The ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a focal point of international debate, often overshadowed by the actions and resolutions of global organizations. As a near-universal entity, the United Nations (UN) comprises 193 member states, including 22 Arab nations that are part of both the UN and the Arab League. This significant representation from the Middle East and North Africa allows these nations to wield considerable influence over UN discussions regarding political, economic, and cultural issues. However, this influence raises concerns about bias against Israel within these international institutions.
The UN’s bias against Israel is evident in the overwhelming support for pro-Palestinian positions among many of its member states. The bloc of Arab nations consistently backs anti-Israel resolutions, while much of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)—which includes around 120 countries from Africa, Asia, and Latin America—also tends to align with the Palestinians. Several European countries frequently endorse Palestinian statehood and criticize Israeli policies. This global coalition regularly mobilizes to pass resolutions that disproportionately target Israel, reflecting a focus on the country that often overshadows other pressing global conflicts.
Indeed, the bias against Israel within the United Nations is starkly evident, particularly in the actions of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Between 2012 and 2022, the UNHRC adopted 90 resolutions condemning Israel’s actions related to the Palestinian territories, making up approximately 47% of all country-specific resolutions. In contrast, only 13 resolutions were passed against Syria and 6 against Iran during the same period, despite ongoing and severe human rights violations in those countries.
The UN General Assembly also reflects this bias, adopting 17 resolutions against Israel in 2021 alone, compared to just 5 resolutions addressing Syria and 3 concerning human rights abuses in Myanmar. Since 2006, over 140 resolutions have targeted Israel, while North Korea and Iran faced only 37 and 11 resolutions, respectively, highlighting the disproportionate scrutiny Israel endures. Furthermore, from 2000 to 2019, long before the current war in Gaza, which erupted after the October 7th massacre by Hamas, out of 70 resolutions focused on the Middle East, 42 specifically criticized Israel. This stands in stark contrast to the minimal attention given to countries like Venezuela and Yemen, which are experiencing significant humanitarian crises but received far fewer resolutions. This overwhelming number of resolutions aimed at Israel raises serious questions about the UN’s impartiality and its commitment to addressing human rights issues globally.
The recent conflict that began on October 7, 2023, following a horrific Hamas massacre, has further illuminated this bias. The UN’s responses have often been framed in a manner that disproportionately emphasizes the actions of Israel while downplaying the violence instigated by Hamas. Calls for immediate ceasefires and humanitarian access are often directed towards Israel, ignoring the context of the aggression faced by the Israeli state. The imbalance in narrative continues to foster a perception that the UN prioritizes Palestinian perspectives over the complexities of the conflict.
The bias against Israel extends beyond the United Nations to other international organizations, notably the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC has been criticized for its focus on investigating alleged war crimes by Israel while neglecting similar inquiries into the actions of other nations. The current prosecutor, Karim Khan, of Lebanese descent—especially relevant given that Israel is currently in military conflict with his homeland—has previously made statements that suggest a lack of neutrality regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His past positions raise concerns about the impartiality of the ICC’s approach to Israel, as critics argue that his background may influence the court’s handling of cases involving Israeli actions. This perceived partiality further exacerbates the narrative of bias against Israel within the international legal framework, undermining the credibility of the ICC as a neutral arbiter of justice.
The evidence presented highlights a troubling pattern of bias against Israel in various international organizations, particularly the UN and the ICC. This trend not only raises questions about the impartiality of these institutions but also underscores the need for a more balanced approach to global human rights issues.
Comments: [email protected]
Autor: Dotan Rousso was born and raised in Israel, holds a Ph.D. in Law, and was a former criminal prosecutor in Israel. He lives in Alberta and teaches Philosophy at the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT).
