Francesca Albanese has become one of the most polarising figures in contemporary diplomacy, not because she commands armies or signs treaties, but because she insists on describing what she sees. Since assuming her mandate as United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories in 2023, the Italian jurist has delivered reports that cut through diplomatic euphemism with the precision of a scalpel. 

In her October 2024 report to the General Assembly, pointedly titled Genocide as Colonial Erasure, she concluded there were ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe that Israel’s conduct in Gaza met the legal threshold of genocide and formed part of a ‘century-long project of eliminatory settler-colonialism’. Few phrases in international law carry such moral weight. Fewer still are uttered so plainly in the marble halls of New York and Geneva.

The reaction was immediate and ferocious. Israeli officials labelled her ‘one of the most antisemitic figures in modern history’. France, Germany, Italy, Austria and the Czech Republic publicly called for her removal after a February 2026 address to a Doha forum in which she condemned ‘the planning and making of a genocide’ in Gaza and decried the complicity of states that had armed and politically shielded Israel since October 2023 (a speech later distorted through a truncated clip that falsely claimed she had labelled Israel “the common enemy of humanity,” a narrative she categorically rejected). 

The edited clip of that speech ricocheted across social media, falsely suggesting she had called Israel ‘the common enemy of humanity’. She responded with weary clarity: the ‘common enemy’, she said, was the system — financial capital, algorithms and weapons — that enables atrocities, not a people or a state.

READ: France’s censorship of voices calling out international complicity with genocide

The United Nations moved swiftly to defend the independence of its mandate.

Special rapporteurs, a spokesperson reminded reporters, are not political appointees but independent experts commissioned by the Human Rights Council and protected by UN privileges and immunities.

Special rapporteurs, a spokesperson reminded reporters, are not political appointees but independent experts commissioned by the Human Rights Council and protected by UN privileges and immunities.

Reuters noted there is no precedent for removing a rapporteur mid-term, and diplomats privately concede such an attempt would likely fail. Yet the calls for her resignation were not merely procedural skirmishes. 

They were signals — about who is permitted to speak, and how far the language of international law may stretch before it snaps under political strain.

What makes Albanese’s work so unsettling to some capitals is not only the gravity of her conclusions, but the breadth of her analysis. In her 2025 Human Rights Council report, she traced what she termed a shift ‘from economy of occupation to economy of genocide’, mapping the corporate and financial networks that sustain settlement expansion and military operations.

What makes Albanese’s work so unsettling to some capitals is not only the gravity of her conclusions, but the breadth of her analysis. In her 2025 Human Rights Council report, she traced what she termed a shift ‘from economy of occupation to economy of genocide’, mapping the corporate and financial networks that sustain settlement expansion and military operations.

She placed Western governments within that ecosystem, arguing that political cover and arms transfers had ‘stabbed international law in the heart’. 

Amnesty International echoed this concern, warning that silencing her would distract from ‘Israel’s genocide in Gaza, its system of apartheid and unlawful occupation’.

Whether one agrees with her characterisation or not, the data underpinning the crisis are sobering. By late 2025, Gaza’s health authorities and UN agencies reported tens of thousands of Palestinians killed since October 2023, with vast swathes of housing, hospitals and water infrastructure destroyed. The World Bank estimated economic contraction in Gaza exceeding 80 per cent. UNICEF described levels of child malnutrition unseen in decades. These figures are not rhetorical flourishes; they are the raw arithmetic of devastation. 

They form the backdrop to South Africa’s genocide case before the International Court of Justice and to repeated UN General Assembly resolutions demanding a ceasefire and humanitarian access.

Across global capitals, the language of a “rules-based order” is spoken with conviction. Yet those words hollow out when rules are applied selectively. If international law binds adversaries but spares allies, it ceases to be law and becomes leverage.

The strength of the global system rests on independent scrutiny. When UN experts can be undermined through doctored clips, coordinated outrage and political pressure, the foundations of accountability begin to shake. Today it is Gaza. Tomorrow it could be Ukraine, Myanmar, Sudan, or any conflict where truth unsettles power. Disinformation does not respect borders. Precedents travel fast. If the world tolerates the silencing of inconvenient investigators, it signals that multilateralism is conditional — firm in rhetoric, fragile in practice. 

Trust erodes. Cynicism grows. The Global South watches and remembers.

READ: Trump says Board of Peace members to pledge over $5B for Gaza reconstruction on Thursday

Defending independent mandates is not an attack on any state. It is a defence of the very order governments claim to uphold. If the guardians of international law bend it when tested, the damage will not stay confined to one region. It will echo wherever justice depends on courage rather than convenience.

There is, of course, genuine sensitivity in Europe, shaped by the Holocaust and by the resurgence of antisemitism. Albanese herself has apologised for past remarks that were widely criticised. These complexities demand care. 

Yet conflating sharp legal criticism of a state’s conduct with hatred of a people risks trivialising real antisemitism and impoverishing serious debate. The joint statement of 116 human rights organisations condemning what they described as a ‘targeted smear campaign’ warned that such tactics threaten freedom of expression and the integrity of UN mechanisms.

Yet conflating sharp legal criticism of a state’s conduct with hatred of a people risks trivialising real antisemitism and impoverishing serious debate. The joint statement of 116 human rights organisations condemning what they described as a ‘targeted smear campaign’ warned that such tactics threaten freedom of expression and the integrity of UN mechanisms.

The UN human rights office has observed an alarming rise in personal attacks and misinformation directed at independent experts.

International relations theory offers several lenses through which to view this moment. Realists see states defending allies and interests. Liberals see institutions under strain. Constructivists note how narratives of historical trauma and identity shape policy reflexes. Yet beyond theory lies a simpler question: can the international system tolerate uncomfortable truths when they implicate powerful actors?

Albanese’s language is undeniably stark. She speaks of apartheid, of settler colonialism, of genocide. For some diplomats, such words close doors. For others, they are the only vocabulary adequate to the scale of suffering. History suggests that terms once dismissed as inflammatory — apartheid in South Africa, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans — can become anchors for accountability. 

The 1963 UN Special Committee against Apartheid was once derided as politicised; it later formed part of the scaffolding that supported global sanctions and eventual transition.

The future of Gaza and Palestine will not be secured by rhetoric alone. Reconstruction will require tens of billions of dollars, credible governance reform within Palestinian institutions, security guarantees for Israel, and a political horizon that restores dignity and agency to Palestinians. A common argument is that the absence of a viable political process will simply harden cycles of violence. Sustainable development in the region hinges on accountability and inclusion; impunity breeds instability.

There is space here for Australian diplomacy — measured, principled, pragmatic. Supporting humanitarian ceasefire efforts, backing the independence of international courts, conditioning arms exports on compliance with international humanitarian law, and investing in Palestinian civil society are not radical steps. They are consistent with long-stated commitments. A middle power need not shout to be heard; it must simply be consistent.

Francesca Albanese’s tenure has illuminated an uncomfortable paradox. The United Nations is often criticised as toothless, yet when one of its independent experts speaks with legal bluntness, the reaction suggests that words still matter. Attempts to sideline her have so far failed, not because she is beyond reproach, but because the mandate she holds embodies a principle larger than any individual: that human rights scrutiny must not bend to political convenience.

For a global audience weary of endless conflict, the path to a better future for Gaza and Palestine lies not in silencing dissenting voices but in confronting evidence with honesty. The credibility of the international system — and of those states that claim to steward it — depends on that courage. 

In the end, the debate is less about one rapporteur than about whether the promise of ‘never again’ retains meaning when tested by the tragedies of the present.

OPINION: Indonesia’s 8,000: Can stabilisation proceed without normalisation?

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor