The United States’ advocacy for the Palestinian Authority (PA) to govern a post-conflict Gaza is emerging as a contentious proposition. As the war enters its seventh week, the Biden administration’s stance raises eyebrows and prompts critical scrutiny. Amid the devastation and strategic maneuvering, questions loom over the feasibility and rationale behind pushing the PA into the leadership role.
A Premature Proposition
The notion of the PA taking charge in Gaza faces skepticism from analysts who deem it premature and unrealistic. Despite US officials increasingly suggesting this transition, concerns linger over the viability of such a move, especially as Israel continues its offensive to eliminate Hamas, the current governing force in the territory. The proposal encounters hurdles, including Israeli opposition and conditions set by PA President Mahmoud Abbas, labeling it, in the words of Osamah Khalil from Syracuse University, “just a pure pipe dream.”
US Pressure and Domestic Dynamics
The Biden administration finds itself under mounting pressure domestically for its support of Israel amid accusations of atrocities in Gaza. With over 11,500 Palestinians killed, the US attempts to shift the narrative toward post-conflict governance, emphasizing Palestinian self-rule. Osamah Khalil suggests this redirection serves the purpose of appeasing domestic audiences and deflecting from the lack of political will in the US to hold Israel accountable, characterizing it as a policy of “avoiding conflict resolution and focusing on conflict management.”
A Historical Perspective: The Rise and Fall of the PA
To understand the current dynamics, a glance at history reveals that the PA, born out of the Oslo Accords in 1994, aimed to shift control of Palestinian territories from Israeli military to civilian leadership. However, the peace process faltered, leading to a fractured Palestinian national movement. The PA continued limited governance over the West Bank and Gaza until the 2007 Hamas takeover of Gaza. Reconciliation attempts failed, leaving a divided Palestinian landscape with Israel maintaining a blockade on Gaza and consolidating its occupation in the West Bank.
US Officials’ Statements and Israel’s Response:
Operating under the assumption that Hamas will be eliminated, US officials, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, have expressed support for the PA governing Gaza. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dismisses these assertions, insisting on Israel maintaining security control over Gaza.
The PA’s Position:
President Abbas expresses willingness to bring the PA back to Gaza, but only as part of a comprehensive political solution covering the entire West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Critics point to the PA’s shortcomings in the West Bank, emphasizing ongoing deadly raids and settler violence under its watch, raising doubts about its capacity to lead the Palestinian national movement.
In the intricate web of geopolitical chess moves, the question remains: Will the US push for the PA to lead Gaza prove to be a strategic masterstroke or a precarious misstep in the turbulent landscape of the Israel-Hamas conflict?
