By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Speaking via video to the U.N. General Assembly, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas stated his people’s rejection of the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and asserted Hamas would have no role in governing Gaza post-war, requiring the group to surrender its weapons. Abbas condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza as a war crime, while also thanking world leaders who have stood up for Palestinians. He welcomed recent recognition of a Palestinian state but emphasized the need for further action, calling for the international community to ensure Palestinians obtain their rights. Abbas also reiterated his vision for a two-state solution, despite it appearing more distant amid Israel’s rejection of a Palestinian state.
Read the original article here
Palestinian president: Hamas will have no role in governing postwar Gaza. The Palestinian president’s declaration that Hamas will have no role in governing postwar Gaza has sparked a flurry of questions and skepticism, and frankly, it’s not hard to see why. The statement immediately brings up the reality of the situation: the very organization making this claim hasn’t exactly been a powerhouse of action, especially in the face of Hamas’s strength and the needs of the people in Gaza. The fact is, there’s a huge disconnect between the words being spoken and the actions being taken on the ground.
The lack of a tangible groundwork is very apparent. For all the talk, what’s the actual plan? How do you sideline a political force that the people have either supported in the past or still support today? It’s easy to say, “Hamas out,” but the hard part is the execution. It’s a bit like saying you’ll win an election, but you’ve got no campaign staff, no funding, and no clear strategy. We’ve heard this before, but the reality on the ground has consistently shown a lack of meaningful effort to counter Hamas’s influence or to truly help the people of Gaza.
Then there’s the issue of the Palestinians themselves. How does the Palestinian president plan to govern without taking into account the will of the people, many of whom have voted for Hamas? The very core of democracy is the right to choose. So, ignoring the population’s preferences feels like a shortcut to further instability. It’s like saying, “I’ll be in charge, but I don’t care who you want.” In a place like Gaza, where the stakes are already sky-high, this approach just doesn’t feel like a viable solution. The question of whether the Palestinian president is even in Gaza, or capable of getting there, is valid, considering his current limitations.
The situation only gets more complex when you consider the broader regional context. If the Palestinian Authority wants to act as a government, how does it even do that? And what about the lack of a real presence in Gaza? It’s like a general ordering troops around in a war, but he’s not on the battlefield. It’s a delicate balance, to say the least. The irony here is palpable: it’s kind of like a government trying to take power after a conflict, but with no actual means to make it happen.
The lack of any real presence on the ground raises the issue of how they’ll be able to enforce any control. Will they get the support of the Palestinian people? And what about those who have previously voted for Hamas? Then there’s the question of whether the international community will support any of this. Without that support, it’s a dead end. And let’s not forget the broader picture: any solution will need to consider the complex realities of the region, with the key players on both sides of the conflict.
When we delve into polling data, the picture shifts even further. Recent surveys show that support for Hamas in the West Bank has declined. But in Gaza, support for Hamas remains strong. And these are the people who will need to be led and to be helped. The current Palestinian president’s popularity seems to be stagnant, and that makes things much more difficult. The data shows that while support for Hamas is in flux, it’s still a powerful force.
This adds an interesting layer to the discussion, demonstrating that democracy is important. It is clear: the people of Gaza and the West Bank are not necessarily in agreement on who should govern them. One can easily see that this dynamic will continue to shape any political resolution. The implications are considerable.
Then there’s the problem of power dynamics. The Palestinian Authority doesn’t have the power to fight Hamas. They’ve offered to reform and take over Gaza after the war, but that’s only a possibility if Israel decides to get involved, and Israel may not want them to have weapons. These forces, with their own agendas, are also a major factor. The challenge for the Palestinian president is how to navigate all these conflicting interests. His plans for the future will have to be very carefully thought out.
The question remains: how is this going to happen? Who’s going to take action? Even if the situation were stable, they lack the ability to make any meaningful change. As the polls show, the situation is not stable. All things considered, it’s hard not to feel that the declaration is, at the moment, just a collection of words.