+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Palestinian pollster: UN declaration may be last chance for Abbas

Khalil Shikaki (Photo: Brandeis University)

“It’s very clear that the public wants a real state, not just a state in name. The public is willing to pay the price.” Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki explains why a unilateral declaration of statehood  may be the last chance Palestinians give to their current leadership, and the dilemmas Palestinians face come September.

As September approaches, this is the moment to understand what the Palestinian people are thinking. What will the potential statehood declaration mean for them? What are their hopes and fears? And perhaps the question on everyone’s mind is – what do they plan to do? Will there be a violence, non-violence, or non-reaction?

Khalil Shikaki is perhaps the best-known face of Palestinian public opinion in the region. He is a go-to person for many Western analysts and policymakers, perhaps because he is known for reporting even unpopular findings; once he was even attacked for presenting data showing that the majority of Palestinian refugees accepted the compromises that were discussed during the Taba negotiations in 2000.

With a Ph.D. from Columbia University in political science, Shikaki has been publishing surveys about Palestinian opinion for nearly two decades. Since the year 2000, has worked together with Jacob Shamir to conduct the “Joint Israel Palestinian Polls” at the Truman Institute at Hebrew University, one of the best resources for nuanced insight about public opinion on both sides, and the basis for their highly recommended book “Palestinian and Israeli Public Opinion and the Second Intifada” (read my review in the Jerusalem Report).

Dr. Shikaki established and directs the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research. In mid-July, he gave this phone interview to +972 Magazine, speaking from Ramallah, in which he talks about trends in the Palestinian public opinion on the eve of a potentially historic change.

General Mood


Generally, Palestinians are not optimistic. They tend to view Israel in very grim terms. They think Israel has no intention of ending the occupation, and no intention of giving Palestinians political rights, and more than 60% believe Israel is interested in expelling them. Most are extremely worried about the occupation and worried that Israel will… kill them, injure them, confiscate their lands or homes…70-80% are worried in their daily lives.

They don’t believe the Israeli public is willing to accept compromises for peace, but they believe that [Palestinians] are interested in compromise…they blame the Israelis for the continuation of the conflict…not themselves or Hamas.

Palestinians tend to support negotiations, but they also think their political leadership must demand a settlement freeze as a precondition…This was not the case in the past…up to the failure of Camp David [negotiations in 2000], 70% supported negotiations and in general they rejected violence. Very few of those who supported negotiations supported violence. During and after the Intifada, a majority of those who supported negotiations also supported violence. [In their book, Shamir and Shikaki found that the Israeli public showed very similar trends – drs]

Attitudes toward the conflict, Arab Spring, and September


Things have changed somewhat. We are beginning to see much less support for violence, particularly since the Arab spring. More than any time in the past, we are seeing more attention to non-violence as a way of ending the Intifada.

Most people think of the first Intifada as non-violent. Most think demonstrations in which stones are thrown are non-violent. They basically distinguish between the use of firearms, explosives, or suicide attacks as one kind of resistance, and everything else as another kind.

It will take a long time for the youth groups currently organizing as result of the Arab Spring to convince others that the use of rocks in demonstrations is not conducive to participation of large numbers of people. This is a big challenge to those who consider September a date to organize large peaceful demonstrations. The examples we’ve seen so far have not indicated they’ve managed to put their hands on the formula needed to ensure nonviolence. On Nakba Day and in June, [demonstrations] were marred by widespread rock throwing. Youth groups trying to organize for September have a big challenge ahead, as the public doesn’t seem to see rock throwing as something that contradicts peaceful demonstrations.


After our March survey, we held focus groups with youth. [They] indicated that one of main concerns about organizing large scale demonstrations with whole families with kids, husbands and wives, is that participation depends on …preventing kids from throwing rocks and burning tires. The immediate reaction of Israeli security forces and the army is to use rubber bullets, tear gas and live ammunition against such demonstrators.

They believe that …civilians don’t want to participate…when they could be injured or killed. They want to participate if they know the environment will be peaceful and the risk of losing their lives, or of injury, is not that great. They hope to convince kids not to throw rocks, and to create an environment where that’s not the only option – they have organized to hold sit-ins, bring tents and organize for a long term presence…They can sit in Ramallah across from Beit El and bring in five to ten thousand demonstrators day and night, peacefully.

…They want to create small Tahrir Squares around the West Bank, to sit-in for the long haul and hope that the international media attention will isolate Israel dramatically, and in doing so highlight some of the Israeli policies that are unacceptable to the international community.

For example, if they sit peacefully and do nothing, in a road that’s forbidden for Palestinians, like the road from Beit El to highway 60…they can highlight what they call Israel’s policy of apartheid.


Mostly male, aged 18-28, and they tend to be more educated than the general public. They tend to come from urban areas, be connected by internet – about 50% – and they are less willing to be associated with either Hamas or Fatah.  WHY? …They seem to think that Fatah and Hamas had their chances and they failed, so it’s not a plus to be associated with either. [They] are more aware, active, demanding, willing to participate… A large percentage of [Palestinians] are dissatisfied with the performance of both [parties] but are not very active politically. These young people think they can reach out and organize them, politicize them and bring them to demonstrations.

…After the Arab spring, [the parties] essentially lost the youth in significant way. Youth started to rebel against Hamas. Particularly in Gaza, demand for regime change became very vocal – almost three-quarters of the youth supported regime change in Gaza, and not just in Gaza…In the West Bank…people didn’t want [change] as much.

We held focus groups because we wanted to know why they are easier on Fatah. The answer was that the “UN/September” policy fits well. In West Bank they can wait for regime change until after occupation is addressed.


Statehood is no doubt the most important [priority] for a much larger percentage of Palestinians, but [in our survey] they had to choose between four priorities and the fact that you have almost half focused on this single priority means that [1967-based statehood] is extremely important.

…If you combine two of the responses [statehood and democracy] – [these] really seems to be most important for [a majority] of respondents [59%]. For some, a state that is independent or sovereign but not democratic is not what they are really after.

Palestinian Politics


National unity is a sacred value for Palestinians, they want to achieve it no matter what the price. If that means sanctions, it’s our choice. The majority would like to avoid…international sanctions, and that’s why a clear majority favors the new reconciliation government, which is committed to the policies of the present government and PLO and meets international standards – the new government is not committed to Hamas’ policy.

This …means that people want to take the risk [of reconciliation] but also want to minimize it. Almost half select Fayyad [in election questions], and only one-fifth select Hamas’ candidate… they would really like to minimize risk…even if that means rejecting Hamas’ ways and leadership…It means Hamas has lost the game vis-à-vis the national movement.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO RESPOND IN SURVEYS THAT THEY DON’T KNOW WHO TO VOTE FOR, OR REFUSE TO IDENTIFY WITH A PARTY OR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE? WHO ARE THEY? [In some surveys, the number of those who won’t identify themselves with a party or choose a candidate in simulated voting can be high by comparison to other electoral surveys – increasing the uncertainty of which party truly leads – DS]

In the last two years, we have seen defections from Hamas, but not from the other side …But these people who are defecting have not really made up their minds about where to go. They are disenchanted but they haven’t found a good reason to support another faction. Maybe they supported Hamas because they thought they’d fight corruption. Now they feel Hamas won’t do much, and that Fatah is much worse. So they sit on the sidelines…

…Essentially we have a two party system. We have eight or nine other political factions [beyond Hamas and Fatah] but combined, they didn’t break 15%, in current surveys they reach 13-14%…

Fatah feels much safer since the elections because it hasn’t been directly in government…the West Bank government is headed by Fayyad [who is independent – DS], and this helps Fatah. If Fatah had been in power, corruption issues would probably have hurt them much more.


Fayyad’s main problem is that Hamas doesn’t want him, so of those who affiliate and sympathize with Hamas – about 80-90% of them don’t want him.

And on his own merits, he’s not very strong. He’s seen as a very competent administrator and manager, incorruptible, and very transparent…But not as a national leader. He’s not able to stand up to Israel, or help end the occupation by his leadership. He’s not seen as able to resist if the US puts pressure [on Palestinians]. Most believe he is liked by Israelis and Americans; they are willing to turn a blind eye to that as long as Fayyad is not in charge of issues of vital national issues…

People want Fatah to be a national leader, but Fatah has problems with everything else Fayyad is good at – corruption, transparency, efficiency. So a combination of Fatah and Fayyad would be very good for Fatah. If they want to win big they need him in the coalition…

Relations with the US


For Palestinians, the basic criteria is the US position on Israel… 90% of Palestinians or more believe the US is biased and does what Israel wants, or that Israel and the US are basically one and the same. They really have a very negative view of American foreign policy; not necessarily a negative evaluation of America as such.

When we ask about American culture, science and technology, democracy, values with regards to treatment of women and so on, we find that Palestinians in fact admire these things.

…Despite these negative perceptions of US policy, they don’t necessarily want to exclude the US from involvement in Israeli-Palestinian relations. Until our March survey in which we saw a decline in this finding, almost two-thirds wanted deeper American involvement in elections. That’s been the case since Obama’s election, when we immediately saw increased level of support for much deeper American intervention, and a decline after the Obama administration’s position on settlements changed. There was further significant decline and we lost the majority, after the use of veto power against the Security Council resolution on settlements.

On September and Palestinian statehood


It’s very clear that the public wants a real state, not just a state in name. The public is willing to pay the price.  In our June survey, we asked about something that doesn’t bring about immediate change for daily life, and a question we thought really would affect daily life, about access to Jordan through the Allenby bridge  – [DS – from the survey report – emphasis mine].

We asked Palestinians what they think the PA should do after the UN recognizes the Palestinian state in September. 76% think the PA president and government should enforce Palestinian sovereignty over all the territories of the West Bank, for example by opening roads in area C, start building an airport in  the Jordan valley, and deploy Palestinian security forces in area C even if this leads to confrontations with the Israeli army and settlers. 20% think the PA should not do that. Similarly, 75% think the PA should insist on assuming control over the Allenby Bridge terminal from the Israeli side even if this leads to the closure of the terminal. 20% think the PA should not do that.

Three-quarters said the Palestinian Authority should exercise and demand sovereignty over the Allenby crossing, even if it means the crossing will be closed for a long time. I think this is revolutionary – that the public would close down the only access it has to the rest of the world in order to make the point that their state is real.

If indeed September is just a declaration there will be disappointment…


… The likely outcome if we don’t declare is that we’ll [lose the support] of those who believed that violence is not the answer as long as UN diplomacy is viable. If you tell them it’s not viable anymore, we’ll see a shift in favor of violence and might also see a shift in favor of nonviolent peaceful demonstrations – maybe in larger numbers. The credibility of large-scale demonstrations like those in Egyptian and Tunisian cases would definitely grow.

[If the UN strategy is dropped] the leaders  would essentially be saying to the public, diplomacy is a failure, and we’re sorry we have no alternative, but we’re going to continue to be your leaders …people will say, ‘what good reason do you have to remain president or in government when in fact you’ve run out of strategies on how to deal w our most important vital goal? …There would be demonstrations calling for Abu Mazen to step down.

Lots of groups of young folks we talked to after the March survey told us they won’t demand regime change in Ramallah, because they support Abu Mazen’s call for a September showdown and they are willing to defer to him as long as he’s going to a September showdown. The moment he decides he’s not, they will demand regime change…

WHAT WOULD BE A GOOD REASON TO POSTPONE the unilateral declaration of independence?

For example would be if negotiations seem to be viable…but that must be really convincing. He has to have an alternative. If [Abu Mazen] says there will be no negotiating alternative and no UN, I think he’ll have a real hard time.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. Ben Israel

      Interesting piece. Unless I am mistaken, there was no mention of the “right of return” of the refugees by Shikaki. If only 48% of the Palestinians view having a state as the top priority, I would interpret this as meaning that it is better not to have an agreement and not to receive a state than to give up the “right of return”. It seems pretty clear to me that no Palestinian has any sort of a mandate to give up actual, full implementation of the “right of return” in the negotiations. Thus, there is no possibility of a compromise peace agreement with Israel.

      Reply to Comment
    2. Ben Israel

      I am sorry, I wrote the above comment before I looked at the detailed results of the poll. Besides the 48% that view setting up a state as the main goal, 26% said getting the right of return is the main goal. Of course, the others also may think ROR is important, but not the most important reason for NOT pushing for an agreement. I still say that there is NO mandate for any sort of compromise peace with Israel. Don’t forget that even a significant part of the 48% may insist on full ROR as part of the agreement they are seeing. But the outlook is bleak for those who think negotiations can lead anywhere.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Ben – legitimate question; we couldn’t get to everything in one interview. There are links to the latest PSR survey in the text – but here is the full question you asked about, and the data for the whole sample:

      “Which of the following vital national goals in your view is the most important one that the Palestinian people should strive to achieve? (four responses provided to interviewees, who were asked to choose)

      1) Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital: 47.7%

      2) Obtain the right of return to refuges to their 1948 towns and villages: 25.9%

      3) Establish a democratic political system that respects freedoms and rights of Palestinians: 11.3%

      4) Build a pious or moral individual and a religious society, one that applies all Islamic teachings: 15.1%

      Reply to Comment
    4. Ben, The second part of the question shows that right of return is chosen as second priority by the plurality of 40%. Certainly ROR, as always, is one of the toughest sticking points of an agreement. Israelis of course have equally hard sticking points – such as Jerusalem, where there has never been a majority who agree to the basic compromises, and usually much less. And try asking Israelis about packages for solving ROR – symbolic number to return, under Israel’s control, compensation elsewhere, most go back to Palestine – only very small % accepts it. You can insist on the position that this makes an agreement forever impossible, but at least recognize the symmetry of intransigence on both sides. So either both sides compromise, or you can abandon the negotiation dream, and move to support for unilateralism, like UDI. or do you have another option?

      Reply to Comment
    5. Palestinian

      Whats the problem with the ROR ? maintaining a Jewish majority ? have it somewhere else , ask the US to announce New York as a Jewish zone where only Jews can live. Every Palestinian has te right to live anywhere in his/her homeland.For 63 years Israel has banned the natives from coming home while paying and seducing foreigners to settle there.

      Reply to Comment
    6. Amir-Ras

      “Palestinian”: Should the Jewish residents of Tel-Aviv be displaced for the benefit of the descendents of palestinian refugees?

      How exactly do you propose to resolve the practical difficulties concerning the ROR?

      Furthermore, do you expect the colonialist jewish residents to simply move over and displace themselves gracefully? do you expect such heinous conquerors to surrender when they are the ones in the position of power?

      Reply to Comment
    7. Palestinian

      @ Amir Ras , why do people always distort what I say ?! Did I ask for the explusion of the Jewish residents of Tel Aviv ? yes or no , I need a simple answer , did I ?

      I never asked to do what they or their parents or grandparents did to my parents and grandparents.

      Reply to Comment
    8. Amir-Ras

      You can’t be mad people assume you meant what your words imply. Right of Return means that the refugee’s may return to where they came from. Most of these places no longer exist and are populated with other people. furthermore, even if were to adapt a broader interpretation i,e “granting citizenship to all descendents of refugees” we’re still left with several millions of people crowding into already-over-populated Israel, It is safe to assume most palestinians wouldn’t be able to return to ‘where they came from’ unless some jews were displaced in the process.

      I’d appreciate it if you could elaborate more on what would be a fair resolution to the ROR.

      furthermore, given that only 80,000 troops were involved int the nakba it’s safe to assume that most jewish israeli residents don’t have ancestors who were involved in the ethnic cleansing.

      Reply to Comment
    9. Palestinian

      ROR doesn’t mean that the refugees have to return to exactly where they came from. Most of these places no longer exist , true but lots of villages can be rebuilt again.There is enough space for everyone.Take a look at the map and you can notice there are enough land in the north and in the South .Bear in mind that millions of Palestinians are from villages and cities inside the West Bank.First step , Israel has to stop importing more immigrants..

      I don’t have any idea of how many Jews were involved in the ethnic cleansing but what I am 100% sure about is that the majority of Israelis were and are involved in the occupation .
      In brief , I think first thing to do is to conduct a survey among all the refugees to see how many people are willing to go back and live under the Israeli rule , who are willing to live in the West Bank , who are willing to accept a compensation and who are willing to stay where they are , if a Palestinian heard me saying that he/she would think I am selling my cause , but it’s the refugees who have the right to decide

      Reply to Comment
    10. Amir-Ras

      The land in the south is an arid desert which is largely uninhabitable. Proposing to relocate refugees who were mostly uprooted from the coastal area into the Negev is really not a fair option and I’m sure most of them would laugh at this suggestion. In general, without displacing the current residents in the coastal area you wouldn’t be able to provide the refugees with lands with a similar or greater value to those that were stolen from them.

      I agree that under the aforementioned conditions it is feasible for many refugees to return to Israel, however, I’m not sure if this understanding of the Right of Return would acceptable by most Palestinians. I keep hearing on guys who still have the keys to their old house in Jaffa, I think they interpret the Right of Return differently than you do. I’d like to point out that according to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194, the Right of Return means allowing a refugee to return to his former home.

      And to a more controversial point, The (Jewish) residents of Israel are not completely paranoid when they fear they’ll lose their ‘security’ if the ROR were to be realized (even under your interpretation), there has been general animosity pre-dating 1948 between the two populations; additionally, perhaps more importantly, the most popular Palestinian resistant party has called consistently (up until a couple of years ago) for the displacement of all Israeli Jews who immigrated after 1882 or something absurd like that. It is my opinion that currently, calls by Palestinians for realizing the ROR don’t contribute to the immediate struggle to end the occupation in the 67 territories.

      Reply to Comment
    11. Palestinian

      1. Be’ar Al Sabe’a (Beer Sheva)is in the south and it has almost 200,000 residents ! In the North (including the West Bank) , there is enough space, including the costal area.Its not fair to relocate them in a desert but its fair to ban them from living in their homeland ?!

      If things can be managed to give the refugee back his home and compensate the Jewish family residing in that home then that is great , else you have to convince the refugee to live somewhere else close to his original home with a compensation.Amir Ras , we have to figure it out one way or another , will it take months , 5 years , 10 years at least we have to begin the process.

      When a Palestinian is given his rights and a decent life ,he wont think about killing or displacing anyone. Giving the Palestinians a real state with great amount of money and support will solve these problems gradually and smoothly.When you talk to Palestinians , the tone of a poor oppressed resident of a village near a settlement is different from the tone of a Palestinian living abroad in the States or the Gulf region.

      Reply to Comment
    12. Amir-Ras

      Oh, when I mean “Fair” I only view it from the perspective of “whether Palestinian refugees would consider it a far trade and a fulfillment of the Right of Return”, As I’ve tried to demonstrate I think it’s pretty -fair- to assume that most of them wouldn’t. Israelis are not too concerned with Fairness at the moment.

      Your assurances of safety are commendable, but for the average Israeli it’s not to unreasonable to fear that a fraction of the Palestinians wouldn’t let go of their ‘down with israel’ ambitions. Surely I agree with you that this Fear, substantiated or not, does not necessitate or excuse occupation, apartheid and ethnic cleansing, but you must understand that from the common Israeli perspective ensuring the so called Security of the so called Jewish People is the most important thing. For this reason I don’t think it is reasonable to expect Israelis to be open to compromises concerning the right of Return while the armed conflict is still ongoing.

      Reply to Comment
    13. Rico

      Dahlia, thanks so much. I loved reading this interview. I was a little disappointed that statehood is such a hard-and-fast point for the Palestinians. This is not because I’m against statehood per se, but because I think the two-state approach is based on an ethno-territorial nationalism on both sides, which is seen as inevitable. Both nations want to continue to be able to exclude and oppress the other. My ideal choice is 3) equal democratic rights for all.

      I don’t at all want to impose these values on the people whom it actually affects–I’m an American spectator and not really entitled to a place at the negotiating table. But do you think it’s possible that the demand for statehood is a projection of the demand for rights? The largest majority, mentioned earlier in the article, is the one that finds the Israeli position to be prohibitively hostile. I wonder if Palestinians would accept a one-state solution if they were convinced that Israel could be their homeland as well.

      Reply to Comment