Rome – There is an old rhetorical trick that has been poisoning public debate for centuries: the ad hominem attack. Instead of discussing an idea, an argument, or a thesis, the target is the person who defends it. It is a mechanism as simple as it is effective: if I cannot refute what you say, I will try to discredit you as a person. Thus, the conversation shifts from the merits of the issue to personal polemics, from analysis to gossip, from truth to distortion.
The psychological mechanism of the personal attack
From a psychological point of view, the ad hominem attack exploits our emotional vulnerabilities. The one who is targeted suddenly finds themselves accused not for what they said, but for who they are. It is a form of symbolic violence that tends to isolate, weaken self-esteem, and generate fear. Neuroscience has shown how the perception of a personal attack activates the same brain areas involved in physical pain: the brain does not distinguish between a wound to the body and a wound to identity.
Those who use ad hominem know well that this strategy aims to shift collective attention. It is not necessary to prove that the other’s words are false: it is enough to instill doubt about their credibility, to raise suspicions about their private life, to undermine their reputation. It is the logic of defamation: destroy the messenger when you cannot refute the message.
The example of Francesca Albanese
In recent months, the political right in particular has consistently used this method against Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur for human rights in the Palestinian Territories. She has become the target of an orchestrated delegitimization campaign, made up of venomous articles, insults on social media, insinuations about her private life, and doubts about her professionalism. A flood of accusations that are in fact unfounded.
Her analyses on Gaza are documented, based on verified sources, and consistent with international law. Unsurprisingly, they correspond with reports from independent organizations and direct testimonies. But precisely because her words describe an uncomfortable reality – that of a people subjected to violence that many jurists define as genocide – those who have no arguments to contest her on the facts resort to the shortcut: attack her.
Thus, instead of discussing content, insinuations arise: “she is biased,” “she has hidden interests,” “she is unbalanced,” “she is not a real professional,” “she is not a lawyer,” “she is paid,” “she has skeletons in the closet,” and so on. Not only that: she has even been denied basic rights, such as opening a bank account, because she is sanctioned by the United States. Not because she committed crimes, but because she does her job: reporting what happens at the hands of the Israeli government.
The disproportion is evident: a UN official is deprived of essential tools of daily life and subjected to a media lynchingnot for crimes, but for daring to utter the taboo word: genocide. A word that the government led by Giorgia Meloni does not tolerate even being mentioned. It is enough to recall that, in recent days, the Regional School Office of Lazio sent a confidential circular to schools urging them to limit spaces for discussion and assemblies on the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
Social and political dynamics
The ad hominem attack against Albanese is not an isolated case, but part of a broader social dynamic. When power – political, economic, or media – struggles with an uncomfortable discourse, it reacts not by addressing the merits but by striking those who dare to denounce. In sociological terms, it is a strategy of neutralization: shifting attention from content to the person, delegitimizing them, turning them into a target. This process has consequences not only for the individual but for the entire public sphere. The message is clear: those who tell certain truths will be pilloried. It is a deterrence mechanism, a way to discourage others from speaking out.
Politically, this logic marks a retreat of democracy. When fundamental rights are suspended not for crimes but for opinions, the ground shifts toward the repression of dissent. And when an institution like the UN is indirectly attacked – because to attack its representative means attacking the institution’s authority itself – the fracture becomes global.
The silenced issue: fundamental rights
Perhaps the gravest point is that while insults and personal attacks attract attention, the essential aspect is silenced: a UN rapporteur is being denied fundamental rights. There is no trial, no conviction, no formal charge. Only the geopolitical weight of a state that decides to strike those who tell an inconvenient truth because it is complicit with Israel. And here the question becomes inevitable: why is no one scandalized? Why does the public debate prefer to discuss the private life of Francesca Albanese rather than confront the fact that an international authority is being silenced by means that have nothing to do with the rule of law?
Recognizing the mechanism to defend debate
Ad hominem attacks work because they speak to the gut, not the head. Because it is easier to insult than to refute. But if we yield to this logic, we risk losing the very meaning of public discussion. The case of Francesca Albanese shows how the mud-slinging machine can become a true political tool: preventing discussion of the ongoing genocide by diverting attention from the truth and fixing it on the person who denounces it.
Recognizing these mechanisms is the first step in disarming them. It is not about defending an individual, but about defending everyone’s right to a debate based on facts and not on personal discredit.
S.C.
Silere non possum