The Intifada mobilized the public opinion in Arab, Muslim and other countries around the world mainly because of the strategic importance of the Palestinian cause and its impact on international stability.

Arabs’ Positions

In several Arab countries, the people organized protests and events to show solidarity with the Palestinian people. They called for performing Jihad to protect Al-Aqsa and reject the Israeli occupation, ending coordination and normalization with the occupation, and closing Israeli embassies and offices.

As a response to the Intifada, Oman, Tunisia and Morocco closed down the representative offices of the occupation; Jordan stopped sending its Ambassador to the occupation’s entity; and Egypt withdrew its ambassador from the entity.

In addition to these diplomatic decisions, Arabs held multiple conferences (such as the Arab Summit, and the meetings of the Arab League). Following are the most important resolutions of these conferences:

• Calling for ending the negotiations with the occupation and supporting the demands of the Palestinian people.
• Supporting the different events of the Intifada.
• Founding a fund for the families of the martyrs, wounded and arrested during the Intifada.
• Activating the role of popular committees in resisting normalization and attempting to initiate similar campaigns in other Arab and non-Arab countries.
• Issuing statements that condemn the occupation’s crimes and the US ‘forgiving’ position on the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people.

Muslims’ Positions

The Muslim countries’ position was similar to that of the Arabs. However, the regimes in control did not translate the calls of the peoples into action.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation held an urgent summit in Doha two months after the beginning of the Intifada, and an urgent meeting for the Ministers of Foreign Affairs. However, the only new result was approving the foundation of a fund. The Organization also demanded the occupation to compensate for its crimes against the Palestinian people, and activated commercial boycott of Israeli and American products and goods.

International Position

The events in Al-Aqsa forced the international institutions to criticize the occupation for its crimes against the civilians and its overuse of force as the recorded number of martyrs and injured on a daily-basis was high. Protests broke out in US cities, European capitals (such as Paris, London and Berlin) and Latin America.

The international community condemned the Israeli crimes and unbalanced use of military force. Several international resolutions and propositions were issued, and are considered, to this day, incriminating documents. The Intifada also forced the non-Muslim countries to pay attention to the ongoing incidents, at the time, and make special room for covering the daily confrontations, analysis and criticism of the occupation’s crimes.

The first real international position was when they decided to form a committee that looks into the incidents and was headed by George Mitchel, American, and Javier Solana, representing the EU. The Committee called for ending all Israeli violations, freezing settlement activities, lifting the siege, and demanding the occupation to retreat to its position before September 28, 2000.

In June 2001, the presidents of the EU’s states held a meeting and issued a concluding statement in which they declared their support to Sharm Al-Sheikh Committee, and called for lifting the siege and freezing settlement activities.

Conclusion

The Arab, Muslim and international popular positions reflected a clear stance of solidarity with the Palestinian people. However, the official positions remained vague as they were biased to the US and other countries supporting the occupation. As a result, the occupation always evaded punishment and continued to commit crimes against Palestinian civilians.