Mark Twain wrote that “history doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” Anyone observing the current unraveling in the Israeli-Palestinian arena would grasp Twain’s tragic meaning. The breadth and scale of the current crisis in Gaza may be distinctive, but not the crisis itself or the context or even the players. What comes next will determine whether we are witnessing “déjà vu all over again,” in the sage words of Yogi Berra, or something altogether different, for better or worse.
Twenty-two years ago, with the Second Intifada in full throttle and Yasser Arafat under siege in his Ramallah compound, President Bush called “on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror…to build a practicing democracy.” A little more than two years later, Arafat was dead and within months Palestinians went to the polls and elected Mahmud Abbas (Abu Mazen) president of the Palestinian Authority (PA), an election Bush described as “a tribute to the power and appeal of democracy.”
A year later, Palestinians went to the ballot box yet again. This time to elect a new Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC). It is the outcome of the latter that is currently playing out in Gaza. Or, more precisely, it is the failure of what came before – the unrealized aspirations for Palestinian democracy and good governance – that resulted in the Hamas victory in 2006, leading to the eventual splintering of the PA between the West Bank and Gaza the following year.
Fast forward 18 years and the White House is once again calling for Palestinian political reform; though not necessarily elections or democracy. According to a presidential spokesman, “[a] revitalized PA is essential to delivering results for the Palestinian people in both the West Bank and Gaza.” The vision of a democratic Palestinian Authority, apparently, has gone the way of President Bush’s Freedom Agenda – into the dustbin of history. Instead, it is a “reformed” or “revitalized” government that the Administration desperately seeks as a way out of the Gaza crisis. How this is meant to come about exactly – reform or revitalization – is not entirely clear. Perhaps, it can be wished into existence.
The irony is seemingly lost on the Biden Administration that Abu Mazen has outlasted Bush, Obama and Trump and is now into the 19th year of his four-year term. That the U.S. wants the PA to reform itself must be a bitter joke for Palestinians after close to two decades of neglect by the international community towards the state of the PA’s internal affairs. It is therefore not surprising, according to a recent survey in the West Bank and Gaza, by the Arab World for Research and Development (AWRAD), that trust in the PA to oversee recovery efforts in Gaza stands at 9%, while only 14% trust it to lead post-war governance.
What do Palestinians want then? Well, according to the AWRAD poll, 84% would like a presidential election after the war and, when asked, the preference is not in favor of the incumbents. This cannot be comforting for the policy makers at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or Foggy Bottom. If the Palestinian Authority, in its current incarnation, is unable to count on the support of its own citizens, how does anyone believe it can deliver on recovery and governance, not to mention Israeli and Palestinian security requirements, post-Gaza? Isn’t this how we arrived at this point in the first place?
The AWRAD poll is not all unwelcome news for the White House, however. According to the findings, support for both Hamas and its October 7, 2023 attack has plummeted in Gaza. Conversely, , support for negotiations and a two-state solution has increased. Coupled with a preference for international oversight of humanitarian assistance and recovery efforts, and Palestinian-led governance that is neither Hamas nor the PA, an opportunity for an outcome that neither repeats itself nor rhymes, per Twain, may be presenting itself. To not squander it, the White House would do well to avoid well worn, but failed, paths. Listening to the Palestinian people along the way, as opposed to looking to unaccountable and unpopular leadership, might be a good starting point.