Only the PLO can beat Hamas

When former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad resigned in 2013, Thomas Friedman lamented the death of “Fayyadism.” “If there is no place for a Salam Fayyad-type in [Palestinian] leadership,” he wrote, “an independent state will forever elude you.” As fighting rages in Gaza, a two-state solution seems more elusive than ever. At the Atlantic Council on Thursday, Fayyad articulated his vision for lasting peace in the region.

Fayyad traced many of the current problems to failed implementation of the 1993 Oslo Accords. Oslo was supposed to solve the permanent status issue, and ultimately create a Palestinian state. In signing the accords, the Palestinians accepted a temporary extension of the occupation. This “provisional” extension has lasted more than twenty years and is at the root of current Palestinian indignation towards the ruling Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).

In 2011, Israel traded more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who had been captured by Hamas six years earlier. The next year, PLO President Mahmoud Abbas sought to gain recognition of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations. Israel retaliated by authorizing construction of 3,000 additional housing units in the West Bank. The message, said Fayyad, is clear: violence trumps political solutions.

Abbas has paid dearly for his cooperation with Israel, with little to show for it. For many Palestinians, his party has come to represent weakness and capitulation. Hamas is seen as the last remaining pocket of resistance in a region that has all but abandoned the Palestinian cause. Hamas’ hand has only been strengthened by current war.

There can be no sovereign Palestinian state without Gaza, which has been ruled by Hamas for the last seven years. All parties, including Gaza, must be represented in any final-status agreement. And there cannot be agreement until the Palestinians demand, with one voice, a “date certain” for an end to the occupation.

Israel is mistaken if it believes it can “defeat” Hamas in the traditional sense. While Hamas has been in control of Gaza for seven years, it is not a state. Non-state actors measure winning and losing differently. As Henry Kissinger said, “The guerrilla wins if he does not lose. The conventional army loses if it does not win.” Hamas can still rise from the rubble and claim victory.

Fayyad said that it is unreasonable to condition a ceasefire on total demilitarization of Hamas. Israel couldn’t achieve this even when they were occupying Gaza. The Hamas-PLO Unity agreement should remain in place, he added. It is time to hold another election. Without electoral legitimacy, neither faction can govern effectively.

The new order cannot look like the old one.  It will not be easy, he said, but long-term reforms must be embedded in any lasting ceasefire agreement. The despair in Gaza is palpable, and it only burnishes Hamas’s credentials. As one woman told him recently, Gazans are alive “simply because there isn’t enough death to go around.”

In 1993, Palestinians recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace and security. Israel did not reciprocate. This goes to the heart of the disillusionment felt by most Palestinians. Fayyad was not optimistic about Israel’s willingness to recognize a Palestinian state. Since Oslo, he noted, politicians in Israel have been increasingly unfriendly to the idea of a two-state solution.

Israel will not vanquish Hamas militarily, Fayyad said. In the end, the only way to defeat Hamas is by empowering the PLO. This will only be possible is Israel ends its occupation of Palestine.