When the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voted overwhelmingly in favor of resolution ES-10/23 on Palestine’s application for membership on May 10, some media outlets described it as “support for a Palestinian state. This apparent confusion follows arguments by the US government which confuses statehood with membership and claims it would harm “peace efforts”. However, this is not the case: the resolution addresses the question of “membership” in the UN and not that of the “statehood” of Palestine.
The UNGA settled the question of Palestine’s statehood at the UN in 2012 by granting it non-member observer state status – the same status enjoyed by Switzerland before becoming a member state in 2002 or the Holy -Headquarters since 1964.
The US decision not to recognize the State of Palestine or to veto its application for UN membership in the UN Security Council does not negate the legal and political status of Palestine – a state , although under foreign occupation, recognized by three-quarters of the 193 member states of the UN. The UN and it’s not over. Recently, Jamaica, Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago officially recognized the State of Palestine.
And since the adoption of resolution ES-10/23 by 143 votes to 9, the Republic of Ireland has officially declared that it will recognize the State of Palestine in the coming weeks. Belgium, Spain, Malta and Slovenia have also recently made declarations to this effect.
While full Palestinian membership in the UN remains hostage to the US Security Council veto, it has become a red herring, distracting attention and action from a much more important issue and consequent: the status of Israel at the UN.
When apartheid South Africa came under increasing international pressure at the UN, driven by the growing political influence of the Global South and Africa in particular, the UNGA took action. He established an anti-apartheid center and launched international boycotts of the apartheid regime in sports, culture, economics and politics, which put pressure not only on the racist regime of South Africa, but also on its allies, including Israel.
A pivotal moment occurred in 1974 when a decision by UNGA President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, then Algeria’s foreign minister, made history: it suspended South Africa’s participation. South, depriving it of its rights and privileges as a member state. He could no longer sit, speak or vote in the General Assembly and other UN bodies.
What became known as the “Bouteflika decision” was unprecedented in the annals of the UN. This followed the veto by the United States, the United Kingdom and France of an initiative by African countries seeking to expel South Africa from the organization in accordance with Article 6 of the United Nations Charter, which states: “A member of the United Nations who has persistently violated the principles contained in this Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council. »
The United States, supported by the United Kingdom and others, challenged Bouteflika’s decision at the United Nations General Assembly – and it was upheld by 91 votes to 22, with the UN then counting 133 Member States. The decision concerned the credentials of the South African delegation, which were rejected; it did not suspend or expel South Africa as a member state, which requires a positive recommendation from the Security Council.
Given that Israel has evidently persistently violated not only the general principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter, but also countless binding resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council, it could be justified to act in accordance with Article 6. But realpolitik suggests that this would be a road to nowhere, at least until the United States decides to remove its “diplomatic iron dome” that protects its ally. The Bouteflika ruling suggests an alternative path.
Now that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that atrocities committed against the people of Gaza may constitute genocide and issued a number of interim orders that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has derided, the UNGA should seriously consider whether the suspension of the Israeli delegation’s participation is in fact too late.
The Israeli delegation to the UN has already demonstrated on numerous occasions its blatant lack of respect for the organization. After the May 10 vote, for example, its ambassador, in the most theatrical and grotesque manner, shredded a copy of the UN Charter from the podium of the UNGA, shouting “shame on you” to the delegations present.
It is important to remember that apartheid South Africa changed course because it became a pariah and isolated regime. The Bouteflika decision was part of this process.
In this sense, depriving Israel of its rights and privileges at the UN is more likely to put additional pressure on the Tel Aviv regime to change course. Ostracizing it is more likely to further the prospects for peace than would full-fledged symbolic membership of the State of Palestine in the UN.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Tel Aviv Tribune.
