“Honestly, with 11 thousand dead the priority is not the Day After. But the ceasefire. This is not a war against Hamas: but against all Palestinians. Who are not being asked to go to southern Gaza, but to southern Gaza , in reality, that is the goal: to force them to take refuge in Egypt. To leave. This is another Nakba. And without an immediate ceasefire, there will be no Day After left to discuss. No Gaza.”
Salam Fayyad speaks from Princeton, where he is a professor of Economics. But like everyone, he is glued to the news from Shifa. For a long time prime minister, he is the man that many are thinking about in these hours: because he came to power in Ramallah with a caretaker government in 2007, the year of the fracture between Fatah and Hamas. Just to try to overcome it. And he left such a strong mark that it became a philosophy. Fayyadism. The idea, that is, of negotiating for independence, negotiating Jerusalem, the settlements, and all the questions still open: but in the meantime, building the State. Building its institutions, its infrastructure. Its citizens. A bit like Israel, which already existed in 1948, when it was founded. Shimon Peres called him: The Ben Gurion of Palestine. And many others, now, a “missed opportunity”.
During his years in power, as Gaza sank, the West Bank’s GDP per capita increased by 221%. And last year, 2012, no Israelis were killed.
Mr Fayyad, the priority is the ceasefire. However, there is no ceasefire precisely because there is no solution for the “Day After”.
“Let’s start with what is certainly not the solution: reducing ourselves to the limit, and then imposing a solution on ourselves from the outside. Against or without our will. Let this be clear.”
Many look to the Palestinian Authority.
“Meanwhile, I don’t know if the Palestinian Authority would be willing to govern Gaza. Returning there aboard an Israeli tank. But even if he were, would he be capable of governing it? No. And it is not a technical question, but a political one. It was already in crisis before October 7th. And indeed: its crisis, which is a crisis of legitimacy, is one of the reasons why October 7th occurred. It is incapable of dealing with the tensions in the West Bank, and would you like to burden it with Gaza too? The ideal, obviously, would be to have new elections. But that’s not realistic at the moment. And that’s why I don’t think about the Palestinian Authority. It would not be an expression of the Palestinians.”
And what is an expression of the Palestinians?
“The PLO. Which is our most representative body.”
But it does not include Hamas. Which is at the top in all the polls.
“In fact I am thinking of an enlarged PLO. As has been proposed for some time, on the other hand, because the war here did not begin on October 7th, and the problems are the same as on the 6th: even the PLO, which dates back to 1964, must be reformed. Hamas didn’t even exist in 1964. But not only did he win the 2006 elections: since then, he has gained more and more support. With Hamas, the PLO could speak for everyone. And appoint a government.”
And Israel? Would you accept Hamas?
“But the point is not to accept it or not: Hamas is there. And it cannot be eliminated. Because it’s not just Yahya Sinwar, it’s not just Gaza, it’s not just fighters: it’s a very complex movement. All things that Israel knows perfectly well.”
What is Hamas?
“Recover any newspaper from the 70s. Read about the PLO. Read about Arafat. He was seen as a terrorist. Exactly how Hamas is seen today.”
For Hamas, Palestine goes from the river to the sea. From the Jordan in the east, to the Mediterranean in the west. There is no room for Israel.
“And when Netanyahu brings out a map of the new Middle East, like at the UN in September, and Israel goes from the river to the sea, isn’t it the same? But no one ever says anything to the Israeli extremists. And certainly no one is thinking of excluding Israel from the negotiations.”
His years in government were years of political stagnation, but in the meantime, of dizzying development. And this is why Fayyadism is so cited now. Between weapons and negotiations, there is a very pragmatic third way: self-empowerment. Awareness of oneself and one’s potential: to become creators of one’s own life. Is your third way the right way for a difficult time like this?
“Now more than ever: it’s time to focus on ourselves. Because ultimately, it’s our state: it’s our responsibility. It will not come from others. As an act of generosity. This is how the Occupation challenges itself: by building a different reality. The problem, however, is that Israel has never accepted the prospect of a Palestinian state. The most he is willing to concede is always less than the minimum the Palestinians are willing to accept. She never really accepted even our existence. Our existence as Palestinians: not as Arabs. In his official documents, the expression “Palestinian people” is found only once: when Rabin wrote to Arafat in 1993, and recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people. Precisely so as not to directly recognize the Palestinian people.”
In Foreign Affairs you proposed a transitional government. Aren’t you afraid that it will be like the Oslo Accords? With a 5 year transition: and this is the thirtieth.
“And in fact, as I specified, the premise is the recognition of our national rights within the borders of ’67. Including the right of return. Only in this way will it be possible to negotiate. Only in this way will we have the guarantee that Israel is reliable this time. I don’t have the slightest desire for another Oslo. After all these years, having this sense of justice, and this clarity, is essential. And I repeat: as a starting point, not an arrival point. With precise deadlines. With a UN resolution specifying the end date of the Occupation.”
Another UN resolution? In 2022, there were 15 General Assembly resolutions on Israelis and Palestinians. More than all those on the rest of the world.
“A resolution of the Security Council. A binding resolution. If Israel really means to be a nation among nations, part of the international community like everyone else, cannot interpret obligations as recommendations. A red light is not advice. At the red light you just stop.”
For this new government, what would concretely be a significant first step to test whether this time it will go better than the others?
“He failed to say that it would be a single government. And so, let’s start with a connection between the West Bank and Gaza. Materially. A street. Or do we still want to enter from Egypt?”.
Sorry if I insist. But what if Hamas starts using rockets again?
The PLO would be committed to a peaceful transition. The meaning of Hamas’s inclusion, the meaning of an expanded PLO, is this. Have rules of the game. For everyone”.
But why should Israel trust you after October 7th? And say yes?
“Because otherwise we will continue like this. Even regardless of the moral question: it is in his interest. Is all this useful to him? All these wars? What does he get? And anyway, I can wonder about Israel up to a certain point. My freedom will not come from Israel.”