Does Francesca Albanese Show UN Bias Against Israel?

United Nations Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese recently triggered an uproar by reposting on X a comparison of a photo of Bibi’s recent speech at the US capitol to a photo of a speech given by Hitler. According to X statistics, this received over 2000 comments and was viewed nearly one million times. In response, Israel’s foreign ministry posted that she is ‘beyond redemption’ and repeated its longstanding call that she be removed.

Who is Albanese, and what does this tell us about anti-Israel bias on the Human Rights Council of the UN?

The Mandates of Special Rapporteurs

The human rights arm of the UN began appointing special rapporteurs in the 1960s. These are individual experts, mostly academics. They take on the role for no pay, receiving from the UN only travel reimbursements and administrative support. The first one was appointed in 1967 to address Apartheid in South Africa. This was followed by appointing additional rapporteurs to address other human rights violations in other places.

In the 1980s there was a significant change- Instead of continuing to appoint rapporteurs to address human rights violations in specific countries, new ones were now given mandates to address individual human rights topics all around the world. Today there are 46 rapporteurs with these more recent thematic mandates and 14 remaining with mandates that are country-specific.

Albanese’s mandate is ‘human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967’, which means hers is considered country-specific. The other countries which have a rapporteur devoted to assessing human rights exclusively in their territory are Afghanistan, Belarus, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, North Korea, Eritrea, Iran, Mali, Myanmar, Russia, Somalia, and Syria (remember that Russia has a veto on the Security Council, not the human rights council, so it cannot veto the creation of special rapporteur positions it opposes).

The forty-six thematic mandates are quite varied. Some are fairly specific, such as the rapporteurs tasked with safeguarding the human rights of people with albinism and ending discrimination against people with leprosy. Others are much more far-sweeping, such as ensuring the rights of people with disabilities, freedom of religion, and ending discrimination against women and girls.

The switch to thematic mandates recognizes that human rights violations don’t just take place in a handful of countries that can be neatly singled out, but rather take place in every country all around the globe. The shift also acknowledges that many of the country specific appointments were politically motivated. On the other hand, the extreme breadth of the mandates is also problematic. After all, does it really make sense to turn to one part-time volunteer to protect a fundamental human right all around the world? Even if that person had a cape and could fly it’s still difficult to see how they could make any more than a dent in these enormous issues.

Is Albanese’s Mandate Unfair?

Having a special rapporteur focused only on the rights of the Palestinians is a throwback to the 60s and 70s when the system began. It would be more even-handed and appropriate if human rights violations in Palestinian territories were covered by whatever rapporteur whose thematic mandate they fell under. That said, there are thirteen other country-specific mandates remaining as well, so Israel is not alone in receiving such treatment.

Of course the big difference is that if a human rights violation in the Palestinian territories had to be investigated by a rapporteur who was responsible for monitoring that same human rights all around the world, there is much more chance it would not receive attention. The fact that human rights issues in the Palestinian territory are less likely to fall between the cracks in the rapporteur system than those in other countries may annoy Israel. But just because the UNHRC is trying to shine a little extra light on the Palestinian territories doesn’t mean any violations there aren’t real or should be condoned.

Albanese’s Statements

With regard to Albanese specifically, however, there is the matter of her posts and statements. The UN official code of conduct states that Special Rapporteurs must, “show restraint, moderation and discretion so as not to undermine . . . the environment necessary to properly discharge the said mandate (12b).” While governments have primary responsibility for fulfilling human rights, none of them succeed completely and all are criticized. Special Rapporteurs need to make sure their interaction with governments is cordial and respectful in order to be effective and to be heard.

Clearly Albanese’s post comparing Israel’s Prime Minister to Hitler is not in keeping with this code. In addition, she has made numerous other offensive statements, such as that the United States has been subjugated by the Jewish lobby. You can see an investigative summary of that here.

Just as important, a casual review of her X account shows endless anti-Israel rants and diatribes, accusing Israel of genocide, torture, massacres and colonization, celebrating legal and political pronouncements that go against Israel, and refraining completely from criticism of Hamas or the Palestinian Authority in spite of the endless human rights violations they commit not only against Israel but also their own populations as well. It’s more like what one would expect from a riled-up political activist rather than a sophisticated human rights scholar.

US ambassador to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva Michele Taylor wrote on X that Albanese’s comparison of Netanyahu to Hitler is reprehensible and antisemitic. Taylor wrote, “There should be no place for such dehumanizing rhetoric. Special rapporteurs should be striving to improve human rights challenges, not inflame them.” This is exactly right. Special rapporteurs will of course uncover human rights violations and call attention to them, but that must be done in a way which is respectful, responsible, and avoids provoking additional conflict.

I looked through the X accounts of several other Special Rapporteurs with country specific mandates. They call attention to human rights violations and demand that they be rectified, but I didn’t find any that use language anywhere close to Albanese. It’s hard to imagine the UNHRC tolerating a Special Rapporteur who speaks this way about any other country.

Israel is Right to Oppose Albanese

Israel is completely right to say that Albanese has no business serving as a Special Rapporteur. An apology by UN officials for her recent post about Netanyahu and Hitler is also in order. The fact that the UN Human Rights Council tolerates Albanese in her position and does not rebuke her conduct may in fact be a real reflection of anti-Israel bias in that body.

We need to remember, though, that Albanese is not a UN spokesman. Her posts and comments do not reflect the overall position of that large and diverse organization, and it would be wrong to use her to dismiss out of hand other potentially valid criticism or investigations of Israel originating from the UN with which she is not connected.

Israel has justifiably so far refused Albanese permission to visit the Palestinian territories. One can imagine here the outlines of a potential deal- the Human Rights Council retains the Palestinian country-specific mandate, but replaces Albanese with someone more respectful and even-handed. In return, Israel agrees to allow that person to enter Palestinian territory. Israel’s relationship with the United Nations, and the Human Rights Council in particular, is currently at an all-time low. Even a small step like that would be welcome.