Jordan Daily – In the latest survey conducted by Dr. Nabil Kukali and published by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion (PCPO), researchers polled 304 Palestinian adults from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip between September 28 and October 3, 2025.
The poll aimed to gauge Palestinian attitudes toward a proposed comprehensive ceasefire and broader peace plan endorsed by the Trump administration. According to the study, support for a full ceasefire reached 86% in the West Bank (70.4% strongly supported and 15.6% supported to some degree) and 90% in Gaza (78% strongly supported and 11.9% supported to some degree), PCPO said in a statement received by Jordan Daily.
Dr. Nabil Kukali, President of the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion (PCPO), explained that Palestinian public sentiment is characterized by cautious realism. Palestinians overwhelmingly regard ending the war as their highest national priority while insisting on the legitimacy of their own leadership and firmly rejecting any form of foreign trusteeship.
From both economic and humanitarian perspectives, Dr. Kukali noted that Palestinians continue to rely on international assistance. Yet, this reliance is tempered by deep skepticism toward the underlying motives of such aid. The issue of Palestinian prisoners, he emphasized, remains a central and non-negotiable element of any prospective settlement.
He further observed that the Trump plan is broadly perceived as a limited opportunity — one lacking public confidence in both American and Israeli intentions. Even if implemented, he cautioned, its success would likely be temporary and transitional rather than a sustainable path toward peace.
Key Findings
- 68.1 % of participants rated the plan as positive to varying degrees.
- 60.5 % believed that the Trump administration has the capacity—to some extent—to impose its terms on the various parties.
- 43.8 % of the public selected the Palestinian Authority as the most suitable entity to administer the Gaza Strip during the transition period.
The detailed results of the poll are presented below:
The majority of Palestinians View Trump’s Plan Positively but with Conditions
Most Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza see the Trump plan in a conditionally positive light. In the West Bank, roughly 70.0% rated the plan positively, whereas 27.0% considered it negative. In Gaza, approximately 65.0% viewed it positively, compared to 30.0% who viewed it negatively. Overall, 54.9% described the plan as somewhat positive, and 13.2% as very positive, while 28.3% regarded it as negative, and 3.6% did not specify a position. These numbers indicate that most Palestinians perceive some benefits in the plan, but do not consider it a complete or ideal solution.
Attitudes toward a Comprehensive Ceasefire
A wide majority supported the comprehensive ceasefire proposal as an initial step toward calm: 73.4 % of respondents strongly supported it, and 14.1 % supported it to some extent. Only 11.5 % opposed the proposal, and 1 % responded “don’t know / not interested.” Regional analysis revealed that strong support in the West Bank stood at 70.4%, with 15.6% partial support, while in Gaza, it rose to 78.0% strong support and 11.9% partial support. The opposition reached 13.4% in the West Bank and 8.5% in Gaza, with 0.5% and 1.7%, respectively, having no opinion. These results illustrate a broad national consensus viewing a full ceasefire as an urgent priority and a common ground for any future political settlement, with even higher endorsement in Gaza due to direct suffering from the war’s consequences.
Majority Supports Gradual Israeli Withdrawal, though a Significant Minority Remains Skeptical
The idea of a gradual Israeli withdrawal from Gaza gained considerable support among respondents, with 48.0% viewing it as a practical step and an additional 20.4% expressing partial support. Conversely, 29.3% considered the proposal impractical, while 2.3% responded “don’t know.” These results suggest that Palestinians largely perceive a phased withdrawal as a feasible and constructive approach, although nearly one-third remain doubtful about its practicality.
Preferred Authority to Govern Gaza in the Transitional Phase
When asked who should administer Gaza during a transition, 43.8 % chose the Palestinian Authority as the most appropriate body, with 40.9 % of West Bank residents and 48.3 % of Gaza’s residents supporting this choice. Another 31.6 % favored a multilateral civil administration (Arab or international). Only 11.5 % opted for the status quo, while 13.2 % were undecided. These results reveal strong adherence to Palestinian legitimacy represented by the Authority, albeit with some openness to a multilateral arrangement provided it has a balanced Arab or international character and a rejection of continuing the current situation.
Deployment of Multinational Forces in Gaza
Opinions were split on the idea of deploying multinational forces in Gaza. 45.7 % explicitly opposed it, 21.4 % strongly supported it, and 28.3 % supported it partially, while 4.6 % preferred not to express an opinion. This disparity reflects the sensitivity surrounding foreign interventions and a general tendency toward rejection due to concerns about sovereignty.
Excluding Hamas from Any Future Civil Administration
The survey revealed no consensus on excluding Hamas from any future civil administration. 34.5% supported excluding Hamas, 23.0% opposed it, and 35.5% considered exclusion possible under certain conditions. 6.9 % declined to answer. These results suggest that the future role of Hamas in any transitional governance remains a contentious issue, tied to proposed alternatives and evolving political circumstances.
Responsibility for Funding Gaza Reconstruction
When asked who should fund the reconstruction of Gaza, 43.8 % believed that the international community (the United Nations, European Union and United States) should bear the responsibility. 28.3 % assigned responsibility to Arab and Islamic states, while 26.0 % felt that Israel, as the occupying power, should shoulder the burden. Only 2 % did not specify an answer. This distribution reveals no single unified vision, but it does highlight the expectation that the international community will play the largest role in reconstruction.
Assessment of the Clause Releasing Israeli Hostages
Nearly half of respondents (48.0 %) considered releasing Israeli hostages “very necessary,” whereas 27.6 % deemed it important but not a priority, 19.4 % saw it as unnecessary, and 4.9 % were unsure. These responses suggest that while Palestinians recognize the importance of this clause, their absolute priority remains internal Palestinian issues.
Inclusion of Palestinian Prisoners in the Plan
An overwhelming 74.0 % asserted that including the Palestinian prisoners’ issue must be a core and non-negotiable clause. 14.1 % said it could be discussed later, 8.9 % rejected its inclusion as a priority, and 3.0 % answered “don’t know.” These results confirm that the prisoners’ issue is a central national concern in the popular consciousness.
The Best Ways to Handle the Prisoners’ Issue
Public opinion was almost evenly divided between two main options: 46.7 % favored a comprehensive prisoner exchange, and 45.4 % supported a mass release of prisoners. Only 5.6 % preferred improving detention conditions, and 2.3 % were unsure. This close divide suggests a preference for comprehensive and decisive solutions rather than partial or symbolic ones.
Confidence in the Trump Administration’s Ability to Impose the Plan
36.5 % expressed strong confidence in the Trump administration’s ability to impose the plan, 24.0 % showed partial confidence, and 35.2 % expressed distrust, while 4.3 % had no clear view. These findings reveal a split between those who trust U.S. pressure and those who doubt its effectiveness.
Peace Resulting from the Plan: Permanent or Temporary?
A majority (50.3%) believed the plan would produce only temporary peace, while 25.3% expected permanent peace and 21.7% thought it would not bring peace at all. 2.6 % did not specify. These views suggest that most Palestinians see the plan as a transitional solution rather than a definitive one.
Appointing Tony Blair for the Interim Management of Gaza
Regarding the suggestion to appoint Tony Blair to manage the Gaza Strip temporarily, 58.8% of respondents viewed it as a proposal that would never be implemented, 16.1% thought it could become a reality, and 12.5% found it a practical option. Another 12.5 % said they did not know. The majority, therefore, sees Blair as an unrealistic choice and interprets the idea as purely theoretical.
Acceptance of the Idea of an International Transitional Authority
The idea of establishing an international transitional authority led by a non-Palestinian figure met with strong opposition: 59.9 % rejected it outright on the grounds that it undermines Palestinian legitimacy. 19.7% hesitated but accepted it as a transitional necessity, 16.8% welcomed it if it were transparent and fair, and 3.6% were unsure. These results underscore a strong attachment to national sovereignty and a rejection of external guardianship.
Evaluation of Choosing Tony Blair for This Role
When asked about the suitability of Tony Blair for such a role, 53.8% considered him unsuitable due to his controversial record, 32.3% said he might be acceptable if his mandate were time-limited, and 6.1% believed he was a suitable choice given his international experience. 7.9 % had no opinion. This indicates that most Palestinians view Blair negatively, though a minority conditionally accepts him.
Purpose of the Proposal
Regarding the main purpose of the proposal, 51.3 % believed it primarily seeks to protect Israeli interests, while 25.8 % thought it aims to establish a temporary political settlement. 17.2 % said its goal was to improve the humanitarian situation, and 5.7 % did not know. These views highlight a clear public skepticism about the humanitarian dimension of the initiative.
Inclusion of an American‑Palestinian Personality (Bishara Bahbah)
The proposal to include Bishara Bahbah, an American‑Palestinian who has acted as an informal mediator between the United States and Hamas, split opinion. 52.6 % rejected the idea, saying his involvement is unnecessary; 26.1 % supported it under conditions; 11.6 % strongly supported it; and 9.6 % had no opinion. These responses reflect division with a leaning toward rejection.
Confidence in Trump’s Promise Not to Annex the West Bank
According to the survey, 65.9 % saw Trump’s promise not to annex the West Bank as mere symbolism. 15.7% believed the promise would be carried out, 14.5% thought it might be partially implemented, and 4.0% did not know. This illustrates a deep crisis of trust regarding American commitments.
Evaluation of the Clause Releasing Prisoners
Regarding the clause proposing the release of hundreds of prisoners serving life sentences and more than a thousand detainees, 52.6% said it was insufficient, 31.3% viewed it as a positive but temporary step, 12.9% deemed it fair, and 3.2% did not know. These results show that the public demands comprehensive rather than partial solutions.
Allowing 600 Aid Trucks Daily
When respondents were asked whether allowing 600 aid trucks per day would be sufficient, 55.0% said it was not enough, 28.9% said it was a temporary measure, and 13.7% said it was sufficient. 2.4 % did not know. This outcome demonstrates popular awareness of the depth of the humanitarian crisis.
Trust in the Mechanism of Aid Distribution
Regarding aid distribution through the United Nations and the Red Crescent, 56.2% said they trusted these mechanisms, 24.1% said they did not trust them, and 16.5% trusted them only under Palestinian supervision. 3.2 % had no knowledge. The results suggest conditional trust in international distribution mechanisms.
Assessment of Trump’s Phrase “Intense and Fruitful”
Results showed that 39.0% regarded Trump’s characterization of the talks as “intense and fruitful” as mere political publicity, 28.5% saw it as an indicator of progress, and 29.7% associated it with reactions from Israel and Hamas. Only 2.8 % did not know. This highlights a skeptical view toward American statements.
Success of the Plan Linked to Trump’s Pressure
Asked whether the success of Trump’s plan was tied to his ability to apply pressure, 43.8 % said the link was very strong, 22.9 % said it existed partially, 29.7 % felt he lacked the ability, and 3.6 % did not know. These results reflect popular recognition of the United States’ pivotal role.
Removing Hamas and Destroying Its Military Infrastructure
On the clause about excluding Hamas and dismantling its military infrastructure, 33.7 % rejected it, 30.5 % supported it, and 26.9 % accepted it on condition that a legitimate Palestinian alternative exists. 8.8 % were unsure. These findings reveal a distinct separation between rejection and conditional acceptance.
Regional Security Guarantees
Regarding regional security guarantees, 42.2% supported them, 22.9% opposed them, and 26.5% supported them if provided by Arab countries. 8.4 % did not know. This indicates a preference for Arab involvement over international arrangements.
International Stabilization Force to Train the Police
When asked about deploying an international stabilization force to train police, 49.0% agreed, 18.5% opposed, and 25.7% supported the idea if the force were Arab or Islamic. 6.8 % did not know. The results suggest a general acceptance, albeit with reservations, about an international presence.
Position on Netanyahu’s Statement and Advice to Hamas
Position on Netanyahu’s Statement (Isolating Hamas and Not Including a Palestinian State)
56.3 % strongly rejected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement advocating isolating Hamas and omitting a Palestinian state, 8.2 % partially rejected it, 20.8 % were neutral, and 8.7 % supported it to varying degrees. 6.0 % did not know. These results reveal broad rejection of the Israeli proposal.
Advice to Hamas on Accepting Trump’s Plan
Regarding whether Hamas should accept the Trump plan, 36.3% said acceptance should be conditional on substantial amendments, 29.0% advocated accepting the plan as it is, 25.8% opposed accepting it outright, and 8.9% did not know. These responses indicate pragmatic public attitudes, where most prefer conditional acceptance rather than absolute rejection, reflecting awareness of the need for realistic solutions while reserving reservations about some provisions.
The Most Dangerous Amendment Introduced by Netanyahu
37.4 % said all amendments introduced by Netanyahu were dangerous, 22.8 % singled out keeping Israeli forces inside Gaza as the most dangerous, 20.3 % pointed to linking withdrawal to disarming Hamas, 10.6 % cited reducing clarity on aid, and 8.9 % highlighted the refusal to release Palestinian leaders. These results demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the risks posed by the Israeli position.
Evaluation of Israeli Amendments to Trump’s Plan
61.8 % viewed Israeli amendments as political maneuvers, 17.9 % considered them a betrayal of the plan’s essence, 7.3 % saw them as legitimate security concerns, and 13.0 % did not know. These finding highlights widespread suspicions about Israeli intentions.
Most Important Amendment Proposed by Palestinian Factions
36.5 % said the most important amendment proposed by Palestinian factions was international guarantees to stop the war after the hostages are released; 23.8 % prioritized delaying the renunciation of arms, 23.8 % said all points, 7.9 % highlighted keeping Palestinian leaders, and 7.9 % did not know. These responses emphasized that security concerns are of paramount importance.
Optimism about the Political Future
When measuring optimism about Palestine’s political future, 44.7 % reported not being optimistic, 39.5 % were somewhat optimistic, 13.2 % were very optimistic, and 2.6 % did not know. The findings reflect a state of cautious pessimism with some room for hope.
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
The survey sample consisted of 57.9 % men and 42.1 % women, indicating a relatively balanced gender representation. By residence, 61.2% were from the West Bank, 38.8% from the Gaza Strip, and 0.7% from East Jerusalem, ensuring geographic coverage of most Palestinian areas. The average age of respondents was around 35 years, with participants ranging between 18 and 75 years old, representing a mix of youth and older adults and providing a comprehensive social cross-section.
Data Collection Methodology
The poll was conducted via random telephone calls using the CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) system to ensure accuracy and organization. The response rate reached 68%, a relatively high figure for telephone studies, reflecting substantial public interest in the subject. The survey’s statistical margin of error was ±5.6 % at a 95 % confidence level, lending credibility and statistical reliability to the results.
Conclusion
Dr. Nabil Kukali concluded that the survey results show the Palestinian public stands at a critical juncture, balancing realism with a strong commitment to national sovereignty. While there is broad support for ending the war, Arab assistance and Palestinian supervision over aid, skepticism persists regarding international and Israeli roles. He emphasized that the prisoners’ issue remains the primary measure of the seriousness of any settlement, and that rejection of foreign guardianship reflects deeply rooted national awareness. Despite prevailing political pessimism, the results also reveal signs of cautious hope, especially in Gaza, indicating Palestinians’ readiness to support any initiative that ensures justice, sovereignty, and stability.