Palestinians Deserve Better Than Mahmoud Abbas Why Salam Fayyad represents a more credible path toward Palestinian dignity, accountable government, and peace
Mahmoud Abbas was once presented as the pragmatic Palestinian alternative to armed struggle. When Palestinians elected him president of the Palestinian Authority in 2005, many hoped he would strengthen Palestinian institutions, advance negotiations with Israel, and lead his people toward independence.
More than two decades later, that promise has not been fulfilled.
Abbas remains in power despite the expiration of his four-year electoral mandate in 2009. Palestinians have not voted in a presidential election since 2005. [1] Legislative elections scheduled for 2021 were postponed shortly after candidate registration closed. The official explanation focused on Israel’s refusal to guarantee Palestinian voting in East Jerusalem, but the election was postponed without a new date. [2]
Longevity Is Not Leadership
Abbas has accumulated titles, authority, and years in office, but longevity should not be confused with legitimacy. A president cannot credibly demand Palestinian self-determination abroad while indefinitely denying Palestinians the opportunity to choose their leadership at home.
The Palestinian political system has become trapped between two failed models. Hamas offers armed Islamist rule, permanent confrontation, and the militarization of civilian society. The Palestinian Authority offers an aging political establishment that has failed to renew its democratic mandate or persuade Palestinians that peaceful politics can produce meaningful results.
Palestinians deserve more than a choice between militias and stagnation.
Abbas has condemned attacks against civilians and has maintained security coordination that helped prevent further violence. In 2025, he also revoked the previous prisoner-payment system and transferred assistance to a welfare-based framework, responding to long-standing concerns that payments were connected to the nature of an individual’s imprisonment rather than financial need. [3] These decisions should be acknowledged.
But isolated reforms cannot replace democratic legitimacy. Nor can Abbas restore public confidence by arranging succession from within the same closed political circle. The creation of a Palestinian vice-presidential position, followed by the appointment of longtime Abbas ally Hussein al-Sheikh, was conducted through existing PLO institutions rather than a direct national election. Abbas also retained the authority to dismiss the officeholder. [4]
That is managed succession, not political renewal.
The Alternative Palestinians Need
If Palestinian politics is to escape this cycle, it requires a leader who understands that independence is built through institutions as well as declarations. That leader is Salam Fayyad.
Fayyad, an economist and former Palestinian Authority finance minister, served as prime minister from 2007 to 2013. During his tenure, he introduced extensive state-building plans centered on institutional reform, modern public services, financial accountability, economic development, and professional security institutions. [5]
His approach became known as “Fayyadism.” Its central idea was simple but revolutionary in a region dominated by slogans: Palestinians should begin building the institutions of a viable state instead of waiting for a final diplomatic agreement to create them.
The 2009 government program associated with Fayyad envisioned a Palestinian state that would reject violence, coexist with its neighbors, respect the rule of law, protect equality, and build capable public institutions. [6] This was not surrender. It was an attempt to transform Palestinian nationalism from a culture of resistance into a project of responsible governance.
Fayyad’s record was not perfect. His government operated without a renewed legislative mandate, depended heavily on international assistance, and faced criticism over its security policies and economic model. He also never developed the mass political organization necessary to defeat Fatah or Hamas electorally. Endorsing him should not require hiding these weaknesses.
But Fayyad offers something increasingly rare in Palestinian politics: a record based on building rather than merely blaming.
Peace Requires a Palestinian Partner and an Israeli Partner
Supporting Fayyad does not mean asking Palestinians to abandon their national identity or legitimate rights. Fayyad remains a Palestinian nationalist who supports Palestinian self-determination and strongly opposes the occupation. His political goals are not identical to those of Israel or its supporters.
That is precisely why his approach matters. A credible peace partner cannot simply repeat what the other side wants to hear. That person must possess legitimacy within his own society while recognizing that Israelis also have national rights, historical attachments, and security fears.
Fayyad has continued to advocate Palestinian statehood through nonviolence, political inclusion, institutional development, and a negotiated settlement. In 2024, he argued that a credible path forward required commitment to nonviolence and a renewed political process capable of producing Palestinian unity and an eventual state in the West Bank and Gaza. [7]
Israel must also make such leadership politically possible. No Palestinian reformer can demonstrate the value of peaceful state-building if settlement expansion continues, Palestinian movement remains severely restricted, settler violence goes inadequately addressed, and every diplomatic path appears permanently closed. If moderation produces only humiliation and territorial fragmentation, extremists will use that failure as evidence that violence is the only available language.
Peace therefore requires responsibility from both societies. Palestinians must reject armed factions that place weapons above civilian government. Israelis must reject policies that make a viable and peaceful Palestinian future impossible.
A Lesson Lebanon Understands
As a Lebanese person, I know what happens when armed organizations become stronger than national institutions. Militias claim that their weapons protect the people, but those weapons eventually give them the power to choose war on behalf of everyone else. Civilians inherit the destruction while unelected commanders retain control.
Palestinians should not be condemned to that model. Neither Hamas nor any other armed faction should possess an independent military apparatus capable of dragging Palestinian civilians into war. There must be one legitimate government, one accountable security system, and one law.
But replacing militia rule with an unaccountable presidency is not enough. A genuine alternative must combine security with democracy, national dignity with peaceful coexistence, and independence with competent government.
Fayyad represents that possibility more convincingly than Abbas.
Palestinians Must Make the Final Choice
No Lebanese, Israeli, American, or European commentator has the right to appoint the Palestinian president. That decision belongs to Palestinians through free, competitive, and transparent elections.
Endorsing Salam Fayyad therefore means endorsing his candidacy and political model, not demanding his installation by foreign governments. He should present his program to Palestinian voters, face competing candidates, answer criticism, and earn a democratic mandate.
The same principle applies to Mahmoud Abbas. His legacy should be judged by voters, not protected indefinitely by the absence of voting.
Palestinians need a leadership transition. They need institutions that serve citizens instead of factions, diplomacy connected to achievable objectives, financial transparency, protection for political dissent, and an uncompromising rejection of attacks against civilians.
Salam Fayyad cannot solve the conflict alone. No Palestinian leader can. But compared with the political stagnation surrounding Mahmoud Abbas and the destructive militancy offered by Hamas, Fayyad represents the strongest available foundation for a different future.
Palestinians deserve the right to test that alternative at the ballot box.
Sources and Further Reading Freedom House, “West Bank: Freedom in the World 2024” Palestinian Central Elections Commission, “Previous Election Events” Reuters, “Palestinian president scraps prisoner payment system criticised by US” Associated Press, “Palestinians create role for a vice president and possible successor to aging leader Abbas” Brookings Institution, “Salam Fayyad” Palestinian National Authority, “Palestine: Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State,” archived by the United Nations Harvard Gazette, “Roadmap to Gaza peace may run through Oslo”