Something exceedingly rare occurred at the United Nations on Nov. 6. Simply put, Israel was treated like a normal member state.
Well, almost.
The occasion was the election of Shai Mizrahi, a senior official in the Israeli State Comptroller’s office, to serve on the United Nations Independent Audit Advisory Committee, which advises the General Assembly on key financial matters.
Even as he acknowledged the constant opprobrium directed at Israel from within the halls of the U.N., Israeli Ambassador Danny Danon deemed that Mizrahi’s appointment “demonstrates that Israeli professionalism, experience, and excellence continue to earn international recognition and appreciation.”
It was not all plain sailing, however. Under the U.N. convention, when the number of candidates equals the number of available seats, appointments are recommended by acclamation rather than by a vote. But not, apparently, in Mizrahi’s case.
Piqued at the thought of an Israeli in such an influential position, Kuwait submitted a request on behalf of the Arab Group at the U.N. for a secret ballot to approve Mizrahi. The gambit backfired spectacularly, with Mizrahi securing 134 votes in favor against 48 abstentions.
Among those who condemned the Kuwaiti move was U.S. Ambassador Jeff Bartos, who correctly pointed out that the objections to Mizrahi were not grounded in his competence or ability, but in his country of origin. “The calling for a vote on an uncontested clean slate … is only based on this individual’s nationality, faith, where they come from, what they believe,” Bartos said.
Kuwait’s insistence on submitting a candidate to a vote merely because he is an Israeli demonstrates that the systemic discrimination against the Jewish state at the U.N. remains pervasive.
Although Article 2.1 of the U.N.’s charter solemnly recognizes the “sovereign equality” of member states, that principle has been jettisoned in Israel’s case for at least half a century.
The original author of the anti-Israeli crusade at the U.N. was the Soviet Union, which pushed the 1975 General Assembly resolution, later rescinded, equating Zionism with racism. On the same day that resolution was passed, the General Assembly launched its “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People,” which aggressively promotes the “Right of Return” for the descendants of the Palestinian refugees from Israel’s 1948-49 War of Independence — an outcome that would mean the end of Israel as a state for the Jewish people. No other U.N. member state is the subject of a committee devoted to undermining its sovereign equality.
This discrimination can be found throughout the U.N.’s architecture. Every year, the U.N.’s Human Rights Council considers a dedicated agenda item, known as “Item 7,” on Israel’s alleged offenses. Many of the U.N.’s independent rapporteurs, most obviously Francesca Albanese, who holds the brief for the “occupied Palestinian territories,” spend disproportionate amounts of their time denouncing Israel.
According to Alice Edwards, a former special rapporteur on torture, in the wake of the Hamas atrocities of Oct. 7, 2023, the U.N.’s human rights mechanisms received 50 communications related to Israel’s conduct in Gaza as opposed to 10 in the case of the war in Sudan, arguably the world’s most desperate humanitarian emergency.
Critically, the year-round piling on Israel confounds U.S. interests as well. It promotes and encourages extremism among the Palestinians while confirming the fear of many Israelis that “the whole world is against us.”
Under the rubric of the U.N., the world has, by its actions, told the Palestinians they need not compromise or negotiate seriously with Israel.
The result has been years of unhinged and brutal violence that culminated in the horrors of the Oct. 7 slaughter.
Given the role of the U.S. in initiating the Abraham Accords between Israel and a slew of Arab and Muslim nations, as well as launching the Board of Peace to bring stability to post-war Gaza, it is clear that Washington has a vested interest in countering this barrage of propaganda.
ISRAEL’S CYBERSECURITY FIRMS PROTECT EVERYONE — INCLUDING ANTISEMITES
Indeed, the 2026 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill passed by Congress included the following language: “In considering bilateral assistance for a foreign government, the Secretary of State shall review, among other factors, the voting practices of such government in the United Nations in relation to United States strategic interests.” It is high time for the U.S. to remind all member states of this standard. As former Secretary of State John Kerry once said, “Foreign assistance is not a giveaway, it’s not charity. It is an investment in a strong America and in a free world.”
As it prepares to select a new secretary-general amid an unprecedented financial crisis, the U.N. faces a situation where it must adapt or die. It would be far better for the U.S. and the international community for the U.N. to adapt. That means, among other considerations, eliminating the committees, agencies, and practices which for decades have singled out Israel while delivering nothing of tangible benefit to the Palestinians.
Ben Cohen is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies specializing in international organizations. Gil Kapen is the executive director of the American Jewish International Relations Institute-B’nai B’rith International and a former Republican staffer on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.