Put it to a Vote
As often as people don't appreciate their teachers while they're in school, leadership fails to appreciate academia as much as it should.
Reality Based Community's Jonathan Zasloff reports hearing Palestinian scholar and Peoples' Voice Accord co-author Sari Nusseibeh speak last Monday night,
George Mitchell, Nusseibeh suggested, should take an American peace plan (and he made it clear that it should be the People's Voice framework) to both Netanyahu and Abbas.
He should then publicly challenge Netanyahu to place this plan on the Israeli ballot as a referendum. Netanyahu would not have to endorse the plan, but rather allow the voters to decide whether they would accept it as long as the other side does.
On the Palestinian side, he should publicly challenge Abbas to call for new elections (due in the PA thus year in any event) and run on that platform for his presidential campaign -- accepting the plan as long as the Israeli electorate does.
Nusseibeh believes -- and I agree with him -- that such a public offer would be difficult for either side to refuse. It would not require Netanyahu to endorse the plan, but would undermine him politically if he refuses to allow the voters to decide. It would give Abbas a concrete platform and plan to rid the Palestinians of the occupation.
...
This is worth a try. It is better than anything else yet proposed. Is anyone listening?
Bar - Here is a link to the actual plan as written. I just came across it and am considering my thoughts on it.
http://www.cmep.org/documents/peoplesvoice.htm
February 27, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
My oops - You already have the link.
February 27, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be very interesting how the Nusseibeh-Ayalon framwork could be worked into a genuine diplomatic initiative in Obama's State Dept. And I look forward to any comments on the Peoples' Voice project that you want to make.
February 28, 2009 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bar - I think the plan is generally good with one major caveat. The statement that no settlers will be allowed to remain in the West Bank is not only immoral but impracticable. The thought of Jew free countries is an anathema to my entire moral being. It bothers me immensely that the arab countries cleansed most, if not all, Jews from their countries and I don't want another precedent.
Furthermore, it is unrealistic to go through the violence necessary to move every settler from the land. Those who wish to move should be compensated and those who wish to stay should live under Palestinian governance. To a number of Jews living in Judea, Samaria or Hebron is critical to their faith. My grandfather described pockets of Jews living in Judea and Samaria (not Hebron)before the war of Independence going about their religious life without bothering or being bothered by neighboring Arabs.
When I made my first visit to Israel in 1956 (bar mitzvah present) we went many places in the west bank then under Jordanian rule for dinner, shopping etc and this freedom of movement continued even after 1967 and 1973. I never felt threatened. My grandfather could speak reasonably good arabic and he had many good discussions with them about Palestinian aspirations.
Once there is a Palestinian state and arab dignity, I think it will not be long before the arab sense of hospitality reasserts itself and Jews and arabs can once again become good neighbors.
As far as the People's Voice project goes I think it is a good idea but stillborn. I think the only framework that makes sense is using the Saudi Plan as the umbrella under which some meat and specifics can be put on the bones and given to the people of both sides. Right now the People's Voice plan is too nebulous for either side to trust. Only a plan complete with maps and details will overcome the trust deficit.
February 28, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks jdledell,
Like Zasloff, I approach the Peoples' Voice inititiave as a framework with alot of room for actual substance at official diplomatic levels. While the Beirut initiative seems promising on a superficial level, I find it very disspointing since the Arab League is quite capable of doing much more to advance it among Israelis. For example, Arab League member nations have the capacity to profoundly effect the Israeli electorate with relatively low-risk good-faith gestures, from simple diplomatic exchages between its member nations and Israel to formally lifting the economic and cultural boycotts of Israel, which go beyond mere symbolism. Without such gestures, from my own perspective, the overall statement of the Beirut initiative cannot amount to much more than "Do what we want, and then maybe we'll talk."
March 1, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink