False covenant of peace and safety for Israel:

Daniel 9:26-27 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Isaiah 28:14-19  Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it. From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.

1 Thessalonians 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

Trump’s ‘Deal of the Century’ Is Getting Even Better for Israel. Really? ‘For you have made a covenant with hell and with death were are in agreement.’ ‘Ye scornful men which rule Jerusalem.’ MBS confirmation is all but a foregone conclusion. ‘Little yappy, barking dog needs to go away.’

Zev Chafets Bloomberg•July 30, 2019

David Friedman, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, caused a diplomatic firestorm earlier this summer by telling the New York Times that, under circumstances, “Israel has the right to retain some, but not likely all, of the West Bank.”

This was rightly seen as a departure from traditional American policy and, since Friedman is known to have President Donald Trump’s ear, an early sign of where the U.S. is taking its still undisclosed “Deal of the Century” for an Israel-Palestine peace agreement. Yet Saeb Erekat, the longtime chief negotiator for the Palestinians, dismissed Friedman’s conjecture as impossibility: “Annexation of occupied territory is a war crime under international law.” What more was there to say?

But if the Palestinians saw Friedman’s remark as a one-time gaffe by an inexperienced diplomat, they were disabused of that notion last week when Jason Greenblatt, the U.S. envoy for the region, informed the United Nations Security Council that, in the view of the Trump administration, international law does not apply to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“We have all heard cogent arguments claiming international law says one thing or another about this or that aspect of Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” Greenblatt told the assembled ambassadors. “Some of those arguments are persuasive, at least to certain audiences. But none of them are conclusive.” 

Nor, in the American view, does the UN or any international institution have the standing to arrive at and enforce a legal ruling. “There is no judge, jury or court in the world that the parties involved have agreed to give jurisdiction in order to decide whose interpretations are correct,” Greenblatt said. “Let’s stop kidding ourselves. If so-called international consensus had been able to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it would have done so decades ago. It didn’t.” 

Greenblatt’s challenge to cherished UN conventions evinced outrage from his audience. Oddly, it didn’t not get much public attention. The Times and other major media ran only wire-service reports on it. Perhaps this was due to heavy interest in Robert Mueller hearings in Washington or Boris Johnson becoming the U.K.’s new prime minister. More likely, it reflected the point that Greenblatt himself was making, that the UN Security Council is a predictable and impotent body.

In fact, Greenblatt’s rebuke to the Security Council, along with Friedman’s June musings on the validity of Israeli territorial claims in the West Bank, are the two dropping shoes of the still unpublished but soon to arrive Trump peace plan, which is being overseen by Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law. The proposal will no doubt be impatient for results, blunt-spoken and exclusive. The Israelis and the Palestinian Authority will be involved, face-to-face, under the sole auspices of the U.S. The international community, (which Greenblatt mocked as “fictional”) will be treated as uninvited kibitzers.

The U.S. will not even pretend to be a neutral broker. It is Israel’s ally, and supports it on almost every issue. That doesn’t mean the Palestinian side will get nothing. But it does mean that after decades of friendly UN resolutions and international declarations of solidarity, the Palestinian negotiators will start again at zero and make their case. “It is true,” Greenblatt said, “that the PLO and the Palestinian Authority continue to assert that East Jerusalem must be a capital for the Palestinians. But let’s remember, an aspiration is not a right.”

For Erekat and other Palestinian peace processors, this is dismal situation. They have spent their lives constructing a fortress out of paper resolutions, unenforceable legalisms and alliances with nations now preoccupied by their own existential problems. Faced with what amounts to an American diktat, who — apart from Jeremy Corbyn, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Rashida Tlaib and the government of Venezuela – will stand with them?

The Palestinians will certainly object and declare their resistance. But at a certain point, gallant gestures become counterproductive. If they walk away, they will find themselves on the wrong side of a regional map made to American specifications that reflect the real life balance of power.