The Rest Is Politics: Leading - 126. Israel, Gaza, and the United Nations (Francesca Albanese)

Episode Date: March 24, 2025

What role does the UN play in the Occupied Palestinian territories? What is the responsibility of Western media when it comes to covering issues surrounding Israel and Palestine? How did Francesca Albanese’s Southern Italian heritage inform her passion for fighting injustice?  Rory and Alastair are joined by Francesca Albanese, the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, to discuss all this and more.  TRIP Plus: Become a member of The Rest Is Politics Plus to support the podcast, receive our exclusive newsletter, enjoy ad-free listening to both TRIP and Leading, benefit from discount book prices on titles mentioned on the pod, join our Discord chatroom, and receive early access to live show tickets and Question Time episodes. Just head to therestispolitics.com to sign up, or start a free trial today on Apple Podcasts: apple.co/therestispolitics. Instagram: @restispolitics  Twitter: @RestIsPolitics  Email: [e-mail] Video Editor: Josh Smith  Assistant Producer: Alice Horrell Social Producer: Jess Kidson Producer: Nicole Maslen Senior Producer: Dom Johnson Head of Content: Tom Whiter Exec Producers: Tony Pastor + Jack Davenport Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Thanks for listening to The Restis Politics. Sign up to the Restis Politics Plus. To enjoy ad-free listening, receive a weekly newsletter, join our members chat room and gain early access to live show tickets. Just go to therestispolities.com. That's the restispolics.com. Hello and welcome to the Restis Politics Leading with me, Rory Stewart. And with me, Alistair Campbell. In this episode, we interview Francesca Albanese, who is the United Nations Special Rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territories. This takes us right. into the heart of the issue of Gaza. On October the 7th, Hamas mounted a horrifying terrorist attack with atrocities which many Israelis have seen and of which has had a deep traumatic impact on a whole nation. Hostages were taken, these include women and children, and some of those hostages have subsequently been killed, including children.

The Israeli response then led to the bombardment of Gaza, in which tens of thousands of people, maybe 50,000, maybe more have been killed, including, again, many, many women and children, a bombardment that is still going on at the moment at which we're recording this episode. And in the middle of all of this are issues of international law, because, the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice has prepared cases against the Israeli government on the grounds of breaking international law, issues of genocide, issues of war crimes. On the Israeli side, issues of the self-defense of Israel and its right to exist, the argument from the Israeli government that they are conducting counter-terrorist operations and that the West is applying double standards and allegations of critics being anti-Semitic.

And in the middle of all of this, Francesca Albanese. Now, Francesca is one of many people that we've interviewed so far on this, and we would encourage you to listen to all of them. We've interviewed Uzi Arad, a former national security adviser and senior Mossad official in the Israeli government. We've interviewed Ehud Olmert, the previous Israeli prime minister. We've interviewed Yuval Noah Harari, an Israeli intellectual.

We've interviewed the Palestinian ambassador in London. We've interviewed people who are internationals focusing on peace and resolution between Israel and Palestine. Francesca is a very, very polarizing figure. For many people, she is a great hero. Her speeches at the General Assembly and at the Security Council went viral

in which she has challenged and spoken out very, very clearly against what she sees as Israel's crimes. From others, she is perceived and has been accused by the Israeli government of being anti-Semitic and has been denied access to Israel on the occupied Palestinian territories. Very much encourage you to listen and encourage you to understand that we continue to interview people from all sides of this debate. We have an outstanding request out to interview the Israeli Prime Minister, for example, Benjamin Netanyahu. So, listen, I think it's a passionate, deeply felt interview that will inspire many listeners and appall others.

Here it goes. So why don't we start with the childhood? Where you came from, your family, your Italian roots, and how they led you to where you know of? I grew up in a relatively small town in south of Italy where nothing special happens. No one really leaves. No one moves in. And I've always had this curiosity for the world. This is one. The second I grew up in a country where certain issues in the 80s were discussed as domestic issues, where international law did matter. It was in the background, but it was the framework to refer and analyze facts happening internationally, like the question of Palestine or the relationship between Europe and Africa. So this is a little bit with us shaped.

My childhood, I would say, I grew up in a family where my mom was staying at home, and she was a fantastic, formidable woman. And my dad was a lawyer passed away when I was adolescent. And then I studied law and I was very passionate about justice. This is the thing. I've always had this feeling of standing up for not just for myself, but for others. This has been a trait of who I am. And then human rights came really as a call rather than as a training. Everything changed, I believe.

while I had the understanding of the question of Palestine, it's never being an issue I've engaged with as an activist. As I went to university, though, what I knew about Palestine, which was, as I said, something that comes from growing up in Italy where Palestine and the rights of the Palestinians to exist as a people was a domestic issue. It was. Yeah. Very much so. And it was understood as something that would never be at the detriment of the state of Israel or the Israeli people. There was never the terms of the debate, the sort of the overturn window back then was not, the Palestinians were not an existential threat to Israel. This is the background as I was growing up and then I went to SOAS.

Francesca, can I come in? So let's stick on your background before you get onto the Palestinians because this is so much your life now, but presumably it was not always your life. Setting aside your current role, tell us about you as a young. person. Tell us about the Italy in which you were growing up. Tell us about the university you went to. Tell us about when did you first go abroad. Which countries did you first travel to? Which countries were you first interested in? Look, my, I think, I don't know if it's my generation or people from the part of the world, southern Italy, where I come from. We're not quite

like the millennials right now who are open to the world naturally. There was no internet back then. and what we knew about the world that came through TV, radio programs and books. Learning knowledge was being shared at a much slower pace if you want. So I grew up like any child, I would say, and any adolescent in south of Italy, nothing special. I was not expecting to do anything spectacular in my life, but I had this strong sense of, again,

As I said, it might seem like an ideological statement, but it's not. I've always been deeply intolerant to injustice. And let me frame it with something that you might relate to. I grew up in South of Italy that it's been plagued by criminality, mafia. I think that when I was adolescent, two important judges who had been really at the forefront of the fight against the mafia like Giovanni Falkone and Borselino are killed. And this has marked so deeply my sense of justice as something that eventually it becomes a fight and a struggle that is taken up by the people. Because eventually after Falcone and Brusilino had the nuns for a long time that the mafia was not just a criminal endeavor committed by street thugs or ordinary criminals.

It was a state within the state that could only thrive because of commonality and interoperative. sectionality of interest between the power, the politics and the financial economic system. And they had exposed this and they had been isolated, silence, smeared. Eventually they were killed. This is when the message of people like Falcone and Borsellino, trust me, so many people, journalists, police officers, ordinary individuals, ordinary citizens have been killed by a mafia. the message that Falcone and Borselino left is that the mafia thrives with our silence was picked up by the people and in Sicily in particular there was a movement against this

omertat, this they are silencing us all and it has been very successful so I think that this is very much part of my upbringing and there is another thing another thing as I grew up it was not necessarily intentional I believe but I'm the generation was first exposed to what had happened during the Holocaust. And my upbringing is marked, for example, by Jewish Italian authors like Primo Levi. Primo Levies is part of the first authorship I had the privilege to delve into. And so it has very much shaped the way I look at the world, this view that the extermination of a people can happen in the heart of civilized Europe, of civilized Italy simply because you are no longer seen as human and you can be taken away from your

professions, from your home, from your life and put in ghettos and starved and be killed with diseases before being put in concentration camps. This is something that has been there in the background and frankly I can tell you I've rediscovered it over the past over the past years because it's really about what humanity is. So I have to say, Rory, you're pushing me into something that I've never really thought about or spoken about, but it's real. Probably it's important also to remind who we are, where we come from, right? What would you say about Italy today in relation to that image of Italy that you've just given, the organised crime connections and so forth? And also what sort of lasting influence do you think the Italian politician with whom I

had most to do with, Silvio Berlusconi. What lasting impact does he have on Italian politics and culture. This is a very good point because, you know, we have had a transition. I don't know how much your audience is familiar with the Italian political landscape. But during the 90s and again, this was a, when I was a first adolescent, a young adolescent, this is the time where we have had a political transition that we call the end of the first republic and the beginning of the second republic, which is marked by 20 years of Berlusconis and the Influencers had. And I understand who you are pointing to this because in a way there has been

a political transition but not necessarily for the betterment. So in this proof what has happened in Italy at that point where the transition was prompted by the need to deal with corruption. The politicians which were, I mean frankly

they were intellectually much more mature and knowledgeable than any politician you would have today and I assume what I'm saying but we're intellectuals in their own domain and still they didn't have clean hands when it came to politics. There were issues with misappropriation of public funds, etc. So the Italian public, there was this big inquiry, this big massive investigation, which was clean hands, manipulete led by a pool of judges in Milan

that led to a political transition. And this is when there was a moment where I think in retrospect, like 30 years later, we were not ready as a people politically. to come in with an alternative. So people from the old establishment regenerated themselves, proposed themselves as the change, as the novelty, but they were just people who were recycling themselves.

And Berlusconi is one of those, and he has used the power of the media to reshape the mind. And this is, in a way, Karl Popper's for power, if you want. And now we have a much more complicated situation because it's very difficult. We don't have free media anymore. It's very difficult to have an informed debate. And also there is a general lack of preparedness about international affairs

compared to before. So for example, for the new generation, what they know about Congo, about Sudan, about what's happening in Serbia, for example, or Palestine comes from social media. because it's not, what I'm talking about is not necessarily discussing mainstream media. So now there is this disconnect between the mainstream media which speak to the older generation, my age and above. And the younger generation grows through other means. And we are still trying to make sense of where we are going as a society. I don't think that this is applicable to Italy only. Francesca, let's now apply this to Palestine.

and Israel. Let's start with the social media. What have you observed about the way that Arabs and Palestinians receive their news and the way that Israelis receive their news and what social media means and contributes to the way that this conflict is understood and proceeds? Rory, I'm not a media or communication expert by all means, but I can tell you that through my experience, I have the impression that we live in a landscape made of Ichamberchamber. when it comes to social media, what we read and what we feed into, I speak as someone who has a public platform and voice, it's very much determined by algorithms. And as I say algorithm, I talk of something that I imagine as a device that redirect filters or adjust according to certain things that are determined not by me or by those who listen to me.

if you see what I mean. So I sometimes have the feeling that while in the social media, we are in the open air, at the same time they are prescribed paths. And it's very difficult. It's not a democratic space. So yes, there is a way to open up for communication channels that do not exist in the traditional media landscape. And I can give you specific examples of this. But at the same time, I have the feeling that we still speak to into an echo chamber.

And, Francesca, you became a really extraordinary sort of social media star, which must be strange. I mean, it presumably was not the case for previous UN Special Reporters. I mean, your statements in New York, some of your statements elsewhere, have been seen by tens of millions of people. They've been incredible sort of events. How does that feel? How does that differ? What does this suggest about you, about the new world, about the United Nations? It's all very strange, I have to say.

And it's not a social media animal. I mean, I opened my Twitter account, which is the main platform, my views, because also Instagram is a replica of what I say on Twitter. Twitter is what I handle 100%. And then I copy-based, basically. It's very, very artisanal homemade, if you see what I mean. Also, just for the benefit of your audience, let me say, as a special rapporteur, because I don't want to assume that everyone knows what a special rapporteur of the United Nations is.

I'm like an ambassador of the United Nations that has been asked to document and report violations of international law because I'm a lawyer and I mean I've published on the question of Palestine, primarily Palestinian refugees of force displacement for a long time. I've been working with the United Nations for a long time before getting to this. So now I'm not an official of the United Nations in stricto censor, in the sense. that the United Nations have asked me to serve pro bono to document and report violations of international law taking place in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the report to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly. So my main role, this is what I knew from the beginning, would be what my predecessors had done,

to speak to the General Assembly, to speak to the Human Rights Council, but also do investigate specific cases of violations. this is what my predecessors have done and what I do behind the scene there is a lot of day-to-day investigations and also undertaking other actions that I deem necessary within the scope of my mandate

and this is where the media comes in because I said how do we communicate what international law is and what the United Nations to the younger public and this is where I thought maybe social media

did you say you do it pro bono absolutely Absolutely. You do the whole thing pro bono? Yeah. Are all UN rapporteurs pro bono? I didn't know that. Did you know that, Roy? Yeah. I didn't know that. No, I'm, because you're having quite a tough time. I mean, you're being endlessly abused. Also, you've become very famous. But this is a job for which you're not paid. No, no, it's not paid. It's not paid. And the thing is then, well, the first year I kept my job. Until October 20, 23, I mean, my main job was to be an advisor on. migration and refugee issues in the Arab world for an Arab think tank that I've been working

with for a number of years. And now this is suspended, so I'm on extended sabbatical, and I would like to go back to that at some point. And also, I was teaching in universities. I've been lecturing and being part of the teaching body of a number of universities on the question of Palestine. But the United Nations don't pay your penalty? Absolutely not. No, but this is not the only question. The question is that other special rapporteurs, those who deal, for example, or with the right of food, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly. So those who do not have a country mandate, those who look at human rights as thematic issues, can fundraise.

While country, particularly this mandate, cannot, because it would be seen as a breach of independence. And therefore, and therefore I work as a volunteer and through a network of volunteers. When you use the word ambassador, do you see yourself as an ambassador as it were, to the occupied territories or an ambassador for the occupied territories? And has that changed during the time you've been doing the job? Yeah. I said ambassador because in order to give a sense of what the diplomatic status that I have carries is the status. So when I come,

I have a rank, I guess it's comparable to that of an ambassador. So when I come to a country, I mean, I have an institutional mandate. So normally when I go to a country, I'm received by the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Deputy Foreign Minister, as it's in Ireland, often the President. And it depends. And there are countries like Brazil, Chile and Colombia. Now I'm discussing with governments to go to their countries, which is pretty unusual for a country mandate.

This is the first time that this mandate. So that's you being an ambassador for. I'm an ambassador on international law. This is how I see myself. It's about international law. But of course, it's on the facts and the legal qualification of the fact that take place in the occupied Palestinian territory. So it's not the ambassador of a country, of course,

but it's a voice of international law. And Francesco, when did you first visit Palestine, when did you first visit Israel? And when did you last visit Israel? When did you last visit Gaza, Palestine? So I was working for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which was the second UN agency I've worked for in my life. So I was with the United Nations Development Program in Morocco,

working on a regional program on North Africa between 2003 and 2005. Then I went to London. I completed my human rights legal master. And then I started working with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on a range of issues primarily national preventive mechanism, human rights institutions and the strengthening of national human rights mechanisms, including on the prevention of torture. So this is what I was doing.

And then there was the cast-led operation. The first war that Israel launched against Gaza, part of the occupied Palestinian territory, in 2008, 2009. And it was shocking. It's absolutely shocking. So I started cultivating a different interest in the question of Palestine back then. Because you know, when I was at SOAS, I understood that the question of Palestine was not just a political issue to discuss in terms of one state. Sorry, back then it was two states and negotiating peace in perpetuity. there was a huge question of injustice from a legal point of view. And as a lawyer, I felt really compelled and interested and engaged. So I've been reading a lot about that over the years.

But that was it. Then there was seriously cast-led operation. And this is when I heard John King, who was the director of Anwa in Gaza. I remember this man getting a canister and throwing out of a UN. And I think it was a parking slot. There was a gas station nearby. So this guy takes with his hands a canister, an unexhausted canister, and throw it away. And I was like, wow, the United Nations do that, really?

He's the head of UNRWA in Gaza. In Gaza, yeah. Oh, yeah. And then the other thing is that this is when I started following what ANRWA was doing. And it seemed to me light years ahead of anyone else. There was Chris Ghanes, the spokesperson of ours. Andra back then being so vocal about protection issues, which was everything I wanted to do in life. Work for the United Nations for me was impossible to disentangle from that protection functions.

Because for me, human rights are for the people. It's not for people to write books about or politicians to debate. It's really, in order to deal with human rights, you must have a people center approach. So I started to be interested in this organization. point, a position came up in the Department of Legal Affairs of this organization and it was dealing with protection issues. So it seemed perfect for me. So I applied for the job. And this is where I went the first time to Jerusalem because I was invited to have a job interview with the Department of Legal Affairs of this organization. And a few months later, I was hired.

And this is how we arrived to Palestine. And how would you assess? It was 2009. How would you assess today, 2025, your relationship with Israel and your relationship with the occupied territories? I know that's a big question, but just give me a feeling for what you think about both today. Now I have the words to describe what made me extremely uncomfortable for three years living there. It was unbearable. It was the most psychologically excruciating work I've ever done. Because? Because of the apartheid.

And I didn't know how to describe it. Really, it made me feel psychologically unwell. I have never been unwell at work. I have an ability, and I'm trained for this. I have an ability to keep distance from my work. And sometimes it's tough, huh? These 16 months have been really tough because I've been interviewing victims and perpetrators

And I've been documenting and reporting on the most horrible violations of international law I could have ever come across. I mean, I'm never expected to become a chronicler of genocide, as I say. But still, when I was there, I felt psychologically unwelled. After six months, I was there. I was talking to a friend of mine and say, oh, my God, I wanted so much to get this job. But I feel depressed. What is it? What is this heavy energy?

And you know, also, I have to give you two elements. So one was the personal space. So I was living in East Jerusalem. I was living in an area which was clearly part of the occupied territory. But you couldn't see, you couldn't see anything really belonging to the Palestinians. Actually, the Palestinians were being evacuated in the middle of the night or in daylight, were kicking out of their homes as I was going to work, as I was coming back from work. times the road was stopped by the police and there were mattresses and chairs and kids crying in the street in the alley near that I had to go through to go to my place. And then all of a sudden you would see like a few days after Israeli flags and the menoras appearing on the fragile roofs of the homes that belong to the Palestinians. I mean, I will never forget. It was May 2011. And in the middle of the night, all over the East Jerusalem, there were the settlers marching. I opened the window and I could see people dressed in, I mean, religious clothes. I mean, like praying.

And it was such a cognitive dissonance with what they were chanting. Because back then I had two visitors. Actually, there were no visitors who were people who had moved to Jerusalem. We had a little, not a big house, but we had the dead. a place where we could host colleagues who are coming and looking for a place that's neither nicer to be with colleagues rather than in a hotel. And this, who became a friend of mine, she said, they are saying, I was like, what are they chanting?

I say, death to the Arabs. It was 2011. Let's just keep on the personal for a second. So you found this profound, what you call cognitive dissidents and psychological pressure working in that environment. Give us, though, an insight into how you began to understand Israelis, Israeli points of view, Israeli friends, what you learned from spending time with them at that period. It was very difficult back then to have Israeli friends.

The desire to compartmentalized world. I remember I had medical issues for which I would go to a hospital. I had two very dear Israeli doctors accompanying me through the process. With one, the discussion was very open with the other. It was quite a style because the fact that I was working, look, and even sometimes in the waiting room, the Israelis would be so gentle and so kind, and especially when you meet women and say,

oh, where are you from? And they are from the US. And you start wondering, where does she live? Darshali, in Israel, so why is she in the hospital in Jerusalem? Is she from a settlement? And still, you try to say, okay, don't judge, don't judge, just listen. And then, yeah, they will ask you, so what do you do here? I work for the United Nations.

There was already a barrier starting to come, you know, becoming more apparent. And then I would say, which United Nations, what do you do? I deal with Palestinian refugees. Boom. End of it. Aha. Seriously, I never judged it. Because I don't think it was my role, but of course it made me realize that there was this deep divide like a membrane that I couldn't penetrate. So I have to say, you ask me about Israeli friends.

I have many more Israeli friends now that I've ever had after I became a special rapporteur. Before, no, I had probably about six Israeli friends back then, not many. So, Francesca, let me just develop this a little bit more because you're very, very known. as a great champion for the human rights of Palestinians and particular people in Gaza. And you've been under a lot of attack from people accusing you of being anti-Semitic. So I wanted to give you an opportunity to talk a little bit about your empathy for Israelis, your understanding of their position before, of course, we return to what you want to talk about also, which is your empathy for Palestinians and for Gaza.

Yeah, but let me say, let me say, because it's shocking. that today the word anti-Semitism is no longer what it was for me three years ago. I mean, I was sick in my stomach. Sick in my stomach the first time I was accused on the media. And all of a sudden it was all over social media for me. And being told you're an anti-Semite is so deep. It gets straight into my guts because, hey, first of all, for the record. Just, I mean, anti-Semitism is hatred.

discrimination against Jewish people because they're Jewish. Now, the criticism or the allegations of anti-Semitism against me have nothing to do with it. I'm accused to be an anti-Semite because I criticize Israel, not for what it is, but for what it does. I mean, I couldn't care less if Israel were ruled by Buddhists or Christians or Muslim or atheists as it was when Israel was created. It doesn't make any difference the religion of the people.

people who are in government is the fact that Israel acts against the law that is a problem for me. So the weaponization of anti-Semitism is extremely dangerous. Surely for the Palestinians and everyone stands in solidarity with them, but for the Israelis first and for most. And let me tell you two things, two things. When I was in university, I was at the forefront. I was the face, I was the public face of a struggle against the administration of the law faculty. because they wanted to put a commemorative plate to Giovanni Gentile, who was the Minister of Education at the time in Mussolini government, who signed the racial laws.

The laws which in 1935 banned Jewish people from many professions, so where this is the act, the legal act that literally kicked them out of civil life. This is the institutionalization of discrimination against them. So because of this, I said, we cannot have this. This is a shame. This is a stain on our university. And I don't want to be part of university that does that. So you see my sense of what did I have to do with it? I went up to talk to Eliottoaaf, was back then the chief of the Jewish community in Italy, the chief rabbi in Italy. And I said, we need your signature on this appeal because they want to do this and that.

And he said, look, I'm not going to sign anything because this is the past. But we won that battle. We won't have battle because me and others mobilized so many people. So this is just to tell you the past. Then when I'm told in 2022, look, because I knew that this would come to me as well because my predecessor, Michael Link, had been tormented, tormented with this accusation like anyone in the human rights community who dares criticizing Israel. And Michael Link's predecessor, Richard Falk, is a Jewish-American himself.

and he was condemned as a self-hating Jew for saying what I say. Because from John Dugard, Richard Volk, Michael Link and myself for 22 years, 23 years now, this mandate has said the same thing that Israel violates international law because it maintains an unlawful occupation. And now it's also said by the International Court of Justice, finally has everything changed in the political spectrum now that it's said that Israel maintains an unlawful occupation that must be dismantled totally. unconditionally, the military presence, the settlements, and the control of natural resources, the settlers shouldn't be there, and instead they are allowing to roam freely, tormenting

everyone in Palestine. So this is the context. So when I was told the first time, I saw that it was all over the news, and including in my own country, I saw my head of special rapporteur rolling down the hill and I said, that's okay, but I don't want my mom to read this, you know, that I'm an ante semai. So what shall I do? And this is where the Jewish scholars I had been engaging with, like Professor Ramos Goldberg or late Professor Alon Confino, who passed away recently, who said, Francesca, welcome to the world.

This is it. This is what we were talking about months ago. Because as soon as I became a mandate older, what did I do? What's the following? I said, in my speaking to the Human Rights Council saying I could be a, a special rapporteur, if you like. I said, I will engage constructively with Palestinians and Israelis and with Jewish community and Palestinian community in the diaspora. And before even becoming a special rapporteur, when it was in the air that I was among the nominees, I really had this

door-to-door policy to Israeli scholars like lawyers and the Israeli human rights organization and saying, my predecessors, I've not engaged with you proactively and you have not engaged with them. Can we change course of action? And I remember the head of Bethlehem back then, with whom I've developed a very good relationship, said, why would you be interested in doing that? Because we need bridges.

We need to unify people around the basic concept of humanity. We cannot keep on working in silos. We need as a human rights community to be able to break the science. It has always been difficult now. It's more difficult than before. But so there has been such a mobilization among Jewish people, Jewish organizations and Jewish scholarship against the weaponization of anti-Semitism that is formidable. When I became a special rapporteur, the IHRA, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, this definition that doesn't define anything other than create the ambiguity to confuse the criticism of the state of Israel

for what it does to the Palestinians and anti-Semitism. This had already been quite advanced, and 350 Jewish scholars had signed another declaration on anti-Semitism, the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, which, I mean, others criticize, but at least it says, criticizing the state of Israel for its policies and practices toward the Palestinians and is not anti-Semitic, because anti-Semitism is discrimination against Jewish people as Jews,

like discrimination against Muslim people as Muslim is Islamophobia, etc., etc. So these people had reached out to me to say, can you help us? Because there is this push to have the IHRA definition being approved by the UN, and we have tried to be part of the debate and we can't. So this is how I became friends with these people. And these are the people who have helped me understand that I should keep straight back and look straight ahead. what's the purpose of this mission, this human rights mission, so it's not about me.

They can keep on offending and insulting and vilifying as much as they want. But they will remain as an Israeli friend told me back then in one of my hands, they continue to do. They say Francesca treats them for what they are, dogs barking at an airplane. And here we are. But that, if I go back to my question, your relationship with Israel sounds like it's very, very difficult. and they will say, even based upon what you've just said, it'll play into that agenda that says

she's basically somebody who is against Israel. They will say that. You've had to live with that. Have there been any moments where you have said things because of the emotion that drives you and because of the passion you have for the work that you've thought afterwards, maybe that was over the top?

Has that ever happened to you? During my term, as a special rapporteur, not substantively but probably strategically yes but at the same time I mean it depends it depends on what the strategy is yes of course what is your strategy then my strategy is to remind the member states of their obligations under international law not to recognize as lawful the consequences of an illegal endeavour and not to aid and assist in any possible way how hard is that when Israel operates as it does and seems to have such unwavering support, particularly the United States? Yeah, I mean, I understand to an extent Israel, what I do not understand is the rest of the world.

And I'm unfair here, because the rest of the world is not a monolith. And there are member states who are clearly against it. And in this big realm, there are those who take a stand. There are a few, but they take a robust stand and measures and steps. And then there are the vassals. of the system that is represented by Israel and the United States. And it has never been as clear as that. So in retrospect, could I have been more diplomatic toward countries like Germany and France?

Probably yes, probably yes. But would have been able to reach any results? No, because they are in an obstinate and willful ignorance of the facts and the legal qualifications that as a mandate holder, I bring to the fore. And let me say, this is not new to me. It has nothing to do with who holds this mandate. Because Israel has never cooperated with anyone in this position. You think that it's me not being able to enter the occupied Palestinian territory?

Sorry, I didn't answer the question. Last time I went to Palestine because after leaving Palestine in the end of 2012, I've returned regularly for work and research. And the last time I went was in March 22, because an Israeli friend called me and he said, Francesca, you are on the nominees by the Human Rights Council. So if you want to visit Palestine last time, go now, because it will be impossible. And I said, no, no, that's not true.

But yeah, let me take this opportunity. And it was very telling, but this is another story. But Israel has banned special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory. from entering the occupied Palestinian territory, which is against the law, Israel doesn't have that power. Since 2008, Professor Richard Fork was arrested, detained and deported in 2008. So how do you work? How do you operate? Well, the fact that I've lived there and I've done so much work and research, including in the following years, allowed me to have something that, for example, some of my predecessors

didn't have living experience in the occupied Palestinian territory, which I knew fairly well. However, however, I can tell you, I was an expert on forced displacement of Palestinians. So I knew very well the history, the 100 years of deprivation, a violation of the right of self-determination of the Palestinians, because the Palestinians have this right even before it was codified as a universal right, and that's been violated. And I knew how Palestinians had been displaced, not just from. what is today Israel from the occupied Palestinian territory

and from the Arab region. I mean, the Palestinians that continue to be forcibly this place. I was not an expert on the occupied Palestinian territory. All what I know is something that comes from study and investigations. I mean, in 1,000 years, I can

promise, I had to really, like for many, many Westerners, I had to bang my head in the face of what is happening to understand that is genocide. Because in the beginning, in the beginning, I was among the special rapporteurs who would say, no, no, no, no, we cannot say that. We cannot say that. It's too much. And then one of my colleagues told me, if not even you, even you struggle, understanding what it is. And I had back then Israeli historian saying, why don't you speak out? You see what's happening. These are genocidal statements and it's an obligation to prevent genocide.

So the moment a genocidal statement is made, there is an immediate obligation. of states to react, to prevent genocide, and it took me weeks to get there. It really took me weeks. But then, of course, it took me months to investigate and understand. Okay, Francesca, Rory, quick break in them back in a minute.

Hey, this is Michael and Hannah from Gollhangers The Rest is Science. This episode is brought to you by Cancer Research UK. We often think of beating cancer as treatment, but imagine stopping it before it begins. After years of work, Cancer Research UK scientists are

launching a clinical trial of lung vax, the first vaccine designed to prevent lung cancer. It builds on TracerX, the world's largest cancer evolution study, which tracked lung cancer cells over many years to uncover the disease's earliest warning signs. Lung Vax is designed to train the immune system to spot these signs early on, destroying faulty cells before cancer develops. So it's not treatment, but preventative, with the potential, to stop lung cancer before it starts. The first stage of the trial starts this year,

focusing on people at higher risk. It shows what long-term research makes possible. For more information about Cancer Research UK, their research breakthroughs and how you can support them, visit cancerresearchuk.org forward slash the rest is science. Hi, everybody. It's Dominic Samarach here from The Rest is History. Now, some of you may have heard me on your show, the rest is politics when Rory was away and I was filling in and enjoying Alistair Campbell's

tremendous banter. And I'm back to tell you about our new series on The Restis History, which is all about Britain in the 1970s, a period with a lot of uncanny resemblances to our own. So right now we're living through a moment when oil shocks generated by war in the Middle East are rippling through the world economy, when Britain feels like it's sunk in a bit of a malaise. people are arguing about Europe, the government has got a few issues with the trade unions, and we have a kind of, I suppose you'd say governing elite, a kind of political class that is really struggling to come to terms with all of these issues, and people are asking if Britain is governable at all. So there are a lot of parallels between that Britain that I'm describing,

which is our Britain and the Britain of the mid-1970s. So in this series that's coming out on the rest is history, we'll be looking at these and other issues. We'll be talking about the rise of Margaret Thatcher, obviously a colossal figure in our political life even now, whether you love her or loathe her. We'll be talking about the very first Brexit referendum of 1975, a subject that I'm sure Rory and Alistair will have strong opinions about. We'll be talking about the fall of the Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson and we'll be talking about one of the grimest moments in Britain's economic history, the moment in 1976 when we had to go cap in hand, as people said at the time, to the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, for a then record bailout.

Now, if that sounds good to you, how could it not sound good to you? Of course it sounds good to you. We have a clip for you to listen to at the end of this episode. And if you want to hear more, just search for The Rest is History wherever you get your podcasts. So there is a big sea change happening in the attitude of Israel and the United States. United States and Gulf states towards Israeli operations. And you can see that there are many people in those places saying, oh, Israel was very successful against Hezbollah, much more successful than people thought.

It was very successful against Iran. Maybe we should be mounting bigger attacks against the Houthi. What is happening here? What's this new discourse, this new language which we're hearing, which is saying Israel has proved that if you're really a good, aggressive against these groups. They're much weaker than people think. We can make much more progress. We can make Israel's security better. I have to say that this question reassures me because when you said sea of change, I thought

you would take me to the silver lining, the very tiny and fragile silver lining out there, the possibility of changing the world around Israel and Palestine because of the global mobilization that is taking place. But no, no. I want to focus on what you say, the sea of change in the abandonment of that posture, that performative posture of believing in a peace process that can lead to the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state that has been eroded over 30 plus years of pretence of negotiation, but also what is very, very important for me as a lawyer, is that what has happened in the past 16 months

risks to be a nail in the coffin in a multilateral order premised upon respect of international law as a system of rules, as a system of mechanisms that are universally agreed upon and universally respected. Francesca, can I come in on this? So, yes, but we're in a world where the Trump administration, even inside the United States, is increasingly saying things which are rejecting international law, rejecting domestic law, challenging judges, supporting far-right groups in Germany,

apparently being more sympathetic to Vladimir Putin about the invasion of Ukraine, talking about turning Gaza into a riviera and expelling the population, the United States rejects rulings of the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice is defunding UNRWA. The U.S. ambassador is saying that there's no such thing as Palestine. This is just Judea and Samaria. So is the danger not now that increasingly this is an anachronism. You're talking about a world of the 1990s and the 2000s,

and now we've entered a new age, a new age where really actually the new rulers of the world don't care about international law. We have a say in Italian that, I mean, Latin in fact. History doesn't take lips. I mean, we didn't get here all of a sudden. It's not that Trump brought about a revolution. It's an evolution because I can tell you the dismantlement of the international law or the international multilateral order primates upon international law as I was as describing has been happening for decades. And it's the moment you do not respect the basic principles that you cannot declare war against another state either because you are being

attacked by the state or because there is an authorization of the use of force by the Security Council. These are the only circumstances, the Turkish circumstances under which you can legally use force under international law. So already after 9-11, we saw the open, open assault against the international multilateral order. Then-N has continued to be eroded bit by bit. Israel has been, violating international law for many decades. So what happens now is an acceleration of the impunity that has been tolerated. And now, again, as I said, the mask has fallen off. I mean, the US administration doesn't even have to pretend to respect international law. But let me be very clear, the genocide of the in Gaza and the genocide of the Palestinian people that have started in Gaza

and it has expanded is something that was enabled financially, politically and militarily by the previous administration. So what is Trump is doing at the international level? It's extremely scary, scary and should worry all of us. But certain things when it comes to Palestine are a distraction in a sense that what I told as I landed to Copenhagen and out of the plane I read about the declaration by Trump about the government. Riva, because since then, every morning this part of the world has waken up with a crazy statement about some international matter. But on that day, I said, this is absurd. This is surreal.

It doesn't mean that it's not dangerous. It's unlawful. Saying such a thing is unlawful. First and foremost, is also irresponsible because it's going to trigger instability across the region and is immoral because these people that have already back then, 18,000 children had been killed. So what are you talking about President Trump? So this was my reaction. But I would like to push this forward, Rory, because one of the scariest images of this administration are not even concerning Palestine. It's what's happening to the United States itself,

which is so influential that what happens at the domestic level has an impact for all of us, unfortunately, in this order. But when I saw President Trump announcing the cutting of access sport for transgender children in front of a cheering crowd of blonde mothers and children. I mean, I remembered what my colleague, I mean, a fellow lawyer Agnes Calamar, the Secretary General of Amnesty, had said last year, are we in 2024 or in 1924? So there is something extremely, extremely scary, but this mandate, and didn't start with me, it goes back to John Dugher and Richard Fold and Magnelly, has been sounding the alarm on the one saying Palestine is a powder keg. It's going to explode sooner or later. You cannot,

the Palestinians cannot keep on being deprived of any single right that you can imagine. But also the system. I mean, Palestine is a revealer today of a crime scene where the fingerprints are not just of Israel, of the US and other countries. This is the thing. The impunity somewhere breeds impunity everywhere. You've got to go to another meeting. My first Another question really, I guess, given all we've said, is whether you have any hope, we've all grown up in a generation that's talked about a two-state solution. It feels very, very distant right now. Impunity you've mentioned. We haven't really talked in detail about October 7, but that's changed so much.

I'm sure it's changed your life as well. Where do you get hope from that keeps you getting out of bed and going again? Alice, sir, again, this is like the Overton window is the framework of acceptable words and concept. We decide to operate within to analyze given subjects like Palestine. And yes, I take it that the two-state solution has been the framework to discuss Palestine in the past 30 years. But frankly, while we were discussing the possibility of a state, nothing has been done to make that state possible. the United Kingdom is part and parcel of it, which is shocking. So not only the UK has been trading with Israel and transferring military aid, including at the time in the International Court

of Justice, had recognized the plausibility of acts of genocide being committed. When the International Court of Justice had reminded member states not to transfer directly or indirectly in total of components, arms that could be used to commit crimes, not just the crime of genocide, but any violation of international humanitarian law. And you have leaders in this country who have not engaged with the legal qualifications of what was happening, in my view, in order not to take responsibility. Now maybe things might change. But still, we didn't get there all of a sudden overnight.

The peace process and the two-state solution has been used as a kicking the can in the air, because why the United Kingdom has never recognized the state of Palestine, for God's sake? You see the incongruity and incoherence. How does it make you feel? Are you British? Yeah, how does it make you feel as a British citizen, considering also the moral responsibility that the UK have vis-à-vis the question of Palestine? Because again, as an Italian, I tell you, everything I do somewhat is determined by the fact that at a certain point, Italians committed awful crimes in the name of an ideology that are turned into political doctrine. Is it that different today?

Maybe the groups, the targeted groups are different. But there is, today, the political environment stinks racism in a different way, more sophisticated way than the last century, but one century ago. But we are still there. We still are coping and adapting without dealing with the fact that as Western societies, we remain racist. And this is why we don't look at the Palestinians today empathetically. As we look at the Israelis, I have a lot of empathy for the Israelis.

And this is why after October 7, because for you, This is where history begins, I assume, since you asked me, you didn't ask me about the massacres that had happened in Gaza alone in 2008 or in 2009 or in 2012 or in 2014 or in 2018 or in 2021 or in 2022 because these massacres cumulatively had killed over 5,000 people, including 1,200 children. In the Gaza Strip alone, without even considering the forcibly displaced, the people made homeless, those who had been detained and torture, including 700 children per year, over a 20-year period. So, you know, the story you decide to tell people as a media expert. And as a UN expert,

I have a responsibility to bring the facts to the fore. But I wouldn't be truthful to my mandate if I forgot that there is a context out there. And maybe the silver lining, let me close with this. making mistakes is human, but in persisting it's evil. We have the possibility to do things differently today. We can stop this, but we need to act according to the law and resolving the question of Israel-Palestine, according to international law, for the Palestinians and for the Israelis, means ending the genocide today,

ending their lawful occupation by September 2025, because this is the deadline that ICJ plus General Assembly have given Israel and then and apartheid which exists. The International Court of Justice has recognized the racial segregation that is imposed by Israel to the Palestinians. And soon after October 7, I was completely shocked and sicken

by what I saw like you. And I said, this is the moment for the world to come close to the Israelis and the Palestinians as a people with wisdom and compassion. And I've not seen an inch of it, an inch of it from our part of the world,

the first and foremost. And we have let the Palestinians die and the Israelis continue to live every day as of October 7, not from October 7, as every day as October 7. And do you think the Israelis who have lost their family members, who have still members of their families in Gaza, do you think that they are safe in this moment? Mentally, mentally, these are people who have been destroyed and devastated. and how Israel is going to cope with what an entire army has done over the past six months. Are we talking about the society rate among Israelis because of what's happening? No one is taking really a people-centered, a people-focused approach because ultimately policymakers do not care, but we are not policymakers.

We are human beings and we need to step up and make sure that our leaders are held accountable for what's happening. well thank you thank you very much I know I know I always come as a cold shower well thank you Utah

I'd love to talk to you more invite me again yeah we'll do that we'll do that thank you Francesca thank you so much thank you Rory thank you Alice

that was really good Ciao bye bye so Rory as she as she left the studio she said you're in Switzerland

I'm in London she left the studio she said yeah I like giving people a cold shower and I mean she really really is passionate yeah

It's also amazing. I mean, I was interested in what you thought about that. She, off-camera, is actually very lively, quite informal, quite cheeky, laughed quite a lot, teased you, teased me, made jokes about being a South Italian, made jokes about whether I was living in tax exile in Switzerland. Which you are not. Which has made that clear for realism. Thank you. I'm sure you would. And then on air, she was less, I think, comfortable being as relaxed and informed. about her life. There's a slight sort of sense which maybe one encounters with politicians that one says, you know, tell me about your childhood. And she says, well, you know, international human rights law has been, you know, central to me since the age of three. What was your view just,

before we get onto the substance about the passion, the idealism, the communication style? I kept thinking, God, she's so passionate, she's so committed, she's so clear in the way that she expresses herself. And she moved through the gears. So, By the end, it was like, you know, she really was. And I think what it was, which, you know, I think me saying, I know you've got to go somewhere, last question, and she thought, right, I am absolutely going to land. What I feel and what I think about this.

If you were listening to that, I kept thinking, okay, that's why I was asking about being an ambassador to or four. She's an ambassador to the occupied territories or for the occupied territories. And, you know, clearly she is absolutely passionate about the issue. thinks this is a genocide, she thinks the way that the Palestinians are treated is off the scale horrific. She blames Israel. She blames America. She had quite a big dig at the UK towards the end. Part of me was thinking, you know, the Israelis who messages pretty much every week say that, you know, we're not fair to Israel, I'm part of my head thinking, God, what are they going to say

about this? Because, of course, if we'd have sought to push back on any of that. So, for example, when she talked about, you know, when she was attacked for being anti-Semitic in, I think she's 2022. Actually, you go back, I think the first time was 2014, but I didn't particularly want to get into an argument about that. I didn't particularly want to go over what she said about Macron on October the 7th. And what I think she was right to do, though, because I did fall into that trap of saying October 7th changed everything. And she was sort of saying, well, it was part of a very, very long continuum that's been going for some time. So I suspect she will be quite a polarizing figure. I'd be really interested to know what listeners think in terms of, you know,

listeners who are essentially pro-Israeli or essentially pro-Palestinian. Let us know what they took out from that interview, because I suspect it'll be different things. Yeah. I asked her to, said before, you know, talk about your empathy with Palestinians, talk about your empathy with Israelis and Israeli friends and how they view the world. And of course, what I was expecting her to say was, of course, Israel has a legitimate right to defend itself. Israel went through this horrifying experience on October the 7th. Israel has very, very strong, deep memories of the Holocaust, feels an existential threat to the state of Israel.

Hamas is a horrendous organization and then go on to say, but Israel is violating international law. Israel is defying the courts, Israel is killing, willing children. And it was interesting that she didn't want to do that. And I can only conclude it's because she doesn't think it's appropriate to keep making those points

because I think she may feel that it's a distraction that her job is to make a very, very clear, strong legal argument on the basis of the crimes that have been committed, not to provide a full psychological background for why they're happening. I think that's right. And also, I mean, in the research we saw, one of the points made was that she sees her challenge

as changing the dominant narrative. And the dominant narrative, I guess, is, she would argue, coming from a fairly pro-Israel stance, but also there is a bit of an en memmento approach to the way that a lot of the media cover So she's basically saying, no, it's not that I'm taking size. I'm saying that those of you who try to put the two sides of the story in so doing, you distort the actual truth. I think that's what she's saying. And the question about whether she, you know, also she's doing it for nothing.

I was very impressed by that. You know, schlepping around the world, being insulted everywhere you go. And she looks, she's got a busy schedule. And I think that's, you know, fair play for that one. It's also really interesting, just at my last point, what it implies about the UN that they appointed her. I mean, she clearly was always from the moment she was appointed going to be an unbelievably polarizing figure. This is somebody who was prepared to stay quite openly. I had very few Israeli friends when she could have talked about who her Israeli friends were. This is somebody who worked for UNRWA, who was profoundly committed to the Palestinian cause, written a loss about it. Jacques Hughes was one of her publications.

Yeah, Secretary General decided to make her the special rapporteur rather than a more conciliatory figure. I mean, this is very, very different from bringing in Tony Blair or Jim Wolfensen as a sort of peace mediator. And I guess that reflects presumably very strong feelings amongst a General Assembly, as opposed to Security Council. It suggests something about Secretary General himself. I mean, he, of course, has now been declared persona non-grata by Israel on the relationship between the UN and Israel. But anyway, thank you for that. I mean, I think it's really, really worth listening to and look forward to listeners' responses.

Yeah. Okay, Roy, you love to talk to you. Bye-bye.