Palestinian application to United Nations for statehood and full UN membership

Meeting Summary

The Committee heard submissions from members of civil society on the Palestinian bid for full UN membership. Presentations were made on behalf of Bridges for Peace, the International Christian Embassy and David Hersch. The Committee also received a presentation from the Palestinian Ambassador to South Africa, Ali Halimeh.

Bridges for Peace opposed the bid for a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood because it aroused expectations in the heart of the Palestinian people and the fragile relationship between Israelis and Palestinians could be further fractured. A premature support for Palestinian statehood, while many territorial issues were unresolved within Israel could lead to an escalatory spiral enraging the populations of Arab states as well as Muslim communities in Europe.

The International Christian Embassy stated that from a legal point the Palestinian UN bid was out of order, and needed to be seen as an attempt to manipulate the General Assembly and the Security Council of the UN to obtain votes. The International Christian Embassy supported the UN Security Council resolutions 242 of 1967 and 338 of 1973 as the only framework with which to achieve mutual negotiations and to promote agreements and assist efforts to achieve a meaningful, final accepted settlement for a permanent two-state solution between Israel and Palestinians. Any unilateral declaration to obtain the legal right to be a member of the United Nations without statehood would make a mockery of the United Nations and was doomed to fail. The International Christian Embassy hoped that South Africa would take an informed decision to abstain from voting on any unilateral proposals.

David Hersch stated that he was totally against the Palestinian bid for full UN membership, or even an upgrade to non-membership from observer status. Only through direct negotiations with Israel could it be regarded as legitimately deserving of membership of the United Nations. Granting it full membership without negotiations, would open up a Pandora’s box, which undermined the UN and set a bad precedent. The many outstanding issues between Israel and Palestine could only be resolved through direct negotiations between the parties. He suggested the Portfolio Committee consider a visit to Israel and the Palestinian areas to properly familiarise itself with the issues and the geopolitical situation and meet with experts, analysts and members of governments on both sides.

Ambassador Ali Halimeh expressed regret that the Israeli ambassador could not be in attendance at the meeting. He appealed for the dialogue to be more creative and build something for the future and be more optimistic. The independent state of Palestine was declared on 15 November 1988 and today 128 sovereign states recognise Palestine as a state. By itself this should give Palestine the right to go to the UN and ask for full membership. There have been 181 UN resolutions that called for the creation of a two-state solution. Palestinians were prepared to sit down and negotiate a peaceful solution for the future. On the issue of negotiations, Palestinians were committed to the negotiations on a level of mutual respect, not negotiations dictated by one side. The bid for full UN membership was not a unilateral step, but was to the contrary. It would consolidate and strengthen peace in the Middle East. Palestine required nine out of 15 votes and there were currently eight votes in favour and the ninth may be coming.

Committee members raised questions about the fairness of the living conditions of Palestinians compared to Israelis. The question was asked about the accuracy of the suggestion that negotiations were not based on mutual respect but rather dictated by Israel? Did both sides agree to the fact that any settlement should be based on negotiation and a return to the 1967 borders? Was there not agreement that multilateral institutions should play a role in the resolution of the conflict? The Chairperson raised the point that one needed to be careful not to brand people as terrorists and that it was important that Members of Parliament kept an open mind when engaged on the issues and allowed themselves not to be influenced, in order to have a unified position as a Committee.