Israel Reflections 2015–Day Two (Last One!): Gershon Baskin and IPCRI

gershonbaskin2130_800Late in the evening on Sunday, March 8, we met with Gershon Baskin and Riman Barakat.

This was our last (official) meeting of a long day involving talks about peace and conflict resolution, and it way it was, as student Kelsey Mader called it, “the perfect way to end.” The rest of Kelsey’s recap follows:

We met Gershon and Riman at The Israel Palestine Center for Research and Information (IPCRI), an organization in Jerusalem that focuses on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with a focus on peace and coexistence.  IPCRI supports a two-state solution in which both the Israeli and Palestinian people would have a nation and place to call home.  Gershon and Riman were both on the founding team of this organization and are still working unwaveringly toward their goal of peace.  You can visit IPCRI’s website for more information: http://ipcri.org/httpdocs/IPCRI/Who_We_Are.html.

Gershon Baskin has been involved in many negotiations on behalf of Israel – very notably, Gershon negotiated on behalf of Israel for the release of Gilad Shalit from Hamas’s control in the Gaza strip.  Gershon had many pieces of insightful information to share with us regarding his experiences and his opinions about how Israel and Palestine should move forward, but what stood out to me most was the list of eight things he shared as vital elements to a peace resolution.  Those eight elements were: (1) Palestinian statehood; (2) borders; (3) Jerusalem; (4) refugees; (5) physical link between Gaza and the West Bank; (6) economics; (7) national resources; and (8) security arrangements.  This was the first time I remember someone so clearly articulating their thoughts about a peace resolution.  It hit me how complex and emotional this issue is – eight large, heavy, sensitive elements that must be a part to a successful agreement.  It struck me how idyllic peace seems – are we crazy to strive for it when there is so much that seems to stand in the way?  Or are we crazy not to?

Cross-posted at http://www.indisputably.org.

 

Continue ReadingIsrael Reflections 2015–Day Two (Last One!): Gershon Baskin and IPCRI

Peace Be With You … And With You?

Exclamation_markUnder the heading of hard bargaining tactics gone bad (and bad lawyer advice), we can now add this story.  When a group of eight faculty members at the General Theological Seminary in Manhattan decided to stop working in order to protest their newly hired dean and president, Rev. Kurt H. Dunkle, all purgatory broke loose. Under advice of their counsel, the faculty wrote a rather strongly worded letter outlining their demands regarding the dean.  (See the nasty details of the dean’s behavior here.)

Unimpressed with the tone of the letter, the Board of Trustees for the Seminary considered the letter, instead of the opening bid that the faculty intended, as a mass resignation.  They dismissed the eight faculty members (leaving the students at the Seminary with only two instructors.) In this case, the eight faculty members’ hard bargaining tactic to have their foul-mouthed, micromanaging (in their descriptions) dean dismissed ended up focusing attention on their perceived “bad” behavior rather than that of their dean.

Continue ReadingPeace Be With You … And With You?

Prisoner’s Dilemma Game Show

In class last month, we rebooted the idea of the prisoner’s dilemma as previously portrayed on The Bachelor Pad (discussed on the Freakonomics Blog and four years ago on this site). This time, the conversation revolved around a British game show called Golden Balls that was very popular several years ago. I can only assume that you’ve already discounted Golden Balls’ educational value based on its name alone but bear with me . . .

The typical scenario plays out like this: two parties sitting across from one another with one crucial decision that decides how a lump sum of money will be divided. That decision revolves around the four golden balls that sit on the table. Each part can anonymously choose their split ball or their steal ball. If they both steal, they walk away with nothing. If they both split, they split the money. However, if one contestant chooses to split and the other chooses to steal, the thief will walk away with all of the money.

The typical situation ends something like this. But one contestant shows us a unique way to handle the prisoner’s dilemma in this video. Most importantly for class, some good commentary on the second situation can be found here. The class really enjoyed learning the real story behind the winning strategy.  Enjoy the show!

Cross-posted at the ADR Prof Blog.

Continue ReadingPrisoner’s Dilemma Game Show