Israel: 'Ironclad information' White House behind UN rebuke

[JDGRUEN]

Just now, Srikcir said:

So that justifies Israel building more settlements closer to/on Palestine territory? Militarily that makes little sense.

As far as wiping Israel off the map, the last rocket attack this year was in August (1), preceded by July (2), June (0), May (2), April (0), etc. Hardly intended to wipe Israel off the map. The attacks seem more expressing frustration at Israel's lack of allowing any progress on peace making in the only way that Israel takes notice.

 

As I said - the blind cannot see... if Israel stops advancing and protecting itself -- it will be wiped out ... if the Arabs stop hostile actions - there will be peace ... Israel will respect peaceful actions ... Israel will NEVER step back from Arab hostilities ... Seems the Arabs never learn anything since 1948 ... do the same acts of aggression -- get the same response ... do it 100 times - and the Arabs will get the same response ... when the Arabs stop hostilities peace will happen... and not until ... Israel has proved time and again it will prevail in defending hostile actions but Arabs never learn ... 68 years of the Arabs hitting themselves in the head with a hammer - and they won't stop..  

[Morch]

10 hours ago, Roadman said:

We in Kiwiland are breaking out the fishing boats and drill training with our 303's in response to Israels declaration of war against us. We should be OK against their US supplied nukes. Jest sure but it shows how bigger ignorant morons the Israelis are when they act like thugs to anybody and everybody who challenges there self indulged land grab. Especially to a nation who have tolerated their scumbag activities in the past. 

 

"...US supplied nukes."

 

"...ignorant..."

 

Quite.

 

[stevenl]

 
As I said - the blind cannot see... if Israel stops advancing and protecting itself -- it will be wiped out ... if the Arabs stop hostile actions - there will be peace ... Israel will respect peaceful actions ... Israel will NEVER step back from Arab hostilities ... Seems the Arabs never learn anything since 1948 ... do the same acts of aggression -- get the same response ... do it 100 times - and the Arabs will get the same response ... when the Arabs stop hostilities peace will happen... and not until ... Israel has proved time and again it will prevail in defending hostile actions but Arabs never learn ... 68 years of the Arabs hitting themselves in the head with a hammer - and they won't stop..  

I sense a little one sidedness here.

Sent from my ROBBY using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[ChidlomDweller]

22 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Stop personalizing this.

The land being dealt with in 1948 was British mandate Palestine. It was not a national entity controlled by Arabs or Jews. So facing facts instead of the toxic blame only Jews narrative you push is disgusting why exactly?

So what if the British had a mandate over Palestine?  It wasn't theirs to give away.  How was that fair and acceptable to the people who already lived there?  The "disgusting" referes to where you denigrate the indigenous population's right to defend their own territory.   

 

Unfortunately we can't undo what happened since WWII.  A better solution at the time would have been to give a piece of Germany for the Jews to create a homeland. But given where we are now, I think the best way forward is for Israelis to acknowledge the historical wrong that has been done against the palestinians.  It's a horrible cliche, but love is the answer.  Aside from robust law enforcement response, if they slap you on the cheek, offer them the other cheek. At some point they wouldn't want to slap it again just because an injustice was committed against their grandfather.  If Israelis had worked to help and elevate Palestinians to the maximum possible extent for the past 50 years, the supply of young Palestinians who'd want to fight would have dried up by now.   What's eminently clear is that Netanyahu isn't interested in compromise or concessions.  His game is playing for time and building facts on the ground all the way.

 

As for the disproportionate attention to Israel when China, North Korea, African regimes, etc. are just as bad, I really don't think the cause of that is anti-semitism.  If you look at other aspects of life, people don't pay equal attention to everything.  Some things are more salient than others, even though rationally equally important.  People worry more about terrorism even though they're more likely to die from slipping out and making a bad fall.  I spend money like there's no tomorrow on guitars and then go to the store and buy 5 tubes of toothpaste because it's 20 Baht cheaper than usual.  Likewise, there's something especially poignant about the injustice committed by Israel against Palestinians.  Maybe it's because Israelis are basically Westerners like the rest of us and we expect better behavior from them.  Maybe it's the sheer arrogance and intransigence of Israeli government figures.  Maybe it's because Israel is a colonial leftover from a time when this is no longer acceptable.  There are many possible reasons, and I don't think antisemitism is much of a driver at all.  That's just completely incompatible for instance with the European left.  The more likely reason is the different salience of equally important things.    But even if you don't buy this argument, saying A should get away with it because B also does is not a compelling argument at all.

[JDGRUEN]

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I sense a little one sidedness here.

Sent from my ROBBY using Thaivisa Connect mobile app
 

 It was meant to be one sided -- the correct side ... You are a master at stating the obvious 

[JDGRUEN]

3 minutes ago, ChidlomDweller said:

So what if the British had a mandate over Palestine?  It wasn't theirs to give away.  How was that fair and acceptable to the people who already lived there?  The "disgusting" referes to where you denigrate the indigenous population's right to defend their own territory.   

 

Unfortunately we can't undo what happened since WWII.  A better solution at the time would have been to give a piece of Germany for the Jews to create a homeland. But given where we are now, I think the best way forward is for Israelis to acknowledge the historical wrong that has been done against the palestinians.  It's a horrible cliche, but love is the answer.  Aside from robust law enforcement response, if they slap you on the cheek, offer them the other cheek. At some point they wouldn't want to slap it again just because an injustice was committed against their grandfather.  If Israelis had worked to help and elevate Palestinians to the maximum possible extent for the past 50 years, the supply of young Palestinians who'd want to fight would have dried up by now.   What's eminently clear is that Netanyahu isn't interested in compromise or concessions.  His game is playing for time and building facts on the ground all the way.

 

As for the disproportionate attention to Israel when China, North Korea, African regimes, etc. are just as bad, I really don't think the cause of that is anti-semitism.  If you look at other aspects of life, people don't pay equal attention to everything.  Some things are more salient than others, even though rationally equally important.  People worry more about terrorism even though they're more likely to die from slipping out and making a bad fall.  I spend money like there's no tomorrow on guitars and then go to the store and buy 5 tubes of toothpaste because it's 20 Baht cheaper than usual.  Likewise, there's something especially poignant about the injustice committed by Israel against Palestinians.  Maybe it's because Israelis are basically Westerners like the rest of us and we expect better behavior from them.  Maybe it's the sheer arrogance and intransigence of Israeli government figures.  Maybe it's because Israel is a colonial leftover from a time when this is no longer acceptable.  There are many possible reasons, and I don't think antisemitism is much of a driver at all.  That's just completely incompatible for instance with the European left.  The more likely reason is the different salience of equally important things.    But even if you don't buy this argument, saying A should get away with it because B also does is not a compelling argument at all.

 

There were never any Palestinians.  The name is a very recent invention in the scale of time ,,,  

[Morch]

10 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Perhaps Israel should consider venting their anger towards the 12 members who voted for this resolution.  3 abstained, US, UK and Norway.

 

Permanent members	China  France  United Kingdom  United States  Soviet Union
Non-permanent members	Bangladesh  Bolivia  Czechoslovakia  Gabon  Jamaica  Kuwait  Nigeria  Norway  Portugal  Zambia

 

It actually did. The US and New Zealand get more "attention" for obvious reasons - the US for being able to avert the outcome and not doing so (possibly also helping things along), and New Zealand for sponsoring the proposal. But to varying degrees, measures were taken against all of the above (barring those not having diplomatic relations with Israel). Only the US abstained, btw.

Edited December 28, 2016 by Morch

[Jingthing]

So what if the British had a mandate over Palestine?  It wasn't theirs to give away.  How was that fair and acceptable to the people who already lived there?  The "disgusting" referes to where you denigrate the indigenous population's right to defend their own territory.   
 
Unfortunately we can't undo what happened since WWII.  A better solution at the time would have been to give a piece of Germany for the Jews to create a homeland. But given where we are now, I think the best way forward is for Israelis to acknowledge the historical wrong that has been done against the palestinians.  It's a horrible cliche, but love is the answer.  Aside from robust law enforcement response, if they slap you on the cheek, offer them the other cheek. At some point they wouldn't want to slap it again just because an injustice was committed against their grandfather.  If Israelis had worked to help and elevate Palestinians to the maximum possible extent for the past 50 years, the supply of young Palestinians who'd want to fight would have dried up by now.   What's eminently clear is that Netanyahu isn't interested in compromise or concessions.  His game is playing for time and building facts on the ground all the way.
 
As for the disproportionate attention to Israel when China, North Korea, African regimes, etc. are just as bad, I really don't think the cause of that is anti-semitism.  If you look at other aspects of life, people don't pay equal attention to everything.  Some things are more salient than others, even though rationally equally important.  People worry more about terrorism even though they're more likely to die from slipping out and making a bad fall.  I spend money like there's no tomorrow on guitars and then go to the store and buy 5 tubes of toothpaste because it's 20 Baht cheaper than usual.  Likewise, there's something especially poignant about the injustice committed by Israel against Palestinians.  Maybe it's because Israelis are basically Westerners like the rest of us and we expect better behavior from them.  Maybe it's the sheer arrogance and intransigence of Israeli government figures.  Maybe it's because Israel is a colonial leftover from a time when this is no longer acceptable.  There are many possible reasons, and I don't think antisemitism is much of a driver at all.  That's just completely incompatible for instance with the European left.  The more likely reason is the different salience of equally important things.    But even if you don't buy this argument, saying A should get away with it because B also does is not a compelling argument at all.

You telegraph so much ignorance about Israel that it's hard to know where to start so I won't bother.

[JDGRUEN]

[Scott]

A few off-topic posts removed and one poster is on a posting suspension.   Stay on topic and stop with the deflections.  

 

 

[ChidlomDweller]

11 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You telegraph so much ignorance about Israel that it's hard to know where to start so I won't bother.

None of the stock rebuttals fits, I guess.

[ChidlomDweller]

17 minutes ago, JDGRUEN said:

 

There were never any Palestinians.  The name is a very recent invention in the scale of time ,,,  

That's exactly the kind of attitude all of the world senses from the Israeli government and why the latest resolution passed.  It's not leading anywhere but more strife.

[Morch]

10 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I don't know if it's true or not, but I really don't see the point of Israel making a big thing about this, considering Obama is now the lamest of ducks. 

 

As was discussed on a parallel topics (sorry for not being specific, 4-5 of them) - Netanyahu is making a big deal of it because he worries that the resolution will be used to push forward other diplomatic moves: Kerry is about to make a speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, followed by the French peace initiative conference on the 15th January,  and possibly another UNSC resolution based on all the three. The schedule is tight, but not impossible to achieve before Trump's inauguration. Netanyahu fears that it will result in statements (or indeed, a resolution) which will specify clear outlines, terms and a deadline for negotiations.

 

His diplomatic moves and expressed outrage are meant to convey how seriously this is taken. Making it a public confrontation with the Obama administration is done along the same lines which were used to bash HRC and the Dems during the recent election campaign - highlighting what seems to be conspiring, being less than straightforward and untrustworthy. Mind, I'm not commenting on righteousness but discussing what may be the reasoning for his actions.

 

Further, he also needs to makes this anything but his own personal failure - both for domestic public opinion and his ego. Blaming the world fits the bill.

[rabas]

1 hour ago, ChidlomDweller said:

So what if the British had a mandate over Palestine?  It wasn't theirs to give away.  How was that fair and acceptable to the people who already lived there?  The "disgusting" referes to where you denigrate the indigenous population's right to defend their own territory.   

 

 

The Israeli Ambassador's Speech:

 

The Israeli Ambassador at the U.N. began, "Ladies and gentlemen before I commence with my speech, I want to relay an old Passover story. "When Moses was leading the Jews out of Egypt toward the Promised Land, he had to go through the nearly endless Sinai desert. "When they reached the Promised Land, the people had become very thirsty and needed water. So Moses struck the side of a mountain with his staff and a pond appeared with crystal clean, cool water. The people rejoiced and drank to their hearts' content.

 

"Moses put down his staff and went to a solitary corner of the pond to drink, and meditate in prayer. But once Moses returned, he found that his staff had been stolen. "I have reason to believe ladies and gentlemen that the Palestinians stole the staff of our great Prophet Moses.'"

 

The Palestinian delegate to the UN, hearing this accusation, jumps from his seat and screams out, "This is a travesty. It is widely known that there were no such thing as 'Palestinians' at that time!"

"And with that in mind," said the Israeli Ambassador, "let me now begin my speech."

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

So that justifies Israel building more settlements closer to/on Palestine territory? Militarily that makes little sense.

As far as wiping Israel off the map, the last rocket attack this year was in August (1), preceded by July (2), June (0), May (2), April (0), etc. Hardly intended to wipe Israel off the map. The attacks seem more expressing frustration at Israel's lack of allowing any progress on peace making in the only way that Israel takes notice.

 

It does not justify the Israeli illegal settlement effort, but it serves to remind that there are extremists and issues effecting the chances for peace on both sides. From a military point of view, you are correct - the illegal settlements do not serve a whole lot of purpose, the line of argumentation making the connection being related to conditions which were relevant pre-independence and during the early days of Israel.

 

The rocket attacks, while not as deadly (fortunately) as portrayed are not something any country is expected to tolerate. Also they have nothing to do with "expressing frustration at Israel's lack of allowing any progress on peace" seeing as they originate from the Gaza Strip which is under Hamas control - and they are not much into peace negotiations as such. Palestinian violence is not restricted to rockets though, as been reported on many news stories. Less a question of Palestinians (or, by extension Arabs, Muslims) having a real shot at achieving Israel's destruction, and more to do with the existence of the sentiment and the way it is perceived by Israelis.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, JDGRUEN said:

 

As I said - the blind cannot see... if Israel stops advancing and protecting itself -- it will be wiped out ... if the Arabs stop hostile actions - there will be peace ... Israel will respect peaceful actions ... Israel will NEVER step back from Arab hostilities ... Seems the Arabs never learn anything since 1948 ... do the same acts of aggression -- get the same response ... do it 100 times - and the Arabs will get the same response ... when the Arabs stop hostilities peace will happen... and not until ... Israel has proved time and again it will prevail in defending hostile actions but Arabs never learn ... 68 years of the Arabs hitting themselves in the head with a hammer - and they won't stop..  

 

It would be hard to demonstrate how the illegal settlements contribute to Israel "advancing and protecting itself". Furthermore, it would be hard to ignore that Israel ought to own up to its own fair share of intransigence, dealing in less than good faith, unilateral actions and not living up to agreements. Hardly as black and white as some portray it. And yes, this does apply to the Palestinian side as well.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.  

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ChidlomDweller said:

So what if the British had a mandate over Palestine?  It wasn't theirs to give away.  How was that fair and acceptable to the people who already lived there?  The "disgusting" referes to where you denigrate the indigenous population's right to defend their own territory.   

 

Unfortunately we can't undo what happened since WWII.  A better solution at the time would have been to give a piece of Germany for the Jews to create a homeland. But given where we are now, I think the best way forward is for Israelis to acknowledge the historical wrong that has been done against the palestinians.  It's a horrible cliche, but love is the answer.  Aside from robust law enforcement response, if they slap you on the cheek, offer them the other cheek. At some point they wouldn't want to slap it again just because an injustice was committed against their grandfather.  If Israelis had worked to help and elevate Palestinians to the maximum possible extent for the past 50 years, the supply of young Palestinians who'd want to fight would have dried up by now.   What's eminently clear is that Netanyahu isn't interested in compromise or concessions.  His game is playing for time and building facts on the ground all the way.

 

As for the disproportionate attention to Israel when China, North Korea, African regimes, etc. are just as bad, I really don't think the cause of that is anti-semitism.  If you look at other aspects of life, people don't pay equal attention to everything.  Some things are more salient than others, even though rationally equally important.  People worry more about terrorism even though they're more likely to die from slipping out and making a bad fall.  I spend money like there's no tomorrow on guitars and then go to the store and buy 5 tubes of toothpaste because it's 20 Baht cheaper than usual.  Likewise, there's something especially poignant about the injustice committed by Israel against Palestinians.  Maybe it's because Israelis are basically Westerners like the rest of us and we expect better behavior from them.  Maybe it's the sheer arrogance and intransigence of Israeli government figures.  Maybe it's because Israel is a colonial leftover from a time when this is no longer acceptable.  There are many possible reasons, and I don't think antisemitism is much of a driver at all.  That's just completely incompatible for instance with the European left.  The more likely reason is the different salience of equally important things.    But even if you don't buy this argument, saying A should get away with it because B also does is not a compelling argument at all.

 

Israel was created through a UN vote, not by British decree. If you wish to go on about how wrong it is for Israel to denounce and reject the recent UNSC resolution, perhaps apply the same standard to the Palestinian (and Arab) reaction to the 1947 resolution (and indeed, to your own attitude in the matter).

 

The Kumbaya approach is all very nice, but got little to do with the reality of the conflict. Applying Christian and European values to a conflict which does not exhibit or involve either is not a magic answer. It doesn't take a whole lot of experience with how things are in the ME to assert that there ain't much future in this. Perhaps sometime in the future, but yet a long way to go. And again, laying it all at Israel's feet is tempting, but ignores Palestinian and Arab attitudes and rejectionism, and places unrealistic expectations of a Israel. I doubt that you actually believe it yourself.

 

Israel is not "just as bad" as the countries and regimes mentioned (and conveniently dropping any ME names), not by any objective and reasonable measure. And to make things clear, Israel gets a disproportionate attention and treatment even with regard to these. This is a fact, not a debate - and was even addressed by the former UNSG on several occasions. The whole list of "reasons" why this is so or why it should be so are meant to deny,  one rather obvious factor - which did and does make an overt appearance every now and then on various UN forums.

 

This is not about a single occurrence of A getting away with it because B does. It is about A getting constant flak while B,C,D,E and the rest of them aren't even getting censored. It gets even more ridiculous when F,G,H or I gets to head or participate in forums accepting these resolutions pronounced against A. 

[Morch]

11 hours ago, Jingthing said:

It's not only about the settlements.

It's about the U.N.'s pattern of scapegoating Israel way out of proportion to their actions towards other nations. 

It's about theories of how potential peace negotiations can go forward.

Israel won't accept unilateral dictates from the U.N. -- if it's ever going to happen it has to be about direct negotiations between the parties without preordained final conclusions. 

Yes, U.S. policy has been anti-settlement but that's different than what goes on at the U.N.

Now, with trump coming in, U.S. settlement policy will be to the right of Netanyahu.

Which is pretty bizarre. 

 

"...without preordained final conclusions."

 

It sounds nice and proper, but in effect Israel does have set preconditions (and so do the Palestinians). As both are caught up in their own rhetoric and distrust of each other, giving up on these is going to be tricky.

[Morch]

10 hours ago, notmyself said:

 

 Cheers JT. This statement is so absurd and I have not laughed so hard over the holiday season for many many years.

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by Morch

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

2 hours ago, JDGRUEN said:

 

There were never any Palestinians.  The name is a very recent invention in the scale of time ,,,  

 

The people, whose identity you deny and whom you call 'Arabs' and whom you blame exclusively for hostilities in parts of Israel and Palestine are necessary to any solution. They certainly exist in the current reality irrespective of their relationship to previous regimes in history. Your suggestion that a solution must be based on the acquiescence of one side of a conflict is arrogantly imperialistic. Leave it to the Right Wing to propose imposing 'peace' down the barrel of a gun.

 

The metaphorical ethnic cleansing through the refusal to use the word Palestinian emboldens those who wish to implement a literal ethnic cleansing as a Final Solution. While such attitudes prevail, it is difficult to see the Palestinians accept any arrangement imposed by fiat from the Israeli Government. These attitudes sustain the conflict are inhumane and have been just rejected by the entire World as expressed through the UN Security Council through the recent vote.

 

I also find such attitudes personally offensive and disgusting. They relate to people i know and work with and have real consequences.

Edited December 28, 2016 by Tawan Dok Krating Daeng

[Ulysses G.]

"The metaphorical ethnic cleansing through the refusal to use the word Palestinian emboldens those who wish to implement a literal ethnic cleansing as a Final Solution."

 

If anyone wanted "literal ethic cleansing," they probably would have done it when the "Palestinians" refused an offer for their own country and attacked Israel with 5 Arab armies. As it is now, their numbers keep growing and they have an obesity problem.

 

As to Israel's claims that the Obama administration orchestrated the UN vote, it is pretty obvious to many that it is true. Kerry's defensive, over the top lecture to Israel today did little to change that perception. His attempt to explain it away just came off as desperate.

Edited December 28, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

22 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

"The metaphorical ethnic cleansing through the refusal to use the word Palestinian emboldens those who wish to implement a literal ethnic cleansing as a Final Solution."

 

If anyone wanted "literal ethic cleansing," they probably would have done it when the "Palestinians" refused an offer for their own country and attacked Israel with 5 Arab armies. As it is now, their numbers keep growing and they have an obesity problem.

 

As to Israel's claims that the Obama administration orchestrated the UN vote, it is pretty obvious to many that it is true. Kerry's defensive, over the top lecture to Israel today did little to change that perception. His attempt to explain it away just came off as desperate.

 

Never miss an opportunity to denigrate and belittle. Increasing birth rates of Palestinians and obesity issues has nothing to do with the Israeli Government's culpability in not stopping illegal settlements on territory accepted by the rest of the World as Palestinian territory.

 

Also never miss an opportunity to distort and twist the words of others to fit your narrative. My comment was about the use and abuse of language to deny the existence of a people.

 

The rest of the World has rejected this through the UN vote. Who cares if the Israeli Government has evidence of that the vote was orchestrated. That's called Diplomacy, something that clearly the current Israeli Government has forgotten.

 

Desperation describes the vain attempts to slur the US Administration, place futile hopes in the tainted incoming Administration and to act as enablers for the bullying tactics of the Israeli Prime Minister.

[Jingthing]

Here is the speech:

 

 

[cncltd1973]

14 hours ago, Jingthing said:

That's rich coming from colonialist New Zealand, created by a land grab. 

 

 

The Jewish people are indigenous to Israel.

 

Hmm ...

 

Many people don't know this, but there is an international movement of sorts of INDIGENOUS people globally to find SOLIDARITY with the state of Israel and recognize the legitimacy of the  ancient connection of the Jewish people to the land Israel.

 

Pretty much the opposite of what the U.N. has been doing. Their agenda seems to be about DENIAL of the ancient connections of the Jewish people to the land of Israel. 

Palestinians are just as indigenous as Israelis, no? If you include the birthright of being the firstborn to Abraham, then more so?

[ilostmypassword]

36 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

As to Israel's claims that the Obama administration orchestrated the UN vote, it is pretty obvious to many that it is true. Kerry's defensive, over the top lecture to Israel today did little to change that perception. His attempt to explain it away just came off as desperate.

You've got a real gift for vague generalizations that at bottom offer no evidence or proof at all.  All that's here is you projecting your beliefs.  Maybe we can have you look at some Rorschach cards to tell us what they really mean. That would be no less meaningful.

[cncltd1973]

10 hours ago, gk10002000 said:

OK, so what does the man expect to gain by alienating other countries?  The news has said Israel wants to cut relations or scold all the other countries.  Doesn't seem like Israel is in a position to lose allies

Fully agree. They can't afford to loose allies, considering the neighbors they have.

Well, except for NZ!

[iReason]

Excellent!

 

About time the US stood up against the war-mongering bigot Netanyahu. 

[Ulysses G.]

"Never miss an opportunity to denigrate and belittle."

 

Very common around here. Pot, kettle, black.

 

 

Looking forward to see the alleged evidence that the Obama administration lied about this sneak attack.

 

The White House orchestrated a "gang-up" against Israel on last week's UN settlement vote, its ambassador to Washington said Monday, in the latest sign of anger between the longtime allies.

Israel's ambassador Ron Dermer said in an interview with CNN that his government plans to show evidence of the alleged US maneuvering in due time.

"What is outrageous is that the United States was actually behind that gang-up. I think it was a very sad day, really a shameful chapter," the Israeli diplomat told CNN.

"We have clear evidence of it. We will present that evidence to the new administration through the appropriate channels. And if they want to share it with the US people they're welcome to do it," Dermer said, adding that the Israeli government is "deeply disappointed" with Washington over the UN vote.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-led-un-gang-israel-settlement-vote-ambassador-160017776.html

[Ulysses G.]

Latest Tweets by the president-elect about this travesty. He has Israel's back:

 

Doing my best to disregard the many inflammatory President O statements and roadblocks.Thought it was going to be a smooth transition – NOT!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 28, 2016

 

We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but…….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 28, 2016

not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 28, 2016