Why Jeff and Susan can never agree?
For a long time now Is see the pingpong of Jeff and Susan. some time it become personal but it is clear we see two people who see different reality. They do not have the same "human right" system and they manly reapt same claims, as if any of them will change his/her prespective.
For me this is not a peace activity, while both of them will claim to be peace activist they perform the behaviour of radicals with one-truth prespective.
Truth is importent elemnt in any belief system. each work from his/her truth and claim heqshe hold the key to the one truth he or she holds.
This is war, it has no capacity to create a conversation where these two people can see themselves in one system. The truth is, they do not wish it because they protect their truth. any human relationship between these two will fail as they exlude the other person from being human.
I will be happy to discuss this here.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by MICHAEL STOLZ on -
Neri
The raw truth is that all of us, including you, have entrenched perspectives, ideas and truths. Discussions do not change these but rather show us the various problems that are inherent in peacemaking. Narratives are simply propaganda that either side wants to be on top. Raw history is not open to interpretations only motives that led to the events are.These interpretations may or may not be valid as they delve into the mindset of the participants.
Jeff and Sussan will most likely never agree as you have two competing educational systems as well as religious and national upbringings at work here.
But you are missing a very important point in that discussions by their very nature must be allowed to run its course and short of obscene language and language that is libelous , no intrusions into that conversation should be attempted.
-
Permalink Reply by Neri Bar-On on -
Thank you Michael,
The "Raw truth" is a comment from your prespective. I also see that all of us, including me are working within prespectives. while some prespective do not recognize this raw truth. The prespective you present will not be accepted by the two who preform "war of words" on mepeace.org.
Jeff and Sussan will most likely have the prespective is "I know the truth" is the basis to any "raw truth" any of us will bring. But my commect is not personal. it is a general phenomena so Jeff and Sussan represent a wide group of people that their Peace is one sided solution imposed on reality and manifest the "truth" they see as truth.
-
Permalink Reply by MICHAEL STOLZ on
-
Neri
Raw truths do not have any perspectives that is an accepted term in any discussion. No one can create a straw man and than knock it down when it comes to a raw truth as it is the starting point of any discussion. If I mention resolution 242 than this is a raw truth and the interpretation of 242 is based on perspectives. The earth is flat is a raw truth even though it was not accepted as such.
Yes some people do not subscribe to the raw truth and instead try to rewrite acceptable historical events. So you are right The prespective you present will not be accepted by the two who preform "war of words" on mepeace.org.
-
Permalink Reply by Stewart Mills on -
Strategies for (peace) exchange in an online environment
Part of the challenge for mepeace online is identifying the process for dialogue or (peace) exchange.
In marital disputes one process I am familiar with is "the floor method". It works by person B voicing person A's position, and then getting the person A to agree that you have voiced their position and then for person B to identify the perspective or feeling they hold. Person A then voices what person B has just said and then moves into sharing their perspective. Each interaction is short to ensure that each person can voice the others position or feeling. It is a long process, but it is a powerful method in allowing another to feel validated as well as opening the opportunity to see a conflict in new light.
On an online environment - where time is short and the possibility of misinterpretations heightened without the benefit body language - another method could identify (a) points of agreement and (b) points of disagreement as a way to acknowledge the humanity of the other. For example person A -- Yes, I agree with you on these accounts..., and I have a different way of seeing things on these accounts......
The purpose of this is to highlight the diversity of thought on an issue as a way to help bring about a more comprehensive perspective.
Either way I respect Jeff and Susan and I am glad to have the different perspectives shared. Yes, we will disagree that is inevitable with the nature of our different experiences to this conflict. Can we disagree with more civility. I hope so. Can we find common ground? Again I hope so. At the end of the day there are 11 million human beings in this region of Palestine and Israel; Israel and Palestine. There needs to be ways forward to ensure basic human rights are met for all parties, for this generation and the next.
-
Permalink Reply by MICHAEL STOLZ on
-
Oranges and Apples analogy.
In a marriage two people were at one time and/or for a length of time in LOVE. That is not the case in this conflict. A marriage dispute resolution session(s) are meant to bring them back to that love.
A better question would be how do we get the two antagonists to, not love each other, but respect each other. On the ground we must stop the terror, we must recognize Israel as a Jewish state and we must get back to negotiations. On any Blog site we must recognize that there is terror emanating from the Arab side and we must forcefully speak out against that. We must stop demonizing one party and give the other one a pass no matter what. But in a most important way , we must adhere to realities and not wishful fiction.
-
Permalink Reply by Neri Bar-On on
-
MICHAEL,
Can you see you recognize "terror emanating from the Arab side" can you see that there is a terror emanating from the Israeli side" ?
-
Permalink Reply by MICHAEL STOLZ on
-
Neri
Retributions or defensive actions are not considered terror even by the UN. But I am willing to look at and reply to any and all terror acts emanating from the Israeli side that were random and without provocation. Please supply me with any such acts that you feel are terror acts by Israel. Who knows , I may even condemn them.
-
Permalink Reply by Sussan on -
Discussing peace between Israelis and Palestinians here - as individuals - is one of the few places where we are ALL EQUAL. This is important, and unusual. I thank Eyal Raviv for his generosity and tolerance, and commitment to a peaceful future.
I know I am stubborn, but there is a reason for this. The Israeli narrative is much better known than the Palestinian. I have, throughout my life, been subjected to media coverage that was exclusively Israeli in perspective. Thus, when I get a chance, I steadfastly promote the Palestinian side.
Today I received an email from a Palestinian group that is terrified that if the UN votes for a Palestinian State, this State will be nothing other than the bits of the West Bank and Gaza that are not already settled by Israelis. They are deeply afraid they will be completely locked out of Jerusalem.
The fears of this group are not something I believe will happen, but then, I have to admit, nothing I have imagined has ever come to pass. So who am I to say what will happen?
For a long time I was in an unhealthy marriage that was ended by my partner, against my wishes. Now many years on, I would have to say that the most revealing points post-marriage are that my partner was extremely good at concealing his real intentions, and that it was a stroke of good fortune for me that he decided to get out of my life.
Hey everyone, I am only human, but I do my best to be coherent and respectful, and 100% honest. Yeh, I know I am assertive. I am passionate about a decent future for Palestinians. You are all welcome to be equally passionate about whatever motivates you all.
-
Permalink Reply by Neri Bar-On on
-
Thank you Susan for you replay.
I can understand why you feel you need to protect the "Palestinian naraative" but I think we are people here, and that push you to be red as one-sided. There is no nation that has 100% true narrative, the Zionist were not smart as to create a 100% true narrative. same penomena exist in the Palestinian naraative that developed in different conditions. The Palestininan too were abale to create a 100% true narrative.
When we discouss this complex conflict, each hold his narrative we expose the disagreement lines and we try to win and to declair all the "other side narrative" as 100% lie. this is where Peace cannot exist. We cannot create the future base on our narratives that exclude each other. what I see is that you put a lot of effort in the blame side and react to blame. this is war of words and ideas, this does not let any compremize that is needed to create the future where the nerrative can say" In 2013 a change manifested in the Palestine where Jews and Paestinians and arabs found the way to live together" I think that in that future Narrative we, The Palestinians and Israelis, after we create peace be the 1st to support change on our planet. so we have much todo and create.
For some visitors the discussion experience is of a buttel field. people may get into this war and take sides, but we wish in mepeace.org to create conditions for people to create together. not for letting go for their narrative but for accepting the responsibility to create a new narrative of our future.
-
Permalink Reply by MICHAEL STOLZ on
-
Neri
Yes. we must create a new narrative , but we must not lose sight of what is happening on the ground and not just in a vacuum. Both Hamas and Hizbulla have thousands of rockets. One injured a Bedouin woman yesterday. Should we not start a new narrative by condemning this cowardly attack, or will we start a new narrative only when Israel retaliates?
That is the question that must be asked of peacemakers. Are you in it to see peace in the Middle East or simply to bash Israel as is happening here too many times.
Out of the numerous members here, I would like to see at least a dozen condemnations. Neri is that doable, for starters without a "but" attached ?
-
Permalink Reply by Neri Bar-On on
-
Micharel,
Can you see that what you write is blame, you do not look on Israel responsibility and see only the Evil in the other side.
but I do not condem nor I ask oher todo so, since we also need to condem what the Israeli side is doing. and while the violance is wrong its has many shapes and the people who protect Israel by droping 1 ton bomb on a civilian house that has one terrorist are equal to the resist from Palestine that send 5Killo bomb that usually do not fall on people and property. I do not justify any of these acts but you condemnations game is a blame game in discuize as it was clear you are not willing to condem any of Israel doing.
Out of the numerous members here, I would like to see at least a dozen creators - people who engage with othere to build a future, to recognize our humanity and work to create new conditions where this behaviour of radical extrimists will not exist and people will focus in building their houses, rasing their children and enjoy life in our short visit on this earth.
.
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff stern on
-
Neri - As much as I appreciate that fact that you select my name as part of the discussion. lets get a bit "real" - You do realize that you leverage the same "personal" attacks as anyone else here, I have sent you a few examples in the recent post and be happy to send more. I think that is not the issue as long as they are relevant to the content and not offensive to people which few people have actually done. I think more of an issue is using inflammatory language, talking with racist overtones or simply invalidating other peoples opinions - that is what you should really be policing.
© 2013 Created by Eyal Raviv.
Feedback | Report an Issue | Report an Issue | Terms of Service
