Shai Baitel

The Story of a Jewish Violin

2012-08-28T16:04:59-04:00

The traditions of the Jews have been the subject of much research as well as countless books and conferences. Many believe that what kept the Jewish people so unique and united through the course of history, despite atrocities and pogroms, are these very same traditions. They have the power to unite behind a set of shared values and beliefs. In one of the most memorable musicals of all time, the protagonist Tevye, a dairy farmer from a shtetl in Tsarist Russia suggests that: "[...] [I]n our little village of Anatevka, you might say, every one of us is a fiddler on the roof... -- and how do we keep our balance? That I can tell you in one word: tradition!"

With the Jewish fiddler in the picture, we can note that there is a long-standing connection between Jewish tradition and the violin, that perhaps most popular of instruments. In fact, since the emergence of the violin it has drawn the attention of many and is featured in many works of art beyond music, such as in paintings by Marc Chagall, and others.

Looking back, history chronicles the appearance of first modern violin the way we know it, a four-string instrument in the early to mid-1500s in Northern Italy -- a common destination for prosecuted Jews from Spain. It was the scholar Roger Prior who first suggested that it had been Jews who had developed the new instrument, from its precursor that was known in Spain as the viol. And the time parallel of the settlement of Jews after their expulsion in that region and the emergence of the violin as we know it is indeed striking.

Anthropologists later supported this theory by pointing to the nature of the Jewish people, who were -- and are -- heavily vested in arts and culture, which could have led to the 'invention' of the violin. And its embrace and introduction into the Jewish culture was certainly helped by its relatively small size. It is light to carry, particularly when Jews had to escape prosecution and pogroms, fleeing from one region or country to another.

With the heavy involvement of Jewish artistic spirit in the emergence of the violin it is not a surprise that many of the most famous violinists have been and are Jewish. Not even going back in history we recognize some of the most famous contemporary players of this instrument who are continuing a long and distinguished Jewish, well, tradition: Joshua Bell, Jascha Heifetz, Yehudi Menuhin, David Oistrakh, Itzhak Perlman, Isaac Stern, Maxim Vengerov, and Pinchas Zukerman are recognized as masters of their art.

One Jewish violinist stands out, however. Not for her achievements in the classical repertoire rather than her unique approach and innovative musical sound. It is Miri Ben-Ari. This Israeli-born artist was classically trained since the tender age of five. And only seven year later she would be given a violin by the legendary Isaac Stern. If Stern could foresee how far this violin, played by Ben-Ari, would go? Accepted for violin studies at the renowned Mannes College The New School For Music, Ben-Ari had to leave prematurely, unable to afford the tuition.

But she would make her way nonetheless. With the can-do spirit of the Jewish tradition, Ben-Ari's repertoire encompasses classical music, Jazz, Soul, R&B, and Pop. She had her break-out moment, as Hip-Hop violinist, when she published her synonymous album in 2005. She firmly established herself as star when she won the Grammy Award in the same year, as a co-writer of Kanye West's "Jesus Walks."

In a recent conversation following the release of a new video clip "Dim the Lights," Miri Ben-Ari shared with me her view of transitioning from being a musician to being an artist: "If a person comes from artistic background, then his creation will have a deep artistic element. But being a musician doesn't necessarily grant you the creative facet of an artist. I therefore define myself an artist rather than a musician." And indeed, Ben-Ari's successful career has resulted so far in four albums (including Run This City, Sunshine to the Rain, We Gonna Win, and Symphony of Brotherhood), numerous performances on the important stages in the United States and abroad. She performed for heads of state, including, most recently, President Barack Obama who had joined a cheering crowd during an election campaign event.

Like with so many of her Jewish peers, Miri Ben-Ari finds importance and meaning in philanthropic work. Ben-Ari is involved in many charitable activities, including Yad Vashem, due to her dedication to the commemoration of the Holocaust and the education about it in the United States. She appeared at benefits at the Apollo Theater, and was a guest of First Lady Michelle Obama as part of the Women's History Month celebrations at the White House in 2011.

Through her art, Ben-Ari does not shy away from difficult themes. Her most recent work, "Dim the Light," reflects facing an embarrassing situation, which often poses a challenge in order to prevail. She should be proud of it because it not only displays her skills and mature musicianship but also her being one of the work's successful producers. Ben-Ari further branched out and created the clip's unique styling.

Young, energetic, and with high motivation, Miri Ben-Ari is gearing up for more new releases as well as new contracts with leading artist in the music world. Her art makes her a star of the, well, Jewish violin. She has a great artistic range of Classical, Modern, World and Jazz Musical, performs for world leaders as well as for the young and vibrant crowd of hip hop lovers, participates in campaigns for Reebok and Pepsi, performs clips of national significance -- such as Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" -- and plays the National Anthem at major events, such as NBA games: Miri Ben-Ari has certainly brought the diversity of playing the violin to new heights.

So, when Tevye asks at the beginning of the musical: "A fiddler on the roof. Sounds crazy, no?" then the answer is: "Not at all because for Miri Ben-Ari, her violin, and her art, every place can be a stage."

Helping Us to See the World Better

2012-06-06T14:21:23-04:00

The Russian American Foundation marks its Fifteen Year Anniversary

Recently, Google's co-founder Sergey Brin revealed an early prototype of glasses that are promising to
change our cyber lifestyle. Having been in development for 2-3 years, these glasses have built-in camera,
GPS and offer email and web searches on surface of glasses. Prototypes of this product are now being
tested outside Google's offices.

Google attempts to changing the way we look at the world and possibly changing the way we see and
understand. Brin again proves to be a key innovator. But we have to thank his father that Brin grew up in
an environment that allowed him to become the pioneer he is today. In a way, it was Michael Brin who
managed to look at the world he was living in in a way that would radically change his perception.

In interviews, including with Mark Malseed, co-author of The Google Story, Sergey's father told the story
of explains how he realized in the 1970s that there was no future for him, a Jew, and his family in the
USSR. Experiencing latent anti-Semitism and exclusion from university careers, particularly in physics, he
overcame institutional hurdles set up for Jews, as well as harassment. Meeting counterparts from the
United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany, at a mathematics conference in Warsaw he
realized the extent of Soviet propaganda and oppression. He resolved to get himself and his family out
to the United States.

It is this quality of looking at things from a different angle or perspective that Sergey seems to have
inherited from his father. Would we have Google as we know it if the Brin family had not left? It is
speculation, but there is no doubt that Russian immigrants, particularly Jewish ones, flourished in their
new home countries. It is difficult to overstate their impact, particularly in the United States and Israel,
where they have left an indelible mark and enriched science, culture and other areas.

Did you know about the achievements and contributions of the Russian community? You should. The
talent and creativity of Russian immigrants are reasons to celebrate and be celebrated. For the past
ten years, the Russian American Foundation has been the key institution cultivating these talents and
gifted individuals. The Foundation has done and continues to do an impressive job living up to and
exceeding its stated mission to encourage "interest in and understanding of Russian heritage among all
communities in the US, as well as to promote reciprocate interest in American heritage among global
communities of the former Soviet Union." Moreover, the Foundation excels at engaging in activities
in showcasing, supporting, and preserving Russian heritage, culture and language. And we all are
beneficiaries of the activities because we realize the extent of talent and culture, such as in theater,
ballet, visual arts, or music, we gained from those who came from the USSR and, later, Russia.

The Russian American Foundation's co-Founders Marina Kovalyov and Rina Kirshner can be proud of
these achievements and the deserved celebrations will start tonight at the Metropolitan Museum of
Art. New York City's Mayor Michael Bloomberg will be in attendance, and the event will, simultaneously,
mark the beginning of Russian Heritage Month, which celebrates its impressive tenth year. The Russian
Heritage Month offers a fantastic opportunity to witness the splendid diversity and quality of Russian
culture.

One of the outstanding groups participating in the program is "Lost and Found," a theater ensemble
headed by Anna Zicer. She defines the group as an investigative theater laboratory, with its members

being first-generation Russian Jews who had escaped to the United States. "They are looking for a
common thread," she said in a telephone interview, as many of them have similar identities. The name
of the show they present during the Russian Heritage Month is called "Doroga," or journey in Russian, and
it follows the daily process, the daily thinking and realization of what their lives might have been, if their
families had not embarked on a path to their new lives outside the now former USSR.

The Russian American Foundation's scope of activities seems ever expanding beyond the showcasing
and celebration of Russian talent and excellence in the United States. The bilateral relations between
the United States and Russia are a two-way street and Foundation leaders Marina Kovalyov and Rina
Kirshner believe that "the peoples of the United States and Russia are able to support each other, stand
shoulder to shoulder and to develop friendly relations and mutual understanding" between these two
countries.

This couldn't be demonstrated more convincingly than by the Russian America Foundation's sending a
delegation of New York City firefighters to Moscow to participate in an epic "Battles on Ice," a hockey
tournament pitting members of the FDNY against EMERCOM, Russia's Emergency Control Ministry.
The tournament brought together emergency response workers from the U.S. and Russia to foster
a spirit of camaraderie and friendly competition after the teams collaborated throughout the
year in sharing best practices in their fields. The FDNY had some help from NY Rangers alumni, while
Russia's "Legends of Hockey" club helped round out EMERCOM's lineup, in a tournament meant to
compliment the partnership between the U.S. and Russia on disaster preparedness. Despite a tradition
of fierce on-ice rivalry between the two nations, the atmosphere at the tournament was one of friendly
competition and mutual respect -- and a shared admiration for the game of hockey.

At a time when the U.S.-Russian relations at a governmental level are frosty, the positive impact
of civil society organizations, such as the Russian American Foundation, and their initiatives, such as
the Russian Heritage Month, cannot be overstated. In its fifteenth year, the Foundation, through its
energetic leadership, is the dynamic force that highlights the contributions and achievements of the
justifiably proud Russian community to its American friends. In a way, the Foundation helps us to see
and understand our world better more than ever. Sergey Brin sure would be proud.

The Russian Muses Are Heard (and Seen)

2012-05-03T11:43:08-04:00

On May Day, Russia's President Dmitri Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin attended the traditional parade of trade unionists in Moscow, possibly for the last time before they will switch roles. Putin will formally return to the Kremlin later this month and we will see what his renewed presidency will bring politically and economically. In terms of international relations, especially the bilateral relations with the United States, there is certainly much room for improvement.

Russia and the United States both seem to have long lists of grievances, justified or not: from missile shields, the Arab Spring, the Iranian nuclear issue, to the treatment of the new American ambassador. There are many problems. For sure, the was the much-touted 'Reset' but, at least in terms of domestic politics, it contradicts Putin's seeming reliance on anti-American rhetoric to galvanize his base and to satisfy the many influential interest groups that benefit from perceptions of Russia as a being under pressure.

Thankfully, in the United States, at least the perception of Russia among Americans has markedly improved over the years. Scott Clement, a polling analyst, found that "there is a resistance against being too trustful -- fewer than one in five have called Russia an "ally" at any point in time -- but calling Russia America's "number one geopolitical foe" [...] seem[s] anachronistic [...]."

But despite the political differences the bilateral cultural relations between these two important countries should be faring well. Arts and culture are a link, sometimes even a lifeline, between countries, as they remind us of our humanity and instill respect of other cultures. And, all things considered, they do. Russian audiences experience American orchestras and Americans experience Russian ballet. But not all is well, however, at least temporarily.

At issue is a U.S. Federal Court decision, which confirmed claims by New York's Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic movement to the Schneerson Library, an important collection of Jewish religious books, which is owned by Russia. Russia's Foreign Ministry finds this decision wrong and fears blackmail like holding Russian art objects in the United States. All this amounted to a cultural exchange moratorium, which suspended a series of museum exchanges. Both countries are working on the problem but, in the meantime, the American art aficionados are being deprived of seeing and enjoying works of Russian art which normally would have come on exhibition in the United States.

And as is so often the case, there is one courageous, visionary individual who does not accept an untenable situation and decides to act in the face of adversity. Anatoly Bekkerman, owner of the ABA Gallery in New York took the initiative to mount a major show of Russian art despite, and in circumvention of, the cultural moratorium.

For two weeks, New Yorkers will be able to view exceptional examples of important Russian art spanning three centuries, in an exhibition titled "Russian Art from Private Collections: Borovikovsky to Kabakov." Mr. Bekkerman bridges the gap left by the moratorium through a collaborative effort with distinguished private collectors, such as Mikhail Baryshnikov and Vladimir Spivakov. On view will be over ninety works by Russia's greatest 19th- and 20th-century masters, which allow the viewer to realize the great influence of Russia on the arts.

It is gratifying to see how such a private initiative can fill a temporary void and, at the same time, help mend whatever damage politics and legal issues can do to cultural relations. Mr. Bekkerman's mission is simple but important. He states plainly: "Art has the unique power to encourage communication and mutual understanding between our nations." This should also be a motivation and encouragement for both the Russian and American representatives to find an amicable solution and end to the moratorium soon.

An old adage has it as follows: "When the cannons are heard, the muses are silent. When the cannons are silent, the muses are heard." We have to thank Mr. Bekkerman that New Yorkers will be able to view marvelous Russian art pieces despite the firing of the proverbial legal and diplomatic cannons of the cultural moratorium. So go and see those Russian muses.

Me(c)ca Is Actually in Jersey City

2012-04-30T16:57:57-04:00

When the first Muslim faithfuls started paying their religious dues to Islam and made their annual hajj ('pilgrimage') to Mecca, they did not realize how popular the name of the city, the religion's holiest, would become. Based in the Hejaz in Saudi Arabia, Mecca is the place where Muslims believe Muhammad was born and the Quran was received. The obligation for every Muslim to make the hajj at least once in his or her life, marks the pinnacle of the personal connection to Mecca and the Kaaba, the holy cube structure, in its center.

Because of the unparalleled cultural phenomenon of the millions of pilgrims Mecca receives every year, the city's name turned into a popular synonym that often times describe places of importance and the with power to attract groups of often like-minded people.

But how do we get from city having become synonymous with a place that attracts to New Jersey? It is not as far-fetched as it might seem. Let us consider the following: More than a decade ago, visionary business entrepreneur Moishe Mana acquired a complex of abandoned industrial buildings, amounting to a million square feet, in Jersey City. He had not yet quite grasped the enormous potential these buildings with the somewhat dreary façades would have. Together with his team of executives, led by Eugene Lemay, and joined by Yigal Ozeri, an accomplished painter and, in a sense, a renaissance man, the previously abandoned buildings they are gradually turning an amazing vision into reality.

Still a bit under the proverbial radar screen, they have been developing an arts center, which more than promises to be one of the most important, most influential ones in Greater New York, the Tri-State area, maybe even in the United States. Yes, it is easily, and rapidly, becoming a new Mecca of artists, and arts collectors, and arts aficionados.

With the dream of almost unlimited space fulfilled, the center is divided into a several sections. These sections already cover many facets, such fine arts, visual arts, dance, theater, and design. And more are to come in the near future. More than 80 artists have their studio at the center already. A few magnificent galleries spaces of world-class standard have been created. They co-exist next to the leading arts storage facilities, equipped with the latest technologies, and housing works of some of the more important museums, galleries, and private collections.

A look back: Moishe Mana came to the United States in the early '80s, and like many newcomers, he was looking for a job to start his American dream. Being one man who had a truck, the moving business was a natural choice. With a keen business sense and entrepreneurial spirit, he succeeded in growing the man-with-a-van operation, within a decade, into the largest moving company in the Tri-State area, with today has a presence across the country. In addition, moving items of individuals and companies, made Mr. Mana realize the need for storage. In a logical next step his business expanded to storage facilities, which today is one of the most advanced operations in the world, with expertise in document filing, wine, furniture, clothing storage, and, yes, arts as well.

It was this storage of precious and valuable arts items stored in the Jersey City facilities that was the inspiration to dedicate some of the other spaces for exhibiting them. Eugene Lemay, the center's president and an accomplished artist in his own right, put it this way: It did not seem right to him, that some of the most magnificent pieces of art were stored away, wrapped up in boxes and crates, while, at the same time, there was ample space to exhibit many of them and have the public enjoy them.

It was philanthropist Eileen Kaminsky, who embraced this vision and was the first important collector to present works of her collection in the facility in May 2011. In her foundation's statement, she notes that "[d]edicated to expanding our understanding of contemporary art, [my foundation] exhibits collections usually hidden from the public eye... " Since then, several other exhibits have opened and allowed previously hidden treasures be accessible to the public.

In another milestone, just a month ago, the arts operation, now consolidated as Mana Contemporary, announced a new program called MECA. This new exhibit is the first in a series dedicated to arts from the Middle East. MECA implies the subject or origin of the artists, but it is actually the acronym for 'Middle East Center of the Arts.' A group of Israeli artists are presenting some of their works in an exhibit called, timely and challengingly, 'Spring 2012.' Twenty-two of Israel's leading artists of Bedouin, Christian, Druze, Jewish and Muslim backgrounds, including Farid Abu Shakra, Anisa Ashkar, Raffi Lavie and Micha Ullman showcase with over 60 works of all disciplines in this unique show.

The future of this center, without question, will be as intriguing: MECA will focus on the concept of collaboration, with artists, curators, scholars, and institutions of different religious and cultural backgrounds, working together as a community. The shared goal is to broaden the perception and educate the greater public about the Middle East, combining divergent philosophies and beliefs that would otherwise not meet. The center's programs will include not only exhibitions, but also residencies for artists from the Middle East, lectures by experts and screenings of relevant films and documents. MECA might be providing only a glimpse into the many diverse activities of Mana Contemporary, with it's one million square feet of space. But it is certainly a good indicator.

What has started off as a straight forward storage facility for arts, which over time transformed space into a few dozens of artists studio, galleries space, professional workshops, and arts stores, is little by little turning into, not less, the new Mecca for arts. It is more than the mere exceptionally large space that impresses. It is Mana Contemporary's entire concept and mission that fascinates. Similarly to what Mecca means to many Muslims, this new center is quickly turning into the central hub of whole arts communities. As Eileen Kaminsky, the eminent arts collector put it in an interview last year: "Mana Contemporary is Mecca to me." It is even more than that: It is Mecca to all of us. And we learn that 'Me(c)ca' is actually in Jersey City.

Fuel for Thought in Gaza

2012-04-24T18:54:20-04:00

The following is a guest post by Ambassador Ron Prosor is Israel's Permanent Representative to the United Nations. I have offered him my column today.

When asked about his preferred method of work, satirical writer Garrison Keillor once explained, "I believe in looking reality straight in the eye... and denying it."

Keillor's approach has been commonplace in the way that many have sized up the situation in the Gaza Strip, since Hamas -- a fundamentalist Islamist terrorist organization -- seized control of the area in a bloody coup in 2007, after winning Palestinian elections the year before.

Like a group of smiling tour guides at a Caribbean resort, legions of pundits and policymakers have been dancing the limbo with Hamas for years, setting the bar lower and lower for what is acceptable. Instead of holding the regime responsible for the well-being of the people of Gaza, most have turned a blind eye to their oppression.

They continue to place the words "moderate" and "reforming" in the same sentence as an organization that jails woman for taking off their veils, throws political opponents from windows, and promotes genocide in its school textbooks and television shows. The truth is that the only things Hamas has "reformed" in Gaza are the capabilities of the rockets that it fires into Israel -- and the tools that it uses to repress its own people. A recent wave of blackouts across Gaza has exposed this truth so brightly, that few can deny it.

Over the past two months, a fuel crisis in Gaza has brought life to a standstill. Power outages closed hospital wards. Taxis were shuttered in garages. A recent poll conducted by the Arab World for Research & Development revealed that 48% of Gazans held Hamas responsible for the crisis. Only 21% blamed Israel. One young Gazan said, "Our leaders are playing while we are being grilled on the fire of poverty."

The numbers are unsurprising for a population that has seen firsthand how promises of good governance can go out the window when extremist Islamists get their hands near the cookie jar. For years, Hamas has made billions by smuggling weapons through its tunnels on the Egyptian border, creating a black market which eventually undermined the stability of the Sinai Peninsula. As goods and aid streamed across Israeli crossings, Hamas leaders lined their pockets with black market revenues from trafficking weapons, luxury items, and discounted fuel. In February, Egyptian authorities shut down 20 of their smuggling tunnels, including an illicit fuel pipeline.

With this pipeline now out of order, Hamas was forced to legally purchase fuel from Egypt for the first time. There was just one catch -- the Egyptian crossings into Gaza do not have the capacity to meet the Strip's needs, leaving Israel's far more developed aid crossings as the only option. Accepting assistance from Israel would have brought the idiom "don't bite the hand that feeds you" to new levels of absurdity, even for Hamas. Rather than risk the justification of their campaign of terror and policies of incitement, Hamas naturally chose to plunge their people into darkness.

After weeks of blackouts, it became clear that this choice had backfired. Anti-Hamas campaigns calling for protests and strikes spread across social media. Protest camps erected during last year's regional unrest came back to life. In typical fashion, Hamas responded with waves of arrests. In one instance, 120 taxi drivers were imprisoned on suspicion of spreading "rumors" that Hamas was somehow at fault for the blackouts. The crisis finally came to end this month, after the Israeli government transferred more 450,000 liters of fuel into Gaza, even as hundreds of rockets flew out of the area into Israeli cities.

While the lights have come back on in Gaza, much of the international community remains in the dark about the true nature of the Hamas regime. At the height of the fuel crisis, the UN's Human Rights Council found it appropriate to invite a Hamas leader to make a guest appearance at its headquarters -- and teach lessons about human rights to the international community.

If Hamas has any lesson to teach, it is that fundamentalist regimes are the greatest threat to the prosperity and stability of the Middle East. Groups that exploit the democratic process under the banner of religion are often just as morally corrupt (or more) than the regimes they are trying to replace.

It's a lesson that seems to falling on deaf ears among many in the international community, as a rising tide of fundamentalism sweeps our region. The increasing presence of morality police, alcohol bans, and the cancelations of secular legislation is coinciding with the growth of extremist religious parties. In vacuum of instability, familiar promises from Islamists are ringing out in Middle Eastern capitals from the Persian Gulf to the North African Coast.

As the prospect of Hamas clones gaining power throughout the Middle East becomes a distinct possibility, the example of their reign in Gaza should provide fuel for thought -- and cause for concern. The success of Islamist parties in one-vote, one-time elections are not always so easily undone at the ballot box. Just ask the taxi drivers of Gaza.

It Is What They Do With It

2012-02-29T13:16:57-05:00

A recent encounter made me think about companies and their responsibility for society. We work for them. We live next to them. We invest in them. We buy from them. They are, without doubt among the most important institutions in our lives. We think they are, more or less, greedy, and sometimes evil. Movements like 'Occupy Wall Street' show how much distrust there is, particularly in these times of continuing economic crisis. But is this vitriol justified? Are all companies anti-social, selfish, and greedy?

The answer is 'no.' Even in these times of economic hardship, most companies are dedicated to, what is known as, 'corporate social responsibility' (CSR). It makes imminent sense for companies to be good corporate citizens. As studies have shown, companies that help support common causes and help solve the community's problems enjoy a higher shareholder and portfolio values. This alleviates the concern of Milton Friedman's followers that CSR would be detrimental to a company's growth, squandering shareholder value.

Companies that invest in their communities in various forms create relationships and build trust. It has been shown that actors in the marketplace prefer to do business with those they trust. At the same times they demonstrate that they care about the good management of resources. It becomes clear that a company involved in CSR is a good steward of its business and people are willing to place their trust into it, giving it business, investing in it, or buying its products.

These findings do not escape most CEOs. According to a 2011 study of 300 companies, 72 percent have formal CSR programs despite the current economic climate, up from 62 percent in 2010. And 60 percent of them have dedicated budgets, up from 52 percent in 2010. The study shows that more needs to be done as medium-sized companies seem stalled in the adoption of CSR and a gap persists between a desire to engage in CSR and the ability to implement it. With growing public awareness of CSR, more companies will be held accountable to improve their engagement as corporate citizens.

Most recently it was British Prime Minister David Cameron who argued that the assumption that the interests of business and society are somehow opposed, need to be abandoned: "Business is not just about making money, as vital as it is. It is also the most powerful force for social progress that the world has ever known. [...] [B]usiness is [...] helping to build bigger and stronger societies. I don't think this gets celebrated enough. [...] [T]hose [...] who believe in business, in enterprise, in markets need to come together and prove the skeptics wrong."

Politicians and the public still seem to want to be able to chastise business when they make a profit. Particularly banks have been in the crossfire of such criticism.

A chance meeting with Rena De Sisto, a senior executive at Bank of America, helped me to better understand the challenges and rewards of CSR. Bank of America is an example of CSR done right, particularly in the areas of arts and culture. A small professional team, under the leadership of Ms. De Sisto, conducts a wide range of activities, which rivals any small country's ministry of arts and culture, in terms of volume and diversity. Their programs not only include sponsorships of art or theater events, but also cover a wide spectrum of music recordings, and art preservation, as well as loaning items from the bank's own art collection for public exhibition.

In these tough economic times, it is the unenviable task of Ms. De Sisto, Bank of America's Senior Vice President of International CSR, to serve the interest of the bank, as a private entity, by contributing to the common good. Is it possible to remain effective despite detrimental external factors and budgets cuts? Is it possible to successfully fight for existing programs?

For Ms. De Sisto the answers seem rather simple. She remains effective. Strong-willed and impressive, she insists that she is an advocate of the public interest, working hard internally to continue the programs. She explained how Bank of America agreed to maintain her budget, despite the pressure for cuts and restrictions elsewhere, creating a 'win-win' situation for the bank and the public. When Shakespeare's Richard III came to New York in a Old Vic Theatre London/Brooklyn Academy of Music production as part of The Bridge Project, sponsored by Bank of America, Kevin Spacey -- who is playing the main part -- appropriately praised Ms. De Sisto for keeping her promises to the performing arts in times of colossal financial difficulties.

Ms. De Sisto is sincere in her desire to keep up the level of financing of the arts and culture around the world. Explaining details of one of Bank of America's signature programs, arts conservation, she is a connoisseur who is intimately familiar with each and every detail of the works of art they are engaged in preserving. From a Gilbert Stuart portrait of George Washington at the National Gallery of Art, to a Chagall at the Tel Aviv Museum, to a Nimrud ivory carving at the Iraq Museum in Baghdad: They are treated as cultural treasures, individually and collectively. She knows, she cares, and is keenly aware of her crucial role retain and steer the financial resources to help arts organizations to carry out their missions, create new programming, and broaden the outreach.

The International CSR Department works closely with the bank's CEO and vice president of marketing, who are well aware of the importance of the CSR activities. It is important to not only know about but also talk about a company's involvement to create opportunities in a climate that fosters innovation, respect and tolerance.

President Eisenhower's statement that "[c]orporations are indispensable instruments of our modern civilization; [...] I believe [...] that they shall act for the interest of the community as a whole," could easily be a motto for Ms. De Sisto and Bank of America.

In days when companies are the target of anger, cynicism, and doubt it is soothing to learn about Ms. De Sisto's activities. She is an impressive fighter and a beautiful example, in the true sense, for what a company can achieve with its dedication to corporate social responsibility. As one of the largest financial institutions, Bank of America has commercial interests. Its commitment and its unique contributions to the community deserve respect and appreciation. In the end, it is not the profit or shareholder value that should matter when judging a company. It is what companies do with their profit that matters.

A Bad Joke's Kernel of Truth

2012-02-21T14:22:33-05:00

"That hill [in front of Venezuela's Presidential Miraflores Palace] will open up and a big atomic bomb will come out."

-President Hugo Chavez, in company of visiting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in Caracas, January 9, 2012

And both presidents laughed heartily. Chavez continued, that "[t]he imperialist spokesmen say ... Ahmadinejad and I are going into the Miraflores basement now to set our sights on Washington and launch cannons and missiles. ... It's laughable." The only thing that is laughable, however, is that nobody, really nobody thought that Miraflores itself was a current or future missile base. But everybody should take serious the threat that the Iranian-Venezuelan axis poses to the United States and its allies.

At a time when, despite economic woes everywhere, elections in the United States, and Syrian slaughter, the world's proverbial mind is surprisingly, and rightly focused on the Iranian nuclear threat it is important to not lose sight of that country's dealings in Latin America. Its activities there serve a multitude of purposes. None of them is benign.

The trip to Latin America at the beginning of January came at a time of political turmoil for Ahmadinejad, at home and abroad. At home the uproar after the last elections, the early strength of the Green Movement and the government's brutal crackdown have not been forgotten. The aggravating factor is now the increasing economic hardship of ordinary Iranians, a fallout of the increasing international sanctions, with negative results, particularly a devalued Iranian rial in the wake of the United States targeting Iran's Central Bank. Abroad there is a surprising, albeit belated, international resolve to increase the pressure on Iran through unilateral and multilateral sanctions.

There is no better way to counter this international isolation, project diplomatic strength and, simultaneously sign valuable trade agreements than by visiting the best friends in the western hemisphere, namely the radical Marxist allies in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Cuba. Evo Morales' Bolivia was not on the schedule, however, and Brazil's Dilma Rousseff did not invite him, steering her country away from the anti-American course of her predecessor Lula da Silva.

For years now, Iran's relations with Venezuela have blossomed. With bilateral trade exceeding $40 billion, the two regimes are closely aligned, economically and ideologically. Iran has reportedly entered into more than 150 energy, development, commercial, and financial agreements with Venezuela. There are mysterious flights between both countries that do not accept open bookings. These are widely believed to not only transport illicit goods and weaponry but also carry Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) officers and, with the planes refueling in Damascus, also Hezbollah figures.

That such a stopover connects Iran with Syria and Venezuela is a wonderful metaphor. Three partners-in-crime, figuratively, and in the true sense. It is in Iran's immense interest to preserve the regime of Bashar Asad in Syria, as it is not only a friend but like Venezuela, a hub for its dangerous activities. It was from Syria that the Iran undermined the American efforts during the Iraq War, supplies Hezbollah in Lebanon with weapons directed against Israel, and further attacked the Jewish State through its support of Hamas. We are witnessing a shift on the Hamas front but Iran, alongside Russia, will not give up this important, strategic regime that served them so well.

At the same time the Venezuelan military cooperation continues under the proverbial radar screen. According to a German report, both countries agreed in 2010 on the establishment of a jointly operated military base in Venezuela, as well as on the joint development of ground-to-ground missiles. The regime in Caracas has also agreed on allowing a joint military base where Iranian Shihab 3 and Scud missiles of lesser range will be deployed. Venezuela is indeed an Iranian base, from where Iran is able to strike, militarily and through terrorism via its proxies, at the United States.

Moreover, the country is also a main supplier of uranium for Iran's nuclear program. In addition, both countries are jointly conducting explorations in remote areas near the Guyanese border for additional uranium deposits. That, of course, circumvents United Nations (UN) and U.S. sanctions meant to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capabilities.

Ideologically, of course, both are opposed to the United States. Chavez went so far as to threaten to suspend crude oil exports to the United States in case of an attack on Iran. In addition, over the course of several years, Iran has created a base for conventional and nuclear terrorism in Venezuela. IRGC has an increased presence and is reportedly involved in the construction of intermediate-range missile launch pads there.

Hezbollah, Iran's "terrorist subcontractor," created cells with an extensive organizational and logistics network throughout Latin America. The group's aim at waging asymmetric warfare or terror overlaps here with the aim to capitalize on the regional cocaine trade to fund its activities. It is worrisome that this Islamist narco-terrorism has reached our shores as well, with such cells existing in the United States and other Western countries. It should not be a surprise that, in addition to Hezbollah, also FARC and Al Qaeda, are operating training camps and networks of mutual assistance in Venezuela and beyond.

Even in the area of 'soft power,' Iran moves to increase its footprint in the Americas. In January, Iran launched 'Hispan TV,' a Spanish-language channel airing from the Middle East with a 24/7 program of news, documentaries, movies, and Iranian films. This fits neatly in Tehran's efforts to reach out to increase its influence.

With its partner Venezuela, Iran has created a new front against its declared enemies. Already an expert at long-distance warfare and terrorism -- Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas come to mind -- this is a great success. As an important analyst put it, Iran is rightly convinced that the Western Hemisphere is an increasingly important arena where it can wield its influence -- and diminish America's.

So Chavez's joke about a potential Iranian-Venezuelan aggression against the West was none. It is the current state of affairs. We all need to be aware of this reality. Iran already has a negative influence in the Middle East and now proves that it is a player in the Western Hemisphere as well. The regime's dangerous hardware and terrorism proxies are the same in both places. Geographically, Iran may be far away from the Americas but its growing presence in Venezuela is a serious danger. It is not a joke.

A version of this article appeared in the New York Daily News.

The Worst Possible Option

2012-02-03T09:36:06-05:00

When the brightest minds and influential people come together, solutions and strategies should be found, even for very difficult cases, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Or are we stuck, in this case, with the definition of insanity, attributed to Albert Einstein? According to this definition, insanity would be doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

So these people came together in Israel. There is no doubt that the Herzliya Conference, held by the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy & Strategy and the Institute for Policy and Strategy at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), is Israel's -- and perhaps the region's -- most important gathering of government representatives, public institutions, think tanks and research institutes from around the world. The list of participants is long and reads like a Who's Who, gathering to discuss strategic directions and policy solutions.

As is always the case with high-level summitry, the truly interesting discussions take place in the hallways. At the same time, the prepared speeches, even if off-the-record, are rarely as daring as one would hope. So it was instructive to hear participants from across the spectrum voice their frustration about the current state of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

A lot has been written about the fact that 'process' is sort of a misnomer in the face of any lack of progress. At the same time, the parameters are changing and being changed by the two parties. The claims that time was in favor of Israel or the Palestinians simply lack any basis in reality. Whoever agrees that the preferred solution to the conflict are two-states-for-two-peoples needs to realize that this possibility to implement is gradually slipping away while no progress, however small or incremental, is being made. And this realization was the bottom-line of many hallway discussions in Herzliya. Time is nobody's friend here, it was agreed. Something constructive needs to happen. Fast.

An honest analysis of the current stalemate that does not spare either side from criticism is needed. It is already instructive to point to a few important issues. On one side we have Israel. The Israeli government continues to annoy friends and foes alike with continued construction in the West Bank and areas of Jerusalem many think of as belonging to East Jerusalem and possible future capital of a Palestinian state. And while construction in the settlement blocks often only serves to provide for natural growth within existing settlement parameters it still is not helpful. Even worse are settlement outposts that go up in defiance of Israeli law and are not subsequently dismantled. So settlements are not an obstacle to finding a solution that divides the land but the Israeli government would be hard-pressed to argue that these are contributing, well, constructively to bringing about a two-states-for-two-peoples solution. They limit options and smack of defiance. And while both the devotion of the settlement movement and the love of the Land is admired, even Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems to have realized this reality.

Moreover, even construction adjacent to the Green Line in Israel proper is problematic as it undermines options for the crucial negotiation element of land swaps. It seems widely accepted that the settlement blocks will stay with Israel. There will not be a complete evacuation from the West Bank as was the case in Gaza in 2005. However, in such a division of land, such swaps that trade settlement areas for similarly sized land of Israel proper, are the only option acceptable to Palestinians to assure contiguity to their future state. So construction next to the Green Line, within Israel, also seems defiant and is limiting options as well.

Even though a poll of highest scientific standard showed that more Palestinians in East Jerusalem would prefer to become citizens of Israel rather than citizens of a new Palestinian state it is clear that the Palestinian side will insist on a division of Jerusalem, with East Jerusalem slated to become the future capital. Israel's 'eternal and united' Jerusalem policy, while well reasoned, is also detrimental to breaking the current gridlock. Israel and a future Palestine need to be disentangled as much as possible.

This needs to happen now, even as Israelis are feeling relatively secure and are enjoying an admirably robust economy. It is imperative for Israel to do its part to start preparing for this disentangling. After all it is confirmed time and again that this is what Israelis want. The Israeli government needs to reconsider its priorities. Advocates for Israel might argue to continue down the current path. In that case, however, they would not be advocates for the two-states-for-two-peoples.

What about the Palestinians? Far from being guilt-free they prove that they do not have the vision and the guts making tough, necessary choices. Awful incitement and indoctrination against Israel aside, the Palestinian leadership does not show, well, any leadership to narrow the gaps between them and Israel. West Bank Palestinians are enjoying, reasonably, modest economic success and income. Despite recent discontent among Palestinians at eroding prices and tax increases, the administration of Salam Fayyad, the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority (PA) has proven apt at building institutions, assuring the semblance of law and order, and encouraging economic growth.

So PA president Mahmoud Abbas is in no rush to rattle the proverbial cage and prepare the population for inevitable concessions. Rather, he seemed convinced that further antagonizing Israel -- and Israelis -- through the ill-advised campaign for a unilateral declaration of a state of Palestine at the United Nations would be a smart move. Not so. It is Israel that saves his area of his body on which he sits time and again through essential military intelligence and security cooperation. To this day, Palestinian areas without Israeli support would fall to Hamas faster than Abbas could say 'shukran.' He seems convinced that Israel needs him more than he needs Israel. This is not the case, however.

Speaking of Hamas, it remains the more plausible option to achieve Palestinian unity through its defeat rather than reconciliation between Abbas's Fatah faction and Hamas. Be it as it may: The split of the Palestinian people and its leaders in the West Bank and Gaza is one of the big tragic realities that the Palestinians brought about all by themselves. That problem needs to be resolved without endangering the goodwill of those who have and continue to prop up the Palestinians.

Much more could be said. However, in short, both sides of the conflict are doing nothing constructive to bridge gaps and are busy making excuses for not doing so. This is a sad state of affairs. At the same time, the United States and Europe seem to be taking the proverbial eyes of the prize -- the two-states-for-two-peoples solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Exhausted at the current gridlock and with tremendous economic and political woes at home the pressure, the attention, and the urgency seem to ease off. The Quartet (the United States, European Union, United Nations, and Russia) has never been less relevant to moving the process forward. Their influence in this region of political turmoil is be waning.

What can be done? What should be done? The best thing would be to think beyond clichés and avoid Einstein's 'doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.' Both parties need a new and different peace paradigm. This new paradigm is an interim agreement, which -- as a sage observer put it -- would deal with the doable issues first. These include borders, settlements and security. This makes sense because we know the outlines of a solution to these issues. Such an agreement must unlink from the tougher issues, such as holy places and the right of return. This makes sense because we do not know the outlines of a solution to these issues. It was Abbas, after all, who proclaimed that there never was a temple in Jerusalem.

Not fighting for, not preparing for, and not demanding such an interim agreement would be the worst possible option. It holds the promise of renewing hope on both sides and the desire to tackle more negotiations. It holds the promise of re-energizing those forces on both sides that aim at removing obstacles that are struggling on both sides to be heard right now. All the while the influential participants only dare to speak that truth in the hallways of the Herzliya Conference. It's time to speak that truth to those who make the decisions.

Richard III and His Arab Heirs

2012-01-19T17:26:22-05:00

"We know which fate met Richard III. There is hope that by the time the Old Vic Shakespeare's Machiavellian masterpiece, with Kevin Spacey in the lead role, comes to the Brooklyn Academy of Music in February 2012 we will know which fate met one or the other of those Middle Eastern ghastly bastards. "
-"Power and Downfall - Between Shakespeare and Arab Tyrants" (Huffington Post, July 13, 2011)

The more things change, the more they stay the same. As time passes and becomes history we believe we are progressing. And while we shape and are being shaped by the world we are living in, over time the human condition seems to remain essentially unchanged. Recent events in the Middle East, the clamoring to power of despots, their ruthlessness, and the fall of a select few of them, recalls similar events and personalities in history.

William Shakespeare captured an intriguing facet of this human condition -- the ruthless ambition and greed for power -- in his seminal play Richard III, which is now brought to a New York City audience in a breathtaking A Bridge Project production (presented by the Brooklyn Academy of Music, the Old Vic Theatre and Neal Street, generously supported by Bank of America Merrill Lynch) under direction of Sam Mendes and starring the mesmerizing Kevin Spacey in a most memorable performance. Richard III cunningly built his power base, brutally secured loyalty of an elite group and punished anyone who was a threat or even a potential threat. Surrounded by a group of confidants, Richard III utilized them systematically to remove every obstacle in his way to become a king. But in the end, when he faced a battle of his own, he did not prove invincible, almost becoming a paper tiger.

But unlike Richard III despots in the Middle East, past and present, have and had a larger arsenal at their hands to fight for power: they are and were a 21st century variety of ruthless sovereigns, with propaganda, mass media, surveillance and intelligence agencies, sophisticated weapons and technology, as tools to keep their people in check and secure their rule. Richard III was left with shamelessly sowing terror. Like many of the Middle East tyrants he was a serial killer and he did not hesitate to murder, including members of his own family, to reach his goal. Whoever had the temerity to disagree with Richard III's opinion or argued with him went to prison -- at best -- or had to die. And he had the absolute power of the armed forces, which he used against his enemies. In that respect there are parallels indeed between Richard III and the modern-day Arab tyrannical leaders.

On the real stage of the Middle East we see and saw modern-day rulers display the most despicable traits of Richard III. Think of Muammar Gaddafi, the longest-ruling despot in the Arab world. His eccentric 42-year reign ended with his death and it was littered with human rights violations in Libya as well as terrorism abroad. Despite his defiance, Gaddafi was unable to withstand the wave of popular anger that swept away his two authoritarian neighbors in Tunisia and Egypt. He was executed in front of a mob and his body paraded through the streets. These images find a reflection in the visionary Sam Mendes's closing scene of Richard III where the tyrant's lifeless body is hung upside down.

Syria's Bashar Assad, on the other hand, is still struggling to retain his rule. With an iron fist he continues to torture and kill his own people, with the able help of international supporters of his regime (would Iran and Russia please stand up?). For Assad, his sadistic, security-dominated regime's survival trump any regard to human rights. It is not impossible to imagine that he will fight to the last moment, even at the expense of a scorched-earth policy. While the country slides into a prolonged conflict and civil war we are witnessing modern-day evil that even Shakespeare couldn't have imagined better.

Another tragic figure is Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. He underestimated the public discontent and found himself caged in a courtroom. It is only ironic that he is treated like an animal considering that not even animals behave toward their own species more benevolently than Mubarak did toward his fellow Egyptians. No matter what the verdict will be, the end will resemble the one of Richard III. The struggle to hold onto power will not have been worth the victims and the suffering. Mubarak did not foresee that the narrative he held up as a basis for his reign would count for little in the face of demands by Egyptians for internal transformation.
In the BAM staging that runs through March 4, Sam Mendes proves once again that he is a master of his craft, and Kevin Spacey is impersonating a particularly cruel psychopath Richard III. I would be amiss not to mention the exceptional performances of Annabel Scholey as Lady Anne, Haydn Gwynne as Queen Elizabeth, and Gemma Jones as Queen Margaret. They are facing Spacey's/Richard III's monstrous energy quite bravely.

We know which fate met Richard III. And now that Richard III makes the final stop of its international tour in New York City, we can thankfully realize that a few of those Middle Eastern ghastly bastards have met their fate and that some others are struggling to hold onto power. But all is not well. On the contrary. With Islamists strengthened in the region and poised to take over after elections we need to be cautious not to take at face value their gentle words in English that for some, unfortunately, seem to immediately confirm their moderate, democratic credentials. We should remain wary of the Muslim Brotherhood, "the mother of all Islamist movements" and her offspring.

This transformative period in the Middle East will have tremendous consequences not only for the region but also for us in the West. Will Islamists once in power change their colors? I am not optimistic. The lesson of Richard III remains relevant as a cautionary tale. And we should pay close attention to the Old Vic Theatre's 2012 program for hints which of its productions will be relevant for and reflective of our times.

Worth Versus Value: Hamas and the Case of Gilad Shalit

2011-10-17T12:54:46-04:00

In the Middle East the worth of a transaction does not necessarily reflect its value. So one might wonder why it has taken five years to conclude the negotiations about the terms of release of Gilad Shalit, who now is set to be freed tomorrow. Shalit was abducted from Israel in June 2006 in a cross-border raid, and imprisoned by Hamas in the Gaza Strip, where he has never been allowed a visit by the International Red Cross.

Timing is the crucial component to understand the 'why now.' The ongoing Arab Uprising and the subsequent change of conditions have made possible the announced deal brokered by Egypt and Germany. Hamas never trusted the Egyptians and their mediation role, but were unable to avoid the fact that, as the regional power, they needed to be at the table. Deposed President Hosni Mubarak and former Intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman were routinely accused of being Zionist puppets, acting more in Israel's than Egypt's favor.

Therefore, the interim military government led by Field Marshall Mohamed Hussein Tantawi and the growing and visible strength of the Muslim Brotherhood eased the nerves of Hamas and ameliorated the above suspicions they previously had about Egypt. Hamas was even more comfortable when they witnessed the German negotiator's role diminished. While German mediation was successful in the case of Hezbollah and the 2008 prisoner release in exchange for the return the of the bodies of Israeli soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, its power of influence waned in the Shalit case at the expense of Egypt, to the frustration of the hard-working and diligent Gerhard Konrad.

But the new regional conditions have Hamas facing an interesting juxtaposition. While Hamas leaders feels increasingly comfortable about the 'New Egypt' and its shifting power structure they feel increasingly uneasy about the unfolding situation in Syria, with a civil war and eventual toppling of the Assad regime becoming a more and more likely scenario.

For decades the headquarters of Hamas have been operating out of Damascus, calmly and steadily, shielded by the gentle wings of the Assads. The appeal of the location was, among others, the absence of any political pressure, the freedom of open communication as well as regular and convenient transportation links to Tehran, home of their financial, logistical, and ideological supporters. The deteriorating situation in Syria, where to say that President Bashar al-Assad is in big trouble is an understatement, has dramatically changed that.

As a result of the tensions in Syria there has been a growing disenchantment between Hamas and their benefactors in Iran over the past two months. In a bold move, Hamas defied Tehran's demand to publicly support Assad, through statements and arranged protests in support of the Syrian regime. They simply could not bring themselves to go out and rally for their hosts and their Alawite military leaders, who killed and tortured Sunni protestors, the fellow faithful of the equally Sunni Muslim Brotherhood. Iran reacted swiftly to this insubordination and halted the wiring of their monthly financial support to Hamas. This, in turn, led to thousands of unpaid Gaza employees on the Hamas payroll.

In the face of these frosty relations there is good reason to believe that a potential offer by Egypt to have Hamas relocate their headquarters to Cairo would be embraced by their leadership. No longer welcome in Damascus, it's not out of the question that they will be able to set up shop on the Nile. While politically risky, considering Egypt's continued desire to maintain good relations with the West, in particular with the United States, its longtime supporter, nothing seems impossible anymore in a region where Egypt is redefining itself and the Muslim Brotherhood is stronger than ever.

In the Palestinian arena, it is unavoidable to realize that Hamas sees its power and influence grow while the fortunes of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his Palestinian Authority (PA) have been dwindling. Hamas could not be more delighted that Abbas's gamble of seeking Palestinian statehood at the United Nations did not play out as planned. At best, a General Assembly resolution will make 'Palestine' an Observer State, but not a full-fledged member, as Abbas had hoped. As of right now, he over-promised and under-delivered. At the same time, Hamas's rule of the Gaza Strip is without question. The lesson for the Palestinians seems simple: Diplomacy fails while 'Resistance' prevails.

The same mode of operation was applied by Hamas in the Shalit case: It is the 'Resistance' that delivered the release of a thousand Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails and not any diplomatic agreement between the PA and Israel. It is worth recalling that the Palestinian prisoners have always been on the agenda of past peace negotiations.

The deepening ties and renewed alliance between Hamas and 'New Egypt' has also further weakened Mahmoud Abbas by strengthening Hamas through the lifting of Egypt's blockade of the Gaza Strip and increased freedom of movement of people, goods and deadly weapons between the Strip and Sinai.

It is Hamas that is the dominant Palestinian group in the dramatic regional shift. They have been the true warriors of the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology, developed by Sayyid Qutb and Hassan al-Banna. And now an initial 477 Palestinians prisoners released by Israel, followed by another 550 in two months. Through 'resistance,' in this case the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier and demanding a high price for his release, they have been able to deliver the 'true goods' to their people and emerged time and again victorious. Hamas. Not Abbas's Palestinian Authority.

In the Middle East a transaction should not be measured by its worth rather than by its value. Hamas has won much more than the release of over a thousand Palestinian prisoners. It has won strength and influence, not only among the Palestinians, but also regionally. Following consistently their ideological roots, they have marked another milestone. It is a sad reality that Hamas has been expanding its influence at the expense of the Palestinian Authority, still the only legitimate entity accepted by Israel, Europe, and the United States.

Turkish Pride

2011-09-09T17:41:07-04:00

In international affairs it is important to be cognizant of an actor's culture and history. Failing to do so sometimes leads to a situation where observers and commentators fail to truly understand the meaning of current events.

In the Middle East, for example, pride and honor are considered very important and signals of strength. And today there is probably no other country on earth that insists more on its pride than Turkey. The dirty little secret, however, is that this alleged pride is coupled with serious frustrations.

Following the May 2010 Mavi Marmara flotilla incident, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey's Prime Minister, demanded an apology from Israel. Moving the goalpost he demanded also an end to Israel's sea blockade of Gaza. These demands were as much signs of national pride as they were political tools. If Israel had apologized despite the mostly favorable findings of United Nations (UN) report, it would have been seen as weakness and inevitably invited further demands. It did not matter to Turkey that Israel expressed regret and offered compensation. Ankara safely could assume that Israel would not fulfill his complete set of demands. That the UN report deemed the sea blockade legal shocked Ankara.

Erdoğan angrily, but in a calculated way, downgraded diplomatic relations with Israel, suspended military agreements as well as halted defense trade, threatened naval war and hinted at further measures. These steps, welcomed in the Arab world, will indeed harm Israel, as intended. The deep freeze of relations with Turkey highlights the increasing isolation in a region where popular uprisings leave Israel without any predictable allies. But despite the most recent declarations that Turkey will accompany future flotillas with naval warships, such a move would come at a considerably higher cost and will meet with strong disapproval by the West.

But Turkey, which so proudly strives to be a leader in the region, has also been profoundly damaged. It is clear that the country had benefited tremendously from the close relations with Israel. That is history now. Moreover, the popular uprisings in the Arab World undermined Ankara's ambitions to the point that the country's regional strategy is in shambles and its reliability as ally of Western democracies comes into sharp focus.

The so-called 'zero problems' policy fell apart and showed the limitation of Turkey's neo-Ottoman ambitions. This policy was devised by Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, and aimed a several goals: having good relations with all the countries neighbors; having maximum cooperation with all parties of the Middle East conflict; serving as a crucial meeting point between the Middle East, the Caucasus and the West; and strengthening Islamic civilization and its own position within it.

So Turkey sought to play a role in a variety of regional issues, such as mediation efforts in Iraq and over the Iranian nuclear program, between the antagonistic Palestinian factions and between Israel and the Palestinians. It was Erdoğan's ambition to dominate the region, to demand respect and to wield influence far beyond her borders. With these efforts blocked, the Prime Minister's blood is boiling.

The pattern of gaining popularity in Turkey, the Middle East and beyond at the expense of Israel became clear when the Turkish Prime Minister attacked Israel and her President Shimon Peres at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2009 before storming off the stage. Turkey's popularity in the region was at its peak immediately following the Mavi Marmara flotilla incident in May 2010. But the flotilla incident also spelled the end of any Turkish ambitions to be a credible mediator in the Middle East conflict.

Erdoğan's instinct of gaining political stature through bullying Israel was spot-on because this guarantees popularity points in the Arab World. However, he was, like everybody else, taken by surprise by the popular uprisings in the region. He found himself, for an uncomfortably long time, in opposition to these uprisings, most notably in Syria, Libya, and Bahrain.

The Turkish Prime Minister sure tried to maintain his close relations with Syria once ordinary Syrian peacefully challenged the regime. Erdoğan did not cut the ties with the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad until the pressure to do so increased during the latter's ongoing bloody repression and refugees spilled onto Turkish territory. So Erdoğan not only slapped Israel and damaged the relationship but also lost Syria. With it he lost his hope to be the region's peace mediator between these two countries.

The rivalry with Iran is another example where there are far more than 'zero problems' with an immediate neighbor. While both countries have, at times and within limits, common interests they are rivals for regional hegemony. They are locked in a low-intensity sparring match. Iran did not take kindly Turkey's support of the Bahraini government against the country's Shi'a unrest and Iran had gladly stepped up its involvement in Syria to support the Assad regime. News that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on Damascus to stop brutal crackdown and negotiate a solution are, while surprising, an attempt to appear as defender of human rights prior to his appearance at the UN General Assembly later this month.

Still, in Syria Tehran was doing what it could to undermine its rival and reduce its influence while at the same time retaining and widening its influence in its most important client state. Because of this fallout, the loss of his Syrian partner will be very frustrating.

In the case of Libya, Turkey again caved in only under pressure and supported the rebels only after NATO had decided on the military intervention. The Turkish Prime Minister plans a visit to Libya, in a clear effort to make the world forget his initial support of the regime.

In the Palestinian arena, Turkey made nice with Hamas, believing that a close dialogue was the key to achieve maximum cooperation by the rulers of Gaza. But while they sure made friends, Ankara certainly did not contribute to their moderation, a necessary precondition to any possible opening in the stalled reconciliation with the Palestinian Authority (PA) or negotiations with Israel. It could be argued that Turkey's interference contributed to Hamas's intransigence.

Turkey's ardent support of Hamas surely did not and does not endear it to the West. It is to be hoped that the Turks "will earn in their own time that being Hamas's patron is a loser's game." Also not enthusiastic about Turkey's cozy relations with Hamas was -- and is -- Egypt. Under now deposed President Hosni Mubarak, Egypt disapproved of Turkey's connections with the regime in Gaza. Hamas, an offspring of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, was seen as dangerous to Egypt's stability.

The military rulers in Cairo and Egyptians in general are supportive of the Palestinians, but not necessarily of Hamas. Because of his anti-Israel actions and rhetoric, Egyptians will enthusiastically welcome the Turkish Prime Minister during his upcoming visit while the leadership will make clear that even a weakened Egypt will not accept any portrayal of Turkey as a regional leader.

Like Israel, the United States was a recipient of a less-than-kind treatment by its NATO ally Turkey. One only needs to think of Turkey's refusal to allow the U.S. military to use its bases and territory prior to the invasion of Iraq. The joint air exercises with China last year also did not instill much confidence in Turkey's political instincts. While it is true that Turkey agreed to have parts of a NATO missile defense system against the threat of Iranian long-range missiles installed it is also true that NATO seems to be the one restraint that Erdoğan is not willing to throw off. And there is the calculation that the United States, at this moment in time at least, can be challenged without having to fear a reprisal.

What does that leave us with? It has rightly been pointed out that Turkey is leading the exclusive club of major players in the Middle East, "each with their own political and religious tradition, each in a state of internal political turmoil, and each vying with the other for preeminence through confrontational 'displays of power' [...] against a fourth -- Israel."

The 'zero problems' policy collapsed because of the fallout of the popular uprisings in the Arab World. Moreover, the Prime Minister shifted into crisis-mode vis-à-vis the Kurds and Cyprus. These setbacks cause Erdoğan serious frustrations and anger. His safest bet right now is to harm, threaten, and provoke Israel. Pride and honor are assured.

But it is astonishing that there is not the faintest hint of some soul-searching in Ankara, particularly in the wake of the UN report that also found fault with Turkey. So while Erdoğan calls Israel a "spoiled child" it seems that he is actually the spoiled child, throwing tantrums when his strategies don't work out as planned, he doesn't get his will or is actually blamed for his actions.

Bibi's Dilemma

2011-08-22T17:41:48-04:00

It is the problem of being stuck between a rock and a hard place: An escalation in worrying violence in Southern Israel, following a series of deadly terrorist attacks near the Egyptian border from Egyptian Sinai as well as a barrage of rockets from Gaza into Israel, has positioned Prime Minister Benjamin 'Bibi' Netanyahu in a precarious situation, which offers two alternative routes going forward, both of which carry risks for Israel.

On one end, Israel has invested much effort on the diplomatic level to prevent a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state on September 20 during the General Debate of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly. Should Israel's diplomacy aimed at preventing an ill-advised unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood succeed, Hamas would gain because they do not have any interest in seeing a Palestinian state without their control. An even more confident Hamas, obviously, is bad news for Israel. On the other end, the Israeli Prime Minister swiftly ordered retaliatory measures, hitting terrorist leadership and installations in the Gaza Strip, leaving open the option of a more decisive Israeli attack. In case of such an attack the Palestinian Authority (PA) would benefit and prolong their intransigence to make peace with Israel through negotiations. Whichever choice he makes there will be unintended consequences: Bibi's dilemma.

It is ironic that whichever path Netanyahu eventually pursues one of the rival Palestinian parties -- the PA in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip -- will inevitably benefit. An aggressive campaign against Hamas and their terrorist allies would go a long way to restore Israel's deterrence. But the PA would immediately gain sympathy points due to the reflexive siding of the international community with the perceived underdog.

Netanyahu can't be accused of not having tried diplomacy to re-start peace talks and avoid unilateral Palestinian moves at the UN, to which Israel firmly objects. A recent report surfaced describing a secret dialogue between Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas and President Shimon Peres. Such a dialogue will have been initiated or acquiesced to by the Prime Minister's Office.

Should Netanyahu forgo a stronger military retaliation and instead focus on a diplomatic effort to undermine the PA's unilateral statehood campaign, a likely winner will be Hamas. Israel might be able to peel away from the support for the Palestinian move and key players, such as the EU, and the UN will come their senses as to how best to promote peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Hamas leadership that loathes Abbas would love to see him weakened once his promises of an international imprimatur and approval of Palestinian national aspirations would be disappointed. In the eyes of the Palestinians, with their hopes high, Abbas will not have delivered the goods. Hamas remains concerned that its so-far uncontested rule in Gaza would be undermined should the Abbas and the PA be able to further improve lives in the West Bank and win support of the Gazans.

Militarily, a broader and more severe operation, which would include a massive aerial campaign, targeted killings and other elements, is still in the cards. The decision to go ahead or not with this campaign might be the toughest one Netanyahu has to make to date: Should he continue the so far fruitless diplomatic efforts on re-starting negotiations with the PA and attempting to prevent unilateral Palestinian moves, or should he engage in an iron-fist campaign, which would have the potential to restore Israel's deterrence but might again coalesce the Arab world and re-focus their anger away from the domestic lack of democracy and economic plight and zoom in on Israel. These choices, for sure, are not fully mutually exclusive but each would represent an important signal with respective pros and cons.

Complications from the terror attacks in Israel's south and subsequent military actions extend far beyond the Israel-Palestinian track. Despite a reported ceasefire and calls by Hamas on Palestinian terrorist groups to abide by it rockets from Gaza continue to be launched against Israel. It is surprising that Hamas's iron grip on the Gaza Strip is not enough to actually stop the bombing and shelling. Unable to deliver any tangible improvements in the lives of ordinary Gazans, Hamas and its terrorist subsidiaries distract them by resorting to stirring hatred of Israel. While the true support of and desire for a unilateral declaration of statehood via the UN is unclear it is obvious, however, that Abbas knew how to position the General Assembly efforts.

This pattern of putting cause and effect on its head is well known: Israel will be portrayed as attacking innocent Palestinians while the true goal is to take out rockets launchers, destroy training camps, weapons depots, and eliminate terrorist masterminds who prefer to dwell and hide in civilian areas. These sympathy points would go far in encouraging Abbas in pursuing a UN vote on what better would have been negotiated bilaterally between the parties involved. As an example of this pattern Spanish Foreign Minister Trinidad Jimenez steps forward, wanting to push his European Union (EU) colleagues toward a unified stance in favor of unilateral Palestinian moves toward a declaration of statehood. The timing of this statement suggests a link to Israel's response in the Gaza Strip. We learn: Few know as well as the PA how to turn a seeming setback into a public relations victory.

The gravest and therefore most important outcome of the string of terrorist acts, however, is that Hamas now controls the already fragile situation between Israel and Egypt at will. With this brazen daylight infiltration, supposedly even with use of Egyptian uniforms, Hamas created a situation that is fast spinning out of control. The fallout in Egypt, therefore, is dramatic and deeply troubling: Raging demonstrating crowds at the Israeli embassy in Cairo take down and burn the Israeli flag. This might be a mere glimpse of the hatred of Israel Egyptians share. Wednesday terrorist infiltration into Israel from Egypt's grave incidents resulted not only in casualties on the Israeli and Palestinian sides, but also cost the lives of Egyptian security personnel, apparently hit during the Israeli chase after the terrorists returned back to the Sinai desert during their escape. Egypt's military rulers assumed a confrontational posture of the Egyptians deaths while an alarmed international community rushed to de-escalate the tensions.

The current crisis provides Bibi with a chance to make an implicit statement about the dramatic turmoil that has engulfed the Arab World over the past eight months. He and his cabinet have so far refrained from doing so. Bibi's determined and immediate response to the terror attacks will send a clear signal that Israel -- while sympathetic to the popular demand of democracy and economic opportunity -- will leave unchallenged any attempt at undermining Israel's security and/or her military superiority. Any vacuum that allows extremists to plan, prepare, and implement terrorist activities will be decisively challenged. After the ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak the security situation in the Sinai has deteriorated and, with shocking ease, been turned into a terrorist haven. For Israel there is every reason to condone hot pursuits of terrorist even onto Egyptian territory from where the perpetrators infiltrated Israel. This power vacuum had already had the Israeli government agree to an increase of Egyptian troops in the Sinai, in excess of the numbers stipulated in the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty of 1979. This decision was based on the assumption that their presence would more effectively fight the radicalism there.

Such an uncompromising fight led by Bibi will also send a clear message to Israel's enemies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon: They shall not be under any illusion with regard to Israel. Israel will not allow radical groups and terrorists, emboldened by the Arab uprisings, to try to change the balance of power in the region, to attack Israel or to undermine the country's deterrence.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is determined to send a signal of Israel's resolve to defend herself again any challenge -- and any challengers -- to its security. This positioning is also a signal to the Obama administration, which hopes to avoid any escalation in an already sensitive situation in the region. While Israel is sympathetic to the Arab desire for democracy the government will not merely observe efforts to renew pan-Arab unity aimed against Israel. Bibi is at a crucial junction where he needs to pick one option. Whichever path he chooses will just be the lesser evil.

A Kingdom of His Own

2011-07-19T13:11:31-04:00

At the end of 2010, Great Britain received exciting news. And the following months were spent with preparations for the announced seminal event, which would change the face of the Kingdom. The young generation of... and the women prepared their outfits and men polished their shoes. The anticipation and excitement was palpable. And then, at the beginning of 2011, it finally happened. The unique 'Box,' a club and event space that defies a one-word description, opened its doors in London to Her Majesty's subjects. Much like its older sibling in New York, the 'Box' in London provides a night full of extraordinary, colorful and surprising shows as well as intimate encounters with the world-class performers.

The visionary behind the Box concept and its driving force, Simon Hammerstein, is a fascinating figure in his own right and would merit a separate article. A grandson of Oscar Hammerstein, of Rogers and Hammerstein fame, Simon has no less talent than his famous relative but a decidedly different approach to the performing stage. But much like his grandfather, he too is committed to providing his audience with an exciting, joyous evening. The grandfather's stage musical success 'The King and I' was, in the end a very traditional and conservative production. For the grandson, however, Kings and Queens are a totally different story, with outfits that would've made Oscar Hammerstein's audience gasp. Nevertheless, the 'Box' is a place of sophisticated cabaret and burlesque. No. it is a palace of the performing arts.

What the 'Box' creates with its perfection of the shows, choreography, sound, and light is an emotional attachment resulting in a loyal following. The hands-on 'Box' team of Javier Vivas and Genc Jakupi make sure that the experience resonates with the distinguished guests. This is not to say that the shows are always without controversy. On the contrary: It is the edginess of the 'Box' and its programs that inevitably teases, stimulates, challenges, stirs emotions and, yes, on occasion offends and repulses. The gutsy gigs that include acrobats, dancers, singers, clowns, and fetishists are captivating and makes one want to come back for more.

When Lewis Carroll published 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland' almost 150 years ago it became a path-breaker. The fantasy world described in the book served as a source of inspiration for many other writers and artists. Much like Carroll's story, Simon Hammerstein's 'Box' is filled with peculiar, colorful, dynamic and sometimes freakish figures. And like the Carroll's Wonderland, one will find the 'Box' acts confusing, they will blur the line between dream and reality, the line between fantasy and what one see right there on stage.

In creating such fantasies, Hammerstein proves a master of his craft. The 'Box' is the perfect setting to implement his visions of impeccable entertainment. Unlike any other place, club, or show, the 'Box' guarantees an unforgettably powerful night out as well as with a unique group of performers. More than enough reason to come to the 'Box.' And come back again and again.

It is Hammerstein's Kingdom - a Kingdom of his own.

Power and Downfall -- Between Shakespeare and Arab Tyrants

2011-07-13T13:23:53-04:00

On June 28, the United Nations-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon, tasked "to prosecute persons responsible for the attack of 14 February 2005 resulting in the death of Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and in the death or injury of other persons," indicted four senior members of Hezbollah, the Shiite terrorist group that has massively increased its power, not least thanks to Iran and Syria. For Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah this is just another occasion to rage against the West and, of course, Israel. His aim is the 'resistance' against Israel and the reshaping of Lebanon.

The brutality and determination in achieving the goal of gaining or retaining control is familiar element in dictatorial regimes worldwide. But it is in the Middle East where this struggle particularly captures our attention and fascination today. It is in the Arab world where we find some of the most oppressive and ghastly regimes that do not hesitate to rule with an iron fist. Think Iran, Syria, Libya. And, in Lebanon, Islamist fundamentalists steadily and in a determined fashion take down a secular regime. The popular struggles in the Arab world so far succeeded only where the regimes were the least ruthless.

Comparisons are not always accurate. But it can be at least interesting and maybe even instructive to ponder similarities, differences, and meanings. When a celebrated film and stage director of the caliber of Sam Mendes directs William Shakespeare's Richard III at London's Old Vic he can be relied upon to create a mesmerizing and relevant interpretation. Kevin Spacey as the villainous king is at the top of his game. Mendes already directed this play, which portrays the brutal ascend of Richard III to the throne and his demise, 20 years ago, is more relevant today than ever.

It is this trifecta of Shakespeare for writing this cautionary tale that is such a perennial classic, Mendes for proving once again that he is master of his craft, and Spacey for his phenomenal acting of a particularly cruel and monstrous ruler that makes this Richard III such a triumph of English theater.

But can Shakespeare's Richard III, in Mendes's thoughtful interpretation and irresistibly brought to life by Spacey, compare to the ilk of the rulers of Iran, to Bashar al-Assad, to Hassan Nasrallah, to Muammar Gaddafi?

Richard III cunningly built his power base, brutally secured loyalty of an elite group and punished anyone who was a threat or even a potential threat. Surrounded by a group of confidants, Richard III utilized them systematically to remove every obstacle in his way to become a king. But in the end, when he faced a battle of his own, he did not prove invincible, almost becoming a paper tiger. Mendes's choice of having the monarchists wear crowns made of paper reflects this fragility.

But unlike Richard III our Middle Eastern despots have a larger arsenal at their hands: they are a 21st century variety of ruthless sovereigns, with propaganda, mass media, surveillance and intelligence agencies, sophisticated weapons and technology, as tools to keep their people in check and secure their rule. Richard III was left with shamelessly sowing terror. He did not hesitate to kill, including members of his own family, to reach his goal. Whoever had the temerity to disagree with Richard III's opinion or argued with him went to prison -- at best -- or had to die. And he had the absolute power of the armed forces, which he used against his enemies. In that respect there are parallels indeed between Richard III and the modern-day Arab tyrannical leaders.

The comparison is weaker when looking at the setting: Whereas Shakespeare's Richard III is a singular sociopath with limited if sufficient resources to secure his reign, the Arab/Muslim despots reflect a cultural deformity where modern technology can be used as much to defend their rule and they are supposedly instruments to bring about their downfall.

We know which fate met Richard III. There is hope that by the time the Old Vic Shakespeare's Machiavellian masterpiece, with Kevin Spacey in the lead role, comes to the Brooklyn Academy of Music in February 2012 we will know which fate met one or the other of those Middle Eastern ghastly bastards.

Between Gaddafi and Galliano: Ethics and Morality

2011-03-07T16:18:23-05:00

It's a dilemma. What are the women owning and wearing the high fashion dreams composed by John Galliano supposed to do now?

It does not happen very often that international political developments and news coming out of the fashion world have a common thread. Recent events in Libya and in Paris, however, give cause to ask some serious questions about morality and ethics. Political leaders worldwide and certain entertainment stars are red-faced over their involvement with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. And an adored designer of Dior was exposed publicly (finally?) as a bigot.

A quick recap: John Galliano was fired a couple of days ago after an online video -- taped two years ago! -- showed him praising Adolf Hitler. It was most instructive to witness the fallout of this scandal. At this year's Academy Awards some celebrities reportedly chose to replace their gowns and received praise for it. Others, such as Nicole Kidman, stuck to their choice and had to deal with a negative reaction of the crowds at the Red Carpet as well as of the media commentators.

Newly minted Oscar winner and advertisement face of Dior, Natalie Portman, did not mince words, showing herself shocked and disgusted, disassociating herself from Galliano. And it is certain that we have not seen the end of it, even after Dior presented the designer's last collection in an emotional show. Who else will distance himself/herself from an affiliation with Galliano or Dior designs made by him? Gowns are being returned to Dior stores for full refunds, handed back to a sympathetic and understanding staff.

Worrying news keeps coming out of Libya. Reports and eye-witness accounts tell the story of the brutal responses of Muammar Gaddafi and his sons to the protests of the Libyan people, with thousands of citizens killed. Now some assorted celebrity singers who had enjoyed the Gaddafi money for their services or activity did exercise immediate damage control.

They declared that they do not seek affiliation with suspected criminals against humanity and that the money they had earned and was paid by the Gaddafis will now be donated to various charities. The list includes stars such as Beyonce, Mariah Carey, Nelly Furtado, Lionel Richie, 50 Cent.

And over in Britain, London School of Economics (LSE) head Sir Howard Davies resigned after new details emerged of the institution's relationship with Libya. He stated he had recognized that LSE's reputation had "suffered" over a £300,000 research grant from Gaddafi's son and LSE alumnus, Saif al-Islam.

These are times when owning up to one's involvement with less than savory characters is, shall we say, en vogue. In a way, the rich and famous now disassociating themselves from Galliano react in the same fashion as those who seek to disengage their names from the Gadhafi family.

There is always the risk of a conflict between one's desire to, say, own a precious item or make mutually beneficial deals and the possibly controversial origin of it. For those of us with better memories or those who actually are or know Holocaust survivors and their descendants this dilemma presented itself over the purchase, or non-purchase of products made in Germany, the country responsible for unspeakable atrocities.

But morally, there is an even more troubling question. The artists who performed for and were paid by the Gaddafi clan -- and their managers -- knew precisely for whom they were performing. The famously infamous parties thrown by Gaddafi's sons in St. Barths were as well known as they were well attended by affluent crowd of vacationers on that magical island. Gaddafi's and Libya's links to Lockerbie, Berlin and other places of terrorist atrocities did not seem to bother them too much. The jet-set crowd showed up, the stars performed, got their nice check and pretended it never happened. If we just don't think about it we're not bothered.

As for John Galliano, we learn something interesting from an Israeli media outlet that an Israeli designer who for a limited time worked at Dior. She found that while he never had a bad temper he actually was well know for anti-Semitic views. It seems that there was enough incentive to sweep it under the rug.

What can we make of this? Where considerations other than decency and doing the right thing are ranked higher, star performers as well as leaders at Christian Dior should explain to their loyal fans and clientele their decision-making process.

The moral problem lies at the beginning and not at the end of the cases of Gaddafi and Galliano. The decision-making process ex-ante, rather than ex-post, determines how to judge any decision. Given what was known before, the artists performing for the Gaddafis and Dior should have not have gotten involved with the two in the first place. In many ways, the hurried actions ex-post are too few, too little, too late. Today it's about damage control and we will only know in retrospect what the actual fallout will have been in the end.

Someone who knew a thing or two about the subject matter, French diplomat Talleyrand famously, and correctly stated that treason is a matter of dates. And so is outrage. It's now no longer possible to feign ignorance. Public opinion and the commentariat are unified. What we will never know is if those who retract and apologize are actually remorseful or just pragmatic. It might be better not to think about that question too hard.

So what about the Galliano couture-owning women? They might as well get rid of them. There is someone who might gladly take them. Known for his extravagant appearance and outlandish sense of style Muammar Gaddafi closet might be the perfect destination for those newly orphaned Galliano gowns. We just can't be sure just yet if that closet will be in Tripoli.