Rebranding Hamas as a “political force” is a perilous act of moral laundering that erases terrorism, excuses atrocities, and misleads a world still grappling with the consequences of October 7.
In remarks circulated this week, UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese insisted that when people think of Hamas, they “should not necessarily think of cut-throats, people armed to the teeth or fighters,” casting the group instead as a misunderstood political actor. The video, promoted by UN Watch and widely shared on social media, speaks for itself.
Facts, however, remain stubborn. Hamas did win a legislative election on January 25, 2006, but then ended Palestinian pluralism in Gaza with a violent coup the following year, expelling Fatah and entrenching one-party rule. Nineteen years without another election is far from a democracy – it is the opposite.
What Francesca Albanese didn't say
Equally absent from Albanese’s narrative is Hamas’s systematic militarization of civilian spaces. Throughout this war and before it, the Israel Defense Forces presented evidence of tunnels, weapons, and command infrastructure in and around hospitals, most notably at Gaza City’s Al-Shifa complex.
Even media outlets skeptical of Israeli claims documented shafts, munitions, and underground facilities tied to Hamas. Their actions are the textbook use of human shields.
The attempt to rebrand Hamas also collides with basic law and policy. Hamas is formally designated a terrorist organization by the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, governments with very different politics that nevertheless agree on this point. The designations exist for many reasons: the group’s record of suicide bombings, rocket fire, hostage taking, and, on October 7, the mass murder and abduction of civilians. Euphemisms cannot repeal those facts.
This is not the first time Albanese has used a UN platform to advance a one-sided, activist agenda. In July, the United States sanctioned her for what Secretary of State Marco Rubio described as a campaign of political and economic warfare targeting the US and Israel, including efforts to weaponize courts against officials and companies.
Albanese’s response was not to recalibrate, but to instead double down, feting the Bogota “Emergency Conference of States,” hosted by Colombia and South Africa, which promoted punitive measures against Israel while barely acknowledging Hamas’s atrocities. Such posturing does not advance peace, but actually normalizes impunity for terrorists and isolates the very democracies that would be needed to rebuild Gaza and restore a horizon of dignity for Palestinians and Israelis alike.
The UN’s credibility problem is not abstract for Israelis living under fire, nor for Palestinians trapped under Hamas rule. When a UN official tells the world to see Hamas primarily as a political service provider, the signal to would-be spoilers everywhere is unmistakable: wage war from behind civilians, hide your arsenals in clinics and schools, and the discourse will still treat you as legitimate. That is a moral inversion, and a strategic disaster that democracies must reject.
A serious international conversation would begin with three acknowledgments. First, Hamas’s continued armament and rule in Gaza are incompatible with any durable peace; disarmament and the release of every hostage are prerequisites, not bargaining chips.
Second, the people of Gaza deserve accountable, non-terrorist governance that does not steal cement for tunnels or turn hospitals into fortresses.
Third, Israel’s right, and obligation, to dismantle a terrorist army on its border is not a negotiable favor from the international system; it is the baseline for regional stability and for any eventual two-state framework worthy of the name.
That conversation is not possible while a UN mandate-holder labors to recast a US-, UK- and Canada-designated terror organization as a “political force.” The Human Rights Council should replace Albanese with someone capable of basic impartiality. Member states that fund the UN system should condition access and budgets on performance, not slogans. And allied capitals that value the UN’s best work, in health, refugees, and development, should say plainly that its worst habits, including the indulgence of Hamas apologia, will not be subsidized.
Language shapes reality. Calling Hamas what it is – terrorists who seized power and turned civilians into shields – does not preclude compassion for Palestinians or criticism of Israel when warranted: It simply insists on moral clarity. The UN should do the same.