...In a counterintuitive interpretation of the resolution, Einat Wilf, who served as Knesset member between 2010 and 2013, argued that the controversial text actually enshrines in international law Israel’s right to West Jerusalem and thus makes it easier for the US to move its embassy there.

“UN Security Council Resolution 2334 is an important, if unintended, victory for Israel and Zionism. In it the UN Security Council provides the most resounding international and legal support yet for Israel within the 1949 ceasefire lines, including west Jerusalem,” she said in a statement Sunday.

Wilf, a native Jerusalemite, pointed to two sections of the resolution that she said were key to legitimizing Israel’s claims to West Jerusalem. For one, the text determines that Israeli settlement in territory captured in 1967, including East Jerusalem, “has no legal validity.” The resolution further calls on all states to “distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.”

Most Israeli politicians and pundits view those two sentences as the resolution’s most troubling, as they appear to invite boycotts of goods and people from the settlements. But Wilf, who holds a PhD in political science from the University of Cambridge, chose to focus on the other side of the coin.

By drawing a clear distinction between Israel proper and the settlements, and declaring the settlements illegal, the Security Council “is essentially clarifying the absolute legality of the territory of Israel within the 1949 ceasefire lines, including west Jerusalem,” she noted. “This resolution could provide a Trump administration the international legal support for their policy of moving the US Embassy to west Jerusalem.”