Key Takeaways:
-
The UN’s structure enables an automatic majority that repeatedly targets Israel through resolutions driven by Arab and Islamic states, often backed by authoritarian regimes and supported by parts of Europe.
-
UN bodies and officials frequently show selective outrage, remaining largely silent on mass atrocities like Iran’s crackdown on protesters while quickly condemning Israel.
-
A network of NGOs, UN officials, and media outlets can amplify unverified claims into widely accepted narratives, with little accountability for those shaping them.
For most people, the United Nations represents the pinnacle of international legitimacy.
But for Hillel Neuer, who has spent two decades inside its chambers, the reality is far more complicated.
“I know, and it’s been reported by several media outlets, that I am the most hated man at the UN,” Neuer says. “That’s not hyperbole. I feel it.”
As Executive Director of UN Watch, Neuer has made a career out of confronting what he describes as systemic bias and political distortion at the world body. His speeches regularly go viral. His criticism regularly draws backlash.
And yet, he keeps going back.
A System That Targets One Country
Every year, the UN General Assembly passes dozens of resolutions. A disproportionate number focus on one country.
Between 2015 and 2024, the UN General Assembly passed 173 resolutions against Israel and just 80 against every other country combined. Neuer says this is not incidental; it’s structural.
When people hear that “the UN condemned Israel,” he explains, they often assume a neutral, unified body speaking with moral authority. In reality, it is a voting system driven by blocs.
“The resolutions on Israel are typically introduced by the Palestinians with the support of Arab and Islamic states,” he says. “You have about 56 Muslim-majority countries. Then add dictatorships like North Korea, Cuba, Belarus. Very quickly, you get what we call the automatic majority.”
That majority, he adds, is often reinforced by Western democracies. “Many European countries vote for about two-thirds of these resolutions. They go along to get along.”
From Idealism to Political Power
The UN was not always like this.
Neuer points to Eleanor Roosevelt, who helped shape the early human rights framework. “She was the great humanitarian of the age,” he says. “Then you fast forward, and the chair becomes the representative of the Gaddafi regime.”
What changed was not just leadership, but composition.
As decolonization expanded UN membership in the mid-20th century, the balance shifted toward regimes that were often authoritarian and aligned against Western democracies. “By the 1960s, you had an anti-Western coalition led by the Soviet Union,” Neuer explains. “If you couldn’t attack the U.S. directly, you attacked Israel.”
Over time, he argues, the Human Rights Council (and its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights) became a place where governments sought not to uphold rights, but to shield themselves from scrutiny.
“Members were there not to promote human rights, but to protect their own records of abuse,” he says, echoing criticisms once voiced by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, whose term .
“There are 56 Islamic states and only one Jewish state,” he says. “Countries want to stay in their good graces.”
Economic leverage also plays a role. “Qatar could invest billions in your country or not, depending how you vote.”
Then there are the security concerns. “Countries may fear terrorism from groups like Hamas or Hezbollah if they take a principled stand.”
But there is also something impossible to ignore, and harder to quantify. “Sometimes it’s realpolitik. But sometimes it’s anti-Semitism. Both are factors.”
The UN’s Silence on Iran
If structural bias explains part of the story, Neuer says recent events highlight something deeper: selective outrage.
He points to the Iranian regime’s crackdown on mass protests, which he describes as one of the most significant human rights crises in recent years. “The reaction was mostly crickets,” he says.
According to Neuer, the Human Rights Council delayed action for weeks. Most UN rapporteurs remained silent. Statements, when they came, were muted. Then, when the United States and Israel struck Iranian regime targets, the response shifted dramatically.
“Suddenly the UN springs into action,” he says. “Multiple bodies condemn the U.S. and Israel. They say they care about victims in Iran.”
The contrast, he argues, is stark. “You were silent when tens of thousands were massacred. Now that the regime is being targeted, you claim to care?”
The Rapporteur Problem
One of the least understood parts of the UN system, Neuer says, is the role of “independent” experts known as rapporteurs.
“They’re not member states. They’re not UN employees. They’re unpaid and don’t really answer to anyone,” he explains.
Among them is Francesca Albanese, whose statements on Israel have drawn widespread criticism. Neuer says attempts to challenge or remove rapporteurs face significant obstacles.
“The Secretary-General can’t fire them. The Human Rights Council won’t remove them because they have majority support. And the internal oversight bodies are essentially their peers.”
In practice, he says, accountability is nearly nonexistent.
How Narratives Are Built
Beyond resolutions and speeches, Neuer describes a broader ecosystem that shapes global narratives.
It often begins with a claim from a militant group or aligned NGO. That claim is then picked up by a UN official or report. “Now it becomes a UN statement. It has the imprimatur of international legitimacy,” he says.
From there, media outlets amplify it. “The BBC, the New York Times, the Guardian — they cite the UN. And now it goes around the world.”
Even when claims are later disputed, the initial narrative can stick. “For many people, once the UN said it, that’s enough.
Few examples illustrate this, Neuer argues, more clearly than Agenda Item 7. At the UN Human Rights Council, every session includes a standing agenda item focused not on North Korea, or Syria, or China, but exclusively on Israel.
For Neuer, this is not a minor issue. “It shows that the bias is not incidental. It’s institutionalized.”
Can the UN Be Fixed?
Despite his criticism, Neuer does not dismiss the UN entirely. “It’s a global podium,” he says. “When we’re allowed to speak, it’s an opportunity to tell the truth.”
But meaningful reform, he acknowledges, would require major political shifts. “You’d need democracies to change how they vote. You’d need governments to stop going along with the majority.”
That, for now, remains unlikely. Still, he argues, engagement is necessary. “The UN is not going away. So the obligation is to push governments to uphold the values the UN was meant to represent.”
And yet, not everyone in that room agrees with the majority. “From time to time, people will quietly whisper to me: I agree with what you’re saying.” They just won’t say it out loud.
“Everyone wants to stay in good standing with the majority,” he says.
In a system driven by votes, alliances, and pressure, even silence can be strategic. But, as Neuer sees it, silence also has consequences.
And that is precisely why he keeps speaking.
Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region. Get updates direct to your phone. Join our WhatsApp and Telegram channels!
