fbpx

May 18, 2011

Opinion: Why powerful men can’t keep their pants on

The number of public men destroyed of late through sexual scandals is simply staggering. Within 48 hours of each other we heard that IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who many believed would be the next President of France, as well as Arnold Schwarzenegger, until a few weeks ago the Governor of the most populous state in the Union, self-destructed with sex scandals.

The stories themselves are beyond belief. An IMF chief, disciplined enough to oversee one of the world’s most important banks, is alleged to have forced himself on a hotel housekeeper. Schwarzenegger, disciplined enough to rise from immigrant status with a funny accent to become of the biggest movie stars in the world and one of the most powerful men in the United States, apparently could not muster the control to prevent himself from fathering a child with a woman who worked in his home. 

The biggest mistake we make in determining why powerful men cheat is to believe they’re looking for sex. If it’s sex they’re after they have wives who can cater to their needs. No, these men are looking for something else entirely: validation.

Men cheat not out of a sense of entitlement but out of a sense of insecurity. And the bigger they are the harder they fall, not of arrogance but out of fear and weakness. What makes men slowly climb the ladder of success is a desire to prove they’re a somebody. They want to be and feel important. They seek to rise from the poverty of namelessness and the penury of anonymity.

It is not the promise of their potential that drives them but the fear of being a nonentity. They absorb the noxious lie of a culture bereft of values that only money and power will rescue them from being a nobody.

Therefore, even as they ascend the ladder of ‘success’ they do so with a gaping hole in their center. And whatever accomplishments they will shove into that hole – money, fame, power – it goes in one end and comes out the other.

They never feel good about themselves. They are never content. They are defined by insatiability and characterized by voraciousness, which explains why Wall Street bankers who were earning tens of millions of dollars a year still felt it was not enough and cut corners to make even more.

The first rule of success is that there is nothing on the outside that can compensate for a feeling of failure on the inside. External accouterments of success – from armored limousines to an army of personal bodyguards – can never protect you from the din of demons who whisper to you that for all you have achieved you are still are a big zero. And that’s why these men turn to women to make them feel good about themselves.

They want to feel desirable. They seek to silence the inner voices that taunt them as to their own insignificance. Because of its power, sex has a unique capacity to make insecure men feel – however fleetingly – like they’re special.

Having women desire them makes them feel desirable.  So why can’t their wives give them this same feeling? Because the man who thinks of himself as a giant loser sees the woman dumb enough to marry him as a loser squared.

She, as the woman who bears his last name and his children, is part of his entire loser package. But the woman who is not married to him, who has never aligned herself with his failures, remains eminently desirable and can thus make him feel the same.

When Tiger Woods self-destructed with an alleged fifteen mistresses I was asked to be on a TV show discussing why he did it. He had a beautiful wife.

Why wasn’t that enough? The male panelist next to me said, “It’s simple. Men love sexual variety and Tiger had the money and the fame to get it.” I responded, “If it was variety he was looking for, why did he have sex with the same woman 15 times over? Every single one of the women he allegedly cheated with looked just like his wife, a blond-haired Nordic bombshell. There was no variety. No Asian woman, no African-American woman, etc.”

The explanation lay elsewhere. When he was a little boy they took Tiger, put a metal stick in his hand, and told him, “If you learn to use this better than any man who preceded you and knock that little white ball farther than anyone who competes against you, you’ll be a somebody,” which was another way of saying that right now you’re a nobody, you’re nothing. Contrary to the Biblical message that every human being is born a child of god.

Tiger heard the opposite. You are either the child of success are you don’t exist. So no matter how many tournaments he won and how much money he earned in his mind Tiger still remained a nobody with a lot of trophies and a lot of money. But none of that external success changed the original message: he was born a zero.

So he tuned to an endless number of woman to make him feel desirable and special. He sought someone who wanted him for his being and not his sporting prowess. And he was stupid enough to believe that any of these women would be out with him if he weren’t’ a champion.

It was his wife alone who loved him, but in his selfishness he lost her. This also explains why so many men who cheat end up opening up emotionally to the women they cheat with. If it was just sex they were seeking they would not be sending these women texts telling them how lonely they are and how only she, the mistress, understood them.

You may ask what this has to do with a renowned banker and politician allegedly attacking a hotel housekeeper? We don’t yet know all the circumstances of the alleged assault, so I do not wish to discuss this case in particular. But I have counseled enough men in similar circumstances to know that they don’t expect the woman to resist. When you inhabit a $3000 a night hotel penthouse – yet more external accouterments of success –and the woman in question is an immigrant cleaning up, you’re convinced she’ll be as impressed with the bells and whistles of success as you are and she’ll melt like putty in your hands. Her resistance becomes a complete shock.

The motivation, however, remains the same. Men who inhabit the top social sphere are usually driven to get there by a constant need to prove themselves. And in taking a woman who would otherwise have no sexual interest in you and transforming her instantly into a woman who desires you, you quiet the failure demons for even a brief moment.

In this sense, Strauss-Kahn’s comment in an earlier interview with the French publication Liberation, after he had been caught having an affair with a subordinate – “Yes, I love women. So what?” – displays a stunning degree of self-ignorance. The degree to which he loves women was never the issue but rather the degree to which he hates himself.

These scandals of decent men ruining themselves either through affairs or, much more seriously, through allegedly illegally and outrageously forcing themselves on women, should server as a wakeup call to a society that continues to have a single definition of success for men.

It’s not your gentlemanly behavior, sense of personal honor, or your devotion to your wife and kids that makes you special. No one really cares a hoot for all that. It’s rather the level of name recognition and money you attain that really makes you hot. 

Shmuley Boteach, ‘America’s Rabbi,’ is a renowned relationships expert and broadcaster whose books on love and marriage have been translated into 17 languages, with the most recent being, “The Kosher Sutra: Eight Sacred Secrets of Erotic Desire.” Follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley.

Opinion: Why powerful men can’t keep their pants on Read More »

Iran Foreign Minister: Bushehr nuclear power plant ‘successfully launched’

Iran’s nuclear power plant in Bushehr has been put online, Iranian Foreign Minister said on Wednesday, adding that the plant would become fully operational within several weeks.

The plant’s operation was delayed by several months after last year Iranian officials estimated that the Stuxnet virus had hit Bushehr staff computers, adding, however, that the cyber attack did not affect major systems.

When Iran began loading fuel into Bushehr in August, officials said it would take two to three months for the plant to start producing electricity and that it would generate 1,000 megawatts, about 2.5 percent of the country’s power usage.

Read more at Haaretz.com.

Iran Foreign Minister: Bushehr nuclear power plant ‘successfully launched’ Read More »

Hahn, Huey to face off in 36th Congressional District’s 2nd round

Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn, a Democrat, will face Craig Huey, a Republican businessman, in a second round of voting to determine who will fill the open seat in California’s 36th Congressional District, which was vacated by Jane Harman in December 2010.

Hahn finished ahead of the 15 other candidates, winning just under 25 percent of the votes. Huey, who raised more money than any other candidate, took the second spot, with 21.87 percent of the electorate.

Huey narrowly beat California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, a Democrat, who won 21.48 percent of the vote. The difference between Huey and Bowen: 206 votes.

The result of Tuesday’s election—the state’s first congressional election to be contested without party-based primaries—paves the way for a second round of voting on July 12, in which Hahn and Huey will be the only two names on the ballot.

The 36th Congressional District has twice as many registered Democrats as it does Republicans.

Other candidates of interest in the election included Marcy Winograd, a teacher and anti-war activist who ran against Harman in the 2006 and 2010 Democratic primaries. Winograd came in fourth, winning 9.5 percent of the votes.

Democratic candidate Daniel Adler, whose name exploded in the blogosphere over the race’s final days in conjunction with his attention-grabbing advertisements, finished in 10th place.

Hahn, Huey to face off in 36th Congressional District’s 2nd round Read More »

Narrow Lead for Svonkin in L.A. Community College District Board Race

In the race for the last open seat on the Los Angeles Community College District Board, with just under half of all districts reporting, Scott Svonkin, a senior adviser to Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, is narrowly leading Lydia A. Gutierrez, a teacher who sits on the board of the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council.

Svonkin, who has been a regular presence at high profile Jewish community events in recent months and who has been involved with Jewish organizations for a decade or more, garnered more than twice as many votes as Gutierrez did in the March 8 primary election.

But the primary featured a field of seven candidates, and neither Svonkin nor Gutierrez won an outright majority, which forced the May 17 runoff.

Since then, Svonkin has been the subject of two articles in the LA Weekly that portrayed him as a bully. Neither article said much about Lydia Gutierrez.

Last week, an article in the Los Angeles Times focused on the “political name-calling” that was being used by both sides in the purportedly nonpartisan race. In the article, Gutierrez called Svonkin an “insider.” It also cited a mailer from the Los Angeles County Democratic Central Committee that labeled Gutierrez a “Sarah Palin-style Tea Partier.”

The article also noted that in the month before Tuesday’s election, Svonkin had raised “just over $299,000,” nearly 10 times as much as Gutierrez, who raised $3,788.

For the latest results, go to the Office of the City Clerk’s website.

Narrow Lead for Svonkin in L.A. Community College District Board Race Read More »

Israel at 63: Ambassadors Needed

Last Friday night I had the honor of speaking on behalf of the Consulate General of Israel in Glendale, CA at Temple Sinai’s service celebrating Israel’s independence. I debated whether to give the typical rah-rah, rally-the-troops kind of speech that one normally hears in synagogues on that day, and decided in the end to be as honest as possible about the disturbing, almost depressing current state of affairs in the Middle East. However, I remain optimistic that Israel will continue to prevail and to prosper.

From my outsider’s perch, Israel is clearly the most important contemporary Jewish issue. It is the embodiment of the yearning of generations of Jews for just one place on earth where they could be left alone to prosper and thrive. [Thankfully, there are now at least two places on earth where Jews can do this – the United States and Israel]. It is also the embodiment of the Abrahamic covenant, and of the covenant that God made with the Israelites at Sinai. Israel is active, not passive Judaism, and it is a modern miracle. How anyone who is familiar with the establishment and survival of this tiny Jewish state amidst dozens of countries who want to destroy it can doubt the existence of the God of Israel is beyond me. When I walk the streets of Jerusalem, I feel closer to God. When I pick up a Hebrew newspaper, I marvel that an ancient language has been revived, and is now used to run a modern stock exchange, a nuclear reactor, world-class hospitals, and high-tech companies.

I have traveled to more than a dozen European countries in the last two years to give pro-Jewish speeches in many languages because I feel that it is necessary. I’m very worried about anti-Semitism in Europe and Latin America, and believe that there is a direct correlation between someone’s willingness to identify himself as “pro-Jewish” and his level of support for Israel, regardless of nationality. I cringe whenever I hear a Jew say that a social or political issue is the preeminent Jewish one of our time. Whatever a Jew’s political beliefs may be, the welfare of a Jewish state with almost 6 million of his coreligionists has to trump them, at least as a Jewish issue. 

Things are looking rather bleak for Israel right now, and it’s time for its supporters to circle the wagons. I shared with the Friday night audience some words of advice that a Jewish man gave me when I first started working in the Jewish community.  I told him that many Mormons had asked me how to they could convince their Jewish friends that they too were members of the House of Israel. Did he have any advice? He quickly responded that it was not important whether Jews believed it – it was important that Mormons did. If Mormons strongly believe that they are Israelites, and this belief causes them to show great love towards Jews and to respect Judaism, what Jew is going to fault them for believing this? Similarly, supporters of Israel need to show their support for the country and to have that support translate into action. It’s always a beautiful thing to see this dynamic at work.

Israel at 63 needs our prayers. My prayer is that the country’s 64th independence day anniversary will find Israel and the other countries in the region living in peace.  In the likely event that that does not happen, I’ll settle for seeing many previously apathetic Israel supporters mobilized for the tough times that lie ahead. I encouraged the worshipers at Temple Sinai to become ambassadors for Israel and for Judaism, and they responded positively to my challenge. The establishment of the State of Israel is one of the greatest physical evidences of God’s existence, and more people of all faiths need to be saying this. Here’s to hoping that more people around the world will listen. 

Israel at 63: Ambassadors Needed Read More »

Early Congressional District 36 Election Results: Hahn Leads Among Mail-In Voters

With the polls closed and only the mail-in ballots counted, Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn is leading the pack of 16 candidates in the special election to fill California’s 36th Congressional District, the seat vacated by Jane Harman in December 2010. Hahn won 24 percent of the early votes.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen received the next largest share of early votes, with 21 percent. If no candidate wins an outright majority, the top two candidates will face each other in a runoff on July 12.

Many observers expected these two candidates to lead the pack before the election. Running in a district where Democrats outnumber Republicans two-to-one, Bowen and Hahn, both Democrats, were believed to have better name recognition than the other 14 candidates. They also had raised more money than any of the other Democrats.

Not more than Republican businessman Craig Huey, though. Huey, who won the fund-raising competition thanks in large part to money he loaned to his campaign, got 18 percent of the mailed-in ballots. He was trailed by another Republican, Redondo Beach Mayor Mike Gin, who took 11 percent of the votes.

Marcy Winograd, a teacher and anti-war activist who ran against Harman in the 2006 and 2010 Democratic primaries, mustered just eight percent of the early votes.

Democratic candidate Daniel Adler, a late entry into the race, managed 92 mailed-in votes, 0.36 percent of the electorate, putting him in the 13th spot among the field of 16 candidates. But the deadline for mailed-in ballots was May 10, before Adler’s name made its way into the blogoshpere, thanks to a series of ads that drew a lot of attention.

Rounding out the field of 16 are the three candidates in the race who declined to state a party preference: Matthew Roozee (whose website touts his Ph.D. in mathematics), Katherine Pilot (who described herself as “an average citizen”) and Michael T. Chamness (who calls himself a “coffee party activist”).

We’ll be updating the results throughout the evening—but for the latest results, check the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder / County Clerk Website.

Early Congressional District 36 Election Results: Hahn Leads Among Mail-In Voters Read More »

Words Matter — Obama’s Next Challenge

By the time this article is published on May 19, President Barack Obama will be putting the final touches on his policy speech on the Middle East, scheduled for the same day. Many see it as an important speech, for it could signal a dramatic shift in U.S. policy in the wake of the Arab uprisings, the demise of bin Laden and the resignation May 13 of George Mitchell. For Israel, though, the crucial test is whether Obama will take bold steps toward a lasting peace in the Middle East or merely express his displeasure with the now-stalled “peace process.”

Regardless of which side we blame for the current stalemate, be it Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for not launching a diplomatic initiative to test Palestinians’ readiness for peace, or Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas, for rejecting direct negotiations in the hope for a better deal through the United Nations, one thing has become clear before our eyes: The Palestinian concept of a two-state solution has turned into something so fundamentally different from its Israeli counterpart that the very idea of a “peace process” is now an oxymoron — a process tormented by two conflicting visions of “peace.” One side sees the process as a road toward “ending all claims,” while the other sees it as an opportunity for reigniting unrealizable claims.

Nothing made this clash of vision more transparent than the Nakba marches and celebrations that took place May 15 in Gaza, Ramallah, Lebanon and Syria, all the way to Jerusalem and even Jaffa. If in previous years the overriding protest theme was “occupation, occupation and occupation!” this year it was entirely “return, return and return!” Those who have not noticed the change and still believe in the mantra, “They do not mean ‘physical return,’ they will settle for a spiritual surrogate of ‘return’ or some token humanitarian gesture,” were not listening to what the Palestinians are saying, loudly, boldly and uniformly throughout the protest demonstrations, or even to what their spokesmen are saying, over and over again, to the Western media: “return, return and return!”

I am not speaking here of Ismail Haniye, Hamas’ prime minister, who told 10,000 Muslim worshipers on the morning of May 15 to pray for an end to Israel. I am speaking of the PA encouraging Hamas demonstrations in the West Bank, as long as they call for the destruction of Israel and not for overthrowing the PA administration, and I am speaking of Fatah Central Committee member Nabil Shaath, who on May 12 said,  “We oppose any U.S. peace plan which wants us to waive one of our most basic rights, and that is the right of return for refugees.” Finally, I am referring to Abbas, who summarized the Nakba Day events as “a turning point in the Israeli-Arab conflict.”

One is naturally wondering whether Obama believes that this widening conceptual gap can be bridged through negotiations and whether he is aware of how adamant Israelis are vis-à-vis the unfeasibility of “the right of return” (this includes all leaders of the Israeli peace camp, even the most liberal editors of Haaretz). One also wonders, of course, what the president can do to give the “peace process” a semblance of common purpose, and how he can definitively tell the Muslim world where America stands on this key issue.

While most analysts fear the president will attempt to decriminalize Hamas and continue to pressure Israel on settlements and other nonissues, I am more optimistic. With the peace process in shambles and the two-state solution in danger of extinction, the president must boldly confront the obstacle of Arab rejectionism.

This is still possible. On May 9, for example, he surprised us with an unprecedented statement for Israel’s Independence Day. If in his Cairo speech of June 4, 2009, Obama’s rationale for Israel’s creation began with the Holocaust (“The aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied”), listen to what he said on May 9, 2011: “Sixty-three years ago, when Israel declared its independence, the dream of a state for the Jewish people in their historic homeland was finally realized.”

Is this merely a stylistic change of speech writing or a deeper understanding of Jewish history and the core issue in the Arab-Israeli conflict? Whatever the case, we must admit that the reference to “their historic homeland,” aside from being unprecedented from this administration, is also something that no Arab has ever accepted and that most Israelis view as the key to both “peace” and “peace process.”  For the process to move forward, the president’s commitment to this refrain must be clear not just to American Jewry but to the Arab audience as well, from Morocco to Bahrain.

Obama’s words matter, because it is only a strong and unambiguous American affirmation of Israel’s indigenous status in the Middle East that can awaken Palestinians to the realization that legitimacy is a two-way street. You cannot earn for yourself what you deny to your neighbor.

Judea Pearl is a professor at UCLA and president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation (danielpearl.org), named after his son. He is a co-editor of “I Am Jewish: Personal Reflections Inspired by the Last Words of Daniel Pearl” (Jewish Lights, 2004), winner of the National Jewish Book Award.

Words Matter — Obama’s Next Challenge Read More »

Speeches vs. reality

As I write these lines on May 17, the Middle East is caught between events and speeches. The events are the Arab spring, which actually started in December 2010, when a man burned himself to death in Tunisia, sparking a chain of pro-democracy uprisings all over the region; the skirmishes on the Israeli borders with Lebanon and Syria; the killing of Osama bin Laden; and the expected U.N. General Assembly motion in September, recognizing a Palestinian state. The speeches are the one President Barack Obama is delivering on May 19 (the day this newspaper appears in print) on the Middle East and North Africa, and three speeches by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: the one he gave in the Knesset on May 16, the one he will give on May 23 before the U.S. Congress, and, finally, the one he will deliver at AIPAC.

I must confess: I love speeches, but not for the reasons you might suspect. Rarely am I moved by a great speech, and I guess that only once in a millennium there is a speech that leaves you speechless. Shakespeare put one in the mouth of Anthony, at the funeral of Caesar; Thucydides reported the speech of Pericles during the Peloponnesian War; and Abraham Lincoln delivered his groundbreaking Gettysburg Address. (By the way, the keynote speaker at the latter event was the great orator Edward Everett, who spoke for two hours. Do you know anything about his speech?).

No, the reason I’m interested in speeches is that I have written some for certain Israeli leaders, only to hear my brainchildren butchered upon deliverance. Took me some time to realize that my input was only one out of many, that others wrote and suggested ideas and arguments as well, and finally, like in a food processor, the outcome was a mushy stuff that left some happy, others annoyed and most people unimpressed. Since then, my hobby is to listen to speeches and try to decipher which opposing camps the speaker is trying to appease, where the quotations come from and from where the “original” ideas were stolen.

Speeches, in short, are irrelevant. It’s events and actions that matter. Obama will surely applaud the Arab spring and will say all the right words about the need for regimes in the Middle East to open up and walk hand in hand with their peoples toward a better future (you see, that’s how they write speeches). The region, however, has had enough words. Just read the Arab States Human Development Report of the United Nations Development Programme, written not by patronizing Westerners but by Arab scholars: “About 30 percent of the youth in the Arab States region is unemployed. Considering that more than 50 percent of the population in Arab countries is under the age of 24, 51 million new jobs are needed by 2020 in order to avoid an increase in the unemployment rate.” Will anyone shoulder this awesome task?

Obama will presumably speak about the need for Israel to stop settlements, return to the 1967 borders with land swaps and declare Jerusalem as a capital of both Israel and Palestine. That will make the Palestinians happy. On the other hand, he will demand that the Palestinians should not declare a state unilaterally and that they recognize Israel as a Jewish state and refrain from terror. That will make Netanyahu smile.

Netanyahu will also speak about the need to compromise but will condition it on Palestinian moves first. I bet that at least at the AIPAC event, he will say, to a standing ovation,  that “Jerusalem will always be united.” 

Reality, however, will take its own course, regardless of oratory. The rage of the Arab youth in the Middle East will grow as they become frustrated with the lack of progress after breaking the barrier of fear. The incidents on the Israeli borders with Syria and Lebanon should warn us against a worse scenario, where the Arab spring energies are diverted against Israel. Furthermore, regardless of speeches, the Palestinians will quite likely declare a state in September, with its capital in East Jerusalem, and will declare Israeli settlements illegal. A vast majority of U.N. members will support it, leaving the United States to decide where it stands. Israeli hardliners in the Likkud Party are already threatening that in that case, Israel should annex parts of the West Bank, which will only make things more difficult.

The only comical pause in this grim picture of the distance between words and reality was given by the Syrian regime, which denounced the so-called Israeli brutality in dealing with the protesters on the Golan. The Assad henchmen, slaughtering their own people while the world is silent, also have their touch with words.

As someone who for years has preached that Israel should pull out of most of the West Bank and support the founding of a viable Palestinian state, I have mixed feelings these days. What I have hoped for is probably going to happen in September, but instead of Israel being a full, active partner in the process, it might be dragged screaming and yelling into accepting the outcome.

I will listen to the speeches, all right. I will then pray that Netanyahu should not be confused by the applause his masterly crafted words have generated. When coming back to Israel, he should look reality in the eye and move. Here is an idea: The Arab Peace Initiative is still on the table. Instead of saying “no,” let’s try a “yes, but” approach. There are still three months left for action.

Uri Dromi is a columnist based in Jerusalem. From 1992 to 1996 he served as the spokesman of the Rabin and Peres governments. He blogs exclusively at Speeches vs. reality Read More »

David Suissa: Nakba Is in the Eye of the Beholder

While the world media was buzzing on May 15 about the Arab demonstrations marking the “Nakba” (catastrophe) of 1948, I was listening to a commencement address by Secretary of Energy Steven Chu at Pomona College in which he lamented, among other things, America’s inability to reduce its addiction to oil. At one point, Chu spoke eloquently about a future in which electric cars would be mass-produced, and how this might ignite an environmental revolution that could “save the planet.”

As he spoke, I thought of an article I had read on JPost that morning about an Israeli initiative to reduce global dependency on oil. The company Better Place unveiled the first electric car to be sold to the Israeli market — the Renault Fluence ZE. According to the report, “Israel will become, along with Denmark, the first country in which Better Place’s rechargeable, zero-emission vehicles will be sold commercially.”

I couldn’t help connecting the dots. On the one hand, there was the “catastrophe” of Israel’s creation in 1948 as expressed by Arab demonstrators, and, on the other hand, there was a miracle country with the potential to help “save the planet.”

Which one is it, a catastrophe or a miracle?

It’s easy to cop out and say we must recognize everyone’s narrative. If the Palestinians see the birth of Israel and the subsequent displacement of Arabs as a “catastrophe,” well, then, as Gideon Levy of Haaretz proposes, even Jewish schools in Israel must mark Nakba Day. As Levy wrote, “On that day it would be possible to tell our pupils that next to us lives a nation for whom our day of joy is their day of disaster, for which we and they are to blame.”

Personally, I’m more aligned with Jeffrey Goldberg, who calls the Arab “disaster” of 1948 “largely self-inflicted because the Arabs rejected the U.N. partition plan for Palestine, attacked the just-born Jewish state and then managed to lose on the battlefield.”

In other words, the Arab definition of “catastrophe” is that they failed to destroy the Jewish state at its birth.

Regardless, though, of how one sees the Nakba, it’s clear that the Nakba mindset nurtures bitterness and resentment — elements that are hardly conducive to planting seeds of peace and reconciliation. How can an Arab student want to have a healthy and respectful relationship with his Jewish neighbors if he is encouraged to see that very Jewish presence as a mark of Arab failure — a mark of enduring Arab shame? And if he is encouraged to see this Jewish creation as something that must be corrected, or even reversed?

If you ask me, the real Nakba day for the Palestinians is the day Hamas created its official charter with hate-filled, anti-Semitic tracts like this one: “For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah’s victory prevails.”

This Hamas “catastrophe” was made even more relevant recently with the reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas. As French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy lamented in The Huffington Post, prospects for peace have now “gone by the wayside with the rehabilitation of the only party concerned that is still proclaiming that ‘the fulfillment of the promise’ shall not come until ‘the Muslims’ have not only ‘combated’ but ‘killed’ all ‘the Jews.’ ”

The plain, ugly truth right now is that there is no peace on the horizon. But many of us, including presidents, pundits and peaceniks, cannot accept that truth, so we ignore inconvenient facts or just spin them into glimmers of false hope. As Saul Bellow once wrote, “A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.” 

Beyond all this gloomy talk, perhaps the biggest disaster of all is the inability of the Arab world to see the Jewish state as anything but a cursed presence. Call me a cynic, but I don’t think peace has a chance when Arabs still see the birth of Israel as a Nakba. In fact, I dream of the day when more Arabs will see the birth of Israel as a Fursa (“opportunity”). That would be the day Israeli Arabs discovered a messy and imperfect Jewish democracy that allowed them the freedom to speak up, and gave them rights and opportunities they could find nowhere else in the Middle East.

I even have an idea for who could lead this little movement: George Kerra, the Arab Israeli judge who sentenced the former president of Israel, Moshe Katsav, to seven years in jail for sexual aggression against a former female aide.

Think about that. A Middle Eastern country that is hated and threatened by its neighbors, forced to constantly fight for its life, manages to create a civil society where no one is above the law and where anyone can become a judge. Oh, and a society that still finds time to work on things like an electric car that could “save the planet.”

You want to endorse calling the birth of that nation a catastrophe? Don’t count me in.

David Suissa is a branding consultant and the founder of OLAM magazine. For speaking engagements and other inquiries, he can be reached at {encode=”suissa@olam.org” title=”suissa@olam.org”} or davidsuissa.com.

David Suissa: Nakba Is in the Eye of the Beholder Read More »

Obama and Bibi appear on same page

Crush terrorists and then make peace.

Through quirks of timing, it’s a narrative that President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu finally can agree on when they meet this week in Washington.

There remains a critical difference, however, between the two over what happens in the next chapter: Keep up the fight or step out and make peace.

The Obama administration, at least by default, seems to have embraced Netanyahu’s longtime mantra that the best way to clear the path to calm is through the elimination of terrorists.

Within two weeks, the administration lost both its bloodiest enemy and its best-known peacemaker: Osama bin Laden, the terrorist leader, died at the hands of U.S. soldiers, and George Mitchell quit his post as the administration’s lead peace broker for the Arab-Israeli conflict.

On May 24, Netanyahu will speak to a joint meeting of Congress, and the theme is likely to be the threat of terrorism faced both by Israel and the United States. He is slated to meet with Obama on May 20.

Both leaders are expected to address this year’s annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, which starts May 22.

The conference — the largest annual Israel-related gathering in the U.S. capital — comes just weeks after the announcement of a new unity government between the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas, the terrorist group that controls the Gaza Strip. The Obama and Netanyahu administrations have made clear that they believe the reconciliation of the two Palestinian factions will impede peace negotiations with Israel.

Meanwhile, the violence May 15 in Israel and on its borders by Arabs marking the anniversary of the Nakba — the “catastrophe” of Israel’s birth — appeared to strengthen Netanyahu’s resolve to stand tough.

“I regret that there are extremists among Israeli Arabs and in neighboring countries who have turned the day on which the State of Israel was established, the day on which the Israeli democracy was established, into a day of incitement, violence and rage,” he said at the outset of his weekly Cabinet meeting. “There is no place for this, for denying the existence of the State of Israel. No to extremism and no to violence.”

In a separate statement at the end of the day, Netanyahu concluded with a promise and a warning.

“We will continue to defend our borders and sovereignty,” he said. “We must regard the reality with open eyes and see with what and whom we are dealing.”

Days earlier, Tom Donilon, Obama’s national security adviser, had sounded a similar note in how the Obama administration would deal with terrorists, referring to the bin Laden operation.

“Our action sent a powerful message for America’s friends and adversaries: We do what we say we will do,” he said in a May 12 address to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “That is an important message that resonates across our other strategic interests.”

The reference to friends, adversaries and “other strategic interests,” as well as the venue — the premier pro-Israel think tank in Washington and a crowd peppered with potential campaign donors — made Donilon’s subtext clear: The Obama administration and Israel are on the same page when it comes to confronting terrorism.

That’s a message likely to be reinforced next week at the AIPAC parley.

The message from the Obama administration was underscored as well by how Donilon made what had been the administration’s mantra until now — the critical necessity of achieving a two-state solution — almost an afterthought in a speech that otherwise was dedicated to confronting terrorism and Iran.

That reference included a dig at the Palestinians for pursuing international recognition through the United Nations.

“An enduring two-state solution can only be achieved through negotiations,” Donilon said. “There are no shortcuts.”

Mitchell’s resignation the next day underscored the administration’s turn away from intensive peacemaking for now.

Joel Rubin, the deputy director of the National Security Network think tank and a former foreign policy staffer for top Democrats, said Mitchell may have been disenchanted by the Hamas-Fatah agreement as well as by the determination in Congress to cut off PA funding in light of the pact.

“It’s quite possible he looked at the unity government dynamic and looked at the domestic political environment here and thought it’s very difficult to craft a way forward on that effectively,” Rubin said.

White House officials have said that Obama planned to deliver a speech on May 19, linking his determination to confront terrorism with encouragement for nascent democracies in the Arab world.

Seizing the initiative on terrorism now could allow Obama to press forward later with a bold peace initiative.

Donilon hinted at such a linkage in his speech to the Washington Institute, which shares board members with AIPAC.

“As we have learned in the Middle East, the status quo is never static,” he said. “There are demographic and technological clocks that keep ticking. There is a new generation of leaders who will emerge in the region as a result of the changes that are now taking place. And it is in everyone’s interest that they see that peace is possible.”

Steve Rosen, the director of the Middle East Forum’s Washington Project and a former foreign policy director for AIPAC, said international pressure to advance peace is likely to emerge around August, on the eve of the U.N. General Assembly.

If the Palestinians, as expected, have the votes in support of statehood not only in the General Assembly but also in the U.N. Security Council, that would necessitate a U.S. veto. Such a turn of events would discomfit an Obama administration that has made its dedication to arriving at a two-state solution a key plank of its outreach to Europe and the Arab world.

“They pretty much have to veto, but it’s not going to be easy for them,” said Rosen, who blamed the Obama administration for cornering itself with its past insistence on an extended settlement freeze that Netanyahu did not deliver.

One way to relieve the international pressure would be for the Obama administration, in August, to again push for talks with the Palestinians, Rubin said.

“That’s a situation where there has to be a triage,” he said, referring to the looming U.N. recognition.

Netanyahu, with the backing of much of the U.S. Congress, has counted out negotiations as long as Hamas is involved with the Palestinian Authority.

What, exactly, Netanyahu is planning — if anything — is not clear, Rosen said.

“I tried to find out where the prime minister was going,” he said. “I was told repeatedly by several aides that they did not know.”

Obama and Bibi appear on same page Read More »