Related Resources

Ami Ayalon began his presentation explaining that if an agreement is to be reached, five issues of critical importance must be addressed. These five issues - Jerusalem, borders, refugees, settlements, and security - form the backbone of the Initiative’s statement of principles. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians must make mutual concessions on these five sensitive issues to move forward with a solution to the current conflict. For example, Israel cannot be expected to force settlers to withdraw while allowing Palestinians to continue to fight for the right of return for refugees.

Ayalon described the Initiative as having the two pillars, which he referred to as “back to the future” and “back to the people.” He elaborated, explaining that the two sides first must have clear, concrete goals for the future and secondly, it must be the people themselves who commit to achieving these goals. The leadership on both sides must recognize the will, of the people, establish concrete goals and then act accordingly. Up to this point, the leadership of both sides have failed to do this.

Sari Nusseibeh explained the specific constituency that the Initiative targets. The Initiative seeks to reach all levels of society with a particular attention to the grassroots level, rural areas, and “people on the streets” who do not normally have input in peacemaking decisions. This approach separates the Initiative from all previous peace initiatives because it is not being imposed on the people from high levels of leadership, but rather it is coming from the people. The Initiative is currently being circulated at the grassroots level where people are responding to its contents and, if in accordance with its goals, are offering their support with signatures. Nusseibeh stated that he hoped to collect several hundred thousand signatures within the next few months, after which they will hand the statement of principles to the leadership on both sides.

Both Ayalon and Nusseibeh were questioned regarding the feasibility of a two-state solution, and both insisted it was possible. Ayalon maintained that a one-state solution will not work, and that the broad-based support of the Initiative proves that a two-state solution is the will of the people. He also emphasized the need for Israel to remain a predominantly Jewish, democratic state, a situation that would change as the Palestinian population within Israel grows. Nusseibeh agreed that the two-state solution is the most practical outcome, but encouraged expediency due to settlement expansion and the encroachment of the separation wall. Nusseibeh also raised the question of the refugees, which may result in loss of support on the Palestinian side because the Initiative does not, and cannot, promise the right of return for refugees. Despite this, Nusseibeh concluded, the Initiative creates the best option for all sides by promising a better future, a democratic state, and a committed partner among both sides.

Nusseibeh and Ayalon identified an important role for the US in the peace process and both articulated the need on the part of the US to establish concrete goals for the future. The US should support a “destination map”, and not just a road map.