On Tuesday, the third and final day of the JNS International Policy Summit in Jerusalem, a sharply critical panel took aim at what speakers described as deep-rooted institutional bias against Israel within the United Nations system, arguing that decades of diplomatic, legal, and humanitarian frameworks have been distorted into what they see as disproportionate scrutiny of the Jewish state.
The panel brought together Dan Mariaschin, CEO of B’nai B’rith International; Jonathan Harounoff, author and international spokesperson for Israel’s mission to the U.N.; Itamar Marcus, director of Palestinian Media Watch; and international human rights lawyer Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch.
Throughout the discussion, one theme kept resurfacing: that the United Nations, created in the aftermath of World War II to uphold equal sovereignty and prevent global conflict, has in practice developed what the speakers described as a structural and political imbalance in its treatment of Israel.
From awe to disillusionment
Dan Mariaschin opened with a personal memory that set the tone. He recalled being taken as a child in 1955 by his mother to see the newly built U.N. headquarters on First Avenue in New York. At the time, he said, the institution represented something close to idealism - hope, cooperation, and a belief in international order.
“She would be shocked,” he said, reflecting on how far, in his view, the organization has shifted since then.
Mariaschin argued that antisemitism has effectively become “an industry” within parts of the international system. He pointed to what he described as a long pattern of resolutions, conferences, and diplomatic initiatives that single out Israel, including the 2001 Durban Conference and its follow-up gatherings, which have been widely criticized by Israeli and Jewish organizations for legitimizing anti-Israel rhetoric.
He also noted structural exclusions that, in his view, underscore the imbalance—including the fact that Israel has never held a seat on the U.N. Security Council and is not placed within its own regional grouping for procedural purposes.
‘Obsessive focus on one state’
Jonathan Harounoff described the atmosphere facing Israeli diplomats at the United Nations as increasingly hostile over the past two years, calling it “tumultuous” and highly charged, both politically and emotionally.
He argued that the institution has developed what he called an “obsessive focus on only one nation state,” a dynamic he said has eroded its credibility and public trust.
Still, Harounoff suggested the system may be approaching a turning point. With U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres nearing the end of his term, a global process is already underway to select his successor.
Neuer noted that many of those shortlisted for the role have themselves said publicly that the organization is “broken” and in need of reform.
“2026 will be a make-or-break year for the U.N.,” he said, stressing that any change would depend on continued engagement rather than withdrawal.
Harounoff echoed that point, arguing that Israel and its supporters must “remain at the table” within U.N. structures, even while pushing back against what he sees as entrenched bias. At the same time, he said, there is a need to amplify voices that are often absent from international forums.
He also pointed to what he described as a broader cultural and informational struggle around Israel. As an example, he said the U.N. bookstore declined to stock his book Unveiled: Inside Iran’s #WomanLifeFreedom Revolt, on the grounds that it was not relevant - a claim he linked to a wider pattern of exclusion. He added that released hostage Eli Sharabi encountered similar barriers.
UNRWA and questions of mandate
A substantial part of the discussion focused on the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), with Itamar Marcus raising deeper questions about its mandate and role.
Marcus argued that UNRWA should be examined not only through the lens of operational shortcomings, but also in terms of what he described as structural issues embedded from the outset. He pointed to longstanding allegations involving neutrality—including school curricula, staff affiliations, and claims about the use of school facilities for terrorism purposes.
He asked whether UNRWA had simply deteriorated over time, or whether it had functioned as a political mechanism from the beginning.
Marcus also challenged the logic of its continued existence, arguing that the agency has helped entrench rather than resolve the Palestinian refugee issue. In his view, responsibility should instead be transferred to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which he said is better suited to long-term resettlement solutions.
From his perspective, continued reliance on UNRWA sustains a political framework that prevents resolution rather than advancing it.
‘A rules-based order must apply equally’
Hillel Neuer focused on what he described as a gap between the U.N.’s stated principles and its actual practices.
He said that while many governments and institutions speak about a “rules-based international order,” the United Nations itself does not always apply its own standards consistently - particularly when it comes to Israel.
Neuer pointed to what he called disproportionate procedural attention given to Israel within human rights mechanisms, including dedicated agenda time for Israel-related issues, while other global crises receive far less focus.
He also raised concerns about UNRWA, citing allegations that some individuals in educational leadership positions have had links to Hamas, arguing that this undermines the agency’s claims of neutrality.
For Neuer, the issue is less about political disagreement and more about consistency. If the U.N. is to maintain legitimacy, he said, it must apply its own charter and standards evenly across all member states.
What can be done?
The panel closed by turning to a practical question: what, if anything, can be done to address bias within the United Nations system?
The responses largely converged around three approaches - continued diplomatic engagement within U.N. institutions, coordinated advocacy among member states, and sustained efforts to shape public opinion internationally.
Despite the sharp criticism expressed throughout the discussion, there was agreement on one point: withdrawal from the United Nations is not seen as a viable option. Instead, the emphasis was on staying engaged, even within what the speakers described as a deeply flawed system.
