You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.

A section of the controversial Israeli barrier is seen between the Shuafat refugee camp (R), in the West Bank near Jerusalem, and Pisgat Zeev (rear), in an area Israel annexed to Jerusalem after capturing it in the 1967 Middle East war, January 27, 2012. 
  
 A Palestinian woman hangs laundry outside her house in front of a section of the controversial Israeli barrier in the Shuafat refugee camp in the West Bank near Jerusalem May 4, 2010. 
  
 JERUSALEM Israel has announced plans to press ahead with construction of 1,213 homes on annexed West Bank land, defying international opposition to its settlement policies. 
  
 The Israel Land Administration on Monday published notices inviting bids from contractors to build on plots in Ramot and Pisgat Zeev, urban settlements that Israel has declared part of Jerusalem. 
  
 The plans call for the building of 607 new homes in Pisgat Zeev and 606 in Ramot. Tens of thousands of Israelis already live in the two areas. 
  
 The Israeli anti-settlement group Peace Now said on Tuesday that an additional tender for the construction of 72 homes in the West Bank settlement of Ariel was reissued on Monday after a previous notice failed to attract winning bidders. 
  
 Palestinians want to create a state in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital but they say Israeli settlement building will cripple the viability of any future country. 
  
 Israel cites historical and Biblical links to the West Bank, which it captured in a 1967 war. Some 500,000 settlers and about 2.5 million Palestinians live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. 
  
 Most countries consider settlements Israel has built in occupied territory as illegal under international law. 
  
 Mohammed Shtayyeh, a member of the central committee of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement, said the decision to expand settlements "is another reason why Palestine must go to the United Nations" to seek an upgrade of its status to non-member state. 
  
 "We call upon the world to respond to this systematic Israeli policy with an overwhelming vote of support for the enhancement of Palestine's observer-state status," Shtayyeh said, accusing Israel of trying "to thwart international efforts to achieve peace". 
  
 Israel and the United States oppose the unilateral Palestinian move, and have called on Abbas to return to peace talks that collapsed in 2010 over the settlement issue. 
  
 A status upgrade at the United Nations would grant the Palestinians access to bodies such as the International Criminal Court, where they could file complaints against Israel. 
  
 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened a meeting of top cabinet members on Tuesday to discuss possible Israeli punitive measures against Abbas's Palestinian Authority in response to the U.N. bid. 
  
 (Writing by Ori Lewis, Editing by Jeffrey Heller) ||||| “I am not eager to go to war,” Mr. Netanyahu said in the seven-minute interview. “I have been creating very heavy pressure, and part of this pressure comes from the knowledge some of the most powerful nations in the world have that we are serious. This isn’t a show, this is not false.” 
  
 Besides the creation of diplomatic tensions if Israel were to act alone against Washington’s wishes, there is a more practical concern: the Israeli military lacks the capacity to penetrate all of Iran’s underground nuclear facilities, and thus could most likely only delay the potential development of a nuclear weapon by a few years. The United States has bunker-busting bombs that could do far more damage. 
  
 The interview was broadcast on “Fact,” a program often compared to “60 Minutes,” at the end of an hourlong documentary on Israeli decision making regarding Iran over the past decade. The program highlighted the opposition of Israel’s own security establishment to a unilateral strike, saying that Mr. Netanyahu and his defense minister, Ehud Barak, ordered the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for an imminent operation in 2010 but were rebuffed by the chiefs of their military and international intelligence service. 
  
 Photo 
  
 Among those interviewed was Ehud Olmert, the former prime minister currently contemplating a political comeback. He accused Mr. Netanyahu of “spitting in the face” of Mr. Obama and “doing anything possible to stop him from being elected president of the United States,” a harsh critique in a country that regards safeguarding its special relationship with Washington as a sacred priority. 
  
 “What’s all this talk, that we will decide alone on our fate and that we won’t take anybody else into consideration?” said Mr. Olmert, who is expected to make Mr. Netanyahu’s relationship with Mr. Obama a mainstay of his campaign if he runs. “Can someone please explain to me with which airplanes we will attack if we decide to attack alone, against the opinion of others — airplanes that we built here in Israel? With which bombs will we bomb, bombs that we made by ourselves? With which special technologies will we do it, those that we made by ourselves or those that we received from other sources?” 
  
 But when shown a video of Mr. Olmert’s retort, Mr. Netanyahu was not cowed. “If what I just heard is that on this matter which threatens our very existence, we should just say, we should just hand the keys over to the Americans and tell them, ‘You decide whether or not to destroy this project, which threatens our very existence,’ well, that’s one possible approach, but it’s not my approach,” he said. “My approach is that if we can have others take care of it, or if we can get to a point where no one has to, that’s fine; but if we have no choice and we find ourselves with our backs against the wall, then we will do what we have to do in order to defend ourselves.” 
  
 Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters. 
  
 After years in which Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Barak pursued the Iranian threat in close partnership, the prime minister now seems virtually alone in his defiant stance, as other leaders attempt to distinguish their positions ahead of Israeli elections on Jan. 22. While Mr. Netanyahu said in his Sept. 27 speech at the United Nations that the critical moment for preventing Iran from developing a weapon would most likely come next spring, Mr. Barak last week pushed the timetable back further, and offered a new explanation of Israel’s reduced sense of urgency. 
  
 The crux of Mr. Barak’s argument, made in an interview with Britain’s Daily Telegraph, was based on reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the most recent in August, showing that Iran had 189 kilograms, about 416 pounds, of uranium enriched to the 20 percent level — from which it could relatively easily be further enriched to weapons grade. Roughly half of that was diverted to civilian use in a form that could not be easily turned into bomb fuel. But Iran has continued production and by most estimates, at current rates, would have roughly a bomb’s worth by next summer. 
  
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
  
 That “allows contemplating delaying the moment of truth by 8 to 10 months,” Mr. Barak said. 
  
 But several high-ranking Israeli officials and analysts said that Mr. Barak’s explanation was overly simplistic. While the diversion was clearly a factor, they said, it was not a new development: the nuclear agency had reported a similar transfer of enriched uranium in May, and that had hardly cooled the rhetoric of either Mr. Barak or Mr. Netanyahu through the summer. And both men have long warned of secret centrifuges that could be spinning without outside knowledge, enabling rapid replenishment of the enriched stockpile. 
  
 “Netanyahu backed away because he was getting the message that he was going too far and this could do damage, this was not helpful either to Israel or to stopping Iran,” said Emily Landau, an Iran expert at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University. “It might be easier for Barak to now say that it’s because of the technical issue, but it’s not a real issue. Relations with the United States is a much more substantial, real issue, but it’s more difficult to give that as your explanation.” 
  
 Graham Allison, a Harvard professor of government who specializes in international security, called Mr. Barak’s statement “kind of a convenient excuse,” adding that “the reason they really blinked” was that the prime minister was unable to convince a majority of his cabinet of the wisdom of acting alone. 
  
 “The big phenomenon here is what I’ve called the revolt of the Israeli security barons,” Mr. Allison said. “I can’t think of a prior Israeli government or an analogous case anywhere where there’s such a clear gap between a prime minister on one hand and his security establishment on the other.” |||||
Output:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is doubling down on his willingness to go after Iran without the support of the international community, including the US, if his people "find ourselves with our backs against the wall." Yesterday's claim wasn't the first time he's made such claims, but his stern tone on the eve of the US election was likely meant to get attention Stateside, reports the New York Times. "I am not eager to go to war," he said during a television interview, adding that his renewed threat "isn't a show. This is not false." One problem with that plan, however: Israel probably doesn't have the firepower to take out Iran's nuclear weapons program on its own. Meanwhile, in another controversial move yesterday, Israel announced its plans to go forward with the construction of 1,213 new homes on annexed West Bank lands, something the United Nations has strongly opposed, reports Reuters. Palestine is eager to get recognition from the UN as a non-member state in order to prevent such moves from Israel. In response, Netanyahu called a meeting today to discuss possible punitive actions against Palestine.