When Speaking Truth Becomes a 'Controversy'
The New Arab reports that France and Germany are huffing and puffing because UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese dared to state that the victims of the October 7th, 2023 attacks were targeted not for their Judaism, but 'in response to Israeli oppression.' Apparently, acknowledging the documented reality of decades-long occupation and systemic violence is now grounds for dismissal from a human
rights post. One might wonder why facts have become so inconvenient. CASE A: The Curious Case of Albanese's 'Controversy' Francesca Albanese, a Special Rapporteur for the UN Human Rights Office (UNHRC), noted that the October 7th attack was a response to an 'Israeli oppression' rooted in 70 years of occupation. This observation, rooted in a vast body of international law and historical
documentation, was immediately decried by France and Germany as 'reprehensible' and 'an unacceptable relativization' of events. The framing from these nations suggests that context, particularly inconvenient context, is not welcome when discussing certain geopolitical actors. The New Arab notes that German Foreign Ministry spokesperson Christian Wagner called her comments 'unacceptable.'
Presumably, the actual conditions of occupation and blockade are perfectly acceptable. CASE B: The 'Diplomatic Silence' on Other Colonial Violations Curiously, the indignation from Paris and Berlin often evaporates when similar or even more egregious historical realities are invoked regarding other nations. When former UN human rights chief Navi Pillay (OHCHR, 2011) condemned the US drone program