Tag: BDS

When Another Voice first took issue with OneVoice’s program and planned concerts, our concerns were based on OneVoice’s 10 pillars, which are problematic for a number of reasons; we were troubled by the methods in which OneVoice was seeking to collect signatures in support of their platform, e.g. offering a free concert ticket to those who gave their signature; and we were disturbed by the idea of another high profile peace event that distorted the reality of what is happening on the ground in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. We did not care to demonize the individuals behind OneVoice, nor did we assume bad intentions on their part. However, we were, and continue to be concerned with simplistic, high profile initiatives that equate the occupier with the occupied, and that do not recognize Israel’s ongoing violations of international law, including gross violations of Palestinian human rights, which are the reasons behind the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian “conflict.”

Since we publicized our concerns and joined the calls initiated by PACBI and other Palestinian grassroots organizations to boycott the event, OneVoice and its founder Daniel Lubetzsky, have engaged in a series of spiteful attacks against us, attempting to discredit our voices with exaggerations, unfounded accusations, and lies.

Below are our responses to some of OneVoice’s accusations:

• Mr. Lubetzsky has labeled critics of his group “extremists”, but the criticism of OneVoice comes from people who have been dedicated and hardworking supporters of Palestinian rights for years. We are Palestinians, Israelis, and internationals, all of whom have spent the post-Oslo period working for real change for the benefit of everyone in the region. Martin Luther King and Gandhi were labeled as extremists and provocateurs by the “moderates” that supported the discriminatory regimes that their movements threatened.

• Lubetzsky has claimed that Palestinians were duped into opposing OneVoice’s event by foreign activists. In fact, the initial call to boycott came from Palestinians. We, Palestinians are not stupid and are perfectly capable of assessing for ourselves which options are desirable and which are not. We decided to oppose this event because we didn’t feel the event’s message best expressed what was in our interests.

• Lubetzky cited “security concerns” and “extremist ideologies” in his decision to cancel the Jericho concert. However, 5 of the 8 main performers withdrew from the event before its cancellation. Similarly, President Mahmoud Abbas and Bishop Attallah Hanna asked for their names to be removed from anything to do with the event before its cancellation. The Palestinian security services affirmed that they were fully prepared to provide security for the event and that no one has ever cancelled an event because of concerns over security. The truth is that the event fell apart after grassroots nonviolent Palestinian mobilization opposing an event that falsely claimed to represent our interests.

• OneVoice does not talk about future agreements being rooted in international law or international human rights standards and mentions neither in its literature. It also does not distinguish between occupier and occupied, it does not mention the right of Palestinian refugees to return, and it doesn’t object to Israel’s annexation and segregation wall. It staunchly pushes the concept of two-states, not acknowledging that many present configurations of the two-state model are deeply problematic for Palestinian rights.

• OneVoice says that it is committed to combating extremism, but it appears that it limits itself to Palestinian “extremism.” OneVoice ceased its petition drive in Gaza after Hamas took over leadership there, but continues to boast that members of Israel’s Likud, Shas and the National Religious Party (the settler party) sit on its board.

• OneVoice claims nonpartisanship and no hidden agenda, yet Lubetzky’s statements indicate otherwise. For example, statements such as, “What is happening in Gaza and Iran should scare all of us. Either we will defeat them or they will defeat us” are unacceptable. A genuine attempt to work towards peace would promote the unity of the Palestinian people, not attempt to divide and/or isolate any segment of our population.

• OneVoice has claimed that its critics are opponents of peace. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are interested in a real and lasting peace based on equality, human rights and justice, all of which are obfuscated by OneVoice’s slogany approach to conflict resolution.

The actions of Mr. Lubetzky have led us to seriously question his and OneVoice’s desire to advance the cause of true peace. As Palestinians, we are weary of flowery talk about peace that only serves to distort the truth of what is happening on the ground. We cannot sing about peace as Israel continues to steal our land and water resources, build settlements, construct the wall, demolish our homes, push us into smaller and smaller cantons, carry out raids in our cities, towns and villages, arrest our brothers and sisters, and deny our children education. We don’t oppose true peace initiatives; quite the opposite; we have long been calling on Israel to cease such provocative and damaging actions so that we can really talk about living in peace together. But we are not willing to take part in another façade like Oslo, which gave the world the impression that there was a peace process in progress all the while that Israel was cementing its occupation. Mr. Lubetzky, OneVoice, and anyone who is genuinely interested in a just and lasting peace for Israelis, Palestinians, and all children of the region are called upon to join efforts to pressure Israel to comply with international law.

As for the Jericho and Tel Aviv concerts and to those who lament their cancellation, we ask: When South African whites wanted to maintain control of the majority and the strategic areas in South Africa and give the blacks self rule in others, would a “peace” concert have been organized to support this initiative?

We strongly advise OneVoice to integrate into its platform that any negotiations must be premised on equality, respect for human rights, and the implementation of international law. By advocating for negotiations without a strong emphasis on guarantees of human rights and international law, OneVoice is simply supporting the efforts of the stronger powers, Israel and the US, to impose their will on the weaker Palestinian side, forcing Palestinians to accept an unjust and therefore unsustainable settlement.

October 21st, 2007

Despite OneVoice’s recent efforts to minimize the attention on its “10 Pillars,” especially in the wake of widespread grassroots criticism, the fact remains that OneVoice created these 10 pillars to present as a basis for negotiations, under the guise that they represent the will of the majority of Palestinians and Israelis.

As of October 20, 2007, OneVoice claimed 275,175 Palestinian signatories to “OneVoice Mandate” (where age requirement is only 15). According to OneVoice’s One Million Voices website, 58,000 have been polled as to whether they agree to these pillars. We could not find mention of any efforts to conduct this poll outside of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, so our understanding is that the vast majority of respondents reside in that area. OneVoice is only providing snippets of the results; information on their site indicates that approval rates for each of the pillars ranged from 23% to 85%. Since the sample is not statistically representative, it must be clarified that any findings are not representative of Palestinian opinion, and OneVoice’s use of terminology such as “consensus” is misleading.

Listed below are OneVoice’s 10 Pillars and a brief explanation of why each is problematic.

1. Two states: Do you agree that there will be two viable states: Israel will be the state of the Jewish people and Palestine the state of the Palestinian people, each recognizing the other as such, both democratic and respecting human rights, including minority rights?

Only people who have signed OneVoice’s mandate and affirmed their support for a two-state solution are eligible to participate in this exercise. Hence, the result for this pillar, in particular, is artificially high and not representative of Palestinian opinion on this issue.

The designation of Israel as “the state of the Jewish people” reaffirms and legitimizes Israel’s existence as a state built on racist foundations and reinforces the current racist trend that considers non-Jewish residents and citizens a demographic threat. By definition, a “state of the Jewish people” directly implies that non-Jews would continue to be disadvantaged and vulnerable. It also signifies that the Palestinian refugees would not be allowed to return to their homes in Israel, as that would threaten the Jewish character of the state.

Without defining its parameters, the Palestinian “state” that would emerge would not be territorially contiguous, nor would it have full sovereignty over its land and natural resources, thus rendering it not viable. Further, the creation of a Palestinian “state” cannot replace the inalienable right of the refugees to return to their homes and be compensated for their displacement.

2. Borders: Do you agree that the 1967 borders are the basis for an agreement, while border modifications will be used to accommodate the territorial and security needs of both sides?

By justifying modifications of the 1967 borders, OneVoice not only disregards international law, but also legitimizes Israel’s de-facto borders created by illegal settlements and the Segregation Wall, including its annexation of large settlement blocs around Jerusalem.

The word “while” suggests that modifications accommodating “territorial and security needs” do not have to be mutually agreed upon. This pillar legitimizes Israel’s goal of annexing the Jordan Valley, constituting approximately 25% of the West Bank, under the pretext of “security”. As for Palestinian security, it is directly violated by the presence of settlement blocs suggested by the next pillar; a clear indication that “territorial and security needs” addresses only Israel’s needs.

Furthermore, members of the Israeli government have already declared intentions to rid Israel of its indigenous Palestinian population and exchange Palestinian population centers for the coveted settlement blocs.

3. Settlements: Do you agree that settlements will be evacuated and that land exchanges along the border will permit inclusion of a limited number of settlement blocks?

As affirmed by numerous UN Security Council resolutions, all Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are in violation of international law and present a major impediment to peace. Israel “proper” already encompasses 78% of historic Palestine; legitimizing its land grabs in the remaining 22% is not unacceptable.

The maintenance of these settlement blocs carves up the West Bank into isolated cantons. Some Palestinian towns, such as Qalqilya, are already cut off from other Palestinian population centers and strangled economically precisely due to the presence of settlements and their protective Segregation Wall.

Furthermore, these settlement blocs have been strategically built above important water aquifers, and Israel’s possession of these aquifers violates Palestinian rights to their own water, causing severe water shortages for the Palestinian population.

Finally, the wording of the pillar must be noted, and is reflective of OneVoice’s manipulative approach. A response of “I agree” signifies acceptance that Israel keeps its settlement blocs on occupied Palestinian land. An answer of “I don’t agree” would presumably signify that the respondent opposes the removal of settlements, be they individual settlements or settlement blocs. The choices preclude complete settlement removal, which is the only legitimate choice under international law, and the only choice acceptable to most Palestinians (82%, according to Jerusalem Media & Communication Center’s poll).

4. End of occupation and terror: Do you agree that Israel shall completely end the occupation, within the context of a comprehensive peace agreement and a cessation of all terror and violence on both sides, at which time all political prisoners will also be released?

Hinging an end of the occupation and release of political prisoners on “the context of a comprehensive peace agreement and a cessation of all terror and violence” indicates that the Palestinians must first end all resistance before Israel complies with international law. This is in tune with the failed Road Map, as it shifts the burden to the Palestinian Authority, requiring it to eliminate any Palestinian resistance before Israel becomes obliged to end its illegal occupation.

It is also unclear whether OneVoice considers Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people as “terror and violence”, including indiscriminate shelling of population centers, raids into Palestinian towns and villages, extra-judicial killings, the use of “human shields” and other war crimes.

5. Security: Do you agree that the Palestinian state shall be demilitarized for an agreed upon period, but will posses a strong security force, and each state shall ensure that its territory is not used to threaten the security of the other?

This pillar reflects the imbalance prevalent in OneVoice’s approach. Why must the weaker party be demilitarized, while the stronger party maintains, without any limitations, the world’s fourth strongest military, and possesses nuclear weaponry?

Further, it is clear that, in synch with U.S. and Israeli plans, the purpose of the Palestinian security forces is to defend Israel from any Palestinian resistance, rather than providing security for its own citizens.

6. Jerusalem: Do you agree that Arab East Jerusalem will be under Palestinian sovereignty while the Jewish areas will be under Israeli sovereignty, and that each State shall have the right to establish its capital within its sovereign territory, recognized by the other and internationally?

This pillar suggests that not all of East Jerusalem would be part of the Palestinian state, but only the Arab-inhabited areas, while “the Jewish areas” (all of them) would remain under Israeli possession. These would obviously include the illegal settlements of Pizgat Ze’ev and Ma’ali Adumim, as well as other areas surrounding East Jerusalem that have been constructed there for the very purpose of annexing additional land east of the city.

A division under a system of demographics in a city which has been investing significant efforts in changing the demographic balance and “Judaizing” the area will create small pockets of a Palestinian ‘state’ inside the Jerusalem municipality, without access to social services that Palestinian residents are being taxed for, nor easy access to the rest of the West Bank.

7. Holy Sites: Do you agree that both States will guarantee security, access and freedom of worship to all significant religious sites giving due regard to the established customs of each religion?

The Segregation Wall currently obstructs such access to Palestinian Muslims and Christians. Such access is not practical without dismantling the Wall, in accordance with the 2004 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice. Yet, there is no stipulation for such removal anywhere in OneVoice’s literature.

8. Refugees: Do you agree that the refugee problem must be resolved in a humane, fair, just and practical manner in the final Status Agreement?

This is vague and suggests that “a” solution should be reached, not necessarily based on international law or in accordance with human rights. Pillar 1, calling for Israel to be recognized as “the state of the Jewish people” signifies, in no uncertain terms, that the refugees would not be allowed back to their homes in what is now Israel. Such a concession of the refugees’ right to return, an inalienable human right as per international law, is simply unacceptable and should not be subject to negotiation.

9. Education and reconciliation: Do you agree that, in order to build reciprocal understanding, education against incitement, terror, hatred, fear and racism should be an integral and enforceable element of the permanent agreement; that Palestine and Israel shall foster economic, social and cultural cooperation in order to improve the lives of their citizens; and that physical barriers should not serve as an obstacle for this?

This is reasonable if it is applied equally, and can be easily implemented once the occupation is ended, i.e. “within the context of a comprehensive peace agreement” – a qualifier that was used only for imposing requirements on Palestinians before Israel ends the occupation. In fact, the Palestinian curriculum has been modified to facilitate reconciliation; the Israeli curriculum, however, continues to provide a racist narrative that denies Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people.

Physical barriers, such as the Segregation Wall, will always be an obstacle to any kind of cooperative initiative. Economic, social, and cultural cooperation is not practical when people are separated by an 8 meter tall cement wall, or when one party is annexing and colonizing the land of another.

10. End of Conflict: Do you agree that a permanent peace agreement shall constitute the end of the conflict and must be implemented and democratically approved, and that then both governments will irrevocably renounce any further claims?

A permanent peace agreement would naturally constitute an ‘end to the conflict’ as long as the causes of the conflict are appropriately resolved.

Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the policies employed therein are the root cause of the “conflict”. Any ‘peace’ agreement that allows Israel to keep settlements inside the West Bank, that does not deal justly with the rights of Palestinian refugees, and that does not create a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, could not end the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel.

This pillar seeks to absolve Israel of its responsibilities and its compliance with international law, by rendering further Palestinian claims null and void upon reaching agreement with the Palestinian Authority, along parameters that are clearly in violation of international law and human rights.

It is not clear what constitutes a “democratically approved” agreement; all indications suggest that Palestinian refugees and diaspora would not be included in such a process, and that their rights are severely threatened.

It is important to also note that OneVoice fails to mention not only Israel’s Segregation Wall but also a number of other serious issues including the dotting of the West Bank with checkpoints, war crimes that Israel continues to commit on an almost daily basis, and the gradual ethnic cleansing of the Bedouins.

It is also disconcerting to notice OneVoice’s frequent use of the word “conflict” and rare use of the word “occupation.” To describe the situation as a “conflict” is problematic as it ignores the fact that this “conflict” is due to an illegal occupation. Furthermore, it suggests that the “conflict” is between two equal parties, ignoring the fact that one is a strong and aggressive occupier that is acting in violation of international law, while the other is a weak and mostly unarmed captive population.

OneVoice’s vision of a “two-state solution” does not include dismantling the Wall, removing the settlement blocs, or creating a viable, contiguous, and sovereign Palestinian state.

Were OneVoice truly interested in lobbying for a genuine peace agreement, it would base its pillars on the implementation of international law and the respect and affirmation of human rights. By advocating for negotiations outside of those parameters, OneVoice simply aids Israel in pressuring the weaker Palestinian side into permanently accepting conditions that cannot lead to a just or sustainable peace agreement.

By: Ben White

October 19, 2007

We’ve had Live 8 and Live Earth, and this week, albeit on a smaller scale, we almost had One Million Voices. Organised by the OneVoice group, the declared aim was to bring together Palestinians and Israelis in simultaneous events in Tel Aviv, Jericho, London, Washington and Ottawa to voice support for the “moderates” and call for a negotiated two-state solution.

The plans fell through, amid bitter claim and counter-claim, as artists lined up for the Jericho event cancelled, and the Tel Aviv concert followed suit. This followed grassroots pressure by Palestinians who objected to what they see as yet another attempt to promote a false peace that fails to address the structural injustices driving the conflict.

Indeed, despite the peace rhetoric – and the claim that they represent a unique popular call – OneVoice’s approach suffers from the same flaws that have bedevilled official “peace” efforts from Oslo to the Quartet. Such errors were amply demonstrated in Seth Freedman’s column, which implied that the main obstacle to peace is the “extremism” that exists on both sides.

This interpretation of the situation in Palestine/Israel is only possible through a heavy airbrushing of history and a fundamental misreading of the present. Strikingly, the Tel Aviv concert was scheduled to take place in Hayarkon Park – the same location where, almost 60 years ago, the Palestinian village of Jarisha was wiped off the map by Jewish armed forces.

Its residents shared the same fate as almost 800,000 other Palestinians, expelled from what became Israel and prevented to this day from returning home, their land confiscated. Yet official OneVoice material gives the impression that the conflict only began 40 years ago, when Israel occupied the rest of Palestine (the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem).

Condemning the “extremist minority” of both sides sounds laudable. Of course, “both sides” use violence, and of course, there is hatred and religious extremism among both Palestinians and Israelis. The crucial point, however, is that Israel has all the power. Israel is occupying and colonising Palestinian land, not the other way round. Palestinian cities are besieged by a modern, hi-tech Israeli army and subjected to closure, raids and bombardment – not the other way round.

Zionist colonisation is not the preserve of a fanatical fringe in Israel – it is fundamental to the state’s identity and practice. As Martin Luther King said: “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” Since Israel continues to show no intention of relinquishing its role as colonial overlord, it’s no good to condemn “both sides”, as if there is equality between occupier and occupied.

Unsurprisingly, those with intimate firsthand experience of this apartheid are under no illusions about the usefulness of toothless “peace processes”. Earlier this week, the UN human rights envoy for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, John Dugard, condemned the Quartet for failing to safeguard Palestinian rights. The BBC’s Tim Franks noted that many diplomats and officials based in the region “would agree with Mr Dugard’s political analysis” yet refrain from agreeing publicly.

The language of moderation is all the rage, from OneVoice to Condoleezza Rice, from the aborted peace concerts to the forthcoming November peace conference. It’s a seductive dichotomy; on the one side are those who light the flame of peace, who strive for a “mass awakening” to the “forces of light and friendship and love”. On the other side are the extremists who threaten, smear and mislead; they are wickedly intransigent – they stifle, snuff out hope and burn flags.

But what is a “moderate”? In recent times, “moderate” has been applied to some rather unlikely characters in the Middle East. For the US, UK and Israeli governments, these include states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. None of these permit much genuine freedom of expression; all of them oppress opposition movements. In fact, Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s most repressive regimes.

It seems “moderation” has nothing to do with whether you refrain from the torture of political activists or the flogging of “deviants”, and everything to do with your obedience to US policies and Israeli interests. That is what unites the Saudi royals, the Egyptian president and the Jordanian king.

Meanwhile, groups like ISM, and Another Voice are condemned by Freedman and OneVoice as “extremists” out to ” eradicate the other side”, and accused of making unnamed and unspecified threats. Yet these groups are committed to the defence of human rights and international law, and are made up of tireless Israelis, Palestinians and internationals. Their categorisation as “extremists” then, is actually a reflection of their refusal to accept sugar-coated apartheid or well-meaning platitudes that serve the status quo.

It may be an uncomfortable truth, but peace for both peoples comes no closer if the fundamental power disparity between Israel and the stateless, occupied and dispossessed Palestinians is obscured. Confronting the vested interests that perpetuate Palestine’s conquest may not win you awards from Jordanian monarchs or praise from the US state department; but it ultimately brings you a lot closer to peace.

For the original article and to make comments click here:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ben_white/2007/10/the_moderate_blindfold.html