• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
Palestinian Presidential Elections

Source: Getty

Article

Palestinian Presidential Elections

A presidential election in Palestine will not take place until Fatah and Hamas reach consensus—and Israel permits it—resulting in a deadlock with no clear path toward political reconciliation. In a question and answer guide, Nathan Brown offers an analysis of Palestinian law and the core disagreements between the Palestinian factions that cast doubt on President Mahmud Abbas’s political future.

Link Copied
By Nathan J. Brown
Published on Jul 15, 2008

Additional Links

Full Text PDF (English)Full Text PDF (Arabic)

A presidential election in Palestine will not take place until both Fatah and Hamas reach consensus—and Israel permits it—resulting in a deadlock with no clear path toward political reconciliation.  In a new question and answer guide, Nathan Brown offers an analysis of Palestinian law and the core disagreements between the Palestinian factions that cast new doubt on President Mahmud Abbas’s political future.

Hamas insists Abbas’s term expires in 2009, while Fatah points to 2010. While Abbas was elected in 2005 and the Palestinian Basic Law sets a four-year term for the presidency, parliament passed an election law in 2005 that calls for the parliament and president to be elected together. Parliament’s four year term expires in 2010.

Key Conclusions:

  • Elections cannot be held unless Palestinian government agencies cooperate. Hamas controls certain agencies in the Gaza Strip while Fatah controls them in the West Bank. 
  • Parliament is unlikely to pass legislation to clarify the issue. Hamas has a clear majority, but cannot muster a quorum as Israel holds many of its deputies. If parliament does pass legislation, Hamas lacks the votes to override the likely presidential veto.
  • There is little hope for judicial intervention in the dispute. The law creating a constitutional court itself remains in legal limbo, while Hamas will not accept a ruling from the High Court as legitimate.
  • Israeli attitudes towards Hamas’s participation in elections has hardened over the last two years. Holding elections without Israeli cooperation is difficult as they control east Jerusalem as well as some areas of the West Bank.
  • Hamas and Fatah argue different interpretations of what will happen when Abbas’s term expires. Hamas argues that the presidency passes on an interim basis to the parliamentary speaker, while Fatah holds that Abbas retains control until new elections are held.

About the Author

Nathan J. Brown

Nonresident Senior Fellow, Middle East Program

Nathan J. Brown, a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University, is a distinguished scholar and author of nine books on Arab politics and governance, as well as editor of five books.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Trump’s Plan for Gaza Is Not Irrelevant. It’s Worse.

      Nathan J. Brown

  • Commentary
    Israel’s Forever Wars

      Nathan J. Brown

Nathan J. Brown
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Middle East Program
Nathan J. Brown
Middle EastIsraelPalestinePolitical ReformDemocracy

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    The Afghanistan–Pakistan War Poses Awkward Questions for Russia

    Not only does the fighting jeopardize regional security, it undermines Russian attempts to promote alternatives to the Western-dominated world order.

      Ruslan Suleymanov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    After Ilia II: What Will a New Patriarch Mean for Georgia?

    The front-runner to succeed Ilia II, Metropolitan Shio, is prone to harsh anti-Western rhetoric and frequent criticism of “liberal ideologies” that he claims threaten the Georgian state. This raises fears that under his leadership the Georgian Orthodox Church will lose its unifying role and become an instrument of ultraconservative ideology.

      Bashir Kitachaev

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Tokayev’s New Constitution Is a Bet on Stability—At Freedom’s Expense

    Kazakhstan’s new constitution is an embodiment of the ruling elite’s fears and a self-serving attempt to preserve the status quo while they still can.

      Serik Beysembaev

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    The Kremlin Is Destroying Its Own System of Coerced Voting

    The use of technology to mobilize Russians to vote—a system tied to the relative material well-being of the electorate, its high dependence on the state, and a far-reaching system of digital control—is breaking down.

      Andrey Pertsev

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Notes From Kyiv: Is Ukraine Preparing for Elections?

    As discussions about settlement and elections move from speculation to preparation, Kyiv will have to manage not only the battlefield, but also the terms of political transition. The thaw will not resolve underlying tensions; it will only expose them more clearly.

      Balázs Jarábik

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.