[5][6] While the resolution did not include any sanction or coercive measure and was adopted under the non-binding Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter, Israeli newspaper Haaretz stated it "may have serious ramifications for Israel in general and specifically for the settlement enterprise" in the medium-to-long term.

"[8] In response, the government of Israel retaliated with a series of diplomatic actions against some members of the Security Council,[9][10] and accused the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama of having secretly orchestrated the passage of the resolution.

[15][16] Israel states that these are not "occupied" but "disputed" territories because "there were no established sovereigns in the West Bank or Gaza Strip prior to the Six Day War".

[21] Until the U.S. abstention led to the passage of UNSCR 2334, Obama had been unique among American presidents for not allowing any resolution critical of Israel to pass through the Security Council.

[22] The resolution states that all measures aimed at changing the demographic composition and status of Palestinian territories occupied by Israel, including construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians are in violation of international humanitarian law, Israel's obligation as the occupying Power according to the Fourth Geneva Convention, and previous resolutions.

"[2] The draft was originally presented by Egypt on the basis of a document prepared by British legal and diplomatic figures working together with the Palestinians,[21] with Britain regarded as the key player in formulating the resolution and pressing for a vote.

Following a telephone conversation between Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin, the Russian ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin requested that the vote be postponed until after Christmas.

[23] The United States ambassador, Samantha Power, explained the abstention by saying that on one hand the United Nations often unfairly targets Israel, that there are important issues unaddressed by the resolution, and that the US did not agree with every word in the text; while on the other hand the resolution reflects facts on the ground, that it reaffirms the consensus that the settlement activity is not legal, and that the settlement activity has gotten "so much worse" as to endanger the viability of the two-state solution.

[25][23][3] Media and observers contrasted the US decision to abstain with its long-standing tradition of vetoing resolutions targeting Israel over the issues of settlements.

[26] Netanyahu declared that nations acting against Israel's interests will pay a diplomatic and economic price, and instructed the Foreign Ministry to cancel all aid programs to Senegal, some involving programmes to alleviate poverty, in response to the resolution's passage.

[27][29] Furthermore, Israel summoned and reprimanded the ambassadors of the United States, which abstained on the resolution, and ten countries which voted in favor of it.

[32] During the meeting over the resolution, the Israeli ambassador Danny Danon denounced members who had approved it, comparing it to banning the French from "building in Paris".

"[42] He asked Israel "to sit together on the negotiation table to discuss all the outstanding issues between us and resolve it with good intentions", adding: "We are neighbors on this holy land and we want peace."

It advised the international community to remain resolute in its condemnation of illegal Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories and called for the dismantling of the settlements.

[70][71] Shortly after the resolution passed, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump tweeted, "as to the UN, things will be different after 20 Jan.."[23] Later he added: "We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect.

[74] Incoming Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer said it was "extremely frustrating, disappointing and confounding" that the Obama administration failed to veto the UN's vote.

[15] However, in the medium or long term, the resolution might influence how the International Criminal Court in The Hague treats lawsuits filed against Israel, and may create a justification for countries and individual organizations to impose sanctions on the settlements.

The proposed measures consist of cutting funding to five UN institutions; blocking work visas for employees of the said agencies; expelling Chris Gunness, the spokesman for UNRWA; cancelling Israeli aid to Senegal directed at alleviating poverty; and cancelling a scheduled visit to Israel by Ukraine's Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman.

Prime Minister Bill English also penned a letter expressing regret at the damage caused to bilateral relations as a result of New Zealand proposing UN Resolution 2334.