JEWISH KING JESUS IS COMING AT THE RAPTURE FOR US IN THE CLOUDS-DON'T MISS IT FOR THE WORLD.THE BIBLE TAKEN LITERALLY- WHEN THE PLAIN SENSE MAKES GOOD SENSE-SEEK NO OTHER SENSE-LEST YOU END UP IN NONSENSE.GET SAVED NOW- CALL ON JESUS TODAY.THE ONLY SAVIOR OF THE WHOLE EARTH - NO OTHER.
1 COR 15:23-JESUS THE FIRST FRUITS-CHRISTIANS RAPTURED TO JESUS-FIRST FRUITS OF THE SPIRIT-23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.ROMANS 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.(THE PRE-TRIB RAPTURE)
JEREMIAH 3:14
14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you:(ISRAEL) and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:
And here are the bounderies of the land that Israel will inherit either through war or peace or God in the future. God says its Israels land and only Israels land. They will have every inch God promised them of this land in the future.
Egypt east of the Nile River, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, The southern part of Turkey and the Western Half of Iraq west of the Euphrates. Gen 13:14-15, Psm 105:9,11, Gen 15:18, Exe 23:31, Num 34:1-12, Josh 1:4.ALL THIS LAND ISRAEL WILL DEFINATELY OWN IN THE FUTURE, ITS ISRAELS NOT ISHMAELS LAND.12 TRIBES INHERIT LAND IN THE FUTURE
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 20m20 minutes ago-DEC 23,16-As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th.
Full text of UNSC resolution, approved Dec. 23, demanding Israel stop all settlement activity-Approved by 14-0, with US abstaining, text seeks action ‘to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperiling the two-state solution’-By Times of Israel staff December 23, 2016, 9:23 pm
Text of Egyptian-drafted resolution 2334 on settlements, approved by the UN Security Council, on December 23, 2016.The Security Council,Reaffirming its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465 (1980), 476 (1980), 478 (1980), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), and 1850 (2008),Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,Reaffirming the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice,Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines,Recalling the obligation under the Quartet Roadmap, endorsed by its resolution 1515 (2003), for a freeze by Israel of all settlement activity, including “natural growth”, and the dismantlement of all settlement outposts erected since March 2001,Recalling also the obligation under the Quartet roadmap for the Palestinian Authority Security Forces to maintain effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantling terrorist capabilities, including the confiscation of illegal weapons,Condemning all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction,Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,Stressing that the status quo is not sustainable and that significant steps, consistent with the transition contemplated by prior agreements, are urgently needed in order to (i) stabilize the situation and to reverse negative trends on the ground, which are steadily eroding the two-State solution and entrenching a one-State reality, and (ii) to create the conditions for successful final status negotiations and for advancing the two-State solution through those negotiations and on the ground, 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 and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace; 2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard; 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; 4. Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperilling the two-State solution; 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; 6. Calls for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, calls for accountability in this regard, and calls for compliance with obligations under international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism; 7. Calls upon both parties to act on the basis of international law, including international humanitarian law, and their previous agreements and obligations, to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric, with the aim, inter alia, of de-escalating the situation on the ground, rebuilding trust and confidence, demonstrating through policies and actions a genuine commitment to the two-State solution, and creating the conditions necessary for promoting peace; 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; 9. Urges in this regard the intensification and acceleration of international and regional diplomatic efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967; and underscores in this regard the importance of the ongoing efforts to advance the Arab Peace Initiative, the initiative of France for the convening of an international peace conference, the recent efforts of the Quartet, as well as the efforts of Egypt and the Russian Federation; 10. Confirms its determination to support the parties throughout the negotiations and in the implementation of an agreement; 11. Reaffirms its determination to examine practical ways and means to secure the full implementation of its relevant resolutions; 12. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council every three months on the implementation of the provisions of the present resolution; 13. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
Israel furious at Washington’s abstention at UN: ‘This isn’t how friends behave’-Coalition members speak of betrayal and disappointment, while opposition lawmakers say vote was Israel’s comeuppance for Netanyahu’s conduct-By Times of Israel staff December 23, 2016, 10:11 pm
Israeli officials on Friday reacted with disappointment and anger at Washington’s failure to veto an anti-settlement resolution at the UN Security Council.Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon said that “neither the Security Council nor UNESCO will succeed in rewriting history and disconnecting the bond between the People of Israel and the Land of Israel,” referring to UNESCO resolutions earlier this year that ignored Judaism’s connection with the Temple Mount, the Jewish religion’s holiest site.Danon slammed the US abstention during the vote — an unprecedented move from Israel’s closest ally that has historically vetoed such resolutions.“It was expected that Israel’s greatest friend act according to its years-long policy of vetoing such one-sided resolutions,” Danon said. “There is no doubt that the change in US administration will usher in a new era.He added: “The Palestinian efforts to hurt Israel through the UN will not be fruitful and will not advance any solution. The Palestinian will gain nothing until they stop incitement and terrorism and return to direct negotiations with Israel.”Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz told Channel 2 News that the US abstention was “not how friends behave” while cabinet minister Tzachi Hanegbi said the US vote also “spits in the face” of incoming president Donald Trump.Likud Knesset member Yoav Kisch was quoted by Hebrew language website Ynet as saying that just as US President Barack Obama “betrayed other allies around the world, so he has done to Israel.”Meanwhile opposition MKs asserted that the beating Israel had taken at the UN was entirely Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s fault.Zionist Union MK Tzipi Livni said the vote was Israel’s comeuppance for Netanyahu’s constant clashes with Obama, as well as his support for the the ‘Regulation Law’ to legalize outposts built in Palestinian lands.“Netanyahu insisted on running headfirst into a wall, knowing that this would be the outcome — and now we are all paying the price,” she said.“You could blame Obama, but all major countries of the world such as the UK, France, Russia and China supported the resolution against us,” she added.Zionist Union MK Eitan Cabel said Israel “paid a heavy price for Netanyahu’s conduct with Obama. Obama chose the time and place that were most convenient for him and gave Israel a harsh beating that the Trump administration may not so easily fix.”Shortly before the vote, an Israeli official used unprecedentedly harsh language to accuse the Obama administration of scheming with the Palestinians to harm Israel with the resolution.“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,” the official said. (The draft resolution refers to East Jerusalem as “occupied Palestinian territory.)-Palestinian and Egyptian officials met earlier in the month with State Department officials in Washington, Channel 2 noted Friday evening, and it was in those talks, Israel believes, that plans were coordinated to push through the anti-settlements resolution. Hence the official’s reference to the US administration having “cooked up” the resolution.“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,” the official added.The US denied the allegations. “Contrary to some claims, the administration was not involved in formulating the resolution nor have we promoted it,” the unnamed official told Reuters.
The UN resolution that could redefine Obama’s legacy on Israel-Op-Ed: Is the president really ready to allow the passage of a text formulated by the Palestinians to ratchet up world pressure on the Jewish state?-By David Horovitz December 23, 2016, 4:39 pm-THE TIMES OF ISRAEL
The Obama administration has had eight years to convey its concerns about Israel’s settlement expansion, eight years to use its phenomenal leverage with its key Middle East ally to pressure Jerusalem to change course.If — and as of this writing, we are still in “if” territory — the administration was, perhaps still is, ready to forgo its UN veto and let a Palestinian-designed resolution gain passage in the UN Security Council, condemning all settlements and potentially inviting new international diplomatic and financial pressure against Israel, it will instead have chosen a course of action that could sabotage its admirable two-term history of defending Israel against those international players that wish it ill. It will have essentially sided against Israel with those negative forces.It will have reversed and made a mockery of its own previous pledges and positions — notably when it vetoed a similar resolution five years ago with the explanation that the Security Council was not the right venue for tackling issues that need to be resolved by the parties themselves. (Susan Rice, the US envoy to the UN at the time, noted that the veto “should not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity, but added: “Unfortunately, this draft resolution risks hardening the positions of both sides and could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations.”)-And it will have acted without nuance on the settlement issue, undermining its own goals when it comes to this vexed and complex issue, as it unfortunately often has.For eight years, the Obama administration frequently condemned all building beyond the pre-1967 lines as a crime of equal gravity, rarely choosing to distinguish between new homes built deep in West Bank territory, where the Palestinians seek statehood, and those in Jerusalem or close to the pre-1967 lines, where even the Palestinians realize they will not be gaining control. Those blanket condemnations alienated much of mainstream Israel — which opposes settling in areas that complicate any eventual separation from the Palestinians, but largely supports building inside Jerusalem and the so-called settlement blocs — and thus worked against the Obama administration’s own goal of bolstering Israeli backing for an eventual accommodation.In its final months and weeks, the administration had been dropping hints that it might not block anti-settlement moves at the UN, notably when Secretary of State John Kerry, publicly castigating the settlement enterprise with unprecedented vigor during an appearance at the Saban Forum earlier this month, promised only to veto what he termed “a biased, unfair resolution calculated to delegitimize Israel.”Did the administration persuade itself that the Egyptian text submitted late Wednesday constituted an unbiased and fair resolution that it could reasonably allow to win passage? If so, and again we remain in the corridors of uncertainty for now, then Israel plainly disagrees. The Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, termed the text “disgraceful.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pleaded publicly with the US to veto it.Dore Gold, until recently the director-general of the Foreign Ministry, told The Times of Israel on Friday that language in the resolution calling on “all states … to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967” potentially gives backing to the relentless effort worldwide to impose boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) pressure on Israel. Moreover, Gold noted, by acquiescing to a resolution that brands settlements as “having no legal validity,” the US could be regarded as having changed its position, having hitherto formally chosen to consider settlements “illegitimate” rather than illegal — a subtle difference but an important one as other countries and organizations look to the US when considering sanction and boycott action.Numerous unnamed Israeli officials have been alleging, in the past day, that Obama was indeed about to let the resolution pass, and that Kerry had been readying to deliver an address on Thursday afternoon explaining the dramatic shift in US policy, until Egypt, contacted by incoming president Trump, opted to withdraw the resolution. Israel “became aware that the admin would not veto the anti-Israel resolution,” one Israeli official stated, in writing, to reporters here on Thursday evening. This was nothing less than a planned diplomatic “hit” by Obama against Netanyahu and the settlements, and it would have worked had Trump not dashed to the rescue, Israel’s Channel 2 news quoted a senior Jerusalem official saying on Thursday night. By contrast, another source asserted that the US Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, had not been given instructions on how to vote when the Egyptians withdrew the resolution.We may get the full story soon enough. For now, if there was a planned “hit,” it has been bungled. For now, it would appear that Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, quite extraordinarily, chose the promise of warmed ties with the incoming US administration over Egypt’s traditional dutiful obligation to the Palestinian cause. For now, it would appear that Netanyahu, so plainly disliked by the outgoing president, has been rescued by his new best friend, the incoming president. And for now, the Obama administration finds itself laid open to the allegation that it opted for a heavy-handed tactic, that backfired, in support of a stance that it had two full terms to advance via friendlier, more subtle and more effective means.But the saga is not over yet. If Egypt chooses not to change course a third time by re-introducing its resolution, there seems to be no shortage of other Security Council members ready to step into the breach and submit a similar text.We may yet see definitively whether, after eight years when it failed to use its leverage to push a nuanced approach on the settlement issue, the Obama administration will leave the scene with an act that empowers Israel’s non-nuanced critics, undercuts its own long-held position regarding the role of the UN in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, amend its legacy on Israel, and seeks to constrain the policies of a new president who will be taking office in less than a month.We may yet see whether President Barack Obama — reportedly the only president in 50 years to have blocked all anti-Israel resolutions at the Security Council — is going to choose to redefine his relationship with Israel via an abstention there in these, his final days.
Choosing not to veto, Obama lets anti-settlement resolution pass at UN Security Council-In dramatic departure from eight years of policy, US abstains, enabling 14-0 vote; Israel accuses Obama, Kerry of abandoning it; Palestinians hail ‘day of victory’-By Eric Cortellessa December 23, 2016, 9:21 pm-THE TIMES OF ISRAEL
In a stunning departure from its policy over the last eight years, the Obama administration abstained from voting on a United Nations Security Council resolution Friday that demands an immediate halt to all Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, enabling the measure to pass.Resolution 2334 was approved with 14 member states voting in favor, none voting against and one abstention — the United States. The passage of the resolution was met with applause in the packed chamber.The text also calls on all states “to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967” — language that Israel fears will lead to a surge in boycott and sanctions efforts, and that an Israeli official warned would provide “a tailwind for terror.”Israeli minister Yuval Steinitz, speaking after the vote, said the US had “abandoned Israel, its only ally in the Middle East” and said its behavior was not that of a friend.The Palestinian Authority hailed “a day of victory.”Speaking at the Security Council after the vote, US Ambassador Samantha Power said the decision underlined the Council’s long-standing position that “the settlements have no legal validity.” She claimed the US position was “fully in line with the bipartisan history” of how US presidents have approached the issue for decades.The US did not agree with every word of the resolution, she said, and therefore had not voted in favor. But “we cannot stand in the way of this resolution,” she said, in the quest for “two states living side by side in peace and security.”“The settlement problem has gotten so much worse,” she said, that it was now endangering that solution. “One has to make a choice between settlements and separation,” she said.Still, she stressed, peace would not be at hand were every settlement dismantled tomorrow. “We would not have let this resolution pass had it not also addressed counter-productive actions by the Palestinians,” she said, citing terrorism and incitement. She also said the vote did not diminish the United States’ unparalleled commitment to Israel’s security.A succession of Security Council ambassadors similarly castigated settlement expansion as threatening the viability of a two-state solution.Originally initiated by Egypt, the resolution was co-sponsored by New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela and Senegal, who stepped in a day after Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi withdrew the measure amid pressure from Israel and President-elect Donald Trump.Introducing the resolution, Malaysia said the move was made more urgent by Israeli moves to retroactively legalize outposts build on private Palestinian land in the West Bank.Shortly before the vote, an Israeli official used unprecedentedly harsh language to accuse the Obama administration of scheming with the Palestinians to harm Israel with the resolution.“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,” the official said. (The draft resolution refers to East Jerusalem as “occupied Palestinian territory.)Palestinian and Egyptian officials met earlier in the month with State Department officials in Washington, Channel 2 noted Friday evening, and it was in those talks, Israel believes, that plans were coordinated to push through the anti-settlements resolution. Hence the official’s reference to the US administration having “cooked up” the resolution.“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,” the official added.The US denied the allegations. “Contrary to some claims, the administration was not involved in formulating the resolution nor have we promoted it,” the unnamed official told Reuters.Israeli cabinet minister Tzachi Hanegbi said the US vote also “spits in the face” of incoming president Donald Trump.On Thursday morning Trump posted on his social media accounts that the resolution was “extremely unfair” to Israelis, and took the extraordinary step of urging the outgoing president to veto it.“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,” Trump said on Facebook.The 15-member council had been due to vote on Thursday, but after Israeli diplomats made behind-the-scenes overtures with Egypt and Trump forcefully intervened after Israeli officials contacted his team for help blocking the measure, Sissi postponed the vote indefinitely.It was soon leaked by Western officials that Obama had been planning to let the resolution pass via abstention, but this was not confirmed.Channel 2 news reported on Friday evening that in a phone call to Netanyahu on Thursday, Kerry refused to commit to vetoing the resolution.Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called on the US on Thursday 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,” Netanyahu 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.”The resolution submitted by Cairo called on Israel to “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.”It further expressed “grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperiling the viability of the two-state solution,” and called on all states “to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967,” which some analysts say invites boycotts of Israeli settlements goods.The text also condemns “all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction,” which some in the international community understand as turning the resolution into a “balanced” text.Until Friday, Obama had not allowed passage of any Security Council resolution critical of Israel over the course of his presidency, and had set out a deliberate policy of blocking such resolutions.By contrast, a considerable line of his predecessors have allowed similar measures to pass.Former presidents Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford all permitted the UN General Assembly and/or the Security Council to adopt resolutions critical of the Jewish state; Ronald Reagan reportedly saw 21 measures through the international body, while George H.W. Bush allowed nine, Bill Clinton three and George W. Bush six.In November 1981, for instance, the Reagan administration voted in favor of a General Assembly resolution condemning Israel’s air strikes on an Iraqi nuclear reactor, which was part of a campaign to prevent Iraq from fulfilling its nuclear aspirations. That measure also called on the Security Council to “investigate Israel’s nuclear activities” and have the country’s own nuclear sites subjected to international monitoring.In May 2004, the Bush administration abstained from voting on a draft resolution at the Security Council condemning Israel for demolishing Palestinian homes in Gaza amidst the Second Intifada.Using language that has often been included in resolutions targeting Israel throughout the years, the measure stated “the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention,” a treaty adopted in 1949 that is often cited by settlement critics to designate those communities a violation of international law.For the last eight years, however, Obama has made it his policy to protect Israel from “one-sided” resolutions at the United Nations critical of Israel.Under Obama, the US in 2011 used its veto power to block a similar measure to the one adopted Friday.During his address that September at the UN General Assembly, the president stated, “Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations — if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now.”As the vote neared Friday, a number of high-profile Democrats issued public statements urging Obama to veto the resolution.Most notably, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, one of the most prominent Jewish members of Congress and the new Senate minority leader, said he had “spoken directly to the administration numerous times” and “in the strongest terms possible” urged them to veto.Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans were also voicing their own indignation.South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham threatened to “form a bipartisan coalition to suspend or significantly reduce United States assistance to the United Nations” if the international body went through with the resolution.
14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you:(ISRAEL) and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:
And here are the bounderies of the land that Israel will inherit either through war or peace or God in the future. God says its Israels land and only Israels land. They will have every inch God promised them of this land in the future.
Egypt east of the Nile River, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, The southern part of Turkey and the Western Half of Iraq west of the Euphrates. Gen 13:14-15, Psm 105:9,11, Gen 15:18, Exe 23:31, Num 34:1-12, Josh 1:4.ALL THIS LAND ISRAEL WILL DEFINATELY OWN IN THE FUTURE, ITS ISRAELS NOT ISHMAELS LAND.12 TRIBES INHERIT LAND IN THE FUTURE
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 20m20 minutes ago-DEC 23,16-As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th.
Full text of UNSC resolution, approved Dec. 23, demanding Israel stop all settlement activity-Approved by 14-0, with US abstaining, text seeks action ‘to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperiling the two-state solution’-By Times of Israel staff December 23, 2016, 9:23 pm
Text of Egyptian-drafted resolution 2334 on settlements, approved by the UN Security Council, on December 23, 2016.The Security Council,Reaffirming its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465 (1980), 476 (1980), 478 (1980), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), and 1850 (2008),Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,Reaffirming the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice,Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines,Recalling the obligation under the Quartet Roadmap, endorsed by its resolution 1515 (2003), for a freeze by Israel of all settlement activity, including “natural growth”, and the dismantlement of all settlement outposts erected since March 2001,Recalling also the obligation under the Quartet roadmap for the Palestinian Authority Security Forces to maintain effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantling terrorist capabilities, including the confiscation of illegal weapons,Condemning all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction,Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,Stressing that the status quo is not sustainable and that significant steps, consistent with the transition contemplated by prior agreements, are urgently needed in order to (i) stabilize the situation and to reverse negative trends on the ground, which are steadily eroding the two-State solution and entrenching a one-State reality, and (ii) to create the conditions for successful final status negotiations and for advancing the two-State solution through those negotiations and on the ground, 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 and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace; 2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard; 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; 4. Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperilling the two-State solution; 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; 6. Calls for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, calls for accountability in this regard, and calls for compliance with obligations under international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism; 7. Calls upon both parties to act on the basis of international law, including international humanitarian law, and their previous agreements and obligations, to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric, with the aim, inter alia, of de-escalating the situation on the ground, rebuilding trust and confidence, demonstrating through policies and actions a genuine commitment to the two-State solution, and creating the conditions necessary for promoting peace; 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; 9. Urges in this regard the intensification and acceleration of international and regional diplomatic efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967; and underscores in this regard the importance of the ongoing efforts to advance the Arab Peace Initiative, the initiative of France for the convening of an international peace conference, the recent efforts of the Quartet, as well as the efforts of Egypt and the Russian Federation; 10. Confirms its determination to support the parties throughout the negotiations and in the implementation of an agreement; 11. Reaffirms its determination to examine practical ways and means to secure the full implementation of its relevant resolutions; 12. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council every three months on the implementation of the provisions of the present resolution; 13. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
Israel furious at Washington’s abstention at UN: ‘This isn’t how friends behave’-Coalition members speak of betrayal and disappointment, while opposition lawmakers say vote was Israel’s comeuppance for Netanyahu’s conduct-By Times of Israel staff December 23, 2016, 10:11 pm
Israeli officials on Friday reacted with disappointment and anger at Washington’s failure to veto an anti-settlement resolution at the UN Security Council.Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon said that “neither the Security Council nor UNESCO will succeed in rewriting history and disconnecting the bond between the People of Israel and the Land of Israel,” referring to UNESCO resolutions earlier this year that ignored Judaism’s connection with the Temple Mount, the Jewish religion’s holiest site.Danon slammed the US abstention during the vote — an unprecedented move from Israel’s closest ally that has historically vetoed such resolutions.“It was expected that Israel’s greatest friend act according to its years-long policy of vetoing such one-sided resolutions,” Danon said. “There is no doubt that the change in US administration will usher in a new era.He added: “The Palestinian efforts to hurt Israel through the UN will not be fruitful and will not advance any solution. The Palestinian will gain nothing until they stop incitement and terrorism and return to direct negotiations with Israel.”Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz told Channel 2 News that the US abstention was “not how friends behave” while cabinet minister Tzachi Hanegbi said the US vote also “spits in the face” of incoming president Donald Trump.Likud Knesset member Yoav Kisch was quoted by Hebrew language website Ynet as saying that just as US President Barack Obama “betrayed other allies around the world, so he has done to Israel.”Meanwhile opposition MKs asserted that the beating Israel had taken at the UN was entirely Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s fault.Zionist Union MK Tzipi Livni said the vote was Israel’s comeuppance for Netanyahu’s constant clashes with Obama, as well as his support for the the ‘Regulation Law’ to legalize outposts built in Palestinian lands.“Netanyahu insisted on running headfirst into a wall, knowing that this would be the outcome — and now we are all paying the price,” she said.“You could blame Obama, but all major countries of the world such as the UK, France, Russia and China supported the resolution against us,” she added.Zionist Union MK Eitan Cabel said Israel “paid a heavy price for Netanyahu’s conduct with Obama. Obama chose the time and place that were most convenient for him and gave Israel a harsh beating that the Trump administration may not so easily fix.”Shortly before the vote, an Israeli official used unprecedentedly harsh language to accuse the Obama administration of scheming with the Palestinians to harm Israel with the resolution.“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,” the official said. (The draft resolution refers to East Jerusalem as “occupied Palestinian territory.)-Palestinian and Egyptian officials met earlier in the month with State Department officials in Washington, Channel 2 noted Friday evening, and it was in those talks, Israel believes, that plans were coordinated to push through the anti-settlements resolution. Hence the official’s reference to the US administration having “cooked up” the resolution.“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,” the official added.The US denied the allegations. “Contrary to some claims, the administration was not involved in formulating the resolution nor have we promoted it,” the unnamed official told Reuters.
The UN resolution that could redefine Obama’s legacy on Israel-Op-Ed: Is the president really ready to allow the passage of a text formulated by the Palestinians to ratchet up world pressure on the Jewish state?-By David Horovitz December 23, 2016, 4:39 pm-THE TIMES OF ISRAEL
The Obama administration has had eight years to convey its concerns about Israel’s settlement expansion, eight years to use its phenomenal leverage with its key Middle East ally to pressure Jerusalem to change course.If — and as of this writing, we are still in “if” territory — the administration was, perhaps still is, ready to forgo its UN veto and let a Palestinian-designed resolution gain passage in the UN Security Council, condemning all settlements and potentially inviting new international diplomatic and financial pressure against Israel, it will instead have chosen a course of action that could sabotage its admirable two-term history of defending Israel against those international players that wish it ill. It will have essentially sided against Israel with those negative forces.It will have reversed and made a mockery of its own previous pledges and positions — notably when it vetoed a similar resolution five years ago with the explanation that the Security Council was not the right venue for tackling issues that need to be resolved by the parties themselves. (Susan Rice, the US envoy to the UN at the time, noted that the veto “should not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity, but added: “Unfortunately, this draft resolution risks hardening the positions of both sides and could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations.”)-And it will have acted without nuance on the settlement issue, undermining its own goals when it comes to this vexed and complex issue, as it unfortunately often has.For eight years, the Obama administration frequently condemned all building beyond the pre-1967 lines as a crime of equal gravity, rarely choosing to distinguish between new homes built deep in West Bank territory, where the Palestinians seek statehood, and those in Jerusalem or close to the pre-1967 lines, where even the Palestinians realize they will not be gaining control. Those blanket condemnations alienated much of mainstream Israel — which opposes settling in areas that complicate any eventual separation from the Palestinians, but largely supports building inside Jerusalem and the so-called settlement blocs — and thus worked against the Obama administration’s own goal of bolstering Israeli backing for an eventual accommodation.In its final months and weeks, the administration had been dropping hints that it might not block anti-settlement moves at the UN, notably when Secretary of State John Kerry, publicly castigating the settlement enterprise with unprecedented vigor during an appearance at the Saban Forum earlier this month, promised only to veto what he termed “a biased, unfair resolution calculated to delegitimize Israel.”Did the administration persuade itself that the Egyptian text submitted late Wednesday constituted an unbiased and fair resolution that it could reasonably allow to win passage? If so, and again we remain in the corridors of uncertainty for now, then Israel plainly disagrees. The Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, termed the text “disgraceful.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pleaded publicly with the US to veto it.Dore Gold, until recently the director-general of the Foreign Ministry, told The Times of Israel on Friday that language in the resolution calling on “all states … to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967” potentially gives backing to the relentless effort worldwide to impose boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) pressure on Israel. Moreover, Gold noted, by acquiescing to a resolution that brands settlements as “having no legal validity,” the US could be regarded as having changed its position, having hitherto formally chosen to consider settlements “illegitimate” rather than illegal — a subtle difference but an important one as other countries and organizations look to the US when considering sanction and boycott action.Numerous unnamed Israeli officials have been alleging, in the past day, that Obama was indeed about to let the resolution pass, and that Kerry had been readying to deliver an address on Thursday afternoon explaining the dramatic shift in US policy, until Egypt, contacted by incoming president Trump, opted to withdraw the resolution. Israel “became aware that the admin would not veto the anti-Israel resolution,” one Israeli official stated, in writing, to reporters here on Thursday evening. This was nothing less than a planned diplomatic “hit” by Obama against Netanyahu and the settlements, and it would have worked had Trump not dashed to the rescue, Israel’s Channel 2 news quoted a senior Jerusalem official saying on Thursday night. By contrast, another source asserted that the US Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, had not been given instructions on how to vote when the Egyptians withdrew the resolution.We may get the full story soon enough. For now, if there was a planned “hit,” it has been bungled. For now, it would appear that Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, quite extraordinarily, chose the promise of warmed ties with the incoming US administration over Egypt’s traditional dutiful obligation to the Palestinian cause. For now, it would appear that Netanyahu, so plainly disliked by the outgoing president, has been rescued by his new best friend, the incoming president. And for now, the Obama administration finds itself laid open to the allegation that it opted for a heavy-handed tactic, that backfired, in support of a stance that it had two full terms to advance via friendlier, more subtle and more effective means.But the saga is not over yet. If Egypt chooses not to change course a third time by re-introducing its resolution, there seems to be no shortage of other Security Council members ready to step into the breach and submit a similar text.We may yet see definitively whether, after eight years when it failed to use its leverage to push a nuanced approach on the settlement issue, the Obama administration will leave the scene with an act that empowers Israel’s non-nuanced critics, undercuts its own long-held position regarding the role of the UN in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, amend its legacy on Israel, and seeks to constrain the policies of a new president who will be taking office in less than a month.We may yet see whether President Barack Obama — reportedly the only president in 50 years to have blocked all anti-Israel resolutions at the Security Council — is going to choose to redefine his relationship with Israel via an abstention there in these, his final days.
Choosing not to veto, Obama lets anti-settlement resolution pass at UN Security Council-In dramatic departure from eight years of policy, US abstains, enabling 14-0 vote; Israel accuses Obama, Kerry of abandoning it; Palestinians hail ‘day of victory’-By Eric Cortellessa December 23, 2016, 9:21 pm-THE TIMES OF ISRAEL
In a stunning departure from its policy over the last eight years, the Obama administration abstained from voting on a United Nations Security Council resolution Friday that demands an immediate halt to all Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, enabling the measure to pass.Resolution 2334 was approved with 14 member states voting in favor, none voting against and one abstention — the United States. The passage of the resolution was met with applause in the packed chamber.The text also calls on all states “to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967” — language that Israel fears will lead to a surge in boycott and sanctions efforts, and that an Israeli official warned would provide “a tailwind for terror.”Israeli minister Yuval Steinitz, speaking after the vote, said the US had “abandoned Israel, its only ally in the Middle East” and said its behavior was not that of a friend.The Palestinian Authority hailed “a day of victory.”Speaking at the Security Council after the vote, US Ambassador Samantha Power said the decision underlined the Council’s long-standing position that “the settlements have no legal validity.” She claimed the US position was “fully in line with the bipartisan history” of how US presidents have approached the issue for decades.The US did not agree with every word of the resolution, she said, and therefore had not voted in favor. But “we cannot stand in the way of this resolution,” she said, in the quest for “two states living side by side in peace and security.”“The settlement problem has gotten so much worse,” she said, that it was now endangering that solution. “One has to make a choice between settlements and separation,” she said.Still, she stressed, peace would not be at hand were every settlement dismantled tomorrow. “We would not have let this resolution pass had it not also addressed counter-productive actions by the Palestinians,” she said, citing terrorism and incitement. She also said the vote did not diminish the United States’ unparalleled commitment to Israel’s security.A succession of Security Council ambassadors similarly castigated settlement expansion as threatening the viability of a two-state solution.Originally initiated by Egypt, the resolution was co-sponsored by New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela and Senegal, who stepped in a day after Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi withdrew the measure amid pressure from Israel and President-elect Donald Trump.Introducing the resolution, Malaysia said the move was made more urgent by Israeli moves to retroactively legalize outposts build on private Palestinian land in the West Bank.Shortly before the vote, an Israeli official used unprecedentedly harsh language to accuse the Obama administration of scheming with the Palestinians to harm Israel with the resolution.“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,” the official said. (The draft resolution refers to East Jerusalem as “occupied Palestinian territory.)Palestinian and Egyptian officials met earlier in the month with State Department officials in Washington, Channel 2 noted Friday evening, and it was in those talks, Israel believes, that plans were coordinated to push through the anti-settlements resolution. Hence the official’s reference to the US administration having “cooked up” the resolution.“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,” the official added.The US denied the allegations. “Contrary to some claims, the administration was not involved in formulating the resolution nor have we promoted it,” the unnamed official told Reuters.Israeli cabinet minister Tzachi Hanegbi said the US vote also “spits in the face” of incoming president Donald Trump.On Thursday morning Trump posted on his social media accounts that the resolution was “extremely unfair” to Israelis, and took the extraordinary step of urging the outgoing president to veto it.“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,” Trump said on Facebook.The 15-member council had been due to vote on Thursday, but after Israeli diplomats made behind-the-scenes overtures with Egypt and Trump forcefully intervened after Israeli officials contacted his team for help blocking the measure, Sissi postponed the vote indefinitely.It was soon leaked by Western officials that Obama had been planning to let the resolution pass via abstention, but this was not confirmed.Channel 2 news reported on Friday evening that in a phone call to Netanyahu on Thursday, Kerry refused to commit to vetoing the resolution.Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called on the US on Thursday 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,” Netanyahu 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.”The resolution submitted by Cairo called on Israel to “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.”It further expressed “grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperiling the viability of the two-state solution,” and called on all states “to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967,” which some analysts say invites boycotts of Israeli settlements goods.The text also condemns “all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction,” which some in the international community understand as turning the resolution into a “balanced” text.Until Friday, Obama had not allowed passage of any Security Council resolution critical of Israel over the course of his presidency, and had set out a deliberate policy of blocking such resolutions.By contrast, a considerable line of his predecessors have allowed similar measures to pass.Former presidents Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford all permitted the UN General Assembly and/or the Security Council to adopt resolutions critical of the Jewish state; Ronald Reagan reportedly saw 21 measures through the international body, while George H.W. Bush allowed nine, Bill Clinton three and George W. Bush six.In November 1981, for instance, the Reagan administration voted in favor of a General Assembly resolution condemning Israel’s air strikes on an Iraqi nuclear reactor, which was part of a campaign to prevent Iraq from fulfilling its nuclear aspirations. That measure also called on the Security Council to “investigate Israel’s nuclear activities” and have the country’s own nuclear sites subjected to international monitoring.In May 2004, the Bush administration abstained from voting on a draft resolution at the Security Council condemning Israel for demolishing Palestinian homes in Gaza amidst the Second Intifada.Using language that has often been included in resolutions targeting Israel throughout the years, the measure stated “the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention,” a treaty adopted in 1949 that is often cited by settlement critics to designate those communities a violation of international law.For the last eight years, however, Obama has made it his policy to protect Israel from “one-sided” resolutions at the United Nations critical of Israel.Under Obama, the US in 2011 used its veto power to block a similar measure to the one adopted Friday.During his address that September at the UN General Assembly, the president stated, “Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations — if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now.”As the vote neared Friday, a number of high-profile Democrats issued public statements urging Obama to veto the resolution.Most notably, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, one of the most prominent Jewish members of Congress and the new Senate minority leader, said he had “spoken directly to the administration numerous times” and “in the strongest terms possible” urged them to veto.Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans were also voicing their own indignation.South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham threatened to “form a bipartisan coalition to suspend or significantly reduce United States assistance to the United Nations” if the international body went through with the resolution.
