OPINION: Joel M. Margolis
Under pressure from leading Western democracies to form a legitimate government, the Palestinian Authority (PA) recently agreed to hold a national election on Nov. 18. It would have been the first such vote in 20 years. However, earlier this month the PA postponed the event to Sept. 11, 2027. The delay is supposed to help them avoid repeating the mistakes of the 2006 election. A look at the history shows why.
The Israeli-Palestinian Oslo Accords of the 1990s created the PA. It is an interim body with limited, non-sovereign powers to govern municipal affairs in Gaza and the major Palestinian communities of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). The Palestinians appointed the PA officials from the ranks of their left-wing Fatah party.
The Oslo I agreement ordered the PA to hold elections for a national legislature and a president.
As stated in Oslo I, Article III, the goal was to promote Palestinian leaders who would renounce terrorism and govern “according to democratic principles.”
The Oslo II agreement at Annex II disqualified any Palestinian candidates who “pursue … their aims by unlawful or non-democratic means.” Oslo I, Article V authorized the peaceful, democracy-minded representatives to determine the “permanent status” of the Palestinians through negotiations with Israel.
The PA held a national election in 2006, but it failed to produce the Oslo-mandated peaceful democracy. Most seats in the legislature were won by Fatah’s rival, the Hamas terrorist group. Hamas entered the election not to promote democracy, but to garner support for its holy war on Israel. Fatah repudiated the electoral outcome, leaving the PA to continue its unelected rule. Then Hamas waged a brief war on Fatah and seized control over Gaza.
Both Fatah and Hamas proceeded to prioritize their repressive anti-Israel “resistance” movements over democratic concerns. The leaders consolidated power through authoritarian decrees. They suppressed free speech, censored the press, and punished dissidents without due process. They confiscated untold billions of dollars of international donor aid for themselves and their terrorist schemes while neglecting local humanitarian needs.
Consequently, the Palestinians never fulfilled their Oslo obligation to elect democratic representatives with the legitimacy to negotiate their permanent status with Israel.
A Palestinian election today would likely replay the political disaster of 2006. No matter which faction wins, the other may ignore the results. An election victory for Hamas may also complicate the reconstruction of war-ravaged Gaza. Countries willing to fund the rebuilding want Hamas to disarm, but Hamas has other plans.
Even if the rival parties formed a unity government, the election would probably not break any terrorist habits. Surveys in both Palestinian political camps reveal that the most popular candidate for the Palestinian presidency is Marwan Barghouti, a terrorist serving five life sentences in an Israeli prison. Barghouti advises Palestinians to resolve their internal disputes through the humane channels of democracy but paradoxically urges them to settle their anti-Israeli grievances through the inhumane horrors of terrorism. Based on this background, his presidency would probably intensify the “armed struggle” against Israel instead of pursuing the Oslo-required democratic reform.
No one should assume the planned election will create a Palestinian state. Any elected officials would remain limited to the PA powers outlined in Oslo.
The Palestinian saga shows that an election, by itself, is just an opinion poll. To form a democracy, Palestinians must espouse democratic ideals. That means valuing human life, as opposed to craving martyrdom. It demands respect for the rule of law, including the Oslo Accords and election laws. It insists on treating Muslims and Jews as equals. It upholds freedom of speech and other basic rights. And it prevents public servants from embezzling public funds.
Before holding any more elections, the Palestinians should consult the 2025 Gaza Peace Agreement. The agreement’s opening sentence pledges to cure the anti-democratic movement in Palestinian society. It says, “Gaza will be a deradicalized terror-free zone that does not pose a threat to its neighbors.” Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Indonesia have developed deradicalization programs for Islamist militants in their countries. These programs would presumably work on militant Palestinians.
The Gaza peace plan ultimately complements the Oslo Accords by promising “a dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians to [establish] peaceful and prosperous co-existence.”
The peace process has been stalled by lingering warfare between Hamas and Israel. Nevertheless, the plan is endorsed by myriad world powers, including the UN Security Council, the United States, the European Union, and several Muslim states.
By commencing the globally backed deradicalization initiative and then scheduling an election, the Palestinians could dethrone their terror-obsessed governments and build a peaceful democracy. Then they could legitimately negotiate their permanent status with Israel.
For over a century, the Palestinians have ground a self-defeating ideological axe. They cannot escape that history with an election. They must make a decision: perpetuate the terrorist vendetta or invest in democracy.
About The Author: Joel M. Margolis is the legal commentator of the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, the US affiliate of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists. He is the author of The Israeli-Palestinian Legal War.
