UN resolution marks US shift on Israel

Applause at the Security Council highlights just how isolated Tel Aviv is becoming

A construction site is seen in the Israeli settlement of Givat Zeev in the occupied West Bank. Baz Ratner / Reuters

The normally serious atmosphere of the United Nations Security Council was broken on Friday night by applause after the following words were announced: “The draft resolution has been adopted as Resolution 2334.” The typically dry language of diplomacy marked a significant shift in US policy towards Israel.

Resolution 2334, which demanded a halt to all Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, calling them illegal, will now join Resolutions 242 and 338 as important markers in the UN’s diplomatic journey to end the Israeli occupation. It was the first time the Obama administration declined to use its veto power at the UN over an Israeli resolution.

The United States, as a permanent member of the Security Council, is able to veto resolutions it does not like and often uses that power to protect Israel. This time, after years of intransigence from the Israeli side, it appears outgoing president Barack Obama wanted to send a strong message.

And there are few stronger messages that could have been sent in such a forum, which explains the applause. Israel’s illegal settlements continue to blight the lives and landscapes of Palestine and the applause reflected Israel’s widespread diplomatic isolation. Indeed, after it appears Egypt was pressured by president-elect Donald Trump to drop the resolution, it was pushed through by New Zealand, Malaysia, Senegal and Venezuela. That such diverse countries, spanning four continents, should have backed the resolution reveals how widespread the feeling has become that Israel is actively hindering the peace process by continuing to expand settlements.

The resolution is undoubtedly historic and is incredibly important symbolically. One major consequence will be to buoy the boycott, divestment and sanction movement. This international movement, modelled on the campaign against South African apartheid, will now be much harder to resist.

At the same time, however, the resolution will change little. Explaining the shift, Samantha Power, the US ambassador to the UN, said the resolution “reflects the facts on the ground”. Therein lies the problem. The occupation of Palestine is not merely an occupation of Palestinian land – it is an entire edifice of discriminatory laws and policies. One resolution will not dismantle that structure overnight. It will require sustained public and diplomatic pressure to finally end this decades-long wrong.