The UN’s double standard toward Israel exposes its moral bankruptcy - opinion

The United Nations was founded to help the nations of the world confront the horrors of war, genocide, poverty, and ignorance.

Yet when it comes to Israel, its institutions behave as though they must save the world from the Jewish state.

An organization that claims to speak for universal morality does not apply the same moral standards to everyone. When human rights become a selective instrument, justice gives way to politics and the hypocrisy becomes impossible to ignore.

The expansion of the UN database of companies connected to Israeli settlements in the West Bank illustrates the problem, and according to published reports, the updated list includes 214 companies.

The database is not a criminal judgment, and the companies should not be portrayed as though they have been convicted of wrongdoing. Nevertheless, their inclusion provides ammunition for boycott campaigns.

Anyone who believes this pressure harms only Israelis should also ask what will happen to the livelihoods of Palestinian employees.

The problem extends far beyond a single list. Item 7 on the agenda of the UN Human Rights Council reserves a permanent discussion exclusively for Israel and the Palestinian territories.

In September 2024, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution by a vote of 124 to 14 demanding that Israel end its presence in the territories within one year.

UN's determination in confronting Israel

It is difficult to ignore the contrast between the determination shown toward Israel and the helplessness displayed in confronting dictatorships. A numerical majority is not a certificate of moral legitimacy.

Russia, which invaded Ukraine, and China, which represses the Uyghurs, hold permanent seats and veto power on the UN Security Council. This illustrates the gap between political power and moral authority.

A shameful precedent was established in 1975, when General Assembly Resolution 3379 declared that Zionism was a form of racism. Chaim Herzog, then Israel’s ambassador to the UN and later its president, tore up the resolution during his address.

The resolution was revoked in 1991, but the temptation to deny the Jewish people their national rights through an international vote did not disappear. Herzog understood that a majority vote cannot make a UN-sealed document inherently just.

During Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address, representatives of countries that have themselves faced accusations of war crimes and genocide ostentatiously walked out of the hall. It demonstrated the two-faced nature of this organization.

French President Emmanuel Macron, who has already lost the confidence of many of his voters, is searching for a scapegoat to attack while appealing to Muslim citizens whose votes he needs. To achieve this, he presents recognition of a Palestinian state as a diplomatic breakthrough.

But declaring a state is no substitute for providing a security solution. Macron should ask himself who will prevent a terrorist organization from taking control of this proposed state.

The Palestinian Authority supposedly governs the West Bank, but Hamas continues to operate there as a terrorist organization carrying out attacks against Israel.

That is precisely why Macron’s declarations are hollow and fail the reality test on the ground. His stated support for disarming Hamas must be judged by actions, not by speeches delivered from a podium.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez lectures Israel in the name of a strict moral standard, but Spain should remember the Inquisition and the expulsion of the Jews. That history creates a responsibility to exercise caution before demonizing Jews and their state.

He has described Israel’s war against Hamas as “genocide.” If that is truly his position, then he should help and allow any Palestinian from Gaza who wishes to do so to relocate to Spain.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer cannot speak as though Britain arrived at this point in history with clean hands. The 1939 White Paper severely restricted Jewish immigration at a time when the Jews of Europe were desperately searching for a way to escape.

After World War II, Jewish immigrants, including Holocaust survivors, were imprisoned in detention camps in Cyprus. Britain’s colonial past should remain before Starmer’s eyes. It demands humility and self-criticism. Lectures are difficult to accept when Britain’s own national memory has apparently been forgotten.

In Norway, official data indicate that some immigrant groups are disproportionately represented among suspects in criminal offenses, including rape and looting. This does not justify condemning all immigrants. But a government that lectures other countries should be expected to confront its own failures honestly.

The hypocrisy has also reached the musical stage. Public broadcasters from Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Iceland boycotted the 2026 Eurovision Song Contest because of Israel’s participation.

Music is supposed to connect people even when they disagree. Instead, it has become another national barrier, a protest against a government.

Excluding Israelis from the stage does not necessarily advance reconciliation or peace. It teaches that boycotts are the weapon of those who cannot contend with the truth.

The Netherlands has already imposed restrictions on bringing products from Israeli settlements into the country, including in personal luggage. The prospect of a gift or food product becoming the subject of punitive enforcement is deeply troubling.

Qatar, which hosted the Hamas leadership, continues to enjoy the mediator status. Iran, which financed and armed terrorist organizations, speaks in the name of justice while its repressive regime has killed tens of thousands of its own citizens.

Saudi Arabia, which has suffered attacks by the Houthis and other Iranian-backed forces, should understand very well who threatens the region. Condemning Israel is not a strategy for confronting missiles that are also aimed at Saudi territory.

In Africa, the human cost of the international system’s weakness has been exposed repeatedly. The UN failed to prevent the genocide in Rwanda. Atrocities continued in Darfur, where UN investigators concluded that genocide was being committed.

The repression in Iran has also been condemned, but the question remains why these condemnations are not translated into effective protection. A resolution that does not stop the murderers offers little comfort to their victims.

Israel has a duty to expose the double standard practiced by the leaders of UN member states and to denounce a system that gives a political majority permission to stigmatize one country.

As long as it remains easier to place an Israeli company on a blacklist than to stop murderers, the flags of the world’s nations will continue to fly above the moral bankruptcy of this organization.

The writer is the CEO of Radios 100fm, an honorary consul and vice dean of the Consular Diplomatic Corps, and president of the Israel Amateur Radio Club. He previously served as a monitor for Israel’s Army Radio and as a correspondent for NBC News.