OneVoice Movement Press Coverage

OneVoice Israel speaks to the extremes of Israeli society

By Tal Harris

On January 22, OneVoice Israel brought 15 of its members from Tel Aviv to meet with 30 settlers in the illegal settlement of Negohot, situated in the hills south of Hebron. Organizations in Israel seeking an end to the conflict tend to operate in the Tel Aviv area alone, but the OneVoice Movement prides itself on going to the hardest to reach communities and discussing with them the toughest issues.

The idea was conceived on November 7, 2009, at the Memorial Day Rally in Rabin Square in Tel Aviv, held to commemorate the murder of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. I was handing out OneVoice Israel leaflets when I was approached by a young girl named Hodaya, who asked me to stop. She told me that I and other nongovernmental organizations and political parties carrying out similar activities were politicizing the event, alienating large segments of Israeli society.

Hodaya came from Susya settlement in the southern part of Mount Hebron, an area holding some of the most remote and isolated settlements.

I asked Hodaya where she thought it would be legitimate to discuss politics if not during Rabin’s Memorial Day event. She told me anywhere else would be better than here, to which I replied that my job was to conduct political discussions addressing all core issues of the conflict, and that I didn’t consider any Israeli – settler or not – to be exempt from the responsibility of finding a solution to the conflict. She surprised me by agreeing with me, and offered to connect me to people in her settlement.

It is one thing, I thought, to conduct a town hall meeting in Ariel in the midst of the moratorium on settlement construction and expansion. Ariel and similar settlement blocks may well remain intact in exchange for similar lands in any future agreement with the Palestinians (at least, that’s what most Israelis assume). It’s a completely different challenge, and a far more difficult one, to address settlers who’ve built a life in a disputed area and tell them that being a Zionist and a patriot gives them no choice but to leave this place.

I ended up finalizing details with Rabbi Nehemiah from the neighboring Negohot settlement. The rabbi believed that the truth must come out through pluralism and open debate, and welcomed OneVoice Israel. I was surprised by his openness, and accepted his offer after making sure he understood what he was getting his settlement into.

Fifteen OneVoice Israel student activists with a wide range of political views joined us from Tel Aviv.

The rabbi gave us a historical tour of the settlement before we settled into a nearly three-hour long political discussion.

Negohot is a beautiful place with an amazing view that, on a good day, encompasses the industrial chimneys of Hadera to the north and the outskirts of Be’er Sheba to the south. The closest town to Negohot is the Arab village of Beit Awa. In peaceful times, the settlers paid the Arabs to harvest their fields for them.

The Oslo Accords stipulated that Negohot should be evacuated, but the rabbi takes pride in the fact that the settlers prevented this measure from being implemented and thus forced the Israeli Defense Forces to continue monitoring the entire area. Negohot is situated on an old Roman road and life in the settlement used to be vibrant because of its location on the road to Jerusalem. There are about 20 soldiers guarding 42 families who make their living mostly from agriculture and even high-tech industries.

“[Negohot residents are] extremely rooted to the ground and have a profound connection to it,” explained Rabbi Nehemiah.

The settlers there distinguish their settlement from the “illegal outposts” because they say they’ve gone through a (partial) political process of authorization. Since the Sason Report, Negohot has not received direct government funding. A 120 square meter house in Negohot costs 700,000 NIS ($187,000), but due to the current moratorium on settlement construction and expansion, any purchase made today would be frozen.

The main focus of our visit to Negohot was to find out what can be done about the four million Palestinians living in what some refer to as Greater Israel. This demographic fact is threatening to destroy the Jewish character of Israel unless there is a division of the land and the creation of two sovereign states.

Our conversation with 30 of Negohot’s settlers set history aside and focused on the politics of the situation. Any future agreement with the Palestinians would certainly demand the dismantlement of their homes. It should be noted that all Negohot settlers identify themselves as Zionists.

The first person to speak started by challenging how Israel could remain a democratic and Jewish state if it controlled all the territories occupied in 1967. In order to do both, Israel would have to grant millions of Palestinians voting rights, which would end the Jewish majority in the state of Israel. Another took the opposite stance, arguing that the transfer of the Arab population should be the only option.

Maor, a settler from Negohot, agreed and stated that since he was banished from the Gaza Strip (Gush Katif settlement), he believed anyone can be banished and now it was just a matter of who had a right to this land and who didn’t.

The settlers presented a wide variety of opinions and possible solutions. Zurit asserted that she had no problem living side by side with Palestinians. She’d even done so in the Gaza Strip, which implied that co-existence was possible. Her fellow settler, Efram, claimed that any extreme solution like banishing people on a large scale should be excluded from the discourse.

Nehemiah objected to the OneVoice theme of a moderate majority that wishes to live in peace and quiet. “That means we can all just move to Europe or some other quiet place,” he said. “Having a Jewish state means being in Israel.”

He suggested solutions other than a transfer, such as encouraging more Jews to make Aliyah (immigration of Jews into Israel) and promoting more births in Israel.

I explained to the participants that politics was all about compromising. A Jewish state cannot be something total and extreme; otherwise, it won’t be democratic anymore. It had to be somewhat Jewish, and it must ensure that we, as Jews, were safe, independent and can carry our tradition on a national level, even if the land was smaller.

Ethan from Tel Aviv added his opinion that, “the pragmatic consideration of OneVoice means that the value of life in a fairly democratic and Jewish state is favored instead of any venture that tries to create the impossible, and keep it democratic, Jewish and without clearly defined borders.”

After three hours of discussion, it was time to wrap up the debate.

I’d been surprised by the diverse range of opinions of a group of settlers who live in one of the most remote and controversial outposts in the West Bank. It showed me that even amongst the settler movement there were those who were open to debate and pragmatic arguments.

Our event in Negohot proved an important forum for people to be engaged in the real challenges of what a two state solution means and the compromises that it may involve.

Tal Harris started as a youth leader with the OneVoice Movement and became the coordinator of its town hall meetings in Israel.

A Walk through Reality – Askar Refugee Camp

By Dalia Labadi

Walking down the street of a refugee camp is a trip that can rupture your heart. Each house holds a story within, a story that is carried through generations, a story that tells of an old life that our ancestors lived and a new life that the younger generation is fighting to achieve.

I was sitting in the car with my colleagues when we reached an area with ugly buildings, dirty streets due to sewage and broken water pipes, and narrow passages only the width of one car. Welcome to Askar refugee camp!

The camp, established in 1950, lies outside the West Bank city of Nablus and houses 15,887 refugees in a tightly packed area, according to UNRWA. More than 44 percent live in poverty.

I’d been to refugee camps before to visit family friends, but never in my role as town hall meeting coordinator for OneVoice Palestine. It was a vastly different experience entering as an outsider giving a talk about the hard issues of the conflict, many of which are considered taboo in Palestinian society and especially among refugees.

People were waiting for us at the front door of the hall where we were holding out event to help us carry equipment. Everyone was welcoming. Despite this positive energy from the crowd, I couldn’t help but feel disturbed and filled with burning emotions, as I witnessed the miserable conditions residents of Askar were living under.

Sitting aside and watching one of OneVoice Palestine’s youth leaders conduct a session on border issues, I carefully observed the audience. At that moment, I felt that I was able to see through their eyes their stories, misery, questions, and skepticism.

The residents of Askar refugee camp know that the only way to end the occupation and achieve a permanent peace with Israel is by adopting the two-state solution. But, they find it hard to accept because they’d have to abandon their ideals and retire the image of the map of Palestine they knew their whole lives.

The session was very difficult to conduct, but its rewards greater than our other events. The audience was honest and expressed themselves clearly. Our team felt comfortable sharing ideas and thoughts about the future of Palestine.

In such an open forum for dialogue, we were able to sense the confusion the refugees live in. They don’t know how to get out of their quagmire while preserving the needs and wants. They are full of hope and expectation, but it’s a constant struggle in the face of their daily lives.

Discussing taboo topics with them yields complicated response and conflicting ideas. You can sense the internal battle each is going through in trying to balance the need for pragmatism with holding on to cherished ideals. Despite this, I can say with confidence that I walked away that day convinced of their will to end the conflict through non-violent actions.

At the end of a long two-hour discussion, I stood by the entrance, wondering how can a nation that has been under occupation for more than four decades, facing incursions, assassinations, arrests, and curfews have such a big heart and willingness to change the current situation.

It challenging, intellectually and emotionally, to persevere in the work we do. It’s easy sometimes to feel like I’m running on empty, but meeting people like the Askar refugees gives me all the fuel I need to deal head-on with the different kinds of obstacles we face daily.

Every meeting and activity we organize in such places as Askar refugee camp renews my commitment to end the occupation and the conflict in order to establish a sustainable Palestinian state for the people of Palestine.

Dalia Labadi is the Program Coordinator of OneVoice Palestine’s Town Hall Meetings.

With prospects for an Israeli-Palestinian peace deadlocked, it is worth taking notice of the OneVoice movement: a charity aiming to reinvigorate and eventually resolve the long-standing Middle-East conflict. On November 17th, as part of a UK Campus tour, OneVoice held a presentation in University London Union building to promote its aims of “building bridges” between Palestinian and Jewish students, and to connect activists in the UK with those in the region for the cause of peace.

Since it launched in 2002, OneVoice has undertaken a grassroots approach to engage Palestinians and Israelis toward greater public involvement with the peace process. The movement was conceived following the collapse of the Oslo Accords, and since has striven to empower the moderate majority of Israelis and Palestinians to take a more active, assertive role toward resolving the conflict. A look on the OneVoice website indicates that up to 652,672 people have given their support to the movement’s effort to end the conflict once and for all.

On the night of the talk, John Lyndon, the executive director of OneVoice, highlighted and reaffirmed the regional aims to build consensus on the goal of a two-state solution, build a mass grass roots movement and “amplify the voice of the moderates on both sides”. He went on to voice the added urgency to resolving the crisis since the 2008 war in Gaza and how UK campuses could become integral to supporting the OneVoice campaign for peace.

Yet, Lyndon reminded the audience that the polarisation of opinions outside the region have become entrenched and in many cases more extreme than of those people in either Palestine or Israel. “On UK campuses the war in Gaza led to an entrenchment of positions of advocates for either respective side. We aim to reconnect Pro-Palestinian and Pro-Israeli activists with the grassroots of those societies so their advocates reflect the will of the people in the region.”

Lyndon added that this reflected part of the strategy “to challenge the myth that ordinary Israelis and Palestinians are not in favour of a just and peaceful solution.” Indeed, a recent poll undertaken by OneVoice showed that 74% of Palestinians and 78% of Israelis were willing to accept a two state solution.

Flanking Lyndon on either side were Dina Jaber and Beata Krants, regional youth leaders who spoke of their aspiration for resolving the conflict. Dina, the Palestinian representative, had a lifetime of stories living under the occupation. She remembered the daily trials of going through checkpoints to reach the University of Birzeit, where on one particular day they arrested one of her colleagues and began beating her with ropes. In the ensuing clashes at the scene, she was injured by a plastic bullet as Israeli soldiers began shooting out. For Dina, a former PLO activist, resolving the crisis was dependent now on “a new generation of ambassadors” who challenged the old preconceptions and were dedicated in the pursuit of “a mutually-settled agreement” to end the occupation.

Beata Krants, her Israeli counterpart, was a passionate Zionist who had worked on the IDF radio service during her national service and has immediate family members serving on the front line. For Dina, the persistent fear and insecurity of suicide bombings and rocket attacks have “chased her mindset”. She emphasise the need for “security” as a goal intrinsic to convincing ordinary Israelis of a two state solution: “It was important for future generations to live without the fear of death”, she said.

http://www.emmainteractive.com/

Elcid Asaei, www.demotix.com

With prospects for an Israeli-Palestinian peace deadlocked, it is worth taking notice of the OneVoice movement: a charity aiming to reinvigorate and eventually resolve the long-standing Middle-East conflict. On November 17th, as part of a UK Campus tour, OneVoice held a presentation in University London Union building to promote its aims of “building bridges” between Palestinian and Jewish students, and to connect activists in the UK with those in the region for the cause of peace.

Since it launched in 2002, OneVoice has undertaken a grassroots approach to engage Palestinians and Israelis toward greater public involvement with the peace process. The movement was conceived following the collapse of the Oslo Accords, and since has striven to empower the moderate majority of Israelis and Palestinians to take a more active, assertive role toward resolving the conflict. A look on the OneVoice website indicates that up to 652,672 people have given their support to the movement’s effort to end the conflict once and for all.

On the night of the talk, John Lyndon, the executive director of OneVoice, highlighted and reaffirmed the regional aims to build consensus on the goal of a two-state solution, build a mass grass roots movement and “amplify the voice of the moderates on both sides”. He went on to voice the added urgency to resolving the crisis since the 2008 war in Gaza and how UK campuses could become integral to supporting the OneVoice campaign for peace.

Yet, Lyndon reminded the audience that the polarisation of opinions outside the region have become entrenched and in many cases more extreme than of those people in either Palestine or Israel. “On UK campuses the war in Gaza led to an entrenchment of positions of advocates for either respective side. We aim to reconnect Pro-Palestinian and Pro-Israeli activists with the grassroots of those societies so their advocates reflect the will of the people in the region.”

Lyndon added that this reflected part of the strategy “to challenge the myth that ordinary Israelis and Palestinians are not in favour of a just and peaceful solution.” Indeed, a recent poll undertaken by OneVoice showed that 74% of Palestinians and 78% of Israelis were willing to accept a two state solution.

Flanking Lyndon on either side were Dina Jaber and Beata Krants, regional youth leaders who spoke of their aspiration for resolving the conflict. Dina, the Palestinian representative, had a lifetime of stories living under the occupation. She remembered the daily trials of going through checkpoints to reach the University of Birzeit, where on one particular day they arrested one of her colleagues and began beating her with ropes. In the ensuing clashes at the scene, she was injured by a plastic bullet as Israeli soldiers began shooting out. For Dina, a former PLO activist, resolving the crisis was dependent now on “a new generation of ambassadors” who challenged the old preconceptions and were dedicated in the pursuit of “a mutually-settled agreement” to end the occupation.

Beata Krants, her Israeli counterpart, was a passionate Zionist who had worked on the IDF radio service during her national service and has immediate family members serving on the front line. For Dina, the persistent fear and insecurity of suicide bombings and rocket attacks have “chased her mindset”. She emphasise the need for “security” as a goal intrinsic to convincing ordinary Israelis of a two state solution: “It was important for future generations to live without the fear of death”, she said.

As the old adage goes: ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.’

Nowhere is this truer than within the stifling, often toxic context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In this part of the world, one person’s Independence Day is another person’s Naqba; one person’s occupation is another person’s homecoming; and one person’s response is another person’s precursor.  Action and reaction, myth and reality - all have become blurred, as uncompromisingly subjective and mutually exclusive historical narratives stalk the land.

This, sadly, is often the reality one must work within when trying to make progress toward mutual compromise. Israelis and Palestinians largely define the last 62 years of their history in opposition to one another. Blame is passed around judiciously, and each sees the other as the ultimate reason that peace has been so elusive and progress so temporary.

When faced with a depressing reality such as this, a committed interlocutor really has to walk down one of two paths. Should you try and transform the reality to one more amenable to peace, common understanding and mature, collective responsibility? It is indeed a tempting thought. Israelis and Palestinians poring over each others’ perceived injustices, apologising where necessary and strengthening their ties through cooperation, collaboration, and joint reconciliation. The second choice however, is to accept the context as you find it. Israelis and Palestinians have reason enough to dislike, mistrust, and even hate one another. Instead of putting the very limited time, resources and energy now available into trying to make water flow uphill, why not devote all of your efforts toward achieving a deal that respects rather than seeks to transform each narrative?

The security threat Israel lives under is due - primarily, but not exclusively - to the fact that they occupy the West Bank and Gaza, and stand in the way of a Palestinian state. Palestinians - primarily, but not exclusively - have employed violent methods as a means to achieve said state, and end said occupation. This calculus is simple, and blessedly free from moral judgment or finger pointing: occupation and violence are two sides of the same coin. Ending one will bring about the demise of the other. This is one of the central beliefs of OneVoice, an international grassroots movement with over 650,000 signatories in roughly equal numbers both in Israel and in Palestine, and over 2,000 highly-trained youth leaders. It aims to amplify the voice of Israeli and Palestinian moderates, empowering them to seize back the agenda for conflict resolution and demand that their leaders achieve a two-state solution guaranteeing the end of occupation, establishing a viable independent Palestinian state, and ensuring the safety and security of the state of Israel - allowing both people to live in peace with all their neighbours.

By working in parallel, OneVoice can appeal to the nationalistic enlightened self-interest of Israelis, through the work of OneVoice Israel in Tel Aviv; and Palestinians, through the work of OneVoice Palestine in Ramallah. With chapters located across the length and breadth of both territories, OneVoice is building a coalition of supporters: secular to religious, left to right wing. For Israelis, it’s about building an understanding that the occupation hurts rather than enhances Israeli security, and poses a threat to Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state. For Palestinians, it’s about building an understanding that violence and extremism hurts Palestinian national ambitions, providing a convenient excuse to those who wish to perpetually delay the establishment of a Palestinian state. Building this realisation does not require Israeli and Palestinian agreement on the past, rather it highlights the shared and mutually reinforcing benefits of common understanding of both peoples’ futures: a sovereign and viable Palestinian state, living side by side with a secure Israel - both states at peace with all their neighbours.  

Uniquely in the region in which they inhabit, both Israel and Palestine are democratic societies. There exists a mechanism within such societies to transform even the most corrosive reality, should enough public pressure is brought to bear. That is why OneVoice works tirelessly to highlight hidden consensus both within and between each society, mobilising ordinary people toward becoming genuine agents of change. Through Town Hall Meetings, public rallies, youth leadership training and ‘get out the vote’ campaigns, we aim to give the voices of moderation and pragmatism the volume and impact that their numerical weight deserves: 78% of Israelis and 74% of Palestinians are willing to get behind a two state solution. Whilst these people may never agree about what happened in 1948, 1967 or even in 2001 - they are in agreement about what must happen in 2010: a serious, committed, and successful push toward a two state solution and an end to violence, occupation and insecurity. With over 300,000 Israelis and 300,000 Palestinians signed up to this common understanding of what must come, perhaps the most important and transformative chapter in this entangled shared history is yet to be written.

John Lyndon
  is the executive director of OneVoice Europe. The OneVoice

Movement is an international mainstream grassroots movement that aims

to amplify the voice of Israeli and Palestinian moderates, empowering

them to seize back the agenda for conflict resolution and demand that

their leaders achieve a two-state solution

11 December 2009

Rory McCarthy in Salfit
guardian.co.uk,
Wednesday 28 October 2009 09.46 GMT

A construction worker at an Israeli settlement in the West Bank.
Photograph: Nati Shohat/EPA

One Voice hopes to open debate among Palestinians about land exchange, but finds resistance at West Bank meeting

There are few more pressing issues for the Palestinians of Salfit, living deep in the rocky hills of the occupied West Bank, than the remarkable expansion of the Israeli settlements around them.

Sitting along a broad hilltop range above them is Ariel, one of the largest and oldest settlements in the West Bank, and one that Israel is intent on retaining in any future peace agreement with the Palestinians. Dotted on the nearby hills are more settlements carving a deep swath through the area that reaches nearly 15 miles into the territory.

At a time when Middle East peace seems ever more distant, with Israeli and Palestinian leaders still far from engaging in direct talks, a grassroots organisation called One Voice came to Salfit hoping to start a constructive debate about the impact of the settlements, and even to explore if the Palestinians might one day compromise over them in peace talks.

But there is little appetite in Salfit for any such concession. Munir Abbushi, the local governor, told an audience of his town’s residents that he was strongly opposed to settlements. “Talking about peace while we have settlements is impossible,” he said.

“Our choice is peace and a two-state solution. We don’t have any ambitions to take all of historic Palestine, we just want the West Bank and Gaza and to live peacefully.”

He said a “small state” of “limited zones” surrounded by Israeli settlements, which in the West Bank increasingly feels like a very real possibility, was unacceptable. There were already 17 separate settlements in his governorate, he said.

Isam Baker, a Palestinian settlement expert, told the audience he too opposed all settlements, which he argued were an Israeli policy to control as much land as possible. “It is time for a political decision and a national strategy. We have to stop all negotiations with Israel completely until the settlements are stopped,” he said.

One Voice had hoped to use the meeting to open a debate among Palestinians. It followed another meeting in the Israeli town of Sderot, near Gaza, in which Palestinian rocket fire was discussed, and came before a meeting in Jerusalem today, to debate the future of the city.

“What we are really trying to do is create a debate so people have choices to take to any future agreement,” John Lyndon, an Irishman who heads One Voice Europe, said. “If you continue to negotiate along a completely separate track to what people are debating, then it’s all for nothing because people aren’t prepared to accept it.”

Hanging on the wall in a conference room in the governor’s headquarters, was an apparently innocuous sign in Arabic with the title of the talk: “A debate on the final status issues of settlements and land swaps.”

The idea of land swaps, in which Israel would retain some settlements and in exchange give up unoccupied land inside Israel to the Palestinians, has been discussed in negotiations and by peace industry thinktanks for many years. It lies at the heart of the Geneva Initiative, a prominent, informal peace plan drawn up by Israelis and Palestinians.

But on the ground in towns like Salfit, even talk of the idea of land swaps is anathema. It reveals how vast the gap is between the top Palestinian negotiators and the people on whose behalf they are negotiating.

The first member of the audience to speak, Khamis Hamad, a retired teacher, earned applause when he dismissed the sign as “criminal” and “forbidden”. “We all know that the people of Salfit are being prevented from living on their land. We don’t need speeches or conferences. We need a solution,” he said. “Settlements have to disappear. We should not exchange land.”

Fathi Bouzayeh, 50, a former mayor of the nearby town of Kifl Haris, called for non-violent demonstrations against the settlements and the settler-only roads that crisscross the surrounding land. “This is my grandfather’s land. I cannot give it to Israel. We should say to the Ariel settlers: ‘This is my land and you can’t use it.’”

Many others spoke, but none among them said land swaps might ever be successful.

Samer Makhlouf, the head of One Voice Palestine, tried to assuage the crowd. “We are just giving you the terms that are used and then you choose whatever you want,” he said. “These terms have been put on the table in negotiations by our Palestinian Authority.”

He said polling conducted by One Voice suggested most Israelis and Palestinians wanted a two-state solution and that nearly half the Palestinian population would accept some kind of land swap as a border adjustment, in which some settlements would remain under Israeli control.

“We don’t give you solutions. It is for you to discuss everything,” he said.

By Marcus Dysch, November 19, 2009

Beata Krants and Dina Jaber

Trying to convince Palestinian farmers in Ramallah of the benefits of a two-state solution is no easy task. But doing the same with pro-Palestinian students in Britain can be even harder.

Members of OneVoice, the grassroots movement which works with Israelis and Palestinians to promote co-existence and conflict resolution, yesterday completed a challenging two-week campus tour.

Palestinian Dina Jaber and her Israeli colleague Beata Krants faced the challenge of convincing some of the most vocal advocates from both sides that a peaceful conclusion is achievable.

Their audiences included students who took part in anti-Israel lecture theatre occupations at the height of the Gaza conflict earlier this year.

Dina said: “Here in Britain the pro-Palestinian students are more hostile than the people I meet in the West Bank. At home there’s the reality; we know we need to have a negotiated peace. People understand the facts.

“But here students see what’s in the media and they think the Palestinians should have everything.”

When working in the West Bank, Dina holds town hall meetings to discuss the most controversial issues of the conflict, including settlement -building, return of refugees and final borders.

Replicating such meetings on campuses proved similarly demanding.

Beata said: “We try to convince the simple people on the street. They get to talk about taboos like borders, settlements. It’s a huge challenge; it’s why I’m here.

“In Israel everyone has five opinions on the situation, but OneVoice combines everything, everyone can have a say and a voice. We have to help people understand we want to live in peace.”

After visiting Exeter, Southampton, Oxford, Birmingham, Surrey, London, Manchester and Glasgow, the pair feel they made significant progress.

“Two or three times students came to me after the event and said ‘wow, an Israeli and a Palestinian on the same platform’,” said Beata.

During their stay in Britain they also met Middle East minister Ivan Lewis MP, who endorsed OneVoice’s work.

Sharon Booth, OneVoice director of outreach and education for UK and Europe, said: “The aim of this tour was to challenge myths about the conflict and engage hundreds of UK students in constructive debate towards a pragmatic solution.”

OneVoice organises regular campus events including talks by conflict resolution experts and trips to Israel and the West Bank.

Friday, September 25 2009

from compass online (http://www.compassonline.org.uk/news/item.asp?n=5604)

In the merry-go-round world of Middle East peace, this week could be one to remember. Israel’s right wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, spent the first half of the week in London, meeting with Gordon Brown and the US’ Special Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell.

Murmurs of a deal in the offing began to appear- first online, and then in the broadsheet press. Is this silly season sensationalism, or evidence of a genuine breakthrough and the imminent resumption of negotiations? Much more will be known in the coming weeks and months, with talk of President Obama making a major announcement in late September- but one thing is certain: the people of Israel and Palestine will not tolerate very much more foot dragging on the part of their leaders.

The stubborn, almost anachronistic persistence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has succeeded in confounding every effort to alter the destructive dynamic of seemingly endless attrition. The result has largely been much hand-wringing, cynicism and defeatism. Yet this belies some basic truths and critical opportunities. Conflicts do end, and many of the prerequisite ingredients which have been historically absent, are now in place in the Middle East. There is, for the first time, a perceived common threat amongst Israelis and Arabs, in the shape of Iran; who the Saudis would dread to see join the nuclear club almost as much as the Israelis do. There is an American President prepared to give the conflict the priority it deserves, whilst dealing more even-handedly than his predecessors have. Yet- far more important than these geopolitical trends- there appears to be something happening within the grassroots, something common within both Israeli and Palestinian society, something that has historically proved to be both a catalyst and engine for transformative political events: people demanding change.

Earlier this year, the OneVoice Movement, a grassroots parallel organisation that works in both Israel and Palestine, conducted a groundbreaking poll that shed some light on popular opinion in both societies, and looked to harness the same methodology successfully used in the run-up to the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland. Three quarters of Israeli and Palestinian respondents are willing to accept a two state solution, with roughly the same proportion finding a negotiated settlement either essential or desirable. There was also a widespread (and- in the case of Palestinian respondents- near universal) desire for close US involvement in the process. It would appear that there is, at a minimum, popular acquiescence for substantial and sustained progress.

There is, of course, still profound disagreement around some of the most controversial issues- issues such as Jerusalem, refugees, final borders and settlements. Reaching compromise on these taboo issues will take great strength and faith on the part of the negotiators, but it will also necessitate genuine popular ownership of the compromises. People need to demand progress from their respective leaders, but they also need to demand the prerequisite concessions from themselves and from each other. OneVoice’s poll showed that 77% of Israelis are willing to freeze settlements as a first step to dealing with the issue. On the other side 77% of Palestinians are willing to stop all rocket attacks as a prerequisite to negotiations. These are the very demands the political leaders are trying to extricate from each other, demonstrating that they are lagging behind their respective electorates.

However you feel about the flawed Oslo Agreement of 1993, much of its ultimate failure was down to the fact that it was negotiated in secret, so that ordinary people never made an internal journey toward compromise. Instead an agreement was dropped on their laps, and when extremists on both sides rejected it (as was always going to happen), ordinary people were not prepared to defend it.

Yet if the popular desire for an agreement can somehow be re-fashioned into an understanding of the nuances of each potential compromise, then a mechanism may exist to not only prepare people for the painful concessions that peace will require, but convince them that the pain they endured in coming to terms with the compromise gives them ownership over any deal- a feeling that they have internally earned it. Such hard-fought gains will not be taken away so easily by extremists. If a shared appetite for progress can be transformed into a popular understanding of- and sovereignty over- the compromises necessary to achieve it, then perhaps that overdue and oft-heralded sea-change is on the way.

John Lyndon is the Executive Director OneVoice Europe
The OneVoice Movement is currently holding Town Hall Meetings across Israel and Palestine which aim to both inform and engage ordinary people about the conflict’s toughest choices yet to be made. For more information about the movement and polling please click here.

Posted by News Staff • November 30th, 2009 •
The Glasgow University Guardian
Nick Sikora

An organisation campaigning for peace in the Middle East was forced to call for GUU security as angry hecklers disrupted speakers at an event hosted by the union.

The meeting, organised by the Glasgow University chapter of OneVoice and held in the GUU Debates Chamber, involved visitors from Israel and Palestine speaking to an audience about their experiences and their desire for a peaceful solution to the Middle East conflict.

The event descended into open argument after a small number of pro-Palestinian audience members repeatedly interrupted those on stage — the same way in which the event was targeted last year.

As a result of the persistent heckling, Anthony Silkoff, the head of the Glasgow chapter, was forced to call for GUU security to regain control of the event.

Speaking afterwards, OneVoice Glasgow Publicity Officer David Campbell condemned the way those involved had acted.

He said: “There were people who were definitely very, very forward in their views, and were restricting other people from the question board. I think [the evening] could have gone better; the people who came over from Israel and Palestine should not have been aggressively shouted at, and made to feel as if they were lesser people. Both of them were very brave to have come over.”

In addition to the youth representatives from Palestine and Israel, Dina Jaber and Beata Krants, the event was attended by Ann McKechin, MSP for Glasgow North, and Chaplain to the University Reverend Stuart D. MacQuarrie, both of whom contributed introductory speeches to the event.

Whilst McKechin was the first to speak, and took to the stage amidst booing and shouts of “rubbish” from one crowd member, it was Israeli representative Beata Krants who received the brunt of the heckling.

John Lyndon, Executive Director of OneVoice Europe, told Guardian that it was the strongest vitriol he had ever experienced.

He explained: “It’s the worst we have ever had. There will always be some heated discussion, people sometimes wouldn’t accept just one question and will want to ask a follow-up, but I have never had to handle a situation like that before.”

He continued: “What we’re trying to do is provide an avenue for them to get what they want as quickly as possible, and that’s a two-state solution; sovereignty, independence, nationhood, so that they don’t have to live with the occupation.”

Despite the heckling, OneVoice is currently enjoying a high level of popularity at the University, having recently received the signatures of 500 students in Freshers’ Week alone.

It has amassed over 650,000 signatories worldwide including over 600,000 from Israel and Palestine, split almost equally between the two countries.

Anthony Silkoff believes that the event was a success, despite the actions of the hecklers.

He said: “There was a time where we weren’t able to progress with our event because every word we said they were shouting at, and so at that point I asked someone to go to the janitor’s office and get security. When I said that, they quietened down and we were able to have a much more interesting debate.”

From The Glasgow University Guardian.

Anthony Silkoff

It’s remarkable how differently you perceive the same football match, depending on which side of the stadium you sit. We see whatever fits best with our schema of the world. So when four of us visited Israel and Palestine, we had a choice — to see what we wanted, or to see the true state of play.

Let’s be clear: defining “what we wanted to see” is rather difficult, when your group comprises one Catholic Ayrshireman, a Protestant Northern-Irishman, a Muslim Palestinian-Glaswegian and a Jewish Londoner. We do share a common desire to see a just, peaceful end to the conflict, but it wouldn’t be helpful to spend eight days in a co-existence village.

OneVoice have never claimed that Israelis and Palestinians particularly like each other, or that the status-quo of occupation and violence is in anyway acceptable. Our work appeals to both sides’ nationalistic self-interest, and polling has shown that an average of 76% of both peoples would accept a negotiated two-state agreement.

The reality for Israelis and Palestinians is extremely brutal and, in eight days, we sought a small taste of this reality.

In Palestine’s West Bank, optimism is crushed daily by checkpoints, the monolithic separation wall and the continued growth of illegal settlements. In Israel, the evidence of violent and sustained conflict is ever-present in the form of sporadic attacks and in the country-wide hyper-security, like nowhere else we’d ever been. Israelis point to a list of hostile neighbours, each sworn to its destruction, to argue that their fears are real and pressing. Palestinians argue that security is used as a pretext for oppression. On arrival at Tel Aviv Airport the focus was on Hala, our brown-skinned companion, who was detained for questioning three times.

The next morning saw us on an early bus to the banks of the Dead Sea. The destination was Mitzpe Shalem; an Israeli settlement and home to Ahava. Ahava is a cosmetics company which, due to its illegal settlement location, is the focus of boycotts.

First impressions weren’t great. We asked one member of staff if she spoke English or perhaps Arabic and were told:

“No! This is Israel, my country, why would I speak Arabic? I speak only Hebrew.” Ironically, that response was in English. We were eventually pointed towards an office where we met Dr. Miriam Oron Mingelgrin, chief chemist.

In an interview, Miriam stated a clear view that the right-wingers, who occupy some of the settlements, are just as to blame as extremists on the other side. However, she said that the people of Mitzpe Shalem were largely moderate and secular, and with a two-state agreement, they would move for the sake of peace. She spoke out strongly against academic boycotts, suggesting that universities are an important forum for Arabs in Israel, which allows for a free flow of ideas. Miriam’s closing remark was to say that the real obstacle to peace was the leadership on both sides.

A few days later we found ourselves in Jerusalem. Walking from the Old City to Sheikh Jarra, we encountered: a micro-settlement, the Arabic verbal assault of Orthodox Jews (translated roughly: “I will fuck your sister”), and two Israeli soldiers asserting their authority by stealing pizza. The settlement was on the site of a Palestinian home that had been demolished by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF). A single Israeli home has now been erected in its place, complete with a mini security tower.

We’d been told previously to expect an amazing bunch of youth leaders from OneVoice in Nablus, and our hopes were not dashed. Make no mistake, they’re passionate nationalists. Their support for a two-state solution is founded on a desire for freedom, security and sovereignty for the Palestinian people, little of which exists now. We asked what they want from UK students — they don’t want sympathy, or screaming protesters, but real progress in the peace process. Their hope is that we can push our leaders to push theirs.

After another inspiring morning, this time with OneVoice Israel, the afternoon in Sderot would prove to be far more challenging. Thousands of rockets fired from Gaza have landed on Sderot, killing fifteen and wounding many more. Shalom, a representative of the town, stood before us in the municipal council’s bomb shelter and relayed his story. When presented with innocent human tragedy, like the two year-old and four year-old killed while playing together, one can only feel sympathy for those suffering. But it was difficult to warm to Shalom. His wild claims and myths undermined the grim reality, and suggested that he was more interested in political point-scoring than ending the conflict.

Frustrated, we headed to the other side of town to witness how OneVoice challenges such perspectives. OneVoice’s town hall meetings bring a community together to discuss the taboo issues at the core of the conflict. In Israel, this can mean confronting the falsehood that continued occupation brings security.

“All they [Arabs] do is terror … every time we give them something they attack,” said one resident of Sderot. Some of the others clearly agreed, but then came the challenges. Many from Sderot objected to the insinuations that Palestinians had been rewarded for violence: “I’m not giving them something new, I’m giving [land] back to them.” Sparking this intra-community debate in shell-shocked Sderot was no mean feat.

At a townhall meeting in Salfit, a Palestinian village in the West Bank, we heard from a desperate and frustrated room of farmers: “They [settlers] want to make our lives a nightmare.”

The topic was land-swap, that settlement blocks might be swapped for Israeli land in a final agreement. After many years of illegal settlement growth, the harsh reality on the ground necessitates compromise from both sides if there’s to be progress. Land-swap wasn’t popular in Salfit. But, after we left, the farmers reportedly remained for two hours, debating the issue.

There’s much that hasn’t been covered here, but eight days and 1000 words have their constraints. We didn’t go to Palestine and Israel looking for empty solutions.

You might think that OneVoice faces an arduous task, and you’d be right, but the same could have been said before the Good Friday agreement. Finding consensus between two polarised nations is an uphill struggle, but the OneVoice Youth Leaders aren’t giving up; their futures are at stake. No matter which side of the stadium you view this conflict from, they deserve your backing in their efforts.

Anthony Silkoff is Chair of OneVoice Glasgow. To find out how you can get involved in future trips and activities, or to add your name as a supporter, email OneVoiceGlasgow@gmail.com

Darya Shaikh

President Obama’s speech in Cairo on Thursday did not do a number of things: it did not completely mend a history of broken trust and animosity between the west and the Muslim world; it did not erase the legacies of 9/11, Iraq, or Afghanistan; it did not set in motion a detailed point-by-point plan of action for how to resolve conflict in Israel and Palestine. It could not have been expected to do these things - it is, after all, just a speech.

But what it did accomplish was no small task: before the Muslim world and the world at large, President Obama said what needed to be said, about settlements as well as violent extremism, about Israel’s right to exist as well as Palestine’s, and about the personal responsibility that all of us have - Israelis, Palestinians, and the international community - to work together to resolve the conflict. He did so without pandering or whitewashing, and without being self-righteous or patronizing.

This was more than mere rhetoric. With this speech, Obama set a new tone and direction for achieving a two state solution - one that starts with earnestness. "It is time," he said, "for us to act on what everyone knows to be true" but which most only acknowledge in private: that it is in everyone’s best interest, the US included, to see two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace.

On this front, Obama is working with a clear mandate from the ground. Recent polling conducted by OneVoice finds that a majority of Israelis and Palestinians - 78% of Israelis and 74% of Palestinians - are willing to accept a two state solution. The poll also reveals that 77% and 71% respectively strongly desire a negotiated peace.

But the poll also reveals some serious problems that - if left unaddressed - could spell the downfall of yet another peace process: by and large, Israelis and Palestinians have yet to come to terms with the compromises that will be required of them in order to reach an agreement. What’s more, no one wants to take responsibility: neither Israelis nor Palestinians acknowledged their own personal or national responsibility in failing to resolve the conflict; both blamed the other or outside elements.

Most people are willing to talk about two states, so long as we avoid the sticky topics - refugees, settlements, Jerusalem, violence, and occupation. Most are supportive of peace as long as they can blame somebody else for failing to achieve it. Or, as Tom Friedman put it in Wednesday’s New York Times, "everyone wants peace, but nobody wants to buy a ticket."

Obama has made the call for us to get in line and figure out what it means to buy a ticket. OneVoice, among other organizations, is working to give Obama’s call a mantle of legitimacy - bringing a grassroots mandate for a two-state solution to Washington DC, and an earnest discussion about what it will take to make real progress.

There are no easy answers in the Middle East - no easy route past the political quagmires, no easy solutions to the conflicts and wars that dot the landscape, no easy remedy for decades of patchwork American involvement in the region. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is certainly no exception. There have been so many missteps, false starts, disappointed hopes, and stalled processes it is hard to know how to begin working toward a negotiated resolution that fulfills the aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians for life in secure, independent, internationally-recognized, and peaceful states.

But perhaps the best place to start is simply saying what needs to be said - that which numerous leaders, both past and present and on all sides, have been artfully avoiding saying: That the settlements and occupation, as much as violence and incitement, are an impediment to building a secure and safe Israel. That violence and incitement, as much as the settlements and occupation, are blocking the way forward to a free and independent Palestinian state. And that being an "honest broker" has to mean more than empty rhetoric without action: the US has to be prepared to make its friendships in the region and its support for a two state solution mean something.

We need to deal with the issues at hand with sincerity, courage, and candor. Obama’s Cairo speech was a first step at doing just that. Mr. President: We - and hundreds of thousands of Israelis and Palestinians - are with you.

Darya Shaikh is the Executive Director of the PeaceWorks Foundation and the Chief Operating Officer of the OneVoice Movement.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2009/06/one_voice_for_a_two-state_solution.html