Palestinian PM: 'Open and Democratic' Palestine Is Crucial
Salam Fayyad, the prime minister of the nascent state of Palestine, gave an interesting speech at the National Press Club this afternoon. Fayyad took repeated shots at his Islamist rivals in Hamas by describing the kind of Palestine he desires: "one that must be open and democratic, faithful to the rule of law, respect for human rights, cultural sensitivity and religious tolerance." Much more subtly, he used a trope of the Bush administration against it in a sotto voce challenge.
First, Hamas. I had the chance to submit a question to Fayyad. Can Hamas be a partner in a democratic, tolerant Palestine, or does its illiberalism render it a hindrance to his aspirations? Here's his response.
I think an important part of being in government, and an important part of leadership, is to make it absolutely clear to people as to where we stand on basic, fundamental issues. A lot of focus has gone in the past, traditionally, to the political side of the equation. Before it was a question about the broader issues of the peace question, and not as much attention was given to attributes of statehood, as I talked about in my statement today. The kind of state we aspire to have, the kind of society we would like to see the [inaudible] go up, that vision is very important to us.
I think it's important to speak forcefully, openly and with conviction on these issues, outlining a point of view that is in sharp contrast to the point of view, in many important respects, put forward by Hamas. There's nothing wrong with political differences or differences of view. Words, I think, can be blotted out, if only we can find agreement on the most fundamental issues that need to be agreed. And that is a security document that works to the development of the Palestinian people, and one that is consistent also with the need for us to live up to our commitments in this important period. That's key. Because these issues have to be debated, we have to speak our mind about where we stand on these issues.
He went on to call Hamas's takeover of Gaza a "catastrophe... The most significant blow to our right to attain freedom and fairness for our people since the occupation of '67. It was a major, major, major setback."
Now for the subtle part. By count, Fayyad used the word "freedom" nine times in his speech and during the brief Q-and-A that followed. That seemed a lot like a subtle challenge to President Bush's so-called "Freedom Agenda," or at least a test. How committed is Bush, in his final year in office, to taking steps that secure the liberation of a democratic Palestine? Fayyad rushed off after barely an hour to meet with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. That question, in all likelihood, lurked as the subtext for their entire conversation.
Comments:
Posted 02/11/2008 07:55pm with
Let’s see, Palestine HAD free elections and Gaza elected Hamas. Democratically and vouched for by those U.N. elections monitors. Yup, according to the U.N., it was a fair and open election. So fast forward to a ‘post modern early twenty first century of denial’ and oh-my-gawd, it’s Hamas! Ewww, their icky! Democratically elected but, icky nonetheless. Israel goes ballistic. These United States vis-a-vie the Bush administration goes ballistic. Israel proceeds to launch all manner of ballistic arms on the Gazans and of course, that’s perfectly admissible. After all, it’s Hamas and Hamas is icky! Israel puts the lock-down on the Gulag Gaza and turns Gaza into a concentration camp named Hell. Hamas gets just a mite pissy about the entire ethnic cleansing apartheid and the U.S., Israel, Europe, and mainstream media just can’t figure out what’s wrong with those icky Hamas types. Golly, what’s a Hamas to do when the world en masse ignores their plight? Or should that properly be, apartheid? Ethnic cleansing? Genocide? Yeah, probably that last one. Fayyad wants to play media monkey for the Bushistas and isn’t that most miserably sad. Fayyad best watch his backside upon arriving home. Hamas isn’t going to like Fayyad playing media monkey for the Bushistas. Who can blame them. Apartheid and genocide will do that to an oppressed and brutalized people.
Posted 02/11/2008 09:31pm with
It is clear to any detached observer that if not for violent resistence from Hamas and others over the years Israel would have already rolled over Palestine and consumed it competely.
Since this conflict, and most especially America’s part in enabling Israel’s occupation , hit my radar screen 7 years ago I have followed and looked at this in terms of what would I do if I were a Palestine? How would I react to the provocations, the land grabs, the strangleing of my country, the decimation of my livihood, the stealing of my resources, the collective punishment and humilations, the targeting of my unarmed children?
I have thought about this and wondered if Israel’s promised land had been part of Maine or South Carolina and they had used the same tactics here as they have used in creating their Greater Israel in Palestine what would have happened?
I am 99.9% certain that if that had been the case, Israel and the Israelis would have become extinct in short order and nothing but a small footnote in history.
I can’t condemn Hamas for their actions, I would do the same thing and probably more and worse in defense of my land and my family.