Between Diplomacy and Popular Resistance: How Do Palestinians See the Most Effective Path to Rights and Peace?

Author: Nabil Kukali

Introduction

The results of the Palestinian Center for Survey Research reveal a clear Palestinian inclination towards giving political and diplomatic work and peaceful popular resistance a central role in defending Palestinian rights and gaining international support.

This trend does not mean abandoning national goals or accepting the continuation of occupation; rather, it reflects a practical assessment of the means most capable of achieving political results, protecting society, and maintaining the legitimacy of the Palestinian cause before the world.

However, these results cannot be read in isolation from the political reality. Peace is not created by a single party, and it is unreasonable to ask Palestinians to choose peaceful and diplomatic tools while policies and measures continue to undermine confidence in the efficacy of these tools, such as settlement expansion, settler violence, withholding tax revenues, fuel supply issues, procedures that provoke tension at Al-Aqsa Mosque, and broad penalties that may go beyond individual responsibility.

Thus, this article focuses on what the numbers say and uses some political facts to interpret them succinctly, without allowing these facts to become a separate topic from the survey.

Protecting Civilians is Part of the Strength of the Palestinian Cause

74.8% of respondents stated that targeting civilians by any party significantly or somewhat leads to a decrease in international support for peace and stability efforts. This percentage is divided between 51.5% who believe the impact is significant, and 23.3% who said it affects somewhat.

In contrast, 12.9% considered the impact of targeting civilians to be limited, while 9.7% said it has no effect, and 2.6% did not specify a position.

This result reveals an awareness that the justice of Palestinian demands alone is not sufficient to win international public opinion; the means used, the commitment to protect civilians, and the ability to present a discourse that is consistent with law and human rights also influence the image of the issue and its ability to garner political and legal support.

This does not mean ignoring the occupation or conceding the Palestinians' right to resist it by means allowed by international law. It means distinguishing between resisting occupation and putting civilians at risk, and affirming that civilian protection should not be selective; rejecting the targeting of the Israeli civilian should be met with a clear rejection of the killing of Palestinian civilians, settler violence, military operations, and collective punishment.

The incident in the town of Til, west of Nablus, highlights the importance of this principle; the uncoordinated entry of a group of settlers into a Palestinian area turned into a bloody confrontation that resulted in the deaths of Palestinians and Israelis and injuries to others. Following the incident, punitive measures were taken, amid fears of retaliatory actions and continued settler assaults on Palestinian citizens and their properties without accountability.

In the aftermath of the clashes in the town, the Israeli government announced escalation and punitive measures in the West Bank, including home demolitions, expanding military operations, and accelerating settlement activity. This incident underscores the necessity to prevent uncontrolled friction, to conduct an independent and transparent investigation to determine individual responsibilities, to reject retaliation and collective punishment, and to ensure accountability for all violations.

Majority Prefer Diplomacy and Peaceful Popular Resistance

When participants were asked about the most effective method for gaining international support for Palestinian rights, 57.6% chose a combination of political and diplomatic work and peaceful popular resistance.

22.0% chose political and diplomatic work alone, while 13.3% chose peaceful popular resistance alone. In contrast, only 3.2% chose military action, and 3.9% did not specify a position.

By adding the three political and peaceful options together, it becomes clear that 92.9% preferred a non-military path based on diplomacy, political work, or peaceful popular resistance, or a combination thereof.

This result represents the central message of the survey. The majority do not view diplomacy and peaceful popular resistance as conflicting options, but as complementary tools.

Political and diplomatic work opens the door to international law, international organizations, parliaments, governments, and political alliances. Meanwhile, peaceful popular resistance gives Palestinian demands a public and moral presence, demonstrating that these demands represent not merely an official position but rights defended by society.

The decrease in the choice of military action to 3.2% suggests that most participants do not gauge the effectiveness of a means by the shock it creates, but rather by its ability to achieve political gains, reduce losses, protect society, and maintain international support.

Peaceful Means Are Linked to Gains, Not Slogans

78.6% agreed that achieving political and diplomatic gains for Palestinians requires focusing on peaceful means more than military means. Agreement was distributed among 38.8% who strongly agreed and 39.8% who somewhat agreed, compared to 18.7% who disagreed to varying degrees, and 2.6% who did not specify a position.

This result means that preferring peaceful means is not merely an abstract moral position, but rather an appreciation of their ability to expand coalitions, exploit international law, document violations, reach global public opinion, and convert Palestinian rights into political and legal demands that are difficult to ignore.
However, the success of these means requires that Palestinians see tangible results. It cannot be demanded that people cling to diplomacy indefinitely while settlement continues or opportunities for a Palestinian state diminish, or while Palestinian financial resources are used as a pressure tool.

The European Council has urged Israel to urgently release withheld tax revenues and extend banking communication services between Israeli and Palestinian banks, emphasizing that both are crucial for the functioning of the Palestinian Authority and providing basic services. This illustrates that withholding revenues is not a financial issue separate from peace, but rather a factor that undermines institutions, daily life, and public confidence in the efficacy of the political track. 

True Peace Requires Security, Dignity, and Freedom for Both Sides

80.6% agreed that lasting peace cannot be achieved without ensuring security, dignity, and freedom for both Palestinians and Israelis, distributed between 48.2% who strongly agreed and 32.4% who agreed. This percentage reveals an important positive trend in Palestinian public opinion; it does not present Palestinian freedom as opposed to Israeli security, but sees sustainable peace as one that provides rights and protections for both sides.

However, security cannot be one-sided. From the Palestinian perspective, security also includes protection from settlement, settler violence, displacement, incursions, and collective punishments. In contrast, the need for Israelis to feel safe cannot be dismissed, but this safety cannot endure long through military control alone; it requires a political solution that ends the causes of conflict.

This result means that peace is not a victory for one side and a defeat for the other, but rather a framework that links security to freedom, dignity, and mutual rights.

Trust Cannot Be Built by Words Alone

80.9% agreed that true peace cannot be achieved through political agreements alone, but also requires building trust and mutual respect between the two peoples. Additionally, 77.7% believed that the absence of trust represents a significant or medium obstacle to achieving peace.

When participants were asked what the most capable factor for building trust was, 40.8% chose ending violence from all parties, while 29.5% chose reaching a political agreement, 13.3% chose improving economic conditions, and 7.4% chose increasing communication between the communities.

These numbers clarify that trust is not a starting point; rather, it is a result of changing the reality. Trust cannot be built through mere symbolic meetings while violence, settlement, restrictions, and procedures that Palestinians feel infringe upon their rights and identity continue.

The existing policies provide context to understand the increased level of distrust. In 2026, the Israeli government approved a significant settlement expansion, including funding for dozens of new settlements, steps that Palestinians and most of the international community view as an obstacle to a two-state solution, while Israel rejects this description. 

Moreover, controversial political visits to Al-Aqsa Mosque and statements related to Jewish prayer inside have sparked Palestinian and Jordanian objections and fears of changing the existing historical status quo, despite previous Israeli official assurances not to change it. Respecting the existing situation does not mean denying the importance of the place for Jews, but preventing the use of a highly sensitive religious site in political competition or in steps that might heighten tensions. 

Thus, the result of 77.7% regarding the lack of trust does not express a principled rejection of peace, but rather the impact of policies and realities that Palestinians see as conflicting with the discourse calling for peace.

Peaceful Means Do Not Mean Abandoning Ending the Occupation

When participants were asked about the best guarantee for achieving long-term peace, 44.3% chose ending the occupation and establishing an independent Palestinian state, which is the highest single option. Additionally, 32.7% chose all guarantees combined, including ending the occupation, mutual security arrangements, joint economic development, trust-building, and communication between the two peoples.

These results affirm that the preference for diplomacy and peaceful popular resistance does not imply a softening of the national goal or abandoning it. The public does not view peaceful means as an alternative to ending the occupation; rather, they see it as a more feasible path to achieve that end.

The percentage that chose all guarantees shows that long-term peace requires more than a single political decision; it requires ending the occupation and the Palestinian state, along with mutual security, development, and trust.

Thus, participants distinguish between the goal and the means: the goal is freedom and independence and ending the occupation, while the most widely accepted means are political and diplomatic work and peaceful popular resistance. 

Concrete Steps Needed from Both Sides

In the multiple-choice question, 76.1% chose stopping violence and military measures as a step contributing to improving conditions and enhancing opportunities for peace and stability. Additionally, 70.6% chose stopping settlement expansion, and 67.3% chose resuming serious peace negotiations to reach a fair and lasting political solution, while only 8.4% chose releasing Palestinian prisoners among the proposed measures. These results indicate that the public does not calmly demand mere quiet or negotiations without substance. They link reducing violence to halting settlement and launching a serious political track.

The 67.3% who support resuming serious negotiations indicate that the issue is not with the principle of negotiation, but with the absence of seriousness and results in past experiences. Negotiations cannot regain their credibility if changes on the ground continue in parallel with them.

Consequently, the positive Palestinian trends revealed by the survey results require a corresponding Israeli response, including stopping settlement expansion and settler violence, respecting the existing situation at Al-Aqsa Mosque, releasing withheld tax revenues, refusing collective punishment, and entering into serious and genuine negotiations.

Participants also included demands to reduce military checkpoints and gates, facilitate movement between Palestinian cities, improve crossing procedures at the Allenby Bridge, and extend working hours. These measures represent practical steps that can alleviate citizens' suffering, support economic activity, and enhance confidence in the efficacy of the political track and peace.

In turn, the Palestinian side needs to protect civilians, develop a unified political strategy, organize peaceful popular resistance, strengthen institutions and accountability, and provide a clear and comprehensive vision for security, peace, and rights.
 

Conclusion

The survey results reveal that Palestinian public opinion gives political and peaceful tools a clear priority; 57.6% chose a combination of diplomacy and peaceful popular resistance, and the aggregated results showed that 92.9% preferred one or more political and peaceful pathways, while only 3.2% chose military action.

Additionally, 74.8% viewed targeting civilians as undermining international support, and 78.6% agreed that achieving political and diplomatic gains requires focusing on peaceful means. 80.6% confirmed that lasting peace requires security, dignity, and freedom for both sides, while 80.9% believed that political agreements alone are insufficient without building trust and mutual respect.

These numbers reveal a positive Palestinian inclination towards political and peaceful paths, but this alone cannot end the conflict or prevent the deterioration of conditions. Peace requires two sides willing to change their policies and take concrete steps, and Palestinians cannot be asked to cling to peaceful means without providing a genuine political horizon that proves these means capable of achieving just results.

Therefore, the responsibility for urgent and coordinated intervention to prevent further deterioration in the Palestinian territories falls on the United States and Western and Arab countries. This intervention should not be limited to general calls for restraint but should encompass protecting civilians, stopping escalation, collective punishment, settler violence, preventing settlement expansion, and supporting a serious political track based on international law that ensures rights, security, dignity, and freedom.

This directly aligns with the survey results; the broad choice of political and peaceful pathways represents an opportunity that the international community should protect and enhance rather than allow to erode under the influence of ongoing violence, lack of accountability, and political stalemate. Furthermore, the affirmation by 80.6% of the necessity to ensure security, dignity, and freedom for both sides, and 80.9% believing that agreements require trust and mutual respect, provide a clear grassroots foundation for international action that balances protecting rights while ensuring security and creating conditions for resuming a credible political process.

At the same time, the Israeli community should not be treated as a monolithic block; there are Israeli voices that criticize settlement expansion, settler violence, provocations, and policies that deepen the conflict. Engagement with these voices can form part of building a common space that supports civilian protection, the rule of law, and a political solution.

The central message of the survey is clear: Palestinians do not separate peace from rights, security from freedom, or diplomacy from peaceful popular action. However, the success of this approach requires an Israeli partner willing to halt policies that undermine it and effective international and Arab intervention that prevents further violence and demonstrates that peaceful means can achieve tangible results.

Peace is not built solely by declarations, but when intentions transform into policies, and the commitment to protect civilians becomes a mutual practice, and negotiations shift from managing conflict to a serious path for its resolution.