What Do Palestinians Want?

The most recent wave of Palestinian terror attacks, now entering its second month, has been mainly the work of “lone wolf” operators running over Israeli civilians, soldiers, and policemen with cars or stabbing them with knives. The perpetrators, many in or just beyond their teenage years, are not, for the most part, activists in the leading militant organizations. They have been setting forth to find targets with the expectation, generally fulfilled, that after scoring a casualty or two they will be killed or badly wounded. What drives these young Palestinians, experts say, is a viral social-media campaign centered on claims that the Jews are endangering the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem and that Israel is executing Palestinian children.

Pundits and analysts in Israel and the West, struck by the elements that make this round of violence different from its predecessors over the past decade-and-a-half—which typically featured well-orchestrated shootings, suicide bombings, or rocket fire—have focused on the motivations of individual attackers, on how and why the Palestinian political and religious leadership has been engaging in incitement, and on what Israeli officials or American mediators might do to quell the violence.

Absent almost entirely from this discussion has been any attempt to understand the perspective of everyday Palestinians. Yet it is precisely the climate of public opinion that shapes and in turn is shaped by the declarations of Palestinian leaders, and that creates the atmosphere in which young people choose whether to wake up in the morning, pull a knife from the family kitchen, and go out in search of martyrdom. Whether commentators are ignoring the views of mainstream Palestinians out of a mistaken belief that public opinion does not matter in dictatorships, or out of a dismissive sense that they are powerless pawns whose fate is decided by their leaders, Israel, or regional and world powers, the omission is both patronizing and likely to lead to significant misunderstandings of what is happening. In this essay I aim to fill the lacuna by addressing what Palestinians think both about violence against Israelis and about the core issues that supply its context and justification.

My interest in Arab public opinion in the West Bank and Gaza is longstanding, dating back to the time regular surveying began there shortly before the 1993 Oslo accords between Israel and the PLO. In 1996, I appeared on a panel with Khalil Shikaki, the pioneering director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR); since then, I have been increasingly impressed with his insights and his institute’s professionalism. I therefore took particular notice of a PSR survey that appeared after the August 2014 ceasefire ending the latest war between Israel and Hamas. It reported, among other findings, that fully 79 percent of Palestinians believed Hamas had won the war and only 3 percent saw Israel as the victor. So convinced were respondents of their side’s strength that nine in ten favored continued rocket fire at Israel’s cities unless the blockade of Gaza were lifted, 64 percent declared their support for “armed attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel” (meaning, among other things, suicide bombings in Israeli population centers), and 54 percent applauded the event that in large measure had precipitated the 50-day war: the abduction and murder by Hamas operatives of three Israeli teenage boys hitchhiking home from school.


http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2015/11/what-do-palestinians-want/

Very long article that is excellent


The conclusion s spot on





Similarly farfetched, but for other reasons, is the idea that Israeli leaders, by modifying their rhetoric or restraining the reactions of the security forces, can appreciably dampen Palestinian support for violence. Doves might argue that Israel could transform Palestinian opinion in the long term with an offer of a two-state solution more generous than those advanced by former prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert (and rejected by the Palestinian leadership). Hawks might contend that change can be brought about by exacting a price for violence and ensuring that it never serves to advance Palestinian interests. But in the short and medium term, neither of these approaches is likely to be effective.

Palestinians view Israeli words and deeds through a powerfully distorting lens. A half-century of Israeli restraint at the Temple Mount has failed to convince most Palestinians that there is no plan to replace the mosques on Haram al-Sharif with a Jewish house of worship. A decade-and-a-half marked by prolonged and intense bouts of violence has persuaded Palestinians that the use of force generally helps them, and many have formed these views based on earlier rounds of attacks against Israelis and Westerners dating back a number of decades. Additionally, a series of confrontations between the West and the Arab/Islamic world has ingrained in most Palestinians a belief that attacking Western or Israeli targets, far from constituting terrorism, is legitimate resistance. Hence, Israel is an unlikely candidate to mitigate Palestinian support for violence.

The onus is therefore on the Palestinian leadership to recognize the dangers posed to its own self-interest by the current volatile circumstances and to take a firm and consistent stance against violence. Of course, there is no expecting Hamas to adopt such a position, which would contravene its organizational ethos and traditions ingrained over two-and-a-half decades. But is it utterly inconceivable that a successor to the eighty-year-old Abbas might do so? Whatever his weaknesses may be—and they have been abundantly on display in recent weeks—Abbas has preached for a decade that violence is not beneficial to the Palestinian cause and has consistently ordered his security forces to cooperate with Israel in quelling armed attacks. This is at least a precedent on which a stronger and more courageous leader might build.

In any such effort, the Arab countries with the greatest stake in preserving stability and preventing the further ascendancy of radical Islamic forces in their neighborhood might have a refreshingly constructive role to play (especially Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia). So might the United States and Europe, which have both an interest in cooling fevers and various diplomatic, political, and financial levers at their disposal. Though Palestinians possess a remarkable capacity to form their own, independent perception of the world around them, they are not immune to the consequences of their actions or to the changing incentives they face. If the U.S. and other Western powers were to begin vociferously condemning violence initiated by Palestinians, to penalize the PA and Hamas until attacks stop, and to ensure that under no circumstances will gains, diplomatic or otherwise, accrue from them, this, too, might exercise a meliorating effect over time.

Palestinian support for violence, and the attitudes underlying that support, have developed and become entrenched over a period of decades. Altering those attitudes can only begin once the attitudes are recognized for what they are, without blinking and without excuses. Toward that end, I hope this essay, along with the broader research project of which it is a part, can serve as a catalyst.

There is nothing distorted about the position of the Israeli government. The Palestinians are not getting their own sovereign state.

End off.

That is because they do not want peace Irn
That is the simple fact you keep ignoring.
israel has formed peace with Egypt and Jordan but as seen there is an instituional hate program that palestinians are groing up with as evident from the countless polls where they justify the worst violence.

You need to stop making excuses. Yes israel needs to stop the settlements, but they have withdrawn from gaza before to only be attacked because people are brought up to beleieve all Israel is occupied. That is what is fundementally stopping peace.

Didge wrote:That is because they do not want peace Irn
That is the simple fact you keep ignoring.
israel has formed peace with Egypt and Jordan but as seen there is an instituional hate program that palestinians are groing up with as evident from the countless polls where they justify the worst violence.

You need to stop making excuses. Yes israel needs to stop the settlements, but they have withdrawn from gaza before to only be attacked because people are brought up to beleieve all Israel is occupied. That is what is fundementally stopping peace.

No it is not. It's because the Israeli governments believe that it all belongs to them because it was promised to them by some mysterious figure called God and they used terrorism to set about getting it and they still are.

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:That is because they do not want peace Irn
That is the simple fact you keep ignoring.
israel has formed peace with Egypt and Jordan but as seen there is an instituional hate program that palestinians are groing up with as evident from the countless polls where they justify the worst violence.

You need to stop making excuses. Yes israel needs to stop the settlements, but they have withdrawn from gaza before to only be attacked because people are brought up to beleieve all Israel is occupied. That is what is fundementally stopping peace.

No it is not. It's because the Israeli governments believe that it all belongs to them because it was promised to them by some mysterious figure called God and they used terrorism to set about getting it and they still are.

You are talking absolute apologist nonsense.
Again israel has achieved with two former enemies peace, why?
because they also wanted peace
The palestinians are fed daily on TV, growing up and within Mosques hate of Israel, with a view it is in occupation.

So you do not believe in self determination now then?
Jews have right to form a state and the very fact it is largely based on secularism, you claim that is wrong. Again Zionism is a load of religious bullshit, but they have a right to self determination. Youa re basically again arguing that Israel should not exist based off Zionism itself.

Quelle surprise

No, I think the motivation has shifted.  Israel covets the land.  I think Netanyahu has made that clear:

Haaretz wrote:Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhau said Monday that if he were to be reelected, a Palestinian state would not be created, in a definite disavowal of his 2009 speech, in which he had voiced support for the principle of two states for two peoples.

Netanyahu's remarks in an interview with the NRG website - which is owned by casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and tied with the settler newspaper Makor Rishon - were a last-minute attempt to pull right-wing voters away from Habayit Hayehudi.

"I think that anyone who moves to establish a Palestinian state and evacuate territory gives territory away to radical Islamist attacks against Israel," Netanyahu said. "The left has buried its head in the sand time and after time and ignores this, but we are realistic and understand."
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/1.

And what they understand is, we get the land in this fight! In this last paragraph you can see that Netanyahu equates formation of a second state with "giv[ing] territory away."  This represents a critical shift in thinking, from concerns for defense to a manifest intent to steal land.  A concern for defenses would have emphasized checkpoints and policing, but here Netanyahu is already thirsting after the territory.

This was a message to Netanyahu's base, the closest and most internal friends and colleagues. He speaks of defense only to create the code. This was a message that the land is Israel's.

I think you know very little about not only the conflict Quill, but its actual history.

Again there is no doubt that Netanyhau has not helped with his policies, but the very fact you ignore the Hamas charter that calls for the destruction of Israel and the instituionalized hate of Jews taught and preached within the palestinian territories. Based on the racist view that Israel should not exist and claims all of it is in occupation. Is clearly you not looking at this conflict with any balance.

Israel has managed peace with former enemies like Jordan and Eygpt, ask yourself why? The only reason peace has not been achieved with the Palestinian authorities, is that they refuse to accept the state of israel. They could have peace tomorrow but instead choose to continue the conflict. This is evident with the many fabrications made around the Mosque.

Didge wrote:I think you know very little about not only the conflict Quill, but its actual history.

Again there is no doubt that Netanyhau has not helped with his policies, but the very fact you ignore the Hamas charter that calls for the destruction of Israel and the instituionalized hate of Jews taught and preached within the palestinian territories. Based on the racist view that Israel should not exist and claims all of it is in occupation. Is clearly you not looking at this conflict with any balance.

Israel has managed peace with former enemies like Jordan and Eygpt, ask yourself why? The only reason peace has not been achieved with the Palestinian authorities, is that they refuse to accept the state of israel. They could have peace tomorrow but instead choose to continue the conflict. This is evident with the many fabrications made around the Mosque.

None of which was discussed in this critical speech, delivered by Netanyahu on the eve of his re-election to his own base. He went directly to the heart of the matter: Israel gets the land.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:I think you know very little about not only the conflict Quill, but its actual history.

Again there is no doubt that Netanyhau has not helped with his policies, but the very fact you ignore the Hamas charter that calls for the destruction of Israel and the instituionalized hate of Jews taught and preached within the palestinian territories. Based on the racist view that Israel should not exist and claims all of it is in occupation. Is clearly you not looking at this conflict with any balance.

Israel has managed peace with former enemies like Jordan and Eygpt, ask yourself why? The only reason peace has not been achieved with the Palestinian authorities, is that they refuse to accept the state of israel. They could have peace tomorrow but instead choose to continue the conflict. This is evident with the many fabrications made around the Mosque.

None of which was discussed in this critical speech, delivered by Netanyahu on the eve of his re-election to his own base.  He went directly to the heart of the matter: Israel gets the land.

You speak of one person.
The article refers to a people in a majority not accepting and have not accepted israel since its creation, the point you avoid and miss. As seen they see and are taught Israel is in occupation of all the land. They do not recognise its existance, so your argument is not only weak but has failed to even read the article. If Israel was after the land, maybe you can explain why it has since occupying vastly more land it has actually withdran from land it had won in defensive wars where it had been attacked.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

None of which was discussed in this critical speech, delivered by Netanyahu on the eve of his re-election to his own base.  He went directly to the heart of the matter: Israel gets the land.

You speak of one person.
The article refers to a people in a majority not accepting and have not accepted israel since its creation, the point you avoid and miss. As seen they see and are taught Israel is in occupation of all the land. They do not recognise its existance, so your argument is not only weak but has failed to even read the article. If Israel was after the land, maybe you can explain why it has since occupying vastly more land it has actually withdran from land it had won in defensive wars where it had been attacked.

I don't know what you mean.  The land in question was not originally a part of Israel, but was taken during the Six-day war in 1967.  Some of the land taken in that conflict has been given back, but only under pressure brought by the international community.  Notably, the land taken from weaker participants is the very land that is retained and at issue.

In the quoted passage I'm referring to Netanyaho, speaking to his base in Israel.  This same base has already assumed for themselves that the land is Israel's.  They have even started building permanent structures on the land.

Now comes Netanyahu, and validates all of their land-grabbing efforts by assuming the land is theirs, and equating giving up land with losing the battle for survival.  If that isn't code for claiming the land, than I don't know what is.

I think you are still covering yourself in the old shroud that the land is held by Israel only for reasons of defense.  The very point I am making is that a critical shift has taken place.  Whereas once the land was originally held for strategic purposes, Israel has crept into another purpose...outright taking of the land for itself.

Thus the need for Netanyahu to speak in code.  He is speaking directly to his base, but he knows the outside world is listening.  He is patently telling his base that the land is theirs, and Israel will never give it back.  To do so, he says, would be to give up the fight.  You see the transition going on right before your eyes: defense is the taking; but survival becomes larceny.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

You speak of one person.
The article refers to a people in a majority not accepting and have not accepted israel since its creation, the point you avoid and miss. As seen they see and are taught Israel is in occupation of all the land. They do not recognise its existance, so your argument is not only weak but has failed to even read the article. If Israel was after the land, maybe you can explain why it has since occupying vastly more land it has actually withdran from land it had won in defensive wars where it had been attacked.

I don't know what you mean.  The land in question was not originally a part of Israel, but was taken during the Six-day war in 1967.  Some of the land taken in that conflict has been given back, but only under pressure brought by the international community.  Notably, the land taken from weaker participants is the very land that is retained and at issue.

In the quoted passage I'm referring to Netanyaho, speaking to his base in Israel.  This same base has already assumed for themselves that the land is Israel's.  They have even started building permanent structures on the land.

Now comes Netanyahu, and validates all of their land-grabbing efforts by assuming the land is theirs, and equating giving up land with losing the battle for survival.  If that isn't code for claiming the land, than I don't know what is.

I think you are still covering yourself in the old shroud that the land is held by Israel only for reasons of defense.  The very point I am making is that a critical shift has taken place.  Whereas once the land was originally held for strategic purposes, Israel has crept into another purpose...outright taking of the land for itself.

Thus the need for Netanyahu to speak in code.  He is speaking directly to his base, but he knows the outside world is listening.  He is patently telling his base that the land is theirs, and Israel will never give it back.  To do so, he says, would be to give up the fight.  You see the transition going on right before your eyes: defense is the taking; survival is larceny.

Incorrect, there have been 3 major wars between the Arab nations and Israel and Arab nations. There have been 12 minor wars. After the first war, Egypt and Jordan occupied gaza and the West bank. At no point under their control was they regarded as occupied by the Palestinians. The Palestinians were happy under a Muslim authority control. This is backed up by the fact the PLO charter of 1964 makes no mention of either Gaza or the West bank being occupied. Again  the aggression started with the Arab nations because they refused to accept the creation of Israel and still to this say the Palestinian authorities do not accept its existance. You only have to look at maps and what is taught to see they view this as all occupied. Again Israel won all 3 conflicts where before where an aggressor had conquered land, off being attacked, then land was conceeded to those who had won.

Resolution 242 changed this but still retianed Israel in the position she was if Arab nations agreed to the proposal, they would withdraw. Israel did come to terms with for example Egypt and Jordan and hence land was returned, in order to have peace. This has not been the case with the Palestinians, where Israel withdrew from Gaza and its settlements there. Then after a short time attacks escalated. Like I say your arguments are weak and based off poor history. At no point did the PLO accept resolution 242 but parts of this were made within the Oslo accord.

Again you have still not read the article and have still fail to look at this with balance where again the Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Abbas started this latest round of conflicts by inciting Palestinians with a lie claiming Israel would destroy the Dome of the Rock and build a new Temple. This was a complete invention where he also decided to not back the Oslo accord, which means, now resolution 242 does not cover the West Bank and has never concerned Gaza, as they refuse to accept israel.

You just kep playing the same tune over and over again about one person, Netanyahu, who I do not support and have openly stated has not helped bring about peace. Peace can be achieved but it means that the palestinian authorities have to accept israel's existance. No peace can be achieved without this and as stated already both Jordan and Egypt came to peace with Israel as they all wanted peace. You can keep ignoring the facts and how there is an institionalized system in place in the Palestinian territories that teaches hate, where it fails to recognize israel instead claiming occupation.

Now at no point do you ever address any of these points
So your view on Netanyahu is not only weak but ignores all the factors in this conflict

The point isn't to play the shell game with nation states. The point is that this land is not Israel's land. They are taking homes away from people.

The claim of 'destruction of Israel' is an unfortunate framing, but no more. It's a philosophy...perhaps even a vow. However, it is of no legal significance when it comes to property rights.

You keep trying to impose these jurisdictional frameworks onto the situation, when they are of no solemnity at all. You are wrong when you say: “all of the land Israel gave up was in the pursuit of peace.” That land wasn’t Israel’s to begin with. Resolution 242 makes that clear: “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied…”

The Oslo Agreement was a process, not a resolution. Based on the Camp David Accords, the idea was to create autonomy for those who live in the West Bank and Gaza. The 2-state solution proved to be the best hope for achieving this. When Israel showed, in Netanyahu’s pre-election speech, that it had no interest in a 2-state solution, the entire edifice fell through.

You champion the conclusion of your article:

MOSAIC wrote: If the U.S. and other Western powers were to begin vociferously condemning violence initiated by Palestinians, to penalize the PA and Hamas until attacks stop, and to ensure that under no circumstances will gains, diplomatic or otherwise, accrue from them, this, too, might exercise a meliorating effect over time.

Palestinian support for violence, and the attitudes underlying that support, have developed and become entrenched over a period of decades. Altering those attitudes can only begin once the attitudes are recognized for what they are, without blinking and without excuses. Toward that end, I hope this essay, along with the broader research project of which it is a part, can serve as a catalyst.

Your author has seriously misjudged the nature of the situation. The “US and other Western powers” are not prepared to condemn Palestinians. They are too busy framing a not-to-complimentary opinion of Israel in the wake of its abandonment of a 2-state solution.

You see, just as Netanyahu effected a transition of purposes of Israel regarding territories, so too has the opinion of the “US and other Western powers” regarding Israel transitioned. If Israel opts for greed over peace, she may find it very lonely.

Thsi debate is not about the US

The belief to destroy Israel is real

The rhetoric and what is taught within Mosques, schools and on TV is real, israels being murdered is real

I am not concerned what present left wing western governements do, what is important is speaking the truth, of whivch the people need to know and the US and Western Governements are more pandering to the gulf states, due to oil, something you should know about. That is the main reason they are on the fence alll the time ,so please spare me your poor evidence

Nothing you stated you can back up with evidence

The author has countless evidence which is clear yet again you have not read because if you did, you would know you are talking nonsese

You are also talking nonsense in resolution 242:

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."


The PLO refused on the grounds of the later, and hence why Israel and palestine have never come to a permenant peace, where as Israel did with this in regards to Jordan and Eygpt the point you miss again. The PLO never stop seeing the state of Israel as all occupied.

So again you have no conception what you are talking about and it takes both parties to agree, which if the PLO had, a Palestinian nation would be in effect today with boundaries founded and formed from both sides being in aggreemnt from this resolution.Now the oslo accord brought in recognition of israel which as seen has been now declared void by Abbas

Either address the points or stop wasting my time yet again Quill


Incorrect, there have been 3 major wars between the Arab nations and Israel and Arab nations. There have been 12 minor wars. After the first war, Egypt and Jordan occupied gaza and the West bank. At no point under their control was they regarded as occupied by the Palestinians. The Palestinians were happy under a Muslim authority control. This is backed up by the fact the PLO charter of 1964 makes no mention of either Gaza or the West bank being occupied. Again  the aggression started with the Arab nations because they refused to accept the creation of Israel and still to this say the Palestinian authorities do not accept its existance. You only have to look at maps and what is taught to see they view this as all occupied. Again Israel won all 3 conflicts where before where an aggressor had conquered land, off being attacked, then land was conceeded to those who had won.

Resolution 242 changed this but still retianed Israel in the position she was if Arab nations agreed to the proposal, they would withdraw. Israel did come to terms with for example Egypt and Jordan and hence land was returned, in order to have peace. This has not been the case with the Palestinians, where Israel withdrew from Gaza and its settlements there. Then after a short time attacks escalated. Like I say your arguments are weak and based off poor history. At no point did the PLO accept resolution 242 but parts of this were made within the Oslo accord.

Again you have still not read the article and have still fail to look at this with balance where again the Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Abbas started this latest round of conflicts by inciting Palestinians with a lie claiming Israel would destroy the Dome of the Rock and build a new Temple. This was a complete invention where he also decided to not back the Oslo accord, which means, now resolution 242 does not cover the West Bank and has never concerned Gaza, as they refuse to accept israel.

You just kep playing the same tune over and over again about one person, Netanyahu, who I do not support and have openly stated has not helped bring about peace. Peace can be achieved but it means that the palestinian authorities have to accept israel's existance. No peace can be achieved without this and as stated already both Jordan and Egypt came to peace with Israel as they all wanted peace. You can keep ignoring the facts and how there is an institionalized system in place in the Palestinian territories that teaches hate, where it fails to recognize israel instead claiming occupation.

Now at no point do you ever address any of these points
So your view on Netanyahu is not only weak but ignores all the factors in this conflict

Didge wrote:Thsi debate is not about the US

I agree. Tell that to your author.