Between Opposition Silence and the Content of Presidential Decrees... Who Reviews the New Legal Framework for Palestinian Elections?

In constitutional systems, political positions are not only measured by the slogans announced by the parties, but also by the legal implications of their choices. A political actor may reject a legal text, yet find themselves, by engaging with its outcomes or participating in the mechanisms it established, granting it a legitimacy they did not intend. This highlights one of the most complex issues in the current Palestinian phase, as the matter is no longer merely about calling for new elections, but about the nature of the legal system established by the recent presidential decrees, and the constitutional ramifications that arise from participation in it.

The Palestinian political discourse in recent days has been preoccupied with monitoring the positions of political forces and factions regarding the presidential decrees related to the legislative council and national council elections, as well as the amendments made to the election law. However, most discussions remained trapped in the conventional political question... Who supports the elections and who opposes them? Meanwhile, a deeper and perhaps more dangerous question is absent: What does participation in the elections under the new legal framework mean? What implications does this system have for the structure of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) itself?

The recent presidential decrees did not merely specify a date or mechanism for conducting legislative council elections; they redrew the legal relationship between the Palestinian Authority institutions and the PLO institutions, stating that elected members of the legislative council from the West Bank and Gaza Strip automatically become members of the Palestinian National Council. Thus, legislative council elections became not just a requirement concerning the PA institutions but, at their core, part of a mechanism for reshaping the highest legislative authority in the PLO.

Herein lies the dilemma that deserves pause, as most Palestinian opposition forces, despite their objection to the unilateral approach in issuing the decrees and their criticism of the legal amendments made by presidential decisions, have not explicitly rejected this new legal structure, nor have they issued a clear stance on the provision linking legislative council membership to national council membership. At the same time, they continue to affirm their principled support for comprehensive elections as a means to end the division and renew the legitimacies.

Yet, the issue does not end here, because the decrees and decisions backed by law did not only create a new electoral mechanism; they introduced a complete legal and political system that those who wish to oppose or accept must engage with as a unified whole, not selectively according to their political rhetoric while overlooking other aspects.

The focus of the Palestinian opposition, in its statements and declarations, has been on rejecting the unilateral issuance of decrees, demanding national dialogue, and calling for political partnership—demands whose legitimacy is not contested. However, the crucial question that has yet to be raised is... Is it sufficient to object to how the decrees were issued while remaining silent on their content? Is it enough to declare support for elections without reviewing the legal and political framework in which they will take place?

A careful reading of the decrees and legal amendments reveals that they do not only regulate the voting process but also redefine several constitutional and political concepts governing the Palestinian political system. They specify who the voter is, who the candidate is, how institutions are formed, what the relationship is between the legislative council and the national council, what the legal references governing the electoral process are, and what the political framework for the elected institutions will be after the results are declared.

This leads us to the first question that should be directed to the Palestinian opposition... If these forces have rejected the Oslo Accords over many years, considering them constraints on the Palestinian national project and transforming the Palestinian Authority into an authority constrained by occupation, how do they now view an electoral system that still, at its core, operates within the legal and political framework birthed by those agreements? Is it sufficient to discuss conducting elections in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem without questioning the reference that confines this geography as the sole arena for the electoral process, while millions of Palestinians in the diaspora remain outside the direct electoral equation?

The issue here is not a rejection of elections, nor a denial of the importance of renewing legitimacies, but a question concerning the nature of legitimacy itself. Is it permissible to reformulate a national institution, the Palestinian National Council, through elections held within the limits of jurisdiction established by the Oslo Accords for the Palestinian Authority? Can one reconcile an institution that represents the Palestinian people in all their places of existence, with an institution originally created to manage the affairs of the population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip within specific political and legal arrangements?

Equally significant is another question regarding the political and legal references embedded within the legal amendments. The opposition has occupied itself discussing the timing and mechanisms of elections, yet it has not presented a clear position regarding the political conditions surrounding the electoral process, nor the references to signed agreements, nor the references that discuss international obligations and international legitimacy decisions. Are these texts merely rhetorical phrases with no impact, or are they part of the legal framework that will constrain the work of elected institutions in the future? If the opposition proclaims its political rejection of these references, why is that rejection not explicitly reflected in its discourse regarding the electoral decrees?

The matter does not end with legal or political references but extends to the nature of the transformation that the decrees have caused in the structure of the Palestinian political system. The Palestinian opposition, while raising the banner of national partnership and rebuilding the PLO, seems not to have sufficiently considered the most critical element brought about by these decrees: transferring part of the process of reconstituting the national council to the ballot box of the legislative council. This is not merely a procedural issue but a deep constitutional and political transformation, as the national council, as the parliament of the PLO, has never been an extension of the legislative council at any stage of the evolution of the Palestinian political system, nor was its membership a spontaneous result of the membership of any other institution. The danger of this transformation lies not just in its content but in its future implications. If legislative council elections are held according to the active decrees, their results will not be limited to forming a Palestinian Authority institution, but will automatically produce, by law, members of the national council from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This raises a question that the opposition cannot evade... Can one object to the method of issuing the decree while practically accepting its most significant result? Is it sufficient to say that participation aims to renew legitimacies while this renewal simultaneously leads to the reformulation of a supreme national institution according to rules that have not yet received national consensus?

It is striking that the opposition discourse has focused almost entirely on the necessity of conducting comprehensive elections, but it has not clarified to public opinion what this comprehensiveness entails. Does it mean elections for the legislative council, presidency, and national council, each according to its independent legal system? Or does it imply acceptance of the new format that makes legislative council elections the legal pathway for forming national council members from inside Palestine? The difference between the two is not merely linguistic but touches the essence of the Palestinian political system...

If the opposition has rightly called for national dialogue before issuing the decrees, the pressing question is... Why did it not make reconsidering the texts related to the national council a fundamental condition of this dialogue? Why did it not clearly state that rebuilding the PLO cannot occur through a legal text issued by presidential decree but via a comprehensive national consensus that first defines the nature of the national council, its function, and its formation mechanisms?

Moreover, the dilemma pertains not only to the national council but extends to the political framework in which the elections themselves will occur. The electoral process remains, as it has been since the formation of the Palestinian Authority, linked to the geography of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem, the geography designated by the Oslo Accords as the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority. This leads to a more sensitive question... Does the opposition still view this framework as temporary, imposed by a transitional phase that ended years ago, or has it begun to treat it as the natural and permanent framework for the Palestinian political process?

Opposition forces have long criticized the Oslo Accords, deeming them a primary reason for the fragmentation of Palestinian land, the separation between PLO institutions and PA institutions, and the subjection of national decision-making to a series of political and security obligations. However, it is noteworthy that such criticism seems to vanish when it comes to the electoral decrees, as if elections have become a matter detached from the legal and political context governing them...

The same applies to the city of Jerusalem. For years, the same debate has recurred regarding the participation of Jerusalemites and the requirement for occupation approval for certain arrangements to conduct elections in the city. With every electoral entitlement, Israeli will returns to be a decisive factor in determining the fate of the entire electoral process. Yet, the opposition has not provided a legal or political alternative thus far that transcends this dilemma or liberates the national entitlement from reliance on the Israeli position. Can it be acceptable for the formation of Palestinian national institutions, including the national council, to be contingent upon an occupation decision? If the answer is no, what is the alternative that opposition forces are advocating?

An equally significant issue is that of Palestinians in the diaspora. If the national council is the institution meant to represent the Palestinian people in all places of their existence, how can it be reconstituted through elections that effectively limit themselves to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with millions of Palestinians remaining outside the direct electoral process? Is it sufficient to speak of quotas or appointment mechanisms to address this imbalance, or does it necessitate a comprehensive national discussion regarding the concept of representation itself?

These questions are not meant to downplay the importance of elections nor to undermine the intentions of political forces, but rather to highlight that the recent decrees do not simply organize elections; they set the foundation for a new phase in the structure of the Palestinian political system. Consequently, opposing or supporting them should not be limited to general slogans; it must extend to every text and every legal effect resulting from them...

Perhaps the most dangerous outcome in this phase is that silence turns into a stance, and the absence of objection to certain texts is interpreted as acceptance of them. The law does not read intentions but rather realities, and the realities indicate that participation in any electoral process conducted according to an active legal system means, in practical terms, dealing with its implications unless participants state their reservations clearly and explicitly or link their participation to amending those texts prior to their implementation...

Therefore, the Palestinian opposition is called upon today, before demanding elections, to answer more fundamental questions... Do they accept the continuation of the legal and political references produced by the Oslo Accords, even indirectly? Do they agree to transform the legislative council into an entry point for reformulating the national council? What is their position regarding the texts that invoke signed agreements and international references as part of the legal framework for the political process? How do they reconcile their political rejection of these references with their readiness to participate in an electoral process organized by a legal system still operating within that framework...???

Answering these questions is no longer an intellectual luxury but a national and legal necessity, for the issue has transcended mere elections to become a matter of redefining the Palestinian political system itself, the limits of the relationship between the Palestinian Authority and the PLO, and the distinctions between electoral legitimacy and national legitimacy, between the demands of the transitional phase produced by Oslo, and the responsibilities of the national liberation project that is supposed to transcend rather than reproduce it in a new form...

What makes these questions more urgent is that the current Palestinian phase does not resemble previous phases. The Palestinian political system today lives one of its most fragile moments since the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, while the PLO faces a crisis of representation, function, and role, amidst an open war against the Palestinian presence, an unprecedented escalation in annexation, displacement, and settlement projects, and ongoing attempts to liquidate the Palestinian cause, especially in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and occupied Jerusalem. In such historic moments, it is unacceptable to treat legal texts merely as procedural arrangements, as they can easily transform into tools to reshape the political system as a whole.

Thus, the issue is not about the president's right to issue decrees or the position of one faction or another towards them, but rather that the recent decrees, with their amendments and decisions backed by law, have gone beyond merely organizing elections to reshape the relationship between the Palestinian Authority and the PLO, between the legislative council and the national council, and between electoral legitimacy and national legitimacy. These transformations cannot simply be passed through a presidential decree, nor should they become a fait accompli merely because political forces preoccupy themselves with the election date or its form, while overlooking its content and ramifications...

Therefore, the criticism directed at the Palestinian opposition does not arise from its rejection of elections or its position calling for the renewal of legitimacies, but rather from its focus on demanding elections without ascending to question the legal and political system under which they are to be held. The opposition, while calling for national partnership, has not clearly articulated how it views the text that makes elected legislative council members members of the national council. It has not explained how it can reconcile its historical rejection of the Oslo Accords with participating in an electoral process that still operates within the legal and political framework established by those agreements. It has also not specified how it will deal with legal references to signed agreements or with references talking about international legitimacy, which have been pivotal in its political critique over the past decades...

Most importantly, the opposition has not yet answered the question regarding the Palestinian people themselves. If the national council is the institution meant to represent all Palestinians, is it sufficient for legislative council members elected in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to automatically become, by law, representatives of the Palestinian people in the national council? Where do the millions of Palestinians in the diaspora fit into this equation? Where do Palestinians in Jerusalem stand if their participation remains, as always, dependent on the occupation’s approval or rejection? Is it acceptable for the formation of the highest national institution to remain contingent upon Israeli will or the constraints imposed by a transitional phase that was supposed to have ended years ago?

These questions do not aim to score political points against the opposition, nor do they grant the authority or the presidential decrees a clean slate. They are questions directed to everyone, as they pertain to the future of the Palestinian political system and the manner in which its national institutions are redefined. However, the responsibility of the opposition seems greater at this juncture, as it presents itself as a bearer of an alternative project, and it is natural for Palestinians to expect a comprehensive stance from it regarding the new legal framework, rather than a partial position that rejects some of its outcomes while overlooking others that are equally critical.

The Palestinian experience has demonstrated, since the Oslo Accords to the present, that significant transformations do not always begin with loud political announcements but sometimes commence with legal texts that initially appear technical or procedural and later evolve into constitutional and political realities that are hard to overlook... If Palestinian forces, particularly the opposition, do not heed this truth, they may find themselves, while intending to confront a particular political path, unwittingly contributing to entrenching part of its legal structure...

The most perilous aspect of the current phase is not that Palestinian forces disagree over elections; such disagreement is legitimate, but rather that the national debate gets reduced to the question... Are we conducting elections or not? While the more important question remains absent... What elections do we want? In what legal and political framework will they occur? What political system will they generate? Will this lead to the reconstruction of the Palestinian national project, or the reproduction of the structure produced by the Oslo Accords but under new legal formulations?

Perhaps for this reason, what is demanded today is not just a stance on elections, but a comprehensive national review of the entire legal framework governing them, along with all the decrees and decisions with the force of law that have redrawn the boundaries of the relationship between the Palestinian Authority and the PLO, and between the governance institutions and national representation institutions. The real battle is no longer centered around the ballot box, but around what precedes it in texts, what it produces in effects, and what future it establishes...

When the law becomes the tool by which politics is reshaped, silence regarding texts is no less hazardous than acceptance of them, as limiting oneself to calling for elections without questioning the legal system governing them may transform into unintentional participation in creating a new political reality that does not necessarily reflect the national project that the opposition claims to defend. This is precisely where the dilemma lies that must not remain outside the debate.