in 1978 legal adviser advised that the israeli government's program of establishing civilian settlements in the occupied territory is inconsistent with international law. we see no change since then to affect that fundamental conclusion. now, you may have heard that some criticized this resolution for calling east jerusalem occupied territory. but to be clear, there was absolutely nothing new in last week's resolution on that issue. it was one of a long line of security council resolutions that included part of the territories occupied by israel in 1967 and that includes resolutions passed by the security council under president reagan and president george h.w. bush.

and remember that every u.s. administration since 1967 along with the entire international community has recognized east jerusalem as among the territories that israel occupied in the six-day war. now, i want to stress this point, we fully respect israel's profound historic and religious ties to the city and its to holey sites, we don't question that. this resolution in no matter prejudges the outcome of permanent status negotiations on east jerusalem which must, of course, reflect the historic ties and the realities on the ground. that's our position. we still support it. we also strongly reject the notion that somehow the united states was the driving force behind this resolution, the egyptians and palestinians long made clear to all of us, to all of the international community their intention to bring a

resolution to a vote before the end of the year and we communicated that to the israelis and they knew it anyway. the united states did not draft nor did we put it forward. it was drafted by egypt, it was drafted and introduced by egypt, which is one of israel's closest n the region in coordination with the palestinians and others, and during the time of the process, as it went out, we made clear to others including those on the security council that it was possible that if the resolution were to be balanced and if it were to include references to incitement and to terrorism that it was possible the united states would then not block it. that if it was balanced and fair. that's a standard practice with resolutions at the security council. the ebip shuns and theç

palestinians and many others understood, if the text was more balanced it was possible we wouldn't block it but we also made crystal clear that the president of the united states would not make a final decision about our own position until we saw the final text. in the end, we did not agree with every word in this resolution. there are important issues that are not sufficiently addressed or even addressed at all but we could not in good conscience veto a resolution that condemns violence and incitement and reiterates for what has been a long timeç overwhelming consens and interview view on settlements and calls for the parties to start taking constructive steps to advance the two-state solution on the ground. ultimately, it will be up to the israeli people to decide whether the unusually heated attacks that israeli officials have

directed towards this administration best serve israel's national interests and its relationship with an ally that has been steadfast in its support as i described. those attacks alongside allegations of u.s.-led conspiracy and otherç manufactured claims distract attention from what the substance of this vote was really all about. we all understand that israel faces very serious threats in a very tough neighborhood. israelis are rightfully concerned about making sure that there is not a new terrorist haven right next door to them. often referencing what's happened with gaza and we understand that and we believe there are ways to meet those needs of security, and israelis are fully justified into crying attempts to legitimize their state and question the right of a jewish state toç exist, but this vote was not about that. it was about actions israelis

and palestinians taking that are increasingly rendering a two-state solution impossible. it was not about making peace with the palestinians now. it was about making sure that peace with the palestinians will be possible in the future. now we all understand that israel faces extraordinary serious threats in a very tough neighborhood. and israelis are very correct in making sure there is not a terrorist haven right on their border but thisç vote, i can't emphasize enough, is not about the possibility of arriving at an agreement that is going to resolve that overnight or in one year or two years. this is about a longer process. this is about how we make peace with the palestinians in the future but preserve the capacity to do so. how do we get there?

we called for both sides to take significant steps to send a clear message that they are prepared to fundamentally change the equation without waiting for the other side to act. we have pushed them to comply with their basic commitments under their own prior agreements, in order to advance a two-state reality on the ground. we have called for the palestinians to it do everything in theirç power to stop violene incitement including publicly and consistently condemning acts

of terrorism and stopping glorification of violence. we called on them to continue efforts to strengthen their own institutions and improve governance and transparity and accountability. we stress that the hamas arms buildup and militant activities in gaza must stop. along with our quartet partners, we have called on israel to end the policy of settlement construction and expansion, of taking land for exclusive israeli use and denyingç palestinian development. to reverse the current process, the u.s. and our partners have encouraged israel to resume the transfer of greater civil authority to the palestinians in area c, consistent with the transition that was called for by oslo. and we have made clear that significant progress across a range of sectors, including housing, agriculture, natural resources can be made without negatively impacting israel's

legitimate security needs. and we have called for significantly easing the movement and access restrictions to and f)m gaza with due consideration for israel's need to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks. so let me stress here again. none of the steps that i just talked about would negatively impact israel's security. let me also emphasize, this is not about offering limited economic measures that perpetuate the status quo. we're talking about significant steps that would signal"r1 progress towards creating two states. that's the bottom line. if we're serious about the two-state solution, it's time to start implementing it now. advancing the process of

separation now in a serious way could make a significant difference in saving the two-state solution, and building confidence in the citizens of both sides. that peace is indeed possible. and much progress can be made in advance of negotiations, that can lay the foundation for negotiations as contemplated by the oslo process. inç fact, these steps will help create the conditions for successful talks. now in the end we all understand that a final status agreement can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the parties. we've said that again and again. we can not impose the peace. there rather countries in the u.n. who believe it is our job to dictate the terms of a solution in the security council. others want us to simply recognize a palestinian state

absent an agreement but i want to make clear today, these are not the choices that weç will make. we choose instead to draw on the experiences of the last eight years, to provide a way forward, when the parties are ready for serious negotiations. in a place where the narratives from the past powerfully inform and mold the present, it's important to understand the history. we mark this year and next, a series of milestones, that i believe both illustrate the two sides of the conflict, and form the basis for its resolution. it's worth touching on them briefly. 120 yearsç ago, the first ziont congress was convened in basel by a group of jewish visionaries who decided the only effective response to the waves of anti-semitic horrors sweeping across europe was to create a state in the historic home of the jewish people.

where there are ties to the land went back centuries, a state that could defend its borders, protect its people and live in peace with its neighbors. that was the vision. that was the modern beginning, and it remains the dream of israel today. nearly 70 years ago the united nations general assemblyç resolution 181 finally paved the way to making the state of israel a reality. the concept was simple. to create two states for two peoples, one jewish, one arab. to realize the national aspirations of both jews and palestinians. and both israel and the plo referenced resolution 181 in their respective declarations of independence. the united states recognized israel seven minutes after its creation. but the palestinians and the arab world didç not.

and from its birth, israel had to fight for its life. palestinians also suffered terribly in the 1948 war, including many who lived for generations in the land that had long been their home too. when israel celebrates its 70th anniversary in 2018, the palestinians will mark a very different anniversary. 70 years which they call the catastrophe. next year will also mark 50 years since the end of the six-day war when israel again fought for its survival, and palestinians will again mark just theç opposite, 50 years of military occupation. both sides have accepted u.n. security council resolution 242, which called for the w al israel -- withdrawal of territory israel occupied in 1967, in return for peace and secure borders as a basis for

ending the conflict. it has been more than 20 years since israel and the plo signed their first agreement. the oslo accords, and the plo formally recognized israel. both sides committed to a plan to transition much of theç west bank and gaza to palestinian control during permanent negotiations that would put an end to their conflict. unfortunately neither the transition, nor the final agreement came about. both sides bear responsibility for that. finally, some 15 years ago, king abdullah of saudi arabia came out with a historic arab peace initiative which offered fully normalized relations with israel when it made peace. an enormous opportunity then and now, which has never been fullyç embraced. that history was critical to our approach to trying to find a way

to resolve the conflict. and based on my experience with both sides over the last four years, including the nine months of formal negotiations the core issues can be resolved, if there is leadership on both sides committed to finding a solution. in the end, i believe the negotiations did not fail because the gaps were too wide, but because the level of trust was too low. both sides were concerned that any concessions would notç be reciprocated and would come at to great a political cost and the deep public skepticism only made it more difficult for them to be able to take risks. in the countless hours at that we spent working on a detailed framework, we worked through numerous formulations and developed specific bridging proposals, we came away with a clear understanding of the fundamental needs of both sides.

in the past 2 1/2 years i have tested ideas with regional and international stakeholders including our quartet partners. and i believe what has emerged from allç of that is a broad consensus on balanced principles that would satisfy the core needs of both sides. president clinton deserves great credit for laying out extensive parameters designed to bridge gaps in advanced final status negotiations 16 years ago. today, with mistrust too high to even start talks, we're at the opposite end of the spectrum. neither side is willing to even risk acknowledging the other as bottom line and more negotiations that do not produce progress will onlyç reinforce e worst fears. now everyone understands that negotiations would be complex and difficult and nobody can be

expected to agree on the final result in advance. but if the parties could at least demonstrate that they understand the other side's most basic needs and are potentially willing to meet them if theirs are also met at the end of comprehensive negotiations, perhaps then enough trust could be established to enable a meaningful progress to begin. it is in that spirit that we offer theç following principle. not to prejudge or impose an outcome, but to provide a possible basis for serious negotiations when the parties are ready. now individual countries may have more detailed policies on these issues as we do, by the way, but i believe there is a broad consensus that a final status agreement that could meet the needs of both sides would do the following. principle number one.

provide for secure and recognized international borders between israel and a viable, anç contiguous palestine, negotiated based on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed equivalent swaps. resolution 242 which has been enshrined in international law for 50 years, provides for the withdrawal of israel from territory it occupied in 1967 in return for peace with its neighbors and secure and recognized borders. it has long been accepted by both sides, and it remains the basis for an agreement today. as secretary one of the first eschews that i worked out with the arab league was theirç agreement that the reference in the arab peace initiative to the 1967 lines would from now on include the concept of land swaps, which the palestinians have acknowledged.

and this is necessary to reflect practical realities on the ground and mutually agreed equivalent swaps that will insure that the agreement is fair to both sides. there is also broad recognition of israel's need to insure that the borders are secure. and defensible. and that the territory of palestinian is viable and contiguous. virtually everyone that i have spokenç to has been clear on ts principle as well, no changes by israel to the 196lines will be recognized -- 1967 lines will be recognized by the international community unless agreed to by both sides. principle two, fulfill the vision of the u.n. general assembly resolution 181 of two states for two peoples. one jewish, and one arab, with mutual recognition and full, equal rights for all their respective citizens.

this has been the fundamental foundational principle of the two-stateç solution from the beginning. creating a state for the jewish people and a state for the palestinian people, where each can achieve their national aspirations. and resolution 181 is incorporated into the foundational documents of both the israelis and palestinians. recognition of israel as a jewish state has been the u.s. position for years, and based on my conversations in these last months, i am absolutely convinced that many others are now preparedded to accept it as well, provided the need for a palestinian state is also addressed.ç we also there are 1.7 million arab citizens who call israel their home. for now and always be able to live as equal citizens, which make this is a difficult issue for palestinians and others in the arab world. that's why it is so important in

recognizing each other's homeland, israel for the jewish people, palestine for the palestinian people, both sides reaffirm their commitment to upholding full equal rights for all of their respective citizens. principle number three, provide for a just,ç agreed, fair aroud realistic solution to the palestinian refugee issue, with international assistance, that includes compensation options and ses stance in finding permanent homes, acknowledgement of suffering and other measures necessary for a comprehensive resolution consistent with two states for two peoples. the plight of many palestinian refugees is heart-breaking and all agree that their needs to have be addressed. as part of a comprehensive resolution, they must be provided with compensation, their suffering must beç

acknowledged. there will be a need to have options and assistance in finding permanent homes. the international community can provide significant support and assistance. i know we are prepared to do that, including raising money to help insure the compensation and other needs of the refugees are met. many have expressed a willingness to contribute to that effort, particularly if it brings peace. but there is a general recognition that the solution must be consistent with two states for two peoples and can not affect the fundamental character of israel. principleç four, provide an agreed resolution for jerusalem as the internationally recognized capitol of the two states and protect and assure freedom of access to the holy sites consistent with the established status quo. jerusalem is the most sensitive issue for both sides, and the solution will have to meet the

needs, not only of the parties, but of all three monotheistic faiths. that is why the holy sites that are sacred to billions of people around the world must be protected and remain accessible, and the established statusñi quo maintained. most acknowledge that jerusalem should not be divided again like it was in 1967, and we believe that. at the same time there is broad recognition there will be no peace agreement without reconciling the basic aspirations of both sides to have capitals there. principle five, satisfy israel's security needs and bring a full end ultimately to the occupation, while insuring that israel can defend itself effectively, and that palestine could provide securityç for its people in a sovereign and

non-militarized state. security is the fundamental issue for israel, together with a couple of others i mentioned. but security is critical. everyone understands that no israeli government can ever accept an agreement that does not satisfy its security needs, or that risks creating an enduring security threat like gaza transferred to the west bank. and israel must be able to defend itself effectively including against terrorism and other regional threats. in fact there is a real willinondss by egypt, jordan and others to work together with israel on meeting key security challenges, and i believe that those collective efforts, including close coordination on border security, intelligence-sharing, joint cooperations, joint operations, can all play a critical role in securing the peace. at the same time, fully ending the occupation is the

fundamental issue for the palestinians. they need to know that the military occupation itself will really end after an agreed transitional process. they need to know they can live inç freedom and dignity in a sovereign state while providing security for their population, even without a military of their own. this is widely accepted as well. and it is important to understand there are many different ways without occupation for israel and palestine and jordan and egypt and the united states and others to cooperate in providing that security. now balancing those requirements was among the most important challenges that we face in the negotiations. but it was one where the united states has the ability to provide the moseys stance. that is why aç team led by general john allen who is here, i'm very frightful for his many hours of effort along with he as one of our foremost military

minds and dozens of experts from the department of defense and other age is, all of them engaged extensively with the israeli defense force in trying to find solutions that could help israel address its legitimate security needs. they developed innovative approaches to creating unprecedented, multilayered border security, enhancing palestinian capacity, enabling israel to retain the ability to when the occupation had ended. general allen and his team were not suggesting one particular outcome or one particular timeline, nor were they suggesting that technology alone would resolve these problems. they were simply working on ways to support whatever the negotiators agreed to. and they did some very impressive work that gives me total confidence that israel's security requirements can be

met. principle six, end the conflict and all-out standing claims enablingç normalized relations and enhanced regional security for all as envisaged by the arab peace initiative. it is essential for both sides that the final status agreement resolves all of the outstanding issues and finally brings closure to this conflict, so that everyone can move ahead to a new era of peaceful coexistence and cooperation, for israel this must also bring broader peace, with all of its arab neighbors. that is the fundamental promise of the arab peace initiative which key arab leaders have affirm in these most recentç days. the arab peace initiative also envisions enhanced security for all of the region. it envisages israel being a partner in those efforts when peace is made.

this is the area where israel and the arab world are looking with perhaps the greatest moment of potential transformation in the middle east, since israel's creation in 1948. the arab world faces its own set of security challenges, with israeli, palestinian peace, israel, the united states, jordan, egypt, together with the gcc countries, would be ready and willing toç define a new security partnership for the region that would be absolutely ground-breaking. so ladies and gentlemen, that's why it is vital that we all work to keep open the possibility of peace. that we not lose hope in the two-state solution, no matter how difficult it may seem because there is really no viable alternative. now we all know that a speech alone won't produce peace. but based on over 30 years of experience, and lessons from the past four years, i have

suggested, i believe,ç and president obama has signed on to and believes in a path that the parties could take, realistic steps on the ground now, consistent with the party's own prior commitments that will begin the process of separating into two states a political horizon to work towards, to create the conditions for a successful final status talk, and a basis for negotiations that the parties could accept to demonstrate that they are serious about making peace. we can only encourage them to take this path. we can not walk downç it for them. but if they take it these steps, peace would bring extraordinary -- extraordinary benefits in enhancing the security and stability and prosperity of israelis, palestinians, all nations of the region. the palestinian economy has

amazing potential in context of independence, with major private sector investment possibilities, and a talented, hungry, eager to work, young workforce. israel's economy could enjoy unprecedented growth, as it becomes a regional, economic, powerhouse, taking ad advantage ofç the unparalleled culture of innovation and trading opportunities with new arab partners, meanwhile, security challenges could be addressed by an entirely new security arrangement, in which israel cooperates openly with key arab states. that is the future everybody should be working for. president obama and i know the incoming administration has signaled that they make a different path, and even suggested breaking from the long-standing u.s. policies on settlements, jerusalem and possibility of a two-state solution. that is for them to decide. that is how we work.

but we can not, in good conscience do nothing and say nothing when we see the hope of peace slipping away. this is a time to stand up for what is right. we have long known what two states living side by side in peace and security looks like. we should not be afraid to say so. now i really began to reflect on what we have learned and the way ahead when i recently joined president obama in jerusalem, for the state funeral for shimoç peres. he was one of the founding fathers of israel who became one of the world's great elder statesmen. a beautiful man. i was proud to call him my friend and i know president obama was as well. and i remembered the first time that i saw shimon in person standing on the white house lawn for the signing of the historic oslo accords. and i thought about the last

time at an intimate, one-on-one, shabat dinner just a few months before he died when we toasted together to future of israel and to the peace that he still so passionately believed in for his people. he summed it upç simply and eloquently as only shimon could. quote, the original mandate gave palestinians 48%. now it is down to 22%. i think 78% is enough for us. as shimon to rest that day, many of us could wonder if peace between israelis and palestinians be buried with unof its most eloquent champions. we can not let that happen. there is simply too much at stake for future generations of israelis and palestinians toç give in to pessimism, especially when peace is in fact still

possible. we must not lose hope in the possibility of peace. we must not give in to those who say what is now must always be. there is no chance for a better future. it is up to israelis and palestinians to make the difficult choices for peace but we can all help. and for the sake of future generations of israelis and palestinians, for all the people of the region, for the united states, for all those around the world who have prayed for and worked for peace for generations,ç let's hope that e are all prepared and particularly israelis and palestinians, to make those choices now. thank you very much. [applause] >> secretary of state john kerry just wrapping up a very long speech at the state department, laying out this administration's vision for middle east peace. he said time and time again that a two-state solution is the only

path to peace. he defended the united states's failure to veto u.n. resolution condemning last week the jewish settlements someç call occupied territory. that ratcheted up tension between israel and president obama has about three weeks left in his term. here is secretary kerry moments ago. >> the two-state solution is the only way to achieve, a just and lasting peace between israelis and palestinians. it is the only way to insure israel's future, as a jewish and democratic state. living in peace, and security, with its neighbors. it is the only way to insure a future of freedom and dignity for the palestinian people and it is an important wayç of advancing united states's interest in the region. >> secretary kerry defending america's be a send shun at the

u.n. call it a defense of american values. listen. >> friend need to tell each other the heart truths and friendships require mutual respect. i am compelled to respond today that the united states did in fact vote in accordance with our values, just as previous u.s. administrations have done at the security council before us. kennedy: let's bring it out to the couch.ç herman cain, you had a lot to say during the speech. >> yes. kennedy: a lot to say. it was a very long speech. >> yes. kennedy: he obviously had two objectives here, make the case to the american people and the world for the two-state solution for israel and also defend the u.s. in that abstention vote. did he succeed on either front? >> no. there is an old saying, when people don't agree with your conclusion, dazzle them with i can't say it on the air, rhetoric. that is what this was. the only thing worse than a one her plus speech by john kerry is

a one hour speech by president obama. this is pure rhetoric to try to coverç up for the flawed assumptions. number one, the two-state solution. that is a flawed assumption. why? because when they had an agreement between the palestinians and the israelis decades ago, the palestinians were the first ones to break that agreement that he talked about. kennedy: yeah. >> secondly, security is the most important thing. if you demand that the occupied area be given to the palestinians, israel becomes a sitting duck. this is why benjamin netanyahu and the israelis are simply not going to go along with that approach. kennedy: dagen, let me ask you,ç obviously this is the white whale, this is the magnum opus, this is the gold in medal for any president is lasting peace in the middle east. so is the president in his final weeks trying to craft some sort

of peace there, or, is this just some sort of needling defense israel for the bad relationship they have had over two terms. >> if the obama administration wanted peace and wanted to protect israel, they wouldn't have brokered that iran deal and handed $1.7 billion in a cash ransom payment to the number one state sponsor ofç terrorism. funding terrorists in yemen. funding hezbollah. and firing missiles by the way, earlier this year that carried the hebrew message, israel must be wiped out. let's not forget that. why is this happening now? why didn't it happen before now? because of the politics. because if democrats had heard this speech and witnessed that abstention last week, they would have been, here's the slogan according to eli lake you would have seen, can't stop genocide in syria and we make jewish homes in jerusalem illegal.

500,000 syrians were killed and that's what we get, theç messae to israel. this is appalling what has happened. kennedy: it is certainly seems to flamed tensions just as we're coming off a presidential election in this country, and look at this. president-elect donald trump has tweeted, and you can see the tweet right here, in response before kerry's speech, he wrote, we can not continue to let israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. they used to have a great friend in the u.s. but not anymore. the beginning of the end was the horrible iran deal as dagen alluded to. stayç strong, israel, january 20th is fast approaching. lisa booth, what can israel expect from a changing in the guard at the white house, a new administration grown to be very pro-israel over the last few months? >> an administration that supports our friends, not our

enemies, what we see from president obama. he will go out a coward and a coward on the world stage and a coward that made the world less safe ultimately. as bam doeser john bolton, wrote in the "wall street journal" this isn't stabbing israel in the back. this is stabbing israel in the front. secretary of state john kerry said there is noç friend better friend of israel and flies in the face of common sense as herman and dagen pointed out in the earlier segment. prime minister benjamin netanyahu who said this resolution is a declaration of war. he said it's a shameful ambush by the president of the united states. and i absolutely agree with him. kennedy: let's take a look at benjamin netanyahu's tweet because he also had something to say. president-elect trump, thank you for your warm friendship and clear-cut support for israel. that's obviously a jab at the sitting president who has not demonstrated clear-cut support for israel. >> no and i'll tell youç this,i

don't think there is anything clear-cut about anything of these things we're talking about. i got back from israel two weeks ago. i was there for a week, i saw much of my time there, i'll tell you this -- >> what are they saying about the election? >> look, they're optimistic like many people. president-elect trump has been very consistent i think in his support of israel. i think that's a good thing. they're optimistic about that but i want to talk about the two-state solution because i think in theory, we heard john kerry talk for over an hour about these six point prongs, it is all great talk. it is rhetoric. here is the problem. in order for real negotiation has to take place, one common thing mustz understood from day one, a recognition of israel's right to exist. until that is acknowledged, really in arabic by the pasin people we can't move forward with this, right? that's the thing. i actually sat down with erakat, cleave negotiator of palestinian authority. he said a lot of good things that are very good. they're tying their hand.

saying one thing out of their mouth. saying another thing to their people. i understand why the u.s. took position i do. i'm not for israel continuing settlements, herman, what you said, they have to protect their space and their right to exist. we saw what happened to theç ga strip. they gave it up. hamas and all. this is something very complex. >> john kerry compared the geography in the west bank to swiss cheese. maybe he could have spent a little more time editing the speech and cleaning up the metaphors. more potential fallout from secretary john kerry. tough language from israel. reaction from the jewish state and a live report from jerusalem coming up on "outnumbered."

kennedy: this is fox news alert. secretary of state johnstate del to block a u.n. resolution that call israeli settlements a

violation of international law. a very long speech at the state department wrapping up a short while ago, secretary kerry said the u.n. vote was quote, in accordance with american values and the two-state solution is only way to achieve a secure israel. >> we can not properly defend and protect israel if we allow a viable two-state solution to be destroyed by our own eyes. and that's the bottom line. the vote in the united nations was about preserving the two-state solution. that's what we were standing up for. israel's future as a jewish and democratic state, living side by side in peace and security with its neighbors. that is what we're trying to preserve for our sake and for theirs. kennedy: the lady doth protest too much me thinks. john huddy live in jerusalem with more. john? reporter: kennedy, secretary kerry also said president obama

has been israel's greatest friend and supporter. so far we haven't heard any reaction from israeli officials, in particular israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu. that will likely change and hopefully we'll get something sooner rather than later. if we do certainly i will report it to you but i think the takeaway, one of the important takeaways on this are the principles that secretary kerry outlined, he said as possible parameters that can bring peace and two-state solution. real quickly i will go through a couple. he mentioned resolution 242, the u.n. resolution that provides for secure borders between israel and palestine based on the 1967 lines. this was something also in the u.n. resolution voted on friday. he talked about a solution to the palestinian refugee crisis. jerusalem being the capital of both palestinian state and a israeli state. that was an important point. also satisfying israel's security needs. and ending the conflict and outstanding claims that will

ultimately enable the peace talks, peace process and two-state solution. he said, kennedy, that the two-state solution is in serious jeopardy because of seemingly endless occupation and settlement expansion into east jerusalem and the west bank. that was the focus of the bulk of his speech. he defended the vote friday, saying it was about a preserving a two-state solution and it was drafted by egypt. while the u.s. said it wouldn't block it if it was a balanced resolution, he rejected claims that the u.s. was behind it. that is what israeli officials continue to maintain, that the u.s. basically orchestrated and drafted this, and a senior israeli official told me friday that the resolution is quote, just the tip of the iceberg as far as u.s.-palestinian collusion, whether they stick to that hard-line approach and stance we'll see. we're awaiting reaction. kennedy? kennedy: very good, john, thanks

so much. we look forward to further updates from you. herman cain, i go to you first, we keep hering the two-state solution. the two-state solution, so important and and repetitive from secretary kerry and the administration. what is israel's desire before tuesday? >> nothing. assuming the legitimacy of the u.n. resolution, if you look at the last eight years, the last eight years, the united nations has passed 20 resolutions against israel and four against the rest of the world. secondly, the problem with the two-state solution from the palestinian standpoint is that they wanted only if you ignore the 1967 lines. that is a nonstarter for israel. and i think they ought to stay in that spot. dagen: ambassador john bolton wrote an editorial in "the wall street journal" recently, he pointed out you would not get this from the john kerry speech. >> no. dagen: that the two-state

solution has been on, essentially a dead end. it has been on life-support for a number of years. he said far better to it have a three-state solution. return gaza to egypt and give those parts of the west bank that israel is prepare to cede to jordan. you attach palestinian lands to real economies, not a make-believe one. that will benefit all. kennedy: so you obviously have a president with no political experience which arguably could be his greatest strength. and he is going to have unorthodox approaches all ways he governs in a number of crises. dagen brings up ambassador bolton's point about a three-state solution. what do you see president-elect trump doing with israel as an ally? what, out of the box solution to do you see them coming up with? >> i'm not quite sure. we've seen from president-elect trump, his viewpoint on foreign policy and measures he will take throughout the administration

will be drastically different than president obama's. we saw him taking the phone call from the president of taiwan, right? he already signaled a drastic change in the way we engage with the world. as we saw with the u.n. resolution just now with president-elect trump saying to benjamin netanyahu, look we have israel's back. i would not do this. forcing egypt to stand down as well. this is just another example of the dysfunctional and dangerous policies of president obama when it comes to foreign policy. those policies as dagen pointed out earlier of helping a country like iran who wants to bring death and destruction to israel. he says there will be no israel in the next 25 years. kennedy: i want to bring eboni in. we're running out of time. you were just in israel. is it possible to share jerusalem? is that possible? >> possible, sure in theoretical sense, from what i saw on the ground i don't see it happening. i think we get much more practical. we heard a speech about theory

and what ifs. it will not happen that way. i want to say this you might not think president obama is the best friend israel ever had but gave him $38 billion. i heard several israelis appreciative for that component. kennedy: we have a hard break coming up. meantime secretary kerry insisting u.s. including obama administration always had israel's back. is that how israel's see it? we'll debate next. >> perfect. your insurance company

won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. and if you have more than one liberty mutual policy, you qualify for a multi-policy discount, saving you money on your car and home coverage. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

♪ >> time and again we have demonstrated that we have israel's back. we have strongly opposed boycotts, investment campaigns and sanctions targeting israel in international forum. whenever, wherever its legitimacy was attacked, we have fought for its inclusion across

the u.n. system. kennedy: such a fighter. john kerry, feels like the speech is still going on, herm main cain. >> well -- kennedy: what was your big takeaway from it, other than indigestion. what did you get from the speech? >> indigestion, number one. number two, they are trying to cover up with a bad decision with a lot of rhetoric. some of the facts may be correct but them trying to explain it away is simply preposterous as dagen says. dagen: to quote ric grenell the former spokesman at u.n., he was on twitter saying it has been decades of u.s. policy to push the parties to negotiate directly, and yet john kerry stand up there and lecture israel on land. it was a lecture to israel and it, highlighted how this administration, outgoing one turned its back on our allies. greatest ally. >> talk about how the u.n.'s priorities and administration's

priorities are an absolute joke. half a million people getting slaughtered in syria and this is the focus, to tip the scales in favor of the palestinians? and harm our only democratic ally in the middle east this is the reason why president-elect trump has been critical of the u.n. as well. i think he coming in to his presidency after january 20th will take a hard look at u.n. and our role in the u.n. as he should. dagen: if they cared about israel and pallets of cash to iran behind the backs of americans. >> that was not a ransom payment though. remember -- >> that deal was absolutely a disaster. i have said that many times. i want to say this about the settlement. john kerry said it but more planely, peace is not about the settlements. this is whole thing is about good faith and greating in goodwill, israelis will at mitt at least to me they understand the controversial settlements. we tried to do it on up and up.

tried to do it according to international law. it failed us. we see palestine continue to operate in bad faith. to y'all's point what is incentive to play by the rules. i asked david what will you say around this? we'll do what is in our best interests meantime until peace comes. kennedy: we'll hear from benjamin netanyahu in the next hour. more "outnumbered." stay here. ♪ you know, just before retirement,

i had that "uh-oh" moment. it is not a great feeling. i worked hard, i saved money... but then i realized, i wasn't going to have enough. if you're age 62 or older and facing a financial gap, your home's equity could provide greater financial independence. with recent changes to reverse mortgages, it's more important than ever to make a decision based on current facts, rather than outdated information. if you think you know everything there is to know about reverse mortgages, the truth is, you probably don't. and i have to admit i was skeptical at first, based on what i thought i knew,

but then i realized how misinformed i really was. many people are surprised to learn that today's reverse mortgages have been redesigned and can provide greater help to consumers. as a result, they can be an effective option to help fund the retirement you want. call reverse mortgage funding today for a free copy of closing the gap. it has the most current information about new products, including those designed to help you extend your retirement funds or to purchase a new home. my reverse mortgage gave me the benefits of a home equity line of credit, without the monthly loan payments. and they made the process really easy. retirement and retirees have changed, and so have reverse mortgages. you owe it to yourself to see how today's reverse mortgages are meeting the needs of a new retirement generation. to find out how, call reverse mortgage funding now, and get the facts. we based our decision on current information, not hearsay, which was really a smart move for us.

it changed our entire retirement outlook. call toll-free this number for your free copy of closing the gap. there's no obligation, so call today. call now. loan terms and conditions apply. visit reverseminded.com for details. kennedy: we're waiting a response from benjamin netanyahu. we'll bring that to you the second he begins his speech. thanks so much to herman cain. herman, great job today. it was truncated show. there was a lot to say from the couch. >> enjoyed it, ladies. kennedy: happy new year to you. >> to all of you. dagen: one of my favorites. >> well, thank you. >> dagen gave him -- [laughter] dagen: i know herman a long time.

he walks the talk. kennedy: she is branding you with her love. we're staying right here for "outnumbered overtime." it is on the web. find us on facebook.com/outnumberedfnc. so easy to find us there. we'll be back on tv tomorrow at noon eastern. "happening now" starts right now.