By Yusa Djuyandi and Mohamad Hafifi Jamri

Since 7 October 2023, the conflict between Israel and Palestine has reignited. The escalation began when Hamas launched an attack, prompting Israel to retaliate by firing more than 3,100 rockets within the first week.

From that point onward, Israel has conducted widespread military operations in Palestinian territories. Homes, schools, hospitals, mosques and churches have been destroyed by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF). According to Antara News (2024), the death toll has surpassed 39,000, with more than 87,000 others injured.

Observers and humanitarian organisations argue that what is taking place extends beyond the scope of a conventional conflict or war between states, amounting instead to acts of genocide. Israel’s strikes have not been confined to targeting militant groups, but have also hit civilians, including children, women, medical personnel and journalists.

U.S. veto blocks Palestine’s bid for full UN membership

The United Nations first attempted to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through General Assembly Resolution 181 of 1947, followed by a series of subsequent resolutions. However, to this day, no binding resolution has been able to effectively halt Israel’s military actions against Palestine.

Following the events of 7 October 2023, the UN Security Council (UNSC) adopted a resolution calling for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. The resolution urged Israel to immediately cease its military operations to allow the Palestinian Muslim community to observe the holy month of Ramadan in peace.

In addition to calling for peace during Ramadan, UNSC Resolution 2728 demanded the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. The resolution was passed with overwhelming support – 14 out of the 15 members voted in favour. The United States, while abstaining from the vote, notably refrained from exercising its veto power, thereby allowing the resolution to be adopted.

The United States, as a permanent member of the UNSC, holds the right of veto in UN decision-making. To date, the United States has exercised its veto on three draft UNSC resolutions and has abstained on two occasions.

The veto is an exclusive privilege granted to the five permanent members of the Security Council, namely the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, China, and France. This right allows them to block or nullify any decision, resolution or proposal on political and non-procedural matters.

Through the exercise of this veto power, permanent members can prevent the adoption of provisions, draft regulations, or resolutions, regardless of the level of support such measures may receive from other UN members.

The United States, as one of the five permanent members of the UNSC, holds veto power that enables it to block the admission of new members to the United Nations. This power has been used to thwart Palestine’s bid for full UN membership. On 18 April 2024, the United States exercised its veto to reject Palestine’s application, complicating the Palestinian struggle for recognition and equal standing in international forums.

Following are the impacts of the U.S. veto on Palestine:

1. Failure to Gain Full Membership – The U.S. veto prevented Palestine from becoming a full member of the UN, denying it equal status with other sovereign states.
2. Limited International Advocacy – Without full membership, Palestine faces significant challenges in advancing its rights and interests in global forums.
3. Restricted Access to Resources – Membership would have provided Palestine with easier access to resources and support for building a sovereign, sustainable state.
4. Undermining Peace Aspirations – By blocking Palestine’s membership, the United States is perceived as betraying the collective aspiration for long-term peace in the Middle East.
5. Weak Bargaining Power – Palestine’s lack of full membership diminishes its negotiating strength in pursuing national interests on the world stage.
6. Invalidating Majority Support – The U.S. veto nullified the 12 votes in favour of Palestine’s membership, as well as the two abstentions, effectively silencing the majority will of the UNSC.

Notably, the United Kingdom, another permanent UNSC member, abstained from the April 2024 vote. Meanwhile, a year after the events of 7 October 2023, Israel’s military operations against Palestine have continued. Despite this, Palestine continues to call for a binding UN resolution mandating a permanent ceasefire alongside recognition as a full UN member.

Calls grow for reform of UN veto system

On several occasions, other members of the UN Security Council have expressed their concerns about the use of the veto power, questioning the fairness and balance of the Council's decisions. Many have emphasised the urgent need to reform the system so that the voices of smaller states and directly-affected states are better heard and represented in the decision-making process.

The plight of Palestine underscores the need for such reform. A fair and sustainable solution requires stronger political will and more cohesive international cooperation. Despite the continued influence of the veto, peace efforts and negotiations between Israel and Palestine must persist in the hope of achieving a just and lasting agreement.

The veto system has long been subject to criticism. One of the main arguments is that it obstructs the decision-making process within international organisations such as the United Nations. Because the veto power is held by only five permanent members, it often creates deadlock and prevents consensus on critical global issues.

Furthermore, the use of the veto power can be seen as undemocratic because it allows a single country to block actions supported by the majority of the international community. This can undermine the principles of equality and fairness, as it gives certain countries disproportionate power.

Another criticism is that the veto power can be used by countries to protect their own interests rather than acting in the best interests of the international community. This has been seen in cases where countries have used their veto power to protect allies or block actions that would hold them accountable for human rights violations or other serious misconduct.

The veto power has also been criticised for perpetuating a power imbalance between permanent members of organisations such as the United Nations Security Council. The permanent members, who have the veto power, represent a historical power structure that does not accurately reflect the current global landscape.

Overall, the veto power has been widely criticised for stalling decision-making, undermining democratic principles, and perpetuating power imbalances. Critics argue that reforms or viable alternatives should be considered to promote more inclusive and fair decision-making processes in international organisations.

-- BERNAMA

Yusa Djuyandi is a Lecturer and Researcher on Political Science and Security Studies at Universitas Padjadjaran, Indonesia.

Mohamad Hafifi Jamri is a Lecturer at the Faculty of Communication and Media Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Malaysia.