Daniel Lubetzky

OneVoice Israel just commenced an exhibit titled "Till White Smoke Emanates" urging the Israeli and Palestinian heads of state to continue negotiations non-stop till they strike an agreement (the only missing ingredient in the leaders’ commitment to "ongoing" but not "uninterrupted" negotiations, as the OneVoice Mandate urges). 

The "white smoke" concept is borrowed from when Archbishops close themselves off and don’t come out of a big hall till the Pope has been selected.  The Exhibit revolves around 24 wood chairs that Israeli artists were asked to transform into statements about this issue.

Their Exhibit is now on display at Itzhak Rabin Square in Tel Aviv.  Another article about it in Hebrew is here.

We are very proud and grateful of SKOLL’s generous and energizing support of our social entrepreneurship, as detailed here.

Thanks to Janera Soerel for an exceptionally explicit and precise interview and article tackling a lot of issues revolving OneVoice, PeaceWorks, and the philosophy underlying them.

A New York Times Editorial, "An Intolerable Fraud", tells of a "charity" that hides behind a patriotic name – "The Coalition to Salute America’s Heroes" and its sister "Help Hospitalized Veterans" – to bilk unknowing donors trying to send funds to soldiers harmed by the war, only to squander 70% to 80% of their funds.

According to the New York Times, the guy running this outfit, Roger Chapin, spent nearly $125 million (75% of funds raised) in "fund-raising, administrative expenses, fat salaries and perks. Mr. Chapin gave himself and his wife $1.5 million in salary, bonuses and pension contributions over those three years, including more than $560,000 in 2006. The charities also reimbursed the Chapins more than $340,000 for meals, hotels, entertainment and other expenses, and paid for a $440,000 condominium and a $17,000 golf-club membership." 

Just as pathetic, much of the funds the troops got was in the form of "’charitable’ phone cards sent to troops overseas in 2006 — not to let them call their families, but rather to call up a stateside business that sells sports scores."

[Read more →]

I often carry around old newspapers whose op-eds or articles I hadn’t read.  Some times I may be dumb enough to bring one copy across half a dozen trips before getting to it, only to realize I was carrying dead weight.

Not just now, when I caught up with last week’s op-ed page from the New York Times, which included an extraordinary piece from Sarah Vowell and a good column from William Kristol.

From Vowell (whose piece goes far beyond the issues covered here), I read about pure Christian theology’s precepts, as taught by Jesus of Nazareth, to "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you."  Too bad many followers intoxicated by organized religion’s quest for power forgot this precept.

But Martin Luther King Jr. did not.  He applied the Sermon on the Mount in his ‘loving your enemies’ sermon:

So this morning, as I look into your eyes and into the eyes of all of my brothers in Alabama and all over America and over the world, I say to you: ‘I love you. I would rather die than hate you.’

I am a bit embarrassed that I had never heard of this sermon, though I recently went through an experience that made me reflect about similar issues.

Back around late September and early October, when groups that opposed negotiations between Israel and Palestine for a two-state-solution or that did not understand or agree with OneVoice’s mission of mobilizing ordinary citizens to push for an agreement threatened some of our staff and performers, I clumped together attackers and critics, and was overcome with an intense sense of injustice and a hatred that I did not know I had in me.

Postponing the October 18th OneVoice Summit was a painful setback for the team and all our supporters, and it made me feel like I let down so many people and haunted me for a long time (still occasionally now).

Eventually our 18 month campaign not only overcame this setback, but continued to attract support, surpassing 650,000 signatories of the OneVoice Mandate to date, and validating its efforts when the Israeli, Palestinian and American Heads of State committed almost verbatim to the OneVoice Mandate.

But no less important was the internal growth that I experienced during that tough period, when I found myself taking a very wrong path of anger and resentment against those attacking or even just criticizing my team members.  Eventually I turned back from that dark alley into a path you can only see from the contrast of the darkness.  I felt what it was to hate, and I realized I had to reject it.  The experience had a lasting impression and impact on my thoughts about civic activism.

It is not enough to push for the peace process; it is not enough to awaken moderate voices, even though OneVoice recognizes that is tactically the most cost-effective choice to push the process along and highlight there is a partner on both sides.  As we gain momentum, we must also truly pursue peace with ALL.

Northern Ireland’s experience is instructive.  The movement also started with mainstream grassroots disaffected citizens – Mothers.  But eventually it broadened, and it enveloped and involved the leaders from the entrenched militant groups, which were at the table when the deals were struck.

The danger with excluding specific groups and branding them as extremist is that you don’t leave space for the people to evolve in their thought process, but cage them as the enemy, and leave them no other option but to struggle against your vision, which may include the "other", but may exclude some of your own.

Many who believe in a mission of a two state solution think that the only way to get there is to attack those who oppose it, but you end up creating a different type of enemy.  Somehow some proponents of peace with the other side have no qualms about fighting with their own.

The journey is as important as the destination.  Pursuing peace by demonizing those you consider to oppose it creates a different type of war.  Whether it is Israel’s far left which sometimes hates the Israeli right with as much intensity as the Israeli far right hates the Arabs (and the Israeli left), or whether it is someone from Fatah that hates Hamas, or whether it is a Jew who fears or resents a Muslim or vice-versa, all of the paths of hatred must be fought.

As painful as it is to the Israeli left, they need to engage the settlers in a dialogue and welcome them back to the mainstream.  This is of course very hard because the settlers are not aching to come in, to say the least, not to mention they want to keep the Israeli left out. 

As painful as it is to Palestinian seculars and intellectuals, and to the Fatah power base, they will need to find a way to attract Hamas supporters, many of whom were attracted to the grassroots authenticity of the Hamas movement’s struggle for liberation and turned off by corrupted officials entrenched in power.

And what do you do about those who ideologically cannot reconcile with peace? How do you deal with core Hamas leaders who believe Greater Palestine is an Islamic Waqf (a Trust from the Almighty) which cannot be negotiated away? How do you relate to settlers who feel Greater Israel is a grant to the Jewish people (a Trust from the Almighty), one which cannot be negotiated away?

THESE are the instances where you most must fight all impulses to hate.  You must hold on to your principle, and try to reason.  But where your reason does not permeate into theirs, you must continue inviting them to come in to your tent one day, and offer that they can reconcile their beliefs with the reality of two peoples destined to co-exist by keeping their spiritual absolutism in their hearts, respectfully, and not forgetting their religious precepts which also require respect and love to other human beings.

It is a very hard thing to achieve an approach of unbending love and respect towards all, and probably only saints like MLK Jr. or Gandhi truly achieve such pure empathy. 

After all, when you perceive an injustice to be done, you feel justified, almost morally-bound, to resent the person that commits the injustice.  If the injustice is great, you may feel an impulse to hate the aggressor.  But I guess you must at least TRY to catch that impulse and fight it.  It does NOT mean you don’t fight the injustice; it means you try to get the transgressor to fight it too.  And this requires a lot of love.

Otherwise, with so much animosity and pain and fear and suspicions and suffering, it will eat you and turn you into that which you most want to fight.

William Kristol writes about what makes John McCain different from the other Republicans running for their party’s nomination, including being "the not-so-modern type [that is shaped by political consultants, being]…rigid, self-righteous, and moralizing, but (or rather and) manly, courageous, and principled."  He tells how McCain memorized as a child, and recited to Kristol on a patchy cell phone call, this extraordinary poem about conviction and courage of the soul:

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbow’d

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find me, unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

-William Ernest Henley, Invictus (1875), as quoted by McCain and told by Kristol, who surmises McCain must have recited this more than once during his captivity as a prisoner of war. 

What is remarkable about McCain is that for the most part when I hear him (with the notable exception of his California debate against Romney), he seems to be the captain of his soul and to fight to uphold principles he holds dear, including some times supporting a tough military course without hating his enemy and without doing things out of spite.  He too lets people like Romney get the best of him.  And it is starkly unattractive.  But for the most part, he rises above petty politics.  He acts out of nobility and puts US interests ahead of himself or his campaign.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is OneVoice Connected To The Negotiations Process? It was BORN to rekindle it.

· OneVoice was founded in the aftermath of the breakdown of the Camp David negotiations to amplify the voice of the overwhelming majority of Palestinian and Israeli citizens who cherish an end to the conflict and recognize the only way to achieve it is through a two state solution

· OneVoice began last year a campaign to urge the Israeli and Palestinian Heads of State to immediately commence ongoing negotiations, uninterrupted until the conclusion of a comprehensive peace agreement, within a year of commencing the process

o That means that we urge the leaders to complete an agreement no later than Nov 27 2008

· Over 620,000 global citizens, including roughly 300,000 Israelis and 300,000 Palestinians, have thus far joined the movement as signatories to the OneVoice Mandate and/or the OneVoice Principles;

· When we began the campaign, many thought it was too risky and irresponsible to demand negotiations when no prospects for peace where in the horizon, let alone uninterrupted negotiations till the conclusion of an agreement, and let alone a comprehensive agreement

· OneVoice has had an opportunity to influence their leaders and share its message directly with them, including when it succeeded in getting President Abbas, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, and President Peres together in Davos to hear the message from the people; President Abbas and Foreign Minister Livni, both during the Davos session and thereafter, acknowledged the impact and inspiration from seeing hundreds of their young speak to them with passion about their support for their leadership to end the conflict.

· A delegation of OneVoice activists, youth leaders, and executive directors from Gaza, Ramallah, Tel Aviv, New York and London will be available in Annapolis, Jerusalem, and New York City to represent and speak on behalf of the 620,000+ citizens that have signed on to the OneVoice Mandate demanding immediate negotiations, uninterrupted till the conclusion of a two state agreement, no later than a year from now. www.OneMillionVoices.org

[Ahmad Salameh used to be a student representative of Hamas while at Al Najar University.  During a jail term, he lost his fiance and he started becoming increasingly disenchanted with false promises of glory, eventually turning a new leaf, switching to Bir Zeit University, and joining OneVoice. He was a great activist at OV, until he opted to move to Dubai in search of job opportunities.  In between he was also a very creative entrepreneur, and created a business where messages of love and peace would be graffitied into the separation wall - for a $20 fee per message, which you could request via internet.  We recently corresponded and he permitted me to share his message.]

From: Ahmad Salameh
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 11:51 AM
To: Danieel
Subject: Dear

Dear Danieel:
how are you? how is everything wiith you???
i hope that you still remeber me as i do!
i’m in Dubai since last october! iam working in real state ! as a broker in [____] development!!!
if you wana too invest just mail me:-)
in all cases realy iam shocked from the first day that i arrived Dubai!!! most of people dont know anything about the conflict between Palestinian and Israelies!!!
i visted many universities and talk about the conflict and peace horizon!!
iam do care about what will happen after anabolies!! i hope they will success in the conference!
really iam thinking to go back to palestine to support all peace forces!! i think we are in a critical time that will design our future!!
nice to send to you my dear
Ahmad Salameh

One of my replies:

From: daniel
To: salameh.ahmad@
Subject: RE: Dear
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:18:43 -0500

Ahmad, it is so nice to hear from you.  I have never been to Dubai but hear it is amazing.  One day I will visit. I hope you do go back to Palestine because we need your leadership and creativity and entrepreneurial spirit to get Palestine to grow.  I send you a big hug and please stay in touch.  Warmest, Daniel

One of his replies:

Thanks alot for your trust my frined but you know in palestine it is very hard to find a job! i spent many years as a voulnteer fpr peace and iam so happy to do that! BUT now after finishing the school i have to work to help my family and my self! you know life expences is too much!
I do care about the situation in palestine i think everybody has to support Mr.Abbas at this time! and we have to say END the war and give us the right to live in peace!
every time i add comments to internet articles spically Hamas websites and i say " please give your eyes the right to see the truthm please give your hearts the right to love, please giveyour souls the right to accept each others, please give OUR childrens the right to live in a peacfull futur!"
most times they ignore my comments but iam sure that every body responsible to tell the truth and to motivate all extreems to think twice before pushing all of us to the hill!!
Ahmad Salameh

[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.