#AlanB

Once again you display your ignorance of what occurred with this statement:
"Speculation and Wild Assumption based entirely on self generated false premise/confirmation bias!?"

You have obviously not read this admission from NZ Foreign Minister McCully:

"Some quite exotic theories have been advanced as to why this resolution was dealt with in the final month of New Zealand's council membership. The truth is: the United States would not accept any resolution on this topic until after US presidential elections in November. The domestic politics would have been too difficult."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11780250

Oh - so Obama was prepared to knowingly mislead American voters by not telling them of his intentions months before Resolution 2334 surfaced suddenly in the Security Council in December. With whom and when did the Obama administration discuss holding off any resolution before the American elections in November?

This is not speculation and wild assumption. This was an attempt to pervert the American elections and to act in concert with other Security Council members on a resolution that America would not veto. New Zealand appears to have knowingly acquiesced in that duplicitous conduct.

Netanyahu would not dare make the following allegation if he did not have the evidence to prove it:
"We have it on absolutely incontestable evidence that the United States organized, advanced and brought this resolution to the United Nations Security Council. We'll share that information with the incoming administration. Some of it is sensitive, it's all true. You saw some of it in the protocol released in an Egyptian paper. There's plenty more; it's the tip of the iceberg."

Mc Cully's admission would certainly be part of what is beneath the tip of the iceberg.

I am not exercising mind reading powers. I am quoting chapter and verse from one of the principal players in this act of Obama betrayal of one of America's closest allies.

Obama denials cannot be believed in the face of McCully's admission.

Dear David Singer,

It is part of politics to say or avoid making statements that would hurt a candidacy even though the politician may take action after the election contrary to a position before an election. To expect a politician to live up to all pre-election statements or positions is to exhibit great naiveté. It is not a betrayal. It is normal politics.

Trump advocated moving the US embassy to Jerusalem during his election campaign. I doubt that he will do it now that he has the power to do so. It will not be a betrayal if he doesn't do so. It is normal politics. He may now feel it would not be a good thing to move the embassy. Doing what is right and good outweighs keeping a promise. Kol Nidre specifically excuses one from making oaths that may be wrong.

I am not sure it would be a good thing if politicians would feel bound by all pre-election promises. It may be a good thing not to keep all promises.What you call betrayal is normal politics. I'm sure you know that, but you prefer to use inflammatory rhetoric.

I think resolution 2334 is a just one. If Obama orchestrated it I think he did something good.

#Yuyutsu

You state:
"David claims that the people of Israel should be subjected to Jewish interests."

Israel is a Jewish State - the Jewish National Home of the Jewish people reconstituted pursuant to the legal rights vested in the Jewish people by the 1922 Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter.

No better definition exists of "Jewish State" than that given by David Ben Gurion to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine at Lake Success New York on July 7, 1947:

"What is the meaning of a Jewish State? As I told you before, a Jewish State does not mean one has to be a Jew. It means merely a State-where the Jews are in the majority, otherwise all the citizens have the same status. If the State were called by the name "Palestine," - I said if - then all would be Palestinian citizens If the State would be given, another name - I think it would be given another name - because Palestine is neither a Jewish nor an Arab name. As far as the Arabs are concerned, and we have the evidence of the Arab historian, Hitti, that there was no such a thing as "Palestine" at all: Palestine is not an Arab name. Palestine is also not a Jewish name. When the Greeks were our enemies, in order not to annoy the Jews, they gave different names to the streets. So, maybe the name of Palestine will be changed. But whatever the name of the country, every citizen of the country will be a citizen. This is what we mean. This is what we have to mean. We cannot conceive that in a State where we are not in a minority, where we have the main responsibilities as the majority of the country, there should be the slightest discrimination between a Jew and a non-Jew."

The failure of the Arabs to accept the 1947 UN Partition Plan by trying to wipe the newly-declared Jewish State off the map in 1948 still remains the objective of the PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah.

Dear David,

«...pursuant to the legal rights vested in the Jewish people by the 1922 Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter.»

I understand that you are a lawyer, but I piss on your laws and on that rogue organisation. Soon enough Trump will put an end to it anyway.

The right of the people of Israel to live and be secure is based only on their own effort in purchasing Israel's lands, building a wonderful place with their ten fingers and enlivening what was formerly desert and swamps - not due to the babbling of some sedentary lawyers in New York.

As for Ben Gurion, he was a shrewd politician and like them all, often said things for convenience that he never believed in himself. Obviously Israel needed and still needs to have a non-Arab (but not necessarily Jewish) majority for its survival, in other words a majority that would not slaughter the minorities, this goes without saying, but the Jewish narrative was merely a convenient pretext to assure support for Israel's survival. While Ben Gurion kept quoting the bible, he never personally considered it to be true (he founded a circle of scholars who spoke critically of the bible and regularly attended their fortnightly meetings even as a busy prime-minister).

Yes, the Arabs in 1947, 1948 and many of them still today, cannot accept and wish to wipe out any non-Arab state, within the Middle-East and elsewhere, Jewish or otherwise. Fortunately they failed and so my family in Israel, perhaps miraculously, is still alive.

#yuyutsu

Anyone who deigns to write :
"I understand that you are a lawyer, but I piss on your laws ..."
needs to be treated with contempt.

Do you believe in the law of the jungle?

Guess you were so occupied writing your diatribe that you forgot to tell us how your family comes to be living in Israel?

Why did they migrate there, when and from where?

Dear David,

I believe in one law - the law of God: For the Lord God omnipotent reigneth, King of kings and Lord of lords; and He shall reign forever and ever!

How my family comes to be living in Israel? Through their mother's womb!