Uri Avnery on Salam Fayyad (not up on the Gush site yet):
IT IS impossible not to like Fayyad. He radiates decency,
seriousness and a sense of responsibility. He invites trust. None of
the filth of corruption has stuck to him. He is no party functionary.
Only after much hesitation did he join a small party (“the Third Way”).
In the confrontation between Fatah and Hamas, he does not belong to
either of the two rival blocs. He looks like a bank manager – and that
is what he indeed was: a senior official of the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund.
The 58-year old Fayyad is the very opposite of Yasser Arafat, who first
appointed him as Finance Minister. The Ra’is radiated authority, the
Prime Minister radiates diffidence. Arafat was an extrovert, Fayyad is
an introvert. Arafat was a man of dramatic gestures, Fayyad does not
know what a gesture is.
But the biggest difference between the two lies in their methods.
Arafat did not put all his eggs into one basket, he used many baskets.
He was ready to use – simultaneously or alternatively - diplomacy and
the armed struggle, popular action and secret channels, moderate and
radical groups. He believed that the Palestinian people were much too
weak to dispense with any instrument.
Fayyad, on the other hand, puts all his – and the Palestinians’ - eggs
in one basket. He chose a single strategy and sticks to it. That is a
personal and national gamble – and bold and dangerous indeed.
FAYYAD BELIEVES, so it seems, that the Palestinians’ only chance to
achieve their national goals is by non-violent means, in close
cooperation with the US.
His plan is to build the Palestinian national institutions and create a
robust economic base, and, by the end of 2011, to declare the State of
Palestine.
This is reminiscent of the classic Zionist strategy under David
Ben-Gurion. In Zionist parlance, this was called “creating facts on the
ground”.
Fayyad’s plan is based on the assumption that the US will recognize the
Palestinian state and impose on Israel the well-known peace terms: two
states, return to the 1967 borders with small and agreed-upon land
swaps, East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, evacuation of all
settlements which are not included in the land swap, the return of a
symbolic number of refugees to Israeli territory and the settlement of
the others in Palestine and elsewhere.
Avnery rightly observes this is a sensible strategy, but it raises
many questions. The biggest one is: will Obama and US support a
declared Palestinian state?
It's a significant, risky gamble, and one that could lead to violent
repercussions if it's not successful. But now there is a real
opportunity for such bold action, andit must be seized lest failure be guaranteed.
ntodd
