Blame @ MindSay 
memories
“Mr- President -
The problem isn’t settlements, it’s Arab rejection. We all support peace in the Middle East. But pressuring Israel is not the right approach. The obstacle to peace is not Israel. The settlements are not the impediment. The issue is simple: the Arab and Palestinian rejection of Israel’s right to exist, including through violence and terrorism, for over 60 years. Israel’s right to exist is undeniable and is based on its right to self-determination in its historic homeland. The path to peace is clear. With recognition, Israel has said again and again that everything is on the table without preconditions. Mr. President, it’s time to stop pressuring our vital friend and ally. It’s now time to direct your attention to the rejectionists who refuse to recognize Israel and negotiate an end to the conflict. With your leadership, yes, we can have peace. But the path begins with the recognition of Israel.”
You can see the ad and the formatting here
I really wish this organization would stop espousing it's over-simplified statements on behalf of Israel, because I truly believe they are ultimately to its detriment, and to the detriment of the entire peace process.There are many things I find irritating, and, beyond that, disturbing about this ad. For one thing, it’s this stolid, bull-headed view that the problem is one thing and not the other, that “the issue is simple”: but the issue is ANYTHING but simple! Is it at all possible that both the illegal, aggressive settlements and Arab rejection of the legitimacy of the state of Israel might both be parts of a much larger and much more complex problem, one that, in its complex enormity, has been brewing for many generations, into which people have been born and died, because of which directly people have been born and died?
It’s reflective of a general tendency of the extreme wings on both sides of this conflict to paint it simple, to pretend that it’s an issue of black and white, good guy and bad guy, evil side versus saintly side, when the actual case is, both sides have “good guys” and “bad guys”, and those “good guys” and “bad guys” do not emerge from a vacuum: they emerge from reactions to complex cultures of crisis. As part of this absolutist tendency, there is this cry to absolve Israel of all blame, as if in its entire history, especially its recent history, it has never had a single action that was in any way impeding the process of peace in the Middle East. That statement itself is impeding the process! It only fuels absolutist groupthink on both sides that has so far absolutely failed to solve anything (for proof, see the current state of the Middle East).
There is also this voice involved that exemplifies its own narrative as the only narrative of the situation, in complete denial of the other narratives of the same situation that exist in tandem to it, which themselves are essential to approach and consider if there is going to be any peace at all. The assumed simplicity of all Arab peoples accepting a narrative of the events in Israel’s history foreign to their own--and that all Arab people have one narrative, at that--is not only arrogant: it’s unrealistic. The acceptance of the validity of the state of Israel is more than just a symbolic action, as this ad seems to assume: it’s the acceptance of a point of view of the situation which denies the dispossession and the suffering that people have accumulated in their national memory. It is a complex and difficult struggle, one which I myself have fought with, to announce the legitimacy of the state (and to therefore imply that one condones the actions that occurred in order to establish/maintain/expand that state.) I do believe that, at this point, because there are Israelis who have been born multiple generations in Israel, that at this point the state has a right to exist (noting of course that this is not a simple thing for me, and that it is something which I struggle with daily, and that I do not feel comfortable with condoning the aformentioned things that went into the state and that continue to occur in the state. However, I am not a dispossessed Palestinian. It is much easier for me to come to that conclusion. Especially considering Israel’s past refusal to even consider the Palestinian people a people at all, let alone giving them the right to their own lands (a very, very recent development, one which even to this day has not fully come to fruition), how could it be considered so simple for them to do the same for Israel?
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this ad is its condoning and alleviation from all blame of the Israeli settlements. The settlements are, in my own opinion and in the opinion of many others, a very pointed and continued obstacle to the path of peace in the region. Spurned by the biblical imagining of the land of Israel as including the West Bank and Gaza and the right of the Jewish people to that land, these settlements are aggressively moving into areas outside of the “Green Line” into areas in the West Bank (mostly ceased in Gaza since תוכנית ההתנתקות, the Unilateral Disengagement Plan in August, 2005), much of which is occurring on lands privately owned by Palestinian citizens, and all of which occurs with the intention to “claim” all of Biblically imagined land of Israel for the Jews, devoid of Palestinians. The development of the settlements were unfortunately at various points encouraged and even developed by the Israeli government (therefore making even that issue complex, as there have been people who settled in that land without religious motive, albeit those are not the people who move out to the settlements today),but at this point many of them occur illegally (again, unfortunately, with support from the current right-wing Prime Minister, Netanyahu), but are actively dismantled by the Israeli Army and police---however, to this end, many of the settlers have taken on an anti-government attitude, saying that they will just keep re-building and re-building. If that is not a “problem” in terms of Israel and Palestine developing peaceful relations, I honestly do not know what is. Terrorist activities, suicide bombings and violence against citizens are absolutely awful and cannot be condoned, but neither can actively colonialist, disenfranchising structures and complexes, white phosphorus bombs and aerial fire-strikes on civilian homes and disproportionate military force, or blockades on basic goods. Extremism on both sides must be accounted for and called to end.
This ad is misleading and over-simplistic at best. Of course, to this argument, I have heard the counter-point "But look at what other people say about Israel!", and honestly, I absolutely do not buy that. I for one am sick of the "they did this so we can therefore do that" game. It is obvious to me that the pattern of that attitude will only form the shape of a snake biting its own tail, granting eternal life to and obliterating all hope for an end to a conflict that is creating hostility, unsafe environments, death and destruction for millions of people. The history of this conflict is long and complex, with shades of gray all over the damn place. If anyone truly wants peace, on either side of the conflict, there needs to be a removal of the albeit attractive, appealing goggles of black-and-white visions of righteous anger and the absolutely good nation and the absolutely bad nation, and there needs to be a move to start seeing the conflict for what it is: complex, with good things and bad things being done from both sides. There needs to be an acceptance (which, of course, I realize is a difficult one, and one which will take time and effort to reach) of the multiple narratives involved in the situation. Only once we switch our focus from Us vs. Them to Us and Them (if we can't get it down to just "All of Us") can peace even begin to grow.
How do narcissists react to criticism?
Answer:
The narcissist is forever trapped in the unresolved conflicts of his childhood. This compels him to seek resolution by re-enacting these conflicts with significant others. But he is likely to do either of two:
- To "re-charge" the conflict "battery", or
- Re-enact the conflict with another.
The narcissist relates to his human environment through his unresolved conflicts. It is the energy of the tension thus created that sustains him.
The narcissist is a person driven by parlously imminent eruptions, by the unsettling prospect of losing his precarious balance. Being a narcissist is a tightrope act. The narcissist must remain alert and on-edge. Only in a constant state of active conflict does he attain the requisite levels of mental arousal.
This periodical interaction with the objects of his conflicts sustains the inner turmoil, keeps the narcissist on his toes, infuses him with the intoxicating feeling that he is alive.
The narcissist perceives every disagreement – let alone criticism – as nothing short of a threat.
He reacts defensively. He becomes indignant, aggressive and cold. He detaches emotionally for fear of yet another (narcissistic) injury. He devalues the person who made the disparaging remark.
By holding the critic in contempt, by diminishing the stature of the discordant conversant (the person who exposed or criticized him) – the narcissist minimises the impact of the disagreement or criticism on himself. This is a defence mechanism known as cognitive dissonance.
When confronting adversity fails, some narcissists resort to denial, which they apply to their "extensions" (family, business, workplace, friends) as well. (i.e. - "I didn't do it" or "it never happened" or "it didn't happen they way they said" etc...)
Take, for example, the narcissist’s family. "Not to wash the family's dirty linen in public" is a common exhortation. Same for their friends.
Criticising, disagreeing, or exposing these fiction and lies, penetrating the facade, are considered to be mortal sins. The sinner is immediately subjected to severe and constant emotional harassment, guilt and blame, and to abuse, including physical abuse.
Behaviour modification techniques are liberally used by the narcissist to ensure that the skeletons do stay in the cupboards.
Note - Narcissistic Rage:
Narcissistic rage is not a reaction to stress - it is a reaction to a perceived slight, insult, criticism, or disagreement.They try to sabotage and damage the work, reputation and or possessions of people whom they regard to be the sources of their mounting frustration.
#######################
(more excerpts from another site:)
A victim is often the target of angry outbursts, sarcasm, or cool indifference. The abuser's reaction to these actions is frequently cloaked in a "What's wrong with you?" attitude. She is accused of "making a mountain out of a molehill." Over time she loses her balance and equilibrium and begins to wonder if she is the one who is crazy.
Verbal abuse may be overt (through angry outbursts and name- calling) or covert (involving very subtle comments, even something that approaches brainwashing). Overt verbal abuse is usually blaming and accusatory, and consequently confusing to the partner. Covert verbal abuse, which is hidden aggression, is even more confusing to the partner. Its aim is to control her without her knowing.
Verbal abuse is manipulative and controlling. Even disparaging comments may be voiced in an extremely sincere and concerned way. But the goal is to control and manipulate.
Verbal abuse is insidious. The partner's self-esteem gradually diminishes, usually without her realizing it. She may consciously or unconsciously try to change her behavior so as not to upset the abuser.
Verbal abuse is not a side issue. It is the issue in the relationship. When a couple is having an argument about a real issue, the issue can be resolved. In a verbally abusive relationship, there is no specific conflict. The issue is , the abuse and this issue is not resolved. There is no closure.
Verbal abuse expresses a double message. There is incongruence between the way the abuser speaks and his real feelings. For example, he may sound very sincere and honest while he is telling his partner what is wrong with her.
Verbal abuse usually escalates, increasing in intensity, frequency, and variety. The verbal abuse may begin with put-downs disguised as jokes. Later other forms might surface.
This is the dominant response of the verbal abuser who sees others, including his partner as an adversary. He is constantly countering and correcting everything she says and does. Internally he may even be thinking, "How dare she have a different view!"
Countering is very destructive to a relationship because it prevents the partner from knowing what her mate thinks about anything. Sometimes the verbal abuser will cut off discussion in mid-sentence before she can finish her thought. In many ways, he cannot even allow her to have her own thoughts.
A third category of verbal abuse is discounting. This is like taking a one hundred-dollar item and reducing its price to one cent. Discounting denies the reality and experience of the partner and is extremely destructive. It can be a most insidious form of verbal abuse because it denies and distorts the partner's actual perception of the abuse.
Verbal abuse disguised as jokes. Although his comments may masquerade as humor, they cut the partner to the quick. The verbal jabs may be delivered crassly or with great skill, but they all have the same effect of diminishing the partner and throwing her off balance.
Blocking and diverting. The verbal abuser refuses to communicate, establishes what can be discussed, or withholds information. He can prevent any possibility of resolving conflicts by blocking and diverting.
Accusing and blaming is another form. A verbal abuser will accuse his partner of some wrongdoing or some breach of the basic agreement of the relationship. This has the effect of diverting the conversation and putting the other partner on the defensive.
Judging and criticizing. The verbal abuser may judge his partner, and then express his judgment in a critical way. If she objects, he may tell her that he is just pointing something out to be helpful, but in reality he is expressing his lack of acceptance of her.
Denial is the last category of verbal abuse. Although all forms of verbal abuse have serious consequences, denial can be very insidious because it denies the reality of the partner. In fact, a verbal abuser could read over this list of categories and insist that he is not abusive.
The Bible clearly warns us about the dangers of an angry man. Proverbs 22:24 says, "Do not associate with a man given to anger; or go with a hot-tempered man." And Proverbs 29:22 says, "An angry man stirs up strife, and a hot-tempered man abounds in transgression."
It is not God's will for you (or your friends) to be in a verbally abusive relationship. Those angry and critical words will destroy your confidence and self-esteem.
Being submissive in a marriage relationship (Ephesians 5:22) does not mean allowing yourself to be verbally beaten by your partner. 1 Peter 3:1 does teach that wives, by being submissive to their husbands, may win them to Christ by their behavior. But it does not teach that they must allow themselves to be verbally or physically abused.
Has your abuser done any of these to you? Deny? Blame you? Twist the facts?
Tell TheExposer about it!
exposer@37.com
x-posted to THE EXPOSER
we mourn the loss, taken too soon.
Four legs of Love,
four paws of Play,
Beloved Jake was taken today.
She blames herself, as accidents do...
Hail Dianna! I ask of you!
Bring him home, into thy arms
to hunt
to play
and shine among the stars.
Console the tortured who were left behind, take away the blame
help her find..the way from shame
Rest Easy Jake,
and Julie too
It does happen sometimes, in society, and I was annoyed with one of the so called "natural laws" I read about in a spiritualist book, this one called the "law of attraction"
Basically it means if you think positive things, you'll attract positive events to happen to you, and if you have negative thoughts, you'll attract more bad stuff to happen.
That can happen in a dark world where people judge others on how they appear to be, and lack sympathy.
It puts 100% responsibility/blame of all good + bad stuff onto the person - which is highly dangerous - i.e. someone has a successful life? - that must be because they were positive... get raped or disfigured? - well according to this law y'must've been too negative, it completely overlooks the choice the bad person made to hurt somebody, and blames the victim.
That's downright unfair - it means if someone's life gets knocked back somehow, it could sprial downwards from there - they'll be given even less and less even though they may need and deserve more. Their life might be sad even though they didn't do anything bad.
I also think it was wrong that Jesus gets used as a scapegoat for humanity's sins in front of God. Jesus was actually the victim - and sure he gets celebrated now but it's a little too late to help him - it's happened, and we wash our hands of our crime by saying he's gone to heaven. Also the main reason for celebrating him is that he took our burden for us - so it's for our own selfish gain - he should never have had to do that, God was wrong in allowing it, or at least mankind is committing an even bigger sin by letting it happen... and I don't seriously think God would parden us because we passed the buck.
We have to take rightful responsability for our own sin not only to un-burden Jesus but also so we can repent and learn our lesson from it - that's the only way it'll ever go, and our sinning will stop, and Jesus will get the freedom he more than deserves :).
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]
