Israel soon heads to the polls, while Palestinian democracy remains on hold. Hamas looms over both

On October 27, Israel is scheduled to hold its first national election since Hamas’ attack of October 7 2023.

It will be the first opportunity for Israeli citizens to vote for or against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu since those attacks and the devastating assault on Gaza that followed.

After three years of war, Hamas is still armed. It remains the most proximate security threat to the people of Israel.

Meanwhile, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has postponed Palestinian legislative elections, originally set to take place on November 28, by almost a year. This follows a two-decade pattern of delays and cancellations.

The enduring identity and status of Hamas is also at the heart of the democratic predicament of Palestinian politics. Hamas is the only political group to have won democratic Palestinian elections this century.

Dealing credibly and effectively with Hamas – both as an armed organisation and a political force – will remain a central challenge for both Israeli and Palestinian leaders alike.

Two decades of deferred democracy

This year’s Palestinian elections would have been the first to take place in 20 years. In 2006, Hamas won internationally observed elections by a landslide.

The group briefly formed government under Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh (who would later be assassinated by Israel in 2024).

But Hamas refused to disarm or recognise the legitimacy of the state of Israel. Nor would the group agree to the terms of the US Roadmap to Peace.

In response, Israel withheld operational funds from the fledgling government.

Shortly afterwards, the United States and European Union halted international aid payments to Hamas. Such aid was instead to be directed to the Palestinians through the United Nations and other mechanisms.

Having been rendered financially inoperable, and after armed conflict with Abbas’ rival Palestinian faction Fatah, Hamas withdrew from the West Bank and took power in Gaza in 2007.

A longstanding crisis of legitimacy

Fatah then assumed control of the Palestinian Authority. This unelected, quasi-governmental body has administered limited areas of the West Bank ever since.

Abbas, now 90, has held the post of president by decree since his elected term expired in 2009.

His continued rule without a renewed electoral mandate has become emblematic of the Palestinian Authority’s wider crisis of legitimacy, making him the object of ridicule and anger among Palestinians in the West Bank.

The Palestinian Authority has faced persistent accusations of internal corruption. It is also seen by many as failing to advance Palestinian national aspirations through its accommodating relations with Israel.

Perhaps the most problematic illustration of this is its security coordination with Israel in the West Bank, where almost 10,000 Palestinians are in detention or prison on alleged security grounds.

The reason given by the Palestinian Authority for postponing elections this year echoes previous delays. It said the “anticipated political, security and economic conditions” have “not materialised”.

Abbas’ repeated deferral of democratic elections has fuelled accusations the Palestinian Authority is unwilling to face the popular will of the Palestinian people.

The enduring dilemma of Hamas

Among the competitors Abbas would face are the hugely popular but long-imprisoned Marwan Barghouti and the controversial Mohammed Dahlan.

However, a more fundamental question is what role Hamas could play in any future Palestinian election.

On the Palestinian side, Abbas and his unelected colleagues would have to accept the possibility that a future election becomes a rerun of Hamas’ 2006 victory.

On the Israeli side, the prospect of Hamas participating in any future Palestinian elections could not be tolerated. Yet any elections that exclude Hamas would be democratically spurious.

The international community advocating the right of Palestinian self-determination and statehood faces its own dilemma. For many governments, supporting the idea Hamas should participate in Palestinian elections is fanciful. For others – such as Australia – that designate Hamas as a terrorist organisation, it would be in contravention of national laws.

Lessons from 2006 pose further difficult questions. Will the EU and other international donors only support a Palestinian government that meets their criteria? What if that means overturning a democratic election?

Three signs of Hamas’ endurance

The future of Palestinian democracy remains deeply uncertain. But so, too, does Israel’s ability to deal with Hamas’ continued presence in Gaza.

In the weeks before the Israeli election, three factors illustrate Hamas’ continuing military, political and organisational significance.

1. Hamas remains armed

First, Netanyahu’s war aim of eliminating Hamas as a military and governing entity has not been achieved. This is despite recent pressure from the US-led Board of Peace to do so as part of the phased Gaza peace plan.

In August, Hamas announced it would be willing to relinquish its heavy weapons. But it would do so only once Israel stopped its strikes on Gaza, fully withdrew, and committed to the creation of a Palestinian state.

These terms are of course unacceptable to Israel. Yet Israel remains unable to force its own terms on Hamas.

Meanwhile, reports suggest Hamas has also proceeded to rebuild its fighting force. By April of last year, Hamas had reportedly recruited up to 30,000 new fighters in Gaza.

2. A conditional offer to relinquish power

Second, Hamas has demonstrated its continuing political leverage. In July, Ismail al-Thwabta, head of the group’s media office in Gaza, announced it would relinquish its administration over Gaza and hand authority to a technocratic body that could reconstitute civil administration and government in the strip.

Israel dismissed it as a “stunt”. But in diplomatic terms, Hamas’ announcement was as much a threat as an offer. Hamas would not hand over authority under fire from Israel, nor on the terms dictated by the US-led Board of Peace.

By announcing it would hand over government, but only through further political negotiations, Hamas was indicating that it still has the capacity to produce a political vacuum in Gaza.

Neither Israel nor the US has demonstrated it will be able to fill such a vacuum.

3. A new leader, an enduring organisation

Third, Hamas has maintained organisational continuity, despite the loss of numerous senior figures in the war.

In July, Hamas announced Khalil al-Hayya had been elected as its new overall leader, replacing Yahya Sinwar, who was killed by Israel in 2024.

Analysis by the BBC argued Hamas is going through “one of the most difficult periods in its history”. But this is not the first time the group has survived the loss of leadership.

It would be difficult to argue that, still armed and negotiating after three years under siege, Hamas is on the brink of collapse. Al-Hayya’s election shows the durability of its long-established leadership structure, which operates both in Gaza and internationally in Qatar.

This structure, studied by numerous scholars for decades, has contributed to the organisation’s flexibility and staying power.