Fayyad and Dahlan: Has the Earthquake That Decision-Makers Fear Begun? By Shafiq Suleiman
Between Partnership and Exclusion… Palestine is Bigger Than Names
The return of names like Salam Fayyad and Mohammad Dahlan to the forefront of Palestinian discussion does not necessarily mean that they will return to any position, nor does it mean that there is an agreement on their program. But it means at least one thing: that the old new question is knocking at the door with force — can a Palestinian system be built on exclusion? Is it enough to disagree with someone to erase them from the scene?
You can disagree with Fayyad, you can criticize Dahlan, and you can reject the history of either. This is a natural right. But the more dangerous question is not: who do we love and who do we hate? The question is: what does the presence of these two names carry for the coming Palestine?
Salam Fayyad did not say anything emotional. He clearly stated that Hamas is part of the Palestinian reality, that eliminating it is not a solution, and that any serious Palestinian solution cannot be built on an attempt to erase it. He spoke about expanding the PLO to include Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the rest of the forces, and about a government of competencies managing Gaza and the West Bank within a comprehensive national framework. In international forums, he was even clearer: the idea of eliminating Hamas is unrealistic, and the path begins with uniting Palestinians and rebuilding the political umbrella.
This is not idle talk. Fayyad is not a man who says what he does not mean, nor does he speak from under the table. He said it in Washington, at Harvard, and in international political centers and institutions. And when a man of his stature says that the authority in its current structure has become irreparable, and that what is needed is comprehensive political restructuring and not mere administrative patching, it means that he is touching on a sensitive point: the problem is not only in Gaza, nor only in the West Bank, but in the shape of the entire Palestinian system.
Dahlan comes from a different angle. He has not only talked about reconciliation but has engaged in practical understandings with Hamas in Gaza, in community reconciliation files, and compensating the families of victims of the division. Then the understandings expanded to education, health, energy, agriculture, and financing small projects. The reform current itself has spoken about a political partnership with national and Islamic forces, headed by Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
One might say: these are tactical understandings, not a national project. Another might say: Dahlan is part of the problem, not the solution. This is a legitimate discussion. But what cannot be denied is that the man has a network of relationships and Arab and regional channels, especially in Egypt and the Gulf, and he has a presence in files that many preferred to leave closed.
The fear of Fayyad and Dahlan does not only stem from the history of each of them. It comes from the fact that they meet at one point: partnership instead of exclusion. Fayyad spoke about partnership, and Dahlan has experienced it on the ground. This very point is what disturbs the division system, because it means that the time of "I alone decide" may be coming to an end.
The two men have different and intersecting networks of relationships: Fayyad with Washington, Europe, international institutions, and some Arab capitals, and Dahlan with Egypt, the Gulf, and regional channels. This is not a small detail. Building relationships has taken years, and it is not an easy legacy. Therefore, talking about them is not just a return of old names, but it may be a reconfiguration of the entire Palestinian scene.
On the other hand, this call for partnership cannot pass without questions. The first is: who created the division? Who protected it? Who benefited from it? We cannot demand national partnership while overlooking everything. True partnership does not mean whitewashing history, nor does it mean that anyone with external relations is the savior. Partnership means that everyone is under the law, that public money is under strict oversight, that weapons are under one national decision, that appointments are based on competence and not kinship, and that any official, no matter how high their status, is subject to accountability.
Moreover, the talk about elections cannot just be a slogan. Elections are a right, but they require conditions, national backing, and a real reference. What is required before that is to agree on the rules of the game: who decides? Who has the right of veto? Who gave themselves the right to exclude the differing Palestinian? Twenty years of division have made every faction decide in the name of the Palestinian people without referring to them, under the pretext of the absence of consensus and reference. This is the disaster.
The political earthquake is not the rise of one person or the fall of another. The real earthquake is the collapse of a whole mentality: I alone decide, I alone appoint, I alone hold legitimacy, and I alone determine who is Palestinian and who is not. This mentality is what has brought us here.
Palestine is bigger than Fatah, bigger than Hamas, bigger than Dahlan, bigger than Fayyad, bigger than Abbas, and bigger than any faction or person. Whoever has a national project that unites Palestinians, please come forward. Whoever has a better program, let them present it. Whoever wants elections, let them go to them and accept their results. And whoever wants reform, let them start with themselves.
The future may be Fayyad and Dahlan, or it may not be. But more important than the two men is the question: what if the coming time is indeed the time of partnership? What if Fayyad, Dahlan, Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, and the rest of the factions and independents sat around one table? What if a Palestinian umbrella that accommodates everyone was rebuilt? And what if the Palestinian decision became the property of all Palestinians?
If anyone is afraid of this house, let them tell the people frankly: what are they afraid of? Of unity? Or of the day when no one can say: I alone decide?
