Pressing Forward With The People’s Voice
Former PLO cabinet minister Sari Nusseibeh, and former Shin Bet chief Ami Ayalon, have forwarded a peace plan that they call The People’s Voice. It is very good. Are there things I would quibble with? Yes, of course. But they are not sufficient such that I would have any hesitation in voting for it, were it up to me. Indeed, I would say they are not sufficient so as to justify anyone who calls themselves “pro-peace” to vote against it.
The problem with The People’s Voice is that neither the Israeli nor Palestinian governments are in any position to support it. So, Mr. Nusseibeh says, forget them. Take it straight to the people: a popular referendum by the Israelis and Palestinians wherein both sides agree that they will adopt the plan if the other also accedes to it.
It’s a daring proposal. If it fails — if both sides reject it, or, perhaps worse, if one side rejects it and the other does not, it will hobble the peace process for generations, destroying the credibility of the rejectionist party. In a climate where both sides have been heavily radicalized, it is a dangerous gamble. I’m not sure it is a bet I’m willing to make.
But Nusseibeh and Ayalon have the right idea, and it’s one worth drumming up support for. If it can generate some actual, grassroots support (and it has some already — 500,000 signatures thus far, 200,000 of them Palestinian) and buzz, maybe it will see the light of day without an all or nothing throw of the dice.
And maybe, just maybe, we’ll then see a day where Israel and Palestine live side by side in peace.
Share This
Related Posts
-
Syria: Chuck Hagel’s First Test?
Posted on Apr 25, 2013
-
(UPDATES) Syrian Chemical Weapons: Enough of a ‘Red Line’ for Obama? What Next?
Posted on Apr 25, 2013
-
Obama Must Face Up to Post-Assad Syria Now! (Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Saudi Arabia)
Posted on Apr 11, 2013
-
An Arab Summit Without Syria? … Ridiculous! (Thawra Al Wehda, Syria)
Posted on Apr 3, 2013
David – I like the plan and think it is worth the gamble to take it to the people. Sure there are risks that it will fail to be approved but can anything be worse than the present situation. Unless something bold occurs we will have another 40 years of occupation and bloodshed. In November I spent 3 weeks in Israel and just returned from 2 weeks in January and February. I spent a lot of time in the West Bank and the settlement construction going on is VERY VERY significant especially in the E-1 corridor between Ma'ale Adumim and Jerusalem as well as surrounding Ariel. I watched ground breaking of the new settlement of Adam East. If something is not done within the next two years the settlement growth and spead will forever make a 2 state solution impossible.
If this was 2000, I'd agree no problem. But right after the Gaza campaign, I feel like hawkish and unconciliatory attitudes are at their highest pitch. And I do think the plan being voted down is worse than not proposing it, if only because it makes it nearly impossible to imagine a plan like this (read, a plan likely to be successful) at any point down the road.
That being said, I agree with you that we're driving toward a cliff and eventually we'll tumble off it. I don't know what to do. I really, really don't know.
I am pro-peace and cannot support this plan.
LOL,
Am I the only one who burst out laughing when they saw this one.
“Holly_in_Cincinnati,
I am pro-peace and cannot support this plan.”
Thanks Holly, I haven't had a laugh like that in days.
In the same fashion Julius Cesar was…
I cannot fathom a genuine pro-peace (at least, pro-peace and pro-justice) ideology that would not vote for this plan — particularly when set against the status quo. Particularly if your objection is (as I take it to be, at least in part) making Jerusalem a shared city — it is difficult for me to articulate any reason why Israel should maintain sole jurisdiction of it consonant with any reasonable principle of justice or fairness.
Again, “peace” without “plan” is a hollow word.