Four Questions for Fayyad

Salman Fayad has announced that he may resign as the head of the Palestinian Authority, where he earned an undeserved reputation with the media as someone who led the Palestinian Arab people in a moderate direction.

That reputation was earned because reporters never asked Fayad four basic questions about the regime that he led:

QUESTION ONE” Renunciation of the PLO state of war with Israel.

The charter of Fatah – the predominant element in the PLO and the PA – to this day continues to call for the destruction of Israel. Written in 1964, before Israel controlled the West Bank and Gaza, it uses the term “Palestine” to refer exclusively to Israel within the Green Line.

The charter declares that “Liberating Palestine is a national obligation,” and that “Armed public revolution is the inevitable method” for doing so. This cannot be dismissed as an irrelevant anachronism.

In August 2009, Fatah held its first General Congress in 20 years. Hope was held out for a charter revision, with violence officially renounced, but it never happened. Instead, Fatah continued to unambiguously embrace “armed resistance” to liberate Palestine.

How could Fayad agree to lead a Fatah dominated regime after such a Fatah war policy was reiterated?

QUESTION TWO: Delegitimation of Israel in PA textbooks.

The Institute for Monitoring Peace and Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT http://www.impact-se.org ) issued six reports on new PA textbooks issued over the last ten years.

Journalist and scholar Dr. Arnon Groiss, who translated these PA textbooks, and worked at the center for more than ten years, concluded that the new PA texts…

*Deny the historical and religious presence of Jews in Palestine.

*Fail to recognize the State of Israel.

*Demonize Jews and Israel.

*Assign blame for the conflict exclusively on Israel, totally absolving Palestinians.

*Stress the idea of a violent struggle of liberation rather than a peaceful settlement.

It was disingenuous for Fayad to profess dedication to peace, while the PA curriculum under his leadership infused such ideas within its pupils. Peace is impossible until that message changes.

Why did journalists not hold Fayad and the PA accountable for the new PA textbooks?.

ISSUE THREE: PA pursuit of Hamas as a coalition partner.

Throughout Fayad’s term of office, the PA inclination to participate in a government that included Hamas remained an “elephant in the room” which reporters, somewhat inexplicably, has chosen to ignore.

Hamas is recognized by the US and the entire Quartet as a terrorist entity. Pursuing negotiations with Israel and Hamas at one and the same time is not acceptable.

Why was Fayad not held accountable for continuing such negotiations?

ISSUE FOUR: The “Right of return.”

The “right of return,” promoted for more than 60 years by UNRWA and embraced by the PA as a non-negotiable right, remains a recipe for the decimation of Israel from within.

If Fayad was serious about peace, why was he not asked to accept the principle of perma­nent resettlement of the refugees? Only Palestinian Arab refugees are not resettled, but instead, for purely political reasons, are forced to linger in a (rage-inducing) state of limbo.

Fayad, in his master plan for a Palestinian state, openly stated that he supports the “right of return” – within the 1949 lines, not beyond them.

Shouldn’t reporters hold Fayyad accountable for such an idea, which is directly opposed to any two-state solution?