At an October 22, 2026 UN press conference, Ben Saul, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights while countering terrorism, was questioned about his ties to China. The questions followed a UN Watch report revealing that China had contributed $150,000 to his mandate in 2024, as documented in the UN’s 2024 Special Procedures Facts & Figures report, as well as allegations concerning his close personal ties to a Chinese Communist Party official.

Saul’s claims in response raise several questions which are examined below:

Claim 1: “China is the second largest contributor to the United Nations budget. Of course, it’s going to fund UN mechanisms.”

Rebuttal: Saul initially suggested that China’s $150,000 contribution was part of its ordinary funding of the United Nations. He emphasized that China is “the second largest contributor to the United Nations budget,” adding that “of course” it funds “United Nations mechanisms, including the human rights system.” He also described the funds as “an allocation which goes to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva.”

However, the $150,000 did not come from China’s assessed contributions to the UN regular budget. It was a separate, voluntary contribution specifically earmarked for Saul’s mandate.

Moreover, Saul subsequently contradicted his own suggestion that China’s contribution was part of its ordinary UN funding, asserting that his “mandate and many others get no UN regular budget funding.” Not only did this undercut his earlier explanation, but the assertion itself was false. As OHCHR’s own website makes clear, Special Procedures mandates do receive support from the UN regular budget for various activities, including travel to Geneva and New York to present reports to the Human Rights Council and General Assembly, participation in annual meetings, country visits, and other mandated activities.

This regular-budget support is provided through the UN system and is not separately reported as voluntary contributions in the annual Special Procedures Facts & Figures reports.

Thus, Saul’s explanation was misleading in two respects. First, by invoking China’s status as a major contributor to the UN budget, he obscured the distinction between its mandatory contributions and its separate, earmarked funding of his mandate. Second, his categorical assertion that his mandate receives “no UN regular budget funding” ignored the regular-budget support that OHCHR itself identifies as available to Special Procedures.

Claim 2: “There’s nothing unusual or untoward about China’s $150,000 contribution.”

Rebuttal: Saul portrayed China’s contribution as entirely routine, stating that “there is nothing unusual or untoward about that” and noting that his “mandate also gets some contributions from Spain and Switzerland.”

It is true that Special Procedures mandates rely in part on voluntary contributions from Member States. As OHCHR explains, the UN’s regular budget is insufficient to cover all mandate activities, making additional voluntary contributions necessary under the current system.

OHCHR further states that these contributions are “received by OHCHR,” are “strictly governed by UN financial rules, policies and oversight mechanisms,” and “do not give donors any role in the appointment, direction, priorities, findings or conclusions of mandate holders.” This is consistent with Saul’s assertion that the Chinese funds were channeled through OHCHR in Geneva and that China has no direct control over their expenditure.

However, the fact that voluntary contributions are permitted under UN rules does not mean that China’s contribution to Saul’s mandate was routine.

First, China is not among OHCHR’s leading voluntary contributors. In 2024, China contributed  $4 million in voluntary funding, ranking 18th among donors. Yet despite its relatively modest overall contributions, China chose to earmark $150,000 specifically for Saul’s mandate.

Second, China’s contribution was earmarked for Saul’s particular mandate rather than provided as general support for the Special Procedures system. OHCHR distinguishes between earmarked and unearmarked voluntary contributions. Significantly, in Resolution 16/21, the Human Rights Council welcomed additional voluntary contributions while expressly emphasizing that such contributions should be, to the extent possible, unearmarked.

Third, China’s earmarked funding of Special Procedures has been highly selective. According to UN Watch’s Special Procedures Funding Database, between 2017 and 2025, China contributed a total of $2,249,979 in earmarked funding to just seven of the more than 55 Special Procedures mandates. 

The pattern of funding is noteworthy. China has directed substantial earmarked contributions to a small group of mandates, including several whose work impacts China’s domestic issues and foreign policy positions. Most notably, more than $1 million went to the Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures, a mandate focused on condemning sanctions and other measures imposed by Western governments.

Ben Saul is also the only Special Rapporteur on human rights while countering terrorism identified in the database as having received earmarked funding from China.

Saul’s observation that Spain and Switzerland also contribute to his mandate does not address the central issue. China is not a leading voluntary donor to OHCHR, yet it specifically selected Saul’s mandate for a $150,000 earmarked contribution. The question is not whether China is permitted to contribute to the UN human rights system, but why it chose to fund this particular mandate rather than support the Special Procedures system generally.

Claim 3: “China doesn’t have any control over the way the money is spent.”

Rebuttal: Saul emphatically asserted that China does not have “any control over the way that money is spent.” OHCHR similarly states that voluntary contributions are governed by “UN financial rules, policies and oversight mechanisms” that do not give donors “any role in the appointment, direction, priorities, findings or conclusions of mandate holders.”

However, the absence of formal donor control does not preclude indirect influence over a mandate-holder’s priorities and agenda.

A study published by the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ), based on interviews with mandate-holders conducted between 2015 and 2019, documented concerns about the influence of voluntary funding on the work of UN human rights experts. The study quoted a former chair of the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures, who warned that donor funding could shape experts’ agendas. The report also noted that several experts described funding arrangements in which financial support was conditional upon undertaking specific projects related to their mandates (pp. 37–38).

These findings illustrate why compliance with UN financial rules does not, by itself, resolve concerns about the potential influence of earmarked funding. 

Saul also asserted that China’s contribution “goes simply to funding the staff that support my mandate in Geneva and New York.” However, he provided no supporting documentation and the 2024 Facts & Figures Report does not establish how the $150,000 was ultimately spent. Even accepting his explanation, the use of the funds for staffing would not, in itself, resolve questions about the potential influence of earmarked funding on a mandate-holder’s priorities.

Claim 4: “I’ve criticized China on many occasions.”

Rebuttal: Saul further claimed that he has “criticized China on many occasions,” citing his work on Xinjiang, Hong Kong’s National Security Law, and the prosecution of Jimmy Lai.

Yet his record is more limited than his broad assurances suggest. Saul has not dedicated a single report or country visit to China and has not issued a standalone public statement specifically addressing China’s treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang. Although his 2025 General Assembly report briefly addressed the situation in Xinjiang, it did so within a broader thematic report on administrative counterterrorism measures. 

Regarding Hong Kong, Saul co-drafted a Special Procedures assessment of the National Security Law, issued a communication to China, and co-signed a statement concerning Jimmy Lai’s conviction. These limited interventions fall far short of demonstrating sustained scrutiny of China’s counterterrorism practices. Most notably, Saul has devoted little documented attention to China’s treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, where sweeping counterterrorism and extremism policies have been used to justify mass detention and other serious human rights violations. These abuses fall squarely within his mandate, yet his principal example of addressing them is a brief reference in a broader thematic report.

Saul’s public commentary on China has also been remarkably sparse. Searches of his X account reveal no posts mentioning China since 2024, no posts concerning Xinjiang since he assumed his UN mandate, and only a handful of posts about Jimmy Lai. This thin public record stands in stark contrast to his assertion that he has criticized China “on many occasions.”

Moreover, Saul has taught at the Xiamen Academy of International Law in China, an institution affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party, and has close personal ties to a Chinese Communist Party official, as documented in a published investigation. These connections are particularly significant given China’s decision to earmark $150,000 specifically for his mandate.

Taken together, China’s selective financial support, Saul’s personal and professional connections to China, and his sparse criticism of its counterterrorism practices raise serious concerns about the independence and impartiality of his mandate that his assurances of freedom from Chinese influence do nothing to dispel.

Claim 5: “This is a smear campaign to discredit myself and many others by those who think that Israel and the United States should never be criticized.”

Rebuttal: Rather than addressing the substantive concerns raised by UN Watch’s findings, Saul attacked his critics, accusing “people who think that Israel and the United States should never be criticized” of conducting a “smear campaign” against him and other UN mandate-holders. Although he did not name UN Watch, his remarks appear directed at the organization following its disclosure of China’s $150,000 contribution to his mandate.

This accusation is a diversion from the issue at hand. Whether UN experts criticize Israel or the United States has no bearing on the legitimacy of examining their financial relationships with governments. The issue is the independence and impartiality of UN human rights experts.

Moreover, concerns about earmarked funding are neither new nor unique to UN Watch. The Human Rights Council itself recognized the importance of limiting earmarked funding in Resolution 16/21, which expressly emphasized that voluntary contributions should, to the extent possible, be unearmarked. 

The UN Board of Auditors also warned about the risks of financial arrangements involving individual mandate-holders and specific public or private donors. It expressed concern that earmarked funding could privilege certain mandates over others and recommended finding “ways to reduce the reliance of mandate holders on extrabudgetary funding” and ensuring that mandated activities were “not unduly influenced by the source of funds.” These concerns were subsequently examined in the ECLJ’s report, which documented the potential influence of voluntary funding on mandate-holders’ priorities and agendas.

Far from constituting a smear campaign, scrutiny of China’s earmarked contribution to Saul’s mandate addresses precisely the concerns identified by the UN’s own oversight mechanisms. The independence of UN human rights experts cannot rest solely on their own assurances of impartiality, but requires transparency, accountability, and freedom from actual or apparent donor influence. Such scrutiny is essential to safeguarding the independence and credibility of the UN human rights system.

The post Ben Saul Attempts to Whitewash $150,000 from China appeared first on UN Watch.

SHARE: YouTube | X.com

UN Watch Legal Advisor Dina Rovner spoke with David Schulberg on the Israel Connexion Podcast to discuss UN Watch’s latest report revealing UNRWA’s claims of reforms are far from accurate.

Conversation Highlight:

Dina Rovner: UNRWA is really a political organization with a political mandate. Its purpose is to keep Palestinians as perpetual refugees, hoping and dreaming that one day they will be able to exercise this so-called right of return to Israel, until there is what they call a “just solution” to the refugee problem.

And we all know exactly what that looks like, because we saw it on October 7th.

UNRWA’s humanitarian work is really just an excuse. It’s what allows the political mandate to continue, because otherwise, why do we need a separate UN agency for Palestinian refugees? There are other UN agencies that could provide humanitarian assistance very well.

This idea of a “just solution” — that’s their term — is really a euphemism. We remember the Oslo peace process, and one of the major issues that prevented a final status agreement was the Palestinian demand for a right of return. Of course, Israel is not going to allow millions of Palestinians to move into its sovereign territory, because that would mean the end of Israel as the world’s only Jewish state.

It is true that around 700,000 to 750,000 Palestinians were displaced in 1948 during Israel’s War of Independence. But this wasn’t unique to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You just have to look at India and Pakistan, for example, where millions of people were displaced at the same time during partition, and those populations were eventually absorbed and resettled.

You can also look at all of the Jews who were expelled or forced to leave Arab countries after Israel’s establishment. We’re talking about some 850,000 Jews. Many of them came to Israel, where they were absorbed and built new lives.

Today, none of those people call their grandchildren refugees. But somehow, for the Palestinians, we have created a completely different system.

Look at the UNRWA refugees themselves. In Jordan, most of the 2 million UNRWA refugees have Jordanian citizenship and have lived there for generations. So why are they still registered as UNRWA refugees?

In the West Bank and Gaza, again, we’re talking about over 2 million Palestinians who were born there, whose parents and grandparents were born there, and who live in self-governed territories that are supposed to become a Palestinian state. Why are we continuing to tell these people that they are refugees? Why are we still calling their neighborhoods refugee camps?

At some point, we have to stop indulging this narrative that their lives are temporary and that they’re all just waiting to come back to Israel.

The donor countries really need to ask themselves what exactly they’re funding. There’s a difference between helping people who need humanitarian assistance, which the UN can do very well, as we’ve seen in many examples around the world, and maintaining a political system that keeps millions of people believing that their real home is somewhere else.

That is what UNRWA stands for.

As long as donors continue to fund this system, they’re actually helping to keep the conflict alive, and that’s very unfortunate.

“UNRWA’s humanitarian work is an excuse. It’s what allows the political mandate to continue, because otherwise, why do we need a separate UN agency for Palestinian refugees? Other UN agencies could provide humanitarian assistance.”

— UN Watch Legal Advisor Dina Rovner pic.twitter.com/CFmU1IDjzp

— UN Watch (@UNWatch) October 29, 2026

The post UN Watch’s Dina Rovner: “Hamas Has Infiltrated UNRWA” appeared first on UN Watch.

SHARE: YouTube | X.com | Instagram | Facebook | LinkedIn

As the UN Human Rights Council gathered to debate racism, UN Watch invited courageous Yemeni journalist Luai Ahmed to unveil the rampant racism and Jew-hatred that he grew up with in Yemen — and how his visit to Israel after October 7th and witnessing life there changed his worldview.

Debate Highlights:

Vice President of UN Human Rights Council: I now declare open Agenda Item 9 entitled “Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Forms of Intolerance.”

Turkey: Turkey continues to combat racism, xenophobia, anti-Muslim racism, and anti-immigrant hatred in all their forms.

Pakistan: A world free from discrimination must remain our goal.

Islamic Republic of Iran: We stand firmly with the Palestinian people against racism, racial discrimination, dispossession, and the destruction of Palestinian lives and communities.

Vice President of UN Human Rights Council: I give the floor to United Nations Watch.

Luai Ahmed for UN Watch: Mr. President, let’s talk about racism in the Middle East.

I grew up in Yemen, where the word that we used for black people is “abeed,” which quite literally means “slaves.”

Racism towards black people in my country is horrifying, but it’s not even the most toxic hatred that I was taught.

The first time I ever heard the word “Jew” was in my local mosque when I was nine years old.

At the end of Friday prayers, the Imam said: “May Allah kill the Jews and the Zionists.”

And I responded alongside thousands of Muslims praying beside me: “Ameen.”

I was taught that Zionism meant killing Arabs, stealing our land, and destroying Islam.

Then October 7th came.

Hamas terrorists “freed Palestine” by slaughtering 1,200 Israelis and kidnapping more than 200 people, including a one-year-old child.

Almost everyone in my Arab-Muslim circle celebrated.

I didn’t.

Instead, as a journalist, I decided to visit the so-called Zionist entity, and I was completely shocked to the core by the lack of apartheid and racism that I experienced.

One day, I got an eye infection.

At the hospital, the nurses in reception were Jewish.

The doctor treating me was Arab.

Is there racism in Israel? Of course. There’s racism everywhere.

But Arabs in Israel aren’t called ”slaves.“

They are doctors, engineers, and party leaders.

My experience helped me realize that Zionism really just means the Jewish people’s right to a tiny country.

Everything I was taught was a lie.

The post United Nations Stunned: “Everything I Was Taught About Israel Was a Lie” appeared first on UN Watch.

GENEVA, October 26, 2026 — Thirteen members of the European Parliament have submitted an official parliamentary question to the European Commission, citing a recent UN Watch investigation that refuted UNRWA’s claims of implementing reforms to address terrorism, antisemitism and incitement within the UN agency.

The parliamentary challenge, led by Swedish MEP Alice Teodorescu Måwe and co-signed by 12 other EU lawmakers, demands that the Commission explain how it verifies UNRWA’s claims of reform and whether future EU funding will be conditioned on independently verified progress.

The parliamentary question, numbered E-004153/2026 and submitted on October 13, forms part of the European Parliament’s public record. Under Rule 144, the European Commission is required to provide a written answer within six weeks of receiving the question. Both the question and the Commission’s response are published publicly.

The lawmakers cite UN Watch’s recent report on UNRWA’s implementation of the 50 recommendations issued in April 2024 by an independent review led by former French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna.

Although UNRWA claimed this summer to have implemented 41 of the 50 recommendations, UN Watch’s investigation found that many purported reforms existed largely on paper, while serious problems involving staff neutrality, terrorist affiliations, educational incitement and internal accountability remained unresolved.

“The European Commission must act when UNRWA misleads about reforms,” Teodorescu Måwe wrote on X, announcing the parliamentary initiative.

“UNRWA claimed that 41 of these 50 recommendations had been implemented, but UN Watch’s review provides clear evidence to the contrary.”

Teodorescu Måwe said she and her 12 colleagues were demanding answers on whether the Commission would rely on objective, independent sources rather than UNRWA’s own reports when assessing its claimed progress.

The parliamentary question asks the Commission to address three issues: how it assesses UN Watch’s findings; what independent evidence it uses to verify implementation of the Colonna recommendations; and whether it will consider conditioning or suspending future funding when reforms cannot be independently demonstrated.

New Evidence Raises Questions About UNRWA Reform

The parliamentary initiative comes amid continuing revelations about UNRWA personnel and educational practices.

In June, UNRWA announced that it had terminated the employment of 70 Hamas-linked staff members in Gaza, citing operational safety and security concerns. An additional 1,500 UNRWA staff members remain under investigation by USAID for ties to terror organizations.

Just days ago, a new video emerged from within Gaza featuring an UNRWA teacher who described her colleagues “aggressively pushing” ideologies of killing and violence onto their students. Her testimony raises fresh concerns about whether the agency’s promised educational reforms have taken effect in classrooms.

“UNRWA cannot claim to have solved its neutrality problem simply by rewriting policies while evidence of terrorist affiliations and incitement continues to emerge,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch.

“European taxpayers deserve accountability. The Commission must not confuse the adoption of new policies with their actual implementation. UNRWA cannot demonstrate that it has eliminated terrorist infiltration and incitement from its operations. The EU and its member states must end their financial support for an agency the foments war and terror.”

Growing European Opposition Ahead of UNRWA Mandate Votes

The parliamentary challenge comes ahead of the annual United Nations General Assembly deliberations on UNRWA, following a significant shift in European voting patterns last year.

In 2025, Germany, Italy, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Latvia withheld support for renewing UNRWA’s mandate for the first time. Germany’s Der Spiegel described the development as a “remarkable political shift.”

In a separate UNRWA resolution, Austria, Romania and Lithuania also joined those six countries in withholding support, breaking with the previous pattern of unanimous backing among all 27 EU member states.

UN Watch hopes the momentum will continue during this year’s votes, with additional European governments reconsidering their support for the agency.

Meanwhile, the U.S.-led Board of Peace, overseeing plans for Gaza’s postwar future, has publicly rejected a future institutional role for UNRWA. In July, the Board declared: “UNRWA has no place in the new Gaza.”

The Board has since reiterated that it intends to work with alternative partners for Gaza’s reconstruction and humanitarian needs.

“Last year, European governments began breaking with decades of automatic support for UNRWA,” said Neuer. “Now 13 European lawmakers are demanding that the Commission confront the evidence. We are optimistic that more European governments will break from decades of automatic support for UNRWA when it comes time for another vote before the United Nations.”

“The people of Gaza deserve schools that teach peace instead of hatred, and humanitarian institutions free from terrorist influence. Europe should support those goals rather than continue funding an agency that is incapable of reform.”

The post MEPs Demand EU Answers on UNRWA’s Claimed Reform Following UN Watch Investigation appeared first on UN Watch.

The UN Watch Database also documents that since 2006, the UN Human Rights Council has adopted 116 resolutions against Israel, 45 against Syria, 18 against Iran, 14 against Russia, and 4 against Venezuela.

The 2026 UNGA Resolutions: 12 on Israel vs. 8 on Rest of World

In 2026, the UNGA is expected to adopt 12 resolutions on Israel and only eight resolutions on the entire rest of the world, which includes one resolution each on North Korea, Iran, and Myanmar, as well as three against Russia and two against the United States, as detailed in the charts below.

These figures reflect the resolutions expected to date and may change as the General Assembly continues its work through the end of the year, with additional resolutions potentially added.

It is worth noting that this year’s resolution on the Situation of human rights in the Syrian Arab Republic is expected to be non-condemnatory in nature, and is therefore not included in the resolution count.

UN Watch opposes the adoption of one-sided and counterproductive resolutions at the United Nation. We have launched a campaign urging countries to oppose them. Click here to take action: Demand that your country end its biased votes that demonize Israel.

2026 UNGA RESOLUTIONS ON REST OF THE WORLD

The post 2026 UNGA Resolutions on Israel vs. Rest of the World appeared first on UN Watch.

Appeared in Newsmax, “The U.N. Scapegoats Israel,” October 5, 2026:

Key quote:

Tom Fletcher — let’s keep in mind, when he was British ambassador to Lebanon, he welcomed the role of Hezbollah. He, for the past year or two, as UN relief coordinator, has routinely echoed Iranian regime talking points, accusing America and Israel of harming the economy worldwide. He hasn’t said a word about the Iranian regime, how they destroyed Lebanon, destroyed Iraq, destroyed Yemen, destroyed Gaza. He gives them a free pass.

Appeared in Misgav Institute, “The UN’s Anti-Israel Ecosystem: Exposing the Machinery,” October 12, 2026:

Key quote:

When Guterres said these attacks did not happen in a vacuum, he was not entirely wrong. If he had a smidgen of introspection, Guterres might have said, “These attacks did not happen in a vacuum.” What schools did they go to, the thousands who attacked Israel? According to Johann Soufi from the UNRWA Legal Office in Gaza, 90% of Gazans went to UNRWA schools. The agency has become infested with terrorists, certainly in Gaza and Lebanon. People like [Philippe] Lazzarini had knowledge [of this], unless they were willfully blind. We sent them an enormous amount of documentation, and they should be held accountable. It’s complicity with war crimes, crimes against humanity, and governments should defund [them]. The U.S., Sweden, and now Finland have defunded UNRWA. It’s not enough.

Op-ed in The Dispatch, “Why Hamas Cheered Navi Pillay’s Nobel Peace Prize,” October 15, 2026: 

Pillay’s accusation of genocide against Israel appears to be what prompted the Nobel. Her earlier achievements—as a judge in South Africa and on the U.N.’s Rwanda tribunal—were known for decades. That record deserves recognition. But it also makes her disregard for impartiality harder to excuse. She knew the standards. A reputation earned in one courtroom cannot exempt its owner from scrutiny in another. Nor can past courage transform a partisan investigation into justice simply because its findings carry the United Nations seal. Pillay was named to the inquiry for her authority as a judge, but she acted on the commitments of a campaigner. The Nobel Committee is now seeking to magnify her imprimatur. Hamas understands the benefit perfectly. Its war against Israel gains a prestigious legal vocabulary, and its victims recede behind an indictment of the state that defended them. That is why Hamas cheered. The Nobel Committee should now tell the world whether this is its desired outcome.

Op-ed in the Washington Reporter, “Hillel C. Neuer: Before donating to UNRWA, Macklemore and other celebrities should read its report card,” October 5, 2026:

Macklemore recently pledged $1 million of his net earnings from Ed Sheeran’s tour to six Palestinian-related organizations. Among them is UNRWA USA, the fundraising arm for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). “Palestinian lives are worth protecting,” Macklemore explained. Yes, they are — and that is precisely why the institution he has chosen to support should cease to exist. Macklemore and others who claim to care about Palestinian lives should read the report card before his concertgoers are duped into handing over millions in the name of supporting peace, when in fact they are funding the hatred that fuels war.

Quoted in Newsweek, “Israel Calls Navi Pillay’s Nobel Peace Prize Win ‘Disgraceful,’” October 9, 2026:

The criticism echoed a separate statement from UN Watch. The Geneva-based watchdog said it was “shocked” by the decision and argued that Pillay’s past statements about Israel should have disqualified her from receiving the prize. The organization accused her of bias and faulted her handling of the U.N. inquiry into Israel.

Quoted in Fox News, “Who is Navi Pillay? Nobel Peace Prize winner’s UN record renews fierce antisemitism accusations,” October 9, 2026:

Geneva-based UN Watch condemned Friday’s Nobel announcement, accusing Pillay of breaching the impartiality expected of international investigators. “We are shocked that the Nobel Committee honored Navi Pillay,” Executive Director Hillel Neuer said. “Her troubling record on antisemitism and gross breach of ethics in presiding over a notorious U.N. commission utterly disqualifies her from such an award.”

Quoted in Washington Examiner, “Left-wing foundations quietly fund UN human rights ‘experts,’ watchdog says,” October 20, 2026: 

Research unveiled by the Geneva-based UN Watch on Monday traced funding from George Soros’s Open Society Foundations and the Ford Foundation to current and former U.N. special rapporteurs. The watchdog raised concerns that such influence could compromise the rapporteurs, who the U.N. appoints as independent experts to monitor human rights abuses in specific territories. “These arrangements allow politically engaged foundations to support UN agendas through financial relationships that governments and the public cannot adequately scrutinize,” UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer said in a statement. “Independence requires more than an unpaid job title.”

Featured in The Australian, “Israel a true friend and ally to Iran’s brutalised people,” October 9, 2026: 

Since 2015, the General Assembly has adopted 187 resolutions condemning Israel, according to UN Watch – more than twice as many as against Russia, China, Iran, Syria and North Korea combined. Israel alone is the subject of a permanent item on the Human Rights Council’s agenda. One UN body cites another until allegations take on the appearance of independent fact, and leaders continue to peddle false claims.

Quoted in The Washington Free Beacon, “Harvard Celebrates Its Boycott-Israel, Blood Libel Nobel Laureate,” October 9, 2026:

The Executive Director of UN Watch, Hillel Neuer, noted that in June 2020, she signed a manifesto calling on governments to “Sanction Apartheid Israel.” Subsequently, she accepted a position chairing “a Pakistani-sponsored UN Commission of Inquiry into alleged Israeli crimes,” violating the principle of impartiality. “Navi Pillay deserves the Nobel Peace Prize like the Ayatollah deserved to be elected to the U.N. women’s rights commission,” Neuer said.

Quoted in National Post, “Navi Pillay, who accused Israel of genocide, wins Nobel Peace Prize,” October 9, 2026: 

U.N. Watch executive director Hillel Neuer sharply criticized the Norwegian Nobel Committee on Friday for awarding the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize to Pillay. “We are shocked that the Nobel committee honored Navi Pillay,” Neuer wrote on X, accusing her of a “troubling record on antisemitism” and a “gross breach of ethics” while chairing the U.N. commission investigating Israel. “By honoring Pillay, the Nobel committee has failed to uphold the principles it seeks to celebrate,” Neuer wrote. “International justice depends on impartiality.”

Featured in Townhall, “The Nobel Committee Just Made a Mockery of Its Peace Prize, and President Trump Called It Out,” October 9, 2026: 

Pillay’s record is difficult to reconcile with an award for peace and human rights. According to UN Watch, the former U.N. human rights chief repeatedly handed Chinese representatives the names of dissidents without regard for their families’ safety. The group also accuses her of turning a blind eye during her tenure to human rights abuses in Cuba, North Korea, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Belarus, Syria, and 27 other countries rated “Not Free” by Freedom House. And when Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010, UN Watch says Pillay skipped the ceremony at China’s urging. In other words, she has spent her time criticizing the freest countries while giving actual human rights abusers a pass.

Featured in il Giornale, “Albanese Amnesia: Resolutions Against Everyone Except the Tsar,” October 3, 2026:

A champion of human rights, but only if she likes and cares about the victims. Otherwise, who cares, they can suffer. An analysis by UN Watch, a UN-accredited NGO tasked with monitoring the United Nations’ performance under its Charter, has once again exposed Francesca Albanese. It emerges that our Lady of Rights has never signed any joint statement of UN human rights experts regarding abuses committed by Russia. Never, not even by mistake. She did so for Palestine, it goes without saying, but also for Iran, Lebanon, and the regional escalation in Syria. But since becoming Special Rapporteur on Palestine on May 1, 2022, she has carefully avoided signing the statements of her colleagues who have repeatedly called for Russia to be held accountable for its actions against Ukraine, for internal repression, and for political persecution and arrests.

Featured in Windsor Star, “Exper­i­ence ignored in money to Palestini­ans,” October 1, 2026:

In 2024, an Israeli air­strike in Lebanon killed Fathi al-sharif, whom Hamas would con­firm as one of its senior oper­at­ives in the coun­try. Al-sharif had not only been prin­cipal of a UNRWA school right up until 2023, but he had been head of Lebanon’s UNRWA teach­ers union. A scan of al-sharif’s social media by the group UN Watch also found pho­tos of him attend­ing Hamas events and invit­ing known Hamas lead­ers to his school.

Quoted in Maariv, “‘Anti-Semitism and ethical breaches’: the Nobel Committee’s decision causes a storm,” October 10, 2026:

Hillel Neuer, CEO of UN Watch, has sharply criticised the Nobel Committee’s decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to South African jurist Navi Pillay, citing what he describes as her biased and anti-Semitic conduct. Neuer, who has been monitoring Pillay for years, claims that her selection undermines universal human rights values. He noted that she had signed a manifesto calling for sanctions against the “apartheid state” and had appealed to President Biden to punish Israel. “When an investigator campaigns to punish a country even before examining the evidence, she undermines the credibility of her findings,” Neuer explained.

Quoted in Libero Quotidiano, “The Nobel Prize winner fails to recognise the genocide committed by China,” October 11, 2026: 

A whistleblower on the genocide in Gaza but silent – or even complicit – regarding the genocide of the Uyghurs in China, as well as other human rights violations: this is the criticism levelled by UN Watch at the latest Nobel Peace Prize, awarded to Navi Pillay. The Oslo Committee’s concerns about maintaining a balance are evident, given that no fewer than seven of the last nine prizes had been awarded to recipients considered to be pro-Western. “The Nobel Committee must provide an explanation to the dissidents whose names have been handed over to China,” says Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch.

Featured in il Giornale, “This is how it is celebrated. Professional anti-Semitism,” October 10, 2026: 

The appointment has been contested by organisations such as NGO Monitor and UN Watch. The charge of genocide, as concluded by her commission, dates from 28 October 2025. She is now the queen of anti-Jewish hatred; who knows how much Francesca Albanese envies her. But no, the next award will be hers.

Quoted in Maariv, “The blunder by the UN Special Envoy to the Palestinian Territories,” October 7, 2026:

UN Watch sparked international condemnation and prompted a rare apology from Albanese after exposing this [her comments] in a post that garnered over a million views on X. Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch, wrote: “This apology is unacceptable. You have repeatedly sought to erase the very meaning of anti-Semitism and engaged in Holocaust denial. You have apologised for anti-Semitic remarks in the past, only to retract them later. You are not acting in good faith. You must resign. For God’s sake, go.”

Featured in Il Foglio, “We were just missing a Nobel Prize winner who was against Israel. The one awarded to Pillay is a macabre peace prize following 7 October,” October 9, 2026: 

In a study published in 2011 during Pillay’s tenure as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN Watch examined her record while leading the agency: there was absolute silence regarding abuses committed in Cuba, North Korea, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Belarus, Syria, and 27 other countries classified as “not free” by Freedom House. During the first two years of her term, Pillay issued twenty-one statements concerning countries in the Middle East and North Africa; nine of these focused on Israel—which, by all accounts, is the only democracy in the region.

Featured in ice, “A speech at the UN in support of Israel goes viral: over 7.5 million views,” October 13, 2026: 

Luai Ahmed is a journalist and content creator who grew up in Yemen as an anti-Semite. Following the 7 October attack, he visited Israel for the first time in November 2023 and became a staunch Zionist Muslim. This was his second speech as a representative of UN Watch at the UN Human Rights Council, following a previous viral speech he delivered in February 2025. Speaking as a representative of UN Watch during the 63rd session of the UN Human Rights Council, Ahmed needed just 90 seconds to dismantle the arguments put forward at the UN General Assembly by the Emir of Qatar, Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani; the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Baz Sharif; the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas; and the President of Iran, Masoud Fazeshkian.

Quoted in Il Foglio, “‘From Cuba to cartoons: Pillay has sided with dictatorships and against freedom.’ Neuer speaks out,” October 14, 2026:

There is a culture at the U.N. of attacking the West, capitalism, and Israel. And Navi Pillay fell into line. Her track record is very poor on Iran. On Cuba, she has been largely silent. And on China, she was complicit.

Quoted in Globes, “Regular updates,” October 9, 2026:

Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch, said in response to Navi Pillay’s award of the Nobel Peace Prize: “Her troubling record regarding anti-Semitism and her blatant violation of ethical standards completely disqualify her from receiving such an award. Awarding the prize to Pillay risks rewarding prejudice rather than promoting peace.”

Featured in Israel Hayom, “‘Accomplice to genocide’: Nobel Peace Prize laureate who turned in opponents of the regime,” October 10, 2026:

Emma Riley, a lawyer and former employee of the Commission, claimed that during Pillay’s tenure, the UN had passed lists of Chinese dissidents on to the authorities in Beijing. Following yesterday’s award, the Executive Director of UN Watch, Hillel Neuer, demanded explanations from the Nobel Committee regarding the information passed on to the regime in Beijing.

Quoted in infobae, “‘Accomplice to the Uyghur genocide’: UN Watch questioned the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Navi Pillay,” October 9, 2026:

UN Watch questioned the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Navi Pillay and publicised allegations made by former United Nations official Emma Reilly, who claimed that the organisation’s then-head of human rights was “complicit in the Uyghur genocide.” The organisation called on the committee responsible for awarding the prize to provide an explanation. Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, called for a response from the Nobel Committee. “The Nobel Committee owes an explanation to the dissidents whose names were handed over to China,” he said, and asked how the allegations and the situation of the victims and their families had been assessed.

Quoted in AmericanThinker, “The Nobel committee issued its latest peace prize to a toad,” October 10, 2026:

They gave Navi Pillay a Nobel Prize for her report saying that on October 7th, it was Israel that attacked Hamas.

Featured in Post Timees, “A Nobel Peace Prize laureate has come under fire from Israel and other critics,” October 11, 2026:

The organisation UN Watch, which monitors the activities of the UN, also joined in the criticism, accusing Pillay of anti-Israel bias and of defending anti-Semitic remarks. The organisation’s director, Hillel Neuer, argued that Pillay’s actions as head of the UN Commission of Inquiry called her impartiality into question. UN Watch accuses Pillay of having, prior to leading the commission set up to investigate Israel’s actions, already publicly expressed views which, in the organisation’s assessment, indicated bias. Among other things, UN Watch refers to a statement signed by Pillay in 2020, which called on governments to impose sanctions on Israel. The organisation also criticises Pillay’s conduct in 2022, when her colleague Miloon Kothari used the term ‘Jewish lobby’ and questioned Israel’s right to be a UN member state. According to UN Watch, Pillay defended her colleague rather than unequivocally condemning his remarks.

Quoted in Azer News, “UN Watch condemns Nobel Peace Prize for Navi Pillay over alleged anti-Israel bias,” October 9, 2026: 

UN Watch has strongly criticised the decision to award the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize to South African jurist and former United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay, accusing her of demonstrating bias against Israel and defending a colleague who made remarks widely condemned as antisemitic. UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer argued that Pillay’s record as chair of a UN commission investigating alleged violations by Israel raised serious questions about her impartiality. “The victims of discrimination deserve institutions that apply the same standards to everyone,” Neuer said.

Quoted in 21News, “‘Then let’s give weapons to the Palestinians’: Francesca Albanese’s response when asked about the Ukrainian resistance,” October 2, 2026: 

The new clip also provoked the ire of Hillel Neuer, executive director of the NGO UN Watch and a longtime opponent of Francesca Albanese. According to him, this footage is “even worse” than the one broadcast the previous week, precisely because Albanese maintains her opposition to arms deliveries when confronted with their potential consequences. He calls her “a useful idiot of Putin” and demands her resignation from the UN.

Quoted in World Net Daily, “‘Netanyahu is FURIOUS’: Nobel committee chooses Israel-hating, genocide-claiming lawyer for peace prize,” October 9, 2026: 

UN Watch described Pillay’s claims against Israel as “biased.”

Quoted in Aish, “Peace Prize Winner Navi Pillay’s Long Record of Anti-Israel Hatred,” October 11, 2026:

UN Watch, which monitors UN agencies for bias, notes that Pillay “has a long record of one-sided statements that single out Israel for condemnation over alleged war crimes, human rights abuse and racism.”

Quoted in Son Dakika, “ADL and UN Watch have condemned the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Navi Pillay,” October 10, 2026: 

UN Watch, a civil society organisation known for its pro-Israel stance and which monitors the activities of the UN, also condemned the awarding of the prize to Pillay. In a statement, UN Watch Chairman Hillel Neuer said: “We were shocked that the Nobel Committee has honoured Navi Pillay. Her worrying track record on anti-Semitism and the serious ethical breaches she committed whilst chairing a notorious UN commission completely disqualify her from such an award.” They argued that the credibility of the Nobel Peace Prize had been undermined.

The post UN Watch in the News — October 2026 appeared first on UN Watch.

Investigation exposes opaque backing from George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, Ford Foundation, and dictatorships; UN Watch urges overhaul of ‘broken system’

LONDON, October 19, 2026 — At the British Parliament today, UN Watch launched the first-ever database tracking outside funding of UN human rights experts, exposing significant disclosure gaps involving politically-engaged foundations and governments including China, Russia and Qatar.

UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer presented the findings, along with the organization’s recent study on the UN rapporteurs, From Watchdogs to Ideologues, to members of Parliament, parliamentary staff, journalists and activists at a briefing chaired by MP Priti Patel, the Conservative Party’s international secretary and former British home secretary.

The new database cross-references UN mandate-holders’ annual disclosures with U.S. tax filings, public grant records and other documented financial support. It identifies approximately $88 million in grants and support for the UN rapporteurs, including estimated values for in-kind contributions.

• The database identifies $11.8 million in cash and in-kind support omitted from mandate-holders’ annual UN disclosures.

• $1.4 million in disclosed support failed to identify the donors.

• More than $42 million is red-flagged for missing information, opaque sourcing or disclosure violations.

These findings raise serious questions about transparency and accountability within the UN’s human rights system. By cross-referencing annual UN disclosures with donor tax filings, public grant records and other sources, the database enables journalists, policymakers and the public to trace outside support, identify potential conflicts of interest and scrutinize the financial relationships behind UN-appointed human rights experts.

“UN experts wield enormous influence over government policy, media coverage and public debate,” said Neuer. “The public deserves to know who finances their work, where the money goes, and whether private donors are helping shape agendas that are packaged as independent UN expertise.”

Foundation funding and partisan agendas

The investigation documents how George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, the Ford Foundation, Wellspring Philanthropic Fund and other progressive foundations finance mandates through universities and NGOs, in many cases with the money transferred to organizations founded or led by the rapporteurs themselves. Disclosures frequently omit the original donor, the intermediary organization or the full financial value.

Among the findings:

• Tlaleng Mofokeng, the pro-Hamas former UN rapporteur on the right to health, failed to disclose a $200,000 Open Society Foundations grant to OurEquity NPC, the organization she founded and leads. The grant supported her mandate’s exploration of “decolonial, anti-racist, and intersectional frameworks.” Separate Ford Foundation grants totaling $1 million went through Georgetown University to support her mandate and a commission she leads, with substantial discrepancies between grant records and her financial disclosures.

• Philip Alston, the prominent NYU law professor and former UN poverty rapporteur whose reports sharply attacked British and American policies, failed to disclose $600,000 in Open Society Foundations grants awarded to NYU to support work connected to his UN mandate.
• Clément Voule, the former rapporteur on freedom of assembly, disclosed $120,000 in Ford funding in 2022, while Ford’s tax records show a $500,000 grant to the Geneva Academy earmarked for his mandate. A similar discrepancy appears in 2023.

• Mary Lawlor, the rapporteur on human rights defenders, disclosed nearly $1 million in Ford Foundation support but did not identify Front Line Defenders—the organization she founded—as the recipient administering those grants. Ford’s tax filings explicitly earmarked the funding for her UN mandate.

• Irene Khan, the former free speech rapporteur, who was implicated in a previous financial scandal after she left Amnesty International, had disclosed substantial Wellspring Philanthropic Fund support without identifying that the intermediary was the NGO “Article 19,” an advocacy organization that seeks to influence the same UN policies her mandate helps shape. The database also identifies a $50,000 Ford Foundation grant to support Khan’s mandate through UC Irvine, which did not appear in her financial disclosures. Moreover, Khan disclosed $100,000 from Open Society Foundations in 2020–2021 but did not identify the Trust for the Americas as the intermediary receiving the grants to support her office. UN Watch says such omissions obscure the institutional relationships behind supposedly independent UN mandates.

• Francesca Albanese, the rapporteur on the Palestinian territories, disclosed no dollar value for financial support, while UN Watch estimates a $2.56 million footprint encompassing in-kind support and sponsorships, including research assistance, travel and other institutional backing. This includes travel sponsored by Qatar-funded Al Jazeera and partisan advocacy groups, raising questions about outside influence and inadequate disclosure.

“These arrangements allow politically engaged foundations to support UN agendas through financial relationships that governments and the public cannot adequately scrutinize,” Neuer said. “Independence requires more than an unpaid job title.”

China, Russia and Qatar

The database also records $2.4 million from China and affiliated entities, $2.1 million from Russia, and a combined $174,000 from Qatar and Saudi Arabia, earmarked for specific mandates.

Chinese funding included $150,000 for counterterrorism rapporteur Ben Saul’s office and $100,000 for international order expert George Katrougalos’s office. Neuer highlighted Katrougalos’s praise for Xi Jinping and Saul’s refusal to speak out on China’s persecution of Uyghurs under the banner of counterterrorism, the very issue he is tasked to address.

Call for Reforms

UN Watch is calling for 12 concrete reforms, including:

• A coalition of democratic states to regularly assess, publicly rate and hold Special Rapporteurs accountable.
• A complete ban on earmarked funding from governments or other external entities.
• An independent external mechanism to review, audit and discipline mandate-holders.
• External vetting of candidates by democracies, independent of the UN’s politicized selection process.
• Mandatory evidentiary standards to end reliance on unverified and anonymous sources.

“Democracies must insist that those who investigate others meet basic standards of transparency, impartiality and accountability themselves,” said Neuer.

About UN Watch

UN Watch is a Geneva-based non-governmental organization accredited to the United Nations. It monitors the UN for compliance with the principles of its Charter, defends human rights, and fights dictatorships and double standards. For more information, visit www.unwatch.org.

The post At UK Parliament, UN Watch Releases Database Exposing Who Funds UN’s Human Rights Experts appeared first on UN Watch.

China provided $150,000 in funding for Saul’s mandate in 2024. For more information on funding to UN Special Procedures, see UN Watch’s Special Procedures Funding Database.

Below are some of the report’s most striking statements and recommendations, with excerpts in Saul’s own words.

1. Accuses the U.S. of Possible Crimes Against Humanity

The report characterizes that U.S. military strikes on drug-trafficking vessels since September 2025 as unlawful killings and states: “The organized policy of multiple murders may further involve a systematic attack on a civilian population, constituting crimes against humanity.” (Para. 25)

2. Demands States Withhold Military Assets and Intelligence From the U.S.

After accusing the United States of committing “crimes against humanity,” Saul writes that “Other States must refrain from aiding or assisting in the commission of these violations, including by refusing to share intelligence or make military assets available.” (Para. 25)

3. Calls on U.S. Leaders to Face International Prosecution

Furthermore, for the U.S. actions against drug-trafficking vessels, Saul states that “all perpetrators, including military and civilian leaders, must be investigated and held accountable in line with international law.” Previously, on social media, Saul has called for the arrest of President Donald Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth for “mass murder” due to the administration’s targeting of drug traffickers. Saul also has a history of meaningful engagement with the ICC. With that, it can be reasonably interpreted that Saul’s report is calling for top American officials, including the President, to come under ICC investigation and possible prosecution. (Para. 25)

4. Accuses the U.S. of Aggression Against Venezuela and Unlawful Threats Against Other Countries

Saul characterizes the January 2026 U.S. military operation in Venezuela as “aggression,” alleging violations of Venezuelan sovereignty, the right to life and liberty, and the prohibition on transboundary abduction. He further states that “the United States has also illegally threatened force against Colombia, Cuba and Mexico” and alleges that it participated in “possibly unlawful military attacks” in Ecuador in May 2026 and Venezuela in June 2026, followed by a lack of accountability. (Para. 26) 

5. Argues That Violent Drug Cartels Should Generally Not Be Classified as Terrorist Organizations

Saul acknowledges that some criminal groups use extreme violence to terrorize populations and coerce governments, but argues that terrorism requires a political or ideological purpose. He concludes: “An organized criminal group that is foremost motivated by profit—even if, to that end, its violence intimidates a population or compels a Government—will not qualify as terrorist.” (Para. 17)

6. Advocates Legalizing Drugs to Weaken Criminal Cartels

Saul states that governments “should not only decriminalize personal possession of drugs but consider legalization and responsible regulation.” He argues that “legalization is ultimately the only tool that could seriously reduce drug profits” and proposes regulating supply through medical prescriptions, specialist pharmacies, licensed retail outlets and consumption premises. (Para. 57, 66(c))

7. Suggests Negotiating Ceasefires With Criminal Gangs

Saul recommends strengthening government institutions and law enforcement in areas controlled by criminal organizations, but adds: “In certain contexts, it may be justifiable to tactically engage criminal groups in ‘ceasefires’ or negotiations to mitigate violence, pending longer-term strategic efforts to reassert State capacities.” (Para. 63)

8. Criticizes U.S. Sanctions Against Colombia’s President

Saul argues that U.S. counterterrorism measures can undermine international cooperation, stating that “the United States counterproductively sanctioned the President of Colombia and associates in 2025 for alleged links to ‘narco-terrorism’ and his ‘total peace’ plan to control drugs.” He later characterizes the sanctions as a misuse of unilateral sanctions. (Paras. 43, 60)

The post China-Funded UN Expert Slams U.S. in Report to UNGA This Week appeared first on UN Watch.

By Dina Rovner, Legal Advisor at UN Watch

The report released today by Francesca Albanese is presented as an examination of Israel’s “destruction of truth,” but in reality is itself an assault on truth. This latest iteration of the genocide canard advances a self-sealing theory in which interpretations that support the genocide charge are accepted without question, while contrary evidence is dismissed and transformed into proof of “mediacide.” Thus, Israeli evidence that purported journalists belonged to terrorist organizations becomes a “smear.” Evidence that Hamas operated from hospitals becomes “humanitarian camouflage.” Challenges to famine findings become “genocide denial.” Media outlets that report Israeli arguments are accused of amplifying propaganda, while social-media platforms that carry them face suggestions of complicity. Her framework leaves remarkably little room for legitimate scrutiny, competing evidence or reasoned debate.

Central to Albanese’s charge is the unsupported assertion that Israel intentionally targeted Gazan journalists for “murder” in order to “silence Palestinian journalism” (paras. 13, 19). Albanese dismisses as “smear campaigns” (para. 26) Israeli evidence that 170 of the journalists killed in Gaza after October 7, 2023 were Hamas or PIJ combatants, refusing to engage with it. Yet more than 60 of these have already been admitted by Hamas and PIJ as their combatants through martyr notices published by the terrorist groups. Indeed, since June 2025, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has removed 27 “journalists” from its lists of “journalists and media workers killed in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory (IOPT),” after determining that they were Hamas or PIJ combatants.

Journalists admitted by Hamas or PIJ to be combatants include:

• Yahya Omar Abu Manih, eulogized by Hamas as a “martyred field commander.”
• Ahmed Abu Mahti, eulogized by Hamas as a squad leader in Hamas’ Fawzi Abu Qara (al-Khulafa) Battalion in the Northern Brigade.
• Ahmed Al-Helou, eulogized by Hamas as a “mujahid” in the Northern Khan Younis Brigade.
• Assem Adli Ahmed Al-Barsh, eulogized by Hamas as a Qassam Brigades group commander in the Northern Brigade’s Western Battalion.
• Amin Fathi Hamdan, eulogized by Hamas as a platoon commander
• Mohamed Nabil Al-Zaq, confirmed by PIJ as a commander and seen in a PIJ combat training video.
• Mahmoud Abu Shirby, eulogized by PIJ as a commander.
• Saeed Abu Hassanin, admitted by Hamas as a commander.
• Mohamed Jarghoun, eulogized by Hamas as a “Qassami mujahid martyr.”
• Ahmed Abu Eisha, eulogized by PIJ as a platoon commander.
• Mohamed Skheil, eulogized by PIJ as a commander killed inside the Shifa Hospital.
• Tarek Skheil, eulogized by PIJ as a commander who posed as a “journalist” and used Shifa Hospital as a base. 

The fact that even Hamas and PIJ contradict one of Albanese’s principal accusations is emblematic of the report’s broader deficiencies. 

Albanese claims to expose how “the destruction of truth has become integral to the destruction of a people.” Yet, as the following sections demonstrate, her report substitutes selective evidence, unsupported inferences and distorted legal analysis for rigorous fact-finding. Far from exposing an “assault on truth,” it perpetuates one—under the imprimatur of the United Nations. 

1. Genocide Assumed, Not Proven 

Albanese’s analysis begins with the conclusion it purports to prove. She refers to Israel’s “genocidal destruction” and describes the current hostilities as “the genocidal phase” of Israel’s “long colonial project” (para. 1). Later in the report, she describes the conflict as the “ongoing genocide in Palestine” (paras. 41, 91) and as established fact, referring to “the genocide” and Israel’s  “genocidal campaign” (paras. 28, 42, 64, 70, 81). In circular fashion, she then presents Israel’s alleged targeting of journalists, which she terms “mediacide,” as further evidence of the premise she has already assumed, declaring it “probative of genocidal intent” (para. 41).

Even Albanese’s own authorities undermine her attempt to infer genocidal intent from the alleged systematic killing of journalists. In paragraph 9, she claims that “systematically killing those who document atrocities” may be evidence of an intent to destroy the protected group, citing Bosnia v. Serbia (at para. 373) and Croatia v. Serbia (at para. 148). Yet neither cited passage addresses the killing of journalists or witnesses, much less establishes that such conduct is evidence of genocidal intent. Instead, both establish the stringent standard for inferring genocidal intent from a pattern of conduct under which genocidal intent must be “the only inference that could reasonably be drawn from the acts in question.” 

Moreover, in paragraph 89, she herself offers a different explanation for the same alleged conduct—claiming that Israel targeted journalists “to conceal” alleged “mass atrocities” and “also to erode the very possibility of documenting them.” An alleged intent to conceal atrocities or suppress their documentation is not the specific intent to destroy a protected group required for genocide. Yet in paragraph 91, she recasts Israel’s alleged targeting of journalists as “intrinsic to the ongoing genocide.” Albanese neither establishes the specific genocidal intent required under international law nor explains how her allegations satisfy the stringent ICJ standard she herself invokes.   

2. “Mediacide”: An Invented Concept Presented as Proof of Genocide 

“Mediacide” is not a recognized international crime or established legal category. Yet Albanese uses this invented concept to link fundamentally different forms of conduct to genocide. In paragraph 90, she describes “mediacide” as a “single, integrated phenomenon” that  encompasses the alleged targeting of Palestinian journalists, Israeli media coverage, and the reporting practices of Western media and digital platforms. In paragraph 91, she declares these phenomena “intrinsic to the ongoing genocide,” without establishing how they demonstrate the specific intent to destroy a protected group required under international law.

Moreover, Albanese stretches “mediacide” to cover almost anything that affects the information environment—from the alleged killing of journalists and destruction of media infrastructure to Israeli government advertising, television commentary, Western media coverage and social-media moderation. These are fundamentally different acts, governed by different legal standards. Grouping them together under a single label does not turn them into a single legal wrong, much less evidence of genocide.

3. Combatants Recast as Journalists 

Albanese misrepresents international humanitarian law when she sweepingly claims in paragraph 7 that “[j]ournalists in armed conflict are civilians, protected unless they directly participate in hostilities,” citing Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions and ICRC Rule 34. In paragraph 15 she reiterates that the “civilian status” of journalists is “presumed,” citing also the ICRC’s Interpretive Guidance. But that is only part of the story. Albanese omits that the same ICRC guidance she cites also recognizes that members of an organized armed group whose “continuous combat function” involves the preparation, execution or command of military operations do not qualify as civilians at all—even when they are not carrying out a particular attack. A Hamas or PIJ fighter or commander does not suddenly benefit from civilian status just because they simultaneously work as a journalist.

Albanese compounds this selective presentation of the law by dismissing evidence of journalists’ military roles. At the outset, she characterizes allegations of terrorist affiliation as journalists being “smeared” while “documenting the destruction of their own society” (para. 3(a)), and in paragraph 7 warns that “mischaracterizing journalists as ‘terrorists’ or combatants cannot negate” their protection. In fact, the opposite applies here: mischaracterizing a combatant as a journalist does not transform him into a protected civilian. 

As discussed above, Albanese’s blanket dismissal of Israeli evidence as “undisclosed or discredited” is contradicted by Hamas and PIJ’s own identification of individuals listed as journalists as their combatants, as well as CPJ’s subsequent removal of 27 names from its database after determining that they were Hamas or PIJ combatants. CPJ expressly condemned “the misrepresentation of combatants as journalists or media workers.” The problem is not new. During the 2014 Gaza conflict, UNESCO withdrew its condemnation of the killing of Abdullah Murtaja as a journalist after evidence emerged that he was a member of Hamas’s Al-Qassam Brigades. UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova expressly deplored “attempts to instrumentalize the profession of journalists by combatants.” 

4. Journalist Deaths Do Not Prove Israel Targeted Journalists 

Albanese repeatedly treats the killing of journalists as evidence that Israel deliberately targeted them because of their work. In paragraph 3(a), she describes the “systematic targeting” of Palestinian journalists and claims that it “has progressively deprived the world of its primary witnesses” of Israel’s conduct. But these are distinct propositions. The fact that a journalist was killed in an Israeli strike does not establish that the journalist was deliberately targeted, much less that the purpose was to suppress reporting.

Albanese makes a similar leap in claiming that the destruction of more than 150 journalists’ homes “signals an intent to persecute the media sector” (para. 18). But a tally of destroyed homes does not establish that they were deliberately targeted because of their connection to journalists. 

5. Destroyed Media Buildings: Motive Assumed Without Evidence 

A media facility can become a military objective if, in the circumstances of the particular case, its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and its destruction, capture or neutralization offers a definite military advantage.  

Albanese dispenses with that inquiry. In paragraph 35, she cites the destruction of Palestine Tower, damage to approximately 50 media offices and the destruction of Press House and declares that the “early and intense targeting of media institutions likely indicates an explicit intention to suppress reporting from the ground.” Yet Albanese simply assumes that the media offices were the intended targets and that suppressing reporting was the objective, without offering evidence for either conclusion.  

Palestine Tower illustrates the speculation underlying Albanese’s conclusion. Israel gave an entirely different explanation at the time for the strike, identifying the target as “military infrastructure used by senior Hamas terrorist operatives for carrying out terrorist activity.” Reporting from the time also identified Hamas offices in the tower. Albanese does not address this evidence. Nor does she offer evidence to support her claim that Israel’s actual objective was to silence journalists. The intelligence and contemporaneous targeting assessments that would shed light on the strike’s actual purpose are not publicly available, and Albanese offers no indication that she reviewed them. Yet she attributes to Israel a motive she cannot substantiate.   

The Press House example fares no better. Publicly available information does not establish precisely how or why the building was destroyed. Yet Albanese treats its destruction as evidence of an Israeli campaign to suppress journalism, again substituting speculation for evidence.  

6. Hamas Erased From Gaza’s “Information Environment” 

Albanese claims to analyze Israel’s war “on and through the media” (para. 1), which she characterizes as Israel’s “destruction of truth” (summary), while effectively excluding Hamas from her analytical framework. She focuses instead on Israel’s alleged targeting of journalists, its “architecture of information control,” and the global media’s amplification of Israeli narratives (para. 3(b)). Yet Hamas has controlled Gaza since 2007 and exercises coercive power over the environment in which Palestinian journalists operate.

Hamas’s repression of journalists is well documented. In 2025, the Committee to Protect Journalists reported that Hamas violations against journalists during the war were “vastly underreported.” The Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate told CPJ that journalists faced threats, interrogations, beatings, arrests, publication bans, interference with content and surveillance, and that many practiced self-censorship to avoid retaliation. Journalists described being beaten and threatened by Hamas security forces and prevented from covering anti-Hamas protests. This predates the current war. During the 2014 Gaza conflict, the Foreign Press Association protested Hamas’s threats and pressure against foreign journalists, reporting that journalists had been “harassed, threatened or questioned” over their reporting. Correspondents, including Italian journalist Gabriel Barbati and Polish journalist Wojciech Cegielski reported on Hamas violations against civilians during the 2014 war only after leaving Gaza. 

Although Albanese briefly acknowledges that Hamas has threatened journalists covering protests against it (para. 16), this fact disappears from her analysis of the “destruction of truth” within Gaza. Instead, she portrays Palestinian journalists as continuing  “to bear witness” despite “bombardment, displacement, hunger, and exhaustion,” and declares that “every image, fragment of video and testimony” sent from Gaza “stands as an act of resistance against colonial erasure” (para. 5). By scrutinizing purported Israeli influence over reporting while failing to incorporate Hamas’s documented control, intimidation and censorship of journalists into her analysis, Albanese presents a fundamentally distorted account of the information environment she claims to examine.

7. A Double Standard for Evidence: Contrary Evidence Becomes “Disinformation” 

Albanese repeatedly brands information that contradicts her narrative as “disinformation,” “denial” or “humanitarian camouflage,” while presenting her own disputed and unverified claims as fact. In paragraph 60, she describes challenges to famine warnings and even “questioning the reliability of humanitarian assessments” as “denial.” In paragraphs 69–70, she attacks media outlets for reporting Israeli arguments concerning evacuation orders, human shields and the military use of civilian facilities, dismissing these arguments as “humanitarian camouflage.” She likewise describes claims that Hamas operates from hospitals and other civilian sites as “unverified.”

Yet there were ample grounds to question the famine assessments. In March 2024, the IPC projected that famine was imminent in northern Gaza. Three months later, its Famine Review Committee concluded that the available evidence did not indicate that famine was occurring, while acknowledging major gaps in the evidence on food consumption, nutrition and mortality and a “very high level of uncertainty.” 

Even the IPC’s August 2025 famine finding was highly contested on methodological grounds. The Famine Review Committee acknowledged limitations in the malnutrition data and the absence of direct evidence of nutrition-related mortality, while critics challenged the data, thresholds and assumptions used to reach the finding. 

Albanese applies the same tactic to UNRWA. She condemns the “amplification of unsubstantiated allegations” against the agency (para. 68), yet the United Nations’ own Office of Internal Oversight Services found evidence indicating that nine UNRWA employees may have participated in the October 7 attacks, and UNRWA terminated them. 

In paragraph 68, Albanese refers to “unverified or false Israeli claims” that Hamas operates from hospitals and other civilian sites. Yet the evidence concerning Al-Shifa alone is substantial. The U.S. intelligence community assessed with “high confidence” that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad used Al-Shifa and sites beneath it for command infrastructure, command-and-control activities, weapons storage and holding hostages. Israeli forces also uncovered a tunnel network and weapons at the hospital. Released hostages testified that they had been held or taken to hospitals, while security-camera footage showed armed Hamas terrorists bringing two October 7 hostages into Al-Shifa.  

Albanese repeatedly criticizes media outlets for what she considers inadequate verification of Israeli claims, yet fails to apply the same scrutiny to evidence supporting her own conclusions. This selective treatment of evidence is particularly troubling because the Code of Conduct requires Special Procedures mandate holders to rely on “objective, reliable information” from “relevant credible sources,” to “duly cross-check” information to the best extent possible, and to act with “impartiality” and “even-handedness.”  

Her treatment of evidence falls short of these standards. In the introduction, Albanese quotes an alleged Israeli soldier as saying, “Whoever writes an article or works on a laptop is like someone carrying a Kalashnikov and attacking us” (para. 3(a)). Her only source is a submission by Addameer. She does not identify the soldier, provide the circumstances of the statement or cite any corroborating evidence. Even if authentic, the statement is anecdotal. The views of an unidentified soldier cannot establish IDF policy or prove that Israel targets journalists because of their work. Yet Albanese places the quotation immediately after alleging that Israel systematically kills and intimidates journalists to suppress documentation of its actions.

The same double standard appears in her treatment of Palestinian sources. Albanese describes Palestinian journalists as the world’s “primary witnesses” to the “destruction of their own society” (para. 3(a)) and declares that “every image, fragment of video and testimony” sent from Palestinian territory is an “act of resistance against colonial erasure” (para. 5). These sweeping assertions presume the reliability of Palestinian-produced material. She does not explain how such material is verified, distinguish verified evidence from unverified claims, or acknowledge that Palestinian sources may also require corroboration. 

This is consistent with her broader record. As UN Watch has documented, Albanese has repeatedly amplified false or unverified claims against Israel, including claims originating with Hamas-controlled authorities, in one case even admitting that she did so to be “provocative.” In May 2025, she urged the media to stop identifying Gaza casualty figures as coming from the Hamas-run Ministry of Health and instead report the figures simply as people “Israel killed.” 

Albanese may disagree with evidence that challenges her conclusions. But dismissing contrary evidence as “denial,” “propaganda” or “humanitarian camouflage,” while accepting claims that support her narrative without comparable scrutiny, is not impartial fact-finding. It is selective treatment of evidence designed to reinforce a predetermined conclusion. 

8. Western Media Condemned for Reporting Israel’s Side 

In a distortion of ordinary journalism, Albanese attacks major Western media outlets, including BBC, CNN, and The New York Times for reporting Israeli claims and arguments as though reporting them amounts to endorsing them. Her targets are particularly striking: these same outlets have published extensive reporting highly critical of Israel and its conduct in Gaza. Yet Albanese accuses them of amplifying Israeli “humanitarian camouflage,” including claims concerning evacuation orders, human shields and Hamas’s use of civilian facilities (paras. 69–70), and charges them with reproducing narratives that “obscure, justify or legitimize atrocity crimes while marginalizing Palestinian voices, evidence and international law” (para. 90).  

In one example, Albanese says Western media “frequently reproduced” Israel’s portrayal of evacuation orders and safe zones as measures to protect civilians “without challenging it” (para. 69). Her supporting footnote cites an April 2024 New York Times report on preparations for an Israeli operation in Rafah. Yet that article did not simply reproduce Israel’s position. It reported that Israel planned to relocate civilians to an expanded humanitarian zone, but also noted that more than one million Palestinians were sheltering in Rafah and that the proposed zone was already overflowing and lacked adequate clean water and sanitation. It quoted a Palestinian former official asking, “Where do these million people go?” and reported U.S. and U.N. concerns about protecting civilians. Far from supporting Albanese’s accusation, the New York Times article she cites directly contradicts it.  

The same problem appears in her treatment of Hamas’s use of hospitals. Albanese complains that “unverified claims that Hamas operates from hospitals and other civilian sites” lent credibility to narratives justifying attacks on medical facilities (para. 70). But reporting an allegation, identifying its source and examining the evidence is not the same as adopting the allegation as fact. CNN, for example, repeatedly attributed the claims to Israel, reported Hamas’s denials and distinguished what it could independently verify from what it could not. After visiting Al-Shifa, CNN explicitly told viewers that what it had seen was “not proof of a Hamas command center,” while reporting the evidence presented by Israel and the competing claims about what it showed. Albanese’s characterization therefore obscures the distinction between reporting a contested claim and endorsing it.

In addressing the question of “human shield,” Albanese notes that the New York Times referred to “human shields” 176 times and the BBC 81 times, presenting the frequency itself as evidence that Western media adopted an Israeli “framing” of civilian deaths (para. 70). But counting the words proves nothing. Albanese does not show whether the references were allegations attributed to Israel, findings reported from other sources, statements challenged by the outlet, or conclusions supported by evidence. Nor does she establish that the underlying allegation was false. 

9. Stretching the Law to Manufacture Liability 

Albanese repeatedly invokes international criminal law to transform speech, journalism and commercial activity by private actors into components of genocide. But the authorities she cites do not support the conclusions she draws from them.

Her reliance on the Rwanda “Media Case,” Prosecutor v. Nahimana, is one example. Albanese claims that statements by Israeli presenters and commentators amount to direct and public incitement to genocide and says that their being “unchallenged and unrepudiated” engages the responsibility of the media organizations themselves (paras. 61-62). But Nahimana does not establish such a sweeping rule. The Appeals Chamber stressed that the specific crime requires a direct public appeal to commit genocide, made with the intent to incite genocide. It expressly distinguished such incitement from hate speech and incitement to violence, holding that speech must amount to more than a “vague or indirect suggestion.” The tribunal examined the specific broadcasts, the intent behind them and the individual defendants’ responsibility for their dissemination. 

The facts of Nahimana also bear little resemblance to Albanese’s allegations against Israeli media. The case concerned RTLM broadcasts that directly incited the killing of Tutsis during the Rwandan genocide. Albanese, by contrast, relies on a handful of selected statements by Israeli presenters and commentators, without adequately examining their context, meaning or the intent of the speakers. Instead, she characterizes them as direct and public incitement to genocide and invokes Nahimana to suggest that media organizations bear responsibility for statements left “unchallenged and unrepudiated” (paras. 61-62). But the judgment provides no basis for drawing such sweeping conclusions from isolated statements without establishing the required elements of the crime.  

Albanese makes the same legal leap when accusing social-media companies of potential complicity in international crimes. She says Google and X accepted Israeli government advertising that disputed famine claims and other allegations against Israel (paras. 50, 85). From there, she jumps to the possibility of criminal complicity (para. 88), citing Furundžija, a war-crimes judgment from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

But Furundžija does not establish criminal liability merely for accepting payment to publish an advertisement. It requires assistance that had a “substantial effect” on the commission of a crime, together with knowledge that the assistance facilitated the crime. Albanese establishes neither. She identifies no international crime that was substantially assisted by a Google or X advertisement, no evidence that carrying the advertisement facilitated such a crime and no evidence that the platforms accepted it knowing that it would do so.

The post Legal Analysis of Francesca Albanese’s October 2026 Report to the General Assembly appeared first on UN Watch.

SHARE: YouTube | X.com | Instagram | Facebook | LinkedIn

Video Transcript:

UNHRC President: “Excellencies, distinguished colleagues, I hereby declare open the Human Rights Council. We will begin the high-level panel discussion of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training.

I give the floor to United Nations Watch.”

Hillel Neuer: “Today’s panel asks how the United Nations can advance human rights education for children and youth.

Surely, the first principle must be: “Do no harm.”

Yesterday, UN Watch released its report card on UNRWA reform, testing the agency’s claims against the evidence.

UNRWA says it fulfilled 41 of the 50 reforms recommended by the Colonna Review.

But what is the reality in UNRWA’s classrooms?

According to a December 8^th, 2025 report in the New York Times, 24 employees at 24 different UNRWA schools, mostly principals and deputy principals, were Hamas or Islamic Jihad terrorists.

We ask: Why for 27 years did UNRWA employ Suhail al-Hindi as school principal and teachers’ union chief while he openly sat on the Hamas Politburo with Yahya Sinwar?

Why was he allowed to block Holocaust education?

Why did UNRWA employee Fateh Sharif serve as a school principal and teachers’ union chief while he was also the Hamas commander in Lebanon?

Why did the UN honor UNRWA principal Imad al-Samhouri at its solemn memorial ceremony when he was a Hamas commander sworn to jihad?

Now, the UN can pretend they didn’t know, but his social media is full of photos of him bringing Hamas chiefs into UNRWA schools.

And so we ask the panel: Is this human rights education?

Will the UN and this Council demand an investigation into the UNRWA leaders who oversaw the hiring of terrorist commanders to run the schools and brainwash generations of Palestinians with incitement, hate, racism and holy war?

We ask: Who will be held accountable?

I thank you.”

The post Hillel Neuer confronts a UN Human Rights Council panel on education over UNRWA’s employment of terrorist leaders as school principals appeared first on UN Watch.