Yanis Varoufakis and Francesca Albanese on Israel, Palestine and Genocide

[Applause]

[Yanis] Well, Francesca Albanese, the
United Nations rapporteur on Palestine,

it is not only a personal
pleasure to be talking to you today,

but I want to convey

on behalf of our MERA25 friends and
members that are watching this

their appreciation, our joint
appreciation

for everything you've been
doing so courageously

over months and months of
this unfolding genocide,

which will stigmatise humanity
for so many years.

So thank you on behalf of everyone,
not just on my behalf.

Let me ask you, we are
having this conversation now

less than 24 hours after
the announcement, finally

of an agreement between
Hamas and Israel,

to affect a ceasefire.

What are your feelings about this?

[Francesca] I don't know, I don't know.

Really I'm still processing it,

I feel, I feel so happy to see
the Palestinians cheering,

especially the kids are looking forward
to the return of a peaceful normalcy.

This is on the one hand.

I also know that for many
Israelis, this is the end of a nightmare.

But is it going to be the end of the
nightmare for the Palestinians?

For the Palestinians, first of all, we are
talking of the Palestinians in Gaza

I was listening to the outgoing
president of the US

saying, oh, now the Palestinians can
return to their homes, to their life.

[Yanis] Yeah.

[Francesca] Where have you been for the
past 15 months President Biden?

For many of them
there are no more houses,

and for many of them the houses,
whatever, even the rubbles will be empty.

Hundreds and hundreds of
families have been exterminated.

And again, the genocide has happened.

I don't know how you feel, Yanis,

but somewhat, something, I say that,
but I'm still processing what it is

something has broken this year.

Again, this was not a war;
this was a genocidal war,

and all these images of all these people,
all these children,

killed, amputated, brutalised, starved,
left in flooded tents, frozen to death.

[Yanis] Yeah.

We're're still here, so what.

[Yanis] Well, a whole population has
been placed on death row

for the first time
since the Second World War.

But there is also another dimension,
I just had word from the West Bank

that settlers under the cover of the IDF
are attacking villages now,

as we speak!

This is not a ceasefire in Palestine.

It's a ceasefire only in Gaza
from how I understand it.

And remember, the original
idea of Ariel Sharon

was to move out of Gaza

in order to annex and complete
the occupation of the West Bank.

So from your perspective,

the United Nations perspective,
reporting on Palestine,

can you comment on
what the Gaza ceasefire means

for East Jerusalem, for the West Bank
more generally.

[Francesca] Yeah, yeah, Yanis,
you need it,

because as I answered the first question,
I said this is only for Gaza,

there are some striking features
in the agreement.

There is the liberation of, I think
1,700 prisoners; they are all from Gaza.

But what about the thousands of people
who have been kidnapped?

Palestinians who have been kidnapped,
arbitrarily detained, tortured;

this includes children, this includes
journalists and teachers,

professors from the West Bank.

Since the very beginning
I've written about that.

This is why I've said we need to look at
Israel's intent,

in terms of totality of conduct

and totality of crimes against
the totality of the Palestinians

in the totality of the land that Israel
illegally occupies and claims as its own.

Have you heard anyone talking about
withdrawal of Israel's presence,

civilian and military tangible and
intangible, material and immaterial

because this is what the ICJ has asked,
has ordered in July last year

and the General Assembly has given
a deadline to Israel to do that.

And no one is talking about that,
and this is the point: West Bank.

West Bank is the place where
the colonial erasure is advancing,

through other means and through other
crimes and through other actors.

Because there you have the Israeli army

the settlers, armed settlers,

and now you also have the repression
from the Palestinian Authority,.

[Yanis] It was poignant that you said

that not all the Palestinian hostages
are going to be released,

especially not the ones
from West Bank.

And by the way, I'm talking about hostages
so that I can be symmetrical.

There are Israeli hostages and
there are Palestinian hostages.

There are no conflicts or prisoners;
they are hostages;

they are the hostages by an army
of occupation.

As we were speaking,

my thoughts wandered in the direction
of the family of Marwan Barghouti,

who's been in prison for decades now

precisely because Israel does not
want any leadership to emerge

within the Palestinians that
are representative of the Palestinians

and which can actually
pave the ground for peace

because Israel does not want peace.

A white settler colonial
project loaths peace.

[Francesca] I think that Israel somewhat

wants peace as long as it
implies the subjugation

of the Palestinians as a temporary
measure toward their erasure.

The plan of this settler colonial project
as it continues

is not the integration of, or the
weakening of the indigenous Palestinians

because, as non-Jewish, they have no
place, no belonging in the Jewish State,

this is very clear, and this is the
problem I have with the state of Israel.

It's not the state of Israel per se; it's
how the state of Israel behaves

The state of Israel is quintessentially
as an apartheid state,

I wish it was different.

This has nothing to do with
the Jewish people,

It's about the design to subjugate,
oppress, dominate another people

till annihilation.

And unfortunately Yanis,
it's happening;

it has not happened for one reason,
because the Palestinians do not give up.

The Palestinians could have, I mean,
when Rafa was invaded.

I don't know what you think, but
this is my two cents:

when Rafa was invaded in May

till then, the push of the army through
evacuation orders and safe zones

had been more southward from the
north to the south.

When Israel entered Rafa,
it pushed Palestinians east and south

as much as it could and as it saw
that the Palestinians were not moving,

and as it saw that the
pressure was mounting

Then it gave up, and it started pushing.
them to eastward,

um, sorry. westward, westward, not
eastward, westward toward the sea

in an area like Forensic Architecture
has documented

that is totally, totally unsustainable
unlivable.

But the Palestinians have resisted
in the little that remains of their land,

and still they resist in the little,
I mean, not the little,

but in what remains of their land in east
Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank

or in Israel itself.

But it's very hard, it is, and
if we don't keep the pressure on Israel

it will be harder and harder.

[Yanis] Well, speaking of pressure and
going back to your contribution

as a lawyer and a rapporteur for
the United Nations,

one of the valiant contributions
you've made

was - and I've seen you do this in press
conference after press conference

from one country to the other -

you're taking your own views and beliefs
out of the equation,

and when you talk about genocide,
you insist

that this is not a matter of opinion.

Can you speak to: is this
genocide from a legal perspective?

Look, I was listening to you and as you
were in introducing your question

I was saying it's something
you put your opinions aside.

This is so true, you have not even
an idea of how true it is,

because probably, you have not
heard me saying that

but in the beginning,
I was not sure.

I mean, I had really superficial back then
understanding of what genocide was

because it's quite a niche.

When I went back to study what
genocide is from a legal point of view

and looking at the cases and
the Juris Prudence

I realised where my mistake came from.

Is that we tend to associate genocide to
extermination and mass killing

in Rwanda or the Holocaust.

But genocide is something really deeper

and in retrospect,
and then I'll tell you why

from a legal point of view, I think
that the Palestinian genocide,

the genocide of the Palestinians

is THE textbook of genocide

and as Raz Segal had really
brilliantly put it

because it's what the conceiver of
the term genocide had in mind:

the settler colonial genocide, erasure
of a people, annihilation of a people.

Which doesn't mean killing them all.

In fact, in the genocide convention, the
act of, I mean the killing,

is one of five acts.

But Genocide is a crime constituting,
to be made of, the intent to destroy,

in all or in part a national, religious,
racial, or national group as such.

So the group is targeted as such.

And what does constitute genocide?

Several acts: acts of killing members
of the group,

inflicting severe mental
and bodily harm,

creating conditions calculated to
bring about the destruction of the group

or also, not even these are
prevention of birth

and transfer of children.

So you see there are genocidal acts

that resonate with settler colonial
genocides like in Canada and Australia,

where the genocide was
primarily carried out

by breaking the bloodline of the
Aboriginal on the one hand,

and then the First Nations and
Métis, etc. in Canada

separating the kids or preventing births.

[Yanis] I'm glad you mentioned
Australia and Canada

and the United States
of course.

First Nations peoples, Aboriginals
and so on,

because recently, I was in a debate
with a passionate defender

of Israel's right to
implement genocidal policies.

He said to me: "Do you agree, Yanis,
that, expecting of Israel

things that we don't expect of
the great major Democratic

states of the the world, is racist?".

I said: "We'll, go on."

And he said, "Well, why should
we expect Israel

not to engage in genocidal practices

when the whole of the United
States was essentially

a grand genocide, as was
Canada and Australia? ".

The point, the vile point is
that what do we expect

of the Anglosphere in particular
or Germany?

Think of what Germany did in
Namibia right?

I mean, or Belgium in the Congo,
they practiced genocide,

so why should they, if they retain a
kind of allegiance to their past,

why should the representatives of
these states think of Israel

as doing something out of the
ordinary?

[Francesca] Why Israel should be
held to a different standard

from the other liberal democracies
born from genocides

or colonial powers that spread genocide,
committed genocide across the world?

Different and several answers.

First of all because after 1948, the world
enacted a legal framework,

which prohibits genocide.

So what was permitted in 1913 or
in the 15th and 16th century

is clearly prohibited today, and it's
prohibited to the point

genocide to be prevented,
stopped, and punished.

So Israel can commit genocide and
in fact it has committed genocide,

but now it will have to face the
consequences.

[Yanis] You report to the
the Secretary General

of the United Nations.

what is your sense of
the manner in which your reports

and of course, what we see on our
screens every day, is affecting

the atmosphere both within
the Security Council

and the General Assembly of
the United Nations, and finally,

would it make any difference
if the United Nations

admitted the state
of Palestine formerly in it's ranks?

[Francesca] So what kind of difference
my reports are making?

Well, my reports to the Human Rights
Council and the General Assembly

produce a response that reflects
the state of the world.

In the sense there is fierce opposition
by a small number of countries,

very, very small, no more than
five, open opposition.

And then, the rest is from
the West, of course:

Israel, and four of it's best allies,
closest allies.

Then there is sort of silence,
silent appreciation,

happy that I said those things

but not courageous enough or not
enabled enough,

because of lack of representation
to be able to say that, or just

for political convenience,

which is another good number
of states in the West.

The abstainers, and then there is the
absolute majority of member states

who support my work, who express
admiration

and who take those words,

the recommendations
that I make, seriously.

But the point Yanis, is that the world
is still not equal.

The world is still made
of certain powers

who have more influence on the
International System than others

and have still the capacity to pivot and
to - I wouldn't say to manipulate -

but to turn the system upside down
when it plays out,

or it tries to protect interests
that are not in line

with the, I would say, the imperialist
interests of some.

So in the UN there is not, in the
Security Council this is the reality,

the Security Council has been so far
paralysed, largely paralysed

or slowed down by
the veto of the United States

by the United States.

However, would the situation be different

had the United Nations and
the Security Council

formally recognised Palestine's
membership

as, I mean Palestine as a member,
as a full member of the United Nations?

I think so, for one reason.

Because If we had gotten there,
it would have been

because of a profound conviction
and motivation of member states

that this was a cause worth fighting for.

So while we still have many western
states that do not recognize Palestine

out of hypocrisy because it makes
no sense whatsoever

from a legal point of view, from a
political-ethical point of view

but still do not want to upset
Israel and the United States.

So it means that fundamentally, there are
member states in the United Nations

who have been preaching for 30
years about the two-state solution,

but it's just that it has been just
kicking the can in the air

because when it takes like,
a little more effort more

and more coherence and more
compliance with international law

to walk the talk, they step back.

So this is the world we live in.

[Yanis] One last question because
I know you're busy,

and you have to rush
to other things.

The elephant in the room
which I wasn't going to mention actually,

[Francesca] Which one?

[Yanis] Donald Trump, of course.

He's just about to move into the
White House.

We know what he did in the period
2016 to 2020

he was more Zionist than Netanyahu
in his actions,

but I was stunned a few days ago

when I saw that he retweeted or
reposted on his own Twitter, Truth Social,

a talk by a good friend and colleague
of mine, Jeff Sachs,

who was referring to Netanyahu as
a son of a bitch

who has been instrumental in
essentially hoodwinking

the United States State Department
and the Pentagon

into his never-ending wars, essentially
damaging very substantially

the United States,

both economically and in terms of its
image around the world,

especially in the global South.

That was what Jeff Sachs was saying,
and the Donald actually reposted that.

And I was stunned, any comments?

Any thoughts about what
we should expect

now that there is a change of guard
in the White House?

[Francesca] Well, take my comment with
a grain of salt

because I'm not a political analyst

but as someone who has
followed the damage

that the Trump administration has
made to the Palestinians

with the recognition of Jerusalem
as the capital of Israel.

With the tsunami, as I called it back
in 2017 that he provoked against UNWRA.

So I'm cognisant that, especially
with the kind of government,

the administration that he has prepared
to start in a few days,

chances that the rights
of the Palestinians

will be anywhere near

to the heart of the President are
very slim, if absent.

However, however, while the Palestinians
will not be a priority,

what I've learned,
what I've seen this year

is that there is a difference between
an Israeli Zionist or Zionist in general

and the Uber colonizer that we have
in Israel at the moment,

like the settler led movement
which is in the government, Yanis,

and I'm not sure that Trump would
support the wild

really, when I mean wild, it's material,
it's not just metaphorical,

the wild assault on the Palestinians
through the means of war,

causing instability, because I
don't think that he's ready

to spend more US funds on any war
that Israel wants to embark on.

This is my feeling;
is it a reassurance?

No, of course not.

Because he probably, many in
his administration would be fine

with a continuous erasure of
the Palestinians through silent means

but at a low cost for the US,
for the US Administration.

This is my feeling, of course,
this is not enough.

But is it going to be worse

than what has been done
over the past four years,

especially the past,
it's hard to fathom.

Although look, I learned this year, never
to say what can happen worse than this

because the moment I say that,
something worse happens.

[Yanis] Well, thank you so much
for connecting with us today

and tonight when it will be shown.

Do you want to just try to finish off on a
not optimistic, but at least hopeful note,

you know, with a message to our people
here in Greece, in Europe, in the world.

[Francesca] I have not been optimistic
no, yes, I mean, first of all,

I came to love Greece
more than ever this year,

because I've encountered so many
wonderful and engaged Greek people

but I want to say something
I tell everyone:

the reality in Palestine epitomises old,
current, and probably future injustices.

This is the world.

Naked, this is the world in terms of
human relations.

Do we want to continue with it?

Because if the answer is yes,
I don't care;

well, sooner or later
it will touch us,

and I expect sooner rather than later

because all injustices are connected:

economic injustices, environmental
injustices.

And therefore I think that Palestine today

is a test for what we want
to do next and be next.

So staying silent and inactive
should not be an option

and remember that justice
starts at home.

So go after your policy makers, go after
the businesses, the charities the banks

see where your Pension funds go
because there is nothing,

and I'm telling you because this
is what I'm working on at the moment

the matrix the economic and
financial matrix

that underpins the occupation and with
all the crimes that are a part of it

would not be possible without
the contribution of each of us

and when I say each of us,
I mean it.

[Yanis] Well, Francesca Albanese,
thank you so much for being with us,

[Francesca] Not very optimistic.

[Yanis] Oh no, I think this is
a great source of hope,

the notion that, for as long
as we breathe, we struggle.

Because nothing else is fun
in this life, you know,

succumbing to despair
and succumbing to inhumanity

does not contribute to a
happy existence.

So no, I consider the way
in which you concluded

the most hopeful contribution you
could have made,

at least during this conversation.

You have a lot more to do,
and once more

our appreciation, our collective
appreciation and best wishes.

[Francesca] Thank you so much,
stay strong, keep fighting.

Bye-bye.