Why does the UN have dedicated committees and sessions regarding Israel, but nothing for much worse situations, such as the wars in Syria and Sudan, which have killed far more people?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The UN has long treated Israel-Palestine as a special, repeatedly mandated focus — the Human Rights Council has held nine special sessions on Israel versus five for Syria and other imbalances noted by watchdog groups — and UN bodies (UNGA, HRC and special committees) carry standing agenda items and dedicated mechanisms that produce many more resolutions, inquiries and sessions on Israel than on other crises [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and critics say this produces the appearance — and, to many, the reality — of institutional disproportionate scrutiny of Israel, while Syria and Sudan see Security Council-driven mechanisms, peace-process bodies and technical panels rather than the same mix of standing “country‑specific” human‑rights agenda items [4] [5] [6].
1. Why Israel gets so many UN bodies and sessions: history, mandates and politics
Israel and the Palestinian question have been on UN bodies’ agendas since 1948 and the Organization has created standing mechanisms — a Special Committee on Israeli Practices, a permanent HRC agenda item (Agenda Item 7), and repeated General Assembly and HRC resolutions — that institutionalize recurring attention; critics cite dozens of Israel‑focused resolutions adopted by UN organs as evidence of this institutionalized focus [7] [2] [3]. Those standing mandates were set up by member states over decades and remain because a large coalition of countries, regional groupings and civil society continue to press for them at the UN [8].
2. Different crises produce different UN responses — not always “nothing”
Syria and Sudan are not ignored by the UN; they have Security Council processes, special envoys, panels of experts, integrated missions and humanitarian coordination structures tailored to conflict dynamics. Syria has a UN Special Envoy and a UN‑facilitated Constitutional Committee and receives Security Council press statements and resolutions tied to resolution 2254 [6] [4]. Sudan is covered by Security Council mandates including a Panel of Experts and UNITAMS — technical, monitoring and sanctions instruments rather than the HRC-style recurring country agenda item [5] [9]. The UN uses different tools depending on member-state politics, consent of parties, and Council dynamics [4] [5].
3. Why the difference feels unfair: political alliances and voting arithmetic
Several sources argue the pattern reflects geopolitical coalitions and voting arithmetic at the UN. U.S., European and many Western states’ stances — including vetoes in the Security Council — shape what instruments are feasible; by contrast, the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, where smaller‑state coalitions and regional blocs hold sway, can and do create country‑specific mechanisms directed at Israel [10] [11] [2]. Watchdog groups and affected states say this produces a persistent imbalance: in recent years UN bodies produced far more Israel‑specific measures than for many other mass‑casualty conflicts [3] [2].
4. Competing narratives: bias, double standards, and institutional defence
Israeli government sources and sympathetic NGOs frame UN focus as entrenched anti‑Israel bias and call for dismantling or reform of Israel‑specific bodies; they cite the volume of resolutions, commissions and agenda items and recent resignations from inquiries as proof of politicization [12] [13] [14]. UN secretariat reporting and many member states counter that the Organization must respond to urgent human‑rights needs and that mandates reflect member‑state decisions; UN press releases show continued, broad debate and many member states calling for action on Gaza, Syria and Sudan alike [15] [4] [16].
5. Legal and institutional consequences: inquiries vs sanctions vs peace processes
Different UN instruments have different legal weight and aims. HRC commissions, General Assembly resolutions and special inquiries document alleged violations and build political pressure; Security Council resolutions can authorize sanctions or peace operations but are subject to vetoes by permanent members. For Syria and Sudan the Security Council has used sanctions panels, presidential statements and mission mandates rather than the HRC’s repeated country‑specific agenda approach [5] [4] [9]. That divergence affects perceptions of whether the UN is “doing enough.”
6. Limits of available reporting and what it does not say
Available sources do not present a single, agreed ranking of UN attention mapped against death tolls or a definitive causal explanation for why one country gets more UN sessions than another; the sources document patterns (numbers of sessions/resolutions, existence of standing agenda items, panels and commissions) and competing political claims but do not provide an UN‑produced formula linking casualties to the number or type of UN mechanisms [2] [3] [5].
7. Bottom line — institutional design plus politics explains the anomaly
The imbalance is the product of institutional history (standing agenda items and committees), member‑state politics and voting arithmetic, and the choice of UN instruments (commissions of inquiry vs Security Council sanctions panels vs peace envoys). Critics on all sides frame the result as either principled focus on a long‑running occupation or as systematic bias; both claims appear across the record and neither is fully resolved by the available documents [7] [1] [2].