Why do Jews make such lousy communicators?


By alansimons
February 13, 2011
Share

FEBRUARY 13, 2011 - The other day while walking my Airedale, a person I've known for all of her life approached me. "Do you know what you are? You're, you're a neo-Zionist, that's what you are. Yes, a NEO-ZIONIST!" I express these words in capitals to show you the extent of my accuser's passion and conviction.

To tell you the truth, I was dumbfounded. I've been called many things in my life - most of which have occurred behind my back, and I might add proudly in many languages. But calling me a neo-Zionist? Good grief!

I don't know about you, but normally I prefer to be called something I can be identified with. A good old-fashion traditional Zionist, circa Ben Gurion, would have been more than sufficient for me.

In this case, my dumbfoundedness, -I rarely show this side of my personality - must have taken her aback. For I absolutely refrained from making a comment, which, to those of you who know me, isn't something I'm accustomed of doing.

However, she stood her ground, waiting for me to respond. "Well, what do you have to say?" she said with a wonderful air of superiority that one sees in many younger people.

I looked straight into her eyes, defiantly, eyeball-to-eyeball. "Well, I have to admit, I have no idea what you're talking about! This neo-Zionist thing? But I sense it's not something that I would be particularly infatuated with."

And with that comment of mine, I realised that I had sealed my fate. My accuser shook her head, shrugged her shoulders and muttered something under her breath that sounded much like, "I bet that's the kind of answer you say to everybody." She then disappeared in the same direction she had come from, with the knowledge that in life's power struggles, leadership and confrontation, she had failed to test my ability to develop an understanding between us. Sadly, I had also failed by allowing our exchange of communication to get out of sync. I had not taken the time to understand her intended direction of conversation. Thus, she was hard pressed to believe in my sincerity.

For her, our spontaneous meeting was to be as near a testing ground she could expect from me. A one-on-one, a dyad. A spontaneous performance of self-disclosure and accomplishment. She had sought to share an alikeness, a kinship and affinity so that our encounter could be built on commonalities and communication, shared experiences, and mutually acknowledged solutions.

WHY DO JEWS MAKE LOUSY COMMUNICATORS?

My accuser's experience in how I responded to her is not vastly different to that experienced between non-Jews and the Jewish diaspora. As Frank Luntz, the US-based political and business pollster has pointed out, "Non-Jews do not want to hear our complaints. They want to know our solutions."

Luntz asks us, "Why do Jews make such lousy communicators? For hundreds of years, we used the great art of language development to entertain as well as educate. It is no coincidence that so many of the great intellectuals, academics, writers and performers come from our ranks."

He adds, "Let us hope that this is a lesson we do not have to relearn again and again. The ability of Jews to understand and connect with people transcends international boundaries. It is in our culture and in our blood. But over the past 20 years, we have developed some very destructive communication habits that have seriously undermined our efforts and the causes we believe in. Our words lose their resonance and our style and tone offend. We assert when we should inform. We reject when we should interject. We push people away when we should pull them in."

I must admit, I rejected my accuser. I pushed her away.

It's been written that communication can be said to be aesthetic in that it transforms seemingly opposite, disparate, and sometimes pointless factors into a coherent, harmonious, and new experience.

None of these items came close to being accomplished between my accuser and I. For, if they had, I'm sure I would have been able to convey to her that I challenge anyone to call me a neo-Zionist. And I would have reminded her that in today's topsy-turvy world of antisemitism, hate and intolerance, the term Zionism has been hijacked by both Israel's militant Jewish settler community and by the Arab-Iranian-British Socialist Workers Party-Israeli Apartheid Week axis.

COMMENTS

jose (not verified)

13 February, 2011 - 06:36

Rate this:

1 point

Maybe you are a neo-Zionist, after all, meaning that the label-lover you met has a very old-fashioned way of thinking about Jews, the one before the creation of the state of Israel.

Today, the "Arab-Iranian-British Socialist Workers Party-Israeli Apartheid Week axis" uses Zionist as an insult. Some people who still believe Zionism was a good thing for Jews (before Israel was created) and now believe it is bad (because of the media bias against Israel) had to invent a new expression to label those who didn't change much but who they don't support anymore. Like they label "post-Zionist" someone who never was one in the first place, they use the word "neo-Zionist" to reflect their own changes of opinion against Zionism and Israel.


Yoni1

13 February, 2011 - 07:55

Rate this:

0 points

" the "Arab-Iranian-British Socialist Workers Party-Israeli Apartheid Week axis" uses Zionist as an insult"

If only. It's gone well beyond the SWP.


jose (not verified)

13 February, 2011 - 08:39

Rate this:

1 point

Anyway, I meant that the use of this label tells a lot more about the one who uses it than on the one it is supposed to describe.


amber

14 February, 2011 - 00:19

Rate this:

1 point

Alan, next time you see this person, you should stride up to her and accuse her of bigotry. Then demand an explanation from her, as she did you.

How's that for communication?


jose (not verified)

14 February, 2011 - 07:56

Rate this:

1 point

In these cases, I recommend only one question: "What do you mean?"


Yoni1

14 February, 2011 - 07:57

Rate this:

2 points

Indeed, Amber.

Unless it was said with admiration? Maybe she fancies Alan?


Macairt

14 February, 2011 - 19:28

Rate this:

0 points

WTF didn't you just ask her what she meant, and why she thought to accuse you of it out of the blue?

But I understand your reaction: she was attacking you. She wanted to do you harm, verbally or otherwise. It wasn't an accusation, it was an objectification. It was objectifying you into something evil, beyond the pale, fit only, if unrepentant, for exclusion or elimination.

The failure is primarily hers, because there is no evidence she wanted to communicate.


Macairt

14 February, 2011 - 19:32

Rate this:

0 points

' I had not taken the time to understand her intended direction of conversation. Thus, she was hard pressed to believe in my sincerity.'

She didn't want it in the first place. You can't just accuse someone ex nihilo, without clarifying what you mean. She didn't wanted a reasoned response, because it wasn't a reasoned assertion. Her aggressive approach didn't really merit a proper discussion, because she clearly wasn't interested in one in the first place, the little b----.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.