IARA DIRCIE—On November 29, 1947, the United Nations (“UN”) Resolution 181—known as the Partition Plan—proposed dividing Mandatory Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state, with Jerusalem under an international regime. However, what the UN envisioned as a path to peace and harmony instead sparked immediate internal conflict in the region. When Israel, acting in accordance with the Partition Plan, declared independence on May 14, 1948, five Arab nations invaded the new state, leading to what came to be known as the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. As the UN attempted to broker two ceasefire agreements, fighting continued until 1949, when all of Israel’s neighboring countries signed the General Armistice Agreements. These agreements granted Israel more land than originally allocated in the Partition Plan—highlighting the shortcomings of the UN’s efforts to implement a sustainable solution to the region’s conflicts.
Perhaps because of the UN’s integral role in the founding of Israel, the organization has assumed a somewhat parental role, keeping the state under a watchful eye. Nevertheless, the organization seems to have taken a “helicopter parent” approach to its charge, overanalyzing and chastising the state disproportionately compared to other nations within the organization. In 2022, the UN General Assembly adopted 15 resolutions condemning Israel, while other countries were condemned only 13 times combined. Notably, in 2023, Israel was condemned twice as often as the rest of the world, with 14 resolutions passed against Israel and only 7 against other nations.
Several countries not condemned by the United National General Assembly include Venezuela, Pakistan, and Turkey. Yet, around the same time that Israel faced backlash over these resolutions, Venezuela was accused of jailing political opponents, allowing authorities to persecute human rights defenders, and permitting police to kill and torture individuals in marginalized communities. Pakistani agencies blocked television channels that criticized the government and refused to reform blasphemy laws, which allows the death penalty for anyone who speaks sacrilegiously against Islam. Turkish officials brought terrorism charges against human rights defenders and occupied Syrian territories, where they restricted civilians’ freedoms. All these human and civil rights violations occurred in the same year as Israel’s alleged violations. So why was Israel condemned 14 times while these countries faced no such repercussions?
According to the United States Department of State, one example of antisemitism is “(a)pplying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” While Venezuela is no longer considered a democracy, Pakistan and Turkey continue to be regarded as one, which begs the question: is the UN holding Israel to an antisemitic double standard? This appears to be the only logical conclusion, as none of these countries have faced condemnation from the UN General Assembly for committing civil rights violations, while Israel received 14 different condemnations for its alleged human rights abuses.
The UN upholds three core principles in its peacekeeping efforts: (1) consent of the parties, (2) impartiality, and (3) the non-use of force except in self-defense and defense of the mandate. When evaluating the UN through the lens of impartiality, it is difficult to reconcile how an organization can serve impartially while repeatedly demonstrating a double standard. Impartiality is essential to the UN’s obligation to function as a neutral and unbiased institution. If the organization favors, or disfavors, one nation, it compromises its role as an impartial mediator and protector of international peace and security.
Furthermore, the UN prides itself on treating all member states equally and fairly. In the UN Charter’s Preamble, the organization pledges to uphold the “equal rights of men and women and of nations…” Additionally, the international law principles of equality and non-discrimination prohibit organizations like the UN from disproportionately targeting specific countries. By scrutinizing Israel twice as much as all other countries combined, the UN itself may have violated international law, thereby undermining its legitimacy and weakening its authority on the global stage.
The UN can be a well-regulated, just, and effective organization if it takes its responsibilities seriously. The goal of the organization should not be to lower the bar for Israel, but rather to raise the bar for all democratic and non-democratic member states alike. Rather than halt admonitions of Israel, the UN must take a closer look at the various countries within its organization and hold them as equally accountable as Israel. Only then will the UN transform from a “helicopter parent” into an impartial and reputable international organization.
