Summary
The constitution presents itself as a democratic framework but includes elements that conflict with those stated values, particularly regarding religion and civil rights. It outlines firm positions on key political issues such as borders, Jerusalem, and refugees, which may hinder negotiated resolutions. There is tension between declarations of peace and clauses that could be interpreted as supporting ongoing conflict dynamics. Overall, it reflects a mix of aspirational governance language and contentious political stances.
Key Takeaways
- The constitution is portrayed as embedding democratic principles while simultaneously prioritizing religious law, creating internal contradictions about equality and rights.
- It asserts positions on territory, Jerusalem, and refugees that appear to predefine outcomes typically left to negotiation, potentially complicating diplomatic processes.
- Provisions related to resistance, security, and support for certain groups raise concerns about consistency with commitments to limit violence and uphold pluralism.
Introduction: The Context of the 2026 Palestinian Constitution
The recently published Palestinian Constitution, adopted in February 2026, might have been intended by the Palestinian leadership to assuage British, French, Canadian, Australian, and other Western leaders who so enthusiastically and naively rushed to the UN General Assembly in September 2025 to recognize a non-existent Palestinian state. This is in the hope of giving them, in return for their hasty recognition, a reassurance of some pretense of moderation and Western-style democratic normalcy.
However, a close perusal of this curious document reveals the true nature and intentions of any putative Palestinian state.
Denial of Israel and Undermining the Oslo Accords
First and foremost, this constitution, in referring in its first article to Palestine as an “Arab nation, part of the Arab homeland”, totally excludes the existence of Israel, as well as precluding any negotiated peace solution. It overlooks the solemn Palestinian commitment in the internationally-acknowledged 1993-5 Oslo Accords with Israel to negotiate an agreement on the permanent status of the territories and to live in peace with Israel.
The Oslo Accords did not specify that the outcome of such negotiations would be a Palestinian state. The Accords made no reference whatsoever to the oft-repeated ‘two-state solution’ so favored by Western leaders, something which the Palestinian leadership has consistently opposed.
Thus, this Palestinian constitution, in and of itself, attempts to prejudge and predetermine the outcome of an internationally sanctioned negotiation that has yet to happen. By advocating this constitution, the Palestinians are violating and undermining one of the most fundamental provisions of the Oslo Accords. This provision aimed to prevent any step that would change the status of the territories pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations (Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Oslo 2, September 28th 1995, Article XXXI (7)).
Democratic Language vs. Sharia-Based Legal Framework
Secondly, the constitution, in its 8th, 10th, 13th, 27th, 30th, and other articles, attempts to give Western audiences the illusion of a liberal and open democracy. It embodies equality and non-discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, color, religion, political opinion, or social origin. It also promises due process, free and fair elections, and freedom of belief and religious practice.
However, at the same time and in total inversion of the above principles, it states very clearly in its fourth article that Islam is the official religion and Islamic Shariah law the primary source of law, with its familiar, open discrimination towards non-Muslims, towards women, and members of the LGBTQ community. Similarly, its transparent commitment in article 37 regarding ‘freedom to practice religious rights’ is utterly hypocritical in light of the hostile and violent attitude displayed in Palestinian society both to Jews and Christians, as well as to Jewish and Christian rights of worship.
Religious Recognition and Omission of Judaism
The fourth article vaguely gives Christianity ‘a status,’ but the constitution gives Judaism no recognition or status. This is curious given Judaism’s centrality to the Holy Land, a fact acknowledged even in the Quran and prophetic writings of Islam.
Jerusalem: Selective Historical and Religious Framing?
The constitution refers in Article 3 to Jerusalem as the capital and national symbol of the State of Palestine. It commits to preserving Jerusalem’s Islamic religious character and sanctities, and to protecting its Christian sanctities. However, it entirely ignores the significant and ancient Jewish history and presence in Jerusalem. This includes Jewish holy places that are the epicenter of Judaism, central to the Jewish religion, and rich in historic Jewish heritage. It also overlooks the Palestinian commitment in the Oslo Accords, in the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (Oslo I, Article V of 13 September 1993), to negotiate with Israel regarding Jerusalem.
Selective Interpretation of Self-Determination
Referring in Article 10 to a putative right to ‘self-determination for the Palestinian people as recognized in international law and UN resolutions’, the Constitution ignores and denies identical, genuine, and historically-based rights enjoyed by Israel and other states.
The “Right of Return” and Demographic Implications
Similarly, under the curious title ‘Unity of Land,’ article 12’s reference to a ‘right of return’ for refugees is particularly objectionable, given that no such right exists in international law. Designating the ‘right of return’ as a basic tenet of the constitution blatantly ignores the Palestinian commitment in the Oslo Accords to negotiate with Israel over refugees. This explicit claim, despite such commitments, is intended to demographically undermine Israel—a clear non-starter for any negotiated solution.
Contradictions on Violence and Terrorism
Beneath its artificial liberal and democratic veneer, the Palestinian constitution formalizes and advocates violence and terror. Article 63 makes a hypocritical and shallow declaration that the Palestinian state is ‘committed to prevent and limit violence.’ The constitution calls to end the occupation not through a negotiated solution pursuant to Palestinian commitments, but through other means. It also openly endorses a ‘pay-to-slay’ policy, financing the families of terrorists and encouraging further terror through extensive compensation. Article 44 recalls their law regulating the provision of ‘extensive care’ for the families of martyrs, the wounded, prisoners, and victims of genocide.
Political and Media Freedoms: Claimed vs. Reality
A further example of the utter and inherent hypocrisy in this constitution is article 49’s apparent prohibition on ‘political activity hostile to democratic principles or having a military or semi-military nature’. This is even more farcical given the nature and history of Palestinian society in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). These areas are permeated by daily terror from organizations such as Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the military wings of Fatah.
By the same token, a constitutional commitment in Article 56 to ‘ensure independence and neutrality of public media in order to respect political and social pluralism’ appears somewhat ironic and even comical, knowing the wide and violent oppression and threats prevalent in Palestinian society against local and foreign journalists.
Conclusion: Western Expectations vs. Constitutional Reality
Above all, and probably much to the frustration of those Western leaders who so enthusiastically supported and recognized in the UN what they naively considered to be Palestinian statehood, the bottom line of this document is clear. Its second preambular paragraph states that it is intended to be nothing more than a ‘bridge between a besieged present and a future open to freedom and change, a transition from temporary authority to a permanent democratic state.’
The inherent dichotomy between the self-contradictory and hypocritical postulations in this strange Palestinian constitution, on the one hand, and the hopes of Western leaders based on a healthy dose of wishful thinking, for peaceful coexistence with Israel, is glaring.
It will be interesting to see if Western leaders, and especially Prime Minister Starmer and President Macron, will see through this strange document and relate to it accordingly.
