On the necessity of expelling Israel from the UN General Assembly

For decades, the United Nations has served as the most important institutional forum for settling inter-state disputes and safeguarding the two central pillars of the Charter: sovereign equality and the protection of civilians. When a member state systematically undermines these principles, the Charter itself prescribes a final remedy: expulsion, explicitly provided for under Article 6.

This argument is not a matter of momentary emotion but is grounded in a documented record of conduct that has targeted some of the Charter’s core norms: the protection of civilians in conflict, respect for territorial sovereignty, the prohibition of systematic discrimination, and the prohibitions on genocide and crimes against humanity. Following South Africa’s referral, the International Court of Justice issued provisional measures against Israel, affirming the need for urgent steps to prevent irreparable harm in Gaza.

At the same time, international criminal institutions have underscored that individual responsibility for grave crimes arising from military operations is a binding legal reality. The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has indicated that arrest warrants have been sought in relation to the situation in Palestine, and pre-trial chambers have found reasonable grounds that senior Israeli officials may bear criminal responsibility for war crimes.

Beyond questions of individual accountability, extensive reports by human rights organizations and civil society groups demonstrate that governance patterns and operational policies may amount to “apartheid” and “persecution” under international law. This includes Human Rights Watch’s 2021 report, as well as findings by Israeli organizations such as B’Tselem, all based on evidence of systemic practices.

The Charter and the international order condemn violations of territorial sovereignty. In recent years, Israel’s cross-border strikes and operations in Syria, including raids and attacks repeatedly documented by Syrian officials and independent monitors, have repeatedly breached Syrian sovereignty, causing the deaths of both soldiers and civilians. While states may at times invoke self-defense, the repetition of operations outside Security Council authorization or a clear nexus to legitimate defense raises serious legal questions about their compatibility with Charter norms. The normative message is clear: a member that persistently treats the territory of other states as an operational arena is not fit to remain in an organization founded to protect sovereignty.

Another factor undermining Israel’s international standing is its long-standing policy of “nuclear ambiguity.” Widely recognized as possessing a nuclear arsenal, Israel has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and rejected independent inspections. This posture weakens the non-proliferation framework and fosters a culture of unaccountability inconsistent with UN membership.

Settlement expansion, systematic denial of building permits to Palestinians in key areas of the West Bank, and demolition of residential and agricultural structures have eroded Palestinian territorial sovereignty and undermined the possibility of statehood. Dozens of rural communities in “Area C” have been deprived of access to land, water, and construction permits, targeting Palestinians’ capacity to establish institutions and realize their territorial rights. UN and local reports have repeatedly documented that home demolitions, land confiscation, and restrictions on reconstruction form part of a broader pattern that blocks the emergence of viable Palestinian governance.

Let them in: Opening Gaza to the foreign press corps

Meanwhile, settler violence against Palestinian civilians has sharply escalated: cases of assault and killing, arson of farmland, burning of vehicles and homes, and destruction of livelihoods have been recorded. Several major incidents of arson attacks have led to deaths, injuries, and loss of vital agricultural resources. Human rights organizations and local monitors report that these acts are often met with impunity, with effective investigations and prosecutions against settlers rarely undertaken, even where evidence exists. Documentation from B’Tselem, UN human rights monitors, and local data-driven mapping makes the scale of this violence unmistakably clear.

Practically, expulsion under Article 6 requires a Security Council recommendation, where a permanent member’s veto could block it. For this reason, the General Assembly must instead use alternative diplomatic levers: suspension of privileges in specialized agencies, restrictions on mandates and credentials, support for collective legal action, and mobilization of multilateral sanctions to make cost-free membership impossible. The goal is not retaliation but institutional integrity: membership must equate to adherence to Charter principles, not immunity from them.

The moral logic behind expulsion is twofold. First, the continuation of membership without consequence signals that Charter violations can be tolerated if backed by political protection, eroding the UN’s legitimacy. Second, the very question of expulsion forces states to choose between transactional interests and the preservation of institutional principles. A General Assembly that evades this choice effectively abandons the foundational promise it was created to uphold.

Expulsion would be a historic step. It would not by itself resolve the tragedy of the occupied territories, but it would serve as a necessary corrective, affirming that international norms are not optional and that systematic violations carry costs. The case of a state subject to ICJ provisional measures, under active ICC criminal scrutiny, accused of apartheid by reputable human rights organizations, and engaged in repeated cross-border operations is not mere political rhetoric; it is a legal, evidentiary, and institutional argument that the General Assembly can no longer ignore. In this present test of global conscience, the world can either honor its moral and legal duties or resign itself to irrelevance in the face of future violations.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.