The calculated silence from Ramallah following the escalating conflict between Iran and the US-Israel alliance isn’t a diplomatic oversight – it’s a strategic positioning. While the world focuses on retaliatory strikes and regional instability stemming from the February 28th attacks, the Palestinian Authority (PA) is navigating a precarious landscape, subtly signaling its preference for a weakened Iran, even as it publicly condemns attacks on Arab states. This isn’t about shared security concerns; it’s about a long-term power struggle for influence over the Palestinian national project.
The PA’s official statements – condemning Iranian attacks on Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and other Arab nations while calling for UN Security Council intervention – are carefully calibrated. President Mahmoud Abbas’s appeal for an emergency meeting of Arab foreign ministers, framed as a defense of regional sovereignty, masks a deeper calculation. The PA, led by Hussein Al-Sheikh, Vice President of the State of Palestine, is meticulously avoiding any criticism of the Israeli-American actions against Iran, a silence that speaks volumes. This isn’t neutrality; it’s a tacit endorsement of a development that directly undermines its primary political rival, Hamas.
This dynamic echoes historical precedents of proxy conflicts where weaker actors align with stronger powers to eliminate competing influences. Consider the intricate alliances during the Cold War, where nations often supported opposing sides in regional disputes to advance their own interests. The PA, facing a crisis of legitimacy and relevance, is effectively leveraging the US-Israel conflict to weaken a key patron of Hamas, a group it views as an existential threat to its own authority. The PA’s consistent accusations, amplified by organizations like Palestinian Media Watch, that Iran orchestrated the October 7th attacks to “serve its Iranian masters” and “destroy the Palestinian national project” aren’t recent developments. They represent a sustained campaign to delegitimize Hamas and portray it as a tool of foreign interference. Muwaffaq Matar, a PLO National Council member, articulated this sentiment in June 2024, accusing Iran of seeking to replace the PLO as the “sole representative of the Palestinian people.”
Drawn from algemeiner.com.
The PA’s animosity towards Iran isn’t simply ideological. It’s rooted in a power struggle for control over the Palestinian narrative and political future. Omar Hilmi Al-Ghoul, a columnist for the official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, recently described Hamas as operating under taqiyya – a principle of dissimulation – and acting as a “paid pawn” for Iran, dedicated to “sabotaging the national project.” This rhetoric isn’t aimed at Israeli audiences; it’s directed at Arab states and international actors, seeking to justify the PA’s own position and solicit support. Even more telling is the thinly veiled mockery from Adnan Al-Damiri, a former spokesman for the PA Security Forces, who dismissed Iran’s attacks as “stupidity and malice” and predicted the Iranian people would continue to “support the regime” despite any potential for liberation. This isn’t the language of solidarity.
However, the PA’s strategy isn’t monolithic. The open mourning of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s death by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) demonstrates a fracture within Palestinian factions. The PFLP’s characterization of the Israeli-American attack as a “cowardly assassination operation” highlights the continued appeal of pan-Arabist and anti-imperialist ideologies, even as the PA prioritizes its own political survival. This internal division underscores the complexity of the situation and the potential for further fragmentation within the Palestinian political landscape. The fact that Khamenei himself, in a June 2024 speech, lauded Hamas’s October 7th attack while conspicuously omitting any mention of the PA or PLO further illustrates the chasm between the two entities.
The political chess move to watch next isn’t a military escalation, but rather the PA’s maneuvering within international forums. Will President Abbas leverage the current crisis to secure renewed commitments of financial and political support from the US and its allies, framing the PA as a bulwark against Iranian influence? Or will the PA’s calculated silence backfire, alienating potential allies and further marginalizing its role in the broader regional equation? The answer will reveal the true extent of the PA’s gamble and its long-term vision for the future of Palestine.
