Surely most of the world, including most Israelis, believe there will soon be a new formal State called Palestine.
However international law and the United Nations Charter do not provide or permit just any proposed nation to be considered a State in the UN, and certainly not a right to be a UN Member or observer entity with powerful enhanced rights. In fact there are many dozens of national territories, mostly quite small, that are not yet or may not ever be UN members.
It is probably not common knowledge that it is contrary to the UN Charter, and grotesque to imagine Membership granted while Palestinians are at war with another member sovereign State, particularly while conducting the ultimate war crime of terrorism scores, even thousands of times. It is even personally painful, as well as politically grotesque, to see to the United Nations, [with which I have had some contact traveling in Europe with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 50 years ago, later chairing a UN Non-Governmental Organization, and when heading a major UN Development Program project in Pakistan,] being forced or blackmailed into accepting into Membership, or granting related powers, contrary to its basic agreed-upon principals as a result of widespread and continuing murderous violence and threats of expanded organized terrorism against unarmed civilians by that applicant.
In addition, international law even requires that to be a State an applicant needs to have formal boundaries, which have yet to be negotiated.
Forty years ago I discussed the key UN Security Council Resolution 242 with its Sponsor and Chief Writer, the British Permanent Representative, Lord Caradon. He confirmed to me that territorial lines in 242 were never considered national or State borders, but only a cease-fire line which consequently cut through villages and would legally and practically have to be changed in many instances by negotiation between the local parties
Major, critical policy divergence between Gaza and West Bank leadership suggests dropping the Two State Solution in favor of the sub-continental resolution: a Three State Solution I saw when serving there as a major United Nations official. Possibly membership, or at least Statehood, could be considered for a moderate, not terrorist and war-waging, West Bank State if the Indian/Pakistani/Bangladesh Three State route were taken.
Bob K. Bogen: BA Antioch College; MCP University of Pennsylvania; served as Long-Range Planning Director for the New York Metropolitan Regional Planning Commission, which ended in the South Tower of the World Trade Center; Planning Director for the New England Regional Commission; Comprehensive Planning Director or for the United Nations Development Program in Pakistan; Board Chairman of the Communications Committee for the United Nations; Principal Representative of Architects/ Designers/ Planners for Social Responsibility to the United Nations; and Chair of the Quaker Regional Committee for Peace and Social Order for eight Friends congregations in the New York Metropolitan Region.