Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people have reached unprecedented heights. The international community now faces the question of whether Israel can remain a member of the UN or whether exclusion should occur. For decades, Israel has pursued a policy characterized by occupation, apartheid, and genocide, leading to thousands of deaths, widespread destruction, and forced displacement of Palestinians. These actions contradict the UN’s fundamental principles of human rights, peace, and security. If the UN does not act, the organization’s role as a guarantor of international law is at risk.

Israel’s Crimes Against the Palestinian People

Israel’s actions in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territories have repeatedly been condemned by the UN, human rights organizations, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented that Israel’s policies meet the criteria for both apartheid and genocide. Examples of these crimes include:

Systematic attacks on civilian areas: Hospitals, schools, and UN shelters are bombed by Israeli forces, resulting in thousands of civilian deaths and injuries.
The blockade of Gaza: The humanitarian blockade has led to total economic and social collapse. The population lacks access to basic necessities such as water, medicine, and electricity.
Massive destruction: Israel’s attacks on Gaza have killed over 48,000 Palestinians and injured more than 110,000, while large parts of Gaza have been obliterated. Infrastructure, hospitals, and residential areas lie in ruins.
These actions fulfill the UN’s definition of genocide, which includes physical destruction and the creation of living conditions intended to bring about the eradication of a population group.

Israel’s crimes directly violate the UN Charter, which in Articles 1 and 55 states that the organization’s goals are to promote peace and protect human rights. Article 6 provides for the exclusion of member states that repeatedly violate these principles. Despite numerous resolutions condemning Israel’s actions, none have been enforced. The UN thus risks undermining its own credibility if Israel’s violations continue to be ignored.

Comparison with Apartheid South Africa

A relevant historical parallel is the UN’s treatment of South Africa under apartheid. In the 1960s, the UN General Assembly began adopting resolutions condemning the apartheid regime. In 1974, South Africa was denied the right to participate in the General Assembly and was subjected to sanctions, boycotts, and political isolation. This international pressure significantly contributed to the regime’s collapse in the early 1990s.

Like South Africa, Israel’s policy toward Palestinians is based on systematic discrimination and oppression. Amnesty International and other organizations have compared Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to apartheid, where population groups are kept separate and subjected to discrimination. The UN must respond consistently and apply the same principles it used against South Africa if it is to maintain its credibility.

Political Resistance and Geopolitical Interests

Despite clear evidence of human rights violations, Israel enjoys strong political support, particularly from the United States and several EU countries. This support has blocked the UN from taking legal and political action against Israel, reflecting a serious double standard in international politics. Economic and geopolitical interests are prioritized over the protection of human rights, undermining the UN’s principles.

It is worth noting, however, that South Africa also had international allies during apartheid. Only after strong pressure from activists and civil society were sanctions and boycotts implemented, leading to change.

The Necessity of Action

Israel has repeatedly shown no intention of respecting international law or human rights. On the contrary, the country has withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council and refuses to cooperate with the International Criminal Court. Excluding Israel from the UN would send a clear message that no nation can ignore international norms without consequences. It would also mark a strengthening of the UN’s enforcement of international law.

Alternatively, the UN risks weakening its own position in future conflicts if the organization is not willing to take consistent action. By acting decisively, the UN can restore its credibility and demonstrate that it remains a guardian of international law and justice.