Daniel Lubetzky

For those that can read Spanish, below is an excerpt from an article by Leo Zuckerman, an excellent Mexican columnist (who happens to be married to the smart cousin in the family .

For those that can’t read Spanish, just a quick synopsis: The Iranian regime is not content with suppressing their own people, or blowing up embassies and community centers in Argentina or trying to procure nuclear weapons, or trying to be a spoiler to efforts by the Palestinian and Israeli Heads of State to achieve a peace agreement. 

Now they are also trying to impose their censure on artists exhibiting art in Mexican Museums.  They began bullying an artist and museum threatening to issue fatwas against them if they do not bring down a display.  The art at stake by a Moroccan artist is a homage to French painter Gustave Coubert and is based on photographs of human vaginas covered by a contour that resembles a temple.  The Iranian Ambassador was incensed at this and began threatening everyone he could. 

At issue is not whether you or I like the art at sake – I have never seen it.  But whether a retrograde regime that imposes censure on its own people, persecuting homosexuals and lashing out against women who don’t wear a hijab or banning all sorts of open behavior or jailing people that disagree with their views – should have the gull to seek to impose their views on the citizens of Mexico also!!!

I think there is great validity to the view that artists should exercise their judgment and be sensitive to certain core tenets of religions.  The Danish cartoons that infringed on the Islamic ban of portraying the Great Prophet Muhammad (let alone doing so in an offensive fashion) in my opinion were exceedingly insensitive to a noble religion and it is very regrettable that such bad judgment was displayed by those who organized a "contest" about this. 

But the answer is not to use or threaten violence, and it is also certainly not to censure all forms of expression that may offend precisely because artists some times need to be able to express themselves against the injustice or inhumanity of a status quo condition, government or religion and, while it is very sad when people feel they need to offend others, it is far more harmful to prevent all forms of expression that offend those in power.

Now to add insult to injury the Iranian Ambassador seeks to impose his censure in a peace-loving and modest country thousands of miles away from his.

Excélsior / Juegos de Poder
Aquí no, señor embajador

Leo Zuckermann / Martes 27 de noviembre del 2007

Gracias a una oportuna y completa nota de Juan Pablo Proal en Proceso me enteré de que el embajador de Irán en México está exigiendo el retiro de una exposición artística en Puebla. La historia es la siguiente. En la capital poblana se está exhibiendo la obra El origen del mundo del artista marroquí Fouad Bellamine. En ella hay una serie de fotografías de vaginas humanas cubiertas por un contorno que asemeja una mezquita. De acuerdo al autor, la obra es un homenaje al pintor francés Gustave Coubert que en el siglo XIX mostró una vagina desnuda que fue censurada: “Con ese antecedente, el marroquí intentó también hacer una deferencia estética a la vagina por ser una fuente de vida, explica la curadora”.

El embajador Mohammad Hassan Chadiri Abyahen fue invitado a la inauguración del Festival Internacional de Puebla y visitó la exhibición. En cuanto la vio, se indignó, consideró las obras como “superpornográficas” y exigió que fueran inmediatamente retiradas. El artista le explicó que el símbolo de la mezquita al frente de las vaginas “era meramente espiritual y podría interpretarse como una Iglesia católica o judía”. Pero el iraní se enojó más y le reclamó que no tenía derecho a ofender a ninguna religión. Al parecer, la Secretaría de Cultura de Puebla, con la anuencia del artista, decidió desmontar la exhibición de inmediato, lo cual, por fortuna, no ocurrió. Fue entonces que el embajador iraní mandó una carta que vale la pena citar:

“Mientras el mundo musulmán está lleno de auténticos artistas representantes de su propia cultura, invitar a un maniático, vulgar e ignorante y a pesar de todo llamarlo artista a presentar la cultura y arte del mundo musulmán, resulta muy extraño.

“Usar este tipo de fotografías pornográficas, no tiene nada que ver con la cultura y el arte del mundo islámico, fotografías que pueden representar una parte vulgar de algunos ambientes, muy corruptos de algún país del mundo occidental. Una exposición que no es posible exhibirlo en ningún país islámico.

“El autor debería explicar al Mundo del Islam la razón de su acto ofensivo. Es natural que el mundo islámico no existe tolerancia, acerca de insultar a los asuntos Sagrados, por esto es mejor que no se repita esta situación, y es lógico y humano respetar el credo religioso de otros”.

La misiva, además de mal redactada, amenazó con “boletinar” a Bellamine como “enemigo del Islam”. Y ya se sabe qué significa esto como lo ha atestiguado el escritor Salman Rushdie quien ha tenido que vivir prácticamente en la clandestinidad.

La embajada iraní sigue presionando para que se retire la exhibición. Dice estar dispuesta a una crisis diplomática con México. Sería un grave error que el gobierno de Mario Marín e incluso el federal de Felipe Calderón accedieran a las demandas de Chadiri Abyahen. México es un país occidental donde constitucionalmente está protegido el derecho a la libertad de expresión. Si a los religiosos les disgusta este tipo de exhibiciones, pues que no vayan a verla.

Eso es muy diferente a ordenar la censura como efectivamente sucede en los países islámicos. En este sentido, el embajador iraní es un buen representante de su nación donde se piensa que el Estado, dominado por los ayatolás, debe ser intolerante con los “asuntos Sagrados” y decidir qué sí y qué no puede ver la gente. Pero aquí, señor embajador, las cosas son diferentes. En México los artistas tienen el derecho de exhibir sus obras, aunque sean una basura, lo cual lo decide cada quien de acuerdo a su criterio personal.

Irán es un país fundamentalista que, como este caso demuestra, pretende exportar sus creencias. Qué peligroso que estos religiosos intolerantes estén a punto de tener armas nucleares.

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.

"The only limits are those of vision."

- James Broughton

It’s funny how you tell yourself you will avoid some of the rites of passage that people go through from living in NYC, thinking you of all people will be impervious to them, and then, before you know it, you realize you have succumbed…

When you first move to NYC, one of the first things you notice is that people walking on the streets don’t look at or greet each other, let alone smile. 

You think to yourself, I will look at people’s eyes, I will say hello, I will make them all smile, I will single-handedly transform NYC into the friendliest of cities. 

And you experiment for the first year or two, even if people think you are crazy – or can tell you are just new.

Then somewhere along the way, it just happens, gradually, till you stop staring into the walker-by’s eyes with a smile.  It’s not that you are rude or mean.  You just go about your business.

You get to NYC thinking you will always have time for everyone, you will always be polite and open doors and be relaxed.  But 15 years later, you are always in a rush, and you sometimes catch yourself in your own bubble.

Then there is NY REAL ESTATE.  Reading the Real Estate Section in the NY Times is a sport in NYC, and everyone talks about it.  Yet you think you will avoid it altogether and won’t be bothered with such obsessions. 

Alas, one day you find yourself reading the Real Estate section, following the market, wondering when it will adjust, becoming an "expert" in square footage, valuations, and all sorts of trends and considerations.  Eventually you are drawn like a magnet to any new piece of input on the real estate.

And then there is the Wall Street Journal, though more than a NY thing, this is more a rite of passage from youth I guess (and regret).  When I was in college, and even during law school, reading the Wall Street Journal was such a bore, while the NYT was so fascinating.  WSJ was numbers.  NYT was people.  WSJ was dry.  NYT was passion. 

I don’t know if it’s that the NYT has gone so down editorially and the WSJ has improved so much, or that as you get older your way of thinking changes, or that the WSJ is more sophisticated or complex, but something about the NYT increasingly bores me, and I find the WSJ far more stimulating…

As ABC pointed out, "After harnessing every mechanism of government within his reach to win this referendum, Chavez had lost."

Building on his increasing monopolization of government powers, Hugo Chavez tried to pass through 69 referendum initiatives that would have cemented his power almost irreversibly, borrowing tactics from Castro and Iran, to use "democracy" as a one-way-tool to create a semblance of "accountability" to help them retain power. 

It is far from clear that Venezuelans will win the war against this despotic authoritarian but charismatic and populist dictator.  But at least this one time democratic principles prevailed.

Most encouraging, the leadership came from mainstream students fed up with divisive extremism…

Here are a couple excerpts:

Chavez Tastes Defeat Over Reforms

By TIM PADGETT

…After facing an unusually strong protest movement on the streets of Venezuela’s major cities — led not by traditional opposition figures but by university students who’d grown fearful that Chavez was moving the country toward a Cuba-style dictatorship — his reforms were narrowly beaten back by a 51% to 49% margin.

…

Only about half of Venezuela’s 16 million registered voters showed up at the polls on Sunday. Low turnout was supposed to have hurt the opposition’s "no" vote; but in the end it was Chavez, thought to have a reliable populist political machine at his disposal to get out the "yes" vote, who couldn’t rouse his base among Venezuela’s majority poor. Even that cohort, despite having benefited from Chavez’s vast socialist project, backed away from his bid to solidify "21st-century socialism," which also would have put the autonomous Central Bank under his control and exerted deeper federal authority over local and state governments. Given the fact that Venezuela’s National Assembly and Supreme Court are already Chavez’s rubber stamps, those issues seem to have overridden the economic carrots Chavez’s reform package held out, like expanded social security benefits and shorter working hours (from 8 to 6 hours each day).

Venezuelans also appear to have told Chavez and his Bolivarian Revolution (named for South America’s 19th-century independence hero, Simon Bolivar) that despite the country’s enjoying the fruits of record oil prices — the country has the hemisphere’s largest oil reserves — they’re fatigued by almost a decade of polarizing revolutionary rule and would like to return to some normalcy. "This is a country divided in two," said Stalin Gonzalez, a student at the Central University of Venezuela in Caracas. "There’s a part that loves Chavez and a part that hates him. A middle ground is lacking. We won’t build a country that way." (emphasis added)

The movement led by Gonzalez and tens of thousands of fellow students proved decisive: They articulated an opposition message and galvanized its sympathizers far more effectively than Venezuela’s older political elite ever could. It was a force Chavez had not planned on reckoning with, particularly since students have long been a bloc that Latin America’s political left could depend on. Chavez also couldn’t withstand the defections within his own bloc, including socialist state Governors and, perhaps most important, his erstwhile pal and former Defense Minister, Raul Baduel, who earlier this month called Chavez’s amendments a "constitutional coup d’etat." The attempt by Chavez and his backers to demonize figures like Baduel — labeling them "traitors" — backfired, especially since Baduel had helped put Chavez back in power after a botched opposition coup attempt against him in 2002.

But just as important was Chavez’s concession. The opposition "won this victory for themselves," he admitted in a voice whose subdued calm was in contrast to his frequently aggressive political speeches. "My sincere recommendation is that they learn how to handle it." Despite his authoritarian bent, Chavez (whose current and apparently last term ends in 2012) had always insisted he was a democrat — that he was, in fact, forging "a more genuine democracy" in a nation that had in many ways been a sham democracy typical of a number of Latin American countries. His presidential election victories — in 1998, 2000 and 2006, as well as his victory over an attempt to recall him in a 2004 referendum — were all recognized by credible international observers; and that conferred on him a democratic legitimacy that helped blunt accusations by his enemies, especially the U.S., that he was a would-be dictator in the mold of Fidel Castro.

In the end it was a cachet that, fortunately, he knew he couldn’t forfeit. As a result, the referendum result will resonate far beyond Venezuela. Latin Americans in general have grown disillusioned by democratic institutions — particularly their failure to solve the region’s gaping inequality and frightening insecurity — and many observers fear that Latin Americans, as they so often have in their history, are again willing to give leaders like Chavez inordinate, and inordinately protracted, powers. Chavez, critics complained, was in fact leading a trend of what some called "democratators" — democratically elected dictators. His allies in Bolivia and Ecuador, for example, are hammering out new Constitutions that may give them unlimited presidential reelection. The fact that Venezuelans this morning resisted that urge — and that Chavez so maturely backed off himself when he saw it — may give other countries pause for thought as well. It could even revive the oft-ridiculed notion that this might after all be the century of the Americas.

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

Interesting article, not wholly balanced as ending the occupation is just as important, but recognizing Israel as the sole State with a Jewish majority is also essential if there is to be an agreement…

IS ISRAEL A JEWISH STATE?
Jeff Jacoby
Boston Globe, November 14, 2007

   In advance of the upcoming diplomatic conference in Annapolis, Israel [PM] Ehud Olmert announced the other day that he expects the Palestinian Authority to finally acknowledge Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. A newly arrived visitor from Mars might wonder why this should even be an issue—after all, Israel is a Jewish state. If the more than 55 countries that make up the Organization of the Islamic Conference are entitled to recognition as Muslim states, and if the 22 members of the Arab League are universally accepted as Arab states, why should anyone balk at acknowledging Israel as the world’s lone Jewish state?

   Yet Olmert’s demand was rebuffed. Saeb Erekat, the senior Palestinian Authority negotiator, said on Monday that Palestinians would refuse to recognize Israel’s Jewish identity on the grounds that "it is not acceptable for a country to link its national character to a specific religion."
   In fact, there are many countries in which national identity and religion are linked. Argentinian law mandates government support for the Roman Catholic faith. Queen Elizabeth II is the supreme governor of the Church of England. In the Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan, the constitution proclaims Buddhism the nation’s "spiritual heritage." The prevailing religion in Greece," declares Section II of the Greek Constitution, "is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ."
   In no region of the world do countries so routinely link their national character to a specific religion as in the Muslim Middle East. The flag of Saudi Arabia features the shahada—the Islamic declaration of faith—in white Arabic script on a green background; on the Iranian flag, the Islamic phrase "Allahu Akbar" (God is great") appears 22 times. And then there is Erekat’s own Palestinian Authority, whose Basic Law provides in Article 4 that "Islam is the official religion in Palestine."…
   So why won’t the leaders of the Palestinian Authority acknowledge the obvious—that Israel is the Jewish state? The Jewish connection to Palestine is a matter not just of rich historical fact, but of international law. When the League of Nations entrusted Britain with the Mandate for Palestine in 1922, it expressly recognized "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and the rightfulness of "reconstituting their national home in that country." By that point, Britain had already transferred 80 percent of historic Palestine to Arab rule—today’s Muslim kingdom of Jordan. All that remained for a Jewish state was the residual 20 percent. But there, at least, it was clear that the Jewish community was "in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance," as Winston Churchill underscored at the time….
   Yet all this is beside the point. The refusal of the Palestinian Authority to acknowledge Israel as a legitimate Jewish state isn’t a denial of reality; it is a sign of their determination to change that reality. Like Arab leaders going back a century, they seek not to live in peace with the Jewish state, but in place of the Jewish state. Olmert can show up at Annapolis bearing Palestinian sovereignty on a silver platter, with half of Jerusalem thrown in for good measure. He will not walk away with peace. On the contrary: He will intensify the Arab determination to replace the world’s one Jewish state with its 23rd Arab state.
   The key to Arab-Israeli peace is not Palestinian statehood. It is to compel the Arab world to abandon its dream of liquidating Israel. As a matter of national self-respect, Olmert should repeat his demand that the Palestinians acknowledge Israel’s Jewish identity—and make it non-negotiable. If Israel cannot insist even on so fundamental a point of honor, it has already lost more than it knows.

Buchanan House – United States Naval Academy
Annapolis, Maryland

[Emphasis added to highlight language nearly identical to that demanded in OneVoice Mandate]

     PRESIDENT BUSH:  The representatives of the government of the state of Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, represented respective by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and President Mahmoud Abbas in his capacity as Chairman of the PLO Executive Committee and President of the Palestinian Authority, have convened in Annapolis, Maryland, under the auspices of President George W. Bush of the United States of America, and with the support of the participants of this international conference, having concluded the following joint understanding.

     We express our determination to bring an end to bloodshed, suffering and decades of conflict between our peoples; to usher in a new era of peace, based on freedom, security, justice, dignity, respect and mutual recognition; to propagate a culture of peace and nonviolence; to confront terrorism and incitement, whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis.  In furtherance of the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, we agree to immediately launch good-faith bilateral negotiations in order to conclude a peace treaty, resolving all outstanding issues, including all core issues without exception, as specified in previous agreements.

     We agree to engage in vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations, and shall make every effort to conclude an agreement before the end of 2008.  For this purpose, a steering committee, led jointly by the head of the delegation of each party, will meet continuously, as agreed.  The steering committee will develop a joint work plan and establish and oversee the work of negotiations teams to address all issues, to be headed by one lead representative from each party.  The first session of the steering committee will be held on 12 December 2007.

     President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert will continue to meet on a bi-weekly basis to follow up the negotiations in order to offer all necessary assistance for their advancement.

     The parties also commit to immediately implement their respective obligations under the performance-based road map to a permanent two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, issued by the Quartet on 30 April 2003 — this is called the road map — and agree to form an American, Palestinian and Israeli mechanism, led by the United States, to follow up on the implementation of the road map.

     The parties further commit to continue the implementation of the ongoing obligations of the road map until they reach a peace treaty.  The United States will monitor and judge the fulfillment of the commitment of both sides of the road map.  Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, implementation of the future peace treaty will be subject to the implementation of the road map, as judged by the United States.

11/27/2007

Speech translated from Hebrew

[Emphasis added to show similarity to language demanded in OneVoice Mandate and to point out moments of particular leadership in speaking also to the other side]

The Honorable President of the United States, George Bush,
My colleague, President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas,
Heads of delegations,
Distinguished guests,

I came here today from Jerusalem at your invitation, Honorable President, to extend, on behalf of the people of Israel and the State of Israel, a hand in peace to the Palestinian people and to our neighboring Arab states, many of whose representatives are here with us in Annapolis.

I had many good reasons to refrain from coming to this meeting.

The memory of the failures of the near and distant past weighs heavy on us. The dreadful terrorism perpetrated by Palestinian terrorist organizations has affected thousands of Israeli citizens, destroyed families and attempted to disrupt the lives of all the citizens of Israel. I witnessed it personally during my term as Mayor of Jerusalem, at times of bombings at cafes, buses and recreational centers in Jerusalem and other cities in the State of Israel.

The continued shooting of Kassam rockets against tens of thousands of residents in the south of Israel, particularly in the city of Sderot, serves as a warning sign — one which cannot be overlooked. The absence of governmental institutes and effective law-enforcement mechanisms, the rule of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the ongoing activity of murderous organizations throughout all the territories of the Palestinian Authority, the absence of a legal system which meets the basic criteria of a democratic government — all these are factors which deter us from moving forward too hastily.

I do not ignore all the obstacles which are sure to emerge along the way. They are right in front of me. I came here, despite the concerns and doubts and hesitations, to say to you, President Mahmoud Abbas, and through you, to your people and to the entire Arab world: It is time. We no longer, and you no longer, have the privilege of clinging to dreams which are disconnected from the sufferings of our peoples, the hardships they experience daily and the burden of living under ongoing uncertainty, with no chance for change or hope.

We want peace. We demand an end to terror, incitement and hatred. We are willing to make a painful compromise, rife with risks, in order to realize these aspirations.

I came here today not to settle historic accounts between us on what caused the conflict and hatred and what, for many years, stood in the way of compromise and peace.

I wish to say, from the bottom of my heart, that I know and acknowledge the fact that alongside the constant suffering which many in Israel have experienced because of the history, the wars, the terror and the hatred towards us — a suffering which has always been part of our lives in our land — your people have also suffered for many years, and some still suffer.

For dozens of years, many Palestinians have been living in camps, disconnected from the environment in which they grew, wallowing in poverty, neglect, alienation, bitterness, and a deep, unrelenting sense of deprivation. I know that this pain and deprivation is one of the deepest foundations which fomented the ethos of hatred towards us.

We are not indifferent to this suffering. We are not oblivious to the tragedies you have experienced. I believe that in the course of negotiations between us we will find the right way, as part of an international effort in which we will participate, to assist these Palestinians in finding a proper framework for their future, in the Palestinian state which will be established in the territories agreed upon between us. Israel will be part of an international mechanism which will assist in finding a solution to this problem.

The negotiations between us will not be here in Annapolis, but rather in our home and in yours. It will be bilateral, direct, ongoing and continuous, in an effort to complete it during the course of 2008.

It will address all the issues which have thus far been evaded. We will do it directly, openly and courageously. We will not avoid any subject, we will deal with all the core issues. I have no doubt that the reality created in our region in 1967 will change significantly. While this will be an extremely difficult process for many of us, it is nevertheless inevitable. I know it. Many of my people know it. We are ready for it.

The negotiations will be based on previous agreements between us, U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the road map and the April 14, 2004 letter of President Bush to the Prime Minister of Israel.

On conclusion of the negotiations, I believe that we will be able to reach an agreement which will fulfill the vision of President Bush: two states for two peoples. A peace-seeking, viable, strong, democratic and terror-free Palestinian state for the Palestinian people. A Jewish, democratic State of Israel, living in security and free from the threat of terror — the national home of the Jewish people.

It is clear that the implementation of an agreement will be subject to the implementation of all obligations in the road map, on all its phases and according to its sequence, as concluded between us from the very beginning. We will abide by all our obligations, and so will you.

The agreement with you and its gradual implementation, cautiously and responsibly, is part of a much wider complex which will lead us, hopefully, to peace with all the Arab states. There is not a single Arab state in the north, east or south with which we do not seek peace. There is no Muslim state with which we do not want to establish diplomatic relations. Anyone who wants peace with us, we say to them, from the bottom of our hearts: welcome!

I am pleased to see here, in this hall, representatives of Arab countries, most of which do not have relations with Israel. The time has come for you as well. You cannot continue to stand by indefinitely and watch the peace train go by. It is time to end the boycott and alienation towards the State of Israel. It is not helpful for you, and it hurts us.

I am familiar with the Arab peace initiative, which was born in Riyadh, affirmed in Beirut and recently reaffirmed by you in Riyadh. I value this initiative, acknowledge its importance and highly appreciate its contribution. I have no doubt that it will be referred to in the course of the negotiations between us and the Palestinian leadership.

The Arab world represented here by many countries is a vital component in creating a new reality in the Middle East.

The peace signed between Israel and Egypt, and subsequently between Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, is a solid foundation of stability and hope in our region. This peace is an example and a model of the relations which we can build with Arab states.

My close relations with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan are extremely significant for the process of building trust and understanding with the Arab states. However, these relations, as important as they may be, are not enough. We aspire for normalization with those Arab states which eschew, as much as we do, radical and frantic fundamentalism, and which seek to grant their citizens a more moderate, tolerant and prosperous world.

This is a common interest of all of us. There is a lot which separates us — memories and a heritage which do not emanate from the same historic roots, different ways of living, different customs, and our emotional, spontaneous sense of solidarity with our neighboring Arab countries, which have long been trapped in this age-old bloody conflict between us.
However, there is also a lot which brings us together. You, like us, know that religious fanaticism and national extremism are a perfect recipe for domestic instability, violence, bitterness and ultimately the disintegration of the very foundations of coexistence which is based on tolerance and mutual acceptance.

We are a tiny country with a small population, but rich in good will and with a significant ability to create a partnership which will lead to prosperity, growth, economic development and stability for the entire region.

The prospect of a new political horizon, and renewed hope, not only for Palestinians and Israelis, but also, together with you, for the entire region, can come from here, from Annapolis.

Honorable President of the United States, my colleague Mahmoud Abbas, distinguished guests, almost two years ago, under very sad circumstances, Prime Minister of Israel Ariel Sharon was no longer able to carry the heavy responsibility of leading the State of Israel, and this responsibility was passed on to me — first as a result of formal procedures, and subsequently on the basis of an election in Israel’s democratic system of government.

Prior to my election I stated that my heart’s desire and that of my people was to achieve peace, primarily with the Palestinian people. This is what I believed then and it is what I continue to believe in now, with all my heart.

The past two years have been difficult for all of us. The hardships have not been alleviated, the terror organizations have not weakened, the enemies of peace have not disappeared, and we are still anxiously awaiting the return of our missing and captive sons who are held by terror organizations. I long for the day when I can see Gilad, Eldad and Udi back with their families, and I will not falter in my efforts to achieve their release.

I believe that there is no path other than peace. I believe that there is no just solution other than the solution of two national states for two peoples.

I believe that there is no path which does not involve painful compromise for you Palestinians and for us Israelis. I want to thank you, President George Bush, an ally in the path of peace, for your willingness to assist in the historic process of peace and reconciliation between us and our neighbors.

I believe it is time. We are ready. I invite you, my friend Mahmoud Abbas, and your people, to join us in this long, tormenting and complex path, for which there is no substitute.

Together we will start. Together we will arrive.

November 27, 2007

From: PLO Mission – Washington, DC

President Mahmoud Abbas, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization and President of the Palestinian National Authority

[Emphasis added to highlight similarities to OneVoice Mandate and OV language and to point out moments of particular leadership in speaking also to the other side]

In the Name of God, the Most Gracious Most Merciful

President Bush

Prime Minister Olmert

Ministers and Representatives of Participating States

Distinguished Guests,

Peace and the Grace of God be Upon You

Allow me Mr. President to thank you in my capacity as Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole representative of the Palestinian people, and on behalf of the Palestinian people, for inviting us to this international conference. This conference symbolizes the crystallization of the entire world’s will in its march towards achieving a comprehensive and lasting peace in our region and in bringing long-anticipated justice to our country where oppression, wars, occupation and violence have prevailed in the previous decades.

Today, Your Excellency, you stress the need to make the most difficult choice-the choice of making peace and ending a dark era marked by hatred. It is an era for which the peoples of the region have paid a dear price with the lives of its youth, the future of subsequent generations and the prosperity, advancement and liberty of millions of us all.

Therefore, I thank you Mr. President. By calling this historic conference, you have sent a very clear and strong message to the peoples of the entire Middle East, who now watch with great hope as well as tremendous fear of losing yet another opportunity. The intent of your letter of invitation is not obscure: It expresses your personal commitment and the commitment of your great nation to attaching the highest priority to negotiations to achieve a long-awaited peace between both Palestinians and Israelis and the broader Arab world and Israel. We hope that this will be the culmination of your legacy for the world-a world more free of violence, persecution and fanaticism.

I must commend you, Your Excellency, on choosing this gorgeous city of Annapolis as the site for the conference. In addition to its beauty, Annapolis symbolizes liberty, the most exalted value of all. Freedom, for Palestinians is perhaps the most evocative word-the word that captures the collective hope of Palestinians and their aspiration for future generations. It is their sun and the light of their future. It is the last word of their martyrs and victims and the daily hymns of their prisoners.

I would also like to express my deep gratitude to Secretary Rice and her team. Without their persistence and perseverance-and without their ability to grasp all aspects of the conflict in our region-we would not have been able to gather here today. Secretary Rice took important strides in her quest to emphasize that the path to peace through negotiations is the only path-and that this path is irreversible.

I must also stress that the exceptionally broad participation of our brothers and sisters from Arab and Islamic countries, the Quartet, the G8 and the Permanent members of the United Nations, in addition to many European and Asian countries, as well as members from the Non-Alliance block and the African continent, in a conference unique in the conflict’s history is a driving force that helps imbue the conference with added legitimacy. This broad participation also demonstrates strong support for Palestinian and Israeli negotiators to persevere in their quest to reach the Two-State solution, which is based on ending the occupation and establishing a sovereign State of Palestine living side by side with the State of Israel by resolving all of the permanent status issues in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the broader Arab-Israeli conflict, which will prove indispensable to forging peaceful and normal relations in the region. I am proud of this broad Arab and Muslim contribution and the broad international participation because it shows the support of sister countries for the Palestinian people and their leadership to establish peace. Such support endorses our approach, which calls for an historic and balanced settlement that will ensure peace and security for our independent state, for Israel and for the entire region.

The Arab and Islamic presence also demonstrates that the Arab Peace Initiative was never a move without a definite goal but rather a courageous strategic choice aimed at changing the nature of relations in the region and beginning anew. This historic Arab and Islamic shift and quest for a regional peace should now be a similar willingness to engage by all as it will lead to ending the occupation in all the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem, as well as the Golan Heights and parts of Lebanon and as it will also lead to resolving all the other permanent status issues. Chief among these is the plight of Palestinian refugees which must be addressed holistically-that is, in its political, human, and individual dimensions in accordance with UNGA resolution 194, as emphasized in the Arab Peace Initiative, and with the participation of sister Arab countries who have borne the heavy burden of hosting the refugees for decades.

It is no exaggeration to say, Your Excellency, that today marks a juncture in the history of our region-a juncture between two eras: The Pre-Annapolis era and its aftermath. In other words, the exceptional opportunity that the Arab, Islamic and international presence brings today coupled with overwhelming Palestinian and Israeli public opinion in support of Annapolis, must be seized in order to be a launching pad for a negotiations process. The possibilities offered by today’s conference must not be wasted. This window of opportunity might never open again and if it does, it might never claim the same consensus or momentum.

Mr. President,

What we face today is not only the challenge of peace but also a test of the credibility of all involved: The credibility of the United States of America, members of the Quartet, the entire international community, Israel, the PLO and the Palestinian National Authority, as well as the Arab and Islamic group. It is a test that will draw deep marks in the future of the region and the relations among its peoples on the one hand and on the international forces that care about the region’s peace and security on the other.

With this outlook, we come to Annapolis today. We therefore recognize the weight of responsibility upon our shoulders and the burden that we will have to bear. We recognize, and I believe that you share our opinion, that the absence of hope and the infiltration of desperation into the hearts of peoples is what feeds extremism. It is therefore our joint duty to allow for real hope to thrive. This way, we hope that with your full support and involvement we might achieve a complete transformation and that a genuine peace can be achieved soon, before the end of your term, Mr. President.

Tomorrow, we embark on a serious and comprehensive negotiations process on all the permanent status issues including Jerusalem, refugees, borders, settlements, security, and water, as well as others. We must support such negotiations with tangible and direct steps on the ground, which will be taken as proof of having embarked on an irreversible track towards a negotiated, comprehensive and full peace. Such steps must involve freezing all settlement activities including natural growth, reopening institutions in Jerusalem, removing settlement outposts, removing checkpoints, releasing prisoners and facilitating the mission of the Palestinian Authority in restoring law and order.

With all frankness and without any hesitation, I have to defend the right of my people to open their eyes to a new dawn free of occupation, settlements, apartheid walls, prisons full of prisoners, targeted assassinations, and the siege of checkpoints around villages and cities. I look forward, Your Excellency, to the day when our prisoners are free and to the day when they can assume their roles in supporting peace and building their homeland and state. It is also my duty to say that the destiny of Jerusalem is a key issue in any peace treaty we reach. We want East Jerusalem to be our capital-a capital where we will have open relations with West Jerusalem and where we will guarantee for believers of all religions the freedom to practice their rituals and to have access to the holy sites without discrimination and in accordance with international humanitarian law.

In this context, I would like to emphasize that we will continue to carry out our responsibilities in accordance with the Roadmap in fighting lawlessness, violence and terrorism and in restoring law and order. The government of the PA is working tirelessly in extremely difficult conditions to achieve this noble cause. We do this for our own people because we must, not because it is a political requirement imposed upon us in previous accords or the Roadmap.

Our people clearly understand the difference between the threat posed by terrorism versus using terrorism as a pretext to maintain an intolerable situation. Our civil, security and economic institutions must be given the opportunity to function and this process must be sponsored by the international community until our authority and government are able to fully assume their responsibilities. I must also stress that our determination to end occupation stems from our vision that by doing so we destroy one of the most important excuses for terrorism in our region and in the world. I say this without undermining the necessity to fight terrorism regardless of time, conditions or source because it is a danger that threatens the future of all peoples and can doom civilization and destroy its accomplishments.

Here, I would like to praise Mr. Tony Blair for his distinctive and meticulous role in building Palestinian institutions and promoting major economic projects to improve the conditions of daily life and consequently prospects of peace. He is amazing in presenting creative ideas that contribute to inspire political movement and promote security. In this regard, the role of the European Union, Japan and our Arab brothers who provide ongoing support for economic projects and institution building is also highly appreciated.

Mr. President,

I want to use this opportunity to speak to every mind, heart and conscience of every Israeli citizen, based on my full recognition that without undermining the importance of international and regional backing, the determining element for making peace and sustaining it are the public opinions in Palestine and in Israel and the commitment of their legitimate leaderships.

I would like to begin by saying that in spite of our differences over some of the most difficult issues in the Conflict, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has shown a desire for peace that I felt during our bilateral meetings. This desire for peace has genuinely contributed to our reaching this important step that we inaugurate today. Mr. Prime Minister, I would like to continue working closely with you until we are able to complete this historic long-awaited mission together. It is essential that each one of us uses his weight, experience and determination to overcome the difficulties that will face us and to bridge the gaps between our two positions so that we can achieve a resolution. This is how we will end occupation and long years of suffering for our refugees; this is how we will ensure neighborly relations, economic cooperation and people-to-people relations, all of which are the strongest guarantees for a sustainable peace.

I would also like to speak to the citizens of Israel on this exceptional occasion to tell them: Our neighbors on this small piece of land, neither you nor we are begging for peace from one another. Peace is a common interest of yours and ours. Peace and freedom are our rights just as peace and security are your rights and ours.

It is time that the cycle of bloodshed, violence and occupation end. It is time to look into the future with confidence and hope. It is time for this aching land that is called the land of love and peace to live up to its name. Peace is not impossible if we have the will and the good intentions and when each side realizes its rights.

He who says that making peace between Palestinians and Israelis is impossible wants only to prolong the duration of conflict and to propel it into the abyss of the unknown. This unknown is unfortunately very known to us: it is more decades of bloodshed, after which we will not arrive to a solution different from what is offered today-the contours and the essence of which is known to each one of us. The continuation of the conflict might also lead to the death of the idea of peace in our minds, hearts and consciousness. Peace is possible. It requires, however, a common effort to achieve it and to sustain it. Today we extend our hands to you as equals and the world is our witness and support. We must not lose this opportunity that might never be repeated. Let us make the peace of the brave and guard it for the sake of both our children and yours.

To our friends all over the world: members of the Quartet, participants in this conference, and other countries and nations who are not present here today who supported us in the past and who continue to be willing to help us, I would like to tell you that our people will not forget your support under the most difficult conditions. We are looking forward to your continued political presence with us after the conference is over to ensure the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations process achieves its goals. We hope that the work of this conference will be enhanced by the success of the Paris Economic conference that will be held in a few weeks.

The continuation of the negotiations and their success is the real key to changing the face of the entire region.

The Almighty God says in the Holy Quran: O Ye who believe! Come all of you into peace and follow not the footsteps of the devil. He is an open enemy for you. Al-Baqra 208

And if they incline to peace, incline also to it, and trust in Allah. He is the hearer, the knower. Al-Anfal 61

I also would like to recall what President John F. Kennedy said: "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate."

To my Palestinian people, to all Palestinians in Gaza, Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the refugee camps in the Diaspora, I would like to share these words with you: I recognize that each and every one of you has their personal pain and special tragedy stemming from this conflict and years of al-Nakbeh and bitter occupation. Do not lose confidence or hope. The entire world is extending their hands to us to help end the years of our everlasting Nakbeh. The world is trying to help us end the historic injustice that was inflicted on our two peoples. We will be ready as individuals and as a people to overcome the pain and tragedy when we reach a settlement that will give us rights that are equal to people elsewhere on this world: the rights to independence and self-determination.

And to Palestinian mothers who are awaiting the return of their jailed sons; to the children who are dreaming of a new life and a prosperous and more peaceful future; to our brave prisoners and to all of my sons and daughters wherever you are: Have faith in tomorrow and the future because an independent Palestine is coming. This is the promise of the entire world to you today. Trust that the dawn is coming.

To my people and family in the Gaza Strip: You are in my heart and the hours of darkness will vanish before your determination does and our determination to the unity of our people in the West Bank and Gaza as a unified and unbreakable geographic and political entity will overcome. Your suffering will end. Justice and peace will prevail.

Mr. President,

I would like to end with a quote from President Abraham Lincoln, which he wrote during one of the most difficult moments in American history: "Let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to do all that we may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

Thank you Mr. President and Peace and blessings of God be upon you.