%20(1)%20(4)%20(1)%20(1).jpg)
This time, Israelis voted for reality
+++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How to have political disagreements without ruining relationships
BY JULIAN ADORNEY
If you've lost a friend or a loved one to political disagreements, you're not alone. A 2021 study by the American Enterprise Institute showed that a full 15% of adults have ended a friendship over politics. Many more Americans have friendships or relationships with loved ones that are on the ropes due to political disagreements. But there is a way to have political disagreements that build your relationships with your loved ones rather than erode them.
It's not always easy in practice, but it is simple in concept: First, state your values, but don't attack the other person's values. Second, reframe the discussion as a search for ways to fix societal problems.
Let's say that you're a conservative, and your mother-in-law is a progressive who supports the application of critical race theory in schools and educational materials. She asks you, "How can you oppose teaching anti-racism in schools? I guess you just don't care about ending racism."
In this case, you’d respond with something like, "I actually care about ending racism quite a lot. In fact, it's because I want to create a more pluralistic and diverse society that I don't think we should embrace the core tenets of critical race theory. The best evidence I've seen suggests that it would erect more walls between people who look different. I could be wrong on the facts, of course, but that's where my heart is on this issue."
This approach is effective for two reasons. First, it disarms the other person's presuppositions. A common reaction to the hypothetical mother-in-law's criticism is to go on offense and say something like, "Critical race theory perpetuates racism. If you really cared about ending racism, you wouldn't push for teaching CRT in schools." This is ineffective, however, because it gets the other person's guard up. Insulting someone's values engages their partisan brain—which in these scenarios essentially acts as a combination of soldier and press secretary. Like a soldier, the partisan brain is concerned with defeating an enemy: "This person is attacking me, therefore I need to crush them." Like a press secretary, the partisan brain is mostly focused on telling a story that makes its own side look good: "This person is attacking me, is therefore a bad person, and as a result I can write off any criticisms they make of my side."
Engaging the partisan brain shuts down conversation. It widens gulfs, rather than narrowing them. If solving problems is your goal, you’ll want to avoid creating more distance between you and your interlocutor.
This phenomenon isn't unique to political disagreements. Geoff Laughton, a relationship coach and author of two bestselling books on relationships, notes that "many of the breakdowns that happen in romantic relationships are tied to the filters that are in people’s listening (put in place during our childhoods) that have an agenda that determines whose side their partner’s on within the relationship. This is being decided by these self-perceptions that frequently get projected on our partners when we’re upset or feeling judged (whether the other person is indeed judging or not)." In contrast, positively stating your own values, rather than condemning the other person's values—especially if you can articulate how your values are shared—puts the person you’re talking to at ease.
It's hard to attack someone who's not attacking you back, and refusing to play offense can help the other person keep or regain a cool head. They may even regret attacking your values in the first place, creating the possibility of more respectful conversations in future. This is what Martin Luther King, Jr. did to great effect during the Civil Rights Movement. He led protests and sit-ins in Birmingham, Alabama, knowing that these demonstrations would rouse the ire of Alabama Public Safety Commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor. Importantly, when Connor ordered vicious attacks on protestors, including setting police dogs on children and blasting protesters with fire hoses, King's people remained peaceful and practiced nonviolence.
Had the protestors sunk to the level of their attackers, the watching eyes of the American public would have seen what looked like a violent mob. They would have seen two sides tearing each other apart, and many prejudiced people would have felt that their worst instincts about African Americans were being confirmed. Instead, viewers across the United States watched with horror and anger as peaceful protesters were beaten and mauled. That revulsion was essential to changing the hearts and minds of the American public, and Birmingham was a watershed moment for the Civil Rights Movement.
The key thing to remember is that, when you're in an argument over politics, your conversing partner is both Connor and the watching public. They are two people inside one head; one part fighting with you, the other observing and preserving their image and reputation. If you fight back in kind, both parts will think that their attacks on you are justified. If you choose nonviolence, however, then the other person may begin to rethink their own tactics.
The second reason this approach works is because it positively reframes the conversation. In a popular TED Talk, decision-making expert Julia Galef identifies two mindsets that each of us can adopt called “the soldier” and “the scout.”
The soldier has one goal: to win the battle, protect their side, and defeat the enemy. The soldier isn't interested in shades of gray or in finding common ground; he's interested in winning. Given our tribal roots, the soldier mindset is highly adaptive. When you're at war with a rival tribe, letting down your sword to mull over how your opponents might actually have a point is a good way to get killed.
The scout, however, has a different goal: to understand. She wants to find the truth, because getting an accurate picture of the situation—whether it’s the terrain, the location and numbers of the enemy, or the weather—is essential to helping her side succeed. The scout approaches the problems of the world dispassionately, like a researcher, unblinkered by ideological biases or motivated reasoning.
You may be thinking that times are tough, the stakes are high, and the soldier is what is needed right now. But, in the words of Abraham Lincoln during perhaps the greatest period of strife in our nation’s history, “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.” If Lincoln can think that during the Civil War, we can certainly think it now.
By modeling humility and voicing a sincere desire for the best solution to the problem, as I exemplified earlier with my hypothetical mother-in-law, you become a scout rather than a soldier. Even if the conversation began in a more hostile way, taking the role of the scout encourages the other person to follow suit. Your refusal to reciprocate their hostility will likely give them pause, and may cause them to shift their behavior to match yours.
When you act as a scout, you can shift the discussion away from the supposed moral deficiencies of your opponent and toward a disagreement on implementation. It helps you avoid overly simplistic framings and helps you find common ground. This framework is far more constructive and conducive to relationship-building and conflict resolution than the soldier approach, and it is needed now more than ever.
A 2021 survey by the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia has reported that "roughly 4 in 10 (41%) of Biden and half (52%) of Trump voters at least somewhat agree that it’s time to split the country, favoring blue/red states seceding from the union." A vast number of Democrats and Republicans can no longer stomach even being in the same country together. The chasm between political and ideological opponents runs deep today, cutting through American homes, families and friend groups, workplaces and romantic relationships.
I firmly believe we can bridge that chasm. But it starts with learning how to talk to one another in a more productive and constructive way.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
the long knives are already out for Bibi's new government.
+++
Why is Israel's next gov't being attacked before it exists?
The reality is that none of the parties that are expected to make up Israel’s next government neatly fit the stereotypes that overheated critics are deploring in advance.
By STEPHEN M. FLATOW
Even as the votes in Israel’s election were still being counted, the attacks began.
Unnamed “senior officials” ominously warned that the new government will endanger US-Israel relations. Pundits passionately denounced the “extremists” who will be part of the new government coalition. Rumors are flying fast and furious that foreign leaders might boycott segments of the new government.
All this before the new government even exists!
The reality is that none of the parties that are expected to make up Israel’s next government neatly fit the stereotypes that overheated critics are deploring in advance.
“Far-right”? “Extremist”? “Anti-Palestinian”?
Benjamin Netanyahu has said he would accept a demilitarized Palestinian entity that would resemble a state.
Not only that, but previous Netanyahu-led Likud governments adhered closely to the Oslo Accords, froze all Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria for 10 months, released imprisoned Arab terrorists as “gestures” to the Palestinian Authority, and surrendered a large portion of Hebron.
I’m not commenting on the wisdom of any of those actions. I’m simply stating the facts. And the facts do not support the hysteria of the critics.
What about the Religious Zionist Party, which is expected to be the Likud’s largest coalition partner?
It favors deporting convicted Arab terrorists. Of course, so did Yitzhak Rabin – just recall the 415 Hamas terrorists whom Rabin deported to Lebanon in 1992. And Israel’s left-leaning Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld deportation as a legitimate punishment for terrorists.
Should a political party be considered illegitimate because it favors the deportation of terrorists? Shimon Peres didn’t think so. He served as foreign minister and deputy prime minister in the national-unity government of 2001-2002 – alongside tourism minister Rehavam Ze’evi and Ze’evi’s successor, Benny Elon, whose party favored the “transfer” of Arabs out of Judea and Samaria.
Note that the position of Ze’evi and Elon was not just deportation of terrorists. They spoke of “transferring” Arabs in general.
And Peres was not the only prominent figure on the Left who felt perfectly comfortable joining cabinet minister Elon, the “transfer” advocate. Tommy Lapid, the father of outgoing Israeli prime minister Yair Lapid, served as minister of justice and deputy prime minister alongside Elon, in a governing coalition in 2004.
Again, I’m not commenting on whether Peres or the elder Lapid should have done that. I’m just stating the facts.
How about the two Orthodox parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism? Do they fit the stereotype of far-right extremists?
Shas’s participation in the Rabin government of 1992-1995 was what made the Oslo Accords possible. And United Torah Judaism has been part of both right-of-center and left-of-center governments.
Obviously, on religious issues, the Orthodox parties have positions with which some non-Orthodox Jews disagree. But it’s not fair to paint those parties into some stereotypical corner just because their views do not align with what their opponents prefer. Shas and UTJ are a legitimate part of the democratic system and represent substantial segments of Israel’s voters.
The problem is that Israel’s critics don’t genuinely care about Israeli democracy or what Israeli voters want. They have one relentless, obsessive goal: to bring about the creation of a “State of Palestine” alongside Israel’s 14.5-km.-wide 1967 armistice lines. So long as the Israeli government – any Israeli government – resists that agenda, the critics will attack.
They will do everything they can to intimidate Israel’s government and frighten its supporters. They will use every means to isolate and demoralize Israel and its friends – ugly name-calling, angry op-eds, threats of all sorts. There will be lots of hysteria, hypocrisy and hand-wringing. It will not be pleasant. But that’s the price to be paid for Israel’s survival.
(The writer is an attorney and the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995. He is the author of A Father’s Story: My Fight for Justice Against Iranian Terror.)
and
Another Op Ed by Flatow.
Friedman is an opinionated idiot. Israel is now ahead of the curve. The western world, if it is to survive, must become more to the right and reject the stupidity of the lefties.
+++
Thomas Friedman, an equal-opportunity Israel-basher
By STEPHEN M. FLATOW
The ‘New York Times’ columnist believes it his mission to heckle and harass the Israelis until they give in to Arab demands.
(November 6, 2022 / JNS) Longtime New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman warned this week that, as a result of the Nov. 1 Israeli election, “the Israel we knew is gone” and the Jewish state is “entering a dark tunnel.”
If you’d never read an article by Friedman before, you might assume that it was the rightward turn by Israeli voters that set the columnist against the Jewish state. You would think, in other words, that Friedman’s ire is Israel’s fault.
You would be wrong. Very wrong. The truth is that Friedman’s hostility towards Israel has nothing to do with the reelection of Benjamin Netanyahu as Israel’s prime minister or the center-right governing coalition he is about to form.
For nearly half a century—going all the way back to the early 1970s—Friedman has publicly attacked every Israeli government, whether it was right-wing, left-wing or somewhere in between.
Yitzhak Rabin was prime minister in 1974 when Friedman and his fellow leaders of the “Middle East Peace Group” at Brandeis University publicly denounced the Jewish state for not negotiating with PLO chieftain and arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat. That was 19 years before Arafat even pretended to be willing to make peace with Israel.
Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Shamir were alternating prime ministers in a Labor-Likud coalition government in 1989 when Friedman derided Israel as “Yad Vashem with an air force” and said rioting Palestinian Arab mobs where using “non-lethal civil disobedience.”
During those Peres-Shamir years, Friedman wrote, “The Israelis are getting a bad press because they deserve it” and that Israel was suffering from “megalomania.”
Ariel Sharon was prime minister when Friedman wrote that Israel “had George Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office.”
Also during the Sharon years, Friedman wrote that the U.S. should propose to Saudi Arabia that it recognize Israel in exchange for an Israeli retreat to its pre-1967 borders and the re-division of Jerusalem.
And lo and behold, a “Saudi peace plan” identical to what Friedman was pushing materialized. Friedman’s Feb. 17, 2002 column then became the vehicle for announcing the “Saudi plan.” None of this had anything to do with Israel’s government being “right-wing.”
Granted, Friedman has unleashed some harsh attacks on Netanyahu over the years. But the rhetoric Friedman has used in those verbal assaults has been so over-the-top that no responsible Israeli, whether on the right or the left, could endorse it. For example, sounding an awful lot like Pat Buchanan, Friedman wrote on Dec. 13, 2011 that the standing ovations Netanyahu received in Congress were “bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.”
Similarly, Friedman asserted in a column on Nov. 19, 2013 that “many American lawmakers [will] do whatever the Israel lobby asks them to do in order to garner Jewish votes and campaign donations.”
In short, Friedman’s problem with Israel has nothing to do with Netanyahu. It has nothing to do with Israel’s rightward turn in the latest election. Friedman is an equal-opportunity Israel-basher. He has criticized center-left governments headed by Rabin and Peres, centrist governments headed by Sharon and center-right governments headed by Netanyahu.
Blaming the Israeli election for his hostility towards Israel is an easy out for Friedman. But it’s dishonest. The record proves that Friedman has harbored a lifelong conviction that, in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, Israel is basically wrong, the Palestinian Arabs are basically right and his mission as a journalist is to heckle and harass the Israelis until they finally give in to Arab demands.
Stephen M. Flatow is an attorney and the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995. He is author of A Father’s Story: My Fight for Justice Against Iranian Terror.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm biden my knees
+++
No comments:
Post a Comment