Qatar-run Al Jazeera reports that U.N. Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese said that Israel cannot claim the right of self-defense because Israel "occupies" Gaza.

She is also on record as using anti-Semitic themes such as the "Jewish lobby."

She has also …compared Israelis to Nazis and accused the Jewish state of potential "war crimes," and has condoned Palestinian "resistance."

The Special Rapporteur's job, according to the United Nations, is as follows:

The Special Rapporteur is an independent expert appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council to follow and report on the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. 

The task of the Special Rapporteur is to assess the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, report publicly about it, and work with governments, civil society and others to foster international cooperation. The Special Rapporteur undertakes regular visits or missions to the Occupied Palestinian Territory and reports annually to the Human Rights Council. OHCHR provides the mandate holder with logistical and technical assistance. 

Why does the United Nations' Special Rapporteur promote a narrative favorable to murderers, truce-breakers, gang rapists, mass shooters, and thieves who steal relief supplies from their own people? Why does she also give Hamas and its cohorts a pass for, per the Simon Wiesenthal Center, "…human rights violations of 'Palestine' - in regards to women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, religious minorities, freedom of speech, press or assembly, unlawful detention, summary trials and executions, extrajudicial killings, incitement of children to 'martyrdom', terrorist attacks or bombing of civilians, among others…?"

Action on Communication and the Middle East (ACOM) adds,

In her sad career Albanese has referred to the “Jewish lobbies” with terms more in line with a follower of conspiracy theories than with an international civil servant. She has compared the Israelis with the Nazis. She has supported the BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) of antisemitic nature (see the definition of the IHRA, supported by Spain). She has accused the Jewish State of atrocious crimes like Apartheid or genocide. She has referred to organisations related to terrorism as “defenders of human rights”…She has praised Palestinian terrorists like Leila Khaled. She has defended the launching of missiles from Gaza against Israeli civilians. She has publicly praised the Hamas terrorist organisation appealing to the “right to resist”.

The principle of Occam's Razor says "…if you have two competing ideas to explain the same phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one." In this case, there are not even competing ideas; the only conceivable explanation is that Francesca Albanese has a conflict of interest between the U.N. and the pro-Palestinian camp. The fact that I cannot conceive of any other explanation does not mean there isn't one, but there is ample evidence to support my inference, perception, and opinion.

 Francesco Giubilei reports in The European Conservative, "She reportedly failed to declare that her husband, Massimiliano Calì, previously worked for the Palestinian Authority’s ministry of national economy …Yet her husband Massimiliano Calì’s role was anything but marginal, [having served] as an economic adviser to the Palestinian Authority’s ministry of national economy in Ramallah," and the article adds that she failed to disclose this as a potential conflict of interest.

U.N. Watch offers further detail. "On her application, Albanese was asked whether she holds 'any views or opinions that could prejudice the manner in which the candidate discharges the mandate.' She replied 'No.' Yet just last year, Albanese acknowledged the opposite, saying her 'deeply held personal views' on the Palestinian issue 'could compromise my objectivity.'" In addition, "On her application, Albanese also certified no personal conflicts of interest, failing to disclose that her husband, who compares Palestinians to Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto resisting the Nazis, formerly worked for the Palestinian Authority, where he authored a report on Israel’s 'exploitative' policies."

I believe a reasonable person could conclude from these facts and circumstances that she is not impartial and could have a conflict of interest between her U.N. role and her personal agendas and/or those of her husband.

That Depends On What You Mean by "Sponsored" and "Supported"

This is far from the only credibly alleged conflict of interest. Bepi Pezzulli reports in The Times of Israel, "This week, U.N. Watch has brought to light further concerns about Albanese’s independence and impartiality. They claim that her recent trip to Australia, sponsored by Palestinian lobbying groups, violates Article 3 of the UN code of conduct, which mandates independent action free from external influence." Albanese claims however that the U.N. paid for her trip. "In a statement to Crikey, the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network said it, together with The Australian Friends of Palestine Association, supported but did not fund Albanese’s trip."

In this case, we have two conflicting stories and, in the absence of further evidence, cannot opine honestly as to whether Ms. Albanese did receive something of value from the Palestinian lobbying groups. I accordingly did some further research. The Australian Friends of Palestine's (AFOPA)'s own blog reports, "Further AFOPA sponsored Ms Albanese’s visit to Australia to deliver the 2023 Edward Said Lecture in Adelaide. APAN [Australia Palestine Advocacy Network], Free Palestine Melbourne and Palestinian Christians in Australia supported her visit to Victoria, ACT and NSW." (Emphasis is mine.)

These groups have therefore stipulated that they "sponsored" and "supported" Albanese's visit to Australia. Does this mean they paid her travel expenses, in which case she lied about the U.N. doing so, or did they merely invite her to speak at her own expense, in which case she told the truth? The fact that these pro-Palestinian groups were so eager to welcome her suggests regardless that she is not impartial and should therefore not be in the position of Special Rapporteur.

Albanese is Still At It

Francesca Albanese's Twitter (X) account is full of anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian rhetoric and, as shown here (see December 11), she liked a post from Norman Finkelstein that said, "The Jewish billionaire class must be stopped. The student body at University of Pennsylvania must boycott classes from Day One of the Spring semester until and unless President Magill is reinstated." She also liked, again from Finkelstein on December 11, "Make no mistake about it.  In order to stifle dissent from Israel's genocidal war in Gaza, the Jewish billionaire class has launched the most concerted assault on academic freedom in the history of our country." 

The United Nations is the Disease, Republicans are the Cure

Of all the Republican Presidential candidates, Chris Christie is the only one for whom I could not find a position (for or against) on the United Nations. The others have exhibited well-deserved open contempt for the so-called world body.

• Nikki Haley says she will defund the United Nations "as much as possible."
• Donald Trump did pull funding from UNRWA
• Ron DeSantis "pledges to strip U.N. funding"
• Vivek Ramaswamy says the U.S. should leave the United Nations

Better World Campaign adds, "For the first time in American history, Congress is considering a final spending bill that would eliminate all funding for the U.N. regular budget, leading to the loss of our vote in the U.N. General Assembly." As the U.N. General Assembly is infested with the world's worst human rights violators (Iran, Afghanistan, Russia, Communist China) and violators of the U.N. Charter (Russia and Communist China have both used or threatened violence for territorial expansion), U.N. resolutions are meaningless anyway and $3 billion in mandatory contributions (we actually squander $12.5 billion a year on the U.N.) is a pretty expensive vote. In addition, when the U.S. casts a General Assembly vote, we imply that the U.N. is a legitimate organization worthy of respect and recognition. We would do better to spend this money on veterans, and also offsetting the national deficit.

Civis Americanus is the pen name of a contributor who remembers the lessons of history, and wants to ensure that our country never needs to learn those lessons again the hard way. He or she is remaining anonymous due to the likely prospect of being subjected to "cancel culture" for exposing the Big Lie behind Black Lives Matter.

Image: OHCHR via Wikipedia // public domain