A coalition of roughly 80 countries used the United Nations gathering Thursday to demand the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and condemn Iranian and Houthi actions, as a separate 168-page study accused more than 30 U.N. bodies and mechanisms of maintaining disproportionate institutional scrutiny of Israel.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
The United Nations became the setting for two sharply different challenges to Iran and the international body’s own institutions Thursday, as about 80 countries demanded restoration of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz while an Israeli national-security think tank released a sweeping study alleging that anti-Israel bias has become embedded across dozens of U.N. bodies.
Bahrain’s Foreign Minister Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani delivered the multinational statement calling for the urgent reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical shipping route whose disruption has affected global trade and energy markets. The countries supporting the statement included Gulf Arab governments and major Western powers.
“Iran’s actions in the Strait of Hormuz continue to threaten international security and navigational rights and freedoms,” the statement said.
The group also condemned the renewed fighting involving Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthis.
“We also strongly condemn the Houthis’ decision to resume conflict in Yemen, their continuous strikes on Saudi Arabia, and their reckless attacks in the Red Sea,” the statement read.
The countries warned that a Houthi advance toward the Bab el-Mandeb Strait would create additional dangers for commercial shipping, maritime security and international trade. The narrow waterway connects the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and is another strategically important route for global commerce.
Iran and the Houthis have characterized their military actions as defensive rather than offensive.
The statement adds to international pressure over the Strait of Hormuz after months of disruption linked to the broader Middle East conflict. Earlier this year, Bahrain also led efforts at the U.N. Security Council focused on freedom of navigation in the Gulf, including international objections to Iranian interference with shipping through the strait.
Separate from the maritime dispute, a new study released Wednesday by Israel’s Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy argues that criticism of Israel within the United Nations is not confined to General Assembly resolutions or individual officials but is reinforced through a network of institutions, investigative mechanisms, specialized agencies and permanent mandates.
The 168-page report, The UN’s Anti-Israel Ecosystem: Mapping the Institutions, Mechanisms, and Resources Behind the Campaign Against Israel, was written by Adi Schwartz and Asher Fredman with assistance from Noam Yakoby. The institute describes its findings as a systematic examination of dozens of U.N. bodies and officeholders whose work relates to Israel and the Palestinians.
The authors contend that more than 30 U.N. agencies, committees and mechanisms form what they describe as a “vast, complex, and interconnected ecosystem” in which political institutions establish mandates, humanitarian and technical bodies generate information and subsequent U.N. entities cite those findings.
According to the report, the result is a “self-reinforcing institutional echo chamber” in which claims produced within one part of the U.N. system may be cited elsewhere as though they represent separate confirmation.
One of the report’s central arguments concerns the number of General Assembly resolutions directed at Israel.
Citing data compiled by UN Watch, the authors say the General Assembly adopted 187 condemnatory resolutions concerning Israel from 2015 onward — more than twice the combined number directed at Russia, China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Myanmar, Qatar, Pakistan, Cuba and Venezuela during the same period.
The comparison is presented by Misgav as evidence of disproportionate scrutiny. The number of resolutions alone does not establish whether any individual resolution was justified, but the authors argue that the disparity demonstrates a structural difference in how Israel is treated compared with other countries.
The report also points to the U.N. Human Rights Council, where Israel is the only country addressed through a permanent country-specific agenda item at every regular session.
Misgav further cites an open-ended Commission of Inquiry concerning Israel and the Palestinian territories, an indefinite special rapporteur mandate focused on Israeli conduct and permanent institutions devoted specifically to Palestinian issues.
Those institutions include the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the Division for Palestinian Rights, the United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine, the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices and UNRWA.
The Misgav authors argue that no comparable institutional structure exists specifically to represent or examine Israeli interests and experiences.
They also scrutinized agencies whose principal mandates are humanitarian, health, development or cultural rather than political, including the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, UNICEF, UN Women, the World Health Organization, the United Nations Development Programme, UNESCO and other bodies.
The authors contend that those agencies repeatedly generate Israel-specific programs, reports and investigations while devoting comparatively less institutional attention to Hamas, other Palestinian armed organizations and Palestinian governance. That is the report’s assessment of the pattern; the agencies themselves operate under mandates established by U.N. member states and have frequently defended their work as necessary responses to humanitarian and human-rights conditions.
The report says the imbalance became particularly visible after the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel.
On Oct. 27, 2023, the General Assembly approved a resolution calling for an immediate and sustained humanitarian truce leading toward a cessation of hostilities in Gaza. The adopted resolution did not name Hamas.
Before the final vote, Canada introduced an amendment that would have explicitly condemned the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks by Hamas, condemned hostage-taking and demanded the hostages’ safety and immediate release. The amendment received 88 votes in favor, 55 against and 23 abstentions, but failed because it did not receive the required two-thirds majority. The underlying resolution was subsequently adopted 120-14 with 45 abstentions.
Misgav cites that sequence as an example of what it considers unequal treatment following the attack.
A substantial portion of the report also addresses the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, or UNRWA, which has faced allegations from Israel that Hamas infiltrated its workforce and facilities.
A U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services investigation examined allegations involving 19 UNRWA employees in connection with the Oct. 7 attack.
Investigators obtained no evidence supporting the allegation against one employee and found the evidence insufficient in nine additional cases. In the remaining nine cases, investigators determined that the evidence, if authenticated and corroborated, could indicate that the employees may have participated in the attack. UNRWA terminated those employees.
Those findings intensified criticism of the agency but did not establish Israel’s broader allegation that large numbers of UNRWA employees belonged to Hamas or other terrorist organizations.
A separate independent review led by former French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna found that UNRWA maintained a substantial framework intended to protect neutrality while also identifying continuing problems. Those included employees publicly engaging in political activity, problematic content in some textbooks used at UNRWA schools and neutrality concerns involving staff and unions.
The Colonna review said UNRWA’s neutrality framework was comparatively developed but required significant improvements. UNRWA subsequently began implementing the review’s recommendations and reported in 2025 that 20 of 50 recommendations had been fully implemented, with the remaining 30 still being addressed.
The broader claim that UNRWA as an institution is aligned with Hamas has remained disputed.
In a 2025 advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice said the evidence before it was insufficient to establish that UNRWA as an organization lacked neutrality. The court acknowledged the dismissal of nine employees following the OIOS investigation but said that fact alone was insufficient to demonstrate that the entire agency was non-neutral. It also said Israel had not substantiated its allegation that a significant portion of UNRWA employees belonged to Hamas or other terrorist organizations.
The Misgav study’s broader argument does not rest solely on UNRWA.
Its authors contend that U.N. institutions routinely generate findings that are then circulated through other U.N. bodies, outside governments, nongovernmental organizations, courts and media organizations, creating what they regard as an appearance of independent corroboration even when the underlying information derives from overlapping institutional sources.
The report also argues that the system produces consequences beyond statements and resolutions, pointing to sanctions proposals, calls for arms restrictions, corporate databases, international legal proceedings and other measures influenced by U.N. findings.
Misgav recommends that donor governments examine how their U.N. contributions are used and consider conditioning funding on reforms. Among its recommendations are ending Human Rights Council Agenda Item 7, terminating the open-ended Commission of Inquiry, ending the indefinite special rapporteur mandate and abolishing some permanent Palestinian-focused institutions.
The authors emphasize that their criticism does not depend on arguing that Israel should avoid legitimate international scrutiny.
“Challenging this machinery does not require defending every Israeli policy or arguing that Israel should be immune from scrutiny,” the report noted.
Instead, the authors argue that Israel should be evaluated using the same standards applied elsewhere, including “credible evidence, genuine impartiality” and equal consideration of the behavior of all parties.
The study reflects the analysis of the Misgav Institute and does not represent a finding by the United Nations or an independent judicial body that the U.N. system as a whole is institutionally biased against Israel.
Its release nevertheless adds another layer to longstanding disputes over the U.N.’s treatment of Israel at the same gathering where member states are confronting another Middle East crisis.
On Thursday, that immediate focus was the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea, where a coalition spanning Gulf Arab countries and Western governments sought to demonstrate broad diplomatic opposition to disruptions threatening two of the world’s most important maritime corridors.
“Iran’s actions in the Strait of Hormuz continue to threaten international security and navigational rights and freedoms,” the 80-country statement said, while separately warning that continued Houthi military activity could further threaten shipping through Bab el-Mandeb.
Original article
Comments