The periphery of the Walter E. Washington Convention Center has always been somewhat of a circus when the American Israel Public Affairs Committee comes to town for its annual policy conference.
This year was no different: There was, for instance, the Greek Orthodox-looking guy holding a sign reading, “Occupy AIPAC with Jesus Christ!” That was on Monday morning just after Democratic president front-runner Hillary Clinton wrapped up her speech before delegates. The day before saw an army of pro-Palestinian protesters hoisting flags and chanting, keeping attendees inside the convention center for several minutes. And, like clockwork, the Neturei Karta pro-Iran, pro-Palestinian Chasidic minority camped out on the lawn outside.
But with the arrival of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump Monday night at the event’s other location, the Verizon Center stadium, it became clear that the circus — at 18,000 delegates, AIPAC’s largest-ever conference — came indoors.
“I didn’t come here tonight to pander to you about Israel,” the billionaire developer said, to a chorus of alternating boos and cheers. “That’s what politicians do. All talk. No action.”
When he took the podium, some attendees kept their promise, despite instructions from officials, and walked out, although outside, the anticipated protesters, whether anti-Trump or anti-AIPAC, just didn’t materialize to the levels expected. Still, Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld, rabbi of Ohev Sholom-The National Synagogue, donned a tallit and tried to rush the stage only to be ushered out by security. (“I had to declare his wickedness,” the rabbi later told reporters.)
Trump largely delivered what many in the crowd were expecting and promised to move the American Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to the “eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem.” And yet, the standing ovations were fewer and smaller than for Ohio Gov. John Kasich, another Republican presidential hopeful.
Looking back, it didn’t take the presence of Trump to demonstrate the divisions within the pro-Israel community. As reported by the Washington Jewish Week, just 24 hours before, when Vice President Joe Biden literally ran onto the dais at the Verizon Center, he was hailed as a true friend of Israel. For most of his speech, he enjoyed waves of applause, especially when he roared, “I condemn those who fail to condemn terror,” an obvious dig at Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and others in the Arab world.
When the vice president turned to castigating Israel for provocative moves in the area of settlement construction, though, several in the audience told him to shut up. And when he ran a victory lap, as it were, on the successful passage of the Iran nuclear deal and American military support of the Jewish state — claiming that “Israel is stronger today because of the Obama/Biden administration” — many got up from their seats and walked outside in the cold.
Make no mistake, many at AIPAC were still smarting from the Iran deal, which they fought tooth and nail against and spent millions of dollars to defeat. But when a montage of past speakers showed such faces as President Obama’s and former Vice President Al Gore’s — the one the author of the Iran deal, the other an outspoken backer of it — their presence on the Jumbotron elicited some of the loudest applause.
A hallmark of AIPAC has always been its ability to bring disparate factions of the pro-Israel community together: Republicans, Democrats, all of the Jewish denominations, evangelical Christians. But when its army of grassroots lobbyists took to Capitol Hill on Tuesday, their No. 1 issue, according to official talking points, was getting Congress to pass new sanctions on Iran. There was a palpable questioning of that strategy, with many wondering aloud if it was better to move onto other winnable issues, such as securing a new memorandum of understanding between the United States and Israel on military spending, a cause relegated to the No. 3 position on AIPAC’s agenda.
If there’s one clear takeaway from the just-concluded conference, it’s not to marvel at AIPAC’s ability to bring 18,000 supporters of Israel together under one roof. In the light of how different blocs reacted to such different front-runners as Clinton and Trump, the takeaway must be how despite all of what keeps people in disparate camps, they can all agree on the importance of a strong U.S.-Israel alliance and a Jewish state able to defend itself in a turbulent Middle East.
As the circus moves on, remembering that point of unity is more important than ever.
Joshua Runyan is the editorial director of Mid-Atlantic Media, publisher of the Washington Jewish Week. He can be reached at email@example.com.
Addressing West Virginia Democrats last month, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta offered a thinly veiled critique of his former boss, the president.
“In our democracy, we govern either by leadership or by crisis. If leadership is not there, make no mistake about it, we will govern by crisis and, right now, we largely govern by crisis,” said Panetta, according to Politico.
I was still thinking about Panetta’s provocative statement when I read senior writer David Holzel’s story this week (see page 11) about the Jewish Community Center of Greater Washington’s receipt of a sizable grant from the Tikkun Olam Women’s Foundation, a project of the United Jewish Endowment Fund of The Jewish Federation of Greater Washington, to train both professional and lay adults in the skills needed to prevent, recognize and react to child sexual abuse.
“As uncomfortable as this subject makes us, and as much as we’d like to ignore it and hope that it never impacts us, we know it happens, and we know it happens in the Jewish community,” said Michael Feinstein, the JCC’s chief executive. “By working across organizations and with families, we can prevent child sexual abuse from happening here.”
Indeed, child sexual abuse is real and prevalent. About 400,000 children under age 18 are sexually abused in a given year – one in seven girls and one in 25 boys, according to figures from the Department of Justice. That equates to roughly 10 percent of all children under age 18.
Feinstein says the Jerry Sandusky case at Penn State University, in particular, prompted him to seek additional resources to address an issue “that has not yet been a problem for us.”
Applying Panetta’s test, that’s governing by leadership.
I stood at a graveside in Pittsburgh this past summer and listened as an experienced pulpit rabbi eulogized a young Jewish suicide victim. In the gray storm light, the rabbi dizzily groped for words, ultimately confessing that she had no frame of reference for this kind of death. “Unless you’ve been personally touched by suicide, you can’t understand what this family is thinking and feeling,” I remember her saying. The rabbi meant well, of course, but her implicit message – suicide is so inscrutable, so mysterious, so Other – is a problem for our society.
Suicide is not a new phenomenon, in the Jewish community or the culture at large. As senior writer Suzanne Pollak reports in her cover story this week (“ ‘The pain changes your life’ ” ), two Wootton High School students have committed suicide in the past year and a third attempted to do so just last month.
Shakespeare’s young prince of Denmark contemplates suicide in his first major soliloquy in Act I, scene ii of Hamlet: O that this too too solid flesh would melt, Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew! Or that the Everlasting had not fix’d His canon ’gainst self-slaughter! O God! O God! How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable Seem to me all the uses of this world!
These days, Hamlet is less well-known than pop-culture figures, and, as Susan Bodnar, a clinical psychologist who teaches at Columbia University, put it to me in an interview following the death of comedian Robin Williams on Aug. 11, the loss of someone so enmeshed in the culture presents a perfect “opportunity to start a national conversation about suicide that can be healthy for individuals and society.” The first step, according to Bodnar, is treating “mental illness on par with physical illness.”
In a long interview with this paper, Rabbi M. Bruce Lustig, senior rabbi of Washington Hebrew Congregation, agreed, saying that he has come to understand depression is “as real and prevalent as other illnesses” and that “no religious community is immune from the issues that may lead to suicide, including depression.” Indeed, the latest figures from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control indicate that 9.1 percent of the population meets the criteria for current depression (significant symptoms for at least two weeks before the survey), and 4.1 percent meet the criteria for major depression.
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, major depressive disorder is associated with high mortality; up to 15 percent of individuals with this disorder die by suicide. Lustig’s synagogue has hosted film screenings and discussions about suicide and depression, in order to “let people know we care, and to lower the barrier of entry for someone seeking to come forward, so hopefully we can help.”
In that spirit, here are some additional resources: • JSSA, the Jewish Social Service Agency serving Maryland, D.C. and Northern Virginia, runs a suicide support group. Inquiries: 301-816-2708; firstname.lastname@example.org. • The number for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, staffed 24/7, is 1-800-273-8255. • To learn more about depression, visit the National Institutes of Health’s website: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/ topics/depression/index.shtml.
Resilience can be taught. That was the hopeful message Michele Borba, the educational psychologist, author and Dr. Oz Show contributor brought to a packed auditorium at the Jewish Primary Day School of the Nation’s Capital (JPDS-NC) Sunday night.
Borba was the keynote speaker of the school’s first annual Ari Zymelman lecture on parenting. She is an adherent of the positive psychology movement led by Martin Seligman, a Jewish professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and a former head of the American Psychological Association.
And she is a star – a telegenic, confident, eloquent and funny speaker who connects with audiences.
But is she right?
What Borba did not tell the JPDS audience – and should have – is that resilience is a controversial field. It emerged as a major theoretical and research topic as recently as the 1980s, and since then it has generated a great deal of dispute and confusion. Bright minds cannot even seem to agree on a working definition of the term.
Some scholars say resilience is the absence of psychopathology. Other experts, like George A. Bonanno, Columbia University professor of clinical psychology, say it takes more than avoiding mental illness to be resilient. Bonanno defines resilience as a life trajectory, “a relatively stable pattern of healthy functioning coupled with the enduring capacity for positive emotion and generative experiences.” In other words, a resilient person, despite day-to-day fluctuations, can love and work.
Borba agrees, defining resilience Sunday as the “emotional equip[ment] to face challenges and bounce back from setbacks.” She argues that if parents give their children 1) unconditional love and acceptance; 2) a structured, nonpermissive environment; and 3) the opportunities to be listened and heard, that they can “plant the seeds of self-esteem” that will enable children to “regulate intense feelings and to manage difficult situations.”
Self-esteem, optimism and hope are the keys to resilience, according to Borba. Fair enough. But Borba went a huge step further Sunday, claiming that these traits are “all teachable.” That surprised me. Rarely do scientists make such bold, unreserved pronouncements.
One of the most respected researchers in Borba’s field, Frank Putnam, M.D., of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, while acknowledging that resiliency can be “enhanced” by personality traits such as “optimism, high I.Q., special talents and physical attractiveness,” argues that these traits are largely accidents of birth and thus “not very modifiable.” In Putnam’s words, therefore, resiliency “is largely a myth.”
Last summer, Putnam and his colleagues at UNC published a paper in the peer-reviewed Journal of Traumatic Stress showing that although people are not at significant risk for developing post-traumatic stress disorder or other serious mental illness after experiencing one major childhood adversity (physical abuse or sexual abuse, parental neglect, witnessing domestic violence, among them), the odds of doing so skyrocket after two or more adversities. Putnam’s data suggest that at around three or four major childhood adversities, “most people crumble.”
Putnam’s advice: Precisely because resilience cannot be taught, society’s focus should be on prevention.
As I sit here today, I cannot say which of these experts is correct. Resilience could be a learned behavior, as Borba argues, or it could simply be a numbers game – “a threshold” – as Putnam contends.
But the notions that children should be raised with love, structure, opportunities to be heard and guarded, to the extent possible, from major trauma – who could disagree with that?
Maureen Dowd turned her trademark snark on Brandeis University, Haverford College and Rutgers University when, in a May 17 column for The New York Times, she reported how those institutions of higher learning disinvited their commencement speakers due to protests from students opposed to hearing from them.
In particular, Dowd lamented Rutgers’ snub of Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush’s secretary of state. “[T]he students shouldn’t have jumped the gun,” Dowd argued. “After all, there was always a chance, a small one, admittedly, but a chance, that Condi Rice would have looked into her soul and told the story of what happens when you succumb to the temptation to sell it. “And that, dear graduates, family and friends, faculty and honored guests, would have been the most amazing and instructive commencement speech of all time.”
I agree with Dowd. I cannot pinpoint when this phenomenon began, this stubborn refusal to listen to people with opposing points of view. In American political and social life, we are becoming increasingly polarized and shrill in our dialogue.
Moderates are retiring from elected office en masse, or being voted out. Americans are losing their appetite for a varied news diet, too, as evidenced by the latest cable news ratings.
As reported by Mediabistro, the partisan Fox News Channel (Right) and MSNBC (Left) currently rank #1 and #2 in prime time; the comparatively moderate CNN trails a distant third. So it did not surprise me that I received emails from subscribers this week urging me to pull WJW to the Left and Right, and to purge the editorial pages of viewpoints they do not share.
This would not only compromise our mission to engage the entire Jewish community, a diverse group, but also, I believe, make us all dumber. There is science to back up my belief. According to a 2012 study by Fairleigh Dickinson University, exposure to partisan sources, such as Fox News and MSNBC, has a negative impact on people’s knowledge of current events.
This nationwide survey confirms initial findings presented in a similar 2011 survey. In the FDU study, 1,185 respondents nationwide were asked about what news sources they consumed in the past week and then were asked a variety of questions about current political and economic events in the U.S. and abroad.
On average, people were able to answer correctly 1.8 of 4 questions about international news, and 1.6 of 5 questions about domestic affairs. Someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly — a significantly worse figure than if they had reported watching no media at all. Incredible, right? I was asked this week what news source – singular – I read to understand the situation in Gaza. I replied that, with respect to Gaza and all other important topics, I am a news omnivore (starting with WJW, of course).
Psychologists have a word for people who cannot stomach such variety. “Cognitive dissonance” is defined as: “The feeling of discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs.”
My advice: always be open to hearing opposing points of view. If your convictions are firmly rooted in logic, hearing a contrary point of view should not shake your belief in your opinions or in yourself. And if it does, so be it. Edward Said was the commencement speaker at my college graduation, from Haverford. Said, the famous Palestinian activist and literary scholar, was no threat to my beliefs about Israel.
And if he had said something slanderous or dunderheaded about the Jewish state, I would have been grateful for the chance to be among the first to listen and respond.