Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Palestinians Join ICC After UN Rejection

Palestinians Join War Crimes Court After UN Rejection

(Reuters) - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas signed on to 20 international agreements on Wednesday, including the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), a day after a bid for independence by 2017 failed at the United NationsSecurity Council.
The move, which angered Israel and the United States, paves the way for the court to take jurisdiction over crimes committed in Palestinian lands and investigate the conduct of Israeli and Palestinian leaders over more than a decade of bloody conflict.
"They attack us and our land every day, to whom are we to complain? The Security Council let us down -- where are we to go?" Abbas told a gathering of Palestinian leaders in remarks broadcast on official television.
The Palestinian U.N. observer mission initially announced it would deliver on Wednesday to the United Nations the signed documents to accede to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC. But the mission later said the delivery had been postponed and would likely take place on Friday.
According to the Rome Statute, the Palestinians would become a party to the court on the first day of the month that follows a 60-day waiting period after depositing signed and ratified documents of accession with the United Nations in New York.
In the months leading up to Tuesday's failed U.N. bid, Sweden recognized Palestinian statehood and the parliaments of France, Britain and Ireland passed non-binding motions urging their governments to do the same.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Abbas's action would expose the Palestinians to prosecution over support for what he called the terrorist Hamas Islamist group, and vowed to take steps to rebuff any potential moves against Israel.
Israel and Hamas fought a July-August war in which more than 2,100 Palestinians, 67Israeli soldiers and six civilians in Israel were killed.
"We will take steps in response and defend Israel's soldiers," Netanyahu said in a statement.
The United States said the was of deep concern and unhelpful to peace efforts in the region.
"It is an escalatory step that will not achieve any of the outcomes most Palestinians have long hoped to see for their people," State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke said in a statement. "Actions like this are not the answer."
Palestinians seek a state in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem - lands Israel captured in the 1967 Middle East War.
Momentum to recognize a Palestine has built up since Abbas succeeded in a bid for de facto recognition of Palestinian statehood at the U.N. General Assembly in 2012, which made Palestinians eligible to join the ICC.
Palestinian officials said on Tuesday American opposition made inevitable the defeat of a Security Council resolution calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state by late 2017 after no more than a year of peace negotiations.
The United States and Australia voted against the bid, while eight countries voted yes and five abstained. The Palestinians were unable to achieve a hoped-for nine votes which would have forced the U.S. to exercise its veto as one of the council's five permanent members.
Peace talks mediated by the United States collapsed in April in a dispute over Israeli settlement-building and a prisoner release deal, as well as Abbas's decision to sign on to over a dozen previous international texts Israel saw as a unilateral move the contravened the negotiations.
"We've been playing Mr. Nice Guy with negotiations since 1991, meanwhile the possibility of a two-state solution erodes," Hanan Ashrawi, a senior Palestinian diplomat, told Reuters.
She added that there were no immediate plans to lodge a formal complaint at the ICC, but that Abbas's move is "a clear signal to Israel and the international community that Israelmust cease and desist its war crimes, especially settlements."
Other agreements approved by Abbas included several articles on the court's jurisdiction, commitments against banned weapons and cluster munitions along with less controversial pledges on the political rights of women, navigation and the environment.

U.S. Plans To Deploy Armored Brigade To Europe, Wild Cheers For Proposed Invasion Of Israel

U.S. Plans To Deploy Armored Brigade To Europe

By the end of next year, Washington plans to station about 150 tanks and armored vehicles in Europe, according to a US military commander, who said the decision was made before the Ukrainian crisis strained Russia-US relations.
Although no official announcement has been made as to where the armored tanks and vehicles will be stationed, possible locations include Poland, Romania or the Baltic States, Lieutenant-General Ben Hodges, commander of the US Army in Europe, told Reuters.
Hodges confirmed that around 150 pieces of assorted US military armor would be permanently stationedin Europe.

"By the end of ... 2015, we will have gotten all the equipment for a heavy brigade, that means three battalions plus a reconnaissance squadron, the artillery headquarters, engineers, and it will stay in Europe," Hodges said.

"You are talking about 150-ish, maybe 160 M1 tanks, M2 Bradley fighting vehicles, 24 self-propelled Howitzers." 

Hodges, who said he believes renewed hostilities will occur between pro-Kiev and rebel forces in the east of the country, said plans to send an armored brigade to Europe was first proposed two years ago, before the Ukrainian crisis erupted in January 2014.

Russia has firmly rejected Western accusations that it has sponsored military activities in Ukraine.

The move on the part of Washington will certainly provoke a reaction from Moscow, which has just agreed on a new military doctrine that lists the 28-member North Atlantic Treaty, which has been steadily encroaching on Russia’s borders since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the United States, which has undertaken a series of military offensives deemed unconstitutional even by its own people, as“major foreign threats.” 

The doctrine lists among major foreign military threats “the creation and deployment of global strategic anti-ballistic missile systems that undermines the established global stability and balance of power in nuclear missile capabilities, the implementation of the ‘prompt strike’ concept, intent to deploy weapons in space and deployment of strategic conventional precision weapons.”

Hodges said he expected the deployment of US armored vehicles to Europe to continue throughout 2015 and into 2016. 

[Consider this information in the context of the Gog-Magog alliance]

Turkish and Palestinian flags fluttered like angry birds in a crowd of thousands of people chanting “Allahu Akbar!” and “Down with Israel!”

The chants grew more exuberant as the hulking, bearded man on the speaker’s platform assured them that “God willing, we will liberate Jerusalem together.”

The speaker was Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal and his audience was Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party, gathered for its annual meeting Dec. 27 at a convention hall in Konya, the hometown of Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu.

The Turkish prime minister introduced the Hamas leader and then took a seat in the front row, cheering and clapping for the radical Islamist statements being made by Meshaal.

“As Turkey for centuries was the main defender of Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque, likewise with you are the center of the Muslim Umma (Muslim nation) which will carry on the mission of liberating Jerusalem and al-Aqsa Mosque,” Meshaal told the crowd in an address that received almost no major media coverage. “Know this, that strong Turkey is the strength of Palestine and of Jerusalem. Turkey is the strength that represents all Muslims.”

Hamas, which leads nearly 2 million Palestinians in Israel’s Gaza Strip, remains a designated terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department and functions as an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood.
So when the Hamas leader appears, unannounced, as the keynote speak at an official political event in Turkey, a member of NATO and an important U.S. ally, that’s a big deal.
“Essentially Hamas is playing to the nationalistic fervor in Turkey and Turkey is using Hamas to gain favor throughout the Islamic world so it really is a mutually beneficial relationship,” says Joel Richardson, author of the New York Times-best-selling “Islamic Antichrist” and director of the recently released documentary film, “End Times Eyewitness.”

“Beset by domestic crises, Mr. Erdogan has turned his focus toward his core constituency, a largely conservative, anti-Western population in the heartland,” Bayrasli wrote in a New York Times column earlier this year. “In doing so he has reverted to a tactic that has resonated with them: aggression.”

Richardson believes Turkey has undergone a “soft revolution” as Erdogan has gradually steered the country closer to Islamic values and away from the West. This represented a break with Turkey’s more secular past, but Erdogan’s changes still did not attract anywhere near the amount of media attention that was seen in Egypt, Libya or Tunisia, the revolutions of the so-called “Arab Spring.” Turkey was touted in the West as the model for other regimes in the Middle East seeking a “middle ground” between Islamism and Western secularism.
But the convention held Dec. 27, with thousands of Turks shouting Islamic slogans in support of Meshaal, leader of a terrorist organization, is just the latest evidence that a wake-up call might be in order for Western policy makers in Washington and Europe, Richardson said.
“In light of the fact that everyone starts shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ in Turkey, which is fairly rare and you would only hear that from devout Muslims, it would seem there really is some strong Islamist tendencies going on,” he said. “But the bottom line is everyone should be concerned. About 10 years ago, even five years ago, the U.S. was still casting Turkey as the moderate secular model and among America’s greatest allies in the whole Middle East.”

Richardson led a film crew that covered an Erdogan rally in Ankara last spring, and he experienced some of the same chilling mixture of raw nationalism and Islamic fervor as seen in Konya on Dec. 27.
“It truly felt like a Nazi rally,” Richardson said. “I took a whole segment to interview different leaders that highlight the Islamist takeover of Turkey and that was one of the big news stories that the West is barely paying attention to but needs to understand.

“The prime minister is the number-two man and he’s shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ to the idea of them leading an invasion of Israel and taking Jerusalem,” Richardson added. “Now, if anyone is doubting an Islamic takeover and Turkey is now emerging as a radical Islamic nation and they have the largest army in the region then they have their head in the sand. I’ve been saying this but everyone continues to function as if they’ve got their head in the sand.”

It’s not quite a gift from God but, politically, it may be the next best thing.
President Obama increasingly is finding a key policy ally in the Vatican, with Pope Francis standing virtually shoulder to shoulder with the White House on income inequality and a historic diplomatic reboot with communist Cuba. The pontiff next year also appears poised to offer greater support to the president on climate change initiatives and reportedly wants to be a leading voice at a U.N. global warming summit next year, where the American president will make perhaps his greatest pitch to date for more dramatic action on the environment.

The White House praised the pope this month for playing a critical role in a landmark deal with Cuba, one in which the U.S. will re-establish formal diplomatic ties and open an embassy in Havana for the first time in more than five decades.
Francis invited administration officials and representatives of Cuban President Raul Castro’s government to the Vatican for a series of meetings this fall. The first Latin American pope also sent letters to Mr. Obama and Mr. Castro, urging the two leaders to change course and end the isolation of the past 50 years.
“He played a very important role,” Mr. Obama said of the pontiff in an interview with ABC News this month. “The pope doesn’t wield armies. He can’t impose sanctions. But he can speak with great moral authority, and it makes a difference. And it certainly made a difference in this case.”
In a Dec. 17 statement, Francis welcomed the normalization of relations, and theWhite House circulated his words to members of the media.
The Vatican has long been critical of U.S. sanctions against Cuba. Pope John Paul II — one of the few world leaders to have been received by longtime strongman Fidel Castro in a business suit rather than fatigues — called the embargo an “oppressive, unjust and ethically unacceptable” burden on the poor during a pilgrimage to Cuba.

The pope also has become one of the Democrats’ biggest allies on income inequality, which Mr. Obama has cast as perhaps the biggest challenge facing the U.S. economy today.
Last year, Francis offered a clear rejection of “trickle-down economics,” seemingly embracing Democratic policies of greater redistribution of wealth to struggling Americans.
“Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories, which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world,” he said. “This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.”
High-profile Democrats, such as Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, cited the pope’s words when arguing for more government spending on programs to aid low-income Americans and to shrink the wage gap between the rich and the poor.
“Those of us in America should pay heed” to the pontiff’s words, he said after Francis’ comments on income inequality.
Moving forward, the pope may become one of Mr. Obama’s greatest allies on climate change, described by the president as one of his top priorities in his final two years in office.

Mr. Obama already has struck a historic climate accord with China, begun to impose harsher carbon emissions restrictions on U.S. power plants and taken other steps to curb climate change. He is expected to call for even greater action during a U.N.climate summit in September, and Francis looks ready to do the same.
The Guardian newspaper reported this week that the pope plans to address the gathering and aims to be one of the most prominent voices in attendance. Early next year, Francis also will publish a letter to the world’s bishops urging greater action on climate change, the newspaper reported.

Also see:

Palestinian Statehood Bid Fails At UNSC, Next Move: Join ICC

Palestinian Statehood Bid Fails At UNSC As U.S., Australia Vote Against

The UN Security Council has failed to adopt the Arab coalition’s bid calling for the creation of a Palestinian state and an end to Israeli “occupation”. The veto power US and Australia voted against the move with 5 abstentions.
The draft resolution gathered only 8 votes in favour, so it was automatically defeated. The US however still used its veto power and voted against the resolution. Another veto power state, the UK, along with Lithuania, Nigeria, Korea and Rwanda have abstained from the vote.

"This resolution sets the stage for more division, not for compromise," said US Ambassador Samantha Power, calling the draft a “staged confrontation.”
“The United kingdom supports much of the content of the draft resolution. It is therefore with deep regret that we abstained from it,” said UK ambassador to the UN, Mark Lyall Grant. “We are disappointed that the normal and necessary negotiation did not take place on this occasion.”
However, Russia’s UN envoy Vitaly Churkin said that Moscow “cannot share the objections of those who believe that the draft resolution was undermining the prospects of the negotiating process.”
“Unfortunately last year revealed how this process has gone into a blind alley, with its monopolization by the United States and their pullback from the Quartet [US, EU, UN and Russia]. We believe this to be a strategic mistake,” said Churkin.
“This draft reflects just demands of Arab states, including the Palestinian people, and is in accord with the relevant UN resolutions, the ‘land for peace’ principle, the Arab peace initiative and middle-Eastern peace roadmap. And is also in accord with China’s consistent position. We express deep regret over the failure of the draft resolution to be adopted,” said Liu Jieyi, China’s permanent representative to the United Nations.
Israeli authorities said they are "satisfied" with the failure of the Palestinian statehood bid at UN Security Council.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said on Tuesday his administration would"no longer deal"with Israel in case of the resolution's failure. "If the Arab-Palestinian initiative submitted to the Security Council to put an end to [Israeli] occupation doesn't pass, we will be forced to take the necessary political and legal decisions," the Algerian APS news agency quoted Abbas as saying.
Last Thursday, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman called a UN bid for Palestinian statehood an“act of aggression.”
“Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is adopting measures whose sole aim is to attack Israel, with no benefit for the Palestinians,” Lieberman said in a statement.

Many months and innumerable headlines in the making, the Palestinians’ bid to impose terms for statehood upon Israel via the United Nations ended in embarrassing failure on Tuesday night, when the Security Council rejected Resolution S/2014/916. The US didn’t even have to wield its veto.

Their defeat was unexpected and stinging. Shortly before the vote, the Palestinians claimed — and Israeli officials confirmed — that nine countries intended to support the resolution, which would have constituted the necessary majority and forced the US veto. But come the moment of truth, Nigeria surprisingly abstained. Pushing a bid for a solution to the conflict within a year and a full Israeli withdrawal within three, PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinians found themselves one vote short.

Expect politicians and pundits in Israel to spend the next few days debating whether the 8-2 vote, with 5 abstentions, was a disaster, underlining the country’s increasing international isolation, or a case of brilliant Israeli diplomacy, in that Nigeria could be persuaded to change its position at the last minute. (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to the leaders of Rwanda and Nigeria before the vote; Rwanda, less surprisingly, also abstained, as did Britain, South Korea and Lithuania.)

The Palestinians plainly suffered a dramatic reverse. But Israel cannot claim an equally dramatic victory. Mustering the opposition only of the US and Australia — to a motion that was designed to impose terms that Israel has made plain it cannot accept, submitted by a Palestinian leadership that is currently part of a Hamas-backed unity government — hardly suggests widespread international empathy for Israel’s concerns.
Perhaps the smartest way to view the vote is that it underlined ebbing support for Israel’s positions, even as reluctance to endorse an imposed solution narrowly held sway. The message was that the international community is fed up with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, believes a negotiated accord is the best way to solve it, but one way or another wants to see Israel speedily withdraw from the West Bank to enable the creation of a Palestinian state. Israel got some breathing space, nothing more. Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat has already spoken about going back to the Security Council when its membership is more advantageous.

Palestinians were apparently confident that they had the nine yes votes locked in, miscalculating Nigeria’s position. Had they waited just two more days, by when Malaysia will have replaced South Korea, they would not have been defeated.

The day after, analysts everywhere are earnestly discussing what Tuesday’s defeat of the Palestinian statehood bid at the United Nations Security Council means for Israeli diplomacy and the future of the peace process.

Despite all the punditry, however, the episode has probably contributed more to the talking points of right-wing Likud politicians on the day of their party’s primary election than to the prospects of an independent Palestine.

It was unclear until the last minute whether the draft — which read more like a Palestinian wishlist than a serious proposal to reach an agreement — would garner the requisite nine yes votes. But even if it had, the Palestinians knew that the Americans would, if need be, use their veto.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas sought a showdown at the Security Council regardless. Facing pressure from Hamas and other rivals within Palestinian society, he evidently felt he needed to do something to prove to his nation that he knows how to pressure Israel.

The Palestinians had threatened repeatedly that were their resolution to be thrown out, they would apply for membership in the International Criminal Court and accuse Israel of crimes against humanity. Indeed, as soon as the Security Council vote ended, Palestinian officials started vowing revenge at the ICC, with senior sources saying they would consider signing the Rome Statute by Wednesday evening.

Palestine is planning its next steps after the UN Security Council failed to adopt the Arab coalition’s bid for the creation of a Palestinian state and an end to Israeli “occupation,” officials said.

The Palestinian Authority could also schedule a date for applying to join the International Criminal Court and other international agencies, negotiator Saeb Erekat said, adding that officials would hold a "very serious meeting" on Wednesday.
"There will be no more waiting, no more hesitation, no more slowdown," Erekat said. "We are going to meet and make decisions."
Fatah’s Central Committee and the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) will decide whether to sign the Rome Statute by the ICC, a senior Palestinian source told the Times of Israel.
Abbas Zaki from Fatah Central Committee said that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas could sign the Rome Statute as early as tonight.

The Rome Statute is the ICC’s founding document. If Palestine were to become party to it, the International Court would have a free hand in assessing all alleged war crimes committed on Palestinian territory.

Although it should be noted that Israel isn’t a member itself, and only its own membership, in addition to Palestine being a signatory, could open it up to ICC investigations.

“It is thus most regrettable that the Security Council remains paralyzed,” Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations Riyad Mansour said, but Palestine “must now consider its next steps.”
According to Mansour, at UN Security Council it was time to end the “abhorrent Israeli occupation and impunity that has brought our people so much suffering.”

Palestinian authorities said that if resolution wasn’t passed by UN, they will ask for applying to join international organizations as Palestinian people say they are willing to seek justice for crimes against humanity as well as the war crimes being perpetrated against them by Israel.

Abbas said on Tuesday his administration would "no longer deal" with Israel if the resolution were to fail.
"If the Arab-Palestinian initiative submitted to the Security Council to put an end to [Israeli] occupation doesn't pass, we will be forced to take the necessary political and legal decisions," he said.

The Palestinian leadership is meeting Wednesday to plan its next steps after a resolution to end Israel's occupation wasrejected by the UN Security Council, and could set a date for applying to join the International Criminal Court, Palestinian officials told Ynet.

Meanwhile, Hamas denounced Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas for the "failure" to push through a UN resolution: "This was a unilateral decision taken by Abu Mazen (Abbas) who has taken the Palestinian decision-making process hostage," Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum told AFP, describing it as a "new failure" by the Palestinian leader.

The UN vote Tuesday against the Palestinian bid, which called for the Israeli occupation to end within three years, was a blow to an Arab campaign for international action to bring about an independent Palestinian state.

The Palestinians have long vowed to join the ICC in order to press charges against Israel for alleged war crimes. But membership could expose the Palestinians to similar allegations.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said officials would hold a "very serious meeting" Wednesday and could set a date for applying for membership to the ICC and other international agencies.

"There will be no more waiting, no more hesitation, no more slowdown," Erekat said. "We are going to meet and make decisions."

Also see:

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Palestinians: We Have Votes For UN Statehood Resolution

The Palestinians claimed Tuesday that they have the nine votes needed to pass the latest version of the statehood resolution they presented to the UN Security Council.

The resolution was scheduled to be voted on at midnight Israel time. Jordan’s UN Ambassador Dina Kawar, the Arab representative on the Security Council, told reporters after a closed-door meeting of the Arab group Tuesday that the 22 envoys supported the Palestinian call for an immediate vote on the final draft they submitted on Monday.

The resolution calls for Israel to pull out of the West Bank within three years and the declaration of East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.

Channel 2 reported that, according to the Palestinians, France and Luxembourg will vote in favor of the resolution, giving them the requisite support of nine of the 15 Security Council members. This would likely force a US veto. The US has insisted on a negotiated peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, not an imposed timetable.

The Security Council is calling for a vote Tuesday evening on the resolution.
US Secretary of State John Kerry held a series of telephone conversations on the Palestinian resolution, speaking over the last 48 hours with the foreign ministers of Britain, Chile, Egypt, the European Union, France, Germany, Jordan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Russia and Saudi Arabia. He also spoke with Rwanda’s president and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.
State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke told reporters in Washington that many countries shared the US sentiment that the resolution was “unconstructive and poorly timed.” He wouldn’t say whether the Palestinians might still have enough backers to force an American veto.
“Every month that goes by without constructive engagement between the parties just increases polarization and allows more space for destabilizing efforts,” Rathke said.

Britain indicated on Tuesday that it will not support the resolution, aligning itself with fellow Security Council member the United States,Reuters reported.
British Ambassador to the UN Mark Lyall Grant told reporters that the UK is not happy with the phrasing of the resolution.
“There’s some difficulties with the text, particularly language on time scales, new language on refugees. So I think we would have some difficulties,” he said in response to questions about the draft.
Grant did not comment on whether the UK, like the US, would use its power of veto to block the resolution if it gains enough votes to pass.
Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird called on the Security Council members to vote down the resolution and focus on encouraging negotiations instead.
“Canada fundamentally believes that Palestinian statehood can only be a by-product of negotiations with the State of Israel,” Baird said in a statement. “We have long rejected unilateral action on either side, as we believe it is ultimately unhelpful to the cause of peace.”
“The resolution that was submitted to the United Nations Security Council on December 29 is just another attempt to circumvent negotiations and place preconditions on future discussions,” he continued. ““Canada therefore calls upon members of the UN Security Council to reject this resolution and instead use its influence to urge both sides to sit down without preconditions.”
An earlier draft resolution was formally presented to the council on December 17, but the United States quickly rejected the text over Palestinian insistence that deadlines be set.

The Palestinians had said they were open to negotiations on the text and Jordan began talks on a measure that could garner a consensus among the 15 council members, resulting in the updated text.
The changed draft resolution, obtained by The Associated Press, affirms the urgent need to achieve “a just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful solution” to the decades-old Palestinian-Israeli conflict within 12 months and sets a December 31, 2017 deadline for Israel’s occupation to end.
A text circulated by several media sources claimed to show the changed draft, but it could not be immediately confirmed.
Many of the changes to the draft, which is widely expected to fail, were semantic, such as the addition of the word “just,” to a call for a solution for outstanding issues including Palestinian refugees, prisoners in Israeli jails and water.
The earlier draft had used the word “agreed.”
The new text also calls for an independent state of Palestine to be established within the June 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and security arrangements “including through a third-party presence.”
The earlier draft mentioned Jerusalem only as a shared capital.
The eight amendments also include new provisions recalling that Israel’s West Bank barrier was declared illegal and demanding an end to Israeli settlement construction in the Palestinian territories and East Jerusalem.
US State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke told reporters in Washington on Monday that the new draft resolution “is not something that we would support, and other countries share the same concerns that we have.”

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement Monday that if the Security Council doesn’t reject the resolution, “we will.”
The Palestinian Authority is “seeking to impose on us a diktat that would undermine Israel’s security, put its future in peril,” he said. “Israel will oppose conditions that endanger our future.”

Netanyahu said Israel expects at least “the responsible members” of the international community to vigorously oppose the resolution “because what we need always is direct negotiations and not imposed conditions.”