The PA’s draft constitution exposes the fantasy of treating it as a partner for peace

The Palestinian Authority’s newly released draft constitution is being presented as a step toward state-building and democratic reform. 

In reality, it reads like a political manifesto frozen in decades-old dogma, and a blunt reminder of how detached the PA remains from the basic requirements of coexistence.

For anyone still clinging to the idea that the Palestinian Authority can serve as a credible diplomatic partner, this document should end that illusion.

The draft defines Jerusalem exclusively as the capital of a future Palestinian state, carefully highlighting Islamic and Christian holy sites , while completely erasing any Jewish historical or religious connection to the city. 

This is not a technical omission. It is a deliberate ideological choice. A leadership that cannot acknowledge the most basic and widely recognized Jewish link to Jerusalem is not preparing its public for compromise. It is preparing them for permanent confrontation.

The same mindset runs through the entire text.

The constitution formally establishes Islam as the state religion and makes Islamic Sharia the primary source of legislation. It introduces religious courts into the core of the legal system and embeds religious language directly into presidential authority and state institutions. At the same time, it makes vague promises of equality and freedom of belief, promises that sit uneasily beside a legal framework explicitly rooted in religious law.

Even more revealing is what the draft chooses to celebrate.

The document enshrines state responsibility for the families of so-called “martyrs,” prisoners and detainees, language that effectively constitutionalizes the long-criticized system of financial support to families of terrorists. This is not reform. It is the elevation of a deeply problematic policy into a foundational national principle.

A leadership serious about peace would be preparing its society to move away from the glorification of violence. Instead, the PA is locking that narrative into its future legal identity.

The draft also doubles down on the so-called “right of return,” one of the most politically explosive demands in the conflict and one that directly contradicts the idea of a negotiated two-state settlement. 

It does so without any recognition of the demographic or political implications for Israel , or for any realistic peace framework.

At the same time, the constitution reaffirms the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, without offering any meaningful mechanism for political renewal, accountability or reconciliation with rival factions. 

This is particularly striking given the PA’s deep legitimacy crisis, its lack of elections for nearly two decades, and its shrinking public support.

The preamble completes the picture.

It describes Israel in sweeping ideological terms, accusing it of colonial settlement, ethnic cleansing and genocide, and frames the entire constitutional project as an extension of a liberation struggle — not as a foundation for reconciliation, coexistence or conflict resolution.

This is not the language of a leadership preparing its people for painful compromises. It is the language of perpetual grievance and mobilization.

Supporters of renewed engagement with the Palestinian Authority often argue that, despite its flaws, it represents the only viable alternative to Hamas. 

But this draft constitution exposes a far deeper problem. The gap between Hamas and the PA is not nearly as wide as Western diplomats prefer to believe. The PA may use softer rhetoric and maintain security coordination when it suits its interests, but ideologically it continues to reject the core premises of mutual recognition.

Even Hamas has dismissed the document, not because it is too radical, but because it dares to speak the language of state institutions rather than open resistance. That rejection only highlights how disconnected the PA leadership is from political realities on the ground.

This constitution is not a bridge to peace. It is a declaration that the Palestinian Authority still views the conflict primarily as a zero-sum struggle, not a dispute to be resolved through mutual concessions.

For years, international actors - and not a few voices in Israel - have insisted that strengthening the Palestinian Authority is essential to advancing stability and diplomacy. The PA’s own constitutional vision now makes clear how deeply misplaced that assumption has become.

A leadership that erases Jewish ties to Jerusalem, constitutionalizes financial rewards for terrorists’ families, embeds religious law at the heart of the state and frames its national future around permanent struggle is not preparing the ground for peace.

It is preparing the next generation for the continuation of the conflict, under a different flag, but with the same ideology.