Palestinians are supposed to vote in legislative elections on November 28. After years without national elections, the importance of that date is difficult to overstate. But there is already growing concern that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas might cancel the elections as he did in May 2021.
The reasons being discussed are familiar: uncertainty over voting in east Jerusalem, the practical difficulties of holding elections in Gaza, internal Palestinian political calculations, and the fear among established factions that the voters may produce a result they do not like.
None of these concerns should become an excuse to deny Palestinians the right to choose their leadership. Palestinian politics has suffered for years from a deep crisis of legitimacy.
The Palestinian Authority has governed without a renewed democratic mandate. The political system remains divided between the West Bank and Gaza. Fatah and Hamas continue to dominate institutions that many Palestinians increasingly regard as ineffective, unaccountable, or disconnected from their lives.
That is precisely why elections are necessary.
The election is not important because it will automatically produce good government, moderation, or peace. Elections can produce bad outcomes as well as good ones (as we have seen in Israel). They can strengthen extremists as easily as reformers.
But without elections there is no legitimate way to renew leadership, test public support, bring new political forces into the system, or give Palestinians a government that can credibly claim to represent them.
Canceling the elections would send the opposite message: that Palestinian political institutions are prepared to speak in the name of the people but are afraid to ask the people what they want.
The question of east Jerusalem will be one of the most difficult issues. Israel has repeatedly objected to Palestinian political activity in the city and could refuse to permit normal voting arrangements there. That would create a serious problem.
But Israel must not be given a veto over Palestinian democracy, and there is no legitimate reason why the Palestinians should even ask Israel for permission for Palestinians in Jerusalem to vote. Jerusalem, with its 400,000 Palestinian residents, is the largest Palestinian city between the river and the sea.
If Israel blocks the traditional arrangements for voting in Jerusalem, Palestinians and the international community should find other ways to ensure that Palestinian residents of the city can participate. Polling stations can be established outside direct Israeli control. Alternative voting arrangements can be developed, such as electronic voting. Technology can also provide possibilities that did not exist in earlier elections. International diplomatic missions can assist.
The principle should be clear: Israeli obstruction must not become the justification for canceling an election for millions of Palestinians.
The same principle applies to Gaza. Holding an election in Gaza after years of war, destruction, displacement, political division, and the weakening of public institutions will be extraordinarily difficult. But Gaza cannot simply be excluded from Palestinian political life.
If Palestinians are serious about rebuilding one political system, Gaza and the West Bank must eventually be governed by one legitimate authority. That cannot happen if the people of Gaza are denied a voice in choosing that authority.
The practical problems are enormous, but they are problems to be solved, not reasons to abandon democracy.
There is another reason why these elections matter so much. Palestinian politics may be changing. For decades, the political system has largely been defined by the competition between Fatah and Hamas. But there is growing frustration with both.
The plurality of Palestinians – the largest group in Palestinian polls – do not want Fatah or Hamas. Younger Palestinians, independents, reformers, women, professionals, local activists, and new political movements are increasingly questioning whether the old factions can provide the leadership Palestinians need.
That uncertainty may frighten those who already hold power. But elections are not supposed to protect the people in power. They are supposed to give citizens the ability to replace them. If new political movements emerge, if younger leaders win support, if independent candidates challenge the traditional factions, that should be welcomed as evidence that Palestinian politics is alive.
Those who claim to believe in Palestinian self-determination cannot mean only self-determination in relation to Israel. It must also mean the right of Palestinians to choose their own leaders.
There is also an Israeli interest in these elections. For years, Israelis have repeated the claim that there is “no Palestinian partner.” Sometimes that argument has reflected real frustration with Palestinian leadership. But Israelis cannot simultaneously demand a legitimate Palestinian partner and accept a political reality in which Palestinians are denied the opportunity to elect one.
A Palestinian leadership with a genuine democratic mandate would not automatically become a partner for peace. But it would have far greater political legitimacy to make difficult decisions, reform institutions, confront armed factions, negotiate with Israel, and implement agreements. That matters enormously.
Any future agreement will require Palestinians to make painful choices. It will require one government, one legal system, and one legitimate security authority. It will require political movements to choose between democratic participation and independent armed power. It will require leaders who can tell the Palestinian public difficult truths and still claim to speak in its name.
That cannot be achieved indefinitely through presidential decrees, aging institutions, and political arrangements created decades ago.
Giving the Palestinians a voice
The timing is also striking. Israelis are approaching their own election. They will be asked to choose not only who should govern them but what direction Israel should take after October 7 and the wars that followed. Palestinians deserve the same opportunity.
In fact, the two elections should be understood as connected. Israeli politics affects Palestinian politics every day.
Settlement expansion, military occupation, settler violence, restrictions on movement, and the absence of a political horizon strengthen those Palestinians who argue that diplomacy has failed. Palestinian violence and rejectionism strengthen the Israeli Right and those who insist that permanent control is the only way to guarantee security.
For years, extremists on each side have helped strengthen the extremists on the other. Elections offer at least the possibility of breaking that cycle.
That is why the international community, and particularly the United States, Europe, and the Arab states, should be saying clearly now that the Palestinian elections must take place.
They should offer practical assistance for voting in Gaza and east Jerusalem. They should provide election observers. They should support the independence of the electoral institutions. And they should make clear that political pressure from any Palestinian faction or outside government to cancel the elections would be unacceptable.
The November election will not solve the Palestinian national crisis. But canceling it would deepen that crisis immediately.
Palestinians cannot build a state with institutions that are permanently afraid of their own voters. And Israelis cannot continue asking where the Palestinian partner is while Palestinians are denied the opportunity to choose new ones.
The writer is the Middle East director of the International Communities Organization and the co-head of the Alliance for Two States.