Which Political Party Controls The West Bank: A Comprehensive Analysis

The question of which political party controls the West Bank is a complex and contentious issue rooted in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The West Bank, a territory in the Levant, has been under Israeli occupation since the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, though the Palestinian Authority (PA), dominated by the Fatah party, exercises limited self-governance in parts of the area designated as Areas A and B under the Oslo Accords. Meanwhile, Hamas, a rival Palestinian political and militant group, holds significant influence, particularly in the Gaza Strip, but also has supporters in the West Bank. Israel maintains overall control through its military presence, settlements, and administrative authority in Area C, which comprises about 60% of the West Bank. This multilayered governance structure, combined with ongoing political tensions and the absence of a final status agreement, makes the question of control in the West Bank a deeply disputed and unresolved matter.

Explore related products

Israel, the West Bank and International Law

$135 $190

Unsettled States, Disputed Lands: Britain and Ireland, France and Algeria, Israel and the West Bank-Gaza (The Wilder House Series in Politics, History and Culture)

$57.95

The Judicial Process: Law, Courts, and Judicial Politics (Higher Education Coursebook)

$159

Fragile by Design: The Political Origins of Banking Crises and Scarce Credit (The Princeton Economic History of the Western World)

$17.13 $29.95

The Limits of the Land: How the Struggle for the West Bank Shaped the Arab-Israeli Conflict (Perspectives on Israel Studies)

$11.99 $17.99

The Science of Racism: Everything You Need to Know but Probably Don’t―Yet

$2.81 $28

Historical Control: Overview of past political parties or entities that have governed the West Bank

The West Bank’s political history is a tapestry of shifting control, marked by the rise and fall of empires, mandates, and nationalist movements. From ancient times to the modern era, this region has been governed by a succession of external powers, each leaving an indelible mark on its identity. Understanding this historical control is essential to grasping the complexities of its current political landscape.

Ottoman Rule (1517–1917): For nearly four centuries, the West Bank was part of the Ottoman Empire, administered as a province within the larger framework of Ottoman Syria. This period saw the region integrated into a vast Islamic empire, with local governance often delegated to regional elites. The Ottoman legacy is still evident in the region’s architecture, legal systems, and cultural practices. However, the empire’s decline in the late 19th and early 20th centuries set the stage for new powers to assert control.

British Mandate (1920–1948): Following World War I, the League of Nations granted Britain the mandate to govern Palestine, including the West Bank. This era was characterized by increasing Zionist immigration and growing Arab nationalism, leading to tensions that would later escalate into conflict. The British administration attempted to balance these competing interests but ultimately failed to prevent the outbreak of violence. The mandate period ended with the establishment of Israel in 1948, leaving the West Bank under Jordanian control.

Jordanian Annexation (1948–1967): After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Jordan formally annexed the West Bank, integrating it into the Hashemite Kingdom. This period saw relative stability and development, with Jordanian law and administration applied to the region. However, the Six-Day War in 1967 marked a turning point, as Israel occupied the West Bank, ending Jordanian rule and ushering in a new era of Israeli military governance.

Israeli Occupation (1967–Present): Since 1967, Israel has maintained control over the West Bank, though the nature of this control has evolved. Initially governed through military administration, parts of the West Bank were later placed under the Palestinian Authority (PA) following the Oslo Accords in the 1990s. Today, Israel retains significant security and administrative control, particularly in Area C, which constitutes about 60% of the West Bank. This ongoing occupation remains a central issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with international debates over its legality and implications for Palestinian self-determination.

Palestinian Authority (1994–Present): Established under the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority exercises limited self-rule in parts of the West Bank, primarily in Areas A and B. The PA, dominated by Fatah, has faced challenges in governing effectively due to Israeli restrictions, internal political divisions, and economic hardships. Despite these obstacles, the PA remains a key player in the region’s political landscape, representing Palestinian aspirations for statehood.

In examining the historical control of the West Bank, a recurring theme emerges: the region’s fate has often been determined by external powers, with local populations frequently marginalized in decision-making processes. This history underscores the complexity of the current political situation and the challenges of achieving a sustainable resolution to the conflict.

Current Authority: Identification of the political party or group currently in control of the West Bank

The West Bank, a territory at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is currently under a complex and layered governance structure. Officially, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), dominated by the Fatah party, holds administrative control over parts of the West Bank designated as Areas A and B under the Oslo Accords. However, this authority is significantly constrained by Israel’s overarching military and security presence, particularly in Area C, which comprises about 60% of the territory. This dual governance creates a fragmented political landscape where Fatah’s influence is limited, and Israel’s control remains pervasive.

Fatah, led by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, operates as the primary political force within the PNA. Its authority is concentrated in urban centers like Ramallah, Jericho, and Bethlehem, where it manages civil affairs, education, and healthcare. However, Fatah’s legitimacy has been eroded by internal divisions, allegations of corruption, and its inability to challenge Israeli settlements or military incursions. The party’s dominance is further challenged by Hamas, its Islamist rival, which, while not officially in control of the West Bank, maintains a covert presence and enjoys support among segments of the population disillusioned with Fatah’s leadership.

Israel’s role in the West Bank cannot be overstated. Through its military administration, known as the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), Israel exercises control over borders, movement, and security across the entire territory. This includes checkpoints, settlement expansion, and frequent military operations, which often overshadow the PNA’s authority. Israel’s dominance is particularly evident in Area C, where it retains full control over security and civil affairs, effectively limiting the PNA’s ability to govern or develop the area.

The practical reality for residents of the West Bank is one of overlapping and often conflicting authorities. While Fatah and the PNA provide basic services and maintain order in limited areas, Israel’s military and administrative control shapes daily life in profound ways. This dual system has led to a political stalemate, with neither side able to assert full authority or resolve the underlying conflict. For those seeking to understand or engage with the West Bank’s governance, recognizing this complex interplay between Fatah, Hamas, and Israel is essential.

In conclusion, the current authority in the West Bank is a patchwork of control, with Fatah nominally in charge but significantly constrained by Israel’s military presence and Hamas’s latent influence. This dynamic underscores the territory’s status as a contested space, where political power is fragmented and the path to a unified governance structure remains elusive. For policymakers, analysts, or observers, grasping this nuanced reality is crucial to navigating the complexities of the West Bank’s political landscape.

Palestinian Authority Role: Examination of the Palestinian Authority's influence and governance in the West Bank

The Palestinian Authority (PA) operates as the primary governing body in the West Bank, yet its control is fragmented and constrained by external factors. Established under the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, the PA was intended to serve as an interim self-governing authority, paving the way for a future Palestinian state. However, decades later, its role remains complex and limited. The PA’s jurisdiction is divided into Areas A, B, and C, with full civil and security control in Area A, partial control in Area B, and minimal influence in Area C, which remains under Israeli military and administrative control. This division underscores the PA’s restricted authority, as it governs only 18% of the West Bank’s territory and population, while Israel retains significant control over borders, resources, and movement.

Analytically, the PA’s governance is marked by a delicate balance between maintaining order and navigating Israeli restrictions. Its security forces, trained and funded by international donors, work to prevent violence and maintain stability in areas under its control. However, this role often places the PA in a contentious position, as it must cooperate with Israel on security matters while addressing the grievances of its population. Critics argue that this cooperation undermines the PA’s legitimacy, as it is seen as enforcing Israeli policies rather than advancing Palestinian self-determination. Despite these challenges, the PA remains a critical institution for service delivery, managing education, healthcare, and infrastructure in its limited areas of control.

Persuasively, the PA’s influence is further complicated by internal political divisions. Fatah, the dominant party within the PA, has been at odds with Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, since the 2007 split. This division weakens the PA’s ability to present a unified front in negotiations with Israel or to address the broader aspirations of the Palestinian people. Efforts at reconciliation have repeatedly stalled, leaving the PA’s governance fragmented and its legitimacy questioned. This internal rift not only hampers the PA’s effectiveness but also limits its ability to assert control or influence beyond its immediate territories.

Comparatively, the PA’s role contrasts sharply with that of Hamas in Gaza. While Hamas exercises full control over its territory, the PA’s authority is constantly challenged by Israeli settlements, military incursions, and the expansion of Area C. This disparity highlights the PA’s precarious position as a governing body that lacks sovereignty. Unlike Hamas, which operates with autonomy, the PA’s decisions are often contingent on Israeli approval, further eroding its ability to act independently. This comparison underscores the unique constraints the PA faces in its governance of the West Bank.

Practically, understanding the PA’s role requires recognizing its limitations and the external pressures it faces. For instance, the PA’s economic policies are heavily influenced by the Paris Protocol, a 1994 agreement that ties the Palestinian economy to Israel’s. This dependency limits the PA’s ability to develop independent economic strategies, perpetuating financial instability. Additionally, the PA’s reliance on international aid makes it vulnerable to political pressures from donor countries. To navigate these challenges, the PA must balance pragmatism with the pursuit of long-term political goals, a task made increasingly difficult by the absence of a clear path to statehood.

In conclusion, the Palestinian Authority’s influence and governance in the West Bank are defined by its limited territorial control, internal divisions, and external constraints. While it remains a vital institution for service delivery and stability, its role is fraught with challenges that undermine its effectiveness and legitimacy. Understanding the PA’s position requires acknowledging these complexities and the broader political context in which it operates. As the question of which political party controls the West Bank persists, the PA’s role serves as a critical, yet contested, element in the ongoing struggle for Palestinian self-determination.

Explore related products

The Politics of Diplomacy

$24.79 $32.5

Behind the Development Banks: Washington Politics, World Poverty, and the Wealth of Nations

$33.25 $34.99

The Politics of Truth: A Diplomat's Memoir: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity

$15.28 $26

The Globalizers: The IMF, the World Bank, and Their Borrowers

$41.66 $76.95

A Consumers' Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America

$18.95 $25.79

The Way to the Spring: Life and Death in Palestine

$5.99 $19

Israeli Influence: Analysis of Israel's military and administrative control over parts of the West Bank

Israel's military and administrative control over parts of the West Bank is a complex and multifaceted issue, rooted in decades of conflict, political maneuvering, and international law. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has maintained a significant presence in the region, dividing the West Bank into distinct areas with varying degrees of control. Area C, comprising approximately 60% of the West Bank, is under full Israeli military and administrative control, while Areas A and B have limited Palestinian Authority oversight, primarily in security and civil matters. This division has profound implications for governance, resource allocation, and the daily lives of Palestinian residents.

From a military perspective, Israel’s influence is evident in its extensive network of checkpoints, settlements, and security barriers. Over 140 Israeli settlements, home to more than 400,000 settlers, are scattered throughout the West Bank, often in strategic locations that fragment Palestinian communities. These settlements, considered illegal under international law, are protected by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), which maintains a strong presence to ensure settler security. The IDF also controls key roads, restricts Palestinian movement, and enforces policies that prioritize Israeli interests. For instance, Palestinians in Area C face severe limitations on construction and land use, with only 1% of the area designated for their development, compared to 70% reserved for Israeli settlements or military purposes.

Administratively, Israel’s control is exercised through the Civil Administration, a military body that oversees planning, zoning, and resource management in Area C. This authority often results in the demolition of Palestinian homes and infrastructure under the pretext of lacking permits, which are nearly impossible to obtain. Water resources are another critical area of Israeli dominance. Israel controls over 80% of the West Bank’s water supply, allocating a disproportionate share to Israeli settlements while Palestinian communities face chronic shortages. This disparity highlights how administrative control translates into tangible inequalities, exacerbating tensions and undermining Palestinian self-determination.

A comparative analysis reveals the stark contrast between Israeli and Palestinian experiences in the West Bank. While Israeli settlers enjoy full Israeli civil rights, access to infrastructure, and protection under Israeli law, Palestinians live under military rule with limited rights and frequent violations. For example, settlers are subject to Israeli civilian courts, whereas Palestinians are tried in military courts with lower conviction standards. This dual legal system underscores the unequal power dynamics and the entrenched nature of Israeli control.

To address this issue, international actors and policymakers must focus on practical steps to mitigate Israeli dominance. First, there should be increased pressure on Israel to freeze settlement expansion and dismantle outposts, as these are major obstacles to peace. Second, the international community should support Palestinian development in Area C, particularly in infrastructure and agriculture, to counter the effects of Israeli restrictions. Third, efforts to reform the permit system and ensure fair access to resources, such as water, are essential for improving Palestinian living conditions. Finally, diplomatic initiatives must prioritize the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, with clear borders and sovereignty, to resolve the underlying conflict. Without such measures, Israeli control over the West Bank will continue to deepen, further entrenching inequality and instability.

Factional Dynamics: Exploration of internal Palestinian political factions and their power struggles in the region

The West Bank, a territory at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is not under the sole control of a single political party but is instead a complex landscape shaped by the interplay of multiple Palestinian factions. Understanding this factional dynamics is crucial to grasping the region's political realities. The two dominant forces are Fatah, which governs the Palestinian Authority (PA) in parts of the West Bank, and Hamas, which exerts influence through its ideological and organizational networks. However, the power struggle between these factions is not merely a competition for territorial control but a reflection of deeper ideological, strategic, and historical divisions within Palestinian society.

Consider the structural differences between Fatah and Hamas. Fatah, founded in the 1950s, is a secular nationalist movement that has historically pursued a two-state solution through negotiations with Israel. It controls the PA’s security apparatus and administrative institutions in areas designated as "Area A" and "Area B" under the Oslo Accords. In contrast, Hamas, an Islamist organization established in 1987, advocates for the liberation of all Palestinian territories through armed resistance and rejects the legitimacy of the Israeli state. While Hamas governs the Gaza Strip, its presence in the West Bank is marked by underground networks and grassroots support, often clashing with Fatah’s authority. This ideological divide is exacerbated by external influences, with Fatah aligning more closely with Western and Arab states, while Hamas receives support from Iran and Qatar.

The power struggle between these factions is not confined to political rhetoric but manifests in tangible ways. For instance, Fatah’s control of the PA allows it to allocate resources, appoint officials, and coordinate security with Israel, effectively marginalizing Hamas in the West Bank. Hamas, in turn, leverages its popularity among segments of the population disillusioned with Fatah’s governance and perceived corruption. This dynamic often leads to arrests of Hamas supporters by PA security forces, while Hamas retaliates by mobilizing protests and challenging Fatah’s legitimacy. The result is a fragmented political landscape where neither faction can claim undisputed dominance, and the Palestinian public is caught in the crossfire.

To navigate this complex terrain, it is instructive to examine specific incidents that highlight the factions’ competing strategies. For example, the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, which Hamas won, led to a brief unity government that quickly collapsed into violent clashes. Fatah’s refusal to cede power and Hamas’s insistence on its electoral mandate resulted in a geographic split, with Hamas consolidating control in Gaza and Fatah retreating to the West Bank. This episode underscores the fragility of power-sharing arrangements and the deep-seated mistrust between the factions. Practical steps toward reconciliation, such as joint elections or security agreements, are often stymied by these historical grievances and competing priorities.

A comparative analysis of Fatah and Hamas reveals not only their differences but also their interdependence. Both factions rely on external funding and political backing, which ties their survival to regional and international dynamics. For instance, Fatah’s dependence on aid from the United States and the European Union constrains its ability to adopt more radical policies, while Hamas’s reliance on Iran and Qatar limits its diplomatic flexibility. This external dimension adds another layer of complexity to the internal power struggle, as each faction seeks to outmaneuver the other by leveraging its unique alliances. The takeaway is that the factional dynamics in the West Bank are not merely a local phenomenon but a microcosm of broader geopolitical rivalries.

In conclusion, the question of which political party controls the West Bank cannot be answered in black-and-white terms. Instead, it requires an understanding of the intricate factional dynamics between Fatah and Hamas, shaped by ideology, history, and external influences. These dynamics not only determine the balance of power within the region but also influence the prospects for Palestinian unity and self-determination. By dissecting these internal struggles, one gains a clearer picture of the challenges facing the West Bank and the broader Palestinian political landscape.

Frequently asked questions