Peter Beinart is a committed Jew in many ways. In practice, he is Orthodox and sends his two children to day school. Politically, he is liberal and proud of it. His understanding of Judaism drives that liberalism, and he proudly makes that clear, as well.

He also is a Zionist. He cares deeply about the State of Israel, the state of its democracy, and the state of war that exists between it and the Palestinians.

His sincerity and commitment to Judaism, to the Jewish people, and to the Jewish homeland cannot be taken from him, yet, in recent days, some have tried to do just that, and not for the first time. Terrible things are being said about him because of things he says that some people do not want to hear.

We need to hear what Beinart says, and not just because of who he is. We cannot form opinions without free and open debate of the factors that necessarily must shape those opinions.

We do not have to agree with him, however. Indeed, we cannot agree with him in his latest foray into Israeli-Palestinian affairs.

In an opinion piece written for The New York Times last week, Beinart set out his case for a partial boycott of Israeli goods. He is not the first serious-minded, committed Jew to do so, but he is among the most prominent.

Beinart should know better. In one form or another, there has been an “Arab boycott of Israel” from the earliest days of the state. To call for a “Jewish boycott of Israel” — no matter what the motivation — is almost unbelievable.

We say “almost” because, in truth, a Jewish boycott of goods and services produced “over the Green Line” has existed for almost as long as there has been a “Green Line.” There also has been a boycott, of sorts, by Jewish philanthropies of all stripes because they will not fund “over the Green Line” projects. The “boycotters” include Israelis living in Israel and serving in its military.

For Beinart and others of similar mind, also including loyal Israelis, that long-existing below-the-radar boycott is not enough. They want a boycott that is out in the open for all the world to see. They want the government of the State of Israel to see and feel its heat. That, they believe, is the only way Israel will ever make peace with the Palestinians.

There are so many things wrong with this thinking that one hardly knows where to begin.

For one thing, the plan assumes that Israel’s government can be moved by such efforts. The nature of Israel’s electoral system, with no single party or ideological grouping of parties likely to gain a majority in the
Knesset, almost guarantees that the government cannot be so moved — and it does not matter who is technically in charge. At times, it is a wonder that Israel’s government can move one way or the other on almost any issue.

A majority of Israelis, for example, favor a civil marriage law; different surveys range from 51 percent to 65 percent. Governments on the right, left, and center all have failed to approve such a law. When such a bill came before the Knesset in 2011, it received a mere 17 votes — and at least half the Knesset members managed to be absent when the vote was held. The electoral system, which invests the smallest parties with an inordinate amount of power, stands in the way.

If Israelis cannot move their own government on an issue such as this one, how do Beinart and company expect to move the government on an issue with excessively loud existential overtones?

Then there is the matter of who leads the government. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, by the measure of every poll, from right to left, remains very popular. Netanyahu talks about two-state solutions and Palestinian self-determination, but his gut tells him that the Palestinians cannot be trusted and that the more land Israel holds on to, the better able it will be to defend itself the next time.

That brings up another point: Netanyahu is correct. The Palestinians cannot be trusted. Israel has made concession after concession over the years, and yet it is not enough for the Palestinians. In Arabic, Palestinian leaders talk about a one-state solution to be achieved incrementally. First, take control of the west bank and Gaza. Second, use the territory to push the Jews into the sea. It may just be so much political bluster, but it is what they say in Arabic.

Netanyahu understands Arabic. So do many Israelis, in government and out. As the late Moshe Dayan said, however, “If you want to make peace, you don’t talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.” Netanyahu understands this, too, but he will act accordingly only when he is certain that Israel will come out the better for it. Boycotts by Jews (or anyone else) will not sway him away from that position.

Beinart is terribly wrong in thinking otherwise. We will be terribly wrong, however, if we demonize him for thinking as he does.

Let us never be afraid to debate among ourselves. And let us never forget to respect each other, whichever side we are on.

We are unmoved by the apology of Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s “high representative for foreign affairs and security policy,” and vice-president of the European Commission.

On Monday, Ashton spoke to Palestinian youth at a conference in Brussels titled “Palestine Refugees in the changing Middle East,” an event sponsored by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

Averitable army of police at all levels — from very local to federal — was dedicated to stopping the recent spate of anti-Semitic attacks on local synagogues, arresting the perpetrators, and protecting the community.

The cooperation between law enforcement and the Jewish community was critical in protecting the community.

Technology that only recently came “on line” helped break the case for police.

These are among the interesting facts that came to light during The Jewish Standard’s 45-minute interview with Bergen County Prosecutor John Molinelli (which begins on page 6).

Feeding the hungry is a mitzvah all year round, but it is especially so at Pesach time.

One way to fulfill this “seasonal” mitzvah, at least for the affiliated among us, is to contribute to our synagogues’ Pesach charity campaigns. By whatever name — “matzah fund,” for example, or “ma-ot chitin” (literally, “wheat money”) — the funds collected are used to provide food to people who cannot afford it, and there are many in northern New Jersey who cannot afford it. In the words of the JFNNJ’s Miriam Allenson, “there is real hunger in northern New Jersey.” (See the FYI on page 3.)

There is another way to meet the mitzvah head on. Right now, in most Jewish homes in our area, Pesach cleaning has begun. Inevitably, that means some foods, at least, will be tossed into the trash heap.

The better solution — indeed, the truly Jewish one — is to take edible non-perishables to one of the 34 collection points JFNNJ is setting up on March 25 at area synagogues, schools, and non-profit agencies.

The collected food will be distributed to seven area charities, both Jewish and non-Jewish.

We cannot stamp out hunger in the entire world. Let us at least try to end it in our small part of it.

It is easy to sit in a ballroom in Washington, or in a meeting room in Wausau, or a living room in Wayne and argue that Israel should attack Iran. It is easy because people in Washington, or Wausau, or Wayne — or anywhere else outside Israel, for that matter — believe they will not have to pay the price if it all goes terribly wrong (or even if it goes wonderfully right).

People who think that way are correct, at least as far as the most serious consequences are concerned, but an attack on Iran that does not result in regime change there and cheering parades elsewhere in the region will cost all of us dearly.

No one, however, will pay a higher price than the people of Israel. As the article on page 32 reports, Israel is ill-prepared for what may follow an attack on Iran. “The home front is not ready,” Zeev Bielski is quoted as saying. Bielski should know. He heads the Knesset subcommittee that oversees home defense.

Israel’s much vaunted anti-missile defense systems either are not yet in place (David’s Sling, which may not even be ready by 2013); remain untested in actual combat (the Arrow missile, which was specifically designed against the Shehab missiles, of which Iran has hundreds); or are insufficient to meet the need (it would take at least a dozen Iron Dome installations to protect against Hezbollah’s 40,000 long-range missiles and rockets, yet Israel only has three installations in place).

Commenting on this defense imbalance, Yiftah Shapir said, “Israel should be ready for a long period of attacks, perhaps even months, and this may bring commerce and other aspects of civilian life to a halt.” Shapir is another one who should know. He is director of the military balance project at Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies.

Shapir also noted that “Israel’s major cities have never come under attack” before. “This will be a very different and difficult experience for Israeli civilians,” he said.

The economic cost will be very high indeed, especially if Shapir is correct and Israel is basically shut down for many months. That cost, however, will pale in comparison to the potential human cost in the event of a sustained missile attack. Nearly 1.7 million Israelis will not be able to take cover in bomb shelters because, incredibly, not enough have been built. Between 25 percent and 40 percent of Israelis will not have gas masks to protect them because, incredibly, not enough masks have been stored up.

Make no mistake about our position. We are not suggesting that Iran should be allowed to obtain nuclear capability of any kind. We are not suggesting that containment is an option, even in the short term. War is almost certainly inevitable and, perhaps, may even be desirable, given that no one really knows how far along Iran is in its quest for a nuclear bomb.

We are saying, however, that it is time for everyone to ratchet down the rhetoric. This discussion has no place in electoral politics. It has no place in fund-raising campaigns, or in publicity stunts. It has no place in Washington, or Wausau, or Wayne.

The lives of real people are at stake. Those people live in Jerusalem, and Tel Aviv, and Haifa, and Modi’in, and on the Golan, and in Sderot. Only they should have a say.

At 2 a.m. this Sunday, time will change. Specifically, we will revert to Daylight Savings Time, losing an hour of sleep on one night to gain many hours of light from now through early November.

This is not just about moving the small hand forward by one digit, however. It is about saving energy. We should use the opportunity afforded by the change to examine how to cut down on our own energy consumption.

It is also an opportune time to check the batteries in smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors, and to make certain that portable fire extinguishers are in working order — and that everyone at home knows how to work them.

At 9:30 a.m. this Sunday, volunteers will begin a day-long effort to raise funds for the annual Jewish Federation of Northern New Jersey campaign. At least, that is what they will tell you when they call. The truth is that they will be raising money for you and me.

JFNNJ funds are used to help pay for Jewish education at every level, from early childhood care, to lecture series for seniors. The funds help bring meals on wheels to shut-ins, and to keep long-term care centers operating for those who need it. The funds help train a new generation of Jewish leaders, and to advocate in the public sector regarding issues of concern to the community.

Choose an aspect of Jewish life in northern New Jersey, and JFNNJ is somewhere in the background helping to make it happen.

Federation, however, cannot answer our call for help if we fail to answer its call. On Super Sunday II, when the telephone rings, give generously. In a very real sense, you are giving the money to yourself.