Null and Nuller

So the world doesn't like the American decision to eventually move our embassy to Jerusalem even though the situation on the ground and legally has really changed not one bit.

Question: if America's statement that we will remember who voted against us in the UN General Assembly on the Jerusalem embassy decision will harm American interests by undermining programs that develop pro-American policies as so many liberals have claimed, why did the UN General Assembly vote so heavily (128-9 with 35 abstentions and 21 who made themselves absent during the vote) against America?

If unconditional aid is key to maintaining good relations, shouldn't past American unconditional aid over decades have built up quite the reservoir of good will to get at least some significant portion of the votes?

Why are all these nations outraged rather than saying, "Well, America has been good to us for a long time so we'll pass on joining the mob to pound on America today."

I know I am grossly deficient in nuance, but isn't this a difficult argument for unconditional aid that our liberal brethren are making?

Face it, either the complaint that the embassy location harms American diplomacy is silly because the General Assembly is just pointless posturing and won't affect how other countries act; or the complaint is wrong about the effect of American generosity.

And again, in a world of problems, just who made the Palestinians queen of the friggin' prom to get such exaggerated attention from the sainted international community?

Although resolution backers expected over 150 votes in favor of the document declaring our move "null and void," so we had an impact, I guess.

This tempest in a teapot will pass. Nobody gives a damn to do more than vote and move on.