Abbas postpones Palestinian elections

With the end of April came the decision by President Abbas to postpone the Palestinian elections “until the participation of our people in Jerusalem is guaranteed.” Abbas’ move had been increasingly expected after senior adviser Nabil Shaath declared on April 20th that “the electoral process will be postponed” if Israel continued to ignore the PA’s request to hold the elections in East Jerusalem. Abbas did not present any timetable for when the elections would occur, indicating that their postponement was effectively a cancellation. 

Although PA Civil Affairs Minister Hussein al-Sheikh claimed that he had been officially informed of Israel’s refusal to allow elections in East Jerusalem, the Israeli Foreign Ministry asserted in an April 25th meeting with 11 ambassadors of European countries that Israel would not interfere in the Palestinian elections. Previously, Abbas was reportedly told that no clear answer about voting in East Jerusalem would be given before Israel is able to form a new government. However, the Palestinian electoral commission affirmed that the majority of East Jerusalem Palestinians would be able to vote, regardless of whether formal approval was given by Israel.

Despite the public reasoning for the postponement, it was widely understood that Abbas chose to avoid elections because of Fatah’s expected defeat, a prospect made likely by intra-party splits. It also became clear that the PA would encounter serious difficulties with international partners – particularly the US  – if Hamas were part of the government, underscored by the latter submitting an electoral list that included figures involved in terrorist attacks against Israel. For its part, the US indicated that it would not object to a postponement, with State Department spokesman Ned Price stating on April 1st that the elections “are ultimately a matter for the Palestinian people to decide.”

Hamas, which boycotted the meeting during which Abbas’ announcement was made, charged that the postponement was “a coup against the path of partnership and national consensus” and explicitly blamed Abbas and Fatah. In a statement, the UN’s Tor Wennesland called on Abbas to set a new date for the election, warning that “a prolonged period of uncertainty risks exacerbating the fragile situation,“ while the EU’s Josep Borrell said the postponement was “deeply disappointing.” 

“The delay will cause a huge backlash and disillusionment to many Palestinians who genuinely [believed] that this time around their vote will be heard and can make a difference,” wrote Palestinian political analyst Daoud Kuttab in Al-Monitor. So far, however, the postponement has been met by only limited protests in Ramallah and Gaza. 

The decision by Abbas to postpone the Palestinian elections, and the resulting fallout, decreased the parameters related to PLO cohesion and Fatah-Hamas relations from 5 to 3 and 6 to 4, respectively.

Biden administration resumes aid to UNRWA as debate heats up in Congress

On April 2nd, US Secretary of State Blinken spoke with Israeli FM Ashkenazi and said that Israelis and Palestinians should enjoy “equal measures” of freedom, security, prosperity and democracy. Five days later, President Biden reiterated US support for a two-state solution in a call with Jordan’s King Abdullah. That same day, the US announced $150 million in economic aid to UNRWA, bringing the Biden administration’s total resumption of aid to the Palestinians to $235 million. The move was welcomed by PM Shtyyah, while Israeli ambassador to the US Gilad Erdan said that Israel “strongly opposes” renewed funding. Push-back also came from Republican members of Congress, who subsequently (but only temporarily) blocked the administration from sending the aid. 

According to Michael Koplow of the Israel Policy Forum, “UNRWA is the only organization currently operating with the resources, infrastructure, and knowledge to be able to provide healthcare and education to Palestinian refugees … aid to the Palestinians is not a black and white, all or nothing proposition, yet the policy conversation on the aid question has become as polarizing [in Washington] as any other aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the U.S. approach.”

The issue of aid to Israel was also on the agenda for Congress this month, with Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) introducing a bill on April 15th calling for increased supervision and accountability of Israeli military sales received through US aid. On April 19th, Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders both spoke in favor of restricting aid to Israel in order to end support for “policies that violate human rights and treat the Palestinian people as second-class human beings,” in the words of Sen. Sanders. Subsequently, 330 Congress members signed a bipartisan letter opposing any restrictions on US aid to Israel, making it clear that the McCollum bill has no chance of progress. However, the sustained public dialogue regarding US aid to Israel demonstrated how debate over this issue has increasingly become part of mainstream political discourse in the US.

The Biden administration continued its rhetorical support for a two-state solution and increased its material support for the Palestinians, while the political debate over US policy regarding Israel showed signs of movement. However, all relevant parameters remained the same in April.