ANALYSIS: By Chris Hedges

I have seen the masked goons who terrorise our streets before. I saw them during the “Dirty War” in Argentina, where 30,000 men, women and children were “disappeared” by the military junta.

Victims were held in secret prisons, savagely tortured and murdered. To this day, many families do not know the fate of their loved ones.

I saw them in El Salvador, when death squads were killing 800 people a month. I saw them in Guatemala under the dictatorship of José Efraín Ríos Montt.

• READ MORE: Ian Powell: The Nicolás Maduro kidnapping, US imperialist expansion and implications for New Zealand
• Jonathan Cook: From Gaza to Venezuela, the US has been unmasked as the serial villain
• Other state terrorism reports

I saw them in Augusto Pinochet’s Chile and in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. I saw them in Iran under the rule of the ayatollahs where I was arrested and jailed twice and once deported in handcuffs. I saw them in Hafez al-Assad’s Syria.

I saw them in Bosnia, where Muslims were herded into concentration camps, executed and buried in mass graves.

I know these goons. I have been a prisoner in their jails and spent hours in their interrogation rooms. I have been beaten by them. I have been deported, and in several cases banned, from their countries. I know what is coming.

Terror is the engine that empowers dictatorships. It eliminates dissidents. It silences critics. It dismantles the law. It creates a society of timid and frightened collaborators, those who look away when people are snatched off streets or gunned down, those who inform to save themselves, those who retreat into their tiny rabbit holes, pulling down the blinds, desperately praying to be left in peace.

Terror works.

The iron doors have not yet shut. There are still protests. The media is still able to document state atrocities, including the January 7 murder of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent Jonathan Ross.

Doors closing fast
But the doors are closing fast. ICE has deported over 300,000 people and detained nearly 69,000 others — as well as been involved in 16 shootings, including four killings — since Trump began his campaign against immigrants.

ICE, our Americanised Gestapo, is being birthed.

Resistance must be collective. We must assert not only our individual rights, but economic, social and political rights — without them we are powerless. Resistance means organising to disrupt the machinery of commerce and government.

It means preventing arrests by patrolling neighborhoods to warn of impending ICE raids. It means protesting outside detention facilities. It means strikes. It means blocking streets and highways and occupying buildings. It means providing photographic evidence.

It means sustained pressure on local politicians and police to refuse to cooperate with ICE. It means providing legal representation, food and financial assistance to families with members detained. It means a willingness to be arrested. It means a nationwide campaign to defy the state’s inhumanity.

If we fail, the dimming flames of our open society will be snuffed out.

Authoritarian states are constructed incrementally. No dictatorship advertises its plan to extinguish civil liberties. It pays lip service to liberty and justice as it dismantles the institutions and laws that make liberty and justice possible.

Sporadic resistance
Opponents of the regime, including those within the establishment, make sporadic attempts to resist. They throw up temporary roadblocks, but they are soon purged.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn in “The Gulag Archipelago” notes that the consolidation of Soviet tyranny “was stretched out over many years because it was of primary importance that it be stealthy and unnoticed.” He called the process “a grandiose silent game of solitaire, whose rules were totally incomprehensible to its contemporaries, and whose outlines we can appreciate only now.”

“What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?” Solzhenitsyn asks.

“Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?

“After all, you knew ahead of time those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur — what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!”

Czesław Miłosz, in “The Captive Mind,” also documents the creep of tyranny, how it advances stealthily, until intellectuals are not only forced to repeat the regime’s self-adulating slogans but, as our leading universities did when they caved to false allegations of being bastions of antisemitism, embrace its absurdism.

Manufactured fear engenders self-doubt. It makes a population — often unconsciously — conform outwardly and inwardly. It conditions citizens to relate to those around them with suspicion and distrust. It destroys the solidarity vital to organising, community and dissent.

Effective state terror
The historian Robert Gellately, in his book “Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany,” argues that state terror in Nazi Germany was effective not because of omnipresent state surveillance, but because it fostered a “culture of denunciation”.

Rat out your neighbors and coworkers and survive. If you see something, say something.

The worse it gets, the more established institutions, desperate to survive, silence those who warn us.

“Before societies fall, just such a stratum of wise, thinking people emerges, people who are that and nothing more,” Solzhenitsyn writes of those who see what is coming. “And how they were laughed at! How they were mocked!”

The Austrian writer Joseph Roth, whose early warnings about the rise of fascism were largely dismissed, and who told fellow intellectuals to stop naively appealing to “the remains of a European conscience,” saw his books tossed into the bonfires in the spring of 1933 during the Nazi book burnings.

So far, we have not burned books, but have banned nearly 23,000 titles in public schools since 2021.

The authoritarian state cannibalises the institutions that foolishly aid and abet the witch hunts. It replaces them with pseudo-institutions populated with pseudo-legislators, pseudo-courts, pseudo-journalists, pseudo-intellectuals and pseudo-citizens.

Columbia University is a shining example of this willful self-immolation. Nothing is as it is presented.

Violent kidnappings
There are increasing numbers of violent kidnappings by masked ICE agents in unmarked cars on our city streets. People are ripped from their vehicles and beaten. They are arrested outside schools and day care centers. They are raided at work, thrown onto the floor, handcuffed, driven away in vans and shipped off to concentration camps in countries such as El Salvador.

They are seized when they appear at court for a green card application or interview to finalise a visa.

Once detained, they disappear into the labyrinth of over 200 detention centers, where they are moved from one facility to the next to hide them from family, lawyers and the courts. Due process, once a constitutional right afforded to everyone in the United States, no longer exists.

“Laws that are not equal for all revert to rights and privileges, something contradictory to the very nature of nation-states,” Hannah Arendt writes in “The Origins of Totalitarianism.” “The clearer the proof of their inability to treat stateless people as legal persons and the greater the extension of arbitrary rule by police decree, the more difficult it is for states to resist the temptation to deprive all citizens of legal status and rule them with an omnipotent police.”

The FBI, in an example of how justice is perverted, refuses to cooperate with local law enforcement agencies in Minneapolis, blocking access to any evidence that would allow them to file criminal charges against Jonathan Ross.

Killing of unarmed citizens by the state is carried out with impunity.

ICE has more than doubled the size of its force since early 2025 — to 22,000 agents — hiring 12,000 new officers in four months from a pool of 220,000 applicants.

It plans to spend $100 million over a one-year period to hire even more recruits, part of the $170 billion for border and interior enforcement, including $75 billion for ICE, to be spent over four years. Salaries for these new recruits, poorly trained and often haphazardly vetted, will range from $49,739 to $89,528 a year, along with a $50,000 signing bonus — split over three years — and up to $60,000 in student loan repayments.

New detention centres
ICE is building new detention centers nationwide in 23 towns and cities. It promises that once it is fully operational, it will go door-to-door as part of the largest deportation effort in American history.

ICE agents, intoxicated by the licence to kick down doors while wearing body armor and firing automatic weapons at terrified women and children, are not warriors as they imagine, but thugs. They have few skills, other than weapons training, cruelty and brutality. They intend to remain employed by the state. The state intends to keep them employed.

None of this should surprise us. The repressive techniques used by ICE and our militarised police were perfected overseas in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and Occupied Palestine, and earlier in Vietnam.

The ICE agent who murdered Good was a machinegunner in Iraq. A night raid in Chicago, with agents rappelling from a helicopter to storm an apartment complex filled with terrified families, does not look any different from a night raid in Fallujah.

Aimé Césaire, the Martinician playwright and politician, in “Discourse on Colonialism” writes that the savage tools of imperialism and colonialism eventually migrate back to the home country. It is known as imperial boomerang.

Césaire writes:

And then one fine day the bourgeoisie is awakened by a terrific boomerang effect: the gestapos are busy, the prisons fill up, the torturers standing around the racks invent, refine, discuss.

People are surprised, they become indignant. They say: “How strange! But never mind—it’s Nazism, it will pass!”

And they wait, and they hope; and they hide the truth from themselves, that it is barbarism, the supreme barbarism, the crowning barbarism that sums up all the daily barbarisms; that it is Nazism, yes, but that before they were its victims, they were its accomplices; that they tolerated that Nazism before it was inflicted on them, that they absolved it, shut their eyes to it, legitimized it, because, until then, it had been applied only to non-European peoples; that they have cultivated that Nazism, that they are responsible for it, and that before engulfing the whole edifice of Western, Christian civiliSation in its reddened waters, it oozes, seeps, and trickles from every crack.

Democracy’s last gasps
During the interregnum between the last gasps of a democracy and the emergence of a dictatorship, the nation is gaslighted. It is told the rule of law is respected. It is told democratic rule is inviolate. These lies mollify those being frog-marched into their own enslavement.

“The majority sit quietly and dare to hope,” Solzhenitsyn writes. “Since you aren’t guilty, then how can they arrest you? It’s a mistake!”

Maybe, the fearful say, Trump and his minions are only being bombastic. Maybe they don’t mean it. Maybe they are incompetent. Maybe the courts will save us. Maybe the next elections will end this nightmare. Maybe there are limits to extremism. Maybe the worst is over.

These self-delusions prevent us from resisting while the gallows are being constructed in front of us.

Authoritarian states start by targeting the most vulnerable, those most easily demonised — the undocumented, students on college campuses who protest genocide, antifa, the so-called “radical left,” Muslims, poor people of color, intellectuals and liberals.

They strike down one group after the next. They blow out, one by one, the long row of candles until we find ourselves in the dark, powerless and alone.

Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who was a foreign correspondent for 15 years for The New York Times, where he served as the Middle East bureau chief and Balkan bureau chief for the paper. He is the host of show “The Chris Hedges Report”. This article was first published on the Chris Hedges Substack page and is republished with permission.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Israel’s deadly siege on northern Gaza has entered a 30th day. Early week, the World Health Organisation managed to deliver some medical supplies to the Kamal Adwan Hospital, but on Thursday, Israeli fighter jets bombed the hospital’s third floor, where the supplies were being stored.

Al Jazeera reports Israeli forces are continuing to shell Beit Lahia, the scene of multiple massacres last week. On Wednesday, an Israeli attack on a market in Beit Lahia killed at least 10 Palestinians. Earlier in the week, Israel struck a five-story residential building, killing at least 93 people, including 25 children.

Meanwhile, at the United Nations, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Francesca Albanese, has released a major report accusing Israel of committing genocide.

Albanese concludes that Israel’s war on Gaza is part of a campaign of, “long-term intentional, systematic, state-organised forced displacement and replacement of the Palestinians” . The report is titled Genocide as Colonial Erasure.

AMY GOODMAN: Francesca Albanese is now facing intensifying personal attacks from Israeli and US officials. She was set to brief Congress earlier last week, but the briefing was cancelled. On Tuesday, the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, wrote on social media, “As UN Special Rapporteur Albanese visits New York, I want to reiterate the US belief she is unfit for her role. The United Nations should not tolerate antisemitism from a UN-affiliated official hired to promote human rights.”

On Wednesday, Francesca Albanese spoke at the United Nations and responded to the US attacks.

FRANCESCA ALBANESE: I have the same shock that you have, looking at how the United States is behaving in this context, in the context of the genocide that is unfolding in Gaza. I’m not — I’m not surprised that they attack anyone who speaks to the facts that are, frankly, on our watch in Gaza. And they do that so brutally because they feel called out, because it’s not that it’s that the United States is simply an observer. The United States is being an enabler in what Israel has been doing.

AMY GOODMAN: That was UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese speaking at the United Nations on Wednesday. She joins us here in our studio.

Welcome back to Democracy Now! Thanks so much for joining us.

Well, before we get you to further respond to what the US and Israel is saying, can you lay out the findings of your report?

Colonial Erasure’: UN expert Francesca Albanese on Israel’s “intent to destroy” Gaza    Video: Democracy Now!

FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Absolutely. First of all, thank you for having me.

I have to say that this report is the second I write on — and I present to the United Nations on the topic of genocide. And it has been very reluctantly that I’ve taken on the responsibility to be the chronicler of — the chronicler of an unfolding genocide in Gaza.

In March this year, I concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Israel had committed at least three acts of genocide in Gaza, like killing members of the protected group, Palestinians; inflicting severe bodily and mental harm; and creating conditions of life that would lead to the destruction of the group. And the reason why I identified these were not just war crimes and crimes against humanity is because I identified an intent to destroy.

And I understand that even in this country, people are quite confused about what is genocidal intent, because it’s not a motive. One can have many motives to commit a crime. And I understand genocide is a very insidious one, and it’s difficult to identify what’s a motive. But this is not about the motives. The intent to commit genocide is the determination to destroy, which is fully evident in — especially in the Gaza Strip, as I identified in — as argued in March already.

The reason why I continue to write about genocide — and, in fact, this report walks on the heels of the previous one — is in order to better explain the intent, especially state intent, because there is another misunderstanding that there should be a trial of the alleged perpetrators in order to have — to attribute responsibility to a state.

No, because not only you have had acts committed that should have been prevented by the — in a rule of law, in a proclaimed rule of law system like Israel, where there is the government, the Parliament, the judiciary, working as checks and balances, genocide has not only been not prevented, [it] has been enabled through the various organs of the state.

And I explain what has happened as of October 7, which has provided the opportunity to escalate violence, to build on the rage and on the fury of many Israelis, turning the soldiers into willful executioners, is that there was already a plan, hatred.

I mean, the Palestinians, like Ilan Pappé says, are victims not of war, but of a political ideology that has been unleashed. Palestinians have always been an unwanted encumbrance in the Israeli mindset, because they are an obstacle both as an identity and as legal status to the realisation of Greater Israel as a state for Jewish Israelis only.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, we’ll go back to — because I do want to ask about the Israeli state institutions that you name and the branches of the Israeli state that have been involved in forming this state’s intent. But if you could elaborate on the point that you make, the difference between intent and motive, and in particular what you say in the report about how it’s critical to determine genocidal intent, “by way of inference”?

You know, that’s a different phrasing than one has heard in all of this conversation about genocide so far. If you explain what you mean by that and what such a determination makes possible? So, rather than just looking at genocidal intent in other forms, what it means to infer genocidal intent?

FRANCESCA ALBANESE: So, first of all, what constitutes genocide is established by Article II of the Genocide Convention, which creates a twofold obligation for member states, to prevent genocide so genocide doesn’t have to complete itself. When there is a manifestation of intent, even genocidal intent, there is already an obligation to intervene, because a crime is unfolding.

And then there is an obligation to punish. How the jurisprudence, especially after Rwanda and after former Yugoslavia, there have been cases both for criminal proceedings, where individual perpetrators have been investigated and tried, and [the] responsibility of the state, litigated before the International Court of Justice. This is how the jurisprudence on genocide has developed.

And the intent has been further elaborated upon what the Genocide Convention says. And while it might be difficult to have direct intent, meaning to have — it’s difficult but not impossible, in fact, to have a state official say, “Yes, let’s go and destroy everyone” — although I do believe that there is direct intent in this genocide in Gaza.

But the court also established that genocide can be inferred from the scale of the attack on the people, the nature of the attack, the general conduct. And what it says is that normally there should be a holistic approach in order to identify intent, which is exactly what I’ve done.

And indeed, this is why I proposed in this report what I called the triple lens approach. We need to look at the conduct, like the totality of the conduct, instead of studying with a microscope each and every crime. We need to look at the whole, against the totality of the people, the Palestinians as such, in the totality of the land, that Israel has slated as its own by divine design.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: No, absolutely. And then, if you could — the other precedent you’ve just spoken about — of course, Rwanda and former Yugoslavia — another case that you cite in the International Court of Justice is The Gambia v. Myanmar. So, how is that comparable to what we see happening in Gaza? Why is that a relevant example and different from both Rwanda and former Yugoslavia?

FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Let me tell you what I see as the major differences in the case of Israel, because it’s a very complex discussion. But in all four cases, there is a toxic combination of hatred, ideological hatred, which has informed political doctrines. And this is true in all the various contexts we are mentioning. The other common element is that there is [a] combination of crimes. Like, forced displacement is not an act of genocide per se, but the jurisprudence says that it can contribute to corroborate the intent.

But, again, mass killing or mass destruction of property, torture and other crimes against a person, which translate into an infliction of physical and mental harm to the group, not individuals as such, but individuals as part of the group, these are common elements to all genocides.

What I find characteristic in this one is, first of all, this is not — I mean, the state of Israel is not Myanmar and is not Rwanda 30 years ago. This is not war-torn former Yugoslavia. This is a state which has a separation of powers, different organs, as I said, checks and balances. And let me give you a specific example, because you asked me to comment on the state functions.

In January this year, the International Court of Justice issued a set of preliminary measures in the context of its identification, before even looking at the merits of the case initiated by South Africa for Israel’s breach, alleged breach, of the Genocide Convention, which identified the plausibility of risk for the rights protected — of the rights of the Palestinians protected under the Genocide Convention, which means plausibility — it’s semantics, but it’s plausibility that genocide might be committed against the Palestinians in Gaza.

And the provisional measures included an obligation to investigate and prosecute the various cases of incitement, genocidal incitement, that the court had already identified. And it mentions leaders, senior leaders, of the Israeli state. Has there been any investigation? Has there been any prosecution?

But I’m telling you more. The genocidal statements didn’t resonate as shocking in the Israeli public, not only because there was rage, an enormous rage and animosity, of course. I mean, this is understandable, that the facts of October 7 were brutal and traumatized the people.

But at the same time, hatred against the Palestinians and hate speech, it’s not something that started on October 7. I do remember, and I do remember the shock I felt because no one was reacting, and years ago, there were Israeli ministers talking of — freely, of killing, justifying the killing of Palestinians’ mothers and children because they would turn into terrorists.

AMY GOODMAN: Francesca Albanese, talk about the title of your report, Genocide as Colonial Erasure.

FRANCESCA ALBANESE: This is another element which I think — and, in fact, it’s the most important, where we see the difference between this genocide and others, because there is a settler-colonial component. And again, if you look at what the International Court of Justice in July this year concluded, when it decided that the — when it found that Israel’s 57 years of occupation in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is unlawful and needs to be withdrawn totally and unconditionally, as rapidly as possibly, which the General Assembly says by September 2025.

The court said that it amounts to — that the colonies amount to — have led to a process of annexation and racial segregation and apartheid. And these are the features of settler colonialism, the taking of the land, the taking of the resources, displacing the local population and replacing it. This has been a feature.

Now, it is in this context that we need to analyse what is happening today. And by the way, don’t believe, don’t listen only to Francesca Albanese. Listen to what these Israeli leaders and ministers are saying — reoccupying Gaza, retaking Gaza, recolonising Gaza, reconquesting Gaza. This is what they are saying.

And there are settlers on expeditions, not only to Gaza but also to Lebanon. So, this is why I say that the main difference, the main feature of this genocide, apart all the horrible aspects of it, is that this is the first settler-colonial genocide to be ever litigated before a court, an international court.

And this is why coming to this country, which is a country birthed from a genocide, when I meet the Native Americans, for example, I feel the pain of these people. And I say if we manage to build on the intersectionality of Indigenous struggle, the cry for justice behind this case for Palestine will resonate even louder, because it will somewhat be an act of atonement from the settler-colonial endeavor, which has sprouted out of Europe, toward Indigenous peoples. So there is a lot of symbolism behind it.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, you know, the analogy — first of all, you talked about the case brought by South Africa, so what they share, apart from South Africa and Israel-Palestine, is both the fact that they were colonial-settler states, as well as the fact that apartheid has been established as having occurred in both places.

Now, in the case of South Africa, it was a decision that was taken by the United Nations at the time of apartheid, was unseating South Africa from the General Assembly. There have been calls now to do the same with Israel. So, if you could — if you could comment on that?

And then, I just want to quote another short sentence from your report, in which you say, “As the world watches the first live-streamed settler-colonial genocide, only justice can heal the wounds that political expedience has allowed to fester.” So, if you could talk about the International Court of Justice’s case in that context, what role you think they can play, South Africa’s case, in resolving or addressing — seeing and addressing this wound?

FRANCESCA ALBANESE: First of all, let me unpack the question of the unseating Israel, because this is one of the recommendations I made in my report. Under Article 6 of the UN Charter, a member state can be suspended of its credentials or its membership by the General Assembly upon recommendation of the UN Security Council. And the first criticism I got is that we cannot do that, because every states commit international law violations. Absolutely. Absolutely.

But there are two striking features here. First, Israel is quite unique in maintaining an unlawful occupation, which has deemed such by — in at least one full occasion, but again, there was already a case brought before the ICJ in 2004, so there have been two ICJ advisory opinions.

There is a pending case for genocide. There has been the violations of hundreds of resolutions by the — on Israel — over occupied Palestinian territory, by the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council, and steady violation of international humanitarian law, human rights law, the Apartheid Convention, the Genocide Convention. So this is quite unique.

But all the more, this year alone, Israel has conducted an attack, an unprecedented attack, against the United Nations. It has attacked physically, through artillery, weapons, bombs, UN premises. Seventy percent of UNRWA offices and UNRWA buildings, clinics, distribution centers have been hit and shelled by the Israeli army.

Two hundred and thirty UN staff members have been killed by Israel in Gaza alone. UN peacekeepers in Lebanon have been attacked. And this doesn’t even take into account the smear, the defamation against senior UN officials, the declaration of the secretary-general as persona non grata, the referring to the General Assembly as a “cloak of antisemites”.

Again, this has mounted to a level — the hubris against the United Nations and international law has been unchecked and unbounded forever, but now, especially after the Knesset passed a law outlawing UNRWA, declaring UNRWA a terrorist organisation, and therefore disabling it from its capacity to deliver aid and assistance especially in Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem, this is the nail in the coffin of the UN Charter.

And it can also contribute to that sense of colonial erasure, because here it’s not just at stake the function of a UN body — and UNRWA is a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, so it’s even more serious. But there is the capacity of UNRWA to deliver humanitarian aid in a desperate situation, and also the fact that UNRWA is seen by Israel as the symbol of Palestinian identity, especially the Palestinian refugees. So there is an attempt to erase Palestinianness, including by hitting UNRWA.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask you about your trip here, as we begin to wrap up. The US Ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, quoted on — tweeted on Tuesday, “As UN Special Rapporteur Albanese visits New York, I want to reiterate the US belief she is unfit for her role. The United Nations should not tolerate antisemitism from a UN-affiliated official hired to promote human rights.” If you can further address their charge of antisemitism against you?

FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: And talk about what happened. You were supposed to come to Congress and speak and brief them, but that was cancelled this week.

FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Yes, it was canceled. But let me — first of all, I’m very embarrassed to read this, because a senior US official who writes this, I mean, it shows a little bit of desperation. I’m sorry, but, you know, I’m very candid.

And let me unpack my antisemitism for the audience. So, what I’ve been accused of — the reason why I’ve been accused of antisemitism — is because I’ve allegedly compared the Jews to the Nazis. Never done. Never done.

What I’ve said, what I’ve done is saying, and I keep on saying, that history is repeating itself. I’ve never done such a comparison where I draw the parallel. It’s on the behaviour of member states who have the legal and moral obligation to prevent atrocities, including an unfolding genocide.

In the past, they have done nothing — nothing — until the end of the Second World War, to prevent the genocide of the Jews and the Roma and Sinti. And they’ve done nothing to prevent the genocide of the Bosnians.

And they’ve done nothing to prevent the genocide of the Rwandans. And they are doing the same today. This is where I insist that now, compared to when there was the Holocaust, now we have a human rights framework that should prevent this. The Genocide Convention to prevent this. So, this is one of the points.

The second point, — which leads to portray me as an antisemite, which is really offensive — is that I’ve said that October 7 was not — I’ve contested, I’ve challenged the argument that October 7 was an antisemitic attack. October 7 was a crime, was heinous. And again, I’ve condemned the acts that were directed against the Israeli civilians, and expressed solidarity with the victims, with the families. I’ve been in contact with the families of the hostages.

But I’ve also said the hatred that led that attack, that prompted that attack, to the extent it hit civilians, not the military, but it was prompted not by the fact that the Israelis are Jews, but the fact that the Israelis — I mean, the Israelis are part of that endeavor that has kept the Palestinians in a cage for 17 years and, before, under martial law for 37 years. And Palestinians have tried — it’s true they have used violence, but before violence, they have tried dialogue. They have tried collaboration. They have tried a number of means to access justice, and they have gone nowhere.

I can — I mean, let me relate just this case, because last year I worked with children. And someone who was 17 years old before October 7 last year had never set foot out of Gaza. This is the reality. And I spoke with children while I was writing my report on “unchilding”, the experience of Palestinians under Israeli occupation. And one of them — I mean, there were these two girls fighting, because one of them had been able to go to Israel and the West Bank because she had cancer and could be treated, and the other was jealous, because, she said, “At least she was sick, and she could go, she could travel. I’ve never seen the mountains.”

And again, this doesn’t justify violence, but, please, please, put things in context. And even Israeli scholars have said claiming that October 7 was prompted by antisemitism is a way to decontextualize history and to deresponsibilise Israel.

I condemn Israel not because it’s a Jewish state. It’s not about that, but because it’s in breach of international law through and through. And were the majority of Israelis Buddhists, Christians, atheists, it would be the same. I would be as vocal as I am now.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Francesca, just one last question, and we only have a minute. Your recent book, J’Accuse, you take the title, of course, from the letter Émile Zola wrote during the Dreyfus Affair to the French president. You came under severe criticism for the choice of that title. Could you explain why you chose it and what it means in this context?

FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Absolutely. I have the sense that whatever I say comes under scrutiny and criticism. But J’Accuse is — first of all, it’s the title that was proposed by the editor, the publisher. And I was against it until October 7.

When I saw the narrative, the dehumanization of the Palestinians after October 7, and what it was legitimising, I said, “This is the title. We need to use it,” because I draw the parallel between what is happening to the Palestinians and what has happened to other groups, particularly the Jewish people in Europe.

I say the Holocaust was not just about the concentration camps. The Holocaust was a culmination of centuries of discrimination, and the previous decades had led the Jewish people in Europe to be kicked out of jobs, professions, to be treated like subhumans, as animals. And it’s this dehumanisation that we need to look at in the face today, in the eyes today, and recognise as leading to atrocity crimes.

AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you for being with us, Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The text of this programme was first published by Democracy Now! here and is  republished under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence.