The New Republic

This is a completely irrational flamethrower of a Peretz-post. If he wants to discredit Fayyad, at least pretend to use a few facts to persuade the reader. Political knife fights inside Fatah DO need to be understood by the Americans, but maybe Fayyad has a shot at political legitmacy from the ground UP that could stop Hamas momentum. Maybe not. Make THAT the debate, not this indirect vague B- movie trailer. let the reader consider these sources: Is this the article by Avi Issacharoff that is cited by Peretz? http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/mess-report/mess-report-indirect-mideast-peace-talks-a-highway-to-failure-1.287808 If so, did Issarachoff base his story on last week's more news-oriented story from the Jerusalem Media & Communications Centre? : "Fateh demands bigger slice of Fayyad's Palestinian govt" http://www.jmcc.org/news.aspx?id=807 Did Issarachoff/Peretz completely miss, or throw out the results from the "Palestinian Public Opinion Poll no. 40 conducted by the Center for Opinion Polls and Survey Studies at An-Najah National University during the period from 8-10 April 2010. ... "...As you know, there is a government in the West Bank led by Salam Fayyad and another government in the Gaza Strip led by Ismail Haniyeh. In your opinion which government is more capable of managing the internal Palestinian affairs? The government of Salam Fayyad 63.6 The Government of Ismail Haniyeh 20.1 No opinion/I do not know 16.3 How do you assess the performance of the government of Salam Fayyad? Good 65.4 Bad 26.3 No opinion/I do not know 8.3 How do you assess the performance of the government of Ismail Haniyeh? Good 31.2 Bad 45.3 No opinion/I do not know 23.4 ..." http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=47709 Is any of this related to the Palestinian Public Opinion Poll No (35) [March 2010] conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research? summary "While a majority of Palestinians supports holding local elections and will participate in those elections in the West Bank even if Hamas boycotts them, an overwhelming majority believes reports regarding corruption and scandals within the PA are accurate; these corruption charges weaken the legitimacy of President Abbas and Salam Fayyad’s government" http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2010/p35epressrelease.html

- K2K

May 3, 2010 at 7:52am

Must watch those comment breaks at TNR.com! repost with all sources: Political knife fights inside Fatah DO need to be understood by the Americans, but maybe Fayyad has a shot at political legitmacy from the ground UP that could stop Hamas momentum. Maybe not. Make THAT the debate, not this indirect vague B- movie trailer. let the reader consider these sources in addition to Issacharoff's "indirect-mideast-peace-talks-a-highway-to-failure": Was Palestinian Public Opinion Poll no. 40 conducted by the Center for Opinion Polls and Survey Studies at An-Najah National University during the period from 8-10 April 2010 not worth considering? "As you know, there is a government in the West Bank led by Salam Fayyad and another government in the Gaza Strip led by Ismail Haniyeh. In your opinion which government is more capable of managing the internal Palestinian affairs? The government of Salam Fayyad 63.6 The Government of Ismail Haniyeh 20.1 No opinion/I do not know 16.3 How do you assess the performance of the government of Salam Fayyad? Good 65.4 Bad 26.3 No opinion/I do not know 8.3 How do you assess the performance of the government of Ismail Haniyeh? Good 31.2 Bad 45.3 No opinion/I do not know 23.4…” http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=47709 Did Issacharoff base his commentary on this article from Jerusalem Center for Communications and Media on April 27? http://www.jmcc.org/news.aspx?id=807 “Fateh demands bigger slice of Fayyad's Palestinian govt” Or did Issacharoff only read this summary of Palestinian Public Opinion Poll No (35) from early March Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR)? “While a majority of Palestinians supports holding local elections and will participate in those elections in the West Bank even if Hamas boycotts them, an overwhelming majority believes reports regarding corruption and scandals within the PA are accurate; these corruption charges weaken the legitimacy of President Abbas and Salam Fayyad’s government.” http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2010/p35epressrelease.html

- K2K

May 3, 2010 at 8:15am

The Haaretz article you linked to didn't say what you said it said. "...with Fayyad stealing the stage and with his sole handling of the billions of dollars coming in from donating states. All can Fatah do [sic] is sit and watch as public opinion sways slowly but surely toward Fayyad in a way which predicts that he would become the leading presidential candidate in a few years time..." As I read the article, it sounds like Fayyad is doing just fine and is leveraging external support pretty effectively. He could lose out to Fatah in the end, but this fight is far from over. In any case it's too early to write him off. The situation is pretty dismal overall, I agree. But Marty, you sometimes seem to have a vested interest in seeing only the dark side of everything.

- gurwia

May 3, 2010 at 8:47am

Marty walks right up to the brink of saying something interesting and useful, but then stops. What are the "consequences of this hatred" as Marty sees it? Thanks to The Spine, we always know what Marty Peretz feels - anger, mostly - but never what he thinks.

- rhubarbs

May 3, 2010 at 9:27am

you're right rhubs. We get a pretty good sense as to what he feels. But he *KNOWS* something that Obama doesn't, whatever that might be. I swear, it's like a stephen colbert sketch. "I don't know with my head, I know with my gut"

- miceelf

May 3, 2010 at 10:07am

rhubarbs: as long as Peretz only reads Haaretz, HE will never know what he thinks. Marty just can NOT deal with complexity, so he writes like a drunkard plays darts. Fayyad is not part of Fatah, and was never elected by any polity, but appointed by Abbas. consider another view: Jonathan Spyer, Jerusalem Post, April 23 on "Arab World: A tale of two Palestinian authorities : "...PARALLEL TO the rise of Hamas in Gaza, and its ongoing popularity in the West Bank, Fatah is currently in a process of severe decline. The movement failed to embark on a major project of reform following its election defeat in 2006. As a result, it remains riven by factionalism and corruption. It is also, increasingly, irrelevant. The key Palestinian leader in the West Bank today is Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. Fayyad is not a Fatah member, and his government holds power not as a result of that movement's authority. Rather, Fayyad is in effect an appointee of the West. The security forces led by Gen Keith Dayton [$100 million to train 30,000 Palestinian soldiers], which keep him in place, are Western organized and financed, and not beholden to any political faction. His gradualist approach is quite alien to Palestinian political culture, and despite the undoubted improvements this approach has brought to daily life in the West Bank, the level of his support is uncertain. It remains widely believed that without the presence of the "Dayton" forces and more importantly without the continued activities of the IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] in the West Bank, the area would fall to Hamas in a similar process to that which took place in Gaza. ... The West, which also attaches massive importance to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has itself in turn been prepared to create, finance and underwrite a version of Palestinian politics and governance – that of Fayyad – which is to its liking, once it became clear that the Palestinians themselves were not going to do this. ..." http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=173761 What is the truth about Fayyad? [noga had some alternate points in a previous thread] Is General Dayton creating a Palestinian army in search of a state? Is that the only thing America knows how to do, create leaderless indigenous armies? What happens when the U.S. withdraws combat troops from Iraq this summer, leaving behind the U.S. supplied Sunni militias, the Kurdish Pesh Merga, and Moqtada AlSadr's Shi'ite Mahdi army, modelled after Hezbollah? on that cheery note, everyone have a good day.

- K2K

May 3, 2010 at 10:08am

" Salam Fayyad has been stating time and again that he is working towards declaring independence across all “occupied territories” in August 2011. He says that although he is willing to engage in negotiations with Israel, he does not view this as a requirement for Palestine’s establishment. The Palestinians demand the application of international laws on self-determination, he says, adding that Israel is not the only player in this game. As Palestinian prime minister advances his plan for independent state next summer, even his greatest opponents find it difficult not to give him credit for recent calm and order in West Bank Fayyad has also threatened to act unilaterally: “"We are not relinquishing negotiations as a method to establish a state, but in case this doesn't work we are preparing for a second possibility – to turn our dream into a reality." Fayyad is not a military leader. He is building himself up as a political leader, yet there is no better way to judge his actions than to examine his deeds on the economic front, thereby exposing the immense gap between his words and intentions." http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3879870,00.html

- noga1

May 3, 2010 at 11:28am

I think what Marty is trying to say (forgive me if I am wrong) is that internal issues within the Palestinian leadership/polity are underestimated by peacemakers. We're all aware of the conflict between Hamas and Fatah but I hadn't been aware that Fatah was not solidly behind Fayyad. If that's true this is a significant problem. It also implies that Fatah isn't really in favor of a Palestinian state that doesn't include Israel, and considering the right of return issue I think that may actually be the case. Certainly it seems to be the key problem with the Saudi peace plan or am I misreading their intentions? Therefore what are we doing? Note this doesn't mean I think we shouldn't continue trying to work for peace and find solutions - but I also think some key issues are being underestimated and also that we're ignoring other potential ideas such as formal close cooperation with neighboring states and also the fact that they might also want to consider making land donations to the Palestinians TOO (right?) and also dealing with issues of their citizenship in situ. None of the above seem to be publicly discussed. There is also the issue of what's involved in creating a "contiguous" Palestinian state. This would be one thing in an atmosphere of real peace and mutual respect and cooperation and something else again in a situation where a state is created but no peace is accomplished. Plus there is the issue of the diaspora much of which has been radicalized and is heavily armed, for example in Lebanon. I'm concerned about the PA "army" also, in this context. It is excellent that the US trained security force is beginning to keep order and is working with the Israelis on issues of mutual security. But - it would be ironic if, in a situation where the people and the leadership were at odds, and/or leadership doesn't agree with itself and of course in the context of the Hamas/Fatah issue, American trained forces wound up attacking the Israelis and/or the moderates within the PA, like Fayyad. Nu?

- Sophia

May 3, 2010 at 12:48pm

It isn't only Ha'aretz, but the Jerusalem Post as well that is reporting that the Fatah bigwigs are out to clip Fayyad's wings. JPost's Khaled Abu Toameh writes that they especially covet the finance ministry for the same reason that Willie Sutton robbed banks, because that's where the money is. Fayyad has been pretty much a lone wolf within the PA who has been tolerated because he brings home the bacon from the U.S. and the E.U., but the Fatah people dislike him because he is too honest and the Hamas people dislike him because he is too Western-oriented.

- NR114746

May 3, 2010 at 12:48pm

For 70 years, starting with the Peel Commission, proposals have been made for a two-state solution for Palestine/Israel. The starting point has always been a proposal offerred to the Arabs or Palestinians, which has then been rejected, leading to an end of negotiations, or to hostilities. For George Mitchell to have any chance of success, the starting point has to change. Any negotiation should begin with a Palestinian proposal presented to Israel, or at least a Palestinian statement of its vision for the future. Otherwise, the resulting failure is predictable.

- bbgandpg

May 3, 2010 at 3:27pm

"Any negotiation should begin with a Palestinian proposal presented to Israel, or at least a Palestinian statement of its vision for the future. Otherwise, the resulting failure is predictable." It's a great observation. I remember that one of the greatest sources of frustration for the Israeli negotiators at Camp David II was the absence of any reciprocity from the Palestinians in the process itself. The Israelis would present a plan. The Palestinians would say no. The Israelis would adjourn, consult, come with another plan, more concessions. The Palestinians would say no. And so on, so forth.

- noga1

May 3, 2010 at 4:00pm

"Prime Minister Netanyahu made a show of meeting with White House emissary George Mitchell on Wednesday, indicating that he was expressing Israel's posture of being willing to pursue peace at any time without preconditions. The Palestinians accepted the White House initiative and said they would participate. But when Prime Minister Netanyahu was meeting with George Mitchell, Mahmoud Abbas was traveling between Arab capitals getting input from his sources of support. He could not begin his part of the negotiations until the supreme Palestinian council met and approved the process, and that would not occur before Saturday. Abbas said that he would devote four months to indirect negotiations, while testing the Israelis, and doubting that the present Israeli government could deal in good faith. It is hard to imagine a diplomatic process that is more public than this one, and it is impossible to justify negotiations that must deal with sensitive issues in the full glare of the media. Success will demand concessions of well established postures from both sides. That will not happen when the domestic adversaries of each participant salivate at every hint of compromising sacred turf. Contrast what the Obama administration has done with Israel's earlier agreements with Egypt and Jordan. The first was preceded by secret meetings between Israelis and Egyptians, with the weight of Israeli interests carried by Foreign Minister Moshe Dyan. He was a military hero with a political background from outside the party of Prime Minister Begin, and had immense political capital to put behind what he agreed behind the scenes. President Jimmy Carter contributed something, perhaps essential to the deal. However, it came at the end, when the ground had been well prepared by the parties themselves. Bill Clinton's role in the Israeli-Jordanian agreement was even more symbolic. He did little more than appear at the signing alongside the agreed-upon border of the two countries. Mahmoud Abbas is being forced to negotiate when he barely controls the West Bank, is widely viewed among Palestinians as the head of a cadre of corrupt old men, and faces the intense opposition of Palestinians who control Gaza. Palestinian polls occasionally show a support for peace, but also show a support of violence. Palestinian education and media are a long way from accommodating themselves to a Jewish state alongside of Palestine. Benyamin Netanyahu heads a government titled along with him to the right. The Israeli population consistently polls in a way to support concessions, but also shows intense distrust of Palestinian intentions. Unlike the Carter and Clinton administrations, Obama has taken a course that appears to ignore much of diplomatic history. Rather than nudging participants to negotiate behind the scenes, he has forced them to talk in public. He also began poorly with the Israeli government and population, with the error of demanding a freezing of construction in neighborhoods of Jerusalem where Jews have been living for decades. Also in the air are the President's comments that the Middle East must be free of nuclear weapons. These have spurred panic among some commentators, who wonder if the President will offer Israel disarmament as an one more incentive in an effort to engage with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" http://www.usefulwork.com/shark/ "Unlike the Carter and Clinton administrations, Obama has taken a course that appears to ignore much of diplomatic history. " Clinton forced Barak and Arafat to attend Camp David in spite of clear signs of reluctance. The result of forcing a peace process is all too well known. But Obama is not one to be intimidated by the record of this or that disastrous outcome. Onwards he marches.

- noga1

May 7, 2010 at 8:15am

despite the NPT hammer on Israel, at least Abbas now has a script (challenge Hamas, blame Iran and Syria?), and there are worse things than having a four month coolling off: " 'US to ensure no provocations' By KHALED ABU TOAMEH 07/05/2010 02:40 [Friday May 7, copied from: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=174963] "Abbas, ahead of Mitchell talks: Israel gave us no assurances on J’lem. The US has assured the Palestinians there will be no “acts of provocation” by any party during the indirect talks between the PA and Israel next week, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said on Thursday. “The Americans stressed that neither party would be allowed to take measures or provocations that would harm the negotiations,” Abbas told the London-based pan-Arab daily Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper. “We relayed the US statement as it is to the Arab League meeting, which approved the launching of the indirect talks.” The PA understood that acts of “provocation” include settlement construction by Israel and incitement by the Palestinians, he said. Abbas’s comments were published on a day when US envoy George Mitchell met for the second time in 24-hours with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. The talks are taking place amid an almost total news blackout, with neither side releasing any information about the discussions. Mitchell is expected to meet with Abbas on Friday and Saturday, before leaving the region on Sunday. Abbas admitted that the PA did not receive any specific assurances regarding construction in Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem. He also denied that Israel had promised to release Palestinian prisoners ahead of the talks. Asked about the growing tensions between Fatah and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s PA government, Abbas said, “Fatah members have the right to say whatever they want. They have the right to like or hate Salam Fayyad. This is a large faction with different opinions. But at the end of the day this is my government. I choose the government and it implements my policy.” Abbas reiterated his opposition to Fayyad’s plan to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state by August 2011. He said that he and Fatah were opposed to the plan because the declaration should be made through an agreement (with Israel). Abbas also launched a scathing attack on Hamas, saying there were no real differences between the Islamist movement and Fatah. “Hamas says it’s against the firing of rockets and is talking about a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders,” the PA president noted. “So what’s the difference between us and them? There is no difference. This is no longer an ideological or political issue.” He said Hamas was smuggling weapons into the West Bank while it was punishing Palestinians who fire rockets from the Gaza Strip. “Every day we seize [Hamas weapons],” he said. Abbas said that despite the crisis, Fatah and Hamas were continuing to search for ways to achieve reconciliation. However, “outside forces” (a reference to Iran and Syria) did not want a solution to the Hamas-Fatah dispute. " " [Herb Keinon contributed to this report.]

- K2K

May 7, 2010 at 11:58am