Digital & Print Membership
Yearly + Receive 8 free printed back issues
$420 Annually
Monthly + Receive 3 free printed back issues
$40 Monthly
Francesca Albanese & Abby Martin in Tunis
Conversations on Empire, Resistance, and Media
UNFLINCHING may be the best word to describe human rights lawyer Francesca Albanese, since her appointment as UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine in May 2022 and and more intensely since October 2023. She has staunchly defended the rights of the people of Palestine from the perspective of international law, no matter how hostile or misinformed her audience or interviewer may be. This conversation with journalist Abby Martin, which took place in Tunis in March 2025, highlight some of the fundamental issues of the Occupation of Palestine right now in the context of the ongoing genocide, including the U.S. administration’s erratic and grotesque policies serve as deliberate distractions from Israel’s ongoing ethnic cleansing, and the fact that that the suffering in Gaza is compounded by the inaction of global powers.

ABBY MARTIN: Give us your reaction not just to Trump’s stated desire to “ethnically cleanse” Gaza and force Palestinian refugees into neighboring countries, but also to the psychological warfare aspect—this hyper-normalization where, every day, there’s a new spectacle to focus on. Meanwhile, the policies are ramping up and being greenlit.
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: I believe there is a deliberate strategy behind the way the current U.S. president and his acolytes communicate. It’s intentional, and it’s psychologically overwhelming. Every day, most of the world—whether in Europe, Africa, or elsewhere—wakes up to some new, erratic, grotesque policy. Grotesque in the sense that it is so insulting to fundamental freedoms, basic human rights, and dignity that we are left stunned. The reaction is often, ‘Oh my God, what is he doing?’ or ‘Why aren’t people reacting?’
We end up in a state of alarm and panic, distracted by the spectacle. This mode of communication is part of the problem, and I truly believe it’s intentional. While I don’t downplay the very real danger these people pose to fundamental freedoms—both for Americans and others—when looking at it from the perspective of Palestine, it serves as a massive distraction, and of course, an insult.
The point is—and this is what I really need people to understand—while we speculate about why Trump is saying these things about Gaza, debating whether it’s legal or illegal (which, of course, it is illegal), we need to move beyond just debating. We need to take measures not only to prevent this from happening but to actively address this misconduct.
Because the reality on the ground is that, regardless of what Trump says, Israel is already advancing the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. It’s incredible that statements regarding the so-called ‘Gaza Riviera’ came out so soon after a meeting with the Israeli prime minister—who is wanted by the ICC for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
I see these two forces not just colliding but colluding in pursuit of an even greater evil: the forced displacement of Palestinians from the occupied Palestinian territories. And this is happening in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
ABBY MARTIN: Well, it’s shocking.
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: The other shocking thing is how numb we have become to the suffering of the Palestinian people. Every day, Israeli jails vomit out what remains of Palestinians who have been arbitrarily arrested, detained, and tortured.
I heard a former Palestinian detainee recount how he begged his torturer to treat him like an animal—saying, Can you just treat me like an animal? Because you would have more respect for animals.
The level of sadism unleashed against Palestinians is truly unfathomable. It is redefining what genocide looks like, and yet, no one reacts.

ABBY MARTIN: It seems like only a matter of time before the war continues there. Israel has already killed over 100 people and is refusing to comply with even this current phase. At every step, they’re trying to stall and prevent these phases from being fulfilled as they were negotiated.
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: First of all, I want to say that it’s important to understand the ceasefire has never truly meant a cessation of violence for Palestinians—especially in Gaza. Hundreds of people have been killed, most of them shot as they tried to move from south to north.
But there have been other violations of the ceasefire agreement—no mobile units or homes have been allowed in. Only two-thirds of the aid trucks that were agreed upon have entered, along with some of the tents. This is why people, especially young children, are freezing at night. The temperatures are extremely cold, and they die—not just from lack, but from terminal conditions caused by deprivation.

The situation in Gaza is brutal. And yet, Qatar, Egypt, the U.S.—the supposed guardians of the ceasefire—what are they doing? There is a profound sense of abandonment. Palestinians have been left to their fate, and it’s incredibly unjust.
This is why I understand why they look to me and my mandate as a beacon of light—because no one else is speaking up for their rights at this level. Yes, the people in the streets stand with Gaza, but what about those with real platforms, with even an inch of power? No one speaks out.
ABBY MARTIN: I think that’s what feels so strange about this temporary cessation—or the ceasefire, as you said—because it doesn’t really mean a cessation of hostilities or violence. We’ve clearly seen what Israel has continued to do.
But that’s what felt so strange about a ceasefire being put in place after 15 months of unending slaughter—especially of children. The bare minimum demand that activists and Palestinians have been calling for, for so long, has finally been met, but only after Gaza has already been decimated. After Israel has seized even more territory beyond its so-called borders.
And now, amid the spectacle of Trump’s rhetoric, we see the war ramping up in the West Bank. Tanks entering for the first time in 20 years, killing dozens, kidnapping hundreds, expelling tens of thousands. Villages being cleared out, attacked by both settlers and armed soldiers. The genocide you’ve outlined in your reports, Francesca—it’s not just confined to Gaza. So talk about that.
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Yeah, I think that we we are seeing what a settler colonial genocide is when people are sacrificed, are destroyed in the pursuit of control of land and resources attached to the land. This is what the genocide of the Native Americans in the United States, or in other places of the Americas, or in Canada, has been: it’s a fight that the settler, the settler society, undertakes against the natives in order to control land and resources. And you know, I hear at times people feel challenged and uncomfortable with the settler colonial paradigm applied to Israel. Excuse me, but I don’t challenge the facts that the Jewish people in the aftermath of the Holocaust had nowhere to go. But there are two things. First of all, the project of colonizing Palestine. It’s something that is written about — the founding fathers of Israel wrote about it since the end of the 19th century. So from the mid 1800’s onward, they’ve been talking about colonizing Palestine because they were looking for a homeland. And so they’ve been exploring different opportunities, from Argentina to Utah to Uganda and Palestine.
So long before modern Israel there was an idea to move to this land of Palestine, that the Hebrew people of the Bible had an attachment to, no question. But what they did, they never went as refugees. And this is the second element: after the Holocaust, it’s not that they went as refugees or migrants seeking asylum. No, they went as part of a project that took the land, took the homes, took everything that had been left behind as people were pushed out. There has been a forced displacement and dispossession of the Palestinians that dates back 100 years, and it started with the Brits, and it has been a low intensity dispossession and forced displacement, with a few peaks, like in 1947-1949, in 1967 and now so it people need to understand that for the Palestinians, this is yet another, surely the most violent face of of annihilation. But this is what settler colonialism does.

ABBY MARTIN: Indeed, Francesca, your compassion and your work has changed the way that people perceive the situation in Palestine. I mean, like you said, people with a modicum of power have just not lifted a finger or uttered one word about the situation. And it does seem it’s just very telling about our political climate and about the repression and chilling effect that this has had over the world’s intellectuals, politicians, media players, celebrities. I mean, the list goes on and on, but you’re out there, front and center, putting yourself out there to be a conduit, a very important one, and it has changed the minds and hearts of countless people. What initially drove you to advocate for Palestine?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Oh, interestingly, I’m not sure it’s me who changed the way Palestine is discussed. I think I’m part of a transition, I’m part of a wave that has been it has been forming, and it has grown, propelled by the Palestinians, and then Israeli human rights organizations, and then international organizations, and then, little by little, the UN have been also involved in in correcting the narrative that has been dominant. So now, compared to three years ago, it’s much more common to talk about colonialism or apartheid. Yes, I have put a lot of effort into explaining the context to people. And I’ve never intended to be an advocate for the Palestinians. For me, it’s about so much more than the Palestinians. It’s about human rights. I’m a fierce human rights advocate because I do believe that this is what protects us. Human rights are the results of struggles for emancipation of so many people, those who fought for the abolition of slavery, for the end of racial segregation, for the end of apartheid, for the recognition of Indigenous people. It’s through revolutions and through revolts, and struggles that translate into improvement of living conditions. And this is the moment we live in.
Because the Palestinians have been so fiercely repressed, and because this has happened in flagrant violation of international law, this is why I feel so committed. Because I’ve been asked by the United Nations to report on the reality on the ground. And the reality on the ground is obscene. The policies out there affecting the Palestinians are so deranged, that we are already in a dystopian reality, that I have to go back to my center and try to remember: why you are doing what you are doing, finding your purpose and connecting to the purpose of the others. This is what’s happening right now in my life, and my life in connection with the Palestinian struggle for freedom.
ABBY MARTIN:
To paraphrase Mohammed El-Kurd: It does feel like, especially for Palestinians, being trapped collectively in someone else’s hallucination. It’s like a fever dream that’s imposed on you, where black is white, up is down. Where drone bombings are not terrorism, but words are.
It’s the intent versus the actions, and it’s this bizarre kind of framework that’s imposed on us by the people who are the colonizers. And to your point, these institutions are in place to try to protect some sort of semblance of international law and human rights that we have agreed on after World War Two. And it does seem like there are certain Western powers that are just making a mockery of them, especially European powers, who have been hell bent on criminalizing pro-Palestine speech and journalism, as opposed to actually stopping a genocide, which is the crime of all crimes.
You were just feeling the brunt of this on your European tour in Germany. It was absolutely mind bending to see what happened to you in Germany, where they sent police to intimidate you. Already venues were shut down because of a “security risk”. Talk about what happened to you and why you think it is that not just Europe, but the West at large seems more concerned with clamping down on speech, as opposed to actual genocide.

FRANCESCA ALBANESE: This is the reality, unfortunately, and I had an idea that the situation in Germany was critical before going. I went to Germany at the tail end of a long trip across Europe. I had been to Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands. The pro Israel lobby is pretty strong in the West, and it has grown stronger and stronger with increased focus on “security” and militarization and anti-Arabism, which is very, very wide-spread, very common. There has been a rise of racism in the past 20 years in Europe, and I think it’s totally unreported, and under-reported. So I went to Germany after having faced pressure from the pro Israel groups in other countries, especially in the Netherlands. They managed to have a hearing that I had an invitation from the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Parliament, which eventually disinvited me. But it didn’t matter, because eventually I met with a former prime minister, with a former foreign minister, and with parliamentarians, and I also had a press conference at the parliament, but you know, meanwhile, they had the headlines. You know, “she was disinvited because she’s an anti-Semite.”
I went to Germany because I had been invited to the Munich Peace Conference, which took place right next door to this security conference. And I was invited to Munich University and Berlin Friar University. I went to Munich, and I gave my first speech where, of course, I spoke about what happens to the human rights and fundamental freedoms in the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Problem number one, and you cannot say “from the river to the sea” in Germany. And the second thing is that I said, “Well, Germany should know, because Germany has committed two genocides in the span of 30 years.” And the genocide of the Jews was not only not the first genocide of human history, it was a genocide that was perpetrated in Europe because the Jews were the Other, like the Other who were the colonized in Asia, Africa, or in the Americas; and this was the second point you cannot say. So I was accused to have called for the erasure of Israel by saying from the river to the sea, and then to have relativized and trivialized the Holocaust. Now, this is why I say this. I mean, I’m debating whether they are stupid, or perform stupidity. And I was leaning toward a latter when I went to Germany. Now I think they’re really stupid. I mean, a lot of people in Germany are obtuse. They are so dogmatic that they don’t think, they just act like a pack, like a herd. It’s incredible that educated people can behave like a herd.
Then I went to Berlin, where I was due to speak at the so-called Free University of Berlin (at one point I told them to drop the “free” from the name). However, it didn’t happen, they cancelled the event because of pressure from the Berlin mayor, the Israeli ambassador, some MPs, the Minister of Science. It’s very serious that the university gave into this pressure. Eventually we had another event where they threatened to shut down the venue who had accepted to host us forever, and we had the event in the newspaper’s office. So instead of 600 there were only 150 people allowed in. There were queues of people waiting, looking, listening to the conference from their phone and looking at it from outside the window and it was an amazing event, so strong. And the police were there in full gear.
Myself and others spoke about the fact that Germany has an identity issue, because, after the Second World War, embracing Israel’s protection was the way to redeem themselves. But they have not really elaborated upon what they had done to the Jewish people, you know, so they stick to Israel without even realizing what they have done to the Jewish people. Because today they continue to persecute the Jewish people. There are Jewish people, including Israelis, who have been arrested and detained for standing in solidarity with the Palestinians.
Meanwhile, you should know that when I went to that event, I knew that the Federal Police had called the UN saying they were going to arrest me. So I didn’t sleep the night before, because I don’t want to be arrested! I was freaking out. You know, people think that I’m brave— I’m not brave, I’m just very sure. I’m very sure of what I’m doing. So I’m so solid and I’m so firm because I know that what I’m saying is true. But then here I am: I find myself in a place where I’m told you’re going to be arrested for what you said? Oh, hold on, hold on a second. So now the law enforcement is after me as if I were the criminal. So it took me the whole night thinking, trying to meditate, to really find peace. And then in the morning, I talked to my husband. I said, Max, these people want to arrest me, and he said they’re crazy. Go ahead and do what you always do. Talk to the people, because they need you to tell them there’s still some oxygen for them to breathe. And you today, you are their oxygen. And this thing really strengthened me Abby, and pushed me through the day. But it was very, very heavy. This has been the heaviest thing other than looking into the eyes of the genocide there and the victims of the genocide, this is, this is one of the most surreal and absurd things I’ve ever gone through.

ABBY MARTIN: Oh my God. That must have been so intense. It was intense just watching it unfold from the safety of Portland, Oregon, thinking you could actually get arrested. I mean, Francesca Albenese, the special rapporteur could be arrested??
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: A UN expert? And for what?
ABBY MARTIN: Exactly. When you zoom out and you look at the ICC, the threats and the sanctions against the ICC and South Africa from the Trump administration and the kind of this new political climate—even though both parties really mirror each other when it comes to this kind of Imperial conquest abroad and the support for Israel—there is something a little bit more “mask off” about the belligerence and the approach from the Trump administration of just no qualms at all about open threats and declaration of war against these institutions that are even trying to impose some sort of penalties for what Israel is doing, or to curb back the impunity. I guess there was this huge sense of relief when the ICC issued the arrest warrants, right? Yes, but now you see what Trump is doing, sanctioning the entire court, their families, imposing all these penalties. What is your response to this new political climate, and what could happen and manifest from the attempt from these global bodies to try to rein in the impunity,
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: I do see the normalization and the spreading of mafia style techniques at the international level. It’s becoming more and more common and more normalized to cover up for crimes committed by a country in the name of “friendship”, or Alliance. And this is what the mafia is about. Eventually, you know, you have white collar crimes committed in the interest of protection, having each other’s back. But the point is that in the sanctions against the ICC, the attack on the functions and the persons involved in the ICC investigation; this is a new law, and it represents a fatal blow for the multilateral order. So there should be a strong, the strongest pushback ever from the rest of the world, and it’s not happening. What the US is doing, together with Israel, is dismantling, piece by piece, the multilateral order that has been established over the past eighty years.

ABBY MARTIN: Is there any way to circumvent that power that the US has the dominance over these institutions? We’re seeing efforts like the Hague group and things like that, but it does seem like, because of the power and domination of the US, it’s going to be hard to actually work around that. Because obviously you still have faith in international law, and you feel like the law is the solution. It’s just a matter of implementation. But there is that huge paradox: how do we implement something that the US is obstructing?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: I have already said that there are 192 one member states out of 193 in the UN that have nothing to gain from supporting the policies of the US in the long term. This is imperialism in its crudest form, and there is a need to disengage from that. The world should take this as an opportunity and as a blessing in disguise.
ABBY MARTIN: Indeed. I want to talk quickly about your next report about the institutional complicity in the genocide. What are you hoping to accomplish with the findings? And why is that the next focus for you?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: The next report is about the private sector: the maze of business, corporations, financial institutions, research institutions, everyone that is partaking in the legality of the occupation at the international level. And there is a network, a system made of ganglions, that nourishes and profits from the legality of the occupation, from research centers, universities, charities, banks, pension funds, businesses, startups connected to the surveillance and military sector, the military sector itself. It’s sickening, if you look at it from within, because there are so many, there are so many ties that link to the to the contribution of individuals that are not even aware of their part of an unlawful endeavor. And this is what prompted my interest in exposing this, because I need one of the things that I promised myself I would do through my mandate, is that I would pull back the various layers covering the reality, covering the truth. I will expose it. This is what the truth teller, in the words and in spirit of Professor Edward Said, would do, and this is what I think is the role of anyone who has an inch of an intellect to contribute to the debate, so I need to expose that and seek and give civil society tools to seek accountability.
ABBY MARTIN: What do you think is next for Gaza in terms of how we can keep this issue on people’s minds? Because it seems like there’s a fatigue and exhaustion, especially with this resurgence of fascism in you know, my country, Francesca, that’s overseen and subsidizing the vast majority of what’s happening, there’s a lot of fatigue, because for the last 15 months, a lot of Americans have been protesting Biden for overseeing this, and now it’s like, oh my god, now we’re supposed to protest fascism and this kind of new era, and I think people just don’t know where to take it. And I think the worry is that Palestine is going to be absent from the conversation, considering the gravity of everything else that’s going on and compounding it with the ongoing genocide.
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Look, I know that there is a lot of fatigue, but we cannot stop because we are tired. And I think that people do not realize you think that it’s been me contributing to the shift of debate, of the debate, but hell no, it’s been us — us, me, and other special rapporteurs and Amnesty International and people on the ground and scholars who have fought to stand by their principles and last but not least, the protesters and the Palestinians, those who have been really on the front line, the Palestinians who have been genocided. And while they were being genocided, they were sending messages to the outside world. And so the protesters were the ones carrying that word into their world. They need to be told that they need to be acknowledged. If I could, I would hug everyone and say thank you, because we are part of a revolution. We are still small and we need to grow, but we are many, so rather than grow, we need to unite. And this is what I keep on telling people, keep on moving, keep on talking. Don’t get gaslighted. Don’t get distracted. Keep on going. Even if we lose, we will lose fighting for something that’s just, and we will fall while fighting against something that is terribly untenably unjust. We need to try at least, and I’m very positive that if we do that, if we continue, if we are not defeated by our own fear or self doubt, we will make it. We will succeed. We will bring Israel to accountability. Many things seem impossible till they become possible. Nelson Mandela used to say, we need to feel it inside, really in our guts.

In Conversation:
Photography by:
{
"article":
{
"title" : "Francesca Albanese & Abby Martin in Tunis: Conversations on Empire, Resistance, and Media",
"author" : "Francesca Albanese, Abby Martin",
"category" : "interviews",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/francesca-albanese-and-abby-martin-in-tunis-conversations-on-empire-resistance-and-media",
"date" : "2025-03-21 18:15:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/zrq12-Edit-2.jpg",
"excerpt" : "UNFLINCHING may be the best word to describe human rights lawyer Francesca Albanese, since her appointment as UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine in May 2022 and and more intensely since October 2023. She has staunchly defended the rights of the people of Palestine from the perspective of international law, no matter how hostile or misinformed her audience or interviewer may be. This conversation with journalist Abby Martin, which took place in Tunis in March 2025, highlight some of the fundamental issues of the Occupation of Palestine right now in the context of the ongoing genocide, including the U.S. administration’s erratic and grotesque policies serve as deliberate distractions from Israel’s ongoing ethnic cleansing, and the fact that that the suffering in Gaza is compounded by the inaction of global powers.",
"content" : "UNFLINCHING may be the best word to describe human rights lawyer Francesca Albanese, since her appointment as UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine in May 2022 and and more intensely since October 2023. She has staunchly defended the rights of the people of Palestine from the perspective of international law, no matter how hostile or misinformed her audience or interviewer may be. This conversation with journalist Abby Martin, which took place in Tunis in March 2025, highlight some of the fundamental issues of the Occupation of Palestine right now in the context of the ongoing genocide, including the U.S. administration’s erratic and grotesque policies serve as deliberate distractions from Israel’s ongoing ethnic cleansing, and the fact that that the suffering in Gaza is compounded by the inaction of global powers.ABBY MARTIN: Give us your reaction not just to Trump’s stated desire to “ethnically cleanse” Gaza and force Palestinian refugees into neighboring countries, but also to the psychological warfare aspect—this hyper-normalization where, every day, there’s a new spectacle to focus on. Meanwhile, the policies are ramping up and being greenlit.FRANCESCA ALBANESE: I believe there is a deliberate strategy behind the way the current U.S. president and his acolytes communicate. It’s intentional, and it’s psychologically overwhelming. Every day, most of the world—whether in Europe, Africa, or elsewhere—wakes up to some new, erratic, grotesque policy. Grotesque in the sense that it is so insulting to fundamental freedoms, basic human rights, and dignity that we are left stunned. The reaction is often, ‘Oh my God, what is he doing?’ or ‘Why aren’t people reacting?’We end up in a state of alarm and panic, distracted by the spectacle. This mode of communication is part of the problem, and I truly believe it’s intentional. While I don’t downplay the very real danger these people pose to fundamental freedoms—both for Americans and others—when looking at it from the perspective of Palestine, it serves as a massive distraction, and of course, an insult.The point is—and this is what I really need people to understand—while we speculate about why Trump is saying these things about Gaza, debating whether it’s legal or illegal (which, of course, it is illegal), we need to move beyond just debating. We need to take measures not only to prevent this from happening but to actively address this misconduct.Because the reality on the ground is that, regardless of what Trump says, Israel is already advancing the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. It’s incredible that statements regarding the so-called ‘Gaza Riviera’ came out so soon after a meeting with the Israeli prime minister—who is wanted by the ICC for war crimes and crimes against humanity.I see these two forces not just colliding but colluding in pursuit of an even greater evil: the forced displacement of Palestinians from the occupied Palestinian territories. And this is happening in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.ABBY MARTIN: Well, it’s shocking.FRANCESCA ALBANESE: The other shocking thing is how numb we have become to the suffering of the Palestinian people. Every day, Israeli jails vomit out what remains of Palestinians who have been arbitrarily arrested, detained, and tortured. I heard a former Palestinian detainee recount how he begged his torturer to treat him like an animal—saying, Can you just treat me like an animal? Because you would have more respect for animals.The level of sadism unleashed against Palestinians is truly unfathomable. It is redefining what genocide looks like, and yet, no one reacts.ABBY MARTIN: It seems like only a matter of time before the war continues there. Israel has already killed over 100 people and is refusing to comply with even this current phase. At every step, they’re trying to stall and prevent these phases from being fulfilled as they were negotiated.FRANCESCA ALBANESE: First of all, I want to say that it’s important to understand the ceasefire has never truly meant a cessation of violence for Palestinians—especially in Gaza. Hundreds of people have been killed, most of them shot as they tried to move from south to north.But there have been other violations of the ceasefire agreement—no mobile units or homes have been allowed in. Only two-thirds of the aid trucks that were agreed upon have entered, along with some of the tents. This is why people, especially young children, are freezing at night. The temperatures are extremely cold, and they die—not just from lack, but from terminal conditions caused by deprivation.The situation in Gaza is brutal. And yet, Qatar, Egypt, the U.S.—the supposed guardians of the ceasefire—what are they doing? There is a profound sense of abandonment. Palestinians have been left to their fate, and it’s incredibly unjust.This is why I understand why they look to me and my mandate as a beacon of light—because no one else is speaking up for their rights at this level. Yes, the people in the streets stand with Gaza, but what about those with real platforms, with even an inch of power? No one speaks out.ABBY MARTIN: I think that’s what feels so strange about this temporary cessation—or the ceasefire, as you said—because it doesn’t really mean a cessation of hostilities or violence. We’ve clearly seen what Israel has continued to do.But that’s what felt so strange about a ceasefire being put in place after 15 months of unending slaughter—especially of children. The bare minimum demand that activists and Palestinians have been calling for, for so long, has finally been met, but only after Gaza has already been decimated. After Israel has seized even more territory beyond its so-called borders.And now, amid the spectacle of Trump’s rhetoric, we see the war ramping up in the West Bank. Tanks entering for the first time in 20 years, killing dozens, kidnapping hundreds, expelling tens of thousands. Villages being cleared out, attacked by both settlers and armed soldiers. The genocide you’ve outlined in your reports, Francesca—it’s not just confined to Gaza. So talk about that.FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Yeah, I think that we we are seeing what a settler colonial genocide is when people are sacrificed, are destroyed in the pursuit of control of land and resources attached to the land. This is what the genocide of the Native Americans in the United States, or in other places of the Americas, or in Canada, has been: it’s a fight that the settler, the settler society, undertakes against the natives in order to control land and resources. And you know, I hear at times people feel challenged and uncomfortable with the settler colonial paradigm applied to Israel. Excuse me, but I don’t challenge the facts that the Jewish people in the aftermath of the Holocaust had nowhere to go. But there are two things. First of all, the project of colonizing Palestine. It’s something that is written about — the founding fathers of Israel wrote about it since the end of the 19th century. So from the mid 1800’s onward, they’ve been talking about colonizing Palestine because they were looking for a homeland. And so they’ve been exploring different opportunities, from Argentina to Utah to Uganda and Palestine.So long before modern Israel there was an idea to move to this land of Palestine, that the Hebrew people of the Bible had an attachment to, no question. But what they did, they never went as refugees. And this is the second element: after the Holocaust, it’s not that they went as refugees or migrants seeking asylum. No, they went as part of a project that took the land, took the homes, took everything that had been left behind as people were pushed out. There has been a forced displacement and dispossession of the Palestinians that dates back 100 years, and it started with the Brits, and it has been a low intensity dispossession and forced displacement, with a few peaks, like in 1947-1949, in 1967 and now so it people need to understand that for the Palestinians, this is yet another, surely the most violent face of of annihilation. But this is what settler colonialism does.ABBY MARTIN: Indeed, Francesca, your compassion and your work has changed the way that people perceive the situation in Palestine. I mean, like you said, people with a modicum of power have just not lifted a finger or uttered one word about the situation. And it does seem it’s just very telling about our political climate and about the repression and chilling effect that this has had over the world’s intellectuals, politicians, media players, celebrities. I mean, the list goes on and on, but you’re out there, front and center, putting yourself out there to be a conduit, a very important one, and it has changed the minds and hearts of countless people. What initially drove you to advocate for Palestine?FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Oh, interestingly, I’m not sure it’s me who changed the way Palestine is discussed. I think I’m part of a transition, I’m part of a wave that has been it has been forming, and it has grown, propelled by the Palestinians, and then Israeli human rights organizations, and then international organizations, and then, little by little, the UN have been also involved in in correcting the narrative that has been dominant. So now, compared to three years ago, it’s much more common to talk about colonialism or apartheid. Yes, I have put a lot of effort into explaining the context to people. And I’ve never intended to be an advocate for the Palestinians. For me, it’s about so much more than the Palestinians. It’s about human rights. I’m a fierce human rights advocate because I do believe that this is what protects us. Human rights are the results of struggles for emancipation of so many people, those who fought for the abolition of slavery, for the end of racial segregation, for the end of apartheid, for the recognition of Indigenous people. It’s through revolutions and through revolts, and struggles that translate into improvement of living conditions. And this is the moment we live in.Because the Palestinians have been so fiercely repressed, and because this has happened in flagrant violation of international law, this is why I feel so committed. Because I’ve been asked by the United Nations to report on the reality on the ground. And the reality on the ground is obscene. The policies out there affecting the Palestinians are so deranged, that we are already in a dystopian reality, that I have to go back to my center and try to remember: why you are doing what you are doing, finding your purpose and connecting to the purpose of the others. This is what’s happening right now in my life, and my life in connection with the Palestinian struggle for freedom.ABBY MARTIN: To paraphrase Mohammed El-Kurd: It does feel like, especially for Palestinians, being trapped collectively in someone else’s hallucination. It’s like a fever dream that’s imposed on you, where black is white, up is down. Where drone bombings are not terrorism, but words are.It’s the intent versus the actions, and it’s this bizarre kind of framework that’s imposed on us by the people who are the colonizers. And to your point, these institutions are in place to try to protect some sort of semblance of international law and human rights that we have agreed on after World War Two. And it does seem like there are certain Western powers that are just making a mockery of them, especially European powers, who have been hell bent on criminalizing pro-Palestine speech and journalism, as opposed to actually stopping a genocide, which is the crime of all crimes.You were just feeling the brunt of this on your European tour in Germany. It was absolutely mind bending to see what happened to you in Germany, where they sent police to intimidate you. Already venues were shut down because of a “security risk”. Talk about what happened to you and why you think it is that not just Europe, but the West at large seems more concerned with clamping down on speech, as opposed to actual genocide.FRANCESCA ALBANESE: This is the reality, unfortunately, and I had an idea that the situation in Germany was critical before going. I went to Germany at the tail end of a long trip across Europe. I had been to Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands. The pro Israel lobby is pretty strong in the West, and it has grown stronger and stronger with increased focus on “security” and militarization and anti-Arabism, which is very, very wide-spread, very common. There has been a rise of racism in the past 20 years in Europe, and I think it’s totally unreported, and under-reported. So I went to Germany after having faced pressure from the pro Israel groups in other countries, especially in the Netherlands. They managed to have a hearing that I had an invitation from the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Parliament, which eventually disinvited me. But it didn’t matter, because eventually I met with a former prime minister, with a former foreign minister, and with parliamentarians, and I also had a press conference at the parliament, but you know, meanwhile, they had the headlines. You know, “she was disinvited because she’s an anti-Semite.”I went to Germany because I had been invited to the Munich Peace Conference, which took place right next door to this security conference. And I was invited to Munich University and Berlin Friar University. I went to Munich, and I gave my first speech where, of course, I spoke about what happens to the human rights and fundamental freedoms in the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Problem number one, and you cannot say “from the river to the sea” in Germany. And the second thing is that I said, “Well, Germany should know, because Germany has committed two genocides in the span of 30 years.” And the genocide of the Jews was not only not the first genocide of human history, it was a genocide that was perpetrated in Europe because the Jews were the Other, like the Other who were the colonized in Asia, Africa, or in the Americas; and this was the second point you cannot say. So I was accused to have called for the erasure of Israel by saying from the river to the sea, and then to have relativized and trivialized the Holocaust. Now, this is why I say this. I mean, I’m debating whether they are stupid, or perform stupidity. And I was leaning toward a latter when I went to Germany. Now I think they’re really stupid. I mean, a lot of people in Germany are obtuse. They are so dogmatic that they don’t think, they just act like a pack, like a herd. It’s incredible that educated people can behave like a herd.Then I went to Berlin, where I was due to speak at the so-called Free University of Berlin (at one point I told them to drop the “free” from the name). However, it didn’t happen, they cancelled the event because of pressure from the Berlin mayor, the Israeli ambassador, some MPs, the Minister of Science. It’s very serious that the university gave into this pressure. Eventually we had another event where they threatened to shut down the venue who had accepted to host us forever, and we had the event in the newspaper’s office. So instead of 600 there were only 150 people allowed in. There were queues of people waiting, looking, listening to the conference from their phone and looking at it from outside the window and it was an amazing event, so strong. And the police were there in full gear.Myself and others spoke about the fact that Germany has an identity issue, because, after the Second World War, embracing Israel’s protection was the way to redeem themselves. But they have not really elaborated upon what they had done to the Jewish people, you know, so they stick to Israel without even realizing what they have done to the Jewish people. Because today they continue to persecute the Jewish people. There are Jewish people, including Israelis, who have been arrested and detained for standing in solidarity with the Palestinians.Meanwhile, you should know that when I went to that event, I knew that the Federal Police had called the UN saying they were going to arrest me. So I didn’t sleep the night before, because I don’t want to be arrested! I was freaking out. You know, people think that I’m brave— I’m not brave, I’m just very sure. I’m very sure of what I’m doing. So I’m so solid and I’m so firm because I know that what I’m saying is true. But then here I am: I find myself in a place where I’m told you’re going to be arrested for what you said? Oh, hold on, hold on a second. So now the law enforcement is after me as if I were the criminal. So it took me the whole night thinking, trying to meditate, to really find peace. And then in the morning, I talked to my husband. I said, Max, these people want to arrest me, and he said they’re crazy. Go ahead and do what you always do. Talk to the people, because they need you to tell them there’s still some oxygen for them to breathe. And you today, you are their oxygen. And this thing really strengthened me Abby, and pushed me through the day. But it was very, very heavy. This has been the heaviest thing other than looking into the eyes of the genocide there and the victims of the genocide, this is, this is one of the most surreal and absurd things I’ve ever gone through.ABBY MARTIN: Oh my God. That must have been so intense. It was intense just watching it unfold from the safety of Portland, Oregon, thinking you could actually get arrested. I mean, Francesca Albenese, the special rapporteur could be arrested??FRANCESCA ALBANESE: A UN expert? And for what?ABBY MARTIN: Exactly. When you zoom out and you look at the ICC, the threats and the sanctions against the ICC and South Africa from the Trump administration and the kind of this new political climate—even though both parties really mirror each other when it comes to this kind of Imperial conquest abroad and the support for Israel—there is something a little bit more “mask off” about the belligerence and the approach from the Trump administration of just no qualms at all about open threats and declaration of war against these institutions that are even trying to impose some sort of penalties for what Israel is doing, or to curb back the impunity. I guess there was this huge sense of relief when the ICC issued the arrest warrants, right? Yes, but now you see what Trump is doing, sanctioning the entire court, their families, imposing all these penalties. What is your response to this new political climate, and what could happen and manifest from the attempt from these global bodies to try to rein in the impunity,FRANCESCA ALBANESE: I do see the normalization and the spreading of mafia style techniques at the international level. It’s becoming more and more common and more normalized to cover up for crimes committed by a country in the name of “friendship”, or Alliance. And this is what the mafia is about. Eventually, you know, you have white collar crimes committed in the interest of protection, having each other’s back. But the point is that in the sanctions against the ICC, the attack on the functions and the persons involved in the ICC investigation; this is a new law, and it represents a fatal blow for the multilateral order. So there should be a strong, the strongest pushback ever from the rest of the world, and it’s not happening. What the US is doing, together with Israel, is dismantling, piece by piece, the multilateral order that has been established over the past eighty years.ABBY MARTIN: Is there any way to circumvent that power that the US has the dominance over these institutions? We’re seeing efforts like the Hague group and things like that, but it does seem like, because of the power and domination of the US, it’s going to be hard to actually work around that. Because obviously you still have faith in international law, and you feel like the law is the solution. It’s just a matter of implementation. But there is that huge paradox: how do we implement something that the US is obstructing?FRANCESCA ALBANESE: I have already said that there are 192 one member states out of 193 in the UN that have nothing to gain from supporting the policies of the US in the long term. This is imperialism in its crudest form, and there is a need to disengage from that. The world should take this as an opportunity and as a blessing in disguise.ABBY MARTIN: Indeed. I want to talk quickly about your next report about the institutional complicity in the genocide. What are you hoping to accomplish with the findings? And why is that the next focus for you?FRANCESCA ALBANESE: The next report is about the private sector: the maze of business, corporations, financial institutions, research institutions, everyone that is partaking in the legality of the occupation at the international level. And there is a network, a system made of ganglions, that nourishes and profits from the legality of the occupation, from research centers, universities, charities, banks, pension funds, businesses, startups connected to the surveillance and military sector, the military sector itself. It’s sickening, if you look at it from within, because there are so many, there are so many ties that link to the to the contribution of individuals that are not even aware of their part of an unlawful endeavor. And this is what prompted my interest in exposing this, because I need one of the things that I promised myself I would do through my mandate, is that I would pull back the various layers covering the reality, covering the truth. I will expose it. This is what the truth teller, in the words and in spirit of Professor Edward Said, would do, and this is what I think is the role of anyone who has an inch of an intellect to contribute to the debate, so I need to expose that and seek and give civil society tools to seek accountability.ABBY MARTIN: What do you think is next for Gaza in terms of how we can keep this issue on people’s minds? Because it seems like there’s a fatigue and exhaustion, especially with this resurgence of fascism in you know, my country, Francesca, that’s overseen and subsidizing the vast majority of what’s happening, there’s a lot of fatigue, because for the last 15 months, a lot of Americans have been protesting Biden for overseeing this, and now it’s like, oh my god, now we’re supposed to protest fascism and this kind of new era, and I think people just don’t know where to take it. And I think the worry is that Palestine is going to be absent from the conversation, considering the gravity of everything else that’s going on and compounding it with the ongoing genocide.FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Look, I know that there is a lot of fatigue, but we cannot stop because we are tired. And I think that people do not realize you think that it’s been me contributing to the shift of debate, of the debate, but hell no, it’s been us — us, me, and other special rapporteurs and Amnesty International and people on the ground and scholars who have fought to stand by their principles and last but not least, the protesters and the Palestinians, those who have been really on the front line, the Palestinians who have been genocided. And while they were being genocided, they were sending messages to the outside world. And so the protesters were the ones carrying that word into their world. They need to be told that they need to be acknowledged. If I could, I would hug everyone and say thank you, because we are part of a revolution. We are still small and we need to grow, but we are many, so rather than grow, we need to unite. And this is what I keep on telling people, keep on moving, keep on talking. Don’t get gaslighted. Don’t get distracted. Keep on going. Even if we lose, we will lose fighting for something that’s just, and we will fall while fighting against something that is terribly untenably unjust. We need to try at least, and I’m very positive that if we do that, if we continue, if we are not defeated by our own fear or self doubt, we will make it. We will succeed. We will bring Israel to accountability. Many things seem impossible till they become possible. Nelson Mandela used to say, we need to feel it inside, really in our guts."
}
,
"relatedposts": [
{
"title" : "What We Can Learn from the Inuit Mapping of the Arctic",
"author" : "William Rankin",
"category" : "excerpts",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/inuit-mapping-arctic",
"date" : "2025-12-02 12:49:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover%20-%20Radical%20Cartography%20%5B9780525559795%5D.jpg",
"excerpt" : "This excerpt is from RADICAL CARTOGRAPHY by William Rankin, published by Viking, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House, LLC. Copyright © 2025 by William Rankin.",
"content" : "This excerpt is from RADICAL CARTOGRAPHY by William Rankin, published by Viking, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House, LLC. Copyright © 2025 by William Rankin.In 1994, the Berkeley geographer Bernard Nietschmann made a famous claim about the power of mapping in the global struggle for Indigenous rights. It was a claim about how the tools of historical oppression could be reclaimed by the oppressed: “More Indigenous territory has been claimed by maps than by guns. This assertion has its corollary: more Indigenous territory can be defended and reclaimed by maps than by guns.” The idea was that by putting themselves on the map—documenting their lives and their communities—Indigenous peoples would not be so easy to erase. Nietschmann was working in Central America, often heroically, during a time of violence and displacement, and he inspired a generation of researchers and activists interested in flipping the power structure of state-centric cartography on its head.But despite the spread of bottom-up mapping projects in the past 30 years, perhaps the most successful example of Indigenous mapping actually predates Nietschmann’s call to action. Just one year prior, in 1993, the Inuit of northern Canada signed a treaty creating the territory of Nunavut—the largest self-governing Indigenous territory in the world—and mapping was central to both the negotiation and the outcome. It remains one of the rare cases of Indigenous geographic knowledge decolonizing the world map.So why hasn’t the Inuit project been replicable elsewhere, despite decades more work on Indigenous mapping? The answer lies in the very idea of territory itself, and in particular in one of the most threatened parts of the Inuit landscape today: ice. The winter extent of Arctic sea ice reached a record low earlier this year, and a new low is predicted for the winter ahead. Yet the shrinking ice isn’t just an unshakable sign of Arctic warming; it’s also a poignant reminder of what Nietschmann got right—and what he missed—about the relationship between cartography and power. In particular, it shows how Inuit conceptions of space, place, and belonging are rooted in a dynamic, seasonal geography that’s often completely invisible on Western-style maps.The story begins in the 1970s, when the young Inuit leader Tagak Curley, today considered a “living father” of Nunavut, hired the Arctic anthropologist Milton Freeman to lead a collaborative mapping project of unprecedented scope and ambition. Freeman taught at McMaster University about an hour outside Toronto; he was white, but his wife, Mini Aodla Freeman, was Inuit (she was a translator and later a celebrated writer). Freeman assembled a team of other anthropologists and Arctic geographers—also white—to split the mapping into regions. They called their method the “map biography.” The goal was to capture the life history of every Inuit hunter in cartographic form, recording each person’s memories of where, at any point in their life, they had found roughly three dozen species of wildlife—from caribou and ptarmigan to beluga, narwhal, and seaweed. Each map biography would be a testimony of personal experience.After the mapping was split into regions, about 150 field-workers—almost all Inuit—traveled between 33 northern settlements with a stack of government-issued topographic maps to conduct interviews. Each hunter was asked to draw lines or shapes directly on the maps with colored pens or pencils. The interviewers stayed about 10 weeks in each settlement, visiting most hunters in their own homes, and the final participation rate was an astonishing 85 percent of all adult Inuit men. They collected 1,600 biographies in total, some on maps as large as 10 feet square.Then came the cartographers, back in Ontario: one professor and a team of about 15 students. The first map below (Figure 1) shows how the individual map biographies were transformed into summary maps, one for each community. For every species, the overlap of all hunters’ testimony became a single blob, and then blobs for all species were overlaid to make a complete map. The second map (Figure 2) shows one of the finished atlas pages along the Northwest Passage. The immediate impression is that the Arctic is in no way an empty expanse of barren land and unclaimed mineral riches. It is dense with human activity, necessary for personal and collective survival. The community maps combined to show almost uninterrupted Inuit presence stretching from northern Labrador to the Alaska border.Figure 1: Top left is a simplified version of a “map biography” from a single Inuit hunter, showing his birthplace and the places he hunted caribou, fox, wolf, grizzly bear, moose, and fish at various points in his life. (The original biography would have been drawn over a familiar government-issued topographic map.) The other three maps show how multiple biographies were then combined into patterned blobs for all hunters and all species. (Map courtesy of William Rankin/ Penguin Random House LLC.)Figure 2: A two-page spread from the finished atlas showing the seven kinds of animals hunted from the settlements of Igloolik and Hall Beach, in an area about 500 by 300 miles: caribou, polar bear, walrus, whale, fish, seal, and waterfowl. (Because of the large number of individual species recorded in the map biographies, some species were grouped together in the final maps.) The blobs are a strong, even overpowering figure atop an unusually subtle ground. Notice in particular how difficult it is to distinguish land and water areas, since the dark shading extends beyond coastlines even for individual species. This map in fact includes the Northwest Passage—the famous sea route around the tip of North America—but the crucial Fury and Hecla Strait (named after the two British ships that first learned of, but did not navigate, the passage in 1822) is almost entirely obscured. (Map courtesy of William Rankin/ Penguin Random House LLC.)Nothing about the cartography was meant to be subversive—or even controversial. For the cartographers, the only message was that the Inuit hunted a variety of species over large areas. But look again at the finished map in Figure 2. Yes, a foreground is layered over a background in the usual way, but the visual argument is strikingly different from a typical layered map in, say, a census atlas, where the foreground data doesn’t stray beyond crisp pre-existing borders. Here, in contrast, even the basic distinction between land and water is often obscure. The maps’ content is the facts of species and area; the maps’ argument is that Inuit culture is grounded in a substantially different understanding of territory than the one Western cartography was designed to show.As a result, this new atlas shifted the negotiations between the Inuit and the Canadian government decisively. Not only did the maps provide a legal claim to the Inuit-used land, documenting 750,000 square miles—an area the size of Mexico—but also a claim to the sea, showing an additional 325,000 square miles offshore.It took many years for the full implications to play out, but the erosion of the land–water boundary became central to the Inuit vision. At the time, wildlife on land was managed by the regional Northwest Territories government, while offshore marine species were the responsibility of centralized federal agencies. The Inuit used the atlas to win agreement for a new agency with equal responsibility over both. At the same time, the Inuit also improved their position by offering their offshore claims as evidence the Canadian government would use—not just in the 1980s, but even as recently as 2024—to resist foreign encroachment in the Northwest Passage. The final agreement in 1993 granted the Inuit $1.15 billion in cash, title to about 17 percent of the land in the “settlement area,” representation on several new management agencies, a share of all natural-resource revenue, broad hunting and fishing rights, and a promise that the territory of Nunavut would come into being on April 1, 1999.It’s easy to count this project as a success story, but it’s also important to remember that it depended both on the government’s own interest in negotiation and on the willingness of Indigenous peoples, or at least their leadership, to translate their sense of space onto a map, solidifying what had previously been fluid. It also meant abandoning claims to ancestral lands that had not been used in living experience and provoking new boundary disputes with neighboring, and previously amicable, Indigenous groups. These tradeoffs have led some scholars to critique mapping as only “drawing Indigenous peoples into a modern capitalist economy while maintaining the centrality of state power.” But for the Inuit, the alternatives seemed quite a bit worse.With the more recent proliferation of Indigenous mapping initiatives elsewhere—in Latin America, Africa, and Asia—the tradeoffs have been harder to evaluate. Most governments have shown little interest in addressing Indigenous claims, and when bottom-up mapping has been pushed instead by international nonprofits interested in environmental conservation, the downsides of mapping have often come without any of the upsides.Yet it’s not just the attitude of the state that’s been different; it’s also the cartography. In nearly all these other cases, the finished maps have shown none of the territorial inversion of the Inuit atlas. Instead, Indigenous knowledge is either overlaid on an existing base map in perfectly legible form, or it’s used to construct a new base map of a remarkably conventional sort, using the same visual vocabulary as Western maps.Did the Inuit project just show the data so clearly that its deeper implications were immediately apparent? No, not really, since the great irony here is that the cartographers were in fact quite dissatisfied. Follow-up surveys reached the conclusion that the atlas was only “moderately successful” by their usual mapmaking standards.The Inuit atlas was a kind of happy accident—one that doesn’t conform to any of the usual stories about Indigenous mapping, in Canada or elsewhere. The lesson here isn’t that maps should be as Indigenous as possible, or that they should be as orthodox as possible. These maps were neither. My take is simpler: the atlas shows that maps can, in fact, support alternative conceptions of space—and that showing space in a different way is crucial.The possibilities aren’t endless, but they’re broader than we might think. Plotting different sorts of data is a necessary step, but no less important are the relationships between that data and the assumptions of what lies below. For the Inuit, these assumptions were about land, water, and territory. These were in the background both visually and politically, and they were upstaged by an unexpectedly provocative foreground. The layers did not behave as they were meant to, and despite the tradeoffs, they allowed an Indigenous community to fight for their home and their way of life."
}
,
{
"title" : "Malcolm X and Islam: U.S. Islamophobia Didn’t Start with 9/11",
"author" : "Collis Browne",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/malcolm-x-and-islam",
"date" : "2025-11-27 14:58:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/life-malcolm-3.jpg",
"excerpt" : "",
"content" : "Anti-Muslim hate has been deeply engrained and intertwined with anti-Black racism in the United States for well over 60 years, far longer than most of us are taught or are aware.As the EIP team dug into design research for the new magazine format of our first anniversary issue, we revisited 1960s issues of LIFE magazine—and landed on the March 1965 edition, published just after the assassination of Malcolm X.The reporting is staggering in its openness: blatantly anti-Black and anti-Muslim in a way that normalizes white supremacy at its most fundamental level. The anti-Blackness, while horrifying, is not surprising. This was a moment when, despite the formal dismantling of Jim Crow, more than 10,000 “sundown towns” still existed across the country, segregation remained the norm, and racial terror structured daily life.What shocked our team was the nakedness of the anti-Muslim propaganda.This was not yet framed as anti-Arab in the way Western Islamophobia is often framed today. Arab and Middle Eastern people were not present in the narrative at all. Instead, what was being targeted was organized resistance to white supremacy—specifically, the adoption of Islam by Black communities as a source of political power, dignity, and self-determination. From this moment, we can trace a clear ideological line from anti-Muslim sentiment rooted in anti-Black racism in the 1960s to the anti-Arab, anti-MENA, and anti-SWANA racism that saturates Western culture today.The reporting leaned heavily on familiar colonial tropes: the implication of “inter-tribal” violence, the suggestion that resistance to white supremacy is itself a form of reverse racism or inherent aggression, and the detached, almost smug tone surrounding the violent death of a cultural leader.Of course, the Nation of Islam and Elijah Muhammad represent only expressions within an immense and diverse global Muslim world—spanning Morocco, Sudan, the Gulf, Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, and far beyond. Yet U.S. cultural and military power has long blurred these distinctions, collapsing complexity into a singular enemy image.It is worth naming this history clearly and connecting the dots: U.S. Islamophobia did not begin with 9/11. It is rooted in a much older racial project—one that has always braided anti-Blackness and anti-Muslim sentiment together in service of white supremacy, at home and abroad."
}
,
{
"title" : "The Billionaire Who Bought the Met Gala: What the Bezoses’ Check Means for Fashion’s Future",
"author" : "Louis Pisano",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/the-billionaire-who-bought-the-met-gala",
"date" : "2025-11-27 10:41:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_TBesos_MET_Galajpg.jpg",
"excerpt" : "On the morning of November 17, 2025, the Metropolitan Museum of Art announced that Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez Bezos would serve as the sole lead sponsors of the 2026 Met Gala and its accompanying Costume Institute exhibition, “Costume Art”. Saint Laurent and Condé Nast were listed as supporting partners. To be clear, this is not a co-sponsorship. It is not “in association with.” It is the first time in the modern history of the gala that the headline slot, previously occupied by Louis Vuitton, TikTok, or a discreet old-money surname, has been handed to a tech billionaire and his wife. The donation amount remains undisclosed, but sources familiar with the negotiations place it comfortably north of seven figures, in line with the checks that helped the event raise $22 million last year.",
"content" : "On the morning of November 17, 2025, the Metropolitan Museum of Art announced that Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez Bezos would serve as the sole lead sponsors of the 2026 Met Gala and its accompanying Costume Institute exhibition, “Costume Art”. Saint Laurent and Condé Nast were listed as supporting partners. To be clear, this is not a co-sponsorship. It is not “in association with.” It is the first time in the modern history of the gala that the headline slot, previously occupied by Louis Vuitton, TikTok, or a discreet old-money surname, has been handed to a tech billionaire and his wife. The donation amount remains undisclosed, but sources familiar with the negotiations place it comfortably north of seven figures, in line with the checks that helped the event raise $22 million last year.Within hours of the announcement, the Met’s Instagram post was overrun with comments proclaiming the gala “dead.” On TikTok and X, users paired declarations of late-stage capitalism with memes of the museum staircase wrapped in Amazon boxes. Not that this was unexpected. Anyone paying attention could see it coming for over a decade.When billionaires like Bezos, whose Amazon warehouses reported injury rates nearly double the industry average in 2024 and whose fashion supply chain has been linked to forced labor and poverty wages globally, acquire influence over prestigious institutions like the Met Museum through sponsorships, it risks commodifying fashion as a tool for not only personal but corporate image-laundering. To put it simply: who’s going to bite the hand that feeds them? Designers, editors, and curators will have little choice but to turn a blind eye to keep the money flowing and the lights on.Back in 2012, Amazon co-chaired the “Schiaparelli and Prada” gala, and honorary chair Jeff Bezos showed up in a perfectly respectable tux with then-wife MacKenzie Scott by his side and an Anna Wintour-advised pocket square. After his divorce from Scott in 2019, Bezos made a solo appearance at the Met Gala, signaling that he was becoming a familiar presence in fashion circles on his own. Of course, by that point, he already had Lauren Sánchez. Fast forward to 2020: print advertising was crumbling, and Anna Wintour co-signed The Drop, a set of limited CFDA collections sold exclusively on Amazon, giving the company a veneer of fashion credibility. By 2024, Sánchez made her Met debut in a mirrored Oscar de la Renta gown personally approved by Wintour, signaling that the Bezos orbit was now squarely inside the fashion world.Then, the political world started to catch up, as it always does. In January 2025, Sánchez and Bezos sat three rows behind President-elect Donald Trump at the inauguration. Amazon wrote a one-million-dollar check to Trump’s inaugural fund, and Bezos, once mocked by Trump as “Jeff Bozo,” publicly congratulated Trump on an “extraordinary political comeback.” By June 2025, Bezos and Sánchez became cultural and political mainstays: Sánchez married Bezos in Venice, wearing a Dolce & Gabbana gown Wintour had helped select. This landed Sánchez the digital cover of American Vogue almost immediately afterward. Wintour quietly handed day-to-day control of the magazine to Chloe Malle but kept the Met Gala, the global title, and her Condé Nast equity stake, cementing a new era of fashion power where money, influence, and optics are inseparable.Underneath all of it, the quiet hum of Amazon’s fashion machine continued to whirr. By 2024, the company already controlled 16.2 percent of every dollar Americans spent on clothing, footwear, and accessories—more than Walmart, Target, Macy’s, and Nordstrom combined. That same year, it generated $34.7 billion in U.S. apparel and footwear revenue that year, with the women’s category alone on pace to top $40 billion. No legacy house has ever had that volume of real-time data on what people actually try on, keep, or return in shame. Amazon can react in weeks rather than seasons, reordering winning pieces, tweaking existing ones, and killing unpopular options before they’re even produced at scale.Wintour did more than simply observe this shift; she engineered a soft landing by bringing Amazon in when it was still somewhat uncool and seen mostly as a discount retailer, lending it credibility when it needed legitimacy, and spending the last two years turning Sánchez from tabloid footnote to Vogue cover star. The Condé Nast sale rumors that began circulating in July 2025, complete with talk of Wintour cashing out her equity and Sánchez taking a creative role, have been denied by every official mouthpiece. But they have also refused to die, because the timeline is simply too tidy.The clearest preview of what billionaire ownership can do to a cultural institution remains Bezos’ other pet project, The Washington Post. Bezos bought it for $250 million in 2013, saved it from bankruptcy, and built it into a profitable digital operation with 2.5 million subscribers. Then, in October 2024, he personally blocked a planned editorial endorsement of Kamala Harris. More than 250,000 subscribers canceled in the following days. By February 2025, the opinion section was restructured around “personal liberties and free markets,” triggering another exodus and the resignation of editorial page editor David Shipley. Former executive editor Marty Baron called it “craven.” The timing, just months after Bezos began warming to the incoming Trump administration, was not lost on anyone. The story didn’t stop there: in the last few days, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance revealed he had texted Bezos suggesting the hiring of a right-leaning Breitbart journalist, Matthew Boyle, to run the Post’s political coverage. This is a clear signal of how staffing decisions at a storied paper now sit within the same power matrix that funds the Met Gala and shapes culture, media, and politics alike. It’s a tangled, strategic web—all of Bezos’ making.It’s curious that, in the same 30-day window that the Trump DOJ expanded its antitrust inquiry into Amazon, specifically how its algorithms favor its own products over third-party sellers, including many fashion brands, the MET, a city-owned museum, handed the keys of its marquee event to the man whose company now wields outsized influence over designers’ fortunes and faces regulatory scrutiny from the administration he helped reinstall. This is not sponsorship; it’s leverage. Wintour once froze Melania Trump out of Vogue because she could afford to.But she cannot freeze out Sánchez or Bezos. Nor does she want to.So on the first Monday in May, the museum doors will open as they always do for the Met Gala. The carpet will still be red (or whatever color the theme demands). The photographs of celebrities posing in their interpretations of “Costume Art” will still break the internet. Andrew Bolton’s exhibition, roughly 200 objects tracing the dressed body across five millennia, displayed in the newly renamed Condé Nast Galleries, will still be brilliant. But the biggest check will come from the couple who already control 16 percent of America’s clothing spend, who own The Washington Post, and who sat three rows behind Trump at the inauguration. Everything else, guest list tweaks, livestream deals, shoppable moments, will flow from that single source of money and power. That is who now has the final word on the most influential night in American fashion."
}
]
}