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

Introduction

The results of the Palestinian Center for Opinion Polls reveal a clear Palestinian tendency toward giving political and diplomatic action and peaceful popular resistance a central role in defending Palestinian rights and gaining international support.

This tendency does not imply abandoning national goals or accepting the continuation of occupation, but rather 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 made by one party alone, and Palestinians cannot be asked to choose peaceful and diplomatic tools while policies and measures continue to undermine confidence in the effectiveness of these tools, such as settlement expansion, settler violence, confiscation of tax revenues, fuel supply interruptions, actions that raise tensions at Al-Aqsa Mosque, and extensive punishments that may exceed individual responsibility.

Therefore, this article focuses on what the numbers say and uses some political realities to briefly explain them, without allowing these realities to become a separate topic from the poll.

Protecting Civilians is Part of the Strength of the Palestinian Cause

74.8% of the respondents stated that targeting civilians from any side significantly or somewhat leads to a decline in international support for peace and stability efforts. This percentage is divided with 51.5% seeing its impact as significant, while 23.3% said it affects somewhat.

In contrast, 12.9% considered the impact of targeting civilians to be limited, and 9.7% said it does not affect, while 2.6% did not specify their position.

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

This does not mean ignoring the occupation or conceding the Palestinians' right to resist it by means permitted by international law. Instead, it means distinguishing between resisting the occupation and endangering civilians, and emphasizing that civilian protection should not be selective; rejecting targeting the Israeli civilian should be matched by a clear refusal to kill 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; an 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 property without accountability.

In the aftermath of the events and clashes witnessed in the town, the Israeli government announced escalatory punitive measures in the West Bank, including home demolitions, expanding military operations, and accelerating settlement activities. This incident underscores the necessity of preventing uncontrolled friction, conducting an independent and transparent investigation to determine individual responsibilities, rejecting retaliation and collective punishment, and ensuring accountability for all violations.

Majority Prefer Diplomacy and Peaceful Popular Resistance

When participants were asked about the most effective method to gain international support for Palestinian rights, 57.6% chose a combination of political, diplomatic, 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 combining the three political and peaceful options, it becomes clear that 92.9% preferred a non-military path based on diplomacy, political action, or peaceful popular resistance, or a combination of them.

This result represents the central message of the poll. The majority do not see diplomacy and peaceful popular resistance as opposing options, but rather as complementary tools.

Political and diplomatic action paves the way for international law, international organizations, parliaments, governments, and political alliances. Peaceful popular resistance gives Palestinian demands a public and moral presence, showing that these demands represent not just an official stance but rights defended by the community.

The drop in the choice of military action to 3.2% indicates that most participants do not measure the effectiveness of a means by the extent of shock it creates, but by its ability to achieve political gains, reduce losses, protect the community, 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 ones. The agreement was divided between 38.8% who strongly agreed, and 39.8% who somewhat agreed, compared to 18.7% who did not agree to varying degrees, and 2.6% who did not specify a position.

This result means that the preference for peaceful means is not an abstract moral position, but an appreciation of their ability to expand alliances, benefit from international law, document violations, reach global public opinion, and transform Palestinian rights into political and legal demands that are hard to ignore.
However, the success of these means requires Palestinians to see tangible results. People cannot be asked to cling to diplomacy indefinitely while settlement continues, the prospects for a Palestinian state decline, or Palestinian financial resources are used as a tool for pressure.

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

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

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 the opposite of Israeli security, but sees that sustainable peace must provide rights and protection for both parties.

However, security cannot be one-sided. From the Palestinian perspective, security also includes protection from settlement, settler violence, displacement, incursions, and collective punishments. At the same time, the need for Israelis to feel secure cannot be ignored, but this security cannot endure long through military control alone; it requires a political solution that ends the reasons for conflict.

The result means that peace is not a victory for one party and a defeat for the other but rather a framework that connects security with freedom, dignity, and mutual rights. 

Trust is Not Built by Words Alone

80.9% agreed that true peace is not achieved through political agreements alone, but also requires building trust and mutual respect between the two peoples. 77.7% considered a lack of trust a very or moderately significant obstacle to achieving peace.

When asked about the factor most capable of building trust, 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, but rather a result of changing reality. Trust cannot be built through symbolic meetings alone while violence, settlements, restrictions, and measures continue that Palestinians feel infringe on their rights and identity.

The existing policies provide a context for understanding the high level of distrust. The Israeli government approved extensive settlement expansions in 2026, including funding for dozens of new settlements, steps seen by Palestinians and most of the international community as obstacles to a two-state solution, while Israel rejects this characterization. 

Controversial political visits to Al-Aqsa Mosque and statements regarding Jewish prayer within it have raised Palestinian and Jordanian objections and fears of changing the existing historical status, despite previous official Israeli assurances not to change it. Respecting the status quo does not deny the significance of the site to Jews; it prevents using a highly sensitive religious site in political competition or in steps that may escalate 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 perceived by Palestinians as conflicting with the discourse calling for it.

Peaceful Means Do Not Mean Abandoning the End of 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 individual option. 32.7% chose all guarantees combined, which include ending the occupation, mutual security arrangements, joint economic development, building trust, and communication between the two peoples.

These results confirm that the preference for diplomacy and peaceful popular resistance does not mean diminishing or abandoning the national goal. The public does not see peaceful means as an alternative to ending the occupation, but as a more capable path to reaching it.

The percentage choosing all guarantees indicates that lasting peace requires more than one political decision; it necessitates ending the occupation and a Palestinian state, alongside mutual security and development and trust.

Thus, participants distinguish between the goal and the means: the goal is freedom, independence, and the end of occupation, while the widely accepted means is political, diplomatic action and peaceful popular resistance. 

Practical Steps Required from Both Parties

In the multiple-choice question, 76.1% chose stopping violence and military actions as a step that contributes to improving conditions and enhancing opportunities for peace and stability. 70.6% chose stopping settlement expansion, and 67.3% chose resuming serious peace negotiations to reach a fair and lasting political solution, while 8.4% selected the release of Palestinian prisoners among the proposed actions. These results reveal that the public is not quietly demanding mere calm or empty negotiations. They link reducing violence to halting settlement and launching a serious political track.

The 67.3% supporting the resumption of serious negotiations indicate that the issue is not with the principle of negotiation, but with the lack of seriousness and results in previous experiences. Negotiations cannot regain their credibility if reality on the ground continues to change in parallel with them.

Thus, the positive Palestinian tendencies revealed by the survey results need a corresponding Israeli response, including halting settlement expansion and settler violence, respecting the existing situation at Al-Aqsa Mosque, releasing tax revenues, rejecting collective punishment, and engaging in serious and real negotiations.

Participants also included demands to reduce military barriers and gates, facilitate movement between Palestinian cities, improve crossing procedures at the Al-Karama crossing, and expand its operating hours. These measures represent practical steps that could alleviate citizens' suffering, support economic activity, and enhance confidence in the viability of the political path and peace.

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

Conclusion

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

74.8% viewed targeting civilians as weakening 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 parties, while 80.9% believed that political agreements alone are insufficient without building trust and mutual respect.

These numbers reflect a positive Palestinian trend toward political and peaceful paths, but they alone cannot end the conflict or prevent the deterioration of conditions. Peace requires two parties willing to change their policies and take tangible steps, and Palestinians cannot be asked to stick to peaceful means without a real political horizon demonstrating that these means can yield just results.

Herein lies the responsibility of the United States and Western and Arab countries to intervene urgently and coordinate to prevent further deterioration in the Palestinian territories. This intervention should not be limited to general calls for restraint, but must include protecting civilians, stopping escalation and collective punishment, settler violence, preventing settlement expansion, and supporting a serious political track based on international law that guarantees rights and security and dignity and freedom.

This is directly aligned with the survey results; the broad choice of political and peaceful paths represents an opportunity that the international community should protect and enhance, rather than allowing it to erode under the influence of ongoing violence, lack of accountability, and a closed political horizon. The affirmation by 80.6% of the need to ensure security, dignity, and freedom for both parties, and 80.9% believing that agreements need trust and mutual respect, provides a clear popular basis for international action that balances protecting rights with providing security and preparing the grounds for resuming a credible political process.

At the same time, the Israeli society should not be treated as a single block; there are Israeli voices that criticize settlement and settler violence, provocations, and policies that deepen the conflict. Engaging with these voices can be part of building a common space that supports protecting civilians, the rule of law, and a political solution.

The main message of the survey is clear: Palestinians do not separate between peace and rights, nor between security and freedom, nor between diplomacy and peaceful grassroots action. But the success of this trend requires an Israeli partner willing to halt policies that undermine it, and an effective international and Arab intervention that prevents further violence and affirms that peaceful means can achieve tangible results.

Peace is not built by declarations alone, but when intentions turn into policies, and the commitment to protecting civilians becomes mutual practice, and negotiations transition from a means of managing conflict to a serious path toward ending it.