What is known in Israel as the Israeli “Peace Industry” – a broad reference to civil society organizations and individuals working to advance peace – is facing some tough challenges in 2012 and 2013.

The possibility of a preemptive Israeli attack on Iran, political and economic developments in Europe that will make it less supportive of peace-building initiatives, and the next general elections in Israel which seem likely to affirm Likud’s leadership, will make peace seem so remote that the work of peace organizations could lose relevance.

Despite working on the level of civil society, peace-promoting NGOs are directly influenced by the will of the decision makers. Another right-wing dominated Knesset could put more pressure on NGOs and foundations, following the lead of current Knesset in its attempt to adopt the NGO-funding law, which sought to restrict funding to left-wing NGOs.  Moreover, the rise of conservatism in Europe and a possible Republican victory in Washington in 2012 would weaken them too. And the predicted economic downturn in Europe could also entail financial and political strains on the European bodies who fund many Israeli peace NGOs. Finally, if Israel attacks Iran and a regional war erupts, it will be almost impossible to promote grassroots conflict resolution models among the Israeli public, whose faith in peace has almost vanished already.

If this analysis is correct, then pro-peace NGOs have a short window of time remaining to revise and reshape their existing work plans to anticipate the situation. In this context, we can consider three main steps that could help boost their effectiveness under the likely constraints.

1. Change the target group: Focus on Israel

Build campaigns that target the Israeli public. The Israeli-Palestinian people-to-people initiatives have not proven to have any real positive effect on the conflict, and recently they encounter even greater difficulties due to the “anti-normalization” trend – many Palestinians are now encouraging a boycott of such activities, claiming they normalize, rather than end, the occupation. It is more expensive and less effective to get liberal-minded Israelis and Palestinians to engage in a mutual outcry somewhere in Europe, than to organize the same discussion between Israelis from all the full range of society right here at home. An internal dialogue between Israelis is crucial in order to diminish negative stereotypes about the left and right and create more understanding about what kind of a future the Israeli public wishes for itself.

2. Change the message:

Public opinion polls show that a large majority of Israelis (+70%) support the two-state solution. However at the same time, some of those people vote for right-wing parties which continue to grow in strength. I believe that many Israelis think liberally but vote and act differently, due to poor information about the left’s political agenda and because of the way that the Israeli left is perceived: weak, arrogant and “detached from reality” – an image which is not very appealing in a militaristic society.

This is where peace organizations should step in and work to tackle this by designing campaigns that aim not to advocate a political agenda but to explain it. A clear understanding of the values and interests that each liberal party stands for could increase their support by dispelling misconceptions and stereotypes, especially in times of social protest, when a liberal social agenda is more popular and many feel that change is at hand. In this respect, emphasizing the difference between the right-wing conflict-management approach and the left-wing conflict-resolution approach will be essential.

In addition, peace groups could brush off their image as remote, by being more open to other opinions they do not necessarily concur with. To reach larger segments of Israeli society, they should refrain from branding those who do not agree with them as “ignorant” or “fascist” and show more understanding for the origins of their beliefs.

3. Work together:

Most of the pro-peace organizations share the same goals, activities and difficulties. Overcoming those difficulties and increasing support could be easier with cooperation. Peace groups should let go of some personal ego and prestige which has so often kept so many of them working separately, and share resources, experience and capacities.

Looking at the half-full part of the cup, the challenges and changes occurring in the international arena can provide new opportunities as well. Today more than ever, the will of the people can have a bigger impact on decision makers and on states’ foreign policies. For the peace-building community, the rise in people power should become a great advantage for achieving its goal.

Arik Segal is a conflict management consultant at Segal Conflict Management. He initiates and directs track two and track three diplomacy initiatives between Israel and its neighbors.

By Ehud Uziel | Originally published at HaOkets

The revised Akunis-Kirschenbaum foreign funding bill backed by Prime Minister Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Lieberman is genius. Their proposed amendment to the income tax law will obligate a 45% taxation rate on donations from “a foreign state entity” to Israeli nonprofit organizations. The amendment will leave room for only one type of exemption for NGOs: those that also receive funding from the government. Those who do not already receive government funding must refer to a special Knesset “exemptions” committee that will decide whether to grant the tax exemption or not.  This bill is genius because it doesn’t contribute a single thing to the Israeli public but makes all the headlines.

It’s genius because it redefines what is central and what is marginal in Israeli society, without drawing too much opposition, since it doesn’t impact the majority. It’s genius because it destroys civil society in Israel, but directs the public debate to focus exclusively on “NGOs that are anti-Israel.”

The essence of the bill is not a war on human rights organizations, or on criticism of government policy and the occupation, or even on foreign government donations. The true essence of the law is making all civil society organizations in Israel that seek foreign donations subordinate to the state and its government – since those organizations that aren’t also funded by the state will have no choice but to refer to the special Knesset “exemptions” committee and request the state’s benevolence. If this law is passed it will become much more difficult for an NGO to remain independent and not depend on the state’s generosity, whether it focuses on women’s rights, disability rights or the rights of Palestinians under military law.

The subjugation of civil society organizations to the state takes place in many countries, and NGOs fear the state in many countries. These are not democratic countries and their regimes are much more concerned with themselves than with their citizens. Proposed laws such as the Akunis-Kirschenbaum bill seek to divert the debate from legitimate criticism of policy to a struggle over the very ability to voice criticism; from a fundamental discussion about social justice and freedom and questioning military control of another people – to an inane conversation about the legitimacy of donations being made to human rights organization by the European Union, and whether these 2 million Euros are different from the 150 million Euro donated by the EU to scientific research in Israel.

The best response we can provide is the human rights march next Friday, December 9, 2011. All those who continue to demand social justice will be there. All those who demand freedom and human rights will be there and all those who continue to demand the sustenance and expansion of Israeli democracy will be there. Everyone who understands that freedom of expression, thought and ideas – even those ideas which are most critical and unaccepted by society – are what constitute the most profound foundation of democracy.

In a letter sent by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) to the Foreign Minister last week, we cautioned against his misleading the public by comparing this bill to legislation in the US and Canada. The differences are huge. For example, the US only requires transparency and reports on donations from foreign entities, which already exists in Israel, and there is no clause in the US regarding taxation rates.

ACRI also helped draft and encouraged Members of Knesset from all factions to push a new bill, “Basic Law: Social Rights” onto the legislative table in the Knesset. This meticulously drafted bill obligates the state to provide basic services to all its residents.  We cannot only react but rather we must continue to combine opposition with initiatives. It is not sufficient to protest “Enough!” (of the witch hunt) but we must also demand “More!” (social justice).

The Human Rights March will transform the defense of democracy into the demand for social and civil justice. The march is the place to be for all those who care about what is really important: cultivating a healthy civil society with social legislation, the guarantee of freedom and the maintenance of Israeli democracy.

Ehud Uziel is Campaign Director of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.