Penn Raine: Is the UN provoking Jew fatigue?

Fellow Breaking Views bloggers have thoughtfully responded to my recent opinion on the continued rise of anti-Jewish rhetoric and violence current in Western democracies.

They suggested that credit points for the Holocaust- Shoah - have largely been spent and that the UN’s alleged factual reporting on humanitarian issues in Gaza, and Israel’s alleged crimes would anyway use up any remaining global sympathy.

The essence of the current zeitgeist suggests that because so-called reliable humanitarian actors, have told the world that there is a genocide in Gaza then it’s logically open season on Jews, wherever they live or whatever nationality they are.

‘Where are the Jews?’

In the 80 years since its Ratification the UN has promoted itself as the peacekeeper, arbiter of international decency and above all a neutral, fair and responsible voice.

Except when it isn’t.

The UN Special Rapporteur (UNSR) and Independent Experts’ mandates formally require that they report neutrally and impartially on human rights issues such as freedom of expression, access to food and housing and the well-being of women and children.

The summaries of their annual reports are the meat of global headlines and accorded a high level of reliability and trust. They are therefore what most news consumers read and believe uncritically.

The Rapporteurs and Experts are however, not employed by the UN exactly, in order that they remain free from political pressure. That is to say they are not paid a salary as they work pro bono although their expenses are covered and include annual travel to NY or Geneva to present reports and two visits to selected countries a year.

In practice the Rapporteurs’ impartiality is not reliable. UN Watch, the Geneva based NGO, monitors the United Nations and scrutinises its processes according to its mandate. It especially examines the Human Rights Council, and highlights cases where it believes UN mechanisms fail to uphold neutrality, due process, or equal treatment.

The ethics imprimatur of the UN is displayed to a credulous world as a holy thing but recent revelations about the actions of the rapporteurs make compelling reading.

UN Watch’s 2026 report documented with specific evidence instances of corruption, bias and failure of impartiality in thirteen of the UN’s mandate holders.

See also video presentations by Hillel Neuer, the executive director of UN Watch HERE and by Natasha Hausdorff, a British barrister who specialises in public international law, national security, and the law of armed conflict HERE.

The UN Special Rapporteur (UNSR) on Unilateral Coercive Measures received US$ 1.3 million from China, Qatar and Russia, and in her reports legitimised sanctioned regimes while criticising the West for imposing such sanctions.

The UNSR on Counterterrorism and Human Rights routinely criticises Western counterterrorism policies, while accepting US$150,000 from China and never presenting a statement on that country’s persecution of the Uyghur Muslims. Worldmetrics 2026 estimate between 50,000 and 2 million of this group may have died since 2017 as a result of Chinese state persecution.

The UNSR on Freedom of Expression devoted an entire report criticising Western states for alleged repression of Palestinian protests but ignored significant free-speech violations in Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Turkey and Iran.

It goes on.

The UNSRs for Counterterrorism and Human Rights, the Right to Health, the Right to Food, and the Independent Expert on Democratic and Equitable International Order are the most notable recent examples of rapporteurs who have financial conflicts of interest, ideological bias, and public alignment with authoritarian governments or armed groups.

Most chilling to watch is the video of Reem Alsalem’s refusal to engage with Ilana Gritzewsky, a former Hamas captive who testified to the UN about the sexual violence she endured at their hands. Alsalam, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, has repeatedly minimized or dismissed Hamas atrocities committed on October 7. As recently as April 2026, she refuted allegations of Hamas sexual crimes against Israelis as “misinformation” used to “justify the genocide against Palestinians.”

As an aside, the CIA World Factbook reports that Gaza’s population increased from 1,997,328 in 2022 to 2,098,389 in 2023 and to 2,141,643 in 2024 and a similar figure in 2025, indicating a growth of around 2.02% since 2023.

This should not be seen as minimising the casualties suffered in the conflict, many of them caused by Hamas’s policy of using its citizens as human shields for its military infrastructure, but if Israel were intending a genocide in Gaza this is a poor result.

Despite documented evidence against compromised UNSRs they cannot be removed by the Human Rights Council because the Council never instituted a removal process; they have also diplomatic immunity, can act with impunity and many are anyway appointed by the HRC whose members are largely antidemocratic.

It could be argued that the UNSRs are independents and their opinions should be expected and tolerated up to a point. However the UN itself shows explicit structural bias against Israel itself.

Consider that Israel is the only country that has a permanent agenda item which requires discussion at every session. This is not scrutiny that is given to Russia, North Korea or Syria. Because Israel is discussed at each session UNSRs are incentivised to produce reports that are condemnatory.

UN Watch reported that in the three years prior to 2026,106 joint statements on Israel were delivered from UNSRs, being more than double the number issued on Russia’s war in Ukraine and vastly more than the sixteen issued on Sudan’s civil war.

By contrast the rapporteur on the Palestinian territories is explicitly forbidden to report on rocket attacks on civilians, Hamas, sexual violence against hostages or the Islamic jihad.

Commentators assume that these anomalies exist in the UN’s Human Rights Commission because its members, elected politically not on merit, consist ironically of states such as China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia whose poor human rights records encourage them to support anti-Israel resolutions that deflect the magnifying glass from their own abuses.

The UN ratified the State of Israel in 1948 but its contemporary public statements, filtered and massaged by global media into anti-Jewish rhetoric, focus only on rebuking its reaction to the hostile jurisdictions surrounding it.

As a result now even Jews who are not Israeli citizens must be blamed for Israel’s actions and by this logic the pogroms must continue wherever Jewish communities exist.

If this scenario were reversed to highlight the abuses carried out by Iran and its proxies and democratic populations around the world began attacking the homes, mosques and business of Muslims, firebombing their vehicles, requiring their schools to have permanent security, the scalded outrage from media, NGOs and every liberal panting to show their compassionate credentials, would be heard from space.

Good job, UN.

Penn Raine is an educator and writer who lives in NZ and France.