Under the Spell of Israel

Zionist Gunzels Slaughter A Village

In Palestine, 60 years of carnage and invasion is still ongoing at the hands of some criminal and occupying Zionists.

They have forged a regime through collecting people from various parts of the world and bringing them to other people’s land by displacing, detaining, and killing the true owners of that land.

With advance notice, they invade, assassinate, and maintain food and medicine blockades, while some hegemonic and bullying powers support them.

The Security Council cannot do anything and sometimes, under pressure from a few bullying powers, even paves the way for supporting these Zionist murderers.

It is natural that some UN resolutions that have addressed the plight of the Palestinian people have been relegated to the archives unnoticed. –Ahmadinejad on Zionists

February 25, 2011

No Zionist news is old news!

As Israel carries out their illegal US funded attacks on civilian populations in Gaza, we look back at the origin of Israel, which is rooted in violence and racism; and the video, Who Were the First Terrorists in the Middle East?

When Gilad Atzmon sent this video across from London today I watched it and shook my head. For me the information isn’t all new but it is enlightening and equally suited for those of us in the know as well as people who are just opening their eyes to Israel’s insane, cruel and needless pattern of violence and cruelty and massive war crimes.

The west has been under a spell for decades, dismissing the real history, meaning and implications of Israel; blindly accepting and funding and protecting what truly is a rogue government without question or delay.

Israel, most unfortunately, is guided by a philosophy that they are more entitled. Israel’s approach to resolving real and perceived problems, as I have written before, is similar to gangland mentality where the biggest guns and sharpest knives, are used to decide the outcome of a situation.

Fortunately, everyone in Israel doesn’t believe in ‘Zionism’; the concept that Jewish people are allowed to take land from other human beings because ‘God gave it to them’.

This philosophy burdens not just Muslim and Christian people who live in occupied Palestine, but also Israeli citizens who speak out against the politicized, violent version of Judaism that Israel represents.

Today Israel is defined by its acts of state sponsored terrorism. As this video reveals, the story dates back to Israel’s very first days

We revealed in a recent report; Rahm Emanuel’s Father Specialized in Bus Bombings in Palestine Wayne Madsen Special to Salem-News.com, that Benjamin Emanue, father of Chicago’s newly elected mayor, Rahm Emanuel, was a Jewish terrorist who specialized in the bombings of buses carrying British troops and policemen during the British Mandate in Palestine.

Things are often not how they seem, and as Egypt’s quest for Revolutionary freedom glows, we receive word that an Israeli bomb has just injured 15 people in Gaza.

Israel is such a terrible player in the world political arena; they are deadly and murderous and prejudice and they cross national borders to conduct military action with impudence; as if beyond reproach.

Irgun, the army of Rahm Emanuel’s father, is short for Irgun Zvai Leumi- “National Military Organization” in Hebrew, was a terrorist Zionist group that operated in Palestine, killing innocent Palestinians and British soldiers; blowing up buildings

Rahm and pop- Chicago.. can only hope the apple landed far from the tree. The next Israeli President of the United States?

This is the same group that has been killing the people of Palestine in a cold blooded manner for over sixty years. They must be stopped.

We do wonder if the Israelis are targeting our friends in Gaza who are in the ground putting the news out in real time; people like Ken O’Keefe, our writer who Israel branded a ‘terrorist’ after the deadly incident involving the Gaza Freedom Flotilla and the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara which was attacked by Israel in the dark with murderous intent.

Nine men were killed, one was American, they were all unarmed.

Ken O’Keefe and others overpowered Israeli commandos and disarmed them, taking them captive. To what end? Ken and the other unarmed peace activists protected the captured Israeli soldiers and gave them medical attention. Then they were released.

Ken O’Keefe is a former U.S. Marine who was aboard the Mavi Marmara when it was attacked by Israel during a recent attempt to break the siege of Gaza.

If only Israel played the same way. I am so sick and tired of hearing Muslim people referred to as terrorists when no place in modern history can even slightly compete with Israel’s record number of terrorism events.

This video shows how from the beginning, Israel has only represented death and violence to the world. Nobody denies the fact that Jewish people suffered during the Holocaust, but anyone who accepts their current behavior certainly should equally agree with Hitler’s quest, at least in concept.

There is no race or culture that is entitled to more than another. The world should not be governed by religious concepts or hate.

Salem News

The Terrorist Expatriation Act is new legislation that will strip all Americans of their right to due process, a trial by a jury of one’s peers and a speedy trial.

The bill would allow the Department of State to, entirely on its own, take away any American’s citizenship who is accused of having ties to a terrorist network. This would deprive the accused of all their rights as an American citizen, including their right to due process. Americans’ most basic rights are at risk!

Brought to you by Senators Joseph Lieberman and Scott Brown in the Senate and Representatives Jason Altmire and Charlie Dent in the House of Representatives.

Perhaps the most egregious example of such dual loyalty is that of Rahm Emanuel, currently serving as White House Chief of Staff to President Barack Obama. He is both an American and Israeli citizen, a man who served in the Israeli Defense Force in 1991 but not in the U.S. military.

If anyone should be considered to have ties to terrorism it should be Lieberman and Emanuel.

The audacity to propose such a bill from someone who has no alliegance to the U.S. and serves a foreign terrorist government is definitely TREASON: treason, renouncing one’s nationality during a state of war, or serving in the military of a “foreign state.”

If this doesn’t violate essence of our government and policies, I don’t what does. We should exercise our rights in preventing this belligerent bill from passing.  A Bill should be introduced to demand that anyone who serves in this country’s (Senate or Congress) or the Executive Branch, must be a U.S. Citizen with Allegiance to the U.S. and ONLY the U.S.

Tell Congress to oppose this horrendous legislation, and any future attempts to restrict or remove American citizens’ fundamental rights!

Sample Letter

The Honorable [Your Rep]:I am outraged by the introduction of the Terrorist Expatriation Act by Senators Joseph Lieberman and Scott Brown in the Senate and Representatives Jason Altmire and Charlie Dent in the House of Representatives.

This legislation is an assault on my basic rights as an American. In one fell swoop, this bill will take away my right to due process and a speedy trial by a jury of my peers. These are bedrock rights that protect my freedom and are guaranteed by the U.S. constitution.
[Your comments will be inserted here.]

This bill comes following the effective and speedy arrest of Faisal Shahzad less than 72 hours after he attempted to set off a home-made car bomb in New York City. Lieberman and company are offended that the the FBI Agents arresting Shahzad — an American citizen — read him his Miranda rights.

This legislation is un-American and a completely inappropriate response to a well-handled law enforcement situation in New York. Please oppose this horrendous bill and any future attempt to deprive me of my rights as an American.

[Your name here]
Complete Address

The Irvine 11, UCI and Michael Oren

UPDATE September 23, 2011:

Last week, the public saw the best and worst of Tony Rackauckas. On Wednesday, the Orange County district attorney concluded a thorough yet timely investigation into the death of a homeless man, which resulted in the unusual decision to file charges against two Fullerton police officers.

On Friday, in a case that never should have been filed, a jury delivered guilty verdicts against 10 of the 11 Muslim students who disrupted a UC Irvine speech by the Israeli ambassador to the United States. After one stupid incident, those students will forever have to answer yes if they are asked by, say, potential employers whether they were ever convicted of a crime. Source

No doubt that should that tables have been turned, and should the 11 students had been Jews, UCI, the despicable Tony Rackauckas – who serves foreign interests, AIPAC and the illegitimate terrorist state of Israel, and possibly the media would have all bowed down and dismissed such a case,  citing, naturally that the Jewish students were allowed to object because they were.. the descendants of those who suffered during the Holocaust!

Then we have the surprising comment by Erwin (Hypocrite) Chemerinsky, the dean of UC Irvine’s Law School, who said that although freedom of speech is not an absolute right, university sanctions were enough for the students. He also added that he believes criminal sanctions go too far.

Chemerinsky told The Times last week that “it makes no sense” to use such resources. “It’s so minor.”

This is the same hypocrite who told the students they FAILED THEIR EXAMS even before they had taken them!


No doubt that many have heard of the Irvine 11 by now.

On February 8, 2010, Michael Oren, a representative of, and the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S.,  was invited to UCI to speak on U.S.-Israeli relations. The speech by Oren was sponsored by the UCI Law School and the Political Science Department.

Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren was invited by several sponsors, including the law school (of which I am dean) and the political science department (of which I am a member) to speak at the university on Feb. 8.

Erwin Chemerinsky Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, UC-Irvine School of Law

Michael Oren: Israeli soldier!

Wikipedia presents Oren as follows: notice how certain points are worded to disguise the ugly truth that this person denounced his U.S. citizenship in favor of becoming an Israeli citizen!

Oren was born Michael Bornstein in upstate New York. His father was an officer in the U.S. Army who took part in the D-Day invasion of Normandy in 1944 and fought in the Korean War.  Oren grew up in New Jersey in a Conservative Jewish household. As the only Jewish boy in a Catholic neighborhood, he says he experienced anti-Semitism on a daily basis.

Of course, this the first line of defense such Zionists use any and every time! In his youth, he was an activist in Zionist youth groups such as USY  and a gold medal winning athlete in the Maccabiah Games.  At 15, Oren made his first trip to Israel with youth movement Habonim Dror, working on Kibbutz Gan Shmuel.

In 1977, Oren completed his undergraduate degree from Columbia University. He continued his studies at Columbia, receiving a Masters in International Affairs in 1978 from the School of International and Public Affairs.

After college, he spent a year as an adviser to the Israeli delegation to the United Nations headed by Yehuda Blum.  In 1979, Oren immigrated to Israel.  In 1979, Oren joined the Israel Defense Forces.

He served as a paratrooper in the 1982 Lebanon War.  His unit was caught in a Syrian ambush on the second day of the war. His commander was killed and nearly everyone was wounded. He then joined a unit stationed in Sidon. Oren married in the summer of 1982 and returned the next day to Beirut.

During the 1991 Gulf War he was Israeli liaison officer to the U.S. Sixth Fleet.  He served as an army spokesman in the IDF Reserves during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.  During the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, he was a media relations officer.

A few years later, Oren returned to the United States to continue his education, studying at Princeton University. In 1986, he earned a Ph.D. in Near East Studies.

On May 3, 2009, Oren was appointed as Ambassador of Israel to the United States by Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu,

How does a U.S. citizen become a foreign government’s Ambassador? Michael Oren renounced his US citizenship in favor of becoming an Israeli.

“..a solemn ritual that involves signing an oath of renunciation. He [Oren] said he got through it with the help of friends from the American Embassy in Tel Aviv who “stayed with me, and hugged me when it was over.” source

If anything, Oren should have never be allowed in the U.S. again or should have been immediately arrested for treason and for serving in a foreign army, representing a state accused of War Crimes and Genocide as proven by the Goldstone Report.

But that would have been antisemitism! [chuckle]

Michael Oren, born in the US and a dual citizen, is about to become Israel’s ambassador to the US which will require him to give up his US citizenship, the JPost reports. 

No problem, says Oren. Now, the question is: At what moment does a Jewish American who chooses to make aliyah cease being a patriotic American and come out of the closet,  so to speak, as a patriotic Israeli wannabe?

At what point does a Jewish American supporter of Israel become a potential security risk if that person is employed in an agency of the US government?

To say that it is the moment the person announces his or her decision to make aliyah to Israel or give up his American citizenship is ludicrous.

The person who makes that decision could understandably as well as logically be viewed as having been politically compromised at some point before that and therefore it is reasonable for US government officials, particularly in areas where intelligence in involved, to look at Jewish American employees with a degree of suspicion. But when they do, it elicits the predictable accusations of anti-Semitism. source

The act of renouncing US citizenship is a very serious action to take and should not be done lightly. Prior to this it is imperative that you understand what happens as a result. This is not something that can be reversed, revoked or changed once it is completed.


1. Convicted For An Act Of Treason Against The United States

Treason is a serious crime, and the Constitution defines the requirements for convicting someone of treason.   Treason is waging a violent war against the United States in cooperation with a foreign country or any organized group.

It includes assisting or aiding any foreign country or organization in taking over or destroying this country including abolishing the Constitution.

Treason also consists of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the US government or of betraying our government into the hands of a foreign power. If you are caught and convicted of treason, you can pretty much count on losing your US citizenship as well as serving lots of jail time.


Now then, what about Rahm Emanuel?

Moskal also charged that Emanuel had dual citizenship with Israel and had served in the Israeli Army – Wikipedia

Whose interests are these people serving?

The Irvine 11

Since Michael Oren represents a country which engaged in war crimes and potential crimes against humanity as determined by Justice Richard Goldstone (a Jewish person) and the UN Human Rights Council, it is only natural to denounce and disrupt this terrorist’s speech and/or lies that would defend Nazism, Israeli style.

Israel continues to commit war crimes by maintaining a 3 year siege on Gaza, which is nothing less than collective punishment, in contravention to Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel is also expanding settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, in direct opposition to U.S. policy!

The 11 students who peacefully left the room and did not resist arrest, are accused of disrupting this terrorist’s [Oren’s] speech! Erwin Chemerinsky threatened the students as they walked out with: “YOU ARE FAILING YOUR EXAMS!”

Erwin C You are failing your exams!


The Audacity of this professor to retaliate with such threats! Is this not anti-Semitism? Will he simply select every Muslim sounding name from his class roster and simply FAIL them? This man is an education terrorist and should be banned from teaching! Period!

UCI: the Hypocrisy

Protection from Discrimination & Harassment

Harassment and discrimination is prohibited by University policies and procedures. Unwelcome, severe, and persistent behaviors that are unlawful and interfere with another person’s rights and educational opportunities will not be tolerated. Visit the OEOD website for more information on nondiscrimination and harassment policies.

Statement from Chancellor Michael Drake on Behalf of the UC Irvine Campus Community

Feb. 23, 2010

On numerous occasions during the past year, I have spoken and written about the manner in which we discuss and debate our differences, our values and how we use those values to guide our decision-making.

As you may have read, earlier this month I was very disappointed when some members of our community seemed more comfortable engaging in confrontation than collaboration, and in trying to close channels of communication rather than opening them.

As a brief frame of reference: Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren had been invited to speak on campus by a number of campus and community organizations (I bet it was Erwin and only Erwin and whoever he would threaten with anti-Semitism if they did not accept and agree with his invitation).

His speech was repeatedly and systematically interrupted by a group of students. The individuals involved were removed by campus police immediately, and are facing disciplinary proceedings.

Our primary goals are to ensure a UCI experience that delivers the highest standards of academic preparation, and an unparalleled richness of intellectual and cultural diversity. We are committed to growing our students as whole people. [but allow your professors to threaten students with failing them if they disagreed with his political views?]

All of our students learn that at UCI, whether we agree or disagree with someone’s views, we respect the right of everyone to share their experiences, insights and ideas. This is how we grow. This is among our greatest contributions as a learning community.

The 11 students have pending criminal charges and have been threatened with university disciplinary actions. Spokespersons of UCI have stated that the students may be dismissed or suspended for standing up in protest.

While the students’ speech was protected, the University seems to be sending a political message. The disproportionate response of the University and the Irvine police is undeniably due to outside pressures and lobbies!

UCI had a 30% fee hike and decrease in the quality of their education. This is due to the recession which has left California nearly bankrupt! Rather than funding our universities, the U.S. Government maintains approximately $4 billion a year of military aid to Israel: the only nuclear arsenal in the Middle East!

US tax dollars must not support a state which commits war crimes, particularly when tax dollars would be better utilized paying for students’ classrooms and tuition!

Another War Criminal’s speech interrupted!

Who to Believe, Your Lying Eyes or the Truth?

Image result for colonial playbook

By James M. Wall 

Bibi Netanyahu and Donald Trump have one thing in common: They both have as much credibility as the man who killed his parents and then begged the judge for mercy because he was an orphan.

Why should we believe what they say? President Trump is an accomplished prevaricator in a job he is clearly not qualified to hold.

But we know that already.

What concerns me at the moment is the way in which Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu follows the classic colonial playbook by living a lie and inducing the colonized to fight among themselves.

The current internal Palestinian conflict involves a severe drop in medical care and adequate electrical power in Gaza, two essential elements which must be provided for a civilian population.

Instead of providing, Bibi Netanyahu greatly reduces these elements from Gaza and then lies that he is not to blame. The harsh truth is that Israel has occupied the West Bank and Gaza for fifty years.

Occupiers are responsible for the occupied whether for one year or fifty years.

If you feel as though you are just now arriving to see a movie that has been running for an hour, its because this current movie, a Gaza-West Bank blame game, has been evolving on the screens of the Israeli and Palestinian media.

Preoccupied with the Donald’s twitters and threats, the American press has largely ignored the story of lies about Gaza. To our media, it is a conflict waged within a distant land between “long-time foes”.

To Palestinians, it is not a conflict. It is an occupation that blames the occupied.

To catch you up on the latest set of Bibi lies, here is some background:

Israel’s occupiers “withdrew” from Gaza in 2005.  But the occupiers did not “withdraw” Israel’s control over what is now an outdoor Gaza prison in which essential ingredients of life–food, water, medical care, and electrical power–remain completely in Israeli hands.

To remind Gazans who holds the power, Israel stages vicious military attacks and periodic wars against Gaza citizens.

The 1993 Oslo Accords looked at the time like a good stop-gap measure. It was, in reality, a moment in history when Israel sold the world and occupied Palestinians a package of wampum disguised as a “peace process”,

The Accords were never intended by Israel to bring peace. That was an Israeli lie.  The Accords were decorative beads, intended as a cover to pretend reaching for peace agreements while Israel remained busy expanding its settlements, and tightening its control over all aspects of Palestinian life.

Then, as colonialists are wont to do, they sold that same peace process wampum to the U.S. congress and its Israeli allies in American media and cultural institutions.

The lies that sustain the Israeli–driven “peace process”,  are rooted in greed and control, which derive from the evil twins of racism and religious bigotry.

You wish to see racism and religious bigotry? Both are on display in this week’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to allow a Trump ban against all travelers from six Muslim nations to stand.

The caveat that the ban would not apply to travelers who had U.S. family or institutional ties, is sheer racial and religious bigotry.

The Trump ban tells us to ignore these words engraved on the Stature of Liberty:

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

It is that same spirit that rejects Liberty’s call and leads Bibi to blame the medical and electrical shortage in Gaza on a Gaza-West Bank struggle for political leadership.

If this spirit is not racism/religious bigotry, then what is it?  I first encountered this racist/bigotry nonsense in my childhood in a racist White-controlled American South.

That same racist/bigotry began with American colonialism conquering a continent against the resistance of Native Americans. It now extends to all facets of our American life and culture.

The embedded racism in our nation makes Bibi’s racist lies an easy sell in the land built on the backs of Native Americans and African Americans.

Two sources from the front lines explain the conflict Bibi has cultivated. The first report from the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, demonstrates how the PA and Hamas have allowed their own quest for power inside the prison to control their actions. It begins:

While much attention has been focused on the cutbacks to Gaza’s electricity, testimonies from the Strip indicate that for the past two months the Palestinian Authority has also been blocking Gaza patients from leaving the Strip for medical treatment.

Gazan Palestinians are reporting unexplained delays in receiving permits from the PA in Ramallah to leave the Strip for treatment in Israel, Jordan or the West Bank. These testimonies have been reinforced by data received by Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, indicating that the PA Health Ministry has stopped facilitating this treatment for Gazans.

To whatever extent these are true reports, and not completely fabricated, it reflects the poor leadership  that has evolved among the Palestinian factions. What goes on between Bibi and Mahmoud Abbas, the long-reigning PA president, is never an equal interaction.

Abbas runs a vassal state under Israel’s absolute control.  What little he gains from Israel in his role as PA president, it is granted because Bibi expects subservience in return.

I envision that relationship with Bibi as a Mafia boss allowing deliveries to  Mahmoud Abbas’ neighborhood stores.

Is Abbas getting what he can from his Boss by trying to undermine Hamas in a conflict inside the prison?

I saw that same desperate subservience unfold with Christian leaders desperate to help young students leave Communist East Germany for education elsewhere.

A second source on this story is this Palestinian Ma’an News Agency report, which rejects the Hamas accusations and denies that The Palestinian Authority (PA) “has been preventing Palestinians in the blockaded Gaza Strip from leaving the territory for medical treatment, and said Israel was responsible for denying Gazans the exit permits, which has had fatal consequences in recent weeks”

Whom are we to believe? Statements from the Occupier with the power or “the PA’s medical referral department in the southern district, Bassam al-Badri, who told Ma’anthat Israel was accountable for the deterioration of the medical situation in Gaza’”

Al Badri adds that, “by denying exit to thousands of patients via the Erez crossing so that they may be treated in hospitals in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem”. Al-Badri also points out that “only 50 percent of medical permits were approved as a result of the Israeli restrictions”.

There is no doubting that health care inside Gaza “has greatly suffered as part of the decade-long Israeli siege, with Israel limiting medical equipment allowed in and restricting travel for doctors seeking further medical training and specialization”.

Closely related to the reduction in medical care is the reduction in the delivery of electrical supply to Gaza. Palestinians there are reduced to a few hours of power a day. This had caused a “devastating” impact on hospitals.

Bassam al-Badri also told Ma’an that the Palestinian Ministry of Health transfers between 1,600 and 1,800 patients to the West Bank and Jerusalem every month.

One-fourth of those transfers are cancer patients.

Two sources from the front lines of limited medical care and electrical services, arrive at the same conclusion: The situation in Gaza is dire.

Exactly who is to blame? We must conclude that with all the Palestinian squabbling over internal control, one government, and one government alone, is responsible.

Israel has the power and the responsibility as the occupier, to serve the human services needs of the Palestinian citizens of the West Bank and Gaza.

Putin to Netanyahu: Don’t judge Iran by 5th century BC, we live in a different world

Their “Jewish” history begins here.

I thought this headline is great. Psychotic Netanyahu dredges up thousand years old myths and plays them like a broken record. Putin sets him straight. These European Jews invent history for themselves and think the rest of us just believe whatever they say, or even care about it!

“To sell bigoted lies against a nation which has saved Jews three times, Netanyahu resorting to fake history & falsifying Torah. Force of habit.” -Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has urged Israel to focus on modern world affairs, after the visiting Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu referred to an ancient legend of an Iranian forefather’s attempt to eradicate the Jewish people.

Putin and Netanyahu touched upon a range of issues during their meeting in Moscow, such as the fight against terrorism, the crisis in Syria and Israel’s tough relations with Iran.

President Putin began by wishing Prime Minister Netanyahu a happy Purim, which is a traditional Jewish holiday that marks the saving of the Jewish people from Haman, a vizier in the ancient Persian Empire.

In response, Netanyahu said Persia made “an attempt to destroy the Jewish people that did not succeed” nearly 2,500 years ago, stressing that “today there is an attempt by Persia’s heir, Iran, to destroy the state of the Jews.”

“They say this as clearly as possible and print it in black and white in their newspapers.”

However, this time Israel has its own territory and an army that protects its territory, Netanyahu said.

READ MORE: Israel bars entry to foreign supporters of boycott on Jewish State

Putin noted that those events had taken place “in the fifth century BC,” added that “we now live in a different world” and suggested discussing the actual up-to-date problems in the region.

Netanyahu welcomed Russia’s efforts in fighting against Islamic State and other extremist groups.

“Recently we have seen a significant progress in fighting against Islamic Sunni terrorism spread by Islamic State and Al-Qaeda, and Russia has contributed a lot,” Netanyahu said.

Netanyahu then claimed, however, that there was a threat of Islamic “Shiite terrorism” he said was being spread by Iran.

Putin is set to meet with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Moscow on March 10. The two presidents will likely focus on the situation in Syria, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said ahead of the meeting.

“Certainly, the peace process and situation in Syria can’t come off the agenda of any regional power, especially such as Turkey and Israel,” Peskov said.

How Netanyahu’s dirty tricks squad targets boycotts

Why is Israel so fearful? Transport minister Yisrael Katz threatened BDS leaders last year with “civil targeted assassination”. What did he mean?

Image result for Gilad Erdan BDS gif

Gilad Erdan

Yoram Dinstein, a professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, led the local chapter of Amnesty International, the world’s most influential rights organization of the time, running it effectively as a wing of Israel’s foreign ministry.

 Mr Dinstein’s interference allowed Israel to falsely characterize the occupation as benevolent while presenting the Palestinians’ liberation struggle as terrorism. The reality of Israel’s oppression of Palestinians rarely reached outsiders.

Israel’s task is harder five decades on. The human rights community is more independent, while social media and mobile phone cameras have allowed Palestinians and their supporters to bypass the gatekeepers.

thenational.ae April 4, 2017

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed cohorts of Israel loyalists in the United States by video link last week at the annual conference of Aipac, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee.

They should, he said, follow his government’s example and defend Israel on the “moral battlefield” against the growing threat of the international boycott divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.

In Mr Netanyahu’s simple-minded language, support for Palestinian rights, and opposition to the settlements, is equivalent to “delegitimisation” of Israel.

 The current obsession with BDS reflects a changing political environment for Israel.

According to an investigation by the Haaretz newspaper last month, Israeli agents subverted the human rights community in the 1970s and 1980s. Their job was to launder Israel’s image abroad.

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed cohorts of Israel loyalists in the United States by video link last week at the annual conference of Aipac, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee.

They should, he said, follow his government’s example and defend Israel on the “moral battlefield” against the growing threat of the international boycott divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.

In Mr Netanyahu’s simple-minded language, support for Palestinian rights, and opposition to the settlements, is equivalent to “delegitimisation” of Israel.

IDF soldiers with the boy Photo: B’Tselem

 In the past few days, videos have shown an Israeli policeman savagely beating a Palestinian lorry driver, and soldiers taking hostage a terrified eight-year-old after he crossed their path while searching for a toy.

If concealment at source is no longer so easy, the battle must be taken to those who disseminate this damning information. The urgency has grown as artists refuse to visit, universities sever ties, churches pull their investments and companies back out of deals.

 Israel is already sealing itself off from outside scrutiny as best it can. Last month it passed a law denying entry into Israel or the occupied territories to those who support BDS or “delegitimise” Israel.

But domestic critics have proved trickier. The Israel government has chipped away at the human rights community’s financial base. Media regulation has intensified. And the culture ministry is cracking down on film productions that criticise the occupation or government policy.
 But the local boycott movement is feeling the brunt of the assault.

Activists already risk punitive damages if they call for a boycott of the settlements. Transport minister Yisrael Katz threatened BDS leaders last year with “civil targeted assassination”. What did he mean?

Omar Barghouti, the movement’s Palestinian figurehead, was arrested last month, accused of tax evasion. He is already under a travel ban, preventing him from receiving an international peace award this month. And Israeli officials want to strip him of his not-so “permanent” residency.

 At the same time, a leading Israeli rights activist, Jeff Halper, founder of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, was detained by police on suspicion of promoting BDS while leading activists on a tour of an illegal settlement.

These are the first signs of the repression to come. The police minister, Gilad Erdan, has announced plans for a database of Israelis who support BDS, to mirror existing spying operations on BDS activists overseas.

The information will help a “dirty tricks” unit whose job is to tarnish their reputations. Mr Erdan also wants a blacklist of companies and organisations that support boycotts. A law passed in February already shames the few companies prepared to deny services to the settlements, forcing them publicly to “out” themselves.

 Why is Israel so fearful? Officials say the immediate danger is Europe’s labeling of settlement products, the first step on a slippery slope they fear could lead to Israel being called an apartheid state.

That would shift the debate from popular boycotts and divestment by civil society groups to pressure for action by governments – or sanctions.

The inexorable trend was illustrated last month when a United Nations commission found Israel guilty of breaching the international convention on the crime of apartheid.

Washington forced the UN secretary-general to repudiate the report, but the comparison is not going away.

 Israel supporters in the United States have taken Mr Netanyahu’s message to heart.

Last week they unveiled an online “boycotters map”, identifying academics who support BDS – both to prevent them entering Israel and presumably to damage their careers.

For the moment, the Israeli-engineered backlash is working. Western governments are characterizing support for a boycott, even of the settlements, as anti-Semitic – driven by hatred of Jews rather than opposition to Israel’s oppression of Palestinians.

­Anti-BDS legislation has passed in France, Britain, Switzerland, Canada and the US.

This is precisely how Mr Netanyahu wants to shape the “moral battlefield”. A reign of terror against free speech and political activism abroad and at home, leaving Israel free to crush the Palestinians.

On paper, it may sound workable. But Israel will soon have to accept that the apartheid genie is out of the bottle – and it cannot be put back.

Netanyahu: Thank you, America. Thank you, Congress

Israel’s Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant Violation of International Law, Security Council Reaffirms

The Security Council reaffirmed this afternoon that Israel’s establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders.

Adopting resolution 2334 (2016) by 14 votes, with the United States abstaining, the Council reiterated its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.  It underlined that it would not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the two sides through negotiations.

The Council called for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction.  It further called for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism.  The Council called on both sides to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric in order to de-escalate the situation on the ground and rebuild trust and confidence.

Also by the text, the Council called on all parties to continue to exert collective efforts to launch credible negotiations on all final-status issues in the Middle East peace process, and within the time frame specified by the Middle East Quartet (European Union, Russian Federation, United Nations, United States) in its statement of 21 September 2010.  It called upon all States to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.

Explaining her delegation’s abstention, the representative of the United States said it had been a long-standing position of her country that settlements undermined Israel’s security and eroded prospects for peace and stability.  She emphasized, however, that her vote today had not been straightforward.  Explaining that Israel had been treated differently from other States for as long as it had been a member of the United Nations, she noted that during the course of 2016, 18 resolutions adopted in the General Assembly and others in the Human Rights Council had all condemned Israel.  It was because of that bias that the United States had not voted in favour of the resolution, she said, emphasizing that her delegation would not have let the resolution pass had it not addressed terrorism and incitement to violence.

Malaysia’s representative said effective Council action must be taken without further delay to reverse dangerous trends on the ground that were threatening any possibility of a two-State solution.  Settlement activity constituted the single biggest threat to peace, and had led to settler violence, home demolitions and denial of development.  Decades of human rights violations had frustrated those with nothing to lose, leading to acts of violence, she said, adding that the resolution could give hope to the people of Palestine and Israel, the majority of whom still wanted peace and a two-State solution.

Israel’s representative said those who had voted “yes” to the resolution had voted “no” to negotiations, to progress and to a chance for better lives for both Israelis and Palestinians, and to the possibility of peace.  The resolution would continue to provide excuses for the Palestinians to avoid recognizing Israel’s right to exist, he said, adding that the Council had voted to condemn the State of Israel and the Jewish people for building homes in the land of Israel, and to deny “our eternal rights” in Jerusalem.  “We will continue to be a democratic State based on the rule of law and full civil and human rights for all our citizens,” he declared.  “And we will continue to be a Jewish State proudly reclaiming the land of our forefathers.”

The Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine said the Council’s action, while long-overdue, was timely, necessary and important.  The resolution required vigilant follow-up if it was to be meaningful and salvage a two-State solution from relegation to history’s archives.  Israel’s illegal settlements and its wall had undermined the contiguity of Palestinian land and isolated East Jerusalem.  To claims of bias, he said the only bias was against law, reason and the vision of two States as the most viable solution.

Egypt’s representative said the text expressed the painful reality of illegitimate settlements and confiscation of Palestinian land.  Noting that his delegation had been compelled to withdraw its own draft resolution, he emphasized that it was unacceptable for some Council members to have warned Egypt, recalling that his country had been the first to make peace with Israel.

Also this afternoon, Council President Román Oyarzun Marchesi (Spain) expressed appreciation for the contributions of Council members whose term would expire at the end of 2016 — Angola, Malaysia, New Zealand, Spain and Venezuela.

Also speaking today were representatives of New Zealand, Venezuela, France, China, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Russian Federation, Japan, Angola and Senegal.

The meeting began at 2:07 p.m. and ended at 3:50 p.m.

Action on Draft Resolution

RAMLAN BIN IBRAHIM (Malaysia), noting that he was a sponsor of the draft, recalled numerous calls over the years for urgent Council action to end illegal settlement construction, and said that a recent attempt to legalize settlements on Palestinian-owned land added to the urgency.  Effective Council action must be taken without further delay to reverse dangerous trends on the ground that threatened any possibility of a two-State solution.  While Malaysia would have preferred a more transparent and normal process of submitting the text to the Council, the present situation was unique, he emphasized, appealing to fellow Council members not to lose the opportunity to advance the peace.  The time to show that a two-State solution was not an empty slogan was now, he added.

GERARD VAN BOHEMEN (New Zealand) also noted his delegation’s sponsorship of the draft, expressed frustration that no draft on the Middle East had been adopted in the past eight years.  He surveyed the draft’s drafting and negotiation history, saying what was needed was a text that moved the peace process forward by building on the broad consensus that settlements were a major obstacle and that all violence must end.

RAFAEL DARÍO RAMÍREZ CARREÑO (Venezuela), a third sponsor, said today’s action could be historic.  The decision to table the draft was important due to the ongoing expansion of settlements and in order to safeguard the Palestinian people and salvage the peace process.  The draft resolution reaffirmed the right of both Israelis and Palestinians to live within secure borders, on the basis of the 1967 lines.  At the same time, it addressed the settlement problem and condemned violence.  There was wide consensus among Member States, the Secretary-General, other members of the Middle East Quartet and other stakeholders, he noted, urging adoption of the text.

The Council then adopted the draft resolution by 14 votes in favour with 1 abstention (United States).


AMR ABDELLATIF ABOULATTA (Egypt) said the text adopted today expressed the painful reality of illegitimate settlements and confiscation of Palestinian land.  The settlement question was one component of the final-status issues — that of borders.  Noting that his country, had been compelled to withdraw its own draft, he stressed that it was unacceptable for some Council members to have warned Egypt.  Recalling that Egypt had been the first Arab country to make peace with Israel, he said it believed in peace based on a two-State solution and the land-for-peace initiative.

SAMANTHA POWER (United States) said the immediate adoption of a freeze on settlements could create confidence, adding that further settlement activities were not necessary for Israel’s security.  President Ronald Reagan had said that in 1982, she recalled, noting that his words underscored her country’s commitment to a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians and highlighted its position that settlements undermined Israel’s security and eroded prospects for peace and stability.

She said that while her vote today was in line with her country’s bipartisan tradition, the vote itself had not been straightforward.  Explaining that Israel had been treated differently from other States for as long as it had been a member of the United Nations, she pointed out that in the course of 2016, 18 resolutions had been adopted in the General Assembly and others in the Human Rights Council, all condemning Israel.  Because of that bias, and some factors not included in the resolution, the United States had not voted in favour of the resolution, she said, explaining that her delegation would not have let it pass had it not addressed acts of terrorism and incitement to violence.

The issue of settlements was now putting a two-State solution at risk too, she continued.  The number of settlers had increased dramatically, and legislation now before the Knesset would legalize most of their outposts.  Emphasizing that one must make a choice between settlements and separation, she said her delegation had not supported the resolution because it was focused too narrowly on settlements.

She went on to stress that Palestinian leaders must recognize that incitement for violence eroded prospects for peace.  There had been hundreds of attacks, but rather than being condemned, the attackers were upheld as heroes.  Israel faced threats in a difficult neighbourhood, and the United States would not waver in its commitment to its security, she said, underlining that a two-State solution was the only path to peace for the people of Israel and Palestine.  It was up to them to choose that path.

FRANÇOIS DELATTRE (France) described the resolution’s adoption as an important and historic event, noting that it marked the first time that the Council had clearly stated the obvious:  settlement activities undermined a two-State solution.  Israel’s settlement building had accelerated, fuelling tension on the ground, and it was now part of a deliberate policy aiming to create facts on the ground in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.  Acts of violence, incitement and terrorism also undermined the chances for a two-State solution, he said, pointing out that the resolution strongly reiterated its condemnation of all acts of terrorism and called on the Palestinian Authority to discourage them.  The resolution was also meant to create the conditions for a resumption of negotiations.  Emphasizing that peace could only be based on a two-State solution, he said France would organize an international conference in Paris to re-launch the negotiation process.  Today’s resolution and the Paris conference were both aimed at reiterating support for a two-State solution, he added.

RAFAEL DARIO RAMÍREZ CARREÑO (Venezuela), welcoming the resolution’s adoption, said it allowed the Council to emerge from inaction and work for the resumption of negotiations towards a two-State solution.  Of course that was just one step towards that goal, but it was necessary because it seriously affected both the Palestinian people and the prospects for peace, he said.  Israel must now end all illegal practices of the occupation, including its blockade on the Gaza Strip and all settlement activity.  Reiterating condemnation of all terrorism as well as all violations of the human rights of Palestinians, he said he was pleased that, as his country ended its term, the Council had finally acted on the settlement issue.

WU HAITAO (China), welcoming the adoption, said the resolution reflected the common aspiration of the international community.  He urged Israel to implement the resolution and called upon both sides to re-establish mutual trust so that a just and lasting solution could be reached in the form of two secure States coexisting peacefully.  China would continue to support efforts to achieve that goal, he pledged.

MATTHEW RYCROFT (United Kingdom) said the adoption reaffirmed the belief that a two-State solution was the only way to a just and lasting peace.  In that context, it was critical to end all terrorism and incitement, he emphasized, adding that it was also necessary to end the expansion of settlements.  The United Kingdom rejected all efforts to de-legitimize Israel, and it was as a friend of that country that it supported the resolution text, since it was in the best interests of both sides and renewed efforts for a peaceful two-State solution.  He stressed, however, that he did not anticipate an easy road to that goal.

LUIS BERMÚDEZ (Uruguay) said the resolution represented a critical effort to address negative trends in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.  Hopefully it would be a call for action towards the resumption of negotiations on a peaceful, negotiated two-State solution.  Uruguay would continue to support that goal, he pledged, noting that both Israelis and Palestinians deserved it, exhausted as they were by many decades of conflict.

VITALY I. CHURKIN (Russian Federation), explaining that he had been puzzled by the process around the resolution and by the haste with which it had been “pushed” to the vote, agreed  with other speakers that settlement activities undermined the chances for a two-State solution, as did acts of terror and incitement to violence.  Emphasizing that his country had been involved in the peace process for a long time, he said the work of the Middle East Quartet (European Union, Russian Federation, United Nations, United States) remained important and effective.  Its July report was still relevant, and implementation of its recommendations would help to return the process to the political track, he added.

KORO BESSHO (Japan) said he was deeply concerned about the current stagnation in the peace process.  Noting that settlement activities were in violation of international law and had been eroding the viability of a two-State solution, he emphasized the importance of the parties committing themselves to the resolution.  Peace in the Middle East could only be realized through negotiations, he said, stressing that Japan would not recognize any unilateral change by either party that might pre-judge the final resolution of the conflict.

RAMLAN BIN IBRAHIM (Malaysia) said that after decades of paralysis the Council had finally taken effective action to reverse the negative trends threatening peace and a two-State solution.  Thanking Council members who had voted in favour of the resolution, he said he was encouraged by the restraint demonstrated by some permanent members.  Settlement activity constituted the single biggest threat to peace and a two-State solution, and had led to settler violence, home demolitions, as well as the denial of development.  Decades of violations of human rights violations had frustrated those with nothing to lose, which had led to acts of violence, he said.  The resolution could give hope to the people of Palestine and Israel, the majority of whom still wanted peace under a two-State solution.  The adoption was also a victory for people in Israel who still believed in living side by side in peace with the Palestinians and other Arab people.  While emphasizing the need to reflect on the collective failures of the past 50 years, he also cautioned that today’s resolution only addressed the symptoms and not the root causes of the conflict.

ISMAEL ABRAÃO GASPAR MARTINS (Angola), welcomed the resolution’s adoption, saying that the problem of settlements had continued for far too long.  It was disappointing that Israel disputed its illegality.  Urging both sides to refrain from unilateral actions that could hinder a two-State solution, he said that such a solution would require unity on the Council, among Palestinians and among Israelis.  Angola hoped today’s action was a first step in the right direction.

GERARD VAN BOHEMEN (New Zealand) said he was very pleased that during the last meeting of 2016, the Council had been able to take a positive step to save a two-State solution.  Settlements were a threat to that goal, but so were violence and terrorism, he said, adding that they also created false expectations on the part of Israelis and resentments on the part of Palestinians.  Today’s resolution confirmed principles that had long been accepted in the United Nations, he said, adding that, while more could have been done, the text was achievable “right now”.

GORGUI CISS (Senegal), welcoming the adoption, affirmed that the settlements were illegal under international law.  They encouraged violence against both Israelis and Palestinians, and harmed the aspirations of both to a peaceful future.  Renewing condemnations of all acts of terrorism and violence while expressing support for initiatives that could move the peace process forward, he called for the coordination of all such initiatives.

ROMÁN OYARZUN MARCHESI (Spain), Council President for December, said he had voted in favour of the resolution because it would help to save the prospects for a two-State solution, which must be negotiated between the two sides.  However, the Council must fulfil its responsibilities and act on the basis of consensus and a balanced text that could move the process forward.  Spain had always affirmed the illegality of the settlements and condemned incitement to violence, he recalled, noting that today’s resolution was consistent with both positions.  Welcoming the Council’s breaking of its silence on the issue, he pledged that his country would continue to make whatever contribution possible to advance peace in the Middle East.

DANNY DANON (Israel) described today as a bad day for his country and the peak of hypocrisy.  The Council had wasted time to condemn Israel for building homes in the Jewish people’s historic homeland.  Those who had voted yes had voted no to negotiations, to progress and to a chance for better lives for both Israelis and Palestinians, he said, adding that they had voted no to the possibility of peace.  The resolution would continue to provide excuses for the Palestinians to avoid recognizing Israel’s right to exist, he said.  There had been a disproportionate number of resolutions condemning Israel and today’s text would be added to that shameful list.

He went on to call upon the Council to turn a new page and end the bias against Israel.  Today it had voted to condemn the State of Israel and to condemn the Jewish people for building homes in the Land of Israel.  Asking every voting member who had given them the right to issue such a decree, denying “our eternal rights in Jerusalem”, he expressed full confidence in the justice of Israel’s cause and the righteousness of its path.  “We will continue to be a democratic State based on the rule of law and full civil and human rights for all our citizens,” he emphasized.  “And we will continue to be a Jewish State proudly reclaiming the land of our forefathers.”

RIYAD MANSOUR, Permanent Observer for the State of Palestine, said that the Council’s action, while long overdue, was timely, necessary and important.  Over the years, the delegation of the State of Palestine had made countless appeals for the Council to uphold its Charter duties, insisting on the need to confront Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and its relentless colonization of their land under a half-century of foreign occupation.  Those appeals had been calls for the Council to contribute to the cause of peace — for Palestine, Israel, the Middle East and the world, he said.

The resolution would require vigilant follow-up if it was to be meaningful and if it would salvage the two-State solution from relegation to history’s archives, he said.  Urgent efforts would be needed to reverse the dangerous, negative trends on the ground and to advance collective efforts to end the occupation that had begun in 1967.  For five decades, the occupation had persisted with full force, its illegal settlements and wall having undermined the contiguity of Palestinian lands and isolated East Jerusalem.  In response to claims of bias, he said the only bias taking place was bias against law, reason and the vision of two States as the most viable solution.

Urging the Security Council to stand firm by its decision, he expressed hope that the global call for an end to Israel’s settlement activities and violations would compel its compliance with the law, de-escalate tensions and bring an end to violence.  That would be vital for salvaging the prospects for peace and should be led by responsible Council action, including follow-up to the reports requested of the Secretary-General in relation to implementation of today’s resolution.  Recognizing the efforts of Arab States in the context of the Arab Peace Initiative, as well as those of France, the Quartet, Egypt and the Russian Federation, he called for intensified international and regional efforts to end Israel’s occupation and build a just and lasting peace in an independent, sovereign and contiguous State of Palestine, side by side with Israel and within secure and recognized borders.


The full text of resolution 2334 (2016) reads as follows:

The Security Council,

Reaffirming its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465 (1980), 476 (1980), 478 (1980), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), and 1850 (2008),

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,

Reaffirming the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice,

Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,

Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines,

Recalling the obligation under the Quartet Roadmap, endorsed by its resolution 1515 (2003), for a freeze by Israel of all settlement activity, including “natural growth”, and the dismantlement of all settlement outposts erected since March 2001,

Recalling also the obligation under the Quartet roadmap for the Palestinian Authority Security Forces to maintain effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantling terrorist capabilities, including the confiscation of illegal weapons,

Condemning all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction,

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

Stressing that the status quo is not sustainable and that significant steps, consistent with the transition contemplated by prior agreements, are urgently needed in order to (i) stabilize the situation and to reverse negative trends on the ground, which are steadily eroding the two-State solution and entrenching a one-State reality, and (ii) to create the conditions for successful final status negotiations and for advancing the two-State solution through those negotiations and on the ground,

“1.   Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;

“2.   Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;

“3.   Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;

“4.   Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperilling the two-State solution;

“5.   Calls upon all States, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967;

“6.   Calls for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, calls for accountability in this regard, and calls for compliance with obligations under international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism;

“7.   Calls upon both parties to act on the basis of international law, including international humanitarian law, and their previous agreements and obligations, to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric, with the aim, inter alia, of de-escalating the situation on the ground, rebuilding trust and confidence, demonstrating through policies and actions a genuine commitment to the two-State solution, and creating the conditions necessary for promoting peace;

“8.   Calls upon all parties to continue, in the interest of the promotion of peace and security, to exert collective efforts to launch credible negotiations on all final status issues in the Middle East peace process and within the time frame specified by the Quartet in its statement of 21 September 2010;

“9.   Urges in this regard the intensification and acceleration of international and regional diplomatic efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967; and underscores in this regard the importance of the ongoing efforts to advance the Arab Peace Initiative, the initiative of France for the convening of an international peace conference, the recent efforts of the Quartet, as well as the efforts of Egypt and the Russian Federation;

“10.  Confirms its determination to support the parties throughout the negotiations and in the implementation of an agreement;

“11.  Reaffirms its determination to examine practical ways and means to secure the full implementation of its relevant resolutions;

“12.  Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council every three months on the implementation of the provisions of the present resolution;

“13.  Decides to remain seized of the matter.”

Watch! Netanyahu Uncensored

Published on Sep 5, 2016

On August 11 2016, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the world. This video clip demonstrates how Netanyahu deals with reality versus fiction. It needs no further comment.

RT Channel
Wadi Hilweh Information Center