issue. I think it's a semiotic issue. The meaning of "anti-semitic" is by now so overdetermined that it can no longer really "mean" anything (semiosis can not occur). It can only incite. It's very glandular, sort of a bio-weapon.

Neoboho

I agree with you. I would really like to see what it is that Rosenberg is referring to. You seem to appreciate his point, perhaps you could show us when and where opposition to some (on my part and others) or all of Israeli policies crossed the line into anti-semitism. Again i am asking for this seriously before engaging Mr. Rosenberg directly.

For the record let me say that I have heard innumerable times in this and related posts how standards are being applied to Israel that are different than those applied to say France or any other nation. And to some degree this is true; and it is natural. Israel has a unique history; its existence was established by a conscious act of the reviled United Nations, in circumstances quite different than that of any other modern nation-state. Of course there will be different standards. (That doesn't mean of course that every judgement orcriticism is reasonable.) On the other hand, I guess I am not aware of any other country that has a passionate chorus of supporters who level the charge of anti-semitism as soon as criticism is levelled. So the short form seems to be: treat Israel like every other nation and if you criticize you are a bigot and an anti-semite.

Okay, I'm going to indulge in some pure speculation about what may have triggered Mr Rosenberg's rant.

Fear.

Fear of what? Fear that this latest action by Israel may be greasing the slide away from US unconditional support for Israel's actions, no matter what.

Despite the disingenous protestations that Israel and her advocates had little affect on our decision to make war on Iraq, that's bunk. Where did I get that idea? From a comphrehensive daily reading of Israeli and friends" sources since early 2002. The enthusiasm for the Iraq war in Israel and the aid given in pursuit of that aim was so voiciferous that the Israelis were warned repeatedly by Washington to shut the hell up.

Although there was little MSM discussion about the participation of Israel in our war preparations at the time, the speculations about the role of Israel and friends was spreading. Thanks in part to the very public statements of her supporters.

(Note to AIPAC et al: maintaining a low profile does not confer invisibility)

Now, three years into a dangerous debacle that is drawing us ever closer to a meltdown in the ME and the undeniable linking of Israel with our foreign policy aims vis a vis Iran and Syria, Israel is taking actions in Lebanon (and perhaps beyond) that will make things infinitely worse for America and Americans.

IMO, Mr Rosenberg, the potential blowback from Israel's ongoing destruction of Lebanon has upped the ante in terms of Americans maintaining unquestioning support for Israel. My guess is that you are seeing the signs of that inevitable erosion and fear it.

So you lash out at those who are also expressiing themselves in fear-driven angry terms, forgetting that some people are simply a-holes.

That said, I too am angry and afraid.

Enough already.

I can think of two or three posters who have sometimes crossed the line into comments that appear to advocate, or at least take pleasure in the thought of, the violent destruction of Israel.

And why don't you feel free to name them? After all, many are asking for specific examples from Mr. Rosenberg.

Especially since most people use aliases on forums like this?

Here's the big problem I see on blogs with comments: in the guise of "free speech," people don't bother to even downrate extremist comments bordering on hate speech, if they are from wingnuts on their side of the political spectrum, much less challenge them. If it's a right of center blog, there's lots of challenge the lefty hate that appears, if it's a left of center blog, there's lots of challenge of righty hate that appears. But hate that's on "your side" of the political spectrum is tolerated with silence, without much challenge.

To the target of the uglier comments, to someone in a group sensitive to it, silence appears as tacit approval. The comments unchallenged loom larger in their mind; it tells them: this is a group that would never defend me if push came to shove.

I've seen it happen with Christians, too, few challenge or downrate something like a comment lumping all evangelicals together, implying something like they are all "evil" like Pat Robertson, or stupid. To a liberal evangelical, they might feel irrational hate, especially since if someone bashes just liberals in general, they get all kinds of flack for it.

What the community on a blog tolerates without challenge sends a message. If a community is afraid to challenge or downrate a anti-Semitic comment, or simply tolerates it with a shrug, what does that say to Jews out there about how much they can trust those who are not Jews?

The principle of freely allowing hate speech only works if people challenge it. If it's a self-policing community, that's all of us.

I simply meant that Josh Marshall is also complaining about something he feels he sees without giving specific examples.

I myself happen to think that some specific examples would really be helpful from both of them.

That said, it is a tradition in the blogosphere that people can rant/vent about something without giving examples, is it not? We all might ponder why this topic is so special in this regard.

Why don't you instead ask participants here "How many of you support the notion of the survival of the Jewish State, Israel?" It's obvious that the overwhelming majority would support that. Maybe everyone, in fact.

I recall, that Jews and Palestinians at one time co-existed in one state during the 40's.  What happened to the co-existence? Why does there need to be a separate state, when it seems that establishing this 'separate state' is what has been at the bottom of the 40 year war?  Why can't they co-exist in one state?

Blacks, Hispanics, and other racial minorities co-exist in the United States...why is that so difficult in the Middle East?  It seems that minority sects are the most powerful in the Middle East...like how the Sunni's ran Iraq and the Marionite Christians dominated Lebanon. Isn't this similar to whites being the ruling class in S. Africa?

Even Yassir Arafat recalled when Jews and Arabs co-exist during his boyhood. What happened to peaceful co-existence?

I asked the same thing in a posted response to the charge of antisemitism leveled about half way down the response thread to the post Gaza, Lebanon, Two Different Wars.  The response was to start another post in which the charge of antisemitism is leveled even more broadly.

This moves nothing forward.  Others have tried to refute the assertion that anti-Zionism is the same as antisemitism better than I can.  

What I would like to suggest is that nationalism itself is a pretty dangerous ideology, and patriotism attached to it and sanctified by religion is even more dangerous.  I like what Emma Goldman had to say in Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty: 

Gustave Hervé, another great anti-patriot, justly calls patriotism a superstition--one far more injurious, brutal, and inhumane than religion. The superstition of religion originated in man's inability to explain natural phenomena. That is, when primitive man heard thunder or saw the lightning, he could not account for either, and therefore concluded that back of them must be a force greater than himself. Similarly he saw a supernatural force in the rain, and in the various other changes in nature. Patriotism, on the other hand, is a superstition artificially created and maintained through a network of lies and falsehoods; a superstition that robs man of his self-respect and dignity, and increases his arrogance and conceit.

I've pointed people to the best contemporary source I know concerning this point, sans Goldman's antipathy to religion:  Chris Hedges' War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning.   The link clicks through to Amazon, buyer beware...but the reviews are full of insight and appreciation.  Read them, read the sample pages, and then buy the book from your favorite local bookseller. 

If church and state remain separate, they become contestants for the loyalties of people and the power to invoke harm on the population is minimized.  This is John Locke's point in his Letter on Toleration, itself broadened and secularized.  So what I advocate is the secular state:  Neither antagonistic to religion, nor promoting it.  If all states act as honest brokers of the social contract it doesn't make much difference whether single or multi-states occupy a given geographic area.  I don't think holding this view makes me anti-semitic.

Mike

I agree completely. In 1962, it was the Cuban lobby and a neophyte President out to appease it who got us into the Bay of Pigs and almost got us into a nuclear war with the Soviet Union (and I say that as an Irish-American whose mother took her to see JFK when she was 9). Speaking of the Irish, I know a truly saintly nun who once told me with shocking venom that she'd be happy if the Hispanics took over the US so we'd stop speaking the hated English language. There are zealots in most causes and the hatred sometimes outlives even the cause.

"That said, it is a tradition in the blogosphere that people can rant/vent about something without giving examples, is it not? We all might ponder why this topic is so special in this regard."

I don't think so. Given Josh Marshall's and Rosenberg's and maybe Greenbaum's rants what makes this site different from innumerable blog sites where that is all that the posters do? I mean, we all have frustrations with the direction this world is heading and with some of the others who post, so we use a modicum of sarcasm, wit, and other techniques trying to avoid the invective that cause many political discussions to degenerate into pure rant. I certainly find this post from Rosenberg annoying, insulting, unsubstantiated , and in the end cowardly and dishonest for making serious and highly insulting charges in a sanctimonious manner and not being willing to identify what he is talking about. This whole episode is shabby and disappointing. When everything is said and done what Rosenberg means seems to be: I am willing to criticize Israel and you may too,but if anyone goes beyond what I say then they are anti-semites. If Rosenberg is notwilling to engage in political discussion, and he reviles people who mistakenly take him seriously, then he should find an appropriate church and preach to the choir.

Since in all honesty, by expressing disapproval of everyone I think of as an asshole, I"m afraid I would then have to include myself in that category. Bigtime.

You missed my larger point that I'm speculating that Mr Rosenberg's "fear" stems from a more generalized perception that Israel's recent actions will result in declining support for Israel among Americans.

Given his time and efforts on the front lines of his own battles, I rather doubt that he is literally "afraid" of posters on this blog.

Let me be more precise. How are they different in that they force a small group's policy in a larger electorate that doesn't much care about them?

As far as I am concerned, a pox on both houses...er...lobbies. I wonder how George Washington would view both, in his views about foreign involvments?
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Bio-weapon? It's more like a Get Out of Jail Free card that only Jews are dealt.

But that's another issue, Liberal Voice.  I could have left the "bio-weapon" quip off and made my point - which was that language can short-out the human nervous system when abused.  So I might be championing the cause of linguistic revision...that is, choose our words carefully. 

Furthermore what nation on earth has a "right to exist" ? Nations exist as long as they are viable. Nobody here is going to change that little matter of historical inertia.

Again, this is a linguistic issue.  You're parsing words - I think you know exactly what I mean.  "Right to exist" may have been a poor choice of words on my part, but I think that challenging it is a bit of a strawman.  If I had written: "...most here support Israel's continued existence" would your response have been different, for example?

Neoboho

But I do think global frustration with Israel's 40 year illegal occupation of East Jerusalem etc is giving rise to a new anti-semitism. Critics of Israel's expansionist policy should be careful to blame Israeli statesmen and the voters who elected them, but not Jews.

I agree with you about the national and global frustration but I do not think this is fueling a rise in anti-semitism. The frustration is with American foreign policies and tax dollars given to aide a policy, many Americans view as disproportionate to our own national interests. Afterall, most of the Al-Q talk about their hatred of America is not about Americans but focused on the biased pro-Israel policies of America.  That is what you are hearing. Americans no longer find it sensible to support Israel in the way we have over the past 40 years. That is not anti-semitism...it is pro-Americanism..

American foreign policy should  have no permanent allies, there should simply be permanent American interests.  When we have interests in common with our allies we should be supportive, but our allegiance should not be disproportionate to the well-being and world standing of America itself.

I do not hear 'hatred toward Jews' whatsoever...I hear the resounding question of WHY? HOW MUCH LONGER and AT what COST will we support a one-sided policy in the Middle East. It is not about Jews..it is about Americans, American tax dollars, and Americans standing in the world in terms of a foreign policy that fuels terroroism on our own soil.

The US military doesn't seem to keep many statistics based on religious affiliation, but from what I've been able to find out, there are roughly 14,000 Jewish people serving in the US military. Of the 140,000 or so troops currently serving in Iraq, 3% are Jews (couldn't find stats for Afghanistan). I got those statistics from the Jewish War Veterans site, at present there are approximately 100,000 Jewish veterans of US wars that belong to that organization. I mention this because while googling for statistics, I had to wade through links from various left wing and right wing blogs that shared an ugly similarity, they were all repeating the same ugly stereotypes against Jewish people.

I grew up in New England, in mostly small, factory towns. I've known Jewish people virtually all my life. Of the four kids my daughter grew up with who are serving in Iraq, one is of Arab descent (his family emigrated here from Jordan) one is Jewish, both are on their third tour of duty, give or take. Both have baby faces, when I read or hear about deaths of troops in Iraq, theirs are the faces that first come to mind, and bring a fear to my heart.

If that's not enough for you, I read about 26-year-old Army Specialist Joe Kashnow, whose right leg was amputated below the knee, a procedure necessary due to wounds he sustained during his tour of duty in Iraq. I read about David Ashe who served 7 years in the marine corp, and is one of the fighting Dems running for a seat in the house of representatives. I found the names of Army SGT Michael B. Shackelford, Army SGT Howard Paul Allen, Marine LCpl Mark E. Engel, Marine 1stLt Andrew K. Stern, Marine Sgt Alan D. Sherman, Air Force AIC Elizabeth Jacobson and Army SPC Benyahmiin Ben Yahudah all Jewish American veterans who died in Iraq, and here are the names and some personal details of 9 young Jewish troops who died in Iraq between '03 and '04.

Marine Cpl. Mark Asher Evnin, 21, of South Burlington, Vermont, died in Iraq on April 3, 2003, of wounds received in action. He was a scout sniper with the 3/4 of the 1st Marine Division at 29 Palms, California. Evnin is the best known of the Jewish war dead because he was the first Jewish serviceman to die and he was among the first two dozen casualties of the war. His story was told in an April 15, 2003 Jewish Telegraph Agency article: "The first known Jewish casualty of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Evnin opened an emotional outpouring from Jews around the world. 'From Israel to New Jersey, people have been calling, writing. It has been incredible,' said Evnin's mother, Mindy Evnin…'I don't know why it is. Maybe it's because the war might help Israel,' she said. 'Maybe because my father was a rabbi. I don't know, but it gives me pleasure.'"

Evnin was a 2000 graduate of South Burlington High School. He played high school football, lacrosse, and was a cross-country skier. His survivors include his parents, his maternal grandparents, and his paternal grandmother. His traditional Jewish funeral attracted over 1,000 mourners, including Gov. Douglas of Vermont.

Army Spc. Jeffrey M. Wershow, 22, of Gainesville, Fla.; assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 124th Infantry Regiment, 1st Armored Division, Orlando, Fla.; was shot and killed on July 6, 2003 in Baghdad. Wershow was a member of the Florida Army National Guard.

His life and death was profiled in USA Today. "... Wershow never let his guard down. His buddies nicknamed him "The General" because he strode about with a sense of purpose and confidence. ….He always stood at attention when addressing officers, when most other soldiers sweltering in the heat here would take a more casual attitude. So it was a shock on July 6 when the aspiring politician from Gainesville, Fla., was gunned down on the campus of Baghdad University after buying a 7-Up. If this gung-ho soldier who wanted another stint in Iraq could be killed in such a brazen way in a crowded place, his buddies figured it could happen to them, too. For the men of "Charlie" Company… of the Florida National Guard, Wershow's death occurred when most thought they would already be home....Buddies say Wershow was intelligent, tenacious and so gregarious that he'd talk to anyone, anytime. He loved to debate, even going so far as to take a position he opposed just to get a good argument going. 'He called himself a conservative Democrat, but we always teased him that he was a closet Republican,' recalls Glass, the company commander who's also from Gainesville. Wershow enlisted in the Army in 1999 after high school and served three years. When he got out in June 2002, he joined the National Guard. He had been back in Gainesville just six months, taking [college classes], when he was called to active duty...After several weeks of training, his company arrived…in Jordan on Feb. 16. Their mission was to provide security and search-and-rescue support to the special operations forces…. Wershow's unit became one of the first to enter Iraq as the war began. Under cover of darkness and using night-vision goggles to see, they breached dirt berms on Iraq's borders with Jordan and Saudi Arabia to allow special operations forces to drive through...The soldiers were led to believe they would be sent home in mid-May. Instead, [his company} was ordered to Baghdad. Wershow fretted that he would miss the fall semester at college. He talked about following his father, Jon Wershow, a former Alachua County, Fla., commissioner, to law school and then, perhaps, to elected office."

Wershow was guarding a detail of civilian Americans meeting with Iraqi university officials when he left the meeting, after two hours, to get a soft drink. He was fatally shot in the back of the neck by a gunman on the campus. The gunman escaped in the confusion that followed the shooting. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida called Wershow's death "an assassination."

Wershow was buried at his family's farm near Gainesville. He was awarded a Bronze Star for valor. More than 1,000 mourners, including many high-ranking officers, attended a memorial in the Oak Hall School gymnasium. Wershow's survivors include his father and mother, a stepmother and a stepfather, and a younger brother.

David Bernstein, 24, formerly of Phoenixville, Pa., a first lieutenant with the Army's 173rd Airborne Infantry Brigade, was killed on October, 16, 2003, in Iraq, when enemy forces ambushed his patrol with rocket-propelled grenades and small-arms fire. According to the local Phoenixville paper, the 173rd is famous for its quick reactions, most often carried out by parachuting into war zones. Bernstein was dropped into northern Iraq at the beginning of the war and had remained there since, according to his father, Richard Bernstein. His father told the paper, "He was an exceptional man and a wonderful person and he will be missed terribly. He felt very indebted to this country for what it has done for him, and for everyone. He wanted to serve his country, and he did."

David Bernstein was the 1997 valedictorian of his high school. He graduated fifth in his class from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point four years later. His funeral was held at the Jewish chapel at West Point. Survivors include his parents, a brother, and sister.

There was a little joke in the Bernstein family that the first through fourth ranking cadet got an award at graduation, but there was no award for the cadet ranking fifth in their class. Therefore, as a perpetual tribute to David, his family has established the 1st Lt. David R. Bernstein Memorial Award to be given to those in each graduating class of West Point who achieve the fifth highest class standing. The award has Academy approval and donations may be made through: https://www-secure.west-point.org/drb/memorial/donate

Army Pfc. Jacob S. Fletcher, 26, of Bay Shore, NY, was killed in Iraq on November 13, 2003. He was with Company C, 2nd Battalion (Airborne), 503rd Infantry Regiment, 173rd Airborne Brigade. Fletcher was killed when a bus he was riding in was hit by an explosive device. He was a 1994 graduate of Babylon High School and was inspired to join the military following the death of a friend in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. His father, Marlowe Fletcher, told Newsday, "Whether people believe in the war or not, you have to believe in our soldiers. This was an American soldier, airborne. He was my beloved son and he was a hero."

Army Spc. Marc S. Seiden, 26, of Brigantine, New Jersey, died in Baghdad, Iraq, on January 3, 2004, when his convoy was ambushed by the enemy who used an improvised explosive device, small arms fire, and a rocket-propelled grenade. He was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne. His mother told the Fayetteville, North Carolina Observer that Seiden was "a daredevil since childhood" which led him to join the airborne. "I always had to have 25 eyes on him."

Marc Seiden was a New York Mets fan and played soccer in high school. He joined the Army in April 2002 and was assigned to the 82nd in September of that year. His mother, Gail Seiden, said that Marc joined the Army in part because of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. She added, "He joined because he felt he had a duty. I didn't understand it when he did it. I was angry at him because I knew what could possibly happen. But he felt like he could fight for his country and he wanted to." Marc, his mother said, called his family twice on New Year's eve and once on New Year's day. Marc was excited about coming home since his unit was scheduled to come back in February. His brother and sister-in-law, Gail Seiden explained, were expecting their first child. "Our first grandchild [was going] be born in two weeks, and [Marc] just could not wait. He was going to be the godfather." Seiden was posthumously awarded a Bronze Star for valor.

Army Lt. Seth Dvorin, of East Brunswick, New Jersey, a member of the 10th Mountain Division, based at Fort Drum, N.Y., was killed February 3, 2004 in Iraq. His sister, Rebekah, told the Associated Press that the army informed her that "Seth's unit had been ordered to clear the area of the homemade mines and bombs that have killed dozens of troops...they were in a convoy and saw something in the road. My brother, the hero, told his driver to stop. That's when the bomb detonated, when they were trying to dismantle it." His father, Richard Dvorin, an Air Force veteran and retired New Brunswick police officer, told the AP that his son was a loyal, responsible commander who sought to make life as easy as possible on the soldiers he oversaw. Offered two weeks' leave in December, his father said, Seth refused to go because so many of his platoon members had not yet had the chance.

Richard Dvorin, with tears rolling down his face, told the AP, "He was a good human being." Seth's survivors include his father, his sister, and his wife---a college sweetheart he had married a week before he was deployed. Dvorin was posthumously awarded a Bronze Star for valor.

Sgt. Elijah Tai Wah Wong, 42, of Mesa, Arizona was killed Feb. 9, 2004 in Sinjar, Iraq when he and other soldiers were trying to move a cache of unexploded rocket-propelled grenades and mortar rounds, which had been seized from en