By: Fern Sidman

In a blistering critique of the United Nations’ financial and operational priorities, Israel’s ambassador to the global body, Danny Danon, asserted this week that upwards of $100 million annually is dedicated to anti-Israel activity across the United Nations system. Speaking amid the deliberations over the UN’s 2026 operating budget, Danon’s declaration, reported on Friday by The Jewish News Syndicate (JNS), spotlights Israel’s long-standing accusations that the international organization disproportionately targets it, both politically and financially, while overlooking broader humanitarian and security crises elsewhere.

Central to Israel’s critique is the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the Palestinian-only aid and social services agency that is slated to receive $86.5 million in the coming fiscal year. UNRWA has been under fire for its alleged ties to Hamas, the Islamist organization governing Gaza, and its role in fostering a political agenda at the expense of neutral humanitarian assistance. As JNS has reported, several countries, including the United States, have suspended or reduced funding for the agency over concerns about its operations.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in a briefing with JNS, emphasized the moral and practical imperative of bypassing UNRWA: “I think we can deliver humanitarian aid without UNRWA. It’s a corrupted organization that’s unsalvageable, period,” he said, highlighting bipartisan frustration with the agency. Despite UNRWA’s controversial reputation and the United Nations’ own cash shortages, Secretary-General António Guterres has refrained from proposing financial cuts or reform measures for the agency, leaving critics like Danon to contend that taxpayer dollars continue to underwrite politically motivated programs rather than neutral relief.

The United Nations spends roughly $100 million per year on reports, debates, special mechanisms, and communication activities dedicated almost exclusively to singling out Israel, the Permanent Mission of Israel to the UN said.

“Today we actually showed that these are… pic.twitter.com/7tTMbMAppB

— Rita Rosenfeld (@rheytah) December 24, 2025

Beyond UNRWA, Danon and his office have scrutinized other UN entities they argue are effectively anti-Israel. According to budget documents viewed by JNS, the Division for Palestinian Rights—which falls under the UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs—is set to receive approximately $4 million next year. The Division employs 15 individuals and oversees entities such as the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, an advocacy organization that, according to Israeli officials, prioritizes political campaigning over conflict resolution.

“The Division for Palestinian Rights exists to disseminate a one-sided narrative,” Danon told JNS, noting that such programs lack parallel in other UN bodies. Israeli officials have long accused this division of contributing to a hostile operational environment for Israel within the General Assembly and other UN forums.

Other allocations identified by JNS include roughly $800,000 annually to fund travel and training for Palestinian journalists, $4 million for the Human Rights Council’s commission of inquiry on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and nearly $1 million promoting a Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction-Free Zone—initiatives Israel argues disproportionately single out Jerusalem.

Israel’s claim of $100 million in anti-Israel spending is not only drawn from direct programmatic funding but also from the operational costs of UN mechanisms focused on Israel. According to documents reviewed by JNS, the production and translation of extensive reports, which often run to thousands of pages, can cost tens of thousands of dollars each. Debates, meanwhile, cost between $11,000 to $17,000 apiece, with Israel-focused debates numbering over 100 annually across the UN system. Taken together, these activities likely exceed $3 million a year in additional expenditures.

Furthermore, the United Nations devotes staffing resources to the so-called blacklist of companies operating in Judea and Samaria. Four staff members at the UN High Commission for Human Rights compile the annual list, while five others focus on the Working Group on Business and Human Rights, an entity that encourages boycotts of Israel. While special rapporteurs and independent experts are not salaried, their travel and administrative costs, which are paid by the UN, represent further public investment in mechanisms that Israel views as biased. Francesca Albanese, the UN’s special rapporteur for Palestinian rights, has been sanctioned by the United States for threatening American businesses with reputational harm over their dealings in Israel, illustrating the tangible consequences of these programs.

The Israeli delegation emphasizes the stark financial disparities underpinning these critiques. Israel contributed nearly $21 million in dues to the UN this year, while the Palestinian Authority, granted non-member observer status with enhanced rights by the General Assembly, contributes nothing to the general budget. As Danon told JNS, “It is a shame that so much money is dedicated to activities against Israel instead of going to places that really need the investment.”

This disparity highlights broader concerns about accountability and equity within the United Nations. Critics argue that disproportionate funding for programs perceived as politically motivated undercuts the UN’s legitimacy as a neutral arbiter of international issues. By contrast, countries with pressing humanitarian needs unrelated to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict often face bureaucratic hurdles and underfunding, a point that Danon and other Israeli officials repeatedly underscore in their diplomatic engagements.

UNRWA’s unique status as a Palestinian-only aid agency has long been a flashpoint. Unlike other UN humanitarian programs, which are geographically and demographically neutral, UNRWA’s mandate exclusively serves Palestinian refugees. Critics argue that this creates structural incentives for politicization, as the agency operates within a context where Hamas wields significant influence, particularly in Gaza. Allegations range from the use of UNRWA facilities for military purposes to the indoctrination of young Palestinians in schools funded by the agency.

While the United Nations maintains that UNRWA provides essential education, healthcare, and social services to millions of Palestinians, the absence of meaningful oversight or reform has drawn sustained criticism. Secretary-General Guterres’s refusal to propose budget cuts, despite the UN’s broader financial constraints, has reinforced Israeli and U.S. concerns that political considerations, rather than humanitarian need, are driving funding allocations.

Israel’s critique of the UN budget sheds light on larger structural and systemic issues within the organization. The allocation of funds toward programs that Israeli officials consider biased calls into question the UN’s capacity to act as a neutral facilitator in complex international conflicts. Danon has repeatedly emphasized that reforming the UN’s approach to Israel is not only a matter of principle but also of fiscal responsibility: billions of taxpayer dollars could, in theory, be redirected toward global health, poverty alleviation, and conflict resolution rather than politically charged initiatives.

The issue is further compounded by the proliferation of special rapporteurs, committees, and divisions that focus exclusively on Israel. While other conflict zones and human rights crises receive attention, Israel argues that the disproportionate allocation of resources distorts the UN’s priorities, skewing international perception and policy. For instance, the budget for the UN Human Rights Council’s commission of inquiry on Israel-Palestine—a body that has issued a series of reports highly critical of Israel—represents millions of dollars in funding, much of which could arguably be redirected toward more universally pressing humanitarian crises.

The allocation of significant resources to Israel-focused initiatives has not gone unnoticed by U.S. policymakers. As JNS reported, American officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have repeatedly criticized UNRWA and related programs, highlighting the moral and financial implications of funneling aid through agencies perceived as compromised. Congressional support for withholding funds or redirecting aid underscores the political weight of these critiques.

Israel’s insistence on exposing the UN’s budgetary priorities also serves a diplomatic purpose: by quantifying the financial resources devoted to perceived anti-Israel activities, Israeli officials aim to build international pressure for reform, accountability, and, potentially, a recalibration of funding priorities. In this sense, budgetary transparency becomes a tool for both advocacy and leverage within the complex geopolitical ecosystem surrounding Israel and the Palestinian territories.

As the UN moves toward finalizing its 2026 operating budget, Israel’s scrutiny of its financial allocations will likely intensify. Ambassador Danon’s office has signaled that it will continue to monitor spending on UNRWA, the Division for Palestinian Rights, and related bodies, while engaging allies to ensure that humanitarian funding does not become a vehicle for political agendas.

The question remains whether the United Nations will heed these concerns or continue to allocate resources in a manner that Israel perceives as disproportionately adversarial. As JNS reported, Guterres’s office has so far declined to comment substantively on the specific costs of anti-Israel activities, maintaining that budgetary decisions are complex and involve multiple stakeholders.

For Israeli officials and advocates, however, the stakes are clear: billions in international funds, millions in annual operating costs, and countless diplomatic engagements hinge on the perception of fairness and neutrality. In a global organization that prides itself on human rights, peacekeeping, and humanitarian assistance, the concentration of resources on activities criticized as anti-Israel threatens to undermine both credibility and efficacy.

Ambassador Danon’s remarks, and the detailed financial analysis provided by his office illuminate a deep tension within the United Nations: the intersection of politics, funding, and humanitarian action. Whether the organization will reform its approach or continue on its current trajectory remains uncertain, but Israel’s pointed scrutiny ensures that these questions will remain central to debates over UN priorities for years to come.

The disclosure that the UN may dedicate over $100 million annually to programs and operations targeting Israel shines a spotlight on  a broader conversation about accountability, transparency, and equity in international governance. As Ambassador Danon emphasized, redirecting these resources toward genuine humanitarian needs, rather than politically motivated agendas, would not only better serve global populations but also strengthen the credibility of an organization tasked with promoting peace and human rights across the world.