The authority of the United Nations does not come from its buildings in New York or Geneva. It comes from trust. Trust that those appointed to defend human rights will do so without prejudice, without ideology, and without targeting one nation or one people through distortion or selective moral judgment.

That trust is now under serious threat because of one individual: Francesca Albanese.

As the UN Special Rapporteur, Albanese holds one of the most sensitive and influential human rights positions in the world. Her words do not exist in isolation. They carry institutional weight. They shape global perception. They influence how millions understand one of the most complex and emotionally charged conflicts on earth.

This is precisely why her recent remarks have triggered such serious consequences.

France did not respond with mild disagreement. France called for her removal.

French Foreign Minister Jean Noël Barrot condemned her statements as “outrageous and reprehensible,” warning that her rhetoric did not merely criticize policies, but crossed into language that targeted Israel itself as a nation and a people. That distinction is critical. Criticism of government policy is legitimate. Delegitimization of a nation’s existence is something entirely different.

When a UN Special Rapporteur adopts language that erases the context of terrorism, minimizes the trauma of October 7, and presents Israel as a singular moral offender in a violent region filled with authoritarian regimes and terrorist actors, it creates a dangerous imbalance.

It sends a message that Israel alone exists outside the protections of moral nuance.

This is not a theoretical concern. Words spoken from positions of global authority shape political reality. They influence diplomatic pressure. They empower hostile actors. They reshape how history itself will be remembered.

Albanese is not an activist speaking from a university podium. She is an official entrusted with neutrality. Her mandate is not to advocate ideology, but to investigate facts.

Neutrality is not optional in such a role. It is the foundation of its legitimacy.

When neutrality is abandoned, the position itself becomes compromised.

This is why France’s response matters so deeply. France did not question her right to personal opinion. France questioned her ability to serve in an institutional role that demands impartiality.

This distinction is essential.

Because once a UN Rapporteur is perceived as operating from a predetermined narrative, every future report, every statement, and every investigation becomes suspect.

Trust, once lost, is extraordinarily difficult to restore.

As a Muslim and a lifelong human rights advocate, I believe deeply in the mission the United Nations was meant to serve. That mission cannot survive if its officials are seen as participants in ideological campaigns rather than defenders of universal principles.

Human rights must apply equally, or they cease to be human rights at all.

Israel, like any democracy, must remain open to criticism. But Israel cannot be treated as uniquely illegitimate among the nations of the world. That standard is not justice. It is discrimination.

The responsibility of a UN Special Rapporteur is not to amplify one narrative. It is to illuminate truth, even when that truth is complex, uncomfortable, or inconvenient.

Francesca Albanese now stands at the center of a crisis that extends beyond her personally. It is a crisis of institutional credibility.

France has drawn a line.

The question now is whether the United Nations itself still understands why that line exists.

Because when those entrusted with defending human rights lose their neutrality, they do not weaken one nation.

They weaken the very idea of justice itself.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)