The Authority of No Authority

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

In the midst of its justifications for arresting Hamas and Islamic Jihad fighters and closing down the two movements’ institutions, the Palestinian Authority says there cannot be more than one authority in the areas where it believes it holds authority, that it alone makes decisions, and that others must obey. As for whoever refuses to submit and comply, he must bear the consequences. Hamas, along with Islamic Jihad and the various Palestinian factions opposed to the agreements with Israel, are, in the Authority’s view, not entitled to make decisions, nor do they have the right to act except with the Authority’s permission and consent. The Authority reinforces this view by pointing out that it is an elected authority, recognized internationally, and therefore responsible before the international community both for what it does and for what the various Islamic factions and movements do. Beyond this, many of the military operations carried out by Palestinian factions have placed the Palestinian Authority in an awkward position that, in its view, has caused great damage to itself, to the Palestinian cause, and to the Palestinian people.

The Authority’s point of view is well known and is circulated by media of every persuasion. The other point of view — largely absent from the media — can be summarized as follows:

First: the Palestinian Authority is not the sole authority on the land occupied in ‘67, even were the opposing Palestinian factions to disappear entirely from the scene. The primary authority is Israel, which holds sovereignty under the signed agreements and according to the facts on the ground. The Palestinian Authority enjoys delegated powers, not inherent ones, and could lose them at any moment, or see them expanded. The Authority is bound by the Oslo Accord and everything that has flowed from it, and cannot exceed those bounds without Israel’s consent. And should it exceed them, it may find itself subject to punishment.

Some figures within the Authority claim that it possesses sovereignty, and one hears media outlets describing areas classified as “Area A” as areas subject to Palestinian sovereignty. This claim cannot possibly be true. Palestinians possess no sovereignty over any part of the land of Palestine, however small, and they act at the command of whoever truly holds sovereignty. The Palestinian Authority cannot legislate laws however it pleases, nor can it design school curricula however it sees fit. The council that has named itself the “Legislative Council” may approve draft laws, but they cannot become laws except by the signature of the president of the Authority — and the president of the Authority understands perfectly well which laws suit this stage. This is not to mention its inability to make independent decisions in economic, health, or cultural affairs, and so on. And if it appears that the Authority can practice administrative corruption as it sees fit, with the money of the Palestinian people at the mercy of embezzlers, that is because such practices ultimately serve Israel and the United States. The United States and Israel have turned a blind eye to many acts harmful to the Palestinian people, and have frequently covered up massive corruption deals, and continue to withhold very important information from the international community and from the Palestinian people. America and Israel know that the Oslo Accord needs someone to support it in the Palestinian street, and that this support can be bought with the money of corruption.

As for the essence of the agreements with Israel, it is security. Israel may overlook certain secondary matters, but it, together with the United States, insists on implementing the security provisions, and no Arab authority that signs agreements with Israel can escape carrying out its security functions on Israel’s behalf. Accordingly, if the Authority wants to be the sole authority over the areas it claims to rule, it must first rid itself of the authority of the occupation — not of the activity of the Islamic movement.

Second: an authority that wants to be respected must be capable of protecting people. Historically, there is no obedience without security. The Palestinian people in the central-eastern region and in the Strip are not safe on their own land, nor in their own homes, nor within themselves. The Authority has not prevented land confiscation, nor house demolition, nor has it stopped the killing, and its current security demands bear no relation to what it promised the people when it signed the agreements with Israel. It is neither able to protect people, nor willing to let people defend themselves.

The Authority claims it is working toward a Palestinian state that will provide security and protection for the people, and that people must be patient. This is a proposition resting on nothing but illusion, or self-deception. The negotiating table will not produce a genuine Palestinian state, given the enormous risk that would pose for Israel, unless the Palestinian negotiator assumes his Israeli counterpart is a fool. Under current conditions, Palestinians will get nothing more than an ornamented self-rule, even if Israel’s negotiating intentions were entirely sincere. Israel does not set its negotiating standards based on the person negotiating with it, but based on the generations to come, whose capacities and intentions no one can predict. This is why whoever is truly searching for a Palestinian state does not go to the negotiating table. But whoever has decided that “the state” is merely a slogan, and that a self-rule dressed up as a state is acceptable, will indeed find the negotiating table the appropriate place.

Third: from the angle of the elections, there are already major objections to the elections that took place — chief among them that Israel and America were both keen to see direct elections held right after the Taba agreement and before people had woken up to the truth. Many fell under the illusion that Palestinian gunmen entering the cities meant the state had truly been established, and so they applauded what had happened, when in fact our people needed a period of time to absorb the true nature of the agreements. The elections were held hastily, before the agreement with Israel had even had a chance to settle even slightly, and many irregularities occurred during the elections that make it hard to accept the notion of their integrity.

And even assuming the elections were fair, the period of validity of their results has now expired. An election’s mandate does not last forever, and the Authority currently in place holds no popular mandate. The Authority has not even sought to hold local elections, resorting instead to appointing committees to oversee the affairs of villages and cities. Whoever flees from elections flees from the truth. And naturally the international community did not insist on elections, because its leadership, represented by the United States, does not see elections as a good investment for its policy. Here democracy collapses, just as it collapses in the Arab states, and with it collapses the claim of legitimacy.

Fourth: it is extremely dangerous for the Authority for any military action against Israel to take place under its supervision and with its permission. The Islamic movement does not take on civilian responsibilities, is not the one nurturing corruption and the corrupt, does not pursue normalization of relations, and does not claim it wants to replace the Authority. I believe it understands the importance of keeping military action secret, and of implicating no one in it, whether from within the Authority or outside it. It is wise for anyone active militarily to separate himself from the groups or apparatuses around him, so as not to hand Israel any pretexts. Historically, Israel does not restrain itself for lack of pretexts, but it does find itself better able to secure international backing when pretexts exist.

In the end, I believe the Authority should stop turning this mill, which yields nothing between its stones but water. The PLO embarked on a failed project, and it is unwise for it to insist that others must fail as well. It led the Palestinian people for tens of years and produced nothing but a feeble agreement, when our people could have obtained something far better than it, back in 1968. I do not see how our interest can be revived by insisting on failure.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “سلطة اللاسلطة” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.