U.S. Senator Ted Cruz and other prominent Republicans are bring a bill to the Senate to overturn funding to the UN unless Resolution 2334 is reversed. According to Senator Cruz, the resolution is ‘rabidly’ anti-Israel, and that “it declared Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel”.

The object of resolution 2334 is Israel, and is – rightly or wrongly – condemnatory in content. Resolution 2334 also states that Israeli developments in “East Jerusalem” have no legal validity.

Senator Cruz’s initiative raises two questions:

1. Is the passage of 2334 such a departure from the preceding body of international law to which the U.S is signatory that it is right to overturn it? And
2. Would it be possible to overturn it with a funding cut?

Resolution 2334 references 10 Security Council resolutions and is similar in wording, content and tone to all those from 1967 up to 1980. There is then a break of 22 years. The next three resolutions make no reference to borders and Jerusalem. The Security Council left those details to the peace process while it was moving forward. Resolution 2334 also directly references Resolution 478 (1980) which covers the status of Jerusalem; it says: “Those states that have established diplomatic missions at Jerusalem to withdraw such missions from the Holy City”.

Practically speaking, Security Council resolutions have never hindered the State of Israel. In the absence of peace talks, Israel has reverted to the status quo of the 1970s – annexation – which it did despite numerous resolutions.

Security Council resolutions do, however, constrain foreign policy towards Israel. 2334 reminds all states that  annexation is illegal despite Security Council silence, as are matters such as moving embassies to Jerusalem. Where the U.S. abstention on 2334 hits hardest is therefore on the U.S. itself, and specifically: the Republican Party’s future policy towards Israel.

If the incoming Republican administration has policies which conflict with the UN resolution, then therefore right to want to overturn it. If it does not, then based on previous the U.S previous voting record at the Security Council, it is just an emotive course of action.

To overturn a resolution requires convincing the members of the Security Council that their original decision to pass it was flawed. The content of 2334 is entirely consistent with previous resolutions and their arguments, so to prove a flaw requires overturning a consistent body of logic and law which spans almost 70 years.

Permanent members Security Council also do not depend on any UN funding, by-and-large. If these veto holders could be convinced to vote for withdrawal or abstain, financial pressure could potentially be leveraged against non-permanent Security Council members. Given the general level of support/bias for Palestine in the wider UN community however, such diplomacy would be an uphill struggle. As an indicator: 2334 passed by the widest margin possible for a vote condemning Israel: 14 votes for, with a U.S. abstention.

Although Senator Cruz’s bill to cut UN funding would likely have no effect on reversing resolution 2334 – i.e. probability is very low indeed – the UN would be forced to streamline and that is not a bad outcome. Numerous money-wasting UN projects would close, but then so too would many important ones. The international community of fund beneficiaries would, however, place blame for their funding cuts on Israel’s West Bank policies – thus further globalizing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

More immediately, and regardless of any short-term activity at the UN: the incoming U.S. administration may find that some of the policies it wants to execute are not sanctioned by the Security Council.