Not being a particularly astute political observer I admit I might be over thinking this but this recent speech and especially the timing of the speech might be raising some serious national security concerns. What are Obama’s plans after the election. Is he setting himself up for his next move with this speech?
What speech?
The speech he gave on why the United States failed to vote against a U.N. resolution against Israel.
Please flesh out your questions in the OP.
What national security concerns? Are you worried that Israel going to attack us for not vetoing the resolution?
What do Obama’s future plans have to do with anything? Do you think he’s going to join Hezbollah?
Kerry pointed out Netanyahu opposes the two-state solution - as Netanyahu has said many times, and Kerry said this:
So far, at least, this is one of the murkiest threads I’ve read in a while. 
IMO, everything that Kerry (and Obama) are saying is clearly correct (unless I’ve missed something). Problem is that what the Israelis are saying is also correct. You can say things that are completely correct, but which can have negative consequences. (This is a big part of what diplomacy is about.) And a big part of that is how the various players take what you’re saying and react to it.
In this case, as in many others, the core problem would be in what is said versus what’s not said, and what the focus is on versus what it’s not. Meaning, if the focus is on promoting peace by pressuring Israel to change their actions versus promoting peace by pressuring both sides to do this.
But it’s also magnified by the pre-existing dynamic.
The problem is that the Palestinians feel they have the UN and much of the world at their back, and this emboldens them to take a harder line than they might otherwise take. The US being a strong Israel supporter somewhat levels the field, and this would have the impact of tempering Palestinian expectations and push them to be more conciliatory than they might otherwise be. But if the US is joining the anti-Israel side - in the sense of focusing on Israeli actions as the underlying cause of the issue versus Palestinian ones - then this would make Palestinian concessions less desirable/harder, since they would have the sense that momentum and world support is on their side, and they can rely on others to push the Israelis in their direction versus the other.
So the net impact of votes and speeches of this sort is not to make peace any more likely, but rather to make whatever peace deal can be worked anyway more favorable to the Palestinian’s position than that of the Israelis.
I think it really is murky, the suspicions and potential conspiracy theories arising from this will be all over the map. If taken purely at face value and considering the timing involved I can only imagine where speculations might lead. Will Obama’s loyalty to America come under scrutiny?
I think what is meant is that the murkiness stems from the OP itself, not the vague situation the OP describes(or vaguely attempts to).
That’s right. Americans loyalty to Israel supercedes their loyalty to the USA - it’s in the constitution, ‘bibi’ said.
Here’s the point, Obama finally had the balls to join the rest of the world in calling Israel out for its genocidal tendencies, and Netanyahu for being - at very beast - a borderline psychopath.
Israel isn’t going to do that, being 100% pragmatic enough not to bite the hand that feeds them, but apparently senseless, over-the-top threats to other countries is fair game.
Invade 100% Pure New Zealand? 0% Airforce 0% Navy 0% Infantry? Bugger off Israel, that’s our job. 
What does any of this have to do with the speech Kerry made?
What does it matter what Obama’s next move is, or Kerry’s for that matter? These Israel haters will be out of power in a week and Trump can (and will) undo any shenanigans they try.
This speech has no significance at all: it’s too late; Obama will be gone in less than a month. The only consequences of Obama not vetoing the UN resolution are: that Trump will immediately move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem–something other Presidents declined to do (even when making election promises to do so) because it would be like pouring gasoline on a fire; Congress will increase aid to Israel and Congress will probably cut funding for the UN. The Arab world could have gotten a very good deal immediately after the 1967 war if they had been willing to make peace then, now all they can get is a truly miserable deal.
Really? That’s the problem? Not Israel building settlements with the intent on making a two-state solution impossible, when the two-state solution is the only even remotely reasonable path to peace?
That’s “the problem” with this particular speech (& UN non-veto). The Israeli settlements themselves are “a problem”. This thread is about Kerry’s speech, though
Right, these Israel haters who signed a deal giving Israel $38 billion of military aid …
I thought the problem was with the Not-President-Yet not being able to STFU and/or conducting illegal foreign policy as a private citizen.
Let the Jews have their one state. Let the Jews deal with the consequences.
When did that happen?