Wednesday and Friday are big deadlines this week. The 15 members have to look over the report and make changes by Wednesday and the admissions committee meets Friday (which is likely to send it to the Security Council for a vote).
What is up for debate: whether the Palestinians have a defined territory, are a peace-loving state, and are able and willing to fulfill the obligations in the U.N. Charter.
Let's take a look at this.
Well, on the first item, Palestinians' territory is as defined as Israel's, if you think about it. If Israel's a member in good standing, Palestine absolutely should be.
A peace-loving state. I know some people will be "up in arms" about that one. But given Israel's use of disproportionate force, collective punishment, and ethnic cleansing on a captive population, causing humanitarian crises, economic collapse, and massacres, Palestine is at least as peace-loving as Israel.
Willing and able to fulfill obligations. Here we might have a problem. Willing is not a problem. The Palestinian leadership has shown it's eagerness to "fulfill obligations" by offering to give up nearly the full menu of rights just for acceptance. Able. Let's see. Israel won't allow Palestinians a military for their own self defense and frequently targets the police force and infrastructure for raids and deadly/destructive attacks. Able could be an issue.
So, what we have found is that either Israel should be kicked out of the UN and international community (let's make this pariah state thing official) or we should fast track this ending the occupation thing that we've all been neglecting (no, not peace talks, I mean ending the occupation), allow refugees to go home (as directed in the UN resolution that is ignored), and pressure for equality for all citizens (maybe start with creating an Israeli nationality, rather than just Jewish?) and let Palestine and Israel (or Israel/Palestine as a single state) in after the occupation is ended.
A few more details here: