geeze mate. You still can’t let go can you. I tried to approach this as a bridge but can you actually see the language you use in response.
For someone who supposedly had systems and process in place to minimise conflict those skills are substantially lacking in the way you have responded.
so I am wondering whether you can manage it when it is one step removed from a personal issue and you are in control but are less able to do so when it is personal
and why do I say that? because you have commented thus
I suspect that's why you're finding some of my comments confronting
you made that comment before and I told you that was not the issue but apparently you know better than how I feel. as you would surely know you do not reduce or manage conflict by telling someone else how they feel. I just don’t like your language and think it emotional and unproductive and and excessive
conflict never gets resolved by focusing on one party whoever you might think is the perpetrator. To do so simply escalates conflict as the other person is forced to defend themselves and this dig in.
You have persistently blamed, confronted and accused others of a range of behaviours but are extraordinarily thin skinned or unable to acknowledge any part you might play. It’s the same in your response to me. Nothing - just some sort of magnanimous and thus arrogant acknowledgment of my response and then you launch into another rendition of statements you have made many times before? And your point is?
it’s another way of furthering conflict.
I know many Israelis are distressed by what is happening - somewhere in one of my posts I said exactly the same - but no acknowledgment from you on that.
Conflict gets resolved when one finds points of agreement and openly acknowledges them. Do you find that hard to do when you’ve fallen into a debate with someone
When trying to resolve conflict, while a “he said she said” conversation is seldom productive as everyone will have a different view of events, context is important.
However you have been highly selective in your reference to history - cherry picking what you think is relevant.
you have conveniently ignored the five Arab states who invaded in response to the declaration of the state of Israel which resulted in a loss and the ceding of territory that was not assigned to Israel by the UN. It impacted significantly the pathway of the conflict. but you may recall you accused me of a puerile distraction when I tried to add additional context. That is no way to reduce or eliminate conflict
likewise unless Israel and the Palestinians see their role in the the conflict escalating no peace will be achieved unless forced
your language continues to be highly emotional. Not about the deaths but when you describe Israel. You use inflammatory and unnecessary language to describe the players. You would know that no conflict can be resolved when you do that
so while you may feel that hotcopper is the place for expression of emotion you then need to accept that others will express themselves differently. If you enjoy the conflict that your style creates go right ahead but then reflect on the fact that you are thus no better than the players in the conflict that matters. It is simply a matter of scale
