By HFI staff
The United Nations was established in the aftermath of World War II with a stated mission to "maintain international peace and security," to "develop friendly relations among nations," to "achieve international co-operation in solving international problems," and to serve as "a center for harmonizing the actions of nations." (United Nations Charter, 1945)
These are important and noble goals. They are built upon principles of fairness, human rights, and the equal treatment of nations. More than eighty years later, however, a question worth asking is whether those principles are being applied equally to all countries.
Consider the following figures.
According to UN Watch, the United Nations General Assembly adopted 14 resolutions concerning Israel in 2023, compared to seven concerning the rest of the world combined. In 2024, UN Watch reported that the General Assembly adopted 17 resolutions concerning Israel and six concerning all other countries combined.
The pattern extends beyond the General Assembly. According to UN Watch's published comparisons, since 2006, the United Nations Human Rights Council has adopted 112 resolutions concerning Israel, compared to 45 concerning Syria, 16 concerning Iran, 11 concerning Russia, and four concerning Venezuela.
The numbers raise an important question. What explains such a disproportionate focus on one nation? This pattern did not begin on October 7, 2023. Yet the aftermath of Hamas's massacre made the question much harder to ignore.
Criticism of Israel, like criticism of any country, can be legitimate. Nations should be judged fairly and honestly. The question is not whether Israel should be criticized. The question is whether the same standards are being applied to everyone else.
Many UN resolutions concerning Israel use the language of international law and humanitarian concern. Yet critics have long argued that these resolutions often fail to fully address the role of Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other extremist groups that deliberately place civilians in danger.
This omission matters because context matters. Hamas embeds itself within civilian areas, builds tunnels beneath communities, uses humanitarian infrastructure for military purposes, fires rockets from populated neighborhoods, and has repeatedly been accused of stealing or manipulating aid. When discussions focus primarily on Israel's response while giving comparatively less attention to the tactics that placed civilians in danger in the first place, an incomplete picture emerges.
At the same time, authoritarian regimes continue to imprison political opponents, religious minorities face persecution in many parts of the world, and armed groups commit atrocities against civilian populations. Against that backdrop, the level of attention devoted to Israel naturally raises questions about priorities and consistency.
If there was ever a moment when moral clarity should have been straightforward, it was October 7, 2023. On that day, Hamas terrorists invaded southern Israel and carried out one of the deadliest attacks against the Jewish people since the Holocaust. Families were murdered in their homes. Young people attending the Nova music festival were hunted down. Men, women, children, and elderly people were kidnapped and taken into Gaza as hostages. Reports of sexual violence began emerging almost immediately.
One might have expected the international response to focus first on the victims, the hostages, and the crimes that had been committed. Instead, parts of the UN system responded with hesitation and, in some cases, silence.
One of the most painful examples involved the delayed recognition of the sexual crimes committed during the October 7 attacks. For months, the suffering of Israeli women did not receive the same urgent attention that victims of conflict-related sexual violence have rightly received in other conflicts around the world.
The silence was particularly troubling because these institutions exist to advocate for women and girls regardless of nationality, religion, or politics.
Only in March 2024 did Pramila Patten, the UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict, publish a report following an official visit to Israel. The report found reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred in multiple locations during the October 7 attacks. It also found clear and convincing information that hostages held in Gaza had been subjected to sexual violence.
The report was significant because it provided official recognition of what survivors, witnesses, first responders, and forensic evidence had already pointed to. The delay was difficult to understand. Institutions created to defend victims of sexual violence are expected to respond consistently regardless of their background.
Another question worth asking is whether a clear distinction has always been made between Israel and the terrorist organizations attacking it. Israel is a democratic state with elections, courts, a free press, and internal mechanisms of accountability. Like every nation, its policies can be debated, challenged, and criticized. Hamas is a terrorist organization whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel. Its methods include massacre, kidnapping, sexual violence, rocket attacks against civilians, and the use of human shields.
These are not equivalent actors. To place Israel and Hamas on the same moral plane is not balanced. It raises serious questions about judgment and proportionality.
The controversy surrounding UNRWA has further contributed to concerns about the UN's neutrality. Following October 7, Israel presented evidence that UNRWA employees were involved in the massacre and that Hamas had infiltrated parts of the agency's infrastructure, including elements of its educational system.
The allegations generated international concern because humanitarian organizations depend upon neutrality and public trust. If a humanitarian agency is infiltrated by members of a terrorist organization, or if its facilities are exploited for extremist purposes, the consequences extend far beyond administrative failures.
Palestinian civilians need humanitarian assistance. Few would dispute that. The question is whether that assistance is being delivered through mechanisms that can be trusted by all parties involved.
The implications extend beyond Israel.
International institutions depend upon public trust. When large numbers of people perceive that similar situations are not being treated according to the same standards, confidence in those institutions inevitably suffers.
Human rights organizations play an important role in confronting injustice and defending vulnerable populations. Their effectiveness depends not only on their mission but also on their credibility. When that credibility is questioned, their ability to fulfill that mission is weakened.
Every nation should be accountable for its actions and subject to the same standards. The question is whether those standards are being applied consistently. The United Nations was founded on principles of fairness, human rights, and equal treatment. Those principles remain worthy of respect and defense.
After examining the resolutions, the response to October 7, the treatment of Israeli victims, and the numbers themselves, each reader must decide whether those principles are being applied consistently.
The numbers speak for themselves.