good time. so sad! as for the israelis, they did more than tweet. cnn s elise labott reports. reporter: israel s prime minister benjamin netanyahu is escalating his attack against the obama administration, clearly still angry over the u.n. vote declaring israeli settlements illegal. friends don t take friends to the security council. reporter: netanyahu summoned the u.s. ambassador and has accused president obama and secretary of state john kerry of orchestrating what he called a shameful ambush at the u.n. telling his cabinet he has ironclad proof. translator: from the information that we have, we have no doubt that the obama administration initiated it, stood behind it, coordinated on the wording and demanded that it be passed. reporter: the white house denies that, calling the claim absurd. we did not draft it. we did not put it forward. reporter: the obama administration maintains the u.n. vote was a last resort, after struggling for the past eight years to convince
prime minister netanyahu is responding to this i think principally politically because his problem is not on the left in israel, his problem is being challenged from the right. he feels he s susceptible to a charge that he weakened u.s./israeli relations. he s trying to reach out to the incoming trump administration on the one hand and he s trying to rally the troops to show that he s the defender of the status quo in israel which is quite frankly where the center of the israeli public is. they have cut ties with multiple nations, not the united states, which has been the target of so much of the anger that we have heard recently. for the second day those officials claiming to have proof that the u.s. actually directed this u.n. vote. they say they re not going to reveal this publicly, at least not yet. they re going to give it to the trump administration to figure out what to do with it. there s a lot of talk about that. do you think any of this is significant when it comes to actio
people have the right to know. but when you have 14 other members with the union security council, they re all talking to each other all the time. particularly on a resolution like this. so, by definition, there was collusion between the 15 members. eric: one of the examples being cited is secretary of state john kerry meeting with the new zealand foreign minister. that was in the press in new zealand last month. they were talking about a resolution. let me read you what bret stevens in the wall street journal this morning writes. bret a pulitzer prize winner saying the administration is likely being deceptive about last week s u.n. vote. means the administration no longer bothers to lie convincingly. we have the spectacle of the u.s. government hiding behind the skirts of foreign minister of new zealand and malaysia, senegal to embarass and endanger a democratic ally. the world jewish congress is calling for hearings and
u.n. vote was a last resort, after struggling for the past eight years to convince israel to halt settlement construction on occupied lands the palestinians claim for their state. for years, we ve seen an acceleration in the growth of these settlements. frankly, if these current trends continue, the two-state solution is going to be impossible. reporter: officials are now worried with u.n. backing, palestinians will push for sanctions, boycotts and take israeli soldiers to the international criminal court. what this resolution just did is it gave the palestinians ammunition in their diplomatic and legal war against israel, and the united states not only didn t stop it, they were behind it. reporter: netanyahu is now putting his hopes in president-elect donald trump and members of congress who are promising to de-fund the u.n. unless the vote is overturned, hoping that will give trump leverage. i look forward to working with those friends and with the new administration when i
that president obama thought that he was being lectured to by prime minister netanyahu. and then on the other side, you know, prime minister netanyahu never really felt that, you know, when it obviously the security issues separately and israel s security separately, that they never felt that the obama administration had their back. whether it s on the peace process, the iran deal, and now with this u.n. vote. and i think that a lot of people do this as a parting shot by president obama against the leader with whom he had a frosty relationship. but u.s. administration officials say, you heard from the white house and others, that this issue, this settlements issue, they feel, is an impediment to the peace process, that the settlements are encroaching on what could be a final palestinian state, and they feel that this kind of takes away the possibility of two-state solution. on the israeli side they say this resolution in itself takes away the two-state solution. ambassador to israel