The top UN official said that accusations of antisemitism against her were orchestrated by Israel’s ‘squads of minions’ and indicated that she did not believe comparisons of Israel and Nazi Germany were antisemitic
February 14, 2025 14:20
Francesca Albanese, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, has admitted that the organisation “displays some bias” against Israel during a rare TV interview.
Speaking with Yama Wolasmal of Norway’s national broadcaster NRK, Albanese labelled the disproportionate number of UN resolutions condemning Israel as a ‘democratic instance’ to counter the US’ veto on the body’s security council.
According to figures from UN Watch, quoted by Wolasmal in the interview, the UN General Assembly condemned Israel 17 times in the past year.
This contrasted with just six condemnatory resolutions levied on the rest of the world – one each for North Korea, Iran, Syria, Myanmar, Russia and the US – with none aimed at regimes like the Taliban government in Afghanistan or the Maduro government in Venezuela.
In response to the claim that this “doesn’t sound fair”, Albanese responded: “I would agree that, on some occasions, the UN displays some bias.
"The overproduction of resolutions is due to the fact that nothing changes on the ground.
"This is a consequence and a dysfunction of the lack of effectiveness of the Security Council when it comes to Palestine.
"Because the Security Council has often been paralysed by the US veto, then you have these more democratic instances where there is no veto, like the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly.”
She added: "There is never enforcement of international law when it comes to Israel.”
The exchange over the number of resolutions followed a testy opening to the interview as Wolasmal brought up accusations of antisemitism that have previously been levied against Albanese.
The UN official sighed loudly and rolled her eyes at the suggestion, before claiming that the allegations have been propagated by “Israel and its sycophants”.
She went on: “As a human being, as a mother, as a lawyer, this is not the way I would like to start an interview with you.
"[It is] the cancel culture that is promoted by Israel, its sycophants and the squads of minions and barking dogs, everywhere there is a network that protects Israel.
"My conclusions wouldn’t change if Israel was ruled by Buddhists, Muslims, Christians – it wouldn’t change.
"This is a deflection tactic to move the attention away from the violation that Israel commits.”
During the course of the discussion, Wolasmal also highlighted a tweet that Albanese had endorsed previously and which had sparked accusations of antisemitism.
The post placed two images next to one another in black and white – one showing Adolf Hitler surrounded by supporters and the other showing Netanyahu meeting lawmakers in the US Congress.
Alabanese had commented on the post saying it was “precisely what I am thinking today”.
However, she insisted that she had been comparing the “cheering crowds” in both images rather than the two men themselves, adding: “I did not compare a Nazi leader to a genocidaire, the architect of the genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza.”
She also maintained that, even if she had drawn such a comparison, it would not be antisemitic to do so, saying: “Antisemitism is discrimination against the Jewish people as Jews.
"I’ve not compared Netanyahu to Hitler [but] I don’t think it’s antisemitic.
"It might be inopportune, it might lack diplomacy… it depends what you define [as antisemitism], you can make up your own definition.”
This was seemingly a reference to the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which has been accepted by the UK Government and which clearly states that “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” is antisemitic.