It is the grievances themselves, such as corruption, distrust of the ruling elite, and lack of basic services that have driven thousands onto the streets in Lebanon and Iraq. They are also present in the West Bank and Gaza. Yet the Palestinians are unable, and perhaps unwilling, to stage demonstrations against their leaders. But why did the Palestinians not have these demonstrations? Is it just a time, as Palestinian journalist Hani al-Masri says, for the wave of protests to reach Palestine?

It is the occupation

Despite the corruption, inefficiency, and poor performance of Palestinian leaders, getting rid of them has never been the most important priority for the Palestinian people. Interestingly, the first intifada in the region by the Palestinians in December 1987 was against the occupation and the PLO leadership, which had not entered the West Bank and the Gaza Strip but operated in exile. In fact, the PLO had to catch up in order to maintain control over what was happening on the ground. Yet the main concern of the elite and the public was to get rid of the occupation, not get rid of their regimes. Given the growing alienation of PA President Mahmoud Abbas, priorities can change, but so far Palestinian independence remains the key factor shaping Palestinian strategy and tactics.

Palestinians face a unique challenge, not because they want to establish their own institutions of government and realize the dream of a state, but because they have to manage this under the harsh conditions of occupation. There is no precedent in recent history for a people negotiating out of the situation in which they live, while at the same time working to build institutions of governance, not to mention the successful establishment of the state.

Despite discontent with corruption, mismanagement of the economy, and poor human rights, the Palestinians' focus remains on Israel. "The de facto ruler of the Palestinians is the occupation, which attacks Palestine in its history, present and future," Hani al-Masri said. This implicitly reduces the importance of their leaders' excesses to the burden of occupation and allows the Palestinian ruling elite to redirect attention away from its flaws. In fact, focusing on transitional internal changes, let alone overthrowing governments, can carry real risks of what the Washington Institute scholar David Pollock calls "interfera" - the internal conflict between Palestinian factions. This will not only divert attention from the struggle for independence, but also divide the Palestinian national movement, which is already badly divided.

A society divided by geography and politics

In fact, the fate of any movement confronting the current Palestinian leadership or seeking effective reforms or representative government has become more difficult now that Hamas has taken over the Gaza Strip in 2007, and the resulting conflict between Fatah. And Hamas.

In fact, the PLO is in a shattered and hopeless state, and tried to play the role of Noah's Ark, which was carrying two of everything: states, security, governance structure, constitutions, seeing where and what the political state of Palestine should be. .

After 2007, the tangible separation between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip became a deep political rift that undermined any unified and coherent Palestinian national strategy.

The elections for the president and the Palestinian parliament (last held in 2006 and 2005 respectively) were the only means that might have embarked on leaders and strategy, but the elections became hostage to intense competition between Fatah and Hamas, whose multiple efforts to resolve them failed. It is uncertain whether the latest report that Fatah and Hamas agreed to hold legislative and presidential elections in February 2020 is more credible than previous promises we have seen over the past years.

Although Fatah and Hamas have a bitter rivalry, the uprisings in other parts of the region have united them under one goal: to overcome differences, and even to share, if possible, to maintain their power.

In addition to the Israeli occupation, one factor preventing Palestinian protests is the dominant presence of the Palestinian Authority, which is controlled by Fatah and Hamas supporters, and the insistence of both sides to prevent any popular mobilization against them. In fact, the presence of security forces on both sides on the ground, which did not exist in the first intifada, makes it difficult for the people to challenge their authority, especially since their security forces are merciless.

Given that Fatah and Hamas trade accusations of provoking unrest, protesters can be in a position of supporting one side over another, making them vulnerable to the accusation that they are undermining the perpetual popular desire to unite the Palestinians.

Aarod David Miller is senior researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Palestinian vigilance results from experience

What does the future hold? After nine years of turmoil and change that have engulfed the Arab world since the Tunisian vegetable seller burned himself, there have been no such incidents in Palestine. Focus on the Israeli occupation, the dominant presence of Hamas, and the Palestinian Authority controlled by Fatah proved to be constraining forces.

In addition to the Palestinian experience in the confrontations during the two intifadas, especially the second, which caused large-scale destruction and killings, it is understandable that the Palestinians are not heading towards another situation that is unknown, especially those that cannot give them an end to the Israeli occupation, nor a significant improvement in their daily lives. .

Indeed, looking at the scourge the Arab Spring has brought to Syria, Libya and Yemen, the Palestinians cannot be blamed for refusing to engage in this spring. Moreover, life and politics cannot be expected. Economic conditions are deteriorating in Gaza, where unemployment stands at 47%, and the government is corrupt and repressive. Of course, the Israeli occupation has led to a form of despair that could generate an explosion at any time.

But the Arab Spring is more likely to come to Palestine in the form of an uprising against Israel (though it is now seen as highly unlikely), not as an Arab spring against Palestinian leaders, however corrupt and inefficient. In fact, such an uprising, if it happens, will be seen as a loss of confidence in Palestinian leaders, but the occupation will be its primary focus. There is a simple reason for this. I recall that the late Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, sarcastically told me in a rare frank moment: "You should not wait for revolutions in Palestine, because the Palestinians will always be more angry at the Israeli presence than they have on me." It seems right in saying.

The Arab Spring is more likely to come to Palestine in the form of an uprising against Israel - though it is now seen as highly unlikely - and not as an Arab spring against Palestinian leaders, however corrupt and inefficient.

Looking at the scourge that the Arab Spring has brought to Syria, Libya and other Arab countries, the Palestinians cannot be blamed because they have so far refused to engage.