The First Intifada

Origins and Outbreak

The First Intifada began in December 1987 in the Gaza Strip and quickly spread to the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It did not start as a declared war or a planned campaign by political leaders, but as a popular uprising from below. The immediate trigger was a traffic accident at the Erez crossing in which an Israeli military truck collided with cars carrying Palestinian workers, killing four of them. Many Palestinians believed the collision was deliberate retaliation for the killing of an Israeli in Gaza days earlier, though this was never proven. The funerals of the victims became large protests, and those protests turned into sustained confrontations.

This eruption took place after two decades of military occupation that had begun in 1967. By the late 1980s Palestinian society had experienced land confiscations, settlement growth, economic dependency on Israel, and strict control over movement and political activity. At the same time, a younger generation had grown up knowing only occupation, with little direct connection to the older leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization abroad. Local frustrations, labor struggles, and student activism had already produced small-scale protests in the years before 1987. The accident in Gaza turned these scattered tensions into a broad, coordinated uprising.

The term “Intifada” in Arabic literally means a “shaking off,” suggesting both a physical and symbolic attempt to cast off existing conditions. Palestinians used it to describe a mass revolt meant to challenge the status quo of occupation and the political deadlock that had followed earlier wars and failed diplomacy.

Forms of Protest and Resistance

From the outset, the First Intifada was marked by widespread civil disobedience and grassroots organization. Stone throwing against Israeli military vehicles and patrols became the most iconic image, but it was only one part of a broader repertoire of resistance. Palestinians organized general strikes in which shops closed and workers stayed home, disrupting normal economic life and signaling collective refusal to cooperate with occupation authorities. School and university boycotts, as well as sit-ins and demonstrations, turned public spaces into arenas of protest.

Neighborhood committees coordinated daily life under conditions of curfews and closures. These committees, often semi-clandestine, handled tasks such as distributing food, organizing medical aid, maintaining basic security, and circulating leaflets that announced planned actions. Many Palestinian towns and refugee camps created systems of mutual aid so that families affected by arrests, injuries, or job losses could still survive.

A key tool of the uprising was the boycott. Palestinians reduced or refused the purchase of Israeli products, rejected certain forms of employment in Israel, and withheld taxes when they could. The slogan “no taxation without representation” captured the argument that Palestinians should not be forced to fund an administration that denied them political rights. These tactics were intended to make the continuation of occupation more costly and less stable without relying solely on armed struggle.

Although the Intifada was often described as “unarmed,” there were also more violent acts. Alongside stone throwing there were Molotov cocktails, sporadic shootings, and attacks on perceived collaborators. Israeli soldiers and civilians were killed, though at lower levels than in later cycles of violence. Still, the dominant character of the uprising in its early years was mass civil resistance led by local activists rather than centralized military operations.

Organization and Leadership

The organizational backbone of the First Intifada emerged from within Palestinian society in the occupied territories. Existing networks of student groups, labor unions, professional associations, women’s organizations, and mosque-based circles all played a role. Many of their leaders were linked to factions of the PLO, such as Fatah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Democratic Front, but the PLO leadership itself was in exile and initially taken by surprise.

To coordinate activities, a clandestine body known as the Unified National Leadership of the Uprising, often shortened to UNLU, began issuing communiqués. These leaflets laid out daily or weekly plans. They called for strikes, consumer boycotts, targeted days of protest, and even specific symbolic acts like repainting graffiti or observing periods of silence. The UNLU operated as a collective leadership, with representatives from several PLO-affiliated factions, and its messages circulated quickly through networks of activists, local mosques, schools, and social gatherings.

Alongside the secular nationalist groups, Islamist actors also gained prominence. The movement that would later become known as Hamas, rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood’s presence in Gaza, began to participate and to challenge the secular dominance of the PLO. Hamas advocated both Islamic social values and resistance to Israel and appealed to parts of the population that felt alienated from the PLO’s leadership abroad. As the Intifada progressed, rivalry and cooperation between nationalist and Islamist groups created a more complex political landscape inside the territories.

Leadership of the uprising was therefore layered. There was formal leadership in exile represented by the PLO. There was clandestine collective leadership through the UNLU inside the territories. There were emerging Islamist leaders and local notables who mediated with the Israeli authorities. Finally, there were thousands of young activists and “shabab,” or youth, who were the visible face of daily confrontations in streets and alleys. This mix allowed the Intifada to persist even as Israel arrested many known organizers.

Israeli Response and Military Measures

The Israeli government and army responded to the Intifada as a security crisis that needed to be suppressed. At first, there was confusion about how to treat a largely civilian uprising that did not resemble conventional warfare. The streets were filled with unarmed or lightly armed demonstrators, many of them teenagers. The Israeli leadership debated whether this was primarily a police matter or a military matter, but in practice it was the army that took the lead across the occupied territories.

One central feature of the response was the widespread use of force to disperse protests. Soldiers used live ammunition, rubber bullets, and large quantities of tear gas. Physical beatings were common during arrests and crowd control. An explicit doctrine emerged that aimed to “break the bones” of the uprising, both metaphorically and, in some notorious incidents, literally through severe beating of detainees. International human rights groups documented cases of collective punishment, including the sealing or demolition of houses belonging to people accused of attacks, long curfews that confined entire neighborhoods, and restrictions on movement between towns and villages.

Administrative detention without trial was another tool. Many suspected activists were held for months or years based on secret evidence. Schools and universities were often closed for extended periods, partly to prevent gatherings and protests among students. These closures contributed to the sense of a whole generation having its education disrupted.

Inside Israel, Jewish public opinion was divided. Some saw the uprising as proof that occupation was untenable and that some political solution was needed. Others concluded that more force and stricter control were required. The government also worried about the impact of televised images on international opinion, as scenes of soldiers confronting children with stones reached audiences around the world.

Daily Life and Social Transformation

The Intifada transformed daily life for Palestinians in the territories. Normal routines of work, education, shopping, and family visits were constantly interrupted by strikes, roadblocks, protests, and military closures. Many workers who depended on jobs in Israel could not reach their workplaces, which caused severe economic hardship. Curfews meant that whole communities were confined to their homes for days or weeks, dependent on stored food and the help of neighbors.

At the same time, the uprising generated new forms of community organization. Popular committees in neighborhoods and refugee camps took on practical tasks that the formal system could not or would not provide. Local clinics, informal schools during closures, and collective efforts to distribute bread or medicine became common. These initiatives helped maintain a degree of social resilience and fostered a sense of shared purpose.

The role of women changed in visible ways. Palestinian women’s organizations, some linked to political factions and some more independent, became deeply involved in organizing demonstrations, providing medical aid, coordinating boycotts, and keeping households functioning during mass arrests and curfews. Women participated both publicly and in behind-the-scenes organization, challenging traditional gender boundaries in some communities and creating new expectations about women’s political and social roles.

For Israeli society, especially for soldiers serving in the territories, the Intifada brought the reality of occupation into daily consciousness. Many conscripts found themselves engaged in tasks such as crowd control, night raids, and manning checkpoints rather than in battles against enemy armies. Encounters with civilian populations in a context of confrontation had lasting emotional and political effects on some of those who served.

Media, Imagery, and International Perceptions

The First Intifada unfolded at a time when television news had already become central to global perceptions of political events, but before social media allowed participants to broadcast directly. International reporters and photographers captured powerful images of the uprising that circulated widely. One recurring image was that of young Palestinians throwing stones at heavily armed Israeli soldiers and vehicles. For many viewers abroad, this visual asymmetry symbolized a broader imbalance of power.

International organizations and foreign governments reacted to what they saw in different ways. Human rights groups documented patterns of excessive force and collective punishment. Some Western governments, which had tended to view the conflict mainly in terms of state-to-state relations, began to give more attention to the issue of Palestinian rights under occupation. Arab states used the events to rally diplomatic pressure on Israel, though their practical support for the uprising varied.

Media coverage also became a site of contestation. Israeli officials sought to frame the Intifada as a violent riot directed by hostile organizations, while Palestinians emphasized their right to resist occupation and pointed to civilian casualties. Competing narratives about who initiated particular clashes or who bore responsibility for specific deaths reflected deeper disagreements about the nature of the conflict itself.

Inside the territories, leaflets, posters, graffiti, and cassette tapes played a central role in communication. Since open political organization was often suppressed, these informal media carried messages from the leadership to the population and conveyed slogans, calls for action, and news of arrests or killings. Cultural expressions, such as songs and poetry, spread quickly and helped to create a shared language of resistance.

Political Impact and Shifts in Strategy

Over the course of several years, the First Intifada reshaped the political landscape. For the PLO, which had long prioritized armed struggle from bases outside historic Palestine, the uprising demonstrated the power of mass civilian resistance inside the occupied territories. It also posed a challenge, since local leaders sometimes acted independently of the exiled leadership. To remain relevant, the PLO increasingly presented itself as the legitimate representative of this popular movement and sought diplomatic channels to translate street protests into political gains.

Israel’s leadership faced a different strategic problem. The Intifada revealed that military control over the territories did not guarantee stability or acceptance. The cost of maintaining order, in terms of both resources and international criticism, rose steadily. Debates intensified inside Israel over whether to hold on to the territories permanently, to annex them, or to seek some form of negotiated settlement.

One important political development during this period was the growing international recognition of the Palestinians as a people with collective political rights, not only as refugees or as a security concern. Diplomatic moves such as the Palestinian declaration of independence in 1988 and the PLO’s statements about accepting a two-state framework and recognizing Israel shifted the conversation. The uprising provided context and pressure that made these declarations more significant than if they had occurred in isolation.

At the same time, the rise of Islamist movements, particularly Hamas, introduced new strategic and ideological currents. Hamas rejected some of the PLO’s emerging compromises, insisted on an explicitly Islamic framing of the struggle, and attracted supporters who were skeptical of negotiations. Tensions between nationalist and Islamist visions would continue to influence Palestinian politics long after the initial wave of the Intifada had subsided.

De-escalation and Transition to a New Phase

The First Intifada did not end with a single agreement or a decisive military outcome. Instead, its intensity gradually declined in the early 1990s. Several factors contributed to this shift. Years of strikes, closures, and confrontations had taken a heavy economic and social toll on Palestinian communities. Many families were exhausted by the constant disruptions and the risks of arrest or injury. Israel had adapted its security tactics, building more extensive intelligence networks and using targeted arrests to weaken local leadership structures.

Regional and global developments also affected the trajectory of the uprising. The end of the Cold War, shifts in the priorities of Arab states, and the outbreak of the Gulf War in 1990 changed the diplomatic environment. The PLO’s position was weakened by its stance during that war, which alienated key Arab and Western backers. New diplomatic initiatives, including international conferences and secret talks, began to offer the possibility of political negotiation.

Within this context, the First Intifada evolved from a primarily street-based uprising into a backdrop for diplomatic efforts. The energy and visibility of the uprising convinced many actors that the status quo was unsustainable and that some new arrangement had to be considered. At the same time, the limits of popular protest, especially under heavy military control, became apparent to many Palestinians.

Although the formal end of the Intifada is often associated with the early 1990s, its legacy continued into subsequent agreements and confrontations. The forms of organization, the experiences of both societies, and the political lessons drawn by leaders on all sides set the stage for the negotiations and further cycles of violence that followed.