This article was published exclusively on Tencent News
On September 23, 2025, although US President Trump was in trouble at the United Nations Headquarters, he unexpectedly attracted global attention. He and the First Lady were "retained" by the elevator as soon as they arrived at the United Nations. After an awkward stop, they had to walk upstairs. When Trump finally stood on the podium, he immediately began to spit out that the teleprompter was broken, and stressed that he could continue to speak even if the teleprompter was broken. In the following speech, he rudely satirized the United Nations, and of course made boastful comments on many international events, showing his consistent style and position.
Especially for the recent wave of Palestinian recognition, Trump expressed strong dissatisfaction and criticism.Just the day before Trump spoke, that is, on September 22nd, French President Macron has just taken the lead at the congress, standing at a moral height and announcing highly that France will officially recognize the State of Palestine.In his speech, Macron righteously stated that this decision was "out of a sense of responsibility for justice and peace" and emphasized that the two-state solution is the only feasible way to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He called on the international community to support the promotion of ceasefire and peace talks through political and diplomatic means. Macron's speech won applause from many representatives at the venue.
The French decision made Four of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council have recognized the Palestinian statePreviously, Spain, Ireland, Norway and other countries have taken the lead in Europe, and Britain, Canada, Australia and other countries have joined in succession, acknowledging that the trend has made Palestine’s legitimacy and diplomatic support in the international community unprecedented.
This forced Trump to react immediately, and he immediately pointed out in his speech that such actions (recognizing Palestine) equated to “rewarding terrorism” and potentially encouraging further conflict. He repeatedly mentioned the October 7, 2023 attacks in his speech, stressing that Hamas has so far refused to release hostages and accept a ceasefire proposal. He said: “In such circumstances, talks about recognition will only give extremists diplomatic legitimacy. The real need is to release all hostages immediately and peace at the negotiating table.”
As a permanent member of the Security Council, the U.S. not only holds opposition at the political level, but also has a critical veto in institutional procedures. The attitude of the United States at the UN General Assembly almost shows that no matter how many countries recognize Palestine, it will not allow Palestine to become a member of the United Nations!The international community has not yet been able to celebrate the increasing number of Western countries recognizing Palestine, and the “cold water” of the United States has come too quickly!
01
Harsh procedures and institutional thresholds in the United Nations: an unavoidable Security Council
To understand why the recognition tide is difficult to directly translate into membership of the United Nations, we must start with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. According to Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Charter, "Membership in the United Nations is open to all peace-loving states which accept the obligations imposed by this Charter and which appear to the Organization to be able and willing to fulfil them". The second paragraph stipulates that the procedure for admitting new Member States must first be recommended by the Security Council and then adopted by the General Assembly by a two-thirds majority. This means that although the United Nations General Assembly is the most representative body, it does not have the power to independently decide new member states; The recommendation of the Security Council is an unavoidable premise.
This system was originally designed as a political arrangement dominated by the great powers when the United Nations was founded in 1945.The permanent members of the Security Council retained their veto on the issue of new membership while safeguarding world peace.This “threshold” made the United Nations expansion compelled to consider both universality and the political balance of the great powers. Historically, the United States and the Soviet Union had vetoed each other’s new members during the Cold War, leading to the long-term inability of some countries to join the United Nations.
For Palestine, this institutional obstacle was already highlighted when it first formally applied for membership in the United Nations in 2011. In September 2011, Palestine formally submitted its application for membership to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, which was considered by the United Nations Security Council. The Security Council then referred the application to the Committee on Admission of New Members for technical review, but failed to reach an agreement on submitting a positive proposal to the UN General Assembly. This is because the United States has made it clear that it will use its veto power at the formal voting stage of the Security Council to prevent the application from being passed. This prevented the application from entering the voting stage of the Security Council. That was the first time that the international community clearly saw: Even though Palestine has been recognized by more than 130 countries, and the number of seats recognized by itself does not automatically translate into seats in the United Nations, the real determining factor remains the right to recommend and veto the Security Council.
On November 29, 2012, with 138 votes in favour, 9 against and 41 abstentions, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 67/19 recognizing Palestine as a “non-member observer state”, a status further than the previous “observer entity”, allowing Palestine to join more international treaties and institutions, including the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court.
Over the years that followed, Palestine made several attempts to advance its membership but was blocked in the Security Council. Occurred in April 2024The Security Council voted on Palestine’s application for membership, with 12 of the 15 members voting in favour and the UK and Switzerland abstaining. The United States voted against.As the Security Council process requires a unanimous adoption or at least no exercise of veto, one vote in the United States is enough to fail the proposal. A month later, in May 2024, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution ES-10/23 confirming that Palestine meets the conditions laid down in Article 4 of the Charter and further expands its rights on the basis of observers, including speaking in the General Assembly debate, putting forward agenda items and having limited participation in the election process.
This reality speaks volumes: Palestine The missing is never the recognition of the number, but the crucial vote.。 Up to now, more than 140 United Nations member states have recognized Palestine as a sovereign state, which has exceeded two-thirds of the total number of United Nations members. However, because the United States has long adhered to the position that "the two-state solution must be achieved through negotiations" and opposed unilateral recognition or accession, the institutional threshold of the Security Council has never been crossed.
Therefore, although the current tide of recognition continues to accumulate strength in the field of public opinion and diplomacy, it still cannot break through the hard restrictions of the system. For Palestine, the real question is not "whether it is recognized", but "when it can break through the veto barrier of the Security Council". This institutional threshold is not only a legal provision, As long as the United Statesins its current stance, the official seat of the United Nations will remain far from accessible to Palestine even if it is recognized by more countries.
02
Differences between Europe and America
The issue of Palestine has long been a sensitive topic in international politics, and the recent “wave of recognition” highlights a distinctive phenomenon: even between traditional allies, there are clear differences in positions. The major European countries have publicly recognized the State of Palestine at the United Nations General Assembly, while the United States continues to firmly oppose it. This difference reflects not only differences in policy choices, but also two differences in understanding of the international order and regional situation.
The position of Europe: emphasis on morality and legitimacy
France's September 22 decision is not isolated. Earlier, Spain, Ireland and Norway were the first to announce their recognition of the Palestinian state, followed by Britain, Canada and Australia. These countries generally emphasize three reasons: First, Increasing humanitarian crisis in Gaza； The second is The right of national self-determination under the principles of international lawThree is OK. Political recognition sends signals to promote peace negotiations。
From a European perspective, recognition is not only support for the Palestinian people, but also pressure on Israel. By increasing Palestinian legitimacy in the international community, it is possible to force both sides back to the negotiating table. European diplomats often say that “recognition is not confrontation, but push,” a logic that makes a subtle difference to the “negotiation priority” that the United States insists on.
It is worth noting that there is not complete consistency within Europe either. Germany and the Netherlands, for example, remain cautious, emphasizing security concerns and the importance of coordination with the United States. However, with core countries such as France and Britain joining the recognition ranks, the overall position of Europe has obviously tilted towards support.
US Position: Security and Counter-Terrorism Priorities
In a speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 23, President Trump severely criticized the recognition of Palestine’s move, saying that such actions are “rewarding terrorism” and would encourage Hamas to continue to refuse a ceasefire and release hostages. This position continues the policy tradition of the United States government. Washington believes that recognizing Palestine in the context of continued armed activities would undermine Israel’s security and weaken negotiating momentum for the United States.
On the one hand, the U.S. domestic policy has a broad support base for Israel, and the two parties have long remained highly consistent on this issue. On the other hand, the U.S. strategic layout in the Middle East emphasizes the security alliance with Israel and sees it as a key backbone for regional stability.
The division of the Five Eyes Alliance and the internal contradictions of the West
More symbolically, the traditional security alliance "Five Eyes Alliance" has experienced a rare split on this issue. Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom joined the recognition tide, while the United States and New Zealand remained cautious. This difference highlights that even within the closest framework of intelligence and security cooperation, member states will take different paths when it comes to Middle East politics because of their own diplomatic traditions and domestic public opinion.
This difference between the United States and Europe makes the tide of recognition stronger in symbolic sense, but its actual effect is limited. Although the recognition tide has weakened Israel's diplomatic narrative and enhanced Palestine's international voice, its institutional obstacles have not changed due to the United States' veto power in the Security Council.
At the same time, differences can also have long-term consequences. If U.S. and European differences on the Palestinian issue continue to expand, it will create new tensions within the Western alliance. For Palestine, this gap could provide both diplomatic space and increase uncertainty at critical moments.
03
The possible breakthrough of the Palestinian state
Nevertheless, there are still a number of potential paths ahead that may lead to a breakthrough for Palestine. First of all US position relaxed.With the recognition boom expanding, the United States’ sense of isolation in the international public opinion may increase. If more core allies openly admit, the U.S. position will face greater pressure, and if the U.S. European gap on this issue continues to expand, it may force the U.S. to re-evaluate its policy costs. If the future U.S. domestic political or foreign strategy is adjusted, choosing to abstain from voting in the Security Council rather than veto, then Palestine’s accession could immediately become a reality.
The future development of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will also affect the international situation. For example, Egypt's increase in troops in border areas shows that regional countries are worried about the spillover of conflicts. If the situation continues to deteriorate, the sense of urgency of the international community may increase, thus increasing the possibility of promoting institutional breakthroughs.
Although the United Nations General Assembly is not entitled to accept new members, it can substantially narrow the gap with member states by expanding the rights of observers. The resolution of 2024 is an example. In the future, the General Assembly may further grant Palestine more substantive rights, such as participating in some committees or having a limited role in budget affairs. Though this is not an official seat, it may gradually form a “factual membership”.
Although we don't want to admit it, this crucial vote did block the Palestinian state from the door of the United Nations. This is the paradox of acknowledgement:It makes Palestine more present in international politics, but can not directly cross the threshold of the system. The uncertainty of the future remains. Will the tide of recognition continue to expand? Will the United States adjust its position due to diplomatic pressure or regional situation? Or will everything remain on the symbolic level? The answer is not yet revealed. The key vote of the Security Council continues to hold the final decision.。
Related Articles Recommended
Britain defected, many European countries joined forces, and the United Nations General Assembly "forced" the establishment of a Palestinian state