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 situation with the Israel / Palestinian peace process

On December 17, the Palestinians submitted a resolution to the UN Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state based upon 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. The major elements of the resolution is as follows:

Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,

Reaffirming the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination

Noting with appreciation the efforts of the United States in 2013/14 to facilitate and advance negotiations between the parties aimed at achieving a final peace settlement,

Aware of its responsibilities to help secure a long-term solution to the conflict

1. Affirms the urgent need to attain, no later than 12 months after the adoption of this resolution, a just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful solution that brings an end to the Israeli occupation since 1967 and fulfills the vision of two independent, democratic and prosperous states, Israel and a sovereign, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security within mutually and internationally recognized borders;

2. Decides that the negotiated solution will be based on the following parameters:

– borders based on 4 June 1967 lines with mutually agreed, limited, equivalent land swaps;

– security arrangements, including through a third-party presence, that guarantee and respect the sovereignty of a State of Palestine, including through a full and phased withdrawal of Israeli security forces which will end the occupation that began in 1967 over an agreed transition period in a reasonable timeframe, not to exceed the end of 2017, and that ensure the security of both Israel and Palestine through effective border security and by preventing the resurgence of terrorism and effectively addressing security threats, including emerging and vital threats in the region.

– A just and agreed solution to the Palestine refugee question on the basis of Arab Peace Initiative, international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, including resolution 194 (III);

– Jerusalem as the shared capital of the two States which fulfills the legitimate aspirations of both parties and protects freedom of worship;

– an agreed settlement of other outstanding issues, including water;

3. Recognizes that the final status agreement shall put an end to the occupation and an end to all claims and lead to immediate mutual recognition;

4. Affirms that the definition of a plan and schedule for implementing the security arrangements shall be placed at the center of the negotiations within the framework established by this resolution;

5. Looks forward to welcoming Palestine as a full Member State of the United Nations within the timeframe defined in the present resolution;

6. Urges both parties to engage seriously in the work of building trust and to act together in the pursuit of peace by negotiating in good faith and refraining from all acts of incitement and provocative acts or statements, and also calls upon all States and international organizations to support the parties in confidence-building measures and to contribute to an atmosphere conducive to negotiations;

7. Calls upon all parties to abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949;

8. Encourages concurrent efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace in the region, which would unlock the full potential of neighborly relations in the Middle East and reaffirms in this regard the importance of the full implementation of the Arab Peace Initiative;

9. Calls for a renewed negotiation framework that ensures the close involvement, alongside the parties, of major stakeholders to help the parties reach an agreement within the established timeframe and implement all aspects of the final status, including through the provision of political support as well as tangible support for post-conflict and peace-building arrangements, and welcomes the proposition to hold an international conference that would launch the negotiations;

10. Calls upon both parties to abstain from any unilateral and illegal actions, including settlement activities, that could undermine the viability of a two-State solution on the basis of the parameters defined in this resolution;

11. Calls for immediate efforts to redress the unsustainable situation in the Gaza Strip, including through the provision of expanded humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian civilian population via the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and other United Nations agencies and through serious efforts to address the underlying issues of the crisis, including consolidation of the ceasefire between the parties;

12. Requests the Secretary-General to report on the implementation of this resolution every three months

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said he wants to avoid a confrontation with the United States who have said that they would veto the resolution by saying that the Palestinians were open to negotiations on the wording of the text. Abbas said that the resolution “comes in the context of our political battle to liberate the land and end the occupation of the Palestinian state. “We will continue in our consultations with the brothers and friends through deliberations, which will take place in the United Nations,” he said. Diplomats say negotiations on the text before a UN Security Council vote could take days or weeks. Jordan’s UN envoy Dina Kawar said she hoped the council could reach a unanimous decision on the resolution.

Palestinian envoy Riyad Mansour indicated he would not press for a quick vote on the text to allow for more discussion, a move seen as opening the door to possible US engagement at the United Nations on the initiative. “We will continue negotiating with all of them and with the Americans if they are ready and willing so that we perhaps can succeed in having something adopted by the Security Council to open a serious door to peace,” Mansour said.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said that he expects a vote on the Palestinian draft resolution before the end of 2014. Erekat said that the PA has made several amendments to the draft submitted last week and that the vote would take place “very soon” at any time before the end of 2014. Erekat’s comments come two days after diplomatic sources estimated that a UN Security Council vote on the Palestinian resolution was likely to be postponed. According to these sources, the PA wants to postpone the vote on the resolution because it realized that its current wording is unacceptable to countries such as France and Luxembourg, two countries that the PA had hoped would support the resolution.

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the a UN Security Council vote in favor of the Palestinian resolution would result in Hamas taking over the West Bank. Netanyahu said: “Abbas thinks that by taking unilateral steps at the United Nations that he threatens Israel. He doesn’t understand that this would result in Hamas taking over the West Bank. Israel will never allow this and will never accept unilateral diktats. We will always protect our security.”

Meanwhile, Hamas spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhri, called on the Palestinian Authority to withdraw the UN resolution, saying it “doesn’t represent consensus of the Palestinian people.” The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) also urged the PA to “immediately withdraw” the draft resolution, saying the Palestinian leadership was presenting a confusing picture of the bid. “They have been presenting it before the political bazaar at the international level for bids, then they claim they are making amendments as if it has been submitted by others,” the group said in a statement. “Both the original version and the amended version, including the French and British remarks, is beyond repair and reform, and should be withdrawn immediately without delay,” following which all Palestinian factions will be invited for a national dialogue about the resolution, the group said.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said that if the draft resolution is not brought to a vote, the Palestinians “will be obliged to take necessary political and legal decisions.” He threatened that if the Palestinian UN resolution does not pass at the UN Security Council, “we will no more deal with the Israeli government which will then be obliged to assume its responsibilities as an occupier. We are determined to recover the rights of our people, including the right to return and the release of all the Palestinian prisoners in the Israeli jails. We will not succumb to the policy of the Israeli oppression,” Abbas said.

US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that the United States would not support the new Palestinian-proposed UN Security Council draft resolution. US Secretary of State John Kerry has privately told European Union envoys that the US will not permit the passage of any U.N. Security Council resolution on the Middle East peace process until after Israel’s March elections. Speaking at an annual luncheon with the 28 European Union ambassadors, Kerry cautioned that any action by the U.N. Security Council would strengthen the hands of Israeli hardliners who oppose the peace process. Kerry left open the possibility that the United States might ultimately support some sort of U.N. Security Council resolution that didn’t prejudge the outcome of stalled political negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. He didn’t offer any details of what that kind of resolution would have to look like. “Kerry has been very, very clear that for the United States it was not an option to discuss whatever text before the end of the Israeli election,” according to a European diplomat.

The diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the luncheon was confidential, said that Kerry explained that Israel’s liberal political leaders, Shimon Peres and Tzipi Livni, had expressed concern that a Security Council move to pressure Israel on the eve of election would only strengthen the hands of Israeli hardliners, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and leader of the right-wing Jewish Home party, Naftali Bennett. Kerry said Livni had “told him that such a text imposed by the international community would reinforce Benjamin Netanyahu and the hardliners in Israel,” as well as the hardliners in Palestine, according to the European diplomat. The message, said another European diplomat, was that U.N. action would “give more impetus to more right-wing parties, that there was a risk this could further embolden the more right-wing forces along the Israeli political spectrum.”

According to the magazine, Foreign Policy, while there is little doubt as to the Americans’ wish for a new government in Israel that would be more flexible in negotiations with the Palestinians, the Obama administration is keen to avoid any steps that could be interpreted as meddling in the Israeli election for fear that it would embolden those political parties in Israel who oppose a peace agreement with the Palestinians. The report stated that European diplomats and the Palestinians have tried to ascertain what kind of diplomatic offering the Americans have planned for after the Israeli elections, but so far have been met with “vague” responses from the United States.

The Palestinian UN resolution has caused increased tensions with the US and the Palestinians who have expressed growing skepticism of the ability of the US to broker a political settlement with Israel that guarantees the creation of a future Palestinian state. A US veto of the Palestinian resolution would likely cause European governments to have increased domestic criticism over their inability to help advance the Palestinians quest for its own homeland.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said that if the UN Security Council did not pass the Palestinian resolution to recongize a Palestinian state based upon 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital that the Palestinians would “no longer deal” with Israel. Abbas said: “If the Arab-Palestinian initiative submitted to the Security Council to put an end to (Israeli) occupation doesn’t pass, we will be forced to take the necessary political and legal decisions. If it fails, we will no longer deal with the Israeli government, which will then be forced to assume its responsibilities as an occupier,” he added. “We are determined to regain the rights of our people, including the right of return (for refugees) and the freedom of all Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails,” Abbas said.

Meanwhile, Arab League Secretary- General Nabil Elarabi said he was considering dispatching a delegation to the United States to urge the US administration to refrain from vetoing the Palestinian statehood resolution. He said that Arab League foreign ministers were scheduled to meet on January 15 to discuss ways of mustering worldwide support for the resolution, which calls for setting a timeline for an Israeli withdrawal to the pre- 1967 lines. Elarabi said it was important to remind the US of UN Resolution 465, which passed in 1980 and which considers settlements illegal.

Finally, the United States participated in a closed-door meeting in New York on the French alternative to the Palestinian resolution with French, British and Jordanian representatives. Diplomats familiar with those talks say that the United States has been willing to engage in general discussions about the possible role for the Security Council role but that it has been unwilling so far to engage in substantive negotiations over the French text. Those discussions may continue next week and beyond, but there “is no sense of urgency,” according to one diplomat.

The French resolution states the following:

1. Affirms the urgent need to attain, no latter than 24 months after the adoption of this resolution, a just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful solution that fulfills the vision of two independent democratic and prosperous states, Israel and a sovereign contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security within mutually and internationally recognized border;

2. Decides that the negotiated solution will be based on the following parameters:

–        borders based on 4 June 1967 with mutually agreed limited equivalent land swaps;

–        security agreements that respect the sovereignty of a non-militarized state of Palestine, including through a full phased withdrawal of Israeli security forces which will end the  occupation that began in 1967 over an agreed transition period in a reasonable timeframe, and that ensure the security of both Israel and Palestine through effectively with security threats including with new and vital threats in the region;

–        an agreed, just, fair, and realistic solution to the refugee question, including a viable mechanism to provide for reparation, resettlement, compensation and other agreed measures for a conclusive resolution;

–        Jerusalem as the shared capital of the two States which fulfills the aspirations of both parties and protects freedom and worship;

–        an agreed settlement of other outstanding issues, including water;

3. Recognizes that the final status agreement shall put an end to all claims to the occupation and lead to immediate mutual recognition;

4. Affirms that the definition of a plan and schedule for implementing the security arrangements shall be placed a the heart of the negotiations within the framework established by this resolution;

5. Looks forward to welcoming Palestine as a full member of the United Nations;

6. Urges both parties to engage seriously in the work of building trust and to act together in the pursuit of peace by negotiating in good faith and eschewing provocative acts or statements and also calls upon all states and international organizations to contribute to an atmosphere conductive to negotiations;

7. Encourages concurrent efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace in the region, which would unlock the full potential of neighborly relations in the Middle East and reaffirms in this regard, the importance of the full implementation of the Arab Peace initiative;

8. Calls for a renewed negotiation framework that the close involvement, alongside the parties, of major stakeholders, to provide political support as well as concrete support for post-conflict arrangements, to help the parties reach an agreement within the established timeframe and implement all aspects of the final status;

9. Calls upon both parties to abstain from any new actions, including settlement activities, that could undermine the viability of a two state solution on the basis of the parameters defined in this resolution;

In an editorial in the Israeli newspaper, Times of Israel, an analysis of the current situation regarding the Palestinian and French draft proposals is as follows:

The Palestinian bid to attain statehood and a full Israeli withdrawal via the United Nations Security Council is, to put it politely, unpredictable and confusing. Less politely, it is capricious, ill-judged and could prove to be self-defeating.

It remains unclear exactly how and when Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is going to proceed. On Monday, PA Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki vowed not to wait until after the Israeli election in March 2015 with a Security Council resolution demanding recognition for a Palestinian state and an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines. Senior Palestinian official Saeb Erekat said this week the resolution will be ready for a vote “in the next few days,” while Jordan, which represents the Palestinians in the council, said it “will take time” before any draft comes to a vote.

Regardless of the timing, though, it appears that after all is said and done and the resolution is formally submitted and voted on, the Palestinian position on the international stage will not have improved significantly. Nor will the whole brouhaha have done much to pressure Israel into concessions.

Indeed, if the Palestinians go ahead and bring their resolution — which calls for an “end to the Israeli occupation” and the establishment of a “sovereign, contiguous and viable State of Palestine” within one year — to a vote, they risk weakening their position in future diplomatic standoffs with Israel.

“This looks like a classic ‘The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity’ situation,” a European official told The Times of Israel.

Even if the Palestinians wait until the New Year — when the Security Council will be more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause than in its present composition —  the draft resolution they have submitted will most likely not pass. True, after Angola, Malaysia and Venezuela replace Rwanda, South Korea and Argentina, respectively, the draft will probably get the nine yes votes required for a UNSC majority. But then it will most likely fall prey to an American veto.

The draft as the Palestinians submitted it last Wednesday, via the Jordanians, is so far from the international consensus on the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that the Americans will have no choice but to veto it. The spokesperson of the US State Department, Jen Psaki, made plain last week that Washington will not support the draft as it currently reads. Even the French would not back this text, the European diplomat said.

“The Palestinian text is absurd,” the diplomat opined. “It’s purely a Palestinian wishlist — it doesn’t fly at all.”

France, Germany and Britain — the so-called E3 — offered to work with the Palestinians on a draft that would be acceptable to them and that could have ostensibly garnered American support as well. “The French,” who are leading the E3 effort, “wanted to give the Palestinians something, so they wrote a resolution that everyone could get on board with,” the diplomat said.

But the draft the Palestinians submitted last week is “very different” from the E3’s text, the diplomat noted.

While the Palestinians call for a “just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful solution” within 12 months, the E3 version speaks of 24 months. The Palestinians demand that a phased Israeli withdrawal be concluded by the end of 2017; the European draft gives no deadline. The E3 version further mentions that Palestine would be a “non-militarized state,” a provision absent from the Palestinian draft.

Most critically, the Palestinian text seeks a solution to the refugee question “on the basis of Arab Peace Initiative, international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, including resolution 194 (III).” This resolution, passed by the UN General Assembly in December 1948, stipulates that all Palestinian refugees “wishing to return to their homes … should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date.”

In contrast, the E3 draft envisages “an agreed, just, fair, and realistic solution to the refugee question, including a viable mechanism to provide for reparation, resettlement, compensation and other agreed measures for a conclusive resolution.” The word “realistic” is key here. The Palestinian draft would allow millions of Palestinians to flood Israel — an absolute nonstarter. The E3 version, on the other hand, seems to accept the Israeli demand, shared by the international community, that the majority of refugees not be allowed to return to Israel. (Israel’s general position is that no refugees be given a “right of return.”)

The Palestinians signaled readiness to discuss the wording of their draft, but even some fine-tuning will probably not be able to save it from an American veto. Had the Palestinians chosen to adopt the European text, they would have succeeded in enshrining the call for a speedy Israeli withdrawal and the establishment of a Palestinian state in international law. Since they insisted on their own version, they will end up with nothing.

The Palestinians are well aware of that, Israeli and European officials said, but for internal political deliberations have decided to go ahead anyway. “They’re playing games with themselves; they don’t want to succeed,” one official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “They want to show their public that they are fighting for Palestinian principles.” Public opinion polls indicating Abbas’s current low approval rating also play a part in this démarche, the official added.

The Palestinian leadership’s only motivation for going to the Security Council with its draft and being vetoed by the US is the desire for a pretext to turn the International Criminal Court, a different official said.

If the UN bid fails, the Palestinians have repeatedly threatened, they will sign the Rome Statute and apply for membership in the ICC, where they can seek to sue Israel for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

A Palestinian application to the ICC is a potent threat that has been hanging over Israel’s head like the sword of Damocles since November 2012, when “Palestine” was granted nonmember state status at the UN General Assembly. Jerusalem would go to some lengths to avoid the headlines and headaches that comes with such a lawsuit.

But officials in Jerusalem are not terribly worried about the “State of Palestine” actually joining the ICC. Being able to sue also means being able to be sued, and the Palestinians know they have a lot to lose if they choose to play this game. Furthermore, few Israeli policymakers fear an actual conviction at The Hague.

From an internal political perspective, it is understandable why Abbas would seek a showdown at the UN: Under pressure from both Hamas and the more moderate Palestinian public, he needs to demonstrate that he is doing something to advance independence and statehood.

But if one looks at it from an international angle, the Palestinians’ move appears self-defeating: their resolution, as it stands now, has virtually zero chance of being passed. And were the Palestinians to join the ICC (a process that is by no means guaranteed because it’s unclear whether the Palestinian “state” qualifies for membership), they would have lost an important threat used to intimidate Israel and gained nothing but the right to sue it.

Aware of the methods employed by Hamas and other terrorist groups which fire rockets indiscriminately at Israel, they may want to think twice before making use of this right. And even if they did proceed at the ICC, the path to an Israeli conviction in The Hague would be protracted and difficult. And it would also do nothing to bring the Palestinians closer to statehood.

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

The link to these articles are as follows:

1) Full text of Palestinians’ UN resolution: End the occupation by 2017
2) Erekat: UN to Vote on Resolution ‘Very Soon’
3) Netanyahu: Palestinian move at UN will lead to Hamas takeover in West Bank
4) Hamas rejects Palestinian UN resolution
5) ‘Livni, Peres urged Kerry to stall Palestinian bid for statehood at UN’
6) US will not support new Palestinian resolution at UN
7) Kerry Tells European Envoys U.N. Action on Palestine Can Wait till Israeli Election
8) Kerry: Vote on Palestinian UN bid would strengthen hardliners
9) Abbas: I’ll cut ties with Israel if UN move fails
10) Abbas: If resolution to end ‘occupation’ not passed, we will stop dealing with Israeli government
11) “French draft resolution”: Israeli Palestinian Peace agreement within 2 years
12) Abbas’s UN gambit: Capricious and possibly self-defeating

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 situation with the Israel / Palestinian peace process

Recently, the Arab League voted to support efforts by the Palestinians to have a draft resolution presented to the UN Security Council that would recognize a PLO state based upon 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. Being a current representative of the 15 member UN Security Council, Jordan has agreed to submit a draft resolution for the Palestinians.  PA’s chief negotiator Saeb Erakat said: “The Palestinians want a UN Security Council resolution that will preserve the two-state solution. We want a specific time frame to end the occupation. We are hoping to achieve this resolution before Christmas.” Jordan’s UN Ambassador Dina Kawar said that Jordan plans to submit the draft resolution by Christmas. If not, it will be in January. France, Britain and Germany are in the process of drafting an alternative resolution outlining the principles of an Israeli-Palestinian final-status deal and setting a two-year timetable for completing negotiations on such an agreement. Other parameters for ending the Israeli / Palestinian conflict would also be set, European diplomats said. Senior Israeli diplomats said the Europeans have also briefed the United States on their proposal. Israeli diplomats said that the European initiative was initially led by France.

The EU draft is meant to serve as a counterweight to an extreme, one-sided resolution drafted by the Palestinians. The Palestinian draft calls for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank within two years and the immediate acceptance of Palestine as a full UN member. Also, it does not mention agreed land swaps between Israel and the Palestinians and does not mention anything regarding Israel’s security. Some Western council diplomats described the Palestinian / Jordanian text as “unbalanced.” The French, British and Germans want to present a more balanced resolution that could serve as a basis for renewed Israeli-Palestinian talks and win American backing. While France still hasn’t formally introduced its proposal, it is expected to call for the establishment of the 1967 borders as the basis for dividing the land, but it doesn’t include key Israeli — and US — conditions such as Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has been briefed on the European initiative but that the United States aren’t yet actively involved in the negotiations over its wording. A senior Western diplomat said the Europeans were aiming for a consensus resolution devising a binding, unspecified, time frame and felt the Americans were now open to that possibility.

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke with French President Francois Hollande and asked him to stop the French initiative to support a Palestinian state at the UN Security Council. Netanyahu said: “I told Hollande that I think this move is a negative one and will backfire. Such a move is contrary to a peace agreement, it will thwart all future negotiations and bring about an escalation,” Netanyahu said. “Hollande listened, and I don’t want to say what he said, but I said things very clearly.” Furthermore, Netanyahu accused European governments of siding with the Palestinians over their latest UN bid for statehood, saying their demands would endanger Israel. “I say that the attempts of the Palestinians and of several European countries to force conditions on Israel will only lead to a deterioration in the regional situation and will endanger Israel,” Netanyahu said. “Therefore, we will strongly oppose this.”

Israeli diplomats said that the US position on the European proposal is unclear, and it seems they haven’t yet made a decision. The United States wants to avoid casting a veto on any resolution relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict due to their efforts to forge a coalition of Arab states against the Islamic State. Israeli diplomats noted that the European resolution would be even harder for the Americans to veto than the Palestinian one. Thus, for instance, the European draft doesn’t call for immediately recognizing Palestine as a full UN member. Moreover, it allots two years for final-status negotiations and envisions an Israeli withdrawal beginning only after that. But Britain, France and Germany still haven’t agreed among themselves on all the issues. There’s a consensus on calling for a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines, with territorial swaps. But there’s an argument over whether the resolution should address the issue of Israel being the nation-state of the Jewish people – a clause Germany is pushing to include.

As a result, there were discussions between Britain, France and Germany regarding making a reference to Israel as a Jewish state. Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people is a key demand of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for any peace agreement with the Palestinians. The Palestinians are adamant in their refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state or as the nation state of the Jewish people. According to several European diplomats, Britain, France, Germany and the United States are working on a European draft proposal that would include some kind of reference to Israel’s Jewish character but it has not been decided how exactly it would be phrased. Some would like the resolution to state that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. Others prefer a reference to Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state.” A third version that has been discussed would not make explicit mention of Israel’s Jewish character but refer to UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of 1947 — the so-called Partition Plan — which mentioned the words “Jewish state” 30 times. No final text has yet been agreed upon, and it remains unclear how explicit the reference would be. But all states working on the draft resolution are in favor of mentioning, in some way or another, Israel’s Jewish character.

Some European officials believe that there is only a narrow window of opportunity to push a Palestinian resolution at the UN Security Council. Furthermore, there is a growing US recognition too of European impatience with the current status-quo, as several European parliaments in recent weeks have called on their governments to recognize a state of Palestine. For example, European parliaments in Britain, France, Spain, Ireland and Portugal have already asked their governments to recognize Palestinian statehood — a move that would bypass negotiations all together.

Israeli diplomats said their impression is that the Palestinians want to advance their extreme draft in order to isolate the United States and force U.S. President Barack Obama to veto it. But senior Palestinian official involved in the talks with the Europeans rejected the claim that PA President Mahmoud Abbas opposes any European initiative or wants a confrontation with the United States. A Palestinian official said: “Our insistence stems from one simple reason, which is that in every conversation we’ve had with the Americans and Europeans so far, we haven’t heard a proposal that could meet the Palestinians’ minimum demands.”

US officials said that the US administration had not yet decided whether to back or veto either the Palestinian / Jordanian or European UN resolution proposal. As a result, in an effort to bring together the various sides to form a consensus on the issue, US Secretary of State, John Kerry, had meetings with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Rome, European foreign ministers from Britian, France and Germany in Paris and with the Palestinians and Arab League officials in London. US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that Kerry’s meetings will include discussions on the various proposals at the United Nations to create a Palestinian state. “There are a growing number of countries that are pushing for action on this issue at the U.N.,” Psaki said. “This warrants discussions with Israel, the Palestinians and key members of the international community.” As a result, Jordan’s UN ambassador said she was awaiting the outcome of meetings that US Secretary of State John Kerry is having with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and European governments in order to make a decision on how to proceed with the Palestinian / Jordanian UN Security Council proposal.

The United States opposes supporting unilateral proposals to recognize a Palestinian state based upon 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital by the Palestinians. The United States vetoed a Palestinian proposal to do so in 2011. However, US officials said that they are drawing a distinction between unilateral steps taken by the Palestinians compared to a multilateral resolution at the UN Security Council which would have the backing of many nations. “It’s important to understand that our overall US goal in Kerry’s meetings is to hear from and engage with other stakeholders… to hear their views and to the best of our ability work towards a common path forward,” a State Department official said. The original French draft by no means represents a consensus European position,” the official said.

Prior to meeting with Kerry, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the consideration of Israel being forced to withdraw from Jerusalem and the West Bank within two years. Netanyahu said: “We… stand against the possibility of a diplomatic assault, that is an attempt to compel us by means of UN decisions to withdraw to the 1967 lines within two years,” Netanyahu said. “We will not allow this. We will strongly and responsibly rebuff this. We will stand firm in the face of any diktat.” In his meeting with Kerry, Netanyahu sought assurances from Kerry that the United States would block efforts by Palestinians and Europeans on Palestinian statehood. “Our expectation is that the United States will stand by its position for the past 47 years that a solution to the conflict will be achieved through negotiations, and I do not see a reason for this policy to change,” Netanyahu said. Netanyahu declined to comment on whether Kerry gave Netanyahu those assurances.

Likud MK Danny Danon warned that the Palestinian Authority (PA) is “playing with fire” by going to the UN Security Council to seek recognition of a Palestinian state based upon 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. Danon said: Israel will respond to any unilateral moves by the PA. “Any unilateral recognition of an imaginary country will lead to serious turbulence in the Middle East. Abbas and his friends in the Palestinian Authority must know that any unilateral move will be answered with a unilateral move by the State of Israel,” he said.

In meeting with key European foreign ministers in Paris, Kerry told the various European foreign ministers that the United States opposed the Palestinian / Jordanian draft resolution approved by the Arab League. At the conclusion of the meeting, US officials said there was no consensus among the Europeans on the best way to move forward to support a Palestinian state at the UN Security Council.

After Kerry’s meeting with the Palestinians in London, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat described the meeting as “difficult.” During the meeting, Kerry asked the Palestinian delegation not to rush ahead with the two-year timetable, and, according to the source, refused to refrain from vetoing the Palestinian / Jordanian draft proposal at the UN Security Council. Erekat said that Kerry opposed the Palestinian / Jordanian draft proposal that was approved earlier this month by the Arab League. Fatah central committee member Mohammad Shtayyeh said that the US refusal to support the Palestinian / Jordanian draft was making it hard to get support from at least 9 UN Security Council members. A majority of nine out of the 15 Security Council members is needed to pass any resolution in committee which would require a full vote by all 15 UN Security Council members. However, each of the five permanent members (US, Russia, China, Britain and France) has the right to veto any decision taken by the majority. However, there will be 5 new rotating UN Security Council members after January 1 who would be more supportive of a Palestinian based UN Security Council resolution. Therefore, if the vote is held after January 1 on a potential Palestinian based UN Security Council resolution, it’s likely the Palestinians can get 9 votes from the Security Council to have a full vote which would put the United States in a dilemma whether or not to veto the Palestinian proposal. It is possible that the Palestinians would still favor a potential US veto in order to lay the rationale for them to turn to the United Nations International Criminal Court where they could file a suit against Israel for its settlement construction in the West Bank.

After evaluating their various options, the Palestinian leadership decided that they wanted to present their Jordanian sponsored draft resolution on December 17. However, the Palestinians said that they were willing to accept the French led European proposal if they could reach an agreement on the wording of the draft proposal. Palestinian foreign minister, Riyad al-Maliki said that the Palestinians would be open to adopting a softened European draft resolution with some Palestinian modifications to it. Maliki said that he would meet with French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius to discuss his suggested revisions to the European proposal and said that the Palestinians would adopt the European initiative if the changes were accepted. Jordan’s UN Ambassador Dina Kawar said: “We will be sitting together and seeing … the possibilities of working with everybody to get as close as possible to a unified text that will be for the interests of everybody. We really want to get everybody on board and that’s our intention.”

As a result, Palestinian foreign minister, Riyad al-Maliki said the Palestinians agreed with France on a merged text that removes recognition of Israel as a Jewish state but gave no further details of its content. Senior Palestinian official Mohammed Shtayyeh said France “agreed” to the PA version, saying “we have merged. We don’t have two texts now. There is one single text. We have happily accepted the French text when the modifications that we have suggested have been made.” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said that the Europeans were looking for “a resolution which everyone can get behind.” It is the merged French based European draft and the Palestinian / Jordanian draft that will be presented to the UN Security Council as a blueprint in the near future.

Amid a lack of clarity over the final text to be submitted on behalf of the Palestinians, the US has not stated definitively whether it will use its veto. Furthermore, the US State Department said it did not automatically consider a UN Security Council proposal to be a unilateral measure, and said it was not true that the US vetoed all Security Council resolutions related to Israel in the past. UN State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said that the United States examines each UN Security Council resolution based upon its merit.  Psaki noted the US had supported resolutions that were not “one-sided.” Psaki said: “There are certain things we would never support.” For example, the US said that a time table for the removal of Israel security forces constitutes a unilateral action and they will oppose it. When asked what kind of resolution the US would consider supporting at the UN, Kerry said the administration has “made no determinations…about language, approaches, specific resolutions, any of that.” Kerry did say that a solution to the conflict could not be imposed from the outside, but must be agreed upon through negotiation. However, a US veto risks running contrary to US policy which calls for the establishment of a PLO state and would anger key Arab allies – many of whom are much-needed partners in the US-led coalition against Islamic State militants.

While the Obama administration claims to be undecided on a French initiative to impose a two-year timeline on the creation of a Palestinian state, a senior Palestinian negotiator told WND that the proposal is being directly coordinated with the United States. The Palestinian negotiator did not say the U.S. would support the U.N. plan. However, he said the Obama administration sees the French proposal as an acceptable alternative to the Palestinian / Jordanian proposal seeking direct unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state at the Security Council. The negotiator said he believes the U.S. wants to “see Israel sweat” and desires to use the French plan to extract concessions from Netanyahu before presenting the official Obama administration response to France’s U.N. initiative.

Israel Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said: “All these moves are part of a planned, organized and designed effort to force Israel to ‘face facts,'” he continued. “This is a political attack we must deal with it in a smart and determined manner. The State of Israel will not agree to be dictated to by the Palestinians,” Liberman declared. “Any attempt by the Palestinians, assisted by international bodies, to impose on us their desired solution, will only deteriorate the situation in the region even more and be liable to fail. To European countries that cooperate with the Palestinians, these moves are like those who bring the burning match to someone holding a powder keg in his hand,” he continued. “They do not help anyone but are just operating from their own internal social and political interests.” Nevertheless Liberman said: “I wish pragmatism dominated the political discourse in Israeli society. We are torn between autism, pragmatism and fanaticism,” Liberman said. “If you want a veto from the US (in hostile UN proposals) you need to understand that you can’t criticize the United States” Liberman said. “Israel needs to come up with policy recommendations to solve the Israel / Palestinian conflict. We cannot be constantly saying no, no, no. Within the context of the crisis on the Middle East, it is imperative that Israel initiate solutions and push them forward. We must adopt a pragmatic approach, because without it, it won’t matter if we’re right.”

If the Security Council rejects the resolution, then on that same day Palestinians will join the International Criminal Court by signing the Rome Statute and other relevant documents, chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat said. Palestinian UN Ambassador Riyad Mansour Mansour accused Israel of committing war crimes during the 51-day Gaza war last summer and by building settlements on “occupied Palestinian territory.” Recently, the Palestinians attended a meeting of the ICC as an observer. Alluding to US and Israel opposition to the Palestinians joining the ICC, Mansour said: “Anyone claiming that joining the ICC is a red line that should not be crossed is in essence opposing your collective position of what the ICC stands for.”

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

The link to these articles are as follows:

1) Three EU powers draft Security Council resolution on Israeli-Palestinian deal
2) Jordan hopes for December vote on a UN Palestinian resolution
3) PA Wants UN Resolution on Israeli Withdrawal by End of the Month
4) Kerry to hold emergency meeting with Netanyahu ahead of Palestinian push at UN
5) Netanyahu, Kerry to meet Monday on Palestinian statehood
6) Kerry, Israel’s Netanyahu to meet in Rome for Middle East talks
7) Kerry arrives in Rome for Palestinian statehood talks
8) Palestinians push UN bid as Kerry begins European talks
9) Palestinians may push statehood bid at UN on Wednesday
10) Palestinians to submit draft resolution to UN later this week
11) Jordan: No plan to push for quick UN vote on Palestine
12) French-Palestinian UN bid said to drop Jewish state reference
13) French ‘coercion’ plan against Israel ‘coordinated with Obama’
14) PM warns against Palestinian UN bid ahead of Kerry meet
15) US to veto Palestinian resolution ‘to end occupation’
16) Kerry Reportedly Vows UN Veto, PA Pushes UN Bid Anyway
17) Danon: The PA is ‘Playing with Fire’
18) Netanyahu asks French president to halt UN initiative on Palestinian state
19) PA to consider revised European statehood bid
20) European UN draft likely to reference Israel’s Jewish nature
21) Pressure remains on Israel as Kerry declines veto guarantee at UN
22) Netanyahu: European support for Palestinians ‘endangers Israel’
23) Liberman: Israel Will Not Be Dictated to by the PA
24) Liberman: Israel needs to adopt pragmatic approach
25) Palestinians tell ICC they want to join the court

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 reason for new elections in Israel scheduled for March 17, 2015.

On December 8, the Israeli Knesset voted to have new elections. They will be held on March 17. The vote was 93 to 0. In part, new elections came about from a disagreement among members of Netanyahu’s government coalition over a bill to recognize Israel as a ‘Jewish state’ that is democratic. The ‘Jewish state’ bill passed in the Israeli cabinet 15 to 6. Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained the purpose of the ‘Jewish state’ bill by saying that the Jewish nature of Israel is increasingly being challenged.

“The Palestinians refuse to recognize this, and there is also opposition from within – there are those groups who want to have autonomy in the Galilee and the Negev areas of Israel, and who deny our national rights,” he explained. “It cannot be that Arabs can live in all communities and Jews can not live in Arab communities. What is evolving here is a state within a state. The state of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people in which it realizes its aspiration for self determination in accordance with its cultural and historic heritage,” states the bill. “The right to realization of national self determination in Israel is exclusive to the Jewish people.” Netanyahu said Israel is the nation where there are equal rights for every citizen. “But there are national rights only for the Jewish people; a flag, anthem, the right of every Jew to immigrate to Israel, and other national symbols,” he said.

The prime minister has promised to amend these last passages, however, to make the law more “moderate.” In his version, Israel’s character as the Jewish national state, and its democratic nature, receive equal stress. In the current version, Israel’s Jewish character is placed before its democratic nature. However, the current version also states clearly that Israel is a democracy and that it respects the rights of all its citizens.

“People ask who needs this bill; we have managed 66 years without it,” Netanyahu said in the presence of reporters ahead of the meeting. Israel is a Jewish democratic state. There are those who want democracy to take precedence over Judaism, and those who want Judaism to take precedence over democracy. In the draft law that I am bringing, both principles are equal and must be given equal consideration. Israel has always been a Jewish state, but all citizens have equal rights under law, regardless of race, gender or religion. However, only the Jewish people have national rights in Israel and that needs to be anchored in law. I also don’t understand those who call for two states for two peoples, but at the same time oppose anchoring that in law. They are quick to recognize a Palestinian national home, but adamantly oppose a Jewish national home.”

Both laws state that Jewish law will serve as a source of inspiration for Israel’s lawmakers and courts. Should a judge fail to find a solution for a juridical issue, it says, “he should decide it in accordance with the principles of freedom, justice, honesty and peace of the heritage of Israel.”

However,  two senior ministers in Netanyahu’s government opposed the ‘Jewish state’ bill. They were Israel Justice Minister and chief negotiator in the peace process with the Palestinians, Tzipi Livni, and Israel Finance Minister, Yair Lapid. They pledged to not vote for the law when it was presented before the Israeli Knesset. Livni said: “I will not support this bill. give a hand to this bill. Yair Lapid also pledged that he would vote against the bill. Lapid said: “The bill submitted today puts the Jewish state before democracy. Neither I, nor the Yesh Atid party, will vote for the law.” Netanyahu addressed threats and ultimatums by his coalition partners to break up the government over this and other issues, saying “the country cannot be run in this manner.”

Leader of the religious Zionist party, Jewish Home, Naftali Bennett said “If the bill doesn’t pass, we don’t have a coalition; everything will fall apart. We all signed a [coalition] agreement. I expect everyone to keep their commitments.”

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said that the proposed “Jewish state bill” “places obstacles in the way to achieving peace.” The PLO strongly condemned the bill, claiming it is aimed at destroying the two-state solution. A statement issued by the PLO Executive Committee said the bill is designed to “implement the Greater Israel plan and the Jewishness of the state on the land of historic Palestine. The so-called historic homeland of the Jewish people is a racist and ideologically exclusionary attempt to forget the Palestinian historic narrative and abolish Palestinian existence.”

Because of the disagreement within Netanyahu’s government coalition regarding the ‘Jewish law’ bill, Tzipi Livni said “the government of Israel has reached a crossroads. We need to stop the violence, the racism, the incitement and fight against difficult bills, or go to the voter and let them choose between two paths, between two worldviews,” said Livni. “Our path is clear. We simply need to stop the extremists, some of whom are in the Knesset, some in the government.”  This government needs to be replaced because it doesn’t know how to fight terror while “upholding freedom and Zionism.” Livni said that she was going to meet with Netanahu over the ‘Jewish state’ law issue but that she will “refuse to compromise on any of the values that have guided me.”

Because of the rebellion against his policies within his own government coalition, Netanyahu said: “In the diplomatic arena, for example, certain ministers regularly attack the policy I have directed and for which I was elected. They have made a controversial issue even out of construction in Jerusalem, thereby strengthening the international criticism of Israel. Those ministers who attack the government and its leader are trying to replace the makeup and prime minister of the government in which they sit, they violate explicit agreements reached, such as a real increase to the defense budget and the transfer of IDF bases to the south. I demand that these ministers stop the subversion and the attacks,” Netanyahu said. “If they agree, we can continue; if they refuse, we will come to our own conclusions and go to the electorate. A government cannot function when its ministers constantly work against its policies and attack the government of which they are a part from almost every direction and on every issue. I have not received even the most basic obligation — the loyalty and responsibility of ministers to the government in which they serve,” Netanyahu said.

As a result, Israel Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu met with his Finance Minister, Yair Lapid, and presented him with five conditions for maintaining the current coalition:

1) Stop undermining the government, especially over construction in Jerusalem and ties with the US.
2) Transfer, as promised, NIS 6 billion to the defense budget for training and procurements, including Iron Dome and heavy APCs.
3) Free up funds for the IDF’s planned relocation to southern Israel.
4) Support the ‘Jewish nationhood’ bill as formulated on the principles presented by the prime minister.
5) Freeze the 0% VAT proposal, instead using the NIS 3 billion previously allocated to produce real housing solutions to reduce prices.

Minutes after Netanyahu published his list of demands, Lapid said that the prime minister was “dragging Israel to unnecessary elections” with demands that were impossible to accept. Israel. Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, said, “It is wrong to advance racist legislation and allowing extremists, some of whom are in the coalition, to have their way.”

Because of their rebellion, Netanyahu decided to fire Tzipi Livni and Yair Lapid from their government positions. As a result of firing Yesh Atid’s leader, Yair Lapid, all Yesh Atid’s government ministers quit their jobs. Netanyahu instructed his Cabinet Secretary to issue termination letters to the two senior ministers, citing constant criticism aimed at him and his government from both Livni and Lapid. In firing them, Netanayahu said: In recent weeks, including the last 24 hours, Ministers Lapid and Livni harshly attacked the government under my leadership. I won’t tolerate any more opposition within the government, I won’t tolerate ministers attacking from within the government the government’s policies and its leader.”

Regarding Lapid, Netanyahu said that he undermined Israel’s “aggressive policy against Iran’s nuclear program” by criticizing the prime minister’s decision to boycott Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s speech at the UN General Assembly. Lapid undermined the government’s policy to demand the Palestinian to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people when he said in an interview he didn’t think it was necessary to make that demand, Netanyahu said. Both Lapid and Livni, the prime minister added, criticized plans to build some 1,000 housing units in Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem located beyond the Green Line, with Livni saying the move was “irresponsible.”

“Well, Livni is the last one who can preach to anyone about responsibility,” Netanyhu said. “In May of this year she met with Mahmoud Abbas in complete contrast to the cabinet’s decision not meet with him at the time, as well as against my explicit order not to hold the meeting. Later she went on to say, while serving as the justice minister, ‘Netanyahu’s boycott of Abbas is stupid.’ And today she once against attacked the government under my leadership.” He also accused both Livni and Lapid of trying to “seduce the ultra-orthodox parties to remove the prime from power.”

Netanyahu said: “In recent weeks both Livni and Lapid have joined forces to lure the ultra-Orthodox parties to remove me as the prime minister while sitting in my government. By the way, these are the same ultra-Orthodox parties that Lapid frequently claims that he refuses to sit with them [in the government]… it is a violent overthrow of a government. It is impossible to run a government in this state.”

Ultra-Orthodox MK Nissim Ze’ev (Shas) said that Yesh Atid chairman Yair Lapid indeed approached the ultra-Orthodox parties trying to organize an effort to remove Netanyahu from power. However, Ze’ev said, Lapid did not directly approach Shas but rather sent “messengers” to the party’s members in order to find out whether they were willing to form an alternative government.

Before calling for early elections, Netanyahu held a meeting with Israel Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman in an effort to convince him to form an alternative government coalition with the ultra-Orthodox parties and avoid early elections. However,  Liberman has long been opposed to joining up with the ultra-Orthodox parties and declined Netanyahu’s offer to have an alternative government with the ultra-Orthodox parties. “Liberman is a man of his word, and if Liberman said that it’s either this coalition or elections, then there is no chance that there will be something else,” a representative said.

Netanyahu also talked with the two ultra-Orthodox parties about being in his government. However, in order for the two ultra-Orthodox parties to join the Netanyahu government, Israel Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman would have to soften his position on the issues of the ultra-Orthodox serving in the Israeli army and change his position on the conversion law. Liberman refuses to do this. Therefore, Netanyahu’s efforts to convince Liberman and the ultra-Orthodox parties to form an alternative government did not succeed.

As a result, Netayahu said that he was going to call for early elections. Netanyahu urged the people of Israel to provide him with a safe majority from which he could lead. Netanyahu said: “I turn to you, the citizens of Israel, this evening because under the current situation, from within the current government, it is impossible to lead a state. My responsibility as prime minister is to do that. To preserve security, to develop the economy, to lower the cost of living – to take care of you, the citizens of Israel. Unlike its predecessor, the current government, from the day of its inception, was a contrarian government,” he said. “It was forced on me because the results of the election – a simple reason – meant that a ruling government under my leadership did not receive enough seats. Maybe because of other reasons, this government had friction and directional differences. It behaved under threats and ultimatums.”

Netanyahu blamed the Palestinians for stymieing nine months of peace talks. “For nine months we negotiated with the Palestinians, but they consistently refused to engage us on our legitimate security concerns, just as they refused to discuss recognizing Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, while at the same time insisting that Israel recognize a nation-state of the Palestinian people,” the prime minister said. They must truly confront violence and fanaticism within the Palestinian community, he said. The Palestinian leaders fuel extremism rather than confronting it, Netanyahu charged. “Sticking our head in the sand does not promote real peace,” Netanyahu said.

Israel opposition leader, MK Isaac Herzog of the Labor party called for Israel’s centrist and left-leaning parties to rally around him and form a political bloc to defeat Likud Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in upcoming elections. Herzog called for Tzipi Livni as well as the Kadima political party leader, Shaul Mofaz and the political party, Meretz, to align themselves with the Labor party to defeat Netanyahu. Herzog said: “I am capable of replacing Netanyahu. I will do everything in order to establish a bloc before the elections,” he said.

In recent weeks, Herzog has been attempting in discussions with party heads to summarize three key principles for the formation:

1. Commitment to the peace process
2. Commitment to social justice
3. An anyone but Netanyahu alliance

Tzipi Livni has agreed to form a political bloc to defeat Netanyahu. Livni said: “We need to remove Netanyahu from power and make the combinations necessary to do so. We need to see which [combined] list brings more votes than the sum of its parts running separately. It could be two parties running together or three.” Livni said the public need not be concerned over the possibility that she and Herzog, who is also the opposition leader, were engaged in a political power struggle, as the two party leaders were deeply committed to forming a unified front against the current prime minister. “[But] there will be a joint list, because it is necessary and offers a better result compared to a situation in which we each run separately. We must join forces and create a situation where there is energy and there is hope. Once there is hope that we can replace Netanyahu, it will happen.” Livni has been offered the number 2 position in the Labor party list if she would join with the Labor party in the next election.

In addition, Kadima party leader, Shaul Mofaz had met with Labor leader, Isaac Herzog, who promised him a place in the top five spots on the Labor Party’s list. Mofaz is a former IDF chief of staff, who previously served as a defense minister in the Likud party of Benjamin Netanyahu.

If Tzipi Livni did formally agree to join forces with Labor leader Isaac Herzog to defeat Netanyahu, a recent poll indicates that they would become the largest political party in Israel with 23 seats. Netanyahu’s party, Likud, would get 21 seats. The party of Naftali Bennett, Jewish Home, would get 18 seats. The party of Israel Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, Israel Our Home, would get 9 seats. The party of Yair Lapid, Yesh Atid, would get 9 seats. A new political party headed by former Likud member, Moshe Kahlon, would get 9 seats. The ultra-Orthodox parties would get a combined 15 seats, and the left wing party, Meretz would get 6 seats. The Arab parties would get 10 seats.

The Likud party of Benjamin Netanyahu and Jewish Home have made a “surplus vote agreement”. This agreement says that additional votes from the two parties – votes which do not amount to a Knesset seat for either party if counted separately – could be combined to form one additional seat for either of the parties, and would award an additional seat to the party which needs it the most.

Avigdor Liberman’s, political party, “Israel Our Home” signed a surplus vote agreement with Moshe Kahlon’s as-yet unnamed party. Meanwhile, the Labor political party signed a surplus vote agreement with the left wing party, Meretz.

The current three Arab political parties in Israel are planning to unite as a single party. This is because a new election law was passed in Israel whereby any political party needs at least 3.25 percent of the vote to be in the Israeli Knesset.

Netanyahu and decided to form an alliance with Jewish Home in the upcoming election. According to the current polls, Likud and Jewish Home would win about 40 Knesset seats. Jewish Home opposes a Palestinian state and supports the annexation of at least some of the West Bank. In the 2013 election, Jewish Home formed a partnership with the political party of Yesh Atid led by Yair Lapid. In making an alliance with Netanyahu, Jewish Home leader, Naftali Bennett disavowed the alliance forged between his party and Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid after the previous elections in January 2013. Bennett said that his alliance with Lapid, which forced Netanyahu to form a coalition with both Jewish Home and Yesh Atid, leaving the ultra-Orthodox parties out in the cold, was “a grave error that I wouldn’t repeat today and shall not repeat in the future.”

In forming this alliance, Netanyahu and Jewish Home agreed to not attack one another during the upcoming election campaign. Bennett opposes a Palestinian state in the West Bank, saying that he had learned lessons from the results of the 2005 Gaza withdrawal. Hamas took over and attacked Israel, he pointed out, and the most damaging incidents for Israel internationally — the 2008-9 Operation Cast Lead in the Strip, the Mavi Marmara raid, and Operation Protective Edge last summer — were all the result of Israel leaving the coastal strip. Furthermore, Bennett said: “By no means will I ever agree to divide Jerusalem.”

Netanyahu is also trying to form an alliance with the ultra-Orthodox parties after the next election. Netanyahu’s current government voted into  law that the ultra-Orthodox would have to serve in the military and be punished if they refused. In appeasing the ultra-Orthodox so that they could join his potential future government, Netanyahu said that he disagreed with the criminal sanctions clause of the law for the ultra-Orthodox to serve in the military. Netanyahu said: “I do not think that yeshiva students studying Torah should go to prison. This was not to my liking.” Repeal of the criminal sanctions clause will be high on the list of ultra-Orthodox demands to join a future Netanyahu government.

According to polls, 62% of Israelis do not want to see the ultra-Orthodox in the next Israeli government. 74% of Israelis oppose the ultra-Orthodox to get increased funding for the Torah schools of study. Furthermore, 57% of Netanyahu’s party voters oppose a coalition with the ultra-Orthodox parties. In order for Netanyahu to form his next government, either Liberman’s, “Israel Our Home” party or the new political party of Moshe Kahlon would have to be willing to be in government with Netanyahu, Jewish Home and the ultra-Orthodox parties. Liberman has already stated that he is not interested in being in government with the ultra-Orthodox parties as he supported the law that the ultra-Orthodox need to serve in the Israeli army.

There are rumors that Liberman’s party, “Israel Our Home” along with the new political party of Moshe Kahlon are considering being in government with a left-wing bloc following the new elections. Based upon the current poll results, this would cause their to be a left wing bloc of about 55 seats and a right wing bloc of about 55 seats. In order to form a government in Israel, you need at least 61 seats. This means that in order for the left to form a government, they would need the support of the ultra-Orthodox parties or the Arab parties. Tzipi Livni and Yair Lapid have already stated that they won’t be in government with the ultra-Orthodox parties. Therefore, in order to form a government, the left would need the support of the Arab parties. The Arab parties would be willing to join an Israeli government to advance a Palestinian state.

In looking to make a peace agreement with the Palestinians to divide the land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem, Yair Lapid said:  Israel’s security is dependent on our ability to take the initiative in the peace process, not to wait until there is no choice. That is the legacy of Begin, of Rabin, of Sharon,” Lapid said. Lapid called for Israel to work with the Arab League for a two-state solution. “Our shared fight against radical Islam allows us to join the coalition of moderate Arab states – Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and to reach a comprehensive peace agreement with them and the Palestinians,” he said.

Regarding any peace agreement with the Palestinians, head of the new political party projected to get 9 seats in next elections, Moshe Kahlon said: “We will not waste an opportunity for peace with the Palestinians and will not hesitate to vacate territory.”  This marks a drastic shift leftward from Kahlon’s previous positions which he held when he was still a member of Netanyahu’s Likud political party. In April of 2011, Kahlon responded to threats of unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood by saying that if the threat materializes, Israel should announce annexation of all of “the territories” that same day, and that PA funding should also be stopped.

According to DEBKA, US President Barack Obama and his White House National Security team headed by Susan Rice are trying to decide on a tactic to interfere in the Israeli elections and to prevent Benjamin Netanyahu from becoming Israel Prime Minister again. The US is still working on a detailed plan of action. The Obama administration wasted no time in setting up appointments for Obama to receive heads of the parties sworn to overthrow Netanyahu – among others, ex-minister Lapid, opposition leader Yitzhak Herzog of Labor and Tzipi Livni (The Movement), who was fired this week as Justice Minister along with Lapid.

They will be given attractive photo-ops with Obama and send messages designed to signify to the Israeli voter that the US president would favor their election to the future government and the country as a whole would gain tangibly from a different government to the incumbent one. This White House campaign would be accompanied by leaks from Washington for putting Netanyahu and his policies in a derogatory light. Messages to this effect were transmitted to a number of serving political figures to not support Netanyahu in the next elections. Obviously, this refers to current Israel Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman to not join the next Netanyahu government.

Finally, the US administration has begun hinting that it may emulate the Europeans by calling for sanctions against Israel as punishment for the prime minister’s signature policy of developing West Bank and Jerusalem development construction. The Israel sanctions discussions are said to have begun after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the US in October and clashed with Obama over the construction of a new housing development in that part of the city. The administration warned Israel that the project would raise questions about Israel’s commitment to peace with the Palestinians. Netanyahu replied that Israel does not accept restrictions on where Jews can live, and that Arabs and Jews in the Israeli capital should be allowed to purchase homes wherever they choose.

For now the circles around the US president are “highly optimistic” about their chances of forcing Netanyahu’s exit, comparing them to the former success of the first President George Bush in forcing the ouster of the late Yitzhak Shamir as Israeli prime minister in the 90s.

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

The link to these articles are as follows:

1) With election date set, Knesset votes to dissolve itself
2) ‘Jewish State’ Law Passes Cabinet Vote
3) Lapid, Livni resolved to fight ‘Jewish State’ bill
4) Coalition in turmoil after cabinet approves controversial ‘Jewish state bill’ 
5) Bennett: No ‘Jewish State bill,’ no coalition
6) Abbas: Jewish state law an obstacle to peace
7) Abbas backs Israeli MKS who oppose ‘Jewish state’ bill
8) Livni Warns Government has ‘Reached a Crossroads’
9) Livni: New elections are to replace extremist, provocative, paranoid government
10) Netanyahu: I will go to the polls if I have to
11) Is Israel heading for elections? Netanyahu and Lapid clash in late night meeting
12) Election likely after Netanyahu-Lapid meeting ends in stalemate
13) Harsh Netanyahu-Lapid meeting heralds likely elections
14) Netanyahu announces elections after firing key ministers
15) Lapid’s Yesh Atid Ministers Quit Coalition
16) Netanyahu said to seek deal to head off elections
17) Report: Bibi Tried to Talk Liberman into Putting Off Elections
18) Last Ditch Effort to Avoid Elections by ‘Enlisting’ Hareidim
19) Election definite after PM nixes last-minute coalition fix
20) Netanyahu calls for new elections, accuses Livni and Lapid of plotting ‘putsch’
21) Shas MK: Lapid Sent ‘Messengers’ for His Putsch
22) Poll: Herzog-Livni union would beat Netanyahu
23) Poll: Joint Herzog-Livni list would get 23 mandates to Likud’s 21
24) Jewish Home, Likud Sign Surplus Vote Agreement
25) Kahlon, Yisrael Beytenu Sign Surplus Vote Agreement
26) Meretz and Labor sign vote-sharing agreement
27) Israeli Arab parties seek unity for upcoming elections
28) Netanyahu: Israel needs a new government, capable of making tough decisions
29) Bennett, Netanyahu said to forge new alliance
30) Bennett: Netanyahu and I agreed not to attack one another
31) Eyeing coalition with haredim, Netanyahu says he opposes criminal sanctions for IDF draft dodgers
32) Poll Shows 62% Don’t Want Hareidi Coalition
33) Opposition leader calls for center-left bloc to defeat PM
34) Efforts to form ‘anyone but Bibi’ coalition gain steam
35) Labor, Hatnua parties consider union ahead of elections
36) Livni confirms Hatnua-Labor close to pre-election merger
37) Mofaz to join Labor Party, reports say
38) Lapid, Herzog butt heads over who will lead ‘center bloc’
39) Yesh Atid, Israel Beiteinu and Kahlon may cooperate against Netanyahu
40) Kahlon Really Moved to the Left, Says Ally
41) Obama set on obstructing Netanyahu’s re-election
42) Report: Obama Eyes Sanctions on Israel While Giving Iran a Pass

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 situation with the Israel / Palestinian peace process

PA President Mahmoud Abbas attended an Arab League foreign ministers meeting in Egypt on November 29 where a discussion took place wherein the Arab League would support Palestinians efforts to submit a UN Security Council draft resolution for recognition of a Palestinian state based upon 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. At the meeting, the Arab League supported Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas’s plan to seek UN endorsement for a timetable for declaring an independent state while rejecting recognizing Israel as a Jewish nation. It also backed Palestinian plans to seek membership in UN agencies and international courts.

The ministers set up a committee comprised of Kuwait, Mauritania, Jordan and Arab League chief Nabil al-Araby to begin seeking international backing for the UN Security Council Resolution. Jordan, an Arab member in the Security Council, agreed to present the draft resolution to the UN Security Council. Arab states have already given their blessings to the idea of presenting a resolution to the Security Council but had yet to agree on a finalized draft and set a date to present it. Arab League chief Nabil al-Araby appeared to suggest that the final draft would be endorsed and sent to a vote. “It is natural that Palestine is heading to the UN Security Council to issue a resolution setting a deadline for ending the occupation,” he said. “The Palestinian issue has been discussed in the past, but what is new today is that the Arab states and Palestine decided to go to the Security Council, through Jordan, with an Arab draft resolution,” he said.

According to Palestinian officials, seven members of the fifteen member UN Security Council have pledged to support the Palestinian statehood bid. The support of at least nine UN Security Council members is needed in order for any resolution to make it out of committee and be able to be voted upon by all UN Security Council members. As of now, the Palestinians have failed to secure the backing of nine UN Security Council members for possible recognition of a PLO state. The position of the United States, which has repeatedly vetoed UN resolutions seen as pressuring Israel, will be crucial in deciding if this latest effort by the Palestinians will succeed. In fact, US Secretary of State, John Kerry warned PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas against taking any unilateral measures, threatening to impose financial and political sanctions on the PA if they presented their draft paper to the UN Security Council. Kerry said that the most effective way forward would be to resume peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. As a result, some Palestinian sources expressed doubt that Abbas would actually go through with the UN Security Council resolution to recognize a Palestinian state based upon 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. “There are Arab and U.S. pressures that will make it impossible for Abbas to take a step like submitting the draft resolution by the end of this year”, the sources added. If peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians were to resume, the Palestinians have presented a number of preconditions for talks to resume, including a three-month settlement freeze while the borders of the future state are negotiated and an Israeli recognition of the pre-1967 lines as the basis of a Palestinian state.

When the Palestinians revealed their proposed text that was to be submitted by Jordan, it was rejected the United States and other members of the Security Council. As a result, France while agreeing in principle to the proposed Palestinian resolution decided to present an alternative draft. France is working with England and Germany in preparing the separate text. The French-led European initiative will be discussed on December 2 in Brussels when US Secretary of State John Kerry holds talks with European ministers during a NATO meeting.Israel Finance Minister, Yair Lapid said that ties between Israel and the US have reached such a low point that the US’s assistance at the UN Security Council — including using its right to veto anti-Israel resolutions — was no longer assured. “We are at an unprecedented low point in our ties with the US. No one knows what they will do when Abbas presents his draft resolution before the UN Security Council. The US vote is not assured like it has been in the past,” Lapid said.

Palestinian representative to the United Nations, Riyad Mansour, said: “The French are moving more and more, trying to bring all the European colleagues together, and I think that eventually they will succeed.” He said that “the time has come to find the political will in order to work seriously for achieving the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including the independence of the Palestinian state on the bases of the pre-1967 borders.” Mansour said he expected a new draft to be submitted to the council “soon, possibly in the middle of the December,” with a vote to quickly follow. The new resolution would pave the way for an international conference to launch what is widely seen as a final bid for an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal with the involvement of all key international players.

French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, said: “At the United Nations, we are working with our partners to adopt a Security Council resolution to relaunch and conclude talks. A deadline of two years is the one most often mentioned and the French government can agree with this figure.”  Fabius said that France is prepared to host international talks in a bid to push forward a drive for peace. “An international conference could be organized, France is prepared to take the initiative on this and in these talks, recognition [of the Palestinian state] would be an instrument … for the definitive resolution of the conflict,” he said. Fabius did not specify when this conference might take place, nor did he say who might be invited. Nevertheless, he said France hoped to bring together all the main players in the conflict, citing the European Union, the Arab League and all the permanent members of the UN Security Council. The minister has frequently said that France would recognize a Palestinian state “when the time comes,” arguing that a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict logically implies recognition of a Palestinian state. “If these efforts fail. If this last attempt at a negotiated settlement does not work, then France will have to do its duty and recognize the state of Palestine without delay and we are ready to do that,” stressed Fabius.

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not be solved by exploiting the automatic anti-Israel majorities in the UN bodies. You can pass anything there. But that is not the way to achieve peace. The only way to peace is through direct negotiations that address all the core issues. Israel is ready for these negotiations; Israel is ready for peace; I am ready for peace. But it must be a genuine peace, a durable peace, and for that, we must have a Palestinian partner who is committed to forging such a genuine peace – a partner who is prepared to confront terrorism and end incitement; a partner who is prepared to recognize the nation-state of the Jewish people; a partner who is prepared to address Israel’s legitimate security concerns seriously; a partner who wants a Palestinian state not to continue the conflict with Israel, but to end it once and for all.

Rather than helping to advance peace, many in the international community are setting back the cause of peace by convincing Palestinians that they can have a state without making peace with Israel. Recognizing a Palestinian state without demanding an end to the Palestinian Authority’s pact with Hamas, an internationally recognized terrorist organization is absurd. Recognizing a Palestinian nation-state without demanding that the Palestinians recognize the nation-state of the Jewish people is unjust. Recognizing a Palestinian state without demanding an end to incitement in official Palestinian media and schools is reckless. And recognizing a Palestinian state without demanding robust security arrangements to enable Israel to protect itself and the peace, that is dangerous. If the issue of Palestinian statehood is brought before the UN Security Council outside the context of a peace agreement with Israel, this should be flatly rejected. If any one-sided anti-Israel resolution is brought before that council, it should be vigorously opposed.

Meanwhile, various European state assemblies voted in principal to recognize a Palestinian state based upon 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. British lawmakers voted overwhelmingly on October 13 in favor of a non-binding motion to “recognize the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution”. On October 30, Sweden officially recognized the state of Palestine.

On November 18, Spanish lawmakers adopted a motion calling for the Spanish government to recognize a Palestinian state. It was adopted nearly unanimously in the lower house of parliament, with 319 in favor, two against and one abstention. The text asks the Spanish government to “recognize Palestine as a state, subject to international law,” while adding that the “only solution to the conflict is the co-existence of two states, Israel and Palestine,” reached through negotiation. Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo said the motion “is not binding, it does not set a timeline for the recognition, and it gives the government the margin to proceed with the recognition when it feels it will be best. If we want to be effective this recognition must be done in coordination with the European Union,” he added.

In response, the Israeli Foreign Ministry said: “When the Palestinians are permitted to understand, albeit mistakenly, that they can achieve anything they want without a return to negotiations and without the required compromises, all that is achieved in practice is the further postponement of the Palestinian return to the negotiating table,” the officials said. “There is a serious mistake here in conflict resolution when you make it more difficult to achieve something rather than contributing to it and promoting a solution,” they added.

On December 2, French lawmakers voted in favor of recognizing ‘Palestine’ as a state. The motion was supported by 339 lawmakers with 151 voting against. However, the vote was symbolic and will not immediately affect France’s diplomatic stance toward the peace process. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius stopped short of supporting the parliamentary motion, saying that the government wants to try other pathways to a negotiated settlement, including setting a time-line for a negotiated settlement in a UN Security Council resolution. “At the United Nations, we are working with our partners to try to have a resolution adopted by the Security Council in order to relaunch the negotiations and to bring them to a conclusion,” Fabius said. “A two-year time frame is often mentioned for that purpose. The French government agrees with this duration.” Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said  the French parliament would be making a “grave mistake” with recognition. “Do they have nothing better to do at a time of beheadings across the Middle East, including that of a French citizen?” he said. “The State of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, the only state that we have, and the Palestinians demanding a state do not want to recognize the right to have a state for the Jewish people.”

Denmark’s parliament will vote on a resolution calling on the government to recognize a Palestinian state in early January 2015. “The parliament directs the government to recognize Palestine as an independent and sovereign state within pre-1967 borders and, by extension, provide the state of Palestine with full diplomatic rights,” the draft text says.

A vote by the European Parliament over whether to recognize a Palestinian state is scheduled for mid-December.  The original vote was postponed . Israeli diplomatic officials said the move was delayed for three reasons: Emerging difficulties between the various parties regarding the language of the resolution; opposition by some members of the parties – especially from Germany – to the resolution; and intensive work by Israeli diplomats in Brussels to postpone the vote, hoping to gain more time to change minds.

In a meeting with Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka, Netanyahu said that Israel’s need to be recognized as a Jewish state by the Palestinians, as well as the necessity for “solid security arrangements on the ground, which are so essential for peace,” are “not addressed by the European countries that unilaterally give recognition to a Palestinian state.” European Parliament recognition of a Palestinian state represents a “big mistake for peace. It encourages the Palestinians to harden their positions, not to compromise on mutual recognition, not to compromise on the things that are needed to achieve genuine security. I think these European positions actually push peace away, and I believe that they make reaching a solution much harder. [These calls] don’t tell the Palestinian Authority that they will have to make genuine compromises and take seriously Israel’s legitimate security concerns. They merely award the Palestinians a prize without asking them at all to make the concessions that are necessary for a genuine peace,” said Netanyahu. Negotiated peace is only possible with compromises from both sides.

In October, the Palestinians informally shared a draft resolution with Arab states and some council members, calling for an Israeli withdrawal from East Jerusalem and the West Bank by November 2016. However, the text was not formally circulated to the full 15-nation Security Council, a move that can only be done by a council member. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas determined that “the American mediation has failed” and demanded US Secretary of State John Kerry “to formulate a resolution draft to the UN Security Council that will press Israel to stop settlement construction.” Abbas said that the Palestinian Authority would “stop the security coordination with Israel if real negotiations don’t take place.” Abbas said he was “willing to recognize the State of Israel, but under no circumstance willing to recognize a Jewish state. Furthermore, Abbas said he will not negotiate over land with Israel, saying, “I won’t give up one inch of pre-1967 with Israel. However, Abbas did say that he was ready to set up a Palestinian State on what he says is 22 percent of the size he says it should be meaning ALL of the present day land of Israel.

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

The link to these articles are as follows:

1) PA denies postponing statehood bid at Security Council
2) Palestinian FM insists UN bid on course, regardless of Iran
3) Arabs to push for UN Security Council resolution on Palestinian state
4) Jordan to present resolution on Palestine in UN soon: Arab League
5) UN Security Council to consider ‘Palestine’ resolution
6) French FM: Last chance for Mideast peace through talks
7) Report: Kerry Threatens Abbas with Sanctions Over UN Bid
8) Lapid: US veto at Security Council no longer assured
9) Abbas: I won’t give up one inch of 1967
10) Abbas says he is ready to set up Palestinian State on ’22 percent of land’
11) Spanish Lawmakers Call for Recognition of ‘Palestine’
12) Foreign Ministry: Spanish Resolution Distances Peace
13) French parliament debates Palestine recognition
14) Denmark’s parliament to vote on Palestine recognition in January
15) Divided EU Parliament postpones vote on Palestine recognition
16) PM: EU calls to recognize Palestine push peace away
17) Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Remarks for The Jewish Federations of North America’s General Assembly

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