They Tried to Silence Her – They Failed | Francesca Albanese’s Berlin Keynote on Gaza Genocide

[Francesca] Just to make sure
we are safe,

can you confirm that police
is here to protect all of us?

[Crowd cheers]

Good!

[Crowd cheers]

[Wieland] So I have the great
pleasure of welcoming

Francesca Albanese

[Crowd cheers]

United Nations Special Rapporteur

for Human Rights in the
Occupied Palestinian territories.

Before I hand over to
Francesca for some preliminary

remarks I would just like to
inform everyone that

at the last update

that I received, we had 1 ,700
people viewing the live stream.

[Crowd cheers]

So this this may be a small
room, but the virtual space

we are occupying
is a large one.

So without further ado,

Francesca please speak to us.

[Crowd cheers]

[Francesca] You're not police, right?

[Crowd laughs]

Camouflaging okay.

So I have to admit that about 75

hours in this country have
made me pretty nervous.

I can't wait to go back to
peaceful Tunisia

[Crowd cheers]

because the situation is bad

for freedom
of expression pretty much

everywhere and still I've
never felt this sense of

lacking oxygen as I do here.

So please, please, I know
they're very happy to see me.

Make sense.

Yes, but I'm someone who speaks

of genocide and there is a
genocide ongoing

and doesn't matter how much
genocide denialism there is,

we need to be really
aware, aware of

what we need to do all
together because I really want

to be heard loud and clear
before we start talking about

what I came to know the most,
genocide, this year.

I want to say a few things on which I
absolutely don't want to be

taken wrong and misquoted,

but of course I
will be misquoted!

So it is a great pleasure for
me to be with you today

and I wish to thank DiEM, A Jewish
Voice for a Just Peace in the

Middle East, Eye on Palestine
and Gaza Committee

for their immense work,

[Crowd cheers]

Stop it!

[Crowd laughs]

for their immense work

in bringing this
meeting together

and for inviting me
to be here in Berlin.

I'm sure you have the
gratitude of so many for

creating this platform for
many to come together to speak

on one of the most urgent
issues of our time.

Without your courage and
dedication, we would not be

here today, although, although,
for the venue we must thank

Junge Welt who has given the
event last-minute asylum

and of course,

[Crowd cheers]

You are unruly!

and of course,
we have to also

acknowledge the Israeli
ambassador, pro-Israel

groups and professional
smearers in Germany,

a number of German politicians
including the city mayor,

Berlin police without whose
relentless work and pressure and

intimidation we would be in
another, much bigger venue.

I know how you feel.

I feel it, too, somewhat, even
though the intimidation has

gotten on my nerves, but
not yet under my skin.

And with German authorities'
permission, I plan to return,

as I said, to the safety
of my home in Tunisia

before this changes.

We should not fear words.

We shall fear crimes.

Those that commit them,
and those who deny them.

And as we proceed, I must
acknowledge that some of

the words I will speak
today might be heavy.

I recognise that many of you
carry significant pain,

and it is with this awareness that
I ask for your patience and

understanding as we explore
these difficult subjects.

Please know that my intention
is not to add to that pain,

but to bring light, healing, and
perhaps a sense of solidarity

as we move forward together.

As you are all aware,
my presence in Germany

these few days has been
controversial for many.

Universities, the beacon of
free speech, the cradle of

free debate, where people
can also disagree, right?

have cancelled events where I
was supposed to give talks or

lectures without any warning,
let alone an apology.

That's rude.

The organisers in many cases
have had to switch venues

at the last minute, facing
threats, condemnation and

harassment on the street
and online, hopefully not on site

as if I were someone
advocating for hate or someone

wanted by the International
Criminal Court for war crimes

and crimes against humanity.

Instead, I'm just a legal
expert appointed by the

United Nations to document
and report on the violations

committed by Israel.

This is what the resolution
creating my mandate says,

even if I also document the
violations committed by Hamas

and the Palestinian Authority.

I'm the eighth special
rapporteur to do this after

illustrious jurists such as
John Duggar, Richard Folk, and

Michael Link, and the first
woman to serve in this

position after 33 years.

It is in this capacity...

This is where you applaud.

[Audience laughs and applauds.]

I really want to chill a
little bit because it's heavy.

It is in this capacity
that I came to Berlin.

I arrived here.

This is something I'm saying
just to remind everyone that

I came as a special rapporteur,
still representing

the United Nations, if there
is an inch of respect

for this institution that
is left in this country.

I arrived here after traveling
across Northern Europe and

being generally welcomed,
even where pro-Israel groups

succeeded to have some cave
in to their pressure and

mafia-style techniques.

And I'm shocked to see how
absurd the world that we

live in has become, where
impartiality to the facts

and the requirements of
international law generate

more controversy than
the killing, maiming,

torturing, raping,
starving, burning alive,

and entire people as such

for 16 months and counting,

and yet, this is the world we live in.

But so, before getting
into the debate,

what is impartiality and
what does it mean?

What is it not?

Because this is something
that I would like you to carry

with you after this
wonderful afternoon together.

Impartiality for human rights
defenders, investigators and

monitors like myself entails
an obligation to investigate

and establish the facts
objectively,

studying everything that is brought
to our knowledge against

applicable international law.

Once the assessment is
done, my job is not to be

equidistant from the parties,
whatever it is,

but to insist on measures to restore
legality, to undo injustice

and prevent further abuses.

In the case of Palestine, it
is overwhelmingly documented

that Israel commits
intentionally, and as a matter

of state policy, the gravest
human rights offenses,

as part of its long-standing
plan to maintain control over

what Israeli human rights
organisation B'Tselem has

called, quote: 'A regime of
Jewish supremacy

from the Jordan River to
the Mediterranean Sea.'

[Crowd laughs]

Full stop, end of quote.

Impartiality cannot be
used as a pompous name

for indifference and an
elegant name for ignorance.

Impartiality is not about
maintaining the pretense of

both sides in the face of
international atrocities,

of maintaining, as I was saying,
an equidistant position

between conflicting parties,
even when their positions

are structurally and
historically unequal.

When one side occupies,
depredates, and oppresses,

and the other is being occupied,
depredated, and dispossessed,

this is a recipe for
disaster and violence.

impartiality is
not neutrality.

Neutrality meaning maintaining
an equidistant position

between conflicting parties
even when their positions

might not be equal and usually
to deliver life-saving aid.

It's not my mandate and not
even that of universities

and not even that
of your politicians.

Our job is not to stay
neutral, our job is to stay

truthful to international law.

This is what all of
us have in common.

And I stand firmly on
universal human rights

of respect for life
and human dignity.

And whenever it is the case
that a state is being allowed

with impunity to violate these
rights, I must speak up, firmly,

on the side of the oppressed.

If those who found my
presence tonight controversial

could understand this basic
principle, the difference

between impartiality and
neutrality, perhaps there

would be far less controversy
in the first place,

and of course, there should be
understanding and condemnation

for what has happened to
Israeli civilians during

the brutal attack that

Hamas and other Palestinian
armed groups carried out on

October 7, 2023, as there
should be understanding

and condemnation for
the massacres, violence,

and oppression that the
Palestinians have experienced

since the Nakba
and before the Nakba,

resistance and opposition to
which has certainly

not spared the Israelis.

But here we are in an era
where speaking out on human

rights has become a hateful
act or even a crime where

truth is a lie and lies the
truth that is used to justify this.

I mean, I don't see
anyone but I was prepared

to see more police.

Orwell's famous proclamation that:
'War is peace, freedom is slavery,

ignorance is strength'
and that quote has never

been more true than in
the discourse surrounding

Israel and Palestine.

This brings me to the elephant
in the room, the genocide that

Israel has been allowed to
commit after 56 years of

unlawful occupation of
Palestine and 77 years since

the mass ethnic cleansing
of the Nakba began.

An event that was in ways
irrefamiliar in the present

day carried out amid
massacres and destructions

that have been recounted by
its victims, Nakba survivors,

but also recorded in
the testimonies of its

perpetrators in some instances
or documented in Israeli

archives and brought to
light by diligent and

honest Israeli historians, an
architect who were able to

access those archives for
a brief period of time

some 30 years ago.

For even the most
sophisticated and experienced

practitioners of doublespeak,
this truth is no longer

possible to deny.

I just want to point to one
thing and then we move into

the discussion regarding,

I mean, the topic
of today, genocide.

In July 2024, the
International Court of Justice

has recognised beyond any
reasonable doubt that

the occupation that Israel
maintained in Gaza,

the West Bank, and East Jerusalem
is unlawful

and must be relinquished totally
and unconditionally.

The troops, the military
barracks, the military

presence, but also
the civilian presence,

all the settlements
must be dismantled.

Which doesn't mean that
there will be an uprooting

of all Jewish people living
in the occupied Palestinian

territory, but the land is to
be returned to their owners.

and perhaps the Jewish
Israelis who are there may

want to rent instead of
stealing and living as

Palestinians if there
is a Palestinian state.

[Crowd cheers]

And this is not even new.

This is not even new.

Everyone knew that the
occupation was unlawful and

not just for violations of
international law here and

there, because Israel kidnapped
children and adults including

in the middle of the night
and and put them in jail

for days, weeks, months, and
years until they confessed

crimes that they had not committed.

And not just because of
torturing, demolishing homes,

killing people arbitrarily,
no, not because of that.

The occupation is unlawful
because by its very presence

it prevents the
Palestinians from enjoying

the right of self-determination,
the right to exist as a people,

free to determine themselves as a
people, which is still being contested

and it shouldn't be confused
with a two-state solution.

Because this is the political
consensus that has formed

so that the Palestinians have the
right, exclusive rights

to a state, independent state
in the land that remains.

But nonetheless, any other
rights lose meanings and

becomes an exercise of
intellectual rhetoric

without the right of
self-determination.

So in the face of this
groundbreaking advisory

opinion which has confirmed
what everyone knew,

it is the obligation not only of the
German government,

but every German person,
including those having businesses,

living in the settlements,
working as soldiers in the Israeli

occupation forces,
not to do that anymore.

Otherwise, they might
face consequences.

And this is where
we are today.

Instead of working on this
and seeing how to abide by

this incredibly important
advisory opinion,

the government of this country
continues to repress

the critical voices that
ask for accountability.

[Applause]

[Wieland] Thank you very much for
those preliminary remarks.

No doubt we'll get
back to some of those

points again later.

But what I wanted to ask you
about, and well, this is the

title of this part of the
program:

International Law in the
Face of the Gaza Genocide.

And something that's often
been spoken about over the

last 16 months by yourself and
by many actors of all sorts,

legal experts, civil society
figures, activists,

is that the very concept of
international law has been

under attack because the
genocide has been allowed to

take place and measures that

have been set in motion
to stop it have also not

achieved that result.

The world has let it
happen and many feel that

international law has become
impotent and even though in

the decades since the United
Nations were founded and

we had the establishment
of the Geneva Conventions

and the various pillars of
international law were built up,

of course this is not
the first time

that a power
allied with the so-called West

has chosen not to abide by
international law and recent

decades have seen many other
cases, the invasion of Iraq,

Afghanistan, Libya, etc.

So, how is the situation
different now?

What additional or greater
damage has been done to

international law and how
does one continue to work with

the standard of international
law from now on?

[Francesca] First of all, let me clarify
a couple of things and then we

will have the opportunity to
talk about what constitutes

genocide because
there seems to be much

confusion in this country.

So should I say that now or
can we get back to this later?

[Wieland] I think we can
get back to it later.

[Francesca] Perfect, as long
as you say that.

And so, international law
is a set of norms

that member states have agreed upon,

either through treaties

or that they have developed
as customs, as practice,

believed to be compliant
with general principles

of law and humanity.

So what constitutes
international law

is a normative framework intended
to prevent violations

and to correct violations.

So it's a normative and
remedial, it has a normative

and remedial function.

Aside of it but complementary
is the system that is there to

regulate the conduct of states
and so it's the multilateral

order which is to be regulated
by international norms.

So while international law has
been selectively applied,

more or less systemically violated,
today we see the depth of it

and we see the system
behind it, I believe.

In the sense that it's clear
that the system has never,

I mean, the multilateral order,
the General Assembly,

which is now more democratic than
it was 77 years ago, for example.

When the United Nations system
was created, it was made

of about 50, 53 states, and
now it's made of 193 states.

So clearly, it has changed.

but the center of power,
it has not changed.

The system that was birthed
as dominated by the colonial world

like Europe and
European offsprings,

like Australia, New Zealand, the
United States and Canada,

and of course, the first colonies,
the first settler colonial

realities where so many
genocides had been committed,

Latin America, Central
and Latin America, sorry,

Latin America.

I mean, these were also
part of the system,

but the center of power
was with the West,

what we would call today improperly:
West, and remains there.

So I think that the phase
we live in has exposed how

unequal the system is,
how it cannot serve as is the

interest of everyone in
the face of a

fundamentally now a unipolar order,
where the United States dictates

pretty much what is to
be done and what's not,

regardless or even blatantly
against international law.

So we are at a critical point,
and the system is breaking.

When we international human
rights experts have said for years,

especially this mandate,
it's 20 years that

whomever has held this mandate
has said over and over,

the system is breaking.

The Occupied Palestinian
Territory is a powder keg

and it will explode and will take
all the system with it because

it's a settler colonial
frontier, more violent

than any other.

It's not the only form of
colonial domination,

but it's an active settler colony
where people are really struggling

for what settler colonialism
is in its more brutal form.

One people taking control
of land, of resources,

pushing other people out.

Again, and it's the only one
actively, actively militarily,

politically, financially
supported and enabled

by Western countries.

So this is the breaking point
because there are many people

who identify themselves
with injustice that the

Palestinians have suffered.

There are many people who
for the first time realise

and there is a global
awareness about this

and dissatisfaction.

We see in the fragility and
how lonely the Palestinians

are in the face of all these
powers, our own fragility,

and this is why so many
stand in solidarity

with the Palestinians.

On top of the fact that it's a
simple empathy,

the fact that what happens to other
human beings touches us and doesn't

I mean the fact of seeing
bodies of children

hanging from the wall
or turned into smithereens

whatever they are, incinerated
in refugee camps

or in tents, plastic tents if not
buried under the rubble.

I mean this is something that doesn't
make many people sleep at night

and it's normal, it's a
good sign, it's healthy

and we shouldn't become idle
in the face of this pain.

Yeah, so we need to decide.

Now it's the time, we
are at the turning point

and we need to decide.

The system, of course,
will become uglier and more

resistant and more fierceful,
but because the system

is being challenged.

The system of which Israel's
abuses are a symptom.

And not, yeah, are a symptom.

So this should be a wake
up call for all of us

people of conscience.

I often say a bit rhetorically
but I somewhat believe it.

I mean in the sense it's not
the case that the UN Charter

is not just about states'
obligations but it says:

'we the people' because ultimately,
it's we the people who

are the guardians of
these values, these norms.

Human rights, I mean, I know
that people complain a lot

about international law:
'It serves no purpose.'

Yeah, because you are
not the ones who had to

struggle to abolish slavery.

You're not the ones who had
to struggle to have women's

rights recognised, even
if I admit we still have

a lot of work to do.

But so, there have been so many
struggles that have led to

the development of human
rights the way they are.

So while we tend to see
human rights as a tool of

emancipation and that it's
failing, I want to also

remind you, if you take a step
back and look at the arc of history

that these human
rights are first and foremost

the result of someone else's
struggle for emancipation.

And we have grown just too
lazy in this part of the world

because you see the Palestinians,
like many other people,

they don't even have
the time to think:

shall I fight or not?

Fight peacefully.

I mean, because many
people have no choice.

If you have the choice,
it means that you have

privilege, that you
have chosen not to use.

And it's your choice,
but trust me,

everything is in line right now.

It's coming.

The way repression works
in this country is scary,

should really, should scare
the hell out of people.

And the fact that you don't...

Thank you.

[Inaudible]

[Audience claps]

No, and the fact that
people don't register

how serious it is.

The fact that media continue
to be as pathetic as they are.

Again, it's something that,
I don't know,

I'll try to help by continuing to
tell what I've seen here.

But again, I've been in many
countries, including countries

that are lectured by Germany
about freedom of

- freedom of oppression -

[Audience laughs]

Sorry.

[Weiland] Appropriate
choice of word.

[Francesca] No, freedom
of expression and

[Audience laughs]

freedom of...

It was not even
the worst that came out,

the worst lapses that came
out of my mouth today.

However, freedom of expression
and freedom of assembly,

I mean, countries that have been
lectured by Germany about how

important these rights are
and who are really struggling

to guarantee these rights.

I mean, don't want to guarantee
these rights to citizens,

don't even make a
mystery out of it.

And still, I've experienced
much less intimidation

and fear than here.

So I again, I'm with you

and yeah, let's brace for
what happens next.

[Appause]

[Weiland] What I want to get out a bit
because I think this is also

something that really many
people in the world have been

asking themselves or
asking other people is:

if international law wasn't
able to prevent this genocide,

if there were not the
necessary mechanisms

of enforcement

really to stop the people
who are committing it,

what does it still offer?

[Francesca] Yeah,
so as I was saying,

there has been a phase where
human rights protection

of individual rights was not there.

We are lucky because
we have those rights.

Those rights also allow
us to keep some sanity

and saying this is
completely wrong.

Now, there are the standards,

there are the law
enforcement mechanisms

that in many respects have
never worked for Palestine.

Palestine has always been
the big exception

and for a number of reasons.

We don't need to unpack all
the problems of the world now.

[Wieland] Number 2?

[Francesca] No, I'm serious.

But the thing is that, when
governments do not enforce,

do not abide by international
law, next in line is

like watchdogs that are the
civil society, NGOs are the

natural watchdogs of what
the government does,

unless there is an ombudsman.

There are protection
mechanisms at the

country level.

Otherwise, there is the
international...

No, there are the
courts, tribunals.

In fact, in other countries,
these are working.

These are mechanisms that
have been activated through

strategic litigation of civil
society who have sued the

government for complicity in
crimes and for transferring

weapons to Israel

at the time, it was
committing genocide.

and I hope more and more there
needs to be scrutiny of what

universities, pension funds,
banks, and any other private actors

who contributes in any
possible ways, big or small,

to the unlawfulness of
Israel's presence

in the occupied
Palestinian territory,

they must be
held accountable.

And you know, in a country
like that, that is not easy,

because I hear that this
is something that has been

tried already and there
has been a bit of pushback.

I hope it's not the case
because really I had, again

I'm someone who has grown
a thinking of Germany as an

example because of its legal
scholars and because of

its courageous judges.

I'm not in again, studying
Palestinian refugees

in international
law writing a book about

Palestinian refugees
in international law.

I would like to remind that
it was German courts which

allowed to develop the
jurisprudence that has

existed on how to protect
Palestinian refugees

outside the Middle East.

So even in Germany, it
has never been that bad.

You can still go back
to a place of sanity.

So courts have to be
activated, but also

certain struggles are not
brought to court,

cannot not be fought

without the
- peacefully fought of course -

without the support of
the public opinion.

Because eventually judges
also read newspapers.

And the problem is if the
debate is so toxic,

if the media's work is primarily
not about telling the facts

let alone the legal
qualifications,

but about manufacturing consensus
so as to maintain a certain narrative

a certain discourse,

it's very complicated.

So what is left is there are
international mechanisms

that scrutinise the
performance of states,

but again, I'm not
starry-eyed on this.

Right now, it sounds like
an emergency,

and in time of emergency,
you don't go into a long-term plan,

if you see what I mean.

So I do think that most
of the work is to be done,

of course, internationally,
eliciting solidarity from others,

eliciting scrutiny,
because there is, again,

there is a sense that in Germany,
things are bad,

but now, I can tell you, if I'm shocked,
if I'm that shocked

I can tell you, there is no
real understanding

of what's going on
in this country,

and I'm afraid that
this will continue to spread.

So, yeah, many more people
should talk about that,

many more people should ask
your government questions

and the subsequent
government questions.

So it's a struggle that
needs to be continued

on a multi-fronts level.

[Wieland] You said it's about...

[Francesca] Just one second,
by the way, the ICJ

and the ICC, because then
it seems that nothing

is happening at the
international level.

While international justice
is very slow, it's moving.

I mean, for the first time,
and it would have been

unimaginable years ago,
where in this country,

like many other, including my country,
was even impossible to say

apartheid, let alone genocide,
and despite the difficulties,

now, the ICC has indicted two
Israeli leaders, one active,

the prime minister, and the other,
the former minister of defense

so they are wanted
by the ICC, and hopefully,

I think that there should
be many more,

because the colonisation has been
ongoing for a long time.

And the International Court
of Justice is looking at

genocide in two cases.

Genocide in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory,

both in the case initiated by South
Africa versus Germany, sorry,

Israel, and, sorry guys,
I am on two hours sleep,

so be patient, and I was
quite sleep-deprived,

and Nicaragua versus Germany.

So your country is brought
before an international

court of justice because
of its support to

the genocide in Gaza.

[Wieland] You actually just
mentioned the ICC warrants,

which I wanted to ask you about.

On January 27th, International
Holocaust Remembrance Day,

originally there was a
plan for Netanyahu

to go to Auschwitz for a
commemoration celebration.

And in the end he didn't, a
junior member of government went

but there was obviously
much controversy about it,

and the Polish government
said quite brazenly that

they would allow him to come.

They would not
enforce the warrant.

It wasn't put to the test
in the end,

but that's what they said in front
of the whole world.

The other week, the unfortunately
most likely next chancellor

in this country, Friedrich Merz,
conservative leader

said that if there was
a plan for Netanyahu to come

to Germany, then of course he
would not be arrested,

that these warrants
mean nothing.

Now, of course, one could
say this is all hot air,

but what could be done?

What would happen?

[Francesca] Well, you see, without even
bothering international law,

is it normal that someone who
is not even in function yet

or might have governmental
function steps into the realm

of competence that belongs
to the justice system?

It's not up to government
officials to say whether

someone will be arrested
or not, based on the

determination, on an
investigation that has

been carried out by the
International Criminal Court.

I mean, you see, we are
completely dismantling

the system that we
have so hardly...

I mean, with so much
sacrifice and political

investment built.

Out of what?

Seriously, out of what?

Like, this alliance among
politicians who tend

to protect each other
when one commits crimes

and end up committing
crimes all together.

Now I'm getting
arrested, yeah.

In south of Italy has
a very specific name.

I'm not going to say that.

But this is not normal.

This is non-normal, the
intimidation against human

rights defenders, lawyers,
scholars, the pressure in

university in order not
to have an honest debate,

frankly, about 60,000 people
plus that have been killed

without, again, without
denying that crimes have been

committed against Israelis,
absolutely, no one

has ever denied that,

I have been condemning crimes
against civilians because

my red line is that a
civilian is a civilian,

and so it's untouchable.

It's the responsibility of the
government and of the states

to respond for crimes.

But here's the responsibility
of Germany as well.

What is left to
the Palestinians?

What is left to the
Palestinians not to be

erased in the little that
remains of their land?

The guardians of the
self-determination

of the Palestinians
are member states.

[Applause]

What has Germany done
throughout 2023 when 12 pogroms,

according to how they
have been defined by many,

including in Israel, have
been carried out against

defenseless Palestinian
villages by violent, armed,

ideological settlers,
escorted, as usual,

by the Israeli army.

And again, homes and cars and
other possessions have been

incinerated and so orchards,
and Palestinians have been

beaten up and terrorized.

Where was Germany?

And Germany knows, not because
necessarily your government

has to read the
human rights reports,

but because it has a diplomatic
presence in the

occupied Palestinian territory.

And everyone knows what's
going on in the

occupied Palestinian territory.

And everyone knows the crimes
that Israel has been committed

with impunity for decades.

So the Palestinians have been
persecuted, abused, oppressed,

killed, blamed, smeared,
and in the face of this we

cannot even talk about that?

I mean, again, this
is not my problem.

I mean, thank God that I'm
not that sensitive that

someone cancels it.

And again, I talk, and I take
it personally, I said: As long

as they pay the hotel room
for which they invited me.

That's fine.

The problem is yours.

This is the country you
live in and your fellow

citizens live in.

So, and it's very serious.

[Wieland] Certainly is.

Thank you.

[Applause]

I'm just looking a bit at
the time and we wanted to

give a bit of space for
people to ask questions.

No doubt there'll be many
questions and not every

question can be taken.

But you said that you also
wanted to share some points

about genocide earlier.

[Francesca] Yes, very briefly,
as much as I can.

Because it's very important
to remind ourselves of what

genocide is and what the
risk of genocide triggers.

It's very important
in this country,

because it's genocide
is not defined by personal

opinions and personal
histories no matter how

painful they are and there is
no question, no question that

Germany has a lot to atone
for for the genocides it has committed.

And at the same time,
genocide today,

what constitutes genocide

is written in an international treaty.

What constitutes genocide is
acts of killing against the

members of a group, infliction
of severe mental or physical

harm to members of the group,
the creation of conditions

of life calculated to lead
to the physical destruction

of members of the group
and prevent, thank you,

prevention of birth and

the transfer of children.

So you see, I hear criticism
like in the UK,

for example, look at the
numbers of killing

as killing 70,000
people was not bad.

Again, I often ask myself,
what kind of monsters

have we become?

But also the brutality of the
attack, the way everything has

been destroyed, in a way, as
we will have the chance to talk

in a way that has led
to conditions calculated to

destroy the Palestinians.

But the thing is that in
order to have genocide,

it's not sufficient to
commit these crimes.

The crimes have to be
committed with intent,

with the determination to
destroy the group as such.

And people say it's very
difficult to prove intent.

Yes, you know why?

Because it's very difficult to
commit, I mean, it's difficult

to prove genocide because it
should be difficult to commit

genocide in 2024 or in 2025.

It shouldn't be possible
because in the system,

there are some check and balances
in a system that calls itself

democratic where there is
a rule of law system

with the separation of power.

I mean, you might have crazy
government officials making

genocidal incitements and
say: starve them all,

kill them all, they are all
animals, even the kids.

I mean, Germany is not the
first time where this has

happened because I've read
the Nuremberg Trials Act

and children were seen
as a security threat.

But there might be,
there might be,

I mean, cabinet, war cabinet
ministers saying that.

And then, what are the other
cabinet ministers doing

in the face of this?

What are the MPs, the members
of the Knesset, what have they

done to intervene, to stop
this, this incitement?

What has the judiciary done
when the International Court

of Justice recognised the risk
of genocide, ordered Israel to

take measures to stop carrying
out its military operations

in a way that could result in
genocidal attacks,

as it had been doing,
and had Israel complied

with the ICJ provisional measures

of January 2024, we wouldn't
be here today, probably.

And what has the
judiciary done?

Has the judiciary in Israel
investigated any of the

people, senior officials of
Israel who have been named

in the provisional measures,
in the text of the court that

accompanied in the provisional
measures, that system has

proven that being a reflex
of the enabling environment

that Israel as a state was.

And the intent has been,
it's not even that we need

to dig to find intent,
there is direct intent.

Because when Netanyahu and
others have ordered, again,

starvation, no water,
no fuel, no electricity,

no food, no food.

Of course, this would lead
to conditions calculated to

bring about the destruction
of a group or members

of the group as such
identified as Palestinians.

So in the face of this,
there should have been an

obligation, as I said, to
prevent because the convention

on genocide is not just
about the punishment of

the crime of genocide.

creates for each state,
especially influential

states who are providing
support, an obligation

to prevent and stop.

And again, in April 2024,
in Nicaragua versus Germany,

the court reminded Germany
and other member states to

intervene by not transferring
weapons to states who might be

committing not just genocidal
acts, but violations of

international humanitarian
law, including war crimes.

So the killing of 17 ,000
children, what is it?

This is what journalists
should ask your Chancellor.

Because again, it's not
about his personal opinion,

which I respect very much.

But it doesn't respond to
this question out of personal

commitment, I imagine.

But as the chancellor of this
country, which has obligation

under international law.

And the way Germany is evading
its obligations and acting

in a way that is prohibited
under international

law cannot be hidden.

This is the reality.

That's an appropriate note
to end on before we open

it up to the audience.

We are representatives of
Students for Palestine, FU,

and also students from the
not-so-free university here

in Berlin that cancelled
your event tomorrow, so we

are very happy to see you
and to ask our questions.

In a recent viral video,
you rightfully criticized

the German state and the
situation this country is in.

You are also aware of the
protests and the repression

we are experiencing.

Our question would be, how
can we stand up against

such state repression,
and who can we trust when

it comes to our rights?

I mean, we are protesting
and boycotting, but

what else can we do?

Maybe you are aware of this,
I think we tried to convey a

very comprehensive report on
the collaborations of Freie

Universität with a series
of Israeli institutions and

universities which we think
are in very clear breach

of international law and
morality as such too.

To give one example, the Freie
Universität is sending its

students very often without
the knowledge where it's

specifically sending and what
kind of situation it's sending

these students to exchange
programs for example with the

Hebrew University which has
its students hostels in East

Jerusalem on which we think is

an equal illegal settlement and
we would like if you could say

a few words on what you think
are the obligations of German

universities, in particular
FU regarding such cases.

We also would like to forward
a question for later to Eyal

already, what he thinks, as
a scholar originally from

Israel, what the political
impact of such campaigns

is also in order to break
the normalisation of

occupation and apartheid.

And to give another example
on this, the university's law

faculty, where I am a student
at currently, has a couple of

programs running, but one of
them is called, Human Rights

Under Pressure, and it
advertises with experiencing

and researching these
human rights under pressure

in the field, and is

sending programs very often
to Israel and the occupied

territories, and as I think
Francesca has been made

aware of by a letter that
FU professors from the law

department wrote, yeah, it is,
you know, this normalisation

is happening through these
kinds of corporations.

Anyways, thanks for your
attention, we will probably

tomorrow upload the report
on bds-fu.de, bds-fu.de,

and try to support the
campaign if you want to.

[Applause]

I would also like to really
beg for your indulgence in the

sense that, after all, I mean,
I'm very happy to be received

by so much warmth and
expectations, but also I would

like you to keep realistic
expectations on what

can come from me, in
the sense I'm really

just a human rights lawyer
who's trying to do the right

thing, no more than that, and
I'm sorry that it's a rare

commodity in this era, but
I don't know, sometimes I

just don't know, because let
me tell you, I think that

what the universities
are doing is wrong.

It's so wrong that it should
be brought to justice.

University cannot have
partnerships with anything

that has to do with
the settlements.

Cannot have partnership,
but really we are being

conservative here because at
the time of apartheid South

Africa, it's not that we were
going to see how to establish

or cut relations with Israel
just in the limit of the

Bantustan, where South
Africa was segregating

the black South Africans.

I mean, if Israel commits
crimes that should lead to

accountability and justice
360 degrees, so I'm even

uncomfortable as a lawyer to
have to split the hair and

say the settlements and
not the settlements.

Maya Wind, an Israeli scholar,
has done incredible work

on the responsibility
of universities.

As such, Israeli universities
explaining why it's wrong

today, in 2025, to maintain
partnership with Israeli

universities who are part
of Israel's infrastructure,

military and surveillance
and oppression infrastructure

vis-a-vis the Palestinians.

So not having ties, not
having relations, not having

partnerships, not sending
students to things that

have to do with the occupied
Palestinian territory should

be the minimum bearable for a
university to keep on calling

itself free, if freedom calls.

That, by the way, I really
object that the university

keeps on having the name free
after cancelling me and Eyal.

[Applause]

What can you do?

You should really try to
work as much as possible

in solidarity with others.

Because if one thing I've
learned by myself, is that

unity brings strength.

And I understand that
especially, I don't know

if this is unique to the
Palestine Solidarity Movement,

but there is a little bit of
snobbish attitude, to draw,

I agree with this, but
then it doesn't agree

with everything I say.

Can you be minimalist for
once and agree on a few points

like end the genocide, end
the occupation, and end

apartheid, and then,

[Applause]

let's say, because in time,
in south of Italy, I come from

a region of peasants, so we
have a very simple way of

understanding life in a way,
and say "in time of deluge,

all arms are needed".

And this is the thing, this
is a time of crisis, so all

brains are needed, all mouth
and eyes and ears are needed,

so let's just ally along the
lines of, there is a need

for a popular front around
human rights and justice,

because what's happening
in Palestine is

not staying in Palestine, nor
in Israel either, so it's,

I mean, yeah, it's the same.

And so this is why it's
necessary to try to explore

creatively what alliances
you might need, including

with universities outside
Germany, or with scholars.

There are a few scholars here,
but there are a few scholars

who have been speaking out.

I mean, to be honest, Eyal
and I, when former Freie

University invited us, it was
Freie University invited us,

We received an invitation
from Potsdam University.

I cannot ensure 100 % that the
event would have been, would

have not been cancelled, but
at least there was an attempt

and we couldn't make it.

But it was too much
short notice, sorry.

But again, this is where we
need to reach out to everyone

who's sensible enough, who
has a minimum of knowledge and

a minimum of decency, which
shouldn't be too much to ask,

so as to stand up against the
injustice that is spreading

in this country as well.

Thank you, Francesca, for
being here and for all the

work that you have been
doing for over the past year.

So, you touched a little bit
on this, and probably this is

going to be a controversial
question, but as a

Palestinian, all these, like,
international laws, human

rights, the UN, all of these
things, how we can trust

and, like, put our trust
in these concepts and

institutions, if they

fail to stop the genocide for
the past 16 months when all

the greater powers in the
world are not following or

like listening to or abiding
by all these laws, and also

with the veto right as well,
when five superpowers can

just veto any ceasefire
or any resolution?

I'm not going to answer that
question because the point

is not that you should
trust the system.

You shouldn't
trust the system.

You shouldn't expect the
system to give you anything.

Because again, what the
Palestinians have got

is something that the
Palestinians had to fight for.

And it's not that the
Palestinians are exceptional.

This epitomises
the struggle of any

minorities in this world.

And again, so you need really
to count on all possible

forces and alliances.

for example, not everything
in the United Nations is bad.

No one is saying that

Ah.

I'm joking.

No, no.

But I want to say, I want
to say that there have been

30 special rapporteurs.

Now you see me, but there has
been 30 special rapporteurs.

And while the struggle and the
attacks against me are known,

many others have not even
that visibility to complain

or to elicit solidarity.

So it's really about
supporting each other and from

the different walks of life
we come from, etc, etc.

So the thing is that there
is also some difficulty in

exploring how to build these
alliances, because we are more

fragile in these societies.

We are not, you see,
even grieving together.

Why my lectures have
become a place where

people come and cry?

Because in our societies,
there is no, we are not

afforded the luxury of
places for collective grief.

And where we can also talk
about what we have gone

through, we can check on each
other and have the courage to

look into each other's eyes
and say, it's okay, it's okay

to cry, it's okay to feel
crazy, it's okay to be scared

and to carry fear,

it's okay.

And even rage, and even
wanting to express oneself in

ways that are not necessarily
compliant with German or

even Italian standards,
it's okay to be enraged

against the system.

The point is that how do we
move beyond grief into action?

And this is where we need
to understand what it means,

I think, being in the line,
where everything is at risk.

I mean, and I know that now,
it's still, we have some

privilege in our works, but
if some of us start to lose

it just for exercising their
rights, we should all feel

worried, because sooner
or later it will hit us.

This is where we need to
build nets, safety nets,

to help each other.

We don't need, really,
we don't need to spend

that much in our life.

We can have times
of austerity.

We should afford austerity
in our own life and trust me,

if you see how my consumption
of clothes, my expenditure

for clothes has gone down
from two years ago to

now, you understand
what austerity means.

But in the sense we don't
need as much, so we can afford

less but also share more.

I know it sounds idealistic,
but this is where I have

I have more trust in these
than in what you said.

[Applause]

Also, also, apartheid
and racial segregation in

the United States and the
dictatorships from Chile,

Argentina, Chile, sorry,
Brazil, they didn't,

or colonialism, brutal
colonisation, although

colonialism is still
lingering, and this is the

opportunity to unpack it,
because if one thing about

Palestine, the genocide in
Palestine has brought to

the fore is what
settler colonialism and

colonialism still is.

So it has spoke to the bubble
of colonial amnesia that we

have grown into, many of us.

So again, let's take the
silver, let's look at the

silver lining out there.

This is a moment to do better.

We have to think together
and act together.

This is the only
thing I feel to say.

Hi, my name is Mark Barton.

I'm a composer and
professor in Germany.

My question is about press
freedom for Ms. Albanese and

the provisions that exist
under international law to

guarantee press freedom.

We saw in Israel's attacks in
Lebanon, we saw the ability

of journalists to respond
immediately to accusations,

for example, that hospitals
were being used by terrorists.

And we saw the role that
journalism can play in

debunking disinformation
in real time.

We don't see a lot of that
happening in the West Bank

right now, and right now
there's a ceasefire in Gaza.

We also don't see a lot of
international journalists

active, and I'm wondering if
there's anything international

law can do to force
that to happen.

When I think of what
journalists have done, and

you mentioned Lebanon, I mean,
it's even more shocking the

kind of double, I mean the
moral compass and the moral,

the double, the selective
attitude that has been used

after the Pager attack because
I don't know how it was in

Germany but in my own country
and other countries I saw

politicians and journalists
laughing about that and

commenting on how audacious
and genius it was.

[Wieland] Praising the
ingenuity of the attack.

But this is where I say the
entry point now where they're

rallying, I mean something
to fight because this is

the common enemy, is racism.

Racism it was, racism it is,
and racism continues to be.

And then was it, again,
I do not think that is

international law was not
able to stop genocide.

International law, it doesn't
have, I mean, doesn't have

hands to slap the face of
government officials who

pretend not to understand
what genocide is.

I'm not referring to anyone
in this country now, okay?

Seriously, I mean we have
enough bad politicians in my

own country and where even
the hypothesis of a two-state

solution now is dismantled by
the foreign minister because

Gaza's been turned into rubble
and the West Bank is too

small and I was saying,
are you suggesting

that the Palestinians

take over Israel just because
what remains is too little?

So this is the kind of
political discussions we have

today and we need to somewhat
talk to the intellectuals,

talk to the scholars.

This is also about the
constitutional order that

is being undermined, not
just international system.

International system has
rules, at the constitutional

level we have rules.

What's happening to them?

So again, back to you guys.

My question goes a bit in
line, like, seeing that the

current international law
has been unable for 16 months

to stop a genocide, I can't
believe I'm saying this, what

would, in your expert opinion,
be the ideal international

law system, functioning
system, who would draft

it, who would enforce it?

We know that this one, based
on the nation-state, with this

Security Council created by
the winning powers from World

War II with a veto power, et
cetera, is not functioning.

How would you, yeah,
what would be the

ideal international law
system in your view?

Thank you.

As I said before, apartheid
was not dismantled

by member states.

It was very late, when
it was unavoidable that

they started sanctioning
apartheid South Africa.

But really, we need to
learn from other movements

where resistance, peaceful
resistance, has organised at

a global level, admitting that
never before there had been

such a coalition of allies
at the international level

aiming to crush solidarity.

This is new.

But again, also the kind of
forces that we can mobilise

is new, because the
Global South is rising.

And I know that in our
eurocentric view of the world,

we only look at the depressed,
quite politically depressing

scenario we have, but there
are also member states who

are cutting ties with Israel.

There are member states, I
mean, I was joking today, but

I say in a few years, we will
keep on asking funds, seeking

funds to, I don't know, Arab
countries or the Global South

in order to protect our own
work in this part of the world,

the human rights work,

but it doesn't matter,
this will make us more equal.

So I also think that the
discourse should change

because of where the
United States is going is

a place of lawlessness.

This is the opportunity for
the international community

to step back, but it will
not happen automatically

because we are part of this
oligarchical order where it's

not about what the people
think, it's what about

capitalistic interests decide
and this is why I keep on

saying it's difficult and it's

difficult because it's a
struggle against the system

of which Palestine is a
system, not necessarily

the cause of all evil.

[Applause]

I would like to pose a
question concerning genocide,

which you said it's very
difficult to prove this mental

state of committing it, but
then we have another layer

and this is incitement, which
we've been witnessing here

in Germany from the very
beginning, October 7, 23,

how Palestinians, but in

all their layers of
life, together with their

children, are dehumanised.

We just need to read
Tagesschau or Bild, and if I

may read, or not to take time,
but this is a serious problem,

and then if I go back to
the history and the magazine

Sturmer and compare the
images, not that I'm

comparing, comparing, but
this historical flow of

dehumanising then.

I have no problem
with comparison.

Okay, but then I am now
careful, so because we

know what can happen.

But the processes of
dehumanisations do last, and

they tell us that genocide,
like for instance, in the

country where I am from,
Serbia, lasts for a long time.

So I, as someone from
Serbia, could also recognise

dehumanising images of
Bosniaks or Bosnian Muslims

and then Palestinians while
reading magazines, Bild, not

that I read Bild, but Bild,
Tagesschau, or even I will now

mention the January 19th and
the release of hostages, which

was really an important day,

and it is every time when
we celebrate freed lives.

but then also freed
lives from the prison.

And when we see how they are
represented as the groyalde

Menge, can you help
me translate this?

Screaming crowd, groyalde
or the schreiende.

So this is my question about
the incitement, also how

to organise ourselves to be
aware, to collect, to archive,

and also then to serve to the
legal cause in the future.

And thank you for
your patience.

[Applause]

Again, genocide is difficult
to prove because genocide

should be difficult to commit.

We should not confuse the
intent with the reasons.

I mean, because people say,
Israel, we cannot really say

that Israel wanted to destroy
Gaza, even if it has destroyed

Gaza, even if it has said,
there are Israeli leaders who

have ordered the destruction
of Gaza, and general

commanders who have,
in fact, ordered their

soldiers, so there has

been the order, the chain of
command effectively triggered,

bottom, sorry, top to bottom.

They say, yeah, but they were
also saying that Israel was

also saying that they want
to liberate the hostages

or destroy Hamas,
whatever it means.

And no, we shouldn't confuse
this because the reasons can

be many, but have really no
value in the determination

of intent, which is another
thing, it's the mindset.

When the mindset is
there to destroy, and the

genocide shouldn't even be
committed, the incitement

is sufficient to trigger the
responsibility to prevent.

And this is where, you know,
when the first person to talk

about genocide in the context
of what has happened in Gaza

was Raz Sigal, an Israeli
historian, who said, this is

a textbook case of genocide.

And ignorant as I was back
then, I said, oh, come on.

It's not a textbook case,
because as a good European, I

knew that the textbook case of
genocide, first, I mean, and

again, I had seen the failure
to prevent genocide in Rwanda

and in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

So my point was, if there are
no crematoria, if there are no

machetes, if there is no mass
killing, it's not genocide,

it's not true, it's not true.

And this is why genocide
has been a niche in legal

studies for a long time,
and it's no longer that.

I mean, really, Raz was right
when he said that this is a

textbook case of genocide,
because it's not just a

genocide, it's a settler
colonial genocide.

So the aim is ethnic
cleansing, because the aim

is to empty the land of
Palestinians, keep on

advancing Palestinian erasure
so that the land can be

taken, but also genocidal
acts are being committed

in the process.

And it's been said,
and it has been done.

So this is not a case where
there is no genocidal intent.

But Raz is also, I mean, I
remember that Raz has been

one of those scholars calling
me as early as February 2023,

saying, as I was writing
about the tension and

mass carcerality, mass
incarceration, and the

kind of, the systemic and
widespread the nature of

deprivation of liberty of
the Palestinians.

And he was saying, but
when are you going to

look into the genocide
against the Palestinians?

Imagine my reaction.

But I say, okay,
let's talk about that.

But then I've realised how
much he was right because as

a genocide scholar and someone
who has studied the Holocaust

and other cases of genocide,
he knows that there

are different steps.

That genocide is not an act,
it's a process, and it's

preceded by a number of
things, but there is one

element that is common,
common across all genocides,

and wouldn't be possible
if it was not widespread

among societies.

It's dehumanisation
of the other.

So that we do not
see the Palestinians

today as Palestinians.

And again, as a European, this
is me taking, please don't

applaud, don't nod, don't say
anything, hold your breath,

but I need to say that
because I wouldn't be

me if I didn't say that.

But as a European, as an
Italian, I know that the

genocide of the Jewish people
in this part of the world

would not have been possible
only for a few monsters

who had planned the
deportation, the trains,

the industrialisation, the
horror that has been done.

Jewish people in this part of
the world, before being sent

to concentration camps, have
died out of starvation and

lack of hygiene in ghettos
where they had been locked up.

We know that the
discrimination started, the

dehumanisation had already
started when it was possible

to kick out of their
professions,

people because they were Jewish.

Either we do realise that
racism was the root cause

for the genocide of the Jews,
the Roma, and Sinti, and it's

ingrained in who we are as
European, I'm sorry, but 500

years of colonialism have
been predicated upon the idea

of a superior race, white,
male, Christian, and

it's patriarchy.

[Applause]

Either we deal with it,

No...

[Applause]

it's my responsibility, because

then it's here, I understand
that you cannot talk.

I mean, I'm not making
comparison, for God's sake.

But also, it's history.

And Germany has
committed two genocides.

Please don't applaud,
because there is nothing

to applaud to this.

Germany has committed
two genocides in history.

[Inaudible]

Oops.

Okay, that's fine.

Two are bad enough.

And again, why can't
we talk about that?

Are the Nama and Herero less human?

Do they deserve less
acknowledgment, do they

deserve less memory,
do they deserve less

reparations?

And again, and another thing, and so
me saying that, probably

you should say that, the
State of Israel doesn't

represent all the Jewish
people in the world.

Otherwise, I wouldn't
understand why you invite me

and sit with me today, and
so many, I mean, wherever

I go, I'm invited by Jewish
people first and foremost.

We need to have the
courage to say that.

I do not expect every
one of you to say that.

But those of you who have
an inch of privilege in this

country, university professors
with tenure, Jewish people

first and foremost, we need
to say that it's not in our

name that this can be carried
out because we have not

been able to prevent the
genocide of the Tutsi,

we have not been able to
prevent the genocide of

the Yazidi, or the Rohingya
in Myanmar, or in Bosnia.

However, however, I really
want this to be the last

genocide of human history.

And it's not going to
happen until it's stopped.

In order for this
to be stopped,

it needs to be
understood and recognised.

[Wieland] Absolutely.

Thank you very much.

A perfect point to end, even
if, obviously, many of us

would like to continue.

But there are still further
parts of this program, which,

somewhat amazingly, has been
allowed to proceed this far.

So let's see if we
make it to the end.

Yes, so thank you again,
Francesca Albanese.

[Applause]