Between Diplomacy and Popular Resistance: How do Palestinians perceive the most effective path towards rights and peace?

Introduction

The results of a survey conducted by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion reveal a clear Palestinian trend towards giving political, diplomatic, and peaceful popular resistance a fundamental role in defending Palestinian rights and gaining international support.

This trend 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 created by one party alone, nor can Palestinians be asked to choose peaceful and diplomatic tools at a time when policies and measures continue to undermine confidence in the effectiveness of these tools, such as settlement expansion, settler violence, withholding tax revenues, fuel supply issues, actions that provoke tension at Al-Aqsa Mosque, and extensive punishments that may transcend individual responsibility.

Therefore, this article focuses on what the numbers say and uses some political realities to briefly interpret them, without letting these realities become a separate subject from the survey itself.

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 decline in international support for peace and stability efforts. This percentage is divided between 51.5% who believe the impact is significant, while 23.3% said it somewhat affects.

Conversely, 12.9% considered the impact of targeting civilians to be limited, 9.7% said it does not affect, while 2.6% did not express a 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 protecting civilians, and the ability to present a discourse consistent with law and human rights also influence the image of the cause and its capability to gain political and legal support.

This does not mean ignoring occupation or giving up Palestinians' right to resist it by means permitted under international law. Rather, it means distinguishing between resistance to occupation and endangering civilians, and emphasizing that protection of civilians should not be selective; the rejection of targeting Israeli civilians must be met with 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 acts and continued settler assaults on Palestinian citizens and their properties without accountability.

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

Majority Prefer Diplomacy and Peaceful Popular Resistance

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

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

Combining the three political and peaceful options, it is clear that 92.9% preferred a non-military path based on diplomacy, political action, or peaceful popular resistance, or a combination thereof.

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

Political and diplomatic action opens the door to international law, international organizations, parliaments, governments, and political alliances. Meanwhile, peaceful popular resistance gives Palestinian demands a significant and moral presence, showing that these demands represent not only an official stance but rights defended by society.

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

Peaceful Means 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. The agreement was divided 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 the preference for peaceful means is not merely a moral stance but an appreciation of their ability to broaden alliances, utilize 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 opportunities for a Palestinian state diminish, or Palestinian financial resources are used as tools of pressure.

The European Council has called on Israel to urgently release the withheld tax revenues and extend banking correspondence services between Israeli and Palestinian banks, emphasizing that both are essential for the work of the Palestinian Authority and the provision of basic services. This clarifies that the withholding of revenues is not a financial issue separate from peace, but a factor that undermines institutions, daily life, and public trust in the effectiveness of the political path. 

Real 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, divided 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 unilateral. From the Palestinian perspective, security also includes protection from settlement, settler violence, displacement, incursions, and collective punishment. Conversely, the need for Israelis to feel secure cannot be ignored, but this security cannot be sustained for long through military control alone; it requires a political solution that ends the underlying causes of the conflict.

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

Trust Cannot Be Built by Words Alone

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

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

These figures illustrate that trust is not the starting point, but rather a result of changing reality. Trust cannot be built through symbolic meetings alone while violence, settlement, restrictions, and measures that Palestinians feel infringe on their rights and identity continue.

The current policies provide context for understanding the rising 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 obstacles to the two-state solution, while Israel rejects this characterization. 

Furthermore, controversial political visits to Al-Aqsa Mosque and comments regarding Jewish prayer inside it have raised Palestinian and Jordanian objections and fears of changing the established historical status, despite previous official Israeli assurances of not altering it. Respecting the status quo does not mean denying the importance of the place to Jews but preventing the use of a highly sensitive religious site in political competition or steps that could exacerbate tensions. 

Thus, the result of 77.7% regarding distrust does not express a principled rejection of peace but rather the impact of policies and realities that Palestinians perceive to be contradictory to the discourse calling for it.

Peaceful Means do Not Mean Abandoning the Goal of Ending Occupation

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

These results confirm that preferring diplomacy and peaceful popular resistance does not mean easing or abandoning the national goal. The public does not see peaceful means as a substitute for ending the occupation but views them as a more capable route to achieving it.

The percentage that chose all guarantees also shows that lasting peace requires more than one 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, independence, and ending the occupation, while the means that received the widest acceptance are political and diplomatic action and peaceful popular resistance. 

Practical Steps Needed from Both Sides

In the multiple-choice question, 76.1% chose stopping violence and military actions as a step contributing to improving conditions and enhancing chances for peace and stability. 70.6% chose stopping settlement expansion, and 67.3% opted for resuming serious peace negotiations to reach a just and lasting political solution, while 8.4% preferred the release of Palestinian prisoners among the proposed measures. These results reveal that the public is not calmly demanding mere or meaningless negotiations. They link reducing violence to halting settlement and launching a serious political process.

Moreover, the 67.3% who support resuming serious negotiations indicate that the problem lies not in the principle of negotiation but in the lack of seriousness and results in past experiences. Negotiations cannot regain their credibility if the reality on the ground continues to change in tandem with them.

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

Participants' demands also included reducing military checkpoints and gates, facilitating movement between Palestinian cities, and improving crossing procedures at the Allenby crossing and expanding its working hours. These measures can represent practical steps that could alleviate citizens' suffering, support economic activity, and enhance trust in the effectiveness of the political path and peace.

Conversely, 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 integrated vision for security, peace, and rights.
 

Conclusion

The results of the survey reveal that Palestinian public opinion gives clear priority to political and peaceful tools; 57.6% chose a combination of diplomacy and peaceful popular resistance, and the aggregated results showed that 92.9% preferred one or more of the political and peaceful tracks, 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 needs 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 towards political and peaceful paths but cannot alone end the conflict or prevent worsening conditions. Peace requires two parties ready to change their policies and take tangible steps, and Palestinians cannot be asked to adhere to peaceful means without providing a genuine political horizon that proves these means can lead to fair results.

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

This aligns directly with the survey results; the wide majority's choice of political and peaceful paths represents an opportunity that the international community should protect and enhance, not allow it to erode under the influence of continued violence, lack of accountability, and stagnation of the political horizon. Moreover, the affirmation by 80.6% of the necessity to ensure security, dignity, and freedom for both parties, and the belief of 80.9% that agreements require trust and mutual respect, provide a clear popular basis for international action that balances the protection of rights with providing security and creating conditions for the resumption of a credible political process.

At the same time, it should not be treated as a monolithic block; there are Israeli voices criticizing settlement, settler violence, provocations, and policies that deepen the conflict. Engaging with these voices can form part of building a shared space supporting civilian protection, the rule of law, and a political solution.

The fundamental message of the survey is clear: Palestinians do not separate peace from rights, nor security from freedom, nor diplomacy from peaceful popular action. Yet, the success of this trend requires an Israeli partner willing to stop the policies that undermine it and active international and Arab intervention that prevents further violence and affirms that peaceful means can yield tangible results.

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