Daniel Lubetzky

Fred Schaufeld recently shared a trio of articles by Noam Sheizaf and I just got done reading them. For the most part, they present a very valid if painful perspective analyzing the Israeli thought process.

The gist of the article below reminds me of Gil Shamy’s axiom that pursuing a comprehensive solution with the Palestinians is like going to the dentist for the Israelis: unless they are in pain, they rather hold off.

Some arguments are simplified and some supporting positions are incorrect in fact. For example, the second intifadah was not the impetus for Sharon’s evacuation from Gaza, but for Sharon’s election- it preceded Sharon’s reign, and the impetus for the evacuation was the drive by a significant segment of civil society in 2002-2004 for strategic progress.

And the reason the Arab Peace Initiative gained no traction is at least partly explained by its announcement in early 2002, at a time when our global conscience was still reeling from the 9/11 attacks and the Saudi overture was greeted with skepticism, as a PR stunt to deflect attention from Saudi support for Islamic fundamentalists.

But those are footnotes on a valid and sad thesis, that so long as Israelis are more comfortable with the status quo than with the uncertainties and risks of political change – even if that change holds the potential for far greater happiness for both Palestinians and Israelis – political representatives are unlikely to make bold moves.
[Read more →]

In the wake of the World Bank’s report claiming that the Palestinian economy remains too weak to support a state, Isabel Kershner highlighted the positive high-tech growth underway in her New York Times piece. Grants, training programs, and ambition are enabling Palestinians to develop an economy based on technology and communications. As a result, they can positively engage in business with Israelis in the role of producers as well as consumers. Let’s hope that the continued growth of the Palestinian economy leads to more cooperation between Palestinians and Israelis in business and elsewhere.

Spotted by Daniel Lubetzky, by Julianna Storch

[Read more →]

Nathan Thrall’s piece in the New York Times Sunday Review paints a foreboding picture of violence on the horizon in the Middle East with Israelis growing increasingly complacent and Palestinians becoming ever more frustrated with the status quo.

Spotted by Daniel Lubetzky, by Julianna Storch

[Read more →]

The Washington Post published an in-depth article on “Where Obama failed on forging peace in the Middle East”, which I strongly recommend.

My analysis somewhat dovetails the article’s facts and insights:

1) When he ran for President, in contrast to Hillary Clinton’s campaign juxtaposing against Republican evil, Obama was able to transcend deep partisanship and get people to feel there was a better way that was not “Us Vs Them” but “all of Us” for a better future; for some sad reason, Obama never realized he could translate that same vision to the Middle East; he saw it as a zero sum game – build credibility with the Arabs, at the expense of the Israelis; he declined to stop over Jerusalem after his Cairo speech; that was a huge mistake; he should have built credibility with the Arabs and reassured them about his vision AND also reassure Israelis and build credibility with them – employing the OneVoice language and framework;

2) President Obama made a major tactical mistake that turned into a strategic blunder of the highest geopolitical order: he demanded a freeze in the West Bank AND all of East Jerusalem, something that Netanyahu realized would not fly with the Israeli or Jewish constituencies, so Netanyahu made Jerusalem his battle cry and sought to create a wedge to undermine the US Administration’s position; he masterfully focused on Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, not as occupied land, even though West Jerusalem where the capital is located was of course never at stake; Netanyahu put the entire spotlight on JERUSALEM; everyone forgot about the West Bank and the settlements that are clearly a problem for the vast majority of Israelis also; American Jewish opinion and Israeli opinion swerved assertively against the “anti-Jerusalem” demands; and Obama eventually retrenched; to this day the damage persists because now President Abbas cannot be less Palestinian that the US President was, and can’t demand anything less than Obama did. This misstep still resonates today. I was just in Israel and Palestine for meetings with several high level officials and this issue came up multiple times.

a. Most important, no US President should ask for something publicly prior to being certain that he can get it. It is like lawyers not asking questions at trial that they don’t already know the answer to!

3) Obama’s efforts focused solely on top-down government actions, rather than appealing to the People, and partnering with the People. Everyone keeps blaming political representatives for their lack of leadership. But we are mum about the responsibilities of the millions of Israeli and Palestinian – and international – citizens who want to end the conflict. We need to find a way to vest the people with the power and responsibility that they have. And then to unleash their goodwill in a concrete and constructive way. At the PeaceWorks Foundation we are working precisely on such a plan. So stand by!

This dialogue with Gershon Baskin, Chairman of the Israeli-Palestinian Centre For Research and Information (ICPRI), provides an informative history and analysis of past and future attempts at peace between Israel and Palestine. From his insights, we learn that we need to empower the moderates to change the reality and create a lasting peace at this opportune time.

Spotted by Daniel Lubetzky, by Julianna Storch

[Read more →]

The poll mentioned in this article indicates that we have a lot of work to do in order to help Israelis and Palestinians visualize that ending the conflict is possible IF they take matters into their own hands to make it happen. So long as people don’t believe that peace can come about, they will not invest themselves in helping bring it about, and it will be a self-fulfilling negative prophecy.

[Read more →]

Tal Harris, director of OneVoice Israel, wrote a compelling piece in The Jerusalem Post, outlining the choices Israel has to make and the actions the Israeli public must take in order to move forward towards peace in the region.

Spotted by Daniel Lubetzky, by Julianna Storch

Israeli scientist Dr. Daniel Hillel was awarded the World Food Prize at the U.S. State Department yesterday for pioneering innovative ways of watering crops in arid desert areas. The presentation of the award commended Dr. Hillel’s scientific achievement as well as his dedication to working with people across borders to help improve food security for all. As he accepted the award, Dr. Hillel asserted that his work is far from complete and urged the global community to unite in efforts towards sustainable food production.

Spotted by Daniel Lubetzky, by Julianna Storch

Stu Eizenstat recently launched a book on a fascinating and weighty subject. “The Future of the Jews: How Global Forces are Impacting the Jewish People, Israel, and Its Relationship with the United States” promises to be an interesting read and can be purchased on Amazon.

Spotted by Daniel Lubetzky, by Adeena Cohen

The article below by Ron Pundak contains at least two deep lessons.  The clearest one is of course what he shares: that “anti-normalization” efforts that seek to boycott any cooperative efforts and engagement among Palestinian and Israeli civil society organizations and people can only bring harm to the people of the region who want to resolve the conflict, to end the occupation, and to achieve a two state solution.

But there is a deeper lesson I must confess to.  Until reading this article, my attitude has been to defend efforts like those of OneVoice, which clearly works to end the occupation, to change the status quo, and to achieve Israeli-Palestinian agreement.  I have quietly acquiesced to, and empathized with, Palestinian concerns about “dialogue” groups whose effort is just to humanize the other, understanding that Palestinians may not want to “dialogue” with the enemy – they want to end the occupation and do not want to endorse the status quo in any way. I still of course understand this.  But I now also recognize that is a cowardly position, convenient to me because that is the approach I feel is worthy of support as that is what OneVoice does. But it fails to stand up to defend and recognize that those “dialogue” efforts are also vital to fostering understanding and respect of the “other”, and that often Israelis and Palestinians are first exposed to the other side through these socio-cultural groups and in a very direct way may then be inspired to get more involved in changing the status quo because of the human bonds that they have established. 

The same thing happened to me, if I go back to 1989, when I was a student at Hebrew University and I met Palestinian students whose humanity I began to appreciate more.

This reminds me of the old statement by pastor Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

[Read more →]