< contents

30th October 2016

Not taking sides

I am currently taking an active interest in the state of things in Israel. As I read and hear people stories of the history of modern Israel and Palestine it is easy to have a sense of injustice and to take sides about who is “right” and “wrong”. It is also a good opportunity to practice what works, in my experience, which is not to take sides. In effect, to be on everyone’s side.

I hit upon this approach more or less by accident some years before I became involved in personal development work. My wife and I were good friends of a couple who suddenly split up acrimoniously. We stayed true to husband and wife without making any judgements. As a result they were both able to trust us and we were able to help them to make the best of sorting things out.

I will discuss here disputes between two people, but the principles can be extended to disputes between three or more individuals or groups of individuals.

As I see it, there are only two viable outcomes to a dispute. Either one person, at least, dies or a solution is found that is satisfactory to both people. Any other outcome will leave one or both people dissatisfied. Generally this leads to resentment and anger. This in turn can lead to the dispute being opened up again, the status quo being undermined or aggression from one or both parties.

So if solutions need to be found that are satisfactory to both people anyone supporting them needs to support both sides to work towards those solutions.

I find that when there is conflict between people, neither is listening to the other. Each wants the other to hear and to be different. This means that either side can stop the conflict without requiring anything of the other side. All they have to do is listen and accept that the other side is how they are and wants what they want. They may then have a problem of how to relate to the other, given how they are and what they want. But that is a problem that they are in a position to solve.

This lies behind a classic approach to resolving conflicts when both people are together and willing to engage with the process. The process involves starting with one person making a statement about the problem as they see it. Then the other person says what they understood the first person to have said. The first person says if they think they have been understood and if not they explain what they think was not understood. The second person again says what they now understand and the process is repeated until the first person feels that the second person has understood properly. Then they swap over and the second person says how the problem seems to them, which will probably be influenced by what the first person has said, and making sure that the first person has understood them. The process continues, each person taking it in turn. The process develops into an exercise in trying to find solutions that will satisfy both people.

Sometimes I am trying to help one person and I may not even know the other. The person I am helping will probably tell me various things about the other person. What they say may make sense or I may try to test their reality – “what is your evidence for believing this?” It is not particularly important to me whether what they say is true but it may be important for them. Once we have some coherent picture, I may encourage this person to explore how they feel about this. It can often be that these feelings are getting in the way and do not really belong to the situation. There my be work to be done to help the person get free of these feelings. Finally the question is “OK this is how the other person is, how do you want to relate to them?”

If I am trying to help both people, whether together or separately, I am on both their sides. I will have a bit more information which will guide me to test each of their realities – without revealing what I know. In the end my question to both of them is the same “Given how the other person is, how do you want to relate to them?”

These approaches all incorporate empowerment. Helping someone to be aware of more ways in which they can relate to others. Helping them to develop abilities, e.g. assertiveness, or knowledge, e.g. of the law, so that they can make better use of more of the possibilities for relating to others. And finally helping them to choose for themselves what to do.

As I listen to Palestinian people and to Israeli people I make no judgements about what they say to me. I try to understand their reality, and through doing so maybe help them to better understand that reality. I value their qualities. I am genuinely impressed by the resilience and resourcefulness of people who make a living in situations where corruption is the norm and the rule of law changes from day to day and depends on who you know or how much money you have. And I try when it seems appropriate to encourage everyone to be more in their own power, to be able to respond to things more flexibly, more awarely and more in their own interests.

Acting in our own, genuine, empowered self interests results, in my experience, in relating well to others and working towards a world in which we all relate well to each other.