Could the Palestinians become a full member of the United Nations?
The Palestinian Authority, which represents the Palestinian people at the United Nations, where the delegation is officially known as the State of Palestine, is not a full member and has no vote in the 193-member General Assembly.
Here are some details about the status of the Palestinians at the United Nations:
The Palestinians are a non-member, observer state at the United Nations - the same status as the Holy See (Vatican).
The General Assembly approved the de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine in November 2012 by upgrading its observer status at the world body to "non-member state" from "entity." There were 138 votes in favor, nine against and 41 abstentions.
In May 2024, the U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly backed a Palestinian bid to become a full member by recognizing it as qualified to join and recommending the U.N. Security Council "reconsider the matter favorably."
That resolution also granted the Palestinians some additional rights and privileges from September 2024 - like a seat among the U.N. members in the assembly hall.
The May vote by the General Assembly amounted to a global survey of support for the Palestinian cause to become a full member - a move that would effectively recognize a Palestinian state - after the United States vetoed the step in the Security Council in April 2024.
The Palestinians remain a non-member observer state as the 15-member Security Council has not acted on the General Assembly recommendation.
Countries seeking to join the United Nations usually present an application to the U.N. secretary-general, who sends it to the Security Council for an assessment and vote.
A council committee of the 15 members first assesses an application to see if it satisfies the requirements for U.N. membership. The application can then either be shelved or put forward for a formal vote in the Security Council. Approval requires at least nine votes in favor and no vetoes by the U.S., Russia, France, China or Britain.
If the council approves the membership request, it then moves to the General Assembly for approval. A membership request needs a two-thirds majority to be cleared by the assembly. A country cannot join the United Nations unless both the Security Council and General Assembly approve.
A U.N. Security Council committee assessed the Palestinian application for several weeks to see if it satisfied requirements for U.N. membership. But the committee was unable to reach a unanimous position and the Security Council never formally voted on a resolution on Palestinian membership.
Diplomats said the Palestinians lacked the minimum nine votes needed to adopt a resolution. Even if they had won enough support, the United States had said it would veto the move.
The United States, Israel's most powerful and influential ally, has said a Palestinian state can only be established through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
The latest round of those negotiations broke down in 2014 and the process remains frozen, with prospects for revival dimmed further by the ongoing, devastating war between Israel and Palestinian militant group Hamas in Gaza.
Under U.S. law, Washington cannot fund any U.N. organization that grants full membership to any group that does not have the "internationally recognized attributes" of statehood. The United States cut funding in 2011 for the Paris-based U.N. cultural agency, UNESCO, after the Palestinians joined as a full member.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
Is Keir Starmer already U-turning on Palestine?
The statement Keir Starmer made on Tuesday announcing the government's intention to recognise the state of Palestine sounded as if it had been drafted and re-drafted so many times that no one thought to check if it still made grammatical or logical sense. Hence the initial confusion: did this mean Britain will recognise Palestine or not? The statement said the government would do so at the United Nations General Assembly in September 'unless…' the Israeli government did four things. But one of the conditions listed was a commitment to a two-state solution, something to which Benjamin Netanyahu would never agree. So it seemed clear that, whatever the deliberate ambiguities of the rest of the statement, recognition would be going ahead in September. It was a victory for those members of the cabinet who had been pushing for it – David Lammy, Shabana Mahmood, Yvette Cooper, Wes Streeting and others – with the support of the silent majority of Labour MPs. Not that there was any triumphalism – unless you count Emily Thornberry, Labour chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, saying: 'I think it's great news' – because the situation in Gaza is so serious and the chances of recognition making a difference on the ground are so small. But there was no question that this was an important shift in government policy that had been brought about by quiet pressure behind the scenes from the Parliamentary Labour Party. Then questions started to be asked about the rest of the prime minister's statement: about the demand that Hamas release the hostages and the phrase 'no one side will have a veto' on the government's final decision in September. Did that mean that recognition of Palestine would be conditional on the release of the hostages? When Starmer was asked, in a short encounter with journalists today, he wouldn't give a Yes or No answer to that question, which I take to be the equivalent of 'No'. So I think British recognition will go ahead, unless something dramatic happens over the next month, such as Netanyahu ceasing to be prime minister of Israel. I don't think Starmer wanted to make this change. But I think he was going to do it before Emmanuel Macron changed French policy on recognition last week. Macron set the context, and Mark Carney, the leader of the third G7 nation to make the switch, confirmed it with his announcement last night. What mattered above all was the state of opinion among Labour MPs. Starmer can remember what happened to Tony Blair in July 2006 – and if he can't, Jonathan Powell, his national security adviser, who was Blair's chief of staff, can remind him. That was when Israel responded to Hezbollah's killing of two Israeli soldiers by invading Lebanon. Labour MPs wanted Blair to condemn this 'disproportionate' response. Blair refused. Labour MPs wrote letters demanding a change of leadership. Tom Watson, a junior defence minister, resigned. By September, Blair was visiting a north London academy school to announce that the imminent annual Labour conference would be his last as prime minister – although he didn't actually leave office for another nine months. Starmer, after a year in Downing Street, is in a similar position to Blair after nine years. Blair, having already said he wouldn't fight another election, refused to bow to his party. 'If I had condemned Israel, it would have been more than dishonest,' Blair wrote in his memoir. 'It would have undermined the world view I had come to hold passionately. So I didn't.' Starmer cannot afford such a devil-may-care attitude, so he has yielded to pressure from his MPs. There have been some attempts to explain the shift in his position that I think are not quite right. He is trying to head off the Corbyn-Sultana party, it is said, especially in constituencies, such as his own, with a significant Muslim vote. These are factors, of course, although the Corbynites are not going to be assuaged by recognition of Palestinian statehood – Zarah Sultana thinks Starmer belongs in The Hague, presumably for the crime of disagreeing with her. But the main reason Starmer has shifted his position is because Labour MPs demanded it. No prime minister can defy their parliamentary party for long on an issue that they care about. That is why Starmer U-turned on the winter fuel payment and on disability benefits, and it is why he has U-turned on this. Whatever you may think of the right or wrong of the final position – and I can guess what Blair's view would be on each of them – the reason for it is that it is what the majority of Labour MPs want. They want to recognise Palestine because they think it is a way to try to end the conflict in Gaza. Some of them may want to appease their constituents, but most of them are sincere in their horror of this unequal war – in which they reflect British public opinion generally. Whatever anyone thinks of Starmer's decision, they should not be surprised by his instinct for survival.
The Guardian
11 minutes ago
- The Guardian
France under pressure to stop $9.7m of USAID contraceptives being destroyed
The French government has said it is closely monitoring a US plan to potentially destroy millions of dollars of contraceptives stocked in Europe after outrage from French feminists, rights groups and family planning organisations at what they called a wasteful attack on women's rights. The Guardian reported this month that Donald Trump's administration planned to destroy $9.7m of contraceptives held in a Belgium warehouse which could be moved to France for incineration. They are mostly long-acting contraceptives such as IUDs and birth control implants which had been bought under public health programmes run by the US Agency for International Development and were probably intended for women in Africa. A US state department spokesperson told Agence France-Presse this week that 'a preliminary decision was made to destroy' certain birth control products from 'terminated Biden-era USAID contracts'. Trump's administration dismantled USAID, the country's foreign aid armbody, in January. The spokesperson said the destruction would cost $167,000 and 'no HIV medications or condoms are being destroyed'. The contraceptives, stored in a warehouse in Geel in Belgium, were reportedly planned to be incinerated in France, although there has been no confirmation of this by France. France and Belgium are under pressure to prevent any destruction. The French health ministry said in a statement: 'We are following this situation closely and we support the will of the Belgian authorities to find a solution to avoid the destruction of contraceptives. 'The defence of sexual health and reproductive rights is a foreign policy priority for France.' This week a collective of rights groups, feminists organisations and trade unions in France launched a petition to stop the destruction of the contraceptives. 'We won't allow this unfair and sexist decision to go ahead, it's both an economic and human waste,' they said. The French Green leader, Marine Tondelier, signed an open letter calling on the French president, Emmanuel Macron, to intervene to stop the contraceptives from being destroyed. 'Our country cannot be complicit, even indirectly, in retrograde policies,' the letter said. Céline Thiébault-Martinez, a Socialist lawmaker, told France Inter radio on Thursday that if France failed to speak out on the destruction of these contraceptives it would 'lose credibility with women'. Sarah Durocher, the head of a French family planning group, said: 'France has a moral responsibility to act.' Charles Dallara, whose politician grandfather Lucien Neuwirth backed the French law authorising oral contraceptives in 1967, wrote an open letter to Macron in which he urged the president not to 'let France become complicit in this scandal'. The Belgian government said it was in urgent contact with the US but it could not say yet whether the contraceptives had already been moved to France. A spokesperson for the foreign affairs department said it contacted the US embassy in Brussels as soon as it became aware of the possible destruction of contraception stocks held in the Geel warehouse. 'Foreign Affairs is exploring all possible avenues to prevent the destruction of these stocks, including their temporary relocation,' they added. 'We do not currently have additional details that would confirm whether a transfer of these products to France has taken place.' The international organisation MSI Reproductive Choices said it had offered to 'purchase, repackage, and manage logistics at our expense, ensuring the products reach those in need', but the offer was rejected. The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) made a similar offer at 'no cost to the US government' that was also turned down, AFP reported.
Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Britain's gas imports surge as Miliband abandons North Sea
Britain's imports of gas have surged as Ed Miliband's shutdown of the North Sea triggers a slump in production. Government figures published on Thursday show imports jumped by 20pc between January and March just as North Sea gas output plummeted 6.9pc. The fall comes as the Energy Secretary's ban on new drilling begins to bite. The revelations come just days after Donald Trump lambasted Sir Keir Starmer and Mr Miliband for imposing a 78pc windfall tax on North Sea oil and gas profits and for banning new drilling. The US president posted on his Truth Social site: 'North Sea Oil is a TREASURE CHEST for the United Kingdom. The taxes are so high, however, that it makes no sense. They have essentially told drillers and oil companies that, 'we don't want you'.' While Mr Miliband is ending new production in British waters, demand for gas remains strong. Consumption jumped by 8.5pc during the first three months of the year as freezing temperatures prompted gas-fired power stations to turn on to help support the country's energy system. Claire Coutinho, the shadow energy secretary, said: 'Labour's plans to shut down the North Sea when we're going to need gas for decades is sheer economic insanity. No other country is doing this. It will only make us more reliant on foreign imports.' Mike Offshore Energies UK, which represents the UK oil and gas industry, said the UK would need gas for decades to come both to provide home heating and to generate electricity when renewables failed. He said: 'The UK needs a diverse energy system which offers multiple choices. Wind will provide an increasing share of the mix but intermittency will remain an issue for which gas power generation will provide back-up.' The slump in gas production coincided with a fall in winter wind speeds caused by periods of unusually still weather. Output from Britain's wind farms fell 13pc during the first three months of the year, with windless spells helping push the UK close to blackouts on at least one occasion. 'Near record low wind speeds for the quarter led to a 13pc drop in wind generation,' said the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero report. 'Wind generation provided 28.5pc of the total generation, short of the 38.1pc provided by gas. The increase in gas generation reflected low wind speeds and the result of a drop in net imports of electricity.' Richard Tice, Reform UK's energy spokesman, said: 'Despite extra wind power investment and billions more in subsidies, wind generation fell 13pc over winter. Plus, government policy meant we produced less gas from the North Sea so imports surged. This is the economics of a madhouse.' About 180 of the UK's 280 oil and gas fields are expected to shut down by 2030 in response to the previous government's windfall taxes and Mr Miliband's ban on new drilling. The majority of the gas imports came from Norway, the US and Qatar. Gas from Norway comes via an undersea pipeline, while imports from elsewhere arrive as liquefied natural gas (LNG) on giant shipping tankers. Barnaby Wharton, of Renewable UK, said: 'There is no one who credibly believes we could meet the UK's electricity needs by burning the gas that's left in the North Sea. 'We successfully drilled nearly all of our North Sea oil and gas in the boom years of the 80s and 90s. Now we need to capitalise on our world leading wind resources or we are going to end up importing billions of pounds of foreign gas to keep the lights on.'
