Archive for December, 2016

January 5, 2017: The “Prophetic Kiss of Esau” UNSEALED

Sunday, December 25th, 2016

Obama Netanyahu Handshake



You may view the 5 minute update this week via audio:

1) Listen to the audio

In this week’s 5 minute update, we focused on:

1) Explaining the details behind US President Barack Obama fulfilling the prophetic “Kiss of Esau” through his support of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 which condemns the existence of Jewish homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem making it international law that these areas are “illegally occupied Palestinian lands” (effectively calling for the dividing of the land of Israel and Jerusalem) wherein from the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 now makes Jews living in the areas which include the Mount of Olives, the Western Wall and the Old City of Jerusalem even regarded as being “illegally occupied Palestinian lands” and a violation of international law.


What is the prophetic “kiss of Esau” ? It is a “kiss of betrayal”. Historically, it is associated when Jacob was instructed by the God of Israel to return to the land of Israel after living with Laban for 20 years (Genesis 31:1-2, 41). When Jacob returned to the land of Israel, he encountered Esau. Being afraid that Esau wanted to kill him, Jacob tried to appease Esau. In Genesis 32:3-6 it is written:

KJV Genesis 32:3 And Jacob sent messengers before him to
Esau his brother unto the land of Seir, the country of Edom

KJV Genesis 32:4 And he commanded them, saying, Thus shall
ye speak unto my lord Esau; Thy servant Jacob saith thus, I have
sojourned with Laban, and stayed there until now:

KJV Genesis 32:5 And I have oxen, and asses, flocks, and
men servants, and women servants: and I have sent to tell my lord,
that I may find grace in thy sight.

KJV Genesis 32:6 And the messengers returned to Jacob,
saying, We came to thy brother Esau, and also he comes to
meet thee, and four hundred men with him.

When Jacob saw that Esau had with him four hundred men, Jacob was afraid for his life and the life of his family. In Genesis 32:7, it is written:

KJV Genesis 32:7 Then Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed …

It is from Jacob’s encounter with Esau and Jacob being afraid for his life and the life of his family in which Jeremiah speaks about the events associated with the end of days using the prophetic term “Jacob’s Trouble” (Jeremiah 30:7).

Jacob's Trouble

It is when Jacob meets with Esau and they embrace is where we learn about the “Kiss of Esau”. In Genesis 33:4, it is written:

KJV Genesis 33:4 And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced
him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept.

You cannot see the significance of the “kiss of Esau” by reading the verse in English. However, the “kiss of Esau” is seen in the Hebrew. In a Torah scroll, over the phrase, “and kissed him”, there are special dots over the word. In a Torah scroll, it looks like this:

As explained by the Rabbi’s, the dots are meant to be a WARNING regarding Esau’s embrace of Jacob. It is PROPHETIC. The dots are meant to represent “teeth marks”. The “teeth marks” represents a heart attitude of HATE toward Jacob. It represented insincerity and betrayal. Outwardly, it looks like Esau was being friendly toward Jacob. However, in the heart of Esau, he HATED Jacob and wanted to betray him and even eventually kill him.

The “kiss” of betrayal is PROPHETIC of what Esau’s seed would do to Jacob in the time of the coming of the Messiah and in the end of days.


Next, we are going to explain another very important Biblical principal to help us gain an even deeper insight into the PROPHETIC “Kiss of Esau”. It is based upon the principal that what happens to Israel happens to the Messiah and what happens to the Messiah happens to Israel.

After Yeshua made covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15), this covenant was extended to Isaac and Jacob and then to Jacob’s family. Because of a famine in the land of Canaan, Jacob and his family went to Egypt. Based upon the covenant promise that Yeshua made with Abraham, Jacob was redeemed from Egypt.  In Genesis 15:13-14 it is written:

KJV Genesis 15:13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety
that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and
shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

KJV Genesis 15:14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve,
will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great

In Egypt, Yeshua redeemed his first born son, Jacob. In Exodus 4:22, it is written:

KJV Exodus 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith
the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

So, what happened to Jacob / Israel is prophetic of what happened to Yeshua the Messiah. Yeshua was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1). When Herod heard that the Messiah of Israel had been born, he was troubled. In Matthew 2:3 it is written:

KJV Matthew 2:3 When Herod the king had heard these things,
he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

As a result, Herod wanted to kill the baby Yeshua so that he would not be a threat to him in later life. However, an angel of the LORD instructed Mary and Joseph to flee to Egypt until the death of Herod. In Mathew 2:13-14, it is written:

KJV Matthew 2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the
angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise,
and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and
be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young
child to destroy him.

KJV Matthew 2:14 When he arose, he took the young child and
his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:

When Herod died, Mary and Joseph returned to the land of Israel. When they did, we are told it was in fulfillment of Hosea 11:1. In Matthew 2:15, it is written:

KJV Matthew 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it
might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet,
saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

Hosea 11:1 doesn’t literally speak about the Messiah. It speaks about Jacob’s family who went to Egypt and was redeemed from Egypt. In Hosea 11:1, it is written:

KJV Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and
called my son out of Egypt.

However, Hosea 11:1 does apply to the Messiah because “in the volume of the book” it is written of Him (Psalm 40:7). It is taught by the Rabbis that the entire Torah is written about the Messiah. Therefore, what happened to Israel when Jacob was redeemed from Egypt happened to the Messiah.

Furthermore, what happens to the Messiah happens to Israel in the end of days. After Yeshua had his “last supper” (a Passover meal), He was betrayed by Judas with a kiss. In Matthew 26:47-49 it is written:

KJV Matthew 26:47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of
the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and
staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.

KJV Matthew 26:48 Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign,
saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast.

KJV Matthew 26:49 And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said,
Hail, master; and kissed him.

The betrayal of Yeshua by Judas was by a kiss. This is the PROPHETIC “Kiss of Esau.” After the prophetic “Kiss of Esau”, Yeshua was put on trial and falsely accused. From being falsely accused, he was sentenced to death. So, what happened to Yeshua is prophetic of what will happen to Israel in the end of days.


Currently, Israel is being falsely accused by the Palestinians, the United States and Europe over the issue of Jews who they claim are living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem illegally.  The world regards the West Bank and East Jerusalem as “occupied Palestinian territory.” For many years, the United States protected Israel from one-sided resolutions at the United Nations Security Council. They would do so by using its veto when any nation wanted to impose a solution regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. This included when any nation wanted to condemn Jewish building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem by declaring them to be illegal. In February, 2011, the US vetoed such a resolution condemning the Jewish settlements. In December 2014, the United States used its influence to prevent recognition of a Palestinian state at the UN Security Council.


However, on December 23, the United States failed to prevent a UN Security Council Resolution which specified that Jewish homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem were illegal. In doing so, these lands were labeled as “occupied Palestinian territory”. In doing so, the United States reversed its policy to veto any UN Security Council resolution which made a final judgment over disputed issues intended to be resolved through direct negotiations. As a result, the United States failed to protect Israel. Therefore, Israel felt betrayed by the United States. This betrayal is the fulfillment of the PROPHETIC “kiss of Esau”.

As a result, Israel is seen by the international community as being in violation of international law because of the existence of Jewish homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel is being put on “trial” on the world’s stage over of the issue. Israel is being falsely accused by the nations and will continued to be falsely accused. Judging Israel to be guilty, the nations will want to punish Israel in a harsher way in the future. In effect, the modern day state of Israel is being “crucified” by the nations.


By being falsely accused, the punishments and isolation from the nations upon Israel will create the greatest crisis in the modern history of Israel. It will bring about the events of the great tribulation. In the natural, this crisis will begin to look like the end of the modern day Jewish state.


However, just when it looks hopeless, the Messiah of Israel even Yeshua HaMashiach will intervene and judge the nations.  While judging the nations, Yeshua will gather the twelve tribes of Israel and end their exile. In doing so, Yeshua will unite Joseph and Judah upon the mountains of Israel (Ezekiel 37:15-28).

With the coming of the Messiah and the end of the exile of the twelve tribes of Israel, Israel will experience the final redemption. In doing so, Israel will be “resurrected” and “raised to glory” just like Yeshua. Glorified Israel will reign with Yeshua after He sets His feet upon the mount of Olives (Zechariah 14:4). Afterwards, Yeshua will set up His Kingdom and teach His Torah to all nations from Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:2-3).


So, what were the recent events which led to Obama’s betrayal of Israel and the fulfillment of the PROPHETIC “Kiss of Esau” ?

The Israeli government has publicly accused the Obama administration of “colluding” with its drafters of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 which condemned Jewish homes being built in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to ensure that the resolution had just the right language so that the United States would not veto the measure.


KJV Matthew 26:14 Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests

KJV Matthew 26:15 And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.

KJV Matthew 26:16 And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.


KJV Matthew 26:4 And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him


Kerry visited New Zealand on November 13, shortly after the US presidential election, and took part in “deep” conversations over how its government– which holds a non-permanent seat on the Security Council until the end of this calendar year– could engage in a UN-related initiative on the Middle East peace process. After the talks, NZ Foreign Minister Murray McCully even raised the possibility of the US or New Zealand sponsoring together a UN Security Council resolution. McCully said: “It is a conversation we are engaged in deeply and we’ve spent some time talking to Secretary Kerry about where the US might go on this. It is something that is still in play. I think there are some very important decisions that the Obama Administration is going to have to make in its lame-duck period on this issue.”


Meanwhile, a high-level Palestinian delegation led by senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat met with Kerry at the US State Department on December 12. The delegation included the future Palestinian ambassador to the United States as well as a number of high-level officials from Abbas’ Fatah party and from the Palestine Liberation Organization. The main item on the agenda was a UN Security Council Resolution initially written by the Palestinians.

The Palestinian Authority was interested in coming to an understanding with the outgoing administration of U.S. President Barack Obama that would avoid an American veto of a United Nations Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements. Before the meeting, a senior official in President Abbas’ office said that the Palestinian Authority sensed that the Obama administration will not accept the existing Palestinian draft resolution as portions of it will have to be amended in an effort to avoid an American veto in the Security Council. He said: “The key question will be the position of the outgoing [U.S.] administration. We are hoping that Obama will take one real decision on behalf of the Palestinians before he leaves the White House,” he said. It was believed that if the Palestinians were prepared, in contrast to the past, to be pragmatic and to soften some sections of the draft, then there was a real chance that Obama would refrain from casting a veto of the resolution, the diplomat said. “If the Palestinians act wisely and rationally they have a chance,” he said. A “senior Western diplomat” said that the most contentious clause in the UNSC resolution calls for sanctions against Israel, provides a timetable for negotiations, and mentions the 1967 borders but makes no mention of the potential for land swaps between Israel and Palestine.

After the meeting, a joint statement by the US-Palestinian Political Dialogue said that PLO Secretary-General Saeb Erekat and US Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Stuart E. Jones met to discuss a number of issues related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the broader Middle East. The delegations reportedly discussed “the PLO’s long-standing commitment to non-violence” and the two-state solution, which they described as “the only way to achieve an enduring peace that meets Israeli and Palestinian security needs and Palestinian aspirations for statehood and sovereignty, end the occupation that began in 1967, and resolve all permanent status issues.”


New Zealand has for several months been considering a draft resolution focused on preserving the two-state solution. In early December, New Zealand shared a new UN Security Council draft text with Council members which was discussed at an informal meeting on December 13.

The draft reiterates the vision of a region where Israel and Palestine live in peace within secure and recognized borders and declares that the two-state solution is the only way to achieve an enduring peace. It calls upon both parties to establish a firm timetable for their early return to negotiations, and to refrain from setting preconditions for the resumption of negotiations. It further calls on the parties to take action related to the three major impediments to a lasting peace and two-state solution outlined by the July 2016 report of the Middle East Quartet: settlements, violence and incitement, and Gaza.

New Zealand has been consulting with the parties, as well as the US, on the draft, and hoped to allow the Palestinians to pursue their own draft resolution on settlements prior to presenting their initiative. However, with New Zealand and several other interested members leaving the Council on December 31, New Zealand decided it could no longer postpone a discussion on action on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These members also view the period before the inauguration of the new US President on 20 January as a rare window during which the outgoing President, Barack Obama, may allow the adoption of a resolution on this highly contentious issue.

This draft, also seen by the Post, declares that the two-state solution is the “only way to achieve an enduring peace that meets Israeli security needs and Palestinian aspirations for statehood and sovereignty, ends the occupation that began in 1967 and resolves all permanent status issues.”

The proposed UN Security Council draft by New Zealand calls for a “firm timetable” for an early return to negotiations, and for refraining from setting “preconditions for the resumption” of talks. Likewise, it calls for a “cessation of Israeli settlement activity” as well as “active and sustained Palestinian leadership to deter incitement to violence against Israeli civilians.” Regarding terrorism, the New Zealand draft calls for “an end to all acts of terrorism being perpetrated against both Israeli and Palestinian civilians.” It also calls for “an end to hostile actions and rocket fire from Gaza.” Likewise, it calls for both parties to refrain from “questioning the integrity or commitment of the other party or its leaders.”


KJV Matthew 26:60 … though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses


The original Palestinian draft of a potential UN Security Council Resolution condemning Jewish settlements was amended. The Egyptians coordinated on the language of the submitted resolution with the Palestinian Authority. The amended version was presented by Egypt on behalf of the Palestinians on December 22.


Just hours before the scheduled vote, the Egyptian government pulled its own draft– due to pressure from the Israeli government. After Israel was not able to get assurances from US President Barack Obama that he would veto the resolution, Israeli officials approached US President-elect Donald Trump to assist them in thwarting the anti-settlement UN Security Council resolution. Israel “implored the Obama administration not to go ahead (and allow the Egyptian-drafted anti-settlement resolution to pass by not using its veto) and told them that if they did, Israel would have no choice but to reach out to President-elect Trump,” the source said. In response, President-elect Donald Trump called publicly and privately for a veto of the UN Security Council Resolution. An Israeli official said: “We did reach out to the president-elect and are deeply appreciative that he weighed in, which was not a simple thing to do.”

Trump wrote on his Facebook account: “As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations. This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis.”

Trump also spoke to Egyptian president Abdel Fatah el-Sissi about the UN draft resolution, an Egyptian official said. “During the call they discussed regional affairs and developments in the Middle East and in that context the draft resolution in front of the Security Council on Israeli settlement,” the official said. “The presidents agreed on the importance of affording the new US administration the full chance to deal with all dimensions of the Palestinian case with a view of achieving a full and final settlement,” he added. An Egyptian diplomatic source said that Egypt may have withdrawn the resolution in order to maintain positive ties with the incoming Trump administration. “We [Arab states] are all looking for a way to ensure constructive relations with this new administration. It’s not clear if this (resolution) helps that, or if it might even hinder,” the source said.

Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon said his government was deploying “diplomatic efforts on all fronts to ensure that this disgraceful resolution will not pass in the Security Council.”

Therefore, given the Israeli pressure, Egypt requested a delay in the vote to permit them to conduct an additional meeting of the Arab League’s foreign ministers to work on the resolution’s wording.


KJV Matthew 26:48 Now he that betrayed him gave them a SIGN, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast.


The United States intended to allow the U.N. Security Council to approve a resolution demanding an end to Israeli settlement building, two Western officials said. The two Western officials said President Barack Obama had intended to abstain from the vote. Israeli officials said that Obama wanted to abstain from the vote because of his frustration over the stalled peace process. NBC news in the USA and Reuters also reported that Obama planned to abstain from the vote.


New Zealand, Venezuela, Malaysia and Senegal asked Egypt to clarify by midnight of December 22 whether it planned to call a vote on the anti-Israel settlement resolution. The four states said: “In the event that Egypt decides that it cannot proceed to call for vote on 23 December or does not provide a response by the deadline, those delegations reserve the right to table the draft … and proceed to put it to vote ASAP.” They said “the proposal for other delegations to take the lead … would also help Egypt by relieving it of the burden of carrying this draft alone.” The four states met on the morning of December 23 to decide how to proceed, diplomats said.


Just before the originally scheduled vote on the Egyptian anti-Israel settlement resolution on December 22, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called on the US to veto the resolution. In a video statement, the Israeli prime minister implored the Obama administration to “stand up in the UN and veto anti-Israel resolutions,” designating that position “one of the great pillars of the US-Israel alliance.”

“I hope the US won’t abandon this policy,” he said. “I hope it will abide by the principles set by President Obama himself in his speech in the UN in 2011: That peace will come not through UN resolutions, but only through direct negotiations between the parties. And that’s why this proposed resolution is bad. It’s bad for Israel; it’s bad for the United States and it’s bad for peace.”


KJV John 19:13 When Pilate (Esau / USA) therefore heard that saying (the anti-Israel settlement vote is being put on the table by the ‘other witnesses’ (New Zealand, Venezuela, Malaysia and Senegal), he (Esau / USA) brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat (it became time for Esau / USA) to vote)

KJV Matthew 27:22 Pilate (Esau / USA) saith unto them (the other 14 UN Security Council members), What shall I do then (we will decide how to vote) with Jesus (Israel)


The United Nations Security Council voted on December 23 to adopt a resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity as illegal and demanding that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the ‘occupied’ Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem”.

Fourteen out of the 15 voting members of the Council voted in favor of the resolution while none voted against it. The United States chose to abstain instead of casting its veto while simultaneously declaring Jewish homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as illegal. The passage of the resolution was met with applause by UN Security Council members.

HIGHLIGHTS: UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2334 – A FULFILLMENT OF (Joel 3:2, Zechariah 14:2, and Daniel 9:24, 27) ???

December 23: UN Security Council Meeting

Dec 23: UN Security Council Meeting

The highlights of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 is as follows:

Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem … Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders.

1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law

3. Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations

——>>> These measures call for the dividing of the land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem

5. Calls upon all States, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967

     ——>>> This measure makes it possible to permit boycotts of the West Bank and East Jerusalem

8. Calls upon all parties to continue, in the interest of the promotion of peace and security, to exert collective efforts to launch credible negotiations on all final status issues in the Middle East peace process and within the time frame specified by the Quartet in its statement of 21 September 2010

     ——>>> This calls for a final status agreement to be agreed upon in one year

The Quartet statement of September 21, 2010, said the following:

The Quartet expressed its strong support for the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, which can resolve all final status issues within one year. The Quartet reaffirmed its full commitment to its previous statements, which provide that negotiations should lead to an agreement that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and results in the emergence of an independent, democratic, contiguous, and viable Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors.


1. Resolution 2334 Encourages Palestinian Rejectionism, Undermines Negotiations

The resolution dangerously disincentivizes Palestinians to come to the negotiating table. This will feed into the Palestinian strategy of preferring to deal with international institutions over bilateral talks with Israel. Contrary to its stated objective, therefore, the resolution will only push negotiations further away.

In this regard, we recall that in 2011, US Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, vetoed a similar resolution on the grounds that it risked “hardening the positions of both sides,” and “could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations.” She said it was “unwise for this Council to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians.”

2. Resolution Fuels Palestinian Targeting of Israelis with BDS & International Prosecutions

The resolution’s appeal to all states to take action, in paragraph 5, is a clear call to escalate campaigns seeking to boycott Israeli products, companies and citizens. Certainly the UN Human Rights Council will feel empowered to continue preparing its blacklist of Israeli companies that do business over the green line, due in March. Meanwhile, the resolution’s mandated reports by the Secretary-General every three months will ensure constant activity.

3. Contrary to U.S. Claims, Resolution Fails to Condemn Palestinian Incitement

US Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, said after the vote that the U.S. “would not have let this resolution pass had it not also addressed counterproductive actions by the Palestinians such as terrorism and incitement to violence.” Yet that is exactly what happened: the resolution that was adopted mentions terrorism and incitement only in the abstract; nowhere are these crimes attributed to Palestinians. Whereas Israel is named and shamed throughout the text, the Palestinians get a free pass.

4. Blames Israel as “Major Obstacle” to Peace, Yet Palestinians Evade Responsibility

Despite the fact that the Palestinians refuse to negotiate without preconditions, refused to negotiate even during Israel’s 2009-2010 settlement freeze, rejected the Kerry framework principles, and are inciting to terrorism at the highest levels, they are spared in the resolution from any blame. Instead, the resolution accuses Israel alone of creating, with the settlements, “a major obstacle” to just, lasting and comprehensive peace.

5. Failure to Distinguish Settlements Loses Israeli Mainstream

By ignoring the 2000 Clinton Parameters, the Obama Administration unwisely managed to alienate itself from the vast majority of the Israeli population and political parties, who regard the Jewish Quarter, the Western Wall, and Jewish neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem such as Ramot and Gilo as an integral part of Israel—all of which are defined in the resolution as “occupied Palestinian territory”—and likewise, the Israeli Jewish communities in the large settlement blocs such as Gush Etzion have for years been considered part of the Israeli consensus. The U.S. failure to distinguish between these and isolated, remote settlements is what doomed the U.N. resolution to complete rejection by Israeli society as a whole.

6. Offensive to Call Jerusalem’s Jewish Holy Sites “Occupied Palestinian Territory”

The resolution is offensive to Jews worldwide by absurdly defining the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, and the holiest Jewish sites of the Temple Mount and Western Wall, as “occupied Palestinian territory.”

7.  Seeks to Relitigate & Rewrite Cornerstone Resolution 242

By injecting new language enshrining “the 4 June 1967 lines,” the resolution seeks to relitigate and rewrite U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 of November 1967, the cornerstone of Arab-Israeli peace negotiations over the past half-century—endorsed by the Palestinians at Oslo—which calls for the right of every state to live in peace within “secure and recognized boundaries” and for Israel to withdraw “from territories occupied.”

Arthur Goldberg, former Supreme Court Justice and U.S. ambassador to the U.N. when 242 was enacted, made clear that the text’s “notable omissions in language” on withdrawal are the words “the,” “all,” and the “June 5, 1967, lines.” The choice of language was clear, he explained: “there is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from the (or all the) territories occupied by it on and after June 5, 1967.”

Instead, the resolution “stipulates withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal.” And it “can be inferred from the incorporation of the words secure and recognized boundaries that the territorial adjustments to be made by the parties in their peace settlements could encompass less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories.”

8. Explanation of Vote Misstates Longstanding U.S. Policy

In explaining the US vote, UN ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, began by making reference to a 1982 quote from President Ronald Reagan opposing settlements, and you argued that “our vote today is fully in line with the bipartisan history” of how American presidents have approached the issue. In fact, your speech was selective, excluding material statements by U.S. leaders rejecting the notion of return to the 1949 armistice lines, what Israeli statesman Abba Eban once called “Auschwitz borders.”

  • For example, you failed to quote the rest of President Reagan’s statement, in which he said: “I have personally followed and supported Israel’s heroic struggle for survival, ever since the founding of the State of Israel 34 years ago. In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel’s population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.
  • Nor did you quote President Lyndon Johnson who said: “We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of June 4, 1967, will not bring peace. There must be secure, and there must be recognized, borders.”
  • Likewise, you omitted Secretary of State Schultz’s 1988 statement: “The territorial issue needs to be addressed realistically. Israel will never negotiate from or return to the lines of partition or to the 1967 borders.”
  • The Clinton parameters of December 2000, which contemplates Israeli annexation of large settlement blocs, are also ignored by the resolution.

9. U.S. Position Reneges on Commitments in 2004 Bush-Sharon Letters

By allowing the resolution’s new language enshrining “the 4 June 1967 lines,” which are the 1949 armistice lines, the U.S. position reneges on the 2004 exchange of letters negotiated between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and President George W. Bush. The Bush letter stated: “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.”

Prime Minister Sharon relied on the Bush commitments as part of negotiated package deal, being the consideration Israel received and relied upon in exchange for its total withdrawal from Gaza. When the U.S. ignores written commitments to allies, its international credibility is dangerously diminished. Moreover, the Bush letter severely undermines your claim that the U.S. vote was “fully in line” with prior history.

10. Resolution Lacks Legitimacy in U.S. Opinion

The resolution has been firmly rejected by the broad mainstream of American society, including by congressional leaders of President Obama’s own party:

  • Incoming Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) called the U.S. vote “frustrating, disappointing and confounding” and said it will move the Middle East farther from peace.
  • Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) was “deeply disappointed” that the administration “set aside longstanding U.S. policy to allow such a one-sided resolution to pass.”
  • The U.S. abstention on “such a flagrantly one-sided resolution,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Vt.), “is unconscionable.”
  • Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said he was “dismayed that the Administration departed from decades of U.S. policy by not vetoing the U.N. resolution.”
  • Even President Obama’s former Special Envoy for Middle East Peace opposed the decision. “President Obama would have been wise to veto this resolution,” said George Mitchell, a former Senate majority leader, “because of the timing and the circumstance that it leads to with respect to trying to get the parties together.”
  • The Washington Post called the U.S. decision a “dangerous parting shot at Israel,” likely to do more harm than good.

11. Reverses Decades of U.S. Practice

There has not been a resolution like this in a generation, not since the Carter years in 1979 and 1980, and even those resolutions did not take place during a time of extreme anti-Israeli BDS campaigns and in the context of global anti-Israeli lawfare prosecutions sought in the ICC and elsewhere. This reverses decades of practice by both Democratic and Republican presidents. Moreover, unlike with the few other U.S-backed resolutions in history that criticized Israel from time to time, the nature of the coordination and the careful timing of this maneuver against a close ally make it seem particularly deliberate and hostile.

12. Joining with Venezuela & Malaysia to Condemn Israel

Whom you align with at the U.N. matters. I cannot think of another time in modern history when the U.S. endorsed a U.N. Security Council resolution co-sponsored by countries such as Venezuela, whose Maduro regime has thrown its opposition leaders in jail while causing mass starvation, and Malaysia, a hotbed of antisemitism.

Speaking of Venezuela, whose political prisoners we have championed, I have to note that while Secretary Kerry said repeatedly yesterday that the U.S. “cannot, in good conscience, do nothing, and say nothing” in regard to Israeli settlements, your Administration has said nothing every year when we have appealed to you to oppose the election of tyrannies such as Venezuela to the U.N. Human Rights Council. You said nothing to stop the Maduro regime being elected last year; you said nothing to stop Saudi Arabia, China, and Cuba from getting elected this year; and you said nothing to stop Russia getting elected in 2013. Your Administration’s policy of speaking out when good conscience requires it ought to be less selective.


KJV Matthew 27:24 When Pilate (Esau / USA) saw (the results of the anti-Israel UN Security Council settlement vote) … he took water, and washed his hands … saying, I am innocent of the blood (of the vote that I made)


US Secretary of State, John Kerry, held a round of consultations with Mideast officials, including Netanyahu, in the run-up to the draft resolution, US State Department Spokesperson John Kirby said. When Kerry talked with Netanyahu on December 22, Kerry refused to tell Netanyahu that the US was vetoing the resolution. Ben Rhodes, US deputy national security adviser said: “We did not draft this resolution; we did not introduce this resolution. we made this decision when it came up for a vote.”

An Obama administration official added: The US did not inform other Security Council members ahead of US Ambassador Samantha Power’s vote. The claim is as follows: After speaking with Kerry, Vice President Joe Biden and UN Ambassador Samantha Power the night before the vote, Obama conveyed his final decision to National Security Adviser Susan Rice just hours before the vote, after the drama that unfolded, when Egypt – which originally pioneered the resolution – chose at the last minute to pull the draft, prompting New Zealand, Venezuela and Senegal to resubmit the same text. In addition, despite not using its veto, the US claimed that it was not involved with writing the text of the UN Security Council Resolution nor promoting it.


Ben Rhodes, US deputy national security adviser explained the US decision not to veto the anti-Israel UN Security Council settlement resolution by saying: “Netanyahu had the opportunity to pursue policies that would have led to a different outcome today,” he said, after citing US governmental figures on settlement growth in the West Bank and mentioning the Israeli premier’s past statements on his government’s allegiance to the settlement movement. Rhodes said that settlement activity “accelerated considerably” since the US vetoed a similar UN resolution in 2011, leading the US to believe that taking the same course of action — absent ongoing peace talks — would not yield different results. “In the absence of any meaningful peace process, as well as in the accelerated settlement activity,” he said, “we took the decision that we did today to abstain on the resolution.” Rhodes repeatedly referred to settlement growth as creating “trend lines” the US believed was “putting the very viability of a two-state solution at risk.” Rhodes added: “We’ve been warning for years that the trend line of settlement activity was increasing Israel’s international isolation.”

Asked what the president thought the motion, Security Council Resolution 2334, would accomplish, and whether the administration fears it is forcing the incoming Republican administration to react, Rhodes described the move as a “last resort” reached after years of struggling with an intractable Israeli government. “Where is the evidence that not doing this will slow the settlement construction? We’ve tried a different approach for years here,” Rhodes said, noting that the resolution – which states that Israeli settlements have no basis in law – also condemns incitement to violence by Palestinian leadership. “We have a body of evidence to assess how this Israeli government has responded to us not taking this kind of action, and that suggests that they will continue to accelerate the type of settlement construction that puts a two-state solution at risk,” he said. The reason for the change now, he said, was that the administration “exhausted every effort to pursue a two-state solution through negotiations,” alluding to the 2013-2014 push by US Secretary of State John Kerry to reach a final-status agreement in a nine-month time frame, as well as other efforts since 2009.

Therefore, the Obama administration “could not in good conscience” vote against a resolution brought before the UN Security Council condemning Israel for its settlement enterprise. He said: “Here we are at least trying to establish that the international community is on the record” for opposing building Jewish homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. While settlements, he acknowledged, were not the only issue obstructing the prospects of peace, the resolution also incorporated language critical of Palestinian incitement and violence, and because the rest of the text was narrowly focused enough on opposition to the enterprise, Obama was prepared to support it, he indicated. We would have vetoed any resolution that would impose a final-status issue or endorse a set of parameters,” Rhodes emphasized.

In addition, recent remarks from Israeli leaders, Ben Rhodes said, had exacerbated American concerns — enough for the USA to support the anti-Israel settlement resolution. “Absent this acceleration of settlement activity, absent the type of rhetoric we’ve seen out of the current Israeli government, I think the United States likely would have taken a different view,” he stated. Netanyahu’s statement earlier this month calling his cabinet “more committed than any other” to West Bank settlements was among the remarks the United States found troubling, he said. Rhodes also cited the head of the nationalist Jewish Home party, Education Minister Naftali Bennett, claiming “the era of the two-state solution is over.”

Regarding the US decision to not veto the anti-Israel settlement resolution at the UN Security Council, US Secretary of State, John Kerry, said that Israel’s “unprecedented” effort to build Jewish homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has spawned terrorism and violence that jeopardizes lasting peace in the region. As a result, Kerry said the US chose to act with one primary goal in mind: preservation of a two-state solution. “That is why we cannot in good conscience stand in the way of a resolution at the United Nations that makes clear that both sides must act now to preserve the possibility of peace,” Kerry said. “While we do not agree with every aspect of this resolution, it rightly condemns violence and incitement and settlement activity and calls on both sides to take constructive steps to reverse current trends and advance the prospects for a two-state solution. And it does not seek to impose on the parties a solution to the conflict. It preserves the ability for the parties to negotiate the end of conflict. The United States acted with one primary objective in mind: to preserve the possibility of the two state solution, which every U.S. administration for decades has agreed is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians,” Kerry said. “Two states is the only way to ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state, living in peace and security with its neighbors, and freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people.”


In the weeks leading up to the vote, the United States maintained ambiguity on everything related to the prospect that Obama would push for a UN Security Council resolution on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, despite making statements of ambiguity, Kerry has expressed interest in the past on advancing a UN Security Council resolution that would include the recommendations that appeared in the July 1 report of the Middle East Quartet, the grouping that includes the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia. The Quartet recommendations relate to negative steps on Israel’s part, such as settlement construction, the legalization of illegal West Bank settlement outposts and the demolition of Palestinian homes, but also deals with negative steps on the Palestinians’ part, such as incitement and violence. Kerry expressed his belief that he could support a resolution that would be balanced and that would also constitute a clear work plan for the international community and for the incoming Trump administration. In an address to the Saban Forum earlier in December, during which he castigated the Jewish settlements, Kerry left open the possibility that the US might not block a resolution if it was not deemed to be biased against Israel. In addition, prior to the settlement vote, the Obama administration also had discussed the idea of refraining from casting a veto on a resolution on West Bank settlements as long as it is not extremely biased against Israel and reflects the administration’s policy on the settlements.


Today, the Security Council reaffirmed its established consensus that settlements have no legal validity. The United States has been sending the message that the settlements must stop – privately and publicly – for nearly five decades, through the administrations of Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama. Indeed, since 1967, the only president who had not had at least one Israeli-Palestinian-related Security Council resolution pass during his tenure is Barack Obama. So our vote today is fully in line with the bipartisan history of how American Presidents have approached both the issue – and the role of this body … because this resolution reflects the facts on the ground – and is consistent with U.S. policy across Republican and Democratic administration throughout the history of the State of Israel – that the United States did not veto it.

The Israeli Prime Minister recently described his government as “more committed to settlements than any in Israel’s history,” and one of his leading coalition partners recently declared that “the era of the two-state solution is over.” At the same time, the Prime Minister has said that he is still committed to pursuing a two-state solution. But these statements are irreconcilable. One cannot simultaneously champion expanding Israeli settlements and champion a viable two-state solution that would end the conflict. One has to make a choice between settlements and separation.

In 2011, the United States vetoed a resolution that focused exclusively on settlements, as if settlements were they only factor harming the prospects of a two-state solution. The circumstances have changed dramatically. Since 2011, settlement growth has only accelerated. Since 2011, multiple efforts to pursue peace through negotiations have failed. And since 2011, President Obama and Secretary Kerry have repeatedly warned – publically and privately – that the absence of progress toward peace and continued settlement expansion was going to put the two-state solution at risk, and threaten Israel’s stated objective to remain both a Jewish State and a democracy. Moreover, unlike in 2011, this resolution condemns violence, terrorism and incitement, which also poses an extremely grave risk to the two-state solution. This resolution reflects trends that will permanently destroy the hope of a two-state solution if they continue on their current course.

Some may cast the U.S. vote as a sign that we have finally given up on a two-state solution. Nothing could be further from the truth. None of us can give up on a two-state solution. We continue to believe that that solution is the only viable path to provide peace and security for the state of Israel, and freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people. And we continue to believe that the parties can still pursue this path, if both sides are honest about the choices, and have the courage to take steps that will be politically difficult. While we can encourage them, it is ultimately up to the parties to choose this path, as it always has been. We sincerely hope that they will begin making these choices before it is too late.


KJV John 13:21 When Jesus (Israel) had thus said, he was troubled in
spirit (from the passage of the anti-Israel Security Council resolution), and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.

KJV John 13:26 Jesus (Israel) answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a
sop (the evidence to President-elect Donald Trump after January 20), when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot (Obama: Esau / Judas), the son of Simon.


A spokesperson for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, David Keyes, Israel has “rather ironclad information” that US President Barack Obama played an active role in both formulating and pushing for the UN Security Council resolution lambasting settlement construction. Keyes said: “We have rather ironclad information from sources in both the Arab world and internationally that this was a deliberate push by the United States and in fact they helped create the resolution in the first place.”

In fact, an Egyptian paper published transcripts of meetings between top US and Palestinian officials which would  corroborate Israeli accusations that the Obama administration was behind the anti-Israel Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements. In a meeting in early December between Kerry and top Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, there was an agreement reached on the matter of a resolution against the settlements and that Kerry said the United States would not veto it quoting the Egyptian Al-Youm Al-Sabea newspaper. Also present at the meeting were US National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and Majed Faraj, director of the Palestinian Authority’s General Intelligence Service. Kerry and Rice said America’s UN Ambassador Samantha Power was prepared to meet with Palestinian UN Ambassador Riyad Mansour to discuss the matter. Rice and Kerry are said to have asked Erekat and the other members of the delegation to keep the meeting top secret. Kerry and Rice said they wanted to avoid leaks of the meeting to the media because of the sensitivity of the transition to the Trump administration. In addition to these things, Britain helped to draft the resolution.

Because of these things, an Israeli official accused the Obama administration of a premeditated plan to betray Israel saying: “The US administration secretly cooked up with the Palestinians an extreme anti-Israeli resolution behind Israel’s back which would be a tailwind for terror and boycotts and effectively make the Western Wall occupied Palestinian territory.” Another Israeli official said that it is the “last sting of President Obama. It exposes the true face of the [Obama] administration. Now it’s easier to understand what we dealt with the past eight years.” They added: “the United States acted behind the back in composing and advancing the resolution against Israel. We knew about it through Arab and international sources.” The official added: “This is an abandonment of Israel which breaks decades of US policy of protecting Israel at the UN and undermines the prospects of working with the next administration of advancing peace.”

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lashed out at Obama, accusing him of actively working against Israel at the UN saying, “Israel categorically rejects the despicable anti-Israeli resolution at the UN, and will not adhere to it. While the Security Council does nothing to prevent the massacre of half a million people in Syria, it is shamefully singling out Israel — the only democracy in the Middle East,” the PMO said. “The Obama administration not only failed to defend Israel from this harassment at the UN, it cooperated with it behind the scenes” saying that the Obama administration has carried out an “underhanded and an anti-Israel maneuver” at the UN Security Council. “We have no doubt that the Obama administration initiated it, stood behind it, coordinated its versions and insisted upon its passage which is completely contrary to the traditional American policy of not seeking to impose final terms through the Security Council.”

Netanyahu added that it was surreal in that it determined that the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and the Western Wall were occupied territory. “There is nothing more ridiculous than to call the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter occupied territory,” he said. Furthermore, he said, the resolution represented an effort to impose the terms of a permanent Israeli-Palestinian accord. “It won’t work,” he said. The last person to attempt to do this, he said, was Carter — “a president deeply hostile to Israel,” and who recently said that Hamas is not a terrorist organization.” The US abstention came in “a complete contradiction” to a “specific commitment by President Obama in 2011,” he said. It was “a shameful anti-Israel ambush” by the administration, he said. Therefore, he said, invoking the spirit of the Hanukkah festival which began December 24, “the light will oust the darkness.”

Finally, Kerry suggested during the meeting with the Palestinians that he would give a speech presenting principles to resolve the core issues between the Palestinians and Israel. Kerry said he would do so only if the Palestinians supported the principles he put forward. The document stated that these were the same principles Kerry had outlined in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and which were presented to the sides in February and March 2014. The US officials advised the Palestinians to travel to Saudi Arabia to present the plan to Saudi leaders.

Because of this, Israel fears that Kerry will then lay out his comprehensive vision for two-state solution at a Paris peace conference planned for January. Israel has refused to attend. Israel further fears that this Kerry framework could be enshrined in another UN Security Council resolution.


KJV Genesis 27:22 And Jacob went near unto Isaac his father … and said … the hands are the hands of Esau.


Israel Minister of Environmental Protection Ze’ev Elkin, currently on a private visit to Ukraine which was his childhood home, claimed that Ukraine’s vote in favor of the recent UN resolution calling for a halt to Jewish building in the West Bank was not made of the country’s own volition. “[The hands] are American hands,” Elkin said, using a Biblical phrase (Genesis 27:22). “It was announced here in Ukraine that the Ukrainians really wanted to abstain, [but US Vice President Joe] Biden personally called the President of Ukraine and pressured the Ukrainians to vote in favor.” He added: “There is a good deal of hypocrisy here, because the Americans basically didn’t dare to vote in favor, but only abstained, while pressuring other countries to vote in favor.


KJV Matthew 26:50 And Jesus (Israel) said unto him, Friend (the USA / Judas), wherefore art thou come? (Why did you abstain from voting in an anti-Israel settlement Security Council resolution). Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus (Israel) and took him (the USA abstain from voting in an anti-Israel settlement Security Council resolution)


Netanyahu said: “Over decades, American administrations and Israeli governments have disagreed about settlements. But we agreed that the security Council was not the place to resolve this issue,” Netanyahu said. “We knew that going there would make negotiations harder and drive peace further away. As I told [US Secretary of State] John Kerry: Friends don’t take friends to the Security Council.”

Israel Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon accused the US of “turning its back” on Israel by abstaining from an anti-Israel resolution at the UN Security. He said: “We’ve spoken a lot about the nature of the Security Council, but there is one thing we should pay attention to: how did our best friends at the UN turn their backs on us at the exact moment of truth?”

Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz said that the US abstention was “not how friends behave.”

Deputy Public Diplomacy Minister Michael Oren (Kulanu), who also served as Israel’s ambassador to the US between the years 2009-2013 said: “This is abandonment and betrayal. Betrayal of us – but not only of us. It’s a betrayal of all of Israel’s allies. Every country which considers itself an ally of the US must ask itself if it can continue to rely on the US. Because if the US is willing to abandon its only democratic ally in the Middle East, we need to wonder how it would act towards its allies in other parts of the world,” Oren said. “The US has violated its bipartisan policy of fifty years. The unambiguous policy is that there is no substitute for direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. This is a policy which President Obama himself promised to abide by in 2011, when National Security Adviser Susan Rice was still serving as UN Ambassador. Rice herself said there is no substitute for direct negotiations, there was no place in the UN to hold those negotiations, and the US should not dictate a solution to Israel.”

Regarding his own reaction to the UN’s resolution, Oren said, “I feel great sadness when I think about the UN Security Council’s decision. I also see it as a severe and grave decision. This is a decision which defines half a million Israeli citizens as international criminals and the Western Wall as ‘occupied territory.’ It opens the door to sanctions against Israel. As a nation and as a country, we need to stand united against this decision, BDS, and delegitimization of all types.

When asked if he believed the US had taken an active role in ensuring the resolution would pass, Oren said, “I find it hard to believe otherwise. From my sources – and they are senior officials – that is exactly what happened. But even more, I know from about 40 years of experience in the field these processes don’t happen on their own. They happen when someone puts focused energy into bringing countries to vote. It’s difficult, if not impossible, to believe this happened without the aid of the US government.” Condemning settlements and blaming Israel for violating international law is no longer in the hands of the US – it’s in the hands of the UN. The UN can now use these accusations to sue Israel in the Hague International Court, and to sanction and boycott Israel.


KJV Matthew 26:25 Then Judas (the Obama administration), which betrayed him (Israel at the UN), answered and said, Master, is it I? (The US had no part in the writing and passing of the anti-Israel settlement UN Security Council resolution)


A senior Obama administration official said that the US was not been behind a push for a resolution at the UN Security Council condemning Israel’s settlement enterprise. He said: “To be clear: from the start, this was an Egyptian resolution. The Egyptians authored it, circulated it, and submitted it before asking for a delay and subsequently removing their sponsorship. A group of other Security Council members, headed by New Zealand, which did not include the United States decided to move forward the Egyptian text. Contrary to some claims, the administration was not involved in formulating the resolution nor have we promoted it,” he added.


KJV Ezekiel 35:2 Son of man, set thy face against mount Seir, and prophesy against it

KJV Ezekiel 35:12 And thou shalt know that I am the LORD, and that I have heard all thy blasphemies which thou hast spoken against the mountains of Israel, saying, They are laid desolate, they are given us to consume.

KJV Ezekiel 35:13 Thus with your mouth ye have boasted against me, and have multiplied your words against me: I have heard them.

KJV Ezekiel 36:1 Also, thou son of man, prophesy unto the mountains of Israel, and say, Ye mountains of Israel, hear the word of the LORD:

KJV Ezekiel 36:2 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because the enemy hath said against you, Aha, even the ancient high places are ours in possession:

KJV Ezekiel 36:5 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Surely in the fire of my jealousy have I spoken against the residue of the heathen, and against all Idumea, which have appointed my land into their possession with the joy of all their heart, with despiteful minds, to cast it out for a prey.

In reaction to the vote, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called the resolution “a slap in the face to Israeli policy” and an “absolute international condemnation to settlements and unanimous support for a two-state solution.” He added that the Security Council resolution “doesn’t solve the Palestinian problem, but it defines it.” According to Abbas, the UN’s decision is a “clear statement by the world according to which the settlement enterprise in the territories occupied in 1967, including Jerusalem, are an illegitimate enterprise.” Finally, Abbas said: “The voting in favor of the resolution hasn’t resolved the Palestinian cause, but defined it. The resolution stressed the legal basics for a solution and reiterated that Israeli settlements are illegal.”

Chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said: “This is a day of victory for international law, a victory for civilized language and negotiation and a total rejection of extremist forces in Israel. The international community has told the people of Israel that the way to security and peace is not going to be done through occupation … but rather through peace, ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state to live side by side with the state of Israel on the 1967 borders.”


Hamas, an Islamist terror group which runs the Gaza Strip responded positively to the resolution, saying, “Hamas welcomes the UN Security Council regarding the settlements. This decision confirms the world’s resistance to the Israeli occupation policy.” Islamic Jihad, the second-largest force in Gaza, also welcomed the UN vote, with that terror group’s spokesman saying it would lead to Israel’s “isolation” and “boycott” while opening it up to prosecution under international law.


Israel President Reuven Rivlin called the resolution “disgraceful, serious, and unfortunate” that “brings us no nearer to negotiations with the Palestinians, but rather makes such a prospect even more distant. We expected that the United States – our greatest ally and friend which has stood unwavering on the side of Israel’s security needs throughout the years – would stand by us at this time and not abandon us, leaving us in the hands of a cynical body driven by alien interests,” he said.

Israel Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon said that the council had “voted no to negotiations, you have voted no to progress and a chance for better lives for Israelis and Palestinians, and you have voted no to the possibility of peace.” Holding a Bible in his hand, Danon said, “This book holds 3,000 years of Jewish history in Israel, and no one can dictate or change that fact. This decision will join the list of shameful and anti-Israel decisions made by this organization.”

Turning to the other ambassadors, he said, “Who gave you the right to condemn the Jewish nation for building homes in its eternal capital? Would you have dared to question the right to build in Paris? In Beijing? In London? In Washington?

“The Palestinian efforts to harm Israel through the UN will not help peace and will not advance any solutions. The Palestinians will gain nothing until they stop terror and incitement, and return to direct negotiations with Israel,” Danon concluded.

Israel Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely said the administration “can’t atone for its failure in Aleppo with the nasty resolution against the settlements.”

Likud MK Oren Hazan said that “deluded dream of a two-state solution brought out the Hussein in Obama, who refuses to accept the election results. Only massive construction will explain to the anti-Semites in the UN that we’re here to stay!” he said.

Yesh Atid party leader Yair Lapid lambasted against the UN resolution, telling reporters it was “dangerous, unfair and Israel doesn’t accept it. The resolution was an act of hypocrisy,” he said. “When a murderous terrorist group like Hamas praises the decision of the Security Council, it’s clear whom it serves.”’


US Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said Obama’s abstention “has made us complicit in this outrageous attack” and added the abstention “emboldens” Israel’s enemies.

US House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) said that the decision to abstain in the UN Security Council vote was “absolutely shameful.” He added: “Today’s vote is a blow to peace that sets a dangerous precedent for further diplomatic efforts to isolate and demonize Israel. Our unified Republican government will work to reverse the damage done by this administration, and rebuild our alliance with Israel,” Ryan said.

US Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz (R-TX) reacted to the anti-Israel settlement resolution by calling on the United States to withhold funding to the United Nations, until such time that the global body reverses the resolution condemning Israeli presence in the West Bank and Eastern Jerusalem.

US Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC),  announced that he will propose a measure to pull U.S. funding for the UN unless the UN Security Council repeals the resolution it passed condemning Israeli settlements. “It’s that important to me,” Graham told CNN. “This is a road we haven’t gone down before. If you can’t show the American people that international organizations can be more responsible, there is going to be a break. And I am going to lead that break.”

“I will do everything in my power, working with the new administration and Congress, to leave no doubt about where America stands when it comes to the peace process and where we stand with the only true democracy in the Middle East, Israel,” Graham added, noting that American funding accounts for 22% of the UN’s budget.



Netanyahu Celebrating Hanukkah

Netanyahu Celebrating Hanukkah

On the second night of Hanukkah, Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu lit a Hanukkah candle at the Western Wall. In doing so, he said:  “I was not planning on being here tonight.” Netanyahu said. “But in light of the UN resolution I do not believe that there is a better place to light a Hanukkah candle than here at the Western Wall”

The anti-Jewish settlement resolution just passed at the United Nations Security Council states that all so-called Jewish ‘settlements’ over the 1949 Armistice line are illegal including the Jewish Quarter of the old city of Jerusalem.

Netanyahu said that according to the UN, the Maccabees did not liberate Jerusalem, but rather “occupied Palestinian territory. According to the UN resolution, the villages that they left in Modiin [to fight the Greeks] and the surrounding areas, the villages and their surroundings, were all ‘occupied Palestinian territories.'” he said.

“Of course, we know that the Arabs came much later. We were in those places [when the Hanukkah story took place, a millenium before the Arabs arrived]. We returned to those places. I ask those nations wishing us a happy Hanukkah – how can they vote for a UN resolution which says that the places where we celebrate Hanukkah [and where the story took place] are ‘occupied territory?'” Netanyahu asked.

“The Western Wall is not occupied. The Jewish Quarter is not occupied. The other places are also not occupied. Therefore, we do not accept, nor can we accept, this resolution. We are confident in our future because we know our past. I ask to go and light a Hanukkah candle here on behalf of eternal Israel. Happy Hanukkah.”

Deputy Defense Minister Eli Dahan of the Jewish Home party said Israel likened the anti-Israel settlement resolution to the Hanukkah story, saying Israel will overcome the UN “just as the Hasmoneans defeated the Greek empire.”

Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked (Jewish Home) reacted to the anti-Israel settlement resolution by saying: “The UN Security Council’s resolution, passed just before Hanukkah, reminds us of something in our history. There’s something very sad and pitiful about that moment when the Security Council votes for an anti-Israel resolution and the world cheers. But when it comes to harming the Jewish state, why not. Syria they protect. There are no resolutions against it. But against the only democratic country in the Middle East, there are dozens of resolutions. It’s just like David Ben Gurion said: “We survived Pharaoh, we’ll survive this, too,” Shaked concluded.

Rabbi Haim Druckman, head of the Bnei Akiva yeshivas, spoke about the anti-Israel settlement resolution passed at the UN Security Council and said that steps are needed now as a response from the Israeli government. Rabbi Druckman said that the resolution “has a special meaning on Hanukkah. It is written down in the Book of Maccabees that Antiochus sent Shimon the Hasmonean a message saying: ‘You captured Jaffa, and Gezer and the Citadel in Jerusalem that are part of my kingdom. Give me back these cities of mine that you’ve taken.’”

“Shimon responded, saying: ‘We took no foreign land. This land is an inheritance from our forefathers that our enemies unjustly occupied. We have simply restored this inheritance.’ This same answer must be given now.”

“I appeal to the Prime Minister to echo with pride the response of Shimon the Hasmonean and use his leadership to express this in practical terms by the immediate application of Israeli sovereignty over at least the whole of “Area C” of the West Bank just as former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin did over the Golan Heights. This act would be the greatest gift to the people of Israel on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of our return to these parts of our homeland. ” Rabbi Druckman continued, saying: “I appeal to the Prime Minister and I say to him – you can do it. Providence gave you this right. Be strong and courageous!” Rabbi Druckman said that a statement echoing the words of Simon the Maccabee, should be said first and foremost domestically, in light of the question marks within Israel over our right to the land.


KJV Joel 3:2 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted/ divided my land.

KJV Joel 3:9 Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles; Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up:

Anti-Israel settlement UN Security Council resolution will bring war to the Middle East

Anti-Israel settlement UN Security Council resolution will bring war to the Middle East

Israel Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon said that the council had “voted no to negotiations, you have voted no to progress and a chance for better lives for Israelis and Palestinians, and you have voted no to the possibility of peace.”


What is the birth of Biblical Zion? It is an independent state in the West Bank from the present state of Israel with Jerusalem as its capital. It will be done by the “governors of Judah” at the start of the great tribulation (Isaiah 66:8, Revelation 12:1-2) when they will not be able to successfully annex the West Bank into present day Israel. This will begin the ‘greater exodus’ (Jeremiah 16:14-16, Jeremiah 23:7-8) and the uniting of the 12 tribes of Israel upon the ‘mountains of Israel’ (Ezekiel 37:15-22) by the Messiah (Jeremiah 23:5-6, Ezekiel 34:11-13).

KJV Zechariah 12:6 In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem.

KJV Isaiah 66:8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such
things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.

KJV Isaiah 66:9 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth?
saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.

KJV Isaiah 66:10 Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye
that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her:

KJV Isaiah 66:14 And when ye see this, your heart shall rejoice, and your bones shall flourish like an herb: and the hand of the LORD shall be known toward his servants, and his indignation toward his enemies.


A call for Israeli Sovereignty in the West Bank

A call for Sovereignty in the West Bank

UNSCR 2334 may have created the basis for legitimizing Israeli annexation and sovereignty in the West Bank.

The resolution changed the rules of the game: it abrogates the Oslo and interim agreements that divided the West Bank into Areas A and B, under the Palestinian Authority, and Area C, in which Jewish communities (“settlements”) were built under Israel control. The issue of settlements was left for final status agreements, along with the issues of return of Palestinian “refugees” to Israel, and the status of Jerusalem. By seeking to impose an Arab Palestinian state without negotiations, as a fait accompli, and declaring settlements to be illegal, the UNSC Resolution 2334 has wiped out all prior agreements.

The question is who should be the responsible authority in the disputed areas? If that goes back to 1967, it can’t be the Palestinian Authority, since it did not exist then. Moreover, the new UNSC Resolution seems to contradict 242 and 338, which recognized Israel’s legitimate claims.

Jordan cannot be considered the authority, since it renounced all claims to the West Bank, which it had acquired by force in 1948, and was never recognized as the legitimate sovereign in those areas. The only legitimate claimant of sovereignty in what was called Palestine by the international community according to the League of Nations and the British Mandate is the State of Israel, the “Jewish national home.”

The recent UNSC Resolution has made the issue even more complicated, by declaring that all Israeli settlements and buildings beyond the 1949 Armistice Lines (“the Green Line”) are “illegal according to international law,” which the International Criminal Court could declare a war crime. But, what is “the law”? The “law” is the Fourth Geneva Convention (FGC) as interpreted by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Acting as judge and jury, the ICRC decided unilaterally and in secret that “Israeli settlements violated Article 49 of the FGC.” Although the FGC does not mention Israeli settlements, the ICRC decided that Israel has “illegally occupied Palestinian territory (OPT).”

According to the recent UNSC resolution, not only would individual Jews who live in the “occupied territories” be vulnerable to criminal charges, Israeli civilian and military officials who supported building settlements would be at risk. It gets worse. If Israeli building on land claimed by Arab Palestinians after 1967 is illegal and a war crime because it was acquired as the result of a war, then, logically, this should also apply to Israeli acquisitions of Arab land as a result of the war in 1948-9. Moreover, if Israel has committed the crime of allowing its citizens to live in “occupied territory,” it should apply to every Israeli citizen who has moved to the disputed areas, not only to Jews. This would include thousands of Bedouin and Israeli Arabs who moved into eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods and built tens of thousands of illegal homes and businesses. If UNSC 2334 is enforced, it should also apply to non-Jews as well.

By abrogating the Oslo and interim agreements (1993) that divided the West Bank into Areas A and B, under the Palestinian Authority, and Area C, in which Jewish communities (“settlements”) were built under Israel control and wherein it was agreed in the 1993 Oslo Accords that the issue of settlements would be left to “final status negotiations”, it allows Israeli nationalists to reevaluate the entire situation. In doing so, they are advocating “annexing” and even declaring “sovereignty” in the West Bank. One such organization in Israel who is advocating sovereignty in the West Bank is “Women in Green”. They hold annual conferences on the subject and produce a magazine called, “Sovereignty”.

Ultimately, the Bible says that they will ultimately declare the West Bank and Jerusalem to be a sovereign state called Biblical “Zion” (Isaiah 66:8, Revelation 12:1-2).

Mike Huckabee at the Israeli Knesset: “Stand for the Land”



The survey, commissioned by Israel Radio, 39% of Israeli’s said that they in favor of Israel annexing the entire West Bank.

31% of Israelis support the annexation of only the large settlement blocs in the West Bank with a Palestinian state being established in the remaining areas including East Jerusalem.

30% of Israelis support establishing a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, with Israel retaining sovereignty over the Western Wall in the Old City of Jerusalem and the Palestinians sovereign on the Temple Mount.

The leader of the modern Orthodox nationalistic party, Jewish Home, – Naftali Bennett said: “Recently, members of the UN Security Council raised their hands in favor of a resolution that the entire Old City, the Mount of Olives, City of David, and the rest of Judea and Samaria and the Jordan Valley, are all occupied [Palestinian] territory and thus illegal [under international law]. In whose authority do people address a nation founded almost 4,000 years ago, and for 3,000 of which has had Jerusalem as its capital. Who appointed them to say that our house, our capital, is occupied? Jerusalem is ours forever and no Jew, in any generation, and even a whole generation of Jews, who seeks to forfeit it can [do so]. Because it belongs to the nation of Israel,” said Bennett.

“People wish us an Happy Hanukkah; when they wish Happy Hanukkah do they understand where Judah Maccabee fought? Did he fight in Tel Aviv or on the slopes that ascend from the Ayalon Valley towards Jerusalem, what they call ‘the occupied territories’? How can you wish Happy Hanukkah when the area is occupied?” Bennett wondered.

He said: “The world thinks that the Land of the Patriarchs is for us a folklore symbol. It is not a symbol, the land is real. Anyone who lives thousands of miles from here does not understand that we live Jerusalem, Ma’aleh Levonah, and Hebron. This is the reality.” Bennett utilized Hanukkah to clarify the point: “Let’s go back to read Matthias’ famous call. When he declared, ‘Who is with God, to me!’, he did not say, ‘Look, let’s concede and come to an agreement with the Greeks, we’ll jettison the Covenant’. He said: ‘Whoever is for God, to me!’. Only an unambiguous declaration will gain the respect of the world.”

“Whoever is willing to divide himself will only enjoy the world’s love momentary,” added Bennett. “Applause. A week of applause after we gave away and left Gush Katif. What did we get then? Leave aside the terror tunnels, the rockets, even the international scene: Does the world say ‘Wow you Israelis are so generous. You expelled the Jews, applause. Now we’re with you…’? … Only if we provide our own light. But concessions are not power but a great weakness,” said Bennett.

As a result, Bennett announced his intention to submit a bill in the Knesset to apply Israeli law to parts of the West Bank at a Jewish Home meeting in the city of Ma’ale Adumim. Bennett said: “We are continuing today in the footsteps of Levi Eshkol, who applied [Israeli] law to Jerusalem, of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who founded Ma’ale Adumim, and of Menachem Begin, who applied [Israeli] sovereignty to the Golan. Today we continue in Ma’ale Adumim and then to other parts of the country.” Bennett said.”Bennett called for an end to military rule and the application of full sovereignty in its place. “After 50 years, we are hear and it is time to end the military rule. So by the end of January, I will submit a bill to apply [Israeli] law to Ma’aleh Adumim, together with all coalition factions. I expect that all Cabinet members will lend a hand towards this path. The nationalist government has no other option. We have to overcome the obstacles to sovereignty.”

“Israeli citizens have paid with thousands of casualties, tens of thousands of rockets, and countless condemnations for that failed messianic policy of a Palestinian state. The [logical] conclusion is to stop buying into the folly of a Palestinian state and start applying Israeli law in Ma’ale Adumim, the Jordan Valley, Ariel, and all of Area C as soon as possible. That is how we’ll win.” he declared. “We need to understand that we have a small window of opportunity, this one final chance before the world imposes on us a terrorist state. It is sovereignty in the West Bank or Palestine. If there is no sovereignty, there will be Palestine. There is no other option.” Bennett stressed.


In response to the passage of the anti-Israeli settlement resolution at the UN Security Council, several political leaders called for the Netanyahu government to annex parts of the West Bank.

Israel Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked called on the government to react to the anti-Israel settlement resolution by saying:  “We need to change our way of thinking, to get real.  When we keep a low profile, it doesn’t help. We need to lift our heads. We need to do what is good for Israel. We need to talk about annexation.”

Israel Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely (Likud) said, “The Obama administration will not be able to cover up its failure in Aleppo with its shameful decision regarding Israel. He who was unsuccessful in his fight against darker regimes, is now attempting to harm his only democratic ally in the Middle East. History will remember the UN Security Council’s Resolution 2334 as the one which brought about Israeli sovereignty in the West Bank. No decision will cause Israel to stop building on its own land,” Hotovely concluded.

Culture and Sport Minister Miri Regev said that Israel should respond by immediately annexing all of the West Bank.

Internal Security Minister Gilad Erdan (Likud) said that Israel should annex the so-called “settlement blocks” in response to the UN Security Council’s approval of a resolution calling on Israel to halt construction in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. In addition, he said that Israel must resume construction in all parts of the land,” added Erdan.

The leader of the Jewish Home political party, Naftali Bennett, said: “We’re about to go from retreat to sovereignty. The anti-Israel settlement resolution is a direct result of Oslo’s policy of surrender, retreat, and divisions. It’s a result of public agreement to create a Palestinian state in our country’s heartland. We have not gained honor and love by retreating, but shame and international pressure to surrender even more. This is the time to make a 180 degree turn. It’s time to go from retreat to sovereignty,” he emphasized.

“The conclusion needs to be that we will no longer agree to suicide through creating a Palestinian state, and we will work to apply Israeli law in Ma’ale Adumim, in the Jordan Valley, in Ofra, and in all of Area C of the West Bank as soon as possible. The Israeli government should annex the Jewish city of Ma’ale Adumim in the West Bank.” The city is 5 miles from Jerusalem at the northern edge of the Judean Desert and has 38,000 residents. Bennett said: “We have already tried the way of the Left; the time has come to try the path that we are suggesting – sovereignty over a maximum of area with a minimum of Palestinians. We will soon submit a ‘Ma’ale Adumim bill’ to the Knesset.” He continued: “In the near future we should impose sovereignty on the the whole of Area C (about 60%) of the West Bank.” He added: “It’s time for Israel to reevaluate its approach over the past 25 years, the approach where we adopted the Oslo Accords, the approach where we gave up territory in Gaza, the approach where we declared the need for a Palestinian state,” Bennett said. “We thought this approach would gain us sympathy from the world, but instead we got tens of thousands of missiles from Gaza, thousands of Israelis murdered on the streets and one condemnation after another. It’s time to decide between two alternatives: surrendering our land, and sovereignty. We’ve tried surrendering our land, it didn’t work; it is time for sovereignty.

In response, Netanyahu told his Likud lawmakers not to speak openly about annexing parts of the West Bank or building more settlements so long as Obama is still in office. He said: “Don’t come out now with statements about annexing territory and building in the settlements, because there may be another international move (against Israel) before the change in the US administration on January 20,” Netanyahu said.


A controversial initiative to authorize West Bank outposts — previously postponed until after President-elect Donald Trump enters the White House on January 20 — is “back on the table” following the United States’s failure to veto a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements. Fearing repercussions from the US administration, a final vote on the so-called Regulation Bill, which would legalize some 4,000 housing units in the West Bank built on privately owned Palestinian land, had been shelved until President Obama leaves office said coalition chairman David Bitan. But with the US abstention in the anti-Israel settlement UN Security Council vote, “We are done playing nice,” an Israeli official said. “It’s back on the table,” he said of the bill, signaling it could be brought to a vote in the Israeli Knesset in the coming weeks


In response to the anti-Israel settlement resolution at the UN Security Council, Israel’s government said that it would move ahead with thousands of new homes in East Jerusalem. Jerusalem’s municipal government signaled that it would not back down: The city intends to approve 600 housing units in the predominantly Palestinian eastern section of town in what a top official called a first installment on 5,600 new homes.

The planning committee will approve 2,600 new housing units in the neighborhood of Gilo, another 2,600 units in Givat Hamatos, and 400 units in Ramat Shlomo – altogether 5,600 units in eastern Jerusalem. Acting and Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem and Chairman of the Local Planning and Building committee Meir Turgeman, said that he is “not intimidated by the UN or by any other entity trying to dictate to us what to do in Jerusalem. I hope the new US Administration will give us a push to continue replenishing the housing stock which was reduced during the eight years of the Obama Administration.”


KJV Matthew 26:67 Then did they (the UN Security Council) spit in his (Israel’s) face (when they clapped after they passed the anti-Israel settlement UN Security Council resolution), and buffeted
him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands


Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu moved from an offensive to defensive posture after the passing of the anti-Israel settlement UN Security Council resolution rebuffing criticism that his angry response was too aggressive and saying that Israel will not “turn the other cheek.” “Israel is a country with national pride and we do not turn the other cheek,” he said. “This is a rational, aggressive and responsible response, the natural reaction of a healthy nation that is making clear to the nations of the world that what was done in the UN is unacceptable to it.”


In response to the anti-Israel settlement vote, Netanyahu announced that Israel was re-evaluating all of its dealings with the United Nations, and that he had already instructed officials to cut off “30 million shekels ($7.8 million) of funding for five UN bodies that are particularly hostile to Israel.” More such action will follow, he promised.

Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman (Yisrael Beytenu) forbade senior IDF officials from contacting Palestinian Authority representatives. The new order does not include PA security officials.

Netanyahu summoned US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro for “clarifications,” after the US abstained in the United Nations Security Council vote on a resolution demanding a halt to all Israeli settlement activity which enabled the resolution to pass. Netanyahu’s meeting with the US Ambassador lasted 40 minutes.

In addition, Netanyahu summoned the ambassadors of the states that supported an anti-settlement resolution at the UN Security Council for a diplomatic dressing-down as Netanyahu continued to seethe over passage of the anti-Israel settlement vote at the UN Security Council. In total, 10 envoys were called in on Christmas morning for scoldings from directors of the Foreign Ministry’s respective regional departments, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Emmanuel Nahshon said. In the case of Great Britain and Spain, the deputy ambassadors were summoned because their respective bosses are currently not in the country.

The ambassadors of China, Russia, France, Angola, Egypt, Japan, Ukraine and Uruguay were expected to arrive in Jerusalem on Christmas Day. Senegal and New Zealand do not have embassies in Israel. Venezuela and Malaysia do not have diplomatic relations with Israel.

Furthermore, Netayahu recalled Israel’s ambassadors from New Zealand and Senegal, two of the four countries that sponsored the resolution that have diplomatic relations with Israel. Netanyahu canceled the upcoming visit to Israel of the Senegalese foreign minister and instructed the Foreign Ministry to cancel all aid programs to the African country.

Netanyahu also announced that he has cancelled his visit with Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman, who was scheduled to arrive in Israel next week, as a result of Ukraine’s vote in favor of the UN resolution.


US Secretary of State Kerry announced after the vote on December 23 that he would give a speech laying out his vision for a Middle East peace agreement and how future administrations may be able to take the issue forward, featuring “more detailed thoughts, drawn from the experience of the last several years, on the way ahead.” Frank Lowenstein, the State Department’s special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations said that Kerry’s speech will laying out his vision for what a negotiated two-state solution might look like and how it may be achieved.


In recent months, there had been increasing speculation that either Kerry or Obama could deliver a speech laying out parameters for reaching a final status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, detailing how future administrations that are committed to the two-state outcome may be able to take the issue forward. As a result, recently, US Secretary of State, John Kerry gave a speech where he laid out his “comprehensive vision” for the future of Middle East peacemaking, saying that a two-state solution was the “only way to ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state.” In the speech that lasted well over an hour, Kerry described settlements as a central obstacle to achieving an agreement between the sides and declared that Israeli actions in the West Bank were putting the two-state solution, which he said was the sole path to peace, “in serious jeopardy.”

Kerry said “settlements” or “settlers” 62 times in his 72-minute speech, and “terror” or “terrorism” 14 times. As reflected by those numbers, the focus of the address was on the Jewish settlements which he said was a major obstacle to peace. Kerry argued that settlement construction in the West Bank was being “strategically placed in locations that make two states impossible” and said the “the status quo is leading toward one state, or perpetual occupation.” Settlement expansion, he declared, “has nothing to do with Israel’s security.”

Castigating the coalition of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he said it was “the most right-wing in Israel history with an agenda driven by the most extreme elements. The result is that policies of this government, which the prime minister himself just described as more committed to settlements than any in Israel’s history, are leading … towards one state. In fact,” he added, “Israel has increasingly consolidated control over much of the West Bank for its own purposes.” Warned Kerry: “If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, it cannot be both, and it won’t ever really be at peace.”

“The two-state solution is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians,” Kerry said. “It is the only way to ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state living in peace and security with its neighbors. It is the only way to ensure a future of freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people and it is an important way of advancing United States interests in the region,” he added of the two-solution, which he said was “now in serious jeopardy.”

“The truth is that trends on the ground — violence, terrorism, incitement, settlement expansion and the seemingly endless occupation — are combining to destroy hopes for peace on both sides, and increasingly cementing an irreversible one-state reality that most people do not actually want,” he said. Speaking directly to Israeli criticism of the US abstention, Kerry said: “It is not this resolution that is isolating Israel; it is the pernicious policy of settlement construction that is making peace impossible.”

“The Israeli prime minister publicly supports a two-state solution, but his current coalition is the most right-wing in Israel’s history, with an agenda driven by the most extreme elements,” Kerry said. “Policies of this government, which the prime minister just described as more committed to settlements than any in Israel’s history, are leading in the opposite direction. They’re leading to one state.”

If there is only one state, he warned, “you would have millions of Palestinians permanently living in segregated enclaves in the middle of the West Bank with no real political rights, separate legal education and transportation systems, vast income disparities, under a permanent military occupation that deprives them of the most basic freedoms. Separate and unequal is what you would have, and nobody can explain how that works.”

Kerry proposed six principles as the bases for negotiations:

1)  Peace must provide for secure and recognized borders, based on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed land swaps and a contiguous state for the Palestinians.

2) The fulfillment of UN General Assembly Resolution 181, (which calls for the dividing of the land of Israel and making Jerusalem an international city) which called for two state for two peoples the Jews and the Palestinians, with mutual recognition and full and equal rights for all their citizens.

3) Just, fair and agreed solution of the refugee problem with compensation, recognition of their suffering and their need for permanent homes that did not “affect the fundamental character of Israel”

4) Jerusalem as the capital of the two states with full protection for and accessibility to the shrines holy to the three monotheistic faiths.

5) Satisfying Israel’s security needs is critical. Its occupation must end with the rise of a sovereign, non-militarized Palestinian state.

6) A final end to the conflict and all outstanding claims along with the establishment of normalized relations.

If implemented, Kerry predicted that solving the Palestinian issue would lead to groundbreaking security partnerships between Israel and the Arab states of the region.


Israel Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, responded almost immediately to the speech, and continued to voice his indignation toward the United States, arguing Kerry’s words were just as problematic as the actions his government took last week. “Like the Security Council resolution that Secretary Kerry advanced in the UN, his speech tonight was skewed against Israel,” Netanyahua said. “For over an hour, Kerry obsessively dealt with settlements and barely touched upon the root of the conflict — Palestinian opposition to a Jewish state in any boundaries.”

Branding Kerry’s speech “a big disappointment,” Netanyahu criticized the secretary for “attacking the only democracy in the Middle East,” while numerous other conflicts raged across the region. “Is that all he’s got?” he ridiculed the secretary. “A full hour, and that’s all he has,” Netanyahu said.  “Maybe he doesn’t realize it, but Israel is only place in the Middle East where Christians can celebrate Christmas. All of this doesn’t interest the US secretary of state, unfortunately,” Netanyahu fumed.

Netanyahu said Kerry drew a “false moral equivalence” between construction in Jerusalem and Palestinian terrorism, and accused him of only “paying lip service” in his condemnation of terrorism. He noted that the controversial UN resolution, while condemning “incitement,” did not even attribute that incitement to the Palestinians. References to suicide bombers and millions of Israelis forced into bomb shelters by rocket attacks should not be “throwaway lines” in an address like this, he said. “Israelis do not need to be lectured about the importance of peace by world leaders,” Netanyahu said. “No one wants peace more than the people of Israel.”

2008: Obama at the Western Wall

2008: Obama at the Western Wall

After Kerry’s speech, Israel Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, posted a picture of US President Barack Obama at the Western Wall in Jerusalem with a caption saying, “2008: Presidential candidate Barack Obama at the Western Wall. 2016: UN calls the Western Wall ‘occupied Palestinian territory’ Seriously?”

Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon responded to US Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech by saying that Israel rejected Kerry’s claims that the administration of outgoing US President Barack Obama had “Israel’s back” vis-à-vis Israel’s standing in the world and the UN. Danon said: “Coordinating anti-Israeli moves with the Palestinians and making a unilateral decision in the Security Council is not supporting Israel, it’s the exact opposite. The Obama administration has acted against the State of Israel at the UN, and any statement saying otherwise is a distortion of reality.” He added that “Speeches, statements or unilateral decisions will not promote peace in our area, only the objection to terrorism, the ending of incitement and the return to direct negotiations. The Palestinians must realize this.”

Former Ambassador to Israel, Deputy Minister Michael Oren, said: “Kerry’s speech was very disturbing for so many reasons. It is disturbing that this is the point to which US foreign policy has fallen. It’s sad, tragic and dangerous. We don’t need this relationship. We don’t need this America.” He elaborated: “The US-Israel relationship is vital for us, for the region and I believe for the world, but we need an America whose strength and commitment to its allies is unquestioned.”

In his speech, Kerry drew a distinction between American and Israeli values and cast doubt to Israel’s commitment to democracy. In his lengthy address, Kerry insisted that the Obama administration “cannot be true to our own values — or even the stated democratic values of Israel — and we cannot properly defend and protect Israel, if we allow a viable two-state solution to be destroyed before our own eyes.” In response, Oren said: “Kerry he did not raise the raise the question of why those values doesn’t lead the US to do something to save hundreds of thousands of lives in our region.”

Oren added: “When Kerry talked about Palestinian terror and incitement he spoke with a more or less regulated voice. But when he addressed the settlements? Oh my God, he was impassioned, furious.” Oren said he was also deeply troubled by “the systematic distortion of the historical record” in Kerry’s presentation. “In the secretary’s records, there is no Second Intifada. There was the Oslo peace agreement, but he never stopped to think why Oslo wasn’t implemented.”

Kerry also failed to acknowledge Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and wide-reaching peace offers extended by Israeli leaders in 2000 and 2006, Oren said. Furthermore, the secretary did not sufficiently address the Palestinians’ strategy to shun bilateral talks and to internationalize the conflict instead. Oren, who served as Israel’s ambassador to the United States from 2009 and 2013, said that the Obama administration often promised him one thing and then did something else. “It was one broken promise after the other,” he said.

Obama is guided by an ideologically rooted disdain for Israeli settlements, including the settlement blocs and Jerusalem neighborhoods outside the 1967-lines, Oren indicated. No Israeli leader — even a sworn leftist willing to dismantle most settlements — would have been able to change the president’s hostile policies vis-a-vis Israel, he postulated. “It is the most deeply held conviction I have: that with any other (Israeli) leader, from whatever party, the result would have been the same,” Oren said. “There’s nothing we could have done changing that outcome.”

Obama was determined to combat Israel’s settlement movement from the moment he stepped into the Oval Office in early 2009, Oren continued. As ambassador to the United States, Oren advised the Israeli government “to roll with the punches” and silently accept the US’s criticism about settlement expansions. But ultimately that school of thought failed to produce results, because the president was unwilling to change his mind on any issue regarding Israel. Since quiet diplomacy failed to achieve anything, Netanyahu is right to publicly confront the president over policies he deems detrimental to Israel’s security, Oren argued.

“We were on a collision course to the anti-Israel settlement UN Security Council resolution on December 23rd starting in 2009,” Oren said. It is any president’s prerogative to have a worldview different from that of the Israeli government, Oren said, but Obama’s strategic decision to put “daylight” between the United States and Israel made it impossible to have an “intimate” relationship, which led to an inevitable series of crises. It was impossible to frankly and productively discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because Obama was utterly unwilling to consider points of view other than his own, Oren charged.

Education Minister Naftali Bennett, head of the Jewish Home party, said he had no intention of allowing Palestinians to set up a “terror state” alongside Israel. He said: “Kerry quoted me three times anonymously [in his speech] to show that we are opposed to a Palestinian state,” Bennett wrote on his Twitter account. “So let me state it explicitly:” Bennett said. “Yes. If it depends on me, we will not establish another terror state in the heart of our country. The citizens of Israel have paid with thousands of victims, tens of thousands of rockets and innumerable condemnations for the utopian idea of a Palestinian state. It’s time for a new policy and we will lead the way.” Bennett concluded.

Israel Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely said Kerry’s proposed solutions were unrealistic. “For 25 years we tried similar methods, and instead of peace we got islands of terror,” she said.

Tourism Minister Yariv Levin stated that the speech included “a lot of words and very little understanding of reality.” He added: “Kerry is trying to force on us, in his last days on the job, a worldview that is a prize for Palestinian terror and that completely ignores our rights to the country.”

A number of prominent American-Jewish groups harshly criticized US Secretary of State, John Kerry, for his speech. The Anti-Defamation League said it was “deeply disappointed” with certain parts of of the speech, adding that certain concerns about policies and dynamics expressed in Kerry’s address were “disconnected from the reality” that there were two parties to the conflict — Israelis and Palestinians. The speech and the resolution, said the ADL, “will strengthen the belief among Israelis – even those most supportive of negotiations – that the Palestinian leadership would prefer symbolic protest and unilateral measures rather than the hard work and difficult choices associated with direct negotiations with Israel. Further, they reinforce the unhelpful perception that the international community is dictating terms to Israel with the demands of the Palestinians.”

The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee took the criticism of Kerry and of the US abstention at the Security Council a step further, calling the move a betrayal and abandonment of an important ally. AIPAC said the resolution was “unfair, unbalanced and represented a profound departure from the policies of previous Democratic and Republican administrations for nearly the past forty years.” While blasting Kerry for placing “overwhelming, disproportionate blame for the failure to advance peace” on Israel, the lobby added that “any potential positive contribution” from the speech was “foreclosed by the Obama Administration’s shameful refusal to veto the destructive, anti-Israel UNSC resolution.”

AIPAC said, “By abstaining, and thereby allowing the resolution to pass, the outgoing administration not only betrayed a democratic ally and abandoned a forty-year understanding, but it also made the goal of peace more elusive by undermining direct talks, reinterpreting UN Security Council Resolution 242, and providing the recalcitrant Palestinian leadership with further incentive not to compromise or negotiate. The intransigence of the Palestinian leadership is now being rewarded by the administration and others through destructive resolutions and counterproductive attempts to internationalize the conflict.”

B’nai B’rith International said Kerry’s speech was “unlikely to be helpful,” considering that it immediately followed the US abstention, and urged no further action on the US’s part.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center slammed what it termed a “draconian foreign policy shift” on the part of the Obama administration and said it was confident that Trump team’s “will restore – in tone and deeds – the relationship behooving two great friends who share a common heritage and democratic values.”



Meanwhile, US Senator from Florida, Marco Rubio, accused Secretary of State John Kerry of undermining America’s moral standing in the world following Kerry’s speech in which he blasted Israel’s construction in Jewish neighborhoods in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. Rubio released a statement saying: “Secretary Kerry today once again decided to cater to the demands of freedom’s enemies and devote an entire speech to disparaging a country that is one of our closest allies. This administration’s shameful undermining of our moral standing in the world should be a warning to administrations for decades to come about the consequences of America abandoning our values. When we fail to take a stand against those that seek to deny Israel’s right to exist or try to question the Jewish history of Jerusalem, we hurt not just Israel but our own credibility.”

The statement continued: “The greatest immediate threat to the future of Israel is not a stalled peace process, or settlements, but the abandonment of the Jewish state by the current U.S. administration at a time when it needs America’s support more than ever. This shameful episode in American foreign policy cannot end soon enough.” Rubio concluded.


Three US senators have introduced legislation that would commit the United States to moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a move US presidents have opposed for decades but which President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly signaled he is willing to do.

On January 3, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R), Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R) and Nevada Sen. Dean Heller (R) proposed the Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act which calls for the moving of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The measure is similar to a 1995 resolution, led by former House speaker and current Trump confidant Newt Gingrich, that called to move the embassy. It was immediately dismissed by then-president, Bill Clinton, who wanted the future status of Jerusalem settled in final negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.

Clinton and his two successors — presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama — have repeatedly used the prerogative granted them to delay implementation of a Congressional demand, passed in a 1995 law, to move the embassy. But with an incoming president who has indicated he will break with these practices, those pushing for the relocation believe the White House may no longer be an obstacle.

Supporters of relocation were also given a boost last month when Trump selected his longtime friend and attorney David Friedman to be his administration’s ambassador to Israel. In a statement announcing the selection, Friedman, a vocal supporter and even donor to Israeli settlements in the West Bank, said he expected to carry out his duties in “Israel’s eternal capital, Jerusalem.” It was a further indication of the president-elect’s apparent resolve to follow through on a campaign pledge he repeatedly made to Jewish audiences. According to reports, Trump’s advisers are already in the process of planning the relocation. Campaign manager and soon-to-be White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said it was “a very big priority for him.”

In supporting the proposed legislation, US Senator, Ted Cruz (R-TX) said in a statement:  “It is finally time to cut through the double-speak and broken promises and do what Congress said we should do in 1995: formally move our embassy to the capital of our great ally Israel.”


French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault called Kerry’s speech “clear, courageous and committed” adding that France shares Kerry’s belief in a two-state solution that envisions Israel and the new nation of Palestine “living side by side in peace and security.” He further said that Kerry’s speech reinforced “the necessity and the urgency to implement this two-state solution.”

France is scheduled to hold a conference on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on January 15. Since a preliminary peace summit in June in Paris officially kicked off the 2016 French peace initiative, three groups have been tasked with examining avenues to propel the peace process forward, according to a French newspaper. One group has looked at building the institutions needed for the establishment of a Palestinian state; another has studied the economic incentives peace would bring for those involved, in particular for the European Union; while a third group worked on enhancing the participation of civil society in the process. The proposals of the three groups will be examined during the summit, the report said.


KJV John 19:13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat …

Israel Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman said that the Middle East peace conference planned by the French for January 15 will be a “tribunal against the State of Israel” similar to the antisemitic trial of French Jewish artillery officer Alfred Dreyfus in 1894. Liberman said UN Security Council Resolution 2334 was “awful, unnecessary and harms any chance to reach dialogue with the Palestinians” and that he was worried that such misguided international efforts would continue with the French conference. Liberman added: “This is a convention whose sole aim is to harm the security of the State of Israel and its good name. We are talking about the modern version of the Dreyfus trial, except that this time instead of one Jew in the defendant’s chair, the whole nation of Israel is there. Look at how all of France has been voting against us. We know the direction and the goal of the conference.” he said.

Alfred Dreyfuss

Alfred Dreyfuss

In 1894, French officers learned that a high-ranking staff member had been slipping secrets to the German military, and they pointed the finger at Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish French artillery officer, who was convicted, stripped of his uniform, and sent to Devil’s Island, an isolated penal colony off the coast of French Guiana. Theodor Herzl is said to have been spurred into writing his great treatise on Zionism, “The Jewish State,” after covering Dreyfus’s trial as a newspaper correspondent and hearing the crowd scream out “Death to the Jews!”

Israel has refused to attend the January 15 gathering, with officials insisting that only bilateral negotiations will lead to a peace arrangement. The Palestinians support the French initiative.


Foreign ministers and officials from some 70 countries and representatives of multiple international organizations are expected to attend an international conference hosted by France on January 15 to attempt to reinvigorate the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Majdi al-Khalidi, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s adviser for diplomatic affairs said: “The Paris conference could be the last opportunity to save the two-state solution.” The Palestinian leadership has lobbied vigorously for the conference for more than 18 months.

Regarding the expected results of the conference, Khalidi said that the Palestinian leadership hopes the participating countries will create an international mechanism to resolve the conflict. Khalidi said: “We want the conference to create an international mechanism for the peace process, which includes a time frame for implementing an agreement with Israel.” In addition, Khalidi said that the Palestinian leadership “wants the conference to reaffirm everything in the recent UN Security Council resolution.” UN Security Council resolution 2334, which was passed on December 23, states that settlements “have no legal validity,” condemns terrorism and incitement, and calls for the establishment of two independent states.

Khalidi, however, said that if Israel rejects the results of the conference, the Palestinian leadership will not give up on its aims. He said: “We will continue our efforts to convince the world and Israeli government to allow for the establishment of a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders with east Jerusalem as its capital,” Khalidi stated.


Multiple media outlets are reporting that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is finalizing a document that the Obama administration hopes will form the basis for a UN Security Council resolution that would ultimately recognize a Palestinian state based upon 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. According to the Palestinian al-Quds newspaper, United States Secretary of State John Kerry is preparing a document to be presented in January before President Barack Obama leaves office. This document would form the basis for final negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. The principles of the document would set out requirements for Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish State, and Israel’s required recognition of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.

This revelation comes following the UN Security Council’s adoption of resolution 2334 which declares Jews living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as living in “occupied Palestinian territories.” If this document ends up becoming a UN Security Council resolution that officially establishes a Palestinian state prior to January 20th, there will be no question that it will represent “the dividing of the land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem.” (Joel 3:2, Zechariah 14:2).


After Kerry’s speech, Netanyahu fears that the US will seek another vote at the UN to seal some of Kerry’s suggested parameters for a peace agreement. He said: “I wish I could be comforted” by Kerry’s promise not to seek further UN action, but the US said the same thing before the resolution passed,” the prime minister noted. Netanyahu speculated that other countries could advance another UN resolution while the US directed from behind the scenes. France might take it up, he suggested. Or Sweden, which he described as no friend of Israel. Netanyahu said: “The issue is still hot, and we haven’t heard the end of this yet.”

Netanyahu expects Kerry to attend that conference and that the Middle East Quartet — the US, UN, Russia and EU — will coordinate their positions at that summit, and that they will then turn to the Security Council in the very last days of the Obama presidency to support a resolution outlining the parameters for a Palestinian state. An Israeli government officials said they are “working under the assumption that there will be another anti-Israel resolution at the United Nations Security Council before the end of Obama’s term,”

Based on his concern, Netanyahu is attempting to “recruit” the incoming Trump administration and the US Congress to block a feared bid by the outgoing Obama administration to have the Security Council approve principles for a Palestinian state. His aim is for the Trump team to make plain that his administration will “economically hurt” those countries that voted against Israel in the UN and that continue to do so in the future.

In a meeting of Israel’s ambassadors and chiefs of missions in Europe, Netanyahu said that there are currently efforts underway to bring another resolution on the Israeli-Palestinian issue to the UN Security Council after the Paris conference on January 15th but before US President Barack Obama leaves office on January 20. Netanyahu called the planned peace summit in Paris on January 15 “empty,” but there “are signs that they will try to turn the decisions made there into another resolution in the Security Council, and that is already [something that is] not empty.” And these signs, he said, “are not a few.”

As a result, “[The major effort] we are engaged in now is to prevent another UN resolution, and also to prevent a Quartet decision. We are investing a great deal of diplomatic efforts in this, and this also has to be your main efforts in the coming days, “ he said. “This will not take much time, but it will occupy us in the next two weeks, and we need to succeed.”


The Jewish organization, B’nai B’rith International, protests plans for the upcoming Middle East peace conference on January 15th saying that the conference, “figures to be a one-sided farce and an impediment to peace.” B’nai B’rith International President Gary P. Saltzman said: “This conference will provide the international community an opportunity to gratuitously gang up on Israel. The past two weeks have already seen Secretary of State John Kerry deliver a speech unfairly blaming Israel for the current impasse and the United Nations Security Council pass a resolution broadly condemning the Jewish state. The Paris summit should not take place, as it will only further embolden the Palestinians and give them no reason to negotiate a two-state solution.” B’nai B’rith insists that their organization “has long-maintained that peace can be achieved only by direct bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Gatherings like the Paris conference effectively negate Israel’s role in discussions about its own security. This feeds the Palestinian strategy of hindering the peace process by hiding behind the international community and using the United Nations system to advance the Palestinians’ goal of demonizing and isolating Israel.”

B’nai B’rith International CEO Daniel S. Mariaschin added: “The Paris summit may set the stage for yet another one-sided U.N. Security Council resolution, which would continue to cloud the prospect of a negotiated peace. By prejudging the outcome of future negotiations, repeatedly castigating Israel, and pressuring the Jewish state to make unilateral concessions, the international community continues to encourages [the Palestinians to never enter into serious negotiations with Israel].”


Israel’s Sephardic Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef said: “The US has forsaken Israel, and the Jewish state can now place its trust only in God.  Sometimes, we need to be reminded from above that we can count on no one but our Father who art in heaven.”

He added: “We mustn’t forget that the hearts of kings and captains are in the hands of the Lord, and we can count on no one but (the Lord).”


Recently, Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, spoke at the annual Zionist Organization of America’s conference, warning foreign diplomats looking to force through one-sided resolutions at the United Nations between now and January 20th when Obama leaves office. He said: “Just recently,” said Danon, “senior diplomats from various countries told me that they plan on taking advantage of the transition period to advance a one-sided resolution against Israel. “There are three international initiatives before us. The first is the French conference. There is New Zealand’s initiative calling for negotiations and condemning construction in Judea and Samaria. And there is also a proposal which focuses on Palestinian construction in Judea and Samaria. All of this [is taking place] at the end of Obama’s term in office to take advantage of the transition period. We are in a very sensitive period.” Danon said.

So, will Obama take advantage of the transition to the Trump Presidency that began after election day and ends on Jan. 20 to push through a UN Security Council resolution recognizing a Palestinian state? Only time will tell.

An agreement to divide Jerusalem and establish a PLO state is a tribulation event.

The link to these articles are as follows:
1)  New Zealand meeting calls into question White House narrative on role in UN vote
2) NZ & US talk about two-state resolution
3) Middle East Meeting and Draft Resolutions
4) Palestinian Delegation to Travel to U.S., May Meet Trump Officials
5) Palestinians Try to Sway Obama Not to Veto UN Resolution on Israeli Settlements
6) How Palestinians Pushed for the UN to Vote on Settlements
7) PLO delegation meets with US officials in Washington
8) Palestinian delegation headed by Erekat to arrive in US next week
9) Palestinians bring draft anti-settlement resolution to UN, lobby Obama
10) Israel reportedly went to Trump on UN draft after failing to sway Obama
11) Trump discussed pulled UN resolution with Egypt’s Sissi, Cairo says
12) UN Security Council Vote on Settlements Postponed After Israel Pressured Egypt
13) U.S. intended to allow passage of U.N. draft critical of Israel – officials
14) US was planning to abstain from UN anti-settlements vote — reports
15) 4 Security Council members to Egypt: Push anti-settlement draft or we will
16) UN Security Council passes anti-settlement resolution, US abstains
17) US abstains, Israeli settlement resolution passes at UN Security Council
18) Obama mulling support of UN resolution against Israeli settlements
19) Hamas welcomes UN vote on Israel settlements
20) Choosing not to veto, Obama lets anti-settlement resolution pass at UN Security Council
21) PM cancels visit of Ukrainian PM after Kiev supports anti-settlements resolution
22) Israeli officials: US abstention was Obama’s ‘last sting,’ showed his ‘true face’
23) Netanyahu says Obama ‘ambushed’ Israel at UN, likens him to ‘deeply hostile’ Carter
24) Kulanu MK: Obama abstention is ‘betrayal’ and ‘abandonment’
25) Israeli official accuses Obama, Kerry of ‘abandoning Israel’
26) Abbas: We’ve Waited and Now the World Has Spoken – Israel’s Settlements Are Illegitimate
27) Abbas welcomes UN resolution, calls on Israel to talk peace
28) Elkin: The hands are American hands
29) Netanyahu summons envoys of UN resolution backers, upbraids Obama
30) Netanyahu summons US ambassador for reprimand
31) PM calls in US envoy for ‘clarifications’ after US failed to veto anti-settlement UN vote
32) Fearing UN vote on principles of Palestinian statehood, PM ‘reaching out to Trump’
33) Arabs see UN resolution as step towards destruction of Israel
34) “Our friends abandoned us at the moment of truth”
35) Netanyahu warns ministers: Obama could take further steps against Israel 
36) Netanyahu warns ministers against declarations of annexation
37) Bennett: Time to annex Ma’ale Adumim
38) Shaked: Time to get real
39) Erdan: Cut off UN funding and annex the ‘settlement blocs’
40) Bennett: Apply Israeli law in Judea and Samaria
41) Danon condemns UN Security Council resolution
42) Cruz: No money for UN until anti-Israel decision reversed
43) Netanyahu: Israel will stop funding UN institutions
44) Shaked: We survived Pharaoh, we’ll survive this too
45) ‘The UN says the Maccabees conquered Palestinian land’ 
46) Rabbi Druckman: The UN resolution is “historic opportunity” 
47) Defense Minister: Cut all contact with Palestinian Authority
48) Israel’s political ranks unite against UN resolution
49) Outpost bill ‘back on the table’ after UN anti-settlement vote
50) Defying U.N., Israel Prepares to Build More Settlements
51) Zionist Response to Obama: Jerusalem to Approve 5,600 new homes Across ‘Greenline’
52) Obama official defends abstention
53) White House: Netanyahu’s choices led to anti-settlement UN resolution
54) After UN vote, Kerry suggests Israel’s West Bank foray spawning ‘terrorism’
55) Full text of US envoy Samantha Power’s speech after abstention on anti-settlement vote
56) Official: ‘Rather ironclad’ intel shows Obama behind UN vote
57) Transcript claims to show US worked with Palestinians on UN resolution
58) Leaked Document: U.S. Colluded With Palestinians 10 Days Before UN Settlements Vote
59) US pushes back against Israeli claims of collusion with Palestinians over UN vote
60) Netanyahu defends response to UN vote: ‘Israel will not turn the other cheek’
61) Kerry II: Six principles for Mid East peace based on two states
62) Kerry: Israeli gov’t agenda ‘driven by the most extreme elements,’ jeopardizing two-state solution
63) Diplomatic sources preparing for another UN resolution
64) PMO, ministers lay into Kerry’s ‘obsessive, skewed’ speech on conflict
65) PM: Kerry’s speech biased like the U
66) Israeli Ambassador to UN responds to Kerry speech: Obama administration acted against Israel
67) Kerry’s speech, UN resolution drive peace further away, say US Jewish groups
68) Senator Rubio: Kerry undermines America’s moral standing
69) Full text of John Kerry’s speech on Middle East peace, December 28, 2016
70) Full text of Netanyahu’s response to Kerry speech on Mideast peace
71) Netanyahu castigates Kerry’s skewed speech, obsession with settlements; vows to work with Trump to repeal UN resolution
72) France welcomes Kerry’s speech
73) Chief rabbi: US has forsaken Israel, we can trust only in the Lord
74) ‘We don’t need this America,’ deputy minister says after UN vote, Kerry speech
74) Full text of UNSC resolution, approved Dec. 23, demanding Israel stop all settlement activity
75) Liberman likens French peace confab to Dreyfus Affair
76) Liberman dubs Paris peace conference ‘modern day Dreyfus trial’
77) Quartet Statement, New York, 21 September, 2010
78) Breaking Report: John Kerry Is Working On Another UN Resolution That Would Officially Recognize A Palestinian State
79) US to set forth principles for agreement between Israelis, Palestinians: report
80) 12 reasons the US should never have allowed UN Resolution 2334
81) Survey claims 31% of Israelis support annexing settlement blocs
82) Bennett: Only standing on principles will bring us respect
83) ‘Apply sovereignty now or face a terrorist state’
84) How the UNSCR 2334 scuttles hope for a Palestinian state
85) Women in Green Magazine “Sovereignty”: Issue #7
85) Palestinians put hope in Paris conference as possible ‘last chance’ for two-states 
86) Netanyahu: 2nd UN resolution possible before Obama leaves; bars media from speech to top diplomats
87) Netanyahu: ‘Very important’ to thwart another UN resolution
88) B’nai Brith decries planned Middle East summit in Paris

From a Biblical prophetic perspective, the reason why the God of Israel would allow these events to happen is because it will result in the end of the exile of the house of Jacob and the reunification of the 12 tribes of Israel (Ephraim and Judah).

We will to be “watchmen on the walls of Jerusalem” and we will not rest until the God of Israel makes Jerusalem a praise in the earth (Isaiah 62).

Shalom in Yeshua the Messiah,

Eddie Chumney

December 12, 2016: Weekly 5 minute update

Sunday, December 11th, 2016

You may view the 5 minute update this week via audio:

1) Listen to the audio

In this week’s 5 minute update, we focused on:

1) The current status of the Israeli / Palestinian peace process and the prospects that US President Barack Obama will support  a UN Security Council Resolution outlining the parameters of a Palestinian state between December and January

In early November, Pierre Vimont, the French government’s special envoy to the Middle East peace process, visited Israel and spoke with representatives from the Palestinian Authority regarding a French plan to host an international peace conference by the end of December. In doing so, Israel informed France that it will not participate in such a conference. Israeli officials told France, in “a unambiguous and unequivocal fashion” that real progress and a lasting peace agreement could only emerge through direct bilateral negotiations between Israel and the PA, the Prime Minister’s Office said in a statement. “Any other initiatives only distance the region from such a process,” the statement continued. “It was explained to the French envoy that Israel will not participate in any international conference convened in opposition to its position.” The French initiative “greatly harms the possibilities for advancing the peace process,” the statement said, arguing that it would allow PA President Mahmoud Abbas to avoid returning to direct bilateral negotiations without preconditions.

The goal of a conference would be to push the peace process forward. Should it be approved, the conference’s conclusion could be put forward in the form of a UN Security Council resolution. The conference and the conclusions it would reach would operate in conjunction with other initiatives that are on the table and could even fold them into its large umbrella of options, Vimont said. This includes efforts by Russia, which has called for a meeting between Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Vimont, said that past proposals such as the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative could also be part of the French initiative and would most certainly compliment it. The process is open to all the interested parties, he said. “We are working with the European Union, the Quartet, the Arab League and whomever wants to be involved,” said Vimont.

Vimont did not rule out the possibility that other parties could work on a UN resolution separate from the peace conference. “We have no problem if anyone comes forward with a draft resolution, be it on parameters and settlements,” Vimont said. “We [would] look at the value of the draft itself. The idea has never been ‘well, the French initiative is going on, everyone should shut up and stay put and wait to see what happens. This is why, precisely as I speak, we are in very close contact with our colleagues in the outgoing Obama Administration to assure them that if ever they decide, after the 8th of November, to go forward with some initiative, it is working with good coordination with what we are trying to do,” he said.

Since the initial peace summit held in June in Paris which officially kicked off the French initiative, three working groups have been given the task with examining avenues to propel the peace process forward. One group has looked at building the institutions needed for the establishment of a Palestinian state; another has studied the economic incentives peace would bring for those involved, in particular for the European Union; while a third group worked on enhancing the participation of civil society in the process.

A French newspaper reported that French President Francois Hollande has invited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to meet in Paris on the sidelines of a conference of foreign ministers on the peace process scheduled for December 21. The conference is expected to be attended by 70 states. Netanyahu said that he would be willing to meet with Abbas in Paris as long as there is no international conference. PLO Secretary General Saeb Erekat confirmed the report saying that France will host an international conference on the peace process on December 21.  The Palestinians have accepted the invitation,with PLO Executive Committee member Ahmad Majdalani saying: “President Abbas agreed to the French invitation and informed the French president of this.” Israel will not attend the conference. According to the report, France remains determined to go ahead with the conference, unfazed by the “icy reception” from Israel. The US has not yet confirmed their attendance. The recommendations of the three working groups to resolve various issues regarding the desire to establish a Palestinian state from the initial June conference will be examined during the December 21st meeting.

Former US president Jimmy Carter called on Obama to recognize a Palestinian state before he leaves office on January 20. “I am convinced that the United States can still shape the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before a change in presidents but time is very short,” he said. “The simple but vital step this administration must take before its term expires on January 20 is to grant American diplomatic recognition to the state of Palestine, as 137 countries have already done, and help it achieve full United Nations membership,” he wrote. Carter argued that a US recognition of “Palestine” would make it easier for other countries to do the same, and would “clear the way for a Security Council resolution on the future of the Israeli Palestinian conflict.” He said the Security Council should pass a resolution laying out the parameters for resolving the conflict, “reaffirming the illegality of all Israeli settlements beyond the 1967 borders while leaving open the possibility that the parties could negotiate modifications.” Such a resolution should include security guarantees for both Israel and a Palestinian state, the demilitarization of the Palestinian state, and a “”possible peacekeeping force under the auspices of the United Nations.” “The combined weight of United States recognition, United Nations membership and a Security Council resolution solidly grounded in international law would lay the foundation for future diplomacy,” he said.

Meanwhile, some US officials are saying that President Barack Obama has nearly ruled out any major last-ditch effort to put pressure on Israel over stalled peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Discussions about the US taking potential action at the UN Security Council, underway before the US election, have fallen off since Donald Trump’s surprise victory, officials said. Obama is now highly unlikely to approve either of those options presented to him by US diplomats, said the officials, who weren’t authorized to discuss internal deliberations.

For years, the US has officially opposed any attempts by Palestinians to seek recognition for statehood or allow multi-country groups like the UN to impose solutions. US State Department spokesman John Kirby said: “Our view hasn’t changed, that we believe that the preferred path for the Palestinians to achieve statehood is through direct negotiations that will lead to a just, lasting and comprehensive peace based on a two-state solution.”

At the Israel Saban Forum conference, US Secretary of State, John Kerry, said the following about the peace process and Jewish settlement building: “There is no status quo. It is getting worse. It is moving in the wrong direction. So there is a fundamental choice that comes to this question of two states. And that is: Are there going to be continued settlements? Is there going to be a continued implementation of settlement policy, or is there going to be separation and the creation of two states? There are 129 settlements. There are about 100 outposts, and outposts, as you all know, are illegal. They believe it’s the greater Israel. They are pursuing a policy of greater Judea-Samaria building out into the West Bank because they believe it belongs to them. And they want it to block the peace because they want those places to belong to Israel.”

Kerry was asked by reporter Jeffrey Goldberg: “Have we not passed the tipping point already?” Kerry replied: “No.” Goldberg said: “Why have we not passed the tipping point?” Kerry answered: “Because this is a function of leadership. It’s a function of belief. Where is the United States in that? Our position has been 1967 lines plus swaps. So the question is: How do you resolve with the Palestinians their aspirations? I think you have to do that by negotiating.”

MR GOLDBERG: There’s a lot of talk about laying down of new parameters possibly action in the Security Council. Can you give us any insight about where your thinking is on that, or has the election of Donald Trump changed this so radically that we’re not going to see any further action on this file from the Obama Administration?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me make it clear at the outset that, as I said earlier, we have always stood against any imposition of a, quote, “final status solution,” and against any resolution that is unfair and biased against Israel, and we will continue. We don’t support that. And there’s been no decision made about any kind of step that may or may not be taken in that regard.

There are, however, other people out there who, because of this building frustration, you need to know they are any number of countries talking about bringing resolutions to the United Nations.

MR GOLDBERG: Will you try to stop the French if they do it?

SECRETARY KERRY: If it’s a biased and unfair and a resolution calculated to delegitimize Israel, we’ll oppose it.

Meanwhile, a high-level Palestinian delegation is scheduled to arrive in the United States, led by senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat and the head of the Palestinian general intelligence service. The delegation also includes the future Palestinian ambassador in the United States as well as a number of high-level officials from Abbas’ Fatah party and from the Palestine Liberation Organization. The delegation will be coming to the United States to participate in a strategic American-Palestinian dialogue session, the first of its kind ever to be held. The more important meeting, however, will be with members of the Palestinian delegation with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. The main item on the agenda is expected to be a UN Security Council Resolution which the Palestinians are currently discussing with members of the UN Security Council.

The Palestinian Authority is interested in coming to an understanding with the outgoing administration of U.S. President Barack Obama that would avoid an American veto of a United Nations Security Council resolution that the Palestinians intend to introduce in January. The resolution would be critical of Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. Senior Palestinian officials have said that the Palestinian Authority intends to introduce its Security Council resolution in early January, before Trump takes office on January 20. For the month of January, the rotating presidency of the Security Council will be filled by Sweden, which is the most recent major country to recognize the State of Palestine, and which is also interested in advancing a Security Council resolution on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the course of the month.

The Palestinians have already shared a non-final draft of their resolution on settlements with several UN Security Council members in New York. Western diplomats who have read it said its major provisions are as follows:

A. The draft states that the settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace. A separate clause says the settlements endanger the prospects of a two-state solution to the conflict based on the 1967 borders.

B. The draft demands that Israel put a total halt to settlement construction and any other activity related to the settlements.

C. Section 5 of the draft states that members of the United Nations must avoid providing Israel any assistance that can be used directly for activity related to the settlements.

D. The new draft resolution calls for a halt to any acts of violence against civilians, including terrorism, as well as provocative acts and incitement, and calls for those responsible for such acts to be put on trial.

E. Section 8 calls upon all countries to act to revive direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians based on clear terms of reference to last for a year.

A senior official in President Abbas’ office said that the Palestinian Authority senses that the Obama administration will not accept the existing draft resolution, portions of which will have to be amended in an effort to avoid an American veto in the Security Council. “The key question will be the position of the outgoing [U.S.] administration. We are hoping that Obama will take one real decision on behalf of the Palestinians before he leaves the White House,” he said.

A senior Western diplomat who is involved in contacts on the Security Council resolution noted that talks between the Palestinians and Kerry in the coming week could have a significant impact on the capacity to get the resolution passed in the time remaining before Obama leaves office. The most problematic clause, the Western diplomat said, is section 5, which calls on sanctions against Israel by implication. It provides a timetable for negotiations and mentions the 1967 borders without mentioning any readiness for land swaps between Israel and a future Palestinian state. If the Palestinians are prepared, in contrast to the past, to be pragmatic and to soften some sections of the draft, there is a more than a small prospect that Obama will refrain from casting a veto of the resolution, the diplomat said. “If the Palestinians act wisely and rationally they have a chance,” he said.

White House officials are maintaining ambiguity on everything related to the prospect that Obama would push for a UN Security Council resolution on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. High-ranking administration officials said Kerry had made it clear in his address to the U.S.-Israeli Saban Forum that no decision had been taken on the matter and that all options remain on the table.  “We will carefully consider our future engagement if and when we reach that point, and determine how to most effectively advance the objective we all share in achieving a negotiated two-state solution,” a senior administration official said.

Kerry is interested in advancing a UN Security Council resolution that would include the recommendations that appeared in the July 1 report of the Middle East Quartet, the grouping that includes the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia. The recommendations relate to negative steps on Israel’s part, such as settlement construction, the legalization of illegal West Bank settlement outposts and the demolition of Palestinian homes, but also deal with negative steps on the Palestinians’ part, such as incitement and violence. Kerry has expressed the belief that such a resolution would be balanced and would also constitute a clear work plan for the international community and for the incoming Trump administration.

One of the alternate ideas that is being considered at the White House is refraining from casting a veto on a resolution on West Bank settlements as long as it is not extremely biased against Israel and reflects the administration’s policy on the settlements.

A senior Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs official said on condition of anonymity that Israel fears that Obama will want to leave a practical legacy to his successor in the form of a Security Council resolution rejecting the settlements in the West Bank. He said, “Obama is obsessed by an objection to the settlements and by his criticism of Netanyahu.”

This view was confirmed by a senior US diplomat in Tel Aviv. Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry consider the Israeli settlement policy the main reason for the failure of Kerry’s 2014-15 mission and the main obstacle to a two-state solution. Obama believes that if the Israeli settlement policies are allowed to continue undisturbed until the next administration has a Middle East team and clear Middle East policy in place, the situation on the ground could become irreversible in terms of denying a viable Palestinian state.

This is the reason White House spokesman Josh Earnest has used very strong language lately when criticizing the Netanyahu government on its settlement policy. On Oct. 6, Earnest accused the Israeli government of betraying the administration, saying, “We did receive public assurances from the Israeli government that contradict the announcement [of constructing 300 housing units on land that is] far closer to Jordan than it is to Israel.” Earnest warned that Israel’s decision to relocate — considered by settlers as a necessary compensation for dismantling Amona — jeopardizes the already distant prospect of Middle East peace as well as Israel’s own security.

An Obama administration official said that the Obama administration is concerned with the situation on the ground. “The two-state solution is dying, this trend is not good. There’s a de facto annexation. We, the Americans, can only rebuke the sides. We’ve searched in the dictionary for a thousand different ways to condemn the settlement construction, and it’s not helping. A condemnation has no bite, and the Israelis know this.” As a result, Obama is feeling the need to do something before he leaves office.

Recently, Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, spoke at the annual Zionist Organization of America’s conference, warning foreign diplomats looking to force through one-sided resolutions at the United Nations between now and January 20th when Obama leaves office. He said: “Just recently,” said Danon, “senior diplomats from various countries told me that they plan on taking advantage of the transition period to advance a one-sided resolution against Israel. One thing is clear: Such a resolution will be dangerous for Israel. We will not be pressured to make concessions that will endanger our people.”

“We are in a very sensitive period.” Danon said. “There are three international initiatives before us. The first is the French conference on the 21st of the month. There is New Zealand’s initiative calling for negotiations and condemning construction in Judea and Samaria. And there is also a proposal which focuses on Palestinian construction in Judea and Samaria. All of this [is taking place] at the end of Obama’s term in office to take advantage of the transition period. We are working behind the scenes [with US officials] and hope that American policy [of vetoing one-sided anti-Israel resolutions] will not change. Right now American [officials] say that they will not support a resolution that is ‘unbalanced.’ As for what ‘unbalanced’ means – it is open to interpretation. It is clear that the resolution of the Palestinian Authority is not balanced, but we fear that a cosmetic change with [be enough for Obama] to call it balanced.” he added.

So, will Obama take advantage of the transition to the Trump Presidency that began after election day and ends on Jan. 20 to push through a UN Security Council resolution recognizing a Palestinian state? Only time will tell.

An agreement to divide Jerusalem and establish a PLO state is a tribulation event.

The link to these articles are as follows:
1)  Israel won’t attend peace confab, officials inform France
2) Abbas ally: French peace summit will go forward, with or without Israel
3) France: Israel should show commitment to peace by attending December parley
4) Hollande invites Abbas, Netanyahu to parley in Paris
5) Netanyahu accepts Paris invite to meet Abbas, if France drops conference
6) Erekat: International peace conference to be held on December 21
7) Jimmy Carter: US must recognize a Palestinian state
8) Jimmy Carter to Obama: Recognize State of Palestine
9) US officials: Obama has nearly ruled out UN action on Israel
10)  Full text of John Kerry’s remarks at Saban Forum 2016
11) Palestinians Try to Sway Obama Not to Veto UN Resolution on Israeli Settlements
12) Will Obama push for UN settlement-freeze resolution?
13) Obama mulling support of UN resolution against Israeli settlements
14) Danon: No one will pressure us into making dangerous concessions
15) Danon: This is a sensitive time for Israeli diplomacy

From a Biblical prophetic perspective, the reason why the God of Israel would allow these events to happen is because it will result in the end of the exile of the house of Jacob and the reunification of the 12 tribes of Israel (Ephraim and Judah).

We will to be “watchmen on the walls of Jerusalem” and we will not rest until the God of Israel makes Jerusalem a praise in the earth (Isaiah 62).

Shalom in Yeshua the Messiah,

Eddie Chumney
Hebraic Heritage Ministries Int’l