By: Fern Sidman

World Israel News (WIN) on Wednesday reported on a remarkable and rare admission from one of the most notorious figures of the Second Intifada. Zakaria Zubeidi, 49, a former leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade — a Fatah-affiliated terror organization — has acknowledged publicly that decades of armed struggle have failed to bring Palestinians closer to their long-stated goals of destroying Israel or achieving an independent Palestinian state.

As documented by World Israel News, Zubeidi rose to prominence during the height of the Second Intifada in the early 2000s. Operating out of Jenin, he commanded a network of militants who, under the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade banner, claimed responsibility for multiple deadly bombings and shootings against Israeli civilians and security personnel. Although Zubeidi has insisted he did not personally order specific terror attacks, the group he led was directly linked to some of the bloodiest episodes of that period.

The Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade was one of several Palestinian factions involved in orchestrating a sustained campaign of violence between 2000 and 2005, targeting buses, marketplaces, and restaurants across Israel. According to the information provided in the WIN report, the group’s operations contributed to a climate of fear and retaliation that defined the Second Intifada and reshaped Israeli counterterrorism policy.

In 2007, Zubeidi accepted an Israeli government amnesty offer, agreeing to renounce violence and disarm. For a brief period, he stepped away from militancy, instead focusing on cultural and social initiatives in Jenin. His most notable project during this time was the founding of a local theater, an effort that attracted international attention and praise for promoting “cultural resistance” over armed confrontation.

The report at World Israel News noted, however, that this departure from violence was short-lived. Zubeidi was later implicated in renewed terror activities and arrested by Israeli forces. In September 2021, he briefly escaped from an Israeli detention facility in a high-profile prison break, only to be recaptured within days. His return to prison marked yet another reversal in his turbulent career, underscoring what observers have described as his inability to sever ties with terrorist networks.

In a lengthy interview published by The New York Times and highlighted by WIN, Zubeidi delivered an uncharacteristic assessment of the Palestinian national movement’s reliance on violence.

“We have to reconsider our tools,” he said. “We founded a theater, and we tried cultural resistance — what did that do? We tried the rifle, we tried shooting. There’s no solution.”

This stark acknowledgment was paired with a reluctant recognition of Israel’s permanence as a state. “It’s impossible to uproot [Palestinians] from here,” Zubeidi added, “and we don’t have any tools to uproot them.”

While conceding that neither armed conflict nor peaceful negotiation has succeeded, Zubeidi nevertheless placed primary blame on Israel, claiming, “The Israelis don’t want to give us anything.” His statements reflect a mixture of disillusionment and entrenched political grievances.

Zubeidi’s comments came shortly after his release from prison in the most recent ceasefire and hostage exchange agreement between Israel and Hamas. According to the report at WIN, his freedom was secured as part of a deal in which Palestinian prisoners were exchanged for Israeli hostages held in Gaza.

Upon his arrival in Ramallah, Zubeidi was met by crowds of supporters, celebrating his release as a victory. Addressing the gathering, he called for renewed efforts toward Palestinian statehood: “It’s time for our Palestinian nation to achieve its freedom and the independent state it wishes for, with Jerusalem as its capital.”

The hero’s welcome stands in contrast to his own admission that the tactics traditionally employed by Palestinian factions — including the group he once led — have failed to produce meaningful political gains.

During his years of militancy, Zubeidi operated under the Fatah umbrella, making him a rival to Hamas, which dominates the Gaza Strip. The Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, while aligned with Fatah, often operated independently and in competition with Hamas for influence among Palestinians. This factional rivalry occasionally erupted into violence between the two groups, further complicating efforts at Palestinian unity.

The World Israel News report pointed out that Zubeidi’s willingness to criticize Hamas and acknowledge the futility of past armed campaigns is noteworthy given his background. However, his remarks stop short of endorsing any clear alternative strategy, reflecting the broader paralysis in Palestinian political leadership.

Zubeidi’s admission — that Palestinian terrorism has failed in its central objectives — resonates beyond his personal story. For years, Israeli officials and analysts have argued that violent resistance has not only failed to advance Palestinian aspirations but has, in fact, entrenched Israeli security measures and hardened public opinion.

The Second Intifada in particular led to the construction of Israel’s security barrier in Judea and Samaria, a major reduction in the number of Palestinian workers permitted to enter Israel, and a sustained campaign to dismantle militant infrastructure. These outcomes have further complicated any prospects for negotiation and have deepened Palestinian economic and political isolation.

Zubeidi’s candid assessment may therefore be seen as tacit confirmation of what many in Israel have long maintained: that violence has proven strategically counterproductive.

Despite acknowledging the permanence of Israel’s existence, Zubeidi continues to reject the notion that Palestinians should abandon their aspirations for statehood. His remarks reveal a paradox — conceding that both violent and peaceful approaches have failed, yet still calling for an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital.

The report at World Israel News emphasized that such contradictions are emblematic of the wider Palestinian political discourse, where the desire for sovereignty remains unyielding, but consensus on the means to achieve it is elusive.

Zubeidi’s future role remains uncertain. While his public statements suggest a degree of disillusionment with armed struggle, his history of returning to militancy after previous renunciations leaves open the question of whether he will remain committed to non-violent advocacy.

For Israeli policymakers, his comments may be viewed as both an opportunity and a caution. On one hand, they offer a rare acknowledgment from a senior militant leader that the armed path has been a dead end. On the other, his continued prominence in Palestinian society and hero status among supporters could allow him to influence — or reignite — militant activity, depending on how he chooses to act.

The release of high-profile figures like Zubeidi as part of hostage exchanges has been a contentious issue within Israel, balancing the immediate humanitarian imperative of freeing captives against the long-term risk of emboldening terrorist leaders.

For now, Zubeidi’s voice adds an unusual note to the ongoing discourse — one that recognizes the limits of violence, yet remains steeped in the grievances and ambitions that have fueled decades of conflict. Whether this admission signals a genuine turning point or simply another chapter in a long and complicated career will depend on what he does next, and how both Palestinians and Israelis respond to his evolving message.