A meeting organised in Istanbul by the Palestinian Dialogue Group has revealed that the election debate points to a crisis far larger than the ballot itself.

Elections are back on the agenda in Palestine. Yet a question looms larger than whether ballot boxes will be set up: can Palestinian politics overcome years of accumulated legitimacy crises?

At the gathering in Istanbul on 12 September, two figures close to Fatah and Hamas, an independent Palestinian researcher, and a journalist came together around the same table. Hosted and moderated by the head of the Palestinian Dialogue Group, Sadiq Abu Amer, the meeting included Mamoun Sweidan, who serves as an adviser at ministerial and gubernatorial rank in the Palestinian Presidency Court; Prof. Dr Maher Hamed Al-Houli, adviser to the head of the Hamas Political Bureau; and independent researcher and journalist Majed Azzam.

For Palestinian observers, one of the most striking aspects of the meeting was the gathering of senior figures from Fatah and Hamas circles in a debate of this scale for the first time.

To summarise the mood of the gathering in two sentences: the cause faces grave peril. Yet there is no magic formula to overcome the hurdles.

28 November: An election or a political turning point?

According to the timetable of the Palestinian Central Elections Commission, elections for the 132-seat Legislative Council are scheduled to take place on 28 November 2026 across the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.

Candidate registrations will run from 26 September to 7 October, followed by the election campaign between 6 and 26 November.

If the polls go ahead, Palestinians will elect a new Legislative Council for the first time since 2006.

However, although the election timetable has been announced, political and on-the-ground conditions remain uncertain.

The new reality emerging in Gaza following the war, whether voting can be conducted in East Jerusalem, the Fatah-Hamas divide, and the future administration of Gaza represent core obstacles facing the vote.

The Central Elections Commission continues its preparations. Contacts are underway in Gaza with civil society organisations, political groups, and local actors, alongside inspections of prospective polling centres.

Yet criticism focuses on the very same point: preparations started late, and the feasibility of the 28 November timetable remains disputed.

It is precisely here that the election debate ceases to be a technical matter.

A legitimacy crisis accumulated over two decades

In Palestine, the problem is not merely when ballot boxes will be placed.

A new Legislative Council has not been elected since 2006. The Fatah-Hamas rift has become entrenched. The renewal of Palestinian political institutions and the transfer of power through the ballot box have failed to materialise.

For this reason, the planned elections are no ordinary vote.

If ballot boxes are re-established after a gap of nearly two decades, the issue will not merely be the selection of new lawmakers. Whether the Palestinian political system can regain legitimacy will also be put to the test.

Yet holding elections will not eliminate division on its own.

The fundamental question is this:

Will Palestinians respect the election outcomes even when the results fall outside their own political calculations?

Sweidan: “We went from a national committee to a Peace Council”

The future of Gaza took centre stage in Mamoun Sweidan’s address.

Sweidan explained that following the war, the idea of creating a “national committee” composed of Palestinians to govern Gaza had been raised.

Stating that this committee needed to be formed within the institutional framework of the Palestinian National Authority, Sweidan noted that the political factions, foremost Fatah and Hamas, could not agree on representation quotas for the body.

The problem, in short, was this: everyone wants a national committee, but no consensus can be reached on who will sit on it and in what proportions.

According to Sweidan, prolonged delays eventually pushed the issue into a different arena.

Instead of a national committee, a dynamic emerged in which an international mechanism assumed a greater role in Gaza’s future.

At this point, Sweidan criticised Hamas.

In his view, the initial concept of a national committee established by Palestinians drifted towards an externally shaped “Peace Council” model.

This question lies at the heart of the debate:

Will Palestinians decide Gaza’s future, or will decision-making mechanisms shift increasingly into the hands of external actors?

Al-Houli: “We must not abandon elections”

Prof. Dr Maher Hamed Al-Houli, adviser to the head of the Hamas Political Bureau, argued that elections must not be abandoned.

Al-Houli noted that the election call should be approached positively. However, he stressed that Palestinians must base their decisions on the broader national interest rather than external pressures.

Recalling the 1996 and 2006 elections, Al-Houli maintained that those polls were fair and transparent.

He stated that both Palestinian factions and the international community must respect the results emerging from the ballot box.

Another topic Al-Houli highlighted was societal participation.

He noted that families, clans, mukhtars, opinion leaders, and reconciliation figures could assume a more active role in the electoral process.

He suggested that these actors should not only guide voters to the polls, but also play a part in resolving disputes between Fatah and Hamas. He added that they could even participate in the elections through independent candidates or electoral lists.

Al-Houli’s approach thus shifted the election discussion to another dimension:

Will a new election merely refresh the old political structure, or will it open the path for new actors to enter politics?

Azzam: “In my view, elections will not take place”

Independent researcher and journalist Majed Azzam took a more distant view of the electoral timetable.

Stating that he was speaking neither pessimistically nor optimistically, but offering a realistic and objective assessment, Azzam said: “In my view, elections will not take place, and I am saddened by this.”

Azzam’s primary objection rests on an assertion broader than the election date itself.

According to him, electoral rhetoric could be a “smoke grenade” concealing an entirely different political process.

Azzam raised the claim that preparations are underway to form the Palestinian National Council through appointment rather than through elections.

If this claim proves true, the direction of the debate changes completely.

The question then ceases to be “When will elections occur?” but rather “If elections do not take place, how will the Palestinian political system be reconstituted?”

Can there be an election without Gaza?

The fate of Palestinian elections cannot be separated from Gaza.

The commission is proceeding with technical preparations. However, the destruction wrought by the war in Gaza, the dispersal of the population, infrastructure breakdowns, and disputes over future governance pose severe challenges to the electoral process.

Alongside this, the question of East Jerusalem remains unresolved.

Consequently, 28 November is not merely a matter of ballot boxes.

Under which political framework Gaza will be governed, how election results will be implemented there, and how relations between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas will be structured are all components of the same equation.

A new generation enters politics

Another critical reality is demographic shift.

Since the 2006 vote, an entire Palestinian generation has reached adulthood. A substantial proportion of these individuals have never cast a ballot in any general election in their lives.

Therefore, if elections take place, a new Legislative Council will not be all that is chosen.

Simultaneously, a new generation of voters will become direct participants in political decision-making for the first time.

For this reason, how youth, independents, and societal actors will be integrated into the political system stands as another major subject within the election debate.

A common goal, divergent roadmaps

It is not possible to say that the Istanbul meeting produced a shared political roadmap.

Sweidan advocates safeguarding Palestinian institutions and national decision-making, arguing that Gaza’s future must be determined within a Palestinian framework. He considers Hamas’s posture to have created fertile ground for external actors to intervene further.

Al-Houli says elections must not be abandoned. In his view, elections should reflect the will of the Palestinian people rather than external pressures, and societal participation must be expanded.

Azzam, by contrast, does not believe elections will be held at all. He suspects that another political restructuring may be underway behind the cover of the election debate.

Where these three approaches converge is far more significant:

The Palestinian cause confronts a profound existential crisis.

The future under debate is not simply that of Hamas or Fatah, but that of the Palestinian political structure as a whole.

Elections are not a magic formula

This remains one of the strongest messages left behind by the Istanbul meeting.

Elections may be vital for renewing legitimacy. Yet they cannot end division on their own.

They may establish a new Legislative Council. Yet they cannot resolve all the problems of the Palestinian political system.

They may bring youth and independents into politics. Yet the factions must accept the outcome of the vote.

For this reason, the significance of 28 November reaches far beyond the ballot box.

If elections are held, a new political space will open before Palestinians.

If they are not held, the question of how to fill the political vacuum will grow even larger.

And perhaps the real question will be this:

Will 28 November mark another milestone in years of ongoing division, or will it herald the beginning of renewed unity in Palestinian politics?

We shall see together.

For now, the only certainty is this: the question of elections in Palestine is no longer merely a question of elections.

Syria’s interim President, Ahmed al-Sharaa, addressed relations between Israel and Syria, arguing that they could achieve peace through “security arrangements”.

Speaking at an event organised by the Atlantic Council in New York, where he travelled for the UN General Assembly, Sharaa answered a question regarding relations with Israel.

Sharaa stated that the two countries had held direct talks over the past year. He then said that Israel must first withdraw from the areas in southern Syria that it occupied following the fall of the Assad administration.

Sharaa continued:

“Then we can begin negotiations on security arrangements. If these arrangements succeed, we can reach a lasting peace. The Golan Heights is Syrian territory recognised by the United Nations… Therefore, there is no debate on this matter.”

He was then asked whether he understood the concerns of Israelis following the Al-Aqsa Flood operation carried out by Hamas on 7 October 2023, and what kind of message he had for the Israeli people.

In response, Sharaa said, “I understand what happened to some innocent people on 7 October, but at the same time, it is not possible to base all policies on a single event. At the same time, we must also understand what is happening in Gaza; more than 70,000 people have lost their lives there.”

“It is not appropriate for what happened on 7 October to determine policy towards Syria,” added the former HTS leader, saying, “Israel must change its policy because it is creating problems around itself.”

Recalling that they have established very good relations with the US, the United Kingdom, and Lebanon, Sharaa said, “I believe the problem lies with Israel, not Syria,” and asserted that Tel Aviv’s actions do not bring greater security to Israeli citizens.

While acknowledging that Israel has “legitimate security concerns”, Sharaa rejected the notion that these concerns could justify every action taken by Israel. On the other hand, according to Sharaa, a “historic moment that could be beneficial for all parties” is currently taking place.

The former HTS leader recounted that when President Donald Trump told him that the Golan Heights belonged to Israel, he responded:

“Why do you not give New Jersey to the Israelis? The Golan Heights are not yours to give away, but New Jersey is yours.”

Sharaa then elaborated slightly on this joke, saying:

“I think New Jersey is full of Democrats and they do not vote for Trump, so giving it to the Israelis would be good. At least it is your property. Trump has no ownership over the Golan Heights.”

The discussion then turned to Sharaa’s past, particularly his time with Al-Qaeda.

When asked whether he now explicitly renounced his allegiance to this organisation and the ideology behind it, he did not issue a direct renunciation, but claimed that at that time he was “at a different age and the conditions in the region were different”, explaining that his life experiences stemmed from taking part in the struggle against the Assad administration.

Asked specifically about the 11 September attacks, Sharaa immediately emphasised that he “had nothing to do with it”, stating that he was 13 years old at the time and adding, “I had no awareness of these matters at all.”

Israel’s Chief of General Staff, Eyal Zamir, has instructed officials to examine criminal and legal steps against the production team of the documentary “NAZA”, which focuses on testimonies from soldiers and intelligence personnel who served in Gaza operations.

While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu targeted the production, describing it as “unacceptable”, more than 200 Israeli filmmakers published a joint statement backing the directors.

Maintaining that the documentary slandered the military, Chief of General Staff Zamir asserted that the work had no intention of uncovering the truth.

“In light of the available data, this production is not a work that constructively criticises the military,” Zamir said. “On the contrary, it relies on blood libels, a deliberate distortion of the reality on the ground, and baseless accusations directed at our soldiers and commanders.”

Zamir further claimed that the military was presented as an entity acting unlawfully and that the arguments of anti-Israel circles were adapted for the film.

The Israeli military is establishing a new multidisciplinary, inter-agency working group involving domestic and international experts to counter such allegations.

Meanwhile, the military’s most senior legal official, Itai Ofir, is reviewing the legal procedures that could be initiated against the documentary’s producers.

The military leadership contends that the testimonies lack credibility because the identities, ranks, and operational details of the personnel interviewed in the film were concealed.

Rejecting the assertion that targets were selected by artificial intelligence, military officials stated that all strikes and target approvals were decided by human hands within the framework of military directives.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacted to the production in a video message shared on Telegram.

“This situation is appalling,” Netanyahu said, voicing his reaction. “While resisting antisemitic incitement conducted globally, it is unacceptable for a similar approach to arise from within ourselves. Two Israeli directors presenting the Israeli military as war criminals are being applauded at the Venice Film Festival.”

The 80-minute production was awarded the Special Jury Prize at the 83rd Venice International Film Festival and received a 25-minute standing ovation in the auditorium at the end of the screening.

In reactions emerging from the cabinet, Minister of Culture and Sports Miki Zohar accused directors Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor of “high treason”.

“The self-hatred displayed by these producers, who risk harming their own country to win the praise of antisemitic circles worldwide, is beyond comprehension,” Zohar said. Announcing that he would launch an initiative to revoke the directors’ citizenship, Zohar stated that direct accusations of treason could be brought against the individuals.

Far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir also addressed the directors, stating: “You are a source of shame for the entire people of Israel. Get out of here.” Under current Israeli legislation, the culture minister does not have the authority to unilaterally revoke citizenship; decisions in this direction can be made only as a result of legal processes involving the Ministry of Interior and judicial bodies.

Following the mounting backlash, more than 200 Israeli filmmakers, including Ari Folman, Shlomi Elkabetz, Ran Tal, and Michal Aviad, signed a joint declaration of solidarity. The text emphasised that “the primary duty of art and the profession of journalism is to hold up a mirror to the society from which it arises.”

Produced in partnership with The Guardian and JW Films, “NAZA” conveys testimonies from 24 military and intelligence personnel whose identities were kept concealed and who took part in surveillance, targeting, and air strike decisions in Gaza.

Deriving its name from a Hebrew military acronym that designates the number of civilians expected to lose their lives during an operation and corresponds to the concept of “collateral damage”, the film documents that targets were determined using artificial intelligence and mass surveillance networks.

Describing high-tech weaponry and AI-assisted targeting mechanisms, one interviewed soldier made the comparison: “Because everything runs on remote control, the process resembles a video game.”

Another soldier described the deaths on the ground as “unbelievably fun”.

Director Yuval Abraham said: “The intelligence personnel we interviewed stated that the mass deaths were not an accident, but on the contrary rested upon a designed and systematic choice.”

Abraham and Szor stated that the production did not scrutinise individual soldier violations, but directly examined the institutional chain of command and operational doctrines.

The two directors had previously made the Oscar-winning documentary “No Other Land”, which addressed the displacement of Palestinians and settler violence in the occupied West Bank, alongside Palestinian filmmakers Basel Adra and Hamdan Ballal.

While the Ministry of Health in Gaza announced that the number of Palestinians who have lost their lives in the attacks exceeded 73,700, the actual death toll is projected to be far above this figure due to destroyed healthcare infrastructure and casualties lost beneath the rubble.