By Marwan Emil Toubassi *
The debate over the future of the Palestinian National Authority, within the assumed reference framework of the Palestine Liberation Organization, is no longer a reformist debate in the traditional sense. Rather, it has become a debate over the fate of the independent Palestinian national decision itself—who owns it, how it is exercised, and for which political project it is being mobilized. The recently circulated American reports, based on what has been published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy regarding models for administering post-war territories, reflect a vision that some perceive as going beyond the traditional tools that have dominated political settlement approaches over past decades by successive U.S. administrations—approaches that have been fundamentally unjust to our people.
This vision explicitly proposes bypassing the Palestinian National Authority through alternative technocratic and administrative frameworks. It does not merely reflect an assessment of a deeply troubled Palestinian performance, but rather signals a strategic shift in the approach to the Palestinian cause.
The real danger in these reports does not lie in their criticism of the Authority’s performance—criticism that includes some factual elements and well-known structural flaws we have repeatedly warned about—but in the political context in which these conclusions are presented. These reports deliberately detach the Palestinian crisis from its root cause: the Israeli settler-colonial occupation, the policies of the far-right, and the colonial vision itself. Instead, the crisis is reduced to an internal Palestinian administrative failure, thus enabling the marketing of “alternative administration” as a permanent solution.
What is being proposed today by the United States, within President Trump’s broader vision for the Middle East and global affairs, is a model based on transferring the core functions of political, civil, economic, and security authority to parallel, non-political frameworks supported externally, while maintaining a “formal political structure” as a hollow façade supposedly linked to the Palestine Liberation Organization. This model reflects the U.S. administration’s belief that the traditional form of the Palestinian Authority is no longer sustainable, and seeks to regulate the region according to American interests intertwined with those of its allies. This process is what can be described as a “silent bypass”: ending the Palestinian political role without formal declaration and without bearing direct political or security costs.
The experience of the so-called “Gaza Administration Committee / technocrats,” emerging from Trump’s Peace Council and linked to the Executive Committee as a reference—alongside the security committee announced days ago with its Zionist-oriented components—is being politically promoted as a model intended for generalization. This is not driven by concern for Palestinian political unity, but rather as a “successful” formula for managing the population under control and recycling the occupation outside the framework of national liberation. Even more dangerously, this approach finds readiness among certain Palestinian circles, either under the pressure of accumulated failure—described in the reports as “indicators of structural deadlock”—or out of a desire to preserve limited positions and influence in order to pass narrow interests.
The current Palestinian crisis is a crisis of a political system that has not been renewed despite numerous national calls, has not been held accountable, and has not evolved. Yet this crisis cannot serve as justification for handing the national decision over to external actors. The alternative to failure is not trusteeship, and the alternative to weakened legitimacy is not bypassing it, but rather restoring it urgently through the people—the sole source of authority and legitimacy.
The West Bank, which is promoted as “stable,” in reality experiences a fragile administrative stability based on networks of interests, security arrangements, and centers of influence, rather than renewed popular consent. Any attempt to impose an externally supported alternative framework will deepen the gap between society and the political system, and hollow out the national project of its liberation content.
The greatest danger facing the Palestinian leadership today is not the loss of positions, but remaining in them while losing decision-making power—becoming a mere witness to the transfer of authorities to parallel frameworks, while being asked only to provide political cover. In American calculations, any party that can be bypassed at no cost is not a partner in the future.
Accordingly, the moment for Palestinian action can no longer be postponed. What is required is neither slogans nor futile confrontations, but the launch of a rational, organized national political process—one that does not rely on an emptied-out “political realism,” but on independent will, the Basic Law, and the Declaration of Independence. This process must aim to renew legitimacy, build a genuine accountability system, clearly separate powers, and restore politics as an expression of popular participation and collective will, not merely crisis management.
At the heart of this moment, the responsibility of the central forces within the Palestinian political system cannot be ignored. Fatah, which led the national project for decades alongside other components of the national movement, stands today at a historic crossroads. Either it initiates a frank critical review and a real, courageous political reform that restores its identity as a national liberation movement, revives democratic national legitimacy, and reaffirms the liberation essence of the Palestinian cause—or it will find itself, as a movement and as the leading force of the PLO, still occupying its positions while having been effectively bypassed. Is there anyone who hears the sound of the last alarm bell and moves to do what is required to protect our heritage, our present, and our national future—by first restoring our political rights and ending the occupation?
Finally, and in clarification of the debate raised regarding this article and the news circulated about the report in various media outlets, what is presented here is based on research and analytical reports and on an integrated political context, not on a single document nor solely on the referenced source. The real debate is not about the name of the institute or research body, but about the dangerous trends openly discussed within U.S. decision-making circles regarding the future of the Palestinian national decision. Even if there is disagreement over a specific report, the core question remains: does anyone deny the existence of real attempts to bypass Palestinian politics through administrative formulas and impose external trusteeship that empties the national project of its liberation content? Questioning the source without confronting the idea itself is nothing but an escape from the more difficult question: where are the dictates leading the silent transfer of the independent national decision under American and regional pressure? And how did this begin with the formation of the so-called technocratic committee in Gaza, under its known reference to the “Peace Council” chaired by Trump?
* Member of the Advisory Council of the Fatah Movement.
We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.
