I just heard someone say, “One war crime does not justify another.” My reflex as a peace advocate is to agree with that statement, but something gives me pause. It starts with a grammatical issue but it doesn’t end there. The only beings on earth that perform the act of
As an Iranian who can read him in original language, firstly this piece is a miss-translation, the original words are closer to faithfulness and infidelity. So it goes with many other Coleman Bark's work on Molana Rumi. He is truly a decent guy in personality, but seen from our side of the world, has created a new version of Rumi who is more originated in California than an Islamic region with Islamic roots.
Secondly when you get his message by its entirety, he does not bypass reality to arrive in a field of unity. There are many poems that he clearly speaks against immorality, or justification of injustice, and more than all against ignorance and oppression. His message is to get closer to the highest potential of humanity, which includes both of: 1- keeping a living connection to the sacred field (unity) 2- discerning that to daily stances for highest human qualities, like justice, and against the counter force, injustice
Thank you Kamyar. Do you feel that Coleman’s translations have lost something implicit in Rumi’s originals?
I cannot read the original language but feel that reference to “a field” is pointing to universal consciousness “where” separation and duality are understood as partial, transient or ephemeral states of human thinking. To say, “I’ll meet you there” is surely an inadequate phrase but put another way, suggests that the I-ness of “me” is the I-ness of “you”.
Hi Paul, I appreciate your reflection and question. There are many ways to look at it, and none I feel does the justice... as it needs to include respect for the works of Coleman Barks as well.
There are a few things I can say the translation has lost:
1- The poems arising from a root bed of islamic-mysticism. In every few lines, Molana Rumi points to a character, story or a saying of the Abrahamic prophets, or the Quran as the source. His translations has completely ignored these core threads of the weave, and in that sense we say that Coleman Barks' Rumi was born in California.
2- There are energetic embedded in his words which is not easy to explain, but as if he captured an invisible being within the words and that being is still there, alive. So the original has a liveliness and is suggested to approach as a living being that can talk to you and meet you exactly where you are. For example, there are poems that after reading a few lines you might find a need to run and scream on top of your longs, or dance, or cry, not directly out of the meaning of the words but the energetics trapped within the constellation of those words.
3- A multi-layered-ness of the symbology. There are some poems that the symbology bugles the mind, in a sense that he uses them with a meaning and in the next line he uses them totally differently so the function of the poem becomes like a zen koan. It doesn't make sense if you approach it with analytical mind, trying to abstract meaning. These are not translatable by nature, I guess.
Have a look at Reynold Nicholson's translations for a contrast, as his translations are perceived to be more honest and loyal to the origins.
As a student I listened to Coleman Barks's tapes perhaps hundreds of times... Even though a scholarly muslim friend said that his work wasn't very authentic! You seem to have a very deep understanding and sensitivity for that material. What I find intriguing is what you say about the resonance of the words: "There are energetic embedded in his words which is not easy to explain, but as if he captured an invisible being within the words and that being is still there, alive."
Hi Sacha, I do honor his work too. It does work on the heart in a way... and yes, specially with his own voice. It is beneficial to notice what is lost in translation, yet it shouldn't undervalue the work of Coleman Barks as a poet himself. Sometimes I think, would it have been more aligned if he called them inspired by Rumi...
Subjectively, I can only say that the poems deeply moved and inspired me... Because I didn't know any better! My muslim friend derided the Southern US accent and the Indian background music! I suppose we all hold on to whatever fragment of wisdom and light that we find in a broken world. Some are luckier than others in finding the rarer pearls. I do consider myself somewhat lucky to have a (flickering) guiding star...
Sit at a table and listen to eachothers needs. Realize that you share the same values. That you share a reality. Then develop strategies that meet everyones needs.
Marshall Rosenberg had great success using nonviolent communication. He was able to help the leaders of warring tribes in Africa come to the peace table in exactly this way, and to eventually be able to hear each other and end the fighting, end the killing.
Yes, Satya. Rosenberg made clear what is often obscured by passion: that uncomfortable feelings are caused by unmet needs, not by some adversary. When both "sides" acknowledge such truth (satya), they can adjust their polarized positions to shift their attention to resolving their differences, by working collaboratively toward meeting the needs of each. That partnership resolves the dominance issue.
Yes, Satya. Nonviolent Communication has been used successfully to resolve conflicts. I'm dedicated to disseminating this practice around the globe. Blessings to you.
One memorable encounter occurred when Rosenberg mediated between chieftains of warring Christian and Muslim tribes in Northern Nigeria in the early 1990s. Before commencing, Rosenberg was advised that some of the chieftains in the room knew that others in the room had killed their children. Rosenberg applied his process of NVC to help the chieftains hear and understand each other. Eventually one chieftain jumped up, talking excitedly. Rosenberg’s translator told him the chieftain was saying “if we knew how to speak to each other this way we wouldn’t have to kill each other.” A similar sentiment was expressed by a prisoner during a NVC training in a USA jail, who said with deep sadness that if he had known how to communicate the way Rosenberg demonstrated, he wouldn’t have killed his best friend.
The people often and sometimes times mostly want peace. The problem is governments and organizations that specifically do not want peace. There is much profit, resources, and power in never-ending wars.
Does anyone in Congress want peace? It seems that all of them are for war. If you want to defund the Ukrainian slaughter, you are called pro-Putin; defund Israel and you are antisemitic.
No win situation. My advice is let Europe deal with Russia and let Israel and Hamas fight it to the end. Or not. It's up to them.
The Europeans are big troublemakers in the Ukrainian-Russian conflict so I wouldn't let them handle the situation, for the sake of the Ukrainians. As to defunding Israel, great idea, IFF the Arabs and the Iranians defund the Palestinians (and themselves).
But what if you sit down and discover that actually you don't share the same reality? That seems the more likely outcome to me. I do not share the same reality with those who believe the unvaccinated were/are the evil perpetuators of the pandemic. I do not share the same reality with those who believe it is totally fine, nay even a good thing to cut down every remaining old growth forest in North America. I do not share a reality with those who believe that america is the root of all evil and suffering in the world. At some point we all draw a line around what we value and hold dear and that is quite often very different than what our adversary values and holds dear. In a healthy society'family'relationship we can tolerate those differences and learn to work together. But in a world that is imploding, that is a pretty big ask I think
I hear you, Rainbow Medicine Walker. The reality I'm referring to is that of needs consciousness, not of beliefs. All your examples refer to beliefs. I'm referring to a place beyond judgments, opinions and beliefs. A place beyond right and wrong, good and bad. A place where everyone's needs matter.
What are needs? Respect, consideration, safety, security, food, clothing, shelter, freedom, choice, purpose, meaning, joy, stimulation etc. The above are not beliefs, they are the life energy in each of us. They are universal. We all have these needs, regardless of our beliefs.
I agree we all have these needs and yes it would be great to live in a space/place where everyone's needs matter and could all be met. I do not see though how our beliefs, which are basically our ideas about those needs, can be seperated from the needs themselves. In other words humans will sacrifce alot of basic needs in service to their beliefs. I think there may be a fundamental difference in worldview here. I see us humans as unconscious and irrational much of the time. I don't think it is realistic to expect that most folks can suddenly become fully conscious about what their true needs actually are. Generally speaking we are weighed down with the burden of our individual and collective beliefs. They become our identity. There are those who attempt to become conscious of and break free of this, but I don't see the majority willing or able to do so. I would be happy to be wrong.
Dear Rainbow, I agree with you! We have the same worldview. We are both sad, disheartened and discouraged. We long for connection, harmony, peace, safety and security. We long for a world where everyone's needs matter. We are mourning and grieving for we know in our hearts there is another way.
I think we’ve all seen in the US how different beliefs about reality are perpetuating political and culture wars - and how no one has successfully been able to clearly establish what is true and what is not.
Even in the certified NVC trainer community there are regular conflicts due to deeply embedded racial misunderstandings and unconscious racism. Those are relatively simple relational challenges in contrast to the complexities driving conflict in the Middle East.
I wish we had a more effective and efficient strategy for moving society from a story of separation into the knowingness of interbeing - that we are all inherently connected in the energy from which all of creation is made manifest.
Katrina your words made me think a bit more deeply about what I myself truly feel. So I hope you don't mind if I respond at length. I will try to explain more fully to myself through attempting to explain it here, even though words on a screen seem to trip us up these days. It is so hard to deeply discuss these very challenging topics when we come from such different backgrounds and experiences and we all have emotional charges that we often don't even understand ourselves. All of our ancestors had multiple conflicts throughout human history even when they had a fairly uniform physically shared context of experiences and beliefs and lifestyles. We ourselves are now faced with a virtual smorgasboard of conflicting global realities that they did not have to navigate. Change and lifestyle was much slower and closer to the earth through most of human history and so our ancestors had more time to process and integrate that change and still many times they fell down the rabbit hole. We are now being slammed with so much so fast, I personally believe we have outstripped our human ability to process and integrate in a sane way. I feel humanity is desperate for some kind of miraculous, all encompassing shift in consciousness. I pray and hope that happens, but I don't expect it to as I am more of the old school of thought that we hope and work toward the best but we also prepare for the worst. That old school approach is not meant to lock us into a no win situation. It is meant to free us to face and interact with all possibilities and realities coming down the pipe towards us. In other words, I am not expecting peace on earth. Nothing in human history that I know of indicates this is a realistic goal. Nothing in the animal/plant/nature world around me indicates this is a realistic goal. We could create a global society of perfect peace, love and caring and a super volcano or meteor or whatever could come along and blow our perfect civilization out of the water. What I seek to understand and merge with is a state of balance within the opposing forces of the cosmos we inhabit. And yet paradoxically, while I do strive for balance. I am also aware I will never permanently arrive at a place of balance in a universe of constant change. I can only work towards a place of balance and try to understand life's teachings along the way. I am taking a risk saying the following here in this public comment section as I am sure it will be misinterpreted by some and sadly I may be attacked for it, but in my old age I can only tell the truth to myself and to others best as I can as I refuse to die as less than who I actually am. Here is what I believe with every cell in my body and every piece of my spirit warrior soul: Violence is a part of life on this planet. We cannot get rid of it either in ourselves or in the cosmos around us. We can only try to become more and more aware of how it is an intrinsic part of the forces of creation/destruction and how it is a part of us all because we are part of that creation. We can choose to become more conscious of the violence within/without and we can dig deep to find the reasons we act as we do. To some extent we can choose to moderate our own inner violence and learn to control our responses and reactions. But we are never going to completely eradicate violence from the human psyche and experience of life on earth. If we could do that impossible task, life itself would simply cease to be. Peace is a worthy goal to work towards, but it is not the panacea for the multitude of problems we face. Far too many times I see the idea of peace become the default place for those who are afraid to face their own inner violence and recognize it as a valuable part of their own evolutionary survival package. From my perspective, this denial and suppression of who we actually are is how people become so vulnerable to manipulation. Especially the good folks who want peace. I am not talking here about celebrating violence and glorying it. I am talking about taking charge of the reins of the run away and extremely powerful steed of violence and consciously guiding and directing that energy ourselves. I have noticed this idea frightens many good people for various reasons. But I think this is primarily because most 'good' people have been conditioned to be afraid of their own inner violence and to suppress it at all costs. I don't expect others to agree with this viewpoint, but it is true for me.
The valid "ask," Rainbow, may not involve what may be an insurmountable challenge: tolerating what the adversary holds dear, but might just require opening the dialogue regarding unmet needs: "What are yours?/Here are mine." Most conflicts never reach all the way back to the cause, because all attention is given to defense.
I think I understand your point and if we lived in a reasonable sane world I would probably agree. I would suggest though that many people today would say their unmet needs are pretty darn endless. We have gone so far beyond the idea that the meeting of basic needs brings satisfaction, I am not sure how we find our way back.
Yes, Rainbow, our deeply conditioned belief in separation and scarcity keeps us alert to all the shortages and threats we can discover, rather than allowing our attention the freedom to celebrate the abundance that sustains us. Maybe it's time to revive the wisdom introduced by Abraham Maslow, the psychologist who sorted out our most basic needs and recognized the natural hierarchy and priorities between them. In other words, there isn't one of us who doesn't need oxygen to breathe and water to drink, right? A bit less urgent is our need of a safe place to sleep, and nutritious foods. At some less fundamental level, we need meaningful work to do. We don't really need a newer car, a fashionable piece of clothing, or a fancy coffee drink. Likewise, we don't really need more money, more control over others ....
Jim I hear what you say and I agree from a domesticated human perspective. Yet for me wild nature is the ultimate teacher/guru and Her lessons can be quite different from what we socially conditioned, artificially maintained humans believe to be true. I watched eagles all day today chase seagulls to make them drop their fish even though there were literally hundreds of fish to be easily had massed together right at the eagle's feet. They preferred to chase the seagulls around and around the lake over and over again anytime they got a fish and when the seagull finally dropped it, the eagle would swoop down and grab it and then another eagle would chase that one and on and on. Fish tag is an eagle game I have watched closely for 40 years now. They are not hungry, they are not threatened, there is more fish than they can possibly eat right in front of them, but still they want what another bird has and they are willing to use ( waste) enormous amounts of energy to get it. You could say they are playing. You could say they are exerting dominance/claiming air space and territory. You could say they are fine tuning their hunting skills. You could say they are just bullies. I think all of those things are true and I think we are not as different from them as we like to believe we are. We can perhaps overcome instinct and unconscious impusles in ways that eagles cannot. But we are biologically animals and unless we acknowledge that having our basic needs met is often just not enough to keep us satisfied then I think we will continue to keep chasing those seagulls around and around and pretending to ourselves and each other that if only our needs were met we could all stop playing endless fish tag and quit bullying all the other birds.
When conflicts have gone on for a very long time and gotten deeply entrenched it will take longer, but even one person willing to listen with empathy can start to shift the energy.
Here's more from an interview with Marshall Rosenberg:
"About eight years ago, I was mediating between a Muslim tribe and a Christian tribe in northern Nigeria. In their conflict, a quarter of the population had been killed. At that time, they were fighting about how many places in the marketplace each side would have to display their products. I started the reconciliation process with them by saying that I was confident that if we could hear each other’s needs, we could find a way to get everybody’s needs met. Inviting whoever wanted to start, I asked: “What needs of yours are not getting met?” The chief from the Christian tribe screamed, “You people are murderers!” Notice that when I asked him what needs weren’t getting met, his response was to tell me what was wrong with the other side. This provoked a counter judgment. Somebody on the Muslim side screamed back, “You’ve been trying to dominate us! We’re not going to tolerate it any more!”
Because our training is based on the assumption that all violent language is a tragic expression of unmet needs, when the chiefs finished screaming, my job was to translate the enemy image of “murderer” into language describing the needs of the person who screamed. I said, “Chief, are you saying that your need for safety is not being met and you want some agreement that no matter what the conflict, that it be resolved some way other than violence?” He looked shocked for a moment because this is different from how people are trained to think. Then he said, “That’s exactly right!”
But getting the chief to acknowledge his need wasn’t enough. I had to get the Muslim side to see through their enemy image. I said, “Would somebody on the other side please tell me what you heard the chief say his needs were?”
A gentleman from the Muslim tribe screamed back, “Then why did you kill my son?” In fact, there were several others in the Muslim tribe who knew that someone present had killed one of their children. So there were a lot of feelings. The Muslim tribe had to put down their rage long enough to hear the needs of the Christian tribe. And that wasn’t easy. I had to give them some empathy before they could do that. But finally I got them to hear just one simple thing, that the Christian tribe had said they had a need for safety.
It took me about an hour and a half to get both sides to release the enemy image long enough to hear a need of the other side. At that point, one of the chiefs came up and said to me, “If we know how to communicate this way, we don’t have to kill each other!”
In another example, a group of Israelis and Palestinians on the West Bank were hoping to be able to work toward peace in that area. I asked, “What is it that you want from each other that would make it easier for you to work together?” The Palestinian mayor of the village responded by telling the Israelis, “You people are a bunch of Nazis.” Predictably, one of the Israelis fired back, “That was totally insensitive for you to say.” So instead of peace and harmony, they were creating violence and hostility. I helped them translate their judgments into what it was that they were wanting from one another. When you get people to talk about what they want from each other, instead of what’s wrong with the other, there’s a possibility for reconciliation to begin." https://inquiringmind.com/article/2101_4w_rosenberg-interview-with-marshall-rosenberg-the-traveling-peacemaker/
Marshall Rosenberg (cont.) "But getting the chief to acknowledge his need wasn’t enough. I had to get the Muslim side to see through their enemy image. I said, “Would somebody on the other side please tell me what you heard the chief say his needs were?”
A gentleman from the Muslim tribe screamed back, “Then why did you kill my son?” In fact, there were several others in the Muslim tribe who knew that someone present had killed one of their children. So there were a lot of feelings. The Muslim tribe had to put down their rage long enough to hear the needs of the Christian tribe. And that wasn’t easy. I had to give them some empathy before they could do that. But finally I got them to hear just one simple thing, that the Christian tribe had said they had a need for safety.
It took me about an hour and a half to get both sides to release the enemy image long enough to hear a need of the other side. At that point, one of the chiefs came up and said to me, “If we know how to communicate this way, we don’t have to kill each other!”
In another example, a group of Israelis and Palestinians on the West Bank were hoping to be able to work toward peace in that area. I asked, “What is it that you want from each other that would make it easier for you to work together?” The Palestinian mayor of the village responded by telling the Israelis, “You people are a bunch of Nazis.” Predictably, one of the Israelis fired back, “That was totally insensitive for you to say.” So instead of peace and harmony, they were creating violence and hostility. I helped them translate their judgments into what it was that they were wanting from one another. When you get people to talk about what they want from each other, instead of what’s wrong with the other, there’s a possibility for reconciliation to begin."
Yes, "...that IS a pretty big ask..." Sooooo, still...what is the alternative? War forever? War kills old growth forests, and Americans and the unvaccinated, etc. etc. Maybe it is the reality of everybody just continuing on, drawing lines around their dear values. that is actually The Pretty Big Ask.
I wish everyone thought this way… really I do 🙏🏼🕊️
Chris Cuomo interviewed Mosab Hassan Yousef who is the SON of the founder of HAMAS, turned Israeli spy, now US citizen. I hope Charles will listen to this and others and weave this information into an upcoming essay 🤞
There are many other interviews as well, but they are on Fox and other lesser known channels which I’m imagining most people following Charles avoid?
I love peace and I am a Nonviolent Communication facilitator and mediator with 17 years of active work in NVC. As brilliant as Marshall Rosenberg was and the teachings of NVC is, they are FAR from sufficient to resolve this complex war which includes thousands of years of history, complex trauma, and millions of Islamic militancy extremists who are dedicated to destroying Israel.
I love the idealism coming from Charles and in many comments here, but for this conflict to be resolved, we need to truly and deeply understand what’s going on from people who are living it. Mosab is a RARE man who has lived it from four sides - Palestine, Hamas, Israel, and the US.
Peace grounded in idealism is no more than a beautiful dream. We can’t change a culture built in an ideology of hate and bloodshed, which Hamas and other Islamic terrorist groups are. Most Arabs are unwilling or at least highly hesitant to condemn the brutal bloodlust war tactics of Hamas. This conflict cannot be solved by any kind of normal peace talks right now. In NVC there are times when protective use of force is necessary, and from what I’ve seen, the way Israel fights in war is more ethical than any other country - including the US. They do their best to protect civilians. In contrast, Hamas uses civilians - especially women, children, and hospitals - as human shields in order to provoke international outrage and increase the possibility of a ceasefire, which would work in their favor 😔
I pray for an Israel and for the innocent civilians in Gaza - especially women and children - every day. And after doing as much deeper drive, I have come to understand why Israel and the US backers of Israel are unwilling to do a ceasefire for any significant period of time. Hamas will take every advantage of any down time. They are driven by the idea of destroying Israel and if they kill others or die in the process, it is all for their twisted idea of devotion to Allah 😔
BS. Mosab is an evengelical Christian (since formally leaving Islam) who is on a payroll. But he gets propped up as some sort of "Son of Hamas".
And its better to keep your deep Islamophobic views and tropes to yourself, when juxtaposing them next to Marshall Rosenberg and NVC. Care to give us a source for your absurd 100 M Islamic militancy extremists!! It would do you better to actually interact with Muslims, and take some time out to actually deeply look into the Islamic faith, before parrotting fear driven propaganda.
My sincere apologies for posting such an error. I imagine you felt something between frustrated and outraged when you read it as it didn’t meet your values for people you love to be seen clearly and misinformation like that if spread could threaten emotional and physical safety given the airway existing dark biases and racism in our world.
Thank you for pointing it out so it wasn’t posted for long. I have deleted it and will seek to find an accurate estimate with citation before posting anything like that again.
Of course the first step in the NVC Four Step Process is to make clear observations. Not easy in this case. But in this just step we do our best to establish what is objectively true. (and yes, I make mistakes sometimes - especially when emotion knocks my equilibrium off-center, and I do seek to correct them)
If you are willing -
I would like to have clear factual information in regards to the extent of Islamic extremism - and for large the backing is for this ideology that perpetuates violence against innocent people and is committed to destroying Israel.
I am curious what you believe would be an accurate representation of the number of Islamic military extremists who actively participate in groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Isis and the Muslim Brotherhood - organizations who actively torture and kill innocent civilians and use citizens as human shields, and what percentage of all Muslims you believe have what in the US would be consider extremist views - the kind so advice to the ideology that validates the physical abuse of women, LGBTQ+ folks, and non-Muslims - or celebrates straight up killing people in these categories.
FWIW, as I understand it, there are 2.3 billion Muslims worldwide and that they are insured and guided by the Holy Book of the Koran in addition to the Bible and the Torah, viewing these three books as connected in a lineage from Allah. And that the heart of the religious teachings of all three Abrahamic faiths are the same - Love. Compassion and Forgiveness - which is NOT embodied through the violent interpretation of jihad as embraced by violent extremists, but is Strobel fit by the vast majority of Muslims.
Also, I understand there are violent extremists in Christianity too, and in Judaism. But I am unaware of large scale terrorist militias in either of these groups - yet from what I’ve seen there are a number of the in Islam including the four I previously listed. Do you have a significantly different perspective? If so. I am curious to know what you are seeing that is so much different than what I’m seeing. No doubt our news sources are different… making conflict that much more complex to resolve. It would all be so much easier if we could all become aligned in what is unarguably objective truth.
Hi Katrina, thanks for deleting the post, but I would gently ask you to enquire you into what made you post something like that in the first place, especially given from what you have written you know so little about Muslims and their faith. As someone who converted to Islam at the of 16, I'm now 45, all I can speak about is my own experience. Muslims are not a monolith like any community, and there is a whole spectrum, but I don't think Islamic extremism is any more representative of Islam than terrorists subscribing to Judaism or Christianity, or any other faith, or no faith. Given all that you've written, I feel I should respond, but please forgive me for my limited response, as I don't have much time. I'll just focus on a few of your comments that illustrate things I think you need to update upon to increase your understanding:
[1] "I am curious what you believe would be an accurate representation of the number of Islamic military extremists who actively participate in groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Isis and the Muslim Brotherhood - organizations who actively torture and kill innocent civilians and use citizens as human shields"
The four groups you have mentioned are all different and have different ideologies. They are all in varying degrees political responses to political situations, with Islam being the added on understanding to justify often what is their political orientaion. In other words they are the illegimiate children of modernity and often the direct result of imperialist geopolitical manipulation, as the Hamas is from Israel (Yes, Israel directly funded and promoted Hamas as an alternative to the PLO: https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/) , and ISIS is from USA,'s direct imperialist activity in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Hezbollah from Iran. As for the Muslim Brotherhood, they are not in their inception and the vision of Hassan al Bana a terrorist organization, and even today are not to my mind in their entirety a terrorist organization, though some of the organizations under it have adopted terrorism. They are a political Islamic outfit once again birthed to the after effects of colonization and disruption in the Muslim world, and its traditional scholarship.
I'm not sure where to begin with the nonsense about using citizens as "human shields", which seems to be the go to justification for the IDF in their indiscriminate bombing and murdering of civilian children, but I don't think any of these groups can justify the killing of civilians or using innocent people as human shields. As Norman Finkelstein notes, Amnesty International studies demonstrate its actually the IDF that uses Palestinians as human shields and justfies their frequent "mowing of the lawn" in Gaza, as being due to the use of human shields. The way Hamas seeks to circumvent the Islamic prohibition on killing non combatants, is by claming that effectivly all adult Israeli civilians are effective combatants given mandatory military service, but of course that doesn't justify what they do or when they have killed innocent people. Its because of strict prohibition on these things, that there is widespread skeptisism within most Muslims I meet, that Hamas would have killed babies, women, etc. After all, the Qur’an that declares taking a single innocent life is equivalent to murdering all of humanity (5:32).
[2] "What percentage of all Muslims you believe have what in the US would be consider extremist views - the kind so advice to the ideology that validates the physical abuse of women, LGBTQ+ folks, and non-Muslims - or celebrates straight up killing people in these categories."
In my own immediate experience (being a Muslim for 30 years), which is all I can speak of, I have never met a *single* Muslim who fits your description. Normative Islam doesn't do anything of what you have said, though I'm sure extremists exist, for the most part, it is because of a lack of Islamic understanding, coupled with extreme conditions that give birth to extreme understandings, than an actual understanding based on knowledge of the Islamic tradition. In specific regards to your query about the US, I can't speak about the US, as I don't live there.
[3] "FWIW, as I understand it, there are 2.3 billion Muslims worldwide and that they are insured and guided by the Holy Book of the Koran in addition to the Bible and the Torah, viewing these three books as connected in a lineage from Allah. And that the heart of the religious teachings of all three Abrahamic faiths are the same - Love. Compassion and Forgiveness - which is NOT embodied through the violent interpretation of jihad as embraced by violent extremists, but is Strobel fit by the vast majority of Muslims."
The Muslims don't believe in the Bible and the Torah as three books alongside the Qur'an, they believe in the revealations given to the Prophets Moses and Jesus (peace and blessings of God be upon them both), and do not believe the current Bible is the Injeel (Good News, same root as Evangel) given to the Prophet Jesus, nor that the current Torah is the revelation given to Moses. They don't believe Islam is some new faith, in addition to Judaism or Christianity, rather they believe that both Judaism and Christianity were Islam, for their time, as their Prophets called their people to the worship of God, the Tawheed, or Oneness of God present in the apparent multiplcicity of creation. In actual faith Muslims believe the perennial faith with Gof was/is Islam, and has been the religion of primordial man, with the lived reality of Islam adapting itself to different times and places. This is why some Muslims could also speculate that Adi Shankara of Advaitic Hinduism, or Gautama Siddhartha were also Prophets/Saints of Islam. For me the possibility of the two is quite likely, especially if one parses the Four Noble Truths as articulating the need to attached one's being to that which does not perish, i.e.God. The word Jihad does not mean war or "Holy war', but means a struggle, with the highest struggle being against one's own self.
[4] "Also, I understand there are violent extremists in Christianity too, and in Judaism. But I am unaware of large scale terrorist militias in either of these groups - yet from what I’ve seen there are a number of the in Islam including the four I previously listed. Do you have a significantly different perspective? If so. I am curious to know what you are seeing that is so much different than what I’m seeing. No doubt our news sources are different… making conflict that much more complex to resolve. It would all be so much easier if we could all become aligned in what is unarguably objective truth."
Well maybe in your take of history, you should look beyond the current era of terrorist militias which also arise of political regional stability (Muslims are the largest refugee populations, with the Palestinians being the largest), and actually look into the broader history of these faiths. I have a significantly different perspective to you, partly because I think the current terrorists you allude to are a result of the loss of Islamic teachings and not because of it, for if someone sees the resistance demonstrated by the likes of Umar Mukhtar (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Hdx5BdP8w and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8JjxZKzwpc), Abdel Qadir Jaziri (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwV6fvo2ObI) and Imam Shamel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZJHzEYSp6k), who were deeply chivalrous, and adhered to spiritually guided rules even in active fighting against opressors, to the extent that their own adversaries later held them in the highest esteem, one gets a very different picture.
[5] "No doubt our news sources are different… making conflict that much more complex to resolve. It would all be so much easier if we could all become aligned in what is unarguably objective truth."
I would venture to say I know your sources Katrina, but you don't know mine or have looked at Islam from an unbiased, more objective and informed perspective. This is the tradition that has given rise to some of the highest spiritual luminaries in the West, like Jalaludden Rumi who was quoted at the outset of this thread. And he wasn't some hippy to be discovered by Coleman Barks, but a well trained Islamic Scholar who was a result of that tradition and particualry Sufism, the science of the heart and witnessing God (as the One in the Many).
Thank you Yusuf, for you noble, kind, and sustained effort here! It is amazing to me how even the most sincere and intelligent people can unquestionably believe all the extreme propaganda they have been told about the beliefs and actions of brown people on the other side of the world.
Thank you for sharing your wisdom and reminding us that Islam is one of the world's great sacred wisdom traditions, and that we ignore and dismiss its beauty and wisdom at our own loss.
Yusuf, thank you for taking time and care to reply.
I am well aware that no large group is a monolith, especially when talking about a group of 2.3 billion. There are shared beliefs, and shared values, but there is also a vast diversity with each member holding a unique perspective that may and often does change or adjust over time.
And I hope you could see from what I wrote that I do not equate the terrorist fringes of Islamic extremists with Islam as a whole.
I hear what you are saying about these terrorist organizations rising from the ashes of Western Imperialism. I have enough awareness in the matter to know that the US government has done some horrible things, but I do not know the gruesome details. Those are generally not part of US news... all we get is the "fight terrorism" propaganda which includes frightening facts, and disinformation, about what those labeled as terrorists have done - all of which I know is one very biased side of the story.
I am aware that the Crusaders were terrorists fighting on behalf of The Church. Many of my ancestors were killed by the crusades lead by Pope Innocent III... what a name :(
I am not aware of Jewish terrorists at any point in history, but I have not looked for it.
As for the "human shields" accusation against Hamas, I have heard this so many times from a couple dozen different sources on the right and left sides of the US media and European news outlets, I have assumed it to be true. I am glad to check that assumption.
As for what motivated me to post that - After diving into US news, I was moving strongly in the direction many around me are - pro-Peace, pro-ceasefire. I could not understand why the US vetoed this UN initiative. But I came to understand Hamas through the eyes of Mosab. And I came to understand the history of the land through various channels. From what I have seen, there were attempts at creating a two-State solution on several occasions in the last 100 years and each time the Jews didn't like the compromise, but were willing, and the Palestinians didn't want Israel to exist. Period. This new information shifted my perspective and I came to trust that Israel is seeking to minimize harm while working to eradicate Hamas. As much as I want peace, I do not see that as possible when trying to reason with extremists who believe they are doing Allah/God's Will by murdering and raping innocent people. I want Israel to become stronger than ever as I currently do not see them as a country that wishes to use violence against other countries - but rather focuses on self-defense. Perhaps I am naive in that view, but it is currently my view. I hate what is happening to the innocent people in Gaza, and as I stated earlier, I have more understanding for the vetoed ceasefire than I had currently. Israel is in an existential battle from what I can see. If they lose, they could be destroyed as intended by Hamas. If they win, there seems to be a better chance to bring peace to the region without a genocide of all the Jews who live in the Middle East... From what I've seen, it isn't safe for Jews to live in any neighboring Arab nation - they have been ethnically cleansed from those nations.
This all comes from the news I have seen, and is NOT firsthand experience - all prone to error, misunderstanding and misinformation.
I understand the refugees in Gaza get more support than any refugees in the world. Why was that support used to build 300 miles of tunnels and create an arsenal when it could have been used to build infrastructure, education and a local economy? Why won't Egypt or other Arab nations offer to receive those who wish to leave Gaza? I have also come to understand that most of the Arab world did not recognize Israel until the recent years... most wanted it gone... so how do you create peace with neighbors who want you gone? I do not have answers to these questions. And I have many assumptions here that I have come to believe through the resources I have found and trust. I'm open to more information that helps me gain a broader perspective.
I appreciate that while the United States is FAR from perfect and has done some horribly wrong things, it is a democracy that seeks to create harmony among a diversity of people - there is greater equality between the genders in the US and Israel than in most places around the world. Beating your wife is illegal in the US, but that is not true in many other countries. There are legal protections for LGBTQ+, and communities in which they feel safe to live and express themselves freely. There's communities for people of all religious backgrounds, and some cities and town where there is great diversity. Within a couple blocks of my home we have neighbors who are Taiwanese, Iranian, Irish, African American, South Korean, Indian, and more. And it's a wonderfully friendly neighborhood. There is freedom to criticize the government, and there are elections.
I don't see many other countries that have such a diversity of ethnicities and cultures coming together and living with as much harmony as has been established in the US - certainly NOT in any Arab nations that I am aware of, nor in Russia or China who are using this war in their favor as much as possible. The idea of a Chinese designed New World Order is a very unpleasant one in my view as their social credit system and re-education camps are far from my idea of a happy, healthy, thriving society in which all people belong... from what I have seen, China and Russia are NOT good to Muslims either. I do value the democratic values established by our Constitution and as I see Israel under threat, I wonder if democracy as a whole is also under threat.
I have not had the time to watch the videos yet, but I will, and I am grateful to receive these recommendations.
Denying the notion that Hamas uses civilians as human shields is basically disregarding the value of Palestinian lives. Not only Israel-haters have a strange disinterest for what is really going on in Palestinian society, but Western journalists do, just as they have a weird passion for the minutiae of Israeli sociology.
And I would not be surprised if Mosab now subscribes to the ultimate terrorist ideology of Christian Zionism, which literally wants to bring an Armageddon war, so that all of humanity can perish whilst the saved few get levitated up into the heavens as part of their rapture: https://www.monbiot.com/2004/04/20/apocalypse-please/
I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe Mosab wishes to bring about Armageddon.
And I don’t know much about Christian Zionism, but assuming they are not building militias and plotting terrorist attacks, how is it you have come to the conclusion it is the “ultimate terrorist group”?
Without clear evidence that sounds like a dangerous belief to me - similarly dangerous as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and other unproven theories which can easily be used to justify violence.
I appreciate that our US judicial system seeks to live up to the standards of “Innocent until proven guilty.”
Do you have objective proof to back up your belief? If so, I would like to see it so as to add more understanding to what I am missing and gain a more complete perspective.
But if there is no objective proof, it is only a belief - but it's a belief that easily can cultivate enmity which can easily lead to violence.
I was adopting deliberate hyperbole, but given you admitted to not knowing much about Christian Zionism it was lost on you. Given Christian Zionists are driving much of US foreign Policy, and they literally fund the Settlements, and want to eventually have the destruction of the Masjid al Aqsa, and bring in the building of the Third Temple, so they can have a global war between everyone at Israel, wherein most people (including jews and non evangelical christiians will die) - so they can have their rapture - i would say that is a terrorist ideology. They literally want to invoke global terror so they can have their rapture, isn't that objective enough for you?
Very. I love what Satya is bringing to the table. He is beautifully sharing Marshall's teachings.
But doing conflict resolution between two tribes held in a refugee camp, or between some Israelis and some Palestinians is on a much smaller scale than what we've got going on between Palestine, Israel, and surrounding areas. And then there are the complexities of Russia's involvement via Iran... it's so very complex... and the leaders who make decisions in these countries have shown no willingness whatsoever to even come to the table to engage in dialogues that could be peace-generating and serve life as we all want for life to be served.
This is true. This is a very complex situation, but again, I believe that starting with the People can still make a difference. Not everyone is caught in these very intense ideologies. Many are likely afraid to speak up.
Thank you Charles for this and your recent essays. Vengeance, hate, dehumanization, and justifying violence are bad. Groundbreaking and courageous insights. :)
So are you calling for "peace" or would that be "taking a side?" Is calling for a "cease-fire now," as so many Jews and others around the world are doing, "taking a side?"
Most of your recent reflections seem to repeatedly be obsessed with not stating a position or "side." Perhaps your whole concept of the "sides" is part of the problem. We have been fed a narrative about what the "sides" are, who is on them, what they believe and demand and justify and are guilty of. It looks to me like in your noble effort to avoid taking "sides," you have actually affirmed and adopted a false narrative about what the "sides" are and what they entail.
The Israeli people that you mention in this essay that you are "in awe" of are indeed courageous and wise examples for us, but they are not doing something complicated. They are clearly taking a "side" and a "position" against the current slaughter and genocide of the Palestinian people and children.
I am proud to be on that "side" with them.
The absence of good people standing and speaking clearly with moral courage is part of what allows this outrageous genocide to continue. Can you join a "side" that is solely against bombing and killing 5,000 children with nothing else attached? Could you do it if the number reaches 10,000? How about 100,000? Is there any point, where you would clearly and unequivocally call for it to stop?
Re: taking "sides" against bombing, killing, slaughter, genocide. Positioning against is the slippery slope to hate. Discovering mutuality to be supportive of is the steep stairway to resolution. Such perspective discards "sides" as invalid, and embraces the implications of living together on a sphere.
Not sure about that. I believe it is instinctive and naturally human to take sides between innocent children taking refuge in a hospital, and an occupying force that wants them and their parents dead. When Desmond Tutu expressed mutuality in his concern that Israelis involved in perpetuating apartheid were losing their humanity, he was smeared as an antisemite.
I agree, it surely is instinctive to take sides in such terrible situations! But the need, if we are to survive, is to not just stop there, but to go deeper into context and history - the roots, which determine the health/disease of the tree before us now.
But it is quite an jump to believe that they want to kill innocent civilians - especially children. There’s plenty of evidence that states that they are seeking to minimize civilian casualties while committed seeking to eradicate Hamas.
The number of Israelis who are actively violent or seeking apartheid is as fringe as are those who are active fighters in Hamas among all the Palestinians people.
It only perpetuates enmity and violence to equate an entire people with the worst actions committed by the fringe groups or solo actors who commit violence and carry extremists ideology.
One common phrase I have heard too many times is "Peace through superior firepower." In other words, there can be no peace unless one group of people, one side, is so strong that they can overwhelm all others by violent force if necessary. It follows that the other side has to simply submit to the situation and become subservient to those who are forcing "peace" upon them.
I reject this. Peace does not come because someone is willing to use force and violence against others. It does not arrive because others live in fear that force and violence will be used against them. Peace, real peace, true peace can only be achieved when one forswears the use of violence and begins to love others in the way that they would like to be loved themselves. In a world where selfishness is the norm, it is exceedingly difficult to live in peace, but it can be achieved. All one has to do is to live The Golden Rule as Christ taught us, "Do to others what you would like others to do to you." Or, as the apostle Paul put it, "Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men."
This assumes that it IS POSSIBLE to live this way. It all depends on you.
Your stance is the exact opposite of the natural law of nations (*) that has been the rule during all of human history, but it's eminently excusable: the Anglo-American sphere has explicitly turned it on its head starting over a century ago and brainwashed everybody that might is not right (except when they say it is). Some of the philosophical inspiration came from certain currents of protestantism.
As to the Palestinians, their basic ideology is the epitomy of that: the military superior Israel has no "right" to impose anything whatsoever - not even its own existence! This noble rejection of "might is right" resonates with your stance but is at odds with how most conflicts in the world are handled.
The result is endless bloodshed, because the weak has the "right" to "resist". Thankfully for the Palestinians, their enemy is incomparably more restrained than Arab armies. That's why they are only a small fraction of the victims of conflict in the Middle East. Yemen alone has known more casualties in a few years than 100 years of Israeli/Zionist-Arab conflict.
Speaking about Christian tradition, just recently 200.000 Armenians underwent yet another Naqba, from the hands of their much more powerful muslim enemy, Azerbaidjan. Because of the overwhelming force, these poor Armenians didn't lose many lives at all, just a lot of real estate. Nobody cared, not even, or especially not those who passionately support the Palestinian cause. And it's great for the Armenians that nobody cares, because none of them had to blow themselves up, or gang-rape anybody to prove that they are resistants, or cheer the rapists. So they didn't have to lose their soul.
* Cicero, Seneca, Thomas Aquinas, Ibn Khaldun, Shantideva, Confucius. Basically the greatest thinkers of the greatest civilization on Earth. And by the way, Thomas Aquinas was very much a virtuous Christian, and Ibn Khaldun a devout muslim!
If I followed your logic I'ld say I can't see from your text if you took a side against gang-raping Jewish peace activists, then mutilating them, then killing them.
Your comment confuses me. Charles is explicitly against acts of war. Taken from this very article, "it is wrong to kill 4500 children in a bombing campaign".
Remind Robert, when he announced in Boston said " we have to stop seeing the world in terms of the good guys vs the bad guys". He spoke of a non dual approach to problem solving. That is how we heal the divide.
Great to see you here Chrissy. I met Robert 3 times. Each time I gave him something Dharma related. He was surprised. The first was a pocket Buddha. The second was a pocket Manjrushri. The third time was a Tibetan coin minted during the 13th Dalai Lama's time which had the Eight auspicious symbols. I will post a picture on your substack notes. As warriors,Bodhisattva's never give up! We learned a lot from Chogyal Namkhai Norbu about how to really bring evolutionary vs revolutionary change didn't we? Revolution is samsara. Dzogchen is evolution.
absolutely true that this is much harder to do if you are in the middle of the conflict. And nonviolent communication is not something we have learned growing up. If it had been, most of these conflicts would not be happening. The escalation of violence buries the initial need/cause so deeply that all that is felt is the anger/rage/fear/terror. It takes a very skilled facilitator. I wish Marshall Rosenberg were still with us.
It's not just that it's "much harder to do," it's that it's deeply immoral. Would you have suggested the Jews and Nazis in WWII sit down and try to "use non-violent communication," to try to "resolve their dispute," as though both sides had equal moral standing? Well guess what the Zionists are Nazis, they are ethnonationist genocidal land thieves, so no, negotiating is not the answer in this situation, rather the bully genocidal land thief Zionists will have to brought to heel, and their state dismantled just like the third reich was.
There's a lot more to WWII than we have been told as I learned in David Swanson't book "War is a Lie". I'm not talking about getting the Zionist deep state to talk and listen, but the people who have been dragged along into these conflicts. Sorry to not have been clear. The People are the ones who truly have the power and are in the majority, are the weapons of all wars, although they don't recognize that. Those in "control" are very few in number imo and use control strategies that people are not aware of to keep their power, to keep the conflict and war going.
I don't mean to imply that any of this is easy, but it seems to me that unless we try a different approach, nothing will ever change. I begin this myself in small ways in my own life. If everyone did this, it would begin to make a difference. Would it be soon enough? I don't know, but still want to try in this practical way. I can't control or influence in any way what happens in Israel/Palestine, but in my own life I can begin.
What are the best strategies you have seen to that can move The People in a direction of casting off divisions and embracing the principles of compassion that can empower is to co-create this more beautiful world our hearts know it’s possible?
I’ve been engaged in practicing and teaching NVC for 17 years, and I have seen over and over where it falls short. I have come to the conclusion we need a full on shift in consciousness - for a critical mass to KNOW that we are inherently One interbeing.
Yet the story of separation is still strong and perpetuated by the media.
When we live in life-negating systems - as clearly outlined in “The Myth of Normal” by Gabor Mate - how do we completely overhaul the system to establish one that serves life?
Katrina, your question is so important . Thank you for asking. What has come to me through experience alone is that everyone needs someone to simply listen, to be present with them without judgment - "unconditional positive regard" is what Carl Rogers called this presence, in his book "On Becoming a Person".
When I was studying many theories of counseling in my graduate study, this is the one that felt most true to me in my heart. When I began my counseling practice, I felt very sad to recognize that this is the reason people pay therapists, as unconditional positive regard is very hard to find in day to day life. Most everyone is "listening" while waiting to share their own opinion. How often does another person simply offer themself as an empty vessel, without judgment, to simply hear another's story, another's joy or suffering?
I think this is the core of Marshal Rosenberg's work. It takes a great deal of patience. And it's something that I need to practice constantly in my day to day life. I am no longer an organizer for RFK Jr.'s campaign, but still carry the gift of his words "heal the divide", which I suspect were inspired by Charles. This I can do.
I also know that, despite the urgency of the need, we must keep company with patience. All children need to be taught to listen, to communicate with honesty and kindness. I think that children intuitively know this, but this innocence is often driven into hiding by the ways of the world. I believe this knowing is present in all of us and waiting for a safe place to emerge.
If each person were to begin this practice of unconditional positive regard, of truly listening, the world would begin to change on its own. The other secret of this practice is that it requires letting go of expectation that anything change, letting go of any particular outcome. And the magic then begins to happen, one person at a time.
This is where I put my attention rather than stories of "wrong" and "right".
"There's a lot more to WWII than we have been told..." Don't be coy, what does this mean exactly and precisely? More vague platitudes to hand wave away genocide, because your worldview is ill equipped to stop genocide.
While we wait the Zio-Nazi scum are bombing children to death many of whom are dying painfully burned to death by bombs and suffocating in rubble. There is no negotiating with fascists, only killing them, head shots boys of Hamas, head shots! Sometimes violence is the answer. Gandhi said the Jews should have passively surrendered to the Nazis, because muh non-violence. Gandhi was an ASSHOLE!
Hi Charles. What you share is beautiful, and brings hope. I would also like to add that, taking a side on an unjust situation does not have to translate to the path of hate. One can keep the heart open to each individual on both sides, meet them in their humanity, in the one shared heart of humanity, and also from the same heart that knows justice and stands for it, say a clear NO to a colonial-settler war machine that works to cut people from the heart, from the mother land, from the ancestral wisdom... in this case for some people that NO translates to being a pro-Palestinian.
“Colonial-settler” implies Jews have no ancestral connection to Judea..aka Israel aka Palestine. This land is also the Jewish ancestral homeland. A colony is when you take over land that was never a place you lived on.
From Norman Finkelstein’s latest post: Since the fifth century BCE, when Herodotus first used the word to mean the entire land, it has been commonly known as “Palestine”. The Romans only gave official expression to a name that had been used for centuries. The whole land has never been called “Israel”. If you are to resort to Biblical entitlement, you must also answer to Jesus.
The name Palestine comes from the word Philistines, referring to only one group of people who lived in this small piece of land that has also gone simultaneously by several other names throughout the last 3000 years. The Philistines were a different people with different customs and origin than the Arabs who have lived there for the last several hundred years.
Archaeologically and anthropologically speaking the ‘Filistines’ are thought to have originated from Mycenaean ancestry.
In case you have been watching Ben Shapiro...From Norman Finkelstein’s official substack:
Ben Shapiro proves that “Israel is historically Jewish territory.” (at 0:40) He points to some Jewish presence in Palestine beginning in 1400 BC. He then states that after 136 CE “there was continuous Jewish presence in the land.” Mr. Shapiro discreetly omits who else lived in that land during the past 2,000 years.
Consider the period when the modern Zionist movement first laid claim to Palestine in the late nineteenth century. The standard scholarly work on Palestine’s historic demography is Justin McCarthy, The Population of Palestine. McCarthy reports that Palestine’s population was roughly 450,000 in 1880, of which less than 5 percent (15,000) was Jewish.
It’s child’s play to prove that “Israel is historically Jewish territory”—if only Jews count.
The history I have seen gives evidence that the Jewish people ARE the native people of those lands. Palestinians migrated much later.
Whose land of it really? And given how many attempts there have been at peace agreements in the last 100 years, how can we find an agreement that can work - especially given that there are so many who still wish to destroy Israel and very actively are seeking to do so?
I'm not sure that in truth land can ever be owned. Maybe this is the greatest difficulty - fighting over what belongs to who - who was there first - who has the greater right. None of us were here when this all began and everything being said now is a story with many nuances depending on the teller - many arguments about who is right, even here. When things get this out of control, I think that stopping everything can be a first step, but both sides would need to agree to this.
When it is said that the CIA and Mossad created Hamas because Arafat and Rabin had come to an agreement for peace , it is so obvious the problem is above the people. The obvious unprotected border points to that even more. The plan seems to be to create so much more chaos between regular people so that there is little room to build consensus for resolution for any of our many problems. This is just one more devisive element. The powers at the top are the problem.
Yes, and given that - this can be counteracted by the People talking with each other - listening to and understanding each other and coming to the realization that the governments are creating and stoking this conflict - which is not in the People's best interests, of either "side".
I believe it's time to change everything, almost. The idea that Israel is the "holy land" of the Jews is bs. It is only a crazy idea that would appeal to some Jews (Zionists). The anti-semites who gave Israel to the Jews placed them in a terrible situation, floated this concept (I know it had been around for some time before) that they hoped would catch on and become a reality because putting all the Jews in one place surrounded by Arab enemies was perhaps gleeful to rabid anti-semites. Unfortunately, the Jews fell for it and the result was exactly what the anti-semites had hoped for.
Now, it's time to see how ludicrous this idea is and get rid of it. The whole planet is the "holy land" and it is for all humans to enjoy and revere. Israel should or could be converted from a land for the Jews to a land for all persecuted and non-persecuted people. An example of how humans can live together in peace no matter what their beliefs may be. Where they need to agree is on principles like kindness towards all, respect and consideration for all, personal integrity, humility, non-violence, in a word to embody the concept of Love, that is, to care, to care for all of life which we all are.
We share the same spirit of life that animates all life with every living entity. We happen to be in the form of human with its particular kind of consciousness which gives us the possibility to escape the "might makes right" paradigm that rules the animal kingdom and live in an ethical manner. So far, we haven't done this. Now is the time for humanity to "wake up" and assume full responsibility as embodied love in the form of humans.
Humanity must radically change in all areas. The separation of which Charles so eloquently speaks of needs to change with the understanding that we are connected to all of life, since all life shares the same divine spirit that animates. To compete is like a part of the human body competing with another part, it makes no sense. One hand fighting the other.
The nation of Israel should be an example to the world of how people can live ethically, regardless of their beliefs as they do in Rojava, Syria. In my opinion, Israel needs to be disassembled and made a "peace zone", where all persecuted and non-persecuted people can live peacefully with self-governance, no political parties, assemblies, direct democracy, horizontal structure and extreme transparency to avoid any possibility of an outside influence corrupting, subverting, or controlling the country surreptitiously or overtly.
Mofwoofoo, well stated! "The whole planet is the holy land." That's IT. All implications, decisions, actions at every scale, follow on from that single foundation.
I have begun to question whether "peace advocacy" is always truly peaceful. One of the problems with speaking up for peace is that it is often in opposition to someone else who doesn't want it yet. In other words, speaking up for peace in today's media landscape can actually seem like taking a side, against those who believe that a particular retributive action is justified. It may be that silence, or listening, is the best path forward in many cases for people like me who don't have a say in the direction of the battle. Sometimes people need to grieve and rage before they are ready for peace. Maybe I need to let them do that instead of calling for peace prematurely. I know if I were a general, or in command of one, if I believed peace were the answer, I could easily order a ceasefire or lay down my own weapons. But at my desk, at a dinner party, or on social media, I can't, so my words that say what should be happening are not necessarily helpful. In this day of powerful and potentially untrustworthy media narratives, and algorithmically driven social media rage, peace may be just another side to take. If I'm sitting outside the battlefield, with no control over what goes on there, perhaps it's better to allow the battlefield to do what it's doing, and then to be peaceful where I can - in my own mind, and in my own community. That's increasingly becoming my approach. Thanks Charles for your thought provoking words as always.
It is difficult not to agree with the many peace activists, including here, who demand we are not silent, but continue to push back against Israeli and Western propaganda (another dimension Mr Eisenstein studiously avoids mentioning). peace activism is not about bending over backwards to avoid calling Israel’s atrocities at eg Al Shifa Hospital what they are: irrefutable proof of the genocidal intent announced over and over in the Knesset.
Yes, exactly. This is how I felt on Thursday night at the Zoom meeting. Charles' words were healing and wise, but I needed to first express my feelings and be heard. I think that would have been difficult in a Zoom meeting.
I think Charles was given a difficult task that night - to help restore peace in the group, At least that's what I imagined. What I needed that night was something that couldn't happen on a Zoom meeting - a chance to share my upset and concern and feel heard. There were over 700 people on the call, which speaks volumes. I expect that others may have felt the same. The person who should have been there was Mr. Kennedy, even if only to say simply that he has heard our concerns. The words Charles spoke in this essay are exactly what I wish to hear from Mr. Kennedy. Words of peace. What is there to think about? Why is this so hard? No deep dives required.
I tried to make it through at least the middle of Lehrman's notes, but wasn't able. Did it actually contain the message that Team Kennedy should exert any real pressure upon RFK to change his tune on Israel? My sense it was rather this sort of thing: no candidate is perfect, try to meditate your dissatisfaction away, say your mantra, don't worry about the 4,000 children already dead...
Was that not the message Eisenstein was giving? Was he in fact getting ready to call for a sit down strike at TK HQ?
What concerns me as much as RFK Jr.'s stance on Israel is his advocacy for censorship for what is liberally defined as "anti semitism" by the likes of the ADL. And he accepted a donation from a rich donor who is pressuring Harvard to censor "pro-Palestinian" students. Why hasn't he condemned Hochul's recent fascistic program of more surveillance of New Yorkers' on- line speech for "hate speech"?
Who would you prefer to be president? Biden, Trump, or Kennedy? Don't bother to name any of the fringe candidates who don't have the slightest chance of even getting a single electoral vote. That's really the only question that needs to be answered. Vote for West or Stein or stay home. Welcome to a second Donald Trump or Joe Biden term.
Especially if you don't think, as I hope you and I don't think, that winning the Presidency is the alpha and omega of political solutions to our problems now. The answer is to build the movement, not to vote for the lesser evil. If Bobby would change his mind about this, I will vote for him--but that means Team Kennedy has to CONFRONT him, not just have a "meaningful exchange".
The message I heard was that Charles has spoken with RFK and they shared, both sides gaining from the interaction. RFK is being thoughtful , as is his nature, and is formulating his thoughts.
IMO: yes, meditation is always helpful if extreme emotions arise. Prayer is proven to work (Larry Dossey, MD, Lynn McTaggert, PhD)
This is a great ecample of how New Age philosophy becomes an excuse for spinelessness. Spare me this nonsense about both learning from the exchange. Are the people of Gaza learning from this exchange?!!!!! As Paul Goodman would say, Team Kennedy needs to "manfully strike."
I'm not looking for a better candidate, although Jill Stein might be one. I am looking for Team Kennedy to get themselves a spine, rather than utter these mealy mouthed apologias for their candidates' stubborn insistence on Israel's right to commit genocide. If "winning" is more important to you than being moral, then I have absolutely no patience for you.
If Noi Katsman, Ziv Stahl, Yotam Kipnis, Maoz Inon, and Yonatan Ziegen could state that revenge for the October 7th Hamas massacre would only create more suffering and solve nothing, and speak so courageously to the enraged mob seeking revenge, why didn’t Bobby Kennedy do the same? From all that I know of him, I expected he would do so. There is no way to argue this away. He’s taken a side. His silence is consent.
One starts to wonder. Either he is a Zionist, or is playing a dangerous political game (support for Palestine won’t get you very far in a Congress “owned by” Israel, or that they have some other kind of leverage on him. Punishment for defying plandemic propaganda? Pics from Epstein Island? Threats to assassinate family members? His insistence of his support for Israel at the senate hearing did seem a little desperate.
“ People do indeed use one war crime to justify another.”
This needs correcting to
“Some people do indeed use one war crime to justify another”
And I would also state further that any human who unnecessarily harms other humans is guilty of violating the natural laws of the Universe and therefore I don’t consider them a ‘human in good standing’. Humans that aren’t in good standing don’t represent humanity’s values and therefore need to be stripped of any decision making power that was granted to them by humans in good standing
Wow, Charles. This is one of your most powerful posts ever, IMO. THANK YOU, and God bless all those who have let go of justification and are simply living and working for and being the peace that they seek. I feel so inspired by this and all of the real-life examples you named.
I I would also point people to a recent Bret Weinstein Darkhorse podcast where he soberly examines the potential false flag aspect of 10/7 in an interview with an independent Israeli journalist. It's ludicrous to believe that Hamas could breach the most surveilled and protected border on Earth without a response for nearly a day, according to the narrative, but as we now know it was Israeli helicopters attacking their own people in many cases, as you point out above. Again, unless we address the root cause of how this happened, and obviously not take at face value the response from Netanyahu's government, for of this was allowed to happen or engineered to happen in order to justify a overwhelming response to evict Palestinians from Gaza, which seems to be the case, then that's it for Israel.
… and just by coincidence at the Gaza strip found the largest gas reserves on the planet, that all was planned and Israel was involved is obvious to anyone “with IQ above room temperature” as Pepe Escobar will say.
Israel is just used by the globalists, Zionist-Rotschild banking system that controls all western money, remember the “The axis of evil” from the Bush era ? Libya, Iran, Iraq, N. Korea, the only ones did not have the Zionist banking system. and we know the rest: https://thenewpress.com/books/inventing-axis-of-evil
We all have to call out the propaganda, we cannot remain silent. I am not saying that what I post is the truth, please do your own research, don’t just swallow what an “expert” is writing.
RFK jr has chosen a side and has been silent while the people in Gaza are being slaughtered. It appears that he approves of genocide. Will he be silent when Israel annexes Gaza after they have cleared it of all human life? How is RKF jr a peace candidate and how is war in Ukraine wrong but right in Israel/Gaza from his point of view? Seems like that is the good guy, bad guy trope.
RFK jr. is conflicted because the Kennedys are under the "Gold Covenant" of the one religion of the God on the dollar bill, joining Jews and Catholic elites in the secret plots of dominion, including the creation of Israel. The Kennedys that have "strayed" have been assassinated. He should decide whether he manages to heal that 'curse' in himself, otherwise better let go of presidential ambitions. His fear of vaccines is rooted in the "vaccine of Moses" that was a water dilution of a certain gold to fidelize in his new religion. All that did not respond to the "vaccine" were killed.(Exodus)
Read Exodus. Biblegate has a good rendering. "Sntisemitic" accusation comes from those under the spell. True Semitic are the peoples of Palestine of Judaic of other religion, not the new elected "Jews".
Anti semitism at its worst. Yeah I just ‘made’ it up that I’m mixed heritage Arab and Jewish from Morocco and Eastern Europe. It wasn’t enough that there was infighting in my grandparents family of a union of Ashkenaz and Sefardim with Arab ancestry when my grandparents decided to wed…now we have to have loonie conspiracy theorists pipe in that we’re all making it up and we’re all fake Jews.
Right here people. For all to see and read. This is hate. Negation of another person and their existence. Oldest trope in the world about us Jews..that we ‘fooled’ you.
Well if that’s the case young lady, then grow up and get smarter. Or better yet..empower yourself by not blaming another group whether you believe they’re real or not as the cause of your or the worlds problems. Stop escape goating. Easiest out is to point the finger.
Charles, you going to finally pipe in and say something in your comments thread? Or are you going to continue with your higher-plane-pablum that speaks volumes of cowardice and not take a stand at some point? Way I read it, looking at the comments here, you’ll lose 80% of your readership anyway by staying so ‘neutral.’ Meanwhile your comments section reeks of ignorance and anti-semitism on this topic of Israel and Palestine.
Speak up.
These are your readers responding to your work. Take responsibility and act. Write something. Saying or writing nothing to the kind of garbage spouted out by the reader above reflects so very poorly on you and your legacy. To work for peace can and often does involve fighting, and I mean fighting with words of truth. Not physical violence.
You don’t want to take sides or say who’s right and who’s wrong. Ok. Not taking a side sometimes ends up in actually taking a side.
Thanks for engaging and exposing your personal case. I understand that your familiy carries both Jewish and Judaic- Semitic and Arab roots. I am an ancient Soul now present, along with others, to aid the termination of the Imperium dominion still afflicting the Earth. I am suffering inside my Soul-Body-Mind the ongoing conflict that deprives the world of true Peace. I was present in ancient times when the domination originated through the new religion of Moses that colonized the Hebraic and Judaic faiths present in Palestine through a God that spoke to him, whereas Adonai and YHWH were distant more mystical deities. A God that used alien artificial frequency to produce wonders and miracles to impress and scare. Palestine is Holy Land because it has a privileged connection to the Source of Creation. It is meant to be a place of Peace and Coexistence for all. Moses and his "elected" tribe conquered it in oder to make Souls captive and disconnected from Source. The "vaccine" described in Exodus was a potion to gain control over the tribes he needed to convert. Those many that did not bow to his God were slaughtered! That was the first Holocaust against Semites. Sorry that you are upset, but I am sure that the upcoming revelations will help Souls to awaken and heal, emancipating them from the mental slavery of the Matrix that triggers "dissonance" and repulsion to the truth of the Soul. There can be no World Peace without true Peace in Palestine. Israel is the last episode of that conquest that needs to end so that the Jews under spell and curse can at last heal and be at peace.
No, the status quo can't hold anymore. Either the Zionist Nazis of Israel will complete their genocide or Israel will fall, the Palestinians have had enough of their multi-generational concentration camp.
While I am on the peace side, I can't shake a certain unease as the discourse around peace deepens.
It appears to me that there are potentially five perspectives: those in favor of Hamas, those supporting Israel, those justifying war (on either side), advocates for peace, and individuals who remain neutral.
As a commentator in this space, I find myself somewhat compelled to align with the fifth perspective.
However, I can't help but question the impact of our words and protests. Can we genuinely believe that our expressions will bring about change? How can we discern what is right or wrong without access to the universe's long-term master plan? Throughout history, what appeared dreadful to our sensitive and sometimes manipulated hearts often turned out to be a mere ripple in an infinite ocean, or at times, a necessity for a better overall outcome. By fixating on these issues, we may also unintentionally magnify them, as our despair at being unable to act fuels a conflict of opinions.
There might be a sixth option, one that I would consider the stance of a truly wise individual—not me, as I express these thoughts. It's not a position, but a personal attitude: to remain silent and genuinely disengage from it all.
"Disengage" reminds me of the "vairagya" of Advaita Vedanta, the understanding that the phenomenal, dualistic world is illusory. So one detaches from it, seeing that it is false, focusing on the Real, the Eternal.
Yes, it is escapism: escaping from what is false to what is true.
Interesting..this is similar to what jihadists believe. They believe that the spiritual realm of the eternal is what is truly real, and so they justify martyrdom, aka terrorist acts like suicide bombings or using their own brethren as human shields as a way to arrive at paradise sooner.
Of course, the deeper teachings from Advaita Vedanta stress that the material world of form IS real, and that it is definitely an aspect of reality, albeit a smaller, denser, lower aspect of the grander reality. Illusion doesn’t mean ‘not real.’ It means it’s not the full presentation of what’s going on. Hence, illusory.
As I was reading your post, Emmanuel, I was taking the sixth "side," with faith that any "us-versus-them" squabble is really quite petty, when it is distracting attention from collaborating to solve real issues: the dominance paradigm, depletion of resources, destruction of nature's resilience through extinctions and ecological disruptions ... oh, yeah, and mindless human conflict.
Distraction, perhaps; possibly more of what we perceive as "real issues" might serve as diversions. Tradition says our primary focus should be internal growth, viewing external events as opportunities for it. The less we grasp this concept, the harder we shall be challenged. The goal isn't merely world peace, but our personal evolution, that may then help the world evolution, unfolding on a schedule beyond our control.
Thank you for helping me remember the knowing of how vast the cosmos is and how much I do not know. Hindsight is 20/20, and as much as I want the violence to stop, my passion for that outcome upsets my inner peace, and most anyone engaging in conversations about peace in this topic receive both praise and hate in return - neither is peace.
The cosmos is vast and wise. There is so much my small identity does not and cannot know or understand.
I watched the zoom the other night, called to address the distress of RFK Jr's supporters at his failure to call for a ceasefire. I had hopes that something of substance would come of the discussion. One pair of questions received attention: What is up with Bobby's support for Ackman's call to curtail free speech on campus, and Bobby's long silence on the extermination--which is very close to completed--in Gaza.
We can want peace and well-being for all "sides," and we must. I have been to prayer vigils in St. Louis where people with kin and acquaintances in Israel and Palestine joined together in communal grief--and hope against hope for the survivors. Everyone had in their hearts and on their lips an unambiguous prayer for a cessation of the assault--for the good of everyone.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have Netanyahu, who--on Fox News--proclaimed that the bombing in Gaza was for the protection of Israel--and EVEN for GAZA! For the good of everyone, he claimed. It was the most obscene distortion of altruism I've ever witnessed.
The first step must be the cessation of violence, on all "sides."
If this doesn't happen soon, the blowback to Israel will bring even more horror.
Following the zoom, I was even more aggrieved than before it. I felt that I had just sat through an vague spiritual bypass that seemed to claim to rise above all judgement, asking us to "hold space"...for what, exactly, I don't know.
This isn't a time for platitudes. We must pressure the Biden administration to stop fueling the antagonism of the entire Middle East, before no one is left to talk about taking sides.
Please listen to Dennis Kucinich in this interview by Mike Adams. It is one of the most humane conversations I've ever heard. We must not be afraid to speak in the way that Dennis does here, and always has.
Satya, this does feel like a loss, doesn't it? And yet, we have a new opportunity, I suppose, to find our own strength within the deeper movement which is building. It will inevitably be birthed in pain. And I believe it will welcome in all who remain open to reconciliation--including those with whom we may now disagree. May we find a way to see the stranger as our own, from human to microbial life, all of which belongs.
"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and right doing, there is a field, I'll meet you there."
Rumi
As an Iranian who can read him in original language, firstly this piece is a miss-translation, the original words are closer to faithfulness and infidelity. So it goes with many other Coleman Bark's work on Molana Rumi. He is truly a decent guy in personality, but seen from our side of the world, has created a new version of Rumi who is more originated in California than an Islamic region with Islamic roots.
Secondly when you get his message by its entirety, he does not bypass reality to arrive in a field of unity. There are many poems that he clearly speaks against immorality, or justification of injustice, and more than all against ignorance and oppression. His message is to get closer to the highest potential of humanity, which includes both of: 1- keeping a living connection to the sacred field (unity) 2- discerning that to daily stances for highest human qualities, like justice, and against the counter force, injustice
Thank you Kamyar. Do you feel that Coleman’s translations have lost something implicit in Rumi’s originals?
I cannot read the original language but feel that reference to “a field” is pointing to universal consciousness “where” separation and duality are understood as partial, transient or ephemeral states of human thinking. To say, “I’ll meet you there” is surely an inadequate phrase but put another way, suggests that the I-ness of “me” is the I-ness of “you”.
Hi Paul, I appreciate your reflection and question. There are many ways to look at it, and none I feel does the justice... as it needs to include respect for the works of Coleman Barks as well.
There are a few things I can say the translation has lost:
1- The poems arising from a root bed of islamic-mysticism. In every few lines, Molana Rumi points to a character, story or a saying of the Abrahamic prophets, or the Quran as the source. His translations has completely ignored these core threads of the weave, and in that sense we say that Coleman Barks' Rumi was born in California.
2- There are energetic embedded in his words which is not easy to explain, but as if he captured an invisible being within the words and that being is still there, alive. So the original has a liveliness and is suggested to approach as a living being that can talk to you and meet you exactly where you are. For example, there are poems that after reading a few lines you might find a need to run and scream on top of your longs, or dance, or cry, not directly out of the meaning of the words but the energetics trapped within the constellation of those words.
3- A multi-layered-ness of the symbology. There are some poems that the symbology bugles the mind, in a sense that he uses them with a meaning and in the next line he uses them totally differently so the function of the poem becomes like a zen koan. It doesn't make sense if you approach it with analytical mind, trying to abstract meaning. These are not translatable by nature, I guess.
Have a look at Reynold Nicholson's translations for a contrast, as his translations are perceived to be more honest and loyal to the origins.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.151299
There is so much to explore here...
As a student I listened to Coleman Barks's tapes perhaps hundreds of times... Even though a scholarly muslim friend said that his work wasn't very authentic! You seem to have a very deep understanding and sensitivity for that material. What I find intriguing is what you say about the resonance of the words: "There are energetic embedded in his words which is not easy to explain, but as if he captured an invisible being within the words and that being is still there, alive."
Hi Sacha, I do honor his work too. It does work on the heart in a way... and yes, specially with his own voice. It is beneficial to notice what is lost in translation, yet it shouldn't undervalue the work of Coleman Barks as a poet himself. Sometimes I think, would it have been more aligned if he called them inspired by Rumi...
Subjectively, I can only say that the poems deeply moved and inspired me... Because I didn't know any better! My muslim friend derided the Southern US accent and the Indian background music! I suppose we all hold on to whatever fragment of wisdom and light that we find in a broken world. Some are luckier than others in finding the rarer pearls. I do consider myself somewhat lucky to have a (flickering) guiding star...
Thanks Kamyar. I’ll definitely review the link to Reynold Nicholson's translations.
So, if right and wrong thinking are not going to bring about resolution of conflict, what to do?
Connect on the deeper level, the level of universal needs.
What do Israelis want?
Peace, security and safety.
What do Palestinians want?
Peace, safety, security, respect, freedom, choice, food, clothing, shelter, water.
Sit at a table and listen to eachothers needs. Realize that you share the same values. That you share a reality. Then develop strategies that meet everyones needs.
There is no other road to resolution.
"Hatred does not cease by hatred at any time,
Hatred ceases by love,
This is an unalterable law . . ."
The Buddha
Marshall Rosenberg had great success using nonviolent communication. He was able to help the leaders of warring tribes in Africa come to the peace table in exactly this way, and to eventually be able to hear each other and end the fighting, end the killing.
Yes, Satya. Rosenberg made clear what is often obscured by passion: that uncomfortable feelings are caused by unmet needs, not by some adversary. When both "sides" acknowledge such truth (satya), they can adjust their polarized positions to shift their attention to resolving their differences, by working collaboratively toward meeting the needs of each. That partnership resolves the dominance issue.
Yes, Satya. Nonviolent Communication has been used successfully to resolve conflicts. I'm dedicated to disseminating this practice around the globe. Blessings to you.
Thank you Steven. Blessings to you.
Here's a better video explaining Nonviolent Communication - so needed in the world now https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF6kMJxOpvI
Marshall Rosenberg on healing conflict https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgaeHeIL39Y
One memorable encounter occurred when Rosenberg mediated between chieftains of warring Christian and Muslim tribes in Northern Nigeria in the early 1990s. Before commencing, Rosenberg was advised that some of the chieftains in the room knew that others in the room had killed their children. Rosenberg applied his process of NVC to help the chieftains hear and understand each other. Eventually one chieftain jumped up, talking excitedly. Rosenberg’s translator told him the chieftain was saying “if we knew how to speak to each other this way we wouldn’t have to kill each other.” A similar sentiment was expressed by a prisoner during a NVC training in a USA jail, who said with deep sadness that if he had known how to communicate the way Rosenberg demonstrated, he wouldn’t have killed his best friend.
The people often and sometimes times mostly want peace. The problem is governments and organizations that specifically do not want peace. There is much profit, resources, and power in never-ending wars.
Does anyone in Congress want peace? It seems that all of them are for war. If you want to defund the Ukrainian slaughter, you are called pro-Putin; defund Israel and you are antisemitic.
No win situation. My advice is let Europe deal with Russia and let Israel and Hamas fight it to the end. Or not. It's up to them.
The Europeans are big troublemakers in the Ukrainian-Russian conflict so I wouldn't let them handle the situation, for the sake of the Ukrainians. As to defunding Israel, great idea, IFF the Arabs and the Iranians defund the Palestinians (and themselves).
True
But what if you sit down and discover that actually you don't share the same reality? That seems the more likely outcome to me. I do not share the same reality with those who believe the unvaccinated were/are the evil perpetuators of the pandemic. I do not share the same reality with those who believe it is totally fine, nay even a good thing to cut down every remaining old growth forest in North America. I do not share a reality with those who believe that america is the root of all evil and suffering in the world. At some point we all draw a line around what we value and hold dear and that is quite often very different than what our adversary values and holds dear. In a healthy society'family'relationship we can tolerate those differences and learn to work together. But in a world that is imploding, that is a pretty big ask I think
I hear you, Rainbow Medicine Walker. The reality I'm referring to is that of needs consciousness, not of beliefs. All your examples refer to beliefs. I'm referring to a place beyond judgments, opinions and beliefs. A place beyond right and wrong, good and bad. A place where everyone's needs matter.
What are needs? Respect, consideration, safety, security, food, clothing, shelter, freedom, choice, purpose, meaning, joy, stimulation etc. The above are not beliefs, they are the life energy in each of us. They are universal. We all have these needs, regardless of our beliefs.
I agree we all have these needs and yes it would be great to live in a space/place where everyone's needs matter and could all be met. I do not see though how our beliefs, which are basically our ideas about those needs, can be seperated from the needs themselves. In other words humans will sacrifce alot of basic needs in service to their beliefs. I think there may be a fundamental difference in worldview here. I see us humans as unconscious and irrational much of the time. I don't think it is realistic to expect that most folks can suddenly become fully conscious about what their true needs actually are. Generally speaking we are weighed down with the burden of our individual and collective beliefs. They become our identity. There are those who attempt to become conscious of and break free of this, but I don't see the majority willing or able to do so. I would be happy to be wrong.
Dear Rainbow, I agree with you! We have the same worldview. We are both sad, disheartened and discouraged. We long for connection, harmony, peace, safety and security. We long for a world where everyone's needs matter. We are mourning and grieving for we know in our hearts there is another way.
Om Shanti, peace.
I appreciate what you are pointing to here.
I think we’ve all seen in the US how different beliefs about reality are perpetuating political and culture wars - and how no one has successfully been able to clearly establish what is true and what is not.
Even in the certified NVC trainer community there are regular conflicts due to deeply embedded racial misunderstandings and unconscious racism. Those are relatively simple relational challenges in contrast to the complexities driving conflict in the Middle East.
I wish we had a more effective and efficient strategy for moving society from a story of separation into the knowingness of interbeing - that we are all inherently connected in the energy from which all of creation is made manifest.
Katrina your words made me think a bit more deeply about what I myself truly feel. So I hope you don't mind if I respond at length. I will try to explain more fully to myself through attempting to explain it here, even though words on a screen seem to trip us up these days. It is so hard to deeply discuss these very challenging topics when we come from such different backgrounds and experiences and we all have emotional charges that we often don't even understand ourselves. All of our ancestors had multiple conflicts throughout human history even when they had a fairly uniform physically shared context of experiences and beliefs and lifestyles. We ourselves are now faced with a virtual smorgasboard of conflicting global realities that they did not have to navigate. Change and lifestyle was much slower and closer to the earth through most of human history and so our ancestors had more time to process and integrate that change and still many times they fell down the rabbit hole. We are now being slammed with so much so fast, I personally believe we have outstripped our human ability to process and integrate in a sane way. I feel humanity is desperate for some kind of miraculous, all encompassing shift in consciousness. I pray and hope that happens, but I don't expect it to as I am more of the old school of thought that we hope and work toward the best but we also prepare for the worst. That old school approach is not meant to lock us into a no win situation. It is meant to free us to face and interact with all possibilities and realities coming down the pipe towards us. In other words, I am not expecting peace on earth. Nothing in human history that I know of indicates this is a realistic goal. Nothing in the animal/plant/nature world around me indicates this is a realistic goal. We could create a global society of perfect peace, love and caring and a super volcano or meteor or whatever could come along and blow our perfect civilization out of the water. What I seek to understand and merge with is a state of balance within the opposing forces of the cosmos we inhabit. And yet paradoxically, while I do strive for balance. I am also aware I will never permanently arrive at a place of balance in a universe of constant change. I can only work towards a place of balance and try to understand life's teachings along the way. I am taking a risk saying the following here in this public comment section as I am sure it will be misinterpreted by some and sadly I may be attacked for it, but in my old age I can only tell the truth to myself and to others best as I can as I refuse to die as less than who I actually am. Here is what I believe with every cell in my body and every piece of my spirit warrior soul: Violence is a part of life on this planet. We cannot get rid of it either in ourselves or in the cosmos around us. We can only try to become more and more aware of how it is an intrinsic part of the forces of creation/destruction and how it is a part of us all because we are part of that creation. We can choose to become more conscious of the violence within/without and we can dig deep to find the reasons we act as we do. To some extent we can choose to moderate our own inner violence and learn to control our responses and reactions. But we are never going to completely eradicate violence from the human psyche and experience of life on earth. If we could do that impossible task, life itself would simply cease to be. Peace is a worthy goal to work towards, but it is not the panacea for the multitude of problems we face. Far too many times I see the idea of peace become the default place for those who are afraid to face their own inner violence and recognize it as a valuable part of their own evolutionary survival package. From my perspective, this denial and suppression of who we actually are is how people become so vulnerable to manipulation. Especially the good folks who want peace. I am not talking here about celebrating violence and glorying it. I am talking about taking charge of the reins of the run away and extremely powerful steed of violence and consciously guiding and directing that energy ourselves. I have noticed this idea frightens many good people for various reasons. But I think this is primarily because most 'good' people have been conditioned to be afraid of their own inner violence and to suppress it at all costs. I don't expect others to agree with this viewpoint, but it is true for me.
I'm with you Katrina!
The valid "ask," Rainbow, may not involve what may be an insurmountable challenge: tolerating what the adversary holds dear, but might just require opening the dialogue regarding unmet needs: "What are yours?/Here are mine." Most conflicts never reach all the way back to the cause, because all attention is given to defense.
I think I understand your point and if we lived in a reasonable sane world I would probably agree. I would suggest though that many people today would say their unmet needs are pretty darn endless. We have gone so far beyond the idea that the meeting of basic needs brings satisfaction, I am not sure how we find our way back.
Yes, Rainbow, our deeply conditioned belief in separation and scarcity keeps us alert to all the shortages and threats we can discover, rather than allowing our attention the freedom to celebrate the abundance that sustains us. Maybe it's time to revive the wisdom introduced by Abraham Maslow, the psychologist who sorted out our most basic needs and recognized the natural hierarchy and priorities between them. In other words, there isn't one of us who doesn't need oxygen to breathe and water to drink, right? A bit less urgent is our need of a safe place to sleep, and nutritious foods. At some less fundamental level, we need meaningful work to do. We don't really need a newer car, a fashionable piece of clothing, or a fancy coffee drink. Likewise, we don't really need more money, more control over others ....
Jim I hear what you say and I agree from a domesticated human perspective. Yet for me wild nature is the ultimate teacher/guru and Her lessons can be quite different from what we socially conditioned, artificially maintained humans believe to be true. I watched eagles all day today chase seagulls to make them drop their fish even though there were literally hundreds of fish to be easily had massed together right at the eagle's feet. They preferred to chase the seagulls around and around the lake over and over again anytime they got a fish and when the seagull finally dropped it, the eagle would swoop down and grab it and then another eagle would chase that one and on and on. Fish tag is an eagle game I have watched closely for 40 years now. They are not hungry, they are not threatened, there is more fish than they can possibly eat right in front of them, but still they want what another bird has and they are willing to use ( waste) enormous amounts of energy to get it. You could say they are playing. You could say they are exerting dominance/claiming air space and territory. You could say they are fine tuning their hunting skills. You could say they are just bullies. I think all of those things are true and I think we are not as different from them as we like to believe we are. We can perhaps overcome instinct and unconscious impusles in ways that eagles cannot. But we are biologically animals and unless we acknowledge that having our basic needs met is often just not enough to keep us satisfied then I think we will continue to keep chasing those seagulls around and around and pretending to ourselves and each other that if only our needs were met we could all stop playing endless fish tag and quit bullying all the other birds.
Yes. If we could establish that world, it’s hard to imagine there would be any drive towards actions that are categorized as terrorist.
And given we are far from establishing that beauty world currently, how do we address the conflict that is immediately at hand?
When conflicts have gone on for a very long time and gotten deeply entrenched it will take longer, but even one person willing to listen with empathy can start to shift the energy.
Here's more from an interview with Marshall Rosenberg:
"About eight years ago, I was mediating between a Muslim tribe and a Christian tribe in northern Nigeria. In their conflict, a quarter of the population had been killed. At that time, they were fighting about how many places in the marketplace each side would have to display their products. I started the reconciliation process with them by saying that I was confident that if we could hear each other’s needs, we could find a way to get everybody’s needs met. Inviting whoever wanted to start, I asked: “What needs of yours are not getting met?” The chief from the Christian tribe screamed, “You people are murderers!” Notice that when I asked him what needs weren’t getting met, his response was to tell me what was wrong with the other side. This provoked a counter judgment. Somebody on the Muslim side screamed back, “You’ve been trying to dominate us! We’re not going to tolerate it any more!”
Because our training is based on the assumption that all violent language is a tragic expression of unmet needs, when the chiefs finished screaming, my job was to translate the enemy image of “murderer” into language describing the needs of the person who screamed. I said, “Chief, are you saying that your need for safety is not being met and you want some agreement that no matter what the conflict, that it be resolved some way other than violence?” He looked shocked for a moment because this is different from how people are trained to think. Then he said, “That’s exactly right!”
But getting the chief to acknowledge his need wasn’t enough. I had to get the Muslim side to see through their enemy image. I said, “Would somebody on the other side please tell me what you heard the chief say his needs were?”
A gentleman from the Muslim tribe screamed back, “Then why did you kill my son?” In fact, there were several others in the Muslim tribe who knew that someone present had killed one of their children. So there were a lot of feelings. The Muslim tribe had to put down their rage long enough to hear the needs of the Christian tribe. And that wasn’t easy. I had to give them some empathy before they could do that. But finally I got them to hear just one simple thing, that the Christian tribe had said they had a need for safety.
It took me about an hour and a half to get both sides to release the enemy image long enough to hear a need of the other side. At that point, one of the chiefs came up and said to me, “If we know how to communicate this way, we don’t have to kill each other!”
In another example, a group of Israelis and Palestinians on the West Bank were hoping to be able to work toward peace in that area. I asked, “What is it that you want from each other that would make it easier for you to work together?” The Palestinian mayor of the village responded by telling the Israelis, “You people are a bunch of Nazis.” Predictably, one of the Israelis fired back, “That was totally insensitive for you to say.” So instead of peace and harmony, they were creating violence and hostility. I helped them translate their judgments into what it was that they were wanting from one another. When you get people to talk about what they want from each other, instead of what’s wrong with the other, there’s a possibility for reconciliation to begin." https://inquiringmind.com/article/2101_4w_rosenberg-interview-with-marshall-rosenberg-the-traveling-peacemaker/
Marshall Rosenberg (cont.) "But getting the chief to acknowledge his need wasn’t enough. I had to get the Muslim side to see through their enemy image. I said, “Would somebody on the other side please tell me what you heard the chief say his needs were?”
A gentleman from the Muslim tribe screamed back, “Then why did you kill my son?” In fact, there were several others in the Muslim tribe who knew that someone present had killed one of their children. So there were a lot of feelings. The Muslim tribe had to put down their rage long enough to hear the needs of the Christian tribe. And that wasn’t easy. I had to give them some empathy before they could do that. But finally I got them to hear just one simple thing, that the Christian tribe had said they had a need for safety.
It took me about an hour and a half to get both sides to release the enemy image long enough to hear a need of the other side. At that point, one of the chiefs came up and said to me, “If we know how to communicate this way, we don’t have to kill each other!”
In another example, a group of Israelis and Palestinians on the West Bank were hoping to be able to work toward peace in that area. I asked, “What is it that you want from each other that would make it easier for you to work together?” The Palestinian mayor of the village responded by telling the Israelis, “You people are a bunch of Nazis.” Predictably, one of the Israelis fired back, “That was totally insensitive for you to say.” So instead of peace and harmony, they were creating violence and hostility. I helped them translate their judgments into what it was that they were wanting from one another. When you get people to talk about what they want from each other, instead of what’s wrong with the other, there’s a possibility for reconciliation to begin."
Then there is the transsexual madness. I don't share a reality that denies biology.
Yes, "...that IS a pretty big ask..." Sooooo, still...what is the alternative? War forever? War kills old growth forests, and Americans and the unvaccinated, etc. etc. Maybe it is the reality of everybody just continuing on, drawing lines around their dear values. that is actually The Pretty Big Ask.
Absolutely 🤓
I wish everyone thought this way… really I do 🙏🏼🕊️
Chris Cuomo interviewed Mosab Hassan Yousef who is the SON of the founder of HAMAS, turned Israeli spy, now US citizen. I hope Charles will listen to this and others and weave this information into an upcoming essay 🤞
https://youtu.be/llJxz1pAlQQ?si=6ld1r2tS92OTEr6Z
There are many other interviews as well, but they are on Fox and other lesser known channels which I’m imagining most people following Charles avoid?
I love peace and I am a Nonviolent Communication facilitator and mediator with 17 years of active work in NVC. As brilliant as Marshall Rosenberg was and the teachings of NVC is, they are FAR from sufficient to resolve this complex war which includes thousands of years of history, complex trauma, and millions of Islamic militancy extremists who are dedicated to destroying Israel.
I love the idealism coming from Charles and in many comments here, but for this conflict to be resolved, we need to truly and deeply understand what’s going on from people who are living it. Mosab is a RARE man who has lived it from four sides - Palestine, Hamas, Israel, and the US.
Peace grounded in idealism is no more than a beautiful dream. We can’t change a culture built in an ideology of hate and bloodshed, which Hamas and other Islamic terrorist groups are. Most Arabs are unwilling or at least highly hesitant to condemn the brutal bloodlust war tactics of Hamas. This conflict cannot be solved by any kind of normal peace talks right now. In NVC there are times when protective use of force is necessary, and from what I’ve seen, the way Israel fights in war is more ethical than any other country - including the US. They do their best to protect civilians. In contrast, Hamas uses civilians - especially women, children, and hospitals - as human shields in order to provoke international outrage and increase the possibility of a ceasefire, which would work in their favor 😔
Here is a short interview of Mosab from Sky News https://youtu.be/k2BSDLFVT74?si=X30z_sMJ8NQPo6Fd
This war is immensely complex.
I pray for an Israel and for the innocent civilians in Gaza - especially women and children - every day. And after doing as much deeper drive, I have come to understand why Israel and the US backers of Israel are unwilling to do a ceasefire for any significant period of time. Hamas will take every advantage of any down time. They are driven by the idea of destroying Israel and if they kill others or die in the process, it is all for their twisted idea of devotion to Allah 😔
May peace prevail 💖🕊️✨
BS. Mosab is an evengelical Christian (since formally leaving Islam) who is on a payroll. But he gets propped up as some sort of "Son of Hamas".
And its better to keep your deep Islamophobic views and tropes to yourself, when juxtaposing them next to Marshall Rosenberg and NVC. Care to give us a source for your absurd 100 M Islamic militancy extremists!! It would do you better to actually interact with Muslims, and take some time out to actually deeply look into the Islamic faith, before parrotting fear driven propaganda.
My sincere apologies for posting such an error. I imagine you felt something between frustrated and outraged when you read it as it didn’t meet your values for people you love to be seen clearly and misinformation like that if spread could threaten emotional and physical safety given the airway existing dark biases and racism in our world.
Thank you for pointing it out so it wasn’t posted for long. I have deleted it and will seek to find an accurate estimate with citation before posting anything like that again.
Of course the first step in the NVC Four Step Process is to make clear observations. Not easy in this case. But in this just step we do our best to establish what is objectively true. (and yes, I make mistakes sometimes - especially when emotion knocks my equilibrium off-center, and I do seek to correct them)
If you are willing -
I would like to have clear factual information in regards to the extent of Islamic extremism - and for large the backing is for this ideology that perpetuates violence against innocent people and is committed to destroying Israel.
I am curious what you believe would be an accurate representation of the number of Islamic military extremists who actively participate in groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Isis and the Muslim Brotherhood - organizations who actively torture and kill innocent civilians and use citizens as human shields, and what percentage of all Muslims you believe have what in the US would be consider extremist views - the kind so advice to the ideology that validates the physical abuse of women, LGBTQ+ folks, and non-Muslims - or celebrates straight up killing people in these categories.
FWIW, as I understand it, there are 2.3 billion Muslims worldwide and that they are insured and guided by the Holy Book of the Koran in addition to the Bible and the Torah, viewing these three books as connected in a lineage from Allah. And that the heart of the religious teachings of all three Abrahamic faiths are the same - Love. Compassion and Forgiveness - which is NOT embodied through the violent interpretation of jihad as embraced by violent extremists, but is Strobel fit by the vast majority of Muslims.
Also, I understand there are violent extremists in Christianity too, and in Judaism. But I am unaware of large scale terrorist militias in either of these groups - yet from what I’ve seen there are a number of the in Islam including the four I previously listed. Do you have a significantly different perspective? If so. I am curious to know what you are seeing that is so much different than what I’m seeing. No doubt our news sources are different… making conflict that much more complex to resolve. It would all be so much easier if we could all become aligned in what is unarguably objective truth.
Hi Katrina, thanks for deleting the post, but I would gently ask you to enquire you into what made you post something like that in the first place, especially given from what you have written you know so little about Muslims and their faith. As someone who converted to Islam at the of 16, I'm now 45, all I can speak about is my own experience. Muslims are not a monolith like any community, and there is a whole spectrum, but I don't think Islamic extremism is any more representative of Islam than terrorists subscribing to Judaism or Christianity, or any other faith, or no faith. Given all that you've written, I feel I should respond, but please forgive me for my limited response, as I don't have much time. I'll just focus on a few of your comments that illustrate things I think you need to update upon to increase your understanding:
[1] "I am curious what you believe would be an accurate representation of the number of Islamic military extremists who actively participate in groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Isis and the Muslim Brotherhood - organizations who actively torture and kill innocent civilians and use citizens as human shields"
The four groups you have mentioned are all different and have different ideologies. They are all in varying degrees political responses to political situations, with Islam being the added on understanding to justify often what is their political orientaion. In other words they are the illegimiate children of modernity and often the direct result of imperialist geopolitical manipulation, as the Hamas is from Israel (Yes, Israel directly funded and promoted Hamas as an alternative to the PLO: https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/) , and ISIS is from USA,'s direct imperialist activity in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Hezbollah from Iran. As for the Muslim Brotherhood, they are not in their inception and the vision of Hassan al Bana a terrorist organization, and even today are not to my mind in their entirety a terrorist organization, though some of the organizations under it have adopted terrorism. They are a political Islamic outfit once again birthed to the after effects of colonization and disruption in the Muslim world, and its traditional scholarship.
I'm not sure where to begin with the nonsense about using citizens as "human shields", which seems to be the go to justification for the IDF in their indiscriminate bombing and murdering of civilian children, but I don't think any of these groups can justify the killing of civilians or using innocent people as human shields. As Norman Finkelstein notes, Amnesty International studies demonstrate its actually the IDF that uses Palestinians as human shields and justfies their frequent "mowing of the lawn" in Gaza, as being due to the use of human shields. The way Hamas seeks to circumvent the Islamic prohibition on killing non combatants, is by claming that effectivly all adult Israeli civilians are effective combatants given mandatory military service, but of course that doesn't justify what they do or when they have killed innocent people. Its because of strict prohibition on these things, that there is widespread skeptisism within most Muslims I meet, that Hamas would have killed babies, women, etc. After all, the Qur’an that declares taking a single innocent life is equivalent to murdering all of humanity (5:32).
[2] "What percentage of all Muslims you believe have what in the US would be consider extremist views - the kind so advice to the ideology that validates the physical abuse of women, LGBTQ+ folks, and non-Muslims - or celebrates straight up killing people in these categories."
In my own immediate experience (being a Muslim for 30 years), which is all I can speak of, I have never met a *single* Muslim who fits your description. Normative Islam doesn't do anything of what you have said, though I'm sure extremists exist, for the most part, it is because of a lack of Islamic understanding, coupled with extreme conditions that give birth to extreme understandings, than an actual understanding based on knowledge of the Islamic tradition. In specific regards to your query about the US, I can't speak about the US, as I don't live there.
[3] "FWIW, as I understand it, there are 2.3 billion Muslims worldwide and that they are insured and guided by the Holy Book of the Koran in addition to the Bible and the Torah, viewing these three books as connected in a lineage from Allah. And that the heart of the religious teachings of all three Abrahamic faiths are the same - Love. Compassion and Forgiveness - which is NOT embodied through the violent interpretation of jihad as embraced by violent extremists, but is Strobel fit by the vast majority of Muslims."
The Muslims don't believe in the Bible and the Torah as three books alongside the Qur'an, they believe in the revealations given to the Prophets Moses and Jesus (peace and blessings of God be upon them both), and do not believe the current Bible is the Injeel (Good News, same root as Evangel) given to the Prophet Jesus, nor that the current Torah is the revelation given to Moses. They don't believe Islam is some new faith, in addition to Judaism or Christianity, rather they believe that both Judaism and Christianity were Islam, for their time, as their Prophets called their people to the worship of God, the Tawheed, or Oneness of God present in the apparent multiplcicity of creation. In actual faith Muslims believe the perennial faith with Gof was/is Islam, and has been the religion of primordial man, with the lived reality of Islam adapting itself to different times and places. This is why some Muslims could also speculate that Adi Shankara of Advaitic Hinduism, or Gautama Siddhartha were also Prophets/Saints of Islam. For me the possibility of the two is quite likely, especially if one parses the Four Noble Truths as articulating the need to attached one's being to that which does not perish, i.e.God. The word Jihad does not mean war or "Holy war', but means a struggle, with the highest struggle being against one's own self.
[4] "Also, I understand there are violent extremists in Christianity too, and in Judaism. But I am unaware of large scale terrorist militias in either of these groups - yet from what I’ve seen there are a number of the in Islam including the four I previously listed. Do you have a significantly different perspective? If so. I am curious to know what you are seeing that is so much different than what I’m seeing. No doubt our news sources are different… making conflict that much more complex to resolve. It would all be so much easier if we could all become aligned in what is unarguably objective truth."
Well maybe in your take of history, you should look beyond the current era of terrorist militias which also arise of political regional stability (Muslims are the largest refugee populations, with the Palestinians being the largest), and actually look into the broader history of these faiths. I have a significantly different perspective to you, partly because I think the current terrorists you allude to are a result of the loss of Islamic teachings and not because of it, for if someone sees the resistance demonstrated by the likes of Umar Mukhtar (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Hdx5BdP8w and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8JjxZKzwpc), Abdel Qadir Jaziri (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwV6fvo2ObI) and Imam Shamel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZJHzEYSp6k), who were deeply chivalrous, and adhered to spiritually guided rules even in active fighting against opressors, to the extent that their own adversaries later held them in the highest esteem, one gets a very different picture.
[5] "No doubt our news sources are different… making conflict that much more complex to resolve. It would all be so much easier if we could all become aligned in what is unarguably objective truth."
I would venture to say I know your sources Katrina, but you don't know mine or have looked at Islam from an unbiased, more objective and informed perspective. This is the tradition that has given rise to some of the highest spiritual luminaries in the West, like Jalaludden Rumi who was quoted at the outset of this thread. And he wasn't some hippy to be discovered by Coleman Barks, but a well trained Islamic Scholar who was a result of that tradition and particualry Sufism, the science of the heart and witnessing God (as the One in the Many).
Peace.
Thank you Yusuf, for you noble, kind, and sustained effort here! It is amazing to me how even the most sincere and intelligent people can unquestionably believe all the extreme propaganda they have been told about the beliefs and actions of brown people on the other side of the world.
Thank you for sharing your wisdom and reminding us that Islam is one of the world's great sacred wisdom traditions, and that we ignore and dismiss its beauty and wisdom at our own loss.
Yusuf, thank you for taking time and care to reply.
I am well aware that no large group is a monolith, especially when talking about a group of 2.3 billion. There are shared beliefs, and shared values, but there is also a vast diversity with each member holding a unique perspective that may and often does change or adjust over time.
And I hope you could see from what I wrote that I do not equate the terrorist fringes of Islamic extremists with Islam as a whole.
I hear what you are saying about these terrorist organizations rising from the ashes of Western Imperialism. I have enough awareness in the matter to know that the US government has done some horrible things, but I do not know the gruesome details. Those are generally not part of US news... all we get is the "fight terrorism" propaganda which includes frightening facts, and disinformation, about what those labeled as terrorists have done - all of which I know is one very biased side of the story.
I am aware that the Crusaders were terrorists fighting on behalf of The Church. Many of my ancestors were killed by the crusades lead by Pope Innocent III... what a name :(
I am not aware of Jewish terrorists at any point in history, but I have not looked for it.
As for the "human shields" accusation against Hamas, I have heard this so many times from a couple dozen different sources on the right and left sides of the US media and European news outlets, I have assumed it to be true. I am glad to check that assumption.
I see that Al Jazeera says that it is not true - or at least there is no proof. I don't know what to make of the clear opposing reports. I'm curious what you make of this "video evidence" provided by the Times of Israel? Real? Fake? Something in between? https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-interrogation-video-hamas-terrorists-confirm-groups-hideout-under-gaza-hospital/
I love Rumi and Hafiz.
As for what motivated me to post that - After diving into US news, I was moving strongly in the direction many around me are - pro-Peace, pro-ceasefire. I could not understand why the US vetoed this UN initiative. But I came to understand Hamas through the eyes of Mosab. And I came to understand the history of the land through various channels. From what I have seen, there were attempts at creating a two-State solution on several occasions in the last 100 years and each time the Jews didn't like the compromise, but were willing, and the Palestinians didn't want Israel to exist. Period. This new information shifted my perspective and I came to trust that Israel is seeking to minimize harm while working to eradicate Hamas. As much as I want peace, I do not see that as possible when trying to reason with extremists who believe they are doing Allah/God's Will by murdering and raping innocent people. I want Israel to become stronger than ever as I currently do not see them as a country that wishes to use violence against other countries - but rather focuses on self-defense. Perhaps I am naive in that view, but it is currently my view. I hate what is happening to the innocent people in Gaza, and as I stated earlier, I have more understanding for the vetoed ceasefire than I had currently. Israel is in an existential battle from what I can see. If they lose, they could be destroyed as intended by Hamas. If they win, there seems to be a better chance to bring peace to the region without a genocide of all the Jews who live in the Middle East... From what I've seen, it isn't safe for Jews to live in any neighboring Arab nation - they have been ethnically cleansed from those nations.
This all comes from the news I have seen, and is NOT firsthand experience - all prone to error, misunderstanding and misinformation.
I understand the refugees in Gaza get more support than any refugees in the world. Why was that support used to build 300 miles of tunnels and create an arsenal when it could have been used to build infrastructure, education and a local economy? Why won't Egypt or other Arab nations offer to receive those who wish to leave Gaza? I have also come to understand that most of the Arab world did not recognize Israel until the recent years... most wanted it gone... so how do you create peace with neighbors who want you gone? I do not have answers to these questions. And I have many assumptions here that I have come to believe through the resources I have found and trust. I'm open to more information that helps me gain a broader perspective.
I appreciate that while the United States is FAR from perfect and has done some horribly wrong things, it is a democracy that seeks to create harmony among a diversity of people - there is greater equality between the genders in the US and Israel than in most places around the world. Beating your wife is illegal in the US, but that is not true in many other countries. There are legal protections for LGBTQ+, and communities in which they feel safe to live and express themselves freely. There's communities for people of all religious backgrounds, and some cities and town where there is great diversity. Within a couple blocks of my home we have neighbors who are Taiwanese, Iranian, Irish, African American, South Korean, Indian, and more. And it's a wonderfully friendly neighborhood. There is freedom to criticize the government, and there are elections.
I don't see many other countries that have such a diversity of ethnicities and cultures coming together and living with as much harmony as has been established in the US - certainly NOT in any Arab nations that I am aware of, nor in Russia or China who are using this war in their favor as much as possible. The idea of a Chinese designed New World Order is a very unpleasant one in my view as their social credit system and re-education camps are far from my idea of a happy, healthy, thriving society in which all people belong... from what I have seen, China and Russia are NOT good to Muslims either. I do value the democratic values established by our Constitution and as I see Israel under threat, I wonder if democracy as a whole is also under threat.
I have not had the time to watch the videos yet, but I will, and I am grateful to receive these recommendations.
Denying the notion that Hamas uses civilians as human shields is basically disregarding the value of Palestinian lives. Not only Israel-haters have a strange disinterest for what is really going on in Palestinian society, but Western journalists do, just as they have a weird passion for the minutiae of Israeli sociology.
In fact, Gazans are fed up with the suicidal tactics of the Hamas and they say so but nobody has any interest... Here's a sample: https://www.memri.org/reports/growing-criticism-hamas-and-its-officials-gaza-residents-they-brought-needless-war-upon-us
I just watched the videos. Thank you.
I’m wondering if you have similar examples for modern times you would be willing to share?
And I would not be surprised if Mosab now subscribes to the ultimate terrorist ideology of Christian Zionism, which literally wants to bring an Armageddon war, so that all of humanity can perish whilst the saved few get levitated up into the heavens as part of their rapture: https://www.monbiot.com/2004/04/20/apocalypse-please/
I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe Mosab wishes to bring about Armageddon.
And I don’t know much about Christian Zionism, but assuming they are not building militias and plotting terrorist attacks, how is it you have come to the conclusion it is the “ultimate terrorist group”?
Without clear evidence that sounds like a dangerous belief to me - similarly dangerous as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and other unproven theories which can easily be used to justify violence.
I appreciate that our US judicial system seeks to live up to the standards of “Innocent until proven guilty.”
Do you have objective proof to back up your belief? If so, I would like to see it so as to add more understanding to what I am missing and gain a more complete perspective.
But if there is no objective proof, it is only a belief - but it's a belief that easily can cultivate enmity which can easily lead to violence.
I was adopting deliberate hyperbole, but given you admitted to not knowing much about Christian Zionism it was lost on you. Given Christian Zionists are driving much of US foreign Policy, and they literally fund the Settlements, and want to eventually have the destruction of the Masjid al Aqsa, and bring in the building of the Third Temple, so they can have a global war between everyone at Israel, wherein most people (including jews and non evangelical christiians will die) - so they can have their rapture - i would say that is a terrorist ideology. They literally want to invoke global terror so they can have their rapture, isn't that objective enough for you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo77sTGpngQ&t=1s
Sounds like you are familiar with NVC (nonviolent Communication)?
Very. I love what Satya is bringing to the table. He is beautifully sharing Marshall's teachings.
But doing conflict resolution between two tribes held in a refugee camp, or between some Israelis and some Palestinians is on a much smaller scale than what we've got going on between Palestine, Israel, and surrounding areas. And then there are the complexities of Russia's involvement via Iran... it's so very complex... and the leaders who make decisions in these countries have shown no willingness whatsoever to even come to the table to engage in dialogues that could be peace-generating and serve life as we all want for life to be served.
This is true. This is a very complex situation, but again, I believe that starting with the People can still make a difference. Not everyone is caught in these very intense ideologies. Many are likely afraid to speak up.
I am Iranian and this is by far my favorite Rumi quote...
Mistranslated or not, for me these are simple but powerful words strung together. This holds the key to where we must go
Amen, Zuu!
Forgotten this, thank you
yes
Thank you Charles for this and your recent essays. Vengeance, hate, dehumanization, and justifying violence are bad. Groundbreaking and courageous insights. :)
So are you calling for "peace" or would that be "taking a side?" Is calling for a "cease-fire now," as so many Jews and others around the world are doing, "taking a side?"
Most of your recent reflections seem to repeatedly be obsessed with not stating a position or "side." Perhaps your whole concept of the "sides" is part of the problem. We have been fed a narrative about what the "sides" are, who is on them, what they believe and demand and justify and are guilty of. It looks to me like in your noble effort to avoid taking "sides," you have actually affirmed and adopted a false narrative about what the "sides" are and what they entail.
The Israeli people that you mention in this essay that you are "in awe" of are indeed courageous and wise examples for us, but they are not doing something complicated. They are clearly taking a "side" and a "position" against the current slaughter and genocide of the Palestinian people and children.
I am proud to be on that "side" with them.
The absence of good people standing and speaking clearly with moral courage is part of what allows this outrageous genocide to continue. Can you join a "side" that is solely against bombing and killing 5,000 children with nothing else attached? Could you do it if the number reaches 10,000? How about 100,000? Is there any point, where you would clearly and unequivocally call for it to stop?
Absolutely my thoughts as well. Thank you.
Yes, the fact that can't state that he is with those who are calling for a ceasefire is telling.
Re: taking "sides" against bombing, killing, slaughter, genocide. Positioning against is the slippery slope to hate. Discovering mutuality to be supportive of is the steep stairway to resolution. Such perspective discards "sides" as invalid, and embraces the implications of living together on a sphere.
Not sure about that. I believe it is instinctive and naturally human to take sides between innocent children taking refuge in a hospital, and an occupying force that wants them and their parents dead. When Desmond Tutu expressed mutuality in his concern that Israelis involved in perpetuating apartheid were losing their humanity, he was smeared as an antisemite.
I agree, it surely is instinctive to take sides in such terrible situations! But the need, if we are to survive, is to not just stop there, but to go deeper into context and history - the roots, which determine the health/disease of the tree before us now.
Israel clearly wants to eradicate Hamas.
But it is quite an jump to believe that they want to kill innocent civilians - especially children. There’s plenty of evidence that states that they are seeking to minimize civilian casualties while committed seeking to eradicate Hamas.
The number of Israelis who are actively violent or seeking apartheid is as fringe as are those who are active fighters in Hamas among all the Palestinians people.
It only perpetuates enmity and violence to equate an entire people with the worst actions committed by the fringe groups or solo actors who commit violence and carry extremists ideology.
One common phrase I have heard too many times is "Peace through superior firepower." In other words, there can be no peace unless one group of people, one side, is so strong that they can overwhelm all others by violent force if necessary. It follows that the other side has to simply submit to the situation and become subservient to those who are forcing "peace" upon them.
I reject this. Peace does not come because someone is willing to use force and violence against others. It does not arrive because others live in fear that force and violence will be used against them. Peace, real peace, true peace can only be achieved when one forswears the use of violence and begins to love others in the way that they would like to be loved themselves. In a world where selfishness is the norm, it is exceedingly difficult to live in peace, but it can be achieved. All one has to do is to live The Golden Rule as Christ taught us, "Do to others what you would like others to do to you." Or, as the apostle Paul put it, "Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men."
This assumes that it IS POSSIBLE to live this way. It all depends on you.
Your stance is the exact opposite of the natural law of nations (*) that has been the rule during all of human history, but it's eminently excusable: the Anglo-American sphere has explicitly turned it on its head starting over a century ago and brainwashed everybody that might is not right (except when they say it is). Some of the philosophical inspiration came from certain currents of protestantism.
As to the Palestinians, their basic ideology is the epitomy of that: the military superior Israel has no "right" to impose anything whatsoever - not even its own existence! This noble rejection of "might is right" resonates with your stance but is at odds with how most conflicts in the world are handled.
The result is endless bloodshed, because the weak has the "right" to "resist". Thankfully for the Palestinians, their enemy is incomparably more restrained than Arab armies. That's why they are only a small fraction of the victims of conflict in the Middle East. Yemen alone has known more casualties in a few years than 100 years of Israeli/Zionist-Arab conflict.
Speaking about Christian tradition, just recently 200.000 Armenians underwent yet another Naqba, from the hands of their much more powerful muslim enemy, Azerbaidjan. Because of the overwhelming force, these poor Armenians didn't lose many lives at all, just a lot of real estate. Nobody cared, not even, or especially not those who passionately support the Palestinian cause. And it's great for the Armenians that nobody cares, because none of them had to blow themselves up, or gang-rape anybody to prove that they are resistants, or cheer the rapists. So they didn't have to lose their soul.
* Cicero, Seneca, Thomas Aquinas, Ibn Khaldun, Shantideva, Confucius. Basically the greatest thinkers of the greatest civilization on Earth. And by the way, Thomas Aquinas was very much a virtuous Christian, and Ibn Khaldun a devout muslim!
If I followed your logic I'ld say I can't see from your text if you took a side against gang-raping Jewish peace activists, then mutilating them, then killing them.
Your comment confuses me. Charles is explicitly against acts of war. Taken from this very article, "it is wrong to kill 4500 children in a bombing campaign".
Remind Robert, when he announced in Boston said " we have to stop seeing the world in terms of the good guys vs the bad guys". He spoke of a non dual approach to problem solving. That is how we heal the divide.
Hi, Jeff, I had the same thought, was originally inspired by RFK Jr saying things like that, and have been baffled by his abandonment of that view.
Great to see you here Chrissy. I met Robert 3 times. Each time I gave him something Dharma related. He was surprised. The first was a pocket Buddha. The second was a pocket Manjrushri. The third time was a Tibetan coin minted during the 13th Dalai Lama's time which had the Eight auspicious symbols. I will post a picture on your substack notes. As warriors,Bodhisattva's never give up! We learned a lot from Chogyal Namkhai Norbu about how to really bring evolutionary vs revolutionary change didn't we? Revolution is samsara. Dzogchen is evolution.
Easy to say if you have led an easy upper middle class life, and if not, not. New Age platitudes suck IMO.
absolutely true that this is much harder to do if you are in the middle of the conflict. And nonviolent communication is not something we have learned growing up. If it had been, most of these conflicts would not be happening. The escalation of violence buries the initial need/cause so deeply that all that is felt is the anger/rage/fear/terror. It takes a very skilled facilitator. I wish Marshall Rosenberg were still with us.
It's not just that it's "much harder to do," it's that it's deeply immoral. Would you have suggested the Jews and Nazis in WWII sit down and try to "use non-violent communication," to try to "resolve their dispute," as though both sides had equal moral standing? Well guess what the Zionists are Nazis, they are ethnonationist genocidal land thieves, so no, negotiating is not the answer in this situation, rather the bully genocidal land thief Zionists will have to brought to heel, and their state dismantled just like the third reich was.
There's a lot more to WWII than we have been told as I learned in David Swanson't book "War is a Lie". I'm not talking about getting the Zionist deep state to talk and listen, but the people who have been dragged along into these conflicts. Sorry to not have been clear. The People are the ones who truly have the power and are in the majority, are the weapons of all wars, although they don't recognize that. Those in "control" are very few in number imo and use control strategies that people are not aware of to keep their power, to keep the conflict and war going.
I don't mean to imply that any of this is easy, but it seems to me that unless we try a different approach, nothing will ever change. I begin this myself in small ways in my own life. If everyone did this, it would begin to make a difference. Would it be soon enough? I don't know, but still want to try in this practical way. I can't control or influence in any way what happens in Israel/Palestine, but in my own life I can begin.
@Satya, I’d love to know -
What are the best strategies you have seen to that can move The People in a direction of casting off divisions and embracing the principles of compassion that can empower is to co-create this more beautiful world our hearts know it’s possible?
I’ve been engaged in practicing and teaching NVC for 17 years, and I have seen over and over where it falls short. I have come to the conclusion we need a full on shift in consciousness - for a critical mass to KNOW that we are inherently One interbeing.
Yet the story of separation is still strong and perpetuated by the media.
When we live in life-negating systems - as clearly outlined in “The Myth of Normal” by Gabor Mate - how do we completely overhaul the system to establish one that serves life?
Katrina, your question is so important . Thank you for asking. What has come to me through experience alone is that everyone needs someone to simply listen, to be present with them without judgment - "unconditional positive regard" is what Carl Rogers called this presence, in his book "On Becoming a Person".
When I was studying many theories of counseling in my graduate study, this is the one that felt most true to me in my heart. When I began my counseling practice, I felt very sad to recognize that this is the reason people pay therapists, as unconditional positive regard is very hard to find in day to day life. Most everyone is "listening" while waiting to share their own opinion. How often does another person simply offer themself as an empty vessel, without judgment, to simply hear another's story, another's joy or suffering?
I think this is the core of Marshal Rosenberg's work. It takes a great deal of patience. And it's something that I need to practice constantly in my day to day life. I am no longer an organizer for RFK Jr.'s campaign, but still carry the gift of his words "heal the divide", which I suspect were inspired by Charles. This I can do.
I also know that, despite the urgency of the need, we must keep company with patience. All children need to be taught to listen, to communicate with honesty and kindness. I think that children intuitively know this, but this innocence is often driven into hiding by the ways of the world. I believe this knowing is present in all of us and waiting for a safe place to emerge.
If each person were to begin this practice of unconditional positive regard, of truly listening, the world would begin to change on its own. The other secret of this practice is that it requires letting go of expectation that anything change, letting go of any particular outcome. And the magic then begins to happen, one person at a time.
This is where I put my attention rather than stories of "wrong" and "right".
"There's a lot more to WWII than we have been told..." Don't be coy, what does this mean exactly and precisely? More vague platitudes to hand wave away genocide, because your worldview is ill equipped to stop genocide.
While we wait the Zio-Nazi scum are bombing children to death many of whom are dying painfully burned to death by bombs and suffocating in rubble. There is no negotiating with fascists, only killing them, head shots boys of Hamas, head shots! Sometimes violence is the answer. Gandhi said the Jews should have passively surrendered to the Nazis, because muh non-violence. Gandhi was an ASSHOLE!
Again it's not just that it isn't easy, it's that it gives equal status to the oppressor and the oppressed. Fuck that!
Spoken like a true Corvus ;-)
Hi Charles. What you share is beautiful, and brings hope. I would also like to add that, taking a side on an unjust situation does not have to translate to the path of hate. One can keep the heart open to each individual on both sides, meet them in their humanity, in the one shared heart of humanity, and also from the same heart that knows justice and stands for it, say a clear NO to a colonial-settler war machine that works to cut people from the heart, from the mother land, from the ancestral wisdom... in this case for some people that NO translates to being a pro-Palestinian.
“Colonial-settler” implies Jews have no ancestral connection to Judea..aka Israel aka Palestine. This land is also the Jewish ancestral homeland. A colony is when you take over land that was never a place you lived on.
From Norman Finkelstein’s latest post: Since the fifth century BCE, when Herodotus first used the word to mean the entire land, it has been commonly known as “Palestine”. The Romans only gave official expression to a name that had been used for centuries. The whole land has never been called “Israel”. If you are to resort to Biblical entitlement, you must also answer to Jesus.
I have no problem answering to Jesus.
The name Palestine comes from the word Philistines, referring to only one group of people who lived in this small piece of land that has also gone simultaneously by several other names throughout the last 3000 years. The Philistines were a different people with different customs and origin than the Arabs who have lived there for the last several hundred years.
Archaeologically and anthropologically speaking the ‘Filistines’ are thought to have originated from Mycenaean ancestry.
In case you have been watching Ben Shapiro...From Norman Finkelstein’s official substack:
Ben Shapiro proves that “Israel is historically Jewish territory.” (at 0:40) He points to some Jewish presence in Palestine beginning in 1400 BC. He then states that after 136 CE “there was continuous Jewish presence in the land.” Mr. Shapiro discreetly omits who else lived in that land during the past 2,000 years.
Consider the period when the modern Zionist movement first laid claim to Palestine in the late nineteenth century. The standard scholarly work on Palestine’s historic demography is Justin McCarthy, The Population of Palestine. McCarthy reports that Palestine’s population was roughly 450,000 in 1880, of which less than 5 percent (15,000) was Jewish.
It’s child’s play to prove that “Israel is historically Jewish territory”—if only Jews count.
True, but the area that is now Israel was overwhelmingly Palestinian-occupied at the time: about 80%.
Have a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGVgjS98OsU
...to say nothing about international law or human rights.
The history I have seen gives evidence that the Jewish people ARE the native people of those lands. Palestinians migrated much later.
Whose land of it really? And given how many attempts there have been at peace agreements in the last 100 years, how can we find an agreement that can work - especially given that there are so many who still wish to destroy Israel and very actively are seeking to do so?
I'm not sure that in truth land can ever be owned. Maybe this is the greatest difficulty - fighting over what belongs to who - who was there first - who has the greater right. None of us were here when this all began and everything being said now is a story with many nuances depending on the teller - many arguments about who is right, even here. When things get this out of control, I think that stopping everything can be a first step, but both sides would need to agree to this.
When it is said that the CIA and Mossad created Hamas because Arafat and Rabin had come to an agreement for peace , it is so obvious the problem is above the people. The obvious unprotected border points to that even more. The plan seems to be to create so much more chaos between regular people so that there is little room to build consensus for resolution for any of our many problems. This is just one more devisive element. The powers at the top are the problem.
Yes, and given that - this can be counteracted by the People talking with each other - listening to and understanding each other and coming to the realization that the governments are creating and stoking this conflict - which is not in the People's best interests, of either "side".
So right on.
I believe it's time to change everything, almost. The idea that Israel is the "holy land" of the Jews is bs. It is only a crazy idea that would appeal to some Jews (Zionists). The anti-semites who gave Israel to the Jews placed them in a terrible situation, floated this concept (I know it had been around for some time before) that they hoped would catch on and become a reality because putting all the Jews in one place surrounded by Arab enemies was perhaps gleeful to rabid anti-semites. Unfortunately, the Jews fell for it and the result was exactly what the anti-semites had hoped for.
Now, it's time to see how ludicrous this idea is and get rid of it. The whole planet is the "holy land" and it is for all humans to enjoy and revere. Israel should or could be converted from a land for the Jews to a land for all persecuted and non-persecuted people. An example of how humans can live together in peace no matter what their beliefs may be. Where they need to agree is on principles like kindness towards all, respect and consideration for all, personal integrity, humility, non-violence, in a word to embody the concept of Love, that is, to care, to care for all of life which we all are.
We share the same spirit of life that animates all life with every living entity. We happen to be in the form of human with its particular kind of consciousness which gives us the possibility to escape the "might makes right" paradigm that rules the animal kingdom and live in an ethical manner. So far, we haven't done this. Now is the time for humanity to "wake up" and assume full responsibility as embodied love in the form of humans.
Humanity must radically change in all areas. The separation of which Charles so eloquently speaks of needs to change with the understanding that we are connected to all of life, since all life shares the same divine spirit that animates. To compete is like a part of the human body competing with another part, it makes no sense. One hand fighting the other.
The nation of Israel should be an example to the world of how people can live ethically, regardless of their beliefs as they do in Rojava, Syria. In my opinion, Israel needs to be disassembled and made a "peace zone", where all persecuted and non-persecuted people can live peacefully with self-governance, no political parties, assemblies, direct democracy, horizontal structure and extreme transparency to avoid any possibility of an outside influence corrupting, subverting, or controlling the country surreptitiously or overtly.
Radical solutions are what is needed.
Love this. Sadly I think it will only come about as a phoenix from the ashes.
Mofwoofoo, well stated! "The whole planet is the holy land." That's IT. All implications, decisions, actions at every scale, follow on from that single foundation.
I have begun to question whether "peace advocacy" is always truly peaceful. One of the problems with speaking up for peace is that it is often in opposition to someone else who doesn't want it yet. In other words, speaking up for peace in today's media landscape can actually seem like taking a side, against those who believe that a particular retributive action is justified. It may be that silence, or listening, is the best path forward in many cases for people like me who don't have a say in the direction of the battle. Sometimes people need to grieve and rage before they are ready for peace. Maybe I need to let them do that instead of calling for peace prematurely. I know if I were a general, or in command of one, if I believed peace were the answer, I could easily order a ceasefire or lay down my own weapons. But at my desk, at a dinner party, or on social media, I can't, so my words that say what should be happening are not necessarily helpful. In this day of powerful and potentially untrustworthy media narratives, and algorithmically driven social media rage, peace may be just another side to take. If I'm sitting outside the battlefield, with no control over what goes on there, perhaps it's better to allow the battlefield to do what it's doing, and then to be peaceful where I can - in my own mind, and in my own community. That's increasingly becoming my approach. Thanks Charles for your thought provoking words as always.
It is difficult not to agree with the many peace activists, including here, who demand we are not silent, but continue to push back against Israeli and Western propaganda (another dimension Mr Eisenstein studiously avoids mentioning). peace activism is not about bending over backwards to avoid calling Israel’s atrocities at eg Al Shifa Hospital what they are: irrefutable proof of the genocidal intent announced over and over in the Knesset.
Thank you for sharing your wisdom, Sarah. I hope many will see and absorb it.
Yes, exactly. This is how I felt on Thursday night at the Zoom meeting. Charles' words were healing and wise, but I needed to first express my feelings and be heard. I think that would have been difficult in a Zoom meeting.
Then why, just a few nights ago, did you encourage your Team Kennedy to buck it up and ignore your candidate's pro-Israel position?
I think Charles was given a difficult task that night - to help restore peace in the group, At least that's what I imagined. What I needed that night was something that couldn't happen on a Zoom meeting - a chance to share my upset and concern and feel heard. There were over 700 people on the call, which speaks volumes. I expect that others may have felt the same. The person who should have been there was Mr. Kennedy, even if only to say simply that he has heard our concerns. The words Charles spoke in this essay are exactly what I wish to hear from Mr. Kennedy. Words of peace. What is there to think about? Why is this so hard? No deep dives required.
That’s not the message I received / perceived from that call.
I tried to make it through at least the middle of Lehrman's notes, but wasn't able. Did it actually contain the message that Team Kennedy should exert any real pressure upon RFK to change his tune on Israel? My sense it was rather this sort of thing: no candidate is perfect, try to meditate your dissatisfaction away, say your mantra, don't worry about the 4,000 children already dead...
Was that not the message Eisenstein was giving? Was he in fact getting ready to call for a sit down strike at TK HQ?
What concerns me as much as RFK Jr.'s stance on Israel is his advocacy for censorship for what is liberally defined as "anti semitism" by the likes of the ADL. And he accepted a donation from a rich donor who is pressuring Harvard to censor "pro-Palestinian" students. Why hasn't he condemned Hochul's recent fascistic program of more surveillance of New Yorkers' on- line speech for "hate speech"?
Who would you prefer to be president? Biden, Trump, or Kennedy? Don't bother to name any of the fringe candidates who don't have the slightest chance of even getting a single electoral vote. That's really the only question that needs to be answered. Vote for West or Stein or stay home. Welcome to a second Donald Trump or Joe Biden term.
They are all Zionist pro mass murder of children apologists, so who cares?
Especially if you don't think, as I hope you and I don't think, that winning the Presidency is the alpha and omega of political solutions to our problems now. The answer is to build the movement, not to vote for the lesser evil. If Bobby would change his mind about this, I will vote for him--but that means Team Kennedy has to CONFRONT him, not just have a "meaningful exchange".
The message I heard was that Charles has spoken with RFK and they shared, both sides gaining from the interaction. RFK is being thoughtful , as is his nature, and is formulating his thoughts.
IMO: yes, meditation is always helpful if extreme emotions arise. Prayer is proven to work (Larry Dossey, MD, Lynn McTaggert, PhD)
if feelings of helplessness dominate.
This is a great ecample of how New Age philosophy becomes an excuse for spinelessness. Spare me this nonsense about both learning from the exchange. Are the people of Gaza learning from this exchange?!!!!! As Paul Goodman would say, Team Kennedy needs to "manfully strike."
Spinelessness? You asked what the call was about. There it is. If you can find a better candidate spend your time on their substack.
I'm not looking for a better candidate, although Jill Stein might be one. I am looking for Team Kennedy to get themselves a spine, rather than utter these mealy mouthed apologias for their candidates' stubborn insistence on Israel's right to commit genocide. If "winning" is more important to you than being moral, then I have absolutely no patience for you.
What call was that? I must have missed it.
It’s 2 of the numbers for the phone connection to the weekly volunteer meetings Tuesday 2pm est and Thursday 8pm est
zactly
If Noi Katsman, Ziv Stahl, Yotam Kipnis, Maoz Inon, and Yonatan Ziegen could state that revenge for the October 7th Hamas massacre would only create more suffering and solve nothing, and speak so courageously to the enraged mob seeking revenge, why didn’t Bobby Kennedy do the same? From all that I know of him, I expected he would do so. There is no way to argue this away. He’s taken a side. His silence is consent.
One starts to wonder. Either he is a Zionist, or is playing a dangerous political game (support for Palestine won’t get you very far in a Congress “owned by” Israel, or that they have some other kind of leverage on him. Punishment for defying plandemic propaganda? Pics from Epstein Island? Threats to assassinate family members? His insistence of his support for Israel at the senate hearing did seem a little desperate.
You’re right, desperate is an appropriate description. I’d like to hear a conversation between Bobby Kennedy and Norman Finkelstein.
https://youtu.be/te1y7ahp2LQ?si=t4rhDF_8Gq_gBs4n
“ People do indeed use one war crime to justify another.”
This needs correcting to
“Some people do indeed use one war crime to justify another”
And I would also state further that any human who unnecessarily harms other humans is guilty of violating the natural laws of the Universe and therefore I don’t consider them a ‘human in good standing’. Humans that aren’t in good standing don’t represent humanity’s values and therefore need to be stripped of any decision making power that was granted to them by humans in good standing
And I also think that the term "war crime" is a double negative. I think that ALL was is a crime!
There's a very good book - War is a Lie, by David Swanson - that has been very eye opening for me.
Wow, Charles. This is one of your most powerful posts ever, IMO. THANK YOU, and God bless all those who have let go of justification and are simply living and working for and being the peace that they seek. I feel so inspired by this and all of the real-life examples you named.
Charles, your use of the words is not to my standards on not taking sides, you take sides: Some of your own words and my notes:
“I would say it is wrong to kidnap and murder innocent festival-goers and children in a kibbutz.”
FYI: Israel’s IDF caused all the destruction at Be'eri Kibbutz, so no more propaganda please. Read this:
https://new.thecradle.co/articles/what-really-happened-on-7th-october
Murdered versus Killed: So the Israelis kill in Gaza, but the Palestinians murder …
Hamas’s violence versus Hamas resistance to the occupation army.
With respect to all humans.
———
I I would also point people to a recent Bret Weinstein Darkhorse podcast where he soberly examines the potential false flag aspect of 10/7 in an interview with an independent Israeli journalist. It's ludicrous to believe that Hamas could breach the most surveilled and protected border on Earth without a response for nearly a day, according to the narrative, but as we now know it was Israeli helicopters attacking their own people in many cases, as you point out above. Again, unless we address the root cause of how this happened, and obviously not take at face value the response from Netanyahu's government, for of this was allowed to happen or engineered to happen in order to justify a overwhelming response to evict Palestinians from Gaza, which seems to be the case, then that's it for Israel.
Sean, the fingerprints of the infamous military/industrial/banking complex are appearing all over this hot mess...
… and just by coincidence at the Gaza strip found the largest gas reserves on the planet, that all was planned and Israel was involved is obvious to anyone “with IQ above room temperature” as Pepe Escobar will say.
Israel is just used by the globalists, Zionist-Rotschild banking system that controls all western money, remember the “The axis of evil” from the Bush era ? Libya, Iran, Iraq, N. Korea, the only ones did not have the Zionist banking system. and we know the rest: https://thenewpress.com/books/inventing-axis-of-evil
—
Thank you for calling out his disingenuous verbiage, he is a writer I used to respect before he went Zionist propagandist.
We all have to call out the propaganda, we cannot remain silent. I am not saying that what I post is the truth, please do your own research, don’t just swallow what an “expert” is writing.
RFK jr has chosen a side and has been silent while the people in Gaza are being slaughtered. It appears that he approves of genocide. Will he be silent when Israel annexes Gaza after they have cleared it of all human life? How is RKF jr a peace candidate and how is war in Ukraine wrong but right in Israel/Gaza from his point of view? Seems like that is the good guy, bad guy trope.
RFK jr. is conflicted because the Kennedys are under the "Gold Covenant" of the one religion of the God on the dollar bill, joining Jews and Catholic elites in the secret plots of dominion, including the creation of Israel. The Kennedys that have "strayed" have been assassinated. He should decide whether he manages to heal that 'curse' in himself, otherwise better let go of presidential ambitions. His fear of vaccines is rooted in the "vaccine of Moses" that was a water dilution of a certain gold to fidelize in his new religion. All that did not respond to the "vaccine" were killed.(Exodus)
if he is so conflicted he shouldn't be running
Please provide sources for your sharing. Until then, it reeks of anti semitic tropes of the lowest order.
Read Exodus. Biblegate has a good rendering. "Sntisemitic" accusation comes from those under the spell. True Semitic are the peoples of Palestine of Judaic of other religion, not the new elected "Jews".
Right. We don’t exist.
We’re all us Jews just a bunch of imposters.
You got me!
Anti semitism at its worst. Yeah I just ‘made’ it up that I’m mixed heritage Arab and Jewish from Morocco and Eastern Europe. It wasn’t enough that there was infighting in my grandparents family of a union of Ashkenaz and Sefardim with Arab ancestry when my grandparents decided to wed…now we have to have loonie conspiracy theorists pipe in that we’re all making it up and we’re all fake Jews.
Right here people. For all to see and read. This is hate. Negation of another person and their existence. Oldest trope in the world about us Jews..that we ‘fooled’ you.
Well if that’s the case young lady, then grow up and get smarter. Or better yet..empower yourself by not blaming another group whether you believe they’re real or not as the cause of your or the worlds problems. Stop escape goating. Easiest out is to point the finger.
Charles, you going to finally pipe in and say something in your comments thread? Or are you going to continue with your higher-plane-pablum that speaks volumes of cowardice and not take a stand at some point? Way I read it, looking at the comments here, you’ll lose 80% of your readership anyway by staying so ‘neutral.’ Meanwhile your comments section reeks of ignorance and anti-semitism on this topic of Israel and Palestine.
Speak up.
These are your readers responding to your work. Take responsibility and act. Write something. Saying or writing nothing to the kind of garbage spouted out by the reader above reflects so very poorly on you and your legacy. To work for peace can and often does involve fighting, and I mean fighting with words of truth. Not physical violence.
You don’t want to take sides or say who’s right and who’s wrong. Ok. Not taking a side sometimes ends up in actually taking a side.
The wrong side of history.
Thanks for engaging and exposing your personal case. I understand that your familiy carries both Jewish and Judaic- Semitic and Arab roots. I am an ancient Soul now present, along with others, to aid the termination of the Imperium dominion still afflicting the Earth. I am suffering inside my Soul-Body-Mind the ongoing conflict that deprives the world of true Peace. I was present in ancient times when the domination originated through the new religion of Moses that colonized the Hebraic and Judaic faiths present in Palestine through a God that spoke to him, whereas Adonai and YHWH were distant more mystical deities. A God that used alien artificial frequency to produce wonders and miracles to impress and scare. Palestine is Holy Land because it has a privileged connection to the Source of Creation. It is meant to be a place of Peace and Coexistence for all. Moses and his "elected" tribe conquered it in oder to make Souls captive and disconnected from Source. The "vaccine" described in Exodus was a potion to gain control over the tribes he needed to convert. Those many that did not bow to his God were slaughtered! That was the first Holocaust against Semites. Sorry that you are upset, but I am sure that the upcoming revelations will help Souls to awaken and heal, emancipating them from the mental slavery of the Matrix that triggers "dissonance" and repulsion to the truth of the Soul. There can be no World Peace without true Peace in Palestine. Israel is the last episode of that conquest that needs to end so that the Jews under spell and curse can at last heal and be at peace.
No, the status quo can't hold anymore. Either the Zionist Nazis of Israel will complete their genocide or Israel will fall, the Palestinians have had enough of their multi-generational concentration camp.
While I am on the peace side, I can't shake a certain unease as the discourse around peace deepens.
It appears to me that there are potentially five perspectives: those in favor of Hamas, those supporting Israel, those justifying war (on either side), advocates for peace, and individuals who remain neutral.
As a commentator in this space, I find myself somewhat compelled to align with the fifth perspective.
However, I can't help but question the impact of our words and protests. Can we genuinely believe that our expressions will bring about change? How can we discern what is right or wrong without access to the universe's long-term master plan? Throughout history, what appeared dreadful to our sensitive and sometimes manipulated hearts often turned out to be a mere ripple in an infinite ocean, or at times, a necessity for a better overall outcome. By fixating on these issues, we may also unintentionally magnify them, as our despair at being unable to act fuels a conflict of opinions.
There might be a sixth option, one that I would consider the stance of a truly wise individual—not me, as I express these thoughts. It's not a position, but a personal attitude: to remain silent and genuinely disengage from it all.
"Disengage" reminds me of the "vairagya" of Advaita Vedanta, the understanding that the phenomenal, dualistic world is illusory. So one detaches from it, seeing that it is false, focusing on the Real, the Eternal.
Yes, it is escapism: escaping from what is false to what is true.
Interesting..this is similar to what jihadists believe. They believe that the spiritual realm of the eternal is what is truly real, and so they justify martyrdom, aka terrorist acts like suicide bombings or using their own brethren as human shields as a way to arrive at paradise sooner.
Of course, the deeper teachings from Advaita Vedanta stress that the material world of form IS real, and that it is definitely an aspect of reality, albeit a smaller, denser, lower aspect of the grander reality. Illusion doesn’t mean ‘not real.’ It means it’s not the full presentation of what’s going on. Hence, illusory.
What’s going on right now is definitely real.
🧡
As I was reading your post, Emmanuel, I was taking the sixth "side," with faith that any "us-versus-them" squabble is really quite petty, when it is distracting attention from collaborating to solve real issues: the dominance paradigm, depletion of resources, destruction of nature's resilience through extinctions and ecological disruptions ... oh, yeah, and mindless human conflict.
Distraction, perhaps; possibly more of what we perceive as "real issues" might serve as diversions. Tradition says our primary focus should be internal growth, viewing external events as opportunities for it. The less we grasp this concept, the harder we shall be challenged. The goal isn't merely world peace, but our personal evolution, that may then help the world evolution, unfolding on a schedule beyond our control.
Yes! The work we all have is on ourselves - so beautifully discussed here:
https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/health-freedom-for-humanity-podcast/id1544492743?i=1000631191719
Thank you for this reflection.
Thank you for helping me remember the knowing of how vast the cosmos is and how much I do not know. Hindsight is 20/20, and as much as I want the violence to stop, my passion for that outcome upsets my inner peace, and most anyone engaging in conversations about peace in this topic receive both praise and hate in return - neither is peace.
The cosmos is vast and wise. There is so much my small identity does not and cannot know or understand.
Namaste 🙏🏼
It’s up to you of course but your silence will be taken for
Compliance. There are two sides: humanity in its last stand, and the predatory forces now revealing their hand.
Good point. But who could take this as compliance if i do not actually hold any authority to discuss the affairs of the world?
I don’t put calling out the bombing of children in hospitals in the same category as “discussing the affairs of the world.”
I watched the zoom the other night, called to address the distress of RFK Jr's supporters at his failure to call for a ceasefire. I had hopes that something of substance would come of the discussion. One pair of questions received attention: What is up with Bobby's support for Ackman's call to curtail free speech on campus, and Bobby's long silence on the extermination--which is very close to completed--in Gaza.
We can want peace and well-being for all "sides," and we must. I have been to prayer vigils in St. Louis where people with kin and acquaintances in Israel and Palestine joined together in communal grief--and hope against hope for the survivors. Everyone had in their hearts and on their lips an unambiguous prayer for a cessation of the assault--for the good of everyone.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have Netanyahu, who--on Fox News--proclaimed that the bombing in Gaza was for the protection of Israel--and EVEN for GAZA! For the good of everyone, he claimed. It was the most obscene distortion of altruism I've ever witnessed.
The first step must be the cessation of violence, on all "sides."
If this doesn't happen soon, the blowback to Israel will bring even more horror.
Following the zoom, I was even more aggrieved than before it. I felt that I had just sat through an vague spiritual bypass that seemed to claim to rise above all judgement, asking us to "hold space"...for what, exactly, I don't know.
This isn't a time for platitudes. We must pressure the Biden administration to stop fueling the antagonism of the entire Middle East, before no one is left to talk about taking sides.
Please listen to Dennis Kucinich in this interview by Mike Adams. It is one of the most humane conversations I've ever heard. We must not be afraid to speak in the way that Dennis does here, and always has.
https://www.brighteon.com/aa94f5c7-b472-42db-afc2-cf9c2f0c0301
Well said! What all this is revealing, among many many things, is the corruption of the “peace movement.”
Thank you so much Suzanne. My feelings exactly and why I am no longer organizing with the campaign.
Satya, this does feel like a loss, doesn't it? And yet, we have a new opportunity, I suppose, to find our own strength within the deeper movement which is building. It will inevitably be birthed in pain. And I believe it will welcome in all who remain open to reconciliation--including those with whom we may now disagree. May we find a way to see the stranger as our own, from human to microbial life, all of which belongs.