UN Watch investigation finds the agency substituted paperwork and promises for meaningful change

GENEVA, 14 September 2026 — UNRWA’s claim to have completed 41 of the 50 reforms recommended by the landmark Colonna Review substantially overstates the changes achieved on the ground, according to a major new report released today by UN Watch.

The “Report Card on UNRWA Reform” examines UNRWA’s implementation of every recommendation issued by the Independent Review Group led by former French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna.

Commissioned by UN Secretary-General António Guterres following revelations that UNRWA employees participated in the October 7 massacre and amid the suspension of $450 million in donor funding, the Colonna Review was intended to determine whether the agency’s neutrality safeguards were “fit for purpose” and to restore donor confidence.

Two years later, UNRWA says that 41 recommendations are completed. Yet UN Watch’s analysis finds that UNRWA frequently measured administrative activity instead of meaningful reform. At most, the new report concludes, 13 of Colonna’s 50 recommendations have actually been completed as prescribed.

“UNRWA has graded its own homework and awarded itself high marks,” said UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer. “But issuing a policy is not the same as enforcing it. Drafting a plan is not the same as implementing it, and closing a recommendation does not mean that the underlying problem has been solved.”

“On paper, UNRWA reports sweeping progress. On the ground, its employees continue to be exposed as members and supporters of terrorist organizations, hateful educational content persists, and Hamas-dominated unions continue to obstruct neutrality and discipline.”

Key Findings

• UNRWA redefined what counts as completion. Under its “Minimum Viable Product” methodology, UNRWA allows itself to classify a recommendation as completed once it considers the recommendation’s “core functional objective” achieved—even where further measures remain necessary and the reform has not been fully institutionalized.
• UNRWA still lacks a demonstrated system for screening its workforce for Hamas membership. Its principal sanctions screening relies on the UN Security Council Consolidated Sanctions List, which does not list Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
• External investigations continue to uncover what UNRWA’s internal systems missed. In June 2026, the USAID Office of Inspector General referred 108 current or former UNRWA personnel for suspension or debarment based on evidence linking them to the October 7 attacks or Hamas’s military wing. Days later, UNRWA dismissed 70 Gaza employees following a security assessment, while insisting that the dismissals did not validate the allegations against them. See also UN Watch’s statement on the dismissals.
• UNRWA closed union reforms that were never implemented. The agency classified revisions to its Staff Union Statute as completed after merely drafting and transmitting a proposed statute, even though the unions had not adopted it. Yet within months of this supposed reform achievement, the UNRWA Gaza Staff Union—still under unchanged leadership—mobilized against the dismissal of the 70 terror-linked employees and demanded their reinstatement. UN Watch’s report Schools in the Grip of Terror documents how Hamas-linked officials continue to dominate UNRWA staff unions.
• One recommendation was closed as “unimplementable.” Recommendation 46 called for outsourcing union pay-setting functions. UNRWA determined that the measure could not be implemented, yet still counted the recommendation as closed.
• Vetting reforms remain dependent on funding. UNRWA closed recommendations concerning commercial screening and the vetting of union officials after developing pilots and costed plans, although the actual systems had not been fully deployed.
• Educational reform is measured by procedures rather than content. UNRWA cites reviews, digital platforms, teacher training and engagement with UNESCO as evidence of progress, while post-Colonna assessments by IMPACT-se continue to identify antisemitism, glorification of terrorism and incitement in the 2025–2026 Palestinian Authority curriculum used in UNRWA schools.
• Training cannot prevent deliberate military misuse of UNRWA facilities. The Colonna Review acknowledged that UNRWA lacks the policing, military and investigative capabilities required to detect weapons, tunnels and military activity at its installations. New policies and awareness programs do not remedy this fundamental incapacity. The standard inspection regime still does not operate normally in Gaza, where the most serious allegations have arisen.
• UNRWA declared a “cultural shift” completed while describing it as ongoing. The agency classified all recommendations on enhanced cooperation as complete even as its own reporting acknowledged that the required institutional transformation remained underway.

Structural Failure, Not a Paperwork Problem

The report finds that many of the Colonna recommendations proposed potentially useful administrative improvements. However, they did not adequately address the deeper institutional causes of UNRWA’s neutrality crisis: terrorist infiltration among personnel, Hamas influence over staff unions and schools, the agency’s inability to investigate clandestine affiliations, and an institutional culture deeply embedded in the Palestinian political struggle against Israel.

“The central question is not how many policies UNRWA has written, training sessions it has conducted or recommendations it has marked complete,” Neuer said. “The question is whether UNRWA can prevent its schools, staff and facilities from serving terrorism and incitement. The evidence examined in this report shows that it cannot.”

“The Colonna process was designed to reassure donors. Our report tests that reassurance against the evidence—and finds a profound gap between reform claimed and reform achieved.”

UN Watch called on donor governments not to rely on UNRWA’s self-reported completion figures when deciding whether to resume or continue funding. Governments should require independent verification of each claimed reform and assess whether it has produced measurable changes in staff conduct, educational content, union activity and the protection of UN facilities.

“Donor states were promised reform,” Neuer said. “Instead of delivering proof of results, UNRWA offers policies on paper, pilot projects awaiting funding, or recommendations closed by administrative decree.”

The report concludes that UNRWA’s failures cannot be repaired through managerial adjustments. Its mandate, workforce and role in Palestinian society are inseparable from a political project that perpetuates refugee status, the claimed “right of return” and rejection of Israel. UNRWA employs more than 28,000 people, overwhelmingly locally recruited Palestinians, while only about 120 staff are international.

“The Colonna reforms cannot make politically neutral an institution whose fundamental structure and purpose sustain the grievances and ideology exploited by Hamas,” said Neuer. “Humanitarian assistance for needy Gazans must continue, but it should be delivered through institutions capable of operating independently of terrorism and the political perpetuation of the conflict.”

The Report

The full report, Report Card on UNRWA Reform: An Evaluation of the Agency’s Claims Against the Evidence on Implementation of the Colonna Report, is available here.  Related UN Watch resources include the UNRWA Terror Network and Schools in the Grip of Terror.

About UN Watch

UN Watch is a Geneva-based independent human rights organization accredited in special consultative status to the United Nations Economic and Social Council. Founded in 1993, UN Watch monitors the performance of the United Nations according to the principles of its Charter and advocates for victims of human rights abuses worldwide.

The post New Report: UNRWA Claims Reform While Terrorism and Incitement Persist appeared first on UN Watch.

I. Summary and Call to Action

In the wake of the Hamas-led terrorist attacks of October 7, 2023, UNESCO has repeatedly issued public statements identifying individuals killed in Gaza as journalists and condemning their deaths. In a number of these cases, however, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad themselves subsequently acknowledged that the individuals concerned were members or operatives of their organizations.

Despite this evidence, UNESCO has neither corrected nor withdrawn the statements in question. This pattern is fundamentally inconsistent with UNESCO’s mandate and its own published methodology for verifying the deaths of journalists.

UNESCO’s Constitution entrusts the Organization with promoting “the free flow of ideas by word and image.” That mission necessarily depends upon the credibility of UNESCO’s public communications. UNESCO’s own methodology for its Observatory of Killed Journalists provides that reported cases are verified using multiple sources and may be updated when new evidence emerges.

Likewise, both the Standards of Conduct for International Civil Service and the UNESCO Staff Rules and Regulations require UNESCO officials and employees to act with integrity, independence, and impartiality.

Those standards cannot be reconciled with publicly identifying acknowledged members of terrorist organizations as journalists or failing to correct the record once their affiliations become known.

Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad have long embedded members of their military wings within civilian institutions while concealing their operational roles. The use of civilian status to shield military activity violates the principle of distinction under international humanitarian law and places genuine civilians, including journalists, at greater risk. By identifying acknowledged Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad operatives as journalists, UNESCO has implicitly legitimized that violation.

UNESCO action to defend press freedom around the globe has tremendous potential. This golden opportunity is squandered, however, when the authority of the United Nations is used to make factual assertions that have not been adequately verified.

Before publicly condemning the killing of an individual as a journalist, UNESCO must establish whether the individual was entitled to civilian protection or was serving in a military or combat-support role for a terrorist organization. Failing to do so undermines UNESCO’s credibility and the integrity of its work to protect journalists worldwide.

II. Cases of UNESCO Identifying Terrorists as Journalists

The post Report: UNESCO’s Misidentification of Terrorist Operatives as Journalists in Gaza appeared first on UN Watch.

Click Here for the Full Report

Executive Summary:

In November 2006, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan described the system of Special Procedures as “the crown jewel of the UN human rights system.” Nearly two decades later, that jewel has lost much of its luster—tarnished by politicization, disregard for impartiality, and a complete failure of accountability to minimal norms and professional standards.

The Human Rights Council today maintains 59 Special Procedures mandates—46 dealing with global themes, and 13 addressing specific countries—an increase of nearly 30% from when the Council was created in 2006. Although Special Procedures are unsalaried, they receive certain financial support when carrying out official duties, including UN funding for country visits, as well as training, staffing support, and other institutional resources.

Mandate-holders are granted a global platform from which to issue UN press releases, hold press conferences, and publish UN reports. While their findings are not legally binding, they can significantly shape public debate, influence UN discussions, and inform how governments, media, and civil society interpret a wide range of policy issues and alleged human rights violations. Their reports are widely treated as credible and authoritative by institutions such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, as well as by governments, media outlets, universities, and civil society actors worldwide.

Reports by the Special Procedures “have a weighty doctrinal authority,” according to the European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ), and are “very often referenced by national and international bodies, in particular by courts.” As of 2021, the ECLJ had identified 140 judgments of the European Court of Human Rights referring to reports by the Special Procedures, as well as numerous references in the judgments of the Inter-American Court. Their influence is therefore significant.

Mandate-holders are treated by leading institutions as neutral experts and are regularly invited to address prestigious international forums and academic institutions. Significantly, the UN affiliation enables them to leverage that authority across social media and international media appearances, where their statements are presented as reflecting the voice or expertise of the United Nations. Though their UN press statements carry a footnote indicating that the experts are “independent,” their remarks are routinely cited as representing the United Nations organization as a whole.

Yet, like the body that appoints them—the 47-member Human Rights Council, a majority of whose members are non-democracies—the Special Procedures have become politicized. The mechanism increasingly functions not as an independent human rights safeguard, but as a vehicle for ideological advocacy, selective targeting, and the laundering of unverified and even spurious allegations through the authority of the United Nations.

Academic scholarship overwhelmingly praises the Special Procedures system. In a leading book on the UN’s Special Procedures, Ted Piccone of the Brookings Institution praises them as “catalysts for change” whose independent status enables them to play a “critical role in shaping the content of international human rights norms.” According to Piccone, the Special Procedures mechanism is “one of the most effective tools of the international human rights system,” which “deserves further strengthening and support from the international community.” He advocated increased cooperation and financial support from governments.

Similarly, NYU legal scholar Philip Alston, who himself served in multiple mandates including as the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty, characterized Special Procedures as “the Council’s most effective mechanism” for responding to human rights violations and holding states to account. He praised their “impartiality” and contribution to interpreting international human rights norms, asserting that some of the experts’ reports had a “major impact.”

Likewise, according to American University’s Ingrid Nifosi-Sutton, the Special Procedures represent “a tremendous development in UN activity in the field of human rights” and “the climax of the legal and political empowerment” of the UN Commission on Human Rights, which was created in 1946, and then refashioned in 2006 as the Human Rights Council. She argued that the central challenge was to make UN human rights monitoring a “proper technical and effective endeavor,” a goal she concluded Special Rapporteurs ultimately achieved, particularly through country visits, reporting, and urgent appeals. According to Nifosi-Sutton, this success placed Special Procedures “at the front line of the international struggle to extend the rule of law.”

This report finds, however, that the reality of the Special Procedures system increasingly diverges from the admiring scholarly assessments. Rather than operating as independent and impartial experts, many mandate-holders now use country visits and thematic reports to advance politicized narratives, disproportionately target democratic states, and shield authoritarian regimes from scrutiny. As detailed below, structural deficiencies—including politicized appointments, proliferation of mandates, weakened evidentiary standards, lack of transparency, and the absence of accountability—have eroded the credibility and integrity of the system in practice.

Click Here for the Full Report

The post Report: U.N. “experts” accepted funding from China, Russia, Qatar, pushed their interests appeared first on UN Watch.

This report was also submitted to the Human Rights Council and published as an official document of the 39th special session of the Human Rights Council on the deteriorating human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran. See A/HRC/S-39/NGO/1.

Background to the protests

On December 28, 2025, large-scale protests erupted across Iran, reflecting longstanding demands of the Iranian people for fundamental rights, dignity, and accountability. The immediate trigger for the protests was currency inflation, which caused a sharp spike in prices of basic goods, particularly food items. Other contributing factors are poverty and ethnic inequality. 

While women’s rights were not the primary catalyst for these protests, freedom and equality for Iranian women—including opposition to compulsory hijab—remain critical issues. Women protesters demonstrated defiance of the regime’s strict social rules by burning portraits of the ayatollah and smoking cigarettes. Two weeks earlier, on December 12, regime forces had violently arrested Iranian Nobel laureate and women’s human rights activist Narges Mohammadi and placed her, along with other activists, in solitary confinement.

The regime’s response has been marked by extreme and unlawful violence, including mass arrests, unfair trials, forced confessions, and executions. As part of the crackdown, the regime cut internet and phone service on the night of January 8, 2026. As of January 13, 2026, credible reports estimated that at least 12,000 protesters had been killed since the demonstrations began, with many more injured, arbitrarily detained, or forcibly disappeared. Bodies have been piling up in makeshift morgues. By January 19, 2026, the reports were of 16,500 killed.

Below is an analysis of the response of the UN’s human rights experts to the Islamic Republic’s violent crackdown on Iranian protesters.

Analysis

Out of 87 Special Procedures, only seven issued or endorsed an official statement condemning the regime’s crackdown. Published on January 13, 2026—two and half weeks into the violence—the statement was signed by the experts on Iran, extrajudicial executions, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, torture, international solidarity, and Afghanistan. Notably, when this statement was first published, it was signed by only five UN experts. Some time after, two more experts joined. Other than this one official statement, there have been only a handful of social media posts on X—an extremely weak response given the scale, intensity, and barbarity of the government response.

This silence results from selective and politicized engagement by UN human rights experts who routinely mobilize on issues unrelated to their mandates. For example, on August 28, 2025, 47 Special Procedures—including country mandate-holders and experts on migration, food, and displacement—co-signed a statement titled Reaffirming the Centrality of Gender as a Tool for Advancing Equality and All Human Rights, despite having no mandate-based connection to gender equality. This readiness to issue broad ideological statements stands in stark contrast to their near silence in the face of the Iranian regime’s mass killing of protesters.

In contrast to the ongoing violations in Iran, UN experts have repeatedly mobilized with remarkable speed to condemn the United States and Israel. On January 7, 2026—just four days after U.S. forces arrested Nicolas Maduro—19 UN experts signed an official statement “strongly condemning” the move. Similarly, on June 5, 2020, less than two weeks after the police killing of George Floyd in Minnesota, 27 UN experts co-signed a statement calling on the U.S. government to “address systemic racism in the criminal justice system.”

The same pattern is evident with respect to Israel. On September 19, 2024, within two days of Israel’s targeted pager attack on Hezbollah operatives in Lebanon, 22 UN experts jointly condemned Israel for what they described as “terrifying” violations of international law. Similarly, on May 29, 2024, just two days after an Israeli strike targeting Hamas sparked a fire in nearby civilian tents, 52 UN experts demanded “decisive international action to end the bloodshed in Gaza.”

These statements also reveal the extent to which UN experts routinely overreach their mandates when addressing Israel. For example, on October 3, 2025, 28 UN experts—including the Special Rapporteurs on human rights in Eritrea and Somalia—co-signed a statement criticizing the Trump peace plan for Gaza, despite having no mandate-related connection to Middle East peace negotiations. Similarly, in response to October 7, a joint statement condemning both Hamas and Israel, was issued by 50 Special Procedures, including mandate-holders on climate change, albinism, and unrelated country situations such as Cambodia, Eritrea, and Iran.

Seven UN Experts That Signed or Endorsed January 13, 2026 Statement on Iran

Mai Sato, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran

• January 2, 2026: Six days into the protests, Sato commented for the first time on her X account, calling on the authorities to “respect the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, and refrain from using excessive force against peaceful protesters.”
• January 13, 2026: Signed joint UN Statement titled Experts urge Iran to break cycle of violence, create space for dialogue.
• January 13, 2026: Shared her UN statement on X.
• January 14, 2026: Shared and endorsed tweet by Special Rapporteur on freedom of assembly Gina Romero—“I echo the strong objection of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association concerning the scheduled use of the death penalty to crack down on demonstrations.”

Morris Tidball-Binz, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions

• January 13, 2026: Signed joint UN Statement titled Experts urge Iran to break cycle of violence, create space for dialogue.
• No social media posts.

Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression

• January 13, 2026: Signed joint UN Statement titled Experts urge Iran to break cycle of violence, create space for dialogue.
• No social media posts.

Gina Romero, Special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association

• January 2, 2026: Tweeted calling to “respect of lifes and integrity of protestors and the right to assemble.”
• January 12, 2026: Tweeted praise and sympathy for the protesters.
• January 13, 2026: Signed joint UN Statement titled Experts urge Iran to break cycle of violence, create space for dialogue.
• January 14, 2026: Tweeted urging Iranian authorities to stop threatening the death penalty against Erfan Soltani

Richard Bennet, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan

• January 13, 2026: Signed joint UN Statement titled Experts urge Iran to break cycle of violence, create space for dialogue.
• No social media posts.

Alice Jill Edwards, SR on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

• January 13, 2026: Signed joint UN Statement titled Experts urge Iran to break cycle of violence, create space for dialogue.
• No social media posts (X Account is private)

Cecelia M. Bailliet, Independent expert on human rights and international solidarity

• January 13, 2026: Signed joint UN Statement titled Experts urge Iran to break cycle of violence, create space for dialogue.

• No social media posts (No X Account)

Other UN Experts That Should Have Spoken Out

Mary Lawlor, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders

• January 15, 2026: Shared a post by another organization about the protests, adding “shocking reports” about violations against human rights defenders coming from Iran.

Margaret Satterthwaite, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers

• Retweeted January 13, 2026 tweet by Mai Sato sharing her UN statement.
• January 16, 2026: Posted a short thread recalling the right to defense and a fair trial and stating that she is following the situation closely.

Matthew Gillett, Working Group on arbitrary detention

• Silent (No X Account)

Miriam Estrada-Castillo, Working Group on arbitrary detention

• Silent (X Account inactive)

Mumba Malila, Working Group on arbitrary detention

• Silent (No X Account)

Aue Balde, Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances

• Silent (Working Group X Account also silent)

Gabrielle Citroni, Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances

• Silent (No X Account; Working Group X Account silent)

Grażyna Baranowska, Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances

• Silent (X Account is deactivated; Working Group X Account silent)

Ana Lorena Delgadillo, Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances

• Silent (Working Group X Account also silent)

Mohammed Al-Obaidi, Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances

• Silent (Working Group X Account also silent)

Reem Alsalem, Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences

• Silent

Claudia Flores, Working Group on discrimination against women and girls

•  Silent (No X Account; Working Group X Account silent)

Ivana Krstić, Working Group on discrimination against women and girls

• Silent (No X Account; Working Group X Account silent)

Dorothy Estrada-Tanck, Working Group on discrimination against women and girls

• Silent

Haina Lu, Working Group on discrimination against women and girls

•  Silent (No X Account; Working Group X Account silent)

Laura Nyirinkindi, Working Group on discrimination against women and girls

• Silent (No X Account; Working Group X Account silent)

K.P. Ashwini, Special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance

• Silent

Olivier de Schutter, Special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights

• Silent (X Account is inactive)

Michael Fakhri, Special Rapporteur on the right to food

• Silent (X Account is inactive)

Tlaleng Mofokeng, Special Rapporteur on the right to health

• Silent

Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Special rapporteur on the right to adequate housing

• Silent

Pedro Arrojo-Agudo, Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation

• Silent

Farida Shaheed, Special Rapporteur on the right to education

• Silent

The post Report: UN Experts Silent on Iran appeared first on UN Watch.

The country ratings appear in a new joint report by a cross-regional coalition of three human rights groups, United Nations Watch in Switzerland, Human Rights Foundation in the U.S., and the Raoul Wallenberg Center for Human Rights in Canada.

“Electing serial human rights abusers like Pakistan, Egypt, and Iraq as UN judges on human rights is like making a gang of arsonists into the fire brigade,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of United Nations Watch, an independent non-governmental human rights organization based in Geneva.

“It will be slap in the face to their many victims of human rights abuse — including political prisoners, persecuted journalists, children subjected to child labor — if the UN makes gross abusers into global judges and guardians of human rights,” said Neuer.

“When the UN’s highest human rights body becomes a case of the foxes guarding the henhouse, the world’s victims suffer.”

Unlike previous years, this year’s election features a total absence of competition in all five regional slates, meaning all candidates are in practice guaranteed to win, despite their poor records on human rights.

“The absence of competition this year undermines the very premise and rationale for holding elections,” said Neuer.

“We are calling on France, Germany, the UK, the US, and other democracies to publicly announce that they will not vote for Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq, Vietnam and Angola, who have been deemed unqualified for the Human Rights Council. So far, at least in the public arena, they have been silent.”

The report also listed Mauritius, South Africa, India, and Ecuador as having “questionable” credentials, due to problematic human rights and UN voting records that should be improved.

Currently, 56% of UNHRC members are non-democracies, including China, Cuba, Qatar, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Burundi, Somalia, and Vietnam.

Last week, activists were outraged when representatives of Iran and China were appointed to the UNHRC’s advisory committee of 18 experts.

Call to Reform Election System

UN Watch is proposing a major reform to the election system. “If our own democracies continue to disregard the election criteria by voting for abusers,” said Neuer, “then we should just scrap elections altogether, and make every country a member, as is the case in the General Assembly’s own human rights committee. Non-democracies could no longer hold up their UNHRC election as a shield of international legitimacy to cover up the abuses of their regime.”

“Regrettably,” said Neuer, “the EU has not said a word about hypocritical candidacies that only undermine the credibility and effectiveness of the UN human rights system. By turning a blind eye as human rights violators easily join and subvert the council, leading democracies will be complicit in the world body’s moral decline.”

UN Watch Brings Leading Dissidents to Confront Dictatorships

United Nations Watch is the leading human rights NGO at the UN giving human rights defenders a global platform. In the recent 60th session of the UNHRC, the group invited key figures to speak, including Venezuela’s Leopoldo Lopez, former North Korean political prisoner Timothy Cho, and a delegation of ethnic minority rights activists from Syria. UN Watch also took the floor for human rights in Turkey, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Kuwait, Laos, and Kyrgyzstan.

Read: Report on UNHRC Candidates 2026-2028

The post Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq, Vietnam set to win top UN rights posts appeared first on UN Watch.

Click Here for the Full Report

Executive Summary

“Most people who are engaged in underground organizations try not to have their involvement known publicly,” said Stéphane Dujarric, spokesperson of United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, when asked why the UN employed for decades a Hamas terror chief who oversaw 2,000 teachers at UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

Yet this report reveals that the opposite is true: Hamas terror chiefs held top positions within UNRWA’s educational system despite publicly and repeatedly flaunting their support for and ties to Hamas and terrorism. UNRWA knew — and did nothing. The UN agency that raises more than $1 billion annually from Western states with the promise to educate Palestinian children with values such as peace, tolerance, and universal human rights, instead has handed
them over to the very operatives who recruit child soldiers, glorify suicide bombers, and preach the annihilation of a UN member state.

By knowingly employing Hamas terrorist leaders as school principals and teachers, and by allowing terror chiefs to head the unions that oversee thousands of their teachers, UNRWA didn’t just tolerate extremism — the Western-funded UN agency institutionalized it, turning classrooms into incubators of hate.

Over its 75 years of existence, UNRWA has churned out thousands of jihadi terrorists. Some of the most infamous include the perpetrators of the 1972 Munich Massacre, or Mohammed Deif, the now-deceased commander of Hamas’s Al-Qassam Brigades, one of the masterminds of the October 7th atrocities in Israel. This in itself should raise alarm bells for any donor that supports UNRWA out of genuine humanitarian concerns.

How is it that a so-called UN humanitarian agency has a track record for producing so many terrorists? This report tells the story of how Hamas took over the UNRWA staff unions that oversee thousands of teachers and school principals, and hijacked the agency’s entire education system.

As we established in our previous report, The Unholy Alliance: UNRWA, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, UNRWA’s operations on the ground are actually controlled by its local leaders, and not by the tiny handful of international staff such as Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini, who serves only as the public face, fundraiser, and advocate for UNRWA. Many of these local leaders, especially in Gaza and Lebanon, are Hamas members or leaders, while thousands of UNRWA’s local employees are also active Hamas members. To put this in perspective, more than 99% of UNRWA’s 30,000 employees are area staff — local Palestinian Arabs —while only 120 employees at the agency are international staff, funded by the United Nations in New York. The Palestinian Arab local staff are the people who run all of UNRWA’s services, including its education system.

This is exemplified by the contrast in how UNRWA in Gaza dealt with the cases of Matthias Schmale, a senior member of UNRWA’s international staff who headed the agency’s Gaza operation, and Suhail Al-Hindi, a senior Hamas official and former UNRWA union leader.

In May 2021, it took less than ten days for UNRWA’s local leaders — Amir Al-Mishal, then head of the UNRWA Gaza Staff Union, working together with his predecessor Suhail Al-Hindi — to get Matthias Schmale expelled from Gaza after he had appeared to make one remark supporting Israel in a media interview.

Yet, when Suhail Al-Hindi was publicly appearing with Hamas terrorist leaders for many years — while he was serving as an UNRWA school principal and as head of the UNRWA Gaza Staff Union — UNRWA failed to fire him. Moreover, after UNRWA temporarily suspended Al-Hindi in 2011 and Hamas orchestrated mass protests paralyzing UNRWA’s services in Gaza, Al-Hindi successfully pressured UNRWA’s top international management to agree not to discipline staff for “external activities” —i.e., involvement with Hamas terror chiefs, the activities of which he had been accused.

Similarly, in Lebanon, UNRWA management failed to fire Fateh Sharif who had served for years simultaneously as the head of the UNRWA Lebanon Teachers’ Union and as a senior leader of Hamas in Lebanon. Furthermore, recognizing that she has no control over the local staff, UNRWA Lebanon Director Dorothee Klaus departed Lebanon for her own safety on the day that UNRWA announced that it had suspended five of Sharif’s UNRWA Lebanon Teachers’ Union associates for neutrality violations related to their Hamas activity.

UNRWA’s local leaders, like Al-Hindi and Al-Mishal in Gaza and Sharif and his colleagues in Lebanon view UNRWA as a political tool which “serves as an international witness to [Palestinian refugees’] displacement,” and a “right for the Palestinians until they return to Palestine,” i.e., until they undo the imagined injustice of Israel’s 1948 creation and replace it with a Palestinian state. At a December 2018 lecture about UNRWA, Al-Hindi himself said that UNRWA’s activities and services have “a very significant and positive impact” on the Palestinian people and on ensuring that “the Palestinian right of return remains intact.” Thus,
UNRWA’s local employees, represented by their staff unions, completely reject the very notion of neutrality as an attack on “Palestinian identity” and a form of “political blackmail” by the international staff, to silence their incitement against Israel in order to appease donor states.

When UNRWA’s international representatives like Philippe Lazzarini and Pierre Krähenbühl state that UNRWA’s role is to “act as a witness” to the “plight” or “injustice” of Palestinian refugees and insist that they will “defend” this aspect of UNRWA’s mandate, they do so to placate these local leaders — the ones who truly
control UNRWA’s operations on the ground. Adam Bouloukos, UNRWA’s Director of Affairs in the West Bank, acknowledged in an April 2024 interview with the Washington Post that UNRWA is “never able to de-link service provision from the right of return.”

Thus, it is UNRWA’s local Palestinian leadership who are calling the shots — people like Al-Hindi and Al-Mishal in Gaza, and Sharif and his colleagues in Lebanon — and not the other way around. If they reject the notion of UN neutrality, then UNRWA’s international leaders can have “the most robust neutrality mechanisms of any similar organization” — as Lazzarini likes to say — but they will never be able to implement these mechanisms on the ground.

Following the scandal over a 3,000-member UNRWA staff Telegram chat group that cheered the October 7th atrocities, exposed by UN Watch in January 2024, the UN created an “independent review” headed by former French foreign minister Catherine Colonna “to assess whether UNRWA is doing everything within
its power to ensure neutrality and respond to allegations of serious neutrality breaches when they are made. The Colonna report, published on April 20, 2024, was extremely biased in favor of UNRWA and its staff, and was openly described by UNRWA officials as being designed to “reassure” the donor states — not to actually
expose wrongdoing.

Yet even the biased Colonna report expressly recognized that UNRWA staff unions are “politicized.” The report found that “over the years, political factions have used UNRWA’s staff unions to pressure the agency’s leadership and influence decisions on service delivery or project implementation” and that “the politicization
of staff unions is considered one of the most sensitive neutrality issues and needs to be addressed.” Nevertheless, as of August 2025, UNRWA had not completed implementation of a single Colonna recommendation related to the neutrality of staff unions.

The case studies in this report confirm the Colonna findings, highlighting UNRWA’s inability to enforce neutrality in both Gaza and Lebanon where senior UNRWA educators — Suhail Al-Hindi in Gaza and Fateh Sharif in Lebanon — simultaneously served as UNRWA school principals, heads of the local UNRWA staff
unions, and Hamas terror chiefs. Likewise, this report reveals that their associates and successors at the respective UNRWA staff unions in Gaza and Lebanon are also Hamas terrorists. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh himself had praised the Palestinian unions for their “role in the path of jihad.”

These case studies show in detail how Hamas has hijacked UNRWA’s education through its domination of the local UNRWA staff unions, particularly the teachers’ sectors of the unions, enabling Hamas to control UNRWA schools — the physical facilities, teachers, and curriculum — including by preventing the agency from implementing changes to de-radicalize the curriculum, blocking efforts by UNRWA to discipline staff for inciting antisemitism and jihadi terrorism, and placing Hamas operatives in senior educator positions in schools.

This fact that Hamas infiltrated UNRWA’s senior educator positions is corroborated by Israeli intelligence findings, based on Hamas membership lists and other documents found in Gaza, showing that over 15% of UNRWA’s senior educators in Gaza, in 60 UNRWA institutions, are members of the Hamas and Palestinian
Islamic Jihad terrorist groups.

As detailed in this report, following are some of the examples of how Hamas-controlled UNRWA staff unions, together with their former members who went on to overtly serve as senior Hamas leaders, repeatedly challenged or overturned decisions by UNRWA’s international leadership.

April 2011: UNRWA Gaza Staff Union headed by Suhail Al-Hindi vehemently opposed UNRWA management plan to introduce Holocaust education in schools. At his retirement party in April 2017, Al-Hindi was praised for successfully objecting to Holocaust education.

September to December 2011: After UNRWA suspended Al-Hindi for participating in events alongside Hamas leaders, Al-Hindi led three months of paralyzing protests at the end of which he was reinstated, and UNRWA agreed not to discipline employees for “external activities,” i.e., the type of Hamas activities Al-Hindi engaged in.

January to February 2017: UNRWA Spokesman Chris Gunness said that UNRWA is “tackling neutrality head on,” touted a new employee training, and promised to discipline employees. Al-Hindi and his UNRWA Gaza Staff Union vehemently objected, stating that “UNRWA’s laws and neutrality will not come at the expense of employees’ patriotism and Palestinian identity,” and UNRWA employees refuse to participate in trainings.

July to October 2018: Al-Hindi and Amir Al-Mishal, as heads of their respective unions, coordinated massive strikes against UNRWA over its firing of 1,000 contract workers due to funding cuts. The strikes, fully backed by Hamas, directly threatened UNRWA and shut down the UNRWA Gaza headquarters. In August, Matthias Schmale complained to the press, stating “I am the captain of the ship and I have 13,000 sailors, and they removed me from my command and confined me to the captain’s room.” By early October, most of UNRWA’s international staff were evacuated for their safety. The dispute was ultimately resolved in November 2018 and Arab states increased their funding to UNRWA shortly thereafter.

May 2021: Al-Mishal, as head of the UNRWA Gaza Staff Union, successfully pressured UNRWA to reinstate 27 employees that had been dismissed.

May 2021: In a TV interview, UNRWA Gaza Director Matthias Schmale acknowledged that Israeli missile strikes against Hamas in Gaza were “very precise.” Immediately, Al-Hindi accused Schmale of committing “a great sin” that he “must atone for.” Al-Mishal, as head of the UNRWA Gaza Staff Union, led mass protests against Schmale, demanding his resignation. A few days later, Hamas successfully expelled Schmale from Gaza.

February 2023: The Professional Unions Association, headed by Al-Hindi, instigated UNRWA teachers to join a strike “in solidarity with the righteous martyrs of Nablus.” Although UNRWA management refused to authorize the strike, it appears that UNRWA teachers defied this decision and joined anyway.

March 2023: Senior Hamas member and former UNRWA Gaza Staff Union leader Issam Al-Daalis facilitated UNRWA’s hiring of Hamas government teachers who had resigned in order to work for UNRWA.

March to June 2023: Hamas official Al-Daalis intervened with UNRWA’s Gaza Director Thomas White to resolve an UNRWA dispute with the Contractors Union.

April 2023: Under Al-Mishal, the UNRWA Gaza Staff Union rejected UNRWA management demands to implement a women’s membership quota in the union.

March to September 2024: In wake of paralyzing UNRWA protests in Lebanon in support of Fateh Sharif, the Hamas terror chief and head of the UNRWA Lebanon Teachers’ Union, UNRWA decided only to suspend but not to fire him. In late May 2024, after UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini flew into Lebanon and met with a coalition of terrorist groups in order to resolve the dispute, local Palestinian media reported that the matter was resolved positively for Sharif. UNRWA later insisted that Sharif was suspended and placed under investigation for months. Yet in spite of having all of the evidence of his terror ties, UNRWA never fired him.

October 2024 to March 2025: UNRWA suspended five of Sharif’s associates in the UNRWA Lebanon Teachers’ Union. This prompted the usual fierce opposition and protests from UNRWA staff. Despite clear and compelling evidence of their ties to and support for terrorism, it took nearly a year for UNRWA to fire them.

Click Here for the Full Report

The post Report: UN Watch Exposes Hamas Takeover of UNRWA Schools in Gaza and Lebanon appeared first on UN Watch.

Click Here for the Full Report

Executive Summary

“I have never had, and will never have, anything to hide.” So claimed Francesca Albanese in July 2024 in response to UN Watch’s detailed allegations that she took funding from pro-Hamas lobby groups. Yet this report reveals how the UN and its rapporteur engaged in a deliberate cover-up to conceal her funding by pro-Hamas lobby groups, and her commission of other grave ethical violations and financial misconduct, warranting an
urgent and independent investigation.

Albanese served as the UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine from May 1, 2022 to April 30, 2025. While she continues to present herself as a UN official, her purported renewal by the Human Rights Council for a second term was invalid and without legal effect as the President of the Council materially violated the established procedure in refusing to act on information documenting Albanese’s persistent non-compliance with the Code of Conduct, including information on the financial wrongdoing and cover-up that is the subject of this report.

As detailed below, in November 2023, Ms. Albanese conducted a lobbying trip to Australia and New Zealand in which she did not conduct any investigation pursuant to her mandate. Contrary to her denials and those by the UN, this report documents how the trip was partially funded by “external” groups, most likely pro-Hamas lobby groups in those countries. This financial sponsorship blatantly violated Article 3 of the UN Code of Conduct for Special Procedures, which prohibits mandate-holders from accepting any favors, gifts, or remuneration from non-governmental sources.

When first challenged about this violation in 2023 and 2024, Ms. Albanese, backed by the UN, vehemently denied that there was outside funding, falsely claiming that her trip was funded by the UN. This lie was perpetuated by the UN Secretary-General’s spokesperson, who denied any role in the expenditures. In fact, Albanese’s expenses related to her UN mandate are managed and overseen by the UN Human Rights Office, which is part of the UN Secretariat, and therefore answerable to Secretary-General Guterres.

When UN Watch submitted multiple complaints demanding accountability, the UN Secretariat orchestrated a cover-up by referring the matter not to an impartial authority, but rather to the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures—a panel lacking investigative authority, and comprised of Ms. Albanese’s close friends and collaborators, several of whom had already publicly defended her and pre-judged this very matter.

From the time of UN Watch’s initial complaints in November 2023, the UN and its Coordination Committee for 16 months failed to take any action whatsoever against Ms. Albanese’s wrongdoing. Suddenly, however, in late March 2025—when multiple letters were filed protesting Ms. Albanese’s renewal for a second three-year term—the Coordination Committee hastily produced a letter that largely exonerated her of wrongdoing.

In protesting the renewal, UN Watch had invoked Presidential Statement 8/PRST/2, which requires the President to bring such controversies before the Human Rights Council for deliberation and appropriate action. Five governments—the U.S., Israel, Argentina, the Netherlands, and Hungary—joined the protest. So did many lawmakers from different jurisdictions. It appears that the Human Rights Council President summoned the letter from the Coordination Committee—which for well over a year did nothing—in order to justify renewing Ms. Albanese without following the established procedure under Presidential Statement 8/PRST/2.

Yet even the Coordination Committee’s letter acknowledged multiple improprieties which themselves were grounds for Ms. Albanese’s dismissal and non-renewal, including: antisemitic social media posts, inappropriate use of external assistants, undisclosed external funding, and misuse of honoraria directed to a research assistant in violation of UN rules. Despite these findings, the Committee absolved Ms. Albanese, clearing the way for her reappointment.

This entire affair amounts to a coordinated cover-up. Ms. Albanese lied, the UN lied to protect her, and a biased internal committee served as the mechanism to bury misconduct, avoid accountability, and ensure her renewal. UN Watch’s evidence, mostly confirmed by the Committee, establishes that Ms. Albanese engaged in systemic violations of the Code of Conduct. Yet, instead of upholding its rules and enforcing accountability, the UN chose to grant Ms. Albanese impunity.

The UN’s failure to hold Ms. Albanese accountable illustrates a systemic failure of oversight and integrity. UN Watch calls for an immediate independent investigation into Ms. Albanese’s conduct and the UN’s cover-up.

Click Here for the Full Report

The post Report: UN Orchestrated Cover-Up of Francesca Albanese’s Pro-Hamas Funding appeared first on UN Watch.

The report shows how UNRWA’s international officials, and its senior local managers, routinely meet with terrorist groups in Lebanon and Gaza, mutually praise each other for “cooperation,” and describe each other as “partners.”

The terrorist groups frequently make demands of UNRWA and influence its decisions. Moreover, when the terrorists oppose specific actions by UNRWA—such as the introduction of biometric IDs for beneficiaries of UNRWA financial assistance, an ethics code affirming LGBT rights, or suspension of employees for promoting terrorism—the terrorist groups are often able to foil implementation, including by issuing threats.

Through uncovered photographic evidence, the report exposes the close relationship top UNRWA officials have with designated terrorist organizations. Current and former UNRWA officials with terrorist ties included in the report are:

• UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini (2019-present)
• UNRWA Commissioner-General Pierre Krähenbühl (2014-2019)
• UNRWA Director-General in Lebanon Dorothee Klaus (2023-present)
• UNRWA Director-General in Lebanon Claudio Cordone (2017-2022)
• UNRWA Deputy Director of Programs in Lebanon Gwyn Lewis (2015-2018)
• UNRWA Director-General in Lebanon and Director of Operations in Gaza Matthias Schmale (2015-2021)
• UNRWA Director-General in Lebanon Hakam Shahwan (2016-2017)
• UNRWA Gaza Director Thomas White (2021-2024)
• Acting UNRWA Director-General in Lebanon Munir Manna (2023)
• UNRWA Director-General in Lebanon Anne Dismorr (2012–2015)
• UNRWA Deputy Commissioner-General Leni Stenseth (2020–2023)
• Numerous UNRWA Regional Directors in Lebanon

Read Full Report

Executive Summary

This report reveals how UNRWA, despite its claims to be a humanitarian agency, has forged an unholy alliance with Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist organizations. This secret relationship allows the terrorist organizations to significantly influence the policies and practices of a UN agency with 30,000 employees, and a $1.5 billion annual budget that is funded primarily by Western states.

The report shows how UNRWA’s international officials, and its senior local managers, routinely meet with terrorist groups in Lebanon and Gaza, mutually praise each other for “cooperation,” and describe each other as “partners.”

The terrorist groups frequently make demands of UNRWA and influence its decisions. Moreover, when the terrorists oppose specific actions by UNRWA— such as the introduction of biometric IDs for beneficiaries of UNRWA financial assistance, an ethics code affirming LGBT rights, or suspension of employees for promoting terrorism—the terrorist groups are often able to foil implementation, including by issuing threats.

Examples of the UNRWA-Terrorist Alliance

Examples of the UNRWA-terrorist alliance, documented in the report below with 68 photos obtained from open sources, include:

• UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini made a deal with Jihadi terrorist groups, at a Beirut meeting in May 2024, by which UNRWA allowed Hamas leader Fathi Al-Sharif to remain as principal of a major UNRWA school, and as the head of the UNRWA Teachers Union. For years, Al-Sharif had openly glorified Hamas terrorist attacks, including on his Facebook page, and published photos of his fraternization with heads of terrorist organizations. Contrary to its claims of robust neutrality mechanisms, UNRWA for years allowed Al-Sharif to occupy a senior position overseeing thousands of UNRWA teachers and students. Only when a formal complaint was made to UNRWA by a government, in early 2024, did the agency give Al-Sharif a slap on the wrist by suspending him. Immediately, Hamas and other terrorist groups responded by effectively shutting down UNRWA in Lebanon, mobilizing massive protests by UNRWA teachers and students. Three months into the shutdown, Lazzarini flew to Beirut and met with the alliance of terrorist organizations who were behind the strike. Local media reported on June 1, 2024 that Lazzarini and the terrorist groups reached “understandings” that would lead to a “positive” result for Al-Sharif, and the strike was called off. On September 30, 2024, Al-Sharif was eliminated by an IDF missile. Hamas announced that indeed he had been their leader in Lebanon, and eulogized the senior UNRWA figure for his “Jihadi education.”

• Former UNRWA Commissioner-General Pierre Krahenbuhl met with terrorist leaders from Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, in February 2017, where he emphasized the “spirit of partnership” between them and UNRWA. He invited the terrorist leaders to privately challenge any UNRWA decision which he could then change or “tear up.” The head of UNRWA urged the Jihadi terrorist groups to ensure that their “discussions not be made public” so as to avoid harm to UNRWA’s “credibility.” Mr. Krahenbuhl, who was forced to leave UNRWA in 2019 due to a corruption and sexual abuse scandal, was this year absurdly appointed to head the International Red Cross, prompting a sharp protest by 17 members of the United States Senate.

• Likewise, in June 2022, current UNRWA chief Lazzarini stressed the importance of “partnership” with Gaza terrorist groups. He met regularly with Gaza terrorist groups under the umbrella of the “Joint Refugee Committee,” which is headed by Mahmoud Khalaf, a member of the central committee of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), designated as a terorrist organization by the United States and the European Union.

• Matthias Schmale, the former UNRWA director in Lebanon, addressed a Hamas rally in August 2018 alongside Ali Baraka, one of six Hamas terrorist leaders indicted in September by the US Department of Justice, as the latter told the crowd that donor states must support UNRWA “until we return to Palestine.” Schmale thanked the terrorist groups “for their understanding” and reassured them that UNRWA is on their side. In October 2020, now serving as UNRWA Director in Gaza, Schmale met with the Joint Refugee Committee headed by DFLP official Mahmoud Khalaf, to discuss “the problem of forcibly dismissed employees.” In numerous such cases, local UNRWA staff suspended for links to terrorism were reinstated under pressure by the terrorist groups.

• Former Deputy Commissioner-General Leni Stenseth personally went to Gaza, in June 2021, to kowtow before Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas terror chief who masterminded the October 7^th massacre. Hamas had been angry with UNRWA after its then Gaza Director Matthias Schmale, an ardent supporter of the Palestinian narrative, unwittingly admitted in a TV interview that Israeli strikes on Hamas, during the May 2021 war, were “very precise.” The interview was widely shared by supporters of Israel. Outraged, Hamas declared Schmale a persona non grata, and orchestrated mob protests to threaten him. Stenseth obediently removed Schmale from his post, throwing him under the bus to appease Sinwar, and called Schmale’s interview “indefensible.” She went to visit Sinwar in Gaza to personally thank him “for his positivity and desire to continue cooperation in facilitating the agency’s work in the Gaza Strip.” Stenseth is now Director-General of the foreign ministry of Norway, UNRWA’s most ardent state supporter. Stenseth uses her current position to fund groups that lobby for UNRWA, such as the Chr. Michelsen Institute, which was unethically chosen to conduct the “independent review” of UNRWA led by Catherine Colonna.

• UNRWA Lebanon Director Dorothee Klaus shared a stage with the leader of Hamas in Lebanon, Fathi Al-Sharif, was as noted above was also an UNRWA school principal and head of the UNRWA Teachers Union. At the event, before a cheering crowd, Al-Sharif proclaimed his support for “the resistance.” Ms. Klaus did not object.

• UNRWA managers have participated at an annual Hamas conference which discusses internal UNRWA affairs such as employee vacancies and UNRWA Teachers Union elections. At the 2021 conference, Hamas offiical Ahmad Abd Al-Hadi announced the launching of a joint committee to “supervise the relationship with UNRWA and ensure it implements its obligations.”

• In February 2018, UNRWA Program Director in Lebanon Gwyn Lewis met with Hamas official Ahmad Fadl, and they agreed on “ongoing cooperation and coordination.”

• UNRWA regional directors routinely meet with local terrorist leaders for “cooperation and coordination.” At a November 2017 meeting, they told UNRWA’s Sidon Director Fawzi Kassab that UNRWA must exist until Palestinian refugees “return to their homes” and threatened that if donors do not continue funding UNRWA, the Palestinians will start a “popular revolution.”

• In February 2022, UNRWA Lebanon Director Claudio Cordone, the former acting chief of Amnesty International, visited Ain Al-Hilweh camp to meet with a coalition of terrorist groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Ansar Allah. The terrorists told Cordone that the Palestinian issue in Lebanon is “a political issue and cannot be reduced to a humanitarian or security issue.” Likewise, in January 2018, Cordone met with Hamas official Ahmad Abd al-Hadi who affirmed that the terrorists support UNRWA because it “remains a living witness to the 1948 Nakba.” Contrary to what the world is told, UNRWA’s main purpose is not humanitarian aid, but rather to promote the narrative that Israel’s creation was an “injustice” and that the Palestinians will one day dismantle Israel.

• In February 2017, UNRWA Lebanon Director Hakam Shahwan told terrorist leaders that UNRWA was “fully prepared” to have “a strong partnership mechanism” with them, so long as the partnership should not reach a stage “where some believe that we are partners in decision-making.”

Conclusion

This report reveals how UNRWA’s senior management not only knowingly employ individuals tied to Hamas terrorism, but also allow the terrorist groups to influence critical agency decisions and policies.

The post Report: “The Unholy Alliance: UNRWA, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad” appeared first on UN Watch.

GENEVA, October 23, 2024 — One week after she was condemned by France and the U.S. for spreading antisemitism, UN official Francesca Albanese should be sanctioned and barred entry to the U.S., said the human rights group UN Watch on Tuesday, days before her planned visit to the country to address the General Assembly’s 193-nation human rights committee, and to speak at multiple college campuses including Georgetown and Princeton.

In a 60-page report released today, “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing,” the Geneva-based non-governmental organization UN Watch documents how Albanese, the UN Human Rights Council’s monitor tasked with investigating “Israel’s violations” in the Palestinian territories, routinely portrays Israelis as Nazis, complains that America is “subjugated by the Jewish Lobby,” and denies the Hamas atrocities of October 7, 2023.

In November 2022, Albanese told a Hamas conference, “You have a right to resist.” On October 7th, as the massacre was underway, she rushed to defend Hamas, saying, “Today’s violence must be put in context.”

Earlier this year, Albanese elicited international condemnation when she denied that the October 7th pogrom targeted Jews, and when she instead accused Israel of having provoked the massacre.

France said her comments were  “scandalous” and “a disgrace.” Germany said it was “appalling” for the Special Rapporteur “to justify the horrific terror attacks and to “deny their antisemitic nature.” Germany also called Albanese’s remarks “a disgrace.”

Albanese has also been condemned by German, Canadian and U.S. lawmakers. Last week she was denounced for antisemitism by the leading Jewish organizations in the U.S., including  by the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations,

This summer, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, stated that Albanese “is not fit for this or any position at the UN,” and that “there is no place for antisemitism from UN-affiliated officials tasked with promoting human rights.” Last week, France called for Albanese to face “consequences.”

In 2022, Deborah Lipstadt, the U.S. Special Envoy on Antisemitism, stated that Albanese’s “blatant antisemitic rhetoric” was “an established pattern” that “severely undermines” her credibility as UN human rights official.

“Never before in the history of the United Nations did France, Germany and the U.S. condemn a UN human rights monitor for racism or antisemitism,” said Hillel C. Neuer, executive director of UN Watch. “Francesca Albanese is the first. She is today the most dangerous figure on the world stage inciting antisemitism and jihadi terrorism.”

College Tour in U.S. & Canada

Albanese is set to speak in front of the United Nations in the U.S. on October 30. A college tour will take her to multiple U.S. campuses including Georgetown University on October 26, Princeton on October 29, and Toronto on November 7. UN Watch warns of “the possibility that Albanese will incite terrorism and antisemitism on campuses.”

Call for Secretary Blinken to Sanction Albanese, Bar Entry

UN Watch today called on the United Nations to terminate Albanese’s position and for the U.S. and Canada to bar her entry. It also calls on Britain and European Union member states to speak out against Albanese and join the resolution to remove her from the UN.

The watchdog argues that Albanese’s position as “special rapporteur” on Palestine was “created by the Arab states as a political weapon to target Israel.” Under the mandate created in 1993 by the UN Human Rights Council, the position focuses only on what it calls “Israel’s violations.” Actions by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas and other actors are never even examined.

Albanese has repeatedly called to “unseat” Israel from the UN, a measure that even the UN monitors on Iran, Russia and North Korea have never advocated.

“United Nations Watch is calling on all UN member states to take action immediately and terminate the mandate of Francesca Albanese,” the memo reads. “The U.S. should bar Francesca Albanese from entering the United States on account of her propagation of antisemitism and support for Hamas terrorism, which amounts to a national security threat. The U.S. should also impose additional targeted sanctions on Albanese, including freezing her bank accounts, and waiving her diplomatic immunity so that families of terror victims can sue her for damages in U.S. Courts.”

“Albanese is not subtle, she spouts textbook antisemitism,” Neuer said. “This is someone who is totally out of control. And America needs to take the lead in holding to her account. That is why we are today calling on President Biden and Secretary Blinken to impose sanctions on Albanese and bar her entry to the country. An internationally condemned antisemite, who is deeply entangled with a designated terrorist organization, should not be welcome anywhere in America.”

Pro-Hamas Groups Sponsored Albanese’s $20,000 Trip to Australia

The report calls on the UN to release all documents and receipts from Albanese’s alleged $20,000 lobbying trip to Australia in November. She is already under investigation for allegations that pro-Hamas groups funded the junket. The main group that sponsored Albanese’s visit yesterday eulogized Hamas chief Yahya Sinwar.

In addition, the controversial UN official has admitted that her lead researcher, Sara Troian, is funded by “private donations,” but has refused to disclose her expenses or payments illegally received by her office, nor the identity of the donors. “Is Qatar funding Albanese’s work? Is it Hamas? Until the UN and Albanese release the documents, there’s no way to know,” said Neuer.

Conflicts of Interest Exposed: Albanese’s Husband, and Her Employer

In her filings to the UN, Albanese denied any conflicts of interest. “This was a lie,” said Neuer. “What she omitted to mention was that her husband, Massimiliano Calì, previously worked for the Palestinian Authority, where he authored a report on Israel’s ‘exploitative’ policies. Despite his obligation to stay neutral as an official of the World Bank, Cali has for over a decade co-authored social media posts together with Albanese that compared Israelis to Nazis. In his rabidly antisemitic posts, Cali often seems even more obsessed with demonizing the Jewish state than Albanese.”

Albanese has an even greater conflict of interest, said Neuer. Under the auspices of her full-time employment at the Arab Renaissance for Democracy and Development (ARDD), “Albanese has a paid job to lobby against Israel, for which she founded and runs a global influence network of more than 100 individuals and NGOs to target Israel by orchestrating lawfare campaigns, whitewashing Hamas terrorism, and cynically manipulating governments into funding UNRWA,” said Neuer.

“You can’t be an impartial UN monitor about Israel while holding a paid position to lobby against Israel,” he added. “This is a blatant conflict of interest, and we are calling on UN chief Antonio Guterres to intervene,” said Neuer.

UN Watch urged all countries to adopt a UN Watch draft resolution to terminate Francesca Albanese’s mandate immediately.

The post Report: US Should Bar Antisemitic UN Official Set to Visit General Assembly, College Campuses appeared first on UN Watch.

FULL REPORT

GENEVA, July 18, 2024 — The president of the International Court of Justice, which is tomorrow releasing an opinion in another politically-motivated case targeting Israel, voted 210 times to condemn the Jewish state when he served as Lebanon’s UN ambassador, and delivered inflammatory speeches accusing “terrorist Jewish organizations” of committing “organized massacres,” according to a new report by the non-governmental organization UN Watch. CLICK FOR VIDEO

On Friday at 15:00 in The Hague, the ICJ will release an advisory opinion that is expected to conclude that Israel occupies the West Bank in violation of international law. The opinion was requested by a Palestinian-sponsored resolution of the UN General Assembly.

But according to the new report by UN Watch, the head of the court has a long record of anti-Israel votes and statements.

Under the clear rules of the ICJ Charter, he is legally disqualified from sitting in judgment on the two cases related to Israel, said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based organization.

Nawaf Salam was elected president of the ICJ in February 2024. He first joined the court as a judge in February 2018, following his 11-year tenure as Lebanon’s ambassador to the UN.

Today’s report by UN Watch, an independent monitoring organization based in Geneva,  analyzed Salam’s record as Lebanese envoy from 2007 to 2017, and found compelling evidence — based on hundreds of UN votes, speeches and other statements — showing that he is not a fair and impartial arbiter of justice on issues related to Israel or human rights.

Key findings on Nawaf Salam’s bias against Israel:

• During his time as Lebanon’s representative to the UN, Salam voted to condemn Israel 210 times.
• These resolutions contained one-sided denunciations of Israel, and gave a free pass to Hamas. For example, in December 2008, Salam voted for a resolution that accused Israel of “acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction” against Palestinians, yet made no mention of Hamas or Islamic Jihad.
• Another resolution that Nawaf supported, in 2017, accused Israel of “systematic violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people,” and “causing death and injury to Palestinian civilians, including children, women and non-violent, peaceful demonstrators.”
• In his speeches to the UN, Salam also made many inflammatory statements that demonstrate extreme bias against Israel. In January 2008, Salam accused “terrorist Jewish organizations” of committing “massacres.” He also said that Gaza was an “open air prison.” CLICK FOR VIDEO
• In a November 2008 UN speech, Salam said the “supreme Zionist leadership” pursued a plan of “ethnic cleansing” through “terrorism and organized massacres.”
• In November 2009, Salam told the UN General Assembly that “for too long [Israel’s] war criminals have benefited from impunity”; and Israel was guilty of “flagrant disrespect for international law.” CLICK FOR VIDEO
• In 2011, he accused Israel of “illegitimate actions.”
• On June 13, 2014, Salam accused Israel of “crimes against humanity” and “war crimes.” CLICK FOR VIDEO
• On June 18, 2014, Salam opposed the candidacy of Israel to the vice-presidency of the General Assembly’s Fourth Committee, on the grounds that it is “the most condemned country” at the General Assembly and that it continues to “violate the rules of the international community.” Salam said that Israel was not eligible for election “to any office” at the UN.
• On numerous occasions, including November 2016, Salam has accused Israel of “apartheid.” CLICK FOR VIDEO
• Salam has also repeatedly attacked Israel on social media. In 2015, on Twitter he called Israel a “Triumph of blatant racist & colonialist choices.”
• In 2016, in reference to the 2006 war launched by Hezbollah, Salam accused Israel of using “the most vicious & disgusting weapons of all times.” He never once condemned Hezbollah for launching the war, or for attacking Israeli civilians with thousands of rockets. On the contrary, Salam inverted the cause of the war, writing falsely that it was Israel that “launched a 33 day war against my country…”

Key findings on Nawaf Salam’s betrayal of human rights victims

Salam repeatedly failed to side with victims of human rights abuses during his tenure as Lebanon’s representative to the UN:

• Salam consistently sided with the Islamic Republic of Iran. He voted against all 11 General Assembly resolutions during his tenure that condemned the Iranian regime’s violations against its people.
• In 2007, Salam voted against a UN resolution calling for the release of political prisoners in Belarus. In doing so, he joined a small minority that included China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, Syria and North Korea.
• As civil war was breaking out in Syria in April 2011, Salam used his seat on the Security Council to block a collective press statement from the council that would have condemned the Syrian regime for attacking civilian protesters. Salam expressed support for Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s “reforms.”
• In October 2011, Salam abstained on a Security Council resolution that would have condemned Assad’s brutal crackdown on protesters. The abstention provoked Lebanese politicians to call for Salam’s resignation.
• Salam subsequently refused to support seven UN General Assembly resolutions that condemned the Assad regime for atrocities against civilians, instead voting to abstain.
• Salam posted on social media his praise for mass murderer Fidel Castro, writing that he was the Cuban dictator was an “icon of rebellion and resistance.”

Nawaf Salam Should Face Sanctions

“The U.S. and other democracies should consider placing sanctions on Salam for his failure to recuse himself from the two Israel-related cases now before the court,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch.

In April, a bipartisan letter from Members of Congress called on the Biden administration to restrict Salam’s travel to the U.S. and explore other sanctions if he did not recuse himself.

“Because Salam ignored the Congress and failed to step down, he should now face sanctions,” said Neuer.

“Judge Salam’s extensive record of bias against Israel, now documented by UN Watch in great detail, and his persistent violations of the ICJ charter, demonstrate that he cannot be a fair and neutral arbiter in these cases,” said Neuer.

The post Report: Head of World Court Condemned Israel 210 Times as Lebanon’s UN Rep, Sided With Regimes in Iran, Syria, Belarus, Cuba appeared first on UN Watch.