Suspension of Israel's rights and privileges by the United Nations General Assembly would put far more pressure on the Israeli government than formal Palestinian accession.
On May 10, when the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voted overwhelmingly in favor of resolution ES-10/23 on Palestine's membership application, some media labeled this as “support for a Palestinian state.” did. This seeming confusion stems from the US government's confusion of state status and membership, which it claimed would undermine “peace efforts.” But that's not the case. This resolution dealt with the question of Palestine's “membership” in the United Nations, not its “statehood.”
In 2012, the UNGA granted Palestine non-member observer state status, settling the issue of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations. This is the same position that the Holy See had before Switzerland became a member state in 2002, or since 1964.
The US decision not to recognize a Palestinian state or to veto its application for UN membership in the UN Security Council does not negate Palestine's legal and political status. The Palestinian state, although under foreign occupation, is recognized by three-quarters of Palestine's 193 member states. The United Nations continues to grow. Jamaica, Barbados, and Trinidad and Tobago recently formally recognized the Palestinian state.
And since resolution ES-10/23 was adopted by a vote of 143 to 9, the Republic of Ireland has formally declared that it will recognize a Palestinian state in the coming weeks. Belgium, Spain, Malta and Slovenia have also recently issued statements to this effect.
Full-fledged Palestinian membership in the UN remains hostage to the US veto in the Security Council, but it becomes a red herring and draws attention away from a more important and consequential issue: Israel's status in the UN. It distracts from action.
The UNGA took action when apartheid South Africa came under increasing international pressure at the United Nations, particularly due to the growing political influence of the Global South and Africa. He founded the Anti-Apartheid Center and launched an international boycott against the apartheid regime in sports, culture, economics, and politics, putting pressure not only on South Africa's racist regime but also on its allies, including Israel.
A momentous moment in history occurred in 1974, when UNGA President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, then Algerian Minister of Foreign Affairs, made a judgment. The plan was to suspend South Africa's participation and strip the rights and privileges of member states. They can no longer sit, speak or vote in the General Assembly or other United Nations bodies.
The ruling, which became known as the “Bouteflika decision,” was unprecedented in the history of the United Nations. The resolution follows the US, UK and France vetoing efforts by African countries to expel South Africa from membership under Article 6 of the UN Charter. The principles contained in the current Charter may be expelled from the organization by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council. ”
The United States, supported by Britain and others, challenged the Bouteflika ruling at the United Nations General Assembly, which at the time had 133 member states, and the ruling was upheld by a vote of 91 to 22. This judgment, which concerned the qualifications of the South African delegation, was rejected. It did not suspend or expel South Africa from membership, which would have required an active recommendation from the Security Council.
Given that Israel apparently persistently violates not only the general principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter, but also countless United Nations General Assembly and binding Security Council resolutions, Article 6 A lawsuit may be filed based on this. But realpolitik suggests this will be a problem. At least until the United States decides to withdraw its “iron dome of diplomacy” that protects its allies, there will be nowhere to go. The Bouteflika decision suggests an alternative route.
Now that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that atrocities against Gaza residents may amount to genocide and issued a number of interim orders making a mockery of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government, the UNGA is seriously considering Should. In fact, the suspension of the Israeli delegation's participation has not expired.
The Israeli mission to the United Nations has already shown open contempt for the organization on numerous occasions. For example, after the May 10 vote, the ambassador, in the most theatrical and grotesque manner, shredded a copy of the UN Charter from the podium of the UN General Assembly and shouted “Shame on you” to the delegates in attendance.
It is important to remember that apartheid South Africa changed course as it became an outcast and isolated regime. The Bouteflika decision was also part of that process.
In this sense, stripping Israel of UN rights and privileges is likely to put further pressure on the Tel Aviv regime to change course. Exclusion of Palestine is more likely to promote prospects for peace than symbolic and full-fledged entry of a Palestinian state into the United Nations.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
