UN wants Hamas to stay in power, Palestinians used as pawns - Hillel Neuer alleges

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas addresses the 74th session of the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters in New York City, New York, U.S.

While interviewed by Eylon Levy on his podcast “State of the Nation” on Friday, Hillel Neuer alleged that international organizations seem to want to keep Hamas in power in the Gaza Strip.

Hillel Neuer is the executive director of UN Watch, an independent UN watchdog organization that, according to Eylon Levy, has “investigated the antisemitic rot at the UN” for 20 years.

Neuer makes this allegation, arguing that by advocating for an immediate ceasefire, “now even while Israel has hostages including babies that are being held by Hamas terrorists, when they say ceasefire now, they know the outcome is to keep a murderous terrorist state in power.”

This is under the assumption that those advocating for this are “intelligent adults and know exactly what the outcome of their actions are.”

In this podcast episode, Neuer and Levy examined the toxic alliances of international politics, the deeply embedded anti-Israel bias in human rights organizations and in the global community, and revealed just how far the UN has strayed from its lofty mission.

An additional bombshell allegation Neuer made in this interview was that “UN officials including their supporters, their allies, and groups like Amnesty International and and maybe some other apologists in the west want a situation where Israel is killing civilians.” Levy  promptly responded that it is a serious allegation to be making.

Hillel Neuer addresses the ‘We Have a Dream Summit’ in 2011. (credit: UN Watch)

Hillel Neuer addresses the ‘We Have a Dream Summit’ in 2011. (credit: UN Watch)

Neuer initially described the “theater” that existed in the Middle Ages, for example the crucifixion of Jesus, where it was entertainment for Europeans to watch the “Jew as the guilty one.” He argued that this activity is still part of the Western and European psych, and that these international bodies like Amnesty International for example, enjoy the theater of Israel being placed in a catch 22 with Hamas, and then accusing Israel of killing “innocent children,” which is the same blood libel against Jews that has existed for centuries.

“I think there’s there’s a kind of a theater that they want, its the same people who said that who claim there’s a genocide happening in Gaza, Israel is committing genocide are the same people who say that not one Palestinian can leave this so-called zone of genocide, Over My Dead Body would they let a single Palestinian leave this supposed zone of genocide which is absurd. If there were terrible genocide happening in any place in the world the first thing you would say is let’s scramble for a right to asylum, but but they don’t want that because the Palestinians are pawns in the war against Israel and they want them there – certain people – in order that there will be casualties,” Neuer argues.

The pervasive anti-Israel bias at the UN

In addition to these claims Neuer and Levy discussed the anti-Israel bias at the UN and why it exists. Although the world sees the UN as a nearly saintly body, Eylon Levy argues that it is the sum of its parts, which are not necessarily liberal or democratic. At least a quarter of the members of the UN are countries that do not have democracies, but are rather authoritarian regimes. Of the member states, 56 are Islamic countries, and 22 are Arab. Neuer argues that even among states that are neither, there is significant pressure from the Islamic states to join in on the anti-Israel condemnations.

In New York City at the general assembly, Neuer says that the EU countries and the UK too will typically support two-thirds of the resolutions against Israel. If you ask them why, they will say it is for violations of international law. Neuer says that when the issue of disproportionate condemnation of Israel is raised, they avoid an answer.

“There’s this impression that its, you know, the decision of Socrates Aristotle or Plato, when in fact those sitting around the table are historically Gaddafi, Castro, and the house of sod sitting around the Human Rights Council,” Neuer commented on how the world views the decisions made by the UN.

Another reason Neuer explained that the UN and international human rights organizations have such a strong anti-Israel bias is because “the UN and the Red Cross have very similar ecosystems and ideological sociological worlds that that intersect. The people who come to the UN may come from a very far left worldview, sort of a Jeremy Corbyn type worldview, where the enemies are America, Israel is the enemy, capitalism is the enemy colonialism, sort of all together, and Israel somehow really animates them. It’s almost theological.

It’s not a question, it’s a first principle. If you don’t agree that Israel is a vicious occupier in a racist country you probably will never get hired in these places, and if you would you might last a day or two. Those who are Jewish, and who are proud Jews, who are normal proud Jews, and not ashamed self-hating Jews are having a very hard time at the United Nations and the Red Cross and I know it from personal conversations I’ve had with these people. These are people who decided to join the UN, which means they’re people who are not right-wing people, they’re very progressive people but what they witnessed on October 7 really went beyond all of that…so there is a self- selection.”

Neuer contended that it would be nearly impossible to get appointed to a high ranking position at the UN if one is particularly pro-Israel, considering many of those that vote are states that do not recognize Israel.

Neuer provides the example of Francesca Albanese, who is the UN special rapporteur for occupied Palestinian territories. She claimed that the attacks on October 7 were resistance against Israeli oppression. She was appointed by the president of the Human Rights Council with the approval of all 47 members including many democracies. Prior to her appointment she compared Israelis to Nazis, and has posted statements that contain Holocaust inversions on her X account, formerly known as Twitter. Neuer argues that that’s why the Arab and Islamic States wanted her and enough other countries joined in to appoint her. Levy summarizes that this shows that this is not a “bug” in the system, but a “feature.”

In spite of this uphill battle, Neuer truly believes that individuals and global decision makers are listening to him, and slowly but surely UN Watch is making dents in a system that he argues, has failed to do what it was founded to do.