Israel Must Act Against UN Rapporteur's Anti-Semitic Remarks

Israel has a duty to address the "anti-Semitic" statements made by Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, and should consider legal action against her. The author argues that Albanese's remarks, which he characterizes as brazen and indicative of her mental state, falsely attribute inherent negative traits to the Jewish state without evidence. Albanese claimed that Palestinian detainees were raped using dogs trained in Europe and that Europeans profit from their sale, allegations for which no proof was presented. The author criticizes the implication that Israel must disprove such absurdities and notes that Europeans are also cast in a negative role.

The article draws parallels between Albanese's statements and historical blood libels against Jews, citing the 1144 case in Norwich, England, where Jews were accused of ritual murder, and the later spread of the myth that Jews require Christian children's blood for Passover matzah. It recounts the Spanish Inquisition, established in 1478, which persecuted Jewish converts suspected of secretly practicing Judaism, leading to events like the 1491 execution of Jews and converts in the "Holy Child of La Guardia" case, despite a lack of evidence of a murder. This historical context, the author contends, highlights the danger of condemning individuals based solely on their identity.

The author criticizes the immediate attribution of blame to Israel following the October 7th attacks, noting that Palestinian organizations and even Harvard student groups issued statements holding Israel responsible before all facts were known. He questions how Albanese reconciled her claims about alleged rapes of Palestinians with her apparent lack of conviction regarding the rapes and murders of Israelis on October 7th. The piece concludes by asserting that no nation or people should need to prove their innocence or justify their existence, emphasizing the legal principle that the burden of proof lies with the accuser.