Granting Palestine full member state status at the UN would, according to many politicians, be a practical step that could preserve the two-state solution and help reinvigorate the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. And this view is constantly making its way on the world stage and within the UN walls. Several consultations have been initiated this year with members of the UN Security Council to push for a resolution to turn Palestine’s current status as an observer state to the world body into a full member. In an exclusive interview with Saudi Arab News at the UN headquarters in New York, Riyad Mansour, whose official title is Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations, said his position was based on Palestine’s “natural and legal right to become a full member in (the) UN system.”
The search for statehood for the Palestinians in the current situation is becoming increasingly urgent against the backdrop of Israeli attempts to unilaterally undermine the prospect of a reasonable solution that could lead to an independent Palestinian state. At the same time, Tel Aviv plans to “create not only a one-state reality (but) an apartheid reality.” Realizing the gravity of the situation, a number of UN Security Council members, including Ireland, Albania and Norway, actively support the recommendation to grant Palestine full membership of the General Assembly. But Paulina Kubiak Greer, spokesperson for the president of the General Assembly, believes: “Article 4 of the UN Charter states that membership is a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The General Assembly cannot decide on membership without the recommendation from the Security Council.”
While granting Palestine full member-state status would be in line with the current US administration’s desire for “practical measures” to achieve a two-state solution, Washington, even according to the US media, “is not enthusiastic about the idea.” Mansour said he had repeatedly told Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the US Ambassador to the UN, that “if you do not like our idea, put on the table your alternative — a practical idea to shield and protect the two-state solution.” Washington’s reticence appears to be related to its preference for an “agreed two-state solution” within UN walls and its unconditional support for Israel. However, the Palestinian leadership is not opposed to negotiations with anyone, including the Israeli side – as long as the negotiations are based on international law and global consensus, including the Arab Peace Initiative – if the Israeli side is prepared to do so.
The Arab Peace Initiative is a Saudi Arabian-initiated proposal to end the Arab-Israeli conflict that was originally endorsed by the Arab League in 2002. This includes a proposal for the normalization of relations between Arab states and Israel in return for Israel’s full withdrawal from the occupied territories, a “just settlement” of the Palestinian refugee problem and the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. So far, the Arab countries remain united in their support for Palestine at the UN and have never refused to vote in its favor.
Saudi Arabia plays a particular role in this case, and the Palestinian leadership has repeatedly spoken out on the issue. “Saudi Arabia has a very, very important and powerful position. We are grateful for the fact that Saudis do not deviate from supporting the rights of the Palestinian people. And they don’t deviate from honoring and respecting the Arab Peace Initiative, which they launched 20 years ago at the Arab summit in Beirut,” the Palestinian Al-Quds Daily wrote. Incidentally, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman stated very clearly at the Jeddah summit in the presence of President Joe Biden that the Palestinian issue is a central concern for Arab countries and that the Arab Peace Initiative continues to be held in high regard.
Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority, has recently intensified efforts to gain full UN member state status. He has raised the issue with French President Emmanuel Macron and King Abdullah II of Jordan since the summer, as well as with Joe Biden during the US President’s visit to Bethlehem in July. “The key to peace and security in our region begins with recognizing the state of Palestine,” Abbas told Biden at the time.
The Palestinian Authority first applied for full UN membership in 2011. The UN passed Resolution 181 in 1947, which divided the Palestinian land into two states, an act which effectively served as “the birth certificate for Israel”. It said the UN now had a “moral and historical duty” to save the chances of peace by issuing a similar birth certificate for Palestine. The issue was referred to the Committee on the Admission of New Members, but opposition from US President Barack Obama’s administration prevented the Committee from unanimously recommending it to the Security Council. In 2012, the majority in the General Assembly voted to upgrade Palestine from a mere “entity” status to observer state status, a similar status granted to the Vatican; 138 countries voted in favor, nine against and 41 abstained.
The vote was largely symbolic, since observer states cannot vote on General Assembly resolutions, but it nevertheless resulted in the Palestinians joining more than 100 international treaties and conventions as a State party. This is what allowed the Palestinians to “be part of humanity”, to take their rightful place in the world and to share its concerns. However, the US tried to persuade the Palestinians not to continue their efforts to gain full UN membership, pestering its own arguments that this would simply derail proper peace negotiations with Israel. “The US has been clear about its opposition to the Palestinian bid for full membership at the UN,” Saudi Arab News wrote. The US is allegedly focused on trying to bring Palestinians and Israelis closer together in achieving this two-state goal, for two peoples living side by side in peace and security. But at the same time, President Biden told President Abbas in July that “the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own that’s independent, sovereign, viable and contiguous.”
This is a familiar argument that has been used by the US on previous occasions when the UN has taken action that was seen as advancing Palestinian representation on the world stage. Washington called the 2012 Resolution granting observer status to Palestine “unfortunate and counterproductive”, “grand pronouncement that would soon fade.” In the same vein, Washington also opposed the 2015 decision to allow Palestinians to fly their flag at the UN headquarters in New York. And when Palestine was admitted to UNESCO, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, in 2011, the US Congress cut all US funding for the agency. Former President Donald Trump went so far as to pull the US out of UNESCO entirely in 2019, accusing it of anti-Israel bias.
Although Congress recently sanctioned the return of the US to UNESCO, this was on the condition that Palestine was not granted membership in other UN bodies. US lawmakers have even passed a law banning funding for any UN agency that accepts Palestine as a member. Riyad Mansour, Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations, lamented Biden’s reluctance to deal with the political aspects of the issue, given that several promises, such as the reopening of the US consulate in East Jerusalem and the Palestine Liberation Organization office in Washington, remain unfulfilled.
As the Palestinian Al-Quds Daily wrote, “With regard to that issue, we don’t see progress and they keep telling us to wait. We’ve been waiting since the Nakba, almost 75 years. Waiting since the occupation of 1967, which is almost 55 years. How much longer do you want us to keep waiting?” And then the newspaper, which expresses the views of all Palestinians, concludes that had it not been for the US veto power, Palestine would have been a UN member state long ago.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
