Daniel Lubetzky

Darya Shaikh, US Executive Director of the PeaceWorks Foundation, and Erin Pineda, International Communications Coordinator for the OneVoice Movement, just shared with me this draft that they are sending out tomorrow to our tens of thousands of signatories and friends – announcing a compelling new phase for the One Million Voices to End the Conflict Campaign.

THE TIME IS NOW.

Today, December 12, 2007, to mark the start of official negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian negotiation teams, OneVoice is starting the countdown for 365 days of civic action toward a two state solution - one year of holding ourselves – the international community and our elected representatives – accountable.

Last month in Annapolis, Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas agreed “to engage in vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations … [and] make every effort to conclude an agreement before the end of 2008.” And OneVoice was there too in support of the leadership.

OneVoice supports the serious steps that Abbas and Olmert are taking to negotiate a mutually-acceptable two state solution, guaranteeing an independent Palestinian state at peace with Israel.  And we are pledging to put our support behind them as they start this difficult process.

To remind all citizens about their duty to support the process, on December 12, 2007 OneVoice is launching 11 digital screens – 5 in Ramallah and 6 in Tel Aviv – displaying countdown clocks set for a one year: one year to achieve an independent Palestinian state at peace with Israel, one year to end the violence and end the conflict … one year for citizens to take a stand in support of the process.

OneVoice is simultaneously launching countdown clocks online as a representation within the international community that we are holding ourselves, and our leaders who took part in the Annapolis conference, accountable to playing our part in this process.

We all too often speak about the failures of leadership. But we too have a responsibility to do our part.  We are launching a countdown clock to remind ourselves that over the next year – until December 12 , 2008 – we must consider: What are WE willing to do to help end the conflict?

Countdown with us – ways you can be involved:

• Sign the Mandate
• Forward this email to 5 friends
• Embed a countdown to a Two State agreement on your website or blog
• Donate to support OneVoice
• Join us in counting down & taking action on Facebook

The OneVoice Teams

At an event in Washington DC earlier in the week hosted by the Aspen Institute to launch the US-Palestinian Economic and Educational Public-Private Partnership, US Secretary of State Rice highlighted the role the private sector needs to play to help bring an Israeli-Palestinian agreement about.  Here is a question I asked her and her response, as transcribed by the State Department (edited to fill in the "[inaudible]" words):

QUESTION: Secretary Rice, one of the most encouraging things about Annapolis was the Heads of State’ commitment to strike an agreement within a year, which demonstrated brave and courageous leadership. We’re very concerned about trying to not lose that window of opportunity. The red lines from each side are pretty clear.  What is normally not said is that they’re not incompatible with the red lines of the other side. So it’s just about sitting down and just striking an agreement instead of endless Mideast bargaining. What can we in the private sector, business sector and the civil society and the citizens do to make sure that we really do try to accomplish an agreement within that year frame?

SECRETARY RICE: Yes. Well, let me start with what I think the broader community can do. And part of that is supporting leaders who have taken this broad — this bold choice. And I know that there’s a lot of skepticism and so forth. But you know, skepticism doesn’t get you anything but skepticism. That’s what it buys you. (Applause.)

Sometimes you have to, against all odds, be optimistic. And I would say to populations and to citizens and to the international community as a whole, this time let’s try and give a sense of optimism to these leaders who have taken these bold steps.

It is going to require, and I see — I know there are several members of the Diplomatic Corps, but I particularly see the Ambassador of Egypt is here. And Egypt was extremely helpful in the run-up to Annapolis in helping us, as was Jordan and others.

What we need to do is to say to the leaders, if you make difficult choices for peace, you are going to be supported, not criticized. People are not going to nitpick and say, well, you, Ehud Olmert, you gave up a little bit more here than you should have or you, Abu Mazen, you gave up a little bit more here than you should have. If people are willing to make tough choices — everybody is going to have to compromise. Look, there’s a reason that we haven’t had an agreement. And some of it has to do with unrealistic aspirations that at the last moment crashed past efforts to make agreements. That’s going to require at some point people saying, all right, these leaders have made realistic compromises and we’re going to support those realistic compromises.

I do think that the time that President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert spent in their discussions on the so-called political horizon have given them a pretty good sense that there is a place that everybody could land here. And I think that’s why they eventually decided to move to actual negotiations. I will tell you that two months ago, maybe even six months ago, I did not think that they were going to actually launch negotiations. I hoped they would, but I didn’t think that that’s where they were going. I think it’s only because they’ve had these conversations about some of the most difficult issues that they have a feel for where the other side is. But it’s going to take persistence and, again, it’s going to take the — it’s going to take the international community not nay saying everything that they do. (Applause.)

Walter Isaacson, the head of the Aspen Institute, did a phenomenal job at organizing the working group that aims to foster economic development and build some positive facts on the ground in parallel to the Post-Annapolis negotiations process to build momentum for an agreement.

Several OV Board members were present also in this effort, including George Salem, Ziad Asali, Walid Najjab, and friends and supporters like Lester Crown.  The impressive co-chairs for the Aspen Institute’s undertaking – Lester Crown, Sandy Weil, Jean Case and Ziad Asali – met with President Bush that afternoon and got his blessing and support for their efforts.

After the meeting I also approached Rice and told her about OV’s work.  She mentioned she knew about OneVoice and the OneVoice Mandate that was signed by the 620k citizens and was very appreciative and emphasized it was very important work that needs to continue.  

I just caught this kid Patrick Pedraja’s speech at a CNN "Heroes" Award ceremony and he made me shiver and cry.  This kid is A-MA-ZING!!!  He really rose up at such a young age, to educate people not just about the importance of the bone marrow registry but about leadership and the power to make this a better world.  What an inspiring kid!!!

Earlier this week I rode on my first hybrid taxi in NYC and was ecstatic for a few reasons.

• First because this environmental victory for all of us is the work of my friend Jack Hidary, who for years lobbied the NY State and City governments to reverse policies that actually prevented hybrids in the taxi fleets! (go figure!)
• Even once hybrids were approved by the law, there were so many misconceptions and conspiracy theories preventing the taxi drivers from purchasing one, so Jack pulled off a creative guerrilla marketing coup: he hired a bunch of young people to go educate the taxi drivers on the financial benefits of hybrids to them; since time is money and drivers didn’t have time to just sit and chat, Jack handed out wads of $5 bills to his staffers, who’d take short rides on the taxis and strike conversations about the Hybrids…low and behold, it started working

• Now the best part is that drivers are going wild now that they realize the benefits of driving a hybrid over a regular gas guzzler.  On my 10 minute ride one night in NYC, my driver got stopped TWICE by other taxi drivers, who asked him whether the shift to hybrid was worth it.  This was what the conversation was like:

Guzzler: "Hey, are you happy with the hybrid? What do you think? I am thinking about it but need to ask some questions.

Hybrid Driver: "There is nothing to ask"

Guzzler: "Is it worth it?"

H: "There is nothing to ask, I pay $8-10 in gas a shift.  You are paying $40 per shift."

G: "Can I lease your taxi for a shift to check it out?"

H: "There is nothing to check.  There is nothing to wait.  You can buy one of these with the gas you will save in the first year."

For those that can read Spanish, below is an excerpt from an article by Leo Zuckerman, an excellent Mexican columnist (who happens to be married to the smart cousin in the family .

For those that can’t read Spanish, just a quick synopsis: The Iranian regime is not content with suppressing their own people, or blowing up embassies and community centers in Argentina or trying to procure nuclear weapons, or trying to be a spoiler to efforts by the Palestinian and Israeli Heads of State to achieve a peace agreement. 

Now they are also trying to impose their censure on artists exhibiting art in Mexican Museums.  They began bullying an artist and museum threatening to issue fatwas against them if they do not bring down a display.  The art at stake by a Moroccan artist is a homage to French painter Gustave Coubert and is based on photographs of human vaginas covered by a contour that resembles a temple.  The Iranian Ambassador was incensed at this and began threatening everyone he could. 

At issue is not whether you or I like the art at sake – I have never seen it.  But whether a retrograde regime that imposes censure on its own people, persecuting homosexuals and lashing out against women who don’t wear a hijab or banning all sorts of open behavior or jailing people that disagree with their views – should have the gull to seek to impose their views on the citizens of Mexico also!!!

I think there is great validity to the view that artists should exercise their judgment and be sensitive to certain core tenets of religions.  The Danish cartoons that infringed on the Islamic ban of portraying the Great Prophet Muhammad (let alone doing so in an offensive fashion) in my opinion were exceedingly insensitive to a noble religion and it is very regrettable that such bad judgment was displayed by those who organized a "contest" about this. 

But the answer is not to use or threaten violence, and it is also certainly not to censure all forms of expression that may offend precisely because artists some times need to be able to express themselves against the injustice or inhumanity of a status quo condition, government or religion and, while it is very sad when people feel they need to offend others, it is far more harmful to prevent all forms of expression that offend those in power.

Now to add insult to injury the Iranian Ambassador seeks to impose his censure in a peace-loving and modest country thousands of miles away from his.

Excélsior / Juegos de Poder
Aquí no, señor embajador

Leo Zuckermann / Martes 27 de noviembre del 2007

Gracias a una oportuna y completa nota de Juan Pablo Proal en Proceso me enteré de que el embajador de Irán en México está exigiendo el retiro de una exposición artística en Puebla. La historia es la siguiente. En la capital poblana se está exhibiendo la obra El origen del mundo del artista marroquí Fouad Bellamine. En ella hay una serie de fotografías de vaginas humanas cubiertas por un contorno que asemeja una mezquita. De acuerdo al autor, la obra es un homenaje al pintor francés Gustave Coubert que en el siglo XIX mostró una vagina desnuda que fue censurada: “Con ese antecedente, el marroquí intentó también hacer una deferencia estética a la vagina por ser una fuente de vida, explica la curadora”.

El embajador Mohammad Hassan Chadiri Abyahen fue invitado a la inauguración del Festival Internacional de Puebla y visitó la exhibición. En cuanto la vio, se indignó, consideró las obras como “superpornográficas” y exigió que fueran inmediatamente retiradas. El artista le explicó que el símbolo de la mezquita al frente de las vaginas “era meramente espiritual y podría interpretarse como una Iglesia católica o judía”. Pero el iraní se enojó más y le reclamó que no tenía derecho a ofender a ninguna religión. Al parecer, la Secretaría de Cultura de Puebla, con la anuencia del artista, decidió desmontar la exhibición de inmediato, lo cual, por fortuna, no ocurrió. Fue entonces que el embajador iraní mandó una carta que vale la pena citar:

“Mientras el mundo musulmán está lleno de auténticos artistas representantes de su propia cultura, invitar a un maniático, vulgar e ignorante y a pesar de todo llamarlo artista a presentar la cultura y arte del mundo musulmán, resulta muy extraño.

“Usar este tipo de fotografías pornográficas, no tiene nada que ver con la cultura y el arte del mundo islámico, fotografías que pueden representar una parte vulgar de algunos ambientes, muy corruptos de algún país del mundo occidental. Una exposición que no es posible exhibirlo en ningún país islámico.

“El autor debería explicar al Mundo del Islam la razón de su acto ofensivo. Es natural que el mundo islámico no existe tolerancia, acerca de insultar a los asuntos Sagrados, por esto es mejor que no se repita esta situación, y es lógico y humano respetar el credo religioso de otros”.

La misiva, además de mal redactada, amenazó con “boletinar” a Bellamine como “enemigo del Islam”. Y ya se sabe qué significa esto como lo ha atestiguado el escritor Salman Rushdie quien ha tenido que vivir prácticamente en la clandestinidad.

La embajada iraní sigue presionando para que se retire la exhibición. Dice estar dispuesta a una crisis diplomática con México. Sería un grave error que el gobierno de Mario Marín e incluso el federal de Felipe Calderón accedieran a las demandas de Chadiri Abyahen. México es un país occidental donde constitucionalmente está protegido el derecho a la libertad de expresión. Si a los religiosos les disgusta este tipo de exhibiciones, pues que no vayan a verla.

Eso es muy diferente a ordenar la censura como efectivamente sucede en los países islámicos. En este sentido, el embajador iraní es un buen representante de su nación donde se piensa que el Estado, dominado por los ayatolás, debe ser intolerante con los “asuntos Sagrados” y decidir qué sí y qué no puede ver la gente. Pero aquí, señor embajador, las cosas son diferentes. En México los artistas tienen el derecho de exhibir sus obras, aunque sean una basura, lo cual lo decide cada quien de acuerdo a su criterio personal.

Irán es un país fundamentalista que, como este caso demuestra, pretende exportar sus creencias. Qué peligroso que estos religiosos intolerantes estén a punto de tener armas nucleares.

I love the title of this award that was kindly bestowed by Fast Company and the Monitor Group on the PeaceWorks Foundation among "43 Entrepreneurs Who Are Changing the World."  Their description:

The amazing organizations that received the Fast Company/Monitor Group Social Capitalist Awards have found a better way to do good: They’re using the disciplines of the corporate world to tackle daunting social problems. In our fourth exclusive ranking, we used a similarly hard-nosed approach to find the 43 best social entrepreneurs.

What appeals to me about this award in particular is the increasing attention being paid to groups committed to use market tools and techniques to try to make this a better world. I am a committed capitalist, but not a day goes by that I don’t scratch my head troubled by the problems of rampant consumerism, environmental degradation, corporate abuse, and many other externalities that can only be managed by more conscientious consumers and business leaders.

Along the lines of the term "enlightened self-interest" which we coined to highlight the imperative of citizens thinking long-term and holistically when they think about their political interests, a "Social Capitalist" should not be just the 43 awardees, but all who recognize the incredible but blunt power of capitalism, and find ways to channel that power to ensure we are also building a better world along the way.

Here is the profile on the PeaceWorks Foundation by Fast Company/The Monitor Group.

We are very appreciative to them for their recognition and support – which really help energize us.

"The only limits are those of vision."

- James Broughton

It’s funny how you tell yourself you will avoid some of the rites of passage that people go through from living in NYC, thinking you of all people will be impervious to them, and then, before you know it, you realize you have succumbed…

When you first move to NYC, one of the first things you notice is that people walking on the streets don’t look at or greet each other, let alone smile. 

You think to yourself, I will look at people’s eyes, I will say hello, I will make them all smile, I will single-handedly transform NYC into the friendliest of cities. 

And you experiment for the first year or two, even if people think you are crazy – or can tell you are just new.

Then somewhere along the way, it just happens, gradually, till you stop staring into the walker-by’s eyes with a smile.  It’s not that you are rude or mean.  You just go about your business.

You get to NYC thinking you will always have time for everyone, you will always be polite and open doors and be relaxed.  But 15 years later, you are always in a rush, and you sometimes catch yourself in your own bubble.

Then there is NY REAL ESTATE.  Reading the Real Estate Section in the NY Times is a sport in NYC, and everyone talks about it.  Yet you think you will avoid it altogether and won’t be bothered with such obsessions. 

Alas, one day you find yourself reading the Real Estate section, following the market, wondering when it will adjust, becoming an "expert" in square footage, valuations, and all sorts of trends and considerations.  Eventually you are drawn like a magnet to any new piece of input on the real estate.

And then there is the Wall Street Journal, though more than a NY thing, this is more a rite of passage from youth I guess (and regret).  When I was in college, and even during law school, reading the Wall Street Journal was such a bore, while the NYT was so fascinating.  WSJ was numbers.  NYT was people.  WSJ was dry.  NYT was passion. 

I don’t know if it’s that the NYT has gone so down editorially and the WSJ has improved so much, or that as you get older your way of thinking changes, or that the WSJ is more sophisticated or complex, but something about the NYT increasingly bores me, and I find the WSJ far more stimulating…

As ABC pointed out, "After harnessing every mechanism of government within his reach to win this referendum, Chavez had lost."

Building on his increasing monopolization of government powers, Hugo Chavez tried to pass through 69 referendum initiatives that would have cemented his power almost irreversibly, borrowing tactics from Castro and Iran, to use "democracy" as a one-way-tool to create a semblance of "accountability" to help them retain power. 

It is far from clear that Venezuelans will win the war against this despotic authoritarian but charismatic and populist dictator.  But at least this one time democratic principles prevailed.

Most encouraging, the leadership came from mainstream students fed up with divisive extremism…

Here are a couple excerpts:

Chavez Tastes Defeat Over Reforms

By TIM PADGETT

…After facing an unusually strong protest movement on the streets of Venezuela’s major cities — led not by traditional opposition figures but by university students who’d grown fearful that Chavez was moving the country toward a Cuba-style dictatorship — his reforms were narrowly beaten back by a 51% to 49% margin.

…

Only about half of Venezuela’s 16 million registered voters showed up at the polls on Sunday. Low turnout was supposed to have hurt the opposition’s "no" vote; but in the end it was Chavez, thought to have a reliable populist political machine at his disposal to get out the "yes" vote, who couldn’t rouse his base among Venezuela’s majority poor. Even that cohort, despite having benefited from Chavez’s vast socialist project, backed away from his bid to solidify "21st-century socialism," which also would have put the autonomous Central Bank under his control and exerted deeper federal authority over local and state governments. Given the fact that Venezuela’s National Assembly and Supreme Court are already Chavez’s rubber stamps, those issues seem to have overridden the economic carrots Chavez’s reform package held out, like expanded social security benefits and shorter working hours (from 8 to 6 hours each day).

Venezuelans also appear to have told Chavez and his Bolivarian Revolution (named for South America’s 19th-century independence hero, Simon Bolivar) that despite the country’s enjoying the fruits of record oil prices — the country has the hemisphere’s largest oil reserves — they’re fatigued by almost a decade of polarizing revolutionary rule and would like to return to some normalcy. "This is a country divided in two," said Stalin Gonzalez, a student at the Central University of Venezuela in Caracas. "There’s a part that loves Chavez and a part that hates him. A middle ground is lacking. We won’t build a country that way." (emphasis added)

The movement led by Gonzalez and tens of thousands of fellow students proved decisive: They articulated an opposition message and galvanized its sympathizers far more effectively than Venezuela’s older political elite ever could. It was a force Chavez had not planned on reckoning with, particularly since students have long been a bloc that Latin America’s political left could depend on. Chavez also couldn’t withstand the defections within his own bloc, including socialist state Governors and, perhaps most important, his erstwhile pal and former Defense Minister, Raul Baduel, who earlier this month called Chavez’s amendments a "constitutional coup d’etat." The attempt by Chavez and his backers to demonize figures like Baduel — labeling them "traitors" — backfired, especially since Baduel had helped put Chavez back in power after a botched opposition coup attempt against him in 2002.

But just as important was Chavez’s concession. The opposition "won this victory for themselves," he admitted in a voice whose subdued calm was in contrast to his frequently aggressive political speeches. "My sincere recommendation is that they learn how to handle it." Despite his authoritarian bent, Chavez (whose current and apparently last term ends in 2012) had always insisted he was a democrat — that he was, in fact, forging "a more genuine democracy" in a nation that had in many ways been a sham democracy typical of a number of Latin American countries. His presidential election victories — in 1998, 2000 and 2006, as well as his victory over an attempt to recall him in a 2004 referendum — were all recognized by credible international observers; and that conferred on him a democratic legitimacy that helped blunt accusations by his enemies, especially the U.S., that he was a would-be dictator in the mold of Fidel Castro.

In the end it was a cachet that, fortunately, he knew he couldn’t forfeit. As a result, the referendum result will resonate far beyond Venezuela. Latin Americans in general have grown disillusioned by democratic institutions — particularly their failure to solve the region’s gaping inequality and frightening insecurity — and many observers fear that Latin Americans, as they so often have in their history, are again willing to give leaders like Chavez inordinate, and inordinately protracted, powers. Chavez, critics complained, was in fact leading a trend of what some called "democratators" — democratically elected dictators. His allies in Bolivia and Ecuador, for example, are hammering out new Constitutions that may give them unlimited presidential reelection. The fact that Venezuelans this morning resisted that urge — and that Chavez so maturely backed off himself when he saw it — may give other countries pause for thought as well. It could even revive the oft-ridiculed notion that this might after all be the century of the Americas.

Here is a thorough update sent by the OneVoice Team/Erin Pineda:

SIGN THE MANDATE * OV ANNAPOLIS PHOTOS * ONEVOICE ON CNN * ANNAPOLIS RESOURCES

While skepticism abounds, Annapolis’s historical significance and potential should not be underestimated.

620,000 citizens signatories to the OneVoice Principles and OneVoice Mandate demanded that the Israeli and Palestinian Heads of State " immediately commence uninterrupted negotiations until reaching an agreement, within one year, for a Two State Solution, fulfilling the consistent will of the overwhelming majority of both populations."

And on Tuesday, President Bush read a statement from Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas with their answer: “We agree to engage in vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations, and shall make every effort to conclude an agreement before the end of 2008."

Take a minute to think about it: since the OneVoice Movement was created after the breakdown of the Camp David negotiations and the breakout of unprecedented violence, this is the first time in 7 years that the elected representatives have re-committed to a systematic process to reach a comprehensive agreement for the creation of a viable Palestinian state at peace with Israel.

But we do not have the luxury of inaction. Opponents of a two-state solution will re-double their efforts to derail negotiations. Even as the leaders took steps forward in Annapolis, hard-line groups rallied outside the gates in opposition. 

But OneVoice and other likeminded groups were there too – a citizens’ delegation of OneVoice youth leaders, student activists, staff, and new recruits gathered in Annapolis to represent the Movement.  And the OneVoice message was aired on CNN. 

The Israeli and Palestinian Heads of State have shown courage and leadership by committing to a firm timetable to fulfill the aspirations of their people.

It is time to do our part and ask ourselves, again: What are WE willing to do to help our leaders end the conflict?

The OneVoice Teams

CNN Interview with OneVoice Founder Daniel Lubetzky

Photos from OneVoice’s Delegation to Annapolis

Joint Understanding of Israeli & Palestinian Heads of State, Read by President Bush at Annapolis Conference

President Bush’s Speech at Annapolis

President Abbas’s Speech at Annapolis

Prime Minister Olmert’s Speech at Annapolis

OneVoice’s Statement on Annapolis Conference

OneVoice Annapolis Media Coverage: CNN, Associated Press, ABC News Maryland, Washington Post, Washington Metro, Baltimore Sun

OneVoice Mandate

OneVoice’s Website – www.OneMillionVoices.org