Why did the U.N. support Israel?

Will the USA continue to support Israel's illegal settlements in the West Bank by UN veto?

• Sir Mark Lyall Grant, Ambassador of the U.K. to the U.N., delivered his statement on behalf of the United Kingdom, France and Germany, saying that all three countries are seriously concerned about the current stalemate in talks: "We each voted in favor of the draft Security Council Resolution because our views on settlements, including in East Jerusalem, are clear: they are illegal under international law, an obstacle to peace and constitute a threat to a two-state solution. All settlement activity, including in East Jerusalem, should cease immediately." Although Obama's Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, vetoed the Resolution, she made very clear that the Obama administration was distressed about its minority position on the Council, about vetoing a Resolution sponsored by 123 nations, and about the settlement activity, saying, "Our opposition to the resolution before this Council today should therefore not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity. On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity. . .Continued settlement activity violates Israel's international commitments, devastates trust between the parties, and threatens the prospects for peace." The U.S. position - clearly upset with Israel and made to underscore the point -- was stated in the final explanation of the vote by Ambassador Rice, "While we agree with our fellow Council members--and indeed, with the wider world--about the folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, we think it unwise for this Council to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians. We therefore regrettably have opposed this draft resolution."

• Answer:

  Illegal according to fake international law? I don't think Israel should keep expanding but I do hope they continue to bulldoze palestinian homes anyway because I find it funny.