I have tried and failed to think of any actual evidence provided by you.
I believe you are driven only by prejudice.

From "Canada Free Press" on UN membership.

, the committee members considered whether the existing Palestinian governing entity met the criteria for statehood, was peace-loving, and was willing and able to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter.

By all objective measures, the Palestinians fail on all counts. But the UN is anything but objective when it comes to the Palestinian issue.

For example, regarding the criterion of statehood, the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States is generally considered as the best source for defining the international law standard. It is referenced in the admissions committee report.

The Montevideo Convention declares that in order for an entity to be considered a state under international law it should possess a permanent population, a defined territory, effective government control and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

Given the prevailing support in the United Nations for a two-state solution based on the pre-1967 lines, with East Jerusalem as the capital of the independent state of Palestine, there was little discussion in the report about the lack of secure and recognized boundaries agreed upon with Israel pursuant to negotiations, as called for by Security Council Resolution 242. This failure to meet the defined territory statehood requirement should be enough to disqualify the Palestinian UN application since it does not meet the first threshold of statehood. Instead, according to the report, the committee members "stressed that the lack of precisely settled borders was not an obstacle to statehood."

Some committee members did express doubts regarding the Palestine Authority's control over all current Palestinian territory and governance of the entire Palestinian population, in light of the fact that Hamas is the de facto authority in the Gaza Strip and is in control of forty percent of the population of Palestine. However, other committee members were reported to be of the view that "the Israeli occupation was preventing the Palestinian government from exercising full control over all of its territory." In other words, this point of view held that Hamas's bloody coup in Gaza, throwing out the members of Abbas's government and Fatah Party, was somehow all Israel's fault. By laying the blame on Israel, the Palestinians get a free pass for their own inability to demonstrate the capacity for self-government under a single authority.

With regard to the UN Charter's requirement that an applicant be "peace-loving," the view was expressed, according to the report, "that Palestine fulfilled this criterion in light of its commitment to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." However, this was disputed by some committee members who pointed to Hamas's refusal to refrain from the threat or the use of force in the conduct of its international relations.

The Palestinians' supporters dismiss the relevance of Hamas's actions because they were not those of the Palestinians' recognized governmental authority - the Palestinian Authority or PLO. This circular reasoning ignores that attempts are underway to bring Hamas into a unity government without requiring it to first renounce all acts of terrorism and recognize Israel's right to exist.

The majority of UN members fall hook, line and sinker for the Palestinians' victimhood narrative, casting Israel as the villainous oppressor. The truth is precisely the opposite. The Palestinians want a state of their own with the inalienable right of self-determination to decide its character, but continue to reject the Israelis' own inalienable right of self-determination to live securely in the manner they choose to live - as a Jewish state.