Listen to the article
Israeli UN Ambassador Launches Blistering Attack on Special Rapporteur During Committee Session
Tensions escalated dramatically at a United Nations General Assembly Third Committee session on Tuesday when Israeli Ambassador Danny Danon delivered an unprecedented personal attack against UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese, calling her a “witch” and accusing her of spreading Hamas propaganda.
Albanese, who presented her report via video link after being denied entry to the United States, faced the brunt of Danon’s ire as he addressed the committee with unusually caustic language rarely heard in diplomatic settings.
“Mrs. Albanese, every time you try to curse Israel with falsehoods and libels, your curses fail,” Danon declared. “Mrs. Albanese, you are a witch, and this report is another page in your spellbook. You have tried to curse Israel with lies and hatred, but your poison has failed.”
The confrontation stems from Albanese’s latest report, which accuses Israel of human rights violations and criticizes numerous countries for their support of Israeli policies. The report represents one of the most comprehensive international critiques of Israel’s allies since the Gaza conflict began in October 2023.
Albanese’s absence from the chamber was itself a point of contention. The Italian legal expert was unable to attend in person after the United States imposed sanctions against her in July and revoked her visa. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio justified the move by citing her “illegitimate and disgraceful efforts to pressure the International Criminal Court to take action against American and Israeli officials.”
The report at the center of the dispute casts a wide net of criticism, targeting dozens of countries for what Albanese characterizes as complicity in Israel’s actions. Major Western powers including the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany were specifically called out for providing diplomatic and military backing to Israel.
According to Albanese’s findings, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have attempted to “weaken” UN resolutions critical of Israel. She also criticized France, Italy, Croatia, and Greece for allowing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to travel through their airspace despite an International Criminal Court arrest warrant.
In an unexpected twist, the report also rebuked several Arab and Muslim-majority nations—including Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates—for supporting former U.S. President Donald Trump’s Middle East peace plan. Albanese described this initiative as facilitating “military demobilization and foreign governance without ensuring justice or Palestinian self-determination,” potentially creating what she termed a “new form of occupation.”
The document further alleged that countries such as China, India, Taiwan, Austria, Spain, and France have supplied weapons during what Albanese characterized as an “ongoing genocide.” A separate list included nations indirectly transferring arms through joint military programs, including F-35 participants like Japan and South Korea.
Even smaller nations did not escape scrutiny. Ireland and Morocco were cited for allowing weapons transfers via their airports, while the Philippines, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Sweden, and Vietnam faced criticism for continuing to purchase Israeli weapons technology. Albanese went so far as to claim the United Nations itself had procured equipment from Israeli defense contractor Elbit Systems.
The heated exchange highlights the increasingly polarized nature of UN deliberations regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Such personal attacks between high-level diplomats and UN officials are rare and reflect the deteriorating diplomatic environment surrounding this issue.
As the UN continues to grapple with the ongoing Middle East crisis, this incident raises questions about the effectiveness of international forums to address deeply entrenched conflicts when basic diplomatic norms appear to be eroding.
Verify This Yourself
Use these professional tools to fact-check and investigate claims independently
Reverse Image Search
Check if this image has been used elsewhere or in different contexts
Ask Our AI About This Claim
Get instant answers with web-powered AI analysis
Related Fact-Checks
See what other fact-checkers have said about similar claims
Want More Verification Tools?
Access our full suite of professional disinformation monitoring and investigation tools
16 Comments
Regardless of one’s views, these types of public confrontations between officials further erode trust and goodwill. I hope both sides can find a way to engage constructively and address the substantive issues raised, rather than resorting to personal attacks.
You make a fair point. Maintaining open channels of communication, even in the face of disagreement, is crucial for making progress on these complex, long-standing conflicts.
The confrontational nature of this exchange is unfortunate and unlikely to advance the cause of peace and reconciliation. Both sides would be better served by engaging in respectful, evidence-based dialogue to address the substantive concerns raised, rather than resorting to personal attacks.
I agree completely. Constructive engagement, even in the face of disagreement, is essential for making progress on these complex, long-standing conflicts. Mutual understanding and a willingness to find common ground are key.
This is a very contentious and polarizing issue. While the UN report raises serious concerns, the Israeli ambassador’s response seems overly harsh and personal. I’d like to see a more balanced and nuanced discussion of the complex dynamics at play.
I agree, name-calling and inflammatory rhetoric rarely lead to productive dialogue on these sensitive geopolitical matters. A measured, fact-based approach is needed to find common ground and work towards solutions.
While I can understand the Israeli ambassador’s frustration with the report, his choice of words seems ill-advised and counterproductive. Resorting to personal attacks against the UN expert only serves to further inflame tensions and distract from the substantive matters at hand.
I agree. A more professional and diplomatic approach, even in the face of criticism, would likely serve Israel’s interests better in the long run. Maintaining composure and focusing on the merits of the report would be a wiser strategy.
This back-and-forth certainly highlights the deep divisions and mistrust between the parties involved. However, I’m not sure that trading insults is the most constructive path forward. Objective analysis of the report’s findings would be a better starting point for meaningful dialogue.
Well said. A calm, fact-based discussion of the issues, rather than emotional outbursts, is more likely to lead to productive outcomes that address the concerns of all stakeholders.
While I understand the sensitivity of this issue, the Israeli ambassador’s choice of words is concerning and risks further polarizing the situation. A more measured and diplomatic approach, focused on the substance of the report rather than personal attacks, would be a wiser course of action.
Well said. Resorting to insults and inflammatory rhetoric often backfires and makes finding a solution even more difficult. A calm, fact-based discussion that acknowledges the concerns of all parties is more likely to lead to meaningful progress.
As an observer, I’m struck by the intensity of the language used. While I understand this is a highly charged political issue, I worry that such heated rhetoric will only harden existing positions and make compromise more difficult.
I share your concern. Diplomacy often requires a delicate balance of assertiveness and restraint. Hopefully the parties can find a way to air their grievances without resorting to personal attacks.
This is a complex and sensitive issue with valid concerns on both sides. While I don’t condone the Israeli ambassador’s harsh rhetoric, I also believe the UN report should be scrutinized for potential biases or omissions. Objective analysis from independent experts could help shed more light on the situation.
That’s a fair perspective. Maintaining a balanced and impartial view, while still acknowledging the gravity of the issues, is important when dealing with such contentious geopolitical matters. Avoiding knee-jerk reactions and instead seeking out nuanced understanding should be the goal.