Would you like to inspect the original subtitles? These are the user uploaded subtitles that are being translated:
1
00:00:05,100 --> 00:00:10,559
what are the four questions that lead to peaceful relationships? It may be
2
00:00:10,559 --> 00:00:15,809
important to begin with how the need for those questions arose we had been
3
00:00:15,809 --> 00:00:20,100
working with the community dialogue executive and participants in community
4
00:00:20,100 --> 00:00:25,470
dialogue for about three or four years at that point and they expressed to us a
5
00:00:25,470 --> 00:00:29,339
frustration that as they dealt with the questions of what do you want why do you
6
00:00:29,339 --> 00:00:33,690
want it and what can you live with given that other disagree they felt like they
7
00:00:33,690 --> 00:00:37,770
were just going around in a circle that they'd begin a discussion and then they
8
00:00:37,770 --> 00:00:40,920
changed it to something else and then they change it to something else and
9
00:00:40,920 --> 00:00:43,920
then they change it to something else and then they would go have another
10
00:00:43,920 --> 00:00:48,270
discussion and the same kind of revolving topics would begin without
11
00:00:48,270 --> 00:00:52,800
much progress so they felt like there was a need to how do you give some
12
00:00:52,800 --> 00:00:58,469
direction but keep dialogue open and we at that point began to deal with so what
13
00:00:58,469 --> 00:01:03,090
kind of questions could you ask or discuss that would give some direction
14
00:01:03,090 --> 00:01:07,650
to kind of creating the kind of relationships you wanted to have and
15
00:01:07,650 --> 00:01:12,509
from that we identified four themes that had to do with the vision of the future
16
00:01:12,509 --> 00:01:17,330
that you had the importance of trust or building trust and what are trustworthy
17
00:01:17,330 --> 00:01:22,409
relationships how do you deal with the loss that any agreement is going to
18
00:01:22,409 --> 00:01:26,850
impose or any arrangement of living together is going to impose on people
19
00:01:26,850 --> 00:01:31,590
and then the buzz-saw question of how do you deal with those need to be just and
20
00:01:31,590 --> 00:01:37,350
fair and so we began to look at those kinds of questions and tried to
21
00:01:37,350 --> 00:01:43,320
formulate them in a way that would be a set or framework which would be the
22
00:01:43,320 --> 00:01:47,909
themes around which peaceful relationships could be built the first
23
00:01:47,909 --> 00:01:52,259
and more important one is obviously the question of a shared future we sometimes
24
00:01:52,259 --> 00:01:57,000
even call it the peace question and in a vision a vision of a shared future you
25
00:01:57,000 --> 00:02:02,670
have to be articulating a future with the other side when they hear it the in
26
00:02:02,670 --> 00:02:07,170
light of your goals and dreams and aspirations feel that if that future
27
00:02:07,170 --> 00:02:11,640
came about I could live with it it might not be what I want and it would
28
00:02:11,640 --> 00:02:15,060
certainly not be everything that I wanted but if it came about it's
29
00:02:15,060 --> 00:02:19,110
something I could tolerate I could bear I could live with I wouldn't use
30
00:02:19,110 --> 00:02:24,150
violence to overturn it and vice versa am I going to hear from your future
31
00:02:24,150 --> 00:02:28,769
that if that I have a place in that I could live with and then let and that
32
00:02:28,769 --> 00:02:33,689
creates a domain of mutually bearable futures which the parties can then begin
33
00:02:33,689 --> 00:02:38,790
to share we call that a vision of a shared future and I want to contrast it
34
00:02:38,790 --> 00:02:43,290
with a shared vision of the future if you were to begin with a shared using
35
00:02:43,290 --> 00:02:47,310
you're beginning with agreement that we agree about what the future could be and
36
00:02:47,310 --> 00:02:52,049
that ultimately is the goal and the outcome of a political process but the
37
00:02:52,049 --> 00:02:56,879
beginning and foundation of that is not agreement its disagreement and how do we
38
00:02:56,879 --> 00:03:01,290
live with that disagreement and I'm articulating a future that my
39
00:03:01,290 --> 00:03:05,310
opponent my other side could live with they have a place in it that they could
40
00:03:05,310 --> 00:03:10,790
thrive and I'm articulating that in such a way that we can engage one another
41
00:03:10,790 --> 00:03:16,530
that's the beginning point for that kind of dialogue in relationship let me say
42
00:03:16,530 --> 00:03:20,010
two things about that one is that it sets up a domain in which
43
00:03:20,010 --> 00:03:25,370
you can do politics and secondly it sets up a domain in which trust can develop
44
00:03:25,370 --> 00:03:30,150
oftentimes people tell us I need trust in order to develop a vision of the
45
00:03:30,150 --> 00:03:34,379
shared future but it's actually the opposite I need a vision of a shared
46
00:03:34,379 --> 00:03:38,280
future in order to have trust in someone because I know they're
47
00:03:38,280 --> 00:03:43,620
articulating the future that I have a place in it is interesting in that
48
00:03:43,620 --> 00:03:46,319
regard to look at the work of Nelson Mandela
49
00:03:46,319 --> 00:03:52,199
then in particularly as he went around of South Africa people heard him
50
00:03:52,199 --> 00:03:56,849
articulate time and time again that there is a place for the white South
51
00:03:56,849 --> 00:04:01,829
African in this the Afrikaner in the future that we want to have as south as
52
00:04:01,829 --> 00:04:06,810
now as a post-apartheid South Africa he never missed an opportunity to
53
00:04:06,810 --> 00:04:12,299
welcome and talk about that place and as a result when people would look at and
54
00:04:12,299 --> 00:04:16,260
ask the question what does peace look like in South Africa they point to
55
00:04:16,260 --> 00:04:19,229
Mandela it looks like Mandela and if it looks
56
00:04:19,229 --> 00:04:24,510
like Mandela I can live with it it won't be everything that I want but I can live
57
00:04:24,510 --> 00:04:29,580
with that and find enough place in it in order to exist and thrive as a person as
58
00:04:29,580 --> 00:04:36,090
a community as a family and so I think that's critically important unless you
59
00:04:36,090 --> 00:04:41,070
get that dealt with whatever happens afterwards won't stand it won't sustain
60
00:04:41,070 --> 00:04:45,930
itself because as soon as I find out it is leaning in the direction of a future
61
00:04:45,930 --> 00:04:51,389
that I can't bear with whatever I've agreed to I'll overturn about that the
62
00:04:51,389 --> 00:04:56,190
second question has to do with trustworthiness I mean you have now
63
00:04:56,190 --> 00:05:00,150
saying we're going to do certain things for the past 30 or 40 years you've been
64
00:05:00,150 --> 00:05:05,279
shooting at me so why should I believe you I mean what what has changed that
65
00:05:05,279 --> 00:05:10,740
caused me now with something different has happened and so how do I the word
66
00:05:10,740 --> 00:05:18,570
indeed can I create myself as a trustworthy partner in leading to a
67
00:05:18,570 --> 00:05:24,150
shared future about it there's interesting several pitfalls along the
68
00:05:24,150 --> 00:05:29,159
way one is that many people look in agreement or some kind of arrangement as
69
00:05:29,159 --> 00:05:33,000
a contract you've said you do stuff do it other people look at it as a process
70
00:05:33,000 --> 00:05:38,310
that we've begun that you need to modify along the way and so you get into
71
00:05:38,310 --> 00:05:43,169
conflicts about that as one party says no it's a contract just do it and the
72
00:05:43,169 --> 00:05:47,669
other party says no we're beginning a process of relationship building that we
73
00:05:47,669 --> 00:05:52,949
need to assess and see how we need to change it as relationships go along the
74
00:05:52,949 --> 00:05:59,070
problem arises is when one party views it as a contract and one party sees it as as a
75
00:05:59,070 --> 00:06:03,840
process that happens in Northern Ireland where the Good Friday Agreement was sold
76
00:06:03,840 --> 00:06:09,630
to the unionist loyalist community as the stabilization of politics in
77
00:06:09,630 --> 00:06:14,520
Northern Ireland it was sold to the Republican national community as the
78
00:06:14,520 --> 00:06:20,430
beginning of a social process of political and social transformation as both
79
00:06:20,430 --> 00:06:24,300
sides acted in their understanding of the agreement they seemed that their
80
00:06:24,300 --> 00:06:29,370
actions seemed to violate it from the perspective of the other side a second
81
00:06:29,370 --> 00:06:34,139
one has to do with getting stuck halfway so there is no way to move from a
82
00:06:34,139 --> 00:06:38,029
beginning to an endpoint in one step that you have to take steps along the
83
00:06:38,029 --> 00:06:42,800
way and in the process it's those steps that are going to advantage one side over
84
00:06:42,800 --> 00:06:47,689
another you can think of it as the classic example of I have a gun to your
85
00:06:47,689 --> 00:06:52,159
head you have a gun to my head and we both agree we want to take the guns down
86
00:06:52,159 --> 00:06:56,719
my idea about how to do it is you take your gun down first and then I'll take
87
00:06:56,719 --> 00:07:01,309
my gun down and then you have the opposite thing because we both worry
88
00:07:01,309 --> 00:07:05,300
that once I take my gun down you'll decide that's a good place to pause
89
00:07:05,300 --> 00:07:11,509
until I get more so you have to have the commitment by one another through word
90
00:07:11,509 --> 00:07:16,189
indeed to follow through even if the first even if the step you just took
91
00:07:16,189 --> 00:07:21,619
advantages me over you and then the last one is really an important one that
92
00:07:21,619 --> 00:07:25,699
arises more and more and it has to do with making agreements that mask
93
00:07:25,699 --> 00:07:31,309
disagreements and a classic example of that is a ceasefire so if you
94
00:07:31,309 --> 00:07:36,679
take the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah Israel made it because they
95
00:07:36,679 --> 00:07:42,259
thought it would lead to their advantage over Hezbollah that Hezbollah would become
96
00:07:42,259 --> 00:07:46,099
less powerful Hezbollah did it because they thought they would become more powerful
97
00:07:46,099 --> 00:07:50,839
both those things can't happen simultaneously and so a ceasefire
98
00:07:50,839 --> 00:07:55,550
in many ways is an agreement we make based on a different assessment about
99
00:07:55,550 --> 00:08:00,529
how the future is going to unfold that's the same thing that happens in almost
100
00:08:00,529 --> 00:08:05,749
all agreements that you agree about some things and then suppress differences and
101
00:08:05,749 --> 00:08:10,069
deal with them later but those differences come back and so it's
102
00:08:10,069 --> 00:08:15,499
important to realize that we oftentimes make agreements because we disagree
103
00:08:15,499 --> 00:08:19,789
we're able to make it because we disagree about how things will unfold so
104
00:08:19,789 --> 00:08:24,169
we have to deal with whether they unfold in one direction or another and also
105
00:08:24,169 --> 00:08:28,819
within the framework of a shared agreement about it the third and fourth
106
00:08:28,819 --> 00:08:34,759
question arise from a kind of situation that very few people recognize every
107
00:08:34,759 --> 00:08:39,589
negotiated agreement imposes losses and injustices on the parties from their
108
00:08:39,589 --> 00:08:43,579
agreement otherwise it wouldn't be a negotiated agreement one side would have
109
00:08:43,579 --> 00:08:49,519
won and imposed all the losses on the other side so every side feels that it
110
00:08:49,519 --> 00:08:53,310
must not impose unacceptable losses on me and
111
00:08:53,310 --> 00:08:58,380
it must be fair from my perspective and yet never a negotiated agreement lives
112
00:08:58,380 --> 00:09:02,720
up to that standard because by definition it can't it is in a
113
00:09:02,720 --> 00:09:08,310
compromise in a negotiated agreement the third question has to do with losses so
114
00:09:08,310 --> 00:09:12,810
how can I accept the losses that that agreement is going to impose on me so that
115
00:09:12,810 --> 00:09:19,050
I can make the sessions concessions that it requires now one of the important
116
00:09:19,050 --> 00:09:26,120
things is that that that we talk with particularly in in the
117
00:09:26,120 --> 00:09:32,190
israeli-palestinian conflict in the in the early 2000s when there was the
118
00:09:32,190 --> 00:09:37,170
beginning in the midst of the Second Intifada we got a number of peace plans
119
00:09:37,170 --> 00:09:44,010
one of them was the Geneva Accords and it was 50-60 pages long and it was and
120
00:09:44,010 --> 00:09:50,060
there were seven pages on refugee resettlement about the things and and
121
00:09:50,060 --> 00:09:54,600
people would read it and they would say there are four or five hundred ways I
122
00:09:54,600 --> 00:09:58,829
could read this I know the other side is going to read it where it is most
123
00:09:58,829 --> 00:10:03,180
advantageous for them I'm gonna read it where it's most advantageous for me and we're
124
00:10:03,180 --> 00:10:07,980
gonna wonder where the agreement is so we felt that it was really important to
125
00:10:07,980 --> 00:10:13,470
be specific about the losses that an agreement was going to impose and
126
00:10:13,470 --> 00:10:19,199
particularly the kind of ways in which I would I'm willing to accept those losses
127
00:10:19,199 --> 00:10:24,570
for living together in peace to be very explicit about that that runs counter to
128
00:10:24,570 --> 00:10:28,980
much of the kind of theory of negotiation which talks about the
129
00:10:28,980 --> 00:10:33,329
importance of logrolling where you take losses and wins and roll them together
130
00:10:33,329 --> 00:10:38,399
and you buy the package what we found was that people would accept the
131
00:10:38,399 --> 00:10:43,529
benefits pocket those and then try to negotiate away the
132
00:10:43,529 --> 00:10:50,579
losses and so it would lead to really kind of more disagreement than
133
00:10:50,579 --> 00:10:55,320
agreement about the things but it's important for both sides to recognize
134
00:10:55,320 --> 00:11:01,319
that I'm going to have to accept losses and that's difficult for politicians to
135
00:11:01,319 --> 00:11:04,830
negotiate because they always tell their side we
136
00:11:04,830 --> 00:11:09,150
didn't give up anything we got what we wanted I was strong we didn't do
137
00:11:09,150 --> 00:11:11,400
anything well when the other side hears that
138
00:11:11,400 --> 00:11:15,750
and knows that they did make concessions and it was important they then begin to
139
00:11:15,750 --> 00:11:20,670
distrust the parties so we feel that it's important to find a way to be
140
00:11:20,670 --> 00:11:25,290
explicit about embracing those losses that a working together agreement is
141
00:11:25,290 --> 00:11:30,300
going to impose on us the last question which is really a
142
00:11:30,300 --> 00:11:36,090
buzz-saw which is we all feel that for any agreement or any kind of arrangement
143
00:11:36,090 --> 00:11:42,210
to have any legitimacy it must be minimally just and yet we disagree about
144
00:11:42,210 --> 00:11:49,530
what justice entails and so particularly in conflict in in in we think of
145
00:11:49,530 --> 00:11:53,820
conflict as getting that to which I'm entitled when we're in some kind of
146
00:11:53,820 --> 00:11:58,710
community relationship it means the kind of fair balance of reciprocity this
147
00:11:58,710 --> 00:12:03,390
for that in some kind of balanced way but when we're in conflict we think it
148
00:12:03,390 --> 00:12:09,120
means I am I I am entitled to that you need to give it to me that's what
149
00:12:09,120 --> 00:12:13,110
justice entails and of course what stands in the way are usually the goals
150
00:12:13,110 --> 00:12:18,420
and aspirations of the other side which become the embodiment of of injustice
151
00:12:18,420 --> 00:12:24,030
that presents a real problem because where justice is necessary the pursuit
152
00:12:24,030 --> 00:12:28,860
of justice is a barrier to reaching an agreement and so how do you deal with
153
00:12:28,860 --> 00:12:34,410
that mix of stuff and I think South Africa is an illustration of that there
154
00:12:34,410 --> 00:12:38,790
wasn't any way they were going to make an agreement which which established
155
00:12:38,790 --> 00:12:43,050
justice in South Africa it wasn't possible I mean the economic structures
156
00:12:43,050 --> 00:12:47,640
and arrangements weren't going to allow that I can't imagine what agreement they
157
00:12:47,640 --> 00:12:52,410
would come up with which would produce a just outcome from both sides' arrangement
158
00:12:52,410 --> 00:12:57,690
and so what they did was begin a process where they would lead to greater and
159
00:12:57,690 --> 00:13:03,390
greater justices what we might call rectifying injustices and so they had
160
00:13:03,390 --> 00:13:07,740
now a political process where they actually at one point designated what
161
00:13:07,740 --> 00:13:12,570
were the critical things as their political process would need to address
162
00:13:12,570 --> 00:13:15,970
and what were the things that they could give up they could
163
00:13:15,970 --> 00:13:20,230
negotiate about and I think that's the framework for beginning to deal with
164
00:13:20,230 --> 00:13:25,810
this of how do we work together to alleviate the most egregious
165
00:13:25,810 --> 00:13:30,040
injustices that agreement that any agreement or arrangement's going to
166
00:13:30,040 --> 00:13:36,189
impose on the parties I worked many years at Stanford not one day did I
167
00:13:36,189 --> 00:13:40,660
think it was just I thought it was bearable I thought it was worth it I
168
00:13:40,660 --> 00:13:45,310
thought it was worthwhile I didn't think it was just and yet I managed to live
169
00:13:45,310 --> 00:13:50,829
with it pretty pretty easily about that and so the question really comes down to
170
00:13:50,829 --> 00:13:56,139
that are you better off in peace than you were in conflict and you have to
171
00:13:56,139 --> 00:14:00,970
make the answer to that yes all else that you do you have to make the
172
00:14:00,970 --> 00:14:07,959
answer to that yes much of the breakup of the Oslo process was that when you
173
00:14:07,959 --> 00:14:11,980
asked Israelis and Palestinians were you better off in conflict than you were in
174
00:14:11,980 --> 00:14:17,410
peace the answer was no and because of that it broke down so the critical
175
00:14:17,410 --> 00:14:22,089
importance of working together to make that answer yes is critically
176
00:14:22,089 --> 00:14:24,600
important
177
00:14:29,900 --> 00:14:35,280
Byron I'm wondering and I'm sure many folks in our audience are wondering what
178
00:14:35,280 --> 00:14:40,050
do you do if you don't know what to do oh man that's interesting because that's
179
00:14:40,050 --> 00:14:44,400
the situation we've been in the last couple of years here and so my
180
00:14:44,400 --> 00:14:50,130
colleagues and I as we have looked at how do you try to put together the
181
00:14:50,130 --> 00:14:53,970
political relationships that have been polarized in the United States how do
182
00:14:53,970 --> 00:14:59,640
you fix politics here we have returned back to what we learned in our process
183
00:14:59,640 --> 00:15:03,900
and years of working with Israelis and Palestinians and the folks of Northern
184
00:15:03,900 --> 00:15:08,670
Ireland and being in dialogue with folks from South Africa what did we learn that
185
00:15:08,670 --> 00:15:12,990
would be useful here and of course the importance of the shared future stands
186
00:15:12,990 --> 00:15:18,180
out that that's really actually what makes politics work in everywhere is
187
00:15:18,180 --> 00:15:23,490
that we have some vision that allows us to engage and to lose politically and
188
00:15:23,490 --> 00:15:28,110
yet still get a future that we can bear and when that breaks down so does
189
00:15:28,110 --> 00:15:34,440
politics and so we've begun to ask how do you create that interestingly we
190
00:15:34,440 --> 00:15:39,420
discovered that it's a bit harder than we imagined that we had said to parties
191
00:15:39,420 --> 00:15:44,640
in the places we have been build a future of build a vision of a shared
192
00:15:44,640 --> 00:15:48,690
future and then things will flow from that and without realizing that
193
00:15:48,690 --> 00:15:54,480
sometimes that's a very difficult thing to do or at least how difficult it is we
194
00:15:54,480 --> 00:15:59,370
weren't exactly sure what a vision of a shared future would look like in the
195
00:15:59,370 --> 00:16:04,320
United States particularly between the coasts where they are globalized
196
00:16:04,320 --> 00:16:09,270
they are fluent they're doing well and the heartlands which have been left
197
00:16:09,270 --> 00:16:15,360
behind in that globalization process and so how do we begin to build those
198
00:16:15,360 --> 00:16:20,550
relationships and bound together we had to struggle with that one of the
199
00:16:20,550 --> 00:16:24,780
things we thought was well maybe if we reverse where we've always talked in the
200
00:16:24,780 --> 00:16:29,610
past about how you have a vision of a shared future and it drives the other
201
00:16:29,610 --> 00:16:34,650
questions forward maybe we need to look at the other questions and say what does
202
00:16:34,650 --> 00:16:39,420
it tell us about elements that we need in order to create a vision of a shared
203
00:16:39,420 --> 00:16:41,820
future and as we did that we
204
00:16:41,820 --> 00:16:49,020
came to the importance of three things one are the need to foster dignity two
205
00:16:49,020 --> 00:16:55,680
the need to safeguard livelihoods and three the need to encourage respect and
206
00:16:55,680 --> 00:17:00,450
let me say a little bit about each one of those often times we say we need we
207
00:17:00,450 --> 00:17:06,170
need a just we need justice we need a society but as the philosopher Avishai
208
00:17:06,170 --> 00:17:10,620
Margalit says that maybe that's a little bit beyond what we know and can
209
00:17:10,620 --> 00:17:14,910
do we don't have the resources to to reach that but we do have the resources
210
00:17:14,910 --> 00:17:21,600
to create a society that doesn't humiliate people and so how can we begin
211
00:17:21,600 --> 00:17:27,600
with that question of how do we create a society which doesn't humiliate the
212
00:17:27,600 --> 00:17:33,720
dignity of people and from that we began to feel the need to to foster the
213
00:17:33,720 --> 00:17:38,520
dignity that it becomes the object of projects our goal is to foster
214
00:17:38,520 --> 00:17:43,290
dignity in each person particularly as they go about their lives with their
215
00:17:43,290 --> 00:17:47,910
families as they create things with their work and their life projects how
216
00:17:47,910 --> 00:17:52,200
does that give dignity and to people that they can embrace and live out in
217
00:17:52,200 --> 00:17:57,060
their lives and the importance of that was absolutely critical in building a
218
00:17:57,060 --> 00:18:01,980
shared future the second one about safeguarding livelihoods comes from our
219
00:18:01,980 --> 00:18:08,160
work with policing so oftentimes policing adopts a security framework and
220
00:18:08,160 --> 00:18:13,680
a security framework sees a threat and it defeats the threat so security
221
00:18:13,680 --> 00:18:18,900
becomes the outcome of defeating threats that threaten that security or
222
00:18:18,900 --> 00:18:23,220
well-being safeguarding doesn't change that completely and there's maybe no
223
00:18:23,220 --> 00:18:28,230
bright line between the two but instead it's focused on how do we maintain the
224
00:18:28,230 --> 00:18:33,570
integrity of that which is important to us so rather than focusing on the
225
00:18:33,570 --> 00:18:39,060
feeding threats which we do have to deal with but how do we focus instead on what
226
00:18:39,060 --> 00:18:43,560
does it take to maintain the integrity of those things that are important to us
227
00:18:43,560 --> 00:18:48,330
and particularly how do we maintain the integrity of people whose lives have
228
00:18:48,330 --> 00:18:52,930
been livelihoods and families have been threatened by the changes that globalization
229
00:18:52,930 --> 00:18:59,470
has imposed on our society lastly is the need to encourage respect and of course
230
00:18:59,470 --> 00:19:05,380
it's not entirely clear what respect is but it is honoring we think in many ways
231
00:19:05,380 --> 00:19:11,490
the humanity of everyone and particularly their lived experience so I
232
00:19:11,490 --> 00:19:17,530
may not agree with you about stuff I may differ with you with proposals you offer
233
00:19:17,530 --> 00:19:21,970
the policies you recommend I may disagree with all of that kind of stuff
234
00:19:21,970 --> 00:19:27,520
but I need to respect and understand the integrity of your experiences out of
235
00:19:27,520 --> 00:19:32,530
which those proposals come I don't have to agree with you but I do have to honor
236
00:19:32,530 --> 00:19:36,970
and think of the authenticity of those experiences that have led to that
237
00:19:36,970 --> 00:19:43,240
and we think the beginning of encouraging respect begins exactly with
238
00:19:43,240 --> 00:19:48,100
that insight of what is how do I listen to and honor those experiences that gave
239
00:19:48,100 --> 00:19:53,080
rise to your views about it and that begins the kind of process of
240
00:19:53,080 --> 00:19:58,930
exchange in which we honor each other's humanities even if we disagree about how
241
00:19:58,930 --> 00:20:05,440
to respond out of that humanity Byron thank you so so much
242
00:20:05,440 --> 00:20:09,820
this has been incredibly insightful and I think everybody could use a lot a bit
243
00:20:09,820 --> 00:20:15,090
of this wisdom that you've shared with us today thank you very much
26481
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get subtitles in any language from opensubtitles.com, and translate them here.