Daniel Lubetzky

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…

[Emphasis added below to highlight OV message, juxtaposed to other organizations mentioned below]

By DAVID DISHNEAU

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — More than a hundred activists demonstrated Tuesday outside the gates of the U.S. Naval Academy, offering their own very public take on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute as representatives of more than 50 nations and organizations met inside to chart a course toward a peace pact by the end of next year.

The rallies ran the gamut from a costumed protester mocking Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to a peace activist who was hopeful the talks would foster further peace negotiations such as those outlined by President Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

"We need to make sure that their voices can be heard thousands of miles away," said Erin Pineda of One Voice Movement, which supports Israeli-Palestinian efforts leading to a Palestinian state.

Conservative and liberal Jewish activists, Palestinians, Christians and others planned demonstrations throughout the day outside the academy’s closed main gate and at other locations in the historic Chesapeake Bay city.

The demonstrations in chilly, blustery downtown Annapolis were lightly attended compared with the tens of thousands of Palestinians in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip who rallied Tuesday in opposition to the conference. In the West Bank city of Hebron, Palestinian police loyal to Abbas violently dispersed a demonstration against the summit, killing one protester, medical officials said.

The one-day Annapolis conference was officially announced only a week in advance. The tight schedule and short notice made it difficult for interest groups to rally large numbers of people.

The events began with a rally by Jewish Americans opposed to the conference. "No peace with terrorists," they chanted. Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld of the Coalition of Jewish Concerns-Amcha said the summit amounted to a reward for terrorists. He said the Bush administration was "playing games with the innocent blood of the men and women of Israel."

Liz Houricane, dressed as a prison inmate and wearing a giant papier-mache mask of Rice, said the conference should have included representatives of Hamas, an Islamic militant group.

The summit "is really symbolic, more than anything," said Houricane, a member of Code Pink, a group formed in opposition to the Iraq war. She said Rice should be in jail for supporting the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Danielle Greene of Falls Church, Va., said the summit was meant to make the Bush administration look good. She said nothing would come of such an event until the United States accepts Hamas and Hezbollah, the Lebanese umbrella organization of radical Islamic Shiite groups that is a bitter foe of Israel.

From the Wall Street Journal – November  26, 2007, Page A21

Herewith some thoughts about tomorrow’s Annapolis peace  conference, and the larger problem of how to approach the Israel-Palestine  conflict. The first question (one might think it is obvious but apparently  not) is, "What is the conflict about?" There are basically two  possibilities: that it is about the size of Israel, or about its  existence.

If the issue is about the size of Israel, then we have a  straightforward border problem, like Alsace-Lorraine or Texas. That is to  say, not easy, but possible to solve in the long run, and to live with in  the meantime.
If, on the other hand, the issue is the existence of  Israel, then clearly it is insoluble by negotiation. There is no  compromise position between existing and not existing, and no conceivable  government of Israel is going to negotiate on whether that country should  or should not exist.

PLO and other Palestinian spokesmen have, from time to  time, given formal indications of recognition of Israel in their  diplomatic discourse in foreign languages. But that’s not the message  delivered at home in Arabic, in everything from primary school textbooks  to political speeches and religious sermons. Here the terms used in Arabic  denote, not the end of hostilities, but an armistice or truce, until such  time that the war against Israel can be resumed with better prospects for  success. Without genuine acceptance of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish  State, as the more than 20 members of the Arab League exist as Arab  States, or the much larger number of members of the Organization of the  Islamic Conference exist as Islamic states, peace cannot be negotiated.

A good example of how this problem affects negotiation is  the much-discussed refugee question. During the fighting in 1947-1948,  about three-fourths of a million Arabs fled or were driven (both are true  in different places) from Israel and found refuge in the neighboring Arab  countries. In the same period and after, a slightly greater number of Jews  fled or were driven from Arab countries, first from the Arab-controlled  part of mandatory Palestine (where not a single Jew was permitted to  remain), then from the Arab countries where they and their ancestors had  lived for centuries, or in some places for millennia. Most Jewish refugees  found their way to Israel.

What happened was thus, in effect, an exchange of  populations not unlike that which took place in the Indian subcontinent in  the previous year, when British India was split into India and Pakistan.  Millions of refugees fled or were driven both ways — Hindus and others  from Pakistan to India, Muslims from India to Pakistan. Another example  was Eastern Europe at the end of World War II, when the Soviets annexed a  large piece of eastern Poland and compensated the Poles with a slice of  eastern Germany. This too led to a massive refugee movement — Poles fled  or were driven from the Soviet Union into Poland, Germans fled or were  driven from Poland into Germany.

The Poles and the Germans, the Hindus and the Muslims, the  Jewish refugees from Arab lands, all were resettled in their new homes and  accorded the normal rights of citizenship. More remarkably, this was done  without international aid. The one exception was the Palestinian Arabs in  neighboring Arab countries.

The government of Jordan granted Palestinian Arabs a form  of citizenship, but kept them in refugee camps. In the other Arab  countries, they were and remained stateless aliens without rights or  opportunities, maintained by U.N. funding. Paradoxically, if a Palestinian  fled to Britain or America, he was eligible for naturalization after five  years, and his locally-born children were citizens by birth. If he went to  Syria, Lebanon or Iraq, he and his descendants remained stateless, now  entering the fourth or fifth generation.

The reason for this has been stated by various Arab  spokesmen. It is the need to preserve the Palestinians as a separate  entity until the time when they will return and reclaim the whole of  Palestine; that is to say, all of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and  Israel. The demand for the "return" of the refugees, in other words, means  the destruction of Israel. This is highly unlikely to be approved by any  Israeli government.

There are signs of change in some Arab circles, of a  willingness to accept Israel and even to see the possibility of a positive  Israeli contribution to the public life of the region. But such opinions  are only furtively expressed. Sometimes, those who dare to express them  are jailed or worse. These opinions have as yet little or no impact on the  leadership.

Which brings us back to the Annapolis summit. If the issue  is not the size of Israel, but its existence, negotiations are foredoomed.  And in light of the past record, it is clear that is and will remain the  issue, until the Arab leadership either achieves or renounces its purpose  — to destroy Israel. Both seem equally unlikely for the time being.

Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the  author, most recently, of "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the  Middle East" (Oxford University Press, 2004).

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119604260214503526.html

[If thinking of using any of the blog entry below, please see important DISCLAIMER at the bottom of this email]

Here are stark examples of terrible biased polling.  This poll comes from Dr. Nabil Kukali from PCPO:

Up to which extent do you agree to or oppose each of the following items should there be in the near future a public referendum on a peace agreement with the Israelis?

West Bank and Gaza Strip:

01) Israel would keep 4 % of the West Bank and Gaza Strip area, which contains 80% of the Israeli settlements. As an exchange for that, Israel would offer the Palestinians 2% of its land adjacent to Gaza Strip. Would you support or oppose this deal?

Response Percent
     1. Support. 21.2
     2. Oppose.  72.2
     3. Don’t know.  6.6

Why the Above Question is Biased and Badly Framed: Of course any human being would oppose giving 4% and getting 2%, let alone giving land centrally located and getting something down south in arid land.  But that is not what is on the table!  And the principle of fair dealing has been accepted by most Israeli negotiators, that any land annexed by Israel would be compensated on a 1:1 basis, emphasizing a fair bargain. 

A fair way to frame that question (even with the poller’s facts, which I am not sure if are correct) would have been: Israel would evacuate from all settlements except for 3 settlement blocks along the 67 border that comprise 4% of the West Bank, which would be incorporated into Israel in exchange for land of equal size and value that would be given to Palestine.

When polled that way, 69% of Palestinians support that proposal!

NEXT:

East Jerusalem:

02) Living quarters inhabited by Arabs in East Jerusalem should be put under the Palestinian jurisdiction, the Jewish quarters to be annexed to Israel. Would you support or oppose this?

Response Percent
1. Support. 40.6
2. Oppose. 52.7
3. No opinion. 6.7

Why the Above Question is Biased and Badly Framed: Unlike professional pollers like K. Shikaki, who phrase things in neutral ways without trying to curry favor with any particular group, this poller takes a political position by stating the Jewish quarters will be "annexed" to Israel, making this be a concession from the Palestinians.  I am surprised that even with the above framing only 52% opposed it.

An unbiased way to phrase the question would be: Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would be under Palestinian jurisdiction, while Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would be under Israeli jurisdiction, and each State would have the right to establish its capital within its sovereign territory.  This phrasing traditionally used by Palestinian and Israeli proponents for Jerusalem to be the capital of both states is more factual and feasible.

Next:

The Old City of Jerusalem:

03) Upon dividing the Old City of Jerusalem between Israel and the Palestinians, Israel would keep the "Wailing Wall" (Western Wall), the Jewish and the Armenian quarters. A special arrangement would be made for the area of the Temple Mount (area of Al-Aqsa Mosque). Would you support or oppose this?

Response Percent
1. Support. 18.7
2. Oppose. 72.5
3. Don’t know. 8.8

Again, this poller phrases things in such a way that only ardent pacifists would accept something that seems unjust.  The way it is phrased, Israelis would get to take something quite well delineated, while Palestinians would get NOTHING because no arrangement has been delineated for Al Aqsa Mosque and Al Quds Al Sharif! 

But the fact is that any proposal that will work will need to give due deference and preference to the current status quo of religious leadership, which, little known to most, is already apportioned according to the religious leadership chosen by each side: Palestinian Muslim authorities already oversee Al Aqsa Mosque, while Israeli Jewish authorities oversee the Western Wall, and Armenians the Armenian churches, etc. 

If and when a two state agreement is reached, Palestinians will have sovereignty over Arab East Jerusalem, which includes Al Aqsa. This is a perfect example of how symbols are used to rile people against each other for no practical reason.  If people want to co-exist and respect each other, physical and religious edifices and symbols and institutions will not stand in the way.

Last Example:

The right of home-return:

05) Presuming that the Palestinian State would take up the Palestinian refugees. Israel, with other countries, would establish an international fund for the compensation of those refugees, who want to return under the Palestinian jurisdiction and can’t return to their original homeland in Israel. Would you support or oppose such a settlement of the Palestinian refugees problem?

Response Percent
1. Support. 23.5
2. Oppose. 68.2
3. Don’t know. 8.3

The Refugee Plight is a powerful emotional issue that will not be resolved unless the process for its resolution is perceived to be just.  This is an important distinction: no historic compromise can achieve perfect JUSTICE, but if the PROCESS is PERCEIVED AS FAIR, people will be far more likely to accept it. That is why framing things as above – "Can’t Return to Their Original Homeland in Israel" is manipulative. 

The Clinton Parameters laid out a proposal for how to resolve the refugees’ plight, same which President Arafat endorsed in Taba, that presents the only possible way to address this issue in a way that achieves the core interests of the Palestinian people for recognition of their plight and suffering and a fair process to handle the claims of the refugees, while being acceptable to their neighbors in Israel and their interest in preserving Israel as the single homeland to the Jewish people.

Above all the plight of the refugees would be recognized by the world and the Israeli people – it doesn’t mean Israel needs to "take blame", but for Palestinians it is important that it be acknowledged that whatever the circumstances, they resulted in a terrible injustice to the refugees.  This will go a far longer way to resolving this issue than most people realize. 

It would then be followed by a multi-pronged option for a) refugees to resettle in the new State of Palestine, b) refugees to be given citizenship where they live, c) refugees to be resettled in third countries, d) a limited number of family reunifications to be permitted for Palestinians with family in Israel (the big debate between Barak and Arafat was on what that number would be, which oscillated between 10,000 and 100,000 people), and e) a compensation fund will be created for refugees for any lost property and for their pain and suffering.

DISCLAIMER AND CLARIFICATION: ALL OF THE ABOVE LANGUAGE AND INFORMATION ARE NOT ONEVOICE POSITIONS.  They are thoughts and ruminations based on Daniel Lubetzky’s analysis of data and polls and negotiations positions and documents.  OneVoice as an international movement can only take positions on areas where there is consensus among the Israeli and Palestinian people, and while on many of the above areas there is far more hidden consensus than meets the eye, these issues are not issues on which OneVoice as a non-partisan, non-political movement has taken official positions.

POTENTIALLY BIG POSITIVE DEVELOPMENT! Leaders listening to and following the will of their people, the OV people!!! Read the article below: it is, to the word, the language we demanded in the OneVoice Mandate that over half a million Palestinian and Israeli citizens have signed up to. It is the same language that many thought was too bold and risky to demand.

If indeed the leaders issue such statement, which is not yet confirmed, it will be worth all the challenges and uphill battles we’ve had to climb and surmount over the last year.

The challenges to the Heads of State are still very real and the gaps in the negotiations quite serious, but the potential is also enormous. We could have a historic breakthrough if they really commit not to stop negotiating until they crank out an agreement.

From The Guardian Newspaper in the UK

Israel and Abbas agree to peace talks

· Two sides will seek final deal within one year
· Syrians and Saudis also ready to participate
Ian Black in Jerusalem
Saturday November 17, 2007

Israel and the Palestinian Authority have agreed a pledge to negotiate "immediately and continuously" to reach a final peace agreement within a year in a joint declaration to be issued in 10 days at a key summit in the US.  – The Guardian

Here are some really cool pics. brought to my attention by David "Dudu" Vakni, who has an awesome site on creative marketing…

In case it is not clear, these are pictures or ads overimposed on the outside of the truck, but created in such a way so as to seem like in real life they are showing you teh contents inside the truck…

A quarter million people have seen this thus far…

[Note, from my understanding, the releases that OneVoice Palestine sent in Arabic and the English release sent internationally are pretty much identical, except for one paragraph at the end of the Arabic one that explains to the Palestinian people why OneVoice Palestine has international partners and a parallel movement across the other side, as it is imperative to end the conflict to engage people on the other side also - something that should be obvious to anyone that truly wants to end the conflict, but which extremist factions have pointed to as a reason why they claim OVP is not advancing the Palestinian cause]

Press Release

President Abbas Affirms OneVoice Mandate Corresponds with his Platform

Saeb Erekat Explains OneVoice Palestine’s Goals Align with President’s Vision for Palestinian State

Singer Ilham Al Madfai Denounces False Reports, Emphatically Supports OneVoice

www.onemillionvoices.org

Ramallah – 18/10/2007 – In a press conference today, Dr. Saeb Erekat, Chief Palestinian Negotiator and Spokesperson of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, explained that President Mahmoud Abbas asked him to clarify that OneVoice Palestine is a non-governmental organization committed to upholding the vision of President Abbas. Dr. Erekat delivered his remarks in a press briefing on the recent visit of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the Middle East.

“The president would like to say that OneVoice organization is an NGO that has every right to work,” said Dr. Erekat.  Erakat explained the organization had sent invitations to a OneVoice Summit under the auspices of the President without receiving an official endorsement, but added that the OneVoice “political program, after Abu Mazen read it, reflects the President’s platform and the Palestinian objectives.” 

Erakat added, “[President Abbas] would like to reiterate his full support to those NGOs and civil society organizations that work for democracy, a culture of peace, and ending occupation on the basis of a two-state solution.”

Dr. Erakat explained that a lot of “misleading information” had been provided about OneVoice.  He said contrary to what was widely spread, “[President Abbas] read the document of OneVoice and this document corresponds with his political program of ending the occupation that began in 1967 by having two states: a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital next to an Israeli state along the 67 borders and solving the issues reserved  to the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, borders, refugees and settlements consistent with  relevance to the security council international resolutions.”

Today, renowned Iraqi recording artist, Ilham al Madfai, also re-affirmed his support for OneVoice, contrary to reports circulating that he had pulled out of the October 18^th Summit in Jericho. “I have been very clear to all those who have been calling that I regretted not being able to participate in OneVoice Palestine’s effort to raise the voice of the Palestinian people for an end to the occupation, and for peace in the region.” Mr. Madfai added, “I call upon all boycott groups to stop threatening and intimidating artists and to respect the freedom of all.”

Mr. Madfai explained he had received a lot of “threatening phone calls and warnings” from groups opposed to his visit but he cherished the day when all logistical and travel challenges, including procuring visas for al his crew and band, could be resolved to enable him “to sing with the Palestinian people and with the people of the world, a song of peace, justice, dignity, respect, and hope.”

OneVoice Palestine is part of a movement of ordinary citizens that now surpasses 600,000 signatories not just in Palestine and the Arab world, but with citizens in solidarity across America, Europe and Israel, who agree on the imperative of ending the conflict and propelling and supporting their Heads of State to immediately commence negotiations, uninterrupted till the conclusion of a two state agreement.  The international movement does not take specific positions on the agreement that the Heads of State must deliver, emphasizing that is a duty of the political representatives, but it does empower citizens to propel and support their Heads of State towards the negotiating table.  In efforts to mobilize the moderate majority in Palestine and Israel, the OneVoice Movement has trained over 3,000 Palestinian and Israeli youth leaders.  Specifically, OneVoice Palestine has trained 1,800 Palestinian youth leaders and has offices in Gaza and Ramallah.

OneVoice Palestine’s Honorary Board includes the Chief Islamic Justice, Sheikh Taysir al Tamimi, the son of President Abbas, Yasser Mahmoud Abbas, Dr. Saeb Erakat, and a dozen more Palestinian dignitaries, scholars, and religious leaders. www.OneMillionVoices.org

[Also note, Dr. Erakat was quoted verbatim and the language he explains reflects President's Abbas's positions]

[Note from DL: This is a Very Important Development that I heard from our partners in OneVoice Palestine!  This press conference mentioned below was aired on Al Jazeerah, Al Arabiyah, and several other stations]

In a press conference earlier today, October 18, 2007, in Ramallah, where Dr. Saeb Erakat was briefing the media about the Rice visit, he concluded with a clarification that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas asked him to give regarding the OneVoice Movement. 

Below is the transcript of his words in English, which correspond almost verbatim to his words in Arabic [brackets provide differentiation]

I want to say one another thing, there was supposed to be an event today by an organization called OneVoice and the President asked me in my press conference to clarify the following:

- This organization sent invitations under the auspices of the President without consulting him [the Arab transcript also adds that "the organization has apologized for this"]

- Nevertheless the President would like to say that OneVoice organization is an NGO that has every right to work and that its political program, after Abu Mazen read it, reflects the President’s platform and the Palestinian objectives, and Abu Mazen would like to reiterate his full support to those NGOs and Civil society organizations that work for democracy, , culture of peace and ending occupation on the basis of two states solution.

- And he said, contrary to what was widely spread, he read the document of OneVoice and this document corresponds with his political program of ending the occupation that began in 1967 by having two states: a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital next to Israeli state at 67 borders and solving the issues reserved  to the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, borders, refugees and settlements  consistent with  relevance to the security council international resolutions.

I was forwarded this article which, while it criticizes a couple things about OV, does a pretty good job of explaining OneVoice and dissecting the positions of extremist groups like PACBI and Another Voice