Reading Response: Parallels and Paradoxes

I want to first start out by commenting on the preface written by Ara Guzelimain. It mentions that "Edward Said had the gift of conversation." It is a beautiful manner in which conversation is portrayed as a gift. Many say that the dialogue and relationship formed by Daniel Barenboim and Edward Said was a model for individuals and communities from related backgrounds in the future. It is important to note that nothing could have been initiated if not for conversation. Wars dont solve problems, and neither do isolation from one another. Conversation does.  So let's keep the dialogue going and show others how it can be done just like Said and Barenboim have done before us.

Later in the reading, Guzelimain asks about differences between Said and Barenboim. Said responds by mentioning historical narratives. He argues that one problem with the current situation is that negotiations are apolitical. When I read this, I started to feel as if I was going to disagree, but I read on. Said mentions the idea of historical tolerance. We don't need to assume each others history, but just recognize the fact that different historical narratives exist.

I think this is important, because we can never agree on everything, but if we respect and recognize our differences, rather than closing off to anything but our own interests, then there is more platform for peaceful and potentially successful negotiation.

He mentions the importance of intertwined but different histories in discussion. Guzelimain agrees with this point by mentioning that one of the pleasures of the dialogue is to observe the wresting with parallels and paradoxes. It is important that throughout all of this discussion and dialogue and argument, we continue to wrestle with our own ideas and the ideas of others.