- The Media Line - https://themedialine.org -

Is the P.A. Heading for a Fall?

Bruised and battered, cash-strapped and shunned by the West, the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) has by all accounts reached its nadir.

 
In a bid to pump fresh blood into the system and revive the Palestinian leadership, politicians are now making strides towards a national-unity government. This strategy was raised soon after Hamas came to power following the legislative elections in January, but was nixed almost immediately.
 
Officials are wavering between forming a national-unity government, which would include representatives of rival factions, and a government of technocrats.
 
But as violence and anarchy in the Palestinian territories prevails, some are suggesting more radical paths along which the Palestinian leadership could and should proceed.
 
Ever since Palestinian Prime Minister Isma’il Haniyya questioned on August 9 whether the P.A. can continue to function in the current circumstances, the notion of dissolving the P.A. has increasingly gained momentum.  
 
The idea is attracting followers in the Palestinian street, and even more so in academic circles, says Feras Milhem, a law expert at Birzeit University.
 
‘No Rationale’
 
The P.A. is often described as the ‘child’ of the Oslo Accords, signed in 1993 between the Israeli government and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
 
The underlying principle of the P.A. was to create an interim government to administer the affairs of West Bank and Gaza residents for a five-year period, until a final agreement with Israel would be reached.
 
Since a comprehensive peace agreement is looking ever-more remote, some believe there is no rationale to continue with the P.A.
 
Many argue that the P.A. serves Israel’s interests as it allows Israel to maintain what some people have coined a “deluxe occupation,” in which it profits from its control over the Palestinian areas, while shirking its administrative responsibilities as an “occupying power.” 
 
Besides its failure to meet its declared goals, another reason for disbanding the P.A. would be to apply pressure on Israel. If the P.A. is dissolved, Israel would be tasked with administering the Palestinian population, caring for their financial matters and wellbeing.
 
“But Israel is not going to do this,” says Nabil Sha’ath, former Palestinian minister of external affairs and a seasoned Palestinian negotiator.
 
“Israel was actually in full occupation during the period from 1967 to 1994 in many areas in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel made money out of its occupation. It netted about $1 billion difference between the taxes it collected from the Palestinians and the money it spent on their welfare,” he explains.
 
Out of diplomatic character, Sha’ath bluntly calls the notion of dissolving the P.A. a “stupid idea” born of frustration.
 
“The assumption that Israel will abide by the Geneva Conventions if there is no P.A. is a gross miscalculation of Israel’s respect of the Geneva Conventions,” he says.
 
In the current situation, Palestinians see little hope of an independent Palestinian state being established in the near future and they feel they have nothing to lose by regressing to the pre-Oslo status.
 
“Look at the West Bank. The P.A. has full security control over only 18 percent of the land,” Milhem says. “The security and movement before the Oslo Accords was much better than it is these days.”
 
Like many of his colleagues in the academia, Milhem is in favor of giving Israel and the international community a six-month ultimatum to say ‘if you don’t get serious with the peace process, we will scrap the P.A.’
 
“I think this is a technical ploy and a fairly transparent one,” says Uri Savir, a former Israeli negotiator who is now director general of the Peres Center for Peace.
 
As with Sha’ath, Savir was also involved in the intense negotiations that led to the creation of the P.A.
 
Savir believes the notion of dissolving the P.A. is “not realistic.” He would like to see Israel indirectly strengthening what he called the pragmatic elements of the P.A., such as Fatah. A Palestinian unity government is a positive idea, he said, providing it adopts the platform of P.A. Chairman Mahmoud ‘Abbas, and not that of Hamas.
 
“Finger pointing to Israel by the Palestinians will not help their cause. They have to take their destiny into their own hands, and reach the conclusion that only peace can guarantee a Palestinian state,” Savir says, noting that mistakes have been made by all the parties involved.
 
What Does it Take to Topple a P.A.?
 
Technically, the body authorized to topple the P.A. is the PLO, and Israel has no direct say in the matter.
 
The PLO is made up of three decision-making bodies:
a) The legislative wing – the Palestinian National Council (PNC) which includes several hundred members;
b) The 15-member Palestinian Executive Council (PEC) which is elected by the PNC;
c) The Palestinian Central Council (PCC) – a policy-making body of about 130 members elected by the PNC from among its members, tasked with meeting while the PNC is in recess and acting over urgent matters.
 
Two thirds of the PEC constitutes a quorum, and its resolutions are adopted by a majority vote of those present.
 
In theory, the PEC can take a decision without the consent of ‘Abbas, the chairman of the P.A., chairman of the PLO and a senior Fatah member.
 
However, this is unlikely, Milhem added.
 
Fatah members are divided in their opinions about dissembling the P.A. but members are likely to support ‘Abbas and vote against dissolving the P.A., so as not to cause a crisis within the movement.
 
Also, Fatah is aware that the collapse of the P.A. could strengthen Hamas. Fatah members would rather ignore their internal power struggles for the sake of countering their strongest rival.
 
Since Fatah holds the largest portion of seats in both the PNC and in the PEC, it is unlikely the decision would pass, Milhem concludes.  
 
The Day After
 
If the P.A. is dismantled, this still raises concerns about the alternative, and even proponents of the idea are not oblivious to the fact that it could breed dangerous consequences.
 
“We are aware that the institutions of the PLO are weak,” Milhem says. “We are afraid that if we dissolve the P.A. we won’t have a real representative of the PLO in the future because of the PLO’s weakness.”
 
Savir agrees that this could lead to the creation of a “dangerous vacuum” in which Hamas would be emboldened.