Palestine: UN special rapporteur denounces two-tier international law

This interview has been edited and summarized for clarity.

On Monday afternoon, around 30 Palestinian and minority students gathered in the small room of the Mémoire d'Encrier publishing house in Montreal. Dressed in keffiyehs, they all have their eyes on who they consider to be one of the bravest current figures on the international scene: Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

“I am Palestinian, and my family often talk about you,” a McGill student told her before thanking her for her work. Between two university conferences, Albanese took questions from La Converse. Interview.

‍

You're doing the rounds in the media and Canadian universities. Why was it important for you to come to Canada?

From the start of my mandate, I have been very open to dialogue with all stakeholders, whether Palestinian or Jewish communities around the world, because everyone is concerned about what is happening. Since I cannot travel to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, I decided to go to the countries where the demand and the needs are greatest. Jewish and Palestinian groups have been inviting me for a year. Last year it was not possible, but this year I took the opportunity. I think that the moment, the emergency and the ongoing disaster in Gaza make reflection in a country like Canada even more essential than last year, because we see the consequences of the impunity of the State of Israel that even Canada is helping to maintain.

That's why I meet so many people; I accept invitations from universities where students and academics want to hear from me. I also made myself available to the media and all interested voices. Unfortunately, I did not find much interest on the institutional side, which is disappointing, but it is the reality. The West refuses to recognize what is happening, and today, a voice like mine is disturbing, because it carries a revolutionary act in which everyone can participate.

‍

You published, on October, a report entitled Colonial erasure through genocide. This report broadens your analysis of the violence committed in Gaza and the West Bank, by highlighting the intent of genocide. Why was it important for you to release this report at this particular time?

I had no choice; it was essential to provide a factual recounting and legal analysis of the situation in Palestine over the past 12 months. And this situation cannot be called anything other than genocide. If we fail today to see what is happening among the Palestinians as a genocide, it means that we have not understood what a genocide is. Because genocide is the destruction of a racial, ethnic, religious, national group by acts of destruction. It's not just that Gaza has been destroyed — it's already over, nothing can be prevented anymore, but we can prevent the continuation of genocidal acts. The expansion of the genocide to other occupied Palestinian territories, to other parts of the Palestinian people, must be prevented. One cannot yet fail to identify this, because there is a so-called determination, establishment and implementation of the deliberate, intentional destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza.

‍

In your last report, you talk about genocidal intent, which the Israeli authorities refute by claiming that it is not a question of eliminating the Palestinian people, but only Hamas. In your opinion, is there an intention to destroy the Palestinian people?

What constitutes genocide, under international law, is clear — although it is an insidious crime that is difficult to prove, but also difficult to commit. We should have alert mechanisms, surveillance systems in order to be able to prevent it. Genocide is defined in article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This definition covers acts such as the murder of members of an identified group, the infliction of psychological or physical suffering on members of that group, or the creation of living conditions that lead to the destruction of that group.

These are the elements that I had already identified as having been committed as early as March. The essential element of genocide is the intention, the Mens Rea, which is not a motive, contrary to what I have heard: “The Israelis did not want to destroy Gaza, they wanted to destroy Hamas, and what happened was only collateral damage. If Palestinians were killed, it was because they were human shields.” But I think the mistake is to confuse motives with intent. You can have several motives, a billion reasons: to stay in power, to release the hostages. But as soon as we take destructive action, taking into account the results, we are already on a genocidal path. We are responsible for genocide because of certain acts and omissions.

And that's not just government actions. In January, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to investigate and punish acts of incitement to genocide. Nothing has been done. Where was the parliament? When do we talk about murderous acts, the infliction of psychological and physical suffering, torture, total destruction encouraged by leaders, whether political or religious? Nothing worked. But in fact, it's not that nothing worked under the rule of law, it's the whole system that supported this destructive act. Gaza has been destroyed. You can't say "We didn't want to"; they knew what they were doing, and they even explained it: “Take back this land.” Right now, Western legal experts are racking their brains over what constitutes genocide.

That's why I'm talking about colonial genocide, because you kill people, you destroy a people to take their land — that has always been the objective, and October 7 provided the State of Israel with the opportunity to do so by also exploiting the rage and trauma of the Israelis. We need to look at all the actions aimed at all people throughout the country. We are talking about acts of torture involving thousands of Palestinians — it is not one, 2 or 10 people, but thousands of people, including children. Barbarity against Palestinians. It's all documented by the soldiers themselves — we should really be ashamed that we didn't stop it all.

To say that these are only war crimes, individual crimes, or even, at best, crimes against humanity, and that there is no intention of destruction is really “missing the forest for the trees.”

‍

The term genocide seems difficult to accept to describe what is currently happening in Gaza and Palestine, as we saw in the reception your report. Why do you think this term is so controversial, when the Canadian government, for example, recognized a few years ago that what the Uyghurs in China are experiencing is a genocide?

There is an ideological barrier that prevents us from understanding this genocide. Beyond the impunity guaranteed to Israel... Let's be honest: if we wanted to apply international law, we had almost 60 years to do so. Israel has been building settlements for 57 years, which in themselves are war crimes on occupied Palestinian territory. Even Israelis, 55 years ago, were already saying, “This is going to lead to annexation, it will be war crimes.” And gradually, all of this has been normalized, not only by Israeli governments, but also by the international community. And it's not just Canada; no one stepped in to protect Palestinians where they were, in what land they had left.

Today, it is difficult to recognize that Israel is committing an act of genocide. How is it possible that the state resulting from a genocide, the one that Europeans subjected to the Jewish people and other minorities in Europe, could commit one in turn? How can this happen in a state that we helped create, in a form of reparation for the Jewish people, and which is now coming to commit genocide? This, I think, is what creates a form of embarrassment and discomfort in becoming aware of this reality.

‍

And how do you interpret not having been invited to an official meeting by the federal government?

I understand why it's good to have an excuse not to meet with me. Because it's going to be awkward. Because you have very competent people, objectively, in power. It's not that they don't know what Israel is doing. But they don't want to face reality, because admitting that what's happening in Palestine is monstrous means having to take action to stop it, and obviously, the government is not ready to do that, as is the case with other Western governments.

‍

If you were received, what would be your message for the Canadian government?

I would say that Canada, like any country with a colonial past, has a particular obligation to the Palestinian people. Unlike the United States, Canada is committed to a process of recognizing the wrongs done to Indigenous Peoples. If this approach is genuine, Canada must also help other peoples whose existence is threatened by colonial attacks to protect themselves.

In June, a decision by the International Court of Justice recognized the total illegality of the Israeli occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It ordered Israel to unconditionally end its military occupation, dismantle its settlements, stop all exploitation of Palestinian resources, provide reparations and facilitate the return of refugees. Faced with this, what is Canada doing? It has legal obligations — and I am not asking for acts of solidarity or charity. It has obligations established by international law. Canada has an obligation not to support this illegal occupation. But in this context, what is the meaning of the free trade agreement with Israel? How can we justify the fact that, for years, Canada allowed products from Israeli settlements to enter its territory?

Today, there are no more excuses. We need to review our political, diplomatic, economic, military and strategic relationships with Israel. Otherwise, we risk being complicit with a regime that is committing atrocities. In the past, Canada has had to take a stand, not only politically, but also ethically. Whether against apartheid in South Africa — an opposition movement that actually originated in Quebec — or by refusing to engage in the invasion of Iraq led by the United States. Even recently, Canada did not hesitate to take diplomatic action against India. It is therefore a question of coherence and respect for the principles of international law without discrimination. I insist: in a country with a colonial past, this is an even more pressing responsibility than in other countries.

‍

You proposed suspending Israel from the UN. Do you think this is possible?

It was a particularly difficult year for Palestinians and Israelis, marked by enormous suffering. But the reason why I suggested re-examining Israel's membership in the United Nations has to do with Israel's actions against the UN itself. The Israeli army destroyed 70% of the United Nations infrastructure in Gaza. Schools, clinics, distribution centres — even when they housed refugees — have been hit. Humanitarian convoys have been targeted, and United Nations assistance has been blocked. Israel has killed 237 UN members in Gaza alone. Outside Gaza, in Lebanon, Israel attacked peacekeeping forces militarily.

Israel also declared the United Nations Secretary General Persona Non Grata and has waged a defamation campaign against any United Nations institution or official who dared to criticize its actions and the operations of its army this year.

How can we tolerate that? If these abuses are not stopped, a dangerous precedent is created, allowing any State to disengage and carry out similar attacks against the United Nations without fear of consequences.

Why should other states respect the United Nations if there are never consequences when fundamental principles are violated?

‍

So, in essence, what you're saying is that in the current state of affairs, the United Nations losing its relevance?

But of course! They are losing their authority. They are becoming less and less relevant in the lives of people who have always considered the United Nations to be a means, an institution, a set of mechanisms for keeping the peace. Today, on the one hand, there are ordinary people like us asking, “What about the United Nations? ”, and on the other hand, there are people from the Global South who ask themselves: “Does the United Nations only work to sanction countries in the Global South?" It's very dangerous what's going on. The risk is that this erosion of international law will weaken us all, because in a world where "Might Makes Right," we no longer have the possibility of limiting ourselves to the force of power. We are in a lawless system.

‍

You are talking about a system of double standards between countries in the North and those in the South. In the long run, what would it take to force these countries to comply with the rules of international law?

You can't go on like this without destroying the system. It is not the first time that international organizations have failed because they lack the political strength to make the right decisions. What is needed is to return to the fundamental principles of international law, to the Charter of the United Nations, to the maintenance of peace and stability, through the force of law, a law that applies universally and without discrimination to all, to the strong and the weak, to the rich and to the poor. We are no longer there. Maybe we've never been there, but now we're really a long way from it.

‍