Interview with Felice Friedson, The Media Line 

TML:  President Abbas has issued a presidential decree that “state of Palestine” should be used wherever “Palestinian Authority” has been used until now. Has the Palestinian state been created?

Fayyad:  Not in the sense that we want one. The state that we are looking for has to be a fully sovereign state on the territory occupied in 1967 with Jerusalem as its capital where our people can live as free people with dignity. What we have, though, is recognition of our status as “state,” and intended to address that aspect of it but we still don’t have the state we’re looking for. What is missing is an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967. We’re here; we have the institutions of the state. This was an important threshold for the PA to have crossed, and it did so actually in the spring of 2011 on the strength of that 2-year program we talked about on several occasions, and it’s no coincidence that it’s mentioned in the preamble as providing another basis for the world to move in the direction it did on the 29^th of last November. That is absolutely important, for sure.

TML:   How has the Palestinian situation changed since the General Assembly elevated its status to non-member state? The status is higher. What’s different?

Fayyad:  That in itself is different. There’s a great deal of powerful symbolism; and if you’re Palestinian, having gone through what we’ve gone through and are still going through, for sure that symbolism was extremely significant. But beyond that, I go back to what I said at the outset: What we’re looking for is a fully sovereign state on territory occupied in 1967, and it is not yet there. So the reality on the ground is still much the same, except in some ways it is actually worse because of the retaliatory measures taken by the government of Israel in the aftermath of that vote in the United Nations.  So, there, too, occupation dominates everything else. That’s the reality on the ground. Israelis still in control of borders; the Israeli army is actually doing more incursions into so-called “Area A” – that is urban areas of the West Bank. The reality of the occupation regime as characterized by and implemented through a highly capricious control regime is still in place, and in some ways the situation is actually worse. For instance, money collected by the government of Israel on behalf of the Palestinian Authority has been withheld since that vote at the United Nations. Also, in addition, there have been several major announcements of additional settlement activity in ways that would do away completely with the viability – or whatever remains of it -- of the two-state solution concept. In addition, there’s been an escalation in two other important ways: One, the Israeli army executing orders of eviction – in several areas people have been given notices of leaving areas in the Jordan Valley and the north – also, the situation in southern Hebron continues to be very difficult; and there’s also been escalation in settler violence, in hooliganism and outright terrorism. All of these are matters of grave concern to all of us.

TML:  Go back for a moment to Israeli communities where they are claiming that they are not part of the Palestinian territories, why do you feel that at this moment it’s going to prevent a two-state solution?

Fayyad:  First of all, settlement activity has been repeatedly stated by virtually all, internationally; settlement activity is illegal under international law, and it has obstructed progress and it has undermined the credibility of the political process that’s supposed to bring the occupation to an end. So it’s been extremely destructive in all of these senses. But what I was referring to specifically was the announcement – several of them – that pertained to activity in the Jerusalem area and specifically the E-1 project. As anyone who knows something – or anything – about this enterprise will tell you, what this will do will be to completely isolate east Jerusalem from the rest of its Palestinian surroundings, thereby breaking up the West Bank into two major segments, so therefore while Palestinian statehood has been described internationally and diplomatically as something that has to acquire the feature of being viable and contiguous, I don’t know how much of that viability and contiguity will be left if, in fact, this project will be carried out and implemented. And with it, the clear intent to exclude Jerusalem from being part of the state of Palestine, as anyone will also tell you who is of any knowledge of where we stand and what we would regard as minimally acceptable to us, east Jerusalem is an integral part of the land occupied in 1967 and so therefore as such it has to be a part of the state of Palestine.

TML:   We’ve interviewed you before, and in the past, you’ve spoken about your reservations about the UN bid; and in the end, it went through. Do you feel the Palestinian people benefited, or not? Did it backfire in a way?

Fayyad:  Backfired in a way; it backfired in the way I described, in the sense that the government of Israel actually took the measures by way of retaliation it did; it had actually threatened to take such measures before we went to the UN. You know, my position all along on international diplomacy pertaining to the Palestinian question, our cause, has been consistent. That is, whatever it is we do, we should seek – as we do -- to leverage our position to the fullest extent possible as long as that move did not represent the last thing we had to do to get that genuine fully sovereign state ofPalestine. And that’s where I was coming from whenever I was asked about this particular issue. In terms of where it stood relative to the ultimate goal of fully sovereign and viable state on territory occupied in 1967, of course we were always mindful of the risks inherent in this if Israel acted in the manner consistent with the threats it had issued. I questioned then, at the time those threats were issued whether Israel should feel free to issue them to begin with because, after all, if you really think about it, regardless of where you came to this issue from, what angle you took, from my point of view, what I all along wanted and still do want, is to engage in a way that maximizes our leverage and brings most of the world – and I hope all of it – that helps us really to cross that finish line to freedom. But what is it we did that should even warrant the threat of retaliation or worse, actual retaliation itself? What we did was to exercise an option that was available to us under existing international law and existing articles of international diplomacy. What we did was to go to the United Nations, custodians of international law, the very institution that had given Israel its birth certificate 65 years ago. I questioned whether the world should really have let those threats go by without calling Israel on them, and here we are. Israel has acted out on those threats and that has been detrimental.

TML:  How about the United States? Has it strained relationships with the US?

Fayyad:  Yes. The United States was one of nine members that voted against and of course, we knew before the vote that the US was opposed to this; they expressed this publicly and communicated that to us all along. There was no surprise. Their angle, and they stated this repeatedly, they felt that the right way to go about this was through negotiations, and negotiations is not something that we abandoned. And we did not seek to signal an abandonment of political process or negotiations as we did go to the United Nations. It’s a question of how much faith can you continue to have in a political process that began 19 years ago taking Oslo as the starting point. And not only with not delivering relative to the overall overriding objective of ending the occupation, that was a period that actually if anything had witnessed an occupational regime that became more deeply entrenched and continues to become more deeply entrenched by the day. That is really the issue: what is it that can be done to restore some credibility to that process; to get all players to invest again and the capacity of that process to deliver. It’s not that we take it lightly – the difference of view with the United States – we don’t. But I think that the United States will agree, for sure, that the record so far has been dismal and one that has produced a lot of frustration where the process has gone on so long without coming close to delivering.

TML: President Abbas had stated that he was going back to talks but this has not happened. Are there any plans? What will it take?

Fayyad:   A number of things related to getting conditions right and in terms of resuming a political process on a basis and in a way that could begin to actually inspire hope again. There are some issues relating to the fact that the United States administration is in transition. Also, Israel is going through elections, so some of it may be related to just that. But some serious thinking has to go into what it is that has to be done so that when the process is re-launched again, it’s re-launched on a much sounder basis than what we had to deal with and to work with over the past 19 years. 19-years is a long enough time for there to be a pause to rethink strategy. That is not to say that we no longer have faith in the political process or in continuing to pursue our goal of freedom through effective engagement or through diplomacy or through direct negotiations which we believe have to take place because there are issues, obviously, that the parties have agreed to address bilaterally. That’s what we need to do, but at the same time I think that continuing to do the same thing while expecting different results after 19 years would not be a wise recipe for the process going forward.

TML:   Does it matter whether Prime Minister Netanyahu remains prime minister or whether opposition takes over?

Fayyad:   The present composition of Israel body politic is a challenge. I think that almost regardless of what kind of government emerges from this – and we have seen this, as a matter of fact over the past four years or so – I think it is partly because the Palestinian question or relations with Palestinians or what the public expects their government to do did not feature prominently in the last elections. Surveys taken recently in Israel all show majority support for the notion of a Palestinian state alongside Israel – and that is significant for that to be the case. But when that is tested, and you take it to the Knesset [parliament] or to the Israeli government, you find that actually within the governing coalition that there are sharp views that have disagreement with this.

TML:  Speaking about your own politics, there haven’t been [Palestinian] elections…

Fayyad:   That’s obvious and that’s something that needs to be redressed. And that’s part of the other matter that has to be fought, what I call the building of the political system democratically. That track is not something that should be seen as a luxury, but one that actually cannot but reinforce our path to freedom. And that other track, through effective engagement I hope we’ll be able to get to the finish line and cross the threshold to freedom. It’s absolutely essential that the process we began with by having local elections, which was a key step, would be as a matter of fact, taken advantage of to have elections as soon as possible.

TML:  Is there any movement there?

Fayyad:   There isn’t, as in the other area, in regard to political engagement with Israel, important factors have gotten in the way of getting there, most notably, of course, the state of political separation that’s been with us for more than 5 ½ years, now. Last year, I thought it important to begin thinking seriously about moving forward with elections even if that state of separation did not end. The key immediate consideration for us is for that state of separation to end. It is absolutely devastating to continue governing without a legislature. It’s absolutely essential for us to have a legislature that functional and functioning.

TML:  Almost as essential as having funding, and on that note, you had some harsh words for Arab nations that had promised funding but had not fulfilled their promises. Why is this the case and don’t they see how the cash shortage is effecting development?

Fayyad:   I was making a factual statement and I was not intending for it to be harsh. I was responding to a question that asked whether Europeans had paid and I said Europeans are fully paid. And, as a matter of fact, Americans, but for the $200 million held up by Congress, money pledged until then was disbursed. That is not something I can say about all Arab donors. Some did; but most didn’t. And that really left us in a situation of extreme financial difficulty. The genesis of our financial difficulties lies in the fact that key Arab donors did not provide the funding pledged or programmed in our budgets and agreed to. That started about 2 ½ years ago and with it, financial difficulties started to gather, getting more and more progressively difficult to the point where we found ourselves in a crisis situation. But of course, when the government of Israel moved to stop and suspend the transfer of revenues it collected on our behalf, that dealt us a devastating blow because we were already in a very weak position and that brought us to the point of complete incapacitation. What we have is a situation where from month-to-month financing deficit was carried over. I estimate that what we really need right now to get out of the financial difficulty because of the shortfall is about $600 million minimally. For this year, it is important that we get about $100 million a month to make ends meet. Otherwise, it will not be possible for the PA to overcome its financial difficulties and function normally. And if we can’t function normally, we’re going to have problems like the kind we had over the past few years that led to the PA not being able to meet its obligations in a timely fashion including salary payments. Our employees have not been paid. This is a dire situation.

TML:  Why have the Arab donors been so difficult?

Fayyad:  I don’t think there is one explanation. But what I find difficult to take, in particular, is lack of delivery, at least so far, on a decision that was taken, a resolution that was taken, by Arab leadership at an Arab summit that was held last spring in Baghdad when Arab leaders agreed to set up the so-called “Arab financial safety net” in the amount of $100 million per month which would be activated in the event the government of Israel would withhold the transfer of Palestinian Authority funds it collects. That withholding did take place; it started last December. So the act that was to trigger the activation of the safety net happened. But why have we not seen an activation of the safety net? It was also reaffirmed in the context of meetings of Arab follow-up ministerial committees on three separate occasions.

TML:  Has this affected the private sector as well?

Fayyad:  Oh, for sure. And even before the most recent episode of the withholding of money by the government of Israel – and this is the sixth time – the PA was going through what could be described as a deep crisis. We tried first to deal with it by borrowing. As a consequence of the financial crisis, arrears began to pile up. The private sector supplied, but was not getting paid in a timely fashion – a year, year and a half, sometimes even two years. The largest purchaser of goods and services came to the level of being a deadbeat. What are they going to do? Invest in another production line or begin to shrink production and lay people off? It’s the latter, for sure. And that explains the onset of the economic slowdown that began in 2010.

TML:     Prime Minister Fayyad, last week Fatah was welcomed in the Gaza Strip in what some are calling a massive call by the people for reconciliation. Hamas was allowed to hold a celebration in the West Bank under your administration. Are we finally seeing signs of reconciliation?

Fayyad:    I think those scenes you saw, especially in Gaza, what I saw was a scene where the people made a very clear and unequivocal statement demanding an end to the state of separation. Demanding reconciliation. It’s definitely what people want, definitely where people are and definitely where we should get. There’s no question about that. Notwithstanding those vast differences; we’re not the only people with sharp differences of views but not only politically, but also socially and culturally. Nevertheless, we need to find a way to coexist; to manage that pluralism. It’s a feature that tends to be in demand when you look at the political development of a nation. Pluralism is a desirable thing; a natural thing.

TML:  You’ve likened this to the parties in Israel with vast differences that live together; why is it so difficult for the Palestinians?

Fayyad:   That’s exactly my point. We should overcome those difficulties to the point of being able to manage our coexistence. And I think it should be possible. You’re exactly right, just like the government of Israel is a coalition of parties that are not all like-minded. Why is it so impossible for us to get together in a like fashion in a manner that allows us to manage that coexistence? The object should not be to eliminate the difference of view, but to find a way to reasonably manage it in a way that would still allow us to engage and engage effectively with the international community. And I think that’s possible.

TML:   When 1,000 Hamas members held by Israel were released in the Gilad Shalit deal, Hamas chided that it produced results while the Fatah-PA only talked. We heard the same taunts after the recent week of fighting between Hamas and Israel. You, yourself, made statements that agreed with that assessment. Has the idea of a peaceful campaign been lost?

Fayyad:   There’s no question that as a consequence of the events you just mentioned we have sustained what I myself have termed as “doctrinal defeat” in terms of the doctrine espoused by the PA: one of engagement and a non-violent path to freedom. I think it was seriously and severely challenged by the events you have mentioned in terms of the efficacy of this approach; in terms of its capacity to deliver results. I do not take it in a resigned way. It’s something we’ll have to deal with and live with it forever. And that’s the situation right now. As a product of  years where we were actually not able to produce. You mentioned the Shalit deal: in that prisoner exchange, Cpl. Shalit was exchanged for more than 1,000 prisoners when we in the PA were continuing to be looking for the ability to get some prisoners released. We had some successes here and there, but they were far and few between. The most recent attempt at getting some prisoners released, last year we were not able to secure the release of some pre-Oslo prisoners.

TML:  What is giving Hamas the upper hand (in getting prisoners released)?

Fayyad:   There’s behavior and there’s reaction to the behavior. There’s another player here and I think you would be right to ask the government of Israel. The government of Israel does have choices to make and it makes them every day. Why is it that in the context of talks with the Palestinian Authority on not even necessarily permanent status issues – that’s purview of the PLO; but on day-to-day issues; issues related to living conditions, issues of movement, of whether or not we can build a school in Area “C”’ whether we can have access to natural resources; whether we can have adequate drinking water. Whether we can get some prisoners released? Why is it that it takes forever before we can get to the point where something is called “sensible” and we agree --- and it takes more time until we can implement it? There needs to be a paradigm shift in the way the government of Israel deals with the Palestinian Authority if we’re going to be able to overcome that doctrinal defeat.

TML:   The Palestinian Authority relies very heavily on Israel in terms of their economy. What is that percentage in terms of goods, etc.?

Fayyad:   Vastly. For example, if you take trade, we’re highly dependent on the Israeli economy. On both import side and export side. Two-thirds of our imports come from Israel. A larger part of our exports go to Israel. We’re dependent. Part of it is proximity, but the larger explanation lies in lack of adequate access to markets that lie outside. We’re not in control of borders. It’s very difficult to try to be competitive, for our private sector to be adequately competitive given that highly capricious control regime. Whether we’re talking about movement. Whether we’re talking about requirements for doing business that have something to do with the occupational regime, especially when it comes to getting permits, the high degree of uncertainty associated with it. Doing business here is not easy.

TML:   A new terrorist organization in Hebron declared the start of the Third Intifada and threatened to kidnap Israeli soldiers. The Palestinian preventive security force arrested them. What preventive steps is your government taking to quash violence?

Fayyad:   Intifadas are not declared or decreed. Intifada, to me, is a response to a situation that’s not acceptable. It’s not a cell of a few people declaring one. In this sense, therefore, I see Intifadas in a form that maybe others don’t. People are waiting for an Intifada to happen when to me, it’s an act of defiance that is actually conveyed every day by our people, persevering; by our people insisting on persevering; the will to survive, the act of constructive defiance. To those who talk about declaring an Intifada, I would say, “Look at what it is that our people are actually doing every day. Look at that expression of defiance. Difficulties and all. Challenges and all. They’re persevering. That to me is the highest form of defiance. It’s the essence of what Intifada is about, anyway.

TML:   Some charge that your government is failing to prepare its people for peaceful coexistence because it glorifies those responsible for violent acts. How do you respond to those who say the culture of peace is not being taught?

Fayyad:   Cultural peace, as a matter of fact, has a greatest chance of gaining roots in a context that actually promises peace. And I think that the beginning was good. When this whole process began, there was a lot of activity that was anchored on this, creating conditions of acceptance of the other; learning more about the other; engaging in discussions. At all levels. We’re not talking about political engagement here; we’re talking about people-to-people initiatives, some of them are still happening today. Cultural peace, in order for it to actually take root people have to at least begin to get a sense of possibility about attainability of peace. And with it, about the current and ongoing state of injustice giving way to do-able peace and justice.   That has not happened. It is unfortunately the case that we’re dealing with a conflict that is riddled with difficulties and complexities beginning with vastly different narratives; hostilities; wars; military conflict and what have you. And when you have a situation like this, you cannot expect to have an environment and a culture that is all okay. The challenge for us is to change it, and I’m a firm believer in it. Being open to discourse, discussion and engagement are all necessary ingredients.

TML:  There are Palestinians who are feeling much more pressure today if they engage with Israelis…

Fayyad:  This partly, at least, reflects what I just said to you. Let’s say Ramallah for making a point. You are engaging tomorrow in an activity in the nature of people-to-people discourse with Israelis, and the night before, there is an Israeli military raid on Ramallah. How would that make you feel? Worse! If the night before you’re consoling the family that has lost a young man or woman in the way the Israeli army deals with non-violent Palestinian protests sometimes, how would you feel about going through with that activity? What if settlers had just raided the community? Uprooted trees and terrorized citizens, or worse. Desecrated a mosque. All of these acts retard progress in an environment where a culture of peace would flourish. That should be our goal. And we should really act on both tracks simultaneously. We should promote that kind of discourse leading to better understanding with the other; proactively creating a culture of peaceful coexistence. At the same time, this really has to be bolstered by activity in a broader context of peacemaking that appears to project some possibility of success which the current context has not really promised  and in fact, has failed miserably to deliver.

TML:  Prime Minster Fayyad, President Abbas is threatening to disband the PA. Western pundits dismiss it as rhetoric. What do you say?

Fayyad:  It’s not rhetoric in the fundamental sense of the PA going through the difficulties through which it’s going with the grip of the financial crisis being the worst ever. It’s not a question of a willful act of disbanding. It’s not really rhetoric in the sense that under the pressure that the PA is facing all these challenges and pressures, and that the PA will simply cease to be able to function. That is not rhetoric, it’s reality and we see it every day. There’s an erosion in the ability of the PA to deliver in just about every sphere of government. And if it is not really cause of concern to the point where it is viewed as rhetoric, I think that really in itself is serious and requires some serious thinking and consideration.

TML:  Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister.