Francesca Albanese: Unfit for reappointment

When the United Nations appointed Francesca Albanese as the Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, it seemingly favored an “advocate” in the most literal sense—a fervent proponent of a singular narrative—over an impartial investigator.

Albanese’s tenure has been marked by actions that show a deep-seated bias against Israel, so pronounced that it borders on obsession. The list is nothing more than an endless compendium of paused facsimiles, each item a hollow echo of the last, a string of faux pas that never seems to end.

In her official capacity, she has referred to individuals convicted of terrorism as “human rights defenders.” Notably, she characterized Salah Hamouri, a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) convicted for attempting to assassinate a prominent rabbi, as such. Similarly, Mohammed el-Halabi, convicted of diverting humanitarian funds to Hamas, was also labeled a “human rights fighter” by Albanese. These designations not only misrepresent the individuals’ actions but also undermine the principles of human rights advocacy.

Further compounding concerns, Albanese has participated in events hosted by organizations with alleged ties to terrorist groups. Her involvement in a conference organized by the “Council of International Relations – Palestine,” chaired by a Hamas senior member, included appearances by Hamas spokespeople and members of the PFLP. Such associations raise questions about her commitment to neutrality and adherence to the UN’s code of conduct.

Albanese’s public statements have also drawn sharp criticism. In July 2024, she compared Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Adolf Hitler, a remark widely condemned as antisemitic. The Simon Wiesenthal Center has called for Albanes’s removal, labeling her statements as “deeply offensive” and warning that her positions “normalize and legitimize extreme anti-Semitism on the international stage.”

Financial improprieties have further tainted Albanese’s tenure. Allegations suggest she circumvented UN policies by directing honorariums for her work to be paid to her research assistant, raising ethical concerns about her financial dealings. Additionally, discrepancies regarding the funding of her November 2023 trip to Australia and New Zealand have emerged, with conflicting accounts about sponsorship sources, potentially breaching UN guidelines on accepting external funding.

Italian economist Riccardo Puglisi has raised significant questions about Albanese’s professional credentials, particularly her claim to be a “lawyer.” While Albanese has often referred to herself as an “avvocato,” Puglisi points out that the term is misleading when translated directly as “advocate” in English. Albanese has failed to provide evidence of passing the Bar Exam and being registered with the Italian Bar Council, raising doubts about her qualifications for such an important position. This oversight is not just a minor technicality; it casts a shadow over her legitimacy as a legal expert and underlines broader concerns about the UN’s process of appointing individuals to critical roles. In an environment where transparency and accountability should be paramount, Albanese’s ambiguous professional standing only puts the integrity of her appointment at issue.

Given these facts, the case against reappointing Francesca Albanese as Special Rapporteur is compelling. Her tenure has been characterized by actions and statements that betray the impartiality and neutrality expected of UN officials.

As the UN continues its quest to champion human rights, it might want to reconsider who’s leading the charge. Albanese, with her unshakable bias and penchant for round-the-clock media tirades against Israel, is hardly the impartial arbiter the job demands. Unfortunately, Albanese’s actions align with a broader pattern of bias within the UN. The organization has long faced accusations of antisemitism, exemplified by Resolution 3379 known as the “Zionism is racism” declaration.

Yet, reappointing her wouldn’t just be a mistake—it would be the latest in a long line of hostile moves by the UN, further cementing its reputation as the world’s premier institution for double standards. Hope is that the UN’s idea of progress is not simply doubling down on its worst instincts.