When, a little over five years ago, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution that condemned unreservedly Israel’s settlement construction and expansion in the West Bank, while calling on both the Israelis and Palestinians to lower the flames of mutual incitement, it felt for a brief moment like there might be a breakthrough in reviving the ailing two-state solution to the conflict. In hindsight, the chief legacy of this landmark decision is the fact that the US, in the dying days of the Obama administration, did not veto it. This highlighted that, when Washington refrains from vetoing a resolution that reprimands Israel’s settlements policy, it doesn’t only pass, but ends up with the resounding backing of every other member of the UNSC. All it required was for the US to abstain, not even to vote in favor of the resolution, for the other 14 members to support it, including those who feared American retribution or at least rebuke should they not do so. The US’ abstention was probably the most meaningful act and spoke louder than those who voted in favor of this resolution, as it signaled the Obama administration’s impatience with Israel over its defiance of international law and utter disregard for the views and national interests of its closest ally in entrenching the occupation of the West Bank. Washington finally decided that this should not go without an adequate reprimand. As such, there was nothing new in the content of UNSC Resolution 2334 that we did not know before it was added to the annals of UN resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet, for anyone who believes in a peaceful end to that conflict based on a two-state solution, it was a stark reminder of the main ingredients required to achieve this objective; the need to stop Israel’s treatment of an occupied territory as though it owned it; and the international consensus in condemning this behavior. The resolution, which did not exactly mince its words, should have become the international community’s manifesto for addressing the conflict and America’s policy guide on the issue. However, with Donald Trump about to be handed the keys to the White House, the president-elect took the unprecedented step of urging the US to veto the resolution. This hinted at the blank check Israel was about to receive to handle the Occupied Territories and the Palestinians living there however it wished, with almost no restraints. It has meant a full American presidential term lost for the cause of advancing peace between the two antagonists, while the situation on the ground has been worsening on all fronts. Thousands of new housing units have been built in Jewish settlements, making a mockery of the idea of an independent and viable Palestinian state. But there is now a different administration in Washington, led by Barack Obama’s vice president at the time of this historic decision to lean on Israel through the most powerful UN organ. And it is for President Joe Biden to revive this approach under his leadership. The Obama administration deserves much criticism for procrastinating until its very last month in office — December 2016 — to support the very obvious, which was backed up with a scathing attack by Secretary of State John Kerry a few days later. In a departure from diplomatic protocol between friends and allies, Kerry laid the lion’s share of responsibility for the failure of the peace initiative that carries his name on Israel’s then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s support for expanding the settlements. UNSC Resolution 2334 should have become the international community’s manifesto for addressing the conflict Yossi Mekelberg It would be difficult, not to mention unwise, to contest Obama’s last stand on Israeli settlements. Nevertheless, it doubles the sense of frustration that, had it been done earlier in his presidency, what could have been a seminal moment in the role of the US in bringing peace — and in the process providing a tailwind for an active EU in stopping the expansion of the settlements — was left more as a farewell article of faith for future administrations to follow. Instead of a powerful message of a genuine US change of direction to a more even-handed approach to this endless conflict when it had the time to implement such a policy change, it indicated that no American administration would dare to take this practical and morally sound approach until it was on its way out of the political arena and had very little to lose. Nevertheless, the importance of UNSC 2334 should not be underestimated, as it managed, within the constraints of its diplomatic jargon, to reaffirm in the strongest possible language that Israel as the occupying power has a responsibility to protect the Palestinian population. Hence, it condemned Israeli measures aimed at “altering the demographic composition and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem.” Without belittling other aspects of the conflict that make it extremely tough to resolve, the UNSC in this resolution highlighted that the expansion of settlements was the most difficult hurdle to bringing about an agreed solution. Only time will tell whether the horses of the two-state solution have already bolted the stable. Nevertheless, in this brief moment five years ago, the international community came together to express its deep concern at the irreversible nature of Israeli settlement activity in the Occupied Territories. Since then, the situation has only worsened and the disinterest among the international community, including the US, in dealing with the conflict has left Israel and the Palestinians to their own — unhealthy — machinations. For those in the international community who still believe that a two-state solution is feasible, the fifth anniversary of this resolution might be an opportune moment to encourage the UNSC to renew its call for peace in the Middle East. It should do so by once more uniting behind a demand for all sides to refrain from all activities that would compromise a fair and just solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially the further expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank that seek to make the notion of any peaceful agreement, let alone one based on a two-state solution, a laughable prospect. • Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. Twitter: @YMekelberg Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News" point-of-view