SHARE: YouTube | X.com | Instagram

At the UN Human Rights Council, UN health rapporteur Tlaleng Mofokeng presented her final report, receiving praise from South Africa, Palestine, The Arab Group, and multiple NGO’s including Amnesty International. However, UN Watch’s recent report, From Watchdogs to Idealogues, exposed her unprofessionalism and ideological radicalism. Hillel Neuer took the floor to call out her misconduct.

Highlights from the UN Human Rights Council, June 17, 2026:

Special Rapporteur Tlaleng Mofokeng: “The failure of states to adopt an anti racist, anti-colonial, and dignity-based approaches through extractive capitalistic practices, pillaging of resources, coloniality, genocides, and then crushes people under the weight of indignity. Health cannot be realized without dignity.”

South Africa: “South Africa commends her distinguished tenure grounded in dignity, equality, and inclusion.”

Palestinian Delegation (PLO): “We thank the Special Rapporteur for her principled voice and solidarity.”

The Arab Group: “The Arab group thanks the Special Rapporteur and we commend her prioritization.”

Center for Reproductive Rights: “We celebrate the incredible legacy of Dr. T. She has made clear the intersectional links between colonialism, racism, patriarchy, and power.”

Planned Parenthood Federation: “We also commend your courage in documenting genocidal acts perpetrated in Gaza.”

Amnesty International and 36 NGOs: “I’m a proud African trans woman delivering this statement on behalf of 37 feminist organizations. We commend the Special Rapporteur for calling for the decriminalization of abortion and sex work.

She has recognized Israel’s genocide. We call on this Council and its Special Rapporteurs to build progressively on Dr. Mofokeng’s considerable legacy of body of work.”

UNHRC President: “Thank you. I call on United Nations Watch.”

Hillel Neuer, UN Watch: “Special Rapporteur Mofokeng, your report focuses on human dignity, including protection from exploitation.

Now, on page 21, you refer to sex workers. In that regard, you’ve published an article for Teen Vogue magazine encouraging adolescents to view prostitution as legitimate work.

Given the widespread exploitation, trafficking, and abuse in the prostitution industry, do you still stand by those remarks?

On page 2, you write that health cannot be realized without dignity. Do you believe your own conduct reflects that principle?

As documented in UN Watch’s latest report, you have repeatedly used profane and abusive language against those with whom you disagree.

On July 1st, 2024, you called former British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak “filthy.” In a tweet about him on December 8th, 2023, you wrote “f’ed up.” Is this dignified behavior?

On pages 1 and 3, your report opposes stigma and racism. Yet, when I criticized your conduct, you called me “evil scum white man.”

As a result, South Africa’s health authority found you guilty of bringing the medical profession into disrepute. Do you now regret those remarks?

Special Rapporteur, you were elected chair of the UN Human Rights Experts. Is your conduct setting the right example?

Finally, South Africa gave the world Nelson Mandela, who taught that human dignity belongs to every person, including one’s political opponents.

Special Rapporteur, do you believe that Nelson Mandela would have approved of your conduct? I thank you.”

Special Rapporteur Tlaleng Mofokeng: “And in the face of fierce, personal, targeted attacks, incitement of violence against me, escalating into domestic spaces as professional harassment and intimidation, both in real life and in online spaces… I stand here today with very few answers to the grand scale of human suffering.”

The post Hillel Neuer Confronts U.N. Official Who Called Him “Evil Scum” appeared first on UN Watch.

“Under Bachelet’s tenure, the office tasked with defending human rights became an office that protected the world’s worst abusers,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch. “The next secretary-general must be someone willing to confront dictators, not shield them.”

UN Watch sent a letter directly to Bachelet, as well as to various UN Security Council members, including the U.S., UK, France, Denmark, Latvia, Greece, Panama, and Liberia, presenting 11 questions about her record and urging governments to demand answers before extending any support to her candidacy.

The letters draw on UN Watch’s September 2022 report, “Blind Eye to Dictatorships,” which documented that during Bachelet’s tenure, the UN human rights office applied grossly disproportionate attention to criticizing liberal democracies while giving a free pass to authoritarian regimes that systematically suppress dissent.

Bachelet is one of five candidates vying to succeed Secretary-General António Guterres, whose term ends December 31. The others are Rafael Grossi of Argentina, Rebeca Grynspan of Costa Rica, Macky Sall of Senegal, and María Fernanda Espinosa of Ecuador. The Security Council is expected to recommend a candidate in the coming months, with the General Assembly formally appointing the next secretary-general before year’s end.

Among the questions UN Watch is demanding Bachelet answer before the Security Council vote:

• On Russia: Why did she fail to initiate a single statement on Russian political prisoners, including dissident Vladimir Kara-Murza, and remain publicly silent on the arrest and attempted poisoning of Alexei Navalny until after his Feb. 2021 sentencing?
• On China: Why did she fail to initiate a single statement on the detention of more than one million Uyghurs in China until the final hour of her mandate, despite repeated appeals from UN Watch and widespread international concern?
• On Iran: Why did she fail to initiate a single statement on Iran’s forced hijab laws and systemic discrimination against women?
• On Venezuela: Why did she initiate more stand-alone criticisms of the United States than of Nicolás Maduro’s regime, despite extensive evidence of arbitrary detention, torture and repression in Venezuela documented by her own UN human rights office?
• On North Korea: Why did she initiate only one stand-alone criticism of North Korea, treating one of the world’s most severe human rights violators similarly to how she treated democratic Australia, Spain and the European Union?
• On Antisemitism: Why did she fail to initiate a single stand-alone statement following major antisemitic attacks, including the synagogue shootings in Pittsburgh and Poway and the hostage-taking at the synagogue in Colleyville, Texas, even as she publicly spoke out on other forms of racist violence?

“This system was created to defend victims of abuse,” Neuer said. “Before any government can consider supporting her candidacy, the world deserves clear answers.”

Pursuant to UN General Assembly resolution 79/327, the secretary-general must embody “the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity,” and the UN chief is expected to serve as “a spokesperson for the interests of the world’s peoples, in particular the poor and vulnerable among them.”

“A secretary-general must be willing to confront dictators when it matters most, not look away when the perpetrators are powerful,” Neuer said. “The United Nations cannot restore its credibility by elevating officials who repeatedly failed to speak out against major abuses in China, Iran, Russia and elsewhere. Before any government supports Bachelet’s candidacy, the world deserves clear answers about her record.”

ABOUT UN WATCH:
UN Watch is a Geneva-based non-governmental organization dedicated to holding the United Nations accountable to its founding principles of human rights, equality, and justice. Founded in 1993, UN Watch monitors UN institutions, exposes bias and misconduct, and advocates for reforms that strengthen the UN’s credibility and effectiveness. Through research, advocacy, and engagement at the UN, UN Watch works to ensure that universal human rights are upheld for all.

The post UN Watch Urges Security Council to Block Bachelet’s Bid for Secretary-General appeared first on UN Watch.

On March 31st, at the end of the 61st Session of the U.N. Human Rights Council, the 47-member world body is set to appoint Zeina Jallad as the next Special Rapporteur on “the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures” — an Orwellian position initiated by Iran and Cuba — that is dedicated to condemning Western sanctions against oppressive regimes.

According to her application form, Jallad heads the Palestine Land Studies Center at the American University of Beirut, and has a long history of anti-Israel activism. She defended Hamas after the October 7th massacre.

Although the 5-nation vetting committee had recommended another name as its top choice, in a rare move, the Indonesian President of the Human Rights Council, Amb. Sidharto Suryodipuro, instead went to the second-ranked candidate, and proposed Jallad for the position. To justify his decision, the council president cited her “practice-grounded perspective… as well as her pledge to approach the role with independence, transparency and a commitment to listen.”

Historically, the President’s list of proposed appointees is almost always approved by a consensus of the 47-nation council. Nonetheless, member states do have the ability to raise objections and force a vote on Jallad’s appointment.

Zeina Jallad in Her Own Words

• In March 2025, Jallad defended Hamas: “Hamas is a political party. Hamas and its Charter recognized Israel… They won the elections in 2007, so they were the elected government. What did the world do? The Americans decided to sanction the Palestinian government. The Europeans decided to boycott Hamas. The entire world bashed Hamas. And then Israel imposed a blockade on Gaza. So before talking about October 7th, let’s talk about October 6th.”

• In a May 2024 article about Jordanians supporting Hamas through chants that “They said Hamas were terrorists. All of Jordan is Hamas!”, Jallad said that the chants were about the “resistance movement.” She added, “if you’re under occupation, fighting is resistance.”

• In November 2025, Jallad wrote in reference to Palestinians that “resisting oppression must be recognized not as a crime, but as a fundamental legal right and moral imperative.”

• In April 2025, Jallad stated that “suspending Israel’s involvement in international organizations should be viewed as a means to uphold justice.“

• In March 2025, Jallad stated that “The creation of Israel was the product of the wrongdoings of the West.“ She then added that “Israel is not faced with any existential threat.“

• In May 2021, as thousands of Hamas rockets were being launched at Israeli civilians, Jallad photographed a demonstration in Ramallah while adding: “To resist is to exist.”

• In 2023, Jallad criticized Israel’s purported “settler-colonial approach to state-building” and accused the Jewish state of being “a proto-apartheid regime.”

Palestinian Picked Over UN’s Own Recommended Expert

Putting aside the Orwellian nature of the UNHRC’s mandate on “unilateral coercive measures,” it’s far from clear that Jallad is the world’s leading expert on sanctions. Indeed, in this same session, Jallad also applied for an entirely different position — as the expert on housing.

The first ranked candidate, Clara Portela, wrote her doctoral thesis on “the imposition of sanctions in response to human rights violations.” She participated in the U.N. High Level Panel on Targeted Sanctions, and served as an advisor on sanctions violations to the European Economic and Social Committee. True, the post is nothing but an anti-Western political cudgel, but clearly the “qualified” expert for it was Portela, who indeed was ranked first by the five-nation Consultative Group.

Yet Jallad seems to have been chosen above the first-ranked candidate for two reasons. First, political reasons: she’s Palestinian, and this is considered a gesture to the Palestinian Lobby at the UN, which includes the PLO, the Arab and Islamic States, and many other stakeholders.

Second, she’s the ultimate insider, and the UN human rights office likes to select people who will be loyal to the system. Jallad currently serves as the legal advisor to Michael Fakhri, the UNHRC’s Special Rapporteur on the right to food, who has repeatedly accused Israel of committing genocide and argued that the U.N.’s institutional legitimacy cannot be restored unless Israel’s statehood is undone. Jallad also served as a legal expert at UN Women, and as a “gender expert” for the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights. Additionally, she worked as a legal expert for the UNHRC’s investigative body for Syria, where she actually specialized in blaming the West for sanctions on the Assad regime.

About the Mandate

The position of Special Rapporteur on Unilateral Coercive Measures (UCMs), the UN’s term for Western sanctions on dictatorships, was established by an Iran-sponsored resolution in 2014, with the support of Russia, China, Venezuela, and Cuba. Its primary objective is to invert reality: claiming that Western sanctions, not repressive governments, are to blame for humanitarian crises in targeted countries.

The outgoing mandate-holder, Alena Douhan, has made official visits to China, Cuba, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe to later issue reports siding with the oppressive regimes of these nations instead of their victims. Douhan’s office has received more earmarked funding by state donors than any other UN rapporteur, with donations totaling over $1 million coming exclusively from China, Russia and Qatar.

.@YvetteCooperMP Is it true your 🇬🇧 government is planning to quietly go along with the UNHRC's appointment on Tuesday of this open defender of Hamas terror? We urge you to demand a vote, and to vote No.

ZEINA JALLAD: “Hamas is a political party. The biggest image: ‘Let's create… https://t.co/etLROc0NWd pic.twitter.com/1QjGuUYgwn

— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) March 29, 2026

Meet the U.N.’s new human-rights authority. Zeina Jallad will probe sanctions against the world’s rogue states. They’ll be happy.https://t.co/uw6WgjQaTw

— Wall Street Journal Opinion (@WSJopinion) March 26, 2026

This is exactly why the U.S. withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council. @UN_HRC is poised to hand a watchdog role to a woman who excused Hamas, shielded Assad, and believes Israel should be removed from International Organizations. Disgusting behavior. https://t.co/RtGi8kFO6A

— Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman (@SenateForeign) March 26, 2026

La nuova relatrice speciale sulle sanzioni ai regimi è grande amica dei regimi. Zeina Jallad e il suo curriculum di posizioni inequivocabili. Di @GiulioMeottihttps://t.co/2OUO5yf7Jv

— Il Foglio (@ilfoglio_it) March 28, 2026

The UN Human Rights Council is set to appoint an academic who has appeared to defend Hamas to a special rapporteur position, against the recommendation of its own vetting group, according to the nonprofit group UN Watch.

Read more on The Times of Israel.https://t.co/iJLLHp90V5 pic.twitter.com/Z218VQ6V6z

— The Times of Israel (@TimesofIsrael) March 28, 2026

The post U.N. Set to Appoint Terror Sympathizer as “Human Rights Expert” appeared first on UN Watch.

By Dina Rovner, Legal Advisor at UN Watch

The report released today by Francesca Albanese frames Israel’s alleged torture of Palestinians as “a structural feature of the ongoing Israeli genocide and broader settler-colonial apartheid” (para. 1). Throughout, she employs expansive and imprecise language to broaden the definition of torture, alleging “collective torture” (paras. 70, 86), a “torturous environment” (paras. 6, 15), and abuse occurring “across time and space” (para. 8).

Despite offering no new evidence of genocidal intent—an essential element of the crime—Albanese asserts that such intent is “apparent” when “torture is perpetrated across an entire territory… and sustained through policies that destroy the conditions of life” (para. 82), relying on previously debunked statements by Israeli officials. The report omits the context of an ongoing armed conflict with Hamas, sustained jihadist terrorism against Israeli civilians, and Israel’s efforts to mitigate harm—all of which contradict its central claims of intentional torture and genocide.

The result is a complete inversion: Hamas’s openly declared genocidal intent and mass atrocities are recast as crimes committed by Israel. While the Hamas Charter is openly genocidal against Israel, Albanese attributes such intent to Israel. Hamas acted on this intent in its October 7 attack targeting Israeli civilians. Moreover, the very crimes the report imputes to Israel—“mass killings, mass displacement, mass destruction of homes and infrastructure, mass starvation, [and] mass deprivation… of essential medical care”—were carried out by Hamas against Israeli civilians on October 7 and against hostages in Gaza thereafter.

Below are specific critiques of the report.

1. Expanding Definition of Torture into a “Torturous Environment” Across an Entire Territory

Albanese’s report relies on a non-mainstream legal theory that radically expands the definition of torture beyond existing international law. 

Under Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture, torture is a narrowly defined crime requiring: (1) an intentional act; (2) the infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering; (3) for a specific prohibited purpose such as punishment, coercion, intimidation, or discrimination; and (4) involvement of a public official. The Rome Statute similarly defines torture as the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering upon a person in custody or under the control of the accused—a definition grounded in identifiable victims and specific conduct.

Albanese abandons this framework. She accuses Israel of creating a “torturous environment” (paras. 6; 47; 71; 85) affecting an entire population across an entire territory. The only authority cited for this sweeping claim is a prior UN report (para. 15) that used the concept in a fundamentally different context—describing cumulative methods of torture inflicted upon a specific individual. Albanese extends that concept beyond “classic situations of detention” to the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a whole, without citing any legal authority supporting such an expansion.

The consequences of this move are significant. The acts she labels as collective “torture”—including starvation as a method of war or genocide—are already separately defined crimes under international law. Rebranding them as “torture” adds nothing legally and instead collapses distinct legal categories. If every war crime or crime against humanity can also be relabeled as torture, the specific legal elements of torture are rendered meaningless.

Torture requires the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering for a prohibited purpose. By redefining the general hardships of armed conflict as “torture,” Albanese collapses this requirement. Armed conflict inevitably causes suffering, but military operations are undertaken to achieve military objectives—not to inflict pain as an end in itself. Erasing that distinction transforms torture from a defined criminal offense into a catch-all label for the consequences of war.

Albanese’s expansion does not stop at territory. She accuses Israel of torturing Palestinians “across time and space” (paras. 8, 13) and describes “collective torture against Palestinians as a group” (para. 70). She goes further, asserting that “genocide has become the ultimate form of torture,” characterizing it as “continuous, generational and collective” (para. 86). 

Effectively, she transforms a precise criminal definition into a metaphor for political grievance. By recasting torture as a diffuse “environment” operating across “time and space,” the report substitutes legal analysis with moral narrative.

2. Omission of Hamas Torture of Israeli Hostages

This report by the Special Rapporteur on “the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967” omits any discussion of Hamas torture and abuse of Israeli hostages held in those territories. Returned hostages have testified to being confined in cramped underground tunnels without natural light or fresh air, subjected to unsanitary conditions, deprived of food and hygiene, chained, denied medical treatment, beaten, sexually assaulted, and subjected to psychological abuse.

A report devoted to torture that fails to address the captivity, abuse, and documented mistreatment of Israeli hostages demonstrates selective scrutiny. Such an omission does not reflect a principled application of international law, but an advocacy-driven approach.

3. Characterization of Israel as a Racist “Settler-Colonial-Apartheid” Regime

Albanese frames the conflict as a settler-colonial and racial conflict. She describes torture as “a structural feature of the ongoing Israeli genocide and broader settler-colonial apartheid” (para. 1), accuses Israel of “settler-colonial genocide” (Paras. 7; 82), and characterizes it as a “colonial and racially ordered regime” (para. 19). This framing denies the indigeneity of the Jewish people, who have maintained a continuous presence in the land of Israel for millennia and for whom the land is central to their religion, history, and collective identity. Instead, it casts Jews as colonial outsiders in their historic homeland.

By presenting Israel as a foreign colonial implant devoid of legitimate national or historical claims, the report effectively denies Jewish collective self-determination and treats the existence of the Jewish state as inherently unlawful.

4. Erasure of Hamas Terrorism and Armed Conflict Context

The report completely ignores the existence of an ongoing armed conflict between Israel and Hamas, as well as sustained jihadist terrorism against Israeli civilians by Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other groups. By erasing the reality of armed conflict, the report portrays the ordinary and foreseeable consequences of warfare—civilian displacement, destruction of infrastructure, and civilian casualties—as evidence of genocidal intent.

The report likewise omits Hamas’s war crimes and violations of the laws of armed conflict, including its systematic use of human shields, its extensive network of subterranean terror tunnels embedded under civilian areas throughout Gaza, and hoarding of and profiteering from humanitarian aid. As a result, it attributes civilian harm solely to Israel, effectively absolving Hamas of responsibility for its own war crimes.

This omission is reflected throughout Albanese’s treatment of Israeli military operations. She levels a series of one-sided accusations against Israel while withholding critical context and ignoring Hamas’s role in increasing harm to Palestinian civilians. For example, she accuses Israel of “cartographic terror” in Gaza (para. 52), referring to evacuation warnings advising civilians to leave active battle zones, yet ignores Hamas’s militarization of civilian areas that makes such evacuations necessary to reduce civilian harm. She criticizes Israeli strikes in designated humanitarian zones while disregarding Hamas militant activity in those same areas (para. 52).

She blames Israel for having “obliterated” the homes of “over a million” Palestinians, as families’ “heirlooms and intimate connections with their past are lost” (para. 53). Yet she again ignores Hamas’s systematic militarization of residential areas, including the construction of a vast terror-tunnel infrastructure beneath homes, tunnel entrances inside residences, military operations conducted from civilian dwellings, and the booby-trapping of houses to maximize casualties among Israeli troops. She similarly blames Israel for damage to “schools, mosques, libraries, museums and cultural sites” (para. 54), while ignoring Hamas’s use of such sites for military purposes.

Likewise, she accuses Israel of “medicide” (para. 56), while disregarding evidence that Hamas has operated from hospitals and used ambulances for cover. At the same time, she fails to acknowledge humanitarian measures facilitated by Israel to alleviate pressure on Gaza’s health sector, including field hospitals, medical evacuations, and polio vaccination efforts.

This deliberate and one-sided treatment of the evidence violates the evidentiary standards governing Special Procedures and renders the report fundamentally unreliable.

More troubling still, the systematic erasure of Hamas crimes and the realities of armed conflict—combined with the ideological framing of Israel as a “settler-colonial regime”—provides the pretext for Albanese to level accusations of the gravest international crimes while bypassing core legal requirements such as intent, proportionality, and military necessity. In doing so, the report misrepresents both the factual record and the governing law, in violation of the duty of objectivity and integrity required of a UN mandate-holder.

5. Dismissal of Israeli “Security” as Illegitimate

Albanese places the terms “security” and “security threats” in quotation marks (paras. 3; 23), signaling her dismissal of Israel’s legitimate security concerns while recasting its counterterrorism measures as racially motivated “torture” and “genocide.” Her reporting repeatedly denies Israel’s right to self-defense under international law. Yet the Hamas Charter calls for Israel’s elimination, its officials openly affirm that objective, and have vowed to repeat the October 7 attacks again and again. Like any state, Israel has the right under international law to defend its territory and citizens from armed attacks, including those carried out by Hamas. By rejecting Israel’s right to security and self-defense in order to justify accusations of torture and genocide, Albanese abandons the requirements of objectivity and independence and uses her mandate as a vehicle for political advocacy rather than impartial human rights reporting.

6. Dishonest Misquotations and Fabrication of Intent

As Albanese acknowledges, intent is a necessary element of torture. To support her claim that Israel’s conduct following October 7, 2023 demonstrates an intent to subject Palestinians to torture—rather than an intent to defeat Hamas—she takes President Herzog’s words out of context as purported evidence of Israel’s “destructive intent” and “collective vengeance” (para. 3). Albanese misrepresents Herzog as claiming that there are no “innocents” in Gaza, when in fact he said the exact opposite, explaining how carefully the IDF seeks to reduce harm to civilians and to separate Hamas from the civilian population through warnings, evacuations, and monitoring. When asked about the exact phrase Albanese quotes—that “it’s an entire nation out there that is responsible”—Herzog made clear that he did not mean that Gaza’s civilians were legitimate military targets: “No, I didn’t say that, I did not say that, I want to make it clear.” He repeatedly emphasized, both in that press conference and elsewhere, that Israel was targeting Hamas and making every effort to distinguish between civilians and Hamas fighters and to avoid civilian harm. Albanese’s decision to isolate a single line while ignoring the clear surrounding context amounts, in the words of international law expert Salo Aizenberg, to “knowingly misquoting a head of state” and constitutes “intellectual fraud.”

Albanese similarly misrepresents Netanyahu’s October 7, 2023 statement that Israel would turn areas where Hamas had entrenched itself into rubble, portraying it instead as an expression of Israel’s long-term military objective to reduce all of Gaza to “cities of ruins” (para. 53). The statement makes clear Netanyahu was referring to Hamas, not to Gaza as a whole.

Albanese also cites, without attribution, a statement by Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant referring to Hamas as “human animals” (para. 51). She presents the remark as a “depiction of the entire population of Gaza as a group,” even though it plainly refers to Hamas and has been publicly clarified as such by Gallant himself. Fabricating intent through selective and distorted quotations is not merely intellectual dishonesty. It is a knowing abuse of her UN mandate that promotes unfounded and demonizing accusations against Israel.

7. False Claims of “Societal Torture” Through Starvation

Albanese’s report repeatedly accuses Israel of creating a “torturous environment” through intentional “starvation” (para. 47; 71). She claims that starvation constitutes “societal torture” and that it devastates “a people’s present and future” (para. 59). Yet the report omits facts that contradict this narrative, including Israel’s facilitation of over 2 million tons of aid into Gaza during the two years of war, more than 80% of which consisted of food and water, as well as documented Hamas theft of and profiteering from humanitarian aid. The report also ignores the extremely low number of malnutrition deaths—most involving individuals with pre-existing medical conditions—far below levels that would be expected in a famine. The only individuals intentionally starved in Gaza during the war were the Israeli hostages held by Hamas—a fact omitted entirely from Albanese’s report.

8. Discussion of Child Detention Omits Armed Group Use of Minors

Albanese’s report criticizes the large number of children detained by Israeli authorities since October 7, 2023 (paras. 24-25). Yet, she omits Hamas and other armed groups’ widespread use of minors in hostilities, including documented cases of teenagers used as fighters and in combat-support roles—an omission that fundamentally distorts the context in which minors may be detained. The recruitment and use of children in hostilities by armed groups is itself a serious violation of international law, including the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict to which the State of Palestine is a party.

9. False Claims of MSF “Expulsion” from Gaza

Albanese’s report cites what it describes as the “expulsion” of Doctors Without Borders (MSF) in February 2026 as evidence of Israeli “medicide” in Gaza (para. 56). In fact, Israel required humanitarian organizations to provide staff lists for vetting, citing security and transparency concerns after evidence emerged that Hamas had infiltrated humanitarian organizations in Gaza. MSF was not expelled. It chose not to comply with this requirement. Notably, on February 11, 2026, after announcing that it would not provide the names, MSF acknowledged that it had to suspend all non-essential services at Nasser Hospital due to Hamas activity there.

10. Reliance on Unidentified, One-Sided Sources

The report relies heavily on non-transparent and unverified sources, including unidentified submissions, unnamed witnesses, politicized NGO materials, and testimonies collected by third-party organizations, while largely disregarding contrary evidence (para. 2). Rather than independently testing allegations, it frequently reinforces its conclusions by citing prior reports by UN experts (footnotes 188; 240), Commission of Inquiry findings (footnotes 92; 169), or the Special Rapporteur’s own earlier reports (footnotes 136; 155; 238; 192; 247)—materials that themselves relied on similarly aligned sources. This produces not corroboration, but a closed evidentiary circuit in which allegations are recycled, amplified, and presented as established fact.

The Code of Conduct and Manual of Operations for Special Procedures require mandate-holders to be guided by discretion, transparency, impartiality, and even-handedness, and to rely on objective and dependable facts drawn from credible sources that have been duly cross-checked. By contrast, the approach here privileges aligned advocacy material over independent verification. It is incompatible with the standards of objectivity and due diligence required of UN Special Procedures.

11. Maximalist Remedies Against Israel

The report calls for maximalist remedies aimed at isolating Israel internationally, including criminal proceedings against Israelis worldwide under universal jurisdiction statutes, expanded mechanisms for collecting evidence of alleged Israeli crimes, and a full commercial boycott (para. 92).  demands that Israel pay reparations to Palestinians (para. 89), effectively absolving them of responsibility for their own acts of terror and aggression. Albanese also calls on the International Criminal Court (ICC) to “immediately request arrest warrants” for “Israeli officials in particular Ben-Gvir, Katz and Smotrich”—accusing them of “perpetrating and/or ordering atrocity crimes”—as well as the IDF Chief of General Staff and senior Israeli Prison Service officials  (para. 93). The breadth of these measures underscores the report’s punitive orientation and demonstrates that it functions as lawfare advocacy rather than an impartial expert assessment.

The post Legal Analysis of Francesca Albanese’s March 2026 Report to the Human Rights Council appeared first on UN Watch.

Mayor of Modena: “I had reservations about receiving Ms. Albanese. She failed to uphold the principle that a person who holds an institutional role must do so without embracing fanaticism, but must at least act with sobriety which Ms. Albanese did not uphold. She failed in her… https://t.co/wV9eyM835N pic.twitter.com/AJWXWhNVS4

— UN Watch (@UNWatch) March 9, 2026

The mayor of Modena says his meeting with Francesca Albanese was a mistake he wouldn’t repeat, adding that she fails to uphold “the institutional role of sobriety” and “the principle of not embracing fanaticism.”

Albanese fired back on social media, saying she will return the symbolic replica of a medieval Modena coin that she received during her visit to Modena’s City Hall.

Mayor Massimo Mezzetti revealed he had doubts from the start about meeting the controversial UN rapporteur last September, when she was presented with the souvenir at Modena’s City Hall.

“To be honest, I had doubts about receiving her from the very beginning,” Mezzetti recalled, also revealing that “there was strong public pressure and the aforementioned parliamentarians showed up at my office, even though they weren’t invited,” Mezzetti said in the city council chamber.

“The climate was that way, and the request was to grant Albanese ordinary citizenship” of Modena, but “I limited myself to a closed-door meeting. I admit frankly that a week later, after the events in Reggio Emilia” — when Albanese rebuked that city’s mayor for having called for Hamas to release hostages — “I wouldn’t have done even that.”

“Albanese failed to uphold the institutional role of sobriety to which she was called, and to the principle of not embracing fanaticism. That phase is certainly behind us today, and if it were to arise again, it would be handled differently.”

Albanese Responds: “The Time Has Come to Return the Coin”

“The time has come to return the city coin the mayor gave me: a memento that will serve him more than me.” This is how Francesca Albanese responded on social media to Modena Mayor Massimo Mezzetti’s regret regarding the September meeting at City Hall.

Albanese’s supporters are outraged:

More than five months after that meeting—which, moreover, was held privately and without any formal act of institutional recognition—the mayor deemed it appropriate to publicly declare that he would not make that decision again. This statement appears all the more incomprehensible and unfounded. It is worth remembering that the City of Modena did not grant honorary citizenship or any other honor to the UN Rapporteur. It was simply an institutional meeting, behind closed doors, with a figure who holds a high-profile international role within the United Nations. A gesture of normal institutional dialogue that, in a democratic and pluralistic city, should not be denied to anyone—let alone a UN representative engaged in monitoring human rights. Therefore, it is surprising that the mayor now feels the need to reopen an issue now archived in the local public debate, declaring that, with hindsight, he would not even have granted that meeting. A distancing statement made “out of the blue,” without any supervening circumstances to justify it. We wonder then if the mayor would have the courage to say these same words while looking Francesca Albanese in the eye.

The post Modena Mayor Regrets Meeting With UN Rapporteur Francesca Albanese appeared first on UN Watch.

Geneva, March 4, 2026 — UN Watch, the Geneva-based non-governmental organization that monitors the United Nations, today condemned UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese for knowingly promoting a fake AI-generated image of “165 coffins of schoolgirls” in order to generate support for the Islamic regime of Iran — and for refusing to take it down her tweet even after the image was “Community Noted” as disinformation.  

The image, which Albanese shared on X (formerly Twitter), was flagged as 97% AI-generated and lacks any verifiable evidence, violating the UN Code of Conduct’s requirement for mandate-holders to rely only on objective and reliable facts, to cross-check information, and to use credible sources. Despite the image being exposed as fabricated by a Community Note on X.com, and by UN Watch, Albanese doubled down, stating, “the picture is not the issue.” She has refused to take down her post, which quote-tweeted the fake image.

Iran’s regime is illiberal and brutal, and the Iranian people deserve the freedom they have long fought for. This gives no right to the US or Israel -whose own policies in Palestine are also illiberal and brutal- to bomb Iran, nor to EU leaders to cloak escalation in hypocrisy. https://t.co/GM1SrxhCPa

— Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur oPt (@FranceskAlbs) March 3, 2026

UN Watch urges UN Secretary-General António Guterres to take decisive action by condemning Albanese’s misconduct and calling for her removal.

“Secretary-General Guterres must act now to restore trust in the UN,” said Neuer. “Allowing rapporteurs to peddle regime propaganda — complete with fabricated AI images — without consequence turns the world body into a tool for dictators, not a defender of human rights. The Iranian people, who have fought bravely for freedom, deserve better than to have their suffering exploited in this way.”

This is not the first instance of Albanese spreading disinformation; in 2024, even the UN spokesperson rebuked her for amplifying fake news, emphasizing that “all officials who are associated with the U.N. must take special care not to pass along any disinformation.”

“Francesca Albanese’s actions represent a gross violation of her mandate,” said Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch. “By amplifying fabricated propaganda designed to shield Iran’s regime from accountability, she undermines the credibility of the entire UN human rights system. This fake image was clearly intended to drum up outrage against the U.S. and Israel, while ignoring the regime’s own atrocities, including the recent massacre of tens of thousands of Iranian civilians.”

Due to Albanese’s bias and inflammatory rhetoric that breaches UN impartiality standards, Britain, France, Germany, the U.S., Canada, the Netherlands, Argentina, Italy, Latvia, Estonia, Hungary, and the Czech Republic all issued unprecedented repudiations of Albanese’s conduct, with many now calling for her resignation.

Neuer added: “The unprecedented calls for Francesca Albanese’s resignation by numerous democracies underscores the depth of her misconduct and the growing consensus that her biased, inflammatory conduct has made her position untenable.”

Call on Belgian Universities to Reconsider Planned Award to Albanese

UN Watch calls on the rectors of Vrije Universiteit Brussel, the University of Antwerp, and Ghent University to immediately reconsider their decision to award Albanese an honorary doctorate on April 2, 2026. These institutions must uphold academic integrity and reject honoring individuals who propagate falsehoods under the UN banner.

About UN Watch

United Nations Watch is a non-governmental organization based in Geneva whose mission is to monitor the performance of the United Nations by the yardstick of its own Charter. UN Watch holds the UN accountable to its founding principles by exposing hypocrisy, bias, and abuses. For more information, visit www.unwatch.org.

The post UN Watch Condemns UN Rapporteur Francesca Albanese for Spreading Fake AI Image to Defend Iranian Regime appeared first on UN Watch.

Following is a legal analysis of the 2026 report by Michael Fakhri, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, to the UN Human Rights Council.

By Dina Rovner, Legal Advisor at UN Watch

Introduction

Michael Fakhri’s report to the 61st Session of the UN Human Rights Council, Land and the Right to Food, is not a neutral or balanced assessment of land governance. It is an ideological critique of market economies and Western legal systems, premised on the view that private property and international trade are inherently destructive. Throughout the report, Fakhri privileges collective and customary tenure systems as morally and legally superior, while casting individual property rights as narrow and harmful.

From the outset, the report frames land commodification as “one of the most destructive global practices” and a “major cause of hunger and starvation” (Summary). It accuses “corporations and rich people” of destroying “land’s life-giving force” and links market concentration—namely, the consolidation of land ownership and control—to “systemic hunger, poverty and violence” (para. 1; 6). International trade law, investment treaties, and global finance are portrayed not as complex legal frameworks subject to debate and reform, but as structurally unjust systems designed to dispossess (para. 8). Individual “property rights” are repeatedly characterized as part of the problem, while “customary” and “collective” land rights are presented as the normative alternative (para. 45-59; 84-90).

The ideological framing is reinforced by the report’s opening citation to Mahmoud Darwish’s poem On This Land (para. 1). Rather than grounding the analysis in international legal doctrine or empirical evidence, Fakhri begins with Palestinian nationalist poetic imagery about belonging to the land. Darwish is not cited merely as an illustrative quotation. He is invoked as a moral authority. A central figure in Palestinian nationalist literature, Darwish is widely regarded as a symbol of Palestinian resistance, and his poetry fuses themes of exile, land, dispossession, resistance, and identity. On This Land advances a one-sided conception of belonging to the land of “Palestine,” omitting Jewish historical ties, and is frequently cited to legitimize resistance narratives. This choice signals that the report is structured less as legal analysis and more as moral advocacy. Later, Fakhri again invokes Darwish’s poetry to describe how he has “witnessed people’s relationship with their land and territory as divine” (para. 28). This kind of spiritual framing cannot replace legal reasoning in a UN mandate report.

This framing culminates in the conclusion, where Fakhri describes himself as being “from a mountain village in Lebanon” and shares a personal aphorism from his father about “learning how to share the sky” (para 79). In a report that repeatedly elevates indigenous land struggles and critiques Western legal systems, this self-description does more than provide background. It places the mandate-holder within a narrative of ancestral, land-based belonging. Yet while Fakhri’s family is Lebanese, he himself is a Canadian-born law professor at an American university, operating within the very Western legal and socio-economic systems the report portrays as structurally unjust. The contrast underscores how much of the report rests on moral narrative rather than objective legal analysis. 

The Special Rapporteur’s mandate concerns the right to food. Yet significant portions of the report move well beyond food security analysis into sweeping claims about settler colonialism, state legitimacy, and the foundational structure of the United Nations itself. This expansion beyond the thematic mandate calls into question its reliability as an impartial assessment.

Consistent with this political framing, the report disproportionately focuses on Israel, repeatedly referring to it as the “Israeli regime”—terminology that departs from standard UN country nomenclature—while other States, such as Russia, are identified by their formal UN names. Although numerous country situations are discussed in brief, over one quarter of the report is devoted to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That conflict is recast as a paradigmatic settler-colonial struggle over land and natural resources. This characterization reduces a complex national and religious conflict to a one-sided colonial narrative, treating Palestinian rights as paramount while effectively denying Jewish historical presence and the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in their historical homeland. Meanwhile, other severe and ongoing land-related crises—including in Sudan, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, and elsewhere—are ignored. Nor does the report meaningfully address Russia’s war in Ukraine and its profound impact on global food security.

Indeed, Fakhri dedicates the entire “Justice and Occupation” section to Israel, explicitly justifying this choice by asserting that the Israeli presence in the “occupied Palestinian territory” is not a temporary occupation but a “settler-colonial project” that represents the “global exemplar for the struggle against the global rush to grab land” (para. 65). By elevating the only Jewish state as the archetype of global dispossession, while disregarding other protracted territorial disputes and occupations involving control over land, water, and natural resources—including Northern Cyprus, Western Sahara, Kashmir, Tibet, and Xinjiang—the report reveals a politicized selectivity that further casts doubt on its authority as an independent assessment.

Methodological and Substantive Flaws in the Report’s Analysis of Israel

1. Selective and unbalanced sourcing

Fakhri’s report falls short of the evidentiary standards expected of a UN mandate-holder. While he includes citations, the sections addressing Israel rely heavily on advocacy submissions and UN materials that reflect similar conclusions, rather than a balanced range of independently verifiable sources. For example, in the discussion of buffer zones, the report cites prominently to a submission by BADIL, a Palestinian advocacy organization whose mission centers on advancing the “right of return” and which actively promotes BDS. The report does not meaningfully engage contrary evidence, Israeli governmental positions, or independent legal analysis.

In addition, the report frequently cites prior UN materials—including Fakhri’s own previous report to the General Assembly—reinforcing a circular pattern of sourcing rather than independent verification. Even where Israeli military orders and court cases are referenced by number, the report does not substantively analyze the underlying legal texts or judicial reasoning, instead offering conclusory characterizations of those measures.

Most notably, the discussion in the “Justice and Occupation” section relies in significant part on the testimony of a single unidentified Palestinian witness, without corroboration or opportunity for response. Even if properly corroborated, a single anecdotal account is not a substitute for systematic legal analysis and independently verifiable evidence in a UN mandate report.

2. Omission of terrorism and armed conflict context

Fakhri portrays the Israeli-Palestinian conflict primarily as a struggle over land rights and natural resources, while omitting the central role of terrorism and armed conflict in shaping Israeli policy. The words “Hamas” and “terrorism” do not appear in the report. Nowhere does the analysis grapple with the reality that Israel’s buffer zones, access restrictions, and security measures arise in the context of sustained attacks by Hamas, a terrorist organization designated as such by the United States, the European Union, and others, and one that openly calls for Israel’s destruction.

For example, in discussing Israeli buffer zones in Gaza, Fakhri notes that Israel prohibits plants over 80 cm in certain areas, “supposedly” to prevent their use as natural hideouts (para. 15). The use of “supposedly” dismisses the security rationale without engaging with the documented use of vegetation, agricultural land, and civilian infrastructure for militant purposes. Likewise, in criticizing restrictions on maritime access (para. 16), the report fails to mention Hamas’s use of maritime routes for weapons smuggling and the October 7, 2023 maritime infiltration.

Fakhri accuses Israel of “systemic” and “deliberate” destruction of land and the environment in Gaza, yet does not acknowledge the 500 kilometers of subterranean terror tunnels constructed by Hamas under all of Gaza. Even the reference to the “so-called ceasefire” omits repeated violations by Hamas. By excluding the role of an armed terrorist actor entirely, the report presents Israeli security measures as gratuitous land dispossession rather than policies adopted in the context of ongoing hostilities.

Consistent with this pattern of omission, the report alleges that Israel is conducting a “starvation campaign,” presenting this accusation as an established fact while disregarding substantial evidence of Israeli measures to facilitate humanitarian assistance and food entry. At the same time, it fails to acknowledge the Israeli hostages abducted on October 7, 2023, many of whom have testified to prolonged and severe food deprivation while in Hamas captivity. This asymmetrical treatment of starvation in the same conflict reinforces the report’s one-sided framing and further undermines its credibility as an impartial mandate-holder assessment.

3. Denial of Jewish national rights

Fakhri’s report does not merely criticize Israeli policies. It rejects the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty in any part of the territory. In paragraph 68, he refers to sovereign Israeli territory as “lands occupied in 1948,” treating the very establishment of Israel as an act of occupation.

Elsewhere, he refers to the “territory of Palestine” as a single territorial unit governed since 1948 by “Israel” and “the State of Palestine” (para. 59). This formulation is historically and legally inaccurate. No Palestinian state existed in 1948, nor did a sovereign Palestinian government exercise authority over the territory in the decades that followed. Between 1948 and 1967, the West Bank was under Jordanian control and Gaza under Egyptian administration. Even today, Palestinian statehood remains contested under international law. To describe the “territory of Palestine” as having been governed since 1948 by both “Israel” and “the State of Palestine” is therefore not merely imprecise, but it misstates the historical record and effectively treats all of Israel as occupied Palestinian territory. 

The report further describes Israeli governance as a “settler-colonial project” and characterizes control over land and resources as “foreign colonial control” (para. 18; 65). This language depicts Jews as foreign colonizers rather than an indigenous people with millennia of historical, religious, and continuous presence in the land. The framing erases the indigenous dimension of Jewish claims and denies the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in their historical homeland.

Moreover, in a clear overreach beyond the scope of his right-to-food mandate, Fakhri calls for the realization of a Palestinian “right of return” (para. 67), a position that, in effect, would negate Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. Such a measure would entail the entry of millions of descendants of Palestinian refugees into sovereign Israel, fundamentally transforming its demographic character. Framed as a legal entitlement, the proposal functions in practice as a mechanism for dismantling Jewish sovereignty rather than as part of a negotiated two-state solution.

4. Palestinian return as a condition for UN legitimacy

In paragraph 67, Fakhri moves beyond advocacy for Palestinian rights and advances a far more sweeping claim: that the credibility and survival of the United Nations itself depend on resolving the Palestinian question through realization of return and self-determination.

He writes that the “question of Palestine” is “as old as the United Nations itself,” tying Palestinian dispossession directly to the UN’s founding and its endorsement of partition. He then declares, as established fact, that Israel is committing “genocide” and waging a “starvation campaign.” He claims that a recent ceasefire merely “slowed down” these crimes.

Fakhri goes further still. He argues that the same international legal and political mechanisms required to secure the Palestinian people’s “right to return and self-determination” are necessary to “rebuild the United Nations that died in the last two years,” implicitly referring to the period since October 7, 2023. In effect, he presents the restoration of multilateral legitimacy as contingent upon implementation of Palestinian return.

This goes far beyond criticism of a Member State, arguing that the UN’s institutional legitimacy cannot be restored unless Israel’s statehood is undone.

5. Demonization of Israel

Fakhri accuses Israel of the gravest international crimes, including apartheid (para. 39), genocide (paras. 17, 66, 67), and starvation (para. 39, 65–67), and presents these allegations as established fact rather than as contested claims. These are among the most serious accusations in international law, yet the report offers no comparable treatment of other conflicts. The Sudan conflict, for example, is not addressed at all.

Fakhri devotes an entire section to Israel, describing it as having developed “every technique of dispossession, dislocation and occupation” against the Palestinians (para. 65). By casting Israel as the global exemplar of land dispossession, the report singles out one State—the world’s only Jewish state—as uniquely criminal. This selective use of the most severe legal labels reinforces the report’s broader pattern of treating Israel not as one conflict among many, but as the central moral offender in the international system.

6. Antisemitism and double standards

By casting Israel as the archetype of global land dispossession and applying the gravest criminal labels exclusively to the world’s only Jewish state, while declining to apply comparable scrutiny to other conflicts, Fakhri employs a double standard. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism—adopted by 47 countries—identifies “applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” as a contemporary example of antisemitism. The report’s selective legal framing aligns with that definition.

Moreover, by suggesting that the United Nations “died in the last two years” and linking its collapse to the Palestinian question, the report attributes systemic institutional failure to Israel’s existence and conduct. Framing the restoration of the international order as contingent upon undoing Jewish sovereignty places the Jewish state at the center of global institutional breakdown. Criticism of Israeli policy is legitimate. Singling out the Jewish state as the central moral cause of international collapse is not. This is a modern articulation of classic antisemitic tropes.

7. Misrepresentation of Israeli Supreme Court jurisprudence

Fakhri asserts that the Israeli Supreme Court “legitimized starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza,” citing not to the Court’s judgment itself but to an Opinio Juris article discussing the Court’s March 2025 decision regarding humanitarian assistance obligations (para. 65). The decision does not legitimize starvation as a weapon of war. To the contrary, the Court reviewed Israel’s obligations under both international and domestic law and assessed its compliance with those obligations. Fakhri’s characterization substitutes a polemical conclusion for the Court’s legal reasoning.

More broadly, the report selectively invokes Israeli Supreme Court rulings to suggest that the judiciary legitimizes Palestinian “dispossession” in the West Bank (para. 78), while omitting decisions that contradict this narrative. In June 2020, the Supreme Court struck down the Settlements Regularization Law, finding that it disproportionately violated the basic rights of Palestinian residents, including property, equality, and dignity. That same year, the Court ordered the removal of the Mitzpe Kramim outpost after determining that it had been built on private Palestinian land. In 2018, 15 settlement homes were evacuated pursuant to a Supreme Court ruling on similar grounds. The Court has also ordered modifications to the route of the West Bank security barrier, including in Beit Sourik Village Council v. Government of Israel (HCJ 2056/04), where it required the State to reroute sections of the barrier that caused disproportionate harm to Palestinian landowners.

These decisions demonstrate that the Israeli Supreme Court operates as an independent judicial body that has repeatedly constrained government action and protected Palestinian property rights. By ignoring this body of jurisprudence, the report presents a selective and distorted account of Israeli law and judicial oversight.

Conclusion

Taken together, these deficiencies—ideological framing, selective sourcing, omission of security context, denial of Jewish national rights, criminal accusations presented as fact, and misrepresentation of Israeli judicial decisions—undermine the credibility of the report as an impartial mandate-holder assessment. A Special Rapporteur is expected to apply consistent legal standards, engage competing evidence, and adhere to the scope of the mandate. This report does not.

The post Legal Analysis of UN Food Rapporteur Michael Fakhri’s 2026 Report to UN Human Rights Council appeared first on UN Watch.

SHARE: Youtube | X (Twitter) 

Watch as UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer is the only person in the room to call out regime-proxy Alena Douhan for hijacking the Human Rights Council to attack the West and excuse despots, all while collecting over $1,000,000 from China, Russia, and Qatar. 

Background: The Sanctions Mandate

The UN mandate on Unilateral Coercive Measures (UCMs), a technical term for sanctions, was established by an Iran-sponsored resolution in 2014, with the support of Russia, China, Venezuela, and Cuba. Its primary objective is to invert reality: claiming that Western sanctions, not repressive governments, are to blame for humanitarian crises in targeted countries.

This process grants the facade of UN legitimacy to the twisted narrative that Western nations cause the mass suffering of people in Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and elsewhere. Since sanctions limit the economic power dictators use to secure citizen loyalty, these regimes opt to manipulate the UN and its multi-million dollar reports and conferences funded by your tax dollars, to advance their propaganda and absolve themselves of accountability. To citizens living under strict censorship, the regime-controlled media then reports that an independent and “objective” UN body has “concluded” that their repressive leaders are, in fact, the victims.

The absurdity is furthered by the fact that during the annual UCM debates at the Human Rights Council, regimes inundate the UN with front groups masquerading as legitimate human rights organizations to pollute the dialogue and spread further propaganda.

At the latest Human Rights Council session, a Panel Discussion on UCMs was held, featuring the UCMs mandate holder, Alena Douhan, and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Turk. All NGOs that spoke, except for UN Watch, were regime front groups (GONGOs) acting under the guise of legitimate human rights defenders.

Of the six NGOs that spoke on the UCM panel, five were based in Tehran or Havana. Given how these regimes treat genuine human rights advocates, their location alone makes it clear that they operate in affiliation with their respective regimes. A brief review of their work confirms it.

1. The Cuban United Nations Association (Havana-based)

• Affiliation: Its leaders include former top communist politicians and diplomats, such as the former Cuban Ambassador to Belgium, Norma Goicochea Estenoz, a key member of the Central Committee of the Cuban Communist Party, Juan Marinello, and a high-ranking communist politician who served under both Batista and Fidel Castro, Carlos Rafael Rodríguez.
• Propaganda: The group openly states it identifies with the Cuban regime, asserting that the Cuban legal order “protects the exercise of civil, political, cultural, economic and social rights”—a blatant misrepresentation of reality. They routinely accuse the US of a “genocidal campaign against Cuba.”

2. Jameh Ehyagaran Teb Sonnati Va Salamat Iranian (Tehran-based)

• Red Flags: Lacks a public website or identifiable leadership, classic indicators of a GONGO that is only activated to spout propaganda during relevant UN debates, such as the UCM and UPR debates.
• Propaganda: Their limited work focuses on anti-UCM rhetoric. They went so far as to claim that “Western countries (commit) medicinal bio-terrorism,” while predictably ignoring the thousands of Iranian protestors harmed by the regime’s own medical neglect and violence.

3. Medical Support Association for Underprivileged Iranian Patients (Tehran-based)

• Red Flags: Practically no publicly available information; their only activity online is related to UCMs, exposing them as a clear regime front-group.

4. Organization for Defending Victims of Violence (Tehran-based)

• Propaganda: Publishes articles that are blatantly anti-US and anti-Israel (labeling Israel as “pure evil”). In contrast, they compiled official quotes to praise Iran, commending its “significant role in the region” and its “innovative and progressive model of a free and inclusive electoral system”—a surreal claim given Iran’s authoritarian system.

5. Charitable Institute for Protecting Social Victims (Tehran-based)

• Propaganda: While they blamed German police for mistreating arrestees in their German UPR submission, their Iran UPR submission makes zero mention of Iranian police blinding or beating protestors. It focuses exclusively on the impact of UCMs.

Quotes from the UN Debate: 

Russia: Large-scale and uncontrolled use by Western countries of unilateral coercive measures (UCMs) contradict the UN’s fundamental human rights documents.

Islamic Republic of Iran: Financial and trade sanctions are unlawful, and contrary to the Charter of the United Nations.

UN Rapporteur Alena Douhan: It is a privilege for me to participate today in the biennial panel meeting on the impact of unilateral sanctions. Unilateral sanctions regimes violate fundamental human rights, the right to life, right to decent life, freedom from torture, prohibition of discrimination…

UN Rights Chief Volker Turk: Unilateral coercive measures that are inconsistent with international law pose serious risks to the enjoyment of human rights.

Venezuela: Unilateral coercive measures are counter to the United Nations Charter and international law, and are applied as weapons of war.

Cuba: The economic, commercial, financial blockade imposed by the US government has devastating effects on all sectors of Cuban society, in particular, on the right to food.

Pakistan: On unilateral coercive measures (UCMs), Pakistan has consistently maintained that they contravene the UN Charter.

China: UCMs are pure and simple hegemony.

Hillel Neuer, UN Watch:

Madam Chair, this panel is premised on the idea that the greatest threat to human rights today comes from Western sanctions.

In truth, the gravest assault on human dignity comes from authoritarian governments that oppress, jail, and torture their own people.

And so we ask this panel, Is it right that the Special Rapporteur, Ms Douhan, has traveled to Qatar, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Iran, Syria and China, not to defend the victims of these dictatorships, but to lend a UN imprimatur to the propaganda of the oppressors?

Ms Douhan, when the people of Venezuela cried out under Maduro’s misrule, when Syrians were bombed and slaughtered by Assad, when Iranian women were beaten for showing their hair, what was your response? To blame the West and excuse the despots.

Why did your office get $50,000 from Qatar? Why $265,000 from Russia? Why $980,000 from China? Who believes that Sheik Tamim, Vladimir, Putin and Xi Jinping gave $1.3 million to help human rights victims?

And let us be clear, sanctions are not the cause of hunger in Cuba, it comes from a one party system that, for decades, has denied its people freedom, choice, and prosperity.

Ordinary Cubans know it is not sanctions that prevent them from growing food freely or importing without state control, it’s their rulers in Havana.

The UN should be defending victims, not enabling their oppressors. By turning this council into a platform against the West, today’s discussion betrays its mandate.

If we care about human rights, let us first demand accountability from the governments that oppress their own people. I thank you. Vice

UNHRC Vice-President: I cannot fail to notice that we have here derogative language or remarks, and that some of them are personal in nature. This is not acceptable in this forum. No personal attacks against mandate holders should be made in this setting, and I will now continue with the speakers list.

Cuba: Thank you Vice President. Cuba categorically rejects the offensive, out-of-order, politicized comments by UN Watch, a so-called NGO, which, far from constructively contributing to the work of the council, dedicates itself systematically to manipulation, provocation, and insulting sovereign states. It is shameful and unacceptable…

The post Hillel Neuer Exposes the UN’s Alena Douhan and the $1.3 Million Scandal Funding Dictator Propaganda appeared first on UN Watch.

UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer was interviewed on the Fox News Rundown podcast with Eben Brown to discuss what to expect from the upcoming U.N. General Assembly, U.S. sanctions on U.N. officials, Israel’s strike on Hamas leaders in Qatar, and the ongoing controversy over UNRWA.

Eben Brown:
Later this month, heads of state will gather in New York City for the United Nations General Assembly. President Trump will address the body. Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu might. This year’s General Assembly comes at a precarious time in world events. President Trump is back in office. Russia is still making war on Ukraine, and Israel is still fighting to retrieve hostages taken by Hamas terrorists. It also comes at a time when the U.S. is challenging the effectiveness of certain U.N.-sponsored organizations, especially ones supposedly dedicated to world health and, of course, the Palestinians. The Trump administration has intensely cut back U.S. funding of many of these groups, and has even begun targeting individuals within the UN’s umbrella, it says are working against American interests — namely Francesca Albanese, the U.N.’s lead on Palestinian issues, who is often accused of bias and even spreading outright falsehoods. She is now under U.S. sanctions.

Hillel Neuer:  
Clearly, the U.S. is taking a strong stand — I would say, tougher than ever before.

Eben Brown:
Hillel Neuer is the Executive Director of UN Watch. Our conversation took place mere moments after news broke Tuesday of Israel’s strike on Hamas leaders residing in the Qatari capital of Doha.

Hillel Neuer:  
The U.S., for the first time in history, has sanctioned a purported U.N. official. I say “purported” because Francesca Albanese has the title of the U.N. Rapporteur on Palestine, but in fact, her supposed renewal that was meant to take place in April was never lawfully carried out. UN Watch has shown in our reports how the basic procedure of the United Nations Human Rights Council was flagrantly violated. The United States made objections. The Netherlands publicly announced their objection. Hungary and Argentina sent in letters. We submitted a 56-page dossier. All of that was legally required to be addressed by the Council, and they never did so. So, the only way a renewal can take place is if there are no objections — and there were, and the Council ignored those objections. So in fact, her renewal never took place lawfully. She has no immunity. That’s why there was nothing stopping Secretary Rubio from sanctioning this Hamas supporter. She is de facto a spokesperson for Hamas, and that’s why yesterday in U.S. federal court in Colorado, Christian Friends of Israel filed a lawsuit against her for defamation and libel for the things that she said about them because they dare to support Israel. So bravo to Secretary Rubio for banning that Hamas supporter from entering America. And look, let’s be honest, what’s going to happen in New York in the week of September 22nd — it’s primarily a “catwalk for dictators,” and those are the words of world chess champion Garry Kasparov, former world chess champion, Russian dissident. So the U.N. General Assembly is a catwalk for dictators. And he’s right. We’re going to see on the catwalk — you know, Erdogan of Turkey is a dictator. We’re going to see Qatar — dictatorship, the president of Iran — dictatorship, the former terrorist from Syria. I mean, the list goes on and on. And they love the U.N. They love the U.N. They see it as a counterbalance to America. They see it as, you know, a way of tying up Gulliver and using the language and images of international law and credibility when in fact, they’re a club of dictatorships.

Eben Brown:
At the top of this club is a person who has the title of Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres. Most Americans don’t pay too much attention, I think, to the inner-workings of the UN, or even some of the outer-workings of the UN, certainly not its bureaucracy or its governance. But this is a person who was, I think decidedly, has taken sides in the Israel-Hamas conflict. I still don’t think, to this day, he ever actually condemned the October 7th attacks. I could be wrong about that.

Hillel Neuer:
No, I think he did, but then he quickly added — you know, this was like two weeks after the massacre, mass rape, massacre of families — Guterres did condemn the attacks, but then he said, however, he said, you know, “Nothing happens in a vacuum.” “These attacks did not happen in a vacuum.” He said: “These attacks did not happen in a vacuum.” And then he went on to enumerate numerous alleged grievances by the Palestinians over decades against Israel. In effect, he justified the attacks one grievance after another, saying, “Well, things didn’t happen in a vacuum,” you know, as if terrorism could ever be justified, and we’re supposed to believe — rightfully — that terrorism can never be justified. No matter what you think, what injustice you perceive, you can’t slaughter innocents. But Guterres was quick to say, “I condemn the attacks, but they didn’t happen in a vacuum,” when he could have said — and of course, he’s partly right in the fact that nothing happens in a vacuum. Nothing we do in our lives happens in a vacuum. But had he been more to the point, he would have said, “Nothing happens in a vacuum. Where do these terrorists come from? What schools do they go to?” Well, they went to UN schools. 90% of Gazans, according to the UNRWA, the infamous UN agency for Palestinians — their legal advisor, Johann Soufi, said on French TV last year that 90% of Gazans are graduates of UNRWA. Well, that means roughly 90% of the terrorists who massacred families and committed horrific acts were UNRWA alumni. That’s Mr. Guterres. He’s been in office for many years, so he should take responsibility. It’s not by accident that they invaded Israel because they were taught from a young age, “Your home is not in Gaza, your home is in Tel Aviv, and it belongs to you, and you should dismantle it violently.” And that’s what they did.

Eben Brown:
This has been, I think again, another year in which things have changed dramatically for the U.N., and a lot of that comes from the fact that the U.S. — especially with the Trump administration coming back to power, or the new Trump administration in power — had kind of squished those purse strings yet again, like they did the first time. That begins to affect what the U.N. can and can’t do, because they need money. And I think everyone knows the biggest funder of the U.N. has been the U.S., specifically the U.S. taxpayer. So they want to still continue these missions, but they have to face the fact that they are potentially running out of money, or certainly don’t have the cash flow they used to have, and the fact that at least one person has been put under sanctions, in this case, Albanese, they must realize that the Trump administration could do this further.

Hillel Neuer:
Yes, that’s right. Look, the U.S. cuts in donations to the U.N. are very substantial already. I’m based in Geneva, Switzerland, where there are maybe 25,000 U.N. and related staff from all kinds of U.N.-affiliated agencies, like the International Labor Organization, World Health Organization, and the Office of the U.N. Human Rights Commissioner. You know, many of these agencies are facing substantial cuts, and hundreds of jobs have been cut. And so it’s real. It’s real. And you know, decades ago, about some 25 years ago, John Bolton had said, “If U.N. headquarters were leveled today, it wouldn’t make a world of difference.” And so the question is, you know, when hundreds of these jobs are cut, what difference is it making to things that really count? And look, the U.N. has the potential to do good. There are hungry people in the world. We do need agencies to feed them when there are emergencies. But tragically, much of the U.N. has been hijacked by radical politics. And again, Gaza is a classic case — not the only one — but it’s a classic case, because there, you know, you could have real aid agencies actually helping people and giving food and settling refugees. Instead, Guterres gave the order: “Only UNRWA can deal with it,” and UNRWA is not a neutral agency whose mission is to give out food. Their mission is to tell Palestinians that “You suffered an injustice and you have the right to return and dismantle Israel.” If it were not the case, then there would be a dozen other U.N. agencies that could be giving out the food: UNHCR, UNDP, World Health Organization. Those are the agencies that do so all around the world. So the reality is that much of the U.N. is hijacked by radical politics. Again, I appeared just this morning before the United Nations Human Rights Council — “Human Rights Council,” let’s put that in scare quotes — because the members include Cuba, a police state that arrests teenagers for demanding democracy; Qatar, that has, you know, a million enslaved laborers; China, a regular member of the Human Rights Council, which has a million Muslims in camps, locks up anyone who dares to protest within moments; and, you know, Vietnam, which is a dictatorship that supports torture, is a member. China, Cuba, Qatar, Vietnam — these are the regular members of the Human Rights Council. More than half are full-on dictatorships. That’s the reality. And I think it’s high time that the U.S. and other democracies ought to speak out and say, “No more.”

Eben Brown:
Our guest is Hillel Neuer of UN Watch. We’re discussing the upcoming United Nations General Assembly later this month on the Fox News Rundown Evening Edition. Please like, subscribe, share with your friends. We’ll have more straight ahead. You mentioned, you’ve been talking here a lot about UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine. Earlier today, just really shortly before we began our conversation, explosions were heard in Doha, Qatar, and the Israelis are now taking responsibility for that, saying they targeted those top chief Hamas Politburo members that have been living really in opulence in Doha, commanding the Hamas forces in Gaza from a very, very safe distance, where you know they themselves are not getting any blood on them. They might have been taken out by this strike. We’ll know more later. But you posted a photograph to your Twitter account, to your X account, that’s very pertinent here. Can you tell me about that photo?

Hillel Neuer:  
Sure. You know, several days ago, Iranian media and Hamas media published a photo of a beautiful, opulent room in Doha, Qatar, where there was a meeting between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. So this is the Foreign Minister of the Islamic regime in Iran, which is responsible for terrorism and assassinations across the free world. You know, in New York City, just a few months ago, I attended — I was in federal court to witness the trial of three criminal assassins who tried to kill my friend, Masih Alinejad. She’s an Iranian-born journalist, a hero who speaks out against the abuses against women in Iran and has millions of followers. She’s the most courageous person that I know, and she now lives in Brooklyn, and Iran hired a criminal gang, some Central Asian gang — that Iran is very clever: they don’t necessarily send Iranian assassins. They’ll hire criminal gangs in local countries. So they send criminals to assassinate her in Brooklyn, and a guy with a submachine gun was caught — an AK-47 — outside her home in Brooklyn, ready to assassinate her. And this was about a year or so after they tried to kidnap her, take her to Venezuela and then to Iran.

So the Iranian regime, Foreign Minister Araghchi, is sitting there in Qatar with his Iranian delegation, and opposite him is the Hamas delegation. These are the Hamas leaders that are still alive as of a few days ago, and one of them, one of the senior Hamas leaders, is a gentleman named Suhail Al-Hindi. And Suhail Al-Hindi is known to me because I’ve been monitoring his actions as a long-time, three-decades-long UNRWA school teacher. I’m going to say that again: a school teacher paid by the U.N. with our money, U.S. taxpayers were giving some $300 million a year to UNRWA to employ Suhail Al-Hindi as a school teacher, as a principal. Eventually, he was a school principal and was eventually head of the entire staff union in Gaza — 13,000 employees. And he is also a Hamas terror chief. A Hamas terror chief. So you say it and you don’t believe it, UNRWA school teacher, principal, head of the UNRWA staff union, again, an agency that we’ve been paying for up until about two years ago, was a Hamas terror chief, and is one of the people who was part of the Hamas delegation last week, and time will tell whether he was part of the Hamas group that according to reports, was assassinated in a bomb blast in Qatar today.

Eben Brown:
What does an organization like yours do during the UN General Assembly? Are you running around, pounding on doors, knocking on — and trying to get attention to certain people? I mean, I imagine this is a big deal for an agency such as yours.

Hillel Neuer:
Yes, it is a big deal. The truth is that, because we are not a member state, we have status at the UN, which we obtained, you know, decades ago, thanks to U.S. help at the time, in 2002. We have status as an observer at the U.N., or what’s called an NGO, a non-governmental organization. And as such, we can enter U.N. premises, and, you know, meet with delegations and so forth, but not during that week. So actually, that week, it’s sort of all bets are off, and they only let country delegations attend the U.N. meeting. So I don’t have access to the U.N. during that time. I do hope to be in New York for part of the week. I do hope to be there as a commentator, to help explain to the world what’s going on, and whether it’s dictatorships who gather to try to attack America and Israel or the democracies. Let’s not forget we have something unprecedented: major democracies, European countries, France, the U.K., also my native Canada, I’m ashamed to say, and Australia have announced that they intend to recognize a Palestinian state, and that they intend to do so as part of a summit that will take place on Monday, September 22nd. And that’ll be a day before President Trump addresses the opening of the UN on the 23rd. But the day before, Macron with Saudi Arabia, but really led by Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, has been pushing to declare a state, even as they acknowledge that there is no state.Okay, Ramallah has a Palestinian Authority, local government that basically governs several cities. They take out the garbage and do a few more things. These are governments that continue to support terrorism. The PA, as we know in America, has a “pay-to-slay” program — those who commit terrorism, just like yesterday, Palestinian terrorists gunned down a rabbi and other innocent civilians at a bus stop in Jerusalem. Those families will get money for the rest of their lives. You get rewarded if you kill Jews. That’s the Palestinian Authority. And then much of so-called Palestine is run by Hamas. Gaza, up until recently, was entirely run by Hamas. Now Israel controls part of the territory, so there is no democratic Palestine. You know, Abbas is in the 20th or 21st year of his four-year term. He hasn’t held elections in over 15 years.

Eben Brown:
Hillel Neuer, you are with UN Watch. Thank you so much for being with us on the Fox News Rundown Evening Edition.

Hillel Neuer:
Thank you for having me.

The post Fox News Podcast Interview: Hillel Neuer on What To Expect at the U.N. General Assembly appeared first on UN Watch.

SHARE: YouTube | X (Twitter) | Facebook | Instagram

UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer joined Fox Business with Cheryl Casone to discuss Israel’s looming operations in Gaza, the fate of hostages still held by Hamas, and the UN’s ongoing failures.

Cheryl Casone, Fox Business: I want to bring in UN Watch Executive Director, Hillel Neuer. Hillel, I want to get your reaction to this, because we knew this was coming. The Cabinet had already approved for the complete takeover of Gaza, Gaza City, but it looks like we may see some pretty major operations underway within the next 24 to 48 hours in Gaza.

Hillel Neuer: That’s right. Look, folks have to remember that Israel is sitting next door to a terrorist organization that is armed and financed by the Islamic regime in Iran, that is holding dozens of hostages — some living, some dead — and has sworn to repeat the assault that they perpetrated on October 7, two years ago, nearly two years ago, where they massacred more than a thousand people, families, and committed atrocities, and they threatened to do it again. They still fire rockets at Israel when they can.

So Israel has an obligation to push back. There’s a stronghold in Gaza City. Of course, there’s a dilemma in Israel, there’s a terrible dilemma: do you defeat Hamas and root them out, as you need to do, but at the same time, you have to do everything not to harm the hostages. And that’s why Israel’s Prime Minister announced that he was going to instruct his negotiators to engage fully diplomatically to seek to negotiate the release of the hostages.

Cheryl Casone: But Hamas has been completely unwilling for all these years to negotiate, and there were releases, but at this point, those last living hostages seem to be the only bargaining chip that Hamas has left. Do you think they’re even going to use that chip at all? Or do you think that it is a worst-case scenario where, unfortunately, if the IDF gets close enough to where the hostages are, that Hamas would indeed kill them?

Hillel Neuer: Well, tragically, that is what happened last year, and many people in Israel painfully remember when some of the hostages were executed, exactly as you said, as Israel got closer. So look, this is a vicious terrorist organization. They’re not new at this modus operandi. Let’s recall 25 years ago: Hamas unleashed suicide bombers, which were blowing up dozens and dozens of suicide bombs in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, in pizza shops, in discotheques and so forth, blowing up buses.

This is a nihilistic death cult. They are holding onto hostages, in part to torture them, but also to create a rift between Israelis, because a large part of Israelis say: “Do everything to release the hostages,” and others say: “Yes, but we also have to defeat Hamas.” So it’s a horrible dilemma, and one wouldn’t want to be any of Israel’s cabinet ministers having to make that decision.

Cheryl Casone: Well, Israel is accusing the United Nations of misleading the world, as aid in Gaza is being stolen and diverted from civilians. It seems that Hamas has been doing this for months. A review conducted by the Israeli Coordinator of Government Activities is claiming that UN figures have failed to account for the entry of about 6,000 additional aid trucks since May. They write: “The fact that the U.N. presents only part of the aid actually transferred misleads the international community and creates a false picture of the situation, directly influencing global media coverage and shaping the positions of international decision-makers regarding the humanitarian situation in Gaza.” Hillel, your reaction to that statement?

Hillel Neuer: Well, it’s tragic. You know, the UN is meant to be the world’s primary humanitarian organization, and yet, we’ve seen in the past two years, in this case and others, that systematically, they have mobilized to parrot the narrative that is pushed out by Hamas. Whatever is the Hamas narrative, you will see it days later, endorsed by UN agencies, and that goes into the media ecosystem, as quoted by the UN — “the UN said.”

So indeed, as you said, the UN is saying only 3,000 trucks have entered Gaza since May. The reality is it’s 9,000 trucks. They failed to count 6,000 because they weren’t brought in by the UN. Well, guess what? The U.S. and Israel have been backing the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, an alternative to the UN, which is now giving up to two million meals a day, and the UN sees that as a threat, especially their agency, UNRWA, which is complicit with Hamas. The heads of UNRWA in Gaza and Lebanon and other places are actual Hamas members. So they are mobilized in a way that is failing to uphold the UN’s humanitarian principles.

“Israel sits next door to a nihilistic death cult, armed by Iran, that still fires rockets and vows to repeat October 7. Israel must save the hostages and defeat Hamas. How to achieve both is a terrible dilemma.”

UN Watch's @HillelNeuer on @FoxBusiness today with @cherylcasone: pic.twitter.com/AA78qPNU2e

— UN Watch (@UNWatch) August 22, 2025

Cheryl Casone: What is so interesting is if you listen to the UN, they’ll say: “Well, we’re the ones that should be handling the aid. We’re the experts. We’re the people that know how to do this.” That’s their pushback. Does that ring hollow to you?

Hillel Neuer: Well, it does, because, you know, with UNRWA, that’s the primary agency in Gaza, it’s meant to be the UN agency for Palestinians. They employ 13,000 staff. The UN will say: “Only UNRWA can distribute food.” Well, why is that? You know, Israel says, and there’s strong evidence, that there are thousands of members of UN staff who belong to Hamas. When Hamas took over Gaza, they infiltrated the entire UNRWA. We have a report, UN Watch, next month, showing that teachers, school principals, heads of the unions overseeing thousands of UNRWA staff are leading Hamas terror chiefs. And the UN says: “Only we can give out aid.” So what you have is, actually, they are disguising a pathological agenda, because UNRWA tells Palestinians that their mission is to dismantle Israel, and they wrap that as a humanitarian agency. When any other group, like the U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, is giving out two million meals, they see that as an existential threat.

Cheryl Casone: Before you go, I want to ask you about the story. This senior World Bank Group economist is lobbing accusations at political leaders for their stance on Israel, yesterday. During an Italian Parliament forum, the economist publicly accused Italy of supporting genocide against Palestinians. UN Watch is now calling on the World Bank Group to fire him because of these antisemitic statements. I know you’ve been following that story. What can you tell us?

Hillel Neuer: Look, yesterday, our organization, UN Watch, sent a letter to the president of the World Bank demanding that they terminate a senior economist of theirs named Massimiliano Cali. He happens to be the husband of Francesca Albanese, who is a known pro-Hamas, UN figure who was sanctioned last month by the United States, and she’s barred entry into the U.S. And he, in his own part, has been working for over a decade for the World Bank. At the same time, on his Facebook page, he calls for the indictment of Netanyahu, accuses him of massacres. He endorses a pro-Hamas initiative. He compares Israelis to Nazis.

And as you said, he recently stood up in the Italian Parliament while his wife was accusing Israel of genocide. He parroted her remarks. He called on the EU to break their trade pact with Israel. All of this is in gross violation of the World Bank’s basic rules. We wrote to Secretary Rubio yesterday and said: “America is a top donor to the World Bank. If you have their officials embracing a Hamas narrative, acting in a way that is completely contrary to how an international civil servant is supposed to behave, that person should be fired.”

Cheryl Casone: Hillel, thank you so much for the perspective. We’re obviously going to be following any breaking news developments out of Israel and Gaza over the next couple of days, as that thing seems to be really moving now. Thank you, sir, for being here.

Hillel Neuer: Thank you.

The post Hillel Neuer on Fox Business: Israel Faces Terrible Dilemma on Hamas and Hostages appeared first on UN Watch.