Palestinian Governments That Do Not Govern

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

No sooner was the appointment of a new prime minister for the Palestinian Authority announced than various media outlets rushed to examine the new prime minister’s character, the policies he might adopt, whether his policies would differ from his predecessor’s, the new man’s effect on the Authority’s condition and the money it collects, and its capacity to pay employees’ salaries regularly. The media figures’ questions were often marked by naivety and superficiality, as though they did not know the Palestinian reality, and had never experienced it at all. Their questions ought to have started from what has already become certain over the years, but they insist, again and again, on keeping their questions phrased to fit answers they already expect.

Personalities differ, and people differ in their performance and thinking according to their personalities, and every personality leaves its own fingerprint on the environment it operates within. One would normally expect one president’s performance to differ from another’s, even though both are bound by the same constitution and the same laws, and we cannot say one personality would be a mere copy of another, with identical methods and means. But we do not expect a wide difference in how affairs are managed, particularly when the moral, legal, and constitutional points of reference are the same. But this does not apply much to the Palestinian Authority and its various bodies, because the external element holds the upper hand in determining the political conduct of the political players on the West Bank scene.

Between the Agreement with Israel and the Basic Law

The question always raised: which is master — the Palestinian Basic Law, or the agreements with Israel? If Palestinian law conflicts with the provisions of the agreements with Israel, which prevails? Sovereignty belongs to the agreements with Israel, particularly when the matter concerns Israel’s security. Hamas won the 2006 legislative elections, but the Authority’s president’s power overturned the results, because Hamas taking hold of the reins would exceed the agreements and affirm Palestinian independence. The president of the Palestinian Authority found support from Israel and America, and the two states decided to release tax revenue and support so the Authority could pay employees’ salaries. As another example, current conditions require freeing the hands of Palestinian youth to confront settlers who persist in assaulting the people, under the principle of self-defense — but the Palestinian Authority pursues everyone who throws a stone at a settler, because the agreements bind the Authority to pursue “terrorism” and Palestinian “terrorists.” As another example, the Basic Law states that a government gains legitimacy only through the confidence of the Palestinian Legislative Council, but the provisions of the agreements contradict this, because the Legislative Council is Hamas-led, and Hamas does not respect the Oslo Accord or the Paris Protocol.

It is clear, from the Palestinian Authority’s practices since its founding, that sovereignty belongs to the agreements with Israel, not to the Palestinian Basic Law — that is, sovereignty belongs to the guardians of the agreements, namely Israel and its allies, the United States foremost among them. These guardians have reinforced their dominance through the money they hold in their grip, withholding or spending it according to their own will. And as long as the Authority, together with a vast portion of the masses in the territory occupied in ‘67, understands Israel’s and America’s grip on the money, then relinquishing political will is an acceptable, justified matter for Palestinians.

Who Governs the West Bank

In practical terms, governance in the West Bank does not belong to the Palestinians, even though they appear on media outlets speaking of independent Palestinian national decision-making — the decision instead lies with Israel and America, carried out by the American consul in Jerusalem, known as the American high commissioner, the American security coordinator between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and USAID. There is an Israeli-American umbrella that watches, directs, plans, and commands, and the Palestinians must implement within the space given to them. Israel intervenes if this American trio fails to do its job.

The space given to Palestinians is confined to the size of the umbrella, and they may play beneath it, but not above it or outside it, and punishment reaches them if they fail to comply, through withholding funds and other penalties the Israelis and Americans can use when necessary, such as banning an official from travel. Palestinians may fight and feud among themselves, they may practice corruption, steal from one another, scramble over positions, grants, and gifts — but they cannot stop security and administrative coordination with Israel. They must fulfill their obligations toward Israel, and after that they may do whatever they wish among themselves.

This means the West Bank needs neither an Authority president nor a premiership, nor any of these titles that reflect nothing of the true state of affairs. These are titles or designations out of place, creating illusions among many Palestinians that they are people of independence and decision-making power. Whoever believes there is a prime minister or an Authority president who cannot find time amid the crush of his work is deluded.

The Struggle Against Fayyad

The struggle against Fayyad was not for the sake of Palestine, and there were no serious Palestinian causes put forward for getting rid of him as prime minister — such as abandoning the Oslo Accord, allocating a large budget for agricultural development, halting security coordination with Israel, or prioritizing the right of return over the question of establishing a state. Instead, the issues centered on personal dimensions, summed up in money and positions. Some felt they had been pushed outside the game of status and position, that their share of the money had shrunk or evaporated, and so decided to accuse Fayyad of treason. They accused him of being America’s man, even though they themselves normalize with Israel, assist it on security and administrative matters, recognize it legally, and yearn for a meeting with the American consul. The mudslinging resembled a struggle over treachery more than a struggle for the homeland.

So will Palestinians step out from under the American-Israeli umbrella after Fayyad’s departure? Of course not, because the president of the Palestinian Authority cannot appoint a prime minister who does not meet external standards, or who seeks to rebel against the existing situation and abandon Palestinian obligations toward Israel on security and administrative matters. And even if the Authority’s president wanted to do so, Israel’s and America’s tools for changing the situation are numerous, and the two states hold the necks of Palestinians firmly, from several angles. The two states control the money, possess many spies and agents who have reached positions of influence over, or direct control of, decision-making, and can take many measures for harassment and subjugation, and so on.

Accordingly, one should not expect a Palestinian prime minister in the West Bank to differ from another. Every prime minister must possess certain traits and qualities that push him toward compliance with Israeli and American requirements, entirely contradicting Palestinian national rights. Whether the Authority’s prime minister is Ahmad, Said, Ali, or Mamdouh, nothing will change for Palestinians in general or foreign policy.

The Economic Situation

Some say the prime minister has the capacity to set an economic policy that would resolve the economic and financial problems the Palestinian people suffers in the West Bank, and that the new prime minister will address these problems Fayyad failed to solve. This would be true if the West Bank had an economy of its own, or if Palestinians had insisted, from the very beginning, on establishing their own independent economy. Israel and America control the Palestinian economy, and neither can allow a genuinely independent Palestinian economy, because that could lead Palestinians toward economic and financial self-reliance. Self-reliance poses a danger to Israel and to American policy, given what it entails of developing a free political will, and the rebellion against implementing Palestinian obligations toward Israel that could follow. Israeli and American economic policy holds that Palestinians must be kept under economic dependency, so that the noose of economic dependency stays wrapped around their necks.

The previous prime minister did not raise taxes, for instance, because he wanted to burden people — that was an American requirement, to test people’s willingness to pay taxes and their reaction to it. This is why Netanyahu and Obama did not hesitate to offer swift financial support to the Authority when protests intensified in the West Bank. Israel and America need the Palestinian Authority now, and will not allow it to collapse.

The Americans and Israelis prefer increasing the Palestinians’ contribution to their own budget, but not to the point of threatening the Authority’s existence and continuation. This rule applies to their policy toward the new prime minister as well. There is no thriving Palestinian economy for tax collection to thrive alongside, and the Americans and Israelis will not allow independent Palestinian economic development, and Palestinians should expect to remain under continuous threat, with nothing to save them from this except their own decision to rebel against the agreements with Israel.

Fleeing the Truth

The truth standing before us in the West Bank says that Palestinians are not the decision-makers, and that the Americans and Israelis are, in the end, the ones who decide. There is a secondary, meager margin before Palestinians for making decisions, related to some secondary internal relations, rivalries, indulgence in corruption, and bickering that drains energies — but they cannot bypass the will of others regarding matters related to Israel. For instance, Palestinians cannot open a new street inside a city if Israel objects, and cannot dig a water well inside a city without Israel’s permission. The Israelis sometimes allow the Authority an action that lends it some standing or prestige, but this permission is seasonal, not a recurring phenomenon.

For this reason, what is expected now on the Palestinian scene, with the new premiership, largely concerns rearranging power centers within the Palestinian Authority, so that some previously influential figures lose some of their positions and their financial and recreational fortunes in favor of others who had been far from the first political circle. Winners and losers alike will remain under the external umbrella, however many hot national slogans they let loose from time to time.

The bitter truth Palestinian Authority leaders try to flee concerns the crisis of legitimacy. Where is Palestinian legitimacy, when the Authority’s president plays on injury time, and so do the Legislative Council and the Liberation Organization’s councils, and the premiership without the legislature’s confidence?

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “حكومات فلسطينية لا تحكم” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.