My only real disagreement with Nathan J. Brown’s article on Salam Fayyad being “No Savior”, published on the Foreign Policy website here, is that I would not blame Salam Fayyad for fostering this misimpression.

This was entirely the creation of Western donors.

Salam Fayyad didn’t really mind. He did absolutely nothing to discourage it.

Maybe, you could say, he tried to use this un-elected accolade to leverage maximum benefits for the Palestinian Authority.

Brown himself wrote in his concluding paragraph that “Fayyad cannot be held primarily responsible for this collective self-delusion; at most, he facilitated it. And in the process he provided all actors with a breathing space that is now disappearing. Ultimately, the ones who convinced themselves he was capable of completely transforming Palestine are most responsible for squandering the brief respite his premiership offered”.

But, as Brown argued earlier in his piece, “His optimistic smile obscured an impossible situation: Fayyad’s main achievement has not been to build the structures of a Palestinian state, but to stave off the collapse of those structures that did exist. An equally important achievement was his ability to persuade Western observers that he was doing much more. In the process, however, he raised expectations far beyond his ability to deliver”.

In a point-by-point list of what Fayyad Did Not Do, Brown says:
+ “The state-like political structures now in the West Bank and Gaza were either built during the heyday of the Oslo Process in the 1990s or in the more distant days of Jordanian and British rule.
+ Second, he did not bring Palestinians to the brink of statehood. The Palestinian Authority, for all its problems, was actually far more ready for statehood on the eve of the Second Intifada in 1999 than it is on the possible eve of the third in 2011. A dozen years ago, Palestine had full security control of its cities, a set of institutions that united the West Bank and Gaza, a flourishing civil society, and a set of legitimate structures for writing authoritative laws and implementing them. Those accomplishments were in retreat long before Fayyad took office, and he was hardly able to restore them. [I would say he didn't even try -- this was not what he focussed on at all...]
+ Third, Fayyad did not strengthen the rule of law. He could not have done so, since the only legitimate law-making body the Palestinians have, the Legislative Council, has not met since he came to power.
+ Fourth, Fayyad did not prove to Palestinians that they should rely on themselves. Just the opposite. He showed Palestinians that if they relied on him, foreigners would show them the money”…
+ “Finally, he did not bring economic development to the West Bank. What he made possible was a real but unsustainable recovery based on aid and relaxation of travel restrictions. Year-to-year economic indicators in both the West Bank and Gaza are dependent on foreign assistance, and even more on the political and security situation”.

Then, Brown wrote a list of what he things Fayyad Did Do:
+ “…the prime minister assumed control of a Palestinian Authority that was unable to pay all of its salaries, deeply mistrusted by Israel, and treated as irrelevant by many Palestinians. His first and most impressive accomplishment was to gain the trust of Western governments. The unrealistic hopes placed in his premiership were partly a testimony to the esteem in which he was held in some international circles … No diplomatic statement from Western governments is complete without a kind word for his accomplishments. Fayyad was even able to earn a grudging Israeli trust through renewed security cooperation and efforts to rebuild the Palestinian security services. These accomplishments allowed him to pay government salaries, redeploy police, and attract enormous amounts of aid. And Fayyad was able to win some modest victories in Palestinian governance. The security services became less partisan, public finances became more transparent (even without any domestic oversight), corruption likely decreased, pockets of the civil service were rebuilt on a more professional basis, and basic order in Palestinian cities was improved”…

OK. Some people add the provision of electricity to most of the villages in the West Bank to the list of Fayyad’s accomplishments. But I would say he didn’t do that — he got USAID to do it in some cases. This usually involved the privatization of a Palestinian company to buy electricity at market prices from the Israeli grid (which is in place in the West Bank to provide electricity to Israeli settlements). In the past two years, the PA has also gotten part of the West Bank, particularly Jericho, connected to the Jordanian grid, and there was recently a rumor, or a newspaper report, that Jordan would soon begin to offer Palestinians a 50 percent discount (or subsidy) on electricity prices.

But, all-in-all, this is a genteel case of the Emperor’s New Clothes — as Brown put it, “collective self-delusion”.

For an exploration of the surprising recent Fatah Central Committee decision (announced on 11 June) to endorse Fayyad to continue as Palestinian Authority Prime Minister — despite their earlier endless complaining about Fayyad, and despite (or perhaps because of) the objections of Hamas, see the earlier post on our sister blog, here.

One explanation of the resistance of Hamas to having Fayyad continue as Prime Minister is this comment by one Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Radwan, who reportedly said that “Fayyad is not wanted because his name is linked to Palestinian division, the debt-ridden Palestinian economy and operations by the [Palestinian Authority] security services against the resistance”. This is reported by Ma’an News Agency here.

In an earlier comment, Ma’an reported separately that another Hamas leader, Salah al-Bardawil, said that “Hamas will not agree on Salam Fayyad as a prime minister, or even a minister in the upcoming unity government”.

Meanwhile, in an interview with Haaretz on May 13, published here, Fayyad said that: “Compared to where we were a mere few years ago, there’s been a dramatic change. A sense of real opportunity and optimism. We can do it [set up a state − A.I.]. But being prepared for a state is not the final destination. I’ll be able to say the real mission has been accomplished only when we live in dignity in our own state within the borders of 1967.”

Haaretz added: “There were pages that appeared on social networks this week saying that ‘the people want Salam Fayyad’. This followed reports that Fayyad, who has been in office since the summer of 2007 ‏(after Hamas’ revolution in Gaza‏), will have to retire as part of the reconciliation agreement between Hamas and Fatah and the setting up a Palestinian unity government. It is no secret Fayyad made quite a few enemies in both Fatah and Hamas, due to his success as premier [n.b. - no, that's not the real reason...]. Senior Fatah and Hamas officials would like to see him out of the prime minister’s office. But Palestinian officials close to President Mahmoud Abbas say Abbas will insist Fayyad stay on. Senior Hamas officials like Izat Rishak and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said recently they do not rule Fayyad out as the unity government’s premier”.

The Haaretz profile of Fayyad noted that he refuses to take part in the predictions and preparations for the United Nations General Assembly in September. ‘I deal with my responsibility only − what happens from now to September’, he says. ‘Talking about September creates a sort of fixation in which people stop talking about what’s happening now − about our need to provide our people with the services they need’, he says. ‘We presented our plan in August 2009 to enable setting up a state in September 2011. But already on April 13, at the donor states’ meeting in Brussels, the UN, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund stated that we crossed the statehood line. Our vision had become a reality’, he says.

In the interview, Fayyad talked about the process of working to implement Palestinian statehood as being a “miraculous experience”, saying: “I haven’t undertaken this business of building a country according to this or that template. This isn’t an ordinary task or a routine goal that you could just work according to a certain model. But there is a similarity to the Israeli story. I often say that if it worked for the Israelis, it can work for us … There’s something very personal about this business of building a country. It’s the nature of the task. It’s not building up a company or a department. By definition, it is a very personal experience. You go to sleep with it. You must be completely dedicated, passionate, nonstop. I need to wake up every morning and think – what is it that needs to be done in order to get us closer to that home. But that’s where the personal part ends. My main aspiration is to celebrate the founding of our country with our people. Whether I will have an official position or not, that doesn’t matter. If we get that ‘birth certificate’ and feel the freedom of our own country, it won’t matter to me if I’ll have an official position or not … [But] If you want to convey a vision to people, you need to have that vision in you first. And I live it. I visualize that moment, in actual pictures and become very emotional. The day we are granted independence is going to be one of great celebration … I was recently asked by representatives from the donor states where we were on the route to statehood. I said that, like in a race horse, we are entering the final stretch. The stretch of freedom … I imagine myself celebrating our Independence Day in Jerusalem, in the east of the city, in the heart of the Old City … I think of only one possibility. I can’t afford to think of other scenarios. This car has but one set speed and it’s moving forward. I don’t let myself think of other scenarios”.

Asked if he thought the creation of a new unity government could hurt his efforts, Fayyad told Haaretz: “The most important for the next government is to remain on the path that we have started. It doesn’t matter who is chosen for the position, I will offer him my help.”

And, asked about the criticism he has received from both Hamas and Fatah, Fayyad said: “From the first moment I entered office I have avoided trading blame. I read and listen. I am aware of the criticism, some of which is vicious. But to start dealing with who said what to whom is unnecessary. It diverts me from my mission. I know that what needed to be fixed and done was fixed and done. I did the best that I could, as far as I’m concerned. I can tell you that ever since I took this mission upon myself, I may not be sleeping enough, but I have no trouble falling asleep.”

Fayyad said he might, conceivably, continue as Prime Minister, but “If I’m asked to stay on, I’ll accept only if there’s a consensus. I am not presenting my candidacy. I’ve done this job for four years − not easy years at all. I’m glad I had the extraordinary opportunity to work with such dear, special people. I received a lot of strength and inspiration from meeting people in remote places, in villages, in caves. I’ve had a part in this miraculous experience of setting up a state”.

UPDATE: ON 21 June, Fayyad told journalists in Ramallah that “he will resist pressure to resign and aims to continue in office while the rival Hamas and Fatah factions try to form a joint government. Fayyad, speaking to reporters today in the West Bank city of Ramallah, said he wants to at least complete his two-year plan to build the institutions for Palestinian statehood that are supposed to be ready in August. ‘There’s an action plan that needs to be implemented’, Fayyad said. At the same time, he said that he doesn’t want to be an ‘obstacle to unity’Hamas, the Islamic movement that controls the Gaza Strip, completed an agreement with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas May 4 to form a unity government with Fatah, seeking to heal a four-year rift. The two sides agreed to set up a transitional Cabinet of so-called technocrats with no political affiliation and hold elections within a year. A meeting to announce the new Cabinet that was scheduled for today in Cairo was scrubbed. Abbas said in an interview with Lebanese television yesterday that he supports keeping Fayyad as prime minister, according to the Palestinian Authority’s official Wafa news agency. Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said in an e-mailed statement to reporters today that Abbas’s insistence on Fayyad as premier is a breach of the May 4 agreement”. This article, by Bloomberg reporter Jonathan Ferziger, is published “http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-21/fayyad-to-stay-in-place-as-palestinian-authority-s-premier-1-.html”>here.

FURTHER UPDATE: Probably after getting a report from the same meeting with journalists referred to in the Bloomberg report, above, Ma’an is reporting on 22 June here that Fayyad said Tuesday evening that he “can’t and won’t be an obstacle to Palestinian reconciliation”. The Ma’an report, taking into account its own earlier reports, noted {in somewhat unclear English} that “Following speculation that he would publicly refuse the post of prime minister in the new transitional unity government being negotiated by Hamas and Fatah, his words fell short of the declaration, saying: ‘I shall support to the best of my abilities any candidate Palestinian parties agree upon’. Ma’an also said, in its report: “Speaking at the presidential headquarters in Ramallah, he said that ‘Palestinian people are rich with abilities and capabilities’, and said he felt sure that a capable candidate would be selected. ‘I am flattered by President Abbas and the PLO Executive Committee’s position regarding my nomination for the prime ministerial post. It doesn’t only make me happy as a person, it is also a certificate that our policy is appreciated’, he told reporters. He said he was sure a unity government would be achieved, saying that Palestinian statehood depended on it, adding that ‘Going to the UN in September remains only a theory if we do not achieve unity’. Fayyad weighed in on the latest Hamas-Fatah dispute, stating his position that Abbas did have the power and authority to appoint the prime minister for the new government, a position Hamas has called a failure to meet the terms of the unity deal, which called for the formation of a cabinet of independents and technocrats. ‘However, I understand this is no ordinary situation’, he added”…

Matt Duss’ piece here concentrates on Fayyad’s views on the issue of recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Duss includes a brief transcript of the relevant remarks, in which Fayyad mentions only the exchange of recognition between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, which was formally exchanged on the eve of the live event, broadcast worldwide from the White House lawn on 13 September 1993, when the U.S. then- President Bill Clinton hosted the late Yasser Arafat and the late Yitzhak Rabin for the formal signing the Declaration of Principles Olso Accords.

The transcript notes that Fayyad said (in response to a question — asked by Matt Duss himself, as it happens — at 49:25) that: “Actually we did a lot more than recognize Israel’s existence in 1993″:

“It was a lot more profound than just recognizing Israel’s existence. We had recognized then Israel’s “right to exist in peace and security.” It’s a very high form of recognition, if you will. Mutual recognition among nations is typically not that way. Countries recognize each other, members of the United Nations, and life goes on. In this particular case, we Palestinians, through the PLO, acting on behalf of all Palestinian people, in the occupied Palestinian territory and everywhere, recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace and security.

“In passing, let me tell you what we got in return at the time. You’d think that in return for this recognition, we’d have gotten recognition on the part of Israel, the government of Israel, of our right to statehood, as Palestinian people. I think it’s only logical to think that way. That wasn’t the case. If you actually review the so-called declaration…of mutual recognition, you will find that actually, on the Israeli side, it involved Israel recognizing the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people, that’s all. That is all. You recognize a country’s right to exist in peace and security, and the way that country chooses to define itself as a product of that country’s own internal political processes, I mean, that’s more than any country can be expected — we’re not even yet a country, and we’re not promised to be one in the context of that declaration — more than any country can be expected to offer”.

But there is much more…

For example:
*Fayyad said that he senses a sense of empowerment among the Palestinians which he is trying to encourage, after a long period of what he called “submissiveness”, hopelessness, passivity, and “defeatism”…
*Fayyad calls the Hamas rout of Fatah/Palestinian Preventive Security forces in Gaza, in mid-June 2007, a “terror event”…
*Fayyad speaks a lot about the goal being Palestinian “freedom”, and says at one point that his two-year state-implementation program will “not bring us our freedom but rather will bolster our chances of getting freedom, instead of just sitting on our hands and complaining…or crying”…
*Fayyad also speaks a lot about the “transformative power” of his two-year state-implementation program, and says things like “the transformative power of this program lies in its implementation”…
*Fayyad says, using a very American expression with apparent affection, that “a declaration of statehood is above my paygrade”, but says that his program is, instead, “about getting reading for statehood”, and adds that “I believe in the transformative powers of this project”…
*Fayyad says at one point that “one of our policies is dealing violence out of the picture entirely”…
*Fayyad says, near the end, that he wants to have “a significant Palestinian presence outside of the cities”, and adds that “this is necessary to bringing us to freedom and justice, peace and security — but not sufficient”…

[more coming later]

This report and analysis by Nathan Brown can be read in full here.

The image on the note is the Dome of the Rock — a Muslim place of worship on the Haram as-Sharif esplanade (known to Israelis as the Temple Mount) in the Old City of East Jerusalem.

Some of the Hebrew writing, I am informed, says Eretz Israel.

Since the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, Israelis have made their own currency — now called the New Israeli Shekel (NIS).

The Palestinians do not — yet — have their own currency … Most of the incoming funds for the present Palestinian Authority (PA) are in dollars, or Euros. Their expenses are in New Israeli Shekels (and sometimes the fluctuation of the exchange rate is punishing…)

On Netanyahu’s choice of ministers, Avnery wrote that “All these appointments look like the desperate efforts of a cynical politician who does not care about anything other than returning to power, and then quickly putting together a cabinet, whatever its composition, paying any price to any party prepared to join him, sacrificing even the most vital interests of the state”.

The worst problem, Avnery stated, is in the political field, “Because there the unpreparedness of Netanyahu meets the overpreparedness of Obama. Obama has a plan for the restructuring of the Middle East, and one of its elements is an Israeli-Palestinian peace based on ‘Two States for Two Peoples’. Netanyahu argues that he is not in a position to respond, because he has no plan of his own yet. After all, he is quite new in office. Now he is working on such a plan. Very soon, in a week, or a month, or a year, he will have a plan, a real plan, and he will present it to Obama. Or course, Netanyahu has a plan. It consists of one word, which he learned from his mentor, Yitzhak Shamir: ‘NO’. Or, more precisely, NO NO NO – the three no’s of the Israeli Khartoum: No peace, No withdrawal, No negotiations. (It will be remembered that the 1967 Arab summit conference in Khartoum, right after the Six-day War, adopted a similar resolution.) The ‘plan’ which he is working on does not really concern the essence of this policy, but only the packaging. How to present to Obama something that will not sound like ‘no’, but rather like ‘yes, but’ … As a taster for the ‘plan’, Netanyahu has already presented one of its ingredients: the demand that the Palestinians and other Arabs must recognize Israel as ‘the State of the Jewish People’.”

Now, here, Avnery makes a distinction: “Most of the media in Israel and abroad have distorted this demand and reported that Netanyahu requires the recognition of Israel as a ‘Jewish State’. Either from ignorance or laziness, they obliterated the important difference between the two formulas. This difference is immense. A ‘Jewish State’ is one thing, a ‘State of the Jewish People’ is something radically different“.

Avnery explains what he sees as the distinction — though not everybody will agree with him: “A ‘Jewish State’ can mean a state with a majority of citizens who define themselves as Jews and/or a state whose main language is Hebrew, whose main culture is Jewish, whose weekly rest day is Saturday, which serves only Kosher food in the Knesset cafeteria etc. A ‘State of the Jewish People’ is a completely different story. It means that the state belongs not only to its citizens, but to something that is called ‘the Jewish People’ – something that exists both inside and outside of the country. That can have wide-ranging implications. For instance: the abrogation of the citizenship of non-Jews, as proposed by Lieberman. Or the conferring of Israeli citizenship on all the Jews in the world, whether they want it or not. The first question that arises is: what does ‘the Jewish People’ mean? The term ‘people’ – ‘am‘ in Hebrew … – has no accepted precise definition. Generally it is taken to mean a group of human beings who live in a specific territory and speak a specific language. The ‘Jewish People’ is not like that. Two hundred years ago it was clear that the Jews were a religious community dispersed throughout the world and united by religious beliefs and myths (including the belief in a common ancestry). The Zionists were determined to change this self-perception. ‘We are a people, one people’, Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, wrote … The idea of ‘the State of the Jewish People’ is decidedly anti-Zionist. Herzl did not dream of a situation in which a Jewish State and a Jewish Diaspora would coexist. According to his plan, all the Jews who wish to remain Jews would immigrate to their state. The Jews who prefer to live outside the state would stop being Jews and be absorbed into their host nations, finally becoming real Germans, Britons and Frenchmen. The vision of the ‘Visionary of the State’ (as he is officially designated in Israel) was supposed, when put into practice, to bring about the disappearance of the Jewish Diaspora … David Ben-Gurion was a partner to this vision. He stated that a Jew who does not immigrate to Israel is not a Zionist and should not enjoy any rights in Israel, except the right to immigrate there. He demanded the dismantling of the Zionist organization, seeing in it only the ‘scaffolding’ for building the state. Once the state has been set up, he thought quite rightly, the scaffolding should be discarded”.

OK, for what that’s worth. Now, Avnery turns back to Netanyahu, and writes that: “Netanyahu’s demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as ‘the State of the Jewish People’ is ridiculous, even as a tactic for preventing peace. A state recognizes a state, not its ideology or political regime. Nobody recognizes Saudi Arabia, the homeland of the Hajj, as ‘the State of the Muslim Umma’ (the community of believers.) Moreover, the demand puts the Jews all over the world in an impossible position. If the Palestinians have to recognize Israel as ‘the State of the Jewish People’, then all the governments in the world must do the same. The United States, for example. That means that the Jewish US citizens Rahm Emmanuel and David Axelrod, Obama’s closest advisors, are officially represented by the government of Israel. The same goes for the Jews in Russia, the UK and France. Even if Mahmoud Abbas were persuaded to accept this demand – and thereby indirectly put in doubt the citizenship of a million and a half Arabs in Israel – I would oppose this strenuously. More than that, I would consider it an unfriendly act”.

Now, it’s important to note that the Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel are prime movers behind the Palestinian Authority’s refusal to make a calm, rational consideration of this demand, which has been made by the last two Israeli governments — once before the start of the Annapolis process, in November 2007, and now again recently.

Advice, like Avnery’s, from the Israeli “left” (which has a scattered and varied criticism of the demand, and multiple positions of their own), has most probably only bolstered and reinforced this rigid PA position. But it is far from clear that the interests of the Israeli Arabs coincide with the interests of those Palestinians who will only have the choice of being citizens of some future Palestinian state.

The PA has chosen to support the Israeli Arab position, as a purely political calculation — whether as payback, or as a deposit on some future reciprocal support (or both). However, this political calculation has only let Palestinians (in the West Bank and Gaza at least) off the hook. They haven’t needed to take the time to reflect on what this really might imply for them.

And, if they really were afraid that recognition of Israel’s “Jewishness” in one or another forms would result in either immediate ethnic cleansing (expulsion en masse of Israel’s Arab citizens as well as Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem), as well as of total barring of the return of any or all Palestinian refugees, they could have asked for guarantees from the international community that it would not happen. And they would have gotten such guarantees, which would be worth a lot more than the puffed-up pride they have now in being stubborn and resisting a critical examination of the demand

In any case, Avnery wrote that “The character of the State of Israel must be decided by the citizens of Israel (who hold a wide range of opinions about this matter). Pending before the Israeli courts is an application by dozens of Israeli patriots, including myself, who demand that the state recognize the ‘Israeli nation’. We request the court to instruct the government to register us in the official Population Registration, under the heading ‘nation’, as Israelis. The government refuses adamantly and insists that our nation is Jewish. I ask Mahmoud Abbas, Obama and everyone else who is not an Israeli citizen not to interfere in this domestic debate. Netanyahu knows, of course, that nobody will take his demand seriously. It is quite obviously just another device to avoid serious peace negotiations. If he is compelled to drop it, it will not be long before he comes up with another” …

Along the lines of Avnery’s argument, the Palestinian editor and co-Chairman of IPCRI (the Israel-Palestine Center for Research and Information) Hanna Siniora proposed the following formula, and asked for reaction: “What about this: Israel is for the Israelis — and in this way we do not disenfranchise miniorities. How do you receive that formula?”

Siniora was speaking in answer to a question from an Israeli (in the audience at IPCRI’s 27 April discussion of the marked expansion in Israeli settlements in the West Bank since the start of the Annapolis process in November 2007) about PA President Mahmoud Abbas’ statement that he would refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish State. The Israeli questioner did not respond.

Earlier on the same day, 27 April, the Foreign Press Association (FPA) in Israel held its annual General Membership meeting at the King David Hotel in West Jerusalem, and invited Palestinian negotiator Sa’eb Erekat to address the group after the business of hearing the treasurer’s report and the election of a new committee was over. One of the journalists asked Erekat, “What is the problem in accepting Israel as a Jewish State”.

Erekat was, in fact, prepared for the question. “Israel can call itself anything it wants … but when you signed the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, you did not put this as a precondition”.

Then, Erekat pulled out one (1) copy of a letter which he said was a reply from U.S. President Truman to a group of American Jewish leaders who had written, Erekat said, on 14 May 1948 (the eve of — or with the time difference, perhaps even after the proclamation of the State of Israel which happened at midnight) asking that the U.S. should accept Israel, Erekat said, apparently correcting himself as he spoke, as “the state of the Jewish people, or as the Jewish state”.

According to Erekat, the American Jewish leaders proposed this formula: “The U.S. recognizes the provisional government as the de facto government of the new Jewish State.”

But what happened, again according to Erekat, was that President Truman crossed out the words,
“the new Jewish State”, and replaced them with the words, “the State of Israel”.

That’s it, Erekat said, proof that even the United States did not recognize Israel as a “Jewish State”. To conclude his argument, Erekat, said: “Check the UN Charter, and see if the Vatican is recognized as a Catholic State”.

Well, first of all, the Vatican is represented by an observer delegation in the United Nations, and it has not been admitted to membership, so it’s identity has not been subject to any agreement or approval, as happens when states are admitted as full UN members.

And, second of all, it seemed to me that all Harry Truman was doing when he crossed out one phrase and replaced it with another, “the State of Israel”, was correcting the identification of the new entity as it was announced.

A couple of years ago, Uri Avnery, writing on this subject, said that what the name of the State of Israel would be, was not known in advance. In fact, it was not known until right up to the actual announcement.

The New York Times’ Isabelle Kershner, who was present at the FPA meeting, managed to get a look at the actual letter that Erekat gave to the outgoing chairman (Steve Gutkin of AP), and she later also took issue with Erekat’s argument [despite the very chummy "Hi Isabelle" that Erekat said when she asked a question on another subject at the FPA briefing ].

In a piece that had a few non-sequitors in its editing, Isabelle wrote that “Palestinian negotiators have refused to recognize Israel’s Jewish character in the past, contending that it would negate the Palestinian refugees’ demand for the right to return to their former homes and would be detrimental to the status of Israel’s Arab citizens, who make up a fifth of the population. In an attempt to bolster the Palestinian argument, Mr. Erekat on Monday produced a copy of a letter signed by President Harry Truman on May 14, 1948. In its original form, it recognizes the provisional government of the new Jewish state, but the typed words ‘Jewish state’ in the second paragraph have been crossed out and replaced with the handwritten words ‘State of Israel’.
Shlomo Avineri, a professor of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said Mr. Erekat was misinterpreting the American president’s intention. According to Mr. Avineri, the Truman letter had been prepared hours before Israel declared its independence, before the new country had chosen its name. It was later corrected by a Truman adviser, Clark Clifford, after the declaration of independence to call the country by its name, not to refute its Jewish character, Mr. Avineri said”. This article can be read in full here.

YNet explained a bit more on its website: “MK Gilad Erdan (Likud), chairman of the Economics Committee, who presented the proposal at the Knesset plenum, said that ‘the bill is aimed at preventing the transfer of vehicles from Israel into the Palestinian territories. Data presented to the Economics Committee by police representatives revealed that spare parts of vehicles used for repair in the PA’s garages usually come from cars stolen in Israel. Moreover, the data also reveal that a significant part of the vehicles repaired in the PA territories were found to be severely flawed and had to be taken off the roads. In other words, the “repaired” cars in fact constituted an immediate safety risk for their users’. According to Erdan, the new law would hurt the incentive to steal cars in Israel and would also break off any possible linkage between the chop shops and terror elements. MK Kahlon said following the vote, ‘This law will significantly reduce the car thefts in Israel. A large part of the vehicles stolen in Israel are dismantled in the territories, and their parts are installed in vehicles repaired in the PA’s garages’.” This YNet article can be read in full here .

It has already been an offense for several years for someone in Israel to transport someone with a West Bank ID. The penalty is “severe”, as they say in Israel (“harsh” and “severe” are two very serious words here…) The car will be confiscated, the driver will have to pay at least a 5,000 NIS (New Israel Shekel) fine, and could also be sentenced to jail. It has affected cab drivers, including cab drivers with an East Jerusalem ID who unwittingly were driving with their wives, who had West Bank IDs. This law means that you cannot drive anyone in your car, a friend or anyone, without checking and clarifying exactly what kind of ID he or she has.

The Global Research website has posted an open letter from Francis A. Boyle, an attorney who helped advise the Palestinian team at the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference. (The Palestinians participated as part of the Jordanian delegation because Israel refused at the time to deal with the PLO.)

“Nov 23, 2007

My Dear Palestinian Friends:

As you can see from the US Government’s list of Invitees to the Annapolis Conference, it has only invited the Palestinian Authority, not the PLO. But only the PLO has the authority under international law to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian People and the State of Palestine. That is why the Chairman of the PLO Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo Agreement in the name of the PLO. The Palestinian Authority has no authorization under international law to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian People, let alone the State of Palestine, whose Provisional Government is the PLO Executive Committee. Indeed, an entire series of UN General Assembly Resolutions have made it clear that only the PLO is the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian People. Hence this delegation of the Palestinian Authority to the Annapolis Conference has no legal authority under international law to conclude anything on behalf of the Palestinian People, let alone the State of Palestine. I would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to bring this matter to the attention of the Palestinian People around the world.

Thank you.

Francis A. Boyle

The open letter written by Francis A. Boyle is posted here.

The Global Research website describes him as “Professor of International Law and Legal Advisor to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations and His Excellency Dr. Haidar Abdul Shaffi (1991-1993)”.

While it is true that the PA and not the PLO has been invited to the Annapolis event, it is also the case that the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) wears both hats — he is the elected (January 2005) President of the Palestinian Authority that was created by the Oslo Accords negotiated between Israel and the PLO. And, he was also selected as Yasser Arafat’s successor to head the PLO.

The draft of the document [Palestinian preferred term] or statement [Israeli preferred term] that has been negotiated by teams of Israelis and Palestinians in advance of the Annapolis meeting [see Palestine-Mandate post here.] says that “it is being drafted by the representatives of the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, represented respectively by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Mahmoud Abbas in his capacity as Chairman of the PLO Executive Committee and President of the Palestinian Authority”…