|
In the torrent of hate propaganda, a tiny voice is speaking out for decency and humanity and asking others to join. - mideastweb.org
|
|
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead
|
|
|
Why this is the right strategy:
As violence has raged over the past four years, trust and dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians have broken down. Neither side has shown it’s prepared to reach out to the other unilaterally. We can either wait and hope for positive political changes or the Palestinian and Israeli people, acting outside of politics, can take the first steps to a better future together.
Waiting isn't an option:
The first choice - waiting and hoping - isn't really an option. While we wait, innocent lives are lost, hope retreats and enmity grows more entrenched. If we wait, we risk letting an opportunity for progress slip away. We can’t leave progress up to politicians alone. Progress depends on the Palestinian and Israeli people deciding to choose nonviolent engagement over violence and hope over hatred.
A reason to choose hope:
If you want people to choose hope over hatred, you need to give them a reason to believe that hope is a realistic choice. Palestinians and Israelis need clear evidence that the other side can move beyond hatred and be a partner in peace.
A critical mass of support:
Some public initiatives have shown that large numbers of Palestinians and Israelis will support political compromises to achieve peace. These efforts provide reason for hope, but they haven’t yet come close to building a critical mass of support for the specific political solutions they seek.
While those efforts are important, the climate of bitterness and distrust impede their progress. As long as Palestinians and Israelis harbor deep doubts that progress is possible, neither side will be able to build a critical mass of support for doing what is necessary to work for peace.
Without such broad-based support, they won’t be able to convince Palestinians and Israelis that the other side is ready to choose hope over hatred. With no clear public mandate, political leaders will find it difficult to seize any opportunity for progress and those who seek to stand in the way of progress will feel emboldened.
A simple and powerful message:
By taking to the streets simultaneously, Palestinians and Israelis can deliver a clear and powerful message of hope. Both sides will be demonstrating mass support for resolving the conflict without further violence. Both will be showing that they’re willing to take constructive steps for peace once the message of non-violence is heeded.
Each side will be saying to the other that hope is a realistic choice and that progress is possible. This simple message will give each side reason to believe that the other can be a partner in peace.
By marching at the same time, Americans will increase the influence of those working for peace.
Taking the first steps together:
A sustained campaign of marches in the U.S., Israel and Palestinian territory will show that all sides are committed to taking the first steps to a better future together. Since all sides will be marching at the same time, no one will have to act unilaterally or risk looking weak.
The voice of the people:
This effort will generate enormous media attention and deliver a message with the power to get people talking and to change minds. As more and more U.S. cities take part each weekend and greater numbers of Palestinians and Israelis march, media attention will be sustained and momentum toward peace will grow.
This show of hearts on all sides will make it clear that Palestinians, Israelis and Americans all want to be partners in peace. That will set in motion the kind of political changes necessary for peaceful engagement to resume. In the end, politicians must follow the will of the people, and this may be the only way to make sure the voice of the people comes through loud and clear.
Changing the world:
This effort will provide a shining example to the world that non- violence can yield results in the most bitter of conflicts. Nothing would do more to marginalize those who embrace terrorism as a strategy for achieving political aims.
|
|