Daniel Lubetzky

Today several friends forwarded to me an email from a Palestinian Boycott group called PACBI and from a gentleman named Haithem El-Zabri, one of the people that are core organizers for the anti-OneVoice efforts.  They said that the postponement of the OneVoice Summits was a "Victory."  And in the same statement they indicated support for "peace." 

It is hard for me to understand how anyone who sincerely wants peace can think that any setback in sincere efforts at mobilizing moderate voices to support an end to the conflict can be seen as a victory.

As I am trying very mightily to stick to my personal pledge not to let hatred seep into me again, not even from those who intentionally or unintentionally distort what OneVoice is about, I will do my best to be rational and positive and to seek as much as possible to counter extremism (as an ideological position) as opposed to counter people I would have considered extremists (thereby labeling them as they label me, and affixing them into a static and permanent position as an enemy).  I will of course address why positions that amount to extremist positions have to be re-thought, and encourage their re-thinking.

In fact, today I am making Haithem El-Zabri into my friend.  He above many had angered me so much over the last few weeks.  And I am sure I have angered him also (I’ve seen a few of the emails he’s sent out about me, quite angry, but none violent, and for the record I never stated he made violent threats, but I saw and showed that others did, as reported in earlier blog entries, and as artists and staff reported to the authorities; just on this point, I encourage Mr. Zabri, I mean Haithem, and PACBI, to be careful not to assume that because OneVoice Palestine or artists supporting them receive threats they have to necessarily come from their groups; I do know that at least one person that belongs to Another Voice made a violent threat to blow up the OV office online, and I also know that artists personally complained to me about the threats and intimidation they were facing, not just from Palestine but also from Lebanon, and I also know that serious threats were reported to the authorities and need to be dealt with by them, not by public discussion).

But instead of continuing this path of increased confrontation with a group that opposes OneVoice, and instead of placing OneVoice into the negative us-vs-them mentality that has kept this region in such pain for so long, I will welcome them to understand us better.  If they choose to, maybe they will come around.  If they don’t, then the hatred will be theirs to deal with, not ours.

Anyway, what puzzles me is why PACBI, Haithem, or anyone else would take so much energy to oppose a mobilization of citizens demanding an end to the conflict.  OneVoice is at its essence a civic movement here to amplify voices of moderation, to propel leaders to the negotiating table to end the conflict.

Is there a reason why they oppose negotiations? Is it that any negotiation is in and of itself wrong because it acknowledges the other side? If that is the answer, then the word "peace" has no place in their lexicon, if we are to be earnest.  Let’s then just acknowledge then that they do not support peace, but an absolute imposition of a position from one side on the other, whether through war or otherwise. So do they oppose negotiations? I would appreciate understanding this.

Another argument PACBI and Zabri advance is that OneVoice was not specific enough about what a two-state solution or any solution would entail.  But this is disingenuous because as I have explained in the past, OneVoice does NOT advance a concrete solution because that is not its mandate, and its 600,000 signatories thus far do not have to agree on the specifics – that would be pretentious because that is not their job but the job for their elected representatives.

This does not mean there are no answers out there.  As most polls demonstrate, as the Clinton parameters demonstrate, as the OneVoice citizen negotiations we organized in 2003-2004 demonstrated, and as Chairman Arafat’s endorsement of the Taba agreement demonstrate, this is not an intractable conflict – there are answers out there, if we really want to recognize that TWO peoples are destined to live in this land and must come to terms with their mutual rights to freedom, dignity, respect, security, etc.

Again, all of the above are provided as examples for skeptics that believe that there are no answers out there and we are destined to live at war.  But they are not official positions of OneVoice because OneVoice is a civic movement to amplify the voice of moderation and not a political party.

OneVoice does NOT take specific political positions on how the conflict has to be resolved – it cannot pretend to, when its 600,000 signatories and its 60 dignitaries span a spectrum of politics and beliefs and don’t agree on all issues.  What OneVoice emphasizes, and the only thing that all of its members are asked to sign on to, the OneVoice Mandate, is that the two heads of state must immediately resume negotiations, and continue in an uninterrupted fashion till they strike an agreement.

Now, you can make arguments why negotiations could result in undesirable results – for example, what if the Heads of State propose something that the people don’t find acceptable? But really, does this warrant not trying to get the leaders to agree? If so what would be the way that Haithem or PACBI suggest we should further an end to the occupation – I assume that they don’t want a solution imposed on them, so what precisely will be the mechanism they recommend, presuming they don’t want war or violence?

And again, why would anyone, even if they are skeptical about what can negotiations bring about, exert such assertive opposition to the efforts of ordinary citizens to demand progress in the negotiations?

Sometimes we lose sight of the mission and group start furthering an institution rather than a vision to better the peoples’ lives.

The "Boycott" group takes a very firm stance against cooperation between any Israeli and Palestinian groups or NGOs – they are here to Boycott Israel.  Well, first of all OneVoice is designed to build parallel but totally separate mainstream nationalist movements, one with Palestinian leaders advancing the will of the Palestinian people and working in Palestine, and a totally separate one with Israeli leaders advancing the will of the Israeli people and working in Israel.  While these are separate groups with different narratives, they do both share the aspiration for an end to the conflict.

In this case, the parallel work that the Boycott group was opposing was the mutual (though expressly not joint) manifestation of moderates on both sides to end the conflict through a two state solution.

OneVoice Palestine clearly wants and works to end the occupation (as do I of course, and as should do every Palestinian and every Israeli that want an end to the conflict, it’s the only way – just like recognizing the right of Israel to exist is also the only way out of this, and if any Palestinian hasn’t figured that one out, well, then I address that below).

So, is a "Boycott" group so driven by its narrow focused vision that it will celebrate when these moderate voices, when its own people, are not heard?

This was such a sad setback not just for OneVoice – that is less important – but for the people of the region.  Our vision is to show that both sides have a partner on the other side in the people.  Why would any Palestinian oppose showing the positive face of the Palestinian people, which is so critical to overcome dangerous bias that prevents progress towards ending the conflict?  This is why I was so disappointed, not because there wasn’t a concert, which is just a tool, but because this was a setback to our mission of showing the moderate voices to all, to inspire citizens to become more active towards pushing to end this conflict once and for all.

To go further than that, to blindly oppose cooperation between Palestinians and others is just shortsighted and unwise.  Palestinians who want to end the occupation should welcome partners who agree with that, and frankly the best counterpart Palestinians can find are Israelis who out of their enlightened self-interest recognize this because it is Israelis that are the ones they are destined to find a settlement with.  Same with the opposite argument, of course, that Israelis need to engage Palestinians as their counterparts.

I will go further.  Another Voice and PACBI criticized that OneVoice Palestine was associated with a movement that on the other side in OneVoice Israel included hawkish voices.  BUT THIS IS THE MAGIC OF ONEVOICE.  That OneVoice Palestine itself is not made up just of liberal dreamers, but includes fiery Palestinian nationalists like Sheikh Taysir al Tamimi, the Chief Palestinian Islamic Justice, and that OneVoice Israel is not made up only of people from the left, but also of Generals, and Knesset members from Kadima and Shas and Mafdal who in spite of all their differences join together as OneVoice for an end to the conflict.

It is a strength that the movement includes people and leaders from all walks of life, as this is what it will take to end this.

Indeed, the same logic applies to my reaching out to PACBI and Haithem, as I have often done to right-wing Rabbis.  I find that some times the most entrenched hawkish people, the most doubtful of the others’ rights or intentions, once they see that there is a way we can get there together, become the most ardent supporters of our movement. 

Now I am not naive, here. I have read a lot of what Haithem has written in the past, and he opposed President Arafat’s negotiations, so I don’t have much hope he will support Abbas, let alone a movement that encourages Abbas and Olmert to advance the negotiations process.  But if Haithem is sincere in his beliefs that he wants "peace" then perhaps we can establish some understanding – perhaps he can explain to me his vision of peace is.  And if it recognizes the rights of both peoples to freedom, dignity, respect, security etc, maybe we will get somewhere.

On an international front, by the way, I also strongly think that anybody who wants Palestine to rise up as a nation, and anyone who wants Israel to live with security, should welcome all the allies that can bring momentum to this cause – and the OneVoice Movement is a formidable tool to raise awareness about the imperative of moving here.  So again, I don’t understand why anyone who sincerely wants "peace" would take the time to attack OneVoice.  Is this really the best use of someone’s time? Why would this upset them so much if they don’t harbor extremist ideologies?

Another argument I saw PACBI and Another Voice make is that OneVoice engages in moral equivalency – comparing the duties of the occupier and occupied.  First of all, I have no idea how they draw this conclusion.  OneVoice doesn’t engage in any moral assessments – that is the role of Imams or Priests or Rabbis or Judges or international arbitrators or human rights activists or diplomats, etc, but not ours.  We focus on working solutions to move beyond the past and the present, with all of its suffering, and to move to the future where answers do lie.

What is interesting about the "moral equivalency" argument is how frequent it comes from BOTH SIDES.  Jewish leaders often ask me, "Daniel, by using the OneVoice language, aren’t you risking putting us in the same basket as terrorists?" [Here is the most recent example, hot off the press, from the Jerusalem Post, and unfortunately it comes from the producer of one of my favorite movies, Central Station]  And Palestinians often ask me, "Daniel, by using the OneVoice language, aren’t you risking putting us the occupied in the same basket as the occupier?"  Again, DO NOT MISQUOTE ME.  These are verbatim the question I hear over and over again from others.  As far as OneVoice is concerned, we are not in the business of putting people in baskets and evaluating the righteousness of each side.  I am sure that OneVoice Palestine members feel they are in general more righteous and OneVoice Israel members feel they are in general more righteous.  Let each side say what it may in their narrative, but they join as OneVoice in the Mandate to end the conflict.

This brings me to a big and unfair attack claiming that OneVoice gives different information to different sides.  The fact is that the common language that all agree to at OneVoice is the OneVoice Mandate, and that IS the fundamental document that is identical and has no differences. But we WANT OneVoice Palestine to be motivated by Palestinian interests, and we WANT OneVoice Israel to be motivated by Israeli interests, so of course their language on the "WHY" they do what they do will be different.

It seems a bit hypocritical to complain that OneVoice Palestine is not nationalistic enough, and then to complain that it works with the other side, and then to complain that the other side doesn’t share the same identical narrative that OneVoice Palestine does!  Each side is driven by its own motivations: OneVoice Palestine wants to achieve a vibrant Palestinian State; OneVoice Israel wants to achieve permanent security; but they BOTH JOIN ON THE MANDATE.

So if all of the above "reasons" are not real satisfactory reasons to garner all time and energy to attack an organization that seeks to amplify the voice of moderation, what is the reason to oppose OneVoice? 

My guess, all along, has been that the real reason why Haithem and PACBI oppose OneVoice is because they oppose the concept of a two state solution and are threatened by the fact that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians and Israelis – 76% consistently on both sides – support this as the only real way to end the conflict.

First let me explain why anything other than a two state solution is not going to achieve peace.  Simply, because the overwhelming majorities do not want it.  Jews in Israel will not accept the destruction of Israel as the State of the Jewish people.  This is the only State in the world where someone persecuted as a Jew can find a haven.  Palestinians in Palestine have nowhere else to go and want and have the inalienable right to build a nation in Palestine.  Neither side is going anywhere else.  Neither side wants to be ruled by the other.  Each side, overwhelmingly, wants its own state, and let the others have theirs too, because that is the only way out.

I often get people telling me that of course they want "peace" but then they go on to provide a version of absolutism that denies the right of the other side. I have Israeli friends that tell me that of course they want peace but since the Jews only have one State and Arabs have 22+ States, why can’t Palestinians just go to one of the Arab countries?  Well, that is not ever going to happen, and Palestinians also don’t have anywhere else to go.  I have Palestinian friends who sincerely tell me they want peace but that a condition to this must mean that every single Palestinian who was displaced from Lod or Haifa or elsewhere in present day Israel must be given all of the land they had and all Palestinians and "Israelis" can then live in one binational state.  Well, again, this is not ever going to happen.  PLEASE DO NOT MISQUOTE ME.  I am NOT taking any positions on any of these issues because in my OneVoice role I cannot do so.  The OneVoice Movement includes many people that hold a variety of beliefs on all of these issues.  BUT WHAT THEY ALL RECOGNIZE IS THAT ULTIMATELY THIS THING IS NOT GOING TO BE RESOLVED IF BOTH SIDES DON’T COME TO TERMS WITH THE FACT THAT A COMPROMISE MUST BE MADE.

So why is a One State "solution" no solution at all? Because it cannot come about, period.

Anyone who pretends otherwise is either not privy to correct information or otherwise harboring the hope that they will one day impose an absolutist solution on the other.

But EVEN if I couldn’t convince PACBI or Haithem that a two-state solution is the only way forward, is attacking this movement dedicated to mobilize both sides towards personal responsibility to end the conflict really the best way for them to invest their energies?

So to PACBI and Haithem, and to all others who have opposed OneVoice in the past, including by the way also a lot of right-wing groups on the Israeli side who have similarly attacked OneVoice Israel among similar lines, based on misinformation or principle, please ask yourselves:

What is better, to hold on to impractical absolutist visions that will only protract this conflict and keep this beautiful region hostage, or to find a way to end the conflict through a two state solution? Shouldn’t we all be better if we can work a way to move forward recognizing both sides?

Can we dare dream even of a day when the children of this region will transcend all this hatred and suffering, including the toils of occupation as well as the toils of violence and insecurity?

An excellent article on efforts to attack and delegitimize the voices of reconciliation is posted at

Drowning out One Million Voices: The enemies of peace

12 days ago a slanderous press release was launched by a fringe group that sparked rumours that OneVoice Palestine exists to negotiate away the rights of refugees and international law. OneVoice’s teams here come together to categorically deny this and expose the fact that some Palestinians have been misled by a sinister campaign of hate, coupled with vicious threats of violence from extremists that have spiraled out of control.

OneVoice is a civil society movement to empower the conflict resolution process from the grassroots. We have no power to affect the content of negotiations, but we do have the power to tell the leaders and international community that we will no longer accept a failure to deliver real progress.

The OneVoice Mandate calls on our heads of State to commence immediate negotiations, uninterrupted until the conclusion of a viable Two State agreement in order to amplify moderate forces in the November negotiations. That is the power of the grassroots and without a mobilized grassroots constituency we leave our leaders open to attack and without the strength to deliver real answers.

Of course the people have demands, whether they be to end the occupation or to deliver security, OneVoice, however, does not have a political platform other than to endorse negotiations for a Two State solution and stands only to support the leaders and demand that the will of the people serve to energise the process. Its Palestinian offices in Gaza City and Ramallah, run by nationalist Palestinians for nationalist Palestinians, exist to do exactly this.

And so, an organization of around 600,000 Palestinian and Israeli signatories, board members from Palestinian Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat, Jibril Rajoub, and Islamic Chief Justice Sheikh Taysir al-Tamimi to Arab-American Institute President Dr Jim Zogby and Founder George Salem, is being targeted by absolutists with no intention of ending the conflict, who are defrauding the people out of their right to peace, and into being a part of their battle. They must not be tolerated and we implore all of you who are confused by the lies and seek further clarification to look at the OneVoice track record and materials yourselves.

The opportunity is not lost: 600,000 people have already spoken and will not lose the hope and momentum we are building in the wake of the Arab Peace Initiative and the upcoming November Summit.

We will stand by President Abbas and tell him that he can and must deliver something for the people and that we will support him every step of the way when he does because these enemies of peace will attack him too as they did attack Chairman Arafat’s ‘peace of the braves’ and all other efforts toward a just solution that will bring about Palestinian independence, an end to the occupation and peace with its neighbours including Israel based on the terms that he as the Palestinian head of state agrees upon.

These enemies who use intimidation, fear and manipulation to protract the conflict through absolutist ideologies do not have any actionable proposals that will fulfill the wish of the Palestinian people. They have enchained the people for far too long.

I went on CNN just an hour or so ago, just a few seconds after they aired Nasrallah’s threats against the Arab world not to participate in the November conference sponsored by the US. 

Why am I not surprised that Hezbollah, created and funded by Iran, is opposed to negotiations to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? This doesn’t serve the needs of their Iranian patrons, who seeks to use Israelis and Palestinians as peons in the ideological quest for hegemonic control over the region.

It was a good opportunity to juxtapose the will of the overwhelming majority of citizens that are FED UP with EXTREMISM, vis a vis. absolutist apocalyptic visions that are keeping all of us chained to violence and hatred for far too long.

The contrast is clear and people need to once and for all understand there are only TWO options.  You cannot say you are for peace but want the whole thing to yourself.  You cannot say you want peace but on your own terms only.  You cannot say you are representing the hopes of the Palestinian people but the Palestinian people have no right to negotiate or talk with their enemy.  You cannot say you are upholding the rights of the Israeli people but the Israelis have no right to negotiate with their counterparts.

There are only two options: a two state solution recognizing the rights of both sides to freedom, dignity, respect and security – along the lines of the Clinton parameters which 76% of Israelis and Palestinians polled support – OR ETERNAL CONFLICT.

There is no third option.  Let’s be clear about it.

OneVoice Palestine is facing some complaints from extremist radical groups that question OneVoice’s commitment to Palestinian rights.  We of course are totally in sync with the will of the overwhelming majority of Israelis and Palestinians that are fed up with these very extremists, but for the record, I shared the following with them:

“Statement from Daniel Lubetzky, Founder of the PeaceWorks Foundation which supports the OneVoice Movement internationally, to OneVoice Palestine and the People of Palestine, on the occasion of the October 18^th Peoples’ Summit”

OneVoice is a grassroots non-partisan popular movement; it is not a political party and does not have a political platform; it is a platform to amplify the voice of ordinary Palestinian and Israeli people who do not want their lives to be hijacked any longer by forces of militant absolutism on either side. 

The OneVoice Movement recognizes that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians and Israelis support a two-state-solution as the only way to end the conflict.

Ending the conflict through a two-state-solution is the ONLY real way to end the occupation that besieges the daily lives of the Palestinian people, just like it is the only way to achieve the security that Israelis crave.   A two-state-solution is the only way to bring freedom, dignity, respect, peace and security and a better future to the people of the region.

OneVoice empowers citizens to take action to propel and support their elected leaders to be accountable to the will of the people, to immediately return to the negotiating table and to not get up until the conclusion of a two state agreement.

Both the Israeli and Palestinian Heads of State (Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas) were elected by their people on platforms to bring an end to the occupation and terror and to achieve a two-state-solution that will, once and for all, establish a vibrant Palestinian State in peace with all of its neighbors including Israel.  The OneVoice Movement, and I personally, are unwaveringly committed to attain this goal above all.

People that oppose a two-state-solution and are threatened by the fact that OneVoice is now giving a voice to the overwhelming majority of moderates on both sides may try unsuccessfully to undermine this movement.  But they cannot stop millions on both sides that are fed up with a tiny minority keeping all hostage because of their false bravado and empty rhetoric that ignores the only solution is a negotiated solution among both peoples.

What are the contours of a two state solution?  The answers are clearly outlined in the Clinton parameters, , same which Chairman Arafat endorsed in the Taba negotiations as he affirmed the path of the “peace of the braves.” 

The answers  are further enshrined in the OneVoice Pillars for Conflict Resolution, www.OneVoiceMovement.org/negotiate, CRAFTED WITH THE PARTICIPATION OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PALESTINIAN AND ISRAELI PEOPLE, which confirm, among other things, that a two state solution can only be achieved by “two viable states, Israel the state of the Jewish people and Palestine the state of the Palestinian people, each recognizing the other as such, both democratic and respecting human rights, including minority rights,” that “1967 borders are the basis for an agreement, while border modifications will be used to accommodate the territorial and security needs of both sides,” that “Israel shall completely end the occupation, within the context of a comprehensive peace agreement and a cessation of all terror and violence on both sides, at which time all political prisoners will also be released,” that “Arab East Jerusalem will be under Palestinian sovereignty while Jewish areas will be under Israeli sovereignty, and each State shall have the right to establish its capital within its sovereign territory, recognized by the other and internationally” and that “the refugee problem must be resolved in a humane, fair, just and practical manner in the final Status Agreement.” 

The above pillars represent the WILL OF CITIZENS OF THE GROUND and as such have unassailable moral authority.  They are not perfect and require further work, which elected leaders now need to immediately take on to fulfill the wish of the Palestinian AND Israeli people.

The OneVoice platform is consistent with (and advances) the Arab Peace Initiative, same which extremists on both sides oppose.

The OneVoice Movement recognizes that prosperity and security for both peoples will not be achieved without ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and reaching a just and agreed upon solution to all issues, including the plight of the refugees, an end to the occupation, an end to terror attacks, and an achievement of freedom and security for all peoples.

The time has come for citizens that support these principles to stand up and be counted, to not be intimidated or suppressed by False Messiahs with absolutist visions who have brought nothing but misery and violence to people on both sides.

Daniel Lubetzky

As we deal with so many logistical challenges and so many fast-coming opportunities and hurdles, it is so energizing when we get more great news and support from inspiring leaders!

Darya Shaikh, our US Executive Director, just gave us the great news that Her Majesty Queen Noor, a long time friend of the OneVoice Movement and an inspiring leader who is fulfilling the late King Hussein’s legacy of leadership and kindness, has joined as an Honorary Co-Chair of the OneVoice Summit on October 18th.

Her Majesty Queen Noor is in good company with other foremost dignitaries and Heads of State driven by a very different set of primary goals – some committed to end the occupation, some committed to bring security – but all joining as OneVoice to End the Conflict.

Our Honorary Co-Chairs for the OneVoice Summit include:

               Queen Noor

               Stu Eizenstat

               President Mary Robinson

               Klaus Schwab

               Saeb Erakat

               Dennis Ross

We also have a long-standing impressive Honorary Board of Advisors similarly across an unprecedented spectrum of religious beliefs and politics joining the call to empower moderate voices, including Muhammad Ali, Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Chief Palestinian Islamic Justice Sheikh Tamimi, Ambassador Martin Indyk, and other great leaders we are grateful to.

And a great Trustee Advisory Council of global business leaders guiding and helping us.

And an awesome Entertainment Council helping us put a spotlight on the voices of moderation.

Let’s do this!

Per my prior blog post, I could have placed my bet on who is behind the "boycott" of the OneVoice Summit…

…No one other than the "International Solidarity Movement."

This is a fringe movement of extremists that do not support the two-state-solution, of any kind.  It is not an issue of 67 borders, or Jerusalem, or refugee rights.  Don’t let them hide behind any of that – because all of those issues have answers the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians support, embodied in the Clinton Parameters – and also in the Taba talks that Arafat himself fully endorsed.

If any one doubts that the ISM and all those opposing the OneVoice Summit are just ultimately the very extremists we seek to expose, just confront them and ask them.  You will get evasive politicized answers that only will confirm these people are the "false messiahs" that promise absolute solutions to the Palestinians, only to manipulate them and deliver nothing to them.

The "International Solidarity Movement" has been exposed and defeated at numerous college campus events.  Before, they could hide under the mantle of Palestinian nationalism, out of the comfort of their homes in Virginia.

But when OneVoice Youth Leaders from Palestine, from Gaza to Jenin, who are living with the consequences tell the public that they want a two-state-solution, they help unmask intransigent groups that rather eternal warfare than a historic compromise.

The problem does not exist among Palestinian extremist circles alone, who covet "all of Palestine" and will not accept the existence of a Jewish State by their side.  There are parallel Jewish groups that want a "Greater Israel" and will not recognize a Palestinian State by their side.

They too get unmasked by mainstream Israelis that are just fed up with absolutists messing their lives for far too long.

They will try to hide behind diatribe and formulations, but the bottomline question you must ask them to expose them is, do you recognize the right of both the Israeli and Palestinian people to live in freedom, dignity, and with security – for two states to co-exist side by side?

Anyone that does not accept this formulation is either uninformed or hiding their absolutism.

One-State-Solution may be beautifully-intentioned but both the Israelis and the Palestinians want a separate State of their own.  Eventually after peace comes you could hope for a confederacy agreement between proud independent states, but the fact is that the ONLY solution out there is the Two-State-Solution embodied in the Clinton Parameters – which the OneVoice Citizen Negotiations highlighted enjoy consensus among both sides.

There are just no other answers out there and it is time that we come to terms with that and not allow violent extremists to derail the hopes and dreams of millions for an end to the conflict.

OneVoice Palestine has recently been attacked by a new campaign by disgruntled people (apparently funded out of Lebanon) who believe the OneVoice Summit should be boycotted.

Some of our staff and friends got emails urging them to boycott the efforts of OneVoice Palestine – they all came from someone in Lebanon who claimed that our mobilization of moderate voices to call for an end to the conflict across both sides is an effort at normalization rather than at ending the occupation.

A couple weeks ago, on the other side, we also heard boycott calls from an extremist Jewish American group that plans to protest our Washington DC event and claimed OneVoice Israel was a tool of appeasement betraying Jewish values. 

This is not the first and will not be the last time that violent extremists and radical absolutists from either side will try to undermine the OneVoice Movement.

Indeed, the more we grow and threaten these extremist visions, the more they will try to undermine our call to empower mainstream nationalists on both sides to break the shackles that violent extremists have placed on our world for too long.

But OneVoice is built and engineered not just to withstand that, but to use those attacks to expose radical extremists, absolutists and fatalists who claim they are "for peace" but who realistically prefer eternal warfare to compromise.  Let’s call the bluff on anyone who says they are "for peace" but don’t want to accept the other side has a right.  Let them be honest and at least say, "we are not for peace, we want it all, or war."

There are only two options: a) Two States for Two People, or b) Continued Conflict.

People need to make a choice. 

Are they going to stand up and be counted and help us build the critical mass to unleash the power of moderation – or are they going to be silenced by violent extremism?

As OneVoice continues growing, it will be the subject of more criticism from those very violent extremists we seek to neutralize and isolate.  They will isolate themselves by opposing a popular movement that aims to build dignity, respect, humanity, and a two state solution for both peoples. 

In the process, they will also highlight the OneVoice message.

Any Palestinian that wants to end the occupation and achieve independence, and any Israeli that wants to end terror and achieve security, must ultimately understand the only way to do so is through an agreement among both peoples to end the conflict.

From the printing press…

To distribution,

To posters across Israel advertising Oct 18

To people as walking signs…

To "VanVoice" – the OneVoice Van!

Let me introduce you to Michael Shapira, who is in charge of our signatory member outreach campaign on the Israeli side.

He is one of our newest staff members, and yet already an integral part of OV.

He has built a network with chapters of recruiters across different parts of Israel…

He takes OV very seriously and passionately and believes about its mission as much as any of our most die-hard activists.  And he passes on this energy to his activists:

He brings great energy to the team, and a lot of great ideas, as I will share in another post…