The Palestinian Authority’s endless excuses are the smallest part of the problem – analysis

For two decades, Palestinian politics has remained trapped in a struggle between the faction led by Abbas, Fatah, and Hamas.

By Khaled Abu Toameh, Gatestone Institute

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has done it again. On October 10, he announced that elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), originally scheduled for November 2026, will be postponed until September 11, 2027. No date had been set for a presidential election.

The decision came as no surprise to Palestinians familiar with Abbas’s record.

It was not the first time that the Palestinian leader had announced elections, raised expectations, and then postponed the vote.

The postponement of the elections presents a contradiction.

On one hand, holding elections under the current circumstances would almost certainly strengthen Hamas, the Iran-backed Islamist terrorist organization that won the 2006 PLC elections and violently seized control of the Gaza Strip in 2007.

On the other hand, Abbas’s decision cannot be mistaken for a genuine effort to reform anything in Palestinian politics.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) leader has repeatedly postponed elections, remained in office long after his mandate expired, and presided over a political system without a functioning legislature.

Even if Hamas would benefit from elections, Abbas’s indefinite rule is still a message that he has no intention of instituting reforms of any kind.

The ostensible postponement also does not absolve the Palestinian Authority of responsibility for creating a political system in which Palestinians lack a credible, democratic alternative to Fatah and Hamas.

In 2021, Abbas cancelled elections at the last minute, blaming Israel’s alleged refusal to allow voting in Jerusalem.

This time, he is again blaming Israel by citing military operations, settlement expansion, restrictions on movement, and obstacles to holding PA elections in the Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem.

The latest explanation, however, goes beyond Israel.

According to the official PA news agency WAFA, Abbas’s decision also “aims to provide an opportunity for comprehensive national dialogue to strengthen unity and address challenges facing the electoral process.”

In other words, after more than two decades in power, Abbas still needs more time to reach agreement with other Palestinian factions, including Hamas.

How much more time does he need?

Abbas’s latest maneuver vindicates the concerns raised by some Palestinians.

While elections can be important, they can also be bogus, faked, or even harmful, as one can see in Russia, Turkey, or Iran.

Elections do not mean there is a democracy, especially if they take place before any reforms.

Elections are needed after the institutions of democracy—freedom of speech and of the press, the separation of powers, freedom of religion or from religion, due process, equal justice under the law—meaning accountability for everyone, property rights, rights for women, children, and laborers, an independent judiciary, and so on—have been set in place and are smoothly functioning. Only then can there be elections that mean anything.

What is really needed to help the Palestinian people, now being held hostage by corrupt and self-serving leaders in all of their parties, is not just elections but reforms, all of them, and serious international accountability, starting with shutting down funding for slow or nonexistent compliance.

So far, the international community has been funding leaders who mistreat their own people first, then their neighbors and everyone else second. For the sake of the Palestinians, this has to stop.

That warning has become even more relevant. The postponement demonstrates that announcing elections is easy; allowing Palestinians to exercise a meaningful choice and hold their leaders accountable is another matter entirely.

Abbas’s latest decision is particularly humiliating for Western governments that have been urging the Palestinian Authority leadership to reform its institutions and renew its political legitimacy.

On October 13, the foreign ministers of Australia, France, Canada, and Britain issued a joint statement expressing “deep regret” over the postponement.

They warned that the decision would further erode public confidence in democratic institutions and called on the PA to reconsider its decision and hold elections without further delay.

“Credible elections are an important element of the commitment that President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority made to reform, including democratic renewal and accountable governance,” the ministers of the four countries said in their statement.

What happens now?

The postponement raises the question: what leverage do these Western governments intend to use when Abbas ignores their demands?

Will they condition financial assistance to the PA on measurable reforms? Will they demand a credible timetable, transparent institutions, and independent oversight? Will they impose consequences on Palestinian leaders who obstruct reform?

Or will they issue statements of regret, continue providing financial support, and wait for Abbas to pretend he is finally instituting reforms by announcing yet another—presumably fake—election date?

Western governments should also avoid the mistaken assumption that an election announcement, by itself, represents progress.

The test of reform is not the number of “presidential decrees” Abbas issues promising elections. It is whether Palestinians acquire institutions that can hold their leaders accountable.

Since 2006, Israel has held nine parliamentary elections, with another expected before the end of this month.

The Palestinians, by contrast, have held no presidential or parliamentary elections since Abbas was elected president in 2005 and Hamas won the legislative elections a year later.

The contrast is not simply a matter of competing political calendars. It reflects two profoundly different political realities. Israelis have repeatedly gone to the ballot box to replace governments, punish politicians, and resolve political deadlocks.

Palestinian politics, meanwhile, has remained trapped in a struggle between the faction led by Abbas, Fatah, and Hamas.

This struggle has included violent confrontations, arbitrary arrests, torture, and political repression. In 2007, Hamas routed Fatah forces in the Gaza Strip, killed and abused Palestinian rivals, and seized control of Gaza.

Since then, Palestinians have lived under two rival political authorities: the Palestinian Authority in parts of the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

The Palestinian Legislative Council has not functioned since 2007. Abbas formally dissolved it in 2018, further concentrating legislative and executive power in his own hands.

Abbas, now 91 years old, is still serving long after the four-year presidential term for which he was elected expired in January 2005.

He is about to enter the 22nd year of his illegitimate presidency without ever seriously having sought a renewed popular mandate at the ballot box.

Although each time Abbas called off an election, he blamed Israel, the internal Palestinian political landscape offers another explanation for his decision.

Abbas and his ruling Fatah faction are deeply unpopular among many Palestinians, who regard the Palestinian Authority as corrupt, authoritarian, and ineffective.

A recent poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found that 83% of the Palestinians believe corruption exists within PA institutions.

The poll also showed that Hamas leaders are more popular than Abbas and that 79% of Palestinians want him to resign.

Additionally, Abbas’s Fatah faction is divided by internal rivalries, while his political opponents have been exploring ways to challenge his continued rule.

Recently, Hamas and supporters of former Fatah strongman Mohammed Dahlan have reportedly been involved in efforts to develop an electoral alliance or joint political framework.

Such an arrangement poses a serious challenge to Abbas and his loyalists. For a leader who has spent years consolidating power, the prospect of a competitive election is hardly attractive.

There is, however, an important caveat. The postponement does not mean that holding elections under the current conditions would necessarily have been a good idea.

The Palestinian political system offers no credible, nationally competitive third alternative to Fatah and Hamas. Both parties have contributed to political repression and have obstructed the emergence of independent candidates.

Hamas remains an armed terrorist organization, while Fatah has presided over a system marked by authoritarianism, patronage, and corruption.

Western governments have too often treated elections as the principal answer to Palestinian political dysfunction. They are not. Palestinians need new leaders, new faces, and new political ideas.

They need pragmatic, realistic, and accountable representatives who prioritize the welfare of their own people over factional interests and revolutionary slogans.

They also need an overhaul of an education system that should prepare young Palestinians for peaceful coexistence, critical thinking, and economic opportunity rather than perpetuate hatred and glorify violence.

They need independent institutions, financial transparency, effective anti-corruption mechanisms, and a free press capable of scrutinizing those in power.

electionsMahmoud AbbasPalestinian Authority