United Nations General Assembly Resolution 67/19

Resolution 67/19 followed an earlier institutional history of Palestinian representation at the United Nations. In 1974, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was invited to participate in General Assembly deliberations as the representative of the Palestinian people and was granted observer status. In 1988, the Assembly decided that “Palestine” should be used instead of “Palestine Liberation Organization” in the UN system, without prejudice to the PLO’s observer status and functions. Resolution 52/250, adopted in 1998, subsequently accorded Palestine additional rights and privileges in its capacity as an observer.[1]

The resolution also set its action against prior international recognition and institutional participation. Its preamble stated that 132 UN Member States had recognized the State of Palestine by the time of adoption. It cited Palestine’s full membership in UNESCO, the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia and the Group of Asia-Pacific States, as well as membership in the League of Arab States, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and the Group of 77 and China.[1]

A further part of the stated context concerned Palestinian Authority institution-building. The preamble commended the Authority’s 2009 plan to build the institutions of an independent Palestinian state within two years. It welcomed assessments by the World Bank, the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund that the Authority was above the threshold for a functioning state in key sectors studied, as reflected in conclusions of the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee from April 2011 and later.[1]

A separate route to full UN membership had been pursued in 2011. The State of Palestine submitted an application for full membership to the Security Council on 23 September 2011. The application remained pending after the Council’s membership committee failed to reach consensus during its 2011 deliberations, and resolution 67/19 expressed the Assembly’s hope that the Council would consider it favourably.[4][1]

The resolution’s preamble grounded its approach in UN principles and prior decisions, including equal rights, self-determination, the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by force, and earlier General Assembly and Security Council resolutions concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It recalled the 2004 International Court of Justice advisory opinion and reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. These references were the Assembly’s stated legal and political framework, rather than a determination in the resolution of every underlying dispute.[1]

The text also recalled the 1993 mutual recognition between the Government of Israel and the PLO and affirmed that states in the region had a right to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders. Alongside those references, it set out a two-state vision of a Palestinian state living alongside Israel in peace and security, on the basis of the pre-1967 borders.[1]

The General Assembly adopted resolution 67/19, titled “Status of Palestine in the United Nations,” at its 44th plenary meeting on 29 November 2012. It was considered under agenda item 37, “Question of Palestine,” and adopted by 138 votes in favour, 9 against and 41 abstentions. The resolution document was issued on 4 December 2012 as A/RES/67/19.[1][2]

The draft was circulated as A/67/L.28 and A/67/L.28/Add.1. The 138 affirmative votes represented more than two-thirds of the 193-member General Assembly.[1][3]

The United States and Israel voted against the resolution, along with Canada, the Czech Republic, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Panama. Australia was among the 41 countries that abstained.[3][5]

The United States explained its opposition on the grounds that a Palestinian state should be established through direct negotiations that resolved all permanent-status issues. Its stated policy opposed unilateral actions in international bodies or treaties that it considered capable of circumventing or prejudging those questions, including Palestinian statehood.[2]

The vote took place 65 years to the day after the General Assembly’s 1947 vote on partition. Contemporary coverage described Palestinian celebrations in Ramallah and elsewhere after the result.[6][5]

The operative text first reaffirmed “the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967.” It then decided to accord Palestine “non-member observer State status in the United Nations.” The text specified that the status decision was without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the PLO at the UN as representative of the Palestinian people.[1]

This changed Palestine’s designation at the United Nations, but it did not make Palestine a UN Member State. The resolution expressed hope that the Security Council would consider favourably the 2011 application for full membership, treating that as a separate step. Membership was therefore not granted by the Assembly’s 2012 decision.[1]

The Assembly described its desired settlement as two states: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living alongside Israel in peace and security, on the basis of the pre-1967 borders. It affirmed its determination to contribute to a peaceful settlement ending the occupation that began in 1967 and realizing that framework.[1]

The resolution called for the urgent resumption and acceleration of negotiations under the Middle East peace process. It identified the Madrid Conference terms of reference, the land-for-peace principle, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet road map as bases for negotiations. The outstanding core issues it listed were Palestine refugees, Jerusalem, settlements, borders, security and water.[1]

On Jerusalem, the preamble recalled relevant UN resolutions, stated that the annexation of East Jerusalem was not recognized by the international community, and emphasized the need to resolve Jerusalem’s status through negotiations as the capital of two states. It also reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.[1]

The resolution urged states and UN system bodies, including specialized agencies and organizations, to continue supporting the Palestinian people’s realization of self-determination, independence and freedom. It requested that the Secretary-General take the measures necessary to implement the resolution and report to the General Assembly on progress within three months.[1]

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas presented the request for a vote as an attempt to revive diplomacy. A reproduced account of the UN press release quotes him describing the move as an effort to “breathe new life” into stalled negotiations. Abbas also urged the Assembly to issue what he called “a birth certificate of the reality of the State of Palestine.”[3][5]

Israel’s representative argued that Palestinian statehood required direct negotiations and that the resolution would not advance peace. The reproduced press-release account also quotes Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon as saying there could be no substitute for negotiations and that the decision on status was the prerogative of UN Member States.[3]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the vote meaningless and said it violated past agreements. Israel’s UN ambassador Ron Prosor likewise argued that peace should be achieved through agreements between the parties rather than through General Assembly resolutions.[6][5]

Contemporary accounts also focused on the possible use of international legal bodies. Prosor warned that efforts to use international courts to extract concessions from Israel would not succeed and suggested that international proceedings could expose Palestinian actors as well.[6]

In an interview after the vote, Prosor characterized its immediate practical effect as limited and said the Palestinian Authority would still need to apply separately for membership in UN organizations.[6]

The resolution’s central institutional change was the move from Palestine’s previous observer designation to “non-member observer State” status. The change was from observer “entity” to “non-member state,” but Palestine remained outside UN membership and did not thereby gain the right to vote or to call for a vote in the General Assembly.[4]

Non-member observer states can attend UN meetings and contribute to discussions, but do not have member-only rights including voting, presenting candidacies to UN bodies or bringing a case to the International Court of Justice.[7]

The designation also had later implications for participation in international legal institutions. In January 2015, Palestinian leaders deposited an instrument of accession to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The ICC prosecutor subsequently cited resolution 67/19 when finding that the Palestinians had the capacity to accept the court’s jurisdiction. These developments did not make Palestine a UN Member State.[4][1]

The resolution itself retained the PLO’s existing rights, privileges and representative role in the UN, expressly stating that the new status was without prejudice to them. It also placed the institutional change alongside a call for negotiations and a request for the Secretary-General to report on implementation, rather than treating the status decision as a substitute for the listed final-status negotiations.[1]

The text linked the status decision to a stated goal of a negotiated settlement. It described the desired Palestinian state as independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable, and envisaged it living alongside Israel in peace and security on the basis of the pre-1967 borders. It also affirmed the Assembly’s determination to contribute to ending the occupation that began in 1967.[1]

The resolution called not merely for negotiations to resume but for their urgent resumption and acceleration. It named the Madrid Conference terms of reference, land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet road map as frameworks for that process. The six core issues it identified for resolution were refugees, Jerusalem, settlements, borders, security and water.[1]

The call for negotiations sat alongside the Assembly’s reaffirmation of Palestinian self-determination and independence. The text also urged states and UN bodies to support Palestinian self-determination, independence and freedom. Its combination of a status upgrade, a two-state framework and renewed negotiations formed the resolution’s central diplomatic approach.[1]

The positions expressed around the vote differed over whether changing Palestine’s UN designation would encourage diplomacy or prejudge issues that should be settled between the parties. Abbas described the initiative as a means of breathing new life into the peace process, while Israel’s representative argued that the move did not advance peace and that statehood required direct negotiations. Ban Ki-moon was quoted as maintaining that negotiations had no substitute.[3]

The U.S. explanation of vote likewise emphasized negotiations over unilateral steps in international bodies. It argued that permanent-status issues, including statehood, should be resolved through direct talks and objected to actions it considered capable of prejudging their outcome.[2] These positions illuminate the dispute over diplomatic method without changing the terms of the resolution itself, which explicitly called for accelerated negotiations on the listed issues.[1]

The meaning of the designation was disputed beyond the question of UN procedural rights. The resolution accorded “non-member observer State” status within the UN, but did not grant full membership and separately expressed hope that the Security Council would consider Palestine’s membership application favourably.[1] The status change did not provide General Assembly voting rights, and other rights remained reserved to member states.[4][7]

Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs later argued in a legal submission that resolution 67/19 concerned Palestinian representation within the UN and did not determine the substantive question of whether a sovereign Palestinian state exists under international law. The ministry characterized the status as procedural and argued that the resolution did not determine statehood beyond the UN; this is the Israeli government’s legal position, not wording contained in the resolution.[8]

The resolution’s references to Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, the pre-1967 borders, East Jerusalem and the Fourth Geneva Convention also reflect contested political and legal positions. The document records the General Assembly’s own wording: it reaffirmed Palestinian self-determination, referred to the territory occupied since 1967, and reiterated the Convention’s applicability to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.[1]

The U.S. and Israeli objections focused particularly on the relationship between the vote and negotiations. The U.S. position was that statehood should follow direct talks resolving permanent-status matters and that unilateral international action could circumvent or prejudge those negotiations. Israel’s representative similarly argued that statehood required direct negotiations, while the resolution itself called for their urgent resumption.[3][2]

The debate therefore encompassed both the scope of the new UN designation and the diplomatic route to resolving final-status questions. The text established Palestine’s non-member observer State status in the United Nations and set out the Assembly’s positions and calls; it did not itself confer full UN membership. The different legal accounts describe competing interpretations of the status decision’s significance and reach.[4][8]

Resolution 67/19 marked a formal change in Palestine’s status at the United Nations, from its prior observer standing to non-member observer State status. At the same time, it preserved the PLO’s acquired rights, privileges and representative role, left full UN membership to a separate Security Council process, and did not confer General Assembly voting rights associated with membership.[1][4]

The resolution’s text placed that institutional change within a broader account of Palestinian representation, recognition, institution-building and self-determination. It recorded 132 UN Member States as having recognized the State of Palestine, noted Palestinian participation in several organizations, and commended the Palestinian Authority’s institution-building plan and assessments of its readiness in key sectors.[1]

Its diplomatic legacy is also reflected in the contrast between the resolution’s call for a two-state settlement and renewed negotiations and the objections that the UN initiative could prejudge negotiations. Abbas presented the vote as an opportunity to revive the peace process; Israel and the United States argued that statehood and outstanding issues should be addressed through direct talks. Ban Ki-moon was quoted as stressing that negotiations could not be replaced.[3][2]

The resolution’s enduring significance thus lies in the combination of a changed UN designation and an explicit framework for future diplomacy. Its adoption by 138 votes, with 9 against and 41 abstentions, made it a major General Assembly action, while the text itself distinguished non-member observer status from full membership and called for negotiations on refugees, Jerusalem, settlements, borders, security and water.[1][2]