Fayyad's apparent determination to build Palestinian state institutions leaves many questioning what kind of state he envisions precisely, writes Khaled Amayreh in Ramallah In a wide-ranging interview with the Haaretz newspaper this week, Salam Fayyad, prime minister of the Western-backed Palestinian Authority (PA), vowed to declare statehood before the end of 2011. "The birth of a Palestinian state will be celebrated as a day of joy by the entire community of nations. The time for this baby to be born will come and we estimate it will come around 2011. That is our vision, and a reflection of our will to exercise our right to live in freedom and dignity in the country where we were born, alongside the state of Israel in complete harmony." Fayyad stressed the Palestinians wanted a "genuine state, an independent, sovereign state, not a state of leftovers, or a Mickey Mouse state." He added that by August 2011, the PA would have amassed such credit in the form of positive facts on the ground that the outcome would be produced. "I envision that we will be so mature in terms of positive facts on the ground and along the way will have grown on you, Israeli neighbours, we will have begun a process of transformation from a concept to a possibility to a reality. It is the right of an oppressed nation to say 'enough'. None should be expected to stand for injustice, not least the Palestinians who have endured long decades of occupation." It is unclear at this point if Fayyad's statements are based on concrete political expectations or are just wishful thinking. A third possibility is that Fayyad sees a unilateral declaration of statehood as part of the continuing struggle to end the Israeli occupation that started in 1967. However, confrontation is not his style and he is unlikely to be thinking this way. Meanwhile, most Palestinians that are deeply frustrated by the many unfulfilled promises of the international community, especially since the hapless Oslo Accords, are not willing to give Fayyad the benefit of the doubt. Indeed, in light of the Palestinians' long and bitter experience with the Israeli occupation and the deference with which the international community has been treating Israel, regardless of its actions, it seems that Fayyad is underestimating and downplaying the "Israeli factor" which is the decisive and determining factor in the matter of Palestinian statehood, while at the same time overestimating the "international pressure factor" in furthering Palestinian statehood. In the interview, Fayyad argued that failure to build state institutions is impeding the establishment of Palestinian statehood, not the Israeli occupation. His suggestion that state institutions can be build under Israeli occupation, however, leaves a question mark over the nature of the state Fayyad is contemplating. Palestinian commentators lambasted his "skewed conceptualisation". Hani Al-Masri, a prominent political commentator and intellectual, said Fayyad was "turning facts upside down by suggesting that the absence of statehood is due to the lack of Palestinian readiness." "The Palestinian Authority did build many institutions following the Oslo Accords but [they] were utterly destroyed by the Israeli army after the year 2000." Fayyad cannot claim to be unaware of Israel's penchant to resort to draconian measures to abort Palestinian attempts to unilaterally declare statehood, or build a state. But contrary to Yasser Arafat's reaction to deadlocks in negotiations over such issues as Jerusalem and the plight of the refugees, Fayyad would resort to non-violent overtures in the hope that Israelis might be persuaded to cede Palestinian rights. In other words, Fayyad relies on Israeli magnanimity rather than on international law and the assertion of Palestinian rights. The Israelis haven't formulated a final response to Fayyad's strategy. It is likely -- if past behaviour is indicative -- that they will encourage him to continue to stress "statehood" while progressively retreating on cardinal issues such as the right of return of Palestinian refugees and the question of Jerusalem. Indeed, during the interview with the Israeli newspaper, Fayyad appeared willing to downplay the centrality of the right of return: he hinted that the main solution for refugees' plight would be for them to be resettled in any would-be Palestinian state, not returned to their towns and villages in what is now Israel. Predictably, this impression upset many Palestinians from across the political and ideological spectrum. Hamas dubbed him a "Zionist appeaser" who was "ceding the right of return in order to please and appease Israel." "Fayyad is a person without legitimacy, who has stolen control in the West Bank and whose hands are contaminated with the suffering of thousands of martyrs in the West Bank." The Islamic Jihad and Hizbul Tahrir, the Islamist Liberation Party, also lashed out at Fayyad, with the later accusing him of committing a "thunderous sin". Al-Masri, the Nablus-based commentator, opined that Fayyad was effectively selling the Palestinian people an illusion. "We have paid a dear price for this illusion, and there is no need to pay more for another illusion," he said, adding, "it would be foolish to rely on the goodwill of the international community which has been utterly unable to force Israel to freeze Jewish settlement expansion." Another Palestinian intellectual, Mohamed Al-Rifi, also blasted Fayyad for "giving Palestinians more analgesics". "We have been given... a president, a prime minister, a government, a cabinet and ministers... and we believed ourselves, we believed our own lies, and we became euphoric and jumped out of our own skins, carrying VIP cards and diplomatic passports... only to discover that the whole thing was a lie, a big lie. And Fayyad is now trying to reproduce the same deception and same lies while Israel keeps stealing more and more of our land." Fayyad denies that his vision of statehood excludes the right of return and Palestinian sovereignty in East Jerusalem. However, it does seem that in his quest to build a "state" by whatever means necessary, and in whatever shape possible, he might be willing to relegate the two key Palestinian issues -- Jerusalem and the refugees -- to a later stage.
