Former Israeli prime minister Yair Lapid wrote in a Fox News opinion piece that democratic countries should withdraw from the United Nations and form a new organization of democracies, arguing that the U.N. has become a forum dominated by autocratic states that routinely vote against liberal democracies and fail to uphold the principles enshrined in its charter.
Lapid, who served as Israel’s foreign minister in 2021 and as prime minister in 2022 and is now the leader of the opposition, said the General Assembly’s repeated resolutions against Israel illustrate a pattern of predictable, politicized voting. He described the body’s treatment of Israel as an example of what he called institutional hypocrisy and argued that the current U.N. membership rules allow non-democratic governments to carry automatic majorities on key votes.
In his column, Lapid cited data from the Economist Intelligence Unit to say that of the U.N.’s 193 members only 25 qualify as "full democracies" and another 46 as "flawed democracies," meaning that nondemocratic states form a majority on many votes. He pointed to instances in recent years when authoritarian governments held prominent roles within U.N. bodies: Iran sat on the Commission on the Status of Women in 2022, Syria chaired the Conference on Disarmament in 2018 while accused of using chemical weapons, and North Korea presided over the same disarmament forum in 2022 while developing ballistic missiles, he wrote. He also noted that China currently sits on the Human Rights Council.
Lapid highlighted voting records he said demonstrate a disproportionate focus on Israel. He wrote that Israel—home to roughly 0.1% of the world’s population—accounted for more than 60% of the General Assembly’s condemnatory resolutions in the past decade. He also cited 2023 figures, saying the General Assembly passed 15 resolutions against Israel that year compared with eight against all other countries combined. Over the last decade, he said, the General Assembly had adopted 187 resolutions targeting Israel and 86 against the rest of the world combined.
He described the U.N. system as large and underaccountable, noting total expenditures across the U.N. system exceed $70 billion and that much of the funding comes from the United States and the European Union.
Lapid said democracies should create an alternative organization to pursue multilateral goals rooted explicitly in democratic governance. He proposed a body he tentatively called the Democratic Alliance for World Nations, or "DAWN," with membership conditioned on a stated commitment to free elections, human rights, protection of freedom of expression and the rule of law. He argued that the alliance should focus on combating threats such as terrorism, religious extremism, disinformation and nuclear proliferation, while promoting economic cooperation among members that respect intellectual property and open markets.
"If you want the money, power, and capabilities of democracies, you must abide by their rules," Lapid wrote. He framed the proposed alliance as a way to make benefits contingent on adherence to democratic norms and to create incentives for countries to reform.
Lapid also acknowledged Israel is not without flaws and said he disagreed with many policies of Israel’s current government, particularly regarding Gaza. He said his criticisms of the U.N. should not be read as a defense of every Israeli action but as a response to what he characterized as persistent bias and dysfunction within the U.N. system.
The piece renews a longstanding debate about the U.N.’s membership and purpose. The United Nations was founded after World War II to promote international cooperation and to enshrine principles such as those in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 21 of the U.N. Charter, cited by Lapid, ties the organization to the advancement of democratic governance, but the post-World War II expansion of membership and decolonization brought many new states into the organization with differing political systems.
Lapid’s proposal echoes calls by some policymakers and commentators who argue for more selective or value-based multilateral groupings, but it also faces practical and political challenges. Creating a parallel international organization would require agreement among a sufficient number of democracies on admission criteria, enforcement mechanisms and the distribution of financial and political responsibilities.
Lapid’s essay appeared as an opinion column and reflects his viewpoint as a political leader and critic of the current multilateral system. He has been a prominent voice in Israeli politics, and his proposal adds to debates in democracies about how to respond when international institutions are perceived as ineffective or biased.