NO TO 67 LINES-DIVIDING JERUSALEM

KING JESUS IS COMING FOR US ANY TIME NOW. THE RAPTURE. BE PREPARED TO GO.

LAND FOR PEACE (THE FUTURE 7 YEARS OF HELL ON EARTH)

JOEL 3:2
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(ISRAEL) and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.(UPROOTED ISRAELIS AND DIVIDED JERUSALEM)(THIS BRINGS ON WW3 BECAUSE JERUSALEM IS DIVIDED,WARNING TO ARABS-MUSLIMS AND THE WORLD).

THE WEEK OF DANIEL 9:27 WE KNOW ITS 7 YRS

Heres the scripture 1 week = 7 yrs Genesis 29:27-29
27 Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years.
28 And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also.
29 And Laban gave to Rachel his daughter Bilhah his handmaid to be her maid.

DANIEL 11:21-23
21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
23 And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.
24 He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time.

DANIEL 9:26-27
26 And after threescore and two weeks(62X7=434 YEARS+7X7=49 YEARS=TOTAL OF 69 WEEKS OR 483 YRS) shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;(ROMAN LEADERS DESTROYED THE 2ND TEMPLE) and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.(THERE HAS TO BE 70 WEEKS OR 490 YRS TO FUFILL THE VISION AND PROPHECY OF DAN 9:24).(THE NEXT VERSE IS THAT 7 YR WEEK OR (70TH FINAL WEEK).
27 And he ( THE ROMAN,EU PRESIDENT) shall confirm the covenant (PEACE TREATY) with many for one week:(1X7=7 YEARS) and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,(3 1/2 yrs in TEMPLE ANIMAL SACRIFICES STOPPED) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

JEREMIAH 6:14
14 They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.

JEREMIAH 8:11
11 For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.

1 THESSALONIANS 5:3
3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

ISAIAH 33:8
8  The highways lie waste, the wayfaring man ceaseth: he hath broken the covenant,(7 YR TREATY) he hath despised the cities, he regardeth no man.(THE WORLD LEADER-WAR MONGER CALLS HIMSELF GOD)

JERUSALEM DIVIDED

GENESIS 25:20-26
20  And Isaac was forty years old (A BIBLE GENERATION NUMBER=1967 + 40=2007+) when he took Rebekah to wife, the daughter of Bethuel the Syrian of Padanaram, the sister to Laban the Syrian.
21  And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
22  And the children (2 NATIONS IN HER-ISRAEL-ARABS) struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.
23  And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels;(ISRAEL AND THE ARABS) and the one people shall be stronger than the other people;(ISRAEL STRONGER THAN ARABS) and the elder shall serve the younger.(LITERALLY ISRAEL THE YOUNGER RULES (ISSAC)(JACOB-LATER NAME CHANGED TO ISRAEL) OVER THE OLDER ARABS (ISHMAEL)(ESAU)
24  And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.
25  And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau.(THE OLDER AN ARAB)
26  And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob:(THE YOUNGER-ISRAELI) and Isaac was threescore (60) years old when she bare them.(1967 + 60=2027)(COULD BE THE LAST GENERATION WHEN JERUSALEM IS DIVIDED AMOUNG THE 2 TWINS)(THE 2 TWINS WANT JERUSALEM-THE DIVISION OF JERUSALEM TODAY)(AND WHOS IN CONTROL OF JERUSALEM TODAY-THE YOUNGER ISSAC-JACOB-ISRAEL)(AND WHO WANTS JERUSALEM DIVIDED-THE OLDER,ESAU-ISHMAEL (THE ARABS)

ISAIAH 28:14-19 (THIS IS THE 7 YR TREATY COVENANT OF DANIEL 9:27)
14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.
18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.
19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.

Bennett: No to '67 Lines,' No to Splitting Jerusalem

Bennett slams veiled references to splitting Jerusalem, warns the world, ‘We’re not your experiment.’

By Maayana Miskin-First Publish: 1/7/2014, 7:56 PM-Israelnationalnews

Economy Minister Naftali Bennett-Flash 90

The term “1967 lines” has been used regarding talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, in reference to the PA claim of ownership to all land that was under Jordanian control between 1949 and 1967.
The words have been used to conceal the true weight of the concessions being demanded, Minister of Economy Naftali Bennett (Jewish Home) warned Tuesday, in a speech at the Institute for National Security Studies.“Friends, the games are over. We won’t play with words anymore: the ’67 lines’ means splitting Jerusalem, and giving up the Mount of Olives – where Menachem Begin, Rabbi Kook, and Eliezer Ben-Yehuda are buried – and giving up the Kotel, the Temple Mount and the Old City,” he declared.
“How will history remember a leader who agrees to give up Jerusalem? How will it remember the first leader in Jewish history who dares to do that? And what’s more, to do it voluntarily?” Bennett asked.“Is the prayer of Jews worldwide, ‘In Your mercy, return to Your city, Jerusalem’ a party slogan, which can be changed overnight?” he demanded.A concession like that may win Israel temporary goodwill from the international community, Bennett said, but it would come at a high price: “another round of attacks and terrorism, which we would come into weaker than before, and with no moral right to defend ourselves after having declared that what is ours – is not ours,” he warned.“These are the decisions that take real leadership,” he continued. “That we will never agree to give up Jerusalem, a united city under Israeli sovereignty, and only Israeli. We will not accept a terrorist Palestinian state, we will not accept an agreement based on the 67 lines.“We will not exchange territory as if we were doing cut-and-paste on some Word document on the computer. We will not agree to a border along Highway 6, meaning rockets on Highway 4.“We will not stay in a government that endangers our children’s future and divides our capital due to international pressure. We won’t sit in a government that makes the easy, and dangerous, decision,” he declared.Regarding international pressure on Israel, Bennett said, “We didn’t come here in order to be the world’s experiment… We will make decisions about ourselves by ourselves, for the simple reason that only we will pay the price… Are those who pressure us today going to be killed in our place tomorrow?”Israel should not fear standing up to international pressure argued Bennett, saying “We’ve had great leaders in Israel who knew how to say ‘no.’ We survived.” 

US ambassador: Framework draft to be presented soon

Dan Shapiro says interim proposal for Israeli-Palestinian accord will cover security, borders, Jerusalem and all other ‘core issues’

By AP and Times of Israel staff January 7, 2014, 3:42 pm 6

The US ambassador to Israel said Tuesday that a framework proposal on all issues at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be presented to both sides soon.Dan Shapiro told Israel Radio that the proposal would cover security arrangements, borders, Jerusalem and all the other “core issues.”He said it will be presented to the Israelis and the Palestinians in a few weeks’ time.US Secretary of State John Kerry has been visiting the region often since talks resumed last July, shuttling between Israel and Palestinian leaders to mediate talks.Kerry has been pushing for the outlines of a peace deal. He is trying to nudge Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu closer to a pact that would establish a Palestinian state alongside Israel.He left the region on Monday having failed to win agreement from the sides on a framework for continued negotiations for a permanent deal. Some reports suggest he will return as soon as next week.Netanyahu told his Likud Knesset faction Monday that “there is no American framework document yet,” and that even if it could be agreed upon, it would not be binding on the sides, Channel 2 reported. Netanyahu also assured the Likud MKs that he had not given in to American pressure for more flexible positions regarding the fate of Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley, and said he was only too aware of the consequences of dismantling settlements in the absence of a viable peace accord, the report said.Kerry has made 10 trips to the region this year, initially expressing confidence that a permanent peace accord, providing for a Palestinian state alongside Israel, could be wrapped up by the end of April. More recently, though, evidently realizing that this was a tall order, he has been pushing the less ambitious “framework” idea.Netanyahu on Monday, however, reportedly told the Likud that even the framework plan, which Kerry has not yet been able to finalize, would not be binding on the two sides. The prime minister also said there would be elements in the non-binding paper that he and his party colleagues wouldn’t like, and elements that the Palestinians wouldn’t like.The two sides have long been at odds over almost every aspect of the core issues involved in a two-state accord. Kerry has been reportedly pushing Netanyahu to agree to at least keep talking on the basis of a Palestinian state to be established along the pre-1967 lines, with land-swap adjustments, and urging Abbas to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.Beyond these points, the two sides are said to disagree over security arrangements, border demarcations, the fate of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugee demands under a permanent deal. There have also been disputes over who will be released in a final phase of prisoner releases by Israel of terror convicts in the coming months. And it is unclear whether the Palestinians are prepared to extend the current talks beyond their scheduled expiry date in late April.An official in Ramallah told Palestinian newspaper al-Ayyam that the meetings recently held between Kerry and the Palestinian leadership failed to reach an agreement on any issue.“We talked about everything, but without agreement on anything,” the official said in an article published Monday.According to the newspaper, the Palestinians presented their positions on all the issues to Kerry, and are expecting to be presented with the positions of the US secretary of state for the framework agreement.

US said to seek adding ‘Jewish state’ language to Arab Peace Initiative

John Kerry reportedly preparing to push idea at upcoming meeting with Arab League officials

By Avi Issacharoff and Times of Israel staff January 7, 2014, 10:43 am 14

The US is reportedly exploring the possibility of altering language in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative to include recognition of Israel as a Jewish State should the country reach a peace deal with the Palestinians.According to a Monday report in Palestinian newspaper al-Ayyam, citing Western sources, the US negotiating team is investigating the possibility.The changed language, which would insert a key Israeli demand into the 2002 Saudi-drafted Arab Peace Initiative, would also include the stipulation that Israel’s Arab citizens not be affected by recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.The initiative’s current language calls for the Arab world to offer comprehensive peace with Israel in exchange for a full pullout from all territories it captured in the 1967 Mideast war.The Palestinian report comes a day after US Secretary of State John Kerry left the region after four days of intense talks, including several hours in Riyadh in which he said he gained Saudi backing for his peace push.Ramallah has not given permission for any changes to the Arab League initiative, according to al-Ayyam.Kerry is expected to meet in Paris soon with Arab League foreign ministers who sit on the monitoring committee of the Arab Peace Initiative, the paper reported, and may present the idea to them.

It is not clear when the meeting would take place.Kerry’s trip to the region was reportedly to push the sides to agree to a framework plan which would guide future discussions.The US diplomat met with Saudi leader King Abdullah on Sunday and said the king’s 2002 initiative “has been part of the framework that we’ve been piecing together — both in inspiration and substance.”The initiative, revolutionary when it was introduced, has been endorsed by the Arab League and, technically, remains in effect.“Saudi Arabia’s initiative holds out the prospect that if the parties could arrive at a peaceful resolution, you could instantaneously have peace between the 22 Arab nations and 35 Muslim nations, all of whom have said they will recognize Israel if peace is achieved,” Kerry said.“Imagine how that changes the dynamics of travel, of business, of education, of opportunity in this region, of stability. Imagine what peace could mean for trade and tourism, what it could mean for developing technology and talent, for job opportunities for the younger generation, for generations in all of these countries,” Kerry said.Israel, however, has conditioned any peace deal with the Palestinians on recognition of the country as a Jewish state, a demand the Palestinians have rejected.Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his Likud Knesset faction Monday that “there is no American framework document yet,” and that even if it could be agreed, it would not be binding on the sides, Channel 2 reported. He also assured the Likud MKs that he had not given in to American pressure for more flexible positions regarding the fate of Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley, and said he was only too aware of the consequences of dismantling settlements in the absence of a viable peace accord, the report said.

Kerry has paid 10 trips to the region this year, initially expressing confidence that a permanent peace accord, providing for a Palestinian state alongside Israel, could be wrapped up by the end of April. More recently, though, evidently realizing that this was a tall order, he has been pushing the less ambitious “framework” idea.

Netanyahu on Monday, however, reportedly told the Likud that even the framework plan, which Kerry has not yet been able to finalize, would not be binding to the two sides. The prime minister also said there would be elements in the non-binding paper that he and his party colleagues wouldn’t like, and elements that the Palestinians wouldn’t like.The two sides are believed to be at odds over almost every aspect of the core issues involved in a two-state accord. Kerry has been reportedly pushing Netanyahu to agree to at least keep talking on the basis of a Palestinian state to be established along the pre-1967 lines, with land-swap adjustments, and urging Abbas to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.Beyond these points, the two sides are said to disagree over security arrangements, border demarcations, the fate of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugee demands under a permanent deal. There have also been disputes over who will be released in a final phase of prisoner releases by Israel of terror convicts in the coming months. And it is unclear whether the Palestinians are prepared to extend the current talks beyond their scheduled expiry date in late April.

A Palestinian official told al-Ayyam that the meetings recently held between Kerry and the Palestinian leadership failed to reach an agreement on any issue.“We talked about everything, but without agreement on anything,” the official said.According to the newspaper, the Palestinians presented their positions on all the issues to Kerry, and are expecting to be presented with the positions of the US secretary of state on the framework agreement.The Palestinian official added that when the Palestinian Authority speaks about East Jerusalem, it does not mean outlying villages such as Abu Dis or the Shuafat area, but rather the city itself. One of the ideas presented by Kerry during the talks on the formulation of the framework agreement is that Jerusalem would be united but the Palestinians would “have their capital within it.”

Unilateral Palestinian statehood — real threat or ‘big bluff’?

Pundits agree that PA action in the international arena drove Israel to negotiate; what they differ on is what’ll happen if talks break down

By Raphael Ahren January 7, 2014, 11:47 pm 1-The times of Israel

Notwithstanding the best intentions of US Secretary of State John Kerry, the current round of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians may fail (shocking, we know). But what happens then? Well, the current Israeli government may be fine with the status quo — the emphatic absence of a Palestinian state — but Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has vowed to resume steps to unilaterally advance the PA’s statehood bid, a move Jerusalem is extremely wary of.Yet Israeli experts disagree whether Israel really has something to worry about. Is it just a “big bluff” (as one international law scholar claimed), or would a unilateral Palestinian bid make it impossible for Israel to ever reach a peace agreement that takes its positions into consideration (as another academic argued)? To prevent, or at least defer, the unilateral Palestinians statehood campaign — that was one of the main reasons why Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however grudgingly, agreed to resume direct peace talks with the Palestinians in July 2013. The PA’s commitment to refrain from unilateral steps during the course of the talks was a large factor in the Israeli government’s decision to sit down at the negotiating table — perhaps even more so than Kerry’s relentless pressure.Last week, after Israeli ministers advanced a bill to annex the Jordan Valley, Saeb Erekat, the PA’s chief negotiator, said that the proper response would be to “seek statehood recognition by the United Nations and other international bodies.” Abbas, however, has promised to remain at the table at least until the April deadline initially set for the talks. But if the current efforts break down without an agreement — and if the past has taught us anything, it’s that the next crisis of faith is generally merely a matter of time — the Palestinians have made it clear that they won’t hesitate to turn to the international community.“At the end of the day, these negotiations won’t succeed, and Abu Mazen [Abbas] has a strong card in his hand: an appeal to the UN institutions,” said Ahmed Tibi, an Israeli MK who once served as adviser to Yasser Arafat and maintains close contacts with the Palestinian leadership, in an interview last week. “There are more than 60 agencies in the UN, and sooner or later he will turn to them. That will cause a diplomatic confrontation.”

Tibi is certainly not alone in his fear that the talks will collapse sooner or later. Indeed, most members of Israel’s government are exceedingly skeptical. And yet they agreed to start negotiating. They voted to release Palestinian prisoners and risked being blamed for the talks’ failure (including the threat of European Union sanctions), just because the Palestinians promised that they wouldn’t make further moves to be recognized as a state, at least not for for nine months.But what exactly is Israel afraid of? After all, “Palestine” is already recognized as a nonmember observer state by the United Nations; an overwhelming majority of 138 states supported that moved in November 2012 (nine countries opposed and 41 abstained). The chances of a “State of Palestine” being admitted as a full-fledged member of the UN prior to signing a peace treaty with Israel are minimal. The Americans have vetoed such efforts in the past and there are no indications they wouldn’t do it again.At least, so goes the conventional wisdom. One Israeli diplomatic official warned, however, that there are no guarantees that the US will forever continue to put the kibosh on a Palestinian application for full UN membership.“If Abbas gets all other members of the Security Council to agree, he might manage to drive the Americans into a corner,” the official said. “Washington might at some point become fed up with being the only country to oppose Palestinian statehood, and embarrassed and fearful of international isolation, they might accede to the Palestinians’ request.”‘Since the Palestinians joined UNESCO, they hijacked the organization’s agenda and now it’s all about bashing Israel. Their strategy is working’But even assuming that for the time being the Americans will continue to wield their veto power, the mere fact of Palestinian statehood coming to a vote again and again will slowly have an impact, an Israeli academic specializing in international law said. He recalled that the UN Security Council did not formally condemn South African apartheid because of the British veto, but eventually an international consensus emerged to demand the racist regime’s immediate demise. A similar scenario is plausible vis-à-vis Palestinian statehood, said the academic, who asked to remain unnamed because he didn’t want to be quoted comparing Israeli policies with apartheid.In the meantime, though, the Palestinians don’t need full UN membership to incriminate Israel on the international stage, an Israeli official said. As soon as they are admitted into the World Health Organization, Habitat or other UN programs, “they could have our arms twisted,” he said.Before the current round of peace talks commenced, the Palestinians were quite successful in their quest to achieve “incremental recognition,” he said. “Since they joined UNESCO, they hijacked the organization’s agenda and now it’s all about bashing Israel all the time,” added the official, who asked to remain anonymous so he could more freely discuss sensitive diplomatic issues. “All the Palestinians do all day is get yet another condemnation against Israel. And their strategy is working.”In 2011 UNESCO — the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization — admitted “Palestine” as a full member. Since then, Israeli and Palestinian officials have sparred about UNESCO’s positions and declarations vis-à-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. During a debate at the 37th session of UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee in June, the Jordanian delegation, at the behest of the PA, submitted a resolution slamming Israel over its Jerusalem policies. UNESCO officials at first denied the resolution’s very existence but it was eventually adopted by a large majority.

Yet scarier, in the eyes of some Israelis, is the prospect of Palestinians turning to the ICC and suing Israeli leaders for war crimes or crimes against humanity. Joining the Hague-based court is a bit more complicated, because it would expose the PA itself to law suits, and it isn’t clear that membership in the ICC would be in its best interests, the Israeli official said. “We’re not really worried about being condemned by the ICC; they can threaten whatever they want,” he said. On the other hand, it would be “a major headache” if the Palestinians did try to drag Israelis in front of the court for alleged misdeeds.“Such a process would involve such besmearing and casting of allegations that would take us a long time to defuse,” the official said. “Not only is it a waste of time, but it’s a declaration of diplomatic war. And if it’s a war, you need to dedicate resources to fighting it, and doing this will prevent us from focusing on other measures to defuse the conflict.”

In 2009, Palestinian Justice Minister Ali Khashan asked the ICC to investigate Israel’s conduct in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The prosecutor’s office initially declined the request, noting that the Palestinian Authority was not a state and that consequently the court had no jurisdiction to launch an investigation into acts committed in the territories it claims. After “Palestine” attained nonmember state status at the UN in 2012, the prosecutor’s office released a brief statement saying that it “will consider the legal implications of this resolution.” It has yet to issue a new ruling on the matter.

‘A big bluff and an empty threat’

According to Alan Baker, a former legal adviser to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, the Palestinian threat of a unilateral statehood drive is absolutely nothing to be afraid of. “This is a big bluff; it’s just an empty threat,” he said. “So the Palestinians will go to the International Health Organization, the International Postal Union and the Civil Aviation Authority. So what? That won’t give them statehood. It won’t make a difference, because Israel is still sitting in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank], and any change can only come about as the result of a negotiation process.”And there is no cause to fear a Palestinian onslaught against Israel in international forums, averred Baker, a former Israeli ambassador to Canada, as such attacks have been going on for years. “There are 20 or so anti-Israel resolutions at the UN at any given moment, so how is this night different from any other night?” Palestinian attempts to influence the agendas of UN bodies actually did more damage to the credibility of those international organs than to Israel’s interests, he posited. Many diplomats and parliamentarians have told him, he said, that the international community is becoming “increasingly fed up” with Palestinians trying to appropriate UN organizations for their political purposes and, in the process, distracting those bodies from their actual jobs.Neither does the specter of an ICC trial against Israel faze Baker. “That’s a completely empty and utterly unrealistic threat,” he said. Even if the court’s prosecutor ruled that “Palestine” could file a complaint against Israeli leaders for war crimes, an investigation would have zero chances of succeeding because the Palestinians would need to prove that the alleged offenses took place on Palestinian sovereign territory. “But the Palestinians themselves agreed [in the 1993 Oslo Accords] that the final status of territories is subject to negotiations.”Likewise, Israel has nothing to fear from “Palestine” turning to the UN’s International Court of Justice, Baker said. It’s possible that it would be asked to write an advisory opinion on Israel’s actions in the West Bank – as it has in the past – but “there’s no guarantee that it wouldn’t be counterproductive to whoever is asking for it.”So if Israel has nothing to worry about, in terms of unilateral Palestinian steps toward statehood, why did Netanyahu let himself be pressured into entering peace talks? One senior cabinet minister told The Times of Israel that it was in Jerusalem’s interest to “buy time.” While the talks may ultimately amount to nothing, he suggested, nine months of diplomatic quiet were well worth the effort.Baker didn’t buy that argument, saying he failed to understand why the American and Israeli governments gave credence to Palestinian threats. “The damage was caused by Kerry, when he said if Israel doesn’t make concessions Israel would be under attack by international community — as if they aren’t already. The Palestinians are laughing all the way to the bank,” he said. “I’m flabbergasted at the naivete that exists within the US administration, but even more so in the Israel government.”The only possible reason for Jerusalem’s behavior was that Washington might have threatened not to veto a Palestinian attempt to get full UN membership, Baker surmised. “I wouldn’t put it past Kerry, for whom I have absolutely no respect, to make such a threat,” he said.‘How will IDF soldiers react when their superiors are being accused of war crimes and the like?’Amichai Cohen, a senior lecturer of international law at Ono Academic College, said that even if international courts are unlikely to condemn Israel, such a scenario wasn’t impossible. At the ICC, for instance, it is the chief prosecutor who makes these decisions based on his own criteria, and he might not take into consideration the views of Israeli experts and pundits. “When assessing a certain risk, you don’t only look at how low the chance is of a certain scenario coming true, but you also think about the damage that could be done in the unlikely case that it does come true,” he said.Less than the threat of censure, the mere idea of Israeli politicians and generals standing trial could inflict great damage on the state, both externally (in terms of reputation) and internally, Cohen continued. “How will IDF soldiers react when their superiors are being accused of war crimes and the like?” he asked. The very prospect of such a scenario does not necessarily mean that Jerusalem should feel pressured to make concessions; there is cause, however, to take the Palestinians’ threat into consideration, he said.Jerusalem currently does not recognize the Palestinian Authority as a state, he said, and much of the international community understands that a peace treaty will have to be signed between both sides, and that Israel has legitimate demands for any deal. But as soon as the world welcomes “Palestine” as a legitimate member in the family of nations — with or without Jerusalem’s blessings — Israeli claims and arguments against Palestinian statehood will not be heard anymore, Cohen predicted. “We haven’t arrived at that stage yet… but we’re getting there.”

Supreme Court defends private security in East Jerusalem

Israel’s highest court rebuffs argument that private guards funded by the Housing Ministry carry out unlawful policing

By Elhanan Miller January 7, 2014, 5:18 pm 0-The times of Israel

The Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated it would uphold government funding for private security companies guarding dozens of Jewish compounds in East Jerusalem, rebuffing an appeal by local Palestinian residents and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.The Housing Ministry currently employs two private security companies to guard 70 Jewish compounds located within Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem at an annual cost of NIS 67 million ($19 million). According to ACRI, 370 security guards are tasked with guarding 2,500 Jewish residents in these neighborhoods.The outsourcing of security for Jewish compounds in East Jerusalem dates back to the early 1990s, when private contractors were employed to guard the home of then-housing minister Ariel Sharon in the Muslim Quarter of the Old City.Ongoing friction between the security guards and local Palestinian residents, sometimes escalating to armed violence, led a government-appointed committee in 2006 to recommend transferring security responsibility from the Housing Ministry to the police. The recommendation was initially adopted by the government but overturned four months later.

In its petition, ACRI argued that security in East Jerusalem should be placed solely in the hands of the police, claiming that armed private security companies unlawfully carry out policing duties such as neighborhood patrols. In September 2010, Silwan resident Samer Sarhan was shot dead by a security guard in a case still being debated in court.The state, acting as defendant in the case, argued on Tuesday that the prerogatives of the security companies do not amount to policing and are limited primarily to static defense of residential homes. An average of 140 violent incidents a month in East Jerusalem justify the existence of enhanced state-funded security, the state added, noting that guards are legally and professionally subordinate to the police.

Declining to discontinue the activity of the security companies, the three-judge panel headed by Chief Justice Asher Grunis proposed establishing an arbitration body within the Housing Ministry to deal with complaints against security guards on a case-by-case basis, a proposal ACRI seemed inclined to reject. Justice Grunis said that if ACRI refuses to accept the compromise proposal within 48 hours it is likely to lose the case.

Mazen Odeh, a 29-year-old resident of the Silwan neighborhood in East Jerusalem and one of the petitioners in the case, said he had little hope in the court ruling in favor of the Palestinians. In June 2010 Odeh was shot in the leg by guards protecting the Jewish compound of Beit Yonatan in Silwan. Never questioned by police, Odeh was nevertheless recognized by the National Insurance Institute as a terror victim.“The court is biased toward the settlers and their guards,” Odeh told The Times of Israel. “The state and the court are effectively telling the settlers: ‘Kill Arabs and we are with you, we will acquit you.”