Uncategorized
How a once-cautious Benjamin Netanyahu came to lead the most radical coalition in Israel’s history
(JTA) — Twenty-seven years have passed since Benjamin Netanyahu was first elected as Israel’s prime minister. Since 1996, he has headed six governments over a period of more than 15 years, more than any other prime minister. Unfortunately, his current coalition is one of the most radical-populist governments in Israel’s history. This government seeks to rapidly undermine Israel’s democracy by granting unlimited political power to the executive branch of government at the expense of the judiciary.
How can Netanyahu — a U.S.-educated and respected world leader who was cautious in his approach to building previous coalitions, and was once respectful of Israeli democratic institutions — support such a dangerous plan? Was the “writing on the wall” earlier on in his lengthy tenure?
A glimpse into Netanyahu’s years in office reveals that, indeed, signs of his being a populist leader — specializing in attacks against the so-called elite — could be detected long ago. As Likud leader in 1993, Netanyahu was blamed for ignoring the incitement by extremists that preceded the assignation of Yitzhak Rabin (a charge he vociferously denies). As early as 1997, during his first term as prime minister, he said that “the left has forgotten what it means to be Jewish.” Two years later, during an election campaign, he mocked the “leftist” press by saying “they are scared” (by the possibility of a right-wing victory). On Election Day in 2015, he posted a video urging Likud supporters to go out and vote by warning, “the Arabs are heading in droves to the polls.” That message led to accusations that the candidate was using racial dog whistles to motivate his followers.
However, Netanyahu’s populist discourse and his natural divide-and-conquer leadership style were balanced out, at least until 2015, by several factors. First, Netanyahu always sought to include centrist and even left-of-center parties in his coalition governments. Even when he could build a “pure” right-wing coalition (following the 2009 elections, for example), he preferred to invite partners from the opposing political side. His intention, he once said, was to provide a “wide and stable government that unites the people.”
Second, despite his hawkish image and his hardline discourse on security issues, Netanyahu wa considered to be an exceedingly cautious leader in that arena. Risk-averse, he tended to avoid involving Israel in major wars and was wary of acting in ways that would spark violence between Israelis and Palestinians.
Third, over his many years in office, he had demonstrated respect for the rules of the game — and towards Israel’s Supreme Court. He even blocked earlier initiatives that sought to undermine the power of the judicial branch. “I believe that in a democracy, a strong and independent Court is what enables the existence of all other democratic institutions,” he said in 2012. “Every time a law comes across my desk that threatens to impair the independence of the courts, we will take it down.”
The 2015 elections should probably be regarded as the turning point, after which these balancing factors quickly gave way to unabashed populism. The unexpected resounding victory in that year’s elections brought out the hubris in Netanyahu. He formed a right-wing coalition government (only slightly moderated by Moshe Kahlon’s centrist Kulanu party), personally held four ministerial positions in addition to the prime ministership, and gave his blessing to the hugely controversial Nation-State Bill. This legislation, which anchored in law Israel’s status as the “national home of the Jewish people,” strengthened the Jewish component of Israel’s dual “Jewish and democratic” identity without in turn strengthening its democratic component — explicitly and implicitly downgrading minority rights.
Furthermore, Netanyahu’s longtime obsession with controlling press coverage reached a new level. His insistence on personally heading the Ministry of Communications and his excessive involvement in media — for example, installing a close ally as director-general of the ministry, and targeting and strong-arming ostensibly “unfriendly” newspapers and broadcasters — served as the background for two of the three indictments for which he is currently on trial.
The investigations on corruption charges, and his subsequent trial, further pushed Netanyahu toward populist extremes. Following three rounds of elections between 2019 and 2020, which threw Israel into an unprecedented political crisis, Netanyahu was forced to form a unity government with former Gen. Benny Gantz’s centrist Blue & White party. Coincidentally, just a few hours after the government’s first meeting, Netanyahu’s trial began in the Jerusalem District Court. The prime minister arrived at the court on May 24, 2020, accompanied by several Likud Knesset members, and launched a fierce attack:
What is on trial today is an effort to frustrate the will of the people — the attempt to bring down me and the right-wing camp. For more than a decade, the left has failed to do this at the ballot box. So over the last few years, they have discovered a new method: some segments in the police and the prosecution have joined forces with the leftist media… to manufacture baseless and absurd charges against me.
These statements made it clear that Netanyahu had crossed the Rubicon, setting the tone for his behavior ever since. He dispensed with the partnership with Gantz, sacrificing Israel’s economic and political interests along with it. In the build-up to the next elections, he legitimized extremist, racist politicians such as Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, who are today members of his governing coalition. After failing to form a government in 2021 (having been ousted from power after more than 12 consecutive years), he violated fundamental parliamentary conventions and norms. For instance, he instructed his right-wing allies to boycott Knesset committees and refused to attend the customary “update meeting” the parliamentary opposition leader holds with the prime minister. His previous respect for the rules of the game and democratic institutions was a thing of the past.
In that sense, it is no wonder that the current government he has formed, following his victory in the 2022 elections, is relentlessly pushing the overhaul of the judicial system, with little regard to the dangers the legislation poses to Israel’s democracy. This is due to a combination of Netanyahu’s own self-interest regarding his trial and the interests and worldviews of his political partners — politicians who hold extreme views (Ben-Gvir, Smotrich) as well as those who have previous corruption charges hanging over their heads (Aryeh Deri, leader of the haredi Orthodox Shas party).
The “old Bibi” would have never coalesced with such radical forces and would have never so bluntly disregarded democratic norms. But hubris, an instinct for self-preservation and his high self-regard as the “indispensable man” of Israeli politics created a new Bibi – and a crisis unlike anything Israel has ever seen.
Ironically, Netanyahu finds himself in an unexpected position — as the moderating force in the most radical coalition in Israel’s history. He could tap the instincts that he once had and be the voice of reason, the one who plugs the dike with his finger. He has the chance to lead Israel to a major constitutional moment. Will he rise to this historical challenge?
—
The post How a once-cautious Benjamin Netanyahu came to lead the most radical coalition in Israel’s history appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Support for Iran war among ‘connected’ US Jews falls again, poll finds
(JTA) — In the early days of the U.S.-Israel war on Iran, 68% of “connected” American Jews — those with ties to American Jewish institutions — supported the war, according to a poll taken by an Israeli public affairs institute.
That proportion fell weeks into the war and fell further to 60% just after President Donald Trump unilaterally announced a ceasefire on April 8, the same survey found, according to results released by the Jewish People Policy Institute last week and publicized on Sunday.
The decline was sharpest among those who identified as “leaning liberal,” 42% of whom are supportive of the war, down from 57% in early March.
At the same time, opposition among “connected” Jews has risen sharply, with about a third saying they oppose the war, up from 26% just after the war’s start. And only 14% of respondents said they believed the war had achieved “major success.”
The survey of 806 American Jews, taken April 15-19, drew from a panel that JPPI maintains and surveys regularly. The institute says its polls reflect the sentiments of “connected” Jews because its panel includes fewer intermarried Jews, more Jews who are affiliated with denominations and more Jews who have lived in Israel than demographic data suggests is representative of U.S. Jewry overall.
Two polls taken weeks into the war, before the ceasefire, found that most American Jews overall opposed the U.S. military campaign against Iran.
The latest results arrive as the future of the war and its dividends so far remain uncertain. Facing widespread public disapproval on Iran and pressure over oil prices, Trump has repeatedly extended the ceasefire despite failing to extract the major concessions from the Iranians that he has called for. This weekend, he said he was unsatisfied with their latest offer and said he remained torn between wanting to keep pressing for a diplomatic agreement or choosing to “go and just blast the hell out of them and finish them forever.”
Speaking at an event in Florida, Trump said. “Frankly, maybe we’re better off not making a deal at all. Do you want to know the truth? Because we can’t let this thing go on. Been going on too long.”
Iranian officials have reportedly said they expect a return to fighting, and the Israelis also have said they remain at a high level of military readiness.
A key sticking point is the future of Iran’s nuclear program, which Trump vowed to eliminate. The Iranians have offered to halt nuclear enrichment for up to five years, but Trump has rejected that offer and is pushing for a 20-year pause — longer than the 15-year hiatus in the agreement President Barack Obama in 2015 struck that Trump exited in 2018. Following the collapse of that deal, the Iranians are understood to have embarked on an enrichment spree, giving the regime the most nuclear material it has ever possessed. Much of that material remains buried but extractible under facilities Trump bombed last year.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Support for Iran war among ‘connected’ US Jews falls again, poll finds appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
A folksy approach to this year’s Yiddish symposium in Amsterdam
דעם 21סטן אַפּריל איז פֿאָרגעקומען דער יערלעכער אַמסטערדאַמער ייִדיש־סימפּאָזיום, נאָר דאָס יאָר איז עפּעס ניט געװען װי געװײנטלעך. איז מה נשתּנה, מיט װאָס איז דער הײַיאָריקער סימפּאָזיום געװען אַנדערש װי אַלע יאָר?
מיט 20 יאָר צוריק האָט דער פֿילאָלאָג און היסטאָריקער שלמה בערגער ע״ה געגרינדעט דעם סימפּאָזיום — װי אַ פֿאָרש־קאָנפֿערענץ. אלא װאָס, אין יאָר 2026 איז דאָס ניט געװען קײן שמועס פֿון פֿאָרשער צװישן זיך, אין העלפֿאַנדבײן־טורעם, נאָר אַ קולטור־אונטערנעמונג פֿאַרן ברײטן עולם.
שױן דאָס באַגריס־װאָרט האָט געשמעקט מיט פּאָפּולאַריזירונג און פֿאָלקסטימלעכקײט. באַגריסט האָט דעם עולם די לעקטאָרין פֿאַר דער ייִדישער שפּראַך און ליטעראַטור בײַם אַמסטערדאַמער אוניװערסיטעט, דניאלה זײַדמאַן־מאַוער. אַלײן רעדנדיק אױף ענגליש, האָט זי באַמערקט, אַז מאַמע־לשון קװעלט מן־הסתּם פֿון נחת, זעענדיק די חסידישע קינדער װאָס בײַ זײ אין מױל לעבט די שפּראַך װײַטער.
זײַדמאַן־מאַוער האָט פֿון צײַט צו צײַט פֿאָרט אַרײַנגעכאַפּט אַ ייִדיש װאָרט: „זיצן שיבֿעה“, „קוגל“, „חוצפּה“. אױך יצחק באַשעװיסן האָט מען דערמאָנט. װי ניט איז, קומט זײַדמאַן־מאַורער אַ גרױסער יישר־כּוח פֿאַרן אײַנאָרדענען דעם סימפּאָזיום. אין דעם פּרט איז איר אַרבעט געװען זײער אַ געראָטענע.
סך־הכּל זײַנען געװען דרײַ רעדנערס. בײַם אָנהײב איז אַרױסגעטראָטן דװקא אַ װיסנשאַפֿטלערין מיט אַ רעפֿעראַט װעגן לינגװיסטיק. דאָס איז געװען די שפּראַך־פֿאָרשערין חיה־רחל נאָװע פֿון ניו־יאָרק. זי האָט איבערגעגעבן אינטערעסאַנטע אױספֿירן פֿון איר פֿאָרשונג און בעת־מעשׂה פֿאַרװײַלט דעם צוהערער־עולם.
אײדער ניו־יאָרק האָט געהײסן ניו־יאָרק, האָבן דאָרט געװױנט האָלענדישע קאָלאָניסטן אין אַ ייִשובֿ אױפֿן נאָמען נײַ־אַמסטערדאַם. אַפֿילו די שפּעטערדיקע דורות האָבן נאָך אַ צײַט לאַנג אױפֿגעהיט די נידערלענדישע שפּראַך — זײ האָבן זיך געהאַט זײערע צײַטונגען און אױך אײגענע שולן. אױב אַזױ, האָט די לינגװיסטן נאָװע געטענהט, קען מען דאָך מאַכן אַ גזירה־שװה און זאָגן דאָס אײגענע װעגן דער חסידישער באַפֿעלקערונג הײַנט צו טאָג, װאָרן אַ סך חסידים לעבן זיך װײַטער אױס אױף דער ייִדישער שפּראַך — צװישן זײ נאָװע אַלײן.
בשעתן רעפֿעראַט האָט זי טאַקע געװיזן אַ קורצן פֿילם מיט איר אײניקל װאָס לײענט פֿון אַ ייִדיש־לערנבוך. בײַם סוף האָט זי נאָך געװיזן אַ מוזיק־װידעאָ מיט אַ רעפּ פֿונעם פּאָפּולערן חסידישן זינגער אַרי סאַמעט. „פּסח האָבן די קינדער דאָס געזונגען אָן אױפֿהער!“ — האָט זי געזאָגט.
צװישן די גורמים װאָס פֿאַרזיכערן דעם המשך פֿון דער שפּראַך האָט נאָװע דערמאָנט דעם פֿאַקט, װאָס מע קען פֿירן געשעפֿטן און מאַכן אַ קאַריערע אױף ייִדיש. מע דאַרף ניט צוקומען צו ענגליש כּדי פּרנסה צו האָבן. אַחוץ געזעלשאַפֿטלעכע פֿאַקטאָרן האָט נאָװע אױך אַרומעגערעדט פֿאַקטן פֿון דער שפּראַך גופֿא.
אינעם לשון פֿון הײַנטיקע חסידים געפֿינען זיך סימנים סײַ פֿון המשך און סײַ פֿון באַנײַונג. חסידים זאָגן, למשל, „אַלעס“ (פֿאַר „אַלץ“) — פּונקט װי דער ייִדיש־רעדנידקער עולם אין אונגאַרישן אונטערלאַנד פֿאַר דער מלחמה. פֿון דער צװײטער זײַט, זאָגט מען הײַנט צו טאָג „אײביק“ (ניט „אַלע מאָל“, „תּמיד“ אָדער „אַלץ“) — אַ װאָרט װאָס אַמאָליקע צײַטן האָט מען עס זעלטן װען געבראַכט פֿאַרן מױל, און אַז יאָ, איז מײנענדיק דװקא „נצח“ און ניט אַז מע טוט עפּעס שטענדיק, כּסדר.
דער צװײטער רעדנער אױפֿן סימפּאָזיום האָט שױן גערעדט אין גאַנצן ניט אַקאַדעמיש, נאָר דערצײלט אַנעקדאָטן, פּערזענלעכע זכרונות. אױך בײַ אים האָט מען זיך גוט פֿאַרװײַלט און ער האָט ניט אײן מאָל אַרױסגערופֿן אַ געלעכטער בײַם עולם. דאָס האָט געשמועסט דער שוועדישער פֿאַרלעגער ניקאָלײַ אָלניאַנסקי װעגן זײַן פֿאַרלאַג און װעגן דעם װי אַזױ ער האָט זיך גענומען צום אַרױסגעבן הײַנטצײַטיקע װעלטלעכע ליטעראַטור אױף ייִדיש.
אָלניאַנסקי איז אַ שװעד װאָס האָט זיך מגייר געװען. לכתּחילה האָט ער גענומען זיך לערנען ייִדיש כּדי ניט אָנצוּװערן זײַן סטודענטישע דירה. אָבער נאָך דעם האָט ער שטאַרק הנאה געהאַט פֿון די שפּראַך־לעקציעס מיט שלמה שולמאַנען ע״ה, װאָס האָט דעמאָלט געהאַלטן ייִדיש־לעקציעס אױפֿן לונדער אוניװערסיטעט. שפּעטערצו האָט ייִדיש געשפּילט אַ צענטראַלע ראָלע פֿאַר זײַן באַנעמען זיך אַלײן װי אַ ייִד.
מיט דער צײַט האָט אָלניאַנסקי, אין אײנעם מיט זײַן װײַב אידאַ, אַלײן אָנגעהױבן זיך אױסלעבן אױף ייִדיש און אַרױסגעבן אַ צײַטשריפֿט, װאָס אין איר האָבן זײ געשריבן װעגן „העװי מעטאַל“, װידעאָ־שפּילן און נאָך ענינים װאָס האָבן זײ פֿאַראינטערעסירט. די יונגע משפּחה אָלניאַנסקי איז אין גיכן דערגאַנגען צום אױספֿיר, אַז פֿאַרן ייִדישן המשך דאַרף מען האָבן װעלטלעכע קינדערביכער אױף ייִדיש. און דאָס פּאָרפֿאָלק איז ניט געזעסן מיט פֿאַרלײגטע הענט, נאָר זיך טאַקע גענומען צו דער אַרבעט.
שלום בערגער האָט דעמאָלט רעצענזירט זײערע ביכער פֿאַרן פֿאָרװערטס און אַראָפּגעריסן צװײ פֿון זײ. אָלניאַנסקי האָט זיך אָפּגערופֿן דערױף, אױך אינעם פֿאָרװערטס, מיט טענות קעגן „אַן עליטיזם װאָס שטײט תּמיד אין וועג דעם לעבעדיקן, הײַנטצײַטיקן ייִדיש.“ בערגער האָט געהאַלטן אַז אָלניאַנסקיס ביכער לײענען זיך טײל מאָל „װי אַ ראָבאָט װאָלט זײ אָנגעשריבן“. אױף דעם האָט אָלניאַנסקי געענטפֿערט — מיט אַ ראָמאַן װעגן אַ ייִדישיסט װאָס הײסט קאָליאַ ראָבאָטסקי.
בשעת װען די ערשטע צװײ רעפֿעראַטן האָט מען געהאַלטן אױף ענגליש, איז דער דריטער און לעצטער געװען — אױף פֿלעמיש, דער סאָרט האָלענדיש װאָס מע רעדט אין צפֿון־בעלגיע. דאָס האָט דערצײלט נפֿתּלי מאָסקאָװיטש, אַ חסיד פֿון אַנטװערפּן, װעגן זײַן אַרבעט װי אַן עצה־געבער אין שפּראַך־ענינים פֿאַר דער נעטפֿליקס־סעריע „רױע דימענטן“.
אין דער אמתן האָט מאָסקאָװיטש ניט נאָר געלערנט הילכות אױסשפּראַך, נאָר אױך ייִדישע פֿירונגען: װאָס טוט אַ שטײגער אַ פֿרומער ייִד װען ער כאַפּט זיך אױף פֿון שלאָף? װי אַזױ זאָגט מען מודה־אַני און גיסט אָפּ נעגל־װאַסער? װי אַזױ פֿירט זיך אַ חסידיש פּאָרפֿאָלק צװישן זיך?
װאָס שײך אַרױסרעד, האָט ער געשילדערט דעם גאַנג פֿון לימוד: צו ערשט דאַרף דער אַקטיאָר דאָך פֿאַרשטײן און קענען זאָגן די װערטער: װאָס — הערט — זיך, נאָר לסוף עס אַרױסרעדן: „װאָסערצאַך?“
אַז מע האָט געדאַרפֿט בראָקן פּסוקים לשון־קודש, האָט מאָסקאָװיטש זיך אָבער אַ מאָל מיאש געװען פֿונעם אױסלערנען זײַנע תּלמידים דעם אַרױסרעד. אײַנחזרן דעם פּיוט „אשת־חיל“ װאָלט זײ נאָך אַלעמען אָנגעקומען צו שװער. איז װאָס װעט מען טאָן אַז אַ משפּחה זעצט זיך אַװעק בײַם שבתדיקן טיש פֿרײַטיק־צו־נאַכט, און אַלע מאַנסבילן אין אײנעם דאַרפֿן זינגען אָט דעם לױבגעזאַנג לכּבֿוד דער ייִדישער פֿרױ?
צום סוף האָט מען רעקאָרדירט מאָסקאָװיטשן גופֿא עטלעכע מאָל װי ער זינגט אױס דעם ניגון, אַזױ אַז ס׳זאָל פֿאָרט קלינגען כּאילו דאָס זינגט אַ גאַנץ געזעמל מענערשע שטימען. װעגן אַזעלכע און אַנדערע פּרטים פֿון הינטער די קוליסן האָט מען זיך געקענט דערװיסן פֿון מאָסקאָװיטשן, װאָס אַרבעט אַנדערש װי אַ העברעיִש־לערער.
די אָרגאַניזאַטאָרן האָט זיך אַזױ אַרום אײַנגעגעבן אײַנצוסדרן אַ נאָכמיטאָג לעקציעס װאָס האָבן געקענט פֿאַראינטערעסירן סײַ אַקאַדעמישע פֿאָרשער־מבֿינים און סײַ דעם פּראָסטן, װײניקער באַהאַװנטן עולם. אַחוץ דעם איז דאָס אױך געװען אַ שײנע געלעגנהײט פֿאַר ייִדישיסטן זיך צונױפֿצוטרעפֿן און צו כאַפּן אַ שמועס אױף ייִדיש־לשון. דורך דעם האָט די ייִדישע שפּראַך גופֿא אױך געקראָגן אַ תּיקון אױף אָט דער לעבעדיקער אונטערנעמונג.
The post A folksy approach to this year’s Yiddish symposium in Amsterdam appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
A New Jersey congregation was already falling apart. Then came Oct 7.
Partly Strong, Partly Broken
By Nathaniel Popkin
New Door Books, $19.95, 249 pages
When Rabbi Adinah Feld returns to her reform congregation in New Jersey after a nearly week-long trip to Israel, she discovers two crises have occurred in her absence: The roof of the synagogue has collapsed after a heavy storm and the Muslim teenager, Fami, who helps clean the shul is in the hospital after a savage attack by a local white supremacist.
Things only further devolve from here in Partly Strong, Partly Broken, a new novel from author and former Wall Street Journal critic Nathaniel Popkin. The fictional synagogue of Temple Beth Israel fractures — metaphorically and physically — in the month leading up to the Oct. 7 Hamas attack.
Feld is presented as the archetypal neo-liberal American rabbi. Her trip to Israel, we quickly learn, consisted of participating in the pro-democracy protests and pining for her Palestinian ex-girlfriend, whom she first met nearly two decades earlier while living in Israel. Once she’s home, her attention is split between trying to fix the storm-damaged roof, respond to the attack, and finally launch the Hebrew learning center she’s been advocating for the synagogue to have for years.
But at every turn there’s a challenge: The incompetent and combative building manager can’t seem to get the roof fixed; some congregants believe Feld’s concern for Fami is proof she cares more about Muslims than Jews; a wealthy board member wants his name on the Hebrew center and his project manager in charge — a woman who takes personal offense when Feld invites the local Imam to join tashlich.
Many readers will probably see their own congregation in the fictional Temple Beth Israel, especially if they’ve served on a synagogue’s board or committee. But for those who have avoided seeing behind the administrative curtain of a synagogue, the complex power dynamics might come as a shock.
Popkin deftly captures a stark truth: The attack on Oct. 7 and the subsequent war didn’t create the divisions over Israel in the Jewish community; it exposed tensions that were already there. This reality, combined with a prophecy from the Book of Daniel — Daniel tells Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar that his dream of a statue with feet made of iron and clay reveal that the foundations of his kingdom were “partly strong, and partly broken.” — is the inspiration for the book’s title.
For some, the fact that Jews have always been divided over Israel may not seem like a particularly insightful observation. But after Oct. 7, there was a lot of shock and outrage among the Jewish community at the wide range of opinions in their communities. As Partly Strong shows, when synagogues avoid talking about Israel to mitigate conflict (or please wealthy donors, as Feld does in the book), they don’t prevent conflict — they just make disagreements and tough discussions about Israel taboo and volatile.
In Popkin’s novel, the conflict comes to a head less than a week before Oct. 7 at a whiskey-fueled book talk where a Jewish comparative literature professor presents his claims about understanding the role of epigenetics and inherited trauma in the book of Genesis. The conversation quickly turns towards trauma among Israelis and Palestinians — a subject the drunken congregants are not prepared to discuss civilly.
As startlingly realistic as Popkin’s story is, the strong narrative occasionally feels disrupted by verbose, overexplanatory writing (“She’d better go find Fami right away and give her the silver chain with the hamesh pendant, the palm-shaped amulet of protection that is usually called by its Arabic name, hamsa, and sometimes the hand of Fatima, for the daughter of Mohammed”) and a surfeit of subplots. At one point, readers are pulled away from the main story for a brief and sappy sex scene between two teenage Hebrew school instructors on a faux polar bear rug (the girl is described as “dessert” and the boy is described as an “Olympic eater”). While it was impressive to see what seemed like half of my home congregation represented, at some point it becomes too much to keep track of all the characters, big or small, and all their issues.
We don’t actually see how the characters respond to Oct. 7 — the book ends with a small group of them huddled together watching the first reports of the attack on a television. We’re left to imagine how Feld and her congregation will handle the aftermath — although readers have probably already lived it themselves.
The post A New Jersey congregation was already falling apart. Then came Oct 7. appeared first on The Forward.