An interview with Samir Abdullah

bitterlemons: What would trigger the collapse of the Palestinian Authority?

Abdullah: The Palestinian Authority takes its legitimacy from two sources. The first is how far it can advance the political project and the search for independence. The second is to what extent it can provide good-quality services, manage a good economy, provide jobs for the unemployed, provide social security to the elderly and the handicapped, and provide a good climate for investment and so on.

These are the two pillars from which the Palestinian Authority gets legitimacy. It can't survive over the long term by advancing only one of them. [The Palestinian Authority] is not sustainable even if it has the best economic performance in the world. This would last for a short term, but in the end people want freedom. They want their political aspirations to be realized. Also, partial political advancements are not sustainable alone.

So, to view where we are currently: sometimes these two pillars of legitimacy work against each other. [This happens] whenever we have an Israeli government that does not have an interest in the peace process, that does whatever possible to poison the political atmosphere, that closes nearly all avenues for the advancement of the peace process. The [Palestine Liberation Organization] and the Palestinian Authority must show the public that they are working on democracy and freedom and independence, and so the Israeli government punishes the Palestinian Authority [for this] by making a difficult environment for investment, cutting resources to the Palestinian Authority, and making the ability of the Palestinian Authority to advance the economy difficult.

If the Israeli government maintains this track for many years, denying the Palestinians any progress in either the political path or the social and economic path, it could lead to the fall of the Palestinian Authority.

bitterlemons: Why is Israel toying with this equation? It seems like it would want the Palestinian Authority to survive to avoid adopting the burdens of providing Palestinians with services?

Abdullah: Since the Palestinian Authority was born in 1994, [successive] Israeli governments have played this game, trying to strike a balance between keeping the Palestinian Authority able to survive but not [allowing it to] flourish.

Now, [however], we are seeing new politicians who don't care, who feel that it is better not to have the Palestinian Authority. They see the Palestinian Authority as an obstacle in their aspirations to take over the whole of the West Bank and kick Palestinians out and commit all kinds of crimes. These politicians are very strong [in the government] and [Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu is almost a hostage to their policies. It is creating embarrassment for him but he can do nothing to change the situation.

bitterlemons: Then what do you think is the likelihood of the collapse of the Palestinian Authority?

Abdullah: To be frank with you, I can't believe that this will happen. It is in no one's interest. If it happens, it will be as the result of a regional war or maybe in advance of a regional war. The government in Israel is capable of committing [just about anything]. If [Israeli leaders] see that they can succeed unpunished in a regional war, they will [go ahead] for the sake of ending the peace process and maybe also transferring Palestinians outside [of historic Palestine]. This is very unlikely, but could happen with the volatile situation in the area.

bitterlemons: Can you speak some about the implications of a collapse of the Palestinian Authority?

Abdullah: It could mean the collapse of many things we have seen develop: the banking sector and financial sector, the stock exchange. These things need proper regulation and will not be able to survive. But other things, people will manage, such as import and export, and the normal economic cycle will continue. Services will be run through creative thinking by Palestinian communities.

But this would be [the result] of a total change, not like previous conflicts [or intifadas], something that would endanger all of the regimes in the area.