-1

Abbas accepted Shtayyeh’s resignation and asked him to stay on as caretaker until a permanent replacement is appointed.

Shtayyeh’s comments come as US pressure grows on Abbas to shake up the PA and begin work on a political structure that can govern a Palestinian state following the war.

However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has on numerous occasions rejected calls for the PA under Abbas to take control of a Palestinian state and govern Gaza.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/26/palestinian-pm-submits-resignation-to-mahmoud-abbas-over-gaza-aggression

What are the things within the Palestinian Authority that makes its critics consider their political structure ill-fitted to govern the Palestinian state in the post war? The article seems to suggest that the U.S. believes that the PA is not fit right now to govern Palestine during the post war period, but the article doesn't expand on why the U.S. believes that.

Improve this question
10
  • 1
    Doesn't the PA have, like, a 90% disapproval rate in Palestine at the moment?
    – F1Krazy
    Commented Mar 3 at 11:39
  • The PA is viewed by meaningful fraction of its constituents as a borderline collaborator regime, that is it merely protests the steady erosion of Palestinian control in the West bank, acting as a strawman opposition to de-facto Israeli expansion, let alone obtaining meaningful sovereignty. That is different from the concerns of the US, though. The real US position is revealed in its regular UNGA vote against Palestinian statehood. US by and large sides with Israel here, and Israel is happy with a weak Palestinian government. US objections are, IMO, an excuse to delay progress on two-state.
    – Pete W
    Commented Mar 3 at 17:11
  • The answer you've accepted doesn't reflect the views of the current US administration though. The scions of the previous one (America First Legal) are suing the Biden administration over it though.
    – got trolled too much this week
    Commented Mar 3 at 19:06
  • @PeteW - Let's be fair to Abbas here, though. It is not as if he can just wave a hand and stop Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Try to push Israeli soldiers out militarily? Him and what army? Even if he had one, the Israeli forces are much stronger than Hamas, never mind what Abbas could get together. Oh, and then Israel would probably retaliate against the West Bank civilians. Maybe stage a sit-down or a march in a settlement? Good thing Israeli forces have never attacked non-violent protesters. Refuse to govern the West Bank in protest? Israel probably would be just fine with that.
    – Obie 2.0
    Commented Mar 5 at 21:27
  • @Obie 2.0 - The options of any Palestinian leader are severely limited, that much is clear. However, inaction is a guarantee of eventual expulsion, and all kinds of abuse in the interim. The march-to-the-wall episode closed the path to traditional non-violence, in brutal fashion, I'd say. US singlehandedly blocks all appeals to the UN. So by process of elimination what is left? One can do the math. There's nothing to praise here, but this is an equation Israel itself has created, frankly.
    – Pete W
    Commented Mar 5 at 21:43

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
4
  • US (current adm.): 'PA/Fatah is corrupt and unpopular'.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken told reporters after meeting the Palestinian leader in late November that they discussed the need for reforms to combat corruption, empower civil society and support a free press. Three Palestinian and one senior regional official briefed on the conversations said that Washington's proposals behind closed doors would also involve Abbas ceding some of his control over the Authority. Under the proposals that have been floated, Abbas could appoint a deputy, hand broader executive powers to his prime minister, and introduce new figures into the leadership of the organization, the Palestinian and regional sources said. The White House did not provide answers to Reuters questions. [...]

U.S. officials recognize, however, that Abbas remains the only realistic Palestinian leadership figure for the time being, despite being unpopular among Palestinians and distrusted by Israel, which has denounced his failure to condemn Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack. Biden's aides have quietly urged Israeli leaders to drop their resistance to the PA, once it is revitalized, taking a leading role in post-conflict Gaza, according to a senior U.S. administration official , who asked not to be identified because of the confidential nature of the talks. "There is no other show in town," said another of the U.S. sources. In the short term, Israel needs to unblock more tax transfers to the PA, which it froze in the wake of Oct 7, so it can pay salaries, U.S. officials say.

  • Israel (current gov't): 'PA/Fatah are terrorists'.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday vowed to block any attempt to install the Palestinian Authority (PA) in Gaza after the war with Hamas, putting him in direct opposition to the U.S., which wants to see the body rule the coastal strip after the war.

Netanyahu said in a video address that he was grateful for U.S. support in Israel’s bid to destroy Hamas but that there was “disagreement about the day after” the Palestinian militant group is defeated.

“I will not allow Israel to repeat the mistake of Oslo,” he said, referring to the 1993 accords that paved the way for Palestinian expansion in the West Bank and the rule in the territory of the PA.

“After the great sacrifice of our civilians and our soldiers,” Netanyahu continued, “I will not allow the entry into Gaza of those who educate for terrorism, support terrorism and finance terrorism.”

Trump's scions agree with the latter though, see the accepted answer for the details on that.

Improve this answer
3
2

The Palestinian Authority is paying stipends/salaries for convicted terrorists.

About 7% of the PA's annual budget, is devoted for that cause.

The "Taylor Force Act" has been introduced by the US Congress (2017), in order to bar US financial assistance to the PA, as long as it continues the program of paying stipends for terrorists.

With the "Taylor Force Act", the US officially and legally recognizes the Palestinian Authority as a terror-supporting authoritative body.

In the Taylor Force Act, Congress determined that "The Palestinian Authority’s practice of paying salaries to terrorists serving in Israeli prisons, as well as to the families of deceased terrorists, is an incentive to commit acts of terror."

Through the Act, Congress prohibited the Executive Branch from providing any grant or award from U.S. taxpayer funds available for assistance under chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 that "directly benefits the Palestinian Authority" unless the Secretary of State certifies that the Palestinian Authority is taking credible steps to end acts of violence against Israeli citizens and United States citizens and has terminated "Pay to Slay."

In their lawsuit, America First Legal

alleges, however, that when President Biden took office in January 2021, his administration transferred "hundreds of millions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers to the Palestinian Authority despite "Pay to Slay" and contrary to the Taylor Force Act."

Improve this answer
4
  • AFAICT the 'Taylor Force Act' did not actually become law though, did it? Actually it did, but maybe not the version you linked to.
    – got trolled too much this week
    Commented Mar 3 at 18:44
  • Looks like the Senate tacked it to some Consolidated Appropriations Act which is why it doesn't show properly (as passed into law) on the gov site.
    – got trolled too much this week
    Commented Mar 3 at 18:50
  • I don't think the last para is correct though. The Act made it possible to sue the US for that, which some organizations did. foxnews.com/politics/… It's up to the [US] courts to determine if the PA did in fact sponsor terrorism. The motivation of the law was clear, but implementation less overtly declarative against the PA.
    – got trolled too much this week
    Commented Mar 3 at 18:55
  • I managed to find some actual wording from the law. Edited in. There's the issue that Dept of State can certify that the PA is no longer doing that, which apparently it did under Blinken, triggering the lawsuit from some pro-Israeli group.
    – got trolled too much this week
    Commented Mar 3 at 18:59
-7

The main reason why the PA is unfit to govern is that they lack a democratic mandate. The reason they lack that mandate is because they haven’t held way overdue elections for a long time. The reason they have not held those elections is because they are in touch with the public mood of the Palestinian population and know very well that they would lose the election to Hamas.

Improve this answer
1
  • Hamas has not precisely been eager to hold elections over nearly the last two decades, though.
    – Obie 2.0
    Commented Mar 5 at 21:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .