Clinton/Geneva Parameters
The Clinton parameters for a Palestinian-Israeli permanent settlement were presented by President Clinton at a meeting with Israeli and Palestinian officials almost ten years ago, on December 23, 2000, following the collapse of the July 2000 Camp David summit. The Geneva Initiative, along similar lines, was made public around the end of 2003. These parameters address the most fundamental issues which underlie the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: (1) Final borders and territorial exchange; (2) Refugees; (3) Jerusalem; (4) A demilitarized Palestinian state; (5) Security arrangements; and (6) End of conflict. We address these issues periodically since December 2003, and in the current poll we revisited these crucial issues following the diplomatic activity of the US with regard to the conflict and the beginning of the proximity talks between the parties.
· The findings indicate an increase in support for the overall package in both publics compared to 2009. The change is larger and is consistent across all parameters among Palestinians.
· Palestinians are now split half between support and opposition to the overall package: 49% support and 49% oppose it. This level of support represents an increase in support of 11 percentage points from 2009.
· 52% of Israelis support the overall package, versus 37% who oppose it. This level of support is similar to that obtained in 2006 through 2008, and larger than the support indicated in 2009 (46%).
· Since we have been tracking these issues in 2003, there was only once majority support for this package on both sides, in December 2004, shortly after the death of Arafat which was followed by a surge of optimism and considerable moderation in both publics. Among Israelis there was majority support for the Clinton package since 2004, except in the 2009 poll.
Showing posts with label peacemaking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label peacemaking. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Poll results from the Geneva Institute
See here for more.
Friday, December 11, 2009
We have to DO SOMETHING
One of the big arguments of the BDS movement is "we have to do something." Clearly, however, people anxious to do "something" haven't done the very first thing they ought to, which is to examine options for doing something. There are, in fact, many options which are considerably more productive. Add to the list another.
Joint Ventures for Peace brings together Palestinian and Israeli women entrepreneurs and artists to work as equal partners and create a unique discourse on peace. This innovative project couples dialogue with creative business development.It doesn't look like their products are available for sale yet (though buying those produxts will be a great way to support peace), but tax deductible contributions can be made in America through PEF Israel Endowment Funds or through the New Israel Fund. See here for details.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Bridging the gap on natural growth
Seeing this article gave me an idea. Housing in Israeli settlements in Occupied Territory is cheap. That can be changed through tax policy. (Of course, this would hit some of the poor hardest, but in this case, I'm willing. Other solutions might well hit them harder.) I have no particularly strong views on natural growth. So let's first freeze what Israel is willing to freeze. Then tax what natural growth Israel is not willing to freeze. It doesn't have to be prohibitive, but should be significant. The money could go into a fund for eventually relocating settlers when borders are finally decided. Or, it could even go into a fund for the PA. Ideological settlers, who will be the hardest to relocate, would be put in a bit of a quandry, as they'd be actively supporting policies they don't like by living in the territories. Non-ideological settlers, who make up the vast majority of the settlers and who live in the larger settlement blocs where natural growth is a bigger (and more pragmatically driven) issue, would merely face a different set of constraints.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Monday, July 14, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Israel and Palestine are a single flower
I know that a lot of Palestinian actions are reactions to Israeli actions. And a lot of Israeli actions are reactions to Palestinian actions. In Buddhism, sometimes they call that "mutually co-dependent origination." I prefer to avoid such long names and think of it simply as "recognizing that we are all connected." No human being exists in isolation. We only exist inside and in relation to a larger society. We are part of this world, not apart from it. And this world that we are part of includes all of us.
When the Japanese occupation of Korea ended (and this was an occupation far worse in every way that I can think of than the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories), the great Zen Master Man Gong dipped a flower in ink to write the calligraphy, "The Whole World is a Single Flower." Understanding that the Japanese and Koreans were not separate but both a part of a larger world, he had an amazing ability to forgive that I only hope to be able to develop. Martin Luther King, Jr. said that white people need black people to love them. Understanding that black Americans and white Americans were not separate but both a part of a larger America, he had a boundless capacity for love that I only hope to develop. Understanding interconnectedness means that loving your enemy is as easy as loving yourself. More, it is the same as loving yourself.
The Israelis and Palestinians are part of a single flower. You act together to make war or to make peace. You act as one. But instead of understanding this, Palestianians say, "What else can we do; you see how awful our lives are." Israelis say, "What else can we do; you see how awful our lives are." You make "us" and "them." You make difference and opposites and enemies. So long as you view yourselves as separate --arguing over who has had it worse, who is at fault, who wants peace more, and so on-- I think you will continue to avoid everything necessary to making peace and to make your own situations worse.
But we can love each other. When your enemy commits an act out of fear and anger, you should try to feel compassion for someone suffering in fear and anger. I know this isn't easy. When I see people write things on mepeace.org that express fear and anger, I find it difficult not to react from my own fear and anger. But I know we have to try. And I know that trying --which is the reason we're all here in the first place-- is something wonderful that we all share.
When the Japanese occupation of Korea ended (and this was an occupation far worse in every way that I can think of than the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories), the great Zen Master Man Gong dipped a flower in ink to write the calligraphy, "The Whole World is a Single Flower." Understanding that the Japanese and Koreans were not separate but both a part of a larger world, he had an amazing ability to forgive that I only hope to be able to develop. Martin Luther King, Jr. said that white people need black people to love them. Understanding that black Americans and white Americans were not separate but both a part of a larger America, he had a boundless capacity for love that I only hope to develop. Understanding interconnectedness means that loving your enemy is as easy as loving yourself. More, it is the same as loving yourself.
The Israelis and Palestinians are part of a single flower. You act together to make war or to make peace. You act as one. But instead of understanding this, Palestianians say, "What else can we do; you see how awful our lives are." Israelis say, "What else can we do; you see how awful our lives are." You make "us" and "them." You make difference and opposites and enemies. So long as you view yourselves as separate --arguing over who has had it worse, who is at fault, who wants peace more, and so on-- I think you will continue to avoid everything necessary to making peace and to make your own situations worse.
But we can love each other. When your enemy commits an act out of fear and anger, you should try to feel compassion for someone suffering in fear and anger. I know this isn't easy. When I see people write things on mepeace.org that express fear and anger, I find it difficult not to react from my own fear and anger. But I know we have to try. And I know that trying --which is the reason we're all here in the first place-- is something wonderful that we all share.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
mepeace.org
I just found mepeace.org via an article in Haaretz. I've tried to start a discussion by posting the following (reproduced here with just the correction of one typo):
__________
Hello everyone! I'd like to start this, my first post here, by thanking you all. Of course thanks to Eyal Raviv, who had such a big hand in creating this space. But also, thanks to everyone who comes here and makes it a community, and not just a collection of webpages. I hope we can come to understand each other better, but it's important to recognize the effort we've all made -already- toward a peaceful world just by coming here to listen and be heard.
What I write here is very much influenced by Buddhism, but I don't think it's limited in any way by that. Buddhism just provides me a language in which I'm able to express it. I hope you can understand it as part of your tradition as well. Knowing even a tiny bit of why you came here, I'm certain you already understand the basic requirements of peacemaking.
In particular, what I write here is influenced by a dharma talk I heard recently with Thich Nhat Hanh. (You can find the entire dharma talk here, if you'd like.) He made his reputation during the Vietnam war, when he tirelessly, and at great personal risk, went back and forth between the different sides, trying to facilitate a meaningful dialog. In this dharma talk, he said something that was very important to me, because it's something I have great trouble with myself.
He noted that peace activists are great at writing powerful protest letters, but few are good at writing love letters. The importance is that few of us are good at using our words to encourage others to listen and hear us. It's very easy to blame others for not listening --in truth, it's often their fault that they're unwilling-- but this attitude does not promote peace. This blaming polarizes us, pushes us apart, and makes communication harder. We have to fight against that impulse within ourselves so that we can bring people together.
Someone once told me a story about a Vietnam peace activist who found himself on a plane next to a farmer who supported the war. They began talking, and he began trying to convince this farmer that the war was wrong. It didn't bother the farmer that people were dying. He was even willing to justify killing children since they would grow up to be Communists. (That awful slogan, 'nits make lice.') They discussed napalm and the damage to the land. All along, the farmer agreed that these things sounded horrible, but he justified them. Finally, the activist said something, and the farmer almost jumped out of his seat. "They're killing Cows?!?!?!" The farmer raised cows, and he finally found himself unable to justify the violence.
Everyone here wants peace. If we keep talking long enough, we'll eventually find a few things we can agree upon and build upon. I know it can be hard to wait for that time (and that it might be hard to listen to a guy in New York preaching patience to someone dealing more directly with the violence). But I think all of us have some faith in this process. I want to say that I have faith that it works. And I want again to say thanks to people who are trying to make it work.
__________
Hello everyone! I'd like to start this, my first post here, by thanking you all. Of course thanks to Eyal Raviv, who had such a big hand in creating this space. But also, thanks to everyone who comes here and makes it a community, and not just a collection of webpages. I hope we can come to understand each other better, but it's important to recognize the effort we've all made -already- toward a peaceful world just by coming here to listen and be heard.
What I write here is very much influenced by Buddhism, but I don't think it's limited in any way by that. Buddhism just provides me a language in which I'm able to express it. I hope you can understand it as part of your tradition as well. Knowing even a tiny bit of why you came here, I'm certain you already understand the basic requirements of peacemaking.
In particular, what I write here is influenced by a dharma talk I heard recently with Thich Nhat Hanh. (You can find the entire dharma talk here, if you'd like.) He made his reputation during the Vietnam war, when he tirelessly, and at great personal risk, went back and forth between the different sides, trying to facilitate a meaningful dialog. In this dharma talk, he said something that was very important to me, because it's something I have great trouble with myself.
He noted that peace activists are great at writing powerful protest letters, but few are good at writing love letters. The importance is that few of us are good at using our words to encourage others to listen and hear us. It's very easy to blame others for not listening --in truth, it's often their fault that they're unwilling-- but this attitude does not promote peace. This blaming polarizes us, pushes us apart, and makes communication harder. We have to fight against that impulse within ourselves so that we can bring people together.
Someone once told me a story about a Vietnam peace activist who found himself on a plane next to a farmer who supported the war. They began talking, and he began trying to convince this farmer that the war was wrong. It didn't bother the farmer that people were dying. He was even willing to justify killing children since they would grow up to be Communists. (That awful slogan, 'nits make lice.') They discussed napalm and the damage to the land. All along, the farmer agreed that these things sounded horrible, but he justified them. Finally, the activist said something, and the farmer almost jumped out of his seat. "They're killing Cows?!?!?!" The farmer raised cows, and he finally found himself unable to justify the violence.
Everyone here wants peace. If we keep talking long enough, we'll eventually find a few things we can agree upon and build upon. I know it can be hard to wait for that time (and that it might be hard to listen to a guy in New York preaching patience to someone dealing more directly with the violence). But I think all of us have some faith in this process. I want to say that I have faith that it works. And I want again to say thanks to people who are trying to make it work.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)