The United States vetoed a draft resolution at the UN Security Council (UNSC) which recommended granting the State of Palestine full membership in the United Nations
In a significant diplomatic move, the United States exercised its veto power in the United Nations Security Council, thwarting a Palestinian request for full membership in the UN and thereby preventing the world body’s acknowledgment of a Palestinian state. The vote, which took place among the 15-member Security Council, saw 12 members in favor of the resolution, with the US opposing it. Additionally, two countries, the UK and Switzerland, abstained from voting.
Prior to the vote, US officials had been engaged in diplomatic efforts to avoid resorting to a veto, hoping that objections from other council members might lead to a different outcome. Despite attempts to persuade one or two council members to abstain from voting, American officials ultimately anticipated the necessity of wielding the US veto in support of Israel.
You Can Also Read: Netanyahu: The Menacing Shadow of a Modern-Day Hitler?
Washington’s stance emphasizes that the establishment of a Palestinian state should be the result of comprehensive negotiations addressing all aspects of a Middle East peace settlement. Deputy US Ambassador to the UN, Robert Wood, reiterated the US commitment to a two-state solution, emphasizing that Palestinian statehood can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the parties involved.
Palestine’s Ongoing Bid for UN Membership
Palestine formally submitted a request to the Secretary-General on April 2nd, urging reconsideration of its 2011 bid for UN Member State status. The Security Council referred the latest request to its Committee on the Admission of Member States, which convened on April 8th and 11th to deliberate on the matter.
For a draft resolution to pass, it requires support from at least nine Council members, with none of its permanent members—China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States—utilizing their veto power. In 2011, the Security Council deliberated on the request but failed to achieve consensus in forwarding a recommendation to the General Assembly.
Current Status and UN Secretary-General’s Perspective
Currently holding non-member observer status in the UN since 2012, Palestinians would require approval from the Security Council and a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly to attain full membership with voting rights.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres underscored the importance of supporting genuine efforts towards a two-state solution, warning of increased volatility and risk in the absence of progress. Guterres also noted limitations in Israel’s efforts to improve aid access to Gaza, citing challenges such as delays and restrictions that undermine the impact of humanitarian initiatives.
The veto and subsequent reactions underscore the deep-rooted complexities surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the challenges in achieving a sustainable peace agreement in the region.
US Deputy Permanent Representative Robert Wood on Council’s Responsibility
In a recent United Nations Security Council session, US Deputy Permanent Representative Robert Wood underscored the council members’ special responsibility in advancing international peace and security while adhering to the UN Charter. He emphasized that the report from the Committee on the Admission of New Members highlighted the lack of unanimity among members regarding Palestine’s eligibility for full UN membership, particularly concerning the criteria outlined in Article IV of the UN Charter.
Wood pointed out unresolved questions regarding Palestine’s status as a state, citing concerns about its readiness for statehood and the presence of Hamas in Gaza. He clarified that the US’s vote against Palestine’s bid stemmed from these reasons, reaffirming the nation’s support for a two-state solution but emphasizing that Palestinian statehood should result from direct negotiations between involved parties.
What is the two-state solution?
The two-state solution aims to establish a separate Palestinian state alongside Israel, addressing Palestinian aspirations for self-determination without compromising Israel’s sovereignty. The concept of two distinct states has its roots in the United Nations Resolution 181, which proposed a partition plan in 1947 for the Mandate of Palestine (under British control) into separate Jewish and Arab states.
However, the UN’s proposed borders never came to fruition. Shortly after Israel declared independence in 1948, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt launched invasions, leading to the first Arab-Israeli war. This conflict resulted in the displacement of over 700,000 Palestinians from the newly formed state of Israel, who sought refuge in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring Arab states.
In recent years, various perspectives have emerged regarding forming a Palestinian state. The 1949 ‘green line’ has been considered a practical boundary for the respective states, originating from the armistice agreements between Israel and its neighbors following the 1948 war. This line currently marks the border between Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.
However, the situation changed following the 1967 Six-Day War when Israel captured and occupied the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. Today’s discussions surrounding the two-state solution typically involve creating two states along the ‘pre-1967 borders’.
This arrangement would result in a new Palestinian state encompassing the West Bank before Israeli settlement and Gaza. The division of Jerusalem, if any, remains a contentious issue in this plan.
China’s Support for Palestinian Full UN Membership
Chinese Ambassador Fu Cong expressed disappointment over the Security Council’s decision, stating that the aspiration of the Palestinian people for full UN membership was more critical than ever. He highlighted changes in the Palestinian situation over the past years, including settlement expansion, and asserted that Palestine’s ability to govern should not be questioned. Fu stressed that Palestinian statehood was an undeniable right, crucial for negotiations toward a two-state solution, and pledged China’s ongoing support toward achieving peace between Palestine and Israel.
Israeli Response and Critique
Israeli Ambassador Gilad Erdan criticized the Palestinian Authority, labeling it a terror-supporting entity that fails to recognize Israel as a Jewish State. Erdan condemned the Security Council’s decision, accusing it of rewarding Palestinian terrorism and exacerbating the obstacles to peace. He argued that Palestinian rejectionism would only be emboldened by such actions, making the prospect of peace increasingly remote.
Palestine’s Assertion of Self-Determination
Riyad Mansour, Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine, reaffirmed the Palestinian people’s unwavering right to self-determination, emphasizing their desire for an independent and sovereign state in their homeland. He urged the Security Council to recognize its historic responsibility in fostering a just and comprehensive peace in the region, calling for firm action to uphold ethical, humanitarian, and legal principles. Despite the setback of the resolution’s failure, Mansour expressed gratitude to supportive countries and vowed to persist in the pursuit of Palestinian statehood.
In a tense session at the UN Security Council, divergent perspectives clashed over the contentious issue of Palestinian statehood, highlighting deep-seated divisions and contrasting visions for the future of the region.
