Daniel Lubetzky

For my Jewish and Israeli friends who doubt the sincerity of Arab leaders to achieve a peace agreement and normalize relations with Israel if Israel enables the creation of a Palestinian state, please take a look at the comments from Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal, former Ambassador to the US and former head of Saudi Intelligence.  A friend of the OneVoice Movement with whom I have had several discussions, Prince Turki does not mince words and (like the Middle East) he himself has evolved enormously since appointed as founding representative of the WEF’s C-100 Council of Western and Islamic Leaders.

Some excerpts below (full article here):

"The Arab world, by the Arab peace initiative, has crossed the Rubicon from hostility towards Israel to peace with Israel and has extended the hand of peace to Israel, and we await the Israelis picking up our hand and joining us in what inevitably will be beneficial for Israel and for the Arab world."

"One can imagine not just economic, political and diplomatic relations between Arabs and Israelis but also issues of education, scientific research, combating mutual threats to the inhabitants of this vast geographic area."

"Exchange visits by people of both Israel and the rest of the Arab countries would take place."

"The time has come when a democratic Israel and a democratic Palestine live side by side in peace."

- President George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address, where he received standing applause across both aisles for committing to achieve a two-stage agreement defining a Palestinian State before the end of 2008.

David Levin, chair of the OneVoice International Steering Committee, arranged for us to brief Tony Blair in Davos, following his meeting with our youth leaders a couple months ago.  He was very impressed with our youth leaders and expressed his commitment to help us advance our mission of empowering the voice of ordinary citizens that want to achieve a two state solution.  He agreed to meet with our activists later in the year, and to help us on a couple of other fronts.

Later that day, he moderated a session with Palestinian Prime Minister Salem Fayyad, and Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, President Peres and Defense Minister Barak.  He spoke of the importance of empowering moderate voices, as did Tzipi Livni and PM Fayyad.

A Message in A Bottle from An Iraqi Kid: Here is a remarkable example of hope, grassroots activism, and simple excellence in marketing thought!

“Blessed are those who are peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”

- Jesus is said to have delivered this statement as part of his Sermon on the Mount, but yesterday this statement was brought to life when President George W. Bush received this inscription during his visit to the Kinneret (the Sea of Galilee, where Jesus is said to have walked on water)

Something big has already happened, and something bigger and historic could come during 2008, and yet a region buried in sorrow and skepticism is not paying attention.

It is striking.

President Bush’s visit to Ramallah was literally a historic moment: the first time ever that a sitting American President visited this city which is currently the seat of the Palestinian Authority.

And yet nobody seemed to notice.

I was in Ramallah yesterday, and barely anyone was talking about Bush’s visit.  To the extent people noticed it is because the day prior streets were blocked and a couple hundred demonstrators against Bush and the US Administration were a bit too-forcefully dispersed by the PA.

In Israel, all newspapers cynically mocked Bush and Olmert as being disconnected or disingenuous, and most people just ignored or didn’t even know that this historic Presidential visit was taking place.

It is so easy to complain and criticize and question and belittle.  It is so easy to raise doubts and be cynical.  And there are plenty of valid reasons to be skeptical and to question the commitment of many of the leaders to the finishing line.  But not only does pure fatalism get us nowhere – it is also not warranted given the visible facts.

The leaders are doing something!  They are trying to strike a historical deal within a defined and bold timeframe of a year.

The time has come for citizens to put their skepticism aside and do their part.

It takes more effort to do something positive than to just dismiss others’ efforts.  If people say they want a better future, they have a responsibility to help bring it about.

The time has come.

It is striking how close Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni’s language below to the OneVoice philosophy, which was similarly adopted almost verbatim by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, including after the session OneVoice organized with the World Economic Forum and them during Davos 2007:

Address by Israel’s Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Mediterranean Seminar

I believe that the world is becoming more complex in a way, even though, on one hand, it looks like a small global village. From the bright side of this small global village, we can see that borders are less important, and when it comes to economy we can use the fact that borders are of less importance to enhance economic investments as well as to share our values. On the other hand, the fact that borders are of less importance is also being abused by extremists in order to spread their own extreme agenda. Thus, while we are trying to spread and to express our democratic values, the global village is being used and abused by those that represent the extremist ideologies in this world.

I believe that what we face right now is the division in the world between extremists and moderates. Sometimes we can see this extremist ideology being represented by a state, like Iran. But one of the challenges that we face is that while in the past we would see these kinds of threats coming from states, now we can see them coming from within states, where the state itself has difficulties in expressing its own sovereignty over its entire territory. We can see extremist or radical elements which are using the lack of enforcement of law and order inside these weak states in order to spread their ideology, to use force, to use violence against others. And we can also see some international organizations using the fact that the world is a global village in order not only to spread an ideology but also to undermine regimes or to undermine our own democratic values, sometimes, unfortunately, by using terror and violence.

So there is a need for us as part of the international community, who share the same vision for the future and the same values, to see what threats we face, to work together – and I know that it is sometimes not easy to work together and to find a consensus – to understand the nature of the threats and, on the other hand, what are the real measures that we can take in order to meet these challenges.

We need to identify the nature of the new threats, although sometimes we also face the old kind of threats that we used to identify in the past. We can see some new threats and we can unfortunately also sometimes see old threats in the guise of new ones. One example is anti-Semitism that has changed its form but still represents the same old hatred. I would like to express my appreciation to what this organization is doing in order to combat all kinds of anti-Semitism as a phenomenon in different places and to educate new generations as to the real nature of anti-Semitism and how to handle it, how to combat it and how to deal with it – not only in terms of states but also in terms of societies.

Talking about this specific seminar, I would like to say that, for me, it is very special because, talking about intolerance and discrimination and promoting mutual respect and understanding, Israel was established as a homeland for the Jewish people. I just spoke about anti-Semitism but the Jewish people suffered from this kind of intolerance and discrimination throughout our history, and part of our need today is to share the common vision to combat it in different places.

The other point is about promoting mutual respect and understanding. This is also an opportunity for us to share with you part of our experience as a state and as a society. When the State of Israel was established, it absorbed people coming from different places in the world. It took us some years to understand that instead of changing the "other", we need to respect the places from which they came. We need to respect different groups, we need to respect the different traditions of those places from which they came to Israel and which they brought to Israel with them. This is a very specific experience that Israel can share with others. It was not easy to do at the time, and I think that we have learned something from our own experience and we are happy to share it with you.

Of course, Israel shares its democratic values with the international community, with the world, what we call the free world, the modern world, but, unfortunately, there is a gap between what Israel is and the perception of Israel is in different places. So, for us, this is an opportunity also to "re-share" our values and to think together about ways to combat discrimination. And the other goal, and maybe this is the most important goal and task for Israel these days, is that we are in what is perhaps one of the more complicated situations in the world in which, on the one hand, we need to defend ourselves, we are in a situation in which we have this conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. And on the other hand, we need to address their needs; we need to address their humanitarian needs. We need to change the situation on the ground in terms of education, working together with the Palestinian government, the legitimate government, in order to change education, in order to bring this vision of living side by side in security and peace, not only to Israel but also among Palestinian society.

While we are defending ourselves, we also need to act according to our own values – and, believe me, it’s not easy. It’s not easy when Israel is being targeted on a daily basis by Kassam rockets from the Gaza Strip. We have the power and the ability to meet this challenge in military terms but, on the other hand, Israel is not a state that will act against its own values, but will try to avoid any kind of civilian casualties, and so on. So, on a daily basis we have this combination between the need to defend ourselves and the need to defend our democratic values, and this is not less important. As decision makers, we have this kind of ongoing dilemma on our table.

For us, this is an opportunity to share with you the situation on the ground, the political situation on the ground which also impacts the way to promote our mutual goals.

A few words about the situation and the beginning of the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians – and maybe this also represents the way we see the region in terms of extremists and moderates. I believe that we should put aside the old vision about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because, in a way, Israel plus the moderate and pragmatic leaders among the Palestinians share the same vision of two states for two peoples. We also understand that, in order to accomplish this, we need to confront terrorism, as the Palestinians understand that in order to do so, for their own sake and not only for the sake of Israel, they need to confront terrorism.

If in the past we used to speak about the conflict in terms not only of an Israeli-Palestinian conflict but a Jewish-Arab conflict or an Israeli-Arab conflict, I believe that there is an understanding today among other states in the region that the threat comes from the extremists, the radical elements, among their own states – radical elements like Iran in the region. So basically they share the same understanding of the challenges, the mutual challenges, and this also changes the alliances in the region.

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.  

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

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