But in the way the UN treat Jordan and Israel, they're basically saying Jordan is legitimate but Israel is not, even though they were both formed as a result of the same international instrument
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The UN treats Jordan and Israel differently in practice: Jordan is a UN member state with recognized diplomatic roles and ongoing engagement (Jordan’s UN activity is recorded in General Debate entries) while Israel faces repeated UN scrutiny and human-rights scrutiny, including recent critical reports and actions relating to aid and conduct (Human Rights Watch reporting and Israeli actions affecting UN agencies) [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention the specific phrase “same international instrument” as the basis for both states’ creation.
1. Two states, two legal and political tracks
Jordan is a UN member state that participates in General Assembly debates and bilateral diplomacy; Israel is likewise a UN member state, but current reporting emphasizes extensive criticism and monitoring of Israeli policies by UN bodies and NGOs [1] [2]. The sources show active diplomatic engagement by Jordan at the UN (King Abdullah’s UN speech is cited in reporting) and repeated UN and NGO attention to Israel’s conduct, indicating different practical treatment on specific issues [1] [2].
2. Historical claim — “same international instrument” not found in reporting
You asked whether Jordan and Israel were formed by the “same international instrument.” Available sources do not mention a single shared founding instrument for both states, and they do not assert that both were created by an identical UN act or treaty; therefore that specific legal claim is not supported by the provided reporting (not found in current reporting).
3. UN scrutiny of Israel: human-rights and operational consequences
Recent accounts show UN bodies and humanitarian agencies have criticized Israel’s policies and that those criticisms have practical consequences: for example, UNRWA has been blocked from Gaza operations and faced raids and denunciations in reporting, and Israel has taken steps affecting international aid organisations and crossings — factors that increase UN and NGO scrutiny of Israel’s actions [3] [4]. Human Rights Watch’s country reporting documents concerns about detention and rights issues connected to Israel and the wider conflict, which feed UN-level attention [2].
4. Jordan’s role: diplomatic pressure and humanitarian engagement
Jordan has used UN forums to criticize Israeli policy (King Abdullah’s addresses at the UN are noted) and pressed for international mandates for stabilization forces, signaling its reliance on multilateral mechanisms rather than unilateral action [5] [6]. Jordan also hosts medical corridors and aid movements for Palestinian patients and refugees, reflecting a humanitarian and diplomatic posture cited in reporting [7] [6].
5. Practical differences on the ground: crossings, aid and security
News reporting highlights concrete differences in how states and UN agencies interact with Israel and Jordan: Israel controls crossings such as the Allenby/King Hussein Bridge, has closed and reopened them for security or political reasons, and has at times restricted UNRWA and other aid flows — all actions that affect how the UN and partner states operate in the region [8] [9] [10]. Jordan functions both as a staging ground for aid and a diplomatic interlocutor; reopening crossings under U.S. and diplomatic pressure underscores that practical distinctions shape UN engagement [9] [8].
6. Competing narratives and implicit agendas
Sources present competing perspectives: some Western officials frame restrictions on UN agencies as security measures or responses to alleged misconduct, while humanitarian organisations warn those moves impede relief and damage long-term humanitarian capacity [3] [10]. Jordan’s UN diplomacy emphasizes Palestinian protection and regional stability, which aligns with its domestic and regional political interests; Israel’s criticism of UN agencies and some UN inquiries reflects Israel’s concern about perceived bias and security implications [6] [3].
7. What the sources do and do not say — limitations
Reporting documents practical divergences in UN treatment, operational access and diplomatic posture, but the provided sources do not trace a single treaty-based origin that would legally equate the two states’ creation. They also do not present a definitive UN policy statement saying “Jordan is legitimate but Israel is not”; instead, they show targeted criticism of Israeli policies and operational frictions affecting UN agencies and crossings [2] [3] [8]. Any assertion that the UN declares Israel illegitimate is not found in current reporting.
8. Bottom line for readers
The apparent asymmetry you perceive is supported by reporting that shows differentiated UN and international engagement driven by human-rights findings, humanitarian access disputes, and regional diplomacy — not by a single legal judgment equating legitimacy to one state and not the other. For assertions about legal origins or an official UN declaration of illegitimacy, available sources do not provide evidence and do not mention that claim (p1_s13; [1]; not found in current reporting).