Actually, Fayyad steals a couple of lines, in an interview this week with AP’s Karin Laub in Ramallah.
The first is the one about not being an ATM machine [Fayyad did not, however, say “unfeeling ATM machine”].
Fayyad told AP, according to Laub’s report, published here, that “he would not serve as finance minister under a different prime minister, bristling at the idea of being kept on because of his strong ties to the donors. ‘That would not work … partly because it would most likely be seen as an attempt by our system to tell the world, here is a face that the donor community has been comfortable with, essentially looking at me more or less as the ATM’, he said. ‘I am not the ATM for the Palestinian Authority. I never was’, he said”.
The original, unforgettable ATM line is attributable to an Israeli official who was explaining, in June 2008, how angry his government was with Fayyad [politics are always personal].
Fayyad, at the time, had written letters to the EU and the OECD — in 2008 — urging them not to upgrade relations with Israel because of its continuing belligerent military occupation of Palestinian territory. The furious Israeli government ordered an examination of possible Palestinian debts to Israel that caused a delay in transfers of VAT and Customs tax to the Palestinian Authority [PA] — a classic go-slow action. According to Haaretz, the then-U.S. Ambassador to Israel [Richard Jones] asked what’s going on, and was told by officials in the Israeli Foreign Ministry that “they did not accept Fayyad’s ‘double standards’. ‘We’re not an unfeeling ATM’, one official told him. ‘We too are permitted to get angry when such scummy things are done to us’.” This unforgettable line is reported here.
The Magnes Zionist blog, written pseudonymously under the name Jeremiah Haber, commented then: “I am not making this next quote up. An Israeli official said ‘We’re not an unfeeling ATM’ … Oh, the humanity of that official! He is not an unfeeling ATM machine. Can you imagine if Israel actually had ATM machines with feelings like that of the official?”
Haber wrote that this Israeli reaction was an argument against the two-state solution: “So why is this an argument against the two-state solution? Simple. Whatever state the Palestinians have, they will be under the thumb of Israel. Sure, Israel may not have all the cards they have now, but they will have most … Mind you, this is how the government acts when it is miffed by a Palestinian minister, one, I may mention, who has been universally praised for his honesty and ability. I shudder to think what it would do against a country that had economic and military control…” This post is published here.
The Haaretz article mentioned above gave an Israeli explanation for their reasoning in this case; “Israel is furious with Fayyad, officials said. ‘We go toward him and try to comply with every request he makes, and he goes and acts in such a contemptible way’, a senior official said. ‘We permitted an additional 5,000 Palestinian workers to enter Israel, contrary to the defense establishment’s recommendations, and he says we’re infringing on their rights. This is unacceptable’, the official said”.
Haaretz also reported, based on an interview with “an Israeli source”, that then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert raised the matter of Fayyad’s letters in a meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas [Abu Mazen] who — according to the Israeli source — ” ‘fumed’ at Fayyad’s letters and said he had no part in it”.
What Fayyad actually did was interesting — he reminded the Europeans and the OECD of the 2004 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague on The Construction of The Wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory.
The ICJ is, of course, “the principal judicial organ of the United Nations”.
The ICJ determined, in its 2004 Advisory Opinion, that “Since the Court has concluded that the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to various of Israel’s international obligations, it follows that the responsibility of that State is engaged under international law“.
Israel’s construction of The Wall entailed “internationally wrongful acts”, according to the ICJ — which then specified that “The obligations erga omnes violated by Israel are the obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, and certain of its obligations under international humanitarian law”.
The prevention of another peoples’ self-determination has been viewed, in the modern era, as a very grave infringement of international law.
The ICJ, in its 2004 Advisory Opinion on The Wall, noted that “under the terms of General Assembly resolution 2625 … ‘Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the implementation of the principle’ . . .”
But then, Fayyad, in his interview this week with AP, moodily expressed scepticism of the Palestinian state that he has supposedly been working to implement for the past two years (and he has also developed another two year plan for the period after September 2011).
According to the AP report, “UN recognition of a Palestinian state would largely be a symbolic victory and would not change the reality of Israeli occupation, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said Tuesday … Fayyad, a political independent who has focused on trying to build a state from the ground up, expressed doubts about the U.N. campaign and warned against raising the expectations of ordinary Palestinians. ‘It is not going to be a dramatic result’, said Fayyad, who is not involved in decision-making on foreign policy, but enjoys broad support in the international community. He said he wanted to downplay expectations for something dramatic to change if it does happen. Asked if anything would change on the ground after U.N. recognition, he said: ‘My answer to you is no. Unless Israel is part of that consensus, it won’t because to me, it is about ending Israeli occupation”.”
Then, even more moodily, Fayyad steals another line, this time from Abu Mazen — and he threatened to resign, though not because of the continuation of the occupation, but instead because of intra-Palestinian infighting between Fatah and Hamas (also involving other Palestinian factions) about who would be the next Prime Minister in a “reconciliation” government that will now apparently be postponed until sometime after the Palestinians begin their moves seeking state membership in the UN in September.
According to the AP report on the interview, “Fayyad said Tuesday that he does not want to be seen as an obstacle to a unity deal, but noted that he has Abbas’ backing. Fayyad suggested he might withdraw from consideration if sniping by his political opponents continues. ‘This nonsense about (me) being imposed on anyone has to stop’, he said, visibly angry. ‘And if this continues for any length of time, that would be the moment when I step in and say, enough already, under no condition will I accept to serve’.”
Fayyad was appointed, of course, by President Abbas, in the immediate aftermath of Abbas’ mid-June 2007 dissolution of the short-lived “National Unity” government installed three short months earlier after Saudi mediation in Mecca between Fatah and Hamas. Abbas’ “political coup” was his response to what he said was a “military coup” by Hamas, which carried out a rout of Fatah/Palestinian preventive security services which Hamas believed, not without reason, were planning a military move against Hamas…
The AP added that “Fayyad also said he would not serve as finance minister under a different prime minister, bristling at the idea of being kept on because of his strong ties to the donors. ‘That would not work … partly because it would most likely be seen as an attempt by our system to tell the world, here is a face that the donor community has been comfortable with, essentially looking at me more or less as the ATM’, he said…”
“The now defunct Magnes Zionist blog”???
I assure you that the blog is alive and well, with its most recent post yesterday.
Why did you say it was defunct?
Sorry! Of course you are right… When writing this, I’d even read your most recent post, which is very interesting. It was clearly a mistake, due to confusion – and I do apologize. I’ve now made the correction.