Analysts warn that the suggestion of the Palestinian Authority (PA) ruling over Gaza after the elimination of Hamas by Israel may be premature and unrealistic. As the Israel-Hamas war enters its seventh week, United States officials have increasingly proposed the PA’s governance in Gaza. Despite expressing full support for the Israeli offensive, the Biden administration has offered indications of its vision for the post-conflict scenario. However, bringing the PA back to Gaza would face numerous obstacles, including Israeli opposition. Experts believe that the proposal serves as a diversion tactic for the Biden administration, which is under mounting pressure for its support of Israel amid accusations of atrocities committed in Gaza.
Osamah Khalil, a history professor at Syracuse University, described the proposal as a “pure pipe dream” driven by the absence of political will in the United States to hold Israel accountable. The lack of fresh ideas in Washington has resulted in a policy of conflict management rather than resolution. Both the US and Israel have ruled out engaging with Hamas politically after the war.
The PA, controlled by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and its dominant faction, Fatah, was established in 1994 as part of the Oslo Accords. The accords aimed to shift the occupied Palestinian territories from Israeli military control to civilian leadership and promised an eventual Palestinian state. However, the peace process failed to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. In 2007, Hamas took control of Gaza, while the PA remained in the West Bank under Israeli occupation.
The rift between Fatah and Hamas effectively split the Palestinian national movement, and attempts at reconciliation have repeatedly failed. Now, with the assumption that Hamas will be eliminated by the end of the Israeli offensive, the US is looking to the PA to govern Gaza again. US officials, including Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara Leaf and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, have expressed support for the PA’s involvement in post-conflict governance and the revival of the two-state solution.
However, critics argue that discussing post-war governance is premature while a ceasefire has not been achieved. They emphasize the need for Palestinian unity through a ceasefire and democratic elections before considering the PA’s role. The extensive damage caused by Israeli bombardment further complicates the feasibility of the US proposal.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has dismissed the idea of the PA governing Gaza, emphasizing the need for demilitarization and de-radicalization of the territory. Critics also question the US’s ability to pressure Israel toward a broader resolution to the conflict, suggesting that the proposal serves as a defense mechanism for its diplomatic failure in the region.
While some experts believe that President Abbas is willing to bring the PA back to Gaza as part of a comprehensive solution, others argue that the PA’s shortcomings in the West Bank and its aging leadership make it an unlikely candidate to lead the Palestinian national movement.
As the war in Gaza continues with no clear resolution in sight, the proposal for PA governance faces significant challenges. The feasibility and practicality of the US vision for post-conflict Gaza remain uncertain, raising questions about the future of the region and the elusive pursuit of peace between Israel and Palestine.
