Waiting for when someone like Fayyad will speak for more than just himself - by Jonathan Tobin

...They are content to keep the conflict simmering, confident that sooner or later Israel will lose Western support and collapse. Sadly, that foolish faith in something that will never happen is in accord with the Palestinian public’s support for terror and intransigence. That’s why Fayyad is bound to fail again. Until the Palestinian people rise up and throw off their corrupt and violent Fatah and Hamas overlords, Israelis will continue to stand their ground and wait for the day when someone like Fayyad will speak for more than just himself.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
14 July '16..
Link: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/why-salam-fayyad-will-fail-again/..

Once upon a time, there was a moderate Palestinian leader who pointed the way toward genuine peace with Israel as well as democracy and development for the Palestinians. His name was Salam Fayyad, an American-educated economist was named prime minister of the Palestinian Authority in 2007. He was the darling of U.S. liberals like New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. The journalist was so enamored of him that he coined a term “Fayyadism” to describe a path toward modernity for the Palestinians that rejected the old paradigm of terrorism, endless war against Israel, and the corruption of the Fatah movement led first by Yasir Arafat and then Mahmoud Abbas. But Fayyad’s promise was unfulfilled. A man without a party, he was powerless to change a Palestinian political culture that revolved around death and hate. Both Fatah and its Hamas rivals despised him, and few Palestinians mourned when he resigned in 2013.

But Fayyad is back now with a new plan that would both ease a path to peace with Israel as well as to end the logjam between Fatah and Hamas. He announced it at an event in Ramallah on Tuesday, and it’s no surprise to learn that, as the Times of Israel reported, the same forces that worked to ensure he would fail as Palestinian PM don’t like it. But what’s really interesting about this is the reason they’re appalled by his idea: it’s based on both the PA and Hamas agreeing to a hudna or truce with Israel that would end all terrorism. And that, 23 years after the Oslo Accords that were predicated on that same idea, was signed, tells us everything we need to know about why the peace process failed.

According to Fayyad, the hudna would enable the reorganization of the Fatah-run West Bank and the Hamas-ruled Gaza and lead to elections for a Palestinian parliament and its presidency. With terrorism ended and the Palestinians finally speaking with one voice, Fayyad thinks peace with Israel based on the 2002 Arab peace initiative would be possible.

He’s probably right about that. If the Palestinians were prepared to agree to a real peace that would end the conflict for all time and if the government of the state to be created alongside the Jewish state was reformist and peaceful, it’s likely that Israelis would revert to their 1993 Oslo mindset and offer again the generous terms that the Palestinians rejected in 2000, 2001 and 2008.

But neither Fatah nor Hamas wants any part of the plan, and it’s easy to see why.

Fayyad, Serious Discussion and the True Irrelevancy of J Street

...More than their disgraceful position on Iran or their slavish applause for Obama’s betrayal of Israel on Hamas, the presence of Fayyad at the J Street event shows that they are not only wrong on the issues, they are also irrelevant to any serious discussion about the Middle East.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
09 June '14..

The left-wing lobby J Street didn’t turn out to be the Washington colossus its backers hoped it would be when Barack Obama entered the White House in 2009. Despite having a president who was clearly sympathetic to their point of view, the group has never been able to successfully challenge AIPAC in the contest to see which of them would speak for the pro-Israel community. Nor has it amassed much influence on Capitol Hill and it has often been marginalized by the White House, especially during the 2012 presidential election. But J Street did score a major public-relations victory this spring when the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations voted to exclude it from their ranks. While the vote exposed the resentment much of the organized Jewish world bears for a group that has, from its inception, sought to undercut other groups, it also allowed J Street to play the victim and made it easier for it to say that the mainstream Jewish groups are unrepresentative.

But when J Street convened its annual conference in San Francisco this past weekend, there seemed to be little evidence that it had either amassed the influence it once thought it might have or that its views favoring U.S. pressure on Israel to make concessions for peace were gaining traction. Instead, the group was forced to answer questions as to why anyone should take seriously a group whose views were so obviously out-of-touch with the reality of a Middle East peace process that had broken down again. While J Street may claim that if its positions were adopted, Israel might have been able to finally make peace, that position is given the lie by the Fatah-Hamas unity pact that effectively precludes the Palestinian Authority from ever making peace with Israel. But the real proof of just how clueless J Street is about Israel’s supposed peace partners came from the speakers list at their conference. One of the keynote speakers on the first evening of their conclave was former Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who expressed pessimism about peace but urged J Street to persist in its efforts to pressure Israel.

While Fayyad is a Palestinian who is generally admired by mainstream Israelis as well as Americans who are knowledgeable about the Middle East, his presence at the J Street event is telling. While J Street is right to think that Fayyad would be a real partner for peace if he were still in office, his availability to fly to San Francisco tells us something about how representative his opinions actually are. His brand of pragmatism and opposition to both the violence of Hamas and the kleptocracy of Fatah marks him as a man without political constituency among a Palestinian population that prefers both of those two terror groups/political parties to “Fayyadism.” If J Street is to hang its hat on the notion that this person’s ideas are a guarantee that peace is possible, no wonder few in Israel or anywhere else take them seriously.

Nakba Day and Implausible Peace Plans

...Shavit’s reference to his opportunity zones as a “greenhouse” is telling. It should be remembered that when Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, wealthy American Jews bought the greenhouses built by Jewish settlers in order to give them to local Arabs who could then build their economy. But the greenhouses were destroyed in a paroxysm of Palestinian rage against anything connected to the Jews hours after the Israelis left. Much as Shavit might hope that Israeli withdrawals in the West Bank will produce a different result, there is no reason to think that any land abandoned to the Palestinians will not be converted to terrorist hotbeds, much as the independent Palestinian state in all but name in Gaza soon became.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
15 May '14..

The market for new Middle East peace plans is pretty much like that available for diets. Just as there will never be a shortage of schemes offering you a way to lose weight by various means, the supply of “new” solutions to the conflict in the Middle East is a well that never runs dry. The latest entry to what is a growing genre comes from Israeli journalist and author Ari Shavit, whose book—My Promised Land—on the conflict got generally favorable reviews in the United States. Writing in the New Republic, Shavit offers what he claims is not only a new approach but a “plausible” one that seeks to learn from the mistakes made by the peace processors in the more than 20 years since the Oslo Accords.

Like that book (which was subjected to a thorough and withering takedown by the irreplaceable Ruth Wisse), whose superficial evenhandedness endeared it to both liberal Jewish friends of Israel and many who are not its friends, Shavit’s plan sounds smart and also avoids the clichés about Israelis needing to search their souls or having to be saved from themselves by wise foreigners. Indeed, there is much to recommend it. Shavit counsels that we should forget about what he calls “Old Peace” with its obsession with crafting grand agreements and promoting White House ceremonies and instead concentrate on “New Peace”—an idea that will focus on Palestinian economic development and reform as a way to transition them and their Israeli neighbors to accepting a two state solution that will be based on ending the conflict rather than merely pausing it. But the idea isn’t new. Though he gives the back of his hand to Israel’s current government as being part of the problem rather than the solution, this concept of fostering change on the ground as the foundation for genuine reconciliation is what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been advocating for years even as he has accepted a two-state solution as the basis for agreements.

But as smart as this may be, the problem with Shavit’s “New Peace” is pretty much the same as the shortcomings with the old variety. And the evidence of the impractical nature of his plan is very much on display today as the Palestinians and their cheerleaders around the world celebrate “Nakba Day.” May 15 is the anniversary of Israel’s Independence in 1948, an event that Palestinians refer to as the “disaster” or nakba. The parades, speeches, and vows of eliminating the Jewish state that are echoing throughout the political culture of the Palestinians today are proof that, at least for the foreseeable future, such practical plans as that of Shavit, which require them to put aside their historic grudges and focus on building a productive future, haven’t got a chance.

Shavit’s plan requires Israel to enact a total freeze on building in those Jewish settlements in the West Bank that are beyond the security fence. That’s a measure that wouldn’t inconvenience Israel all that much since almost all of the new housing beyond the 1967 lines is in Jerusalem and the settlement blocs that are inside the fence and would be kept by Israel in any peace agreement. But Shavit also says that Israel should withdraw completely from large swaths of the West Bank and that each such area would become an economic opportunity zone for Palestinian entrepreneurs where a free-market economy would grow without the debilitating corruption of the current Palestinian Authority.

The zones would be aided by the Arab states and the European Union and overseen by the United States. This new spirit of growth would foster a different civil political culture that would replace the old Palestinian one in which national identity is inextricably tied to war to the death against Zionism. Only by recreating themselves in this manner will Palestinians ever be willing to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders would be drawn. As Shavit writes:

Job position available - Requires acting as a façade for the PA kleptocracy

...A PA that is too belligerent and too weak to make peace with Israel is a bad bet for foreign donors, but don’t expect that to stop the Europeans and perhaps even Kerry from continuing to try to bribe the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table or to create a viable government. It won’t work. As Fayyad and Hamdallah learned, the point of Palestinian politics is to perpetuate the conflict with Israel and to enrich Fatah officials. Anyone who gets in the way of that will last as long as Hamdallah did.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary..
20 June '13..

Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas thought he was getting a pliant, user-friendly prime minister when he appointed Rami Hamdallah to replace Salam Fayyad. But two weeks after Abbas replaced the Western favorite who tried to rid the PA of corruption with what was thought to be a reliably pro-Fatah academic, he now finds himself looking for another replacement. Hamdallah quit today and, according to Reuters, posted an explanation on his Facebook page that said the decision was due to “outside interferences in his powers and duties.” In other words, even though, unlike Fayyad, Hamdallah was a Fatah Party member with no known political ambitions of his own, he still found it impossible to act as a facade for the PA kleptocracy.

Contrary to the slant of the Reuters piece, the main complication of this event for the PA isn’t the fact that Secretary of State John Kerry will be going back to the Middle East soon in his quixotic effort to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The Palestinians aren’t going to go back to the table to negotiate with Israel no matter who is their prime minister and everyone except Kerry knows it. Abbas’s problem is finding a respectable front man for the PA in order to keep foreign aid pouring in to his government. With Fayyad, who was the first Palestinian leader to ever try to improve the lot of his people, there was a hope that the PA could be transformed from the corrupt fiefdom created by Yasir Arafat. Without him, all Abbas has to offer the West are Fatah functionaries who know their only job is to make sure the theft and graft that Fayyad tried to stop resumes.

The pretense that the PA is anything but a kleptocracy is now gone

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary/Contentions..
03 June '13..

Many in the West have been in denial about the demise of the one genuine moderate in Palestinian politics. But it’s no longer possible to deny that Fayyadism is officially dead and buried. The long anticipated replacement of Salam Fayyad as prime minister of the Palestinian Authority finally happened yesterday. PA head Mahmoud Abbas named Rami Hamdallah as Fayyad’s successor. But not even those news outlets most dedicated to publishing happy talk about the PA and downplaying its endemic corruption could pretend that this is anything but a retrograde move. Far from continuing the American-educated technocrat’s policies aimed at stopping corruption and facilitating development, even the New York Times admits that Hamdallah is likely to keep foreign donations “in the family” and return the PA back to the bad old days when Yasir Arafat and his cronies were pocketing billions intended to better the lives of ordinary Palestinians.

Some Palestinians questioned the effect of Mr. Hamdallah’s appointment on the confidence of foreign donor nations whose funds keep the Palestinian Authority functioning. Some also suggested that Mr. Hamdallah’s closeness to Fatah meant that there would be fewer checks and balances. Mr. Fayyad was a political independent that was often at loggerheads with Fatah. The Palestinian Parliament has not functioned since Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007, a year after winning Palestinian elections.

One Palestinian expert, speaking on the condition of anonymity to talk frankly, said that Mr. Abbas had appointed a prime minister “from within the family,” harking back to the era of Yasir Arafat, Mr. Abbas’s predecessor. Then, the expert said, things were run “like a family business, and that was not healthy.”

The Fayyad experiment in reform was largely the result of pressure from the Bush administration to democratize the PA and to get it working on improving the lives of Palestinians in order to strengthen its case for independence. But by appointing Hamdallah, Abbas is showing that he not only doesn’t give a damn what the Obama administration thinks but that he believes a return to Arafat’s ways won’t bring about any consequences from Washington.

Like to Guess Why Abbas Chose Hamdallah to be Prime Minister?

As long as Fayyad was prime minister, it was almost impossible for Abbas and Fatah to lay their hands on the hundreds of millions of dollars of international aid. Unlike Fayyad, Hamdallah will serve as the obedient and faithful servant of Abbas, as well as the Fatah and PLO leadership. On the political arena, the appointment will have no impact whatsoever.

Khaled Abu Toameh..
Gatestone Institute..
03 June '13..

The appointment of Palestinian academic Rami Hamdallah as Palestinian Authority Prime Minister is a big victory for Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah faction.

Hamdallah, who had served as president of An-Najah University since 1998, has been chosen by Abbas to replace Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who decided to quit in April following years of tensions and disagreements with the Palestinian Authority president and Fatah.

Abbas and Fatah want a weak prime minister who would never pose a threat to their hegemony over the Palestinian issue.

Until last week, many Palestinians were convinced that Abbas would be forced by the US Administration and the Europeans to keep Fayyad in office. Western donors even threatened to suspend financial aid to the Palestinian Authority if Abbas insisted on removing Fayyad. But in the end Abbas and Fatah got exactly what they wanted. Not only did they manage to get rid of Fayyad, but the man who has been chosen to replace him will be less problematic than Fayyad.

For Abbas and Fatah, Fayyad, a widely respected economist, posed a real problem and threat. As long as Fayyad was prime minister, it was almost impossible for Abbas and Fatah to lay their hands on hundreds of millions of dollars of international aid. Fayyad was not only blocking Abbas and Fatah from seizing the funds; he was also beginning to pose a political challenge to them. Abbas and Fatah leaders in the West Bank suspected that Fayyad had political ambitions, including running one day in a presidential election.

Yet more important than getting rid of Fayyad was finding an uncharismatic and inexperienced figure who would play the role of the loyal and dutiful servant of Abbas and Fatah leaders.

The Fayyad-Cohen Spat - What the West Should Learn from this

...To anyone familiar with the Palestinian scene, it’s not hard to conclude that the liar is Fayyad: He’s the one whose life is literally on the line. One Fatah legislator has already called for indicting him on charges of “crimes against the Palestinian people.” But the more serious danger is that Fatah has plenty of experienced killers with no qualms about shooting fellow Palestinians who upset them: See, for instance, the assassinations and attempted assassinations of a senior PA security officer, a Fatah legislator and a governor of Jenin, all attributed by Palestinians to a power struggle between rival Fatah groups.

Evelyn Gordon..
Commentary-Contentions..
06 May '13..

The spat between New York Times columnist Roger Cohen and Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad must be afflicting liberals with severe cognitive dissonance. But there’s a very important lesson to be drawn from it.

The contretemps began when Cohen published a column on Friday that included numerous direct quotes from Fayyad, many of which were highly unflattering to the Palestinian Authority’s ruling party, Fatah. “This party, Fatah, is going to break down, there is so much disenchantment,” Cohen quoted Fayyad as saying. “Our story is a story of failed leadership, from way early on. It is incredible that the fate of the Palestinian people has been in the hands of leaders so entirely casual, so guided by spur-of-the-moment decisions, without seriousness. We don’t strategize, we cut deals in a tactical way and we hold ourselves hostage to our own rhetoric.”

Fayyad promptly issued a denial. “The statements in the article are just journalist Roger Cohen’s personal impressions, and certainly not the words of Fayyad, who did not make any statements or conduct interviews for the New York Times or any other newspaper or agency since his resignation,” his statement declared. He also accused the paper of “forgery that carries political dimensions with the goal of causing damage and fomenting strife in order to serve positions that are hostile to the Palestinians and their national project at this sensitive and critical phase.”

So to put it bluntly, either the star columnist for America’s leading liberal newspaper fabricated quotes and put them in the mouth of a man he never even spoke with, or America’s favorite Palestinian leader just told a bald-faced lie.

Was Fayyad a voice of reform and moderation? Think again.

David Bedein..
Israel Resource Review..
24 April '13..




The recently resigned former Palestinian Prime Minister Salman Fayyad is being eulogized as the late great hope of moderation for the Palestinian Authority.

The time has come to question such a characterization of Fayyad.

A case in point: In May 2009, our agency facilitated an informal briefing for staffers of the Middle East Subcommittee of the US Foreign Relations Committee of the US House of Representatives on the subject of Palestinian Authority and UNRWA education. Journalist and scholar Dr. Arnon Groiss, who regularly translates new PA textbooks used in Palestinian Authority and UNRWA education.

These translations can be easily perused on the net:
http://israelbehindthenews.com/library/pdfs/RightofReturninUNRWASchools.pdf
http://israelbehindthenews.com/library/pdfs/PA-schoolbooks.pdf

Dr. Groiss updated Congress with the content of the new PA texts...

*Denying the historical and religious presence of Jews in Palestine.

*Fail to recognize the State of Israel.

*Demonize Jews and Israel.

*Assign blame for the conflict exclusively on Israel, totally absolving Palestinians.

*Stress the idea of a violent struggle of liberation rather than a peaceful settlement.

In August 2009, a delegation of fifty members from both sides of the aisle of the US House of Representatives met with Salman Fayyad, the newly appointed prime minister of the Palestinian Authority.

Several members of Congress raised the issue of the Palestinian Authority schoolbooks with Fayyad, who assured the delegation that the school books would be changed for the new school year, just about to begin.

Hearing the report from the congressional delegation, our agency immediately dispatched a reporter to Ramallah to meet with Palestinian Authority Education Minister Lamis Al Alami to ask her about the PA curriculum for the new semester.

We asked her about changes in the curriculum. Al Alami answered that she was under strict orders from Fayyad not to change anything in the curriculum

Yet you would not be surprised by Fayyad's real educational policy if were to read Fayyad's position paper for a future Palestinian state, available on the net at:

http://www.geneva-accord.org/images/Offical%20Paper%20-%20Program
%20of%20the%20Thirteenth%20Government,%20August%202009.pdf

In that position paper. Fayyad spelled out his platform, in clear terms and in English.

Fayyad’s No. 1 fan at the NY Times performs his own postmortem

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary/Contentions..
24 April '13..

The political demise of Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad continues to drive much of the discussion about the dead-in-the-water Middle East peace process in the media. Thus, it’s no surprise that Fayyad’s No. 1 fan at the New York Times would weigh in today on the paper’s op-ed page to perform his own postmortem on the death of “Fayyadism.” Thomas Friedman, who modestly takes credit for coining the term, writes today that there is plenty of blame to go around for his favorite’s failure. He rightly notes that both PA President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah Party and their Hamas rivals always wanted to get rid of Fayyad–the factor that I wrote last week was the main reason Fayyadism was doomed from the start. But Friedman also puts forward a theory about the American and Israeli responsibility for Fayyad’s failure.

According to this line of argument, which is rapidly being incorporated into the catechism of Israel-bashers, the cutoff of U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority by Congress as well as the withholding of various revenues by the Israelis precipitated Fayyad’s end. In this telling, without the cash to keep the Palestinian economy afloat, Fayyad’s reform agenda and administration rapidly collapsed, allowing his enemies to force him out. This narrative holds that it was these cuts, which were implemented to punish the PA for its decision to go to the United Nations to pursue independence rather than to negotiate for it in peace talks, were counterproductive and ultimately responsible for the exit of the only Palestinian leader who could be said to care about his people or peace.

But while this way of looking at things is convenient for those who always prefer to blame the Israelis and the pro-Israel community in the United States for everything that happens in the Middle East, it is completely illogical.

As even Friedman admits, Fayyad was adamantly opposed to the PA’s UN gambit that was nothing more than a way to evade peace talks since Abbas was unable and/or unwilling to ever make a deal with the Israelis. By placing the full force of U.S. policy on the same side as Fayyad, the Obama administration, Congress and Israel were backing up the PA prime minister, not undermining him. The PA remains completely dependent on foreign aid from the West, and using this leverage was the only way for President Obama and the Israelis to convey to Abbas that he should listen to Fayyad rather than make a grand gesture at the UN that would do nothing for the Palestinian people.

The Fatah Fudging of the Fall of Fayyadism

Pesach Benson..
Honest Reporting Backspin..
15 April '13..

Fayyad’s departure needs some serious Palestinian spin.

After all, he brought a measure of sorely lacking accountability, transparency, and professionalism to the PA.

So if you’re one of the money-hungry hawks who pushed out Fayyad, how do you explain away Fayyad’s resignation to unhappy donors?

That’s easily done.

1. The West made Fayyad look like a stooge, Palestinian allies claim
2. Palestinians lash out at West as Salam Fayyad quits

Blame the donors? I just don’t see the wisdom of that.

Fayyad's Resignation a "Major Blow" to Peace? Not Really.

Khaled Abu Toameh..
Gatestone Institute..
17 April'13..

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.

Self-delusion never has been a promising foundation for genuine peace-making

Leo Rennert..
American Thinker..
13 April '13..

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has called it quits. His resignation has been accepted by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. And with Fayyad gone, the Obama administration has suffered a huge setback in its peace-making efforts -- a quixotic undertaking to begin with. Now there definitely is no serious or even halfway dependable Palestinian leader left with whom to kick-start negotiations.

Fayyad, with his Western finance credentials, was the latest Washington hope for resumption of peace talks. Twenty-four hours before Fayyad and Abbas officially parted ways, Secretary of State John Kerry telephoned Fayyad in a last-ditch effort to get him to rescind his resignation. Kerry implored Fayyad not to go. It proved futile.

This is a bitter pill for Kerry to swallow. But he only has himself to blame. Self-delusion never has been a promising foundation for genuine peace-making.

PhD in economics, seeking new job opportunity outside the West Bank

Khaled Abu Toameh..
Gatestone Institute..
11 April '13..

In recent weeks, the US Administration has resumed its efforts to achieve peace not only between Israel and the Palestinians, but also between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his prime minister, Salam Fayyad.

These efforts, however, seem to have failed: Fayyad is apparently on his way out.

Over the past few years, Abbas and his Fatah faction have been trying to get rid of Fayyad, but to no avail.

Abbas and Fatah leaders see the US-educated Fayyad, who was appointed prime minister in 2007 at the request of the US and EU countries, as a threat to their control over the Palestinian Authority in general and its finances in particular.

Some Fatah leaders, such as Tawfik Tirawi and Najat Abu Baker, are even convinced that Fayyad is plotting, together with the US and other Western countries, to replace Abbas as president of the Palestinian Authority.

Were it not for US and EU intervention, Abbas and Fatah would have removed Fayyad from his job several years ago. Each time Abbas considered sacking Fayyad, US and EU government officials stepped in to warn that such a move would seriously affect foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority.

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, who made separate visits to Ramallah recently, also found themselves devoting much of their time trying to persuade Abbas to keep Fayyad in his position.

But US and EU efforts to keep Fayyad in power seem to have been counterproductive. These efforts further discredited Fayyad in the eyes of many Palestinians. Fayyad's enemies have cited these efforts as "proof" that he is a "foreign agent" who has been imposed on the Palestinian Authority by Americans and Europeans.

Fatah's main problem with Fayyad is that he has almost exclusive control over the Palestinian Authority budget. In other words, Fatah does not like the idea that its leaders and members can no longer steal international aid because of Fayyad's presence in power.

The Fatah leaders are yearning for the era of Yasser Arafat, when they and others were able to lay their hands on millions of dollars earmarked for helping Palestinians.

The continuing irrelevancy of Fayyad in Palestinian politics - A man without a constituency

The Palestinians are choosing, as they have always chosen, to refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn. Having come into existence solely in order to oppose the return of the Jews to the country, Palestinian nationalism appears incapable of redefining itself in such a way as to give Fayyad a chance.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary/Contentions..
14 February '13..

There was one point on which both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations as well as the Israeli governments of Ehud Olmert and Benjamin Netanyahu all agreed upon. All four thought Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad was someone who wanted to be a partner for peace with Israel and ought to be encouraged. Fayyad earned almost universal praise from both peace process cheerleaders and skeptics who saw the American-educated technocrat as someone who was devoted to reforming the corrupt and incompetent PA and giving his people something they were denied under the rule of both Yasir Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas: good government and economic development.

That Fayyad failed in his efforts is not a matter that most people think is worth debating. The only question is why he didn’t succeed. To that query, New York Times columnist Roger Cohen provides the answer that is his catch-all excuse for anything that goes wrong in the Middle East: Israel. That this onetime apologist for an anti-Semitic Iranian regime prefers to focus on the supposed evils of the Netanyahu government is hardly surprising. But his inability to understand just how isolated Fayyad was in Palestinian society speaks volumes about why most Israel-bashers are clueless about Arab rejectionism.

The most important thing to understand about Fayyad’s place in Palestinian politics is that he has always been a man without a party. In a political culture in which membership in one of the two main terror groups — Fatah and Hamas — or one of the smaller splinter organizations like Islamic Jihad has been keystone to identity and the ability to get ahead, Fayyad is that rarest of Palestinian birds: a true independent. In a society in which the ability to shed Israeli and Jewish blood has been the only true indicator of street cred, Fayyad has always come up short. Though Abbas and others recognized his ability as well his ability to charm the Americans into keeping U.S. aid flowing to Ramallah, he has never had anything that remotely resembled a political constituency. Palestinians may long for good government and the rule of law as much as any other people, but Fayyad’s platform of cooperation with Israel and peace lacked support.

Harming Israel vs. helping its own people? PA is its own first victim

Evelyn Gordon..
JINSA..
24 January '13..

When the Palestinian Authority (PA) obtained UN recognition as a nonmember observer state in November, many Israelis feared the consequences for Israel: After all, PA President Mahmoud Abbas stated openly that he sought recognition primarily "to pursue claims against Israel" in international forums. Those fears may yet prove justified. But so far, the biggest victim of Abbas's UN bid has been the PA itself.

The PA currently faces the worst financial crisis of its crisis-filled history. According to PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, it's in "extreme jeopardy," and on the "verge of being completely incapacitated." Its 150,000 employees have received only half their November salaries and nothing for December. It "owes local banks more than $1.3 billion and can't get more loans," the Associated Press reported. It "also owes hundreds of millions of dollars to private businesses, including suppliers to hospitals, some of whom have stopped doing business with the government." And it expects the poverty rate to double, to a whopping 50 percent of the total Palestinian population in the territories, if the crisis isn't resolved soon.

So dire is the situation that a mere month after the vote, Abbas was already threatening to dissolve the PA and return full control of the territory to Israel if things didn't improve quickly. If the PA can't even pay salaries, he said, "What's left for us to do?"

In short, far from augmenting Palestinians' independence, the UN vote has endangered even the limited autonomy they currently have. For the financial crisis is a direct consequence of that vote - and, even worse, a totally predictable one.

The first source of the crisis is that Israel stopped transferring roughly $100 million a month in taxes it collects on the PA's behalf. Contrary to Fayyad's disingenuous charge of Israeli "piracy," this merely ended an ongoing Palestinian piracy: For years, the PA hadn't paid its bills to the Israel Electric Corporation, but Israel swallowed the loss, at considerable sacrifice: The IEC's finances are so precarious that it can't raise money without government guarantees. Last year, it sought a 30% rate hike from Israeli consumers to stabilize them. Yet Israel's agreements with the Palestinians entitle the state to cover such debts by withholding money from the monthly transfers. The Israeli government repeatedly warned both the PA and UN member states that if the UN bid went forward, in violation of all Israeli-Palestinian agreements, it would withhold the full NIS 800 million (about $214 million) it was owed to it.

The PA’s bankruptcy is as much moral as it is financial.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary/Contentions..
12 January '13..

As I noted yesterday, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is on the road this week attempting to persuade Arab countries to give him money. Unfortunately for Abbas, his upgrade at the United Nations last month hasn’t made his panhandling act any more popular with those who voted to upgrade his status at the world body. In fact, the Palestinian Authority is broke. Though this isn’t the first time the PA has had cash flow problems, the current shortage is especially acute and enough to provoke a stern editorial from the New York Times blaming the problem primarily on Israel. But while Israel has withheld some tax revenue from Abbas, the problem in the West Bank goes a lot deeper than the current dispute between the Netanyahu government and the PA.

The Times is right that it is in no one’s interest that the PA collapse, but its call for more money from Israel, the United States, the Arab world and the international community to be poured into Abbas’s coffers misses the point about what is going on in the West Bank. No amount of foreign aid can fix a government and a society that is completely dysfunctional. The issue of the PA’s insolvency is directed related to its steadfast refusal to make peace. Though a Palestinian government that isn’t a basket case is needed to make a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict work, the issue here isn’t just that the PA is corrupt and incompetent. It is corrupt and incompetent in large measure because the political culture of Palestinian society is still more interested in perpetuating the conflict with Israel than in building a state.

Though the Arab and Muslim states that profess to support the Palestinians have done little to help them, throughout the nearly 20 years of its existence, the PA has been the recipient of vast sums of aid from Israel, the United States and the international community. For the most part, this money has been either stolen or wasted. The portion of it that did filter its way down to the Palestinian public was often spent on backing terrorist groups or on a vast scheme of public employment. That did little to develop the economy of the West Bank but it did serve to solidify the loyalty of those getting no-show or no-work jobs to first Yasir Arafat and then his successor Abbas.

In recent years, as the Times notes, there has been an effort by PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to actually serve his people and to foster development as well as good government. The problem is that as much as the Americans and Israelis would like to help Fayyad, his efforts are still the exception to the rule. The unpopular Fayyad has little real influence over the PA’s future. He will also be sidelined if the Fatah-Hamas merger ever is brought to fruition.

More importantly, the failure of the West Bank economy is due to the refusal of Abbas to talk or make peace with Israel. Had he done so in 2008 when Ehud Olmert offered him statehood, things would be very different today. That is also true of Arafat’s refusal of Ehud Barak’s peace offers in 2000 and 2001. The second intifada that he launched ruined the West Bank’s economy.

The plain truth is that there is no assurance that the money that the United States, Israel or the Europeans are asked to hand over to Abbas will do anything more than prop up a failed regime. It may be that subsidizing failure is a better alternative than the chaos that would ensue if the PA completely collapsed, but it is not the answer to the problem.

What the PA really needs is not so much a handout as a sea change in its culture that would allow Abbas or a successor to end the conflict and to start the business of building a stable society that is not obsessed with violence against Israel. So long as that doesn’t happen, the Palestinians will continue to be beggars and the Israeli public will never support a withdrawal that might lead to the West Bank becoming a terrorist launching pad the way Gaza has become since 2005.

The PA’s bankruptcy is as much moral as it is financial. Until the Palestinians and those like the Times who want to help them realize this, aid to them will continue to be a case of throwing more money down the rabbit hole.

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook.

.

Fayyad, Arab donors and the PA's perpetual disfunctionality

LOTL..
06 January '13..

The level of disfunctionality of the Palestinian Authority while apparent to most, at times can still be quite difficult to put to paper and describe. While not the goal of today's AP interview in the New York Times, they may have just captured it in all its glory.

AP Interview: Palestinian PM Warns of Cash Crisis
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 6, 2013 at 2:22 PM ET

RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) — The Palestinian self-rule government is in "extreme jeopardy" because of an unprecedented financial crisis, largely because Arab countries have failed to send hundreds of millions of dollars in promised aid, the Palestinian prime minister said Sunday.

The cash crunch has gradually worsened in recent years, and the Palestinian Authority now has reached the point of not being able to pay the salaries of about 150,000 government employees, Salam Fayyad told The Associated Press. The number of Palestinian poor is bound to quickly double to 50 percent of the population of roughly 4 million if the crisis continues, he said.

"The status quo is not sustainable," Fayyad said in an interview at his West Bank office.

.....Fayyad pinned most of the blame for the Palestinian Authority's financial troubles on delinquent Arab donors, saying they are "not fulfilling their pledge of support in accordance with Arab League resolutions."

Behind Salam Fayyad's Call for "Economic Intifada"

Instead of seeking way to solve the financial crisis, Fayyad chose to call on Palestinians to boycott all Israeli goods. He is hoping that by calling for an economic intifada, he will succeed in diverting the anger and frustration on the Palestinian street outward to Israel. This has always been the Palestinian Authority's way of avoiding responsibility for anything that goes wrong ...

Khaled Abu Toameh..
Gatestone Institute..
20 December '12..

Salam Fayyad, the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, this week called for an economic intifada against Israel.

Fayyad, whose government is facing a severe financial crisis, wants Palestinians to boycott all Israeli goods in response to Israel's decision to seize tax revenues belonging to the Palestinian Authority. The revenues were seized and transferred to the Israel Electric Company to cover Palestinians' debts to the firm.

Fayyad is angry because the Israel Electric Company finally collected its debts from Palestinian consumers. Speaking to Palestinian reporters in Ramallah, he denounced the transfer of the funds to the company as "illegal and immoral."

Fayyad knows better than anyone else that, for various reasons, many Palestinians have not been paying their electricity bills. Many Palestinians refuse to pay water, electricity and other bills because they believe the international community, primarily the Americans and Europeans, should be covering all their expenses. Others refuse to pay because they believe the money eventually falls into the hands of corrupt Palestinian Authority officials.

Breaks the heart. Fayyad's Last Stand?

Jonathan Schanzer..
Weekly Standard Blog..
25 September '12..

"Bir Halek, Ya Fayyad" is not a catchy tune. But the popularity of Palestinian singer Kassem Najar's song, which translates to "Get A Grip, Fayyad," is an indication that Salam Fayyad, the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, may be on the way out. Najar, however, is the least of Fayyad's problems.

In recent weeks, protesters in Ramallah, Bethlehem, Nablus, and beyond have surrounded and threatened him, burned him in effigy, and thrown shoes at his likeness. "Yalla irhal ya Fayyad" ("let's go, Fayyad get out") was a recurring chant.

While the protests have subsided, Fayyad's fate still hangs in the balance. His position is weak because he lacks the political machinery and street-level support to withstand his enemies' efforts to undermine him. A former Fayyad advisor told me that his former boss has received "a flood of phone calls from the State Department and Capitol Hill," imploring him to stand firm. Nonetheless, he concedes that the prime minister's American supporters can do nothing for him "on the ground."

Fayyad knows full well that Palestinian politics is a blood sport. In an act of ironic defiance, he posted the Najar song on his own Facebook page. The embattled premier has also announced that he is prepared to step aside. But he's not going down without a fight. Recently he announced that his government would reduce fuel prices and cut the value added tax, two of the issues that first sparked the protests. Fayyad also announced cuts to high-ranking officials' salaries and budgets.

However, it has become clear that these protests will not end with cost-cutting measures. The PA is under the gun amid an economic crisis stemming from rising fuel prices, a precipitous drop-off in foreign assistance, and endemic corruption that drives down private enterprise, spurs capital flight, and decreases government collection. The high cost of maintaining side-by-side administrations in the West Bank and Gaza (where Hamas wrested control by force in 2007) is also taking its toll on the Palestinian treasury. The resulting decline in government revenues from both taxes and international donations has led to the PA's recurring inability to cover its civil service salaries.

Surprise! PA’s Fiscal Crisis Is Not Due to Israel But Gaza.

Evelyn Gordon..
Commentary/Contentions..
20 September '12..

The World Bank issued another report on the Palestinian economy yesterday, and its conclusions were utterly predictable: The Palestinian Authority faces a fiscal crisis, and desperately needs additional handouts on top of the $1.14 billion it’s already getting this year; and the crisis is mostly Israel’s fault. But while blaming Israel is always easy, the truth is the PA hasn’t a prayer of ever resolving its fiscal crisis without addressing the real elephant in the room: Gaza.

According to PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, Gaza accounts for fully 48 percent of the PA’s expenditures. But since Hamas took over the territory in 2007, revenues received from Gaza have plummeted from 28 percent to a mere 4 percent of the PA’s budget. In other words, the PA has a hole equal to 44 percent of its budget due solely to its unbalanced income and outlays on Gaza. Nothing Israel does will be able to compensate for that.

The problem is twofold. First, because Hamas controls Gaza, the PA can’t collect taxes there – and Hamas has no interest in giving the PA any of the taxes it collects. Often, Hamas doesn’t even pay the PA for services received: After the European Union stopped paying for Gaza’s electricity in 2010, for instance, the PA picked up the tab. In fact, that the PA receives any money from Gaza at all is mainly thanks to Israel, which transfers the taxes it collects on goods imported into Gaza from Israel.