893 Jimmy Carter urges Obama to back a Palestinian state at UNSC before January 20

Jimmy Carter urges Obama to back a Palestinian state at UNSC before
January 20

Newsletter published on 16 December 2016

(1) Jimmy Carter urges Obama to back a Palestinian state at UNSC before
January 20
(2) Jimmy Carter: America Must Recognize Palestine - NYT
(3) Jimmy Carter: US must recognize a Palestinian state - Jerusalem Post
(4) Will state of Palestine be Obama's legacy? UNSC vote in Lame Duck
season?
(5) The United Nations General Assembly Passes 6 Outrageous Anti-Israel
Resolutions

(1) Jimmy Carter urges Obama to back a Palestinian state at UNSC before
January 20
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/jimmy-carter-urges-barack-obama-to-divide-the-land-of-israel-at-the-united-nations-before-january-20th

Jimmy Carter Urges Barack Obama To Divide The Land Of Israel At The
United Nations Before January 20th

By Michael Snyder, on November 29th, 2016

In an absolutely stunning editorial for the New York Times, former
president Jimmy Carter has publicly called for Barack Obama to divide
the land of Israel at the United Nations before Inauguration Day. While
he was president, Carter negotiated peace between Israel and Egypt, and
ever since that time he has been a very strong advocate for a
Palestinian state. Carter is completely convinced that a "two-state
solution" will bring lasting peace to the Middle East, but now that
Donald Trump has been elected Carter knows that his dream of seeing a
Palestinian state while he is still alive is rapidly slipping away. In a
desperate attempt to salvage the situation, Carter is urging Barack
Obama to take bold action while he still has the power to do so.

In his New York Times editorial, one of the steps that Carter says that
Obama should take is to give formal U.S. diplomatic recognition to a
Palestinian state…

     I am convinced that the United States can still shape the future of
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before a change in presidents, but time
is very short. The simple but vital step this administration must take
before its term expires on Jan. 20 is to grant American diplomatic
recognition to the state of Palestine, as 137 countries have already
done, and help it achieve full United Nations membership.

Of course such a move would largely just be window dressing. The new
Trump administration could very quickly revoke diplomatic recognition,
and so if Barack Obama really wanted to "leave a legacy" in the Middle
East he would have to do something that Donald Trump would not be able
to undo.

Later on in his editorial, Carter suggested just such a thing. He urged
Obama to support a UN Security Council resolution that would set forth
firm parameters for resolving the conflict between the Israelis and the
Palestinians…

     The Security Council should pass a resolution laying out the
parameters for resolving the conflict. It should reaffirm the illegality
of all Israeli settlements beyond the 1967 borders, while leaving open
the possibility that the parties could negotiate modifications. Security
guarantees for both Israel and Palestine are imperative, and the
resolution must acknowledge the right of both the states of Israel and
Palestine to live in peace and security. Further measures should include
the demilitarization of the Palestinian state, and a possible
peacekeeping force under the auspices of the United Nations.

In a previous article, I discussed what the three main pillars of such a
resolution would probably look like…

1. It would give formal UN Security Council recognition to a Palestinian
state for the very first time.

2. It would grant East Jerusalem to the Palestinians as the capital of
their new state.

3. It would establish the 1967 ceasefire lines as the basis for final
negotiations for borders between the two states.

Such a UN Security Council resolution would be considered legally
binding on the Israelis and the Palestinians. And the Trump
administration would not be able to undo such a resolution because it
would take another vote of the UN Security Council to revoke the
resolution once it had been passed and that would not happen.

Right now the rest of the UN Security Council is ready to support this
kind of resolution. The only thing that has been standing in the way has
been the U.S. Security Council veto power, and there have already been
rumblings that Obama may not exercise that veto power if a "parameters
resolution" is put up for a vote before he leaves office.

And if Obama was going to make such a move, a really good way to drum up
some public support for it would be to have a highly respected former
president publish an editorial supporting the move in a highly visible
newspaper such as the New York Times.

Over in Israel, the government has been ignoring Carter’s anti-Israel
rants for years, and they have also responded to this latest editorial
by Carter with silence…

     As Carter’s criticism of Israel over the years has become
increasingly scathing and one-sided, Jerusalem’s policy has been to
largely ignore him. In line with this approach, neither the Prime
Minister’s Office nor the Foreign Ministry had any response on Tuesday
to his op-ed.

But without a doubt the Israelis are very concerned about what may
happen next. They know the kind of damage that Barack Obama could do
before we get to January 20th, and they are desperately hoping that
Obama does not decide to do something exceedingly foolish. The following
comes from the Jerusalem Post…

     A number of European governments, as well as various think tanks,
are talking with Obama administration officials, urging them to take
some kind of action on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the waning
days of the current presidency.

     Among the suggestions are a new UN resolution laying down
parameters for a peace deal; US support for the recognition of
"Palestine" in the UN; or – at the very least – backing or abstaining on
an anti-settlement resolution in the Security Council.

     Israeli officials consistently maintain that they do not know what
– if anything – Obama has planned. However, the fact that Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu continuously says – as he did on Sunday – that he
expects Obama not to divert from traditional US policy on the matter, is
an indication that there remains concern over the matter in Jerusalem.

 From a Bible prophecy perspective, the division of the land of Israel
is the number one event that we are watching for right now, and this is
one of the reasons why I have labeled the period of time leading up to
January 20th as "the danger zone".

There have been many that have warned that once we divide the land of
Israel, our land will be divided as well. But in addition to the great
earthquake that is coming to the center of our country, we also know
that so many of the other major judgments that I warn about in The
Rapture Verdict come after the land of Israel gets divided.

But even though the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have both
been running stories about a potential UN Security Council resolution
that would divide the land of Israel, and even though experienced
politicians such as Jimmy Carter and John Bolton are making lots of
noise about it, most people don’t seem to understand how immensely
important this really is in the greater scheme of things.

But if Barack Obama does decide to make a move to divide the land of
Israel at the United Nations at some point during the next several
weeks, the consequences for this nation will be more severe than most
people would dare to imagine.

About the author: Michael Snyder is the founder and publisher of The
Economic Collapse Blog and The Most Important News. Michael’s
controversial new book about Bible prophecy entitled "The Rapture
Verdict" is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.

(2) Jimmy Carter: America Must Recognize Palestine - NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/28/opinion/jimmy-carter-america-must-recognize-palestine.html?_r=1

Jimmy Carter: America Must Recognize Palestine

By JIMMY CARTER

NOV. 28, 2016

ATLANTA — We do not yet know the policy of the next administration
toward Israel and Palestine, but we do know the policy of this
administration. It has been President Obama’s aim to support a
negotiated end to the conflict based on two states, living side by side
in peace.

That prospect is now in grave doubt. I am convinced that the United
States can still shape the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
before a change in presidents, but time is very short. The simple but
vital step this administration must take before its term expires on Jan.
20 is to grant American diplomatic recognition to the state of
Palestine, as 137 countries have already done, and help it achieve full
United Nations membership.

Back in 1978, during my administration, Israel’s prime minister,
Menachem Begin, and Egypt’s president, Anwar Sadat, signed the Camp
David Accords. That agreement was based on the United Nations Security
Council Resolution 242, which was passed in the aftermath of the 1967
war. The key words of that resolution were "the inadmissibility of the
acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and
lasting peace in the Middle East in which every state in the area can
live in security," and the "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from
territories occupied in the recent conflict." Photo

Begin of Israel and President Jimmy Carter of the United States in 1978
during the White House announcement of a Middle East peace agreement
reached at Camp David. Credit Associated Press

The agreement was ratified overwhelmingly by the Parliaments of Egypt
and Israel. And those two foundational concepts have been the basis for
the policy of the United States government and the international
community ever since.

This was why, in 2009, at the beginning of his first administration, Mr.
Obama reaffirmed the crucial elements of the Camp David agreement and
Resolution 242 by calling for a complete freeze on the building of
settlements, constructed illegally by Israel on Palestinian territory.
Later, in 2011, the president made clear that "the borders of Israel and
Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines," and added, "negotiations
should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with
Israel, Jordan and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine."

Today, however, 38 years after Camp David, the commitment to peace is in
danger of abrogation. Israel is building more and more settlements,
displacing Palestinians and entrenching its occupation of Palestinian
lands. Over 4.5 million Palestinians live in these occupied territories,
but are not citizens of Israel. Most live largely under Israeli military
rule, and do not vote in Israel’s national elections.

Meanwhile, about 600,000 Israeli settlers in Palestine enjoy the
benefits of Israeli citizenship and laws. This process is hastening a
one-state reality that could destroy Israeli democracy and will result
in intensifying international condemnation of Israel.

The Carter Center has continued to support a two-state solution by
hosting discussions this month with Israeli and Palestinian
representatives, searching for an avenue toward peace. Based on the
positive feedback from those talks, I am certain that United States
recognition of a Palestinian state would make it easier for other
countries that have not recognized Palestine to do so, and would clear
the way for a Security Council resolution on the future of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Security Council should pass a resolution laying out the parameters
for resolving the conflict. It should reaffirm the illegality of all
Israeli settlements beyond the 1967 borders, while leaving open the
possibility that the parties could negotiate modifications. Security
guarantees for both Israel and Palestine are imperative, and the
resolution must acknowledge the right of both the states of Israel and
Palestine to live in peace and security. Further measures should include
the demilitarization of the Palestinian state, and a possible
peacekeeping force under the auspices of the United Nations.

A strong Security Council resolution would underscore that the Geneva
Conventions and other human rights protections apply to all parties at
all times. It would also support any agreement reached by the parties
regarding Palestinian refugees. Journalism that matters. More essential
than ever.

The combined weight of United States recognition, United Nations
membership and a Security Council resolution solidly grounded in
international law would lay the foundation for future diplomacy. These
steps would bolster moderate Palestinian leadership, while sending a
clear assurance to the Israeli public of the worldwide recognition of
Israel and its security.

This is the best — now, perhaps, the only — means of countering the
one-state reality that Israel is imposing on itself and the Palestinian
people. Recognition of Palestine and a new Security Council resolution
are not radical new measures, but a natural outgrowth of America’s
support for a two-state solution.

The primary foreign policy goal of my life has been to help bring peace
to Israel and its neighbors. That September in 1978, I was proud to say
to a joint session of Congress, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they
shall be called the children of God." As Mr. Begin and Mr. Sadat sat in
the balcony above us, the members of Congress stood and applauded the
two heroic peacemakers.

I fear for the spirit of Camp David. We must not squander this chance.

Jimmy Carter, the founder of the Carter Center, was the 39th president
of the United States.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter
(@NYTOpinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on November 29, 2016, on page
A27 of the New York edition with the headline: America Must Recognize
Palestine.

(3) Jimmy Carter: US must recognize a Palestinian state - Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Jimmy-Carter-US-must-recognize-a-Palestinian-state-473972

Jimmy Carter: US must recognize a Palestinian state

Rivlin refuses meeting in Israel with former US president Jimmy Carter

By HERB KEINON

11/29/2016 13:58

Former US president Jimmy Carter, a frequent and caustic critic of
Israel, joined a host of others this week in trying to lobby US
President Barack Obama to take one final, dramatic step on the Middle
East before leaving office in 52 days.

Carter, in a New York Times op-ed on Monday, called on Obama to
recognize a Palestinian state.

"I am convinced that the United States can still shape the future of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict before a change in presidents, but time is
very short," wrote Carter, who in 1978 helped broker an Egyptian-Israeli
peace deal, and in 2006 helped legitimize the use of the term
"apartheid" in reference to Israel with the publication of his book,
Palestine: Peace not Apartheid.

"The simple but vital step this administration must take before its term
expires on January 20 is to grant American diplomatic recognition to the
state of Palestine, as 137 countries have already done, and help it
achieve full United Nations membership," he wrote.

Carter argued that a US recognition of "Palestine" would make it easier
for other countries to do the same, and would "clear the way for a
Security Council resolution on the future of the Israeli Palestinian
conflict." (Obama urges Israel end occupation and Palestinians accept
Israel)

He said the Security Council should pass a resolution laying out the
parameters for resolving the conflict, "reaffirming the illegality of
all Israeli settlements beyond the 1967 borders, while leaving open the
possibility that the parties could negotiate modifications."

Such a resolution should include security guarantees for both Israel and
a Palestinian state, the demilitarization of the Palestinian state, and
a ""possible peacekeeping force under the auspices of the United Nations."

As Carter’s criticism of Israel over the years has become increasingly
scathing and one-sided, Jerusalem’s policy has been to largely ignore
him. In line with this approach, neither the Prime Minister’s Office nor
the Foreign Ministry had any response on Tuesday to his op-ed.

Carter’s critics have often said that he is "obsessed" with Israel, and
that as a result of this obsession he overlooked as president the
radical changes taking place in Iran that led to the fall of the shah
and the establishment of an Islamic Republic under Ayatollah Khomeini in
1979, something that radically altered the Middle East landscape.

"The primary foreign policy goal of my life has been to help bring peace
to Israel and its neighbors," Carter wrote in his New York Times piece.

In October, the Times also called on Obama to back a UN Security Council
resolution that would lay down guidelines for a peace agreement.

Israel adamantly opposes such a move, saying that an agreement cannot be
imposed from the outside, but must come out of direct negotiations
between the parties.

A UN resolution, Jerusalem believes, would only harden the Palestinian
positions, because they would believe that if they wait long enough, the
world will force Israel to give them what they want.

A number of European governments, as well as various think tanks, are
talking with Obama administration officials, urging them to take some
kind of action on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the waning days of
the current presidency.

Among the suggestions are a new UN resolution laying down parameters for
a peace deal; US support for the recognition of "Palestine" in the UN;
or – at the very least – backing or abstaining on an anti-settlement
resolution in the Security Council.

Israeli officials consistently maintain that they do not know what – if
anything – Obama has planned. However, the fact that Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu continuously says – as he did on Sunday – that he
expects Obama not to divert from traditional US policy on the matter, is
an indication that there remains concern over the matter in Jerusalem.

For instance, on Sunday, at a memorial ceremony at Mount Herzl for
soldiers killed in the 1956 Sinai Campaign, Netanyahu said, "I expect
that in the twilight of President Obama’s tenure he will stand by what
he said in 2011, that the way to achieve peace does not run through
Security Council resolutions, but rather direct negotiations with the
Palestinians, which has been the US position for years."

(4) Will state of Palestine be Obama's legacy? UNSC vote in Lame Duck
season?

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/11/palestinian-state-obama-us-elections-trump.html

Will state of Palestine be Obama's legacy?

A veteran Palestinian thinker and legal expert believes that US
President Barack Obama should use his remaining months in the White
House to ensure that a UN Security Council resolution recommending the
recognition of Palestine be permitted to pass. Camille Mansour, a former
Sorbonne professor and adviser to the negotiating team of the PLO, told
Al-Monitor, "Now that he is freed from elections-related political
shackles, he can allow for Palestine to join the UN as a state under
occupation."

Summary

Some observers are urging that President Barack Obama allow a vote in
favor of recognizing the state of Palestine at the UN Security Council
before leaving office.

Author Daoud Kuttab

Posted November 11, 2016

According to Mansour, Obama could accomplish a number of goals with such
a decision. He said that it could be Obama’s gift to Middle East peace
before leaving office Jan. 20. "He has the ability to instruct
single-handedly his UN representative to support or abstain from a
resolution that will become irrevocable once the UN Security Council
passes it," Mansour said. Even Obama's successor, Donald Trump, will not
be able to reverse it.

Mansour's idea has been discussed by numerous pundits, as has a Security
Council resolution against Israeli settlement activity. Mansour said
that some decisions within the two-state parameter could be invalidated
by the new president. "The idea of a Security Council resolution
regarding settlements or a framework for a future resolution can easily
be reversed by the newly elected president," Mansour said. Recognition
of a state, however, once it is approved by the United Nations is much
more difficult to reverse, he argued, as the state would have received
international legitimacy.

Israel has rejected taking part in an international peace conference
advocated by France. On Nov. 7, Jacob Nagel, Israel's acting national
security adviser, told French peace envoy Pierre Vimont that Israel
would not participate in any international conference, considering such
a forum an international diktat. Israel instead claims it wants direct
talks with the Palestinians.

Palestinian and international political observers are worried that the
newly elected US president will abandon the Middle East or alternatively
make extremist decisions, such as enacting his campaign promise to move
the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The Palestinian government,
headed by Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah, had at its Sept. 27 Cabinet
session condemned Trump's statement.

Palestinian officials appear, however, to be accepting of the new
reality, with President Mahmoud Abbas welcoming Trump's election in a
Nov. 9 message, also saying that he hopes a "comprehensive peace will be
achieved during his term."

PLO Secretary Saeb Erekat reiterated the need for the new US leader to
stay committed to the two-state solution. "We hope from the new US
administration to translate talk about the two-state solution into a
reality, because security, peace and stability in this region can only
happen if the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 is defeated," he said.

Meanwhile, Hamas called on the president-elect to reconsider US policy
toward the Palestinian cause. "The suffering of the Palestinian people
is continuing because of biased, successive American administrations in
favor of Israel," the movement said in a statement released Nov. 11.

Obama making a controversial decision on the Middle East conflict would
not be easy even though freed, as he is, from election shackles. There
are skeptics who think he will not have the courage to make a bold
decision as a lame duck in the White House.

Of three options, recognition of Palestine would be the toughest and a
condemnation of settlements the mildest. Regarding the third option,
Israel and Trump's pro-Israel supporters are already sending signals to
Obama to forgo any kind of action at the United Nations.

Although Trump would not be able to reverse recognition granted by the
Security Council, he and a pro-Israeli Congress could choose to punish
Palestinians by withholding financial support to the Palestinian
government. Censure of the settlements, however, would probably not
elicit a strong reaction after Trump takes over.

Obama has long supported a two-state solution, but right-wing Israeli
officials believe that Trump's election has buried the idea of a
Palestinian state. Allowing a vote for Palestinian statehood — whether
by withholding a veto or abstaining — would be a small step in helping
translate thus far unimplemented US policy and guarantee that the new
president will not be able to bury the two-state solution.

This is especially needed given the United States' 10-year, $38 billion
military aid package to help protect Israel by supplying it with a huge,
up-to-date military arsenal. It is important that before passing the
baton to Trump, Obama round out his legacy by responding to the will of
the Palestinian people by permitting a vote for the State of Palestine.

It is no surprise that Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu have not seen eye to
eye on the Middle East conflict and the Iranian nuclear deal. A positive
decision on Palestinian statehood would be a peaceful response to the
right-wing Israeli prime minister’s anti-Obama interventions in US
policy, especially regarding Iran. It will also help redeem his
presidency not only in the eyes of Palestinians, but those of many
progressives in the United States and around the world.

Progressives have been staunch supporters of Palestinian rights,
including the right to statehood. Passage of a Security Council
resolution recommending a Palestinian state would seal a progressive
legacy for Obama and help make up for his inability to reach a
breakthrough in the Middle East conflict during his eight years in office.

Daoud Kuttab

Daoud Kuttab is a Palestinian journalist, a media activist and a
columnist for Palestine Pulse. He is a former Ferris Professor of
journalism at Princeton University and is currently the director-general
of Community Media Network, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to
advancing independent media in the Arab region. On Twitter: @daoudkuttab

(5) The United Nations General Assembly Passes 6 Outrageous Anti-Israel
Resolutions
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-united-nations-general-assembly-passes-6-outrageous-anti-israel-resolutions

Posted: 04 Dec 2016 04:55 PM PST

<http://amzn.to/2gEk8HW> Last Wednesday, the UN General Assembly
overwhelmingly voted to adopt 6 outrageous anti-Israel resolutions.
These resolutions address a wide variety of issues including "a two
state solution", the status of the Golan Heights and a "lasting solution
to the question of the City of Jerusalem". Unlike UN Security Council
resolutions, these UN General Assembly resolutions are not considered to
be legally binding upon the parties, but they do show that virtually the
entire planet is in favor of dividing the land of Israel and the city of
Jerusalem. In addition, even though the U.S. voted against each of these
resolutions, there is still
<http://themostimportantnews.com/archives/jimmy-carter-urges-barack-obama-to-divide-the-land-of-israel-at-the-united-nations-before-january-20th>a
tremendous amount of buzz that the Obama administration may decide to go
along with a UN Security Council resolution that would set the
parameters for a "two state solution" before the end of Barack Obama’s
term comes on January 20th.

I have not seen a single mainstream news article about these UN General
Assembly resolutions that were just passed. The only way that I learned
about them is because someone sent me a link to an announcement
<http://www.un.org/press/en/2016/ga11861.doc.htm>on the official UN
website. In this article I want to share with you some extended excerpts
from that announcement so that you can see for yourself exactly how the
UN feels about Israel.

The first resolution that was adopted calls for an "intensification of
efforts" to bring about "a final peace settlement" between the Israelis
and the Palestinians. Of course any "final peace settlement" would mean
a "two state solution" that permanently divides the land of Israel into
two separate nations. 153 countries voted in favor of this resolution,
but fortunately the United States was one of the seven nations
<http://www.un.org/press/en/2016/ga11861.doc.htm>that voted against it…

The Assembly adopted a resolution on the peaceful settlement of the
question of Palestine (document A/71/L.21) by a recorded vote of 153 in
favour to 7 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel,
Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 7 abstentions
(Australia, Cameroon, Honduras, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Tonga,
Vanuatu). By the terms of the resolution, the Assembly called for the
intensification of efforts by the parties, including through
negotiations, with the support of the international community, towards
the conclusion of a final peace settlement.

The next resolution that was adopted addressed the status of Jerusalem.
The resolution refers to Israel as "the occupying power", and it calls
for the city to be permanently divided between the Israelis and the
Palestinians. Once again, the vote in favor of this resolution
<http://www.un.org/press/en/2016/ga11861.doc.htm>was incredibly lopsided…

The Assembly also adopted a resolution on Jerusalem (document A/71/L.22)
by a recorded vote of 149 in favour to 7 against (Canada, Federated
States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United
States), with 8 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Guatemala, Honduras,
Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Vanuatu). By its terms, the Assembly
reiterated its determination that any actions taken by Israel, the
occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on
the Holy City of Jerusalem were illegal and therefore null and void and
had no validity whatsoever, and called upon Israel to immediately cease
all such illegal and unilateral measures. The Assembly also stressed
that a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the question of the
City of Jerusalem should take into account the legitimate concerns of
both the Palestinian and Israeli sides.

Subsequently, the UN General Assembly also passed a resolution that
calls for Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights. Sadly, the vote in
favor of this resolution
<http://www.un.org/press/en/2016/ga11861.doc.htm>was also overwhelming…

By the terms of a resolution on the Syrian Golan (document A/71/L.8),
the Assembly demanded that Israel withdraw from all the occupied
territory to the line of 4 June 1967 and called on all parties concerned
to exert the necessary efforts to ensure the resumption of the peace
process. That resolution received 103 in favour to 6 against (Canada,
Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United
States), with 56 abstentions.

The General Assembly also passed three other anti-Israel resolutions
last Wednesday, but none of them were nearly as important as the first
three that I described. But just like with the other resolutions,
<http://www.un.org/press/en/2016/ga11861.doc.htm>the votes were not even
close…

In adopting a resolution on the Special Information Programme on the
Question of Palestine of the Department of Public Information of the
Secretariat (document A/71/L.20), the Assembly renewed the Department’s
mandate. It also requested the Department to disseminate information on
all activities relating to the question of Palestine and peace efforts
and to organize and promote fact-finding news missions for journalists
to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem, and
Israel. That text garnered 153 votes in favour to 7 against (Australia,
Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau,
United States), with 7 abstentions (Cameroon, Honduras, Nauru, Paraguay,
Togo, Tonga, Vanuatu).

The Assembly also adopted a resolution on the Committee on the Exercise
of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (A/71/L.18), as
orally revised, by a recorded vote of 100 in favour to 9 against
(Australia, Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Guatemala, Israel,
Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 55 abstentions, and
a resolution on the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat
(document A/71/L.19), with 98 in favour to 9 against (Australia, Canada,
Federated States of Micronesia, Guatemala, Israel, Marshall Islands,
Nauru, Palau, United States), with 57 abstentions.

Needless to say, the Palestinians were absolutely thrilled by the
outcome of these votes.

In fact, the Palestinian representative at the United States boldly
declared that these resolutions represent
<http://www.un.org/press/en/2016/ga11861.doc.htm>"a clear reaffirmation
of the international community’s consensus on the two-State solution".

And it is true – virtually the entire planet wants to see the land of
Israel and the city of Jerusalem permanently divided.

The only thing that has been preventing that from happening has been the
U.S. veto power on the UN Security Council. Unlike General Assembly
resolutions, UN Security Council resolutions are considered to be
legally binding on the parties. France was ready to introduce a Security
Council resolution last September that would have officially divided the
land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem, but the Obama administration
stopped it. Previously I have spoken about how it appears that a "pause
button" was hit at that point, but now there is a lot of speculation
that Barack Obama may reverse course and decide to support such a
resolution at the Security Council before his term ends on January 20th.

If Barack Obama betrays Israel at the United Nations between now and
January 20th, it will be one of the most prophetically significant
events that we have ever seen, and the consequences for this nation (and
for the rest of the world) will be exceedingly severe.

As you can see from the UN General Assembly resolutions discussed above,
there is a global consensus that the land of Israel should be divided,
and the only one standing in the way right now is Barack Obama.

Let us hope that he doesn’t decide to do something extremely foolish
before handing over the reigns to Donald Trump in late January.