By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a move to punish critics of Israel, the Trump administration announced sanctions against Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur for the Palestinian territories, following failed attempts to remove her from her post. The sanctions come amid the ongoing war in Gaza and Albanese’s vocal accusations of Israeli “genocide” against Palestinians. This decision is viewed by some as an effort to silence the UN expert for speaking about Israeli violations against Palestinians and calling for accountability. The U.S. action is part of a broader campaign to quell criticism of Israel’s handling of the war.
Read the original article here
U.S. issues sanctions against a United Nations investigator probing abuses in Gaza – and it’s definitely a situation sparking a lot of debate. The immediate reaction is a mix of concerns and justifications, painting a complex picture. Some are immediately critical, raising alarm bells about the implications of sanctioning someone investigating potential human rights violations. It’s seen as a move that potentially shields those who might be committing abuses and undermines the very idea of impartial investigation. This is especially true given the long history of international scrutiny over issues of justice and human rights within the region.
Others, though, express strong reservations about the investigator herself, pointing to questions about her background and alleged bias. There’s talk of whether she is a “real” lawyer, referencing her credentials and the need for passing a bar exam, especially in certain countries like Italy. There’s a distinction drawn between possessing a law degree and being a licensed attorney, which seems to be the core of the argument. While she holds law degrees and has studied extensively, she has not passed the necessary exams to practice law in Italy or the UK, where she has studied. This situation raises questions about the accuracy of her self-description and potentially complicates the perception of her neutrality.
The nature of the international legal field itself is also brought into the picture. Because there isn’t a single “international law,” the term “international lawyer” carries different meanings. It can be used academically, and in situations where people have studied law, have degrees, and can work on international issues. However, the lack of formal licensing to practice, as you might expect of a lawyer in a specific country, further complicates the matter. In this context, it’s clear there is more than one definition of the term.
Further complicating the issue are the allegations of bias and potential links to groups like Hamas. These accusations, whether factual or part of a smear campaign, fuel the perception that her investigations are not impartial. Critics believe these actions are part of a larger pattern of the U.N. showing an anti-Israel bias, making the investigator a vehicle for such biases. The question becomes whether the investigation is motivated by a genuine concern for justice, or something else. This, of course, can be viewed differently depending on who is looking.
The role of the U.N. itself is brought to the fore in discussions, and it becomes clear that there are some deep-seated issues with the organization. The very structure of the U.N., particularly the Security Council, creates a hierarchy. The U.S., along with other permanent members like China, Russia, the U.K., and France, hold significant power due to the veto power granted to them. This means that these few nations can significantly influence the U.N.’s actions and decisions. It highlights the challenges of achieving true impartiality and effective action within such a framework.
The idea of bias is a recurring theme in these discussions. If the investigator is seen as biased, then this can potentially undermine the legitimacy of any findings she produces. There are also those that claim there’s a bias against Israel, and that these investigations are a part of that. At the same time, there are concerns about the sanctions themselves. Sanctioning someone who is investigating potential crimes can be seen as silencing a voice that is trying to shed light on the situation, and it can give cover to those who would commit abuses.
The question of whether the U.S. is acting alone or is aligned with other nations is important to consider. The decision to sanction, and the implications, take on a different meaning depending on the international context. Would the other nations of the U.N. support the U.S. if they were to take it to vote? The fact that there are certain nations on the Security Council that have questionable human rights records certainly does not help the situation.
The incident does, however, prompt broader conversations about the complex dynamics of international relations, the politics that are at play, and the challenges of achieving justice in contested situations. Sanctioning an investigator is a move that requires careful consideration of its impact, and the impact it has on the ongoing process of justice.