WhatsappRemoving the controversial special rapporteur would not fix the world body—but it would show the institution still has a moral conscience.
The current controversy surrounding U.N. Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese is not merely about one official. It is about the United Nations itself—and whether institutions created after World War II to defend democracy still recognize their purpose.
France and Germany have already signaled that Albanese’s anti-Israel rhetoric has compromised her credibility. Yet the problem does not exist in isolation. It reflects a deeper and long-standing hostility within the international system toward the Jewish state—small, democratic and persistently singled out.
The record speaks clearly. Between 2015 and 2024, the U.N. General Assembly passed 173 resolutions condemning Israel and only 80 against the rest of the world combined. In the Human Rights Council’s first 15 years, 90 condemnations targeted Israel and only 10 Iran. Numbers alone reveal a political obsession, not a human-rights standard.
After the Hamas massacre of Oct. 7, 2023, the pattern intensified. Instead of moral clarity, senior U.N. figures argued the attack “did not occur in a vacuum,” shifting attention toward alleged Israeli guilt.
While victims were still being identified in the kibbutzim, the institution prioritized ceasefire resolutions criticizing Israel. Soon followed accusations of war crimes and genocide—echoed by Albanese in language blending ideology, conspiracy and delegitimization.
Even after U.S. sanctions against Albanese, senior U.N. officials defended her. Yet in parallel, the organization offered diplomatic courtesies to the Iranian regime and elevated Tehran within its committees—at the very moment its leaders openly call for Israel’s destruction.
Dismissing Albanese will not reform the United Nations overnight. But it would be a signal: that international law cannot serve as a weapon against one democracy while excusing terror and authoritarianism.
In a world increasingly fractured, such a gesture matters. It would tell younger generations that international institutions still distinguish between justice and propaganda—and that there remains a horizon beyond the chant, “From the river to the sea.”
The United Nations remains the alma mater of this disgusting antisemitism, not merely anti-Israel bias.
On Feb. 23, U.N. member states will decide whether to renew Albanese’s mandate—effectively endorsing or rejecting her record. The vote is not procedural. It is moral.
A vote against Albanese could signal a moment of crisis, an admission of failure, but it would not amount to reform of a deeply compromised institution.
