Where Exactly is 3rd Temple’s Location according to the bible

Can you imagine the upheaval in political and religious thinking if the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is not the site of Solomon’s and Herod’s temples?

And what if the stones of the Wailing Wall are not what tradition says?

In this highly-researched, exciting book, the author proposes from current archaeological excavations and Scriptural corroboration that the true temple location is not where tradition teaches. Keep in mind, Tradition is always the enemy of truth.

John 8:32: the truth shall set you free.
The Question: What is the Truth about the Temple Location
Tools to Locate the Truth
1: THE WORD OF GOD
2: ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS

ZION = CITY OF DAVID

Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, that is, the city of David.

2 Samuel 5: 7

ZION = My Holy mountain = TEMPLE

2 Blow a trumpet in Zion;
    sound an alarm on my holy mountain!
Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble,
    for the day of the Lord is coming; it is near,

Joel 2:1

ZION = My Holy mountain = TEMPLE

17 “So you shall know that I am the Lord your God,
    who dwells in Zion, my holy mountain.
And Jerusalem shall be holy,
    and strangers shall never again pass through it.

Joel 3:17

ZION = where the Lord dwells = TEMPLE

21 I will avenge their blood,
    blood I have not avenged,
    for the Lord dwells in Zion.”

Joel 3:21

ZION = My holy hill = Christ reigning = TEMPLE

6 “As for me, I have set my King
    on Zion, my holy hill.”

Psalm 2:6

ZION = where the Lord dwells = TEMPLE

11 Sing praises to the Lord, who sits enthroned in Zion!
    Tell among the peoples his deeds!

Psalm 9:11

ZION = from sanctuary = TEMPLE

May he send you help from the sanctuary
    and give you support from Zion!

Psalm 20:2

ZION = Your holy TEMPLE

Praise is due to you, O God, in Zion,
    and to you shall vows be performed.

Blessed is the one you choose and bring near,
    to dwell in your courts!
We shall be satisfied with the goodness of your house,
    the holiness of your temple!

Psalm 65:1, 4

ZION = sanctuary = City of David = TEMPLE

16 For the Lord builds up Zion;
    he appears in his glory;

19 that he looked down from his holy height;
    from heaven the Lord looked at the earth,

Psalm 102:16,19

ZION = ark resting place = City of David = TEMPLE

Arise, O Lord, and go to your resting place,
    you and the ark of your might.

13 For the Lord has chosen Zion;
    he has desired it for his dwelling place:

Psalm 132:8,13

ZION = mountain of the Lord = house of God = TEMPLE

    and many peoples shall come, and say:
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
    to the house of the God of Jacob,
that he may teach us his ways
    and that we may walk in his paths.”
For out of Zion shall go forth the law,
    and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

Isaiah 2:3

ZION = Lord of Host reigning = place of TEMPLE

23 Then the moon will be confounded
    and the sun ashamed,
for the Lord of hosts reigns
    on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem,
and his glory will be before his elders.

Isaiah 24:23

ZION =  My holy mountain = house of the Lord = TEMPLE

20 And they shall bring all your brothers from all the nations as an offering to the Lord, on horses and in chariots and in litters and on mules and on dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the Lord, just as the Israelites bring their grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the Lord.

Isaiah 66:20

ZION = Jebusite city = City of David = TEMPLE

1 Then Solomon began to build the house of the Lord in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the Lord had appeared to David his father, at the place that David had appointed, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.

2 Chronicles 3:1


Share

USA’s Naughty (128) and Nice Lists (65)

USA Presidents Seal (Transparent Background)

TOTALS: 128 YES  | 09 NO | 35 ABSTAINED | 21 ABSENT

Nikki Haley to UN on Jerusalem. Dec 21, 2017.
UN General Assembly meeting on US embassy move in Israel

US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley spoke to the UN General Assembly ahead of its vote on the status of Jerusalem, December 21, 2017: https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-nikki-haleys-speech-to-un-general-assembly-on-jerusalem/

Thank you, Mr. President.

To its shame, the United Nations has long been a hostile place for the state of Israel. Both the current and the previous Secretary-Generals have objected to the UN’s disproportionate focus on Israel. It’s a wrong that undermines the credibility of this institution, and that in turn is harmful for the entire world.

I’ve often wondered why, in the face of such hostility, Israel has chosen to remain a member of this body. And then I remember that Israel has chosen to remain in this institution because it’s important to stand up for yourself. Israel must stand up for its own survival as a nation; but it also stands up for the ideals of freedom and human dignity that the United Nations is supposed to be about.

Standing here today, being forced to defend sovereignty and the integrity of my country – the United States of America – many of the same thoughts have come to mind. The United States is by far the single largest contributor to the United Nations and its agencies. We do this, in part, in order to advance our values and our interests. When that happens, our participation in the UN produces great good for the world. Together we feed, clothe, and educate desperate people. We nurture and sustain fragile peace in conflict areas throughout the world. And we hold outlaw regimes accountable. We do this because it represents who we are. It is our American way.

But we’ll be honest with you. When we make generous contributions to the UN, we also have a legitimate expectation that our good will is recognized and respected. When a nation is singled out for attack in this organization, that nation is disrespected. What’s more, that nation is asked to pay for the “privilege” of being disrespected.

In the case of the United States, we are asked to pay more than anyone else for that dubious privilege. Unlike in some UN member countries, the United States government is answerable to its people. As such, we have an obligation to acknowledge when our political and financial capital is being poorly spent.

We have an obligation to demand more for our investment. And if our investment fails, we have an obligation to spend our resources in more productive ways. Those are the thoughts that come to mind when we consider the resolution before us today.

The arguments about the President’s decision to move the American embassy to Jerusalem have already been made. They are by now well known. The decision was in accordance to U.S. law dating back to 1995, and it’s position has been repeatedly endorsed by the American people ever since. The decision does not prejudge any final status issues, including Jerusalem’s boundaries. The decision does not preclude a two-state solution, if the parties agree to that. The decision does nothing to harm peace efforts. Rather, the President’s decision reflects the will of the American people and our right as a nation to choose the location of our embassy. There is no need to describe it further.

Instead, there is a larger point to make. The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation. We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the world’s largest contribution to the United Nations. And we will remember it when so many countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit.

America will put our embassy in Jerusalem. That is what the American people want us to do, and it is the right thing to do. No vote in the United Nations will make any difference on that.

But this vote will make a difference on how Americans look at the UN and on how we look at countries who disrespect us in the UN. And this vote will be remembered.

Thank you.



YES NO ABSTAIN ABSENT
Member state + X Ο
Afghanistan Afghanistan +
Albania Albania +
Algeria Algeria +
Andorra Andorra +
Angola Angola +
Antigua and Barbuda Antigua & Barbuda Ο
Argentina Argentina X
Armenia Armenia +
Australia Australia X
Austria Austria  +
Azerbaijan Azerbaijan +
The Bahamas Bahamas X
Bahrain Bahrain +
Bangladesh Bangladesh +
Barbados Barbados +
Belarus Belarus +
Belgium Belgium +
Belize Belize +
Benin Benin X
Bhutan Bhutan X
Bolivia Bolivia +
Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia & Herzegovina X
Botswana Botswana +
Brazil Brazil +
Brunei Brunei Darussalam +
Bulgaria Bulgaria +
Burkina Faso Burkina Faso +
Burundi Burundi +
Cape Verde Cabo Verde +
Cambodia Cambodia +
Cameroon Cameroon X
Canada Canada X
Central African Republic Central African Republic Ο
Chad Chad +
Chile Chile +
China China +
Colombia Colombia X
Comoros Comoros +
Republic of the Congo Congo +
Costa Rica Costa Rica +
Ivory Coast Côte d’Ivoire +
Croatia Croatia X
Cuba Cuba +
Cyprus Cyprus +
Czech Republic Czech Republic X
North Korea DPR of Korea +
Democratic Republic of the Congo DR Congo Ο
Denmark Denmark +
Djibouti Djibouti +
Dominica Dominica +
Dominican Republic Dominican Republic X
Ecuador Ecuador +
Egypt Egypt +
El Salvador El Salvador Ο
Equatorial Guinea Equatorial Guinea X
Eritrea Eritrea +
Estonia Estonia +
Ethiopia Ethiopia +
Fiji Fiji X
Finland Finland +
France France +
Gabon Gabon +
The Gambia Gambia +
Georgia (country) Georgia X
Germany Germany +
Ghana Ghana +
Greece Greece +
Grenada Grenada +
Guatemala Guatemala
Guinea Guinea +
Guinea-Bissau Guinea-Bissau Ο
Guyana Guyana +
Haiti Haiti X
Honduras Honduras
Hungary Hungary X
Iceland Iceland +
India India +
Indonesia Indonesia +
Iran Iran +
Iraq Iraq +
Republic of Ireland Ireland +
Israel Israel
Italy Italy +
Jamaica Jamaica X
Japan Japan +
Jordan Jordan +
Kazakhstan Kazakhstan +
Kenya Kenya Ο
Kiribati Kiribati X
Kuwait Kuwait +
Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyzstan +
Laos Lao PDR +
Latvia Latvia X
Lebanon Lebanon +
Lesotho Lesotho X
Liberia Liberia +
Libya Libya +
Liechtenstein Liechtenstein +
Lithuania Lithuania +
Luxembourg Luxembourg +
Madagascar Madagascar +
Malawi Malawi X
Malaysia Malaysia +
Maldives Maldives +
Mali Mali +
Malta Malta +
Marshall Islands Marshall Islands
Mauritania Mauritania +
Mauritius Mauritius +
Mexico Mexico X
Federated States of Micronesia Micronesia
Monaco Monaco +
Mongolia Mongolia Ο
Montenegro Montenegro +
Morocco Morocco +
Mozambique Mozambique +
Myanmar Myanmar Ο
Namibia Namibia +
Nauru Nauru
Nepal Nepal +
Kingdom of the Netherlands Netherlands +
New Zealand New Zealand +
Nicaragua Nicaragua +
Niger Niger +
Nigeria Nigeria +
Norway Norway  +
Oman Oman +
Pakistan Pakistan +
Palau Palau
Panama Panama X
Papua New Guinea PNG +
Paraguay Paraguay X
Peru Peru +
Philippines Philippines X
Poland Poland X
Portugal Portugal +
Qatar Qatar +
South Korea Republic of Korea +
Moldova Republic of Moldova Ο
Romania Romania X
Russia Russian Federation +
Rwanda Rwanda X
Saint Kitts and Nevis St Kitts & Nevis Ο
Saint Lucia St Lucia Ο
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines St Vincent & Grenadines +
Samoa Samoa Ο
San Marino San Marino Ο
São Tomé and Príncipe Sao Tome & Principe Ο
Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia +
Senegal Senegal +
Serbia Serbia  +
Seychelles Seychelles +
Sierra Leone Sierra Leone Ο
Singapore Singapore +
Slovakia Slovakia +
Slovenia Slovenia +
Solomon Islands Solomon Islands X
Somalia Somalia +
South Africa South Africa +
South Sudan South Sudan X
Spain Spain +
Sri Lanka Sri Lanka +
Sudan Sudan +
Suriname Suriname +
Swaziland Swaziland Ο
Sweden Sweden +
Switzerland Switzerland +
Syria Syrian Arab Republic +
Tajikistan Tajikistan +
Thailand Thailand +
Republic of Macedonia Republic of Macedonia +
East Timor Timor-Leste Ο
Togo Togo
Tonga Tonga Ο
Trinidad and Tobago Trinidad & Tobago X
Tunisia Tunisia +
Turkey Turkey +
Turkmenistan Turkmenistan Ο
Tuvalu Tuvalu X
Uganda Uganda X
Ukraine Ukraine Ο
United Arab Emirates UAE +
United Kingdom UK/GB +
Tanzania UR Tanzania +
United States USA
Uruguay Uruguay +
Uzbekistan Uzbekistan +
Vanuatu Vanuatu X
Venezuela Venezuela +
Vietnam Vietnam +
Yemen Yemen +
Zambia Zambia Ο
Zimbabwe Zimbabwe +
YES NO ABSTAIN ABSENT
 TOTALS  128  09  35  21
Share

Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel! 45th President of the United States

45th President Donald J Trump Statement Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remarks in response to US President Trump’s Statement.


At that time Jerusalem shall be called the throne of the Lord, and all nations shall gather to it, to the presence of the Lord in Jerusalem, and they shall no more stubbornly follow their own evil heart.

God Said. Jeremiah 3:17 ESV

For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not be quiet, until her righteousness goes forth as brightness, and her salvation as a burning torch. The nations shall see your righteousness, and all the kings your glory, and you shall be called by a new name that the mouth of the Lord will give. You shall be a crown of beauty in the hand of the Lord, and a royal diadem in the hand of your God. You shall no more be termed Forsaken, and your land shall no more be termed Desolate, but you shall be called My Delight Is in Her, and your land Married; for the Lord delights in you, and your land shall be married. For as a young man marries a young woman, so shall your sons marry you, and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you. …

God Said. Isaiah 62:1-12 ESV

On that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea. It shall continue in summer as in winter. And the Lord will be king over all the earth. On that day the Lord will be one and his name one. The whole land shall be turned into a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem. But Jerusalem shall remain aloft on its site from the Gate of Benjamin to the place of the former gate, to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the king’s winepresses. And it shall be inhabited, for there shall never again be a decree of utter destruction. Jerusalem shall dwell in security.

God Said. Zechariah 14:8-11 ESV

Statement by President Trump on Jerusalem

Diplomatic Reception Room

1:07 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. When I came into office, I promised to look at the world’s challenges with open eyes and very fresh thinking. We cannot solve our problems by making the same failed assumptions and repeating the same failed strategies of the past. Old challenges demand new approaches.

My announcement today marks the beginning of a new approach to conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

In 1995, Congress adopted the Jerusalem Embassy Act, urging the federal government to relocate the American embassy to Jerusalem and to recognize that that city — and so importantly — is Israel’s capital. This act passed Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and was reaffirmed by a unanimous vote of the Senate only six months ago.

Yet, for over 20 years, every previous American president has exercised the law’s waiver, refusing to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem or to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city.

Presidents issued these waivers under the belief that delaying the recognition of Jerusalem would advance the cause of peace. Some say they lacked courage, but they made their best judgments based on facts as they understood them at the time. Nevertheless, the record is in. After more than two decades of waivers, we are no closer to a lasting peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. It would be folly to assume that repeating the exact same formula would now produce a different or better result.

Therefore, I have determined that it is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

While previous presidents have made this a major campaign promise, they failed to deliver. Today, I am delivering.

I’ve judged this course of action to be in the best interests of the United States of America and the pursuit of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This is a long-overdue step to advance the peace process and to work towards a lasting agreement.

Israel is a sovereign nation with the right like every other sovereign nation to determine its own capital. Acknowledging this as a fact is a necessary condition for achieving peace.

It was 70 years ago that the United States, under President Truman, recognized the State of Israel. Ever since then, Israel has made its capital in the city of Jerusalem — the capital the Jewish people established in ancient times. Today, Jerusalem is the seat of the modern Israeli government. It is the home of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, as well as the Israeli Supreme Court. It is the location of the official residence of the Prime Minister and the President. It is the headquarters of many government ministries.

For decades, visiting American presidents, secretaries of state, and military leaders have met their Israeli counterparts in Jerusalem, as I did on my trip to Israel earlier this year.

Jerusalem is not just the heart of three great religions, but it is now also the heart of one of the most successful democracies in the world. Over the past seven decades, the Israeli people have built a country where Jews, Muslims, and Christians, and people of all faiths are free to live and worship according to their conscience and according to their beliefs.

Jerusalem is today, and must remain, a place where Jews pray at the Western Wall, where Christians walk the Stations of the Cross, and where Muslims worship at Al-Aqsa Mosque.

However, through all of these years, presidents representing the United States have declined to officially recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. In fact, we have declined to acknowledge any Israeli capital at all.

But today, we finally acknowledge the obvious: that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. This is nothing more, or less, than a recognition of reality. It is also the right thing to do. It’s something that has to be done.

That is why, consistent with the Jerusalem Embassy Act, I am also directing the State Department to begin preparation to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This will immediately begin the process of hiring architects, engineers, and planners, so that a new embassy, when completed, will be a magnificent tribute to peace.

In making these announcements, I also want to make one point very clear: This decision is not intended, in any way, to reflect a departure from our strong commitment to facilitate a lasting peace agreement. We want an agreement that is a great deal for the Israelis and a great deal for the Palestinians. We are not taking a position of any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved.

The United States remains deeply committed to helping facilitate a peace agreement that is acceptable to both sides. I intend to do everything in my power to help forge such an agreement. Without question, Jerusalem is one of the most sensitive issues in those talks. The United States would support a two-state solution if agreed to by both sides.

In the meantime, I call on all parties to maintain the status quo at Jerusalem’s holy sites, including the Temple Mount, also known as Haram al-Sharif.

Above all, our greatest hope is for peace, the universal yearning in every human soul. With today’s action, I reaffirm my administration’s longstanding commitment to a future of peace and security for the region.

There will, of course, be disagreement and dissent regarding this announcement. But we are confident that ultimately, as we work through these disagreements, we will arrive at a peace and a place far greater in understanding and cooperation.

This sacred city should call forth the best in humanity, lifting our sights to what it is possible; not pulling us back and down to the old fights that have become so totally predictable. Peace is never beyond the grasp of those willing to reach.

So today, we call for calm, for moderation, and for the voices of tolerance to prevail over the purveyors of hate. Our children should inherit our love, not our conflicts.

I repeat the message I delivered at the historic and extraordinary summit in Saudi Arabia earlier this year: The Middle East is a region rich with culture, spirit, and history. Its people are brilliant, proud, and diverse, vibrant and strong. But the incredible future awaiting this region is held at bay by bloodshed, ignorance, and terror.

Vice President Pence will travel to the region in the coming days to reaffirm our commitment to work with partners throughout the Middle East to defeat radicalism that threatens the hopes and dreams of future generations.

It is time for the many who desire peace to expel the extremists from their midst. It is time for all civilized nations, and people, to respond to disagreement with reasoned debate –- not violence.

And it is time for young and moderate voices all across the Middle East to claim for themselves a bright and beautiful future.

So today, let us rededicate ourselves to a path of mutual understanding and respect. Let us rethink old assumptions and open our hearts and minds to possible and possibilities. And finally, I ask the leaders of the region — political and religious; Israeli and Palestinian; Jewish and Christian and Muslim — to join us in the noble quest for lasting peace.

Thank you. God bless you. God bless Israel. God bless the Palestinians. And God bless the United States. Thank you very much. Thank you.

(The proclamation is signed.)

END

1:19 P.M. EST

Original Source: whitehouse.gov/the-press-office

 

Share

Nov 2017 The U.S. Middle East Peace Plan?

• No American or European on the face of this earth could force a Palestinian leader to sign a peace treaty with Israel that would be rejected by an overwhelming majority of his people.

• Trump’s “ultimate solution” may result in some Arab countries signing peace treaties with Israel. These countries anyway have no real conflict with Israel. Why should there not be peace between Israel and Kuwait? Why should there not be peace between Israel and Oman? Do any of the Arab countries have a territorial dispute with Israel? The only “problem” the Arab countries have with Israel is the one concerning the Palestinians.

• The question remains: how will the Saudis and the rest of the international community respond to ongoing Palestinian rejectionism and intransigence?

Last week Saudis (PA) Leader Abbas to Riyadh

Who said that Palestinians have no respect for Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab countries? They do.

Palestinians have respect for the money of their Arab brethren. The respect they lack is for the heads of the Arab states, and the regimes and royal families there.

It is important to take this into consideration in light of the growing talk about Saudi Arabia’s effort to help the Trump Administration market a comprehensive peace plan for the Middle East, the details of which remain intriguingly mysterious.

Last week, the Saudis unexpectedly summoned Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas to Riyadh for talks on Trump’s “ultimate solution” for the Israeli-Arab conflict, reportedly being promoted by Jared Kushner.

According to unconfirmed reports, the Saudis pressured Abbas to endorse the Trump Administration’s “peace plan.” Abbas was reportedly told that he had no choice but to accept the plan or resign. At this stage, it remains unclear how Abbas responded to the Saudi “ultimatum.”

Last week, the Saudis unexpectedly summoned Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to Riyadh for talks on Trump’s “ultimate solution” for the Israeli-Arab conflict. Abbas was reportedly told that he had no choice but to accept the plan or resign. Pictured: Abbas on a previous visit to Saudi Arabia, on February 23, 2015, meeting with Saudi King Salman. (Photo by Thaer Ghanaim/PPO via Getty Images)

“ultimate solution”

If true, the Saudi “ultimatum” to Abbas is tantamount to asking him to sign his death warrant. Abbas cannot afford to be seen by his people as being in collusion with an American “peace plan” that does not comply completely with their demands. Abbas has repeatedly made it clear that he will not accept anything less than a sovereign Palestinian state on all the pre-1967 lands, including east Jerusalem. He has also emphasized that the Palestinians will never give up the “right of return” for millions of “refugees” to their former homes inside Israel. Moreover, Abbas has clarified that the Palestinians will not accept the presence of any Israeli in their future Palestinian state.

Abbas has done his dirty work well. He knows that he cannot come back to his people with anything less than what he promised them. He knows that his people have been radicalized to the point that they will not agree to any concessions or compromise with Israel.

And who is responsible for this radicalization? Abbas and other Palestinian leaders, who continue unendingly to tell their people through the media, discourse and mosques that any concession to Israel constitutes treason, pure and simple.

President Donald Trump meets with Saudi Defense Minister and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, March 14, 2017. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

So it would be naïve to think that Saudi Arabia or any other Arab country would be able to strong-arm any Palestinian leader to accept a “peace plan” that requires the Palestinians to make concessions to Israel. Abbas may have much respect for the ambitious and savvy young crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman. This respect, however, certainly stops at the border of the political suicide – and extreme personal risk — from Abbas’s point of view.

Abbas is now caught between two choices, both disastrous: On the one hand, he needs the political backing of his Arab brothers. This is the most he can expect from the Arab countries, most of whom do not give the Palestinians a penny. It is worth noting that, by and large, the Arab countries discarded the Palestinians after the PLO and Yasser Arafat openly supported Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Kuwait was one of several Gulf countries that used to provide the Palestinians with billions of dollars a year. No more.

Since then, the Palestinians have been almost entirely dependent on American and European financial aid. It is safe to assume, then, that the US and EU have more leverage with the Palestinians than most Arab countries.

Nevertheless, no American or European on the face of this Earth could force a Palestinian leader to sign a peace treaty with Israel that would be rejected by an overwhelming majority of his people.

Trump’s “ultimate solution” may result in some Arab countries signing peace treaties with Israel. These countries anyway have no real conflict with Israel. Why should there not be peace between Israel and Kuwait? Why should there not be peace between Israel and Oman? Do any of the Arab countries have a territorial dispute with Israel? The only “problem” the Arab countries have with Israel is the one concerning the Palestinians.

For now, it appears that the vast majority of Arab regimes no longer care about the Palestinians and their leaders. The Palestinians despise the Arab leaders as much as they despise each other. It is a mutual feeling. The Palestinians particularly despise any Arab leader who is aligned with the US. They do not consider the US an honest broker in the Israeli-Arab conflict. The Palestinians, in fact, view the US as being “biased” in favor of Israel, regardless of whether the man sitting in the Oval Office is a Democrat or Republican.

The Saudi crown prince is viewed by Palestinians as a US ally. His close relations with Jared Kushner are seen with suspicion not only by Palestinians, but by many other Arabs as well. Palestinian political analysts such as Faisal Abu Khadra believe that the Palestinian leadership should prepare itself to face the “mysterious” Trump “peace plan.” They are skeptical that the plan would meet the demands of the Palestinians.

The Palestinians appear to be united in rejecting the Trump Administration’s effort to “impose” a solution on them. They are convinced that the Americans, with the help of Saudi Arabia and some Arab countries, are working towards “liquidating” the Palestinian cause. Abbas and his rivals in Hamas now find themselves dreading the US administration’s “peace plan.”

Like lemmings drawn to the sea, the Palestinians seem to be marching towards yet another scenario where they “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” The question remains: how will the Saudis and the rest of the international community respond to ongoing Palestinian rejectionism and intransigence?

Original Source: Date-stamped: 2017, November, 13. | Time-stamped: 5:00 am | Author: Bassam Tawil | Article Title:The U.S. Middle East Peace Plan? | Article Link: gatestoneinstitute.org
Share

Calls for Manchester venue to be fined for hosting David Icke

Manchester Council have been urged to penalise the O2 Apollo for allowing a ‘modern day hate preacher’ a platform to speak

4cm Editors reply to the article

Seriously what a load of crock Icke is not anti-Semitic or a hate preacher try attending a complete 12 hours session or listen to all his videos and get the information right before you cry anti-Semitic, the royal family have more to gripe about he speaks of the Royal Family’s having Reptilian heritage.. LOL

Icke considers labels and race are illusionally nonsense as we when it’s all boiled down we are mere dust! What you are printing is fake news! David Icke is against Political system called Zionism and the Secret Societies he speaks out against which have linkage to Zionism.

He just asks the hard questions and explores the possibilities linked to the question. If you don’t like what he putting forward then provide in-depth factual clear articulated rebuttals to any premises he may be putting forward. 

Gagging is what Hitler did remember, so engage in intelligent dialogue

In view of all I’ve said about Icke I would like to Clearly State I don’t agree with his overall perceptions of Israel and Palestine he leaves out a critical factor in his premise as he has dismissed it as non-existent 

“The Biblical Accounts of God and his Dealings with mankind” as Icke would suggest the God of the Bible was an alien etc., so the mix of his world view is diametrically opposite to a person who adheres to the Biblical account of God and Mankind.

Any attempt to boil down the major drivers in David is a monumental task, nor is everything he says far-fetched, many observations he makes are solid and valid particularly secret societies, shadow governments and one world order agenda, which by all appearance has just suffered a serious blow with Clinton’s loss in the 2016 elections. Time will tell which side of the line President Trump actually settles on, I’m hearing signals in his speech which indicates he’s been made aware of things only a handful get to know which applies massive force on his position he’s entered office under. 

It only took a month and the smile was wiped of Obama’s face when he first took office. Probably after the fireside chat from Players we know not what I’d call the shadow people. The test is will he blow their cover and lift the lid on all the secrets which have manipulated all Presidents since the 1940’s

Share

29 Dec. Kerry’s Speech Will Make Peace Harder

What if the Secretary of State gave a policy speech and no one cared? Because Secretary Kerry’s speech came after its abstention on the Security Council vote, few in Israel will pay any attention to anything he said. Had the speech came before the abstention, there would have been some possibility of it influencing the debate within Israel. But following the U.S. abstention, Kerry has lost all credibility with Israelis across the political spectrum.

This is why his speech wasn’t even aired live on Israeli TV.

The speech itself was as one-sided as the abstention.


It failed to mention the repeated offers from Israel to end the occupation and settlements, and to create a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza: Arafat’s rejection of the Clinton-Barak proposals in 2000-2001: and Abbas’ failure to respond to the Olmert offer in 2008. To fail to mention these important points is to demonstrate the bias of the speaker.


Kerry also discussed the Palestinian refugees, without even mentioning the equal member of Jewish refugees from Arab and Muslim countries. If Palestinian refugees deserve compensation, why don’t Jewish refugees deserve the same?

Finally Kerry seemed to confirm that in his view any changes from the pre-1967 lines would not be recognized without mutual agreement.

This means that the prayer plaza at the Western Wall, the access roads to Hebrew University and Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus, and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem are now all illegally occupied.

This is, of course, a non-starter for Israelis.

It is also wrong as a matter of history and law.

Jordan captured these historically Jewish areas in 1948, when all the surrounding Arab countries attacked the new Jewish nation in an attempt to destroy it. Jordan’s illegal occupation and ethnic cleansing of Jews was accompanied by the destruction of synagogues, cemeteries, and schools, and the bringing in of Arab settlers to move into the Jewish homes. When Jordan attacked Israel again in 1967, Israel recaptured these Jewish areas and allowed Jews to return to them. That is not an illegal occupation. It is a liberation.

By failing to distinguish between settlement expansion deep into the West Bank and reclaiming historical Jewish areas in the heart of Jerusalem, Kerry made the same fundamental error that the Security Council resolution made. Moreover, equating Jewish Jerusalem with Amona and other Jewish settlements deep in the West Bank plays into the hands of Jewish hard right extremists who also believe there is no difference between Jerusalem and Judea-Samaria: both are equally part of the historic Jewish homeland. Kerry thinks they are equally illegal; the right wing extremists believe they are equally legal. Both wrongly believe they are equal.

Kerry’s one-sidedness was also evident in his failure to press the Palestinian leadership to accept Netanyahu’s open offer to begin negotiations immediately with no preconditions. Instead, he seemed to justify the Palestinian unwillingness to enter into negotiations now.

Kerry’s pessimism about the two-state solution poses the danger of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The existing settlements — even if expanded — do not pose any danger to the two-state solution, if the Palestinians really want their own state more than they want there not to be a Jewish state. A contiguous Palestinian state is certainly possible even if all the existing settlements were to remain. Israel proved that in Gaza when it dismantled every single Jewish settlement and evacuated every single Jew from the Gaza strip. It is simply a historical geographical and logical error to assume that continuing settlement building — whether one agrees with it or not, and I do not — dooms the two-state solution. To the contrary, settlement expansion is the consequence of Palestinian of the Palestinian refusal to accept repeated offers from Israeli governments to end the occupation and settlements in exchange for peace.

The primary barrier to the two-state solution remains the Palestinian unwillingness to accept the U.N. resolution of 1947 calling for two states for two peoples — the Jewish people and the Arab people. This means explicit recognition by Palestinians to accept Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. Kerry did not sufficiently address this issue.

The most important point Kerry made is that the Obama administration will not unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state, without an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. He also implied that U.S. will not push for any additional Security Council resolution. Kerry’s speech is therefore just that: a speech with little substance and no importance. It will be quickly forgotten along with the many other one-sided condemnations of Israel that litter the historical record.

Kerry would have done a real service to peace if he had pressed the Palestinian leadership to come to the negotiation table as hard as he pressed the Israeli leadership to end settlement expansions. But his one-sided presentation did not move the peace process forward. Let us hope it does not set it back too far. What a missed opportunity — a tragedy that could have been easily averted by a more balanced approach both at the Security Council and the Kerry speech.

I hope the Trump administration will understand, and act on, the reality that the real barrier to peace is the unwillingness of the Palestinian authority to sit down and negotiate with Israel, with each side making painful compromises, and both sides agreeing to end the conflict once and for all.

Date: 2016, December, 29 | By: Alan M. Dershowitz | Source: www.gatestoneinstitute.org | Title: Kerry's Speech Will Make Peace Harder
Share

Disgraceful Speech: John Kerry Blasts Israeli Government, Presents Six Points of Future Peace Deal

FULL TRANSCRIPT: Kerry Blasts Israeli Government, Presents Six Points of Future Peace Deal
Israel’s PM Netanyahu fears Kerry’s speech may form basis for more UN action on Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.761881

Haaretz  Dec 28, 2016 8:31 PM
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.761881

Read full transcript:

Thank you all. It’s good to be here even in the middle of a holiday week. I wish you all a happy and productive new year. Today, I want to share candid thoughts about an issue that for decades has animated the foreign policy dialogue here and around the world – the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Throughout his administration, President Obama has been deeply committed to Israel and its security, and that commitment has guided his pursuit of peace in the Middle East.

This is an issue which I’ve worked on intensely during my time as Secretary of State for one simple reason: because the two state solution is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. 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 U.S. interests in the region. I would like to explain why that future is now in jeopardy, and provide some context for why we could not, 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. I am also here to share my conviction that there is still a way forward if the responsible parties are willing to act. And I want to share practical suggestions for how to preserve and advance the prospects for the just and lasting peace that both sides deserve. It is vital that we have an honest, clear-eyed conversation about the uncomfortable truths and difficult choices, because the alternative that is fast becoming the reality on the ground is in nobody’s interest – not the Israelis, not the Palestinians, not the region — and not the United States.

I want to stress that point: My job, above all, is to defend the United States of America — to stand up for and defend our values and our interests in the world. If we were to stand idly by and know that in doing so we are allowing a dangerous dynamic to take hold which promises greater conflict and instability to a region in which we have vital interests, we would be derelict in our own responsibilities. Regrettably, some seem to believe that the US friendship means the US must accept any policy, regardless of our own interests, our own positions, our own words, our own principles — even after urging again and again that the policy must change. Friends need to tell each other the hard truths, and friendships require mutual respect.

Israel’s permanent representative to the United Nations, who does not support a two-state solution, said after the vote last week: “It was to be expected that Israel’s greatest ally would act in accordance with the values that we share” and veto this resolution. I am compelled to respond that the United States, did in fact vote “in accordance with our values,” just as previous U.S. administrations have done at the Security Council. They fail to recognize that this friend, the United States, that has done more to support Israel than any other country, this friend that has blocked countless efforts to delegitimize Israel, 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 eyes.

And that’s the bottom line: the vote in the UN was about preserving the two state solution. That’s what we were standing up for: Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state, living side by side in peace and security with its neighbors. That’s what we are trying to preserve, for our sake and for theirs. In fact, this administration has been Israel’s greatest friend and supporter, with an absolutely unwavering commitment to advancing Israel’s security and protecting its legitimacy. On this point, I want to be very clear. No American Administration has done more for Israel’s security than Barack Obama’s.

The Israeli Prime Minister himself has noted our unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation. Our military exercises are more advanced than ever. Our assistance for Iron Dome has saved countless Israeli lives. We have consistently supported Israel’s right to defend itself, by itself, including during actions in Gaza that sparked great controversy. Time and again we have demonstrated that we have Israel’s back. We have strongly opposed boycotts, divestment campaigns and sanctions targeting Israel in international fora, whenever and wherever its legitimacy was attacked, and we have fought for its inclusion across the UN system.

In the midst of our own financial crisis and budget deficits, we repeatedly increased funding to support Israel. In fact, more than half of our entire global Foreign Military Financing goes to Israel. And this fall, we concluded an historic 38 billion dollar Memorandum of Understanding that exceeds any military assistance package the U.S. has provided to any country, at any time, and that will invest in cutting edge missile defense, and sustain Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge for years to come. This commitment to Israel’s security is very personal for me. On my first trip to Israel as a young senator in 1986, I was captivated by a special country I immediately admired and soon grew to love.

Over the years, like so many others who are drawn to this extraordinary place, I have climbed Masada, swum in the Dead Sea, driven from one Biblical city to another. I have also seen the dark side of Hezbollah’s rocket storage facilities just across the border in Lebanon, walked through exhibits on the hell of the Holocaust at Yad Vashem, stood on the Golan Heights, and piloted an Israeli jet over the tiny airspace of Israel, which would make anyone understand the importance of security to Israelis. Out of those experiences came a steadfast commitment to Israel’s security that has never wavered for a single minute in my 28 years in the Senate or my 4 years as Secretary.

I have also often visited West Bank communities, where I met Palestinians struggling for basic freedom and dignity amidst the occupation, passed by the military checkpoints that can make even the most routine daily trips to work or school an ordeal, and heard from business leaders who could not get the permits needed to get their products to the market and families who have struggled to secure permission to travel for needed medical care. And I have witnessed first-hand the ravages of a conflict that has gone on for far too long.

I’ve seen Israeli children in Sderot whose playgrounds had been hit by Katyusha rockets, and visited shelters next to schools in Kiryat Shmona that kids had 15 seconds to get to after a warning siren went off. I’ve also seen the devastation of war in the Gaza Strip, where Palestinian girls in Izbet Abed Rabo played in the rubble of a bombed-out building. No children – Israeli or Palestinian — should have to live like that. So, despite the obvious difficulties, I knew when I became Secretary of State I would do everything in my power to help end the conflict. And I was grateful to be working for President Obama, who was prepared to take risks for peace and was deeply committed to that effort.

Like previous U.S. administrations, we have committed our influence and resources to trying to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict because it would serve American interests to stabilize a volatile region and fulfil America’s commitment to the survival, security and well-being of Israel at peace with its Arab neighbors. Despite our best efforts over the years, the two state solution is now in serious jeopardy. The truth is that trends on the ground –violence, terrorism, incitement, settlement expansion and the seemingly endless occupation – are destroying hopes for peace on both sides and increasingly cementing an irreversible one-state reality that most people do not actually want.

Today, there are a similar number of Jews and Palestinians living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. They have a choice. They can choose to live together in one state, or they can separate into two states. But here is a fundamental reality: 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. Moreover, the Palestinians will never fully realize their vast potential in a homeland of their own with a one state solution. Most on both sides understand this basic choice, and that’s why it’s important that polls of Israelis and Palestinians show there is still strong support for the two state solution – in theory.

They just don’t believe that it can happen. After decades of conflict, many no longer see the other side as people, only as threats and enemies. Both sides continue to push a narrative that plays to people’s fears and reinforces the worst stereotypes – rather than working to change perceptions and build up belief in the possibility of peace. And the truth is, the extraordinary polarization in this conflict extends beyond Israelis and Palestinians. Allies of both sides are content to reinforce this “with us or against us mentality” where too often anyone who questions Palestinian actions is an apologist for the occupation and anyone who disagrees with Israeli policy is cast as anti-Israel or even anti-Semitic.

That’s one of the most striking realties about the current situation: This critical decision about the future – one state or two states — is effectively being made on the ground every day, despite the expressed opinion of the majority of the people. The status quo is leading towards one state and perpetual occupation, but most of the public either ignores it or has given up hope that anything can be done to change it. With this passive resignation, the problem only gets worse, the risks get greater and the choices are narrowed. This sense of hopelessness among Israelis is exacerbated by the continuing violence, terrorist attacks against civilians and incitement – which are destroying belief in the possibility of peace.

Let me say it again: There is absolutely no justification for terrorism, and there never will be. The most recent wave of Palestinian violence has included hundreds of terrorist attacks in the past year, including stabbings, shootings, vehicular attacks and bombings, many by individuals who have been radicalized by social media. Yet the murderers of innocents are still glorified on Fatah web sites, including showing attackers next to Palestinian leaders following attacks. And despite statements by President Abbas and his party’s leaders making clear their opposition to violence, too often they send a different message by failing to condemn specific terrorist attacks and naming public squares, streets and schools after terrorists.

President Obama and I have made clear to the Palestinian leadership countless times, publicly and privately, that all incitement to violence must stop. We have consistently condemned violence and terrorism – and even condemned the Palestinian leadership for not condemning it. Far too often, the Palestinians have pursued efforts to delegitimize Israel in international fora. We have strongly opposed these initiatives, including the recent wholly unbalanced and inflammatory UNESCO resolution regarding Jerusalem. And we have made clear our strong opposition to Palestinian efforts against Israel at the ICC, which only set back the prospects for peace. And we all understand that the Palestinian Authority also has more to do to strengthen institutions and improve governance. Most troubling of all, Hamas continues to pursue an extremist agenda: they refuse to accept Israel’s very right to exist.

They have a one state vision of their own: all of the land is Palestine. Hamas and other radical factions are responsible for most explicit forms of incitement to violence, and many of the images they use are truly appalling. And they are willing to kill innocents in Israel and put the people of Gaza at risk in order to advance that agenda. Compounding this, the humanitarian situation in Gaza, exacerbated by the closures of the crossings, is dire.

Gaza is home to one of the world’s densest concentrations of people enduring extreme hardships with few opportunities.1.3 million people out of Gaza’s population of 1.8 million are in need of daily assistance, including food and shelter, most have electricity less than half the time, and only 5 percent of the water is safe to drink. And yet despite the urgency of these needs, Hamas and other militant groups continue to re-arm and divert reconstruction materials to build tunnels, threatening more attacks on Israeli civilians that no government can tolerate.

At the same time, we must be clear about what is happening in the West Bank. The Israeli Prime Minister publicly supports a two state solution, but his current coalition is the most right wing in Israeli history, with an agenda driven by its 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 in the opposite direction, towards one state. In fact, Israel has increasingly consolidated control over much of the West Bank for its own purposes – effectively reversing the transition to greater Palestinian civil authority called for by the Oslo accords. I don’t think most people in Israel – and certainly in the world – have any idea how broad and systematic this process has become. The facts speak for themselves.

The number of settlers in the roughly 130 Israeli settlements east of the 1967 lines has steadily grown. The settler population in the West Bank alone – not including East Jerusalem – has increased by nearly 270,000 since Oslo, including 100,000 just since 2009 when President Obama’s term began. And there is no point pretending they’re just in large settlement blocs: nearly 90,000 settlers are living east of the separation barrier that was created by Israel itself, in the middle of what by any reasonable definition would be the future Palestinian state. And the population of these distant settlements has grown by 20,000 just since 2009. In fact, just recently the government approved a significant new settlement well east of the barrier – closer to Jordan than Israel.

What does that say to Palestinians in particular – but also to the U.S and the world –about Israel’s intentions? Let me emphasize: this is not to say that the settlements are the whole or even primary cause of the conflict – of course they are not. Nor can you say that if they were removed you would have peace without a broader agreement – you would not. And we understand that in a final status agreement, certain settlements would become part of Israel to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 49 years, including the new demographic realities on the ground.

But if more and more settlers are moving into the middle of the Palestinian areas, it’s going to be that much harder to separate, that much harder to imagine transferring sovereignty – and that is exactly the outcome that some are accelerating. Let’s be clear: settlement expansion has nothing to do with Israel’s security; many settlements actually increase the security burden on the IDF. And leaders of the settler movement are motivated by ideological imperatives that entirely ignore legitimate Palestinian aspirations.

Among the most troubling illustrations of this point has been the proliferation of settler outposts that are illegal under Israel’s own laws. They are often located on private Palestinian land and strategically placed to make two states impossible. There are over 100 of these outposts, and since 2011, nearly one third have been – or are being – legalized, despite pledges by past Israeli governments to dismantle many of them. Now, leaders of the settler movement have advanced unprecedented new legislation that would legalize most of the outposts. For the first time, it would apply Israeli domestic law to the West Bank – rather than military law – a major step towards annexation.

When the law passed first reading in the Knesset, one of its chief proponents said proudly: “Today the Israeli Knesset moved from heading towards establishing a Palestinian state towards [Israeli] sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.” Even the Israeli Attorney General has said the draft law is unconstitutional and a violation of international law. Now you may hear that the settlements are not an obstacle to peace because the settlers who don’t want to leave can just stay in Palestine, like the Arab Israelis who live in Israel. But that misses a critical point: the Arab Israelis are citizens of Israel, subject to Israel’s laws. Does anyone really believe the settlers will agree to submit to Palestinian law in Palestine?

Likewise, some supporters of the settlements argue that the settlers could just stay in their settlements, and remain as Israeli citizens in their separate enclaves in the middle of Palestine, protected by the IDF. There are over 80 settlements east of the separation barrier, many located in places that would make a contiguous Palestinian state impossible. Does anyone seriously think that if they just stay where they are you could still have a viable Palestinian state? Some have asked, “Why can’t we build in the blocs which everyone knows will eventually be part of Israel?” The reason building there or anywhere else in the West Bank now results in such pushback is that the decision of what constitutes a bloc is being made unilaterally by the Israeli government, without consultation, without the consent of the Palestinians – and without granting the Palestinians a reciprocal right to build in what will by most accounts be part of Palestine.

Bottom line – without agreement or mutuality, the unilateral choices become a major point of contention. You may hear that these remote settlements aren’t a problem because they only take up a small percentage of the land. Again and again we have made clear that it’s not just a question of the overall amount of land available in the West Bank– it’s whether the land can be connected or is broken up into small parcels that could never constitute a real state. The more outposts that are built, the more settlements expand, the less possible it is to create a contiguous state. So in the end, a settlement is not just the land it’s on, it’s also what the location does to the movement of people, what it does to the ability of a road to connect, what it does to the sense of statehood that is chipped away with each new construction. No one thinking seriously about peace can ignore the reality of the threat settlements pose to peace.

But the problem goes well beyond just settlements: trends indicate a comprehensive effort to take West Bank land for Israel and prevent any Palestinian development there.

Today, the 60% of the West Bank known as Area C – much of which was supposed to be transferred to Palestinian control long ago under the Oslo accords – is effectively off limits to Palestinian development. Most has essentially been taken for exclusive Israeli use by unilaterally designating it as “state land” or including it within the jurisdiction of regional settlement councils. Israeli farms flourish in the Jordan River Valley and Israeli resorts line the shores of the Dead Sea – where Palestinian development is not allowed.

In fact, almost no private Palestinian building is approved in Area C at all – only one permit was issued by Israel in all of 2014 and 2015, while approvals for hundreds of settlement units were advanced during that same period. Moreover, Palestinian structures in Area C that do not have a permit from the Israeli military are potentially subject to demolition. And they are currently being demolished at historically high rates: over 1,300 Palestinians, including over 600 children, have been displaced in 2016 alone — more than any previous year.

So the settler agenda is defining the future in Israel. And their stated purpose is clear: They believe in one state: greater Israel. In fact, one prominent minister who heads a pro-settler party declared just after the U.S. election that “the era of the two state solution is over,” and many other coalition ministers publicly reject a Palestinian state. And they are increasingly getting their way, with plans for hundreds of new units in East Jerusalem recently announced and talk of a major new settlement building effort in the West Bank to follow. So why are we so concerned?

Well ask yourself these questions: What happens if they succeed? Where does that lead? There are currently about 2.75 million Palestinians living under military occupation in the West Bank, most of them in Areas A and B where they have limited autonomy.

They are restricted in their daily movements by a web of checkpoints, and unable to travel into or out of the West Bank without a permit from the Israelis. So if there is only one state, 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 of them of the most basic freedoms – separate but unequal. Nobody can explain how that works. Would an Israeli accept living that way? Would an American? Will the world accept it? If the occupation becomes permanent, over time the Palestinian Authority could dissolve and turn over all administrative and security responsibilities to the Israelis. What would happen then? Who would administer the schools and hospitals? Does Israel want to pay for the billions of dollars of lost international assistance that the PA now receives? Would the Israel Defense Force police the streets in every Palestinian city and town?

How would Israel respond to a growing civil rights movement from Palestinians demanding a right to vote, or widespread protests and unrest across the West Bank? How does Israel reconcile a permanent occupation with its democratic ideals? How does the U.S. continue to defend that and still live up to our own democratic ideals? Nobody has ever provided good answers to those questions because there aren’t any. And there would be an increasing risk of more intense violence between Palestinians and settlers, and complete despair among Palestinians would create fertile ground for extremists. With all the external threats Israel faces, does it really want an intensifying conflict in the West Bank? How does that help Israel’s security?

The answer: It doesn’t. Which is precisely why so many senior Israeli military and intelligence leaders – past and present – believe the two-state solution is the only real answer for Israel’s long term security.

One thing we do know: if Israel goes down the one state path, it will never have true peace with the rest of the Arab world, and I can say that with certainty. The Arab countries have made clear that they will not make peace with Israel without resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — that’s not where their loyalties or their politics are. But there is something new here. Common interests in countering Iran’s destabilizing activities and fighting extremists as well as diversifying their economies have created real possibilities. I have spent a great deal of time with key Arab leaders exploring this, and there is no doubt that they are prepared to have a fundamentally different relationship with Israel.

That was stated in the Arab Peace Initiative, and all my recent conversations have confirmed their readiness, in the context of Israeli-Palestinian peace, not just to normalize relations — but to work openly on securing that peace with significant regional security cooperation. Many have shown a willingness to support serious Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and to take steps on the path to normalization of relations – including public meetings — providing there is meaningful progress towards a two state solution. That is a real opportunity that should not be missed. That raises one final question: is ours the generation that gives up on the dream of a Jewish, democratic state of Israel living in peace and security with its neighbors? Because that is literally what is at stake. That is what informed our vote at the Security Council last week: the need to preserve the two state solution. And both sides must take responsibility for that.

We have repeatedly and emphatically stressed to the Palestinians that all incitement to violence must stop. We have consistently condemned all violence and terrorism. And we have strongly opposed unilateral efforts to delegitimize Israel in international fora. We have made countless public and private exhortations to the Israelis to stop the march of settlements. In literally hundreds of conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu, I have made clear that continued settlement activity would only increase pressure for an international response.

We have all known for some time that the Palestinians were intent on moving forward with a settlements resolution, and I advised the Prime Minister repeatedly that further settlement activity only invited UN action. Yet the settlement activity only increased – including advancing the unprecedented legislation to legalize settler outposts that the Prime Minister himself reportedly warned could expose Israel to action at the Security Council and even international prosecution, before deciding to support it.

In the end, we could not in good conscience protect the most extreme elements of the settler movement as it tries to destroy the two state solution. We could not in good conscience turn a blind eye to Palestinian actions that fan hatred and violence. It is not in U.S. interests to help anyone on either side create a unitary state. We may not be able to stop them, but we cannot be expected to defend them. And it is certainly not the role of any country to vote against its own policies.

That is why we decided not to block the UN resolution that makes clear both sides have to take steps to save the two state solution while there is still time. We did not take this decision lightly. The Obama administration has always defended Israel against any efforts at the UN and any international fora, or biased and one-sided resolutions that seek to undermine its legitimacy or security. And that has not changed. But it’s important to remember that every U.S. administration – Republican and Democratic – has opposed settlements as contrary to the prospects for peace. And action at the UN Security Council is far from unprecedented: In fact, previous U.S. Administrations of both political parties have allowed resolutions that were critical of Israel to pass, including on settlements, on dozens of occasions.

Under George W. Bush alone, the Council passed six resolutions that Israel opposed – including one that endorsed a plan calling for a complete freeze on settlements, including natural growth.

Let me read you the lead paragraph from a New York Times story dated December 23nd: “With the United States abstaining, the Security Council adopted a resolution today strongly deploring Israel’s handling of the disturbances in the occupied territories” – which the resolution defined as including Jerusalem. All of the 14 other Security Council members voted in favor. That story was not written last week; it was written December 23, 1987 — 26 years to the day we voted last week, when Ronald Reagan was president.

Yet despite growing pressure, the Obama administration held a strong line against any UN action – we were the only administration since 1967 that had not allowed any resolution to pass that Israel opposed. In fact, the only time in 8 years the Obama administration exercised its veto at the United Nations was against a one-sided settlements resolution in 2011 that did not mention incitement or violence. Let’s look at what’s happened since then: There have been over 30,000 settlement units advanced through some stage of the planning process.

That’s right: over thirty thousand settlement units. And if we had vetoed this resolution, the United States would have been giving license to further unfettered settlement construction that we fundamentally oppose.

We reject the criticism that this vote abandons Israel. On the contrary, it is not this Resolution that is isolating Israel. It is a policy of permanent settlement construction that risks making peace impossible. Virtually every country in the world other than Israel opposes settlements. That includes many friends of Israel — including the United Kingdom, France and Russia – all of whom voted in favor of the settlements resolution in 2011 and again this year, along with every other member of the Council. In fact, this resolution simply reaffirms statements made by the Security Council on the legality of settlements over several decades; it does not break new ground.

In 1978, the State Department legal advisor advised the Congress of his conclusion that the Israeli government’s program of establishing civilian settlements in the occupied territory is inconsistent with international law. We see no change since then to affect that fundamental conclusion. You may have heard some criticize this resolution for calling East Jerusalem occupied territory. But to be clear, there was absolutely nothing new in last week’s resolution on that issue.

It was one of a long line of Security Council resolutions that included East Jerusalem as part of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, and that includes resolutions passed by the Security Council under President Reagan and President George H.W. Bush. And remember that every U.S. administration since 1967 – along with the entire international community – has recognized East Jerusalem as among the territories that Israel occupied in the Six Day War.

And I want to stress this point: we fully respect Israel’s profound historic and religious ties to the city and its holy sites. This resolution in no manner prejudges the outcome of permanent status negotiations on East Jerusalem, which must of course reflect those ties and realities on the ground. We also strongly reject the notion that somehow the United States was the driving force behind this resolution. The Egyptians and Palestinians had long made clear their intention to bring a resolution to a vote before the end of the year.

The United States did not draft or originate this resolution, nor did we put it forward. It was drafted and ultimately introduced by Egypt, which is one of Israel’s closest friends in the region, in coordination with the Palestinians and others. During the course of this process, we made clear to others, including those on the Security Council, that we would oppose any resolution that did not include language on terrorism and incitement. Making such positions clear is standard practice with resolutions at the Security Council. The Egyptians, Palestinians and many others understood that if the text were more balanced, it was possible we would not block it. But we also made crystal clear that the President would not make a final decision about our own position until we saw the final text. In the end, we did not agree with every word in this resolution.

There are important issues that are not sufficiently addressed – or addressed at all. But we could not in good conscience veto a resolution that condemns violence and incitement, reiterates what has long been the overwhelming consensus international view on settlements, and calls for the parties to start taking constructive steps to advance the two state solution on the ground. Ultimately, it will be up to the Israeli people to decide whether the unusually heated attacks that Israeli officials have directed toward this administration best serve Israel’s national interests and its relationship with an ally that has been steadfast in its support.

Those attacks, alongside allegations of a U.S.-led conspiracy and other manufactured claims, distract and divert attention from what the substance of this vote really was about. We all understand that Israel faces very serious threats in a very tough neighborhood. Israelis are rightfully concerned about making sure that there is not a new terrorist haven next door. And Israelis are fully justified in decrying attempts to delegitimize their state and question the right of a Jewish state to exist.

But this vote was not about that. It was about actions that Israelis and Palestinians are taking that are increasingly rendering a two-state solution impossible. It was not about making peace with the Palestinians now — it was about making sure peace with the Palestinians will be possible in the future. Now we all understand that Israel faces very serious threats in a very tough neighborhood. And Israelis are rightfully concerned about making sure that there is not a new terrorist haven next door. But this vote is not about making peace with the Palestinians now — it is about making sure peace with the Palestinians is possible in the future. So how do we get there?

Since the parties have not yet been able to resume talks, the U.S. and the Middle East Quartet have repeatedly called on both sides to independently demonstrate a genuine commitment to the two state solution – not just with words, but with real actions and policies – to create the conditions for meaningful negotiations. We have called for both sides need to take significant steps on the ground to reverse current trends and send a clear message that they are prepared to fundamentally change the equation – without waiting for the other side to act. We have pushed them to comply with their basic commitments under their own prior agreements in order to advance a two state reality on the ground. We have called for the Palestinians to do everything in their power to stop violence and incitement, including publicly and consistently condemning acts of terrorism and stopping the glorification of violence.

We have called on them to continue efforts to strengthen institutions and improve governance. And we have stressed that the Hamas arms build-up and militant activities in Gaza must stop. Along with our Quartet partners, we have called on Israel to end the policy of settlement construction and expansion, taking of land for exclusive Israeli use, and denying Palestinian development. To reverse this process, the US and our partners have encouraged Israel to resume the transfer of civil authority to the Palestinians in Area C, consistent with the transition called for by Oslo. We have made clear that significant progress across a range of sectors – including housing, agriculture, and natural resources – can be made without negatively impacting Israel’s legitimate security needs. And we’ve called for significantly easing the movement and access restrictions to and from Gaza, with due consideration for Israel’s need to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks.

Let me stress here again: none of these steps would negatively impact Israel’s security. Let me also emphasize – this is not about offering limited economic measures that perpetuate the status quo. We are talking about significant steps that would signal real progress towards creating two states. That’s the bottom line: If we are serious about the two state solution, it is time to start implementing it now. Advancing the process of separation now, in serious way, could make a significant difference in saving the two state solution. And much progress can be made in advance of negotiations, as contemplated by the Oslo process – in fact, these steps will help create the conditions for successful talks. In the end, we all understand that a final status agreement can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the parties, because peace cannot be imposed.

There are other countries in the UN who believe it is our job to dictate the terms of a solution in the Security Council. Others want us to simply recognize a Palestinian state absent an agreement. These are not the choices we will make. We choose instead, drawing on the experiences of the past eight years, to provide a way forward when the parties are ready for serious negotiations. In a place where the narratives from the past powerfully inform the present, it’s important to understand the history. We mark this year and next a series of milestones that I believe both illustrate the two sides of the conflict and form the basis for its resolution. It’s worth touching on them briefly. 120 years ago, the First Zionist Congress was convened in Basel by a group of Jewish visionaries who decided that the only effective response to the waves of anti-Semitic horrors sweeping across Europe was to create a state in the historic home of the Jewish people, where their ties to the land went back centuries – a state that could defend its borders, protect its people, and live in peace with its neighbors.

That was the modern beginning and it remains the dream of Israel today. Nearly seventy years ago, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 finally paved the way to making the State of Israel a reality.

The concept was simple: create two states for two peoples, one Jewish and one Arab, to realize the national aspirations of both Jews and Palestinians. Both Israel and the PLO referenced Resolution 181 in their respective Declarations of Independence. The United States recognized Israel seven minutes after its creation – but the Palestinians and the Arab world did not, and from its birth Israel had to fight for its life. Palestinians also suffered terribly in that 1948 war, including many who had lived for generations in a land that had long been their home too.

When Israel celebrates its 70th anniversary in 2018, the Palestinians will mark a very different anniversary: 70 years since what they call the “Nakba,” or catastrophe.

Next year will also mark 50 years since the end of the Six-Day War, when Israel again fought for its survival. And Palestinians will again mark just the opposite: 50 years of military occupation. Both sides have accepted UN Security Council Resolution 242, which called for the withdrawal of Israel from territory it occupied in 1967 in return for peace and secure borders, as the basis for ending the conflict. It has been more than twenty years since Israel and the PLO signed their first agreement – the Oslo Accords – and the PLO formally recognized Israel. Both sides committed to a plan to transition much of the West Bank and Gaza to Palestinian control during permanent status negotiations that would put an end to their conflict. Unfortunately, neither the transition nor the final agreement came about – and both sides bear responsibility for that. Finally, some 15 years ago King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia came out with the historic Arab Peace Initiative, which offered fully normalized relations with Israel when it made peace – an enormous opportunity then and now, which has never fully been embraced.

That history was critical to our approach to trying to resolve the conflict. And based on my experience with both sides over the last four years, including the nine months of formal negotiations, the core issues can be resolved if there is leadership on both sides committed to finding a solution. In the end, I believe the negotiations did not fail because the gaps were too wide – but because the level of trust was too low. Both sides were concerned that any concessions would not be reciprocated — and would come at too great a political cost. And the deep pubic skepticism only made it more difficult to take risks. In the countless hours we spent working on a detailed framework, we worked through numerous formulations and developed specific bridging proposals. And we came away with a clear understanding of the fundamental needs of both sides. In the past two and a half years, I have tested ideas with key regional and international stakeholders, including our Quartet partners. I believe what has emerged is a broad consensus on balanced principles that would satisfy the core needs of both sides.

President Clinton deserves great credit for laying out extensive parameters designed to bridge gaps in advanced final status negotiations sixteen years ago. Today, with mistrust too high to even start talks, we are at the opposite end of the spectrum. Neither side is willing to even risk acknowledging the other’s bottom line, and more negotiations that do not produce progress will only reinforce the worst fears. Everyone understands that negotiations would be complex and difficult, and nobody can be expected to agree on the final result in advance. But if the parties could at least demonstrate that they understand the other side’s most basic needs — and are potentially willing to meet them if theirs are also met at the end of comprehensive negotiations — enough trust could be established to enable a meaningful process to begin.

It is in that spirit that we offer the following principles: not to prejudge or impose an outcome, but to provide a possible basis for serious negotiations when the parties are ready. Individual countries may have more detailed policies on these issues – as we do – but I believe there is broad consensus that a final status agreement that could meet the needs of both sides would:

1. Provide for secure and recognized international borders between Israel and a viable and contiguous Palestine, negotiated based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed equivalent swaps. Resolution 242, which has been enshrined in international law for 50 years, provides for the withdrawal of Israel from territory it occupied in 1967 in return for peace with its neighbors and secure and recognized borders. It has long been accepted by both sides, and it remains the basis for an agreement today. As Secretary, one of the first issues I worked out with the Arab League was their agreement that the reference in the Arab Peace Initiative to the 1967 lines included the concept of land swaps, which the Palestinians have acknowledged.

This is necessary to reflect practical realities on the ground, and mutually agreed equivalent swaps will ensure the agreement is fair to both sides. There is also broad recognition of Israel’s need to ensure that the borders are secure and defensible, and that the territory of Palestine is viable and contiguous. Virtually everyone I have spoken to has been clear on this principle as well: No changes by Israel to the 1967 lines will be recognized by the international community unless agreed to by both sides.

2. Fulfill the vision of UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of two states for two peoples, one Jewish and one Arab, with mutual recognition and full equal rights for all their respective citizens. This has been the foundational principle of the two state solution from the beginning: Creating a state for the Jewish people and a state for the Palestinian people, where each can achieve their national aspirations. And resolution 181 is incorporated into the foundational documents of both the Israelis and Palestinians. Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state has been the U.S. position for years, and based on my conversations, I am convinced many others are now are prepared to accept it as well – provided the need for a Palestinian state is also addressed.

We also know there are some 1.7 million Arab citizens who call Israel their home and must now and always be able to live as equal citizens, which makes this a difficult issue for Palestinians and others in the Arab world. That is why it is so important that in recognizing each other’s homeland – Israel for the Jewish people and Palestine for the Palestinian people – both sides reaffirm their commitment to upholding full equal rights for all of their respective citizens.

3. Provide for a just, agreed, fair and realistic solution to the Palestinian refugee issue, with international assistance, that includes compensation, options and assistance in finding permanent homes, acknowledgment of suffering and other measures necessary for a comprehensive resolution consistent with two states for two peoples. The plight of many Palestinian refugees is heartbreaking, and all agree their needs must be addressed.

As part of a comprehensive resolution, they must be provided with compensation, their suffering must be acknowledged, and there will need to be options and assistance in finding permanent homes. The international community can provide significant support and assistance, including in raising money to help ensure the compensation and other needs of the refugees are met, and many have expressed a willingness to contribute. But there is general recognition that the solution must be consistent with two states for two peoples, and cannot affect the fundamental character of Israel.

4. Provide an agreed resolution for Jerusalem as the internationally recognized capital of the two states, and protect and assure freedom of access to the holy sites consistent with the established status quo. Jerusalem is the most sensitive issue for both sides, and the solution must meet the needs not only of the parties, but of all three monotheistic faiths.

That is why the holy sites that are sacred to billions of people around the world must be protected and remain accessible, and the established status quo maintained. Most acknowledge that Jerusalem should not be divided again like it was in 1967. At the same time, there is broad recognition that there will be no peace agreement without reconciling the basic aspirations of both sides to have capitals there.

5. Satisfy Israel’s security needs and bring a full end to the occupation, while ensuring that Israel can defend itself effectively and that Palestine can provide security for its people in a sovereign and non-militarized state. Security is the fundamental issue for Israel.

Everyone understands that no Israeli government can ever accept an agreement that does not satisfy its security needs or risks creating an enduring security threat like Gaza in the West Bank. And Israel must be able to defend itself effectively, including against terrorism and other regional threats. In fact, there is a real willingness by Egypt, Jordan and others to work together with Israel on meeting key security challenges. I believe these collective efforts, including close coordination on border security, intelligence sharing, and joint operations, can play a critical role in securing the peace. At the same time, fully ending the occupation is the fundamental issue for the Palestinians: They need to know that the military occupation will really end after an agreed transitional process, and that they can live in freedom and dignity in a sovereign state while providing security for their population even without a military of their own. This is widely accepted as well.

Balancing those requirements was among the most important challenge we faced in the negotiations, but one where the United States could provide the most assistance. That’s why a team led by General John Allen, one of our nation’s foremost military minds, and dozens of experts from the Department of Defense and other agencies, engaged extensively with the IDF on trying to find solutions that could help Israel address its legitimate security needs. They developed innovative approaches to creating unprecedented, multi-layered border security, enhancing Palestinian capacity, and enabling Israel to retain the ability to address threats by itself even when the occupation had ended. General Allen and his team were not suggesting any particular outcome or timeline– they were simply working on ways to support whatever the negotiators agreed to. And they did some very impressive work that gives me confidence that Israel’s security requirements can be met.

6. End the conflict and all outstanding claims, enabling normalized relations and enhanced regional security for all as envisaged by the Arab Peace Initiative. It is essential for both sides that the final status agreement resolves all the outstanding issues and finally brings closure to the conflict, so they can move ahead to a new era of peaceful coexistence and cooperation. For Israel, this must also bring broader peace with its Arab neighbors. That is the fundamental promise of the Arab Peace Initiative, which key Arab leaders have affirmed. The API also envisions enhanced security for all in the region. This is the area where Israel and the Arab world are looking at the greatest moment of potential transformation in the Middle East since Israel’s creation in 1948. The Arab world faces its own set of security challenges. With Israeli-Palestinian peace, Israel, the United States, Jordan and Egypt — together with the GCC countries — would be ready and willing to define a new security partnership for the region that would be groundbreaking. Ladies and Gentlemen: it’s vital that we all work to keep open the possibility of peace, and that we not lose hope in the two state solution, no matter how difficult it may seem — because there really is no viable alternative.

We all know that a speech alone won’t produce peace. But based on over 30 years of experience and the lessons from the past 4 years, I have suggested a practical path that the parties could take. Realistic steps on the ground now, consistent with the parties own prior commitments, that will begin the process of separating into two states, a political horizon to work towards to create the conditions for successful final status talks, and a basis for negotiations that the parties could accept to demonstrate that they are serious about making peace. We can only encourage them to take this path, we cannot walk down it for them. But if they ever take those steps, peace would bring extraordinary benefits in enhancing the security, stability and prosperity of Israelis, Palestinians and the entire region.

The Palestinian economy has amazing potential in the context of independence, with major private sector investment possibilities and a talented young workforce. And Israel’s economy could enjoy unprecedented growth as it becomes a regional economic powerhouse, taking advantage of its unparalleled culture of innovation and trading opportunities with new Arab partners. Meanwhile, security challenges could be addressed by an entirely new security arrangement, in which Israel cooperates openly with key Arab states. That is the future that everyone should be working for. President Obama and I know that the incoming Administration has signaled that they will take a different path, and even suggested breaking from long-standing U.S. policies on settlements, Jerusalem — and possibly the two state solution. That is for them to decide. But we cannot – in good conscience –do nothing, and say nothing, when we see the hope of peace slipping away.

This is a time to stand up for what is right. We have long known what two-states, living side by side, in peace and security looks like. We should not be afraid to say so. I really began to reflect on what we have learned — and the way ahead — when I recently joined President Obama in Jerusalem for the state funeral for Shimon Peres. Shimon was one of the founding fathers of Israel who became one of the world’s great elder-statesmen. I was proud to call him my friend, and I know President Obama was as well. I remembered the first time I saw Shimon in person — standing on the White House lawn for the signing the historic Oslo Accords. And I thought about the last time, at an intimate Shabbat dinner just a few months before he died when we toasted to the future of Israel and to the peace he still so passionately believed in for his people.

He summed it up simply and eloquently, as only Shimon could: “The original mandate gave the Palestinians 48%, now it’s down to 22%. I think 78% is enough for us.” As we laid Shimon to rest that day, many of us couldn’t help but wonder if peace between Israelis and Palestinians was also being buried along with one of its most eloquent champions. We cannot let that happen, that there was simply too much at stake – for future generations of Israelis and Palestinians — to give in to pessimism, especially when peace is in fact still possible. We must not lose hope in the possibility of peace. We must not give in to those who say what is now must always be, that there is no chance for a better future. Ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to make the difficult choices for peace – and if they are, we can all help. And for the sake of future generations of Israelis and Palestinians, for all the people of the region, and for the United States, let’s hope they are prepared to make those choices now. Thank you.

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.761881

 

Share

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responds to ‘John Kerry’ Disgraceful Speech

Waiting For a Sign This is it feature

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Statement in Response to US Secretary of State John Kerry’s Speech: 

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU:

“Before why I explain why this speech was so disappointing to millions of Israelis, I want to say that Israel is deeply grateful to the United States of America, to successive American administrations, to the American Congress, to the American people. We’re grateful for the support Israel has received over many, many decades. Our alliance is based on shared values, shared interests, a sense of shared destiny and a partnership that has endured differences of opinions between our two governments over the best way to advance peace and stability in the Middle East. I have no doubt that our alliance will endure the profound disagreement we have had with the Obama Administration and will become even stronger in the future.

But now I want to express my deep disappointment with the speech today of John Kerry, a speech that was almost as unbalanced as the anti-Israel resolution passed at the UN last week in a speech ostensibly about peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Secretary Kerry paid lip service to the unremitting campaign of terrorism that has been waged by the Palestinians against the Jewish State for nearly a century.

What he did was spend most of his speech blaming Israel for the lack of peace by passionately condemning a policy of enabling Jews to live in their historic homeland and in their eternal capital, Jerusalem.

Hundreds of suicide bombers, thousands – tens of thousands of rockets – millions of Israelis and bomb shelters are not throwaway lines in a speech. They are the realities that the people of Israel had to endure because of mistaken policies; policies that at the time won the thunderous applause of the world.

I don’t seek applause. I seek the security and peace and prosperity and the future of the Jewish State. The Jewish people have sought their place under the sun for 3,000 years and we’re not about to be swayed by mistaken policies that have caused great, great damage.

Israelis do not need to be lectured about the importance of peace by foreign leaders. Israel’s hand has been extended in peace to its neighbors from Day One, from its very first day. We pray for peace. We’ve worked for it every day since then, and thousands of Israeli families have made the ultimate sacrifice to defend our country and advance peace. My family has been one of them. There are many, many others.

No one wants peace more than the people of Israel. Israel remains committed to resolving the outstanding differences between us and the Palestinians through direct negotiations. This is how we made peace with Egypt. This is how we made peace with Jordan. It’s the only way we’ll make peace with the Palestinians.

That has always been Israel’s policy. That has always been America’s policy. Here’s what President Obama himself said at the UN in 2011. He said, “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.”

That’s what President Obama said, and he was right. And until last week, this was repeated over and over again as American policy.

Secretary Kerry said that the United States cannot vote against its own policy – but that’s exactly what it did at the UN, and that’s why Israel opposed last week’s Security Council resolution: because it effectively called the Western Wall ‘occupied Palestinian territory.’

Because it encourages boycotts and sanctions against Israel. That’s what it effectively does. And because it reflects a radical shift in U.S. policy towards the Palestinians on final status issues – those issues that we always agreed, the U.S. and Israel – have to be negotiated directly, face to face, without preconditions.

That shift happened despite the Palestinians walking away from peace and from peace offers time and time again. Despite their refusal to even negotiate peace for the past eight years. And despite the Palestinian Authority inculcating a culture of hatred towards Israel in an entire generation of young Palestinians.

Israel looks forward to working with President-elect Trump and with the American Congress – Democrats and Republicans alike – to mitigate the damage that this resolution has done, and ultimately to repeal it.

Israel hopes that the outgoing Obama administration will prevent any more damage being done to Israel at the UN in its waning days.

I wish I could be comforted by the promise that the U.S. says we will not bring any more resolutions to the UN. That’s what they said about this previous resolution. We have it on absolute incontestable evidence that the United States organized, advanced and brought this resolution to the United Nations Security Council.

We will share that information with the incoming administration. Some of it is sensitive. It’s all true. You saw some of it in the protocol released in an Egyptian paper. There’s plenty more; it’s the tip of the iceberg.

So they say, ‘but we didn’t bring it’ and they could take John Kerry’s speech with the six points. It could be raised in the French international conference two days from now, and then brought to the UN. So France will bring it. Or, Sweden – not a noted friend of Israel – could bring it.

And the United States could say, ‘Well, we can’t vote against our own policy, we’ve just enunciated it.’

I think the United States, if it’s true to its word, or at least, if it’s now true to its word, should now come out and say, we will not allow any resolutions any more resolutions in the Security Council on Israel. Period. Not ‘we will bring’ or ‘not bring’ — ‘We will not allow any’ and stop this game of charades.

I think that the decisions that are vital to Israel’s interests and the future of its children, they won’t be made through speeches in Washington or votes in the United Nations, or conferences in Paris. They’ll be made by the government of Israel around the negotiating table, making them on behalf of the one and only Jewish state, a sovereign nation that is the master of its own fate.

And one final thought.

I personally know the pain, the loss and the suffering of war. That’s why I’m so committed to peace. Because for anyone who’s experienced it as I have, war and terror are horrible.

I want young Palestinian children to be educated like our children – for peace. But they’re not educated for peace.

The Palestinian Authority educates them to lionize terrorists, and to murder Israelis.

My vision is that Israelis and Palestinians both have a future of mutual recognition, of dignity, of mutual respect: co-existence.

But the Palestinian Authority tells them that they will never accept and SHOULD never accept the existence of the Jewish State.

So I ask you: how can you make peace with someone who rejects your very existence?

See, this conflict is not about houses or communities in the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria, the Gaza district or anywhere else.

This conflict is, and has always been about Israel’s very right to exist. That’s why my hundreds of calls to sit with President Abbas for peace talks have gone unanswered.

That’s why my invitation for him to come to the Knesset was never answered.

That’s why the Palestinian government continues to pay anyone who murders Israelis a monthly salary.

The persistent Palestinian refusal to recognize a Jewish State remains the core of the conflict – and its removal is the key to peace.

Palestinian rejection of Israel and support for terror are what the nations of the world should focus on if they truly want to advance peace and I can only express my regret and say that it’s a shame that Secretary Kerry does not see this simple truth.

Thank you.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

source: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/full-text-reaction-by-israeli-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahu-to-secy-kerrys-speech/2016/12/29/

Share