Intercultural Communication

profilenatalia.na
responses_DB_2_week_4.docx

Discussion Board #2: Israeli/Palestinian Youth Video

· View on you tube "Can the Israeli and Palestinians See Eye to Eye Discussion": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jj8vne0ca0

· What are some of the points of contention and disagreement?

· Any ideas to a solution?

· Your response to this dialogue... NOT A SUMMARY... your thoughts!!! Be sure to use principles/ terms / concepts from the chapters 1 Punctuation Principle, 2 Uncertainty Principle, 3 Performativity Principle / ppt. podcasts... Specifically from chapter 4 - Positionality Principle! MAKE THESE CLEARLY MARKED IN YOUR DISCUSSION!

Need responses to students' posts!!!

1.POST:

Anna Belov

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been a long and grueling conflict that is still happening to this day. It was interesting to watch this video, as most of the time the conflict has arisen in violent acts and wars, so it was nice to see a change in the pace of having a discussion between different opinions and sides. I enjoyed the fact that from the Israeli and Palestinian sides we see different narratives told rather than just one side vs. one side about each of the questions asked due to their backgrounds. Like Ran (the man in the suit on the Israeli side) who was very nationalistic and wanted peace by a one-state solution led by Israeli sovereignty. Ran even mentioned multiple times about how Palestinians have this view to annihilating all Israelis which is a positionality engagement where he tells his true vision of Palestinians from his cultural narrative. While Hannah who lives in Israeli identifies as Palestinian. 

One of the main issues of this conflict is the division of the land and how it goes about with cultural identity. Ran mentioned how he wanted to be under Israeli sovereignty because it is his national identity a part of cultural identity. While Arab mentioned he wanted a two-state solution because he is speaking for his people that Palestinians want their own state. Both individuals even Dorit mention this want of individual nationality to affirm their cultural identity.  After watching this video, I get this sense of ethnocentric negation where both cultural sides are either ignored or negated by the other when it comes to listening to participants like Dorit, Ran, and Arab. Dorit started a spark of the topic where it almost felt like she had this ideology that all Palestinians were violent, ignoring the Muslim religious culture of wanting peace and if you don't have peace you are not Muslim. While Ran, tries to impose the Israeli culture that he says condemns violence, but Arabs innocent sister was killed at the hands of Israeli that didn't sit in jail for this act of violence. The whole conflict has risen from the issue of each side trying to position themselves in the world and claim it's the authority of vision that they were their first. Like Ran mentioning that it's Israelis land through history and international law. While Arab questions where the previous generation of Ran first came about which is in Hungary while Arabs family has always been on this land.

I believe that the only solution could be if we had more people like Tchelet, Hannah, and Bara'a who want to bring about peace in a nonviolent way on both sides of Israeli and Palestinian, as they are by Johari's Window open to self and others but don't let the nationalism side of cultural identity really affect them. Their cultural identity is not defined by these two sides. Another part of the solution could be if both sides started sharing the ethnocentric affirmation view, which Dorit and Ran on the Israeli side did not share. If there are more strides of affirmation and peace, it could lead to a resolution of conflict. Overall, I really enjoyed watching this video and it really puts in perspective how different people are even if they come from the same side. 

2.POST:

Haley Yoshitomi

Having open discussions like the one in the video I think is very important when it comes to both sides coming up with a solution to a longstanding conflict. In the video, it was clear to see how positionality influenced the responses and arguments made by both the Israeli group and the Palestinian group. In one point made by one of the Israeli speakers, she claimed that she would love for both Israeli and Palestinian to get along, but in order for that to happen the Palestinian leaders needed to stop spewing hatred and condemn violence towards Israelis. While responses from the Palestinian speakers reiterated the fact that Palestinians and their faith do not teach hate, and the ones who are responsible for blocking peace between them are the Israelis. I thought this dialogue was important for me understanding the positionality principle because, in conflicts like this, the position you take is greatly influenced by the culture you identify with and the history of that culture. Since the fighting is between two different cultures with different histories, their interpretation of the conflict stems from their own unique cultural point of view. Even though I did not know much about this conflict, I found that some of the concerns and points of misunderstandings sounded somewhat familiar. Some of these concerns reminded me of some people who live in America today. Some people respond to the unknowns of a different culture negatively, resulting in the continuation of anxiety towards another group of people. When we have conversations like this where questions are answered and uncertainty eased, I believe is what drives change, and potentially form a solution.