“Where is the UN?” is a poignant question that has echoed globally since the onset of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. Amid a catastrophic rise in the death toll, and with the conflict expanding across the region, the UN appears alarmingly incapable of fulfilling its foundational responsibility to shield humanity “from the scourge of war,” as it was envisaged at its inception.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres has repeatedly condemned Israel’s actions – facing a ban from entry to the country as a consequence – yet his impassioned appeals have largely fallen on deaf ears. Efforts within the UN framework to impose sanctions on Israel have also met with significant roadblocks. Implementing UN sanctions requires explicit approval from the UN Security Council, but the US has wielded its authority as a permanent member to veto resolutions aimed at addressing Israel’s actions.
In light of the escalating tensions and violence, there have arisen calls to suspend Israel’s membership from the UN. On October 30, Michael Fakhri, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, publicly urged the UN General Assembly to suspend Israel’s membership, asserting: “Israel is attacking the UN system.”
Francesca Albanese, serving as the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories, advocated at a news conference the same day for the UN to “consider the suspension of Israel’s credentials as a member of the UN until it ceases violations of international law and withdraws the ‘clearly unlawful’ occupation.”
However, the suspension of a member state presents a complex and politically delicate situation that many underestimate.
Israel and the UN
Over the decades, the relationship between Israel and the UN has been characterized by deep-seated tension and discord. This fractious dynamic largely stems from the UN’s consistent characterization of what it deems Israel’s “unlawful presence” in areas classified as “occupied territories” in Palestine. Since the most recent escalation of conflict in Gaza over the past year, this relationship has further deteriorated.
Critics argue that Israel has systematically violated UN resolutions and international treaties, including the Genocide Convention, throughout its military operations in Gaza. Certain UN officials have gone so far as to accuse both Israel and various Palestinian factions of engaging in war crimes. The active hostilities have directly affected UN operations and personnel, with reports indicating that over 230 UN staff members have been killed during the conflict, amidst allegations that Israel has deliberately targeted UN peacekeepers in Lebanon.
The tensions between Israel and the UN escalated dramatically on October 28, when the Israeli Knesset formally prohibited the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) from operating within Israel’s borders, igniting international condemnation.
The UN’s powers
Given the overt hostility directed at the UN, it comes as no surprise that there are growing calls for Israel’s membership to be suspended.
The South Africa precedent
Annually, at the commencement of each UN General Assembly session, the credentials committee meticulously reviews submissions from all member states prior to their formal admission. Although this procedure is typically a mere formality, a significant precedent was set on September 27, 1974, when the credentials of South Africa – then under an official apartheid regime – were rejected.
Within three days, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 3207, urging the Security Council to reevaluate the relationship between the United Nations and South Africa in light of the ongoing violations of the UN Charter’s principles.
A draft undertaking calling for South Africa’s expulsion was subsequently introduced to the Security Council at the end of October, but was vetoed by the US, UK, and France.
Nevertheless, on November 12, the then-president of the General Assembly, Algeria’s Abdelaziz Bouteflika, proclaimed that based on the credentials committee’s decision and the adoption of Resolution 3207, “the General Assembly refuses to allow the delegation of South Africa to participate in its work.” South Africa remained suspended from participating in the General Assembly until June 1994, coinciding with the official end of apartheid.
It is crucial to understand that South Africa was not outright suspended from the UN itself, but rather from participation within the framework of the General Assembly, yet this action held immense symbolic weight.
A viable solution?
Could a comparable measure be implemented against Israel, and would it yield tangible effects? The South Africa case demonstrates that such an action is legally feasible. Doing so would undoubtedly send a powerful message, heightening Israel’s international isolation while simultaneously restoring some much-needed credibility to the UN.
The 79th session of the UN General Assembly commenced in September, eliminating the opportunity for the credentials committee to reject Israel at this juncture. However, a similar outcome could theoretically be achieved before the next session in 2025, presuming there is sufficient political resolve. This, however, remains a significant “if.”
While a majority within the General Assembly holds critical views of Israel’s actions, many are hesitant to empower the credentials committee to become overtly politically selective, fearing that this precedent could be weaponized against them in the future. Furthermore, a conscious decision to suspend a close ally of the US could provoke significant backlash from Washington.
The ongoing divergence between what is legally permissible and what is politically probable underscores the complexities governing international relations and institutional functions.
