Can Israel retain its seat at the UN amidst Gaza genocide?

UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese made a bold yet significant assertion earlier this week, challenging Israel’s right to a seat at the United Nations.

“Should there be a consideration of its membership as part of this organisation which Israel seems to have zero respect for?,” she asked, while addressing a news conference in Geneva.

Albanese's challenge brings to the forefront a deeper debate—whether a country accused of grave violations of international law should be entertained by the very institution tasked with safeguarding human rights.

Speaking to TRT World, former UN Special Rapporteur on Israeli Violations of Palestinian human rights Richard Falk says, “In order for a country to be expelled from the UN in accordance with Article 6 of the UN Charter, it must follow a recommendation from the Security Council to the General Assembly."

"This recommendation is subject to a veto, and currently, there is no possibility that the Western permanent members of the Security Council—such as the US, UK, and France—would refrain from vetoing such an expulsion move.”

Israel's indiscriminate bombings of Gaza have resulted in over 41,000 deaths in the past 11 months, and more than 95,500 people were injured, drawing widespread condemnation and intensifying calls for accountability.

The UN Charter offers a potential pathway for expulsion under Article 6, which allows the General Assembly to expel a member state that persistently violates the Charter's principles.

Article 6 could theoretically be invoked, considering that Israel has, by all accounts, persistently violated not only the general principles enshrined in the UN Charter but also numerous General Assembly and binding Security Council resolutions.

“Israel has acted in such a defiant way in relation to the worst of international crimes, genocide, that has persisted and is seen as a genocide by most peoples around the world,” says Falk, who is currently Professor of International Law Emeritus at Princeton University.

And this would block Israel’s access to the UN General Assembly and cost the country its seat, vote, and speech.

“That's the only practical way of disciplining Israel in light of its genocidal behaviour and its defiance of the UN,” Falk adds.

The UN should take the step of removing Israel's seat and granting full membership to Palestine because “that would have been Palestine's seat if the British and Americans hadn't carved it up in the first place,” according to Ashish Prashar, a political strategist and a former advisor to the Middle East peace envoy.

Speaking to TRT World, Prashar suggests that the recent decision to give Palestine a seat at the UN offers a meaningful opportunity for the organisation to take an active role in decolonisation, emphasising that the UN was originally established to function in a supposedly post-colonial world.

"Israel has shown contempt for the UN since its foundation, breaching over 70 resolutions and ignoring ceasefire calls. Even before October 7, it never worked with the UN and, with US support, has never been held accountable for disregarding its rulings," Prashar says.

Israel has now been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of UN staff, the abduction, imprisonment, and torture of countless others, as well as attacks on numerous UN compounds, the destruction of UN schools and clinics, and the looting of UN assets.

"And still, Israel has a seat at the UN. In what other world would that be tolerated from any other state? Literally, not from any other,” Prashar adds.

Falk also suggests that Israel’s actions are effectively inviting a coercive response, though he acknowledges that any such response would be highly contentious.

“Its ambassador shredded the UN Charter from the speaker's podium in May, in front of the delegates. This act of supreme insubordination effectively signals that Israel is telling the UN to 'go to hell' and demonstrates a disregard for the Charter and the framework it represents.”

Yet, Israel has long benefited from what some describe as a diplomatic "iron dome" provided by Western countries, which has shielded it from formal criticism or coercive actions at the UN, Falk points out.

Israel’s case under international law

Israel is now facing genocide case at the International Court of Justice.

Last week, ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan urged the court's Pre-Trial Chamber to issue arrest warrants "with utmost urgency" for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.

Earlier in May, Khan had already announced that the court sought these warrants on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

“Based on evidence collected and examined by my Office, I have reasonable grounds to believe that Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav Gallant, the Minister of Defence of Israel, bear criminal responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of the State of Palestine from at least October 8, 2023.”

The charges include starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, causing severe suffering or injury, willful killing, murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.

“What would it take at this point for the UN to defend itself, its staff, its core principles, and not just suspend Israel from the UN General assembly, but strip Israel from the seat entirely because it has no right to be in there?” Prashar asks.

“The UN must act, but I believe it's hesitant due to concerns over US funding. The US has very little credibility as it is, and threatening to cut funding for the UN's efforts to stop genocide would result in it losing any remaining credibility, if it has any left.”

So, what can be done?

The issue of UN membership is unfortunately not just a legal matter but a deeply political one.

In practical terms, Tel Aviv’s alliances mean that even if significant portions of the international community were to question Israel’s commitment to the UN’s principles, actual consequences like loss of membership are unlikely without a broader geopolitical shift.

And historically, the UN has not expelled member states based solely on their human rights records or conflicts, though it has imposed sanctions and resolutions.

During South Africa’s apartheid era, the UN General Assembly established a centre to combat apartheid and initiated international boycotts across various sectors.

On 2 December 1968, The General Assembly requested all States and organisations “to suspend cultural, educational, sporting and other exchanges with the racist regime and with organisations or institutions in South Africa which practise apartheid.”

“But other resolutions, like those against apartheid South Africa, could recommend boycotts in cultural, economic, political, and sporting arenas, which were quite effective in turning South Africa into a pariah, outlaw state.” he further explains.

This could be further supported by imposing direct sanctions, including economic and political measures such as banning or restricting trade, limiting investment, controlling diplomatic representation, and affecting other aspects of UN engagement.

“So there are a lot of policy options other than exclusion that could bring pressure on Israel and would not be easily obstructed by the western power.”

Prashar also suggests that there is a moment of shifting power and balance in the world and if the UN committed fully to protecting the Palestinian people, other countries—about 190 of them—might step in to fund the UN and compensate for any losses from US funding.

“The US cannot afford to turn the entire world into its enemy. It's currently in a position where it doesn't see any actor out there that's going to challenge them. But if the whole world challenged them, it's not going to push back.”