© Getty Images
"As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th," Trump tweeted Friday.
Trump's tweet came about an hour after The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution demanding an end to Israeli settlement building in occupied territories.
The U.S. had the ability to veto the resolution but abstained from doing so despite pressure from Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. lawmakers.
The Obama administration's decision to let it pass represents a break from the longstanding U.S. policy of shielding Israel from U.N. reproaches.
Israel's settlements are seen as human rights violations, and some say they are an obstacle to achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
Trump pressured Obama before the U.N. vote to veto the resolution.
"As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations," the president-elect said in a statement Thursday.
"This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis."
Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., explained the move in a statement to the council, condemning Netanyahu for continuing settlement expansion while paying lip service to the idea of a two-state solution.
"One cannot simultaneously champion expanding Israeli settlements and champion a viable two-state solution that would end the conflict," she said. "One has to make a choice between settlements and separation."
. . . most US politicians continue the hypocritical charade as directed by AIPAC and Netanyahu. While I am no fan of Obama, his refusal to veto this resolution is correct. (Although it would have been more intellectually honest had he directed the US to vote for the condemnation of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories instead of merely abstaining.)
"Direct negotiations" between Israel and the Palestinians is merely a euphemism for Israel being able to dictate its solution parameters on the Palestinians. When one considers the relative leverage of the negotiating parties, the situation is tantamount to expecting "direct negotiations" between a prison warden and a convict under his control to result in anything other than the warden imposing his will on the prisoner.