Connect with us

International

Palestine’s path to full membership in the UN will be long

Palestine’s request to become the 194th State of the United Nations could follow the relatively rapid steps of other States that have joined the UN throughout the 21st century, but in its case it faces the probable veto of the United States in the Security Council.

The most recent State to take a seat at the UN as a full member was South Sudan, which in 2011 separated from Sudan after a friendly agreement. His incorporation into the UN was made by acclamation on July 14 of that year, just a week after his declaration of independence.

In 2006, Montenegro, another state that emerged from the dismemberment of the former Yugoslavia, separated after a popular referendum from the last remaining remnant of that federation and proclaimed its independence from Serbia. The referendum took place on June 3 and on the 28th of that same month the state was admitted to the UN.

And 2002 was a very special year because the UN welcomed two members: Switzerland did so in September, thus putting an end to an anomaly that made it welcome numerous international organizations but did not sit at the UN for the sake of a principle of neutrality inscribed in its DNA.

Much more traumatic was the chaos of Timor Leste, which was also admitted in September 2002. The new Asian country, a former Portuguese colony, lived 24 years of occupation and resistance against Indonesia and then almost three years of supervised administration of the UN, but its entry into the United Nations was unanimously approved by the Assembly.

Advertisement
20251204_amnistia_mh_728x90
previous arrow
next arrow

In 2011, Palestine first presented its formal request to enter the United Nations, but the procedure ran aground in its first stage: it did not get the support of 9 of the 15 members of the Security Council (that is, the qualified majority), so that request did not reach the General Assembly, the second stage of the process.

Palestine had to settle for acquiring the status of “observer state,” an anomaly that only the Vatican has in the United Nations, which is not even considered a country with its own attributes.

Palestine obtained 138 votes in the General Assembly in favor of its new observer status, while 9 voted against (including Israel, the United States and Canada) and 41 abstained.

It is foreseeable that Palestine will not have it as easy as South Sudan, Montenegro or Switzerland had, and all observers assume that Washington will use the veto tool in the Security Council, which is the instance where the incorporation process begins and ends.

According to the UN letter, the request for a new State necessarily goes through the following stages: it is formulated before the Security Council, which appoints an ad hoc committee to study it formed by the fifteen members, and if the committee approves it, the Council then assesses whether it is “a peace-loving state” (article 60), in which case it sends the issue to the General Assembly.

Advertisement
20251204_amnistia_mh_728x90
previous arrow
next arrow

In the Assembly, the votes of two-thirds of the Member States are needed to move forward, and if this happens, the final decision returns to the Security Council.

The United States, as a permanent member of the Security Council, has the right to veto the process at any time – in 2011 it threatened to do so, but did not need it – and few doubt that he will also use it on this occasion.

If this happens, the dream of Palestine will have fallen by the wayside.

But something has changed since 2011: now, every time a permanent member uses the right of veto, the question comes to the General Assembly, where that country must explain its position and submit to a non-binding vote.

At the current juncture, the United States will once again be evident in the face of a very large majority of states that are expected to support Palestinian membership.

Advertisement
20251204_amnistia_mh_728x90
previous arrow
next arrow
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Advertisement
20251204_amnistia_mh_300x250

International

WMO predicts 55% chance of weakened La Niña impacting global weather this winter

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) reported on Thursday that there is a 55% chance that the La Niña phenomenon, typically associated with cooler temperatures, will affect global weather between December and February, though in a weakened form.

In its update released Thursday, the WMO clarified that while La Niña is usually linked to a temporary drop in average global temperatures, some regions could still experience warmer-than-normal conditions.

As 2026 progresses, the WMO expects the planet to shift toward neutral conditions, neither influenced by La Niña nor by its opposite, El Niño, which is associated with increased temperatures. The likelihood of neutral conditions is expected to rise to 75% between February and April, according to the agency’s regular bulletin on these phenomena.

La Niña occurs due to cooling of the central and eastern Pacific Ocean waters and is also linked to changes in tropical atmospheric circulation, including wind and rainfall patterns. The opposite phenomenon, El Niño, has not been observed by experts since 2024, which currently remains the warmest year on record.

Continue Reading

International

Spain’s PSOE summons Mark Zuckerberg over alleged mass surveillance on Android users

The Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) requested on Wednesday that the Congress of Deputies summon Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, to explain the alleged mass surveillance of Facebook and Instagram users via Android devices without consent.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez had previously indicated that his party would demand answers from the tech company’s executives for allegedly tracking the web activity of millions of people in Spain and across Europe without authorization. Meta responded in a statement to EFE, saying it is willing to “cooperate constructively with authorities on this matter.”

In addition to Zuckerberg, the PSOE has also requested the appearance of Javier Oliván, Meta’s Chief Operating Officer, and José Luis Zimmermann, Director of Public Affairs for Spain and Portugal. The socialists expect them to appear before the Congress’ Committee on Economy, Trade, and Digital Transformation, alongside independent experts.

The investigation is based on findings from European academic institutions such as IMDEA Networks (Spain), the Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium), and Radboud University (Netherlands). These studies revealed that Meta implemented a hidden mechanism to track users’ browsing activities through its apps—even in incognito mode or when using virtual private networks (VPNs).

“In Spain, the law is above any algorithm or tech giant, and those who violate our rights will face consequences,” warned Prime Minister Sánchez.

Advertisement
20251204_amnistia_mh_728x90
previous arrow
next arrow

According to the technical report, the system reportedly operated for nearly a year and allowed web activity to be directly linked to users’ personal profiles on Facebook and Instagram. The PSOE described these practices as “silent espionage without any explicit consent.”

If confirmed, Meta would have violated key European Union regulations, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the ePrivacy Directive, the Digital Services Act (DSA), and the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The tech giant is already facing class-action lawsuits in Germany, the United States, and Canada for similar cases.

Continue Reading

International

New York Times sues Pentagon over new press restrictions, citing First Amendment violations

The New York Times announced on Thursday that it has filed a lawsuit against the Pentagon over new restrictions imposed on the press when reporting on the U.S. military.

The newspaper stated on its website that the Pentagon’s policy is “exactly the type of restrictive scheme on freedom of speech and the press” that the Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit Court have recognized as violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment protects fundamental rights such as freedom of the press and expression.

On October 16, the deadline to accept the new rules, major U.S. media outlets—including journalists with more than thirty years of experience as Pentagon correspondents—returned their credentials in protest.

The lawsuit, filed by the NYT in the U.S. District Court in Washington, argues that the purpose of the policy is “to shut the doors of the Pentagon—areas that have historically been open to the press—to news organizations, like the plaintiffs, that investigate and report without fear or favoritism on the department’s actions and leadership.”

The newspaper is requesting that the court issue an injunction preventing the Pentagon from enforcing the press policy, along with a declaration that the provisions restricting First Amendment rights are unlawful.

Advertisement
20251204_amnistia_mh_728x90
previous arrow
next arrow

The NYT noted that Pentagon officials have said that access to military facilities is a privilege subject to regulation, and that the new guidelines aim “to prevent leaks that could harm operational security and national safety.”

This past Tuesday, during the first press briefing held by the Pentagon since restricting access for most accredited national and international media following near-universal rejection of the new rules, influencers, bloggers, and reporters from so-called “new media” occupied the press room.

Several of the newly accredited journalists, such as Lance Johnston of the right-wing organization Fearless Media, boasted on social media that the desks “now belonged” to them—desks that had been used for decades by representatives of outlets like The Washington Post, The New York Times, and CNN.

Continue Reading

Trending

Central News