The United Nations envisaged as an example of global unity and peace, increasingly faces criticism for its perceived ideological biases and systemic inefficiencies. While the organisation has played vital roles in several humanitarian crises, its shortcomings—ranging from a lack of impartiality to double standards in conflict resolution—have marred its legacy. Nowhere is this more evident than in its approach to Israel and the broader Middle East, where accusations of antisemitism, appeasement, and inaction echo loudly.
The October 7 Hamas attack on Israel was a moment of reckoning. Many United Nations agencies displayed troubling biases that compromised their neutrality in its aftermath. These agencies, entrusted with safeguarding humanitarian principles, seemed to prioritise political narratives over factual reporting. For instance, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has been criticised for its disproportionate focus on Israeli military actions while omitting Hamas’s atrocities. Reports suggest OCHA’s reliance on information from Hamas-controlled sources, raising serious doubts about the objectivity and reliability of its data.
Further compounding the issue, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) has faced allegations of harbouring militants within its ranks. Recent Israeli intelligence revealed that senior UNRWA educators in Gaza, including school principals, were linked to Hamas. Allegations of employing individuals linked to Hamas or Islamic Jihad in its schools are deeply concerning.
Documents seized by Israel reveal that several UNRWA staff members were active participants in militant activities. Such findings undermine the agency’s credibility and mandate to maintain neutrality in conflict zones. Despite these revelations, UNRWA has failed to conduct thorough investigations or dismiss implicated employees.
The agency’s refusal to publicly commit to firing staff with proven links to terror organisations casts a shadow over its operations. By neglecting its duty to maintain neutrality, UNRWA endangers its beneficiaries and erodes trust in the broader UN system.
The ICC’s controversial move
In a dramatic development, the International Criminal Court (ICC) recently issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, accusing them of war crimes in Gaza. The ICC’s actions, however, have drawn fierce backlash, with Israel denouncing the court as a "biased and discriminatory political body."
These charges, Israel argues, disregard the context of its military actions against a terror organisation like Hamas, which has a documented history of using civilians as human shields and targeting Israeli populations.
Historical roots of UN bias
The UN’s bias against Israel is not new. Critics have long highlighted the disproportionate focus on Israel in the UN General Assembly, where resolutions condemning the country far exceed those against nations with far graver human rights abuses. This tendency, rooted in the organisation’s evolving membership, reflects a structural imbalance. As former Israeli Ambassador Dore Gold noted in ‘Tower of Babble’, the United Nations’ moral clarity has waned, diluted by including regimes with questionable democratic credentials.
The decision to hold a moment of silence for North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il in 2011 while ignoring similar tributes for democratic leaders like Václav Havel epitomises the inconsistency. Such actions tarnish the UN’s image as a neutral global peace and justice arbiter.
OCHA’s failures: A case study
OCHA’s reporting in the Israeli-Palestinian context reveals a troubling pattern of bias. It systematically underreports violence against Israeli civilians while amplifying allegations against Israel. For example, OCHA often relies on data provided by Hamas-controlled sources, presenting unverified claims as factual. Its failure to report Hamas’s use of human shields and the abuse of humanitarian resources further underscores its lack of impartiality.
In recent reports, OCHA highlighted civilian casualties in Gaza without distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants, a standard practice in other conflicts. Such omissions distort the narrative and fuel unwarranted international condemnation of Israel. By selectively applying reporting standards, OCHA undermines its credibility and violates the core humanitarian principles of neutrality and impartiality.
A broader crisis of credibility and lessons for reform
The United Nations’ bias against Israel is not confined to specific agencies. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has faced criticism for legitimising double standards and adopting a selective approach to antisemitism. For instance, Guterres justified including Israel in the annual Children and Armed Conflict (CAAC) report based on flawed data that failed to distinguish between genuine violations and minor incidents like exposure to tear gas.
Similarly, UN Women has been accused of ignoring the plight of Israeli women subjected to sexual violence and torture during the October 7 Hamas attack. Such omissions highlight the pervasive failure of the UN system to address issues impartially.
The United Nations must address its internal biases to remain credible in global governance. This begins with enforcing strict standards of neutrality and accountability within its agencies. Donor countries should condition their funding on adherence to these principles, ensuring that organisations like OCHA and UNRWA prioritise factual reporting and impartiality.
Additionally, the international community must hold the UN accountable for its failures. Agencies that deviate from their mandates should face independent audits and oversight. Transparency in data collection and reporting is crucial to rebuilding trust and credibility.
Israel’s response: A call for fairness
Israel’s criticism of the United Nations is not a rejection of its core ideals but a plea for fairness and justice. By exposing biases within UN agencies, Israel highlights the urgent need for systemic reform. A United Nations that adheres to its founding principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence is not just in Israel’s interest but essential for global peace and stability.
The United Nations belongs to humanity, yet biases that compromise its mission undermine its credibility. The UN’s approach to Israel serves as a cautionary tale of how political agendas can infiltrate supposedly neutral institutions. Reform is not merely a choice but an imperative.
Addressing its systemic flaws can help the UN reclaim its role as a genuine arbiter of peace and justice. For this to happen, its member states, agencies, and leaders must commit to transparency, impartiality, and accountability. Only then can the United Nations fulfil its promise of serving all nations fairly and equitably.
The writer is the Director of the Centre for Legislative Research and Advocacy, New Delhi.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of THE WEEK.
