. >>> the united states security council has adopted a resolution to impose fresh sanctions on north korea. it takes aim at the country's main sources of revenue and is the latest response to pyongyang's september nuclear test. >> today's resolution, as many of you know, because you've been waiting for it for a while, is the product of nearly 12 painstaking weeks of diplomacy, and it results in a further tightening of the strongest sanctions regime the security council has imposed on any country in more than a generation. >> the talks were led by the united states and china. members of the council unanimously approved the resolution. it slashes coal exports to less than half the current amount. china has been the biggest importer. member countries wanted to close a loophole from the last resolution adopted in march. countries were allowed to import as long as the coal was for civilian use. the new sanctions also ban north korean exports of silver, copper, and nickel. >> we think that what has been agreed on is very important, and we hope that the membership, the total membership of t

you made headlines that you believe there's clear evidence that the united states is behind the united states security council solution, in some way -- can you talk about what proof you have? >> we have proof. i don't believe it, we'll know it and we'll share it with the incoming administration through the appropriate channels. they can decide whether they want to share that with the american people. we obviously won't share it with this administration, because this administration is behind it. i want to just respond to something about how it was unorthodox for an incoming president to weigh in. the real story is how an outgoing president would fundamentally change u.s. policy towards israel in the waning days of the administration. imagine that president bush a monlt before he leaves office to decide to move the embassy to jerusalem, to recognize israel's annex ace over the settlement blocks. would everybody be say -- of course they would say, you're undermining and handcuffing the next administration many. this was not just a blow against the israel, a shift in america's long-standing position, an abandonme

allowed the united states security council to condemn israel's continued building of settlements in theest bank, instead of vetoing the resolution, the u.s. abstained. >>> he also announced they are suspending working ties with nations that supported that vote. >>> in politics president obama tells cnn's david axelrod he could have beaten donald trump. donald trump just fired back on twitter, quote -- no way. >>> tonight palestinian mannerakat is here, and our analysts and guests have full coverage of the day's top stories. let's begin with israel's continuing anger. elise labott has the latest. elise, tell us more about this israeli reaction. angry? >> well, jim, you saw after the vote that israel recalled its ambassador from new zealand and senegal, the countries that put the resolution forward, now officials say they are limiting working ties with the 12 nations that also voted for the resolution. other foreign ministers will not be able to meet with prime minister netanyahu, and am bass endorse from those countries will not be welcomed at the foreign ministry as the normal type of b

we start with anger from israel aimed at the united states, more specifically at president obama. at issue is that united nations security council resolution condemning the construction of israeli settlements in those disputed territories. israel wanted the u.s. to block the resolution. the obama administration decided to about stain, meaning that the resolution could continue going forward. in response, israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu summoned the u.s. ambassador to his office, and the israeli prime minister has gone so far as to accuse the united states of conspiring with palestinians to harass israel. israeli ambassador to the united nations ron dermer tried to explain israel's anger on cnn "new day" today. >> it's an old story that the united nations gangs up against israel. what is new is that the united states did not stand up and oppose that gang up and what is outrageous is that the united states was actually behind that gang up, to bring a resolution to the security council is not just something that israel opposes. it's something that barack obama opposed, in september 2011 he stood at the united nations and

immediately after the war starts, couple days after the war starts, the united states -- united nations security council meets, votes to help the republic of korea. and asks it's members to contribute forces under the overall command of the american officer. u.s. president harry trueman designates doug last mcarthur has that officer and created u.n. commands. and on july 14, 1950, mcarthur raises the u.n. flag, similar to this, a larger version. atop his headquarters building at the dye yaiichi building. this is the first u.n. war, first u.n. mission for the security council and makes it something of a water shed. by the time the korean war is over in 1953 or the korean war is signed in 1953. the united states, australia, new zealand, the netherlands, greece, belgium, the philippines for the first time as an independent nation. thailand, colombia, south africa, luxe umberg, india, norway, and combat unites or medical unites to the united nations command. today, south korea if you count the nations that rebuild it and south korea holds the record for number of nations that have helmed both sustain it's i

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 information. 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. they say, but we didn't bring it. and they can take john kerry's speech, and the six points, it could be raised in the french international conference a few days from now, brought to the u.n. france will bring it, or sweden, not a noted friend of israel, could bring it. and the united states could stay, well, we can't vote against our own policy, you just enunciated it. i think the united states, if it's true to its word, or at least if it's now true to its word, should now come out and say we will not allow any resolutions, any more resolutions, in the security council on israel, period. not we will bring or not bring. we will not allow any. and stop this game. i think that the decisions that are vital to israel's interests, and the future of its children, that will be m

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. they fail to recognize that this friend, the united states of america, that has done more to support israel than any other country, this friend that has blocked countless efforts to delegitimize israel, cannot be true to our own values or even the stated democratic values of israel. and we cannot properly defend and protect israel if we allow a viable two-state solution to be destroyed before 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 is a jewish and democratic state. living side by side in peace and security with its neighbors. that's what we are trying to preserve for our sake and for theirs. in fact, this administration has been israel's greatest friend and supporter with an absolutely unwavering commitment to advancing israel's security and protecting its legitimacy. on this point, i want to be very clear. no american administration has done more for israe

united states could have vetoed that. could have quashed it at together but instead abstained and the thing passed in the united nations. >> 14-0 in the security council. >> from your point of view, is that the right move? >> this is a unprecedented break with traditional diplomacy in protocol by the united states win the united nations when it comes comes to the six-s surrounding israel. i'm frankly shocked. obviously president obama is still the president of the united states and while everybody is looking for president-elect trump, the decision for our ambassador of the united nations to abstain was one that was clearly driven by the current administration, one president at a time. that being said, as someone who has a great deal of respect for the united nations as a very unique, moment tie lateral diplomatic body i spent time working with a united nations ngo and are familiar with the inner works of the united nations. it is a balance because on one hand you have to preserve the autonomy of individual nation states but oregon you need to set the stage for what is globally acceptable diplomacy, so the u.n. security council and the fact that the pe

we heard earlier from the secretary of state for the united states, john kerry, when he defended the decision to abstain on the un security council resolution which condemns the building ofjewish settlements on land that is seen as occupied territory. it's the first time that the united states have done this, to abstain in such a vote. mr carey mounted a strong defence of us

basically refused to answer. >> i heard. >> israel continues to insist that the united states has orchestrated the u.n. security councilesolution. you know the united states denies they have anything to do with it and you heard it from john kerry today. what are the broader implications of that? >> we certainly didn't orchestrate that. israel itself is deeply divided. benjamin netanyahu is on the very far right. he didn't get more than 50% of the vote in his election. he pieced together a coalition with groups to get there. there are many in israel who think prime minister netanyahu is going down the wrong path. a belligerent path that will force israel into a situation where they either have to be an occupying power that doesn't give the palestinians the right to vote or if they do give them the right to vote they will be outnumbered. that's why you cannot have a jewish democratic state which is what all israelis have said they wanted if you continue to occupy the west bank. i will say one thing i disagree with the palestinian-american that you had on. right now israel needs to have a security presence in the west ban

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. they fail to recognize that this friend, the united states of america, that has done more to support israel than any other country, this friend that is -- that has blocked countless efforts to delegitimize israel, cannot be true to our own values or even the stated democratic values of israel. and we cannot properly defend and protect israel if we allow a viable two-state solution to be destroyed before our own eyes. and that is the bottom line. the vote in the united nations was about preserving the two state solution. that is 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 are trying to preserve for our sake and for theirs. in fact, this administration has been israel's greatest friend and supporter with an absolutely unwavering commitment to advancing israel's security and protecting its legitimacy. on this point, i want to be very clear. no american administration has done

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 councilre us. they failed to recognize that this friend, the united states of america, that has done more to support israel than any other country, this friend that has blocked countless efforts to delegitimize israel cannot be true to our own values or even the stated democratic values of israel. and we cannot properly defend and protect israel if we allow a viable two-state solution to be destroyed by our own eyes, 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 jewish and democratic state living side by side in peace and security with its navy -- neighbors, that's what we are trying to preserve for our sake and theirs. in fact, this administration has been israel's greatest friend and supporter with an absolutely unwavering commitment to advancing israel's security and protecting its legitimacy. on this point, i want to be very clear, no american administration has done more for is r

with the united states the security council adopted a resolution today strongly deploring israel's handlingurbances in the occupied territories. that story was not written last week. it was written december 23rd, 1987. >> so, secretary kerry has said that the obama administration has been very supportive of israel. you heard the headline there. it could have been written today. the question is, all this anger and bluster and posturing, is it a deflection that israel does not support, no longer supports a two-state solution? >> it's absolutely not a deflection and the prime minister continues to support two states for two peoples. that headline could have been written decades ago, as it was. but two wrongs don't make a right. what could have been two decades ago the palestinian rejection of any jewish state. all you have to do is turn on palestinian television and look at palestinian maps. look at the fact that the palestinian leadership is actually paying anyone who murders an israeli a monthly salary to know what is truly the barrier to peace here. so, the administration should be asked in

and the united states abstains as the u.n. security council votes to condemn israeli settlements. donald trump who publicly called for a veto tweets that things will be different an january 20th. i'll speak with the homeland skurs committee and our correspondents, analysts and guests have full coverage. we have two breaking terror stores. the fbi is warning that isis sim that a hate , sympathizers are calling for attacks. and we have brian todd with the fast moving events in europe. >> we're getting new information from german and u.s. intelligence fwls the chief suspect in the berlin attack now dead, we're told intelligence agencies are scrambling to find out if he had accomplices and if so corks they be accelerating plans for attacks. a video made by this killer has rais raised alarms from here in washington to berlin. chilling new video tonight of the man police say carried out the berlin truck attack. carried his allegiance to isis and its leader. in the video, 24-year-old tunisian anis amri threatens to attack western targets. >> translator: we will slaughter you pigs. they h

security council in which the united states by abstaining allowed this resolution to pass, effectiv effectively calling israeli settlements illegal. the administration sees these settlements as an obstruction to a deal. there is a reality on the ground which makes the palestinian state not viable. obviously a lot of tension between the u.s. and israel who is accusing secretary kerry of being a covert actor on what he calls a shameful ambush at the u.n. a lot of context and symbolism in the remarks but also a lot of recent tensions that certainly secretary kerry will try to address and deny those charges. >> maybe not unprecedented that he's giving a speech on his way out but maybe unprecedented in terms of the environment that he's giving this speech today. why we are all watching it so very closely. we are watching it here, of course, but you know who is also watching it very closely, benjamin netanyahu, the israeli prime minister. everyone in israel. let's go to oren lieberman whach. oren, what are you hearing? >> i think john kerry will lay out his plan for peace, yet i think there's very li

the united states allowed that united nations security council resolution to pass, abstaining from a though the government of israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu and its allies see it as much more than a simple abstention. >> we have a disagreement inside the family on a lot of things but as they say, friends don't take friends to the security council. and what really happened here is that the obama administration basically took the steering wheel and brought it over to those jeffersonian democracies like venezuela, malaysia, senegal, to decide on israel's fate. reporter: the white house denies it orchestrated that vote. dep hety press secretary eric schultz says in a statement, the u.s. did not draft the resolution nor did the u.s. introduce this resolution. he egyptians in partnership with the palestinians are ones circulated earlier draft. egyptians moved it forward on friday and we took the position that we did when it was put to a vote. the obama administration's abstention is reaffirming the long-standing u.s. position on settlements, patti ann. patti ann: there are predi

. >>> it happened at the un security council today. the united states broke with past practice and abstained as 14 other members voted to condemn israel. the security council told israel it must stop building settlements on the west bank and in east jerusalem calling them a violation of international law. the u.s. has blocked such a proposal for years but the obama administration says the settlement building blocks prospects for a two-state solution so it abstained to let the proposal go through today. >>> health check at 11:00, test results are showing an ebola vaccine to be highly effective. clinical trials have shown this newly tested vaccine may be 100% effective. it prevented everybody involved from being infected. pharmaceutical company merck is expected to askproval of the vaccine sometime next year. >>> brandywine zoo is losing its only tiger. next month the tiger will be transferred to the bronx zoo as part of a conservation program. candidate for breeding, for mating. tigers are endangered with fewer than 500 existing in the wild. she was born

it was the united nations for instance, the security council, that authorized the united states to remove iraq from kuwait in 1991 and the united nations security council that sa sanctioned palestine. the u.n. security council has done things they very much like and maybe not everything they like, but donald trump will be well advised to get his briefings, understand the environment into which he's stepping and know that the eun e united nations is an organization that russia would like to have go away as well so if he doesn't want to play into the russians' hands, he needs to be real careful with his tweets. >> i actually disagree with steve. i used to work at the united nations. the only thing good about it is its cafeteria. the lasting legacy might be he's gotten republicans to seriously consider defunding it. we give 22% the united nations funding annually. >> you acknowledge there's value in having an intergovernmental organization where member nations -- >> absolutely, if it tackles the real problems. instead of tackling problems of syria, aleppo, other human rights crises, they've

israel has reacted angrily after the united states has allowed the un security council to adopt a resolutionemanding an end to israeli settlements on occupied palestinian land. the obama administration broke with longstanding american practice and withheld its veto, in a sharp rebuke of israeli policy. our state department correspondent barbara plett usher reports. it was that conviction which led the us to withhold its customary protection of israel at the council, although not without much soul—searching. because the united states does not agree with every word in this text that the united states did not vote in favour of the resolution. but it is because this revolution reflects the facts on the ground and is consistent with us policy across republican and democratic administrations through the history of the state of israel that the united states did not veto it. the israelis had managed to delay but not prevent the vote. they felt betrayed by their ally, especially angry about condemnation of their construction in occupied east jerusalem. construction in occupied east jerusalem. who gav

tempers have flared since the vote on friday including accusations that the united states had been planning the security council resolution all along. john huddy reports from jerusalem. >> reporter: there was no love lost between israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu and u.s. secretary of state john kerry. >> israelis do not need to be lectured about the importance of peace by foreign leaders. >> reporter: secretary kerry's speech and the israeli reaction is the clie maximmax of severalf fears battle and fiery rhetoric. israel maintains that the u.s. despite kerrys comments to the opposite worked with the palestinians. senior israeli official told me it's quote just the tip of the iceberg as far as u.s.-palestinian col lunch sion. the prime minister said there's evidence that will be presented to the new administration. it's unclear what that evidence is. egyptian media reported media meetings between kerry, susan rice and palestinian negotiator earlier this month. but state department officials contend there was never a meeting and that the u.s. was not the driving force behind the resolution. >> the egypt

israel has reacted angrily after the united states has allowed the un security council to adopt a resolutionemanding an end to israeli settlements on occupied palestinian land. the obama administration broke with longstanding american practice and withheld its veto, in a sharp rebuke of israeli policy. our state department correspondent barbara plett usher reports. ina rare in a rare show of unity, the un security council passed judgement on israeli settlements. 14 votes in favour. voting that they had become a serious threat to a viable peace deal with the palestinians. it was that conviction which led the us to withhold its customary protection of israel at the council, although not without much soul—searching. israel at the council, although not without much soul—searchingm israel at the council, although not without much soul-searching. it is because this forum too often continues to be biased against israel, because there are important issues that are not sufficiently addressed in this resolution, and because the united states does not agree with every word in this text, that the united

last week the united states did not veto united nations security council measure condemning settlementsald trump wasted no time getting on twitter and ridiculed the un. he said they have great potential, but right now it's a club for people to get together and talk. no man of the un. how many people share his view? that takes us to the most important number of the day, 64 as in a poll that found 64% of americans have a favorable view. you can put it in context in europe. the number where it is. the un is less popular and less popular in japan. there is also a parse san divide with donald trump. you can look for this to ex-plot. democrats positive in their view of the un. independents are right there in the middle. not surprisingly, but republicans about half as likely to have a favorable view. we will see if that widens, but 64 is the most important number of the day. we are monitoring the sideways in hawaii. the president and japanese prime minister are scheduled to speak at the top of the hour. you are looking 59 this a few minutes ago. president obama and japanese prime minister shin

have it on absolutely incontestable evidence that the united states organized, advanced, and brought this resolution to the united nations security council. we will 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 the egyptian papers. there is plenty more. the tip of the iceberg. they say, we did not bring it. they could take john kerry's ,peech with the six points could be raised in the french international conference a few days from now and brought to the u.n. france will bring it, or sweden, not a noted friend of israel, could bring it. and the united states can say, we can't vote against our own policy. you just enunciated it. i think the united states, if it is true to its word, or at least if it is now true to its word, should now come out and say we will not allow any resolutions, any more resolutions, in the security council on israel, period. not we will bring or not bring. we will not allow any, and stop this game, the charades. i think the decisions that are vital to israel's interests and the future of its children, they won't be ma

because it is illegal to defy a security council resolution. the united states is party to it saying that the unilateral action of annexing east jerusalem is a leader and it is null and void without legal ramifications. that is international law. if the u.s. administration wants to defy international law, they are doing something illegal. my retaliation will be legal. i hope we do not see that reality. because many candidates during the election promised a similar promise but they did not implement it. because what you do when you are campaigning is something. but when you deal with the legal things, it is is something else. we sincerely hope they don't go that route. we sincerely hope they don't do that. and we sincerely hope they don't move from illegal to illegitimate to the an obstacle -- it is not an obstacle piece. which is israeli language. if the new u.s. administration, as the young lady who came from michigan. and we thank you to come from michigan to washington for this conference. if she thinks they are going to say, in essence, settlements are condo

units in the city's east, which was captured by israel in a 1967 war. the plans violate security council resolution 2334, which was approved friday on a 14-0 vote after the united states abstained, denying a veto sought by israel and president-elect donald trump. palestinian negotiator saeb erekat welcomed passage of the resolution. >> this is a day of hope, a day of peace. this is a victory for those who believe in peace, who believe in a two state solution. this is a total defeat for those forces of extremism in israel who believe in destroying the two state solution and achieving and sustaining the assad regime their building the west bank. we hope this message is that they must accept international community's call to stop settlement activities, to stop the occupation. occupation and settlements provide no peace and the security. in the only way to peace and security for israelis and palestinians is through a negotiated settlement to achieve the two state solution of the to live side-by-side with israel in peace and security. amy: it is the first resolution the security council has adopted on israel and the palestinians in nearly eight years. this is prime ministe

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. ey fail to recognize that this friend, the united states of america, that has done more to support israel than any other country, this friend that is blocked countless efforts to delegitimize israel, cannot be true to our own values or even the stated democratic values of israel. and we cannot properly defend and protect israel if we allow a viable two state solution to be destroyed before our own eyes. that is the bottom line. in the united nations was about preserving these two state solution which is what we were standing up for. future as a jewish and democratic state, living side-by-side in peace and security with its neighbors. that is what we are trying to preserve for our sake and for their sake. administration has been israel's greatest friend and supporter with an absolutely unwavering commitment to advancing israel's security and protecting its legitimacy. on this point, i want to be very clear. hasmerican administration done more for the security of israel that barack obama

you think united states needs to go to the un security council and be the trigger to enforce more sanctions on iran because they have already violated the deal, not that the deal should be torn up. is that a fair characterization? minister lieberman: look, what happens in the world today, it is very problematic. not only iranians, all radical , they understand that there ofno payment for violation commitments of violations of norms. forget for a moment the middle east. look at north korea. one crazy guy took his own population as hostages, a clear ,iolation of all resolutions security council commitments, negotiations between north korea and the united states, north korea nuclear bombs, etc.. i don't see any ability or political will to stop this crazy guy. it is the same with iranians. they must pay for every violation. what happens at least with ballistic missiles, it is a clear violation of their commitment according to the agreement a signed. -- they signed. mr. tapper: let's turn to syria and assad and the massacre against his own people. aleppo, were killed in we have learned. i'm won

you know, back in 2011, the united states came in asked the united nations security council and vetoed the settlements would not accelerate. they have accelerated since then. this is the first time in eight years that the obama administration has allowed a resolution critical of israel to pass. other republican administrations have allowed many more. >> i think it's important to take on this myth that only barack obama has allowed a u.s. resolution that israel didn't like to pass. in fact, every american president going back decades has done that. the bush administration didn't veto a resolution calling for a cease-fire and gaza made the israelis very, very unhappy. voted for resolution condemning israel when it attacked iraq. this president has been saying to israel since literally even before he got elected that in his view, settlement growth was not only terrible for the palestinians because it further entrenches their civil rights but leading israel off a cliff by denying a two-state solution. israel needs to be a democratic state and top security officials have said virtually the

united states changed its usual veto policy, and abstained in the vote, saying it has long argued against the settlement buildings in the west bank and eastjerusalem, which are considered illegal under international law. today, the security council reaffirmed its established consensus that settlements have no legal validity. the united states has been sending the message that the settlements must stop, privately and publicly, for nearly five decades. by voting yes, in favour of this resolution, you have in fact voted no. you voted no to negotiations. you voted no to progress, and a chance for better lives for the israelis and palestinians, and you voted no to the possibility of peace. prime minister netanyahu of israel has rejected the resolution. a statement from his office said israel would not abide by its terms. it said israel looked forward to working with us president—elect donald trump to counter what it called the harmful effects of the resolution. mr trump also has responded to the un vote. it is worth mentioning that mr trump has chosen a pro—settlement hardliner, david friedman, to be america's next ambassador to israel. barbara plett—usher has been following this story for us. she explained the ramifications of what

we have absolutely uncontestable evidence that the united states organized, advanced and brought this resolution to the united nations security councilon with the incoming administration. some of it is sensitive. it's all true. you saw some of it in the protocol released in the egyptian paper. there's plenty more. it's the tip of the iceberg. >> now, again, ambassador, the united states completely denies that the u.s. was behind this resolution, so why not release the information now to the current administration? >> first of all, let's look at the facts. in 2011, there was a very similar resolution coming to the security council. the u.s. decided to block it and vetoed that resolution. 2014, there was another resolution. the u.s. blocked the resolution without vetoing. they convinced the member states not to support this resolution. when the u.s. wants to stop a resolution, they know how to do it. and fortunately, what happened last friday, it was a different ball game. the u.s. actually walked on this resolution. we know it for a fact. >> you keep saying it, you and other representatives keep saying we know it for a fact but have n

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. ey failed to recognize that this friend, the united states of america, that has 10 more to support israel than any in the country, this friend that has blocked countless efforts to de-legitimize israel, cannot be true to our own of values or the stated democratic values of israel. properly defend and protect israel if we allow a viable two-state solution to be destroyed before our own eyes. 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. on this point, i want to be very clear. no american administration has done more for israel's security than barack obama's. the israeli prime minister himself has noted our, quote, unprecedented military intelligence cooperation. our military exercises are more advanced than ever. e hasssistance for iron dom saved countless israeli lives. we have consisten

administration and israel's prime minister has taking another turn after the united states declined to veto a resolution in the u.n. security councilsettlement policy on the west bank and east jerusalem. before friday, the united states had vetoed similar resolutions. kelly o'donnell is in west palm beach where president-elect trump is spending the holiday weekend. here was the tweet that newt gingrich sent out a few minutes ago. why is the obama team waging war against israel? why are they taking steps to isolate and then kill a democracy and an ally? is this the kind of response that the u.s. abstention -- the kind of response we're going to see to that abstention from conservatives? >> reporter: very much so, because the protection of israel is a core principle, certainly for conservatives, and much more broadly. the u.s. has had a strong ally in israel, and we're committed to their protection. and over the years of the obama administration, there has been consistent and persistent criticism of the president's relationship with israel, and especially with what we have seen in body language and in words a tense relationship with

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. they failed to recognize that this friend, the united states of america, that has done more to support israel than any other country, this friend that has blocked countless efforts to legitimateize israel, cannot be true to our own values or even the stated democratic values of israel. and we cannot properly defend and protect israel if we allow a viable two-state solution to be destroyed before our own eyes. >> secretary kerry also said it's the only way to ensure israel's future as a jewish and democratic state and that friends need to tell each other hard truths. senior member of israel's cabinet called kerry's speech a pathetic step. even before the secretary gave it. israel's prime minister said it was biased against israel and even thanked our next president for his support. we have team fox coverage, john huddy live in jerusalem for us, trace gallagher with more reaction from president-elect trump. first, let's go to rich edson live at the state department. rich, secretary kerry

east comes after the united nations security council voted on friday to condemn israeli settlements in the west bank and east jerusalem. secretary kerry defending the united states decision to abstain. this was his rebuttal to benjamin netanyahu, the prime minister of israel who has been heavily critical of not just kerry but the president and their administration for its actions. i should note my colleague, the chief foreign affairs correspondent at nbc news andrea mitchell will sit down with john kerry a short time from now. we'll take you to that interview as soon as it begins. joining me to break things down, ayman mohyeldin and nbc news chief global correspondent bill nealy live from london. this was notable for the comprehensive vision laid out by secretary kerry. it was also notable for its timing and the waning days for the administration. secretary kerry made a lot of points. it is unclear what impact they will have going forward. he said friends need to tell each other the hard truths. so i leaf it to you. what's the takeaway from what we heard from the secretary of state. >> you can look and say this is a historic speech. this was by some accounts per

you think united states needs to go to the un security council and be the trigger to enforce more sanctions because they have already violated the deal, not that the deal should be torn up. is that a fair characterization? minister lieberman: look, what happens in the world today, it is very problematic. not only iranians, all radical , they understand that there ofno payment for violation commitments of violations of norms. forget for a moment the middle east. look at north korea. one crazy guy took his own population as hostages, a clear ,iolation of all resolutions security council commitments, negotiations between north korea and the united states, north korea nuclear bombs, etc.. i don't see any ability or political will to stop this crazy guy. it is the same with iranians. they must pay for every violation. what happens at least with ballistic missiles, it is a clear violation of their commitment according to the agreement a signed. -- they signed. mr. tapper: let's turn to syria and assad and the massacre against his own people. aleppo, were killed in we have learned. i'm wondering w

security council. the u.n. and the obama administration have been make an point that it is long-standing position of the united statesat settlement activity beyond the 1967 borders undermines israel's security. the administration also made the point it criticized the palestinians for failing to condemn terrorism. >> there is new reaction from president-elect donald trump? reporter: there is. we've seen aligning of the israeli position and government of benjamin netanyahu and against the current u.s. administration and the united nations this is from donald trump via twitter short while ago. he says, we can not continue to let israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. they used to have a great friend in the united states but not anymore. the beginning of the end was the horrible iran deal and this u.n. stay strong, israel. january 20th is fast approaching. state department is also, in this administration, rejecting claims from israelis it orchestrated that vote at the u.n. security council. simply says the read language pushed by the egyptians and palestinians and decided not to vote either way when it

secretary of state john kerry defending the united states' decision to abstain from last week's u.n. security council vote condemning israeli settlements along the west bank. >> 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. we cannot properly defend and protect israel if we allow a viable two-state solution to be destroyed before our own eyes. >> israeli prime minister netanyahu has accused president obama of pushing for that vote. that is a claim that mr. kerry denied today. >>> justice department and t takata are reportedly close to a settlement. dow jones saying that a deal worth nearly $1 billion could be announced in january. and president-elect donald trump is expected to deliver a message related to the economy sometime later today. mr. trump's transition team says the announcement will be what they called very positive for american workers. finally, here's something that makes no sense. the u.s. mint says the cost of producing a penny is now up to a penny and a half. 1.5 cents. costs more

. >> we have an absolute incontestable evidence that the united states organized, advanced, and brought this resolution security councile that information with the incoming administration. >> reporter: it's not just israeli opposing secretary of state kerry's ideas for peace in the middle east. president-elect donald trump is also criticizing the obama administration. wednesday morning, president-elect tweeted we cannot let israeli be treated with such distain and disrespect. they used to have a great friend in the u.s. but not any more. the beginning of the end is a horrible iran deal. now this. u.n. stay strong, israeli. january 20th is fast approaching. last night, mr. trump reported from his resort in palm beach, florida. israeli is still moving forward with settlements. wednesday, a housing committee approved new construction of a four-store building in east jerusalem. craig boswell, cbs news, washington. >>> comurp on morning," we will have more. >>> today, the obama administration is sppexpected h it will respond to the russian cyberattacks that interfered in the presidential election. it's likely leaders of rus

we heard earlier from the secretary of state for the united states, john kerry, when he defended the decision to abstain on the un security council building ofjewish settlements on land that is seen as occupied territory. it's the first time that the united states have done this, to abstain in such a vote. mr carey mounted a strong defence of us policy. —— john kerry. mounted a strong defence of us policy. ——john kerry. he spoke about the jeopardy of the two state solution. mr neta nyahu about the jeopardy of the two state solution. mr netanyahu is now issuing himself quite a impassioned defence of israeli policy. i think we will be coming back to that statement a little bit later on. in the meantime, let's take a look at the meantime, let's take a look at the weather now with john the meantime, let's take a look at the weather now withjohn hammond. good evening. some hazardous weather out there especially across england and wales. freezing fog across the heart of england. take it steady on the road. first thing in the morning, it doesn't look pretty across england and wales. he will be sadly around coastal areas, but aspect some

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. they fail to recognize that this friend, the united states of america, that has done more to support israel than any other country. this friend that has blocked countless efforts to delegitimize israel, cannot be true to our own values or even the stated democratic values of israel. and we cannot properly defend and protect israel if we allow a viable two-state solution to be destroyed before our own eyes. here is a fundamental reality, if the choice is one state, israel can either be jewish or democratic, cannot be both. >> and hours later, israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu responded to secretary kerry, watch this. >> i must express my deep disappointment with the speech today of john kerry. the speech that was almost as unbalanced as the anti-israel resolution passed at the u.n. last week. secretary kerry paid lip service to the unremitting campaign of terrorism that has been waged by the palestinians against the jewish state for nearly a century. what he did was suspend musl

security council is demanding a israel cease all activities with the u.s. abstaining from that vote. >> what we just witnessed was a dramatic shift in u.s. policy. the united statesor the first time now in almost four decades deciding they would not use their veto power in a security council vote on a resolution addressing the issue of is raily settle me -- israeli settlements. there was one vote. one abstention, the united states, and 14 for. the u.s. would not publicly say what they were going to do, be mu did fear what was referred to as an obama september surprise. the resolution demands that israel immediately cease all activities including east jerusalem. this is dollar to what the united states veto'd in 2011. at the last minute, everything changed. the israelis contacted president-elect trump expressing their displeasure, and trump said the resolution being considered at the united nations security council should be vetoed. and then the egyptian president called off the vote. they met recently for the general assembly. they spoke on the television last night discussing how the new administration would help negotiate a middle east peace. so how did it come

united states has no intention of conforming with this appalling resolution. >> and with respect to those countries, and i want to make one thing clear. had the united states vetoed that in the security councilt would not have passed, but the signal has been made. can america undo the resolution? no, based on a new president. >> america cannot undo the resolution. >> cannot. >> but it can make those who try to apply the resolution, it can make them pay for it. america has a lot of tools in its hands, judge. 20% of the u.n.'s budget comes from the united states, and without it the united nations would be in refuse shape. >> and very quickly, you have high hopes for president trump and the relationship with israel? >> we do have high hopes. we have high hopes always with the united states of america. at the end of the day we have no alternative to america as our ultimate ally and the united states has no alternative to israel as its ultimate ally. there's no other country in this region technologically efficient, no one is burning american flags in the streets of tel aviv from where i'm talking to you. >> ambassador michael or en. thank you for joining. here with more reaction is the author of