If This Is Not Genocide, What Is?
JVL Introduction
Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine was recently in London, speaking at several venues. There were objections to her speaking at an attempt to “Ban Fran” by the self named “Campaign Against Antisemitism” which regards almost any criticism of Israel and any support for Palestinian rights as antisemitic. The protest was present when the interviewer went to hear her speak. This interview and its introduction outlines the important issues very clearly as they “discussed the Gaza genocide, Israeli settler colonialism, the rights and obligations of peoples and states under international law, and challenges encountered in the course of her mandate as UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories.”
LL
This article was originally published by Tribune on Wed 13 Nov 2024. Read the original here.
If this is not genocide, what is? An interview with Francesca Albanese
UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese speaks to Tribune about Israel’s genocide as a form of ‘colonial erasure’ — and why the Palestinian cause is a symbol of resistance against all forms of exploitation.
Since the onset of Israel’s exterminationist war on the people of Gaza thirteen months ago, Francesca Albanese, United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, has acquired international renown as a public chronicler, legal anatomist, and political opponent of genocide. Appointed to the role in May 2022 — the month Israeli forces assassinated Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in Jenin — the Campagna-born international human rights lawyer has produced a succession of official reports detailing Tel Aviv’s apartheid regime, its renovation of the West Bank into a ‘constantly surveilled open-air panopticon’ crisscrossed by colonial settlements, and, since last October, its crimes of genocide against the Palestinians.
Spearheading the urgent demand within international fora for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, and for the mobilisation of all forms of global pressure upon the Israeli state, Albanese’s heightened profile has naturally seen her subjected to the same rote defamation campaigns familiar to all supporters of Palestinian liberation in Britain. Now, in the face of recent pleas from Israel advocacy organisations to bar her from western college campuses, the Special Rapporteur has undertaken a speaking tour of London universities, addressing Israel’s present genocide and the role (and limits) of international human rights law in resisting it. Coming as the IDF’s so-called Generals’ Plan to ethnically cleanse northern Gaza proceeds, and as more Palestinian and Lebanese children join the thousands upon thousands slaughtered, it was recognised by all attending Albanese’s Monday night address at SOAS that the hour could not be graver.
Approaching the campus off Russell Square, I initially found my path through the SOAS gates blocked by a microcosmic standoff: pro-Zionist demonstrators — brandishing Union and Israeli flags and posters reading ‘BAN FRAN’ and chanting ‘I-I-IDF!’ — flanked by police, and between them and the university, a considerably larger, louder, younger, and more diverse pro-Palestinian cohort, most among them students. With cheers and drumbeats rising as she greeted the assembled crowd, Albanese’s celebrity reception dramatised the resonance felt by the pro-Palestine campaigners between her international stand for the people of Gaza in the face of personal attack and their own activism in the face of disciplinary repression at SOAS.
Dr Michelle Staggs Kelsall, co-director at the institution’s Centre for Human Rights Law, opened proceedings once the vastly oversubscribed event finally got underway with the statement that: ‘We stand in solidarity with Francesca Albanese against attempts to silence her powerful and courageous voice.’ Herself a SOAS human rights law graduate, Albanese’s legal expertise was favourably contrasted by her former lecturer, Professor Lynn Welchmann, with that of another alumnus of that school, David Lammy, following the Foreign Secretary’s recent claim in Parliament that the use of ‘genocide’ to describe what the Israelis have prosecuted in Gaza ‘undermines the seriousness of that term.’ Her relentless activity in support of Palestine and against genocide at the UN praised as ‘valiant’, Albanese entered to a standing ovation to deliver her lecture, ‘Imperialism, Colonialism, and Human Rights: The Litmus Test of Palestine’
In lieu of a summary of the lecture, it’s worth quoting Albanese’s opening description of the topography of the Gaza genocide up to November 2024 in full:
‘Allow me to put the situation of the Palestinian people, as it is now, squarely in our minds. In Gaza, for 401 days, we have watched Israel’s constant bombing, fire, and artillery fire continue to spare nothing and no-one. Warfare has shown its most ruthless face. Large-scale indiscriminate bombing; the use of artificial-intelligence selected-targeting systems; the persistent surveilling of unmanned drones overhead; automatic snipers firing at people as they shop at markets, collect water, seek medical help, or even as they sleep in tents; soldiers bunkered down in tanks attacking unarmed civilians. Burned alive; left to die agonisingly slow deaths under the rubble; whole generations of families, crowded in homes that are bombed and razed in a single instant; hospitals and refugee camps now turned into cemeteries, full of journalists, students, doctors, nurses, persons with disabilities, that once inhabited these now-decimated lands.’
After an initial meeting at a crowded reception in SOAS’s Paul Webley Wing following the lecture, Tribune arranged to meet with Albanese the next day at an Afghan restaurant in Mile End. Surrounded by roads sporting lampposts festooned with Palestinian flags, we discussed the Gaza genocide, Israeli settler colonialism, the rights and obligations of peoples and states under international law, and challenges encountered in the course of her mandate as UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
OD
Thank you so much for speaking with Tribune. I’ve been reading through your UN reports ‘Anatomy of a Genocide’ (March 2024) and, more recently, ‘Genocide as Colonial Erasure’ (October 2024), and of course attended your lecture in SOAS last night where you explained that you insist on the genocide framing because ‘The destruction which we see in Palestine is exactly and precisely what settler colonialism does. This is what a settler-colonial genocide is.’
Could you elaborate the argument that you’ve been advancing, in terms of the discourse of international law, regarding the respects in which the ongoing genocide in Palestine can be conceived as a settler-colonial venture?
FA
First of all, what constitutes genocide is not defined by personal opinions or personal stories or by comparison with what has happened in the past, although the past has a lot to tell us about what a genocide looks like. What constitutes genocide from a legal point of view is established by Article Two of the Genocide Convention. It consists of a series of acts which are criminal in and of themselves, like acts of killing, acts of infliction of severe bodily or mental pain, the creation of conditions of life leading to the destruction of a group, the forced transfer of children, the prevention of births. These are acts of genocide recognised by the Genocide Convention.
In order to have genocide, the critical element is the intent to destroy a group — in whole or in part — through even one of these acts. You could have, like happened in Australia or Canada, genocide implemented primarily, even though not only, through the transfer of children, so without killing. So, here’s the first issue, that a number of people dispute that the label ‘genocide’ can be affixed to what Israel is doing because Israel has only killed 45,000 people, as if it was normal, while it has destroyed the entirety of Gaza.
Some people see the brutality of this and still defend it as ‘self-defence’. The point is that this extreme destruction, this violation of basic rules to protect civilians and civilian premises and civilian life in international law, has been completely levelled by the Israeli logic that everyone was killable, either as a terrorist or a human shield or as collateral damage, and everything was destroyable. And this is why, 402 days later, we have a Gaza that is no longer liveable. Gaza is destroyed. If this is not an ostentatious genocide, what else is it?
We also need to understand the context in which this genocide is taking place. This is why I wrote the latter report [‘Genocide as Colonial Erasure’]. The acts of killing, rendering life impossible, forcibly displacing the Palestinians while bombing them north to south, west to east, forcing them to live in the most inhospitable places in Gaza after having destroyed everything that could allow them to access livelihood, after depriving them of water, food, medicine, fuel for over one year — one year! — and also arbitrarily arresting, depriving of liberty, torturing, raping, thousands of Palestinians. Do we see the reality?
And the thing is that this didn’t start just one year ago. The Palestinians have been oppressed, repressed, mistreated, made the object of abuse, indignities, humiliation, and egregious violations of international law for decades. Israel does so in the pursuit of the realisation of a ‘Greater Israel’, a place for Jewish sovereignty only between the river and the sea. This is why I say that this is a genocide that is being conducted not just because of ideological hatred transformed into a political doctrine, as has happened through the dehumanisation of ‘the other’ in other genocides; this genocide has been committed because of the land, for the land. Israel wants the land without the Palestinians. And for the Palestinians, staying on the land is part of who they are as a people. This is why I call it genocide as colonial erasure.
OD
In your report, you have observed, noting that International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings have also found, that under international law, the Israeli occupation is in and of itself deemed to constitute an act of aggression, which you’ve written thereby ‘vitiates’ any claim Israel may make to a sovereign state’s right of self-defence. Could you explain again, in terms of international law, what the fact that the occupation is itself deemed an act of aggression means for Israel’s oft-claimed ‘right to defend itself’, and, therefore, also for the Palestinians as a people’s right of armed resistance, in principle?
FA
The International Court of Justice has established what serious legal experts, scholars, and others have said for decades. Israel maintains an unlawful occupation in the occupied Palestinian territories, namely Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. It prevents Palestinians from realising their self-determination, meaning their right to exist as a people. It is tantamount to racial segregation and apartheid because it translates into and allows a continuous annexation of Palestinian land for the benefit of Jewish Israeli citizens only. This is why [per the ICJ’s ruling] the occupation must be dismantled totally and unequivocally and unconditionally before September 2025. So this means that the troops have to go, that the settlements have to be dismantled, that those Israeli citizens have to be returned to Israel unless they want to stay as Palestinian citizens. But the land is to be returned to the Palestinians. The resources cannot continue to be exploited by Israel. This is very clear, and this is the only way to secure a way forward. This is also, in my view, the beginning of the end, the real, concrete beginning of the end of Israel’s apartheid in the occupied Palestinian territory and beyond.
Because Israel maintains an occupation that translates into the oppression of the Palestinian people, Israel faces threats to its security emanating from the occupied Palestinian territories. But these are consequential from the oppression that Israel imposes upon those territories. And the only way to extinguish that security threat is to end the occupation. Israel has the right to defend itself within its territory from attacks upon its territory from other states. This is what would give Israel the right to use military force and to wage a war against another ‘country’. But the point is that Israel is attacking the people it has maintained under occupation. And violations of the right of self-determination [of the Palestinians] lead to resistance. The right to resist is to a people is what the right to self-defence is to a state, so there is an intimate conflict and conflation between two clashing interests. However, international law is clearly on the side of Palestinian self-determination. The right to resist, of course, has limitations. It cannot target civilians through killing and taking hostages. But what follows suit is that there should be justice, investigation, and prosecution over such acts, not a war of annihilation.
OD
Turning to the UK context, at the very start of the genocide in Gaza, Keir Starmer, then Leader of the Opposition, infamously signalled his support for, in his words, Israel’s ‘right’ to cut off water and energy into the Gaza Strip. And now, as Prime Minister, he and his Foreign Secretary David Lammy, who have both previously stood on pro-Palestinian platforms, have denied the claims of genocide, Lammy arguing that to use that claim undermines the gravity of the term historically. At the same time, they have characterised their government as one which maintains a ‘profound respect for international law.’ In what respect does Britain’s stance that what is happening in Israel is not a genocide, and indeed, its continued supply of arms and other supportive materiel to the Israeli state, figure with its claims to be adhering to international law?
FA
Well, first of all, let me tell you that I don’t think that one can call himself or herself a human rights lawyer if they don’t stand for human rights without political or ideological considerations. Saying that starvation is acceptable is simply betraying what international law stands for, which is ultimately the protection of civilians in situations of armed conflict, hostilities, crisis, etc. Here you have a foreign secretary who is denying that a genocide is ongoing, even where the International Court of Justice has recognised it. He needs to explain how he disqualifies that. But in any case, we will hear, I think, excuses. History will judge these people who have not done anything in their power to prevent atrocities. Meanwhile, in doing so, the UK is violating its obligations under international law not to aid and assist a state which is committing international wrongdoings. This is where we are. There are responsibilities; there might be complicity. This is why I encourage strategic litigation in this country to hold people accountable, but also to make sure — and this is the power of the people — to make sure that its elected leaders do not drag this country and its taxpayers into funding a war of annihilation.
Stephen Kapos, a Holocaust survivor who always stands i solidarity with Palestinians with Francesca Albanese, London, 11 Nov 2024
OD
As noted last night, you were trained at SOAS (as well as other institutions) as an international human rights lawyer. Discussed in the Q&A session after your lecture were differing perspectives on the utility or viability or credibility of international law and the institutions of the postwar international order as means to restrain acts of aggression and crimes against humanity, when at the same time, we can perceive and understand embedded imperialist legacies and power-structural realities within these.
Tribune is a long-standing socialist and internationalist publication that backed the anti-apartheid movement to help liberate South Africa from its very outset. How can activists approaching questions of global politics from that sort of perspective relate to the arguments in defence of engaging with the discourse and framework of international law and existing international institutions to try and help secure Palestinian self-determination while also maintaining that critical anti-colonial perspective on those institutions?
FA
We need to see the problem within our systems, which may seem to be on the periphery of international relations, but are still the centres of the Empire: a system that can control other people’s land, other people’s will, other people’s resources, and make their lives miserable. This is no longer happening only to the Global South; it is also happening to many of us in the Global North. It’s time to see that in the fragility and precariousness of many categories of people, from workers to the elderly, people with disabilities, LGBT people, and migrants. Human rights like freedom of expression and freedom of speech, as well as the right to be remunerated adequately, or the right to have adequate housing and healthcare: these are things that are becoming more and more violated, including in the Global North, and cannot be disconnected from the violations that people in the Global South suffer at the hands of a system which is very much Western-led. Palestine epitomises this system, the struggle of indigenous people, the struggle of victims of the enduring legacy of colonialism, including discrimination against refugees and migrants from the Global South, the struggle for environmental justice. This is why the struggle of Palestine is becoming a symbol of resistance across the world for many who want just to live in a more equal, fair, and non-discriminatory order.
OD
You recently called for the reformation of the old UN Special Committee against Apartheid. How do you see the role of the United Nations and UN-related institutions during the international anti-apartheid movement over South Africa as having a practical significance for the movement in international solidarity with Palestine today?
FA
I think that the United Nations played a role gradually, in the sense that there was debate brought about primarily by states in the Global South to abolish apartheid, but it was largely a reflex of the turmoil that was enveloping the world. The international anti-apartheid movement was a grassroots one, which was originated in this part of the world — in Britain and Ireland — but also soon became rooted in other parts of the West in order to resist through the economic disempowerment of the apartheid regime and help the South Africans liberate themselves from that repressive form of state. This shows that today, like in the past, what is needed is global action, global action in the new revitalised grassroots movement that exists. There is BDS, and there have been students’ protests and students’ actions to reestablish the core of international law, the core principles of international law. It continues, but much more needs to be done. Holding businesses accountable, pushing trade unions into action, holding political leaders — and fellow citizens who have been fighting as part of Israel’s apartheid regime, whether as part of the business enterprise or as soldiers — accountable. It’s time to push for accountability at the domestic level and not just internationally.
OD
One last question, which is perhaps slightly more of a personal one: as UN Special Rapporteur, and especially since October 7, your international profile has expanded substantially, and you have been the target of considerable hostility, personal slanders, attempts at character assassination, etc. (including from Biden administration representatives), with pro-Israel advocacy groups opposing, for instance, your freedom to speak on university campuses. We saw some demonstrators outside SOAS last night, chanting ‘BAN FRAN’ as well as ‘I-I-IDF’. What has been your experience of this opposition, and how have you felt this has impinged upon your mandate as a UN special rapporteur? Do you have a response to those people who would attempt to shut you down?
FA
First of all, let me qualify the protests because people who were not there but read your article might get the wrong impression. There were about ten individuals shouting, with more flags than feet on the ground. They were not a real protest. They were nuisances. A tiny, tiny nuisances. But, I mean, it’s fair. Let them come. Let them cry out, ‘BAN FRAN’, while people are being slaughtered, with 17,000 children killed. Let them do whatever they like. Frankly, I don’t think this is important. I don’t think this is relevant. Also irrelevant is the fact that governments who are complicit with genocide attack me instead of dealing with their unmet legal obligations. I don’t want to entertain discussions concerning how insane these attacks are. They’re just yet another manifestation of how fierce the repression of Palestine, Palestinian identity, and Palestinian resistance to exist is, especially in Western societies.
Special thanks are due to Teresa Rasella, without whom this interview would not have been possible.About the Author
Francesca Albanese is international lawyer and academic and the United Nations’ special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.
About the interviewer
Owen Dowling is a historian and archival researcher at Tribune
