Palestinians are distrustful of a proposal by Salam Fayyad to declare a state within two years, reports Saleh Al-Naami Both the Palestinian and Israeli public took great interest in a plan by Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad proposing the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state within two years, and another by former Israeli defence minister Shaul Mofaz, the number two leader in the opposition Israeli Kadima Party, suggesting the creation of a "temporary" Palestinian state on 40 per cent of the West Bank, excluding occupied Jerusalem. Chief Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) negotiator Saeb Erekat even said the Palestinian Authority (PA) would take its case to the UN Security Council for recognition of the prospective state. In response, both Israeli President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu warned against any unilateral steps by the PA, threatening a unilateral reaction of their own. As well as an angry Israeli reaction, Fayyad's proposal was met by near comprehensive rejection by Palestinians who view it as "a formula for continued occupation". Objections did not only emerge from Hamas and the Islamic Jihad but also most PLO factions and Palestinian intellectuals, who strongly criticise the proposal and charge that it is in compliance with Israeli goals. The severest blow came from Fatah itself. In a recent meeting of the movement's Revolutionary Council, several members openly accused Fayyad of plotting a "white, bloodless" revolution by revealing his plan without first consulting with Fatah. There is even talk of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas asking Fayyad to resign. Many Palestinian observers also draw parallels between Fayyad's scheme and Mofaz's initiative, describing condemnations by Peres and Netanyahu as "a decoy to make it appear as if Tel Aviv made a huge concession when it finally agrees to the plan". Fayyad is also proposing the immediate launch of efforts aimed at creating institutions of a Palestinian state, in order for them to be complete by the declaration deadline. What the Palestinians find suspicious, however, is the fact that Fayyad is coordinating his moves with the US administration and Quartet Envoy Tony Blair. There have been leaks from Palestinian and US sources implying that the proposal is part of a plan that US President Barack Obama will be announcing as his vision to end the conflict. Opponents list several criticisms of Fayyad's scheme. For example, PLO factions -- including Fatah -- assert that it is not within Fayyad's powers to declare a state, since this is the sole privilege of the PLO in which Fayyad holds no position. Khaled Mansour, a Palestinian writer and intellectual, noted that Fayyad's plan suggests creating a Palestinian state within 1967 borders, without clarifying if this includes all the land occupied in 1967. Mansour is also unsure if the proposal is open to any changes regarding borders. Another point of contention for many Palestinians concerns the right of return of Palestinian refugees. "The plan does not directly link the right of return to national goals," stated Mansour. "At times, it refers to ending occupation, self-determination, the creation of a state, but without mentioning the right of return as a national goal which must be reached." Mansour added that the proposal does not explain how to manage the commitments and signed agreements between the PLO and Israel. According to Mansour, Fayyad is suggesting that the PA should uphold all its commitment regardless of whether the Israeli side meets its obligations or not, which overturns the principle of reciprocity. He noted that the agreements signed by the PLO and Israel are an obstacle to implementing the plan because the Oslo II Agreement divided the West Bank into three zones: Zone A includes major towns and municipalities that make up three per cent of the West Bank and are under complete Palestinian control; Zone B incorporates towns and villages located in rural areas, accounting for 27 per cent of the West Bank, where civil matters would be under Palestinian control while Israel retained control over security issues; Zone C comprises 70 per cent of the West Bank and is under the civil and security authority of Israel. Mansour believes that keeping these divisions in place means that Fayyad would not be able to build the infrastructure of a Palestinian state without Israel's permission. This means Israel will have the final word on the form of the state. "What are the guarantees that Fayyad will remain in power for the next two years? What if elections or national reconciliation bring someone else to power?" urged Mansour. "Also, are there international guarantees that Israel will not demolish the infrastructure once it's built?" Many Palestinians criticise the plan for not referring to the national struggle, except in a solitary passing reference, which many feel diminishes the role of that struggle as the basis for liberation and independence. Fayyad's scheme also refers to the prospective state protecting Palestinian citizens, but this raises the question of who will protect the Palestinians from occupation and settler aggression. Palestinian observers believe that the opaqueness of Fayyad's proposal could make it compatible with Mofaz's plan, which asserts that Jerusalem will remain Israel's sole and eternal capital. The Israeli initiative also proposes the annexation of the Jordan Valley, which makes up 20 per cent of the West Bank, and the grouping of settlements in the West Bank. At the same time, Mofaz's proposal bars any sovereignty to the Palestinian state, such as the right to armament or a military force on its borders with neighbouring states, since the Israeli army will continue its sole presence at the borders. At the same time, the Israeli plan usurps the right of the Palestinian state to freely form foreign relations. According to Hani El-Masri, a prominent Palestinian writer, personal interest is one of the main driving forces behind Fayyad's plan. "Political ambition is what is moving Fayyad," El-Masri asserted. "He wants to be the president of Palestine. He is talking and acting beyond his authority as prime minister and more like a president." He described Fayyad's response to Netanyahu's famous speech and Obama's address, as well as his plan for the creation of a state, as "the prerogatives of the president and the Executive Committee". El-Masri warned that, at best, Fayyad's scheme will improve the conditions of occupation but will not end it, and compared it to Netanyahu's proposal based on "economic peace". He added that Fayyad is avoiding the issues at the heart of the Palestinian cause. "Where is the budget for confronting the Judaicisation of Jerusalem?" asked El-Masri. "Why don't they boycott the products made in Israeli settlements? Why don't they launch an international campaign to prosecute Israel's crimes?" He further believes that Fayyad's plan is doomed, noting that, the "occupation would not allow Fayyad to create a de facto state". Distrust in Fayyad's plan is further fuelled by the fact that he is unresponsive to the position of the US -- as recently expressed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- that a freeze on settlements is not a precondition for re-launching negotiations between Israel and the PA. Observers believe that Fayyad is also ignoring the expansion of settlements, which raises even more suspicion about the nature of the state he is proposing. Many assert that it is the very same "temporary" state that Mofaz is suggesting. Meanwhile, others wonder how many more settlers will find their way to the West Bank within two years. Another bone of contention is that Fayyad insists his proposal is based on the roadmap, which states that the primary commitment of Palestinians is to continue security coordination with Israel and to eradicate the Palestinian resistance. This gives cause for concern among Palestinians that Fayyad's scheme is nothing more than a formula to neutralise the Palestinian national cause by presenting an alternative to liberating the land through a reformulation of the self-rule proposal that was previously turned down by the Palestinians. They also see the plan as misleading because it uses slogans and allusions to a "state". Another concern is that Fayyad's proposal aims to rearrange priorities on the Palestinian national agenda, making the improvement of the living conditions of Palestinians more important than liberation.
