Countering disinformation regarding OneVoice in Palestine

Countering disinformation regarding OneVoice in Palestine

Shares

Hey, there are people who stand to lose much from peace between Palestine and Israel, and they're not being real honest.

The deal with OneVoice is that it gives a voice to Palestinians and Israelis for whom no one speaks. That is, OneVoice allows ordinary people, moderates, a chance to say what they want, and that upsets established interests. That is, OneVoice is a platform for people to speak up for themselves.

Here's more:

OneVoice Statement – Lies and Threats Savaging Truth, Palestinian Cause and Opportunity for Change

12 days ago a slanderous press release was launched by a fringe group that sparked rumors that OneVoice Palestine exists to negotiate away the rights of refugees and international law. OneVoice’s teams here come together to categorically deny this and expose the fact that some Palestinians have been misled by a sinister campaign of hate, coupled with vicious threats of violence from extremists that have spiraled out of control.

OneVoice is a civil society movement to empower the conflict resolution process from the grassroots. We have no power to affect the content of negotiations, but we do have the power to tell the leaders and international community that we will no longer accept a failure to deliver real progress. The OneVoice Mandate calls on our heads of State to commence immediate negotiations, uninterrupted until the conclusion of a vaiable Two State agreement in order to amplify moderate forces in the November negotiations. That is the power of the grassroots and without a mobilized grassroots constituency we leave our leaders open to attack and without the strength to deliver real answers.

Shares

4 Comments

hung

Văn phòng Q.1 HCM từ 50 USD/tháng !
* Chỉ cần từ 50 – 120 USD/tháng, Công ty của bạn đã có thể sở hữu 1 văn phòng làm việc chuyên nghiệp tại Building 19 tầng ngay trung tâm quận 1 Tp.HCM.
* Thủ tục đăng ký đơn giản, hậu mãi chu đáo; có chiết khấu cho người giới thiệu (Hấp dẫn!).
* Vui lòng xem chi tiết tại: Van phong cho thue gia re Q.1 HCM – Virtual office Vietnam
http://www.goffice.com.vnhttp://www.goffice.vn
hoặc gọi: 08.2200911

(removed for privacy)

UPDATE: folks, sorry, but we have folks like this, given to all sorts of abuse and harassment. It's a little embarassing, but it's more effective to let it stand. Experience has shown pretty much everyone can identify the crazies. /Craig
What do you expect? Your site has long given such rejectionists all the rights to spew lies and propoganda. And anytime anyone stands up and calls em on it, they get banned.
ISM and the rest suck for doing it, but you have plenty of power in this regard. Stand up and speak out against this nonsense.

Tina

Hi Craig – just saw you on Colbert Report and then found this website. People at Another Voice are not against peace, they are just against this (which was removed from the millionvoices/onevoice website:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=187954&mesg_id=188013
Also, I know from reliable sources (people who live in Israel & Palestine) that the concert was cancelled not for security reasons, but because many artists dropped out after reading the fine print – there are two versions of the onevoice website, by the way, and the latest one added the 10 points mandate, which said the words "excluding settlement blocks". They were, in fact, writing the parameters of a peace agreement instead of just gneerally supporting negotiations.

Tina

Craig – my friend Jessica, a Quaker and peace activist who lives in Ramallah clarifies a lot here:
"The mandate itself is vague enough that many people might be willing
to sign it, even some who are skeptical about the two-state solution
being implemented with fairness and justice.
However, I'd like to point out that the mandate has changed in the
last 3 months since the One Voice team has been doing their major PR
push. I know groups tweak their language all the time, but the old
and new versions have some pretty significant omissions.
People are being asked to sign the mandate, but the referendum
proposal on the "10 pillars", which is supposedly the vehicle by which
One Voice is developing its peace plan to implement the mandate, are
nowhere to be found. There are also two versions of the referendum
proposal, however, the new version is only available as a PDF. The
online version that people can fill out is still the old one.
Version #1 of the One Voice Mandate (old One Voice site):
http://www.onevoicemovement.org – used 2002-2007
To Our Leaders, our fellow citizens, our neighbors, and the world:
We demand in One Voice that our elected representatives work to
achieve the following demands:
Ensure an immediate end of all violence from both sides in all its forms;
Recognize, respect, and implement all prior international agreements
between Israel, the PLO and the PA;
Implement concrete confidence-building measures that will improve the
lives of the Palestinian and Israeli people, including ensuring
freedom of movement for ordinary civilians and fostering education
against incitement on both sides;
Recognize the right of both peoples to independence, sovereignty,
freedom, justice, dignity, respect, national security, personal safety
and economic viability;
Immediately commence negotiations and reach and implement a Two State
Solution to fulfill the consistent will of the overwhelming majority
of both populations.
With responsibility and upon my honor, I pledge to accept the above
guidelines, and will submit my vote.
Version #2 of the One Voice Mandate (on the new site, which was
launched late August 2007, according to One Voice spokesperson Erin
Pineda):
http://www.onemillionvoices.org
To our Leaders, our fellow citizens, our neighbors, and the world:
We demand in One Voice that our elected representatives work to
achieve the following demands:
Recognize the right of both peoples to independence, sovereignty,
freedom, justice, dignity, respect, national security, personal
safety, and economic viability;
Implement concrete confidence-building measures that will improve the
lives of the Palestinian and Israeli people, including ensuring
freedom of movement for ordinary civilians and fostering education
against incitement on both sides.
Immediately commence uninterrupted negotiations until reaching an
agreement, no later than October 18, 2008, for a Two-State Solution,
fulfilling the consistent will of the overwhelming majority of both
populations.
With responsibility and upon my honor, I pledge to accept the above
guidelines, and will submit my vote.
Omission #1: Does this mean that violence in all its forms is now
okay? Physical violence, economic strangulation and withholding
humanitarian aid and access to hospitals are certainly an issue in
many places, especially Gaza. An interesting omission.
Omission #2: Another interesting omission. While I would like to
believe that this omission was made after a debate that acknowledged
that prior agreements failed to bring about justice (and therefore a
just peace), I suspect this was removed just before the big media push
to get signatures, knowing that people would scrutinize things a bit
more carefully.
Here is the OneVoice Negotions Referendum Proposal from the original
site (2002-2007) – and the only one you can vote on online
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
6 Jerusalem – Do you agree that Arab East Jerusalem will be under
Palestinian sovereignty while 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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
OneVoice Negotiations Referendum Proposals (from the August 2007
website) -only available as a pdf in the media section:
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?
2. Borders: Do you agree that the 1967 borders are the basis for an
Israeli-Palestinian agreement, modifications will accommodate
territorial and security needs of both sides, while exchange of
territories will be mutually agreed?
3. Settlements: Do you agree that any peace agreement will be based on
the principle of evacuating the settlements, excluding settlement
blocks?
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?
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?
6. Jerusalem: Do you agree that Arab East Jerusalem will be under
Palestinian sovereignty while Jewish area 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?
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?
8. Refugees: Do you agree that no peaceful solution will be achieved
without a solution to the Palestinian Refugees problem?
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?
10. End of Conflict: Do you agree that a permanent peace agreement
shall constitute the end of the conflict, and mutual claims and must
be implemented and democratically approved?
I think that it's pretty clear that when you do side-by-side analyses
of these two documents (I wish I could attach my charts to the
list-serv), that the changes represent a significant shift in framing
that, in many ways, tries to be more balanced.
The idealistic peacenik in me wishes that the changes were the result
of a significant internal debate and a real shift in perspective, but
the skeptic in me thinks that, given how recent the changes are and
their timing (just as the One Voice campaign enters the glare of the
media), and the people listed as their key players, one might conclude
that the the language shift has been done to obscure their real
agenda.
As it is, the comment about "physical barriers" implies that they
think the separation wall should be considered the new boundary
between Israel & Palestine, which causes a de facto annexation of
almost half of the West Bank. Combine that with the fact that the
settlement blocks will remain intact (according to the new version),
and it basically proposes the continuation of occupation and an
apartheid state and calling it "independence." Isn't that pretty much
the same as things are now?
Salam,
Jessica"

Comments are closed.