Is the Palestinian Authority on the edge of economic collapse, Abbas succession?
The future of the Palestinian Authority (PA) stands at a significantly uncertain point as it rests on the brink of economic collapse and a possible upcoming change of leadership.
The PA's security establishment has been preparing for the potential succession battles that could arise should its president, Mahmoud Abbas, 89, pass away suddenly.
Such a scenario could lead to violent riots, along with widespread chaos until a replacement is chosen, which is an event that the IDF is preparing for.
Yet, despite Abbas's advanced age, reports from Palestinian sources indicate that his health remains stable, and he continues to consolidate key powers, overseeing the civil administration, the security apparatus, and the political mechanisms of the PA.
One of the hallmarks of Abbas's rule has been his ability to maintain relative stability in the West Bank, even amid a severe economic crisis.
Critics have underscored the operations conducted by the Palestinian security forces in the Jenin refugee camp. The operations that took place were conducted against armed groups with no organizational affiliation.
A security source said that "although some in the IDF believed they weren't capable of going all the way, the operation in Jenin, from their perspective, was very successful, despite the deaths of five security personnel."
The security source continued to highlight a recent incident in which civilians attacked Palestinian police officers in a line at a gas station in Dheisha, near Bethlehem.
In response, Palestinian security forces launched an operation within the refugee camp, arresting three individuals involved in the assault and confronting senior members of the local group.
'The barrier of fear for the security forces has been broken when it comes to enforcing order,' said the source. 'In their view, this is a direct continuation of the strategic move in Jenin.'
This signals that the Palestinian security forces are now prepared to use force, even against Palestinian civilians, to maintain control and prevent anarchy.
Notably, the IDF has regularly coordinated with the Palestinian security forces, particularly during incidents of friction between Israelis and Palestinians.
The cooperation between the two sides is also evident when Israelis enter areas under Palestinian security control.
Another indication of the PA's instability is its handling of the ongoing financial crisis it is facing. For several months, full salaries have not been paid to 45,000 civil servants due to the non-transfer of clearance funds from Israel. Yet, despite this financial strain, Ramallah's clubs, restaurants, and bars have continued to operate daily.
In the security establishment, preparations have been underway for the potential leadership struggle following Abbas's departure.
The PA has been significantly weakened since the start ofthe Israel-Hamas war, and, according to estimates in the security establishment, it is not equipped to take responsibility for the Gaza Strip when the war ultimately ends.
However, the PA is still functioning, striving to prove its value to Israel as an asset, not a burden.
To address the economic challenges, there has been an Israeli security effort to promote industrial zones in the West Bank, foster agricultural entrepreneurship, and reduce bureaucratic hurdles that restrict the movement of Palestinian workers into Israel.
At the same time, the PA has continued its nightly operations of arrests, investigations, and efforts to thwart terror infrastructures throughout the West Bank. During the peak of the war in Gaza, universities were closed for fear of organizing and riots, forcing the transition of classes to Zoom.
Currently, security officials have noted that the PA is not yet ready for new, young leadership, as it continues to actively suppress attempts to bring fresh faces into the central leadership.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
With backs to the wall on IDF draft, Haredi MKs slam Edelstein, A-G
Edelstein has yet to present the text of a new law proposal based on agreements reached with haredi representatives on June 12, the eve of Israel's attack against Iran. Members of Knesset from the haredi (ultra-Orthodox) parties criticized Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee chairman MK Yuli Edelstein (Likud) and Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara on Wednesday and Thursday over their conduct regarding haredi service in the IDF. Edelstein has yet to present the text of a new law proposal based on agreements reached with haredi representatives on June 12, the eve of Israel's attack against Iran. A spokesperson for Edelstein said on Thursday that the bill would indeed be based on the agreements, but that there were still many details to work out. However, in a Thursday article in Shas's newspaper Haderech, party spokesperson Asher Medina argued that Edelstein had reneged on some of the agreements. 'The act of deceit and fraud surrounding the draft law knows no rest,' Medina wrote. 'The ink on Edelstein's festive [June 12] announcement about the agreements barely dried, and already it turned out [that] the promises remained only on paper. The public and media pressure wasn't long in coming, and Edelstein, as is his way, began to feel pressured and panicked and started dragging his feet. 'Suddenly, he asked to backtrack, reopened issues that had already been settled, and shifted the blame onto the committee's legal adviser. At the same time, he launched a symphony of briefings to journalists,' Medina wrote. 'The very agreement that Edelstein proudly boasted about... has suddenly, according to him, become a tactical concession forced upon him by the attack in Iran. The level of trust the haredi delegation has in Edelstein is close to nothing. Even lower is the level of trust the Council of Torah Sages has in the chance that this committee will produce a law that satisfies them. 'If, at this stage, there are demands to reopen issues that were already agreed upon, what will stop them from deceiving Torah scholars again and again?' Medina added. He argued that the haredi parties had 'no choice' but to use the only parliamentary tool at their disposal to apply pressure. For weeks, haredi MKs have boycotted voting on bills proposed by private MKs, which usually come up on Wednesdays. However, for the first time this week, the MKs boycotted the plenum on Monday as well, forcing the coalition to remove from the agenda government-proposed bills and bills that were in advanced stages of legislation. THE AGREEMENTS stipulated that an increasing number of haredi draftees would enlist annually, with the ultimate goal of 50% of each graduating class drafting within five years. The bill included a series of sanctions that would apply to draft dodgers gradually, with some relatively light sanctions applying immediately, and heavier sanctions added at six-month increments. Financial sanctions would also be applied to yeshivot that do not reach draft quotas. In the meantime, current sanctions against draft dodgers, which include blocked funds to yeshivot and the cessation of state-subsidized daycare, would be lifted. Medina's mention of the committee's legal adviser, Miri Frenkel-Shor, was notable, since the agreements drew legal and public criticism soon after they were published. The head of the Finance Ministry's Budget Department, Yoav Gardos, wrote in a letter to Frenkel-Shor on July 2 that the agreement would actually serve as an incentive not to enlist and not to work and, in effect, perpetuate the issues that it set out to solve. Gardos pointed out that the idea of quotas may already be a nonstarter since they did not place a specific requirement for individual haredim to enlist. In addition, he explained that the immediate sanctions would not significantly affect many young haredi yeshiva students. In the meantime, the law's passage will free up funds to yeshivot and to parents that are currently frozen because of students' draft evasion. THE PREVIOUS exemption for haredi men officially ended with a High Court ruling in June 2024, and since no new bill has passed, the current legal status requires the enlistment of all of the approximately 80,000 eligible haredi men. Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara has held monthly meetings since then to ensure that the High Court ruling is being implemented. The most recent meeting took place on Sunday. According to a summary of the meeting put out by the A-G's spokesperson, IDF representatives said they had taken a number of measures to increase enforcement against draft dodgers. These included a change of protocol to shorten the grace period for draftees before they are considered draft-dodgers; increased enforcement at border crossings, roadblocks, and regular arrests; pre-initiated enforcement based on intelligence; a special plan during the month of September to ease punishment on draft-dodgers who report for service on their own accord; and adding jail cells for draft-dodgers who continue to refuse service. In addition, on top of the approximately 24,000 draft orders sent out over the past year, the IDF will send out the remaining 54,000 by the end of July, which will apply gradually until June 2026, pertinent to the IDF's capacity to process new recruits. Degel Hatorah chairman MK Moshe Gafni said on Thursday, 'Baharav-Miara has declared herself the leading fighter against the world of Torah, its students, and those who uphold the Jewish people. We will not allow even a single yeshiva student to be prevented from learning Torah or to interrupt his studies. 'The Jewish people are well-acquainted with the trials of history, both near and distant, in which attempts were made to stop Torah study, and we know how those attempts ended.' In his article on Thursday, Medina wrote the following about Baharav-Miara: 'At the Attorney-General's Office, they gleefully rubbed their hands and raced, eyes wide open, toward chaos. There, they pressured the IDF to issue tens of thousands more draft notices to haredim, toughen sanctions, shorten enforcement timelines, and even consider extreme measures like arrests and checkpoints at the entrances to haredi cities.' Medina continued, 'In their view, the draft law is the last card left to shatter the Netanyahu government through a rupture with the haredi public. And they won't relent. They will do everything to sabotage a legal arrangement, to prevent a resolution, lest even a single yeshiva student escape the 'draft-dodger' label they've assigned him.' The boycotts drew criticism from within the coalition. MK Dan Illouz (Likud) on Wednesday and MK Moshe Saada (Likud) on Thursday expressed their opposition to the haredi maneuver, which they claimed was unacceptable during wartime.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A-G: Turning my firing process political is illegal, opens door to political deals
The government's decision to change the hiring and firing process is 'fundamental, tectonic,' and will affect the entire future of the position. The government's push to hasten the firing Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara means the upending of the process that has been in place for her position for decades is against the law and will serve as a slippery slope for political deals, the A-G said on Monday, as her office issued an advisory opinion against the government's decision. The decision in question was passed on June 8 and stipulated changes to the traditional firing process of the attorney-general. A ministerial committee on the matter is scheduled for Monday, led by Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism Minister Amichai Chikli (Likud). To hire or fire the A-G, an external public-professional committee must convene and provide an expert opinion before any government decision comes to light. The committee includes a retired Supreme Court justice as chair, appointed by the Supreme Court chief justice and by approval of the justice minister; a former justice minister or attorney-general, chosen by the government; an MK, chosen by the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee; a lawyer, chosen by the Israel Bar Association (IBA); and a legal academic, selected by the deans of Israel's law faculties. The term of an attorney-general is six years. If the government wishes to end the term early, it has to meet specific conditions – such as if there are consistent and severe disagreements between theA-G and the government, rendering their working relationship obsolete. If this is the case, the justice minister must submit a request to the committee. It then holds a meeting, during which the A-G can present their side. The committee then submits its recommendations. It's not just politics the A-G's Office is worried about; it is what led to the creation of the public professional committee in the first place: The Bar-On-Hebron Affair. In January 1997, lawyer Roni Bar-On was appointed attorney-general. He was not qualified for the position and resigned two days later after public and political outrage. About a week later, it came out that his appointment was part of a deal between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Shas head Arye Deri, who was then internal security minister, to advance a plea bargain in Deri's corruption case. Deri pushed for the appointment in exchange for his party's support of the controversial Hebron Agreement. Deri was later indicted after a police investigation concluded that charges be brought, and, due to that, he was out of politics for a decade. The committee was created to avoid such a scenario. What the government outlined in its June 8 decision is 'laden with political-governmental factors,' read the Monday advisory opinion by the Attorney-General's Office. Under its framework, all that is required is for the justice minister to present the request to fire the A-G to a committee made up of government ministers only, and then to bring it to a parliamentary vote. This effectively 'circumvents the necessity to appear before the public-professional committee,' explained the opinion. The existing procedure came into effect after an attempted political appointment of the attorney-general and has been in effect since 2000, thanks to the Shamgar Commission. 'The requirement to seek counsel with the public professional committee was instituted specifically so that political factors don't influence the decision,' said the A-G's Office, which is also why specific conditions must be met for the firing process to even begin, to make sure it's not a political hit and to prevent complete governmental control over the process. The advisory opinion adds that the government decision didn't come in a vacuum; it came after Justice Minister Yariv Levin had already set out to have her fired under the current framework. However, he couldn't successfully call the committee in. He then pivoted, reads the decision, to change the whole process altogether, 'without professional, serious investment, without proper legal support, and without explaining why the fundamentals of the process actually need to be changed.' As soon as the decision was announced, several NGOs immediately petitioned the High Court of Justice to issue an injunction on the decision and force the government to explain its actions. The petitioners argued that the decision has no legal basis and breaks with the traditions of previous governments, that it is clouded with foreign influences, and that what Levin did here was trying to change the rules of the game while already in it, when he realized he wouldn't succeed in calling up the committee. 'The government showed, with its actions, that if the existing frameworks don't find its favor or serve its immediate needs, it will simply change them,' reads the opinion, as it called on the court to order the injunctions against the decision. After the petitions were filed, Justice Noam Sohlberg gave several extensions on the deadline for the government's response. The deadline is now July 15. However, on July 2, the government announced that the ministerial committee will convene on Monday, July 14 – before the deadline runs out. It also summoned Baharav-Miara for a hearing on the matter, which was later canceled and replaced by the committee meeting announcement. Levin said on Monday, 'The attorney-general is wasting state resources to avoid her firing, with a clear conflict of interest. The government decision I led is not only legal but necessary.' The office pointed out that it informed the government in a timely manner that it would allow separate legal representation on the matter before the court. It added, 'The decision has fundamental, far-reaching consequences, ones that touch the roots of the A-G's position to protect the rule of law.' It further warned that the decision sets a dangerous precedent, calling it 'fundamental and tectonic' in nature. 'This decision fundamentally changes the character, independence, statesmanship, and ability of any future attorney-general to carry out their duties and protect the rule of law,' as it will trickle down to legal advisers present in the ministries. Eliav Breuer and Yonah Jeremy Bob contributed to this report.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
'Criminal conflict of interest': Ben-Gvir slams A-G over journalist's postponed investigation
Baharav-Miara argued that to investigate Channel 13 reporter Aviad Glickman would infringe on freedom of the press, while Ben-Gvir argued that her intervention was an abuse of authority. Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara is in a 'criminal conflict of interest' with Channel 13 reporter Aviad Glickman, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir accused in a post on X/Twitter on Friday. 'I have demanded that she disclose her meetings with him and cease all involvement in his case, exactly as she demanded from the prime minister regarding General Zini,' Ben-Gvir wrote. Glickman was initially summoned for investigation by the Israel Police after allegedly pushing an associate of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's wife, Sara Netanyahu. Channel 13 sent a letter to Baharav-Miara demanding that the investigation be canceled on the grounds that it would violate the freedom of the press, arguing that the incident occurred while Glickman was fulfilling his role as a legal reporter. After initial pushback from the police, who argued that assault could never be considered part of a journalist's role, the investigation was ultimately delayed until a joint conversation could be held between Baharav-Miara and police officials. Sources within the police added that they believed this to be "an attempt to exert improper political pressure," N12 reported, though Baharav-Miara insisted in a statement, 'This is required due to the procedural caution necessary when investigating journalists regarding their work and to prevent concerns about harming the journalistic space."
