What are the international implications if Israel gets kicked out of the UN?

[frogwoman]

I thought I'd start this thread for a bit more of a theoretical discussion than on the main Israel threads which should really be kept for discussions on what Israel (and Hamas, Hezbollah, the US etc) are actually doing. Some people are saying that if Israel is kicked out, then this could lead to the US and possibly other countries following suit, with implications about the potential breakdown of the UN itself.

i might be being really thick, but as far as I know a country being kicked out has never happened before, but there is a kind of precedent with some states recognising the PRC and others recognising the 'Republic of China' ie Taiwan - I don't think Taiwan itself has been admitted to the UN though except maybe with observer status.

If it did get kicked out, then what would the consequences be for Israel itself - if there are any at all? My guess is in the short term not a lot, but maybe in the long term even more reliance on the USA in the same way that unrecognised states like Transnistria are reliant on Russia? And will there be pressure on the UN to kick out other states like eg Afghanistan's Taliban led government?

Sorry for all the questions but in my opinion this could end up being a massively big deal except I don't really understand how tbh.

 

[ID47]

Won't happen, Israel will kick the UN out before that ever happens. See UNWRA today.

 

[frogwoman]

The GA are working on a resolution to kick it out though iirc.

See also here Could Israel's Unrwa ban lead to its suspension from the UN?

 

[_Russ_]

Someone on the Hamas thread answered my question on whether there was actually a mechanism to remove a state from the UN (sorry can't remember who) they stated that there was.

They did actually provide a source, (apologies HeAthen)

Frequently asked questions

Frequently asked questions of the United Nations Office at Vienna

www.unov.org

 

[teqniq]

It's a pretty big 'if' imo. But as a thought experiment: Israel actually gets expelled, what then? The US reaction would likely be key. I could see them massively throwing their weight about; imposing trade embargoes, arm-twisting, threats etc against who they see as the prime movers. It would almost undoubtedly lead to a great deal more instability, right when we least need it.

 

[frogwoman]

It's a pretty big 'if' imo. But as a thought experiment: Israel actually gets expelled, what then? The US reaction would likely be key. I could see them massively throwing their weight about; imposing trade embargoes, arm-twisting, threats etc against who they see as the prime movers. It would almost undoubtedly lead to a great deal more instability, right when we least need it.

Especially if Trump gets in.

 

[kebabking]

Much more likely, I think, that Israel leaves the UN than it gets kicked out.

Not that I think it's likely, but not impossible.

Israel being kicked out faces three problems:

1. The obvious. It requires a vote in the security council. The US would veto it, regardless of how frustrated they might be with Israel.

2. A concern that if a method were found to kick Israel out, it might be used on others. Turkey's and Christmas...

3. A concern that if Israel were kicked out despite the US's opposition, the US might leave the UN - Trump, does anyone really believe that's impossible? - and guess which member state which begins with 'A' and rhymes with 'bamerica' is the largest financial provider of the UN's budget? The next issue would that if the US left the UN, who would follow - and at what point would it become pointless if half the states left?

China would probably love to have a 'Global South' talking shop where the US+ had left, and where China could provide leadership but there's a serious question as to whether China would be interested in funding it...

My cynical view? That it's performative, and it's preformed knowing it will fail, and not being unhappy with that.

 

[frogwoman]

Much more likely, I think, that Israel leaves the UN than it gets kicked out.

Not that I think it's likely, but not impossible.

Israel being kicked out faces three problems:

1. The obvious. It requires a vote in the security council. The US would veto it, regardless of how frustrated they might be with Israel.

2. A concern that if a method were found to kick Israel out, it might be used on others. Turkey's and Christmas...

3. A concern that if Israel were kicked out despite the US's opposition, the US might leave the UN - Trump, does anyone really believe that's impossible? - and guess which member state which begins with 'A' and rhymes with 'bamerica' is the largest financial provider of the UN's budget? The next issue would that if the US left the UN, who would follow - and at what point would it become pointless if half the states left?

China would probably love to have a 'Global South' talking shop where the US+ had left, and where China could provide leadership but there's a serious question as to whether China would be interested in funding it...

My cynical view? That it's performative, and it's preformed knowing it will fail, and not being unhappy with that.

I agree that Israel leaving the UN is possibly more likely. Do you think the US would follow suit in that case?

 

[kebabking]

I agree that Israel leaving the UN is possibly more likely. Do you think the US would follow suit in that case?

Under the Dems, a bit less than 50/50, under Trump? marginally lower than 100/0.

 

[frogwoman]

Under the Dems, a bit less than 50/50, under Trump? marginally lower than 100/0.

Yeah Trump would probably go for it. He's always going on about the UN and NATO etc.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm surprised to see the league of nations hasn't made an appearance on this thread yet. The way the un has been treated by the zionists, aye and by the Americans and British over the last year makes me think we're approaching a point at which the institution will be more widely sidelined. Its abject failure to achieve its aims in Palestine and with climate change leave it looking more irrelevant than before. And with trouble bubbling up in the Pacific I feel we're going to see this getting worse rather than better.

While leaving the un or being suspended from it will make the zionist state a more obvious pariah, the zionists can yet rely on their friends in Washington to continue batting on their behalf. It's the rest of us who'll suffer from the loosening of what passes for a rule-based international order

 

[Gramsci]

I think a better thing for UN to do is bring back GA resolution 3379 that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination

Agreed in the 1970s.

It was removed as part of the "peace" process in 1991

The peace process was a failure. Actually made things worse in West Bank

After all these years , since the peace process,Palestinians have no state , incrementally Israel has been annexing in all but name West Bank and now it's destroying Gaza and killing large numbers of Palestinians. It's at very least ethnic cleansing in West Bank. And looks to me Israel wants control of Gaza. And at least some war crimes against civilians in Gaza have happened.

Given all the above I think bringing back 3379 is in order. Seeing what's happening in Gaza and West Bank over last year in particular.

Expelling states from UN no I don't think that's good idea.

Giving them a hard time whilst they are in it yes.

I also think GA could support BDS on state level and encourage other states to do this.

Expelling Israel would make them look the victim.

 

[andysays]

Someone on the Hamas thread answered my question on whether there was actually a mechanism to remove a state from the UN (sorry can't remember who) they stated that there was.

They did actually provide a source, (apologies HeAthen)

Frequently asked questions

Frequently asked questions of the United Nations Office at Vienna

www.unov.org

That suggests that it can only happen on the recommendation of the SC, so as kebabking has already mentioned, the US (and the UK, TBH) would likely veto it.

 

[Gramsci]

Having said that UN can't just let Israel get away with treating UNRWA like this.

 

[PTK]

I think a better thing for UN to do is bring back GA resolution 3379 that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination

Agreed in the 1970s.

It was removed as part of the "peace" process in 1991

The peace process was a failure. Actually made things worse in West Bank

After all these years , since the peace process,Palestinians have no state , incrementally Israel has been annexing in all but name West Bank and now it's destroying Gaza and killing large numbers of Palestinians. It's at very least ethnic cleansing in West Bank. And looks to me Israel wants control of Gaza. And at least some war crimes against civilians in Gaza have happened.

Given all the above I think bringing back 3379 is in order. Seeing what's happening in Gaza and West Bank over last year in particular.

Expelling states from UN no I don't think that's good idea.

Giving them a hard time whilst they are in it yes.

I also think GA could support BDS on state level and encourage other states to do this.

Expelling Israel would make them look the victim.

The Peace Process at least created a body that claimed to represent Palestinians, that the State of Israel recognised: the Palestine Authority, a body that some states now recognise as a state. When I was young, the State of Israel denied that the Palestinians even existed as a distinct group.

 

[Gramsci]

The other question is what are the international implications if Israel is allowed to stay in UN and get away with it's treatment of UNRWA and ignoring ICJ rulings?

 

[Gramsci]

And on main thread there has been theoretical/ historical discussion on issues related to what's happening now in Gaza/ Palestine . As I don't think one can really understand what's been happening in Israel/ Palestine without that. It's what I've been trying to do on main thread over last months

 

[ID47]

Having said that UN can't just let Israel get away with treating UNRWA like this.

It has no choice.

 

[ID47]

The other question is what are the international implications if Israel is allowed to stay in UN and get away with it's treatment of UNRWA and ignoring ICJ rulings?

Nothing really, the veto of the US in the Security Council means Israel has total impunity to kill and maim and invade who it chooses.

Add on UN workers such as medics, teachers and UNWRA and the number is shocking: Fatalities

 

[frogwoman]

I think a better thing for UN to do is bring back GA resolution 3379 that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination

Agreed in the 1970s.

It was removed as part of the "peace" process in 1991

The peace process was a failure. Actually made things worse in West Bank

After all these years , since the peace process,Palestinians have no state , incrementally Israel has been annexing in all but name West Bank and now it's destroying Gaza and killing large numbers of Palestinians. It's at very least ethnic cleansing in West Bank. And looks to me Israel wants control of Gaza. And at least some war crimes against civilians in Gaza have happened.

Given all the above I think bringing back 3379 is in order. Seeing what's happening in Gaza and West Bank over last year in particular.

Expelling states from UN no I don't think that's good idea.

Giving them a hard time whilst they are in it yes.

I also think GA could support BDS on state level and encourage other states to do this.

Expelling Israel would make them look the victim.

Yeah, I'm not saying I agreed with it but after this UNWRA thing I've seen a few pieces and a bit of social media speculation from people who generally aren't sensationalist etc suggesting it could happen.

 

[frogwoman]

The other question is what are the international implications if Israel is allowed to stay in UN and get away with it's treatment of UNRWA and ignoring ICJ rulings?

Well they have been ignoring the rulings for a long time so ... more of the same I guess.

 

[Gramsci]

Well they have been ignoring the rulings for a long time so ... more of the same I guess.

Except now Israel is up in court. A plausible case of genocide is happening and the countries that matter USA and to smaller extent my own country UK is facilitating this.

Along with the double standard of Ukraine.

It's bringing international rule of law into disrepute.

South Africa are trying. Significant that country from global south are doing this

 

[Gramsci]

Al Jazeera Inside Story have just brought out programme on Israel Knesset outing UNWRA out and international law. As usual with Inside Story some useful background and comment by experts.

Daniel Levy , someone who used to work for UNWRA and an academic on international law.

Daniel Levy said this is part of concreted effort by Israel and its supporter in West to discredit and attack UN. He puts along with attack in UNIFIL in Lebanon. Also pro Israel groups like ADL who post up lots of stuff about how terrible UN is.

He said Israel is now behaving like a rogue state and its actions undermine international law.

The academic said something similar. That actions like this undermine the post WW2 rules based order. Even if it wasn't perfect by any means.

The academic also said that the banning of UNWRA is should be seen as evidence which could be used in the case against Israel on the ICJ plausible genocide case As effect of removing UNWRA will be devastating for the Palestinian people

As the third speaker said UNWRA has kept Palestine society going for decades.

( Which imo is the main reason the Israel wants to get rid of it)

The legal academic thought it was vital that international community push back on the banning

He said what Israel is attempting to do is against international law. And against the founding charter /principles of UN. That UN agencies are protected from this kind of state action. By states who are members of UN

So there are international implications if Israel is yet again allowed to get away with this.

This has put countries like UK and US on the spot. As banning UNWRA undermines the UN itself.

Levy pointed out than none of the Zionist members of the Knesset voted against this. So this isn't just about Netanyahu or the far right. This is reflecting Israel mainstream society/ politics

Some of these politicians appear to sincerely believe UNWRA is run by Hamas.

I don't see much that can be disagreed with in this programme and mainstream western politicians have condemned the vote to ban UNWRA.

Its that as Levy says will they do anything?

 

[tim]

De facto there is only one China but two governments claiming to be the government of China one based in Beijing the other in Taipei. Both at different times have been recognised by the UN as the official Government and as a permanent member of the Security Council and both officially claim sovereignty over the same territory.

Israel won't be expelled from the UN for the same reason that Russia won't be expelled for the invasions and occupation of parts of Ukraine and Georgia; or Morocco for its annexation anf colonisation of the Western Sahara against the will of the indigenous population. The UN is not a nice liberal club abiding by nice liberal rules. Many of its members oppress the people in the territories they control with impunity.

In the UN it is the permanent members Security Council that have real clout and the power to veto. Four out of the five: Russia, France, the USA, and the UK have very close relationships with Israel. The fifth, China, is very adverse to upsetting the status quo.

 

[Gramsci]

I was curious to understand why the Knesset voted in favour of banning UNWRA. As this is the parliament not just Netanyahu.

In short more liberal Zionists regard UNRWA as an obstacle to "peace"

It in their view perpetuates the Palestinian refugee problem. Along with the right to return.

A major problem for Zionists ( even the liberal kind) is that potentially the right to return would alter the demographics of what is a Jewish majority state. Which would diminish it as Jewish homeland.

So the context with undermining UNWRA goes back years.

The argument goes that most of those counted as refugees aren't really.

This of course doesn't mean the end of any Jewish person to go and live in Israel.

Article here by someone who was in Israel Labor party. Hence not on far right.

UNRWA: an obstacle to peace?

For the sake of peace, reform of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) is urgently needed, argues Einat Wilf. One of the greatest obstacles to peace, and certainly the least acknowledg...

fathomjournal.org

Counter argument by Ben White here,

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170713-sensing-an-opportunity-israel-targets-unrwa-and-the-palestinian-right-of-return/amp/

So the banning of UNWRA didn't come out of no where. Or was a view taken by the far right.

A lot of difference between right and left Zionism is that right Zionism says let's stop messing around and get on with it. Whilst left will talk about demilitarised Palestinian self government.

They are PEP. Progressive liberal views on most subjects except the Palestinians.

 

[agricola]

I was curious to understand why the Knesset voted in favour of banning UNWRA. As this is the parliament not just Netanyahu.

In short more liberal Zionists regard UNRWA as an obstacle to "peace"

It in their view perpetuates the Palestinian refugee problem. Along with the right to return.

A major problem for Zionists ( even the liberal kind) is that potentially the right to return would alter the demographics of what is a Jewish majority state. Which would diminish it as Jewish homeland.

So the context with undermining UNWRA goes back years.

The argument goes that most of those counted as refugees aren't really.

This of course doesn't mean the end of any Jewish person to go and live in Israel.

Article here by someone who was in Israel Labor party. Hence not on far right.

UNRWA: an obstacle to peace?

For the sake of peace, reform of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) is urgently needed, argues Einat Wilf. One of the greatest obstacles to peace, and certainly the least acknowledg...

fathomjournal.org

Counter argument by Ben White here,

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170713-sensing-an-opportunity-israel-targets-unrwa-and-the-palestinian-right-of-return/amp/

So the banning of UNWRA didn't come out of no where. Or was a view taken by the far right.

A lot of difference between right and left Zionism is that right Zionism says let's stop messing around and get on with it. Whilst left will talk about demilitarised Palestinian self government.

They are PEP. Progressive liberal views on most subjects except the Palestinians.

Its possible to overanalyse why the Knesset has done this, I mean it could very well be a decision of the times like passing the Patriot Act was or the authorising the invasion of Iraq - one where "common sense" is martialled behind one ludicrous decision whilst everyone who goes against it is slated mercilessly. After all there isnt much evidence in Israeli politics post-October 7th of anyone from the left or right Zionist parties possessing a spine, any influence over events or any ideas of how to get out of the vast abyss that Netanyahu has dug for them.

I do also think though that these criminal votes do present an opportunity for the UN General Assembly (and even the Security Council) - as has been said by a few people already, UNRWA did after all spare the Israeli state the responsibility for millions of people residing under Israeli occupation and allow a degree of separation thereby (making the two state solution more viable). It was a key component of the occupation, and removing it is going to make it impossible for the Israeli state to not commit crimes so obviously heinous that the rest of the region and the world stops them.

 

[Gramsci]

Interesting take on the Knesset decision by an Israeli sociologist.

Rosenfeld points out that UNRWA derives its mandate from the very same source as Israel's statehood: a UN resolution. "The Israeli parliament could make all sorts of decisions that fly in the face of the United Nations, and a reasonable, rational country certainly wouldn't do such things, because it derives its legitimacy from the same UN resolutions that pathed the way for UNRWA – Resolution 181, the partition plan that birthed Israel. UNRWA is a sort of second-generation to that decision. In a sense, [the ban is] undermining Israel's own legitimacy."

The decision undermines Israel's international legitimacy

What will Israel's UNRWA ban look like? Experts warn of 'a massive ripple effect'

Good article in Haaretz.

But bear in mind its the equivalent of the Guardian. For wet liberals.

Looking at some other commentators and press and the Knesset vote has been welcomed.

For 75 years, UNRWA has sought to undermine Israel, perpetuate conflict - analysis

What did UNRWA accomplish in seventy-five years? Most of its camps played a key role in wars against Israel, and its mandate perpetuates the conflict.

www.jpost.com

Heres one. Regards UNWRA as a proxy for the international community to undermine Israel. Views like this appear to be common

Not saying that I think all Israelis want Palestinians to starve.

A view held is that UNRWA became like a state. Schools/ health care.

That it was this infrastructure that allowed "terrorists" groups to flourish.

Jerusalem Post commentator history is somewhat contentious. But that is how section of Israeli society see it.

It would not surprise me if Israel pushes for removal of UNWRA post war when Gaza is reconstructed. That it be replaced by another body. Nor would it surprise me if US fudged some compromise with UN that diminishes UNWRA.

 

[Gramsci]

Its possible to overanalyse why the Knesset has done this, I mean it could very well be a decision of the times like passing the Patriot Act was or the authorising the invasion of Iraq - one where "common sense" is martialled behind one ludicrous decision whilst everyone who goes against it is slated mercilessly. After all there isnt much evidence in Israeli politics post-October 7th of anyone from the left or right Zionist parties possessing a spine, any influence over events or any ideas of how to get out of the vast abyss that Netanyahu has dug for them.

I do also think though that these criminal votes do present an opportunity for the UN General Assembly (and even the Security Council) - as has been said by a few people already, UNRWA did after all spare the Israeli state the responsibility for millions of people residing under Israeli occupation and allow a degree of separation thereby (making the two state solution more viable). It was a key component of the occupation, and removing it is going to make it impossible for the Israeli state to not commit crimes so obviously heinous that the rest of the region and the world stops them.

Yes UNRWA provided social services that almost made it a state within a state.

Services Israel as an occupier was supposed to provide. Why the Israeli military didn't mind UNRWA so much as the politicians did.

Secondly now read a little more about UNRWA it meant in practise the UN having a presence in Israel/ Palestine.

More than I thought. It was one of the very early UN organisations set up. Before UNHCR.

 

[agricola]

Interesting take on the Knesset decision by an Israeli sociologist.



The decision undermines Israel's international legitimacy

What will Israel's UNRWA ban look like? Experts warn of 'a massive ripple effect'

Good article in Haaretz.

But bear in mind its the equivalent of the Guardian. For wet liberals.

Looking at some other commentators and press and the Knesset vote has been welcomed.

For 75 years, UNRWA has sought to undermine Israel, perpetuate conflict - analysis

What did UNRWA accomplish in seventy-five years? Most of its camps played a key role in wars against Israel, and its mandate perpetuates the conflict.

www.jpost.com

Heres one. Regards UNWRA as a proxy for the international community to undermine Israel. Views like this appear to be common

Not saying that I think all Israelis want Palestinians to starve.

A view held is that UNRWA became like a state. Schools/ health care.

That it was this infrastructure that allowed "terrorists" groups to flourish.

Jerusalem Post commentator history is somewhat contentious. But that is how section of Israeli society see it.

It would not surprise me if Israel pushes for removal of UNWRA post war when Gaza is reconstructed. That it be replaced by another body. Nor would it surprise me if US fudged some compromise with UN that diminishes UNWRA.

My favourite bit from this article:

It’s worth recalling that while Egypt and Jordan were independent countries, they still had strong British influence at the time and, therefore, were unprepared to take in 100,000 refugees or more.

This is the sort of coverage that only a year-long effort to excuse the inexcusable can buy.

 

[PTK]

Yes UNRWA provided social services that almost made it a state within a state.

Services Israel as an occupier was supposed to provide. Why the Israeli military didn't mind UNRWA so much as the politicians did.

Secondly now read a little more about UNRWA it meant in practise the UN having a presence in Israel/ Palestine.

More than I thought. It was one of the very early UN organisations set up. Before UNHCR.

Remember that none of the Palestinian Arab people for whom UNRWA was created to provide services were under Israeli rule originally. UNRWA operates in refugess camps in neighbouring states. Before 1967, the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian rule and the West Bank under Jordan.