FOLLOW US
Washington DC Peace & Security Forum
Washington DC Forum: Two States, One Country: Israel-Palestine, A Path Toward a Shared Future
Written by William Selig, Deputy Director, UPF Office of Peace and Security Affairs, Washington, DC, USA
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
The UPF Office for Peace and Security Affairs in Washington DC convened a forum on May 22 on “Two States, One Country: Israel-Palestine: A Path Towards a Shared Future.” Co-moderated by Kamal Nawash, Esq., President, Free Muslims Coalition, and Dr. Andrew Wilson, Professor of Scriptural Studies, Unification Theological Seminary, participants explored alternatives to the two-state solution with emphasis on a shared future for Israelis and Palestinians. The discussions included the valued presence of Mr. Nizar Farsakh, General Director, PLO General Delegation to the U.S., and H.E. Gilbert Galanxhi, Ambassador of Albania.
For background information see the contribution by Herbert C. Kelman (Richard Clarke Cabot Professor of Social Ethics, Emeritus, Harvard University) entitled "A One-Country / Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict," published in 2011.
Introduction
More than 20 years since the historic handshake between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin, that sealed the Oslo accords and outlined the path to a two-state solution, Israelis and Palestinians are no closer to reaching a permanent solution to their conflict, and many experts now believe that the two-state solution is no longer practical or feasible.
Over the last five years, an increasing number of prominent Israelis and Palestinians have openly called for or begun considering the practicality of a shared future in which the two-state solution is seen as an obstacle to peace rather than a path to peace. The new proposals generally include concepts such as a federation, confederation or a one-state solution between Israel and Palestine.
More recently, the idea of a shared future has expanded to include grass-roots, leaderless efforts among Palestinians and Israelis who pursue their own initiatives to explore the concept of a shared future. One notable effort occurred in 2012 when a group of Palestinians and Israelis organized a historic conference in the settlement of Ariel to discuss the possibility of living together in a united country.
The idea for “Two States, One Country: Israel and Palestine” -- living together and organized into a federated country -- is not new to the UPF. In 2006, members of the UPF learned of an out-of-the-box innovative project to find a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli dilemma. The project involved interviewing and analyzing the input of hundreds of Palestinians and Israelis from liberal to conservative, and ultra-conservative to ultra-liberal. We learned that all the participants were asked about their fears, hopes and aspirations for Israel-Palestine. Based on the responses, we were told that the leaders of the project tried to formulate a solution that could at least be acceptable to more than 70 percent of both Israelis and Palestinians.
The goal was to find a formula that would be acceptable and could satisfy the majority of the population of both Israelis and Palestinians who want to live in peace with their neighbors -- to give the majority of the population the incentives to cooperate with each other and prevent a small minority from either side from derailing the peace process through violence.
In 2006, UPF invited the leader of the project, Kamal Nawash, to Jerusalem to present this plan as a possible solution to the conflict to a diverse audience of Israelis, Palestinians, Americans, Europeans, and citizens of many countries.
Much has changed since the project began. Rather than just rely on e-mail and conferences, technology has introduced Facebook and other social media that helped project leaders reach tens of thousands of Palestinians and Israelis with a click of a button.
After nearly 10 years of conferences and grass-roots activism, the project reached new heights when Mr. Nawash traveled with a large contingent of local Palestinians to the Jewish settlement of Ariel in December 2011, which is considered one of the most right-wing settlements in Israel. With Israeli partner Dorn Tzur, Mr. Nawash led a conference, termed the “Best Plans for a Peaceful Israel/Palestine.”
Mr. Nawash is the President of the Free Muslims Coalition and runs a law firm in Washington, D.C. He has a Juris Doctor and Master of Law in international legal studies. Upon completing his education in 1997, he became the Legal Director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC). An active member in his community, as well as in his voting district, Mr. Nawash ran as a candidate for the Virginia State Senate in 2003. In 2005, his work with the Free Muslims Coalition was recognized by the U.S. government when the White House appointed him to represent the United States before the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
In his remarks, Mr. Kamal argued that, based on his experience and his research, the two-state solution will NOT achieve a peaceful outcome to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
To argue in favor of the well-known proposal for the Two-State Solution, was Dr. Andrew Wilson, co-author of the “Citizens Proposal for a Border Between Israel and Palestine.” Dr. Wilson earned his Master of Theological Studies and Ph.D. from Harvard University. Currently, he is Professor of Scriptural Studies at the Unification Theological Seminary in upstate New York. As one committed to interfaith understanding in the modern context, he has edited World Scripture: An Anthology of Sacred Texts (1991), which sets out common themes in the scriptures of all the world’s religions, as well as the follow-up volume, World Scripture and the Teachings of Sun Myung Moon (2007), which extended the scope of interfaith scripture to include Rev. Moon’s words. Dr. Wilson is a frequent participant in the MEPI program and UPF activities in the Middle East.
Joining the discussion via the Internet was Joseph Avesar, a lawyer of Jewish descent working in the Los Angeles area. He emigrated to the U.S. from Israel immediately after the 1973 war. He offered serious insight into how the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians might be resolved in the form of a confederation. He believes that the current civic and religious powers in the Holy Land are unable to solve their problems by themselves, nor can agents from outside such as the U.S. The answer must come from the people themselves.
Dr. Antonio L. Betancourt, Director, Peace and Security Affairs Office, UPF International-DC Office - The UPF position is one of finding a peaceful win-win solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict, one that will guarantee security and peace to Israelis -- peace and security that is sustainable for generations to come -- and for the Palestinians to have their citizenship and proper governance from a state that will guarantee their rights as citizens, according to international law and agreements.
Kamal Nawash, Esq. – Arguing for the one-state solution approach to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mr. Nawash said:
- In the last few years since Israel closed off the border to Gaza, several million Palestinians have had little interaction with Israelis and Israelis have had little interaction with Palestinians. They only see things from their own perspectives. It becomes obvious they’re only hearing from one side, yet it’s good for people to listen to each other. Honest communication is needed.
- Israelis have strong attachments to what’s going on in Gaza. They see that area as an integral part of Israel. I’m from West Jerusalem, birthplace of John the Baptist. I feel an attachment, as do most Palestinians. It explains why we haven’t reached a solution based on separation or a two-state solution. It’s because when you talk about separation you’re basically telling the Jews to give up their ties to the historical religious sites in the West Bank such as Rachel’s Tomb near Bethlehem and the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron. Similarly, you’re telling the Palestinians to give up their attachment to the cities of the coastal plain, such as Acre, Haifa and Jaffa.
- It’s very difficult for Palestinians to live in Israel today. If you ask a five-year-old kid, he would tell you: “Why don’t we just live together? Why don’t we just share?” There are fears on both sides. There are about 5 million Palestinians in the region (Gaza, West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip) and 6 million Jews in Israel. If Israel were to become one state with these current numbers, it would be a frightening situation because they would feel insecure. In a one-state country, Palestinians would fear still being persecuted because they are smaller in number. They would feel a lack of trust and would fear being treated as second-class citizens. Palestinians don’t want separation.
- This is the basis of the idea of the Federation that we have discussed for more than 10 years. We know both peoples claim everything. Both want security. Both want a place to maintain their own identity. We’re proposing a federation. Think of the relationship between New York and New Jersey. They coexist independently, maintain their separate identities, yet are part of a larger entity, the United States of America. I believe Israelis can have their Jewish state and Palestinians can have their Palestinian state, but both would exist together in a United Federation of Israel/Palestine.
- If a union could be formed, people are concerned about demographic changes. What if the Palestinians outnumber the Jews? Again, let’s look at the United States. In this country, there is the Senate system. Two senators from each state regardless of the state’s population. We need to do the same thing over there. I would even go a step further. I would tell Israel to continue the federal system, including the entire military with the state national guard. They can have the extra security, but the basis of the state has to be kept as one economy. One state can’t discriminate against the economy of another state. Just like in the United States, one state cannot discriminate against people from Maryland, for example. People need to feel they are part of this union. There must be mutual cooperation. Landlocked areas cannot exist without their own economies. The best solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict is the same answer that was reached by Martin Luther King Jr. in the United States and Nelson Mandela in South Africa. This is our motherland. We have historical and religious roots. We have a common denominator. Separation is not the answer.
Dr. Andrew Wilson – Arguing for a two-state solution, an independent Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel, Dr. Wilson said:
- As a Jew, I fervently believe in the historical importance of Israel as a Jewish state with a Jewish identity and I recognize the need to feel secure after 2,000 years of living in Europe and places where they were a minority and their security (or lack thereof) was always dependent on others. This is the basis of Zionism. The Jewish people need to be masters of their own destiny.
- How can Jews accept a Federation? There are many important issues, including the status of Israeli Jewish settlers in a two-state solution. There are more than 300,000 such settlers, depending on where you draw the line, whose lives are at stake. If they cannot remain in their home in the state of Palestine, then they would be forced to move and that would be not only a tremendous financial burden, it would also be a psychic and political shock. The government of Israel would have to deal with it. They would have to have enough capital to deal with it. It would be extremely difficult.
- I believe that there needs to be cooperation between the two states for a host of bi-national issues, including joint governance of certain zones, for instance, where roads cross, water rights, health, communication, etc. These obviously have to be dealt with clearly. Therefore, I believe that some sort of Federation or federal structure even within a two-state solution is necessary. If Jerusalem is divided in such a way that Israel could have sovereignty and the Palestinians can have sovereignty over East Jerusalem at the same time, then there would have to be some kind of confederal governance structure to allow both sides of these realities to coexist. There is a great deal to commend in this approach. I believe the two-state solution will not be possible unless Israel and Palestine begin to develop a bi-national confederated institution to cooperatively govern areas of mutual concern.
Josef Avesar – An Israeli-born attorney, Mr. Avesar emigrated to the U.S. after the 1973 war. His parents were Iraqi Jews who came to Palestine in the 1930s. He resides in the Los Angeles area. He is the President and Founder of The Israeli-Palestinian Confederation, which opposes separation between the Israelis and Palestinians. Even if the status quo remains or if the two sides separate, he feels Israelis and Palestinians must continue to share the infrastructure and the geography. A confederation system is needed to create a mechanism for cooperation between the two states. Mr. Avesar said:
- I believe that the shared future is the answer. The reason the two-state solution has failed is because neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian government truly wants a two-state solution. Why? Because many Israelis and Palestinians believe that in the long run their side will eventually prevail and eliminate the other.
- The Palestinians have birth rates on their side; the Israelis have technology and military power on theirs. Both sides think they have God on their side.
- The two-state solution is not a peace plan. It is a division-of-real-estate plan. It is a divorce plan. It does not enhance cooperation, dialogue and interaction between the peoples of Israeli and Palestine. It does not teach tolerance and understanding. It validates and perpetuates a dangerous notion that the Israelis and Palestinians are so different from each other and so diametrically opposed to each other that they cannot live together and must be separated.
- What is really needed is cooperation and understanding among the peoples themselves. And Israelis and Palestinians are really not all that different.
- In the confederation, both the Israeli and Palestinian governments would have veto power. The confederation could not make laws in conflict with the laws of the Israeli and Palestinian governments, and to even pass a law would require 55% assent from the Israeli half of the delegates and 55% of the Palestinian. The confederation would work mostly on local problems so that the Israelis and Palestinians, who would be represented equally in the confederation, might learn to trust one another.
- The current powers that be in the Holy Land are unable to solve their problems by themselves, and agents from outside such as the U.S. can’t do it either. It must come from the people themselves.
- Jews and Palestinians are really the same people. The only difference is the different religions -- but really, we have the same culture, music, foods, and mannerisms. We even look alike. To create an artificial barrier to separate us is not conducive for peace. Jews and Arabs have lived in peace for centuries in the Arab countries, and Jews and Arabs have lived in peace in the state of Israel.
- When I look at Kamal Nawash and other Palestinians, I see myself. He is actually my cousin, my brother. To separate and create this artificial notion that we are different people, to me is not real.
- We should be talking about peace, not about real estate. When you say Israelis will have this real estate and the Palestinians will have this real estate and somehow that will lead to peace, that doesn’t add up. This is a divorce. Separation and isolation perpetuates hostility and suspicion. The most important thing in order to achieve peace is to be integrated with each other. We need to meet with each other and realize that we have the same people. We have to have a shared future.
Rabbi Yehuda Swartz – Rabbi Swartz lives in Jerusalem. He also reached the idea of a federation. A colleague of Mr. Nawash, Rabbi Swartz, envisions a confederation of Israel and Palestine being built with help from social media such as Facebook . Israelis and Palestinians, he believes, are equals who were joined together by destiny, history, religious lineage and genetics. He said:
- We understand that Jews and Palestinians have a right to live in Israel/Palestine, but it is inherently unfair that an American Jew can move to Israel and become a citizen while a Palestinian who emigrates from Jerusalem is not allowed to return.
- Our vision will prevail because a two-state solution will never lead to peace.
Mr. Nizar Farsakh, General Director, The General Delegation of the PLO to the U.S. – Mr. Farsakh said:
- The PLO official position is a two-state solution, but there has been a diversity of opinion within the ranks of Palestinian intellectuals. (On May 15, a number of representatives of the PLO and Fatah signed a statement promoting this concept, launching a “Popular Movement for One Democratic State in Historic Palestine.”)
- It’s been 20 years since the Oslo Accords were signed in1993. Instead of moving towards a resolution, we are moving in the opposite direction, which has resulted in a lot of people feeling frustrated. The ultimate test is what actually works on the ground. The process must come back to the grass roots and move away from only the leaders. My personal experience in negotiations is that the leaders don’t have much room to maneuver. Ultimately, we must bring the process back to the people at the grass-roots level. The people must have ownership over the process.
- The larger population needs to be engaged. Both sides need to think outside the box. What’s really important is not just conventional narratives. We need to have open dialogue. We need to understand each other’s point of view directly and apply the Golden Rule as a social code of coexistence.
Mr. Kamal Nawash – Mr. Farsakh said the Palestinian position has changed over the past 50 years partly out of frustration that the two-state solution is not feasible or that they thought they had no other choice but to give up all of Israel and accept only the West Bank and Gaza, so for practical reasons, they are now open to the one-state plan.
- I agree that instead of trying disentangle the connecting systems already in place, it would be easier to evacuate the few hundred thousand Jews from the West Bank, and create one bi-national state, giving everyone the same citizenship.
H.E. Gilbert Galanxhi, Ambassador of Albania – The official position of Albania for the Israel/Palestine conflict is to support the two-state solution. Based on his own experience as an ambassador and attendee to discussions in the United States and Europe, Ambassador Galanxhi said:
- Both sides must be able to sit and talk and discuss. It is crucial to respect individual human rights. This is the key to success, because we cannot exclude any option on the table. In management theories, it is clearly written that nobody should have a monopoly.
- We discussed today a “Two States: One Country” proposal. This is a great idea. Every option should have as its basis respect for human rights and freedoms for each individual, not just for a group of people. This is important to keep in mind.
- Another important point we need to be reminded of is that when studying history a simple mistake is frequently made. Can you draw a map of Germany 200 years ago? You cannot because it did not exist. Can you draw a map of the United States 400 years ago or of Albania 200 years ago? When referring to the problems of the Palestinians, we have to go back 2000 years! We cannot just think, here is Palestine and here is Israel. This is simply not true. The mystique of history is that we tend to photograph a certain segment of time and think it remains unchanged. What was Austria 200 years ago? This is a very common mistake. We have a photograph of this mythical Palestine and Israel, but we cannot bring back the context of that time period.
- The starting point of the issue is that there are two peoples who are the descendants of Abraham. They share the same memories. Peace is the goal. Both peoples seek peace. This should be the obvious result of any kind of negotiations. Whatever the possible scenario, whether two-state solution or federation of one state for two peoples, I’m sure it will be accepted by everyone, as long as it is fair and just.
Mr. Jamal Hadieh, a Virginia-based businessman who grew up in Jerusalem but has lived in the United States for more than 31 years. Mr. Hadieh said:
- The Jerusalem I know has disappeared. Today it’s a totally different people with different beliefs and issues. The struggle now has gone beyond just a map of the border; it’s about water and who controls it, access to energy, changing demographics, access to information. There is a new generation with different values.
Dr. Andrew Wilson – Just as the Palestinians must be able to operate within their own politics, so must a Jewish state. The two states must preserve their traditions based on their reasons for existence.
- I believe Israel will be in danger within a one-state solution if there is no resolution of these problems. History teaches that an apartheid state will eventually lead to dismantlement. I believe it is in Israel’s interest to make peace with Palestine within the next 1 to 2 years and give up this ridiculous dream of controlling all of Palestine.
- Let the Palestinians breathe in their own country. If they can be free to breathe in their own country, then Israel can stop holding to these unrealistic demands and can get on with nation building and prosperity. If Israel continues to hold on to the current status quo it will be a disaster.
Amb. Gilbert Galanxhi– The Ambassador shared his personal experience about Albania and the Balkans. He said:
- The example of Albania, Kosovo, and the Balkans may be instructive. Under the communist regime of Marshall Tito, there were no uprisings, but there came a point when freedoms were lost and human dignity was downgraded. This is the key. If you respect someone and give all individuals the same measure of dignity, then there will be peace.
- It must be understood within the context of the times. Certainly if you asked a person in Japan 70 years ago their opinion of America, you would get an opinion very different from a person of today. Politicians are shading our perceptions. If you travel to Germany or France today, there are places that seem very similar. In America, you are free. People don’t care where you worship or who you vote for. In Albania, we have the four major religions. Muslims marry non-Muslims. Most marriages are mixed in Albania. There’s no pure Muslim or pure Christian. It doesn’t make a problem. This is the key.
- Today, since the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, six republics have been recognized, but through common cause, we have learned how to live together.
Mrs. Angelika Selle, President of the Women’s Federation for World Peace – Mrs. Selle challenged the participants to recognize the contribution of women to the peace process. She said:
- In exploring “out-of-the-box” thinking, more women should be involved. Women have a different way of looking at things than men. They have a deep desire to preserve life. It’s a different paradigm perspective.
- Women, mothers and youth represent an untapped reservoir for catalyzing peace.
Mrs. Vicki Phelps, Senior Editor (retired), The World & I magazine – In terms of how to bring about change, the key is in grass-roots action. The politicians will change if there is more widespread interest in the media. People will feel empowered if they know there is a groundswell of interest. People will begin to talk, and action will follow.
Mr. Nizar Farsakh – I believe Hamas has been changing. They are softening their positions, particularly regarding popular resistance. They are where Fatah was several years ago. They’re going through a progression. Hamas is dealing with the practicalities of geopolitics and, at the same time, it is evolving through a process of social political maturation.
Ms. Diane Falk, Former Director of the Research Department, The World & I magazine – Ms. Falk asked if it would be possible for Jerusalem to be designated as a United Nations protectorate?
Mr. Kamal Nawash – As a Palestinian, I personally do not have a problem with recognizing that half of humanity has an interest in Jerusalem. It has spiritual and religious importance to the world’s Abrahamic religions, and therefore could be an international city whose sovereignty is with the United Nations.
Mr. David Jackson, Executive Editor, The Washington Times and former director of the Voice of America – Mr. Jackson said:
- I’m not a Palestinian, nor Jewish, but I worked as a journalist in the Middle East for several years. The issue of terrorism must be addressed before there can be an agreement between the Palestinian and Israeli peoples.
- Also, the demographic issue is very important. Just as the geographic boundaries have changed over time, so too the demographics have changed so dramatically that the failure to reach a decision on this conflict is making any sort of resolution that much more difficult.
Mr. Kamal Nawash –In finding a solution, we can look to the U.S. Constitution. The reason they set up a system that gives two senators to each state not based on population was due to the fear that the larger states would have more power over the smaller states. In working for a shared future, I think one of the biggest mistakes is this horrible anti-normalization movement. Some pro-Palestinian groups are adopting and promoting this tactic that opposes dialogue and rejects engagement because they don’t want the occupation to appear normal. In my opinion, its effect is to increase Israeli hatred towards Palestinians.
Amb. Gilbert Galanxhi – The simple answer is why not have two governments mutually agreeing? What I perceive as the problem is you have different cars moving at different speeds. I have been in Jerusalem, Ramallah, and the Gaza Strip. You can see quite different realities in each locale. Behind that ugly wall (Separation or Security Fence), you don’t see the same level of growth and development. The problem we had with Marxism in my country, and I had to study Marxism so I know what I’m talking about, is that if you have nothing to lose then Marxists can do anything they want. If you have well-being and middle-class social development in your democracy, then you are motivated to deal with the contradictions and the problems.
Dr. Andrew Wilson – The European Union is an example of a federation. These 27 member states operate independently and through a system of intergovernmental institutions to deal with practical issues, such as roads, bridges, railways, tolls. There can be a broad spectrum of different levels of federation and confederation cooperation, meaning that any of several possible arrangements can be devised, from a strong federal system of one nation and two “provinces,” to a loose confederation of sovereign states where the unifying authority has only limited powers, as in the EU.
Mr. Rafi Gassel, Member of the International Board, Israeli Palestinian Confederation – Mr. Gassel emigrated from the United States to Israel in 2007 and lives in Jerusalem. He supports the rights of Israeli settlers, the right of return for Palestinians, the resolution of the conflict and the formation of a Democratic Federation of Israel and Palestine. He said:
- My perspective is that what we need to have here is a little bit more flexibility in our options to solve the problem. We can’t say it has to be a one-state or a two-state solution. We need to be open to new ideas.
- Ideally, I would like to see a bi-national state, but I understand by living here there are a lot of people pushing for two-state solution in order to maintain their identity. I would be willing to live with a two-state solution, but I understand that I would have to give up my dream of visiting the Tomb of the Patriarchs or Rachel’s Tomb, and other sites sacred to my heritage. Whether we are one-state or two-state, what’s important is equality.
Mr. Ralph Winnie Jr., Director, Eurasia Center – It seems like in Israel you have this conflict between the messianic interpretation of Zionism that came out in the ‘60s versus the more traditional aspect of Zionism. If Zionism was established to create a Jewish state, then by definition it must have a solid Jewish majority. In order to coexist with Palestinians, a structure would have to be put in place to protect and secure the primary reason for existence.
Dr. Antonio Betancourt – We need to remember there are different interpretations of human rights all over the world. The difference in interpretation deals mostly with the protection of certain interests and privileges on the part of the powers in charge of distributive justice.
The majority of people around the world believe in human and civil rights that are based on universal values and aspirations which are articulated from an unfinished revolution that is still unfolding today: The American Revolution. The American founding fathers were able to conceive an idea of civil liberties and human rights that were universal and which would eventually appeal not only to Christians and Jews, but to Muslims, Hindus, Baha'is, Buddhists and ancient cultures around the world.
One by one, people in every country and region are awakening to the idea and the practice of freedom of conscience -- to believe or not to believe, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from fear, freedom in the market place, etc. For these ideas to work, as it happened in America more than 200 years ago and in America again in the 1960s during the time of Martin Luther King, Jr., and in India and South Africa and many other countries, the experience of gaining civil and human rights has been through getting people organized.
There must be a balance between majority and minority, a balance between the purpose of the individual and the purpose of the whole, a balance between the genders, men and women. It is not just for a minority, as in the case of Israel, to dictate what is in the best interests of the entire nation, while the majority is content to placate a vocal minority. The calling for freedom in all its longings and noble ideals is within humanity’s DNA. It is within every human being. At some point, those cells must wake up and say: “I want freedom, I want my inalienable rights.”
PARTICIPANTS
Host:
Dr. Antonio L. Betancourt, Director, Peace and Security Affairs Office, UPF International-DC Office
Co-moderators:
Mr. Kamal Nawash, Esq., President, Free Muslims Coalition
Dr. Andrew Wilson, Professor of Scriptural Studies, Unification Theological Seminary
Participants:
Mr. Yahya Al-Hussain, QP Holdings, LLC
Mrs. Hanan Alkibsi, QP Holdings, LLC
Mrs. Nahlah Al-Nuaimi, wife of the Ambassador of Iraq
Mr. Josef Avesar, President and Founder, Israeli-Palestinian Confederation *
Ms. Laura Barela, IEEE NVCC Branch
Ms. Andrea Barron, Senior Program Manager for Civic Engagement, Washington Center for Internships and Academic Seminars
Dr. Chanchal Bhattacharya, President, Indologie Research Associates
Mr. Mark Bruzonsky, Publisher, Washington Report
Mrs. Keiko Burton, Event Planner, Women’s Federation for World Peace
Mr. Douglas Burton, Media Relations Manager, Family Federation for World Peace
Mrs. Tomiko Duggan, Director of Public Affairs, UPF International - DC Office
Ms. Diane Falk, Former Director of the Research Department, The World & I magazine
Mr. Nizar Farsakh, General Director, PLO General Delegation to the U.S.
Mr. Kenneth Freelain, Host and Producer, International Definition Television Program
H.E. Gilbert Galanxhi, Ambassador of Albania
Mrs. Etleva Galanxhi, wife of the Ambassador of Albania
Mr. Rafi Gassel, Member of the International Board, Israeli Palestinian Confederation *
Mr. Mustafa Habib, son of the Ambassador of Iraq
Mr. Jamal Hadieh, Businessman
Mr. Abdullah Hashmi, Branch Chapter Founder, IEEE NVCC
Mr. David Jackson, Executive Editor, The Washington Times
Dr. Akira Kato, Professor of International Relations, J.F. Oberlin University
Mr. Thomas McDevitt, Chairman, The Washington Times
Mrs. Vicki Phelps, Senior Editor (retired), The World & I magazine
Mr. William Reed, President and Chief Executive, Black Press Foundation
Mr. John Rossomando, Senior Analyst, The Investigative Project on Terrorism
Dr. Yehuda Schwartz, Founder, Federation of Israel-Palestine *
Dr. William Selig, Deputy Director, Peace and Security Affairs Office, UPF International-DC Office
Mrs. Angelika Selle, President, Women’s Federation for World Peace-USA
Mr. Abbas Siabi, Member, UPF-Lebanon
Mrs. Louise Strait, Coauthor, Citizens Proposal for a Border between Israel and Palestine
Mr. Ralph Winnie, Jr., Director, Eurasia Center
* Participated via Internet
If you find this page helpful and informative please consider making donation. Your donation will help Universal Peace Federation (UPF) provide new and improved reports, analysis and publications to you and everyone around the world.
UPF is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization and all donations are tax deductible in the United States. Receipts are automatically provided for donations of or above $250.00.
|
Donate to the Universal Peace Federation: Your donation to support the general programs of UPF. |
Donate to the Religious Youth Service (RYS): Your donation will be used for service projects around the world. |
Donate to UPF's Africa Projects: Your donation will be used for projects in Africa. |
Related Articles
Canada
UPF-Canada Convenes Webinar on “Viewing the DPRK from Within”
Canada—The sixth webinar in UPF-Canada’s “Viewing the DPRK from Within” series was held.
Switzerland
UPF-Switzerland Discusses Neutrality as Potential Path to Peace on the Korean Peninsula
Geneva, Switzerland—Experts set out proposals for Korean reunification during a discussion co-sponsored by UPF.
Cambodia
ILC Cambodia 2023: Executive Report
Phnom Penh, Cambodia—UPF, in cooperation with the Asian Vision Institute, convened the ILC Cambodia 2023 on the theme “Peace and Democracy.”