Who Should Rule Over That Nonexistent ‘Palestine’

There has naturally been much speculation as to who might succeed 89-year-old Mahmoud Abbas as head of a future “state of Palestine.” The candidate proposed by a BBC senior correspondent should raise some eyebrows. More on his choice can be found here: “The BBC Supports Convicted Mass Murderer to Head ‘State Of Palestine,’” by Moshe Phillips, Algemeiner, September 25, 2025:

Paul Adams, the BBC’s Diplomatic Correspondent, chose to mark the occasion of the UK’s recognition of the nonexistent “State of Palestine” by authoring a 2,000 word article where he portrays a convicted mass murderer to be its best candidate for president.

Here’s the problem: Adams doesn’t just misrepresent who convicted terrorist Marwan Barghouti really is, but he also fails to explain why Hamas demands Barghouti’s freedom.

In “Recognising Palestinian statehood opens another question – who would lead it?” Adams writes, “[Barghouti] has always denied the charges but has been in an Israeli prison since 2002.”

Barghouti was arrested and indicted as the mastermind of the murder of a Greece-born priest named Georgios Tsibouktzakis (Father Germanos), as well as a string of other murders.

Barghouti had the opportunity to contest the charges and prove his innocence. But he refused to deny culpability and declared that the “Zionist” court had no right to prosecute him.

That makes sense, since — in Barghouti’s view — murdering Jews is the proper thing to do.

On May 20, 2004, Barghouti was convicted of the murders of Father Germanos and four other innocent people. He is serving five consecutive sentences of life imprisonment. Nowhere in his article does Adams state that Barghouti was convicted. Instead, Adams hides the truth and writes just that Barghouti was “arrested and charged.”

Adams wants us to keep an open mind about Barghouti and not be swayed by his conviction, so he leaves that part out, only saying he was “arrested and charged.” Why did he not write that “Barghouti was tried and convicted for the murder of five people, including a Greek Orthodox priest” and was given “five consecutive life sentences”?

For many years, various journalists and others have been puffing up Barghouti, saying that he’s the only figure in the Palestinian Arab world who is popular enough to serve as head of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the president of “Palestine.”

There is also Mahmoud Dahlan. who might be a much better candidate than Barghouti to become the leader of “Palestine.” Dahlan never committed any acts of terrorism, but was arrested for his work with the Fatah Hawks, a youth group. He has long been an opponent of Hamas, had a hand in formulating the Abraham Accords, and most importantly, he is a friend and advisor to the UAE’s head, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan. He lives in Abu Dhabi.

Somewhere along the line. Western leaders became convinced that Barghouti, though in an Israeli prison and thus had no chance to behave badly, was more “moderate” than other Palestinians in the running to succeed Abbas. No evidence for this has ever been presented. Perhaps it is enough that he was not a member of Hamas or any other terror group. But he is a convicted murderer of innocent Israelis. Hamas may think that, by making Barghouti the head of “Palestine,” the West will wrongly believe the new state will be accommodating to Western interests.

Barghouti has been in an Israeli prison for the last 20 years. He has not been tested as a military or a political leader in all that time, though he remains popular as a symbol of resistance, and there is no reason to believe that he would somehow be able to control the terror group Hamas, which still has thousands of fanatical adherents, not just in Gaza but also in Judea and Samaria.

Militarily, Hamas remains stronger than Fatah, and should have even less trouble wresting power from it throughout “Palestine” than it did in Gaza in 2007.

Moshe Phillips, the author of this piece, then considers what might happen if, in order to build “Palestine,” the Jewish state were forced back within the 1949 armistice lines. Israel has no intention of being squeezed back within the 1949 armistice lines, with a nine-mile-wide waist from Qalqilya to the sea. Were it to do so, an armed invasion force from the east could slice Israel in two in a matter of hours. No Israeli government can allow such a possibility.

Furthermore, the Israelis know that Jews have for 3500 years lived in Judea and Samaria (a/k/a the “West Bank,” as those areas were renamed by the Jordanians in in 1950); it was there, and not in Tel Aviv and Haifa, where Jewish history was made. The Israelis are not about to give up their claim to that most historically significant part of their ancient homeland. They also know that the League of Nations had included Judea and Samaria in the territory assigned to Mandatory Palestine. In the 1948 war, Jordan’s Arab Legion managed to seize Judea and Samaria, and held onto that territory not as by right but as a “military occupier,” for 19 years, until Israel won it back in the Six-Day War. That victory allowed Israel to enforce its pre-existing claim to Judea and Samaria. The Israelis know, too, that UN Security Council Resolution 242 recognized the right of Israel to hold onto territory won in the Six-Day War that it needed if it was to have “secure and defensible borders.” And while Israel may in the end not formally annex Judea and Samaria, given Trump’s surprising opposition to such a move, the Jewish state is not about to give up either military control of that area, essential for its security, or the right of Israelis to live in the most historic part of their homeland.