Act now: The case for UN membership for Palestine is overwhelming
Nov 16, 2024John Whitbeck’s plea for sanity – UN Membership for Palestine Now, 14 November 2024, should not be put into the too hard basket. At present, of course, the State of Palestine has only non-member observer status, having failed in an application for full member status in 2011.
Whitbeck cites only three international instruments in advancing his case, namely the Security Council Resolution 2334 of December 2016 reaffirming Israel’s settlements in the West Bank post 1967 as illegal, the May 2024 General Assembly resolution determining the State of Palestine as qualified for membership of the UN, and the 19 July 2024 ICJ Advisory opinion on the consequences of the occupation of Palestinian territory in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, confirming the illegality and calling for the immediate end of occupation.
Those three instruments are more than adequate to make the case, but it is not inappropriate to add to and to bring those instruments up-to-date. In the first place it must be recorded that in May, in the Security Council, the US vetoed Palestine’s bid to become a full member. Then we should add the UN General Assembly resolution of 18 September, passed by a 2/3rds majority of members voting, and demanding the end of occupation, and action by member states, all states, including Australia, to bring about that outcome.
Finally, there is the Position Paper issued by the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and Israel (the Commission’s Position paper). By that Position Paper, the Commission, inter alia, provided its views concerning individual member states responsibility for implementation, and modalities appertaining to the General Assembly’s resolution. In summary, and relevantly, the Commission called for:
- each state to undertake a due diligence review of its aid and assistance to Israel and determine whether it is being used by Israel to maintain the illegal occupation;
- all states must act individually and collectively to bring the illegal occupation to an end;
- all states must review all transfer and trade agreements with Israel appertaining to military equipment and technology, to ensure that such is not contributing to the maintenance of the unlawful occupation;
- all states should not render aid or assistance to educational, academic, research or cultural activities, that support or maintain the illegal occupation.
The Commission also addressed obligations for the UN. Most relevantly, the Commission recommended that if Israel refused to end the occupation, the Security Council or the General Assembly propose mechanisms to ensure implementation. The Commission noted that the Security Council has failed to act due to the veto power of a permanent member, i.e. the US. It expressed the view that when peremptory norms of international law are violated, “Permanent members of the Security Council should not be allowed to exercise their veto, as this is contrary to the obligation to uphold peremptory norms of international law”.
With this background, the Australian government should act. Not only should Australia follow the recent lead of Spain and recognise the State of Palestine, it should seek to redeem its reputation by supporting any new application by the State of Palestine, as prophesied by Whitbeck, for full membership of that State in the United Nations. As Whitbeck points out, international law could not contemplate “(t)he occupation of the entire territory of a UN member state by another UN member state”.
It should also be noted that in the event of continuing obstruction by Israel, there is a further action that the UN might take. It might suspend Israel’s membership of the UN, or indeed, expel Israel from the UN pursuant to Article 6 of the Charter. There is a precedent for such action. In 1974, apartheid South Africa’s participation in the General Assembly was frozen. Such a course would be appropriate: no country has more consistently violated the principles of the UN Charter than Israel. Israel has targeted the UN. Consider such conduct as obstructing a UN mandated commission of enquiry to collect evidence on the 7 October attack, designating the UN agency UNWRA as a ‘terrorist organisation’, bombing UN schools and facilities in Gaza and now Lebanon, and thereby killing record numbers of UN employees. To avoid any misunderstanding, it should be noted that these recent defaults simply add to the decades of contempt shown by Israel for resolutions of the General Assembly, and, indeed, for orders of the International Court of Justice.
Israel can rightly be called a ‘rogue nation’. Eviction or suspension would send a powerful message to the people of Israel and the world, a message that international law, and the integrity of the international legal system, must be respected.
Finally, US interference in the process would send a similar message. On this issue, at least, the US is out of step, and the world, including Australia, must consider its position vis-à-vis the US.
My government, for the self-respect of all Australians, please act.