Palestinian
in sentence
1687 examples of Palestinian in a sentence
These global disagreements reflect competing assessments of the UN move in Israel and the
Palestinian
territories.
Palestinian
President Mahmoud Abbas remains determined to move forward.
State-building efforts have reformed previously defunct
Palestinian
institutions, and have enabled significant economic growth.
Still, the World Bank declared this spring that
Palestinian
institutions are “well positioned for the establishment of a state at any point in the near future.”
In addition, strong public support and high expectations in the
Palestinian
territories would make a last-minute change of course politically risky.
While the Security Council would be able to grant legally binding membership status, a vote in the General Assembly would simply upgrade a
Palestinian
entity to the status of a “non-member state” – like the Vatican.
Confronted with the prospect of a US veto, an increasing number of international observers flatly oppose the
Palestinian
plan, on the grounds that it is unlikely to generate concrete political gains and would merely deflect attention from the main requirement of Middle East peace-making: a return to the negotiating table.
But a nuanced
Palestinian
resolution that moves beyond a zero-sum mindset and embraces legitimate Israeli concerns is possible, and could very well increase the likelihood of a return to constructive negotiations.
Drafted with reference to UN Resolution 181 (which partitioned Palestine in 1947), such a motion would reaffirm the establishment of a
Palestinian
state and a state for the Jewish people, based on the 1967 borders, with mutually agreed border adjustments and security arrangements.
While such an approach would certainly fall short of maximalist
Palestinian
demands, it would embrace the parameters outlined in May by US President Barack Obama.
Instead of closing doors, such a redefinition of the statehood bid at the UN would provide the
Palestinian
leadership with a much-needed symbolic success, including a framework from which to restart negotiations – a longstanding
Palestinian
demand.
But the lesson of the last two decades is that attacks stop, and intifadas do not start, when there is a prospect of peace – and that, when there is no such prospect,
Palestinian
militancy is uncontainable.
The chances of a comprehensive and sustainable two-state settlement now being negotiated with Mahmoud Abbas’s West Bank-based
Palestinian
Authority (PA) – and of its acceptance, albeit grudgingly, by Gaza’s Hamas after a popular vote – may be slim and receding.
How can Israel’s preferred
Palestinian
leaders, Abbas and PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, be left with any credible capacity to negotiate if talks cannot begin until, as Israel insists, they retreat on their minimum condition of a settlement freeze in the Occupied Territories?
Palestinian
statehood has always been an indispensable requirement of Israel’s own long-term peace and security, and it is overwhelmingly in Israel’s interest to defuse rather than further inflame the issue.
After all, nobody accepts Israel's claim to oppose as a matter of principle the establishment of a
Palestinian
state in the West Bank and Gaza.
Remaking the Middle EastPresident Bush,
Palestinian
Premier Mazen, and Israel's Prime Minister Sharon are poised to meet.
It is difficult to think of a foreign policy issue that preoccupies and polarizes world opinion as much as the
Palestinian
question.
Nearly one year ago, President George W. Bush declared his goal of bringing about a democratic
Palestinian
state, one prepared to live in peace beside Israel.
The emergence of a new
Palestinian
Prime Minister and government constitutes an important opening.
And, standing next to Netanyahu at a press conference, Trump declared that
Palestinian
Authority President Mahmoud Abbas really does want peace – a statement that did not sit well with an Israeli government that insists that Abbas is no partner for peace talks.
Moreover, in Bush's view, Israel need not worry about allowing
Palestinian
refugees to return to their homes inside Israel.
Instead, the vast majority of refugees are expected to settle in a
Palestinian
state.
Given
Palestinian
public opinion, the most likely outcome of Sharon's disengagement plan is the empowerment of Hamas and other
Palestinian
militants.
By presenting the settlements' evacuation as a unilateral step, Sharon allows
Palestinian
militants to present it as Israel bowing to the "reality" of defeat inflicted by their armed struggle.
Under such conditions, the option of Hamas agreeing to a cease-fire and some form of power sharing with the Fatah-led
Palestinian
Authority would no longer be viable.
Similarly, while clearly advocating the absorption of refugees in the
Palestinian
state, the Parameters did not exclude Israel from the list of countries in which refugees could choose to live.
On the other hand, Israel was rewarded twice: by receiving US assurances of significant
Palestinian
concessions, and by being relieved from paying a price in return for these concessions.
Aside from forcing
Palestinian
concessions on borders and refugees, the US also relieved Israel of the need to negotiate with the Palestinians until they change their leadership.
Most discouragingly, the American assurances will likely discredit
Palestinian
moderates and the positions they have advocated regarding the need for mutual concessions with Israel.
Back
Next
Related words
State
Would
Peace
Their
Which
Territories
Government
Refugees
Political
Between
People
International
There
Could
Leaders
Leadership
Under
Occupation
Solution
Security