The United Nations has come under fire for its continued funding of a controversial anti-Israel Commission of Inquiry (COI), despite facing an unprecedented liquidity crisis. Critics argue that the decision to allocate over $704,000 to hire four new senior-level positions within the COI seems out of sync with the organization’s financial struggles. This has sparked a fierce debate about the U.N.’s spending priorities and the perceived anti-Israel bias within its operations.
Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and president of Human Rights Voices, voiced concerns about the U.N.’s priorities, stating, “When it comes to spending money for the spread of antisemitism, the U.N. doesn’t have a spending limit.” Her comments were published in an article titled Trump Admin Stands Israel, Rejects UN Resolution Backed by UK and France. She criticizes the COI for its findings that equate Israeli actions with Nazi atrocities and for its alleged role in inciting antisemitism by calling Jewish individuals ‘extremist.’ These accusations have drawn sharp criticism from pro-Israel groups, who see the COI as a tool for political bias.
As of June 4, the COI, led by South African diplomat Navi Pillay, announced the opening of four new senior-level positions in Geneva. These include two P-2 level associate interpreters, one higher-level P-3 level human rights officer, and a P-4 level human rights officer. The combined salaries of these roles are expected to range between $530,000 and $704,000, based on salary scales and location multipliers. However, these figures do not include additional benefits such as housing allowances or relocation costs, which can significantly increase the overall cost for U.N. employees.
Bayefsky argues that the U.N. has been engaged in superficial cost-cutting efforts and instead prioritizes the COI’s expansion while other critical U.N. operations are understaffed. In a June 16 letter from U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk, the Human Rights Council detailed an extensive list of reports, studies, and workshops that were not completed due to insufficient funding. Meanwhile, the COI continues to operate with new hires, deepening the controversy surrounding its funding.
This issue has also intensified political tensions, particularly in the U.S. In January 2022, 42 members of Congress, including Republicans and Democrats, signed an open letter calling for the defunding of the COI. They expressed concern over Pillay’s past actions as U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, where she criticized Israel for war crimes but did not address similar issues in other countries. In October 2023, a U.S. Mission to the U.N. representative in Geneva voiced similar concerns about the COI’s alleged bias against Israel.
The situation has further escalated with recent reports that the COI has excluded critical information about Hamas’ use of hospitals and failed to address alleged maltreatment of Israeli hostages in Gaza. Critics like Bayefsky accuse Pillay’s commission of spreading ‘blood libels’ and promoting a narrative that fuels antisemitism. These findings have not gone unnoticed in the U.S. Congress, where a bill was passed in March to eliminate funding for both the COI and the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).
The U.N. budget crisis has reached a critical point, with calls for reform and restructuring increasing. The U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres initiated the UN80 Initiative, aimed at reviewing and reforming the organization’s inefficient operations. However, U.S. senior State Department officials note that any final decision on U.N. funding will come from the White House, with the Trump administration previously proposing to cut all U.S. funding to the U.N.
In the broader context, the funding controversy reflects both a financial and a political battle over the U.N.’s role in global affairs, particularly concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The debate over funding priorities highlights the deepening divide between nations and organizations over the U.N.’s integrity and the direction of its efforts in the face of financial constraints and political pressures.