DEBATE: Rescinding UNGA Resolution 181, the partition of British mandated Palestine
Why it should NOT be rescinded.
The Ottawa Forum on Israel Palestine held an online debate on August 18, 2025.
Speaking against the motion were Robin Collins and Arthur Milner. Speaking in favour were Peter Larson (Chair of OFIP) and David Mivasair.
The debate can be accessed here.
THE PRIMARY REASON to not rescind UNGA Resolution 181 is that it remains the only agreed International legal standard on the question of the demarcation of Israel-Palestine.
One can certainly argue that the original 1947 plan to partition Palestine was a bad idea, and other single state options were better or possible at the time. It was definitely unfair for the majority of the population resident there, who were Arab, and even contrary to premises of the just formed UN Charter. Yet, we are arguing against rescinding or revoking the resolution now. Why?
A single binational democratic state and a federal state were under consideration in 1947 but were rejected.[1] The context for the partition was both Britain dispensing with its Mandate in the region in lieu of rising hostilities, but also the horrific legacy of the Holocaust.
One can also legitimately argue the partition route to achieve two states, one Jewish and the other Arab, has been inadequate and ineffectual. Most of us know what the obstacles have been, including external players, expulsions, competing nationalisms, violence and extremists.
And yet, the two-state solution (option), as spelled out in the UNGA partition resolution 181, has been the international legal and political standard since November 29, 1947 when it was voted into law with majority UN support, albeit over the objections of six Arab states. The vote was 33 votes in favor, 13 against, with 10 abstentions.[2] There were 56 voting states at the time, compared to 193 today. [The partition was to come into effect with delineation of borders no later than October 1, 1948.]
WHERE DO WE STAND TODAY?
Today, the international consensus remains firmly in support of “the two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders.” As of May 10, 2024, the most recent relevant UN General Assembly vote[3] granted additional rights to the State of Palestine at the UN, including being seated with member states. 143 countries voting in favour, 25 abstaining, 16 non-voting. Nine voted against, several of which are small island states, plus Israel and the United States.[4] Notably, none of those opposed were Arab states, and no states opposed a two-state solution per se, except Israel [5].
As of March 2025, the State of Palestine is recognized as a sovereign state by 147[6] of the 193 member states of the United Nations, or just over 75% of all UN members.
The most recent directly relevant UN Security Council resolution[7], adopted on June 10, 2024[8], reiterated an “unwavering commitment to the vision of the two-State solution where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders, consistent with international law and relevant UN resolutions, and in this regard stresses the importance of unifying the Gaza Strip with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority”.
These most recent UN resolutions follow a very long list of annual General Assembly and Security Council resolutions that usually repeat the accepted recognition of two states following on from the 1947 partition decision.
However benign might be the intention, however unfair the original partition, rescinding 181 now is unworkable and it is also dangerous.
THAT CONSENSUS IS ALSO FOUND in international legal institutions at the highest level, including at the ICJ and ICC. For example, the International Court of Justice (the World Court, or ICJ) advisory opinion of July 2004 regarding the legal consequences of the construction of a wall by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory recalls “relevant General Assembly resolutions, including resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, which partitioned mandated Palestine into two States, one Arab and one Jewish.” Similarly, in its advisory opinion of July 2024[9], the International Court of Justice refers to UNGA resolution 181 nine times.
And also in December 2014, the International Criminal Court (ICC) recognized Palestine as a state, and recalled resolution 181 (II) of 29 November, and “the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders.”[10]
Similarly, in 2025, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) urged its 56 members “to consider formally recognizing the State of Palestine within the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its shared capital” and initiatives “that may lead to a credible and inclusive negotiation process towards achieving a two-State solution”.
The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) on15 November 1988 when proclaiming the establishment of the State of Palestine, referred to resolution 181 (II) “which partitioned Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State.”
At one time, Israel accepted a two-state solution and Resolution 181 on May 14, 1948, when proclaiming its independence, and similarly on 29 November 1948, when Israel applied for admission to membership of the United Nations. The fact that some Israeli leaders have backed away from this position does not invalidate 181 as the enabler of Israel’s own statehood.
While the 1993-95 Oslo Accords ultimately failed to produce two distinct states (for reasons we need not go into in detail), Israel and the PLO in an exchange of letters on 9 September 1993, made clear that the “PLO recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace and security, and Israel recognized the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people”. It was the case that many thought the Accords would create an independent Palestine, alongside Israel, as part of a two-state solution but they did not refer to Resolution 181, and in the end Israel increased settlements, retained control over the territories, and never committed to establishment of a standalone Palestine.
In May of this year, Canada joined the UK and France in affirming commitment to “recognizing a Palestinian state as a contribution to achieving a two-state solution and are prepared to work with others to this end.”
Ahead of the High Level International Conference at the UN in July of this year, the two convening nations, France and Saudi Arabia, in their concept note, declared that the international consensus on the two-State solution “still enjoys near-universal support” and that it is “clearly the only way to satisfy the legitimate aspirations, in accordance with international law, of both Israelis and Palestinians…and create the conditions for regional peace and stability”. Taking a swipe at the failure of previous peace efforts, the statement stated that “the aim of this international conference would not be to ‘revive’ or to ‘relaunch’ another endless process, but to implement, once and for all, the two-State solution.”
CONCLUSION
There is no other agreed international standard
We can acknowledge that there are segments of Israeli and Palestinian populations that claim they each want a single state, from the river to the sea, but they are both talking about completely different outcomes. There is no international agreed consensus in favour of a single democratic, secular state solution that has been agreed by both sides. There is no consensus, therefore, either for an all-Israel (Zionist) position, nor an all-Arab Palestine. There is support for an eventual binational or federal state as a stepping stone to a futuristic single secular democratic state, but nothing exists officially within the international legal or political consensus. We are much further from that ideal than we are from a two-state solution. In other words, any other option still requires two states first (whether a single binational state, a single federal state with two components, or an eventual single secular democratic state, which would be neither Jewish nor Islamic.)
It is infeasible in the current climate of hostilities for the populations within Palestine-Israel to achieve a mutually agreed solution by themselves, and certainly not without international commitment and almost certainly also protective corridors and enforcement.
One proposal, as put forward by the Rideau Institute, is to establish a UN Transitional Administration for Palestine (UNTAP).[12] “Its mandate would be to provide interim governance and security throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) while building local capacity for self-governance, in preparation for free and fair elections which UNTAP would organize and carry out.” UNTAP would be supported by a militarily robust UN-authorized security force — until military peacekeepers could deploy to UNTAP.
Along these lines, a recent statement by the Palestinian Prime Minister, Mohammed Mustafa at the UN Two-State Solution conference, indicated that the State of Palestine would welcome a UN Security Council resolution implementing a “temporary Arab and international support force”, to ensure a ceasefire and support Palestinian Government and security services — “and not as a substitute for it”.
As UN Secretary-General Guterres stated at the same conference[11], in New York, on July 28:
“The only realistic, just, and sustainable solution is two States — Israel and Palestine — living side by side in peace and security, within secure and recognized borders, on the basis of the pre-1967 lines, with Jerusalem as the capital of both — in line with international law, UN resolutions and other relevant agreements. Two States recognized by all and fully integrated into the international community. But, time is running out. With every passing day, trust is slipping, institutions are weakened and hopes are dashed. That is why I implore the international community not only to keep the two-State solution alive, but to take the urgent, concrete, irreversible steps necessary to make it real.”
Rescinding or withdrawing or repudiating Resolution 181 at this juncture is magical thinking -- the idea of negating a 1947 era resolution that has been endorsed ever since by most states, including Israel at one time, the PLO and Palestinian Authority, and the Arab League. However benign might be the intention, however unfair the original partition, rescinding 181 now, as has been proposed here by our opponents, is unworkable and (because it would disrupt the international consensus that establishes two states in the region) it is also dangerous. It would encourage the extremists on both sides. At the critical point we are at, it would be the worst possible idea, the last thing we need, and we should reject it.
END NOTES
[1] [The Arab Committee rejected both minority and majority proposals.] Three members of the UNSCOP (UN Special Committee on Palestine), India, Iran and Yugoslavia, proposed a federal state model – two states with two governments beneath a federal government structure with authority over different functions -- but it was rejected by the majority in favour of the majority proposal, which was adopted. UNSCOP members were: Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay, and Yugoslavia.
[2] In favour: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela.
Against: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.
Abstaining: Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia. [UK position: ]
[3] Resolution ES-10/23
[4] Those nine were Argentina, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea and the United States.
[5] In July 2024, the Israeli Knesset voted overwhelmingly (68-9) against the establishment of a Palestinian state, even if part of a negotiated settlement.
[6] According to the AFP database: 142. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250728-no-alternative-to-two-state-solution-for-israel-palestinians
[7] See also on the Illegality of Israeli Settlements in Palestinian Territory Occupied Since 1967, Resolution 2334 (2016) Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,
[8] UN Security Council proposed a 3-phase ceasefire deal to end war in Gaza – Adopted resolution [S/RES/2735 (2024)] at its 9650th meeting
10 June 2024
Resolution 2735 (2024)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 9650th meeting, on 10 June 2024
[9] https://www.icj-cij.org/node/204176 Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024. “The involvement of the United Nations organs, and before that the League of Nations, in questions relating to Palestine dates back to the Mandate System. Since resolution 181 (II) concerning the partition of Palestine was adopted by the General Assembly in 1947, the Palestinian question has been before the General Assembly, which has considered, debated and adopted resolutions on it almost annually.”
[10] Pre-Trial Chamber I noted that, among similarly worded resolutions, the General Assembly of the United Nations in Resolution 67/19 “[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”. On this basis, the Chamber found that the Court’s territorial jurisdiction in the Situation in Palestine extends to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, namely Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
67/19: Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 ; Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
[11] Officially called the High-level International Conference for the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution
[12] The precedent is East Timor: UN Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET). Acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the UN Security Council authorized UNTAET: To provide security and maintain law and order throughout the territory of East Timor;To establish an effective administration;To assist in the development of civil and social services; To ensure the coordination and delivery of humanitarian assistance, rehabilitation and development assistance; To support capacity-building for self-government (which included in turn, to plan, organize and hold elections); and To assist in the establishment of conditions for sustainable development.