Table of Contents
Understanding the current political reality in the former British Mandate for Palestine requires acknowledging factual circumstances rather than ideological preferences. The territory that was once part of the Ottoman Empire and later administered by Britain is now divided among three functioning political entities, each with distinct governance structures, populations, and international relationships.
This analysis examines these three entities based on their actual operations and control, providing a framework for understanding the complex political landscape that has emerged over decades of conflict and negotiation.
1. Gaza – A De Facto Administration Under Hamas
Gaza operates as a de facto administration with all the institutional characteristics of governance: defined borders, a governing authority, taxation systems, security forces, and independent decision-making capacity.
Since Israel's complete withdrawal in 2005 and Hamas's seizure of control in 2007, Gaza has functioned as an independent political entity. Hamas maintains comprehensive control over the territory through established governmental structures, including administrative bureaucracies, security services, tax collection systems, and media operations.
However, Hamas operates as both a governing authority and a militant organization with the explicitly stated objective of destroying Israel. This dual nature has profound implications for Gaza's population, as Hamas consistently prioritizes military objectives over civilian welfare, embedding military assets within civilian infrastructure and using civilian casualties as strategic tools.
Critical Distinction: While Israel does not seek territorial expansion into Gaza, Hamas maintains an active campaign aimed at eliminating Israel entirely. This fundamental asymmetry shapes all interactions between these entities.
Why Gaza Lacks State Recognition: No nation wants to extend state-level legitimacy or legal protections (such as diplomatic immunity) to a governing body whose leadership is accused of war crimes and terrorism—particularly when they openly target civilians. Unlike traditional states that seek to protect their populations, Hamas's governance model deliberately subordinates civilian welfare to ideological objectives.
This reality contrasts with the Palestinian Authority (PA), which, despite also engaging in violence against Israeli civilians and facing widespread criticism for corruption, is generally viewed by the international community as sufficiently reasonable to potentially achieve statehood through diplomatic means. However, the PA faces fundamental challenges to its legitimacy: it does not control Gaza or effectively govern the West Bank, and has not held elections since 2006—over 19 years ago. Many Palestinians have expressed concerns that the PA was imposed by external powers without their consent, undermining its claim to represent Palestinian aspirations.
Gaza's current situation illustrates the challenges of governance under extremist leadership. Unlike post-World War II Germany and Japan, which were rebuilt as stable democracies partly because their leadership prioritized their populations' welfare, Hamas's governance model deliberately sacrifices civilian well-being for military and ideological objectives.
Note: Addressing Gaza's internal governance challenges and the complexities of Palestinian political representation extends beyond the scope of this territorial analysis, which focuses on existing administrative realities rather than prescriptive solutions.
Despite these challenges, Gaza functions as a separate political entity in practical terms. The United Nations has admitted numerous dysfunctional administrations throughout its history, and Gaza's operational autonomy, regardless of international recognition, represents a political reality that must be acknowledged in any serious analysis of the region.
2. Jordan – The Palestinian Arab State
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was established in 1921 from the eastern portion of the British Mandate for Palestine, achieving full independence in 1946. This historical fact is often overlooked in contemporary discussions but remains central to understanding the region's political evolution.
The Hashemite Monarchy and Palestinian Identity
The Hashemites are descendants of Prophet Muhammad who served as Sharifs of Mecca, making them custodians of Islam's holiest sites for centuries before their installation in Jordan.
During World War I, Sharif Hussein bin Ali led the Arab Revolt against Ottoman rule, supported by British promises of Arab independence. When these promises proved incomplete, Britain compensated the Hashemite family by installing Hussein's sons as rulers: Faisal in Iraq and Abdullah in Transjordan (later Jordan).
The British chose the Hashemites for their religious legitimacy, symbolic authority among Arab populations, and their proven ability to maintain regional stability. Although not indigenous to the Jordan River valley, their religious credentials provided sufficient legitimacy for effective governance under British oversight.
Contemporary Palestinian Connection: Today's Hashemite monarchy has strong Palestinian ties. King Abdullah II is half-Palestinian through his mother, Princess Muna (born Antoinette Avril Gardiner, who became a Jordanian citizen). His wife, Queen Rania, was born in Kuwait to Palestinian parents who had fled the West Bank in 1967. This Palestinian heritage within the royal family reflects the broader demographic reality of Jordan.
The monarchy's Palestinian connections extend beyond marriage. King Abdullah II has consistently advocated for Palestinian rights on international stages, and the royal court maintains cultural and political ties to Palestinian communities both within Jordan and in the broader region.
Today, Jordan's population is majority Palestinian in origin, and the state is governed by a Palestinian monarchy. This makes Jordan effectively the Palestinian Arab state that emerged from The British Mandate For Palestine, regardless of official political designations.
The demographic composition of Jordan—estimated at 60-70% Palestinian by origin—combined with the Palestinian heritage of its ruling family, creates a unique political reality. Jordan serves as the de facto Arab Palestinian state, providing citizenship, political representation, and cultural continuity for millions of Palestinians and their descendants.
This reality challenges common narratives about Palestinian statelessness. While Palestinians in Jordan may maintain distinct cultural identities and political aspirations regarding the British Mandata for Palestine, they participate fully in Jordanian civic life as citizens of a state that is both geographically and demographically Palestinian in origin.
3. Israel – A Sovereign State with Democratic Obligations
Israel is a sovereign, internationally recognized nation-state that governs its territory while exercising varying degrees of administrative control over the West Bank. This situation arose following the 1967 Six-Day War, when Israel successfully defended against coordinated attacks by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.
Israel's control over the West Bank, previously annexed by Jordan in 1948, was recognized by the United Nations as a temporary administrative occupation pending final negotiated resolution. However, this "temporary" status has persisted for over 58 years, creating significant legal, ethical, and practical challenges.
Democratic Challenge: Approximately 1.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank lack Israeli citizenship while living under Israeli administrative control. This situation cannot continue indefinitely without compromising Israel's democratic character.
The 2005 Gaza withdrawal provides a cautionary example of unilateral action's risks. Israel's complete withdrawal led to Hamas's takeover and subsequent military campaigns against Israeli civilians, demonstrating that withdrawal without stable governance structures can increase rather than decrease regional instability.
Despite these political challenges, it should be noted that from a humanitarian perspective, living conditions in the West Bank are generally superior to those in many other Middle Eastern territories, including neighboring Arab states. This does not resolve the fundamental political questions but provides important context for evaluating the urgency and nature of required solutions.
Conclusion
Israel faces several constrained options: First, it could extend permanent Israel residency and equal legal rights to all West Bank residents if it intends permanent control. Second, it could withdraw and request Jordanian re-annexation of the territory, potentially reuniting Palestinian populations under a state already governed by a Palestinian monarchy. Third, it could attempt renewed negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, though past efforts suggest the PA prefers prolonged conflict while hoping for Israel's eventual elimination "from the river to the sea" rather than genuine diplomatic resolution. The October 7, 2023 Hamas massacre on the Gaza border communities and Nova Festival has made the risks in allowing terrorist states to exist along Israel's border has changed many perceptions of how to deal with other potential terrorist entities. The current climate in the world and in that region with all of the bad actors including Iran, and ISIS that are eager to manipulate and create a crisis makes creating a new country in that region particularly dangerous for the inhabitants of the new country. And for that new country to be on Israel's eastern border is not prudent for the actual people living there or for the neighboring countries who prefer to not be barraged by missiles and cross border tunnels.
Effective policy-making requires clear-eyed assessment of existing realities rather than ideological preferences or historical grievances. The former British Mandate for Palestine now consists of three distinct political entities, each with different governance structures, population compositions, and international relationships.
Gaza is in a state of Limbo with the outcome of the Gaza War still unclear. Jordan serves as the Palestinian Arab state ruled by a Palestinian monarchy, and Israel maintains democratic governance while facing obligations regarding West Bank residents. Any sustainable solution must acknowledge these factual circumstances while working toward arrangements that serve the legitimate interests of all populations involved.
The goal of this analysis is not to prescribe specific solutions or timelines, but to provide decision-makers and citizens with accurate information about current political realities. Only through honest assessment of existing conditions can leaders develop policies that genuinely serve both Israeli and Palestinian populations while promoting regional stability and human dignity.