50 Years of Anti-Zionist Propaganda: Why the UN’s ‘Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People’ Must Be Dismantled

For the past half-century, the United Nations’ Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP) has worked to delegitimize the State of Israel by amplifying Palestinian efforts to depict the Jewish state as a “colonial” and “apartheid” regime.¹ The Palestinians are the only people to have a dedicated propaganda organ inside the United Nations, while Israel is the only UN member state to face such attacks, violating the commitment to “the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members” in the Charter of the United Nations.²

CEIRPP traces its origins to November 10, 1975, when the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 3379, equating Zionism — the national liberation movement of the Jewish people — with “racism.”³ That same day, the General Assembly also passed Resolution 3376, which created CEIRPP. In subsequent years, further resolutions expanded CEIRPP and provided it with greater resources.

A UN report from 2024 shows that financial resources dedicated to servicing CEIRPP specifically stand at $3.1 million per year.⁴ This memorandum documents CEIRPP’s inflammatory actions and argues that the U.S. government should seek its dissolution. Specifically, Washington should launch a diplomatic campaign aimed at securing the resignation of member states from CEIRPP while working within the UN’s Fifth Committee to block the allocation of additional funds for CEIRPP’s work.

CEIRPP’s Origins and the ‘Zionism is Racism’ Resolution

The Soviet Union, along with its satellite states and Arab allies, produced a steady stream of anti-Zionist propaganda during the Cold War as part of Moscow’s bid to lead the developing world in a broader anti-American alliance. Antisemitism was pervasive within the Soviet Union and the Arab world, but Moscow provided an ancient prejudice with an anti-colonial sheen designed to appeal to both Arab states and the Western left, officially presenting its enmity toward Israel as “anti-Zionism,” while simultaneously persecuting its domestic Jewish population.

The language of Resolution 3379 encapsulated the antisemitic themes of Soviet and Arab propaganda. In his address to the General Assembly opposing Resolution 3379, Israel’s then-UN ambassador, Chaim Herzog, remarked that the draft was being debated on the 37th anniversary of the Nazi pogrom known as Kristallnacht, adding that Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler would have welcomed the proceedings. “Zionism is nothing more — and nothing less — than the Jewish people’s sense of origin and destiny in the land, linked eternally with its name,” Herzog explained.⁵ Nevertheless, Resolution 3379 passed with 72 votes in favor, 35 opposed, and 32 abstentions.⁶

That resolution was ultimately rescinded in 1991, thanks to the USSR’s terminal decline and the United States’ aggressive lobbying of UN member states ahead of the Madrid conference on peace in the Middle East later that year. The vote for recission took place in December 1991.⁷ Nevertheless, CEIRPP continued to carry out its work, promoting the ideas at the heart of the Zionism-is-racism resolution, such as its condemnation of “the unholy alliance between South African racism and zionism,” and its call for “the elimination of colonialism and neo-colonialism, foreign occupation, zionism, apartheid and racial discrimination in all its forms.” All these tropes are key components of the global legal and political assault on Israel, unprecedented in scale, that unfolded after the Hamas atrocities of October 7, 2023.

Resolution 3379 was an attack on Israel’s right to exist and effectively licensed the various UN committees and agencies to import the themes enunciated in the resolution into their interventions on the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel.

Creating a UN Palestine Committee

In functional terms, CEIRPP sprang from the passage of Resolution 3376.⁸ Originally comprising 20 member states,⁹ the committee’s task was to “consider and recommend to the General Assembly a program of implementation” to secure Palestinians’ “inalienable rights” by taking “into account … all the powers conferred by the Charter upon the principal organs of the United Nations.”¹⁰

The General Assembly further authorized “the Committee, in the fulfilment of its mandate, to establish contact with, and to receive and consider suggestions and proposals from any state and intergovernmental regional organization and the Palestine Liberation Organization” while requesting that the UN secretary-general furnish the committee “with all the necessary facilities for the performance of its tasks.”¹¹

Within two years of the committee’s creation, its work and mission became further entrenched within the internal UN bureaucracy. On December 2, 1977, the General Assembly passed Resolution 32/40 (B), authorizing the creation of a “Special Unit on Palestinian Rights,” which would serve the committee by “preparing studies and publications” devoted to both Palestinian rights and the United Nations’ own efforts in that regard.¹² This included the announcement of the “annual observance of November 29” — the anniversary of the United Nations vote to partition Palestine in 1947 — as the “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.” The effect was to dedicate November 29 each year to anti-Israel propaganda. In 2009, the Day of Solidarity proceedings included speakers who compared Israel to Nazi Germany.¹³ In 2018, a Solidarity Day speaker concluded his speech before the committee at UN headquarters by calling for a “free Palestine from the river to the sea,” an objective that basically requires dismantling a UN member state and the ethnic cleansing of Jews from their homeland.¹⁴

The “Special Unit” grew into a Division for Palestinian Rights (DPR) in 1979, housed within what is now known as the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs.¹⁵ The DPR’s current role includes planning and servicing the committee’s various meetings in New York and internationally, maintaining an online database on the “question of Palestine” known as the United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine (UNISPAL), organizing the November 29 commemorations, liaising with NGOs advocating for the Palestinian cause, and hosting annual training sessions for officials from the Palestinian Authority.¹⁶ In all these endeavors, the DPR liaises closely with the United Nations’ Department of Public Information (DPI), whose mandate is to “promote global awareness and understanding of the work of the United Nations” in electronic and print media.¹⁷

The DPR also works closely with the Department of Global Communications (DGC), which has a mandate from the UN General Assembly to operate a “special information programme on the question of Palestine.”¹⁸ Essentially, the DGC promotes the Palestinian narrative and uses UN funds to act as another pro-Palestinian UN body. In 2024, the DGC organized two sessions on journalism and the Israel-Hamas conflict featuring speakers who falsely accused Israel of targeting journalists while omitting Hamas’ widespread concealment of its fighters as members of the press.¹⁹

Current CEIRPP Composition and Focus

The committee is presently composed of 25 member states and 24 observers. Meetings of the committee are designed to be attended at the ambassador level.

Member states number Afghanistan, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Cyprus, Ecuador, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Namibia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tunisia, Turkey, and Venezuela.

Observers number Algeria, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, China, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, Yemen, State of Palestine, African Union, League of Arab States, and Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

The committee works in five areas: promoting Palestinian self-determination, advocating for an “immediate end” to Israel’s control of territories conquered during the 1967 war, mobilizing international support, liaising with UN bodies on the Palestinian question, and working with civil society organizations and parliamentarians to advance the Palestinian cause. While the committee does not directly impact the foreign policy of member states, it influences policy discussions and provides anti-Zionist NGOs with access to UN diplomats, staff, and financial resources.

Recommendations: How to Dismantle CEIRPP

The late American ambassador and UN expert Richard Schifter, when asked how the committee and its associated infrastructure might be dismantled, responded:

A significant number of ambassadors in New York vote against Israel without instructions from their governments. Because these resolutions [enabling the Committee’s functioning] involve budgetary questions, they require a two-thirds majority vote at the UNGA under the provisions of the UN Charter. So, the answer to the problem is that you reach out to heads of government. You get them to give instructions to the ambassadors on how to vote.²⁰

The first step toward dismantling CEIRPP is to secure the withdrawal of member states from the committee, which would weaken its credibility, especially if democratic governments withdraw, leaving behind a collection of dictatorships and autocracies. At the same time as waging a diplomatic campaign akin to its 1991 offensive to strike down Resolution 3379, Washington should simultaneously target the funding on which the committee relies.

Diplomacy succeeded in persuading the governments of Hungary in 2004, Romania in 2005, and Ukraine in 2020 to instruct their delegations at the UN to withdraw from the committee.²¹ While many of the current members and observers will be reluctant to follow suit, concerted U.S. diplomacy could persuade some or all of the following eight states to reconsider their status as members or observers, based on calculations of their respective national interests:

Bolivia: The Bolivian elections in August 2025 resulted in a decisive defeat for the leftist party in power, which pursued a Cuban-inspired foreign policy. The presidential runoff scheduled for October 2025 will see one of two right-leaning candidates elected to lead the country.²² Either is likely to follow a foreign policy friendly to the West and to Israel, which would ideally include Bolivia’s exit from the committee.

Bulgaria: Besides Bulgaria, no other EU state is an observer, although Malta and Cyprus are members. Moreover, Bulgaria’s continuing membership is a hangover from its days as a Soviet satellite state. As a pro-Western country with warm bilateral relations with Israel, there is no reason for Bulgaria to participate in any way in the committee or any other element of the UN’s propaganda apparatus targeting Israel.

Cyprus: The Mediterranean island state maintains a close commercial relationship with Israel. Together with Greece, Cyprus and Israel comprise the “Energy Triangle,” running a multibillion-dollar operation exporting natural gas from large gas fields in the Eastern Mediterranean. Cyprus also benefits from the revenues provided by Israeli tourists, around 400,000 of whom visit the island annually on average.²³ Cyprus’s continued presence on the committee runs counter to its commercial interests.

Ecuador: Ecuador gave refuge to Jews fleeing Nazi Germany, voted in favor of the 1947 UN Partition Plan, and established diplomatic relations with Israel in 1950.²⁴ Under leftist President Rafael Correa (2007-2017) the relationship deteriorated, yet under current President Daniel Noboa, very close security ties are developing between Ecuador and Israel. Noboa visited Israel in May 2025, declaring that Ecuador and Israel “have the same enemies” and that they will be working together as “friends, allies, and as nations that cooperate with each other.”²⁵ In September 2025, Noboa issued a Presidential Decree designating Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as terrorist organizations.²⁶

India: India and Israel have drawn much closer over the last 30 years. In 2024, bilateral trade between the two countries was valued at $4 billion.²⁷ These burgeoning economic ties have been matched by a shared interest in combating the tide of Islamist extremism. As a leading force in the Global South, India’s departure from the committee could spur other countries to create the conditions for a workable solution rather than focus on attacking Israel.

Malta: Malta, which acceded to the European Union in 2004, imports key goods from Israel, including mineral oils, chemical products, and aircraft parts. Trade ties are not reflected in political discourse. In August 2025, Malta was one of several countries that announced their recognition of a Palestinian state.²⁸ However, Malta’s continued membership in the committee, created amid a push to deny the moral and political legitimacy of the Jewish state through Resolution 3379, is antithetical to the country’s commitment to the two-state solution.

Nigeria: Nigeria was among the African states pressured by Arab countries to sever ties with Israel following the 1973 War. Diplomatic relations were restored in 1992, ushering in more than 30 years of ever-closer commercial ties.²⁹ Israel is a market for Nigerian crude oil exports, valued at more than $500 million in 2023, while many Nigerian students and professionals visit Israel for training in agriculture, water management, and similar sectors.³⁰

Sierra Leone: The West African nation has historically enjoyed a close relationship with Israel, with strong ties in the education, agriculture, and health sectors. During the 2014-2016 Ebola epidemic in the region, Israel provided Sierra Leone with vital medical assistance.³¹ Moreover, Sierra Leone’s former ambassador to the United Nations, Adikalie Foday Sumah, expressed his support for changing his country’s practice of voting against Israel at the United Nations following a visit to Israel in 2019.³²

The exit of countries friendly to the United States and Israel would leave the committee with a roster of “the usual suspects” — Arab and Islamic countries and assorted dictatorships — thereby undermining its credibility. It would then be easier for Washington to make the case that CEIRPP and the other anti-Israel UN bodies should be shut down. Washington should also make clear to other member states with track records of hostility to Israel, such as the Republic of Ireland, Slovenia, and Spain, that they should not seek to strengthen the committee by applying for membership in the event that other states resign.

The United States should also adopt an aggressive approach within the United Nations’ Fifth Committee — the administrative and budgetary committee of the UN General Assembly — that approves and funds CEIRPP’s existence and activities. Traditionally, the Fifth Committee operates by consensus.³³ As the largest donor to the United Nations by far, the United States possesses tremendous leverage, especially at a time when the United Nations faces a massive financial crisis due to the pause in U.S. contributions. By insisting on a “zero tolerance” policy for one-sided and unique anti-Israel institutions, Washington can absolutely refuse to grant consensus for any budget that includes funding for these bodies, which could prevent the entire budget from progressing to approval. There is also a role for the U.S. Congress, which could require the State Department to certify each year that the U.S. mission to the UN is actively opposing funding for CEIRPP and other one-sided anti-Israel bodies.

As the “Zionism Is Racism” resolution approaches its 50th anniversary, it is time for the United States to work for the abolition of the committee that continues to promote that twisted worldview.

APPENDIX 1: The UN’s Palestine Bureaucracy

In addition to the CEIRPP, there are several other UN bodies and practices solely dedicated to the Palestinian cause that should undergo urgent review. These include:

UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA): Created to provide humanitarian aid to Palestinians displaced by the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, UNRWA expanded its roster from an initial 750,000 to 5.9 million by embracing a uniquely expansive definition of refugees.³⁴ UNRWA promotes the Palestinian demand to “return,” which would make Jews a minority in their own country.³⁵ UNRWA’s complicity with Hamas has further come to light throughout the current war.³⁶

Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories: Launched by a resolution that endorsed violence against Israelis and praised the “brave intifada,” the mandate assumes Israeli crimes and calls for investigating one party, Israel, in a two-party conflict. In July 2025, the U.S. announced sanctions against the present rapporteur, Francesca Albanese, accusing her of having “spewed unabashed antisemitism.”³⁷

Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices: Launched in 1968, the Special Committee has a mandate to investigate only alleged Israeli abuses.³⁸ The committee’s reports include unsubstantiated allegations, such as claims that Israeli excavations undermine the structural foundations of the Al-Aqsa Mosque.³⁹

UNHRC Agenda Item 7: The UNHRC maintains Agenda Item 7, which requires the body to scrutinize Israel’s human rights record at every meeting it convenes. Israel is the only country subject to this treatment.⁴⁰

WHO Item 25: Since 1968, the World Health Organization (WHO) has maintained an agenda item dedicated to scrutinizing Israel’s health record at the annual meetings of the World Health Assembly, its decision-making body. Israel is the only state to face such an agenda item.⁴¹

UN Register of Damages: The United Nations has operated a Register of Damages (UNROD) since 2007 to assist Palestinians in collecting on claims of damages allegedly incurred by the construction of Israel’s security barrier in the West Bank.⁴² An internal UN oversight report in 2020 claimed that most of UNROD’s work is complete, calling into question the body’s ongoing annual budget of more than $3 million.⁴³