Salam Fayyad and the "Major Blow" to Peace
The claim that Fayyad's resignation is a major blow to the peace process is not only untrue, it is ridiculous. These claims are intended to create the impression, totally false, that were it not for Fayyad's resignation, the peace process would have been salvaged. The truth is that Abbas was the one who decided to boycott the peace talks until Israel met his conditions.
How can Salam Fayyad's resignation as Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority be considered a setback for the peace process when he had never been involved in the negotiations with Israel in the first place?
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas never consulted with Fayyad about the peace process with Israel. Over the past five years, the two men hardly even spoken to one other.
After Fayyad's resignation last Saturday, many Western journalists and political analysts rushed to describe the move as a "major blow to the Middle East peace process and US efforts to revive the stalled peace talks between the Palestinian Authority and Israel."
One headline featured: "Salam Fayyad Resigns: Peace Process On Hold."
A BBC correspondent described Fayyad's resignation as a "major blow for US efforts to restart the long-stalled peace process with Israel."
Another British journalist, commenting on the resignation, said: "Mr. Fayyad's departure is a big blow to the peace process, which has been given fresh impetus in since last month's visit to the region of Barack Obama."
But those who are fearful about the future of the peace process clearly do not know what they are talking about.
As prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, Fayyad was never involved in any of the peace talks with Israel.
Fayyad himself once explained that ever since the signing of the Oslo Accords about 20 years ago, it was the PLO, and not the Palestinian Authority, that was conducting peace talks with Israel
Moreover, Fayyad was never involved in the Palestinian leadership's decision-making process regarding the peace process.
The only people Abbas consulted with were PLO and Fatah loyalists. Decisions regarding the peace talks with Israel were always taken either by Abbas alone or in coordination with members of the PLO Executive Committee and the Fatah Central Committee.
Fayyad never belonged to any of these two Palestinian key-decision-making bodies.
The overall policies and strategies of the Palestinian Authority were never part of Fayyad's responsibility.
Important decisions were always taken only by Abbas and a handful of his trusted aides, who never deemed it necessary to consult with their prime minister.
Even when Fayyad opposed Abbas's bid for Palestinian statehood at the UN General Assembly in November 2012, no one in the Palestinian Authority took his stance seriously.
During the past five years, Abbas and his inner circle succeeded in turning Fayyad into a prime minister whose powers were limited only to economic issues; or as some Palestinians used to say, "Fayyad served more as a mayor than as a prime minister."
Even if Fayyad had stayed in office, there is no reason to believe that the chances of reviving the peace process would have been better.
How could Fayyad have salvaged the peace process when the decisions were made only by Abbas and his top aides?
Was anyone expecting Fayyad openly to challenge Fatah, the PLO and other Palestinians by returning to the negotiating table on his own?
The Americans and Europeans seem to have forgotten that Fayyad represents a political list that won only two seats in the 2006 parliamentary elections.
Although there are some who praise his efforts to build state institutions and a fine economy, they also seem to be turning a blind eye to Fayyad's lack of grassroots support among Palestinians.
Fayyad's departure from the scene will have no impact on the peace process because the decision on this issue was never in his hands.
Besides, Fayyad's credibility has been severely undermined by US and European efforts to keep him in power against the wishes of Abbas, Fatah and many Palestinians.
The claim that Fayyad's resignation is a major blow to the peace process is not only untrue, it is ridiculous. Such claims are intended to create the impression, totally false, that were it not for Fayyad's resignation, the peace process would have been salvaged.
The truth is that Abbas was the one who decided to boycott the peace talks until Israel meets his conditions, including a full cessation of settlement construction and recognition of the pre-1967 lines as the future borders of a Palestinian state.
Abbas has been boycotting not only Israel, but also his prime minister -- who finally grew tired of the Palestinian Authority president's efforts to undermine and discredit him.
Reader comments on this item
|The peace never existed [29 words]||Bart Benschop||Apr 18, 2013 21:12|
|Fayyad's role in the "peace process" [98 words]||Lynne T.||Apr 17, 2013 07:32|
Comment on this item
by Khaled Abu Toameh
The "Arab Spring" did not erupt as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Rather, it was the outcome of decades of tyranny and corruption in the Arab world. The Tunisians, Egyptians, Libyans and Yemenis who removed their dictators from power did not do so because of the lack of a "two-state solution." This is the last thing they had in mind.
The thousands of Muslims who are volunteering to join the Islamic State [IS] are not doing so because they are frustrated with the lack of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
The only solution the Islamic State believes in is a Sunni Islamic Caliphate where the surviving non-Muslims who are not massacred would be subject to sharia law.
What Kerry perhaps does not know is that the Islamic State is not interested in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at all. Unlike Kerry, Sunni scholars fully understand that the Islamic State has more to do with Islam and terrorism than with any other conflict.
by Steven J. Rosen
Palestinian officials have generally been silent about security cooperation with Israel. They are loath to acknowledge how important it is for the survival of the Palestinian Authority [PA], and fear that critics, especially Hamas, will consider it "collaboration with the enemy."
"You smuggle weapons, explosives and cash to the West Bank, not for the fight with Israel, but for a coup against the Palestinian Authority. The Israeli intelligence chief visited me two weeks ago and told me about the [Hamas] group they arrested that was planning for a coup... We have a national unity government and you are thinking about a coup against me." — Mahmoud Abbas, PA President, to Khaled Mashaal, Hamas leader.
According to Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, if the IDF leaves the West Bank, Hamas will take over, and other terrorists groups such as the Islamic Jihad, Al-Qaeda and Islamic State would operate there.
In recent months, Abbas has been making a series of threats against Israel. If Abbas becomes another Arafat, it could be the Israeli side that loses interest in security cooperation.
by Burak Bekdil
It was the Islamists who, since they came to power in the 2000s, have reaped the biggest political gains from the "Palestine-fetish."
But the Turkish rhetoric on "solidarity" with our Palestinian brothers often seems askew to how solidarity should be.
by Raheel Raza
One blogger writes that Malala hates Pakistan's military. I believe it is the other way around.
I would so like to see the day when Malala is welcomed back in Pakistan, with the whole country cheering.
by Francesco Sisci
Democratic evolution in China was being seriously considered. The failures of U.S. support for democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt and Libya gave new food for thought to those opposed to democracy. Lastly, the United States did not strongly oppose the anti-democratic coup d'état that overthrew a democratically elected government in Thailand.
On the other hand, Russia -- dominated by Vladimir Putin, a new autocrat determined to stifle democracy in Russia -- provided a new model.
The whole of Eastern Europe and most of Latin America, formerly in the clutches of dictatorships, are now efficient democracies. This seems to indicate that while democracy cannot be parachuted into a country, there is a broader, longer-term global trend toward democracy and that its growth depends on local conditions.
As economic development needed careful planning, political reforms need even greater planning. The question remains: is China preparing for these political reforms?