We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website. You can find out more about which cookies we are using here.

Global Affairs July 11, 2025 by

Sergei Oudman

Washington Sanctions UN Expert Francesca Albanese Over Alleged Antisemitic Bias

On July 9, 2025, the U.S. sanctioned Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territories, over her alleged antisemitic stance on Israel. Secretary of State Marco Rubio cited her advocacy for International Criminal Court (ICC) investigations targeting U.S. and Israeli officials and companies as “antisemitic” and “economic warfare.” Albanese denies these accusations, arguing her mandate requires reporting solely on Palestinian human rights violations by Israel, and that sanctions aim to silence legitimate criticism. International law experts and rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have condemned the sanctions.

UN Role and Influence

Albanese’s mandate, established in 1993 by the UN Commission on Human Rights, focuses exclusively on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories (OPT) since 1967, reporting to the Council and General Assembly. The rationale, as defended by UN scholars and Palestinian human rights groups like Al-Haq, is to address Israel’s prolonged occupation and violations as the occupying power under international law, without examining Palestinian actors like Hamas. Supporters argue this is essential for accountability in a unique asymmetric context, highlighting Israel’s responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention; critics contend it creates inherent bias by ignoring broader dynamics. Her 2025 report, “From Economy of Occupation to Economy of Genocide,” accuses 48 corporations, including U.S. firms, of profiting from Israel’s actions, urging ICC probes. This contributes to UN resolutions and global narratives on the conflict, though its impact on sentiment is debated.

Albanese’s reports do not address Hamas’s asymmetric warfare tactics, such as rocket attacks and human shields, or Iran’s funding of militias, which critics say skews the Israel-Gaza narrative. They also underemphasize Syria’s 500,000+ deaths since 2011 and Iran’s protest crackdowns, fueling perceptions of disproportionate targeting of Israel over authoritarian regimes. Missing from her narrative is that ordinary Palestinians see little benefit, often used as bargaining chips by Hamas and regional powers like Iran and Qatar in a broader geopolitical struggle. Supporters counter that her mandate limits her to Israeli actions, and broader context is outside its purview; Palestinian rights advocates emphasize that her work highlights civilian suffering under occupation and calls for ending the occupation to benefit Palestinians. [Source: UN Watch reports, WSJ, July 9, 2025; OHCHR mandate description; Al-Haq statements]

Regional Actors

Iran’s funding of Hamas is bolstered by China’s purchase of 1.8 million barrels of Iranian oil daily (June 2025). [Source: Reuters energy reports] Qatar’s financial support and Al Jazeera’s coverage align with aspects of Albanese’s framing, while Turkey’s NGOs echo her “genocide” claims at UN forums. Russia’s Security Council votes back anti-Israel resolutions, leveraging Cold War-style tactics to counter Western influence. These alignments contribute to polarized narratives, though causation is complex. [Source: OSINT analysis of UN voting records; Al Jazeera reports]

Economic Impact

Albanese’s corporate targeting could disrupt U.S., EU, and Israeli trade, particularly in tech and defense, amid multiple factors. Abraham Accords signatories like the UAE face pressure to distance from Israel, potentially threatening the accords’ economic stability, though other regional dynamics play a role. [Source: Middle East Institute economic briefs; Carnegie on Accords after Gaza]

Information Warfare

OSINT reveals Iranian and Russian bot networks on X amplifying the reports, echoing the USSR’s Operation Infektion. SIGINT, if available, could confirm Hamas-Iran coordination, omitted by Albanese, suggesting an anti-Western agenda. [Source: X post analysis, Atlantic Council disinformation studies; Middle East Eye on pro-Israel bot turning pro-Palestine]

EU Security Risks

A weakened Israel, potentially influenced by Albanese’s campaigns among other factors, could embolden Iran-backed Hezbollah, possibly raising terrorism risks in Europe, as seen in the 2012 Burgas bombing. Iran’s Syrian presence might drive refugee flows and extremism, destabilizing the EU. Disrupted Israeli intelligence-sharing could increase EU vulnerability, though direct causation from her reports is speculative and debated. [Source: EUROPOL reports; Guardian analysis; CSIS on Hezbollah conflict; CER on Europe and Gaza terrorism]

Serbia’s Exposure

Serbia relies on Israeli counterterrorism intelligence against Iran-linked Balkan networks. A weakened Israel could allow Hezbollah expansion in Bosnia or Kosovo, escalating tensions and hindering Serbia’s EU alignment, amid broader regional influences. [Source: Balkan Insight security analyses; ISPI on Serbia-Israel friendship]

Abraham Accords Threat

Albanese’s rhetoric adds pressure on Arab signatories, contributing to anti-Israel sentiment. OSINT shows her narrative gaining traction, risking the accords’ counterterrorism and economic frameworks, and stalling further normalization, though multiple causes are involved. [Source: Al-Monitor regional reports; Carnegie on Accords after Gaza]

Hamas’s Gains

Albanese’s narrative may deflect scrutiny from Hamas’s terrorist tactics, potentially boosting propaganda, recruitment, and leverage in ceasefire talks. OSINT indicates her reports fuel pro-Palestinian sentiment, indirectly enhancing Hamas’s position via Qatar and Iran’s support. Ordinary Palestinians, however, remain pawns, with aid often diverted by Hamas, leaving civilians in Gaza facing ongoing hardship without tangible gains. Critics argue this link overstates her influence on terrorism, emphasizing multifaceted conflict drivers. [Source: MEMRI Hamas propaganda analysis, UNRWA aid distribution reports; Al Jazeera interviews; Guardian article on firms profiting]

UN Credibility Threat

This situation illustrates how adversaries combat each other via UN organizations, with states like Iran, Russia, and Qatar leveraging rapporteurs to advance agendas. Such politicization threatens the UN’s credibility, the integrity of human rights treaties, and long-term independence of UN mechanisms, as noted by both critics and defenders. [Source: UN Watch, Heritage Foundation analyses on UN bias; UN Special Procedures Coordination Committee statements]

The U.S. sanctions, freezing Albanese’s assets and restricting her travel, are unprecedented for a UN official. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch criticize them as attacks on free speech, arguing her mandate justifies her focus and that sanctions undermine international justice. Albanese calls them “intimidation,” vowing to continue, supported by the UN Special Procedures Coordination Committee which condemns the move. Supporters, including UN Watch, cite her 2014 “Jewish lobby” remark as antisemitic, though she denies this. [Source: Amnesty International, HRW statements; Al Jazeera, Guardian reports] Nonetheless she has not showed any reflection nor change on the matter in order to create a more balanced narrative of the conflict in Gaza and the events that led to October 7th.

Aligned with Netanyahu’s Washington visit, the sanctions reflect U.S.-Israel solidarity amid the Gaza war’s 57,000 reported deaths. [Source: Gaza Health Ministry] They underscore tensions over international law, free speech, and bias accusations.

Hamas’s Strategic Advantage

Albanese’s reports could provide Hamas a diplomatic tool in international forums by framing Israel as the primary aggressor, potentially enhancing its global sympathy and position in negotiations and alliances with Iran and Qatar. This dynamic may exploit Palestinian suffering, as Hamas diverts resources for military purposes, leaving civilians vulnerable. However, direct links to increased terrorism remain unproven and part of a complex web of factors. [Source: Institute for National Security Studies, UNRWA reports; AP News expert insights; Al Jazeera on UN report]

Conclusion

The controversy surrounding the U.S. sanctions on Francesca Albanese underscores deeper tensions within the international human rights system. While UN mandates like hers aim to enforce legal norms in prolonged occupations, they often lack the flexibility to address non-state actors such as Hamas—especially when those actors are backed by powerful UN member states. This asymmetry reveals a broader institutional gap: the UN’s mechanisms are often more effective at scrutinizing state conduct than confronting decentralized, hybrid threats. As conflicts become increasingly asymmetric and politically entangled, the international system’s ability to uphold impartial human rights standards—without becoming a battleground for great-power rivalries—remains an urgent and unresolved challenge. Targeting just Francesca Albanese solely for this will not address the underlying issue nor will it help the public to understand the complexity and actors (such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, etc.) that pose a threat to democracy and freedom.

"The views expressed herein reflect the complexity of international debate surrounding UN mandates, human rights, and geopolitical dynamics. All accusations cited are sourced and presented as claims unless substantiated by legal findings."

Sources:

About the author

Sergei Oudman

Sergei Oudman

Francesca Albanese ICC Iran Rubio Sanctions
«