26/11/2023
Just because leaders of Israel and Hamas are incapable of dialogue, doesn’t excuse us from that responsibility.
This story is an example of a missed opportunity. Everyone has their viewpoint (about this, and everything). What happens next is what’s important for many reasons. Any discussion that starts with statements of purported fact, which are really only reported or repeated observations, is already doomed. I can’t be the only one who is exhausted from people’s endless advocacy and one-sided attempts at pursuasion, and not any curiosity, listening, desire to learn, and dialogue.
When did we lose that ability? We, here in the US are not at war. But, this may be the first foreign war (or substitute your euphemism here) where we have been divided domestically over which side we should support. During the Viet Nam war, we differed over whether or not the US should be involved. But, I don’t remember a contingent of Americans saying we should aupport the North Vietnamese. What our domestic division means is that we have an opportunity to have dialogue and become informed, and to learn. Clearly, Israel and Hamas are incapable of such a dialogue, but we are not. Screaming opposing opinions in the streets is not the way to do that.
Anger and angry, triggered venting does serve a lot of purposes. It does release similar chemicals in the brain to those we experience during s*x, but it’s otherwise bad for our health in about every other way (heart, blood pressure, digeative tract, etc.). It’s also selfish, when you think about the effect on others, including shut down trauma responses, heightened anxiety, fight/flight/freeze responses. For these reasons, it doesn’t change the minds of those intended. It only serves the one who’s selfishly indulging in the behavior.
As a mediator and executive leadership coach, I hate to see us miss opportunities to foster better mutual understanding as a way to ease conflict. In person,and on social media, “the rant” has replaced dialogue. People don’t show any connection to the person they’re talking to. They just want to get their views out, as though that changes something. If what we want to do is change people’s perspective on an issue, don’t we need to bring them along with us? Don’t we need to understand their perspective, so we know where we need to meet them to begin leading them somewhere? Do they matter to us as humans? And if so, shouldn’t we show them that they do, rather than dehumanizing them and turning them into a wall we can yell at?
This professor chose to advocate. Just like those demonstrating were. In the end, rather than a good dialogue, and an opportunity for learning and empathising, we now have two opposing petitions, each signed by hundreds, in support and opposition of him and the University.
The next missed opportunity was when the University acted in knee-jerk fashion, without conducting an investigation. They, too, seemingly acted on sound bites, and left themselves vulnerable to hearsay and untruths.
If we can’t rely on the humans in the street, or those (we hope) on social media, or those in positions of power to react productively in the face of conflict, then who can we rely on? The answer is you! When you look in the mirror, you have now read this piece, you are clear on what choices are available to you. What will you choose from this point forward when confronted with an opinion that’s different from yours? To a degree, you are now accountable, to yourself and others, because you now know you have a choice. I hope you will use it wisely. And maybe someone will share this with the leaders at USC. It’s never too late for thoughtful dialogue. Or to have that dialogue facilitated by someone who has these skills and can help.
I invite your thoughts about this.
Los Angeles Times - Tue, 10/31/23
