While America voted, Israel prepared to fight. November 8 marked a turning point for both nations. Many in Israel fear that with the election behind him, United States President Barack Obama will again turn his attention to Israel and finish what he started: the creation of a Palestinian state.

Until now, President Obama has kept quiet on the issue for fear of shedding negative light on the Clinton campaign. Post-November 8, that no longer matters.

Many are beginning to postulate that President Obama will look to the United Nations Security Council as a means to enforce his will on Israel.

“Open season on Israel at the Security Council will commence November 9,” wrote Israeli columnist Caroline Glick on October 27 in her article “Checkmating Obama.”

“Obama has waited eight years to exact his revenge on Israel for not supporting his hostile, strategically irrational policies,” she continued. “And he has no interest in letting bygones be bygones.”

It appears that Israel must prepare to fight for its survival in the final 71 days of the Obama administration.

The UNESCO Precursor

As a foretaste of the impending attacks, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (unesco) recently approved two shocking resolutions that condemn Israel. The resolutions called on Israel to cease “persistent excavations and works in East Jerusalem, particularly in and around the Old City.” It branded Israel as the “occupying Power” and used only the Arabic name for the Temple Mount. (Trumpet columnist Brad Macdonald spoke about this on a recent episode of Trumpet Daily Radio Show. Click here to listen.)

The affront to Jewish and Christian heritage in the Middle East is blatant, as is the attempt to prevent further discoveries that prove an ancient Jewish presence in Jerusalem. As Trumpet contributor Brent Nagtegaal noted, “unesco and its supporters are not just interested in disregarding the Jewish attachment to the Temple Mount, but also the Jewish history of all Jerusalem.”

The final resolution was passed in a 10-to-2 vote, with eight abstentions. Thankfully for Israel, these unesco resolutions are not binding.

For all intents and purposes, Israel is not compelled to act. But it is a different matter when it comes to the UN Security Council.

In “Is Obama Preparing a Parting Shot at Israel?”, Charles Krauthammer wrote that “such cowardly gestures are mere pinpricks compared with the damage Israel faces in the final days of the Obama presidency.”

Open Season

UN Security Council resolutions are law. Israel has always had a bulwark of defense at the UN: America. The U.S. has used its veto power to trump the pro-Palestinian majority time after time. Without the veto, Israel would have been subject to a host of nation-crushing resolutions.

But come November 9, the tables could drastically turn. The Obama administration needs do nothing at all—just sit back and allow the anti-Israel resolutions to surge in. With nobody to stop the resolutions, Israel would sit near-indefensible in the Security Council’s crosshairs.

Caroline Glick continued, “From reports to date, it appears that shortly after the U.S. elections on November 8, the Malaysians or Egyptians will submit a Palestinian-backed resolution that defines Israeli communities in united Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria as illegal. If the resolution is brought to a vote, the U.S. will fail to veto it.”

This is coming as soon as next week. Such a move would be crippling for the little nation of Israel.

Krauthammer continued in his article:

The result would be not just perpetual war but incalculable damage to Israel. … Israel would be hauled endlessly into courts (both national and international) to face sanctions, boycotts (now under color of law), and arrest of its leaders. All this for violating a UN mandate to which no Israeli government, left or right, could possibly accede.

A History of Last-ditch Attempts

At the end of the day, Mr. Obama might choose to veto such a Security Council deal. But history suggests he may still try a last-ditch attempt at a two-state solution. As Krauthammer noted, the president may go as far as to offer his own parameters for peace—regardless of whether Israel likes it or not. Such a move would no doubt be enshrined in a Security Council resolution.

The Palestinian state would be legally recognized, and the peace process would die.

“Endorsing in advance a Palestinian state … removes the Palestinian incentive to negotiate and strips Israel of territorial bargaining chips of the kind it used, for example, to achieve peace with Egypt,” noted Krauthammer. In other words, Mr. Obama’s parameters would be rigid guidelines that make impossible any future peace process, regardless of whether he is in power or not!

Israel has weathered similar last-minute attempts at a Palestinian state. On Dec. 23, 2000, less than a month before leaving office, President Bill Clinton took one last shot at a two-state solution. He presented his idea as “parameters” for future peace talks.

Among other things, Clinton’s parameters included giving full sovereignty of the Temple Mount to the Palestinians—just like unesco is trying to do today. Furthermore, Israel was to agree that eastern, southern and northern neighborhoods of Jerusalem would be transferred to the Palestinian Liberation Organization (plo). Of the West Bank, 94 to 96 percent would be transferred to the plo, plus an additional 1 to 3 percent of sovereign Israeli land.

Glick highlights this terrible deal in her book The Israeli Solution. In her chapter titled “Clinton’s Legacy of Blind Faith,” she writes, “Until he [Clinton] released these guidelines, the U.S. had never openly stated its support for the establishment of a Palestinian state.”

The pro-Israel aspects of the deal were the denial of the Arab-sought “right of return.” The Arabs also had to agree to end all hostilities upon signing the deal. Still, Israel would be giving up everything in return for little more than a promise.

Despite the heavily one-sided deal, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak accepted the terms, albeit with reservations. He was willing to return Israel to indefensible borders and recognize Palestinian statehood!

Thankfully for Israel, at the helm of the plo was Yasser Arafat, who had no interest in seeing a cessation in hostilities with Israel. Arafat raised many objections, and agreement was impossible.

Just a month out from the end of Clinton’s presidency, Israel had been on the verge of losing everything.

Today, the dangers are even greater. Mr. Obama doesn’t need Israel and the plo to agree to his terms—he just needs the UN Security Council. Where Clinton tried coercion and failed, President Obama could impose his will.

Ill Prepared to Defend

What do you do when your sole protector becomes your chief adversary?

Sadly, Israeli diplomacy has become complacent. Tucked safely behind the wall of American veto power, it has not had to exercise much effort to defend itself. With the wall gone, Israel is forced to act. But it may already be too late.

So what can Israel do to defend itself from a potential U.S.-backed Security Council resolution?

Glick gives several suggestions in her October 27 article. Israel could plead with Russia to veto a resolution—offering in return Israel’s sway in the U.S. Congress to help lift Crimea-related sanctions. Alternately, Israel could convince an ally to propose a counter-resolution. Her suggestions were Uruguay and New Zealand. But at the end of the day, Israel does not have a replacement for America. The enduring military and diplomatic relationship between the two simply cannot be replaced.

Israel can only make so many promises to other nations before it runs out of bargaining power. At that stage, the Security Council resolutions will pass, and Israel will face the courts.

Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. election may mean that president Obama won’t think twice about the problems he will leave behind for the Republicans.

History warns Israel to prepare for some move by Mr. Obama in the final moments of his presidency. But even beyond the election, a new administration will bring new tactics and new efforts to bring about a two-state solution.

Broken Brotherhood

Regardless of whether President Obama takes action or not, the writing is on the wall: The special relationship with Israel is over.

And what happens when America abandons Israel? Bible prophecy forecasts that East Jerusalem will fall to the forces of radical Islam (Zechariah 14:2). Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry noted in 2004, “If the brotherhood between superpower America and the Jewish state is broken, that is probably when half of Jerusalem will be taken.”

Despite its grave consequences, this prophecy is just one of a trail of dominoes. When it falls, it will ultimately lead to good news for Jerusalem and the whole world. For more on this exciting subject, be sure to read our free booklet Jerusalem in Prophecy.