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”…

It was, apparently, the first in a series of donor meetings planned for 2011.

The next planned donor conference is scheduled to be held in Paris in June 2011, to support “the Palestinian national development plan for 2011-2013″.

{The UN describes the AHLC here as “a 12-member committee that serves as the principal policy-level coordination mechanism for development assistance to the Palestinian people. The AHLC is chaired by Norway and cosponsored by the EU and US. In addition, the United Nations participates together with the World Bank (Secretariat) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The AHLC seeks to promote dialogue between donors, the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Government of Israel (GoI)”. The Portland Trust, which seems to set the policies that Tony Blair follows, notes here that “The AHLC was established on 1 October 1993 (this is two weeks after the signing of the first of the Oslo Accords) . It serves as the principal policy-level coordination mechanism for development assistance to the Palestinian people. Norway is the chair of the committee, the World Bank acts as secretariat and the EU and US are co-sponsors. The members are: the Palestinian Authority (PA), Government of Israel (GoI), Canada, Egypt, International Monetary Fund (IMF), Japan, Jordan, United Nations (UN), Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia”. It is worth noting that the Portland Trust’s publication, Palestinian Economic Bulletin, is prepared by the Palestine Economic Policy Research Institute (MAS) in Ramallah.}

The Norwegian Chairman reportedly said that “the international donor group in support of the Palestinians (AHLC) welcomed reports that the Palestinian Authority has crossed the threshold for a functioning state in terms of its successful institution building. This was the assessment of the Palestinian Authority’s performance in key sectors studied by the World Bank, the IMF, and the UN. Moreover, according to the IMF, the Palestinian reforms have come so far that not only is the public financial management system ready to support the functions of a state; it has even become a model for other developing countries”. These remarks are posted here.

This report also reported that Støre said: “many donors noted that the lack of political progress leaves the negotiating track out of sync with the far advanced state-building efforts of the Palestinian Authority. This is why all parties concerned must stand firm behind the stated goal of negotiating a framework agreement on permanent status and a subsequent comprehensive peace treaty by the agreed target date in September”.

The full text of the Chairman’s summary is not available on the Norwegian website — or, at least, the various web addresses given for it are not working.

[It has to be said that most all of those involved here are internet-impaired...]

After the meeting, the EU High Representative Ashton said in a public statement: “The Palestinian Authority has made significant progress on this state-building agenda. Today Palestinian institutions compare favorably with those in established states [!!!] … I’m proud to say that the EU has been instrumental in the institution building process. For 2011, we have already earmarked €300 million for it. Yet it’s clear that these achievements can only be sustainable in the event of a political breakthrough. The international community should not let these concerted efforts go to waste. This opportunity should not be missed. We reaffirm our readiness to contribute to a negotiated solution within the timeline set by the Quartet.”

Quartet Representative Tony Blair issued a report, “Action in Support of Palestinian Authority State-Building” [the pdf file on the Quartet Representative website is "damaged and cannot be downloaded"]. Blair said in a statement that “Palestinian state building under the Palestinian Authority and Prime Minister Fayyad is a bright light amongst a lot of diplomatic darkness. It shows what can be done, how the Palestinians are able to govern a state, and therefore the vital importance of re-energising the political process. Palestinian state building is also an important factor in addressing Israel’s real security concerns”…

The website is even more emphatic on another page, reporting here that “Quartet Representative Tony Blair said ‘credible political negotiations’ were needed on a ‘very urgent’ basis to ‘revive the political process’.”

[See the recent post on our sister blog, here, that Tony Blair is moving the Quartet Representative's Office in East Jerusalem -- which he visits about once a month -- from the American Colony Hotel up the hill to a new building still under construction on Nablus Road, just below the Ambassador Hotel... ]

On Gaza, Blair said “we still have a long, long way to go”…

Quite an understatement.

UPDATE: Haaretz later reported here that “earlier this week donor states to the Palestinian Authority, which held a conference last week in Brussels, condemned in its concluding statement uncoordinated aid flotillas to Gaza. The conference called on all parties to use land terminals to the Strip and avoid provocations. The statement is signed by the chairman of the conference, Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store. A major force behind the clause was intense lobbying from the Israeli delegation to the conference, comprised of the coordinator of government activities in the territories, Maj. Gen. Eitan Dangot, and Foreign Ministry diplomats”.

Salam Fayyad’s remarks at the joint press conference can be viewed on this page here, and his answer to a journalist’s question is posted here.

“We Palestinians have made a declaration of statehood going back to 1988 … We’re not looking for yet another declaration of a state, nor for a virtual state”, Fayyad said, “we’re looking for a genuine fully sovereign state of Palestine on territory occupied in 1967 in Gaza Strip and the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital … and an end to the Israeli occupation”…

[The Al-Jazeera Transparency Unit, which archives its leaked Palestinian Papers, has a couple of interesting related documents -- three, from 2008 discussions, are posted here, here, and here.]

Here are the links to the various reports submitted to this AHLC meeting in Brussels on 13 April 2011 — (they are not so easy to find…and the IMF report took days to locate):
The World Bank report is posted here.
The IMF report is supposed to be posted here — it is on the IMF country page here — but it doesn’t open, or maybe it doesn’t download…
UPDATE: The 35-page IMF report was finally located on the UN’s UNISPAL website here.
Salam Fayyad’s report for the Palestinian Authority is posted hereand a summary is posted here.
Israel’s report is posted here.
The report signed by Tony Blair for the Office of the Quartet Representative (www.quartetrep.org) does not download from the Quartet’s website — the error message reads “the file is damaged but could not be repaired” — but a link does work through Tony Blair’s Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/TonyBlair) which is “liked” by over 18,000 people, and which has a greater emphasis on his Faith Foundation than on his work for the Quartet. The link that does work is here.
The report of the UN Special Coordinator, Robert Serry, is posted here, and an accompanying press release is posted here.

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 is an improved formulation over the earlier version (which former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon included in Israel’s 14 reservations to the U.S.-backed Road Map in 2003) of requiring acceptance of a “Jewish State”.

However, there is no real clarity about what, exactly, that would mean. Palestinians fear it is formula to withdraw rights and citizenship from the one million or so (20-25% of Israel’s population) who are Palestinian Arabs, and that it also means agreement acquiescence in wiping out any and all residual claims of some 4 or 5 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants living in a diaspora around the world.

So far, it is a dialog of the deaf.

Palestinians of almost all political views react with outrage, anger… and smoldering fury.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) is reported to have just said, in New York, that “Israel can call itself… the Jewish-Zionist Empire”, if it wants. This is reported on YNet, here.

Now, according to a report today in the Jerusalem Post, Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon caused a spat with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad at a periodic meeting of major donors at UNHQ in New York. According to the JPost’version, “Ayalon refused to approve a summary of the meeting which said ‘two states’ but did not include the words ‘two states for two peoples’ … What I say is that if the Palestinians are not willing to talk about two states for two peoples, let alone a Jewish state for Israel, then there’s nothing to talk about’, Ayalon told the Post in a telephone interview. ‘And also, I said if the Palestinians mean, at the end of the process, to have one Palestinian state and one bi-national state, this will not happen … I also said that I don’t need the Palestinians to say Israel is a Jewish state in Hebrew. I need them to say it in Arabic to their own people’.” This JPost report is published here.

So, what does that mean, exactly? Each state should have only one people? You can see where this is leading… it’s confirming the worst fears of the Palestinians, of course. What I have written, in the past, in several places, is that the Palestinians have already accepted Israel as a Jewish State when Yasser Arafat issued the Declaration of Independence of the
Palestinian State in November 1988, then more explicitly (at U.S. insistence) in December 1988 — which explicitly accepts
the UN General Assembly resolution 181 of 29 November 1947, partitioning the British mandate of Palestine into two states, one Arab and one Jewish.

The Palestinians seem to have forgotten…

Earlier, according to the same YNet report, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu “told the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations that the recognition would be a central part of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. ‘Just say it’, Netanyahu called on Abbas. ‘Say yes to a Jewish state’. The prime minister explained that he was insisting on this because ‘this is a move the Palestinians have refused to make for 62 years. Its significance is Palestinian recognition of the right of the Jewish people to self-definition in their historic homeland. I recognized the Palestinians’ right to self-definition, so they must do the same for the Jewish people’.”

In an interview with Ma’an News agency, also according to this YNet report, Abbas reportedly said that “if Israel wants negotiations in which the Palestinians recognize it, then it must also recognize a Palestinian state”.

By coincidence, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked about this whole matter in an interview for Palestine TV conducted by Maher Shalabi (who did the extraordinarily embarassing “The Cedar and the Olive Tree” program in refugee camps in Lebanon recently, in which he grandly handed out $100 U.S. dollar bills after asking stupid questions like, “What is the capitol of Palestine?”).

Here is an excerpt:
” (Maher Shalabi of Palestine TV) QUESTION: I mean, when you talk about Jewish state –

SECRETARY CLINTON: “Yes”.

QUESTION: — don’t you think you’re imposing the outcome of the negotiation and many times, you’re saying, “We want to impose the outcome”?

SECRETARY CLINTON: “Well, of course, that, to me, is a fact, that if you go back and look at the original UN documents, and even if you look at some of the PLO documents over the last many years, everyone recognizes that Israel is a homeland for Jewish people. Palestinians have the right to work toward a homeland for themselves. And I don’t think that takes anything away from either side in saying that”. The full transcript of this interview is available on the State Department website, here.

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

Here is an extended excerpt from the Haaretz article:

“I do not believe that in the foreseeable future there is a possibility of an agreement with the Palestinians on all the issues, especially on the problematic core issues,” says Udi Dekel, who headed the negotiations task force in the previous government. Dekel spoke on Thursday at a conference on the unofficial “Geneva Initiative” peace plan … He was highly critical of the negotiating tactics of former prime minister Ehud Olmert and his Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni in their dealings with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and the head of his negotiating team, Ahmed Qureia. “The biggest mistake was that everything was based on the premise that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed,” Dekel said. “We thought at the time that this could provide the necessary flexibility in the negotiations, but in practice, every time someone showed flexibility, the other side tried to pin him down. Therefore, I suggest that the model be changed and that whatever is agreed is implemented.”

The Haaretz article continued:
“According to Dekel the Palestinians refused to show any flexibility in their positions during the talks, preferring to remain stalemated rather than lower their aspirations. “The Palestinian approach was in principle the demand of 100 percent of their rights from 1967. The practical aspect interested them less. They are not willing to discuss any further compromise,” he said. “We tried to build scenarios, some of them were imaginary, about specific compromises, but we found the Palestinians taking an approach of ‘all or nothing.’” Dekel said that agreement was reached on the need to reach full accord and that four stages toward that end had been determined. He said that American involvement, which intensified as time went on, encumbered the negotiations. “So long as the two sides negotiated, there was some progress. The minute (Secretary of State Condoleezza) Rice’s teams went into the details the two sides barricaded themselves behind their basic positions, and instead of the negotiations progressing, they regressed,” Dekel said. “The Palestinians understood that the Americans were closer to their position on the issues of Jerusalem, the borders and security, and opted to wait it out.” Dekel said at Thursday’s conference that in spite of the difficulty in achieving a settlement the need for a change in the situation was urgent. He proposed adoption of a plan floated by Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad under which the focus would be the swift establishment of a Palestinian state, with borders and security the first issues to be negotiated. “The rest would be discussed in parallel but the establishment of a state would not be conditional on an overall agreement,” Dekel said. “The two sides are not ready for this at the moment and we should not believe that there is a way to get the sides to understand that this is the only relevant solution in this time frame.” Dekel maintains that Israel’s position in the negotiations was meant to include within its territory as many settlers as possible. “On the issue of security we are talking, first and foremost, on defensible borders. And when we look at the maps, in the end we evaluate the borders on the basis of how many residents we will not have to move from their homes and the defensible borders issue becomes of secondary importance.” He added that the Palestinians came to the negotiations more prepared than the Israelis and were ready with drafts of their proposals while his staff were lacking notes from past negotiating rounds. “When I went to look for the material from the year 2000 [from Camp David talks and Taba] we could [not] find anything. It seems as though someone made sure it disappeared. That is why we restarted collecting the material, and were assisted by documents from the Geneva Convention,” Dekel said. Responding to Dekel, Shaul Arieli, who coordinated the negotiating task force a decade before him, said that when his teams ended their activity in 2000 they lodged all relevant documents with the national archive and the prime minister’s office. “Therefore,” Arieli said. “If you did not find the material, then someone worked very, very hard, for the material to disappear.”

This account was reported in Haaretz here.

President Obama “reserves the right to engage in whatever way he deems best, at whatever time he chooses to further American interests. And clearly, that is not limited to any one country. It is a broad statement of our approach. We are engaged ourselves in a vigorous policy analysis of a number of problems and challenges that we face around the world. And we will be, you know, rolling out ideas and plans as we go forward. The President and I thought it was important that we, as quickly as possible, set forth our policies in the Middle East and Afghanistan and Pakistan, because we knew we wanted to reengage vigorously from the very beginning in the Middle East. And, you know, we chose as an envoy someone who – we have great confidence in his ability to do that. And to carry the message from the President, from myself, from our government that, you know, we’re going to be working on a series of short-term objectives with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian situation, but that we remain committed to the long-term objective of a comprehensive peace that provides security in the context of a two-state solution for the Palestinians …

“QUESTION: both you and the President in the wake of the Israeli-Hamas conflict have talked a lot about the plight of Palestinians while recognizing Israel’s right to self-defense, but you’ve put a lot of emphasis on the Palestinian plight. And I was wondering if you think that the Israeli campaign, given the fact that Hamas is still in control of Gaza and still on the ground and not completely decapitated, do you think that that was a counterproductive mission?

“SECRETARY CLINTON: You know, I think we’ve said all we’re going to say about the Israeli-Palestinian situation as we send our envoy out. I think we want to give him the opportunity to listen and bring back his impressions and information. And we are at this moment focused only on the Israel-Palestinian track. And I think it’s important to put the emphasis where it rightly belongs. We have, as I said, some short-term objectives such as a durable ceasefire, which as you know has receded somewhat today because of the offensive action against the IDF along the border. But of course, we’re concerned about the humanitarian suffering. We’re concerned any time innocent civilians, Palestinian or Israeli, are attacked. That’s why we support Israel’s right to self-defense. The rocket barrages, which are getting closer and closer to populated areas, cannot go unanswered. And it’s, you know, regrettable that the Hamas leadership apparently believes that it is in their interest to provoke the right of self-defense instead of building a better future for the people of Gaza. We are supporting the efforts by the Palestinian Authority under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad to try to support the humanitarian efforts. We will participate with our own contributions. The United States is currently the single largest contributor to Palestinian aid, and we will be adding even more because we believe that it’s important to help those who have been damaged and suffering. But again, this is one of those situations that we’re going to await the report of our envoy. I mean, that’s why we chose Senator Mitchell. We have a lot of confidence in his knowledge of the area and his political ear, so you not only hear what people say but what the meaning behind the words might be. So we’re going to wait and let him report back to us about the way forward…”

Details continue to emerge.

The Egyptian draft calls for the creation of a new Palestinian unity government. The Egyptian proposal also says that democracy is the only option for the principle of rotation of authority while respecting law and order and legitimacy, and it says that support for democracy requires political participation of all parties without quotas. Hamas has been asking for a share of seats in the Palestinian National Council that is proportional to the votes that it won in the last Palestinian Legislative Council elections in January 2006, when it beat Fatah in the balloting. The Egyptian proposal suggests a compromise on when to hold national elections, calling for simultaneous elections, but leaving the date open. It also proposes that the election law should be reviewed in accordance with the needs of the interest of the homeland. Fatah apparently wants both presidential and parliamentary elections to be held simultaneously in 2010 – with President Abbas apparently continuing in office until then. But Hamas says that Abbas’s term ends in January 2009, and has repeatedly said that it believes the present Palestinian Legislative Council must continue until the end of its term in January 2010. The Egyptian draft says the security apparatuses should be rebuilt on a professional and national basis away from factionalism, and that only the security apparatuses would be authorized to defend the homeland and the citizens, with “the required Arab assistance that is necessary to fulfill the process of building and reform”. And the Egyptian plan calls for the formation of committees to begin work immediately on all the proposals, saying that there is no restriction on an Arab participation in any of the committees upon the request of the organizations. The plan says the Palestine Liberation Organization should be re-activated according to a March 2005 Cairo agreement, to include all forces and factions. The Egyptian plan also calls for the election of a new Palestinian National Council “in the homeland and abroad, wherever it is possible”.

According to the proposed draft plan, the Palestinian political factions would agree that the management of the political negotiations is a prerogative of the PLO and the president of the PA. The plan says that any agreement resulting from these negotiations has to be presented before the Palestinian National Council for approval — or a referendum should be conducted “anywhere possible”.

This draft agreement seems to leave a lot of loopholes open – and seems to steer the reconciliation talks in the direction of having all the Palestinian parties conform with the Road Map and the desires of the Quartet of Middle East negotiators. Hamas has apparently expressed reservations on a number of items of the draft conciliation proposal. Hamas Spokesperson Fawzi Barhoum told AFP that Hamas would request some changes, but that it would “agree to the draft of the agreement and will not reject it, but there needs to be guarantees that what is agreed upon will be implemented,” Hamas Spokesperson Fawzi Barhoum told AFP. Some points need to be modified and some points need clarification, Barhoum said.

While the Egyptian plan proposes a reform of the Palestinian security forces, the Palestinian newspaper Al-Quds reported that Hamas has demanded the banishment of four security leaders who, Hamas says, are acting on a factional basis and who are the executors of a policy of arrests against Hamas leaders in the West Bank. By coincidence, YNet said, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas also wants to replace two of them — Tawfik Tirawi, head of the PA General Intelligence Service in the West Bank, who would actually be promoted, and appointed Abbas’ special advisor on security affairs with the rank of minister, and Diab al-Ali, commander of the Palestinian security forces in the West Bank. However, YNet added, the PA is concerned the changes would be perceived as capitulation to Hamas.

Ma’an News Agency reported that Tirawi was in fact dismissed on Tuesday. Ramattan says that he was removed due to professional rivalries. But, Ma’an quoted its sources as denying what was published by local and international news websites about Abbas intention to appoint a new chief of national security in West Bank to replace Diab Al-Ali (Abu Al-Fatah).

Then, on Thursday, JPOST correspondent Khaled Abu Toameh wrote that “Fatah officials on Wednesday criticized Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s decision to dismiss Gen. Tawfik Tirawi, commander of the PA’s General Intelligence Service, noting that the timing was particularly ‘problematic’. Abbas summoned Tirawi late Tuesday night to a meeting in the Mukata ‘presidential’ compound and informed him of the decision to fire him. Abbas offered to appoint Tirawi as his ‘adviser’ on security affairs and to promote him to the status of minister. However, Tirawi said shortly after the meeting that he was not interested in the new job and that he plans to travel to the United Kingdom to study English”.

Khaled Abu Toameh also wrote that “Abbas’s decision to fire Tirawi is believed to be linked to the PA president’s desire to patch up his differences with Hamas. On the eve of the decision, Hamas officials said they had requested that Abbas get rid of Palestinian security commanders responsible for the massive crackdown on the movement’s members and institutions in the West Bank. Tirawi, along with several top PA security officials, had been entrusted by the PA leadership in Ramallah with taking precautionary measures to prevent Hamas from extending its control to the West Bank…A senior Hamas official in the Gaza Strip told The Jerusalem Post that his movement had indeed demanded that Abbas replace Tirawi and other PA security commanders in the West Bank to pave the way for ending the crisis with Fatah. ‘We welcome Abbas’s decision to fire Tirawi, who was responsible for security coordination with the Israelis and who was behind the brutal measures against Hamas [in the West Bank’, the official said. ‘We hope Abbas will take similar measures against all those security chiefs who chose to work with Israel and the Americans against our people’.” The official said his movement was now expecting Abbas to remove Diab al-Ali, commander of the PA’s National ecurity Force in the West Bank, who is also known as a sworn enemy of Hamas. Last month al-Ali raised eyebrows when he threatened that his forces would not hesitate to use force to overthrow the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip.

Fatah is very unhappy, according to Khaled Abu Toameh: ” ‘The timing of the decision to fire Tirawi was very bad’, a Fatah official in Ramallah told the Post. ‘It appears as if President Abbas took the decision to appease Hamas’. Another Fatah operative condemned Abbas’s decision as ‘dangerous’, claiming it would deepen divisions inside Fatah. ‘Many people in Fatah are unhappy with the decision’, he said. ‘They believe that Abbas made a huge mistake’. The Fatah official said he did not rule out the possibility that Abbas’s decision was linked to his desire to extend his term in office beyond January 2009. ‘Some are talking about a secret deal between Abbas and Hamas that allows him to remain in power after his term expires next January’, he said. ‘Hamas wants the heads of the security commanders in the West Bank in return for agreeing to the extension of Abbas’s term. This doesn’t look good’. A senior PA official denied the charges, saying the decision had nothing to do with Hamas’s demand for the dismissal of Tirawi and other commanders. The official said that the decision was taken because Tirawi had refused to report to the PA government of Salaam Fayad in the West Bank.
According to the official, the decision was taken in the context of the US-backed efforts to reform the PA security forces by reducing their number. He added that the proposed reforms call for merging Tirawi’s General Intelligence Service with the rival Preventative Security Force and turning them into a single force that reports directly to Fayad’s government”.
This analysis can be read in full in the Jerusalem Post
here

The State Department press release added that the U.S.-Palestinian Partnership “is developing quick-impact projects to promote job creation in the West Bank; projects include the creation of an Arabic-language call center in East Jerusalem and the establishment of a mechanism to attract foreign investment in the Palestinian private sector. The Partnership is also working to launch five youth development and resource centers in the West Bank”.

Rice said at the Washington press event that, as part of the Annapolis process, “there is also a very strong commitment to do something about the economic prospects for the Palestinian people, a people who are very well educated, many of them, very ambitious, many of them, but where economic opportunity has very often been lacking”.

Rice is also expected to try to rally support for the investment conference while she attends a meeting of donors to the Palestinian Authority, and with the Quartet, in London on 1-2 May.

The website of the Palestine Investment Conference, here , contains a greeting from Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, saying “We are throwing a party, and the whole world is invited. This conference is a chance to show a different face of Palestine: a Palestine conducive to economic growth and international investment. I welcome you to Palestine for a chance to enjoy our hospitality, and to learn first hand that you can do business in Palestine”.

Fayyad’s website greeting also says that this will be the “first high profile investment conference ever held in Palestine”, and that “it promises to be a historic event”. Fayyad added that the conference “will jumpstart a process of integrating Palestine into the global economy”.

“The time has come to invest in Palestine”, Fayyad added. “The international community showed its overwhelming support of the Palestinian economy in Paris last December, and PIC-Palestine intends to continue this process of creating an environment conducive to investment-led growth”.

While the conference is a private sector event, it will have full support from the Palestinian Authority, Fayyad said.

The Israelis have promised to facilitate the entry of investors to attend this conference.

Fayyad also said: “The most important thing now regarding Gaza is to end the siege”. Ma’an also reported that with regard to the Gaza border crossings, Fayyad said, “We are ready to take over these border crossings but Israel has refused and is trying to spread rumours that it is the Ramallah government who has refused to take control of these crossings so Israel can exonerate itself.”

Fayyad told the journalists and editors that “My government is working hard to arrest those who create security problems. We are going to repair all eight of the security buildings destroyed by the Israeli army. We must exercise our authority not only regarding weapons but with the courts and judicial system.”

Ma’an also said that “Fayyad seemed pessimistic about Israel and his dealings with them. He gave many examples of how Israel is trying to prove that his government is weak. He gave an example the Israeli army withdrawing from Nablus and despite their agreement the Israeli army continued their incursions and targeted assassinations with the intention of damaging the PA. The prime minister said he wasn’t counting on the Annapolis conference and the journalists laughed when he said ‘Nablus for me is more important than Annapolis’.”
The Ma’an report on Fayyad’s roundtable with Palestinian editors and journalists is here.

The Palestinian Authority has expressed outrage and concern that the Israeli Defense Force continues to operate in Nablus between midnight and 6am, during which time the Palestinian security services are supposed to stay indoors. By 9:26 on Tuesday morning, Ma’an reported today, “Israeli forces detained seven Palestinians on Tuesday after several military vehicles raided the city of Nablus in the northern West Bank”.