Watchman of Zion

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

1) Listen to the audio

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

1) The current status of the Israel / PLO peace process

Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said that he promised Israel Justice Minister Tzipi Livni during their controversial meeting in London on May 15 that the government would work within his own – not Hamas’s – guidelines. He stressed that he himself may not head the government, but that another Fatah official may, e.g. PA “prime minister” Rami Hamdallah. He also indicated that the government will be comprised entirely of “independent” Palestinian Arab politicians, and that it would be based on four international principles: recognizing Israel, recognizing the terms of international agreements, and the explicit rejection of violence and terrorism. He said the idea of the reconciliation process was to go toward Palestinian elections, “but if something goes wrong along the way, we’ll re-examine matters.”

In addition, Abbas said that the Palestinian leadership does not intend to seek membership in or help from additional UN and other international organizations in the near future. Abbas said that two days before he applied for membership in 15 international organizations at the start of April — one of the steps that led to the collapse of the talks — he sent a formal letter to Netanyahu’s peace emissary, Yitzhak Molcho, and to the American special envoy, Martin Indyk, in which he warned that if Israel did not free a fourth and final batch of long-term prisoners as promised, he would apply to join the 15 groups. He said he delayed the implementation of what had been a decision by the Palestinian leadership to join the organizations for two days to see if the Israeli government would change its position but this did not happen. Israel had balked at releasing the fourth group of prisoners because Abbas sought the freeing of Israeli Arabs as part of the group and because he had not committed to extending the peace talks beyond the end of April deadline.

Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was on the verge of firing Israel chief negotiator and Justice Minister Tzipi Livni after her recent meeting with Palestinian Authority Chief Mahmoud Abbas in London on May 15– but restrained himself. In her meeting with Abbas, Livni expressed Israel’s dissatisfaction with the unity pact he reached with Hamas.The meeting was the first between Abbas and a senior Israeli official since Israel pulled out of the peace talks in response to the Hamas-Fatah unity pact. According to reports, Livni had informed Netanyahu that she was to meet with Abbas. When Netanyahu heard about the meeting, he criticized the move. Previously, Netanyahu had not been aware of the meeting. When Netanyahu found out what Livni was planning, he specifically told her not to meet with Abbas – a directive she subsequently ignored. Netanyahu was prepared to fire Livni, but changed his mind at the last moment, after sources close to Finance Minister Yair Lapid indicated that her firing would trigger a “coalition crisis.” Livni defended her actions by saying, “In order to understand what Abbas wants, we need to talk to him. I believe in direct negotiations. There are no formal negotiations now, but I was in London and he was in London and therefore the meeting took place.” She added, “Suspending the negotiations does not mean boycotting the other side. Boycotting is silly when we are here and the conflict remains.”

Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz, a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party who is close to the prime minister, said that if Israel’s chief peace negotiator, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni meets again with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas against the wishes of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that she will be fired. Netanyahu had thus far treated Livni “with a certain amount of mercy,” said Steinitz but if she defied the prime minister again, “she will no longer be a minister.” All ministers must respect government policy, said Steinitz. The decision-making inner cabinet voted last month to suspend all negotiations with the Palestinians after Abbas approved a unity pact between his Fatah faction of the PLO and the Islamist extremist Hamas, which calls to destroy Israel. Livni voted in favor of the decision.

Livni rejected calls by colleagues in the opposition to quit the coalition, saying that she could be more effective from within the government –particularly, according to her, in preventing Economy Minister Naftali Bennett and others from taking the country in an “irresponsible direction.” Bennett would be delighted for her to leave the coalition, she said, and thus to clear the field for his agenda, including unilateral annexation of parts of the West Bank. She was using “all the political power that I have” to thwart the extreme right, she said, noting sadly that her faction was smaller than it was in previous Knessets. “It’s important to be the gatekeeper against dangerous ideas.”

Meanwhile, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the Palestinian leadership is unwilling to make compromises for peace, calling into the question the wisdom of diplomatic negotiations. Netanyahu laid blame for the collapse of peace talks on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and hinted that Israel may have to consider taking unilateral steps to leave the West Bank.

“Negotiations are always preferable. But six prime ministers since Oslo have failed in their pursuit of a negotiated settlement,” he said. “They’ve always thought we were on the verge of success, and then [Yasser] Arafat backed off, Mahmoud Abbas backed off, because they can’t conclude these negotiations. We don’t have a Palestinian leadership that is willing to do that. The minimal set of conditions that any Israeli government would need cannot be met by the Palestinians.”

Asked about the possibility of a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank, Netanyahu acknowledged that the idea was gaining traction across the political spectrum, but warned that Israel could not risk another Gaza, which was taken over by Hamas after Israeli unilaterally disengaged. “Many Israelis are asking themselves if there are certain unilateral steps that could theoretically make sense. But people also recognize that the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza didn’t improve the situation or advance peace,” he said. While Netanyahu backed efforts by Secretary of State John Kerry to bring the sides to the table, he blamed Abbas for not taking the Americans seriously. “What has Abbas done? Nothing. He’s refused to entertain Kerry’s efforts to try and lock horns on the core issues. He internationalized the conflict,” he said, referring to the Palestinian leader’s decision to apply to 15 international treaties, which Jerusalem said broke a Palestinian commitment not to apply for statehood to the UN. Israel remains committed to face-to-face talks with the Palestinians as the best path forward to two states for two peoples, Netanyahu said, but it refuses to negotiate with Fatah as long as it honors its unity deal with Hamas. The broad-based options that members of the government have put forward fall into three basic categories: an economic plan, withdrawal from isolated settlements, or annexation of territory in the West Bank.

There are some points of consensus in Israel around the peace process with the Palestinians and the nation’s future, he said. “The first point of consensus is that we don’t want a binational state. Another point of consensus is that we don’t want an Iranian proxy in territories we vacate. We want a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the nation-state of the Jews. How do you get that if you can’t get it through negotiations? “The Palestinians don’t agree to recognizing Israel as the Jewish nation-state, and it’s not clear to me that they’ll agree to elements of demilitarization that are required in any conceivable plan that works,” Netanyahu said. The problem with a negotiated solution he said, is that at present there is no ground for consensus with the Palestinians. No matter what the spin is about blaming Israel, do we actually expect Abbas, who seems to be embracing Hamas, to give a negotiated deal? In all likelihood, no. I hope he does, but I’m not sure he’s going to do it,” Netanyahu said. “There is an emerging consensus that we don’t have a partner who can challenge constituencies, do something unpopular, do something that is difficult. Abbas has not done anything to challenge the prevailing Palestinian consensus. In fact, he’s doing the opposite: the Hamas reconciliation, internationalizing the conflict, not giving one iota on the right of return, not giving an iota on the Jewish state. He wouldn’t deal with Kerry’s framework,” Netanyahu said.

Israel Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz said that he would present a bill to redraw the lines of the Jerusalem municipality to include a number of West Bank settlements in a single “Greater Jerusalem” polity. The settlements to be amalgamated into Jerusalem under the bill include the city of Ma’ale Adumim, Givat Ze’ev, the Gush Etzion bloc, and Beitar Illit, containing in total a population of over 150,000 Israelis. “This week we will celebrate ‘Jerusalem Day’ to mark 47 years of the unification of the city,” Katz said. “This is the time to advance an initiative that will strengthen Jerusalem, expand its borders, and preserve its Jewish national character.” Katz’s proposed legislation could constitute an alternative, or a step toward, annexation of the areas into Israeli territory — a move that has been repeatedly advocated by Economics Minister Naftali Bennett. Earlier that day, Communications Minister Gilad Erdan called on the Israeli government “to start preparing for the annexation of Area C.” Wherever “there is a Jewish population [in the West Bank] that should remain in place; we can start to prepare to annex [that area] if there is no Palestinian partner and the situation seems unlikely to change,” Erdan said.

In any peace agreement with the Palestinians, Israel must keep the Jordan Valley said Israel Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz. “Anyone who comes here can understand that Israel cannot give up the Jordan Valley,” he said. “If we pull out from the Jordan Valley, we will really risk Israel’s security and its very existence,” he said. “The Jordan Valley is the only possible reasonable defense line in the east, vis-a-vis Iran and its proxies,” said Steinitz. This includes al-Qaida and Hezbollah, he said. “If someone thinks we can afford moving the line [the border] from here 50 kilometers to the west, this will be a disaster,” he said. Only the Israeli army can perform the vital mission of securing the valley, Steinitz said. This task can’t be left to an international security force, he said and added that it could not be done by Palestinians or Europeans. The Palestinians have insisted that Israel withdraw from the valley so that it can be folded into the future borders of their state. Israel’s insistence that the valley must remain in its hands for security reasons was one of the deep disagreements that marked the nine-month negotiating period which ended on April 29.

Israel Economics Minister Naftali Bennett said that he supports the possibility that Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is considering taking “unilateral steps” to establish “a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state.” Bennett said: “I hear talk of ‘Israel’s unilateral actions.’ I support that. We are pushing for applying Israeli law unilaterally over Gush Etzion, Ariel, the Jordan Valley, Ma’aleh Adumim, Ofra, Alfe Menashe, the Ben Gurion Airport envelope, Samaria, Judea, and the rest of the Jewish settlement enterprise,” Bennett stated. “I will continue to push for it with all my might, until it happens. And it will happen. The Arabs have decided that they will no longer come to the table,” he continued. “The era of negotiations has ended. They are acting unilaterally (United Nations, incitement, etc.). Now it is our turn.” Bennett said that he would give “Palestinians complete freedom of movement, which requires removing all roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank. In particular, Israel should dismantle the security barrier erected throughout the last decade to defend against Palestinian terror attacks during the Second Intifada.” Bennett further proposed Arab autonomy in Areas A and B, and the offering of full Israeli citizenship to Arab residents of Area C.

Israel chief negotiator Tzipi Livni blasted Jewish Home chairman Naftali Bennett’s plan for Israel to annex Area C of Judea and Samaria, where there is a Jewish majority. “There is a group, part of which is represented in the coalition, which does not want a diplomatic settlement and does everything to sabotage it. This group and its leaders should tell the truth to the citizens of this country: they are leading to a binational state,” Livni said. Annexing Area C, she claimed, will lead to the end of Zionism. “Bennett is suggesting to annex Area C, destroy the fence and turn us into one state. He says give [the Palestinian Arabs] autonomy. But if you destroy the fence, at the end of the day two and a half million Palestinians will become citizens of this one country, and it will not be the Israel we love, it will be another country – the end of Zionism,” said Livni. “A unilateral move to annex Area C will not happen as long as I’m in the government,” she said. She went on to attack Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz, who said that he intends to advance legislation to expand Jerusalem’s borders to include so-called “settlement blocs” like Maale Adumim and Gush Etzion. “Bennett and Katz know their suggestions will not happen. They just want to win points with those who do not want an agreement, who do not understand the significance of these proposals and the tragic consequences they will have on Israel as we want to keep it – a Jewish and democratic state which is connected to the world with a thriving economy,” said Livni.

The United States told Israel that it opposes unilateral actions. State Department Spokeswoman Marie Harf said that “no one should take any steps that undermine trust, including unilateral. We would like to resume peace negotiations, and we think that both sides should take steps to make that possible.

Finally, Pope Francis visited Israel. The Pope advocated the “Palestinian people’s right to have a homeland, sovereign and independent.” The Pope also supports “Israel’s right to exist in peace and security within internationally recognized boundaries. The Vatican recognized the “State of Palestine” in 2012 amid the United Nations (UN) vote to confer “Palestine” non-member observer state status, a status until then only held by the Vatican.

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

The link to these articles are as follows:

1) Abbas: ‘Unity’ Government to Recognize Israel, Denounce Terror
2) Abbas says he won’t join more international groups for now
3) Report: Netanyahu Was ‘This Close’ to Dumping Livni Over Meeting
4) Livni will be fired if she meets Abbas again, says top minister
5) Netanyahu: There is nobody to negotiate with in Ramallah
6) Netanyahu open to exploring alternatives if direct talks prove impossible
7) Netanyahu could be open to exploring annexation plans if peace process fails
8) ‘Greater Jerusalem’ bill aims to incorporate settlements
9) Steinitz: Jordan Valley is critical to Israel’s survival
10) ‘It’s Israel’s Turn to Take Unilateral Steps’
11) Livni Blasts Bennett Over Annexation Suggestion
12) Livni: Bennett’s plan for annexation of Area C won’t be realized as long as I’m around
13) US to Netanyahu: ‘We oppose unilateral steps’
14) Vatican Says Pope Will Demand ‘Sovereign Palestine’

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

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

Shalom in Yeshua the Messiah,

Eddie Chumney
Hebraic Heritage Ministries Int’l

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

1) Listen to the audio

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

1) The current status of the Israel / PLO peace process

For the first time since the talks halted, U.S. President Barack Obama has directly blamed Israel for the failure of negotiations. According to a White House official, “Each time we arrived at a crossroads, another new settlement construction announcement was made. It was like putting a stick on the wheels.” The official also said Obama still believes that another round of talks is possible during his term but that for the time being the president prefers to sit back and let the sides ask themselves for an American mediation. Reports indicate that it was US President Barack Obama who was the “unnamed source” quoted in an interview with an Israeli newspaper on May 2 who blamed Israel’s building in settlements for the collapse of the peace talks. In the interview, the unnamed source said, “The Jewish people are supposed to be smart; it is true that they’re also considered a stubborn nation. You’re supposed to know how to read the map: In the 21st century, the world will not keep tolerating the Israeli occupation. The occupation threatens Israel’s status in the world and threatens Israel as a Jewish state.” A senior administration official said that the White House cleared the interview and the critical remarks faithfully reflect the president’s own views.

In a possible agreement to extend peace talks past April 29, Israel reportedly was willing to implement a partial settlement freeze. Israel Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon said that there is a “silent freeze” on planning for further Jewish settlement expansion. While construction work is currently taking place on already approved projects, no new developments are planned and no tenders and bids are being issued, he said. “I don’t know of a formal policy to limit building. But when you look, de facto, what’s happening on the ground, yes, you feel there is a silent freeze in terms of planning and in terms of government construction,” Danon said. “And that’s something that bothers me.” This “freeze” is being enforced everywhere — within and outside the so-called settlement blocs, he said.

Danon said he wasn’t sure why the government would agree to quietly freeze settlement expansion, suggesting that pressure from the United States might be behind it. “Building in the West Bank is a major issue among the Americans,” he said. The US is putting “a lot of pressure on us.” Dani Dayan, of the Yesha Council of Jewish Communities in the West Bank backed Danon’s claim of a “silent” settlement freeze. “For the last three months, the planning committee of the Civil Administration in charge of building has not convened even once,” he said. “Plans for new buildings were not advanced one inch, let alone approved. There are no new tenders at all,” he said. “As far as we know, this is because of a direct order from the Prime Minister’s Office,” Dayan charged, adding that he assumes that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was “intimidated” by “threats” from the White House or the US State Department.

A new “Palestinian consensus government” to be named by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Hamas is to be finalized within days, a senior Hamas official said. Bassem Naim, an adviser to Hamas’s premier in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, said a senior member of Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah movement would meet with Hamas officials in Gaza this week to conclude negotiations. “We expect the government to be announced by (Abbas) early the following week,” he said. Moussa Abu Marzouk, head of the Hamas negotiating team, said the talks would be finalized next week and a unity government would be announced shortly afterwards. All candidates proposed for the Palestinian unity government will be politically “impartial,” Fatah official Fayez Abu Atiyeh said. The formation of a proposed unity cabinet is nearly complete, according to Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri. Speaking in Gaza’s Al-Omri Mosque, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh announced that in the coming days the temporary leadership of the PLO will meet in the Egyptian capital of Cairo. Haniyeh said that according to the deal Hamas, along with Islamic Jihad, would be integrated in the PLO’s leadership and take part in elections for PLO institutions. Islamic Jihad has never renounced violence against Israel. According to the Hamas-Fatah unity agreement which was announced at the end of April, Abbas will announce the dates for elections, and Fatah and Hamas will form a unity government.

If Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas tears up his pact with Hamas, “then it will open the way for somehow resuming the peace negotiations” with Israel, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said. Netanyahu said that while Palestinian “national unity for peace is good, a pact with Hamas, which openly calls for our destruction and practices terror against our people – that’s bad.” The prime minister said that he was asked by US Secretary of State, John Kerry whether he would make a peace agreement with a Palestinian Authority that doesn’t govern all the Palestinian people, adding that “I said ‘yes,’ because I will make peace with that part of the Palestinian people that is prepared to live in peace with the State of Israel.” If Abbas “establishes a government of national unity, and [if] Hamas continues to fire rockets to Israel, then we’ll have to hold President Abbas responsible. It just doesn’t make sense for him to [forge] this pact if he wants peace.”

Asked what would happen if Hamas accepted the quartet’s conditions for engagement and renounced terrorism, recognized Israel and accepted previous agreements, Netanyahu said “that would obviously be an entirely different situation, but unfortunately I don’t see it happening. They’re very ideological, very militant and very extreme, and they show no signs of such change.” Meanwhile, Abbas was hoping to persuade the US administration to accept a Palestinian unity government that would be established in accordance with last month’s reconciliation deal between Fatah and Hamas. Abbas planned to make it clear to Kerry that the proposed government would recognize Israel and reject violence, a senior Palestinian official said.

Noting that this was the first meeting between Kerry and Abbas since the breakdown of the US-sponsored Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, the official said that the new government would report directly to the PA president and would not deal with issues related to the peace process. “There’s no reason why the Americans should oppose the unity government, because it would consist of independent figures and technocrats,” the official said. “The government would serve for a limited period of six months and its responsibilities would be restricted to day-to-day affairs of the Palestinian public. President Abbas and the PLO are the only ones entitled to conduct peace talks with Israel,” he added. Another Palestinian official said that he was “optimistic” that the US administration would not stand against the Hamas-Fatah deal. The official said that the PA leadership has “succeeded” in convincing some top members of the US administration that the rapprochement between Hamas and Fatah would not have a negative impact on the peace process. Fatah spokesman Fayez Abu Aytah told reporters the government would consist of independent figures with no political affiliations so as not to give Israel or the US an “excuse” to boycott the PA.

In a sign of cooperation between Fatah and Hamas, only two weeks after signing a reconciliation deal, the Hamas daily newspaper was distributed in the West Bank and East Jerusalem for the first time in seven years. The Palestinian Authority government approved the distribution of Felesteen as part of efforts to promote unity between the two Palestinian factions.The move followed a decision by the Hamas government in Gaza to allow three newspapers published in the Palestinian Authority to be distributed in the coastal territory.

Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal said that, despite his group’s reconciliation with Fatah, Hamas was still committed to “resistance” against Israel. “We have turned the page on this division… Hamas has already made sacrifices and this was necessary to be closer with our brothers, but with the invader we will not make any compromises,” said Mashaal. “I’m aware that many real challenges lay ahead. We can overcome them,” he added, referring to the April 23 pact which calls for a unity government to be formed. “The reconciliation does not mean an end to our resistance against the invaders, resistance will continue as long as the occupation exists,” insisted Mashaal.

Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas thinks that Hamas does not need to recognize Israel or renounce terrorism, even after the unity pact with his Fatah movement. Recently, Abbas had a conversation with U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice. During the conversation, Abbas told Rice that Hamas will not be a part of the new unity government, nor will that government include representatives of other Palestinian Arab organizations. Rather, the official said, it will be made up of independent professionals who are politically unaffiliated. Abbas also reportedly told Rice that he will head the new unity government and that this government will adopt his political platform which renounces violence. Rice told Abbas during their meeting that “any Palestinian government must unambiguously and explicitly commit to nonviolence, recognition of the State of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations between the parties.”

Meanwhile, Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu declared that the Palestinian Authority (PA) will be held responsible for violence from Gaza in light of the unity deal. “Hamas is committed to our destruction. We remain committed to advancing the peace, preferably a negotiated peace. But we can only negotiate with a government whose constituent parts are committed to peace,” said Netanyahu. He added that as long as PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas remains committed to the unity deal with Hamas, “a terrorist organization that regularly fires rockets into Israel, then we’ll have to hold him accountable for every rocket that is fired from Gaza, to Israel.”

European Union (EU) Ambassador to Israel Lars Faaborg-Andersen said that he didn’t feel peace talks should have been stopped last month over the unity deal between Fatah and the terrorist group Hamas. “I don’t see a reason for the peace talks stopping in order to send a message that there’s a difference between Fatah and Hamas,” said Faaborg-Andersen. Ironically, Hamas is on the EU’s official list of terrorist organizations.

Israel Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, who is in charge of the negotiations with the Palestinian Authority (PA), met privately in London with PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. In the meeting, Livni expressed to Abbas Israel’s dissatisfaction with the unity pact he reached with Hamas. The meeting was the first between Abbas and a senior Israeli official since Israel pulled out of the peace talks in response to the Hamas-Fatah unity pact. Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was informed in advance about the meeting and was unhappy about it. He said that Livni was only representing herself and not the Israeli government. Netanyahu reiterated that the position of the government, as passed unanimously by the security cabinet, is not to negotiate with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, which he restated is “a terrorist organization that declares its intentions to destroy the state of Israel.”

Livni defended her decision to meet Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas saying, “I would like to remind everyone that the conflict isn’t over. We’re still here and the Palestinians are still here. Our interest is to resolve the conflict, and ignoring reality is not an option. Ignoring the other side, not listening or talking, is irresponsible,” Livni insisted. “A resolution is best achieved through direct negotiations, but we can’t ignore the agreement between Hamas and Fatah. To all those politicians up in arms, I want to be clear: we’ll continue doing what we believe in, and that’s what I did last week by meeting [Abbas],” Livni said.

Finally, Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said the impasse in peace talks with the Palestinians was likely to continue. “As of now, the impasse in negotiations with the Palestinians is expected to continue,” Lieberman said. He accused Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas of having “no interest to reach a deal with Israel, no matter what Israel offers him,” noting past proposals of Israeli land concessions Abbas had turned down. He reiterated the Israeli stance of no negotiations with the Palestinian unity government, “so long Hamas does not accept the Quartet conditions” of recognizing Israel, rejecting violence and abiding by existing agreements.

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

The link to these articles are as follows:

1) US Official: President Obama ‘Blames’ Israel’s ‘Stubbornness’ For Kerry’s Peace Process Failure
2) Danon: Government has frozen settlement expansion plans
3) Hamas Says ‘Unity Government’ Coming Within Days
4) Kerry tells Abbas: ‘Door remains open’ to peace talks with Israel
5) Hamas and Islamic Jihad Say They’re Joining PLO Leadership
6) Abbas hopes to convince US to accept Fatah-Hamas Palestinian unity government
7) Palestinian Authority lifts ban on Hamas daily
8) Hamas Leader: Unity Or Not, Resistance Will Continue
9) Abbas: Hamas Doesn’t Need to Recognize Israel
10) Netanyahu Holds PA Accountable for ‘Every Gaza Rocket’
11) EU Envoy Says ‘No Reason’ to Stop Talks Over Fatah-Hamas Unity
12) Livni Meets Abbas in London
13) As Livni Meets Abbas, Bibi Says She Represents Only Herself
14) Livni Unrepentant Over Unofficial Abbas Meeting
15) Peace talks with Palestinians unlikely to resume: Lieberman

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

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

Shalom in Yeshua the Messiah,

Eddie Chumney
Hebraic Heritage Ministries Int’l

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

1) Listen to the audio

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

1) The current status of the Israel / PLO peace process

With the collapse of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, the “blame game” begins. US envoy to the peace process, Martin Indyk gave the US view why the peace process failed. According to Indyk, after six months of productive direct negotiations, Palestinian leaders “shut down” and Indyk singled out Israel settlement activity as a major — but not the sole — factor. Assessing the conditions that led to the stalled talks, Indyk cited a lack of a sense of urgency among Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas “are committed to achieving a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through peaceful means,” Indyk explained, but added that “one problem that revealed itself in these past nine months is that the parties, although both showing flexibility in the negotiations, do not feel the pressing need to make the gut-wrenching compromises necessary to achieve peace. It is easier for the Palestinians to sign conventions and appeal to international bodies in their supposed pursuit of ‘justice’ and their ‘rights,’ a process which by definition requires no compromise,” Indyk criticized. “It is easier for Israeli politicians to avoid tension in the governing coalition and for the Israeli people to maintain the current comfortable status quo. “It is safe to say that if we the US are the only party that has a sense of urgency, these negotiations will not succeed,” he added.

The US ambassador criticized steps taken by both sides as contributing to the breakdown of talks. “The fact is both the Israelis and Palestinians missed opportunities, and took steps that undermined the process,” Indyk complained. “We have spoken publicly about unhelpful Israeli steps that combined to undermine the negotiations. But it is important to be clear: We view steps the Palestinians took during the negotiations as unhelpful too. Signing accession letters to 15 international treaties at the very moment when we were attempting to secure the release of the fourth tranche of prisoners was particularly counterproductive. And the final step that led to the suspension of the negotiations at the end of April was the announcement of a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation agreement while we were working intensively on an effort to extend the negotiations.” Indyk also called Israel out for its continued “settlement activity. The settlement movement on the other hand may well drive Israel into an irreversible binational reality,” Indyk warned. Indyk expanded on his argument, saying that settlement activity had “sabotaged negotiations” and now represented “a roadblock to resumption of negotiations. “The expansion of settlements on land that the Palestinians believe is supposed to be part of their state and the prevention of their ability to build on the same land is a very problematic situation in the resolution of this conflict,” he added.

In addition, Indyk argued that public sentiment on both sides of the conflict presented a serious obstacle to negotiations. He said that the Americans had tried to get Palestinian and Israeli leaders to “engage in synchronized positive messaging to their publics,” but to no avail. The veteran ambassador revealed that for the first six months after both sides agreed to resume negotiations, Israelis and Palestinians had engaged in direct bilateral talks, with the Americans largely serving as “silent observers. During those six months all of the core issues were discussed and it was possible to delineate where the gaps were at all of those core issues,” Indyk recounted. At that point, he said, “it became natural” for the US to meet with each side individually to work out arrangements. For two months, the Americans met with the Israelis for “very intensive negotiations” in which top officials including Netanyahu and Secretary of State John Kerry held dozens of conversations over secure calls, video conferences and direct meetings.

According to Indyk, “it was visibly difficult” for Netanyahu but “he moved, he showed flexibility. I think we had him in the zone,” Indyk recalled. At the same time, he said, “The Palestinians were content to sit back and watch the show as a spectator sport. It was clear that there was a good deal of tension between the US and Israel and they were content during that time.” But during that same period, Indyk said, “Abu Mazen shut down.” Although Indyk acknowledged that “settlements were a big factor,” the ambassador also noted that rivalries over the successor to the 79-year-old Palestinian president were also a big factor. “I think he came to the conclusion that he didn’t have a reliable partner for the kind of two state solution he was looking for,” Indyk assessed. “He shifted toward looking at his legacy and his succession.”

Another gap that Indyk described as “very wide” was the Israeli demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state. “Netanyahu says it’s foundational and Abbas says he will not discuss it,” Indyk revealed, while adding that America has been consistent in its support for Israel as a Jewish state. Nevertheless, Indyk thinks that there is hope to revive the process in the future. “We have passed the nine-month marker for these negotiations, and for the time being the talks have been suspended,” Indyk said, however, peace process is not over.

In response to Indyk’s comments, a senior Israeli official familiar with Israeli-Palestinian peace talks lashed out at US special envoy Martin Indyk over his ‘hypocrisy’ for singling out settlement construction as a major factor for the talks’ collapse. He said that the US envoy was informed of all construction plans, down to the number of homes. “Furthermore, [Indyk] knew that it was on this basis that Israel agreed to enter the talks,” the Israeli official said. “So it’s not clear why now that should be criticized.” The senior Israeli official fired back saying, “Indyk comes and blames others without speaking about his own responsibility for the current impasse.  [It is] difficult to point to any significant contribution that [Indyk] had made to the process,” he added, noting that the top US negotiator “demanded to be present at all of the meetings, despite the fact that the process was meant to be primarily bilateral.” Indyk’s presence at some of the meetings had harmed progress, the official hinted without elaborating: “In certain meetings, his absence would, indeed, have been advantageous.” Israel Deputy Minister Ofir Akunis (Likud) was also critical of Indyk’s views by saying that settlements in the West Bank were not the main reason for the collapse of the peace talks. “It is unfortunate that a Palestinian lie also affects our friends,” Akunis stated. “There are not two truths here, only one: the Palestinians torpedoed the negotiations by choosing to reconcile with Hamas and take unilateral steps to apply to UN agencies.”  Akunis also noted the flaws in Indyk’s logic that construction over the 1949 Armistice lines destroyed chances for peace. “There were no ‘settlements’ until 1967,” he said. “Why didn’t the Palestinians extend a hand in peace before that?”

However, Israel chief negotiator, Tzip Livni shared a different view by saying, “Settlement construction hurt Israel, it hurts the Palestinians and it hurt the negotiations,” she said. Livni added that she could defend Israel against delegitimization efforts around the world, but could not “explain or defend settlement construction and expansion. There are people in the government who don’t want peace,” Livni said just days before negotiations broke down. “[Economics and Trade Minister and Jewish Home party leader Naftali] Bennett and Uri Ariel represent those who want to prevent a peace process,” she accused.

Other US officials that while the Netanyahu government’s settlement program is the original sin committed in the peace process, the US is also highly upset with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for, in essence, checking out of the peace process as early as February. One key moment in this drama came in March, when Abbas, at his own request, met U.S. President Barack Obama at the White House and heard Obama present a set of fairly dramatic American-inspired proposals (some of which had to do, apparently, with the future borders of the Palestinian state). Obama told Abbas in a direct way that he would be awaiting his response to the proposals. “I want you to get back to me soon,” Obama said, according to officials. The US likened this behavior to the decision made 14 years ago by Abbas’s predecessor, Yasser Arafat, to leave the 2000 Camp David peace talks without even countering an Israeli proposal for Palestinian statehood.

Israel says that is has evidence that the Palestinians were responsible for the collapse of the peace talks. In a letter reportedly sent by Israel’s national security chief to the US, the EU and numerous ambassadors blames the Palestinians for the collapse of peace talks, and claims to include hard proof that PA officials were devising measures to thwart the process even before Israel refused to release a fourth round of Palestinian prisoners at the end of March. In the April 22 letter, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s national security adviser, Yossi Cohen, revealed that chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat wrote a policy paper in March in preparation for a Palestinian rejection of American mediation efforts and Israeli overtures — nearly a month before Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas made a unilateral move to sign 15 international conventions, ostensibly in response to Israel’s refusal to honor its commitment to release the final round of prisoners.

In fact, Cohen said, Palestinian chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat lanned the maneuver weeks before Israel announced its refusal to release the prisoners — timing that, according to Cohen, demonstrates that the Palestinian leadership never intended to follow the peace talks through. Cohen attached Erekat’s policy paper to his letter, copies of which were reportedly sent to his US counterpart Susan Rice, US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, all Israel-based EU ambassadors, and ambassadors from China, Russia and other countries. He appealed to the recipients to peruse the Erekat document and “draw conclusions” as to the Palestinians’ “bad faith” and responsibility for the failure of the latest round of peace talks.

According to Cohen, the 65-page Erekat document, which contained a “highly selective” account of the peace talks held since July and a “series of recommendations” for unilateral Palestinian actions, was presented by Erekat to Abbas on March 9, prior to Abbas’s visit to the United States and his meeting at the White House with US President Barack Obama on March 17. The paper, Cohen said, serves as proof that Palestinian policymakers had recommended a strategy of unilateral moves “outside of the agreed negotiation framework” to Abbas as early as March, nearly two months before the April 29 deadline for the completion of the talks. Thus when Obama tried at their White House meeting to persuade Abbas to make progress at the negotiations, Cohen indicated, the PA president was already bent on torpedoing the talks and following a unilateral course. In the document, Erekat recommended that the Palestinian Authority apply to international treaties such as the Geneva Convention.

He also recommended reconciliation with Hamas, revealing that the push for a unity government with the terrorist organization, which does not recognize Israel, began long before negotiations with Israel reached a stalemate. This, Cohen said, proved that the Palestinians’ unilateral moves, ostensibly direct responses to perceived Israeli intransigence, were actually “premeditated” and “calculated” steps aimed at sinking the peace process and hindering American mediation efforts.

Israel Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman blamed Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for adopting a negotiation strategy of trying to wear one’s opponent down without committing to anything. Lieberman said that he wanted to tear off Abbas’ mask and “say clearly that he consistently rejects peace,” and that the Palestinian behavior shows that “there is absolutely no desire on the part of the Palestinians to reach an agreement with Israel.” Lieberman said that the Palestinian decision last month to apply for acceptance into 15 treaties and conventions, coupled with the Fatah-Hams unity agreement, repeats a “long standing and familiar pattern of behavior by Abbas and the Palestinians. Whenever there is progress and a step forward in negotiations, the Palestinians take two steps back.” Liberman said that Abbas’s application to the international treaties and conventions came just two hours before “everything was ready for the signing of a document that would lead to the continuation of negotiations between us and the Palestinians.” Settlements in the West Bank are not the “real problem,” Lieberman stated. The real problem is the “reluctance of the Palestinians time after time to pursue peace.”

Furthermore, there are those in the European Community who “do not want to admit this.” The foreign minister said that even after Abbas signed an agreement with Hamas, “an organization which openly seeks the destruction of the very state where we are celebrating independence, some, especially in Europe, continue to blame Israel for the deadlock in negotiations.” While rejecting peace, Lieberman said Abbas “enjoys his status as the leader of a national liberation movement and travels around the world.” Lieberman said Israel expected the international community to stand by its commitments and demand that Hamas renounce violence, recognize Israel and accept previously singed agreements before engaging with it. He predicted that Hamas would win Palestinian elections wherever they are held, and as a result Abbas – who “brought Hamas to power in Gaza – will also bring them to power in the West Bank.

However, Lieberman said, Israel is determined to prevent the “West Bank from becoming the new Gaza.” Lieberman also said that there could be no compromise on two other issues: the need for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, and the abandonment of the “so-called Palestinian ‘right of return’.” Lieberman said that while Abbas is demanding a “100 homogenous” Palestinian state — a Palestinian state that will be “Judenrein, without a single Jew” – he seeks a bi-national state in Israel. Regarding a Palestinian “right of return,” Lieberman said Israel “will not agree to even the return of one person to Israel. Those who talk about a “right of return”, knowingly or not, are talking about the destruction of the State of Israel de-facto. If we allow one refugee to come to Israel, a million will follow after him.” Israel seeks peace, Lieberman assured the gathered diplomats. “Israel wants an agreement, but we will not be fools.”

Furthermore, Israel officials insist that Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was genuinely considering all the issues raised by the negotiators, weighing earnestly the pros and cons of every idea brought to his desk. While always putting Israel’s security interests first in his mind, these officials insist, he wholeheartedly asked himself how things could be sorted things out in a way that would allow Israel to sign a final-status deal with the Palestinians. Netanyahu spent several hours every day pouring over the matters raised in the negotiating room, asking himself which positions Israel could allow itself to adopt in order to advance toward an agreement.

Netanyahu has stated many times in the past that he is interested in a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Last May, he said:  “The purpose of the future agreement with the Palestinians is to prevent the eventuality of a binational state and to guarantee stability and security.” While unwilling to compromise on his core convictions — especially regarding security arrangements and Jewish state recognition — Netanyahu understands that a two-state solution is required if Israel wants to remain a Jewish and democratic state. Nonetheless Netanyahu insisted if we’re talking about two nation-states for two people, it needs to be guaranteed that Israel is recognized by the Palestinians as the nation-state of the Jewish people. Israel said that such recognition is the main blame for lack of progress in the peace talks. US officials said, “We can’t understand why this bothers him so much. For us, the Americans, the Jewish identity of Israel is obvious. We wanted to believe that for the Palestinians this was a tactical move — they wanted to get something (in return) and that’s why they were saying ‘no.’

In efforts to form a unity government between Hamas and Fatah, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah stated that Hamas has not been asked to recognize Israel and will not be part of a transitional government that is to be built soon. Abbas also repeated his intention to construct an interim government which will, allegedly, recognize Israel and condemn violence and terror. However, Hamas continues to be adamant over its full control of a “unity” government, expressing over and over again that it would remain in control of both Gaza and the PA after elections and insisting that Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, would rule the government. Under the terms of the Hamas-Fatah unity deal, signed on April 23, the two sides would work together to form an “independent government” of technocrats, to be headed by Abbas, that would pave the way for long-delayed elections.

Reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah is apparently going well.Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said in an interview with a Palestine newspaper that Fatah had agreed to release all Hamas terrorists from prison – regardless of their crimes or current political affiliation. Meanwhile, Hamas has allegedly jumped on board as well – allowing journalists from Fatah-backed papers Al-Quds and Al-Ayyam to enter Gaza and releasing Fatah prisoners held in Gaza over their own political affiliations.

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

The link to these articles are as follows:

1) US envoy Indyk insists peace process not dead
2) Senior Israeli official slams Indyk’s ‘hypocrisy’
3) Minister Slams Indyk’s ‘Lies’
4) Tzipi Livni: Settlement activity hurt negotiations
5) U.S. Officials: Blame Palestinians, Too
6) Top Netanyahu aide: Here’s proof Abbas deliberately destroyed peace talks
7) Liberman on Independence Day: Abbas must decide if he wants peace, and with whom
8) Liberman: ‘We extend our hands in peace – but we will cut off every hand that threatens us’
9) Countering US narrative, some Israeli sources insist PM negotiated sincerely
10) PA Insists: Hamas Will Not Be Part of ‘Unity’ Government
11) Fatah Agrees to Release All Hamas Prisoners
12) Israel’s insistence on full Iranian nuclear rollback risks new rift with US

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

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

Shalom in Yeshua the Messiah,

Eddie Chumney
Hebraic Heritage Ministries Int’l

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

1) Listen to the audio

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

1) The current status of the Israel / PLO peace process

Israel and the Palestinians failed to agree to extend their direct peace talks past April 29. Why did the talks fail? An Israeli government official familiar with the negotiations said: “We would have liked to see a successful outcome to the negotiations. But what we saw was a Palestinian side that didn’t engage in good faith when the Americans put on the table principles for final status. In dealing with the core issues, the Palestinians ran away.”

However, the American version of why the current round of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians failed is fundamentally different to the one presented by Israeli officials. The list of those to blame for this failure is also very different. From the US perspective, the issue of the settlements was largely to blame. Senior American officials involved in Secretary of State John Kerry’s peace push shared their take on the talks’ failure. The American team will be disbanded in the coming days – most of it, or all of it. Kerry has yet to decide what he is going to do – whether he will wait several months and then try to renew his effort, or release the principles of an agreement formulated by the Americans. By releasing the American principles, Kerry would force the two sides to play offense – each side in its own internal battleground – but in doing so, he also risks exposing himself to criticism.

Using advanced software, the Americans drew a border outline in the West Bank that gives Israel sovereignty over some 80 percent of the settlers that live there today. The remaining 20 percent were meant to evacuate. In Jerusalem, the proposed border is based on Bill Clinton’s plan – Jewish neighborhoods to Israel, Arab neighborhoods to the Palestinians. The Israeli government made no response to the American plan, and avoided drawing its own border outline.

US officials explained that “the negotiations had to start with a decision to freeze settlement construction. We thought that we couldn’t achieve that because of the current makeup of the Israeli government, so we gave up. We didn’t realize Netanyahu was using the announcements of tenders for settlement construction as a way to ensure the survival of his own government. We didn’t realize continuing construction allowed ministers in his government to very effectively sabotage the success of the talks. “There are a lot of reasons for the peace effort’s failure, but people in Israel shouldn’t ignore the bitter truth – the primary sabotage came from the settlements. The Palestinians don’t believe that Israel really intends to let them found a state when, at the same time, it is building settlements on the territory meant for that state. We’re talking about the announcement of 14,000 housing units, no less. “At this point, it’s very hard to see how the negotiations could be renewed, let alone lead to an agreement. Towards the end, Abbas demanded a three-month freeze on settlement construction. His working assumption was that if an accord is reached, Israel could build along the new border as it pleases. But the Israelis said no.”

“President Obama supported Kerry throughout the duration of the talks. The clearest example of that was his willingness to prepare for Jonathan Pollard’s release. Such a move wouldn’t have helped his popularity in the American security system. “It is true that the president was doubtful. That was obvious from the start. He questioned the willingness of leaders on both sides to take the necessary risks. In the end, he realized he was right.”

Kerry talked on the phone with Netanyahu three times a week and sometimes three times a day. There were video conference calls and close to 70 meetings. The relationship of trust between Kerry and Netanyahu was crucial to ensure that Netanyahu tempered his positions and moved forward. During the negotiations, Israel presented its security needs in the West Bank: it demanded complete control over the territories. This told the Palestinians that nothing was going to change on the security front. Israel was not willing to agree to time frames – its control of the West Bank would continue forever. “Abbas reached the conclusion that there was nothing for him in such an agreement. He’s 79 years old. In February, Abbas arrived at a Paris hotel for a meeting with Kerry. He had a lingering serious cold. ‘I’m under a lot of pressure,’ he complained. ‘I’m sick of this.’ He rejected all of Kerry’s ideas. A month later, in March, he was invited to the White House. Obama presented the American-formulated principles verbally – not in writing. Abbas refused.

Abbas demanded the outlining the borders would be the first topic under discussion. It would be agreed upon within three months. A timeframe would be set for the evacuation of Israelis from sovereign Palestinian territories (Israel had agreed to complete the evacuation of Sinai within three years). Israel will agree to have East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. The Israelis would not agree to any of the three demands. We couldn’t confront the two sides with the painful solutions that were required of them. The Israelis didn’t have to face the possibility of splitting Jerusalem into two capitals; they didn’t have to deal with the meaning of a full withdrawal and the end of the occupation.” Abbas refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. “We couldn’t understand why it bothered him so much. For us, the Americans, the Jewish identity of Israel is obvious. We wanted to believe that for the Palestinians this was a tactical move – they wanted to get something (in return) and that’s why they were saying ‘no.’ “The more Israel hardened its demands, the more the Palestinian refusal deepened. Israel made this into a huge deal – a position that wouldn’t change under any circumstances. The Palestinians came to the conclusion that Israel was pulling a nasty trick on them. They suspected there was an effort to get from them approval of the Zionist narrative.” As of now, nothing is stopping the Palestinians from turning to the international community. The Palestinians are tired of the status quo. They will get their state in the end – whether through violence or by turning to international organizations. The boycott and the Palestinian application to international organizations are medium-range problems. America will help, but there’s no guarantee its support will be enough.

The United States is taking a time-out to think and reevaluate. We mean to draw our own conclusions. Kerry’s willingness to return and make an effort depends on the sides’ willingness to show seriousness. Abbas’ conditions were rejected out of hand by Israel. Perhaps someone in Israel will reconsider their positions? Why is a three-month settlement construction freeze such a big deal? Why not draw a map? You have a great interest in an accord reached by mutual consent, rather than one reached as a result of external pressures. Drawing a map should’ve been stage one.” As for what the US will do next, Kerry hasn’t fully decided.

Israel’s deputy defense minister, Danny Danon, expressed displeasure over U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry views and comments regarding the failure of the peace process. Most recently, Kerry indicated in a private event that the failure of the peace talks would quickly lead toward Israel becoming an “apartheid state.” While Israel accepts the secretary’s latest expression of regret for comparing the democratic state of Israel with one of the darkest regimes in modern history, the fact is that this was not a solitary incident. Time and again, Secretary Kerry’s erroneous declarations have come dangerously close to suggesting moral equivalency between Israel and its adversaries. They call into question his administration’s ability to act as an honest broker in our region.

Last July, just three months after the negotiations began, Kerry gave a joint interview to Israeli and Palestinian television channels with the aim of increasing public support for his efforts. When asked by the Israeli reporter why these talks are so vital, the secretary failed to detail what the fruits of a real peace might be for the Israeli people. Nor did he recount the numerous efforts and overtures successive Israeli governments have made toward this end over the years. Instead he bleakly replied with a question of his own, asking, “Does Israel want a third intifada?” By insinuating that if we do not give in to every Palestinian demand to ensure a successful end to the talks, we would return to the era of suicide bombers murdering hundreds of civilians in Israeli city centers, the secretary basically asked the state of Israel to negotiate with a loaded gun to our heads.

Then, in February, while addressing a conference in Germany, Kerry issued another veiled threat at Israel. This time he informed his audience, “the risks are very high for Israel. People are talking about boycott. That will intensify in the case of failure.” Once again, instead of laying out a clear vision for why the talks he has invested so much time and effort in are in Israel’s interest, Kerry attempted to scare the Israeli public into capitulation. His attempts were viewed here in Israel as a not-so-cryptic message that the United States would no longer retain its steadfast rejection of any boycotts against Israel if our government did not ensure that the talks would end to the U.S. administration’s liking. But a recent warning from Secretary Kerry was especially troubling. Speaking to an audience in the United States, he informed them that a failure to establish a 23rd Arab state alongside the world’s only Jewish state would result in “an apartheid state with second-class citizens.” This comment, made behind closed doors, was made public as we in Israel were marking the solemn day when we remember the more than six million victims of our people murdered in the Holocaust last century in Europe. To suggest that the Jewish people would ever establish an apartheid regime was particularly hurtful.

As a result of failed peace talks, the Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fatah, announced that they have reached a “historic” agreement to end their differences and form a Palestinian unity government. Fatah is the sect of Palestinian Authority President, Mahmood Abbas. Hamas is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and they control the Gaza Strip. The agreement calls for the establishment of a Palestinian unity government within five weeks. Six months later, the Palestinians would hold presidential and parliamentary elections. The agreement also calls for “activating and developing” the PLO so as to allow Hamas and other Palestinian groups to join the organization’s institutions. In addition, the accord calls for reviving the Palestinian legislative Council, which has been paralyzed since Hamas drove the Palestinian Authority out of the Gaza Strip in 2007. Similar reconciliation agreements were reached in principle in the past but never implemented. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh  praised the agreement, saying “national reconciliation, ending the division and mending the rift has become a national responsibility.” The deal, Haniyeh said, comes “at a time of an assault on the Palestinian cause, assault on the al-Aqsa mosque and a time when the entirety of Jerusalem is being painted Jewish. Today we can say that we agreed about all what we have discussed,” said senior Fatah official Azzan al-Ahmed, adding “so we will forget what happened in the past. The result of the efforts that we have made is clear today, as we agreed on all the points that we discussed.” A Palestinian official said there had been an “agreement in principle” on forming a “government of experts,” a term for a cabinet staffed by technocrats rather than politicians. In making the agreement, Hamas said they would not recognize Israel, although they indicated that they would not obstruct negotiations between the PLO and Israel. Sami Abu Zuhri, a spokesman for the Hamas movement said: “We acknowledge that Abbas’s recognition of the occupation is his traditional position, nothing new. The [Hamas] movement position is unwavering in not recognizing the occupation in any form. In any event, negotiations are the task of the PLO; the government has no part in them,” Abu Zuhri said. “The question of recognition is non-debatable as long as [Israel] occupies our land.” He asserted that the PLO was in charge of negotiations and Palestinian foreign policy, adding that “Hamas is not responsible for the PLO relations with Israel.”

A top Hamas official boasted that the organization’s forces would not be bound to follow instructions from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and dismissed claims that a planned unity government would recognize Israel. Mahmoud Al-Zahar said that no militiamen in Gaza would be under Abbas’s control after a planned interim technocrat government is installed. “The reconciliation deal won’t change the current situation, and the new government’s ministers are to have no authority over diplomacy since it is an interim government,” he said. “The reconciliation deal will not change Hamas at all, and will not bring the organization to recognize Israel’s right to exist.” Activists in the Hamas military wing Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades will continue to operate independent of the unity government under Abbas, as will the armed elements of the Hamas security forces, Zahar clarified. Meanwhile,  the Islamic Jihad terrorist group is trying to join in on the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation agreement. Their leaders will consider the ways Islamic Jihad could be involved in the unity government.

Hamas leader, Khaled Mashaal affirmed that Hamas will not recognize Israel. “Our path is resistance and the rifle, and our choice is jihad,” he said. Mashaal said that in wake of the failure of the peace talks with Israel, the Palestinians were in need of a unified political decision and a joint strategy that would lead to the “liberation of our lands and holy sites and the return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes.” Another Hamas leader, Mahmoud Zahar, said the unity pact with Fatah would not change his movement’s position toward Israel. Recognizing Israel is one of the key conditions laid out in the 2003 peacemaking roadmap of the Middle East Quartet, which brings together the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and Russia. The other two key demands are a renunciation of violence and acceptance of all prior agreements with Israel. Hamas’s deputy leader, Mussa Abu Marzuq,  said Hamas would never accept the Quartet’s conditions. “Hamas rejects the Quartet’s conditions because it denies some of our people’s rights,” he said.

An Israel government official responded to Mashaal’s remarks by saying that they “speak for themselves and expose the myth that Hamas has somehow changed or moderated its positions.” Hamas “remains an extremist jihadist organization committed to the destruction of Israel,” the official said. “It is clear that Palestinian leaders cannot come to Israel and say they want peace if they forge an alliance with these killers,” he said, referring to Abbas. Nevertheless, Israel’s message to the international community is that if Abbas reneges on the pact with Hamas, or if it falls through, the direct talks that fell apart last week could be restarted. However, he said, if the Palestinian unity accord is “consummated” and a Palestinian unity government backed by Hamas is established, “we will look at what the alternatives are.”

US Secretary of State, John Kerry, said that the Fatah-Hamas unity deal was unexpected. That deal, he noted, “came as a complete and total unannounced event, without any heads-up, so to speak, at the moment of important negotiations.” U.S. Senators Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) called on Secretary of State John Kerry to publicly state that there will be an immediate cut-off of relevant U.S. assistance to the Palestinian Authority (PA) should its new unity government fail to comply with the detailed requirements set forth by the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006. In a letter to Kerry, Kirk and Rubio said: “As you know, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 sets detailed requirements for the continuation of U.S. assistance should Hamas be brought into the Palestinian Authority government. The law is very clear,” they wrote in the letter. “If Hamas comes to have a role in governance, there must be public acknowledgment of the Jewish state of Israel’s right to exist as well as acceptance of all previous agreements the Palestinians have made with Israel, the United States, and the international community,” the senators wrote. “The law also requires that demonstrable progress be made toward dismantling of Hamas’ terrorist infrastructure and purging of individuals with ties to terrorism. Moreover, Hamas would need to halt its anti-American and anti-Israel incitement. The bar is high because the stakes are high and we must make sure to stand firmly by what we have said. Failing to do so will diminish the credibility of the United States,” added Kirk and Rubio. “Unfortunately, we have already seen reports that influential voices within Hamas say a unity deal would not compel Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist,” they added. “It seems clear, therefore, that the current plans for the Palestinian Authority continue to disregard the assurances needed to support Israel’s security and move the Palestinian people further away from the day when they can live in peace. Under the unity deal as we understand it, no effort whatsoever will be made to disarm Hamas or even request that it renounce terrorism before joining the PA. Having an armed terrorist group, which is still committed to violence against Israel, as part of the PA government should make that government ineligible for American aid,” they continued. “We urge you to state publicly that there will be an immediate cut-off of relevant U.S. assistance unless there is full compliance with the letter and spirit of all provisions in the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act.” Hamas has been blacklisted by the US since 1993 as a terrorist organization.

Other issues in the peace negotiations was the Israeli demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Israeli negotiators were willing to work with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his team on the wording of the desired declaration, towards a formula that would have described the Jewish people’s and the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination in precisely equivalent terms, and would have also included phrases to guarantee the rights of Israel’s Arab minority. The Palestinians, however, were adamant in refusing to consider the idea.

In the negotiations, the Israelis proposed a formulation that would acknowledge that both the Jewish people and the Palestinian people mutually recognize each other’s rights to sovereignty in the framework of an agreement that would end all remaining claims. Israel offered to formulate the declaration in terms that would explicitly state that a recognition of the Jewish state does not in any way impact on the status of non-Jewish Israelis, and does not coerce the Palestinians into accepting Israel’s historical narrative. “The goal of the process was to receive mutual recognition for two nation states, and that both the Jewish people and the Palestinian people have national rights,” a senior Israeli government official said. The phrasing proposed by Israeli negotiators was “based on total parity,” this official said. “We were prepared to be creative with the language, but not the concept,” the official added, asserting that Israel was exceedingly flexible regarding the wording of the intended formulation. The Palestinians, however, resolutely refused to accept the very concept of such recognition, he said, even if it was entirely mutual and included explicit clauses to alleviate their concerns.

Israel Justice Minister Tzipi Livni has stressed, however, that asking the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is not aimed at endorsing a particular historical narrative but seeks to guarantee mutual acceptance of Israeli and Palestinian legitimacy. The approach proposed by Israel in the negotiation room was designed to address all Palestinian concerns. Since the mutual recognition would be contingent on the successful resolution of all other core issues of an agreement, the right of return of Palestinian refugees would no longer be an issue. Furthermore, the rights of Israel’s non-Jewish minority would be guaranteed and Israel was ready to include a sentence stating that the Palestinians would not be forced to co-opt any historical narrative. The Palestinians refused adamantly to consider Israel’s proposal, and were backed by the Arab League, which at a summit in Kuwait in March expressed “total rejection” of Israel’s demand for recognition as a Jewish state.

As a result of Palestinian rejection of Israel as a “Jewish state”, Israel Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, intends “to submit a basic law to the Knesset that would provide a constitutional anchor for Israel’s status as the national state of the Jewish people,” Netanyahu said at the Tel Aviv site where  Israel’s Declaration of Independence was signed on May 14, 1948. “The Declaration of Independence sets, as the cornerstone in the life of the state, the national Jewish identity of the state of Israel,” he said. “To my great regret, as we have seen recently, there are those who do not recognize this natural right. They seek to undermine the historic, moral and legal justification for the existence of the state of Israel as the national state of our people.”

A new Basic Law declaring Israel a Jewish state would largely be symbolic, an Israeli official said. “It is declaration to show that this is part of our national ethos.” While Netanyahu assured that while he intends to cement Israel’s status as a “Jewish state” in legislation, it will not harm the country’s non-Jewish citizens. “The State of Israel will always preserve the full equality, in personal and civil rights, of all its citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, in a Jewish and democratic country. And indeed, in Israel, individual and civil rights are assured for everyone, which sets us apart in the large expanse of the Middle East and even beyond.”

However, Israel Justice Minister Tzipi Livni who is Israel’s chief negotiator in the peace process said that she would oppose any attempt to disrupt the delicate balance of Israel’s Jewish and democratic values, regardless of who is behind it. Responding to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to advance a new Basic Law which would enshrine the state’s Jewish status, Livni pledged “to continue to defend Israel’s values as a Jewish and democratic state, and by no means will we allow for the weakening of democratic values and their subjugation to the Jewish ones. This is the essence of the Declaration of Independence and this is the basis of our existence,” Livni said. “Just as I have rejected initiatives like this in the past, I will do it [again], no matter who is suggesting them,” she added.

In response, Netanyahu said: “It is strange for me is that it is those who call on Israel to make concessions in Judea and Samaria because of their obvious wishes to avoid a bi-national state, that are the very same people who object to recognize Israel as the national state of the Jewish people, while at the same time can support the idea of a Palestinian national state.”

In addition, the Palestinians officially became signatories in five UN human rights conventions to which they appealed on April 1. Member of Fatah Central Committee Nabil Shaʻath stated that Palestinian leadership would re-take political actions on the international level after peace negotiations with Israel failed. The International Criminal Court is one of the 63 international agencies and treaties the Palestine Liberation Organization will seek to join. “We will proceed with the [United Nations] treaties and gradually join different agencies and the last will be the International Criminal Court, ” said Mustafa Barghouti, a member of the PLO’s central council. Such a move would allow the Palestinians to bring cases against Israel of alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, Azzam Al Ahmad, one of the Fatah leaders that is behind the tie-up with Hamas played down the prospects of pursuing ICC membership. “To avoid annoying and confusing the United States, we decided to put joining the ICC issue away,” he said. “We don’t want to look like the one that put up an obstacle.”

US Secretary of State John Kerry’s aides said that he would again try to get the sides back to the negotiating table after a pause of several months. Instead of admitting failure, aides said Kerry would continue his Mideast negotiations push after a hiatus of several months. After an initial domestic political boost, the aide predicted, Israeli and Palestinian officials would be forced back to the table by the long-term need for a two-state solution. “It’s a matter of time before they all come back,” the aide predicted, “and want to have negotiations.” “Both parties still indicate that they feel it’s important to negotiate and want to find a way to negotiate,” Kerry said. “So we believe the best thing to do right now is pause, take a hard look at these things and find out what is possible and what is not possible in the days ahead. I personally remain convinced that as each (side) sort of works through the reasons that things began to become more difficult in the final hours, there may be quiet ways within which to begin to work on next steps,” Kerry said. “What has not been laid out publicly and what I will do at some appropriate moment of time is make clear to everybody the progress that was made,” Kerry said. “These eight months – eight months plus – were not without significant progress in certain areas. And I don’t think anybody wants to lose that progress.”

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

The link to these articles are as follows:

1) Hamas, Abbas’s PLO announce reconciliation agreement
2) Haniyeh: Palestinian unity government within five weeks
3) Kerry: Hamas-Fatah Pact Was Unexpected
4) Palestinians become signatories in 5 UN human rights conventions
5) Shaʻath Calls for Popular and International Action after Israel foiled Peace Talks
6) Palestinians may seek to join International Court
7) Hamas: Our Gaza forces won’t take orders from Abbas
8) Islamic Jihad Seeks to Join Hamas-Fatah Pact
9) Mashaal: Hamas remains committed to jihad against Israel
10) Hamas Reiterates: We Will Never Recognize Israel
11) Senators to Kerry: Aid to PA Should be Conditioned
12) Palestinians risk US aid freeze if Hamas joins government
13) ‘Kerry will resume push for Israeli-Palestinian talks after pause of several months’
14) Kerry says he’ll pause, reassess after Israeli-Palestinian peace bid
15) Inside the talks’ failure: US officials open up
16) Israel Will Not Be Threatened
17) Abbas rebuffed bid to find mutually acceptable wording on ‘Jewish state’
18) Netanyahu to promote Jewish state legislation
19) Livni bashes PM’s plan to codify Israel’s Jewish status
20) ‘It is Impossible to Have a Bi-National State’

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

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

Shalom in Yeshua the Messiah,

Eddie Chumney
Hebraic Heritage Ministries Int’l