What tomorrow holds

Michele Fossi in conversation with Francesca Albanese

Francesca Albanese is a United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967. Her report “Anatomy of a Genocide”, published in March 2024, provided an in-depth investigation into the impacts of Israel’s military operations in Gaza that are currently under scrutiny by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The report documented extensive human rights violations and systematic inhumane treatment of Palestinians, drawing on extensive evidence and testimonies. This led her to describe the situation as “the monstrosity of our century,” advocating for an intervention by the international community. Her report has sparked significant controversy and debate, urging a re-evaluation of regional policies and actions.

Renowned as a distinguished international lawyer and human rights expert, Albanese is particularly known for her work on Palestinian issues. Serving as the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories since 2022, she has extensively investigated and reported on human rights violations in the region. Albanese is perceived as a steadfast advocate for Palestinian rights and is praised for her rigorous legal analysis and dedication to humanitarian principles. However, her work has been controversial, with critics arguing that her reports are biased.

DUST met with her in Berlin to discuss her report, the international responses, the criticisms, the historical and cultural context of the conflict and visions for future peace.

Michele Fossi : “After months of military operations, Israel has destroyed Gaza. Over 30,000 Palestinians have been killed, including more than 15,000 children. Over 12,000 are presumed dead and 71,000 injured, many with life-changing mutilations. Seventy per cent of residential areas have been destroyed. Eighty per cent of the whole population has been forcibly displaced. Thousands of families have lost loved ones or have been wiped out. Many could not bury and mourn their relatives, forced instead to leave their bodies decomposing in homes, in the street or under the rubble. Thousands have been detained and systematically subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment. The incalculable collective trauma will be experienced for generations to come”, reads the abstract of your report published in March 2024, which has stirred significant controversy as well as encouraged dialogue within the international community. The report accuses Israel of committing acts that meet the international legal threshold for genocide during its military operations in Gaza. What are these thresholds? 

Francesca Albanese : These acts include causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to physically destroy the group, and imposing measures to prevent births within the group. What is happening in Gaza goes beyond mere acts of violence. It involves the deliberate creation of living conditions that systematically erode the Palestinian population, including the destruction of hospitals, water sources, and agricultural areas essential for sustenance. Even the little boats they used for fishing have been systematically destroyed.

M.F. : Just a few hours before this interview, you posted on Instagram, in Italian: “15,000 children killed weigh on my conscience like a boulder. When I think about it, I can’t breathe”. 

F.A. : How can all this be tolerated without feeling pity, horror, or shame? Israel’s military operations must be stopped; they must be stopped now. I say this for the sake of the Palestinians and the Israelis and for what tomorrow holds for both.

M.F. : The war in Gaza has resulted in unprecedented levels of lethality and destruction, surpassing many other conflicts in recent history. Since October 7, 2023, Israeli strikes on Gaza have killed over 31,000 Palestinians, including 15,000 children. This number exceeds the total number of children killed in global conflicts over the past four years (2019-2022).

F.A. : The figures of this conflict are unprecedented. The daily death toll in Gaza has been reported at an average of 250 people per day for several weeks after the conflict, which is higher than any other major conflict in the 21st century. At least 19780 UN workers have been killed, marking the highest loss of life among UN personnel in any single conflict. 

M.F. : The conflict has been particularly deadly for journalists and medical personnel. At least 112 journalists and 380 healthcare workers have been killed, making it one of the deadliest conflicts for these professions in recent memory. Evidence suggests that some of these individuals were deliberately targeted. Additionally, the unprecedented destruction of private houses has led some researchers and human rights advocates to use the term domicide. This term describes the systematic destruction of homes and the strategic targeting of residential areas. Such actions not only displace populations but also erase cultural and historical ties to the land, complicating the potential for Palestinian communities to rebuild and return.

F.A. : Their houses have been destroyed. But also their schools, their universities, their mosques ahave beenre bombed one after the other, systematically. Furthermore, there is the physical and mental anguish endured by members of the group. Do we realise what psychological damage has been inflicted on the two million three hundred thousand people – in large part civilians, not activearmed combatants! – who have survived until now? The physical and mental pain, the inability to receive medical care, witnessing their families die because of bombs, deprivation, hunger, diseases that are otherwise treatable, or wounds that become infected. It will take generations for them to recover from this trauma. 

M.F. : Israel, however, describes its actions as legitimate self-defence in response to the attacks from Hamas.

F.A. : Justifying all this as a legitimate military action is just a way to conceal the truth. The discourse accompanying this military operation was not rooted in military objectives from the outset. The ultimate aim? Undoubtedly, it sought retribution for October 7th. But it also exploited the opportunity to forcibly displace Palestinians from their remaining land, as could be seen for years in the West Bank. 

M.F. : You have openly criticised international responses and called for an arms embargo and sanctions against Israel to prevent future violations.

F.A. : Israeli policies spanning the occupied Palestinian territory are unquestionably endangering Palestinian existence on their land. The focus of the international community must zero in on the most likely implication – the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians – and the international community must do everything in their power to prevent it. The international community must insist on an immediate and unconditional ceasefire and even impose sanctions on Israel if the situation continues.

M.F. : Let’s delve more specifically into the legal framework of your assessment.

F.A. : The acts of genocide are detailed in Article Two of the Genocide Convention, and I have focused my investigation on the first three. A crucial aspect that sets a high bar for proof is intent. There are two necessary types of intent: ‘general intent’ and ‘specific intent.’ General intent refers to the desire to commit those acts, encompassing both the will and the knowledge that certain actions will lead to a specific outcome. For me, the act of creating living conditions that inevitably lead to death is inherently linked to intent itself. Then there is ‘specific intent,’ which is the intention to destroy a people in whole or in part. In my analysis, this is evident from the comprehensive campaign that Israel has conducted against Gaza, which was clearly not targeted solely at Hamas. It is apparent that the intent encompasses the destruction of the Palestinians as a people.

M.F. : On October 8th, in your first interview after the Hamas attack, you declared, “This is the time for the international community to act wisely and compassionately towards these individuals, aiding them in understanding each other’s traumas and pains and in rediscovering their shared humanity.”

F.A. : Unfortunately, this crucial message has been overshadowed as ongoing efforts instead fan the flames of conflict, particularly with Western nations aligning unconditionally with Israel. They have defended these military actions for months as exercises of self-defence amidst a backdrop of terrorism, claiming that the operations target terrorists exclusively. Is this really the case? How can such claims be substantiated? How does one verify that all these individuals are indeed terrorists?

M.F. : International laws are clear, and civilians must be protected at all costs. 

F.A. : However, what we have seen in this war is a deliberate blurring of the distinction between civilian and military targets. One of the key findings of my report is that Israel’s executive and military leadership and soldiers have intentionally distorted jus in bello principles—the laws that govern the way in which warfare is conducted—subverting their protectiveon functions, in an attempt to legitimise genocidal violence against the Palestinian people. 

M.F. : Israel strongly rejects the allegations contained in your report, arguing that it distorts the realities of its conflict with Hamas and misuses the term genocide. 

F.A. : Genocide is defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. According to its definition, you can also have genocide without killing anyone. Consider that act of genocide: transferring children from one group away from the group. These are acts of genocide. Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who first coined the term genocide, envisioned a much broader definition of this crime, which is the destruction of a people even in its political and cultural element, which is what happens to the Palestinians. The proof of genocidal intent cannot be considered so difficult to ascertain that it cannot be prevented. Furthermore, throughout the seven-month assault, according to the UN, about 70% of casualties in Gaza are women and children​.

M.F. : What’s the stance of international law on this?

F.A. : Collective punishment is a war crime. It involves punitive actions taken against a group of people as a result of actions by individuals. So, the siege of Gaza prior to October 7th – a 16-year-long  siege – constitutes collective punishment. Demolishing the homes of those who have not committed crimes is collective punishment. Now, in the international context, collective punishment is condemned, primarily by international humanitarian law, Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states that no person shall be punished for an offence they have not personally committed. Therefore, there are grounds to say that the siege of Gaza was collective punishment, as it is now a domicide. 

What we are witnessing in Gaza, however, goes far beyond collective punishment. I see the clear intent to destroy a part of the population. Far-right Israeli politicians talk openly about re-settling in Gaza.

M.F. : The blockade of Gaza has persisted since 2007. Yet, recent developments have been particularly dire. There has been a deliberate obstruction of food supplies and humanitarian aid, leading to an artificially induced famine and a severe humanitarian crisis. Could this be considered a crime against humanity? 

F.A. : Yes, man-made starvation can be considered a crime against humanity. It involves deliberately depriving a population of food and other essential resources as a form of coercion or punishment, which constitutes a grave violation of human rights under international law. Just 50 kilometres away from the Gaza Strip, crucial, life-sustaining aid and goods, including water desalination equipment, first aid kits, oxygen cylinders and portable toilets – paid for by taxpayers across the world – languish in warehouses; they are barred entry into Gaza on the pretext of being used by combatants. Humanitarian measures implemented so far – airdrops and maritime corridors – are a mere palliative for what is desperately needed and legally due. 

M.F. : A particularly alarming aspect of the recent conflict in Gaza is the reported use of artificial intelligence (AI) in Israeli military operations. In an Israeli newspaper, +972 Magazine, an article by journalist Yuval Abraham claims that an AI system named “Lavender” determines bombing targets. According to the article, this AI system allegedly accepts a ratio of up to 2010 civilian casualties for each (alleged) Hamas fighter targeted. This identification is reportedly done by the AI that analyses, among other sources, WhatsApp messages and other phone activities to ascertain affiliations. Such a methodology raises significant concerns regarding both the accuracy of target identification and the ethical implications of using AI in life-and-death decisions. Furthermore, it highlights a deeply troubling indifference to Palestinian civilian lives, with collateral damage for targeting a high-ranking Hamas member reportedly tolerating more thanup to 100 civilians.

F.A. : Do you remember what happened in Jabalia on October 25th31st?  In an attempt to eliminate a high-ranking Hamas member—whose identity still remains unclear—Israel conducted airstrikes that targeted residential areas within the Jabalia refugee camp in Gaza, resulting in significant casualties and destruction. Reports indicate that at least 100 people were killed, with hundreds more injured. Among the casualties were a woman and two children who were being held hostage. The exact number of innocent lives lost due to these indiscriminate bombings, including any Israeli hostages, will only be known once the dust of this war settles. However, it appears that protecting the hostages was not a priority, given the conduct of the war. Had the goal been to free the hostages, different methods and tools would likely have been employed.

M.F. : “No electricity, no food, no gasoline, no water. Everything closed. We are fighting against human animals, and we act accordingly,” said Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on October 9th, two days after the Hamas attack. This label of ‘human animals’ can be seen as yet another manifestation of the gradual process of dehumanisation that the Palestinian people have long been subjected to.

F.A. : I can understand the outrage, fear, and horror Israelis felt on October 7th. Brutal acts were committed against them, embodying all their fears: the pervasive narrative that Palestinians hate them and wish to exterminate them. This narrative is persistent; Palestinians people are often depicted as terrorists and considered violent threats, without individual identities or personal stories. These narratives portray Palestinians as an existential threat to the Jewish people and Palestinian claims for recognition of their individual and collective rights—enshrined in universal international treaties and numerous specific UN resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian issue—as a direct challenge to the very existence of Israel. As scholars Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini explain, Israel justifies the use of force against Palestinians, including children, by portraying the entire Palestinian collective as an inherently terrorist threat.

M.F. : How do you explain the fact that Western powers always unconditionally support Israel?How do you explain the nearly unconditional support of Israel by Western powers?

F.A. : The unconditional support of Western powers for Israel can be explained through a complex mixture of factors. Firstly, there is certainly a geopolitical element, as Israel is often seen as a key ally in the Middle East, aligning with Western interests in the region. Additionally, there’s a strong sense of cultural affiliation, where Israel is perceived as being part of the Western community. Another factor could be a prevalent hostility in the West towards the Arab world and those perceived as “Islamic” or Muslim, which, in my view, unfairly influences perceptions despite religion playing a minor role in this conflict. 

M.F. : Often, the discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian issue is framed in religious terms, portraying it not only as a security or territorial matter but also as a religious conflict. This framing can bolster domestic support and legitimise military actions internationally. Importantly, such portrayals may obscure the nationalist and colonial aspects of the conflict, which primarily revolve around issues of land, sovereignty, and national identity rather than religious differences. 

F.A. : Highlighting the religious aspects of the conflict can indeed shift focus away from core issues such as occupation, settlements, and the legal and human rights of Palestinians. It’s crucial to note that in actual fact the Palestinian Resistance and the Palestinian National Liberation Movement have historically been secular. Moreover, it is well documented that Israel has, in the past, facilitated and even encouraged the growth of Hamas at the expense of more moderate groups. This tactic was part of a broader strategy aimed at fragmenting and weakening Palestinian political unity by promoting more radical elements over those advocating for peaceful and diplomatic resolutions.

M.F. : Hamas’s charter calls for an Islamic state in historic Palestine and the destruction of Israel. More recently, however, the organisation has shown some openness to a two-state solution as an interim measure, although its core objectives and long-term goals have not fundamentally changed. While it has engaged in political activities that include governance in the Gaza Strip, its Islamist roots and objectives, which include the application of Sharia law, remain integral to its identity and operations.

F.A. : The problem is that the focus on extreme aspects can intensify during periods of heightened conflict or when rallying support among its base, which is predominantly Muslim and may respond to religious calls to action. Yet, the overarching goal of the majority of Palestinians remains politically oriented—focused on territorial disputes and the rights of Palestinians. 

M.F. : You have been accused by your detractors of being close to Hamas. 

F.A. : This is false. Without further ado, the ideology of Hamas frightens me, as does any religious or ethnocentric ideology that evolves into a political belief.

M.F. : The Tagesspiegel is just one of the many German newspapers that have attacked you. They often accuse you of justifying Hamas’s attacks. 

F.A. : I have unequivocally condemned the horrific and unprecedented acts of terror carried out by Hamas in Israel on October 7th. Nothing can justify the deliberate killing, wounding, or kidnapping of civilians or the firing of rockets at civilian targets.

M.F. : What does the International Right say about Hamas’ attacks?

F.A. : They are unequivocally war crimes. 

M.F. : In discussions about genocide, you have also been accused of “forgetting October 7th”. 

F.A. : This is also false. I do not forget the horrors of that day, nor do I see how it justifies the current situation. The violence of October 7th  does not excuse or rationalise the ongoing actions today, where Israel’s military actions over civilians blatantly disregard all rules of warfare. At this point, Israel has reneged on its international obligations to a degree that warrants a call for sanctions. 

M.F. : Meanwhile, the Gaza crisis has escalated into a significant global issue, highlighting deep-rooted disparities in Western values. 

F.A. : The situation is particularly glaring when contrasted with the Western response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, where the imposition of immediate and strict sanctions followed as a response to violations of international law. Such decisive measures starkly contrast the more lenient approach often taken with Israel, despite having international concerns of a similar degree. This discrepancy underscores a crisis of values in the West, suggesting a selective application of international norms and raising questions about consistency and fairness in global diplomacy. 

M.F. : You have also been targeted by various groups and individuals who have called for your dismissal from your role as UN Special Rapporteur, accusing you of being an antisemiteYou have also faced criticism and calls for your dismissal from your role as UN Special Rapporteur by various groups and individuals who have accused you of antisemitism.. Despite these challenges, you have received support from various Jewish organisations and scholars who recognise the value of your work in human rights and the need to separate criticism of Israel from antisemitism. You have been particularly criticised for using the term “Jewish lobby” in a 2014 Facebook post.

F.A. : That comment was aimed at criticising the influence of pro-Israel groups, which should have been more accurately described as “pro-Israel pressure groups” that include non-Jews. I have expressed regret for any offence caused by my imprecise language and have since distanced myself from those remarks, emphasising that my criticisms were never against Jews or Judaism but were focused on the actions of the Israeli state under specific contexts of military action and policy towards Palestinians.

M.F. : On April 25th, in response to comments made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, where he equated criticism of Israeli government policies with antisemitism amid escalating protests on university campuses, Bernie Sanders made the following statement: “No, Mr. Netanyahu, it is not antisemitic or pro-Hamas to point out that in a little over six months your extremist government has killed 34,000 Palestinians and wounded more than 77,000 – seventy per cent of whom are women and children— and has left more than one million people homeless – almost half the population. (…) Mr. Netanyahu, antisemitism is a vile and disgusting form of bigotry that has done unspeakable harm to many millions of people. But, please, do not insult the intelligence of the American people by attempting to distract us from the immoral and illegal war policies of your extremist and racist government.”

F.A. : The use of antisemitism as a tool to suppress criticism of Israel, particularly during times when accusations of genocide are levied against it, not only undermines genuine efforts to combat antisemitism but may also foster it among new generations who are horrified by the events in Gaza and may not have a deep understanding of historical Jewish suffering. Unlike earlier generations who experienced the shame of the Holocaust directly, newer generations lack this personal connection, raising concerns that they may become desensitised to the atrocities of the Holocaust. It is crucial that they maintain an understanding of this history to help prevent such horrors from happening again.

M.F. : Regarding today’s youth, you made a post expressing hope in the student movements that are protesting for Gaza worldwide. What are their requests? 

F.A. : These students are advocating for the suspension of agreements with Israel by universities that benefit from their funds and taxes and demanding more transparent teaching methods that challenge the standard Israeli narrative and also educate about the ongoing occupation and historical dismemberment of Palestine over the past 75 years. Additionally, they are fundamentally protesting for a ceasefire and demanding justice for acts they consider genocidal. While I acknowledge the possibility of agitators within these movements, the vocal majority, including many Jews, seems to me mature and well-informed. This gives me hope: they are demanding actions and changes that previous generations have perhaps ceased to pursue, taking personal risks in the process.

M.F. : You have stated: “Making Israel accountable for the violations of International Law is not only in the interest of Palestinians but also of the Israelis.” 

F.A. : Ending the domination of Israeli Jews over Palestinians would be a rehumanising act for both sides. No one can oppress and brutalise another without experiencing a loss of humanity themselves. 

M.F. : It’s crucial to remember here that not all Israelis support Benjamin Netanyahu. In the months preceding the war, thousands of people took to the streets in what were called democracy demonstrations to defend the democratic values of the country. In your book J’accuse, however, you provocatively place quotation marks next to the word “democracy” when mentioning these demonstrations. Why? 

F.A. : Full democracy as a system of values, also known as substantive democracy, is evident from equality in access to rights for everyone. In other words, the value of democracy is reflected in how minorities, typically more fragile and vulnerable, are treated. Therefore, if we take the substantive concept of democracy as a parameter, we can only come to one conclusion: Israel is a full democracy only for Jews.

Physical confinement, land confiscation, forced evictions, home demolitions, discriminatory law enforcement, and relentless violence with no means of protection—all these are underpinned by a “legal dualism” that forms the backbone of the system: martial law for Palestinians, who are discriminated against and harassed, and civil jurisdiction for settlers. These settlers can build wherever they please in the occupied Palestinian territory, while Palestinians aren’t allowed to do so anywhere.

M.F. : In this regard, a figure I found in your book J’accuse clearly shows the extent of this systemic injustice: Israel grants construction permits to less than 1% of Palestinian applicants. However, Palestinian homes are often demolished on the grounds that they were built “without a permit”. You described the occupied Palestinian territory as a “microcosm of abuses.”

F.A. : In the first seventeen months of my tenure, which preceded the violence of October 7th, I witnessed an alarming increase in the frequency and brutality of Israel’s military assaults, which resulted in the loss of nearly half a thousand (466) Palestinian lives, including ninety-six children, and sixty-one Israeli lives, including six children. Over nine thousand Palestinians have been arrested, some while farming, fishing in the polluted and now less fish-abundant waters of Gaza, or resisting the forced evictions by the Israeli military. Entire villages have been ethnically cleansed in the Jordan Valley and the southern hills of Hebron.

For nearly sixty years, Israel has kept millions of Palestinians under a military occupation that has deprived them of their most basic rights, confiscating land, segregating the population into autonomous areas divided by walls, conducting checkpoints that control four hundred kilometres of roads, demolishing about thirty thousand homes, along with schools and other civilian infrastructure, forcibly or bureaucratically displacing hundreds of thousands of people, killing and arresting children and adults – thirteen thousand children have been arbitrarily detained from the year 2000 to the present, seven hundred are arrested by military courts annually: the most common charge is throwing stones at tanks that invade refugee camps and villages thousands of times a year (9,000 times in 2022).

M.F. : What led you to become interested in the Palestinian issue? I know you studied law in Italy.

F.A. : Yes, I studied law and completed the internship to become a lawyer, though I did it reluctantly and never practised as one. My interest in Palestine grew steadily over the years, but it was already familiar territory to me. I was born in 1977, and if you recall, Palestine was widely discussed in Italy when we were kids. There was almost bipartisan support for the rights of the Palestinian people, from Christian Democrats to Socialists. There was also a fascination with Israel, especially the myth of the state built through kibbutz expansion. While Israel’s statehood was never questioned, there was always a clear defence of Palestinian rights. So, for me, it was a known and familiar topic. I was deeply involved in social issues and studied politics during my university years. The Palestinian issue was highly relevant, especially during the second intifada, Ocalan’s arrest, and the issues facing the Palestinian and Kurdish people. That’s when I began to understand the right to self-determination, albeit vaguely. I read extensively, so I had a basic understanding, but the turning point was my master’s at SOAS.

M.F. : What is SOAS? 

F.A. : It’s the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. There, I studied critical approaches to law, TWAIL (Third World Approaches to International Law), colonialism, and imperialism. I focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and realised it was fundamentally about law and denied rights, not just politics or activism. This was a turning point for me. I continued my work with the United Nations, where I had already spent two years before my master’s, and remained dedicated to human rights. I had a persistent desire to understand and address the Palestinian issue using legal tools. Then, from 2014 to 2019, I worked in Palestine as a legal adviser for UNRWA. Those years made me feel completely useless in Palestine. I could have used my skills elsewhere, but I didn’t want to. I left Palestine completely traumatised. I wasn’t ready… I didn’t have the immunity to tolerate that system of institutionalised, multifaceted injustice. 

M.F. : And then what happened? 

F.A. : After that, mMy colleague Lek Tachenberg, with whom I later co-authored a book on Palestinian refugees in international law, had been urging me since 2012: “Why don’t you want to write a new book on Palestinian refugees with me?” I kept telling him, “No, because right now I have such a strong aversion to that system and the United Nations that I just can’t do it.” He insisted so much that finally, after two years, I agreed. This brought about a journey of intense studying, leading to a deep and comprehensive understanding of the subject from legal, political, and historical perspectives, adding to what I already knew.

Since then, I have worked with a Jordanian non-governmental organisation to create the “Question of Palestine” program. We established a centre in the Middle East dedicated to discussions about Palestine, known as the Global Network on the Question of Palestine. This initiative has now become an active movement involving people and intellectuals from various walks of life. This is what I was doing when I was invited to apply for the role of Special Rapporteur, and the rest is history.

M.F. : If we were to envision a future scenario of peace, what do you think it would look like? 

F.A. : The key point is to end the apartheid system, that idea of supremacism that supports Israel. Some people cannot imagine Israel, the existence of Israel, except as a falsely democratic state, a democratic state only for Jews, because Palestinians are second-class citizens. So, I think it is essential to eradicate this, and it will take a long time.

M.F. : What kind of Palestinian leadership do you imagine?

F.A. : There is no Palestinian leadership because it has been undermined. The violation of the right to self-determination manifested itself primarily in this way by stifling political processes, conditioning them, hindering them, and restraining them. Everything must be rebuilt, but there is a significant movement, especially among young people and highly committed intellectuals. They demand unity of the people, unity of the land, unity in resistance. And it is not armed resistance; it is resistance for rights. This is something that needs to be understood in the West. We must also stop giving value to words according to our own categories. We need to listen, really listen, to what words this subjugated group of people are speaking. Clearly, I will never support violence against anyone. However, the law recognises the right to self-determination as the right of every person to exist freely, politically, economically, and culturally. This must also be allowed for the Palestinians. The form of the state, whether one, two, or ten states, does not matter; what matters is that they are as free as the Israelis are. 

Published in Dust Magazine Issue 25, June 2024