There was considerable drama leading up to the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 (UNSCR 2334), which reaffirmed the illegality of Israeli settlements.
It began with all hell breaking loose Thursday morning when it became clear the Egyptians would submit their resolution on Israeli settlements for a vote at the Security Council and that the Obama administration would support the effort, either by voting in favour or by refusing to veto it.
On Wednesday, there had been a hint that something was up. The White House spokesperson appearing on TV referred to Israeli settlements as illegal – the first time that had happened since the Carter administration.
This was followed by an announcement that Secretary of State John Kerry would make a policy address Thursday in advance of the UN meeting that was to consider the resolution.
President-elect Donald Trump sprang into action by tweeting: “The resolution being considered at the United Nations regarding Israel should be vetoed.” This was echoed minutes later by a nearly identical tweet from Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
It has been reported that both leaders made direct calls to Egypt’s President Abdul Fattah Al Sisi pressuring him to withdraw the resolution.
Egypt folded and pulled the resolution from consideration. Kerry’s speech was abruptly cancelled.
Late Thursday New Zealand, working together with Malaysia, Senegal, and Venezuela with the support of the PLO, issued an ultimatum to Egypt to either immediately introduce the resolution or they would do it themselves.
When Egypt did not, the New Zealand-led group followed through and a vote was scheduled for Friday afternoon.
In response, threats from the Israelis, the president-elect and members of the US Senate increased in intensity.
At 2pm the Security Council convened.
Members spoke and then voted – 14 in favour, none opposed, with the US abstaining – guaranteeing the resolution’s passage.
Adding to the day’s drama, the usually staid Security Council chamber broke into sustained applause.
President-elect Trump, ever the bully, responded with an ominous threat: “As to the UN, things will be different after January 20th.”
Senator Lindsey Graham, chair of the committee that oversees foreign operations funding, called the resolution a “provocative action” that “must be dealt with sternly and forcefully” and threatened to cut US support for the UN.
Netanyahu reacted hysterically, terming the vote “shamelessly anti-Israel”, accusing the Obama administration of “ganging up” against Israel” and declaring that Israel would not be bound by the resolution.
Looking at the text of Security Council Resolution 2334, you might wonder why all the drama and overreaction.
It is, in fact, largely a restatement of decades of US policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The resolution reaffirms well-established principles of international law regarding the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the occupied territories.
Seen in this light, it declares that Israel’s confiscation of land, construction of settlements and transfer of their population into occupied territories are violations of international law.
The resolution goes on to remind both the Israelis and Palestinians of their commitments to the international community – specifically noting how the settlement enterprise endangers the possibility of a two-state solution and a peaceful negotiated resolution, while reminding Palestinians of their responsibility to condemn all acts of violence against civilians and incitement to violence.
Some may dismiss it as just another resolution without teeth that will be ignored, but combined with last month’s 156-3 vote in the UN General Assembly in support of a similarly worded statement it suggests a growing world-wide united front against Israel’s aggressive annexationist policies.
What the reactions of Trump and Netanyahu make clear is that, despite their hollow words to the contrary, they have no intention of supporting a just resolution to the conflict and apparently don’t care what the rest of the world thinks.
This is what we may have expected, but we now see it playing out in real time a month before the new administration takes office.