Israel’s government has announced it will immediately sever all contact with several United Nations agencies and related international organisations, following a review prompted by the United States’ dramatic exit from 66 global bodies earlier this month.

Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar stated that the decision was taken after evaluating Israel’s experience with these institutions and reflected deep concerns about what Jerusalem described as persistent bias, politicisation and bureaucratic inefficiency.

In an official message posted on X (formerly Twitter), Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Sa’ar had ordered the immediate suspension of ties with bodies including the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary‑General for Children and Armed Conflict-which Israel says “shamelessly blacklisted the Israeli Defence Forces alongside extremist groups.” It also accused the UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women), accused of ignoring certain cases of sexual violence against Israeli women.

Also cited were the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), which Israeli officials claim have issued reports hostile to Israeli interests. Jerusalem has also announced cuts with the UN Alliance of Civilisations, UN Energy, and the Global Forum on Migration and Development.

The ministry said the move is effective immediately, and that further decisions on ties with additional organisations will be made after thorough review and inter‑ministerial consultation.

Trigger: The US Withdrawal and Israel’s Strategic Pivot

The Israeli announcement comes on the heels of a sweeping decision by US President Donald Trump to withdraw the United States from 66 international organisations and treaties, many of them connected with the United Nations system.

Trump’s move, formally enacted via a presidential memorandum, cited growing concerns that these bodies “no longer serve American interests” and promote policies at odds with US priorities in areas such as climate change, gender equality and migration.

Under the US pullout, Washington will exit or halt engagement with 31 UN organisations as well as 35 other international entities, and has already started withdrawing funding and representation in key forums.

Israeli officials made clear that the timing influenced their thinking. Speaking to reporters, a government spokesperson noted that Israel’s review built upon the United States’ decision, underscoring a growing alignment between the two allies’ approach to multilateral institutions.

However, Jerusalem insists its decision is driven by its own complaints about institutional bias rather than merely following Washington’s lead. Sa’ar and other senior figures have repeatedly criticised what they see as anti‑Israel sentiment embedded in some UN forums.

Reactions, Regional Context and Global Implications

The reactions to Israel’s announcement have been mixed. Proponents of Israel’s stance argue that pulling back from organisations perceived as hostile or ineffective asserts national sovereignty and avoids legitimising what they view as unfair criticism.

Critics warn that withdrawing from multilateral forums could weaken international dialogue and hamper efforts to address complex global challenges.

International civil society groups and diplomats have cautioned that the trend of unilateral exits-first by the United States and now by Israel-could set troubling precedents at a time when cooperation is widely seen as crucial for tackling issues like humanitarian crises, climate change, and peacebuilding.

Some analysts point out that Israel has long-standing tensions with several UN bodies, particularly those involved in human rights and development.

In recent years, Jerusalem has accused agencies like the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) and others of harbouring or enabling anti‑Israel sentiment, especially amid the prolonged conflict in Gaza.

The conflict with Palestinian groups and the wider humanitarian situation in Gaza, which has drawn repeated scrutiny from international agencies, has been a central backdrop to Israel’s criticisms and its decision to scale back engagement with certain UN entities.

Several regional players and international partners have expressed concerns that disengagement could further isolate Israel diplomatically, reduce critical oversight, and diminish opportunities for conflict resolution through established multilateral mechanisms.

However, supporters argue that Israel’s strategy underscores a pushback against what they perceive as one‑sided international commentary.

The Logical Indian’s Perspective

Israel has the sovereign right to decide which international institutions it chooses to engage with. Yet this decision to withdraw from multiple UN agencies, particularly in a period marked by global instability and humanitarian need, raises broader questions about the future of multilateralism and cooperation.

The United Nations and related bodies are imperfect-no global institution is free from criticism or bias. But the solution to dissatisfaction with international organisations is not always disengagement.

Constructive involvement, reform from within, and open dialogue can be far more effective in addressing systemic issues than withdrawing completely.

Moreover, stepping away from platforms that aim to foster understanding, humanitarian relief and global cooperation risks eroding the very foundations of shared international action.

Nations must balance legitimate grievances with the recognition that collective challenges-from conflict and displacement to climate change and development-require collaboration, not retreat.