Daniel Lubetzky

[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.

From the OneVoice Teams:

It’s working.

The leaders are listening to their peoples’ demand for immediate negotiations towards a two-state-solution: for the first time in over 15 years, the Israeli and Palestinian Heads of State will be joined by the US and 20 Arab nations in a regional summit at Annapolis.

Those opposing a two state solution are vocally opposing Annapolis.

Our duty, as Palestinian, Israeli, and international citizens, is to support ongoing, uninterrupted negotiations until the conclusion of a comprehensive agreement.

Join us on November 27^th in Annapolis, Maryland as a small delegation of OneVoice activists from the Middle East, the US and Europe carries the torch on behalf of the 620,000+ signatories to the OneVoice Mandate, and on behalf of the overwhelming majorities of Israelis and Palestinians that support negotiations towards a two-state solution.  Your participation will help us send a message that the people will stand by their leaders if they take the requisite bold steps.

To join our team to Annapolis, contact Darya Shaikh (at +1 212 897 3985 x233 or darya@OneVoiceMovement.org) or visit www.OneMillionVoices.org where more information will be made available.

If you can’t join us in person, please sign on to the Mandate now.

If you already signed on, kindly forward this message to 5 friends and urge them to do the same.

With Warmth and Conviction,

The OneVoice Teams

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

The following article provides a sobering assessment of the challenges faced at the political level by the Palestinian and Israeli negotiations teams.  It is also instructive for OneVoice, as a microcosm of what is going on among the politicians.  OneVoice aims to represent the will of the people for an end to the conflict and to an extent lead the way, but as it is currently structured (unlike other very laudable efforts like Ayalon-Nusseibeh) it aims to stay with the current pulse of the people and not lead too far ahead of them. 

If the leaders get stuck, though, or even regress in positions, OneVoice will have a challenge amplifying the voice of moderates amidst decreased agreement among the Heads of State, unless it opts to lead a notch more than just represent.  Leading ahead of politicians can help break taboos on BOTH sides, but runs the danger of losing legitimacy from mainstream populations. 

For now our focus is to continue encouraging elected representatives to recognize the imperative of immediate and uninterrupted negotiations till the conclusion of an agreement.

U.S. and Israel Play Down Hopes for Peace Talks

New York Times, By STEVEN ERLANGER

Published: November 12, 2007

JERUSALEM, Nov. 10 — The American-sponsored Middle East peace conference expected by the end of the month looks to be thin on content, mostly serving as a stage to begin formal negotiations on a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas.

Israeli and American officials have been so busy dampening expectations that they are not even calling the event a conference anymore, instead referring to it merely as a “meeting.”

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are having trouble agreeing on even a short declaration about the shape of a final peace. Their leaders, Mr. Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, have a rough understanding on where they are heading, officials of both sides say, but they are afraid to write it down or say so publicly, given the political cost of any concessions.

Before the meeting, tentatively scheduled for Nov. 25-27 in Annapolis, Md., Israeli coalition members are warning Mr. Olmert not to go too far or get too specific. And Palestinian negotiators are squabbling among themselves, getting little firm direction from Mr. Abbas.

“Because we can’t agree on the substance of a joint paper, we prefer to say we’re just beginning to negotiate,” said a senior Israeli official close to Mr. Olmert.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may return to Israel before the conference to push for a more substantive agreement.

If any document coming out of the conference remains vague, Annapolis will also be used to mark another effort to carry out the first stage of the moribund 2003 “road map” for peace. That first stage calls for simultaneous efforts by the Palestinians to build state institutions and fight terrorism, while Israel halts the growth in West Bank settlements, considered illegal by much of the world, and removes settler outposts that are illegal under Israeli law.

Ahmed Qurei, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said: “What we need for a successful meeting in Annapolis is to implement the first phase of the road map. We have suspicions of each other over seven years, so need to build trust.”

But little of that work, too, can be done before Annapolis. From Mr. Olmert’s point of view, changing security on the ground, including another release of prisoners, is “more difficult than negotiating a declaration of principles, and politically more destabilizing,” the senior official said.

Meanwhile, both sides are still struggling with compromises on the core issues of final borders, the status of Palestinian refugees and Jerusalem. While negotiators have agreed to leave the issue of Jerusalem alone for now, they have fundamental disagreements on how to couch the other issues.

The Palestinians, for instance, want to be as specific as possible about the borders of their future state. But they want to be as vague as possible about Palestinian refugees from the 1948-49 war, afraid to suggest that the “right of return” of these refugees and their descendants may not have much content.

Israel, for its part, wants to be as vague as possible about borders and land swaps, because it is occupied land to trade that is Israel’s main bargaining chip. On the other hand, Mr. Olmert wants to be as specific as possible about the refugee issue. He and his deputy, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, vow that no Palestinian refugee will return to what is now Israel, and that the new Palestine will be the homeland for Palestinians.

So Mr. Olmert is reluctant even to countenance the possibility of humanitarian exceptions, as the Clinton administration did at Camp David. He is also insistent that the Palestinians recognize Israel “as a Jewish state,” another way of trying to shut the door on refugees.

The long buildup to Annapolis, together with Ms. Rice’s many trips to the region, have given birth to a new verb in Israeli government circles: “lecondel,” meaning, to come and go for meetings that produce few results. The word is based on Ms. Rice’s first name.

Still, a weak Mr. Olmert, beset by a failed war against Hezbollah in Lebanon and numerous criminal investigations, is committed to try, needing a peace agenda to help justify his term in office. He understands, senior Israeli officials say, that moderate partners like Mr. Abbas and Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister, who believe in nonviolence and two states, may not come again.

Even if a deal is reached, and many are skeptical, it will not be carried out for a number of years. Israel wants to be sure that if it withdraws from the West Bank, there is a reliable Palestinian security force to stop aggression and terrorism — to ensure that a Hamas-run Gaza that fires rockets at Israel is not replicated in the West Bank.

As Tony Blair, the representative of the so-called quartet — the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations — pushing for a Middle East peace, said: “The true Israeli anxiety is focused not only on the territory of the Palestinian state, but on the nature of that state. The true Israeli position is not to agree to a state for the Palestinians unless they are sure of how that state will function, how it will be governed, how viable it will be, and not simply in its territorial contiguity, but in its stability as a long-term partner for peace.”

The risks of failure, all agree, are extremely high, both for Mr. Abbas and the concept of a negotiated two-state solution. Many Israelis and Palestinians — and not just Hamas — say they think that Annapolis is ill-timed and bound to disappoint.

Even senior Israeli and Palestinian officials are worried. “If we can reach a final agreement, then I’m willing to risk the government and go to new elections,” the Israeli official close to Mr. Olmert said. “But to risk the government for something unclear seems unwise. To go to Annapolis and lose a government is not a good idea.”

The problem, he said, is how both Mr. Olmert and Mr. Abbas “can come up with a paper and both of them stay alive politically.”

As for Mr. Abbas and Fatah, the risks are existential, a senior Palestinian aide said. He pointed not just to the Hamas takeover of Gaza, but to the warnings of senior Hamas leaders like Mahmoud Zahar that Mr. Abbas was a collaborator with Israel and that the West Bank could be next. Mr. Zahar said Friday, “We say to the West Bank, ‘Take a lesson from what happened in Gaza.’”

“Israel says the party in Ramallah serves Israel,” Mr. Zahar continued, referring to Fatah, “and if Israel quits the West Bank, Hamas will take it over. And we say this is true.”

Here is an interesting article from Yonathan Touval regarding Annapolis, juxtaposed to all the sobering reports about the parties’ inability to agree on the guidelines for the forthcoming meeting…

_{Last update – 02:31 16/11/2007}

Crafting the invitation to Annapolis

_{By Yonatan Touval}

Ha’aretz Newspaper

As the date for the Annapolis summit nears and doubts increase over the ability of Israel and the Palestinians to agree on a joint document outlining how they intend to resolve the core issues of the conflict, the time has come for the United States to step in and draft a letter of invitation.
Such a letter could be particularly useful if it were modeled on the invitation to the Madrid peace conference of 1991. A carefully crafted piece of diplomatic acumen, that document was the product of intensive shuttle diplomacy by then U.S. secretary of state James Baker, who understood that in order to ensure the success of the conference, he needed to articulate its terms of reference in advance, in the invitation itself.
The invitation to Annapolis need not "reinvent the wheel" of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations; in fact, it must not. The general parameters for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been known since U.S. president Bill Clinton put them on the table in December of 2000. Since that time, the Taba talks, and even more precisely the unofficial Geneva Initiative, have filled in the missing details of what a permanent agreement would look like.
Since he came into office, U.S. President George W. Bush has opted to chart his own vision of Israeli-Palestinian peace. His statements have been few and far between, but they do amount to something. In fact, after almost seven years in office, Bush has said enough that can be used to draft a constructive statement outlining Washington’s position on the shape of an eventual Israeli-Palestinian agreement with specific references to the three core issues of territory, Jerusalem and refugees.
Thus, on the issue of territory, Bush may draw from his letter of April 14, 2004 to then prime minister Ariel Sharon: "As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949."
This in itself, of course, would not be enough for the Palestinians, but Bush could add some language from a statement he made at a press briefing with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas at the White House on May 26, 2005: "A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a [Palestinian] state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza, [and any] changes to the 1949 armistice lines must be mutually agreed to."
Bush has been mostly silent on the issue of Jerusalem, but judging by his statements on territory, the American president should be able to say the following: The principles underlying the agreement on the final borders between Israel and Palestine should enable both parties to have their mutually recognized capitals in the area of Jerusalem. Given the complexity of the issue, however, including the need to maintain security in this universally historic and religious city, the U.S. believes that the parties must both feel comfortable with the precise delineation of the solution.
On the problem of the Palestinian refugees, Bush has refrained from outlining the contours of a possible solution. In contrast to Clinton, who listed five potential venues as "final homes" for the refugees, the current president has only stated that refugees should not be allowed to return to Israel. As he styled it in his letter to Sharon: "It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel."
Assuming this remains a fundamental principle pertaining to any solution of the refugee problem, Bush could at least articulate a more positive version of the same in the following way: Once established, the Palestinian state will be recognized by the Palestinians and by the world at large as the Palestinian homeland, and a key element in resolving the problem of the Palestinian refugees will be set in place.
These statements – on territory, Jerusalem and refugees – are modest, undoubtedly too modest for some. But inasmuch as they consist of exact reproductions – or variations – of language that Bush has employed in public statements over the past seven years, they are available to be used without delay.
It is important to remember that if Madrid succeeded in launching a decade-long peace process between Israel and its Arab neighbors, it was not by dint of any diplomatic breakthrough that took place during the three-day conference. Rather, it was thanks to the letter of invitation that bound the participants to a common agenda. It is precisely such a joint Israeli-Palestinian-American commitment to that sort of agenda that is missing right now. By issuing a letter of invitation a la Madrid, Bush would thus not only save Annapolis from near-certain failure, he would actively embed these principles in American policy. If Israel and the Palestinians are about to launch formal negotiations on a final status agreement, the articulation of a clear American policy could go a long way in steering the course in the months to come.
Yonatan Touval is a policy analyst with the Economic Cooperation

Foundation (ECF), a Tel Aviv-based think tank

You may not see this on TV, but something huge happened in Gaza over the last couple days. 

Hundreds of thousands of people rallied across the center of Gaza City to commemorate Yasser Arafat’s passing.

AFP/via BBC

The rally was organized by the "National Committee", a group of Palestinian civic leaders, primarily from Fatah but also spreading across other parties and unaffiliated Palestinian luminaries tasked with representing the people.

The few media reports that I’ve seen on this are reporting that 5/7/10 people were killed and many others wounded as the Hamas-led police force opened fire at the crowds that were condemning their coup d’etat.

But the bigger story is that this is the biggest demonstration since Hamas took over Gaza by force, and arguably the biggest demonstration in Gaza ever.

THE PEOPLE ON THE GROUND were shouting "Shiia, Shiaa" against the Hamas forces, openly associating them as peons of the Iranian government.

For days, Hamas had been trying to prevent this mobilization from happening, going to the lengths of blocking out all the bus companies so they could not be rented by organizers to bring in people from the outskirts.

But people drove in their cars, and walked long distances, to make their voices heard.

Checkpoints across Gaza set up by Hamas forces were not able to stop this mobilization.

We had a setback last month when we had to postpone the OneVoice Summit in Jericho intended to send a message of support to President Abbas.

But this time the people of Gaza, hundreds of thousands of them, risked their lives to vote with their feet against militant extremism.

Here are a couple of stories that provide more context on this important development:

AFP: Hamas Kills Six at Arafat Rally in Gaza

IHT: Former Gaza strongman Dahlan says Hamas breakup of rally sign of group’s growing difficulties

AP via BBC

We often think about the immediate issues of the conflict – justice, security, walls, barriers, rockets, military threats, checkpoints, land, dignity, etc. – as the drivers that provide but the challenges and the opportunities for what needs to be addressed in order to end the conflict and build a better future for Israelis and Palestinians.

But increasingly the status quo is harming the essence of Palestinian and Israeli societies at the very core – in areas like education.

Data over the last few years points to a deafening brain drain from Palestine and Israel.  Can you blame talented individuals who decide to escape the chaos?

Educated Palestinians more and more are moving to Jordan, to the United States, to Egypt, to the point that writers have started to call the "Palestinian National Dream" in jeopardy.

And educated Israelis more and more are moving to the US and Europe at alarming rates.

I just read a Wall Street Journal excerpt from a BusinessWeek article by Neal Sandler highlighting how serious the danger and impact is on the Israeli educational system:

Israeli students ranked 33rd out of 41 countries in a global survey on math and sciences in 2002, the last time they participated therein, contrasting to the 1960s when Israeli students were among the world’s best;

Only 30% of 18-year old native-born conscripts into the Israeli Defense Forces passed a standard Hebrew reading comprehension test in 2005, down from 60% two decades earlier

Israeli teacher salaries are the LOWEST in the industrialized world, acording to the OECD

So for people that are clinging to a Greater Israel or Greater Palestine vision, it is time to understand: your children’s future is at stake.  This region, with so much potential to bring light to the world, is going to implode and become a sad example of what hatred and absolutism reaps, if we don’t get our act together.

Anyone who has not taken the first step of signing on to the OneVoice Mandate demanding IMMEDIATE UNINTERRUPTED NEGOTIATIONS TILL AN AGREEMENT IS REACHED AMONG THE ISRAELI AND PALESTINIAN HEADS OF STATE should do so now.

A few friends wrote to me alarmed and saddened by the poem I wrote, Haunted.  They mentioned I am always ‘so positive’ and encouraged me not to lose hope.  Some encouraged me to share positive thoughts as they tend to see me do, rather than to succumb to the plentiful doom.

So I thought I’d share a few related thoughts:

1) no, I am not in a state of deep depression, or suicidal, and I am not about to give up on our mission;

2) I am a human being like everyone else, who has worries and doubts and fears, and I have always had these; indeed, this is what drives me to try to prevent such dark vision from prevailing;

3) when I made the commitment to write this blog, I decided I needed to be true to myself and those who read this journal, so it will continue to reflect the reality of my feelings at the moment when I use the journal to share them, and my best efforts to provide an accurate reflection of what I see happening around me;

4) I am sobered up and increasingly worried that time is running out, that partisan hatred is so deep, that all the best efforts of OneVoice, and PeaceWorks, and the hundreds of groups working in this space will not be enough if we don’t achieve the critical mass necessary, which requires ordinary citizens to recognize their power and responsibility to join this effort;

5) the challenge requires MORE, not less dedication to it; and so OneVoice is already working on several fronts to strengthen its efforts, as is the PeaceWorks Foundation;

6) I wrote "Haunted" late at night after watching the very poignant and powerful but sad movie The Black Book, which brought back memories of what my Father went through during the Holocaust, and marrying that with the growing animosity overtaking the Middle East, and the increasing sadness I personally feel at seeing so much hatred, so much suffering, so much anger, so much partisanship and dehumanization.

7) The silver lining is that a lot of this anger and hatred is also a sign of the winds of change.  Groups opposing a two state solution are mobilizing with passion because they also see the writing on the wall; my only hope is that they won’t see a two-state-solution as their defeat, but their opportunity – not an opportunity for total justice as they may envision it, as total justice is by definition unattainable when seeking a political agreement and historical compromise among two parties, but an opportunity for them to help build a better future for their children and for the children of the region.

The window of opportunity for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a two-state agreement is closing, and with that the hope for building hope and prosperity for the overwhelming majorities on both sides that cherish that.

9) The prospect of this region becoming an eternal battleground is truly scary.

10) This conflict is not intractable today.  I hope we will seize the opportunity before it gets too late.

11) Change is not going to come about without action from the ordinary citizens on both sides whose lives are most affected.

‘’I was a military man for 27 years. I waged war as long as there was no chance for peace…I believe there is now a chance for peace, a great chance, and we must take advantage of it for those standing here, and for those who are not here – and they are many. I have always believed that the majority of the people want peace and are ready to take a chance for peace."

Yitzhak Rabin Speech at a Tel Aviv peace rally, hours before he was shot, November 4, 1995

It is interesting to see how society reminisces about its leaders.  The contrast is often striking between how we relate to leaders during their lives and after they’ve passed on, particularly if their passing was not natural.

Yitzhak Rabin was not murdered amidst an environment of unwavering support towards him, as we’d like to think.  He was murdered after years of demonization by extremist groups that called him a traitor and called for his life.

I was blessed to meet Yitzhak Rabin twice, and both times were telling of what he signified.

The first time I "met" him briefly in person was at the lobby of the Tel Aviv Hilton, as he was walking down the steps, in the late fall of 1993, shortly after the Oslo Accords.  I had just graduated from law school and was doing research on a legislative proposal for fostering joint ventures among Arabs and Israelis.

When I saw Rabin in the lobby, walking with just one young guy to his side, I was so excited I ran towards him and waved a thumbs up sign at him from the top of the stairs, screaming out "Prime Minister Rabin, you are awesome."

He looked at me with suspicion and disappointment (bordering on disdain), and waved me off, making a facial expression that could best be translated to "get a life and do something productive."

I actually rather admired that this matter-of-fact leader had no time or patience to play the hero.  He had shit to do.  And he expected others to do their part also.

What is the role of the people?  This is what Rabin said during a Congressional Address in 1994 regarding his negotiations with King Hussein of Jordan:

“Who shapes the face of history – leaders or circumstances? My answer to you is: We all shape the face of history. We, the People. We the farmers behind our plows, the teachers in our classrooms, the doctors saving lives, the scientists at our computers, the workers on the assembly line, the builders on our scaffolds. We, the mothers blinking back tears as our sons are drafted into the army; we, the fathers who stay awake at night worried and anxious for our children’s safety. We, Jews and Arabs. We, Israelis and Jordanians. We, the people, we shape the face of history.”

The second time I met Yitzhak Rabin was at my first World Economic Forum meeting in Jordan, in 1995.  It was the day where different countries in the region host luncheons.  Israel was hosting a lunch, Saudi Arabia was hosting a lunch, Qatar was hosting a lunch, Egypt was hosting a lunch, and so on.  What was striking, and unseen before or hence, was that the Israel lunch was the most popular one, and Arab leaders from across the region were jockeying for a ticket.  It was a sign of the times – tangible prospects that this region would see peace soon, Israel would be integrated in the Middle East business map, as would Palestine, and the world would be a better place.

Less than a week later, while walking into dinner at a hotel in London with my girlfriend, the entire lobby fell silent.  We asked what had happened.  Yitzhak Rabin had been assassinated.

I have to imagine the pain we felt in our gut and in our heart that night must have been akin to the moment when JFK was assassinated.

As I wrote in an entry earlier in the year,  when a friend wondered aloud if Rabin even left a legacy, I agreed it remains to be seen.  And I pointed out it is up to us, the people, to ensure one.