Postponing the elections: the complexities of the scene and the challenges of reality

author

Abdul Karim Awaida

There is no doubt that the Palestinian people, like all peoples on earth, have the right to enjoy their inherent right to practice democracy, express their free will, and choose their representatives through the ballot boxes, as a basic foundation for building their independent state and renewing the legitimacy of their national institutions. However, the Israeli occupation always stands as an impediment to the exercise of this human and political right, deliberately disrupting the Palestinian democratic process, just as it constantly seeks to confiscate all the legitimate rights of our people.

The decision to postpone the Palestinian elections and re-schedule a new date for holding the legislative and presidential elections simultaneously reflects the magnitude of the complexities and extreme pressures that lie at the heart of the crisis-ridden Palestinian reality, where field and political factors, local, regional and international, intersect to create a complex environment that deprives the Palestinian citizen of his natural right to vote and political participation.

I felt very sad when that decision was issued, like other people of this people who desperately wanted to restore life to the parliamentary institution and spread hope through those elections, and to confirm the choice of the Palestinian people in their belief in peace and the option of a two-state solution, and to overcome the disastrous adventures that placed their cause in the midst of storms that almost ravaged it, the consequences of which we are still suffering from. But I quickly regained my balance, overcame my emotions, and rethought the entire scene, to see that it was a 100% wise and correct decision in that it came from the reality of compelling necessity and the reality on the ground, and not based on the factions’ desire to maintain the status quo.

I also saw that the reasons and motives for the postponement decision are multiple, and that responsibility is distributed among many parties whose interests and policies are intertwined on the scene. The Israeli occupation authorities are at the forefront of the obstructing factors through their constant endeavor to prevent any manifestations of Palestinian sovereignty, especially in the occupied city of Jerusalem, which constitutes the core of the conflict, in addition to their continuous work to deepen the state of division and perpetuate geographical and political fragmentation. The occupying state was not satisfied with obstructing the field, but rather was quick to exploit the decision politically. Occupation Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar attacked the decision, accusing the Palestinian leadership of "misleading the international community" about holding elections and then backing out of them. This was met with a sharp and quick Palestinian response from Vice President Hussein Al-Sheikh via the "X" platform, describing Sa'ar's statements as open bidding and holding the occupation fully responsible for disrupting democracy as a result of its crimes, terrorism, and field violence, and denouncing that those responsible for killing the Palestinian people appear daily in the language of a preacher.

In addition, the United States of America played a prominent negative role through its inability or serious unwillingness to provide the appropriate political environment and guarantees for the implementation of this national entitlement. Added to this is the negativity of the international community, which has continued to content itself with issuing statements of concern and timid positions that remain below the level required to put pressure on the occupying state and oblige it to respect international resolutions and conventions and not obstruct the elections. On the internal level, the Palestinian leadership found itself facing complex choices and harsh field calculations, amid a highly sensitive and complex political and international environment.

In this complex internal context, I noticed how the state of tension and overlap was reflected in the positions of the Palestinian forces and factions. The Hamas movement was quick to consider postponing the elections a “step in the right direction” due to the absence of appropriate political, security and field conditions for holding them in all the Palestinian territories, especially Jerusalem. This is consistent with the realism of the field assessment and the challenges of adapting to the ongoing transformations, although it clearly contradicts the emotional rhetoric and mobilization that the digital platforms and communication spaces of its supporters were filled with before the issuance of the statement. This reflects a gap between slogans and street emotions and the complex calculations of crisis management. On the other hand, the so-called “Democratic Reform Movement” headed by Muhammad Dahlan attacked the decision and considered it a “political crime” and a retreat that reflects the leadership’s fear of competition in the face of electoral alliances. The Fatah movement responded firmly by confirming its support for the elections and not demanding their postponement, considering that the movement dealt responsibly with the initiatives of the factions and the obstacles of the occupation, and clearly rejected exploiting the decision to cast doubt on national legitimacy or practice incitement, outbidding, and settling personal scores. Emphasizing that the real battle is against the occupation and its plans.

Thus, in the face of this factional discord and the absence of comprehensive consensus and international guarantees, all parties ultimately preferred to maintain the status quo and rearrange their internal papers rather than jumping into an electoral process with uncalculated consequences. In this context, wisdom was evident in President Mahmoud Abbas’s position to protect the national project. He preferred not to be drawn into an unguaranteed adventure that would not be successful, moving instead towards preserving the highest Palestinian interest in light of these exceptional circumstances.

The fundamental and most urgent question that the field poses before all of us is: How can we practically organize and hold democratic and fair elections in light of the explosive and heated conditions in the West Bank? Organized settler terrorism is escalating on a daily basis under the protection and participation of the Israeli occupation army, with the imposition of a comprehensive geographical closure and fragmentation system consisting of nearly a thousand military barriers, gates and checkpoints separating cities, villages and towns, preventing geographical and humanitarian communication and the movement of candidates, and making the movement of independent and international monitoring bodies impossible, in addition to the deteriorating economic reality and stifling living conditions that impose on citizens unbearable daily suffering.

I also see that the picture is getting darker and more tragic considering the Gaza Strip, where more than eighty percent of its area is under direct occupation and brutal military control, and where the occupation continues to undermine the elements of the democratic process by preventing crews and representatives of the Central Elections Commission from entering the Strip to complete the technical and organizational arrangements, at a time when the majority of the population lives in tents and displacement centers that lack the most basic necessities of human life, and in light of the continuing systematic assassinations, bombing and mass destruction. For all necessities of life, there is an acute and catastrophic scarcity of food, water, and medical and pharmaceutical supplies. Talking about a ballot box or electoral campaigns in such disastrous field conditions reflects, in my opinion, a complete disconnect from the painful reality that the Palestinian people live on a daily basis.

At the international level, the American policy of crisis and indecisiveness is clearly evident, as the United States has proven its inability and failure to fulfill the pledges and promises it made to achieve political progress and provide an environment of stability. Although the Hamas movement showed what could be called political flexibility and accepted, within the arrangements of the twenty-point plan, to hand over its weapons within the framework of a comprehensive settlement that guarantees the rights of the Palestinian people and their national cause, Washington was unable to implement this plan or apply its provisions on the ground due to complete bias and retreat in the face of Israeli desires.

I also note that the American administration did not do anything and did not help oblige Israel to return the Palestinian clearance funds and revenues stolen and withheld by the occupation, which caused paralysis and suffocation of the authority and national institutions and their inability to fulfill their obligations. In addition, Washington was completely unable to stop the escalating settler terrorism in the villages and cities of the West Bank, or to curb the continuing encroachment and brutality of the occupation army, which stripped the American position of any credibility or ability to play the role of guarantor and fair mediator of the democratic and political process.

In the end, I believe that a solid political axiom must be recognized, which states that any internal Palestinian solutions or arrangements will remain surrounded by a narrow margin of maneuver and have almost no effect, as long as the main obstructionist and dominant in all attempts is the Israeli occupation, which strategically invests in perpetuating division and undermining aspects of sovereignty. In addition, the decision of some factions and movements is dependent on conflicting external, non-national agendas that prevent the crystallization of an independent national position, in parallel with the deliberate paralysis and complete bias of the American administration, which has made any political guarantees a mere illusion.

Based on these clear facts, any reading that attempts to jump beyond force majeure and the stressful field conditions to promote that the postponement was for other purposes is a reading that deliberately deviates from the truth and ignores the reality of colonial control. Such proposals are nothing more than attempts at cheap political exploitation and exploiting national crises to achieve narrow, private, partisan goals that have nothing to do with the higher national interest. Accordingly, it is clear to me that postponing the elections was not just a political luxury or an escape forward, but rather the product of a realistic and harsh recognition that carrying out a true and fully-fledged democratic process is objectively impossible, unless this complex system of external shackles and colonial control is first dismantled.

In conclusion, I affirm that despite all these grave obstacles and challenges, the right of the Palestinian people to vote, express their opinion, and determine their fate will remain an inalienable right that will not be subject to statute of limitations. However, the forced postponement should not be read as a magic solution or a final way out. Rather, it requires dealing with it within the limits of what is possible to manage the crisis and maintain a minimum of institutional cohesion, without falling into the illusions of the possibility of achieving complete democracy under the umbrella of colonial control and external dependence, until the real political and field environment is available that allows the Palestinian people to exercise their free will in its entirety and undiminished.

As the late Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish said: “One day I will become whatever I want... Whenever my wings burn, I get closer to the truth, and I rise from my ashes.”

I am certain that the will of the Palestinian people for freedom, democracy and self-determination will remain inevitable and there is no alternative to it, no matter how shattered it is on the rock of current circumstances and the harshness of reality.

This article expresses my personal view and in no way expresses an official view