The UN special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, has accused major European powers, including the UK, Italy and Germany, of complicity in the genocide in Gaza and warned that their government officials should face legal consequences.
In an interview with the Expert Witness podcast on 3 November, Albanese discussed the findings of her latest report, titled Gaza Genocide: A Collective Crime, where she cited evidence of the alleged responsibility of 63 states for enabling Israeli breaches of international law.
Despite overwhelming evidence of genocide and mass atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank, Europe’s most powerful states continue to provide diplomatic, military and political cover for Israel, she told Middle East Eye.
She called out UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer for failing to acknowledge the risk of genocide and for his government’s alleged complicity in Israel’s conduct against the Palestinians.
“The UK is one of those interesting cases where the political leadership has helped manufacture consensus around the war that Israel has unleashed against the population of Gaza,” she said.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on
Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
She also denounced the UK’s crackdown on Palestine Action, saying it has helped create “a climate of complicity”.
“I do not dispute that the methods used by Palestine Action might cause damage. I don’t dispute that they might trespass what is legally acceptable. But framing this as terrorism is beyond what terrorism is and constitutes,” she said.
“The fact that the government makes a deliberate choice to target civil society action as terrorism, or to go after journalists who are investigating the genocide on charges of terrorism, while continuing to support the state that uses and practises terror against a virtually defenceless population, creates a climate of complicity.”
Albanese also took aim at Germany and Italy for blocking joint EU action against Israel.
“It is a very sad coincidence that one century later, these two countries are still on the wrong side of history,” Albanese said, referring to Italy and Germany’s opposition to suspending the EU-Israel Association Agreement, even as other European states, including Slovenia and Spain, have opted to impose arms embargoes and sanctions independently.
“These two countries have individually the highest responsibility to prevent genocide – particularly Germany, given its record.”
Albanese argued that Germany, “which has already brought havoc upon Europe and beyond once in history”, is again failing to prevent atrocity.
Undeterred by Trump sanctions
Albanese was sanctioned in July by the administration of US President Donald Trump in connection with her work investigating genocide in Gaza. The sanctions effectively barred her from travelling to the US and froze her assets there.
Albanese was unable to officially launch her report at the UN General Assembly headquarters in New York on 28 October, as is required for other UN experts. Instead, she spoke to the Assembly from Cape Town, South Africa.
“It’s frustrating as a UN expert not being able to travel to the UN headquarters, and on top of that suffering all sorts of limitations because of the sanctions,” she told MEE.
“At the same time, it was so symbolic to have behind me the image of Nelson Mandela, where normally the UN logo would stand, because Nelson Mandela symbolises humanity and the victory of humanity over the barbarism of racial segregation and apartheid.”
Francesca Albanese to contribute to Corbyn ‘Gaza tribunal’ on UK complicity in genocide
Read More »
Sanctions against Albanese marked a historic precedent in which a UN-affiliated individual was targeted with such a measure for their work.
The move has prompted calls by fellow UN experts for a case to be brought before the International Court of Justice alleging a breach of her diplomatic immunity to which UN experts are entitled under international law.
Since February, the US has sanctioned the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Count (ICC), his two deputies and six judges for their work investigating atrocities in Palestine and Afghanistan. The sanctions later targeted Palestinian human rights organisations and officials.
In the interview, Albanese criticised the sanctions imposed on her and others as “mafia-style” measures.
But she urged prosecutors and judges at the ICC to defy the sanctions. “Of course they should continue to investigate and issue arrest warrants,” she said. “Are we going to bend backwards because of this mafia-style system that is eroding the very foundation of the international justice system?”
“There has been so much work and sacrifice of so many lives before ours,” she said. “There is a greater call to answer here.”
Below are excerpts from the interview, which have been slightly edited for length and clarity.
MEE: You were sanctioned in July, shortly after your scathing report in which you named over 60 companies, including major US technology firms, for their involvement in what you described as “the transformation of Israel’s economy of occupation into an economy of genocide”. But you have clearly been undeterred by these sanctions, and you went on to investigate the role of 63 states, for what you describe as the collective crime of enabling Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza. Can you unpack the findings of your report for our audience, and why you are accusing so many states of complicity in genocide?
Francesca Albanese: Israel is very embedded, more than other states in the United Nations system, in the current global economy, because Israel is a producer of weapons and security, surveillance and spying systems, or because it is a producer of technology that is much needed and in high demand by all member states.
And Israel is also an integral part of US foreign policy. Israel and the US are so close in their manifestation to the outside world that sometimes their foreign interests are indistinguishable, in how they are chosen. Not that I claim that Israel’s interests are the same as the US, but their foreign policies align dramatically.
In this embeddedness, it’s very difficult to isolate Israel. And this is why I say that, had it not been for the economic, political, military and diplomatic strategic support that Israel enjoys, its crimes would not have been sustainable over such a long time.
Israel has sustained two years of increasing criticism at the international level from the people, and still, policies have not substantially shifted towards Israel.
Yes, the BDS movement continues to gain terrain and momentum, and still, member states protect Israel.
Israel is still present in international fora like the UN, or in competitions such as sporting ones – Fiba (the International Basketball Federation), Fifa, Uefa – it continues to be present as a country.
It is also present in cultural events like film festivals, the Biennale, art and culture, Eurovision – business as usual.
And moreover, very few states have cut economic or military ties with Israel.
And measures are scant.
There are member states that have done either – either cut diplomatic ties, or cut economic ties, or cut military ties – while international law is very clear: member states cannot maintain relations that translate into aiding and assisting a state that commits international crimes.
And this is the thing. There are some member states, in particular those that carry political weight, that have intentionally provided the political and strategic support that has allowed Israel to continue working, to enjoy and benefit from its propaganda – such as the narrative that it is fighting a legitimate war against an existential threat, that all Palestinians are somehow responsible for what Israel suffered on 7 October.
The narrative in the West has remained stuck on 7 October. Even today, after 70,000 people have certainly died. And not because it is not important, but because what about the destruction of Gaza? The destruction of Gaza has been justified.
Again, I do think that had it not been for this adamant, crystallised system of complacency and complicity, the genocide would have stopped years ago.
MEE: Speaking of complicity, in your report, you said that “the United Kingdom has played a key role in military collaboration with Israel, despite internal opposition. From its bases in Cyprus, the UK has enabled crucial US supply lines to Tel Aviv and flown over 600 surveillance missions over Gaza throughout the genocide, sharing intelligence with Israel. Flight numbers and durations often coinciding with major Israeli operations suggest detailed knowledge and cooperation in the destruction of Gaza, extending beyond hostage rescue”. I’d like to hear from you what the UK is expected to do as concrete steps in order to refrain from being complicit in the genocide.
Albanese: The UK is one of those interesting cases of manufacturing, where the political leadership has helped manufacture consensus around the war that Israel has unleashed against the population of Gaza.
I heard the current prime minister, when he was the leader of the opposition, saying that the curtailing of essential services was justified – that it was in Israel’s prerogatives – which is absolutely incorrect from a legal point of view.
So, the narrative has been such that it has justified what Israel has done, which amounts to the commission of crimes.
Also, the current prime minister has used his credentials as a lawyer who is an expert on genocide – because he has litigated genocide cases before the International Court of Justice – to dismiss that in Gaza there was an ongoing genocide. This is at odds with what he should know: that the moment the International Court of Justice recognised the risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian people in Gaza under the Genocide Convention, there is an obligation for member states to intervene, and therefore not to aid and assist in the commission of what could plausibly be a genocide.
‘Disappointing’: ICJ grants Israel another extension in South Africa genocide case
Read More »
So it’s not ignorance. It is wilful participation in the creation of the conditions that have enabled the genocide, that have allowed the genocide to continue.
The political support, the discursive support, but also the measures that have been taken – these are indirect ways to support Israel’s conduct.
The measures taken to punish civil society and activists against the genocide – I do not dispute that the methods used by Palestine Action might cause damage. I don’t dispute that they might trespass what is legally acceptable. But framing this as terrorism is beyond what terrorism is and constitutes.
And the fact that the government makes a deliberate choice to target civil society action as terrorism, or to go after journalists who are investigating the genocide on charges of terrorism, while continuing to support the state that uses and practises terror against a virtually defenceless population, creates a climate of complicity – speaks to a climate of complicity.
MEE: Given the evidence of complicity of the UK that you have presented in your report, do you think there is enough evidence to bring a case against the United Kingdom at the ICJ, similar to the case that Nicaragua has brought against Germany for complicity in genocide, or for breaching the Genocide Convention?
Albanese: I think that there is enough evidence to prompt the collection of further evidence, to prompt an investigation that might allow national actors to decide whether they can carry forward an action or not.
Frankly, I cannot make this assessment on my own, because I collected some evidence, not all evidence, and I do not have access to UK sources. Bear in mind, I used open-source material to put together the framework.
But I definitely think that it is worth investigating. And there are already parliamentary enquiries, or enquiries led by members of parliament in the UK, to this extent.
I would also note that in order to have a case before the ICJ, you need a state to take action against the UK.
But you can also have domestic judicial proceedings – against figures who have authorised certain acts, or who have omitted to take responsibility for given measures. So again, I do believe it is about time for the justice system to put itself to work.
MEE: In September, the EU Commission proposed the suspension of the trade-related pillar of the EU Association Agreement, which is the deal that governs political and diplomatic relations between Israel and the EU. And yet, Israel remains the EU’s largest trade partner. And apparently there is a stumbling block to this suspension: suspending the free-trade provisions would require the approval of a qualified majority of the 27 EU members – a “double majority” rule of at least 55 percent of member states and 65 percent of the EU population. This effectively means it would require Italy or Germany to support the bid. And so far, the two nations have yet to approve any proposal to sanction Israel during the genocide.
Because of the failure to suspend the Association Agreement or its free-trade pillar, some nations within the EU – like Slovenia and Spain – have taken their own concrete steps, such as imposing a full arms embargo or sanctioning Israeli officials.
Do you welcome these individual steps? And do you think this should be the way forward for European states – to act individually rather than as a bloc?
Albanese: Yes, definitely. This is something I have argued various times. International law is not superseded. Peremptory norms of international law that cannot be derogated take precedence over regional agreements.
So it seems to me that the European Union and its trade agreements are being used to circumvent something that cannot be circumvented – which is compliance with international law, including the obligation to prevent genocide.
There is a clear statement by the International Court of Justice in the case of Nicaragua versus Germany, reminding member states not to transfer weapons, including components, to a state that might commit violations of international humanitarian law.
So we even have a lower threshold indicated by the court. Member states should stop trading weapons, transferring weapons, buying weapons from Israel. This is enough – and it obliges states.
Using the European Union as an excuse, as a screen behind which to hide, is quite hypocritical. And in any case, it does not spare these states and their governments from accountability. It should not, at least.
MEE: What’s your message to Italy, your home country, and to Germany – the two nations that are blocking joint EU action with respect to the Association Agreement with Israel?
Albanese: They do not miss an opportunity to make the wrong choices in history. These two countries have, individually, the highest responsibility to prevent genocide – particularly Germany, given its record. Germany has already brought havoc upon Europe and beyond once in history, and is not contributing to avoid and prevent another genocide. And Italy is following suit. It is a very sad coincidence that one century later, these two countries are still on the wrong side of history.
But what I tell them is: comply with your international obligations. Otherwise, you and your government officials will have to face consequences. And this is why I am so reassured that at least in Italy there is a conscientious civil society that is taking legal action against government officials and companies.
I am not aware of similar actions in Germany. But also, Italy is in turmoil at the moment. There are several strikes that have been declared – and continue to be declared. There is a huge strike upcoming this month, on the 28 and 29 November. And it is very important that citizens, ordinary citizens, keep protesting and direct their strikes toward ports and other places from which weapons are transferred to Israel.
MEE: The ICC has, so far, only issued two arrest warrants for Israeli leaders. And although we know from our sources that other arrest warrants should have been under way but have not been filed due to the threat of sanctions, it is unclear whether the ICC will go ahead with any more arrest warrants. What’s your message to ICC prosecutors and judges, given the threat of sanctions? Should they defy sanctions and continue their investigations and seek more arrest warrants for what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank?
Albanese: Yes, of course, they should continue to investigate and issue arrest warrants for those who appear to be committing crimes: war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
I have been advocating for greater action and greater leadership by the ICC for a long time, because I think that ministers who are directly responsible for instigating crimes against Palestinians – including the use of torture and other cruel and degrading treatment against prisoners – should not be in positions of power.
And ministers who are responsible for the annexation, or who continue to advance the annexation, of large swathes of Palestinian territory should not be in positions of power, not unchallenged. So, of course, there should be justice.
I also understand the chilling effect that the wave of sanctions against the judges and prosecutors of the International Criminal Court might have on anyone. I do understand, because I see that myself.
At the same time – are we going to bend backwards because of this mafia-style system that is eroding the very foundation of the international justice system? I think that in that system there has been so much work and sacrifice of so many lives before ours, that if we have chosen this path, our own personal situation should not count so much. There is a greater call to answer here. And I do hope that the International Criminal Court will be able to withstand pressure and stand tall in the face of adversity.
MEE: What do you make of the fact that a number of European countries – like Italy, France and Greece – all of them members of the ICC, have allowed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plane to fly over or use their airspace several times since the ICC issued arrest warrants? It was only on his last trip to the UN General Assembly in New York that he avoided French airspace. So, are these states violating international law by allowing Netanyahu’s overflight, and would it make them complicit?
Albanese: Yes. Allowing their airspace to be used by someone who is wanted by the International Criminal Court is a violation of the international justice system’s rules, and should be followed by consequences.
The question is that the International Criminal Court already seems under enough pressure today not to want to take on more – and I would understand that. But at the same time, the international justice system operates, and operates successfully, only if complementarity works.
And this is why I think that now more than ever, the role of domestic courts is critical. This is why I welcome the proceedings that have been started in a number of countries against governments who have authorised the use of national airspace for the ICC-wanted Israeli prime minister’s aeroplanes.
MEE: On a personal note, do you still have faith in international law? And also, if you have a message to those aspiring to study or practise international law – is it worth it? And how can they make a difference, given the apparent failure of international courts to prosecute the most powerful, and the overall non-compliance of states with international law?
Albanese: Look, it’s like asking a doctor whether he or she has faith in medicine when medicine fails. Of course medicine fails – but it might fail because of limitations in what we know, or in the application of medical practice.
Francesca Albanese to deliver ‘symbolic’ UN speech from South Africa after Trump sanctions
Read More »
Here, I think the reason why international law fails is not because of inner limitations or inherent inadequacy – it is because of a lack of enforcement. So we need more principled leaders, and principled legal experts and legal practitioners working in the pursuit of justice.
So – fewer corporate lawyers, or rather more principled corporate lawyers. More principled diplomats. Really, it’s about courage. A genocide does not require intelligence; it requires courage.
So for me, it’s not about faith. International law is what I know – it is my principal instrument and toolbox of work.
So I do keep believing that we should try, and try, and try to make it work. Because, as I said, it is the last remnant of an international order ruled by peace – and not by war, and not by “might makes right”.
