This piece argues that the Palestinian Authority is failing its people through corruption and indoctrination, explains why the two-state model has become a liability, and pushes for decentralized local governance and education reform as pragmatic alternatives to prevent extremist takeover in Judea and Samaria.
Anyone who has coached a team knows results matter more than excuses, and politics should be the same. When leaders don’t deliver, voters and citizens demand change, and sometimes entire systems need rethinking. The unrest in the region shows populations will not indefinitely tolerate failed governance.
The Palestinian Authority has long operated without the same global pressure other regimes face when they fail. Instead of focusing on basic services and economic opportunities, some institutions prioritize ideology and reward violence, leaving ordinary Palestinians to shoulder the cost. That disconnect explains why local frustration has been rising for years.
A respected insider recently put those failures in stark terms, describing deep-seated corruption and a culture of impunity inside the PA. Land grabs, political protections for cronies, and the absence of real elections have hollowed out public trust. When a system protects its rulers instead of its citizens, legitimacy evaporates fast.
One stark symptom is the continued practice of paying terror-linked stipends despite repeated promises to stop the practice. Moving money to different accounts doesn’t change the substance: public funds end up rewarding violence. In any other arena, that is called cheating, and it corrodes whatever moral authority the leadership claims to have.
Western tolerance for the status quo rests on a fear that pushing too hard will open the door to even worse outcomes, like Hamas rule. That calculation is backward. Tolerating failure creates the breeding ground for radicals, as Gaza demonstrated when Hamas exploited corruption and promises of reform to seize control. The danger is not removed by inaction but amplified by it.
Support for extremist parties is rising in parts of Judea and Samaria, in part because people see no accountable alternative. Palestinian business and community leaders I have spoken with are fed up with graft and the diversion of public resources. If moderates lose credibility, voters will turn to whoever promises order, even if that promise comes with violence.
First, the two-state framework that helped entrench a centralized, unaccountable PA needs to be reconsidered. A decentralized model — sometimes called an eight-state or local-emirate approach — would break power into many local centers instead of a single collapsing center. That shifts responsibility to municipal and tribal authorities that already hold real influence on the ground.
Local authorities tend to be more directly accountable to their neighbors, which makes grand corruption harder to hide and harder for a single faction to seize everything. Decentralization reduces systemic risk and offers residents a clearer incentive to protect stability and pursue economic growth. It also creates room for pragmatic cooperation with regional partners.
There are real-world efforts to test a different path. In Hebron, local leaders are exploring ways to sidestep the failing central apparatus, pursue autonomy, and build ties with regional economic partners. Initiatives like that show how empowering local figures who want stability and prosperity can pull communities away from the cycle of grievance and violence.
Palestinian politics has often eliminated moderates, leaving a familiar binary: corrupt strongmen on one side and violent theocrats on the other. That pattern persists because national-level structures reward patronage and punish local independence. Protecting and empowering local moderation is a practical countermeasure that has been underused for decades.
Second, the school system must be reformed to remove systematic incitement and replace it with civics and practical skills. Independent reviews have flagged curricula that celebrate violent “resistance,” erase Israel from maps, and inject hostility into subjects beyond history. When hostility is baked into education, the next generation inherits the conflict rather than tools to escape it.
Under a decentralized framework, local governments that reject militancy could qualify for international aid and regional partnerships while those that choose radicalism would isolate themselves. That conditionality creates a real incentive structure for reform and makes educational change enforceable where it matters. Economic integration and local autonomy, not abstract promises of statehood, will drive everyday improvement.
Former U.S. ambassador David Friedman has stressed that human flourishing in Judea and Samaria depends more on practical autonomy and economic ties than on symbolic statehood. Shift the power to those who deliver results, and you change the incentives for everyone involved. If the goal is durable stability and a better life for ordinary people, policy must match that reality.
If you are losing on the field, you change the playbook and the roster. The same principle applies here: preserve what works locally, remove what rots from the top, and give communities a real stake in their future. That is the political strategy needed to prevent worst-case outcomes and to give Palestinians a chance at a different path.
