Growing up under the Islamic Republic of Iran taught Shahrzad Eden Osterer exactly how dangerous ideological indoctrination can be. Now a journalist in Europe, she draws chilling parallels between the state propaganda of her childhood and the highly polarized, ideological echo chambers found in Western universities today.

While addressing UN Watch’s official side event at the 63rd session of the UN Human Rights Council, “Empowering Future Leaders through Human Rights Education,” Osterer argues that true human rights education must teach young people to apply universal standards consistently, not selectively based on political convenience.

Prepared Remarks:

The post De-ideologizing Human Rights Education | Shahrzad Eden Osterer appeared first on UN Watch.

European universities are struggling to protect their own students. Representing over 160,000 Jewish students across Europe, EUJS President Hanna Veiler addressed UN Watch’s official side event at the 63rd session of the UN Human Rights Council, “Empowering Future Leaders through Human Rights Education,”
exposing the severe physical violence and political intimidation happening on campuses, particularly in the wake of the October 7 massacres.

She explains why abstract commitments to human rights are meaningless if institutions fail to translate them into safe, democratic spaces for everyone.

Prepared Remarks:

Excellencies, distinguished representatives of Permanent Missions, dear colleagues,

Fifteen years after the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training, I believe there is value in reflecting not only on how effectively we teach young people about human rights, but also on whether our educational institutions provide them with the practical capacity to exercise, defend and uphold those rights.

I speak today as President of the European Union of Jewish Students, representing more than 160,000 young Jews across Europe. Much of our work takes place in universities and other educational environments, precisely the spaces in which young people first encounter democratic institutions, organise collectively, engage with opposing views and, in many cases, become politically and socially active.

Our experience has shown us that these environments can be extraordinarily powerful spaces for democratic participation, but also that there can be a considerable distance between teaching human rights as a set of principles and ensuring that those principles shape institutional practice.

This distinction has become particularly visible for Jewish students since the massacre of 7 October 2023 and the subsequent war. Universities across Europe have become important spaces for political debate about Israel and the Middle East. Such debate is a legitimate and necessary part of academic and democratic life. At the same time, Jewish students across Europe have faced harassment, intimidation, exclusion and, in some cases, severe physical violence.

Their connections to Israel, which for many are an integral part of Jewish identity, family life and community, have repeatedly been turned against them. Jewish students have been expected to justify the actions of an Israeli government, pressured to publicly distance themselves from Israel, or treated with suspicion simply for expressing a connection to the country.

Most concerningly, these experiences continue too often to be dismissed, relativized or explained away, while the antisemitic nature of incidents targeting Jewish students is questioned or denied. These experiences have demonstrated the difficulty that educational institutions can face when abstract commitments to human rights have to be translated into decisions in highly polarized environments.

Universities must be capable of protecting freedom of expression and political participation while also recognizing when political discourse crosses into discrimination, harassment or the collective attribution of responsibility to individuals because of their identity. Human rights education therefore cannot end with knowledge of legal frameworks or international declarations.

Young people also need to understand how those principles apply when rights come into tension, when public debate becomes deeply contentious, and when defending the rights of another person may be politically or socially uncomfortable. There is also a broader lesson here that extends far beyond the experience of Jewish students. If human rights education is to be genuinely universal, it must equip young people not only to defend the rights of communities to which they themselves belong, but also to recognize and defend the rights of others.

For Jewish organizations, combating antisemitism cannot be separated from a broader commitment to challenging racism, anti-Muslim hatred and other forms of discrimination. Equally, the defence of democratic freedoms cannotdepend on whether we agree with the person exercising them. The credibility of the human rights framework ultimately depends on the consistent application of its principles.

This is particularly important at a time when young people encounter political information, mobilization and increasingly also misinformation far beyond formal educational settings. Universities and schools therefore have a responsibility that goes beyond transmitting knowledge.

They should provide young people with the capacity to evaluate information critically, understand democratic and human rights institutions, engage constructively across profound disagreement, recognize discrimination and know which mechanisms are available when rights are violated.

They should also provide meaningful opportunities for young people to organize, participate in decision-making and assume responsibility within their institutions.

There is also a broader institutional dimension that we should not ignore. Human rights education cannot be separated from the credibility of the international system in which we ask young people to place their trust. Around the world, young people are taking extraordinary risks to defend fundamental freedoms, often in the face of authoritarian governments that repress dissent, restrict civil society and systematically violate human rights.

Yet some of those same governments continue to participate in international institutions, build political alliances and seek to weaken, obstruct or discredit mechanisms designed to hold states accountable. The Islamic Republic of Iran is one example, but it is by no means the only one.

For young human rights defenders living under repression, this contradiction is not an abstract institutional problem, it directly affects whether international mechanisms can meaningfully support their struggle. If we want young people to believe in the international human rights system, that system must demonstrate that political influence cannot place governments beyond meaningful scrutiny and accountability.

For those of us working with young people, this also means recognizing them not simply as recipients of human rights education, but as actors in the protection of human rights. Across Europe, young people are already leading civil society organizations, responding to discrimination, supporting vulnerable communities and participating in democratic institutions.

If I were to leave one practical recommendation, it would therefore be to strengthen the connection between human rights education and human rights practice. A young person completing their education should understand the principles contained in international human rights instruments, but they should also know how to recognize when those principles are being violated, how to make use of the institutions designed to protect them, how to participate democratically and, crucially, how to defend the rights of people whose identities, experiences or political views may be very different from their own.

If we succeed in doing that, human rights education becomes more than the transmission of knowledge. It becomes part of building the democratic resilience of the next generation.

Thank you.

The post Protecting Democratic Values and Combatting Antisemitism on Campus | Hanna Veiler appeared first on UN Watch.

After surviving 280 days as an ISIS hostage in Syria, Kurdish journalist and human rights defender Aram Aqil issues a stark warning to the world at UN Watch’s official side event at the 63rd session of the UN Human Rights Council, “Empowering Future Leaders through Human Rights Education.”

Extremist propaganda thrives where education fails. Aqil breaks down how the erasure of historical atrocities — like the Holocaust and the Armenian, Yazidi, and Anfal genocides — leaves youth dangerously vulnerable to dehumanizing terrorist narratives.

Prepared Remarks:

Growing up under the rule of a dictatorship — I mean here both Assads, the father and the son and coming from a politically active Kurdish family and belonging to a nation persecuted by four governments in the Middle East, human rights education became, for me, far more than a concept; it became something much more personal and embedded in the struggle we have carried on for decades.

From a very young age, I assisted in publishing a political magazine called “Jîn,” a Kurdish word meaning “Life.” That magazine covered topics related to human rights and democracy. Two topics where either one alone could land you in prison for years in the best-case scenario, or cost you your life in the worst.

I’ve spent around twenty years of my life under a dictatorial regime and about a year in the grip of ISIS; since gaining my freedom, I am experiencing the privilege of living in Western Europe where democracy and human rights are privileges that cannot be taken for granted, given that millions of people are deprived of them.

In December 2024, the dictator ran away, but the dictatorship remained standing, albeit with a new flavor. A jihadi terror regime came to power, entirely unconcerned with issues of human rights and democracy; it hasn’t even once mentioned these two topics; on the contrary, they view these concepts as “an abomination or the work of the devil.”

Why do I mention all this? Because here in Europe we speak freely about human rights education, we often think about classrooms, institutions and international conventions. In other corners of the world, it is obviously not the case. In the MENA region, among 25 countries, all UN member states, only a small number have integrated human rights education into their educational systems—no more than we can count on one hand.

My own journey as a youth educator made me see a huge gap: education about atrocities and genocides that took place in history. Many young people grow up with very limited opportunities to learn about the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, the Yazidi genocide, the Anfal Genocide against Kurds, and other mass atrocities that deeply targeted the region and its communities.

If young people do not learn how genocides happen, how propaganda dehumanizes people, and how looking away makes it even worse, it becomes much harder for them to recognize these patterns when they appear before their eyes. I was a witness to the Yazidi genocide in 2014; I saw how Turkish and Qatari propaganda networks contributed to portraying an entire community as less human and therefore as a legitimate target of violence. Later on, the same happened on October 7; I saw disturbing parallels in the way propaganda and dehumanizing narratives were used to portray civilians as legitimate targets, rather than as human beings entitled to protection.

A big part of what I have experienced changed the way I now understand human rights and its education. Studying and talking about rights is something, and being prepared to defend it is something very different, and that is where I believe human rights education still has a gap. We need to ask young people not only: “What are human rights?” We need to ask: “What will you do when those rights are denied? What will you do for those who are deprived of their rights? Those whose rights are being violated?”

Awareness alone is not enough; young generations need to learn how to practice human rights; they need opportunities to meet people whose histories are different from their own. That means teaching them how to recognize discrimination and extremist propaganda. It means developing critical thinking and media literacy. It means giving young people opportunities to engage with civil society and communities beyond the classroom. And it means creating genuine platforms where people from minority and marginalised communities can speak for themselves.

Thank you.

The post Surviving ISIS and Confronting Extremist Propaganda | Aram Aqil appeared first on UN Watch.

How do you teach human rights in a country where the Taliban has systematically erased fundamental freedoms? On October 5th, Afghan women’s rights activist Husna Jalal addressed UN Watch’s official side event at the 63rd session of the UN Human Rights Council, “Empowering Future Leaders through Human Rights Education,” explaining why education must extend beyond physical classrooms to safely prepare young people to document violations.

She calls on the international community to fund scholarships, build secure digital pathways, and create a global network to support young Afghan defenders denied academic freedom.

Prepared Remarks:

Excellencies, distinguished colleagues, ladies and gentlemen.

Human rights education is often described as teaching people about their rights. I would like to suggest that its real purpose is larger: to prepare people to live, defend and sustain those rights, and above all to do so when it is hardest.

The case of Afghanistan also raises a more difficult question: what does human rights education mean in a country where human rights themselves are being systematically restricted?

It is relatively easy to speak about human rights education where institutions are functioning, universities are open to everyone, and students and teachers are able to express themselves freely. The real test comes when those conditions do not exist.

In such environments, knowing your rights is not enough. A young person may understand perfectly well that women and men are entitled to equality, that education is a human right, or that people should be able to participate in the life of their society.

But what happens when speaking about those principles carries personal risk? What happens when the institutions that should provide education are themselves places of exclusion? And what happens when young people have knowledge and motivation, but no safe space in which to use them?

This is where I believe our approach to human rights education has to go further.

We need to prepare young people not only for environments in which human rights are respected, but also for environments in which those rights are contested, restricted or violated. That requires practical preparation: how to act responsibly and safely; how to preserve evidence and knowledge; how to build networks of solidarity; how to communicate across communities; how to continue learning when formal institutions become inaccessible; and how to remain connected to civil society even when civic space is shrinking.

Afghanistan has taught us another important lesson: when physical educational spaces disappear, we must find ways to ensure that the intellectual and civic space does not disappear with them.

For Afghan women and girls in particular, this means creating alternative pathways to education, mentorship and professional development, and connecting them with universities, educators, civil society organizations and peers beyond Afghanistan. It also means ensuring that qualifications, skillsand experience gained through alternative forms of learning can eventually lead to meaningful academic and professional opportunities.

We should also think differently about who we consider a future human rights leader. Leadership does not begin when someone receives a formal title or joins an established organization. It can begin with a student who questions discrimination, a teacher who protects the dignity of her students, a young journalist who insists on documenting what is happening, or a young person who creates a small space where others can continue to learn.

In countries experiencing serious human rights restrictions, these individuals may never have access to conventional leadership programmes. If we wait for them to reach established institutions before we support them, we may never reach the people who need that support most.

That is why human rights education must be resilient enough to continue beyond the classroom and, when necessary, beyond national borders. It should create relationships and communities that can survive even when institutions come under pressure.

For me, this is one of the most important lessons from Afghanistan: we should not only educate young people about human rights when conditions are favorable. We need to equip and accompany them precisely when defending those rights becomes difficult.

From this, I draw three lessons, and for each I want to suggest something practical. First, human rights education cannot be separated from the environment in which it takes place.

Students learn human rights not only from textbooks but from experience: when they can speak freely, when women participate equally, when minorities are respected, when disagreement is possible without fear. When discrimination and censorship become part of educational life, young people learn a very different lesson about whose rights matter.

Practically, every institution that teaches human rights should ask whether it practises them. Who is admitted? Who speaks? Who is protected when they dissent? Do students have a safe channel to raise complaints? Teaching the Universal Declaration is not enough if the campus contradicts it.

Second, human rights education must give young people the ability to act, not only to know. Knowing a right exists matters. Knowing how to defend it matters just as much. Young leaders need to document violations safely and responsibly, write a credible submission to a UN mechanism,advocate to decision-makers, organise a campaign, protect their digital security, and communicate across political and cultural divides.

They also need people. The greatest threat many young defenders face, especially under repression or in exile, is isolation. A single mentor who answers a message, opens a door or reviews a draft can decide whether a young person keeps going.

Practically, training should be built around real tasks, such as a mock submission to a treaty body, and every participant should leave with a named mentor and a peer network, not just a certificate.

Third, our commitment must continue when formal institutions are closed or captured. If Afghan women cannot enter universities, we cannot simply wait for the doors to reopen. We must ask how education can reach them now.

That means open learning pathways in Dari and Pashto that work on phones. It means universities agreeing to recognise what has been learned, so that interrupted education is not wasted.

It means scholarships in regional and international universities, support for Afghan educators inside and outside the country, and digital security and emergency support from the very first day, because learning in these conditions carries real risk.

Afghanistan raises an important question: what happens to the next generation of human rights leaders when the institutions that should educate, connect and support them are no longer accessible?

We cannot simply wait for conditions to improve. When classrooms and universities close, young people need alternative pathways to continue learning, remain connected and develop the skills to defend human rights safely and effectively.

So let me close with a concrete proposal. We should build an international network of universities, national human rights institutions and civil society organizations to provide sustained education, mentoring and practical leadership opportunities for young human rights defenders, especially those whose education has been restricted by repression, conflict or discrimination.

A network only matters if each of us does something specific. States can fund scholarships, recognize credible alternative and online learning, and create pathways for students and young defenders at risk.

Universities can open places and online programs, provide mentors, work with displaced and exiled academics, and protect academic freedom.

Human rights institutions and the UN system can create opportunities for young defenders to engage with human rights mechanisms safely and ensure that voices from the most restricted environments are heard.

Civil society can make training accessible in local languages, connect experienced defenders with emerging leaders, and integrate digital security and protection into their programs.

None of this requires a new treaty or institution. It requires us to connect what already exists and make it accessible to those who need it most.

Afghanistan is an urgent example, but the lesson goes beyond Afghanistan. If we want the next generation to defend universal human rights, we cannot wait until they are established leaders.

We must invest in them while they are learning, while they are finding their voices, and especially when using those voices comes at a cost.

Thank you.

The post Human Rights Education Under Oppression in Afghanistan | Husna Jalal appeared first on UN Watch.

UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer joined Newsmax’s Emma Rechenberg and Jon Glasgow to discuss Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s UN General Assembly address, the UN’s longstanding bias against Israel, and UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher’s troubling embrace of Iran’s regime.

Emma Reckenberg, Newsmax: Let’s welcome Hillel Neuer, Executive Director at UN Watch. Hillel, what did you make of Netanyahu’s speech at the UN General Assembly?

Hillel Neuer: I think it was a strong statement by Israel’s Prime Minister. Israel is being attacked militarily on seven different fronts in the past three years. You could say the eighth front is the United Nations, the international stage where Israel’s very existence is challenged repeatedly by the world’s worst dictatorships. Israel’s leader made a powerful statement, a powerful speech. He called out the dictators like Turkey, Iran, and Qatar for their funding of terrorism and their hypocrisy. He called out the UN, and he made a strong case for Israel’s right to defend itself.

So I think it was regarded by neutral observers worldwide as a strong case, and I think Israelis at home as well. And, of course, keep in mind that Israel’s Prime Minister has an election in one month, and obviously he was looking both to the global audience but also to the domestic audience. I think on both, I think it was successful for him.

Jon Glasgow, Newsmax: And you’ve been covering the UN for years here. Why do you think that the institution has become so anti-Israel?

Hillel Neuer: Well, this isn’t new. It began at least 50 years ago. Let’s recall that in 1975, the then-Soviet Union, which was the leader of the anti-democratic bloc, together with Arab states, pushed a resolution through declaring Zionism to be a form of racism. This means the very existence of the State of Israel, which was first proposed and recognized by the League of Nations in 1922, when they recognized the ancestral historical rights of the Jewish people to their homeland, and then in 1948, when Israel was admitted to the United Nations, was challenged in 1975 by the General Assembly.

Since then, going back now 50 years, every year at the UN, there’s only one resolution on Iran, one on North Korea, zero on most of the world, and at least 15 targeting Israel. No mention of Hamas, no mention of the jihad, no mention of Abbas and the torture that he commits, or the fact that Abbas, who calls himself president of Palestine, is in the 22nd year of his four-year term.

So why is it happening? Briefly, you have countries that want to go along to get along. They are persuaded by vote trading. Fifty-six Islamic nations trade their votes, vast amounts of oil in the Arab world, and, I would say, fear of terrorism. These can all combine — threats to pull investment, Qatar’s billions of dollars of sovereign wealth funds. All of these are realpolitik.

And I would just mention one other factor, which is that Israel continues to be singled out as the Jew among the nations. There’s no question that some Europeans, for example, when they used to single out the Jews for poisoning the wells, today the modern form is singling out the world’s only Jewish country as responsible for all the world’s ills.

Emma Reckenberg, Newsmax: You point out so many challenges Israel continues to face, and yet the country is defiant in its determination to stand up for its Jewish residents, but also Christian residents, Arab residents as well. Those who are practicing Islam are all welcome in Israel to do so. But you saw those delegations get up and leave. I mean, are they even going to offer a chance to listen to some of these proposals that we’ve heard from Bibi Netanyahu?

Hillel Neuer: Look, that’s an annual ritual. There’s the ritual of scapegoating Israel in 15 different resolutions, and the United Nations so-called Human Rights Council, which just met yesterday on their special agenda item targeting Israel. No other country in the world has that agenda item.

There’s a ritual scapegoating, and the walkout is performative. You know, many of the delegates were, you know, 10 or 15 members of the same tiny country. The Palestinians sent a memo saying, “Bring the largest possible entourage you can gather, so that we’ll have a walkout.”

Look, the reality is that Israel’s Prime Minister just went to Abu Dhabi to meet with the head of the United Arab Emirates. Israel has very strong relations with Bahrain, Morocco, and other Arab and Muslim nations that actually care about peace. Israel has a very strong relationship with Saudi Arabia. It’s not formal yet. We wish that would be formalized for the sake of peace.

And as you said, Christians and Muslims live with equal rights in Israel. If you walk into any shopping mall in Israel, you will see Arabs wearing hijabs, not just working there, but managing the stores there as customers. Anywhere you go in Israel, you will hear the call of the muezzin to call to prayer.

So the accusations made against Israel are completely false. It’s a Jewish country, but very much a multicultural society. There’s going to be elections next month. Arabs will vote, Muslims will vote, Christians will vote. Not only will they vote, they’ll be elected to positions of power. Nowhere else in the Middle East—not Egypt, not Syria, not Lebanon—can you actually have free and fair elections for Arabs, Muslims, or Christians. Only in Israel. That’s the truth. That’s the reality.

Jon Glasgow, Newsmax: Well said. Let me show you this photo here. That’s become quite controversial. It shows Tom Fletcher, who serves as the head of the UN’s relief agency, shaking hands with the Iranian foreign minister. Critics say that Fletcher looks like he’s bowing to the Iranian leader. You say that when this was posted, the photo, Fletcher blocked you after this was posted. What were your takeaways from the photo and maybe the backlash that followed?

Hillel Neuer: Look, that photo is published throughout Iranian state media. They are cheering this. This is a propaganda victory. I’ve seen no explanation other than that he made some kind of a deferential bow. You see the smile on the part of the regime’s so-called foreign minister. He has blood on his hands. They massacred tens of thousands of Iranians for protesting for freedom. The regime is celebrating this photo.

Tom Fletcher is someone — 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 chief, humanitarian 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.

So there are serious questions. We’ve called on the United Nations to remove Mr. Fletcher from his position, replace him with someone who can actually earn the respect of the world, because humanitarian needs are serious. This is someone who defers to dictators. He shouldn’t be in that position.

The post Hillel Neuer on Newsmax: “The U.N. Scapegoats Israel” appeared first on UN Watch.

UN Watch’s examination of joint statements on Russia’s abuses by UN human rights experts reveals a consistent absence: Francesca Albanese’s signature.

Since Albanese became Special Rapporteur on the Palestine on 1 May 2022, her colleagues have repeatedly demanded accountability for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and its repression at home. They have appealed for the release of political prisoners, condemned persecution and called for justice.

Across all of the UN statements on Russia, the review shows Albanese refused to sign a single one.

The finding takes on particular significance following her recent endorsement of ending weapons supplies to Ukraine—without explaining how Ukrainians would defend themselves against further Russian aggression.

Appeals for Russia’s Victims: No Albanese Signature

The examination identified a series of joint statements from which Albanese’s name is absent:

• Navalny’s death and political prisoners: On 16 February 2024, UN experts demanded an independent investigation into Alexei Navalny’s death in custody and the release of political prisoners, including Vladimir Kara-Murza, Ilya Yashin and Alexei Gorinov.
• Russian aggression and repression: On 24 February 2025, experts led by Mariana Katzarova, the Special Rapporteur on Russia, demanded justice for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and repression at home.
• Impunity as the invasion entered its fifth year: On 24 February 2026, UN experts again warned against impunity for Russia’s war against Ukraine.
• Persecution of LGBT people: In December 2023, experts condemned the Russian Supreme Court’s ban on the “international LGBT movement.”
• Prosecution of an elderly human rights defender: In February 2025, experts called for Russia to drop “terrorism” charges against 85-year-old Mark Kuperman.

Albanese’s absence spans appeals concerning both Russia’s war abroad, and its persecution of people at home.

Pattern of Selective Engagement

UN Watch has long maintained that special rapporteurs should respect the boundaries of their mandates. We do not advocate turning every country-specific expert into a commentator on every international crisis.

But that is hardly the current practice of the UN’s special procedures, or Albanese’s own approach. She speaks beyond her Palestine mandate when she chooses, including to criticize the Western on Iran or for supporting Ukraine.

The finding therefore raises a question about her selective engagement: why does she intervene on some issues outside her mandate, while consistently withholding her signature from joint appeals for Russia’s victims?

Her predecessor, Michael Lynk, signed the 28 February 2022 joint statement calling for an end to Russian aggression against Ukraine. He also signed the 8 March 2022 statement condemning alleged attacks on civilians.

Albanese took over the same mandate two months later. UN Watch’s examination found no comparable signature during her tenure.

Join Statements Against Israel

Albanese leads numerous joint statements targeting Israel and the Palestinian territories, and pressures many of her peers to sign even when their mandates cover altogether different regions and thematic issues.

Her name appears first, meaning that she is the lead author, on the 18 September 2024 statement urging compliance with the International Court of Justice advisory opinion, the 11 October 2024 statement marking one year of the Gaza war, and the 19 September 2025 statement demanding action over the occupation.

Albanese participates in a system in which experts speak collectively beyond their individual mandates. When that system produces appeals for Russia’s victims, however, her name is missing.

The signature record reveals a consistent pattern, which her recent remarks on Ukraine make especially troubling.

Nobel Prize Laureate Oleksandra Matviichuk Against Francesca Albanese: “Stop weapons in Kiev? There will be no peace, but rape and torture”

L’intervista completa di Francesca Albanese a OPEN – quella in cui dice di essere contro l’invio di armi all’Ucraina – è persino peggio della clip già uscita.

Mentana le fa notare che senza armi l’Ucraina capitola, la Russia vince e si crea un precedente pericoloso. Lei risponde… pic.twitter.com/1k4cvemip8

— Stazione Quinta (@H4NDelMonaco) October 1, 2026

At the Festival di Open in Parma in September 2026, Albanese endorsed stopping weapons supplies to Ukraine and returning the discussion to the political arena. In an opening disclaimer, she acknowledged Russia’s invasion and described the war as illegitimate. Then she made her main point, calling to stop arms to Ukraine, and suggesting that a “political calculation” within NATO, led by the United States, could favour keeping Europe weak and the conflict open. She said we need to “bring the discussion back into the political space,” that is, to negotiate with Vladimir Putin.  She added that she was “not an expert” and had no solution for ending the war.

Calling for negotiations does not explain what happens when the invaded country loses the weapons it needs to resist. How would Ukraine protect its civilians? What would prevent further Russian advances? What leverage would Ukrainians retain at the negotiating table? Albanese endorsed ending arms supplies without explaining how those consequences would be addressed.

“I was shocked by Francesca Albanese ‘s statements , I’m truly speechless,” said Oleksandra Matviichuk, director of the Center for Civil Liberties, the Ukrainian organization awarded the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize.

“Albanese said she had no idea how to stop Putin, but at the same time she’s asking for a halt to the shipment of weapons to Ukraine. How can a woman on the front lines defending human rights speak like that? She has no respect for us, for what millions of people would risk in a chain reaction.”

“The result will not be peace but occupation, and the Russian occupation means torture, sexual violence, forced disappearances , denial of your identity, forced adoption of your children, infiltration camps, and mass graves,” said Matviichuk.

Why Has Albanese Refused to Back UN Accountability for Russia?

UN Watch’s findings warrant an explanation: Why has Albanese not joined her colleagues’ appeals for Russia’s political prisoners and demands for accountability?

Why does her willingness to speak beyond her mandate extend to ending military support for Ukraine, but not to signing statements defending Russia’s victims?

She has found her voice to call for an end to weapons for Ukraine. She has yet to lend her signature to a single joint appeal for justice for Russia’s victims.

The post Report: Albanese Never Signed a Joint UN Expert Statement on Russia’s Human Rights Abuses appeared first on UN Watch.

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

Invited by UN Watch, international lawyer Natasha Hausdorff took the floor at the United Nations to blast world leaders after they used the General Assembly as a platform to falsely attack Israel.

French President Emmanuel Macron: “Look at what’s happening in the West Bank where day in, day out we are seeing violations. And in the name of what? Hamas was never very active in the West Bank.”

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham: “Just eight weeks into becoming Prime Minister, working with my Foreign Secretary, Ed Miliband, I comprehensively reset our position… we have acted by banning trade in goods with illegal settlements…”

Spanish President Pedro Sánchez: “My country has opposed all wars of aggression… imposing an arms embargo on the Netanyahu government in Israel. We unequivocally condemn the genocide that Netanyahu is still perpetrating in Gaza.”

Australia Foreign Minister Penny Wong: “In the West Bank the situation is worsening. In the first six months of this year alone, settler violence has driven more than 15,000 children from their homes.”

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan: “Gaza has become the most inhumane and shameful concentration camp of our time… I shall continue from this podium here to defend the rights of the oppressed, the rights of the aggrieved and the voiceless.”

Natasha Hausdorff for UN Watch: Mr President. World leaders have spoken.

President Macron says Hamas was “never very active in the West Bank.” Tell that to the family of Netanel Shukrun, murdered in Neve Tzuf just over a week ago. Tell that to Ambassador Yechiel Leiter, whose son Neria was just mowed down near Beit Horon. Hamas has murdered Jews in Judea and Samaria for decades.

The British Prime Minister declares an unlawful ban on products from these Jewish communities. Meanwhile, Britain gave a known Hamas terorrist a passport, which he used to plot attacks across Europe. Banning award-winning wine from Judea, but not the terrorists plotting to kill Jews.

Spain accused Israel of “genocide.” That is a lie and an inversion – It was Hamas that carried out a genocidal massacre. But then it is President Sánchez that has honored the only UN official in history condemned for Holocaust inversion.

Australia’s Penny Wong lied when she claimed that more than 15,000 children were driven from their homes in the West Bank. A lie that seeks to justify the ethnic cleansing of Jews which UN bodies call for.

And if President Erdoğan, truly cared about the oppressed, he would not jail his political rivals, silence journalists, and deny the Armenian genocide.

Let the record show this institution is being abused to promote falsehoods and subvert real international law.

The post Natasha Hausdorff Puts World Leaders’ U.N. Claims on Trial appeared first on UN Watch.

Holocaust Distortion from U.N. “Expert”: Francesca Albanese claims Jews in Nazi death camps “were called Muslims.” Antisemitism targets “Semitic peoples” and “not just discrimination against Jews.”

Even in Nazi death camps: She cannot name Jew-hatred without replacing the Jews. pic.twitter.com/ipSMTOK0Vu

— UN Watch (@UNWatch) September 24, 2026

Seen over 1.2 million times, UN Watch was the first to expose Albanese’s outrageous claims that Jews in Nazi death camps “were called Muslims” and that antisemitism targets “Semitic peoples” and “not just discrimination against Jews.”

Immediately, Albanese faced widespread condemnation, including from Holocaust Remembrance Center Yad Vashem and Belgian Defense Minister Theo Francken, who said Albanese “is pro-Russian and hates Jews.”

@FranceskAlbs ventures into obvious and dangerous historical revisionism with her attempt to recast the Nazi persecution and murder of Jews as merely part of a broader hatred of the “non-white”, non European or “non-Christian.”

Her portrayal of the history of modern antisemitism…

— Yad Vashem (@yadvashem) September 28, 2026

While initially defended by her base, pressure began to mount — including from liberal Italian Senator Raffaella Paita who called her “outburst” as an “attempt to downplay the role of Jews as victims of the Shoah.”

As a result, Albanese was forced to issue a rare apology which only further amplified the story and drew more criticism. In a viral response, Hillel Neuer captured the perception: “Apology not accepted. You are not acting in good faith. You must resign.”

Apology not accepted. You repeatedly campaigned to erase the very meaning of hatred against Jews and engaged in Holocaust inversion. You have apologized before for antisemitic remarks, only to then renege. You are not acting in good faith. You must resign. In the name of God, go. https://t.co/OXI0Jv0q1r

— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) September 28, 2026

British-Palestinian peace advocate John Aziz also criticized her lack of understanding. Coming from her own supporters, even Ihab Hassan — who is hostile towards Israel — condemned Albanese for attacking the Jewish state through “distorting the Holocaust” and “the history of antisemitism.”

Quickly thereafter, Albanese returned to her normal voice, making another post which effectively walked back her “sincere apology.” Even quicker, once this was called out by Hillel Neuer, Albanese deleted this new post and hasn’t commented again on the debacle in hopes the story blows over.

DELETED: After I called it out, Francesca Albanese has deleted her post from today (https://t.co/BYt96GM9or) that effectively walked back her “sincere apology” for her not knowing antisemitism targets Jews. Her post had also endorsed a supporter's praise of her “rare virtue.” 🧵 https://t.co/iZeUHPjPK2 pic.twitter.com/XBiIVl7Yto

— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) September 29, 2026

Already condemned by over a dozen nations for antisemitism and Holocaust inversion, UN Watch will continuing applying pressure on Albanese until she is forced to resign.

The post Francesca Albanese Forced to Apologize After Being Exposed by UN Watch appeared first on UN Watch.

GENEVA, September 27, 2026 — UN Watch today condemned the UN Human Rights Office’s expansion of its Israel-only business blacklist, saying the report brands ordinary commercial activity as a human rights problem while giving boycott campaigners a list of companies to pressure.

The report released Friday adds 61 companies, bringing the list to 214 businesses in 11 countries. Five companies were removed. Newly listed firms include Israeli agricultural company ADAMA and real estate investment firm Alony Hetz.

“Read what the UN has actually put on this list,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch. “Banks, buses, water services, bakeries and food producers. These are the businesses that allow people to live ordinary lives. The UN is treating their services to Israelis as grounds for public denunciation.”

“The blacklist includes the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem within its geographic mandate. Absurdly, that means a family visiting the Western Wall, part of the holiest site in Judaism, could be impacted by sanctions on the transport that brings them into Jerusalem, the water supplied to nearby homes and businesses, and the banking services that keep those businesses operating.”

“This is not a list limited to companies alleged to have abused a Palestinian,” Neuer said. “A bus carrying passengers, a company supplying water or a bank providing loans can be listed because of where it operates.”

“Nothing in international law or practice justifies this blacklist. The UN has created no comparable company database for businesses operating in Moroccan-controlled Western Sahara or Turkish-occupied Northern Cyprus. Only Israel is singled out.”

“What human rights principle says that Jews living in their ancient homeland — including the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem whose holy sites have been the object of Jewish prayer for millennia — should be denied normal transport, banking or utilities?”

“If supplying transport and utilities in a disputed territory warrants a UN blacklist, where are the lists for every other territorial dispute?” Neuer asked. “The UN demands a standard for Israel that it has never imposed elsewhere. And a double standard means discrimination.”

The consequences are no longer theoretical. As noted by Reuters, companies on the list could face boycott or divestment campaigns. Earlier this month, Britain, France and Canada announced plans to prohibit imports from Israeli settlements and take targeted action against those facilitating or profiting from them. Those governments have not said they will use this database. But the UN has now provided a public roster for anyone seeking to broaden economic pressure.

“The immediate value of this document to BDS is obvious,” Neuer said. “Its purpose is to fuel global boycotts and sanctions. It supplies names, categories of alleged harm and the UN’s seal of approval. The pressure need not stop at a shop or factory beyond the Green Line: the list includes major companies whose businesses reach across Israel and around the world.”

The mechanism originated in a 2016 Human Rights Council resolution sponsored by the Arab and Islamic groups and governments including Venezuela, Sudan, Cuba and Libya.

UN Watch said the council’s decision to target Israel alone violates the principles of universality and impartiality on which it was founded.

“Volker Türk should explain why his office devotes resources to naming companies that supply Israelis with bread, water and buses while producing no equivalent blacklist for any other country,” Neuer said. “Human rights cannot mean one rule for Israel and another for the rest of the world.”

“Meanwhile, the council gives a free pass to its own member states that commit gross and systematic violations of human rights, including China, Qatar, Cuba and Pakistan.”

“The UN has turned a water pipe, a bus route, and a bank loan into grounds for blacklisting — provided the people they serve are Israelis. That is not a human rights standard. It is a political target.”

The post UN Watch Condemns Expanded UN Blacklist of Israeli Businesses as Boycott Pressure Grows appeared first on UN Watch.

UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer appeared on ILTV with Calev Ben-David to discuss the high-level opening of the UN General Assembly and the overt bias of UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

Transcript:

Calev Ben-David, ILTV: Joining us now for more is Hillel Neuer. He is the Executive Director of UN Watch. And of course, this is a busy time of the year for you, Hillel, with plenty of material there at the UN General Assembly.

Let’s start with your comments, which you put out in a tweet about Antonio Guterres. The Secretary-General predictably criticized Israel in his address. Maybe just talk about your reaction to his remarks.

Hillel Neuer: Look, it’s not the first time that he has chosen to make this kind of comparison, where he says that Israel is doing something that’s the worst he’s ever seen in his entire life or in his entire tenure. And the fact is, it’s false.

He says that what’s happening in Gaza is the worst situation he’s ever seen, the scale unprecedented from anything he’s witnessed. Well, in the time that he’s been Secretary-General, perhaps he didn’t notice, but hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in Sudan, in Syria, in Ukraine, in Yemen, in Ethiopia, and the list goes on.

So, just factually, by any measure, if you look at Hamas’s maximalist figures, the other situations that I mentioned are far greater. The other piece which is significant is that Hamas invaded Israel. Hamas launched a massacre on October 7, killing 1,200 people in one day—the equivalent of 12 9/11 attacks proportionally, if you compare Israel’s population to America.

Israel responded to destroy Hamas, with innocent people killed. Of course, every innocent death is tragic. But Hamas launched a war. They launched a massacre with genocidal intent. Guterres erases all of that and falsely says it’s the worst he’s witnessed. The only way it’s the worst is if he was willfully blind to everything else happening in the world. Very sad.

Calev Ben-David: Now, Prime Minister Netanyahu is going to be speaking on Thursday. He’s put out a statement already saying he’ll go there to tell the truth about Israel’s heroic soldiers. Presumably, he’ll also speak on Iran and perhaps on Gaza. He also said he’ll talk about New York Mayor Mamdani.

What do you think the Prime Minister—what do you think he should be saying, will say, and should be saying there to the GA?

Hillel Neuer: Well, I think that he is going to make the case for Israel, as he always does. I think he’s certainly going to identify Iran as the head of the snake, which it is in the region. It’s the cause of war and terrorism from Syria to Lebanon to Gaza to Iraq to Yemen, right now spilling over into Saudi Arabia.

So I think he’s going to certainly talk about the war in Iran. He’s going to talk about Israel’s war against Hamas. These are all important subjects. He has a very difficult challenge ahead of him. Israel’s standing in the world is at a low point, certainly Western democracies, whether it’s Britain, Canada, Australia and other countries.

We saw France taking an unfair hit at Israel. We saw Macron just the other day. I think Netanyahu will hit him back. Macron said in French, basically, that Hamas never ravaged the West Bank the way it did in Gaza, so Israel has no excuse to act in the West Bank. And then he was attacked for it because, of course, Hamas has killed many people in the West Bank, in Judea and Samaria.

His office said that he said Hamas never governed, but that’s not the typical use of the French word according to any dictionary. So I think Macron will get hit. Let’s keep in mind, Macron is whitewashing Abbas. He talks about sovereignty for the Palestinians. A year ago, he defended his decision to recognize the State of Palestine, saying that he’s being criticized for doing something on paper. It was a fiction. There is no State of Palestine.

If we talk about Abbas, even the mayor of Paris in France stripped Abbas of a major award because of his remarks denying the Holocaust, justifying Hitler. So you have the mayor of Paris recognizing that Abbas is a Holocaust denier. His PhD from the Soviet Union is on Holocaust denial. And you have the President of France, Emmanuel Macron, whitewashing this defender of Hitler. It’s rather shameful.

Calev Ben-David: What about some of your response to President Trump’s remarks? He was a bit—I want to say—restrained when it comes to President Trump. I mean, he certainly has strong statements about Iran. Notably, he did not criticize the UN itself, something he’s done in the past, including last year. I mean, what was your response? How did you feel about President Trump’s remarks?

Hillel Neuer: Well, I think President Trump, interestingly, though in some cases he has a sledgehammer on certain issues. On the UN, it’s important to note he’s never said, “Destroy the UN.” Even when he signed executive orders pulling out of certain UN bodies, he said the UN has great potential. We need to make it great again.

His ambassador, who’s very busy in New York, Ambassador Mike Waltz, and Jeff Bartos, the ambassador for UN reform, have cut a lot of money from the UN budget, but they’ve talked about making the UN great again. So I think President Trump was consistent with his narrative.

He did, at the same time, call out UN human rights officials on certain of the remarks, either dealing with migration or transgender mutilation, as he put it. And let’s keep in mind that there are UN human rights officials who are, in the words of Guterres himself, “totally out of control.”

Whether it’s Francesca Albanese, who just said two days ago that the Western world should stop arming Ukraine, basically allowing Russia to destroy innocent people in Ukraine; whether it’s the Chairman of the UN Human Rights Officials, Mr. George Katrougalos, who recently gave a speech where he mentions China 32 times, yet not once criticized China or Xi Jinping, didn’t mention 1 million Uyghurs locked up, didn’t mention 6,000 Tibetan temples destroyed, didn’t mention Hong Kong democracy extinguished, and 78-year-old pro-democracy publisher Jimmy Lai languishing in prison.

So there’s a lot to talk about on the UN human rights officials. I’m glad President Trump put a finger on that.

Calev Ben-David: Is it worth it for Prime Minister Netanyahu to speak from the podium at the UN General Assembly, given all the Israel-bashing there?

Hillel Neuer: Yes. You can’t escape the world. This is the world as it is. It’s a tremendous forum. Prime Minister Netanyahu is a very accomplished speaker. So it’s a unique opportunity to address the world. He’s obviously, of course, addressing the Israeli people. He has an election coming up. You may be looking at his domestic audience more than anything.

But for Israel, it’s a tremendous opportunity to make its case before the world. And I hope Prime Minister Netanyahu will use felicitous language and eloquent language to make Israel’s case as the only democracy in the Middle East fighting to defend itself from terrorists.

The post Hillel Neuer on ILTV: Guterres’ Double Standard on Gaza Exposed appeared first on UN Watch.