Francesca Albanese is back in the news. The UN rapporteur for human rights in the Palestinian Territories has accused Maurizio Molinari, editor-in-chief of La Repubblica, of conducting “biased and irresponsible” reporting, insinuating that the newspaper favours a pro-Israeli narrative.

A frontal attack that goes beyond journalistic criticism to take on the features of a personal and professional delegitimisation. But beyond the specific case, the episode raises profound questions about the state of public debate, the role of information, and the quality of public debate around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in Italy and beyond.

An attack that is not only personal

The lunge against Molinari does not fall on deaf ears. For months, Italy has been experiencing a growing climate of polarisation around the war between Israel and Hamas, with tones that often degenerate into demonising the adversary.
But to strike a journalist – moreover at the head of one of Italy’s leading newspapers – is to strike at the very principle of press freedom. It is legitimate to criticise the editorial approach of a newspaper; it is legitimate to disagree with a political or cultural line. But to insinuate ulterior motives, disinformation or complicity in ‘war propaganda’, without a solid factual basis, undermines the foundations of democratic confrontation.

Maurizio Molinari is no stranger to detractors, and it is easy to understand why: his position is explicitly Atlanticist, liberal and pro-European, as his editorials published in recent months show.
It is not necessarily the case, of course, that supporting Israel’s offensive at this stage is liberal, pro-European Atlanticist, but there is no doubt that consistency with these principles makes Molinari a juicy target.
At a time when many prefer to embrace simplified or partisan narratives, those who manage to express strong ideas while maintaining a critical and fact-based approach risk being treated like any other propagandist on either side of the conflict.

The ambiguity of Francesca Albanese

The UN Special Rapporteur’s assertions have long been the subject of controversy: when she calls Molinari’s ‘biased and irresponsible’, maybe she should look who is talking.
In fact, Albanese has shown an aptitude for expressing one-sided positions, often unable to recognise the complexity of the conflict. His language, steeped in accusatory rhetoric, reduces the space for dialogue and undermines the very credibility of the institution he represents.

The UN, however ineffective it often is operationally, should maintain a role of balance and assurance. When one of its officials indulges in militant tones, it not only weakens its own mission, but also offers arguments to those who would like to delegitimise international multilateralism altogether.

This is not a matter of denying the suffering of the Palestinian people or ignoring the responsibilities of the Israeli government. Rather, it is a matter of avoiding an ideologically unbalanced narrative, which only radicalises the confrontation and distances the possibility of a political solution.

Defending pluralism per se, not a single faction

The Molinari-Albanese case is emblematic of a drift in which free information is attacked not for what it writes, but for what it represents.
In a context poisoned by disinformation and radicalisation, it is essential to defend the right of a journalist to express well-founded analyses, even if they are not aligned with the fashion of the moment.

Those familiar with Maurizio Molinari’s work know that his reading of international events is often rigorous, documented and firmly anchored in the values of democratic liberalism. It can be challenged, of course, but only on the merits and with arguments.

It is precisely in times of war that pluralism becomes most fragile. And those who claim to defend human rights should know this. Freedom of speech, the possibility to dissent, the responsibility of information are inalienable pillars of any open society.

A confrontation that deserves more seriousness

What is needed is a public discussion that abandons the logic of suspicion and delegitimisation.Francesca Albanese has the right – and the duty – to denounce violations of international law, but she cannot do so by debasing the role of the free press. Likewise, journalists like Molinari must be able to do their job without being pilloried for their opinions.

Those who believe in Europe as an area of law, democracy and shared responsibility should strongly defend these principles. Because without a free press, there is no informed public opinion. And without public opinion, international politics becomes an arena for slogans, not solutions.