Middle East
Palestinian factions confront legitimacy crisis at Istanbul talks
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.
Middle East
US warns Gulf allies of possible Iran strikes after midterms
The US administration has notified several Gulf allies that it could launch a short but intensive military campaign against Iran immediately following the congressional midterm elections on 3 November. Washington urged regional states to prepare for this contingency.
According to a Wall Street Journal report citing sources with direct knowledge of the discussions, the warning did not specify which countries were briefed. Meanwhile, military activity on the ground has accelerated alongside these disclosures.
The US military has deployed a Patriot air defence battery from Texas to the Middle East, while beginning to pull its personnel back from exposed bases within range of Iranian ballistic missiles and drones to more secure positions. These moves reinforce indications that the US and Israel are preparing for a direct, wide-scale confrontation with Tehran.
The White House declined to comment on sensitive military plans whose existence has not been officially confirmed. An official statement emphasized, however, that President Donald Trump keeps all options on the table to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
The New York Times reported last week that US and Israeli armed forces have stepped up joint military drills based on a short but intensive operational scenario. Potential targets identified by the newspaper include Iran’s nuclear facilities, critical energy infrastructure, and production centres for missiles and armed unmanned aerial vehicles.
The same report noted that while seen as an unlikely outcome, Trump could approve the operation before the end of October, though he might also opt against authorizing any military action. In recent months, Trump has repeatedly suspended decisions to re-enter active hostilities at the last moment.
The current active conflict between the two nations was triggered on 28 February by a joint US-Israeli strike on Iranian targets. Trump explained the primary rationale for the operation as ensuring that Tehran can under no circumstances attain a nuclear weapon.
These military actions follow the 12-day war fought in June 2025. During that air campaign, Washington directly targeted and struck Iran’s primary nuclear installations at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi outlined the latest situation on the ground during an address to the UN Security Council. Grossi stated that the agency has found no evidence indicating that Tehran is repairing or rebuilding from scratch the nuclear infrastructure damaged in the 2025 and 2026 strikes.
Criticizing the continued exclusion of monitors, Grossi urged Iran to grant international inspectors immediate access to all its nuclear sites, including damaged locations. Since the US bombardment in June 2025, the IAEA has been unable to independently verify the current status of Tehran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
According to official agency records, Iran held 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity prior to the June 2025 war. In nuclear physics, 60% enrichment is technically regarded as exceptionally close to the roughly 90% threshold required for weapons grade.
Following the bombings, Tehran barred international inspectors from entering the struck facilities. Because of this restriction, the regulatory body cannot ascertain how much of this critical stockpile remains intact or where it is currently stored.
Mounting military costs fuel domestic political pressure
President Trump maintains that the June 2025 air strikes demolished Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Nevertheless, the prolonged military operations have destabilized economic conditions, and soaring domestic fuel prices in particular are placing the governing Republican Party under severe political strain ahead of the midterms.
Trump has pushed back against criticism over rising energy costs, arguing that absorbing higher prices at the pump is necessary to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear arms.
Pentagon budget records reviewed by Reuters indicate that total US military spending on the Iran conflict has surpassed $47 billion. This figure stands 25% above official estimates released by defence officials in July.
The largest portion of total expenditures, $29 billion, was allocated to replenishing depleted munitions stocks, while $6 billion went toward replacing worn military hardware. It remains unclear whether repair bills for US bases damaged by retaliatory Iranian missile and kamikaze drone strikes are included in this official $47 billion sum.
Middle East
US military operations against Iran reach $47 billion
The total cost of US military operations against Iran has reached $47 billion.
According to a report by the American newspaper The Hill, citing an assessment by US Central Command (CENTCOM), the operation’s budget grew by more than $3 billion in the past month alone.
A detailed breakdown of the spending appears in a document prepared by the command. The largest share of the budget is accounted for by munitions shipments, totalling $29 billion.
Additional expenses arising directly from conducting the military operation stand at approximately $12 billion, whilst replacing lost military equipment and gear requires $6.1 billion.
Funding allocated to support military personnel deployed to the region, air transport, communications, and transport operations within the operational theatre is calculated at $7.6 billion.
Moreover, this overall total does not include the expenditure required to repair and rebuild US military bases in the Middle East.
According to information reported by The Hill, US President Donald Trump is weighing the possibility of launching fresh strikes against Iran following the country’s midterm elections.
Trump had previously described the military operation against Iran as one of the best decisions of his presidency.
Congress steps in as budget deficit deepens
The bill for the operation climbed swiftly in a short period. In a statement on 22 July, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced that the cost of the Iran campaign had reached $37.5 billion.
Hegseth noted that the figure covered both expenses already incurred and projected spending through the end of the fiscal year on 30 September.
A day before Hegseth’s statement, The Washington Post reported that the Pentagon was facing a severe cash crunch due to the war with Iran.
The newspaper reported that the White House had requested an emergency supplemental appropriation of $67 billion from Congress to cover military expenses, warning that the military would be forced to cut other spending items if the request were rejected.
Following these developments, the House of Representatives approved a $1.15 trillion defence budget.
The relevant resolution includes allocating $73 billion in additional funding to the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, primarily to cover the costs of the war being waged with Iran.
Middle East
Over 3,000 Palestinians displaced as Israel’s Hebron siege hits day 5
The Israeli army’s siege of the city of Hebron in the occupied West Bank has entered its fifth day. More than 3,000 Palestinians have been forced to flee their homes as raids, house demolitions, and forced evictions continue across the city.
According to data shared by Hebron Municipality on 26 October, the number of displaced people has reached 3,189. More than 200 of them are infants.
Municipal authorities announced that roughly half of the total displaced population consists of children and youths under the age of 18.
Palestinian officials in the besieged city declared a state of emergency and established an urgent crisis desk.
Rami Khamis, a member of the crisis desk, highlighted civic solidarity in remarks to Al Jazeera, saying local residents and benefactors who refused to let their fellow citizens stay in temporary shelters opened their homes to displaced families.
A Palestinian forced to abandon his home in haste recounted his ordeal to Al Jazeera on 26 October.
Explaining that they fled with only the clothes on their backs, the resident said their savings, household goods, and official documents were left behind. After placing his family in a relatively safe place, he attempted to return to salvage their belongings, but could not reach the house because the area was no longer safe.
The siege began immediately after an attack on 23 October in which two Israeli soldiers were killed. The two Palestinians who carried out the assault were killed at the scene by Israeli forces.
Citing this incident, the Israeli army blockaded the city and launched wide-ranging operations. The British newspaper The Guardian described the measures carried out in Hebron as “collective punishment”.
Hamas official Mahmoud Mardawi also condemned both the siege in Hebron and the military incursions spreading across the occupied West Bank in a statement on 26 October.
Emphasising that these steps constitute collective punishment, Mardawi warned that escalating tensions on the ground could lead to grave consequences.
Mardawi further argued that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government are using these attacks for propaganda and electoral calculations, stating that military pressure will not break Palestinian resilience and that calculations regarding annexation and mass expulsion will fail to achieve their goal.
Operation rift in Israeli leadership
As the blockade entered its fifth day, a divergence of opinion emerged between Israel’s military brass and the government.
According to a report in the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clashed over the future of the operation.
Zamir argued that the military campaign on the ground had delivered whatever benefit it could provide and that it was now time to bring it to an end.
Military officials said tangible gains achieved throughout the operation remained limited, indicating that whether to sustain the current push required reassessment.
Indeed, the newspaper reported that Israeli forces managed to seize only a limited number of weapons in the city, failing to uncover any unusual arsenals or major arms caches.
However, Chief of Staff Zamir’s proposal to end the operation was rejected. Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Defence Minister dismissed the recommendation and decided to continue the offensive.
At least 70 Palestinians have been detained in Hebron since the siege and operations began. The Israeli army is also continuing extensive demolition activities targeting civilian homes across the city.
-
Diplomacy4 days agoSecular dress code dispute exposes deeper Türkiye-Azerbaijan strains
-
Europe1 week agoMerz visits Asia to seek new markets for German defence firms
-
Russia1 week agoUS and Russia weigh energy deals and corporate return in peace talks
-
Europe2 weeks agoAfD drops Dexit to back single market in new Europe strategy
-
America2 weeks agoPentagon prepares US bases for 90-day siege in global war plan
-
Middle East2 weeks agoUS envoy says Syria interim leader Sharaa seeks Israel normalization
-
Interview2 weeks ago“The AfD is an expression of internal contradictions within German big capital”
-
Europe2 weeks agoSerbia opposition wins snap vote as Vucic concedes defeat
