The Colonial Subcontracting System: Israel and the Palestinian Authority
What happens when a colonial power assigns the task of controlling the oppressed to the oppressed themselves? Can such a system ever lead to freedom, or does it merely repackage domination as governance?
The relationship between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) exemplifies this dynamic, operating as a colonial subcontracting system that mirrors the long history of imperial powers delegating governance to local elites. This arrangement, framed by the Oslo Accords and reinforced by the Paris Protocol, was heralded as a pathway to Palestinian statehood. Instead, it has entrenched Israel’s colonial domination by fragmenting Palestinian society, deepening economic dependency, and turning the PA into a mechanism of control.
Territorial Fragmentation: The Oslo Accords
Edward Said once referred to the Oslo Accords as a “Palestinian Versailles,” a framework that institutionalized Palestinian subjugation under the guise of progress.
The Oslo Accords divided the West Bank into three zones—Areas A, B, and C—fragmenting Palestinian governance and limiting the PA’s control to isolated urban centers in Area A, which constitutes about 18% of the West Bank.
Meanwhile, Israel retained partial security control over Area B and full control over Area C, which constitutes 60% of the West Bank and encompasses the majority of the land, resources, and borders. This arrangement ensured Israeli dominance while confining Palestinian self-governance to symbolic authority over disconnected pockets, masking the reality of continued occupation.
This fragmentation is not merely territorial but psychological. It severs Palestinian communities and undermines the collective consciousness necessary for a unified resistance. The spatial divisions imposed by the Oslo framework act as a form of ghettoization, mirroring tactics used in other colonial contexts to disempower and divide.
The security coordination established under Oslo has further eroded Palestinian unity, compelling the Authority to suppress dissent and arrest resistance members in alignment with Israeli objectives. Recent operations in the Jenin refugee camp demonstrate this, where "Operation Protect the Homeland," served to subdue resistance and enforce the status quo.
This pattern aligns with the tendency of colonized elites to become complicit in maintaining the structures of their subjugation, sacrificing broader liberation goals for survival within a system designed to undermine them.
Economic Dependency: The Paris Protocol
The Paris Protocol, a lesser-known but deeply consequential component of the Oslo framework, tied the Palestinian economy to Israel. Under this agreement, the Authority has no control over its own trade or borders. Instead, Israel collects taxes and customs duties on its behalf, wielding these funds as a tool of coercion.
In 2024, Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich deducted $26 million from Palestinian tax revenues, exacerbating a financial crisis that left thousands of public-sector workers without full salaries. This arrangement weaponizes economic dependency to stifle resistance while perpetuating the illusion of autonomy.
Economic dependency has always been a cornerstone of the colonial playbook. By controlling livelihoods, colonial powers suppress resistance and deepen inequality. A small, wealthy elite may benefit from such systems, but the majority face unemployment, poverty, and despair. In the Palestinian context, the Paris Protocol has institutionalized this disparity.
Far from being a step toward independence, this arrangement ensures that sovereignty remains unattainable. The Protocol, like the broader Oslo framework, reflects a colonial structure that controls not just land but every facet of life.
These arrangements consolidate Israeli control while shifting the burdens of governance and security to the PA. For Israel, this system is both cost-effective and politically advantageous. Delegating civil administration and security enforcement to the Authority reduces Israel’s expenses, deflects international criticism, and sustains the illusion of pursuing peace—all while expanding settlements and entrenching occupation.
Historical Context: Madrid to Gaza’s Blockade
The 1993 and 1994 Oslo and Paris agreements were bookended by two defining events in Palestinian history: the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference and the 2006 legislative elections. Madrid, a hard-won outcome of the First Intifada, forced global recognition of the Palestinian cause, compelling Israel to negotiate as the cost of resistance mounted. However, the momentum of Madrid was undercut by secret negotiations in Oslo, where Yasser Arafat and Fatah leaders prioritized personal political consolidation over the collective achievements of the First Intifada, trading resistance for the establishment of the PA and the illusion of statehood.
Fifteen years later, the fallout from the Second Intifada exposed growing disillusionment with the Fatah-led PA. The 2006 legislative elections, widely praised for their transparency, saw Hamas win a decisive majority, reflecting public frustration with Fatah’s corruption, complicity, and failure to deliver on its promises. The U.S., Israel, and the EU swiftly rejected the outcome, imposing severe sanctions on the Hamas-led government. Democracy, right? Under U.S. General Keith Dayton, PA security forces were armed and trained, escalating tensions and leading to violent clashes.
By 2007, Hamas had taken control of Gaza, while Fatah consolidated power in the West Bank, deepening political and geographic divisions. Israel exploited this fragmentation to fortify its occupation and impose a 17-year blockade on Gaza.
The Only Path to Liberation
While Israel benefits from this colonial system of control, for Palestinians, the costs are devastating. They face the dual challenge of resisting occupation and overcoming internal divisions to lay the groundwork for justice and freedom. Political rivalries, particularly between Fatah and Hamas, have turned the struggle for liberation into factional infighting.
The Authority has accommodated the realities of occupation, displacement, and dispossession, parroting Western narratives about “peace,” rather than actively resisting them as Hamas does. These divisions weaken collective resistance and allow the system to persist, further undermining the Palestinian struggle for sovereignty. The illusion of self-rule presented in Oslo has revealed itself as a mechanism of domination, reducing the promise of statehood to a sham.
Abolishing this proxy system of control is essential for unity behind Palestinian liberation. The Authority’s reliance on Israel and its role in maintaining the status quo undermine the broader struggle for justice and self-determination. Coexistence under such a framework is impossible, as it demands submission as a precursor to annihilation. This is not reconciliation but subversion, where the rhetoric of peace is weaponized to suppress resistance.
Freedom cannot be granted by the colonizer; it must be reclaimed.
Neither the devastation and mass killings caused by the Occupation nor the ongoing genocide waged by its criminals have broken the spirit or determination of the resistance fighters in Gaza. Despite countless wounds, insufficient reinforcements, protracted war, and scarce resources, they remain steadfast in their noble mission to end the occupation of Palestine, defeat the Zionist project, and repel its aggression and schemes.
Even now, under a suffocating siege and relentless onslaught for the past 100 days, they continue to strike the Zionists with qualitative blows in Beit Lahia, Beit Hanoun, and Jabalia, defending their land and their cause with unshakable resolve.
While the PA prioritizes maintaining the status quo, the resistance maintains its commitment to liberation. Though the world may fail to recognize their worth, the Palestinian people honor these fighters for their sacrifices, endurance, and devotion to defending their land and their religion. What the colonial subcontracting system sought to suppress has instead reinforced the enduring will to resist. The oppressed will not govern their own subjugation—they will dismantle it.
🫡🫡