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" : "Unpublished, Erased, Unarchived: Why Arab-Led Publishing Matters More Than Ever",
"author" : "Céline Semaan",
"category" : "",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/unpublished-erased-unarchived",
"date" : "2025-11-13 10:25:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_Unpublished.jpg",
"excerpt" : "At a moment when news of Gaza, West Bank, South Lebanon, and Beirut are slowly disappearing from the headlines—and from public consciousness—Arab writers face a singular burden: We must write the stories that no one else will print. We live in a media landscape that refuses to see us as fully human. A recent analysis from Giving Compass suggests that traditional media skews Palestinian news: seven major U.S. news outlets found that Palestinian stories were 13.6% to 38.9% less likely to be individualized than Israeli ones. Meaning, Palestinians appear as abstractions—statistics, masses, “civilians”—not as people with names, losses, or lives. Meanwhile, reports from the Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM) show that UK outlets had a fourfold increase in coverage only when Gaza was framed through the lens of “criticism of Israel,” not Palestinian experience itself.",
"content" : "At a moment when news of Gaza, West Bank, South Lebanon, and Beirut are slowly disappearing from the headlines—and from public consciousness—Arab writers face a singular burden: We must write the stories that no one else will print. We live in a media landscape that refuses to see us as fully human. A recent analysis from Giving Compass suggests that traditional media skews Palestinian news: seven major U.S. news outlets found that Palestinian stories were 13.6% to 38.9% less likely to be individualized than Israeli ones. Meaning, Palestinians appear as abstractions—statistics, masses, “civilians”—not as people with names, losses, or lives. Meanwhile, reports from the Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM) show that UK outlets had a fourfold increase in coverage only when Gaza was framed through the lens of “criticism of Israel,” not Palestinian experience itself.Against this backdrop of erasure, the scarcity of Arab women’s voices in publishing is even more alarming. A bibliometric study spanning 1.7 million publications across the Middle East and North Africa shows that men publish 11% to 51% more than women. What’s more, women’s authorship is less persistent, and men reach senior authorship far faster. Arab women are not only under-published but also systematically written out of the global record.This is why Slow Factory has founded Books for Collective Liberation, an Arab-led, independent imprint committed to telling Arab stories the way they should be told: authentically, empathetically, and wholly. We publish work that would never survive the filters of legacy publishing: the political hesitation, the “market concerns,” the fear of touching Arab grief, joy, or its future. Independence is not an aesthetic choice; it is the only way to protect our stories from being softened, sanitized, or structurally erased.Our forthcoming title, On the Zero Line, created in partnership with Isolarii, is a testament to that mission. It stands on the knife’s edge where memory is threatened with extinction—a book that documents what official archives will not. It is a testimony that refuses to disappear.But books alone are not enough. Stories need a home that is alive, responsive, and politically unafraid. That is the work of Everything is Political (EIP), our independent media platform and growing archive of essays, investigations, and first-person journalism. In an era where Big Tech throttles dissenting voices and newsrooms avoid political risk, EIP protects the creative freedom of Arab writers and journalists. We publish what mainstream outlets won’t—because our lives, our histories, and our communities, dead or alive, should not depend on editorial courage elsewhere.Together, Books for Collective Liberation and Everything is Political form an ecosystem of resistance: literature and journalism that feed each other, strengthening each other, building memory as infrastructure—a new archive. We refuse the fragmentation imposed on us: that books are separate from news, that culture is separate from politics, that our narratives exist only within Western frameworks. This archive is not static; it is a living, breathing record of a people determined to write themselves into the future.When stories from Gaza, Beirut, and the broader Levant fail to make the news—or make it only as geopolitical abstractions—the result breeds distortion and public consent to eliminate us. It is a wound to historical truth. It erases whole worlds. We will not let that happen.Independent, Arab-led publishing is how we repair that wound. It is how we record what happened, in our own voice. It is how we ensure that no empire, no newsroom, and no algorithm gets to decide which of our stories survive.Tonight, we gather at Palestine House to celebrate the launch of On the Zero Line, a collection of stories, essays, and poems from Gaza, translated in English for the first time. This evening, we are centering the lived experiences of Palestinians from Gaza who have been displaced in London. I have the honor of interviewing journalist Yara Eid and Ahmed Alnaouq, project manager of the platform “We are not Just Numbers.” Here, we will discuss how mainstream literature and journalism have censored us—and how we can keep our stories alive in response."
}
,
{
"title" : "The British Museum Gala and the Deep Echoes of Colonialism",
"author" : "Ana Beatriz Reitz do Valle Gameiro",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/the-british-museum-gala-and-the-deep-echoes-of-colonialism",
"date" : "2025-11-11 11:59:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/the-younger-memnon-statue-british-museum%20copy.jpg",
"excerpt" : "When it comes to fashion, few things are as overblown, overanalyzed, and utterly irresistible as a gala. For instance: hear the name “Met Gala”, and any fashionista’s spine will tingle while every publicist in New York breaks into a cold sweat. While New York has been hosting the original event at the Metropolitan Museum since 1948 and Paris had its Louvre moment in 2024, London finally decided to answer with an event at the British Museum on 18 October this year.",
"content" : "When it comes to fashion, few things are as overblown, overanalyzed, and utterly irresistible as a gala. For instance: hear the name “Met Gala”, and any fashionista’s spine will tingle while every publicist in New York breaks into a cold sweat. While New York has been hosting the original event at the Metropolitan Museum since 1948 and Paris had its Louvre moment in 2024, London finally decided to answer with an event at the British Museum on 18 October this year.The invitation-only event drew high-profile guests such as Naomi Campbell, Mick Jagger, Edward Enninful, Janet Jackson, Alexa Chung, and James Norton. With a theme of ‘Pink Ball,’ the night drew inspiration from the vibrant colors of India and walked hand-in-hand with the museum’s ‘Ancient India: Living Traditions’ exhibition, adding a touch of colonial irony à la British tradition.Unlike its always-talked-about New York counterpart, or Paris’s star-studded affair last year that reunited figures like Doechii, Tyra Banks, Gigi Hadid, and Victoria Beckham, London’s event felt less memorable fashion-wise. With little buzz surrounding it - whether due to a less star-studded guest list, unremarkable fashion, or its clash with the Academy Museum Gala - it ultimately felt more like an ordinary night than a headline-making affair.But the event was not entirely irrelevant. In fact, it prompted reflections rarely discussed in mainstream media. Notably, because in spite of the museum’s sprawling collection of objects from other marginalized countries, the event ‘‘celebrated’’ Indian artifacts looted during colonial rule. Equally noteworthy is the institution’s partnership with BP - the British oil giant whose exports reach Israel, a state that, in the twenty-first century, stands as a symbol of colonialism and the ongoing genocide of Palestinians. And, of course, every penny raised went to the museum’s international initiatives, including an excavation project in Benin City, Nigeria, and other archaeological digs in Iraq.Although excavation is often portrayed as a means of preserving the past, archaeologists acknowledge that it is inherently destructive - albeit justifiable if it provides people with a deeper understanding of the human past. As Geoffrey Scarre discusses in Ethics of Digging, a chapter in Cultural Heritage Ethics: Between Theory and Practice, it matters who has the authority to decide what is removed from the ground, how it is treated, whether it should be retained or reburied, and who ultimately controls it. Something that feels especially relevant when discussing the objects of marginalized communities and the legacies of countries shaped by European colonialism, now just laid bare as trophies to embellish the gilded halls of Euro-American institutions.That the British Museum’s collections were built on the wealth of its nation imperialism is hardly news. Yet the institution, like so many others, from the Louvre to the Met, continues to thrive on those very foundations. As Robert J. C. Young observes in Postcolonial Remains, “the desire to pronounce postcolonial theory dead on both sides of the Atlantic suggests that its presence continues to disturb and provoke anxiety: the real problem lies in the fact that the postcolonial remains.”Although postcolonialism is often mistakenly associated with the period after a country gained independence from colonial rule, academics like Young, Edward Said, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, and Frantz Fanon acknowledge that our world is still a postcolonial one, with cultural, political, and economic issues reflecting the lasting effects of colonization. Its aftermath extends beyond labels like “Third World” or the lingering sense of superiority that still marks the Global North; it also fuels a persistent entitlement to our art, culture, and legacy.This entitlement can be seen in the halls of many museums worldwide. And though looting may not always be illegal - as in how these institutions acquire those objects - it is certainly unethical. For decades, scholars and activists have debated that these institutions should restitute the legacies taken from other lands, objects stolen through wars of aggression and exploitation. Still, these museums deliberately choose to hold them, artifacts that bear little cultural resonance for their current keepers, but profound meaning for the people from whom they were taken.But these debates are no longer confined to academic circles. Take Egypt, for instance. Its long-awaited Grand Museum finally opened its doors three decades after its initial proposal in 1992 and nearly twenty years since construction began in 2005. Now fully operational, breathing fresh life into Egypt’s storied past through showcasing Tutankhamun’s tomb among other relics of the country, it is demanding the return of its legacy. Egypt’s former and famously outspoken Minister of Tourism and Antiquities, Dr. Zahi Hawass, for instance, recently told the BBC: “Now I want two things, number one, museums to stop buying stolen artefacts, and number two, I need three objects to come back: the Rosetta Stone from the British Museum, the Zodiac from the Louvre, and the Bust of Nefertiti from Berlin.” Beyond the direct call-out, Dr. Hawass has initiated online petitions demanding the return of the artifacts, amassing hundreds of thousands of signatures. Nevertheless, the world’s great museums remain silent, and the precious Egyptian treasures are still very much on display.With African, Asian, and Latin American legacies still held captive within Euro-American institutions, the echoes of colonialism linger well into the 21st century, keeping the postcolonial order intact. Even fashion, an industry that loves to believe it exists beyond politics, proves such. Whether through events that claim to celebrate certain things but end up being meaningless, the current Eurocentrism that still dominates the industry, or how many labels still profit from the aesthetics of marginalized nations without acknowledgment, fashion, much like museums, reproduces the very hierarchies postcolonial theory seeks to expose.Ultimately, the British Museum’s latest event does not celebrate Indian culture or Nigerian history through its excavation in Benin City. Like so many Euro-American institutions, it reinforces imperial power - masquerading cultural theft as preservation.In fashion as in museums, spectacle too often conceals empire - and beauty, unexamined, can become complicity."
}
,
{
"title" : "Mirror Mirror on the Wall: The Art That Proves How Queer Iran Once Was",
"author" : "Aryana Goodarzi",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/mirror-mirror-on-the-wall",
"date" : "2025-11-11 11:36:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Amorous_Couple_V%D0%A0-1156-d509fb.jpg",
"excerpt" : "During a graduate school seminar, my professor asked questions - not about my takeaways from the text or theory, but to check her own. I was almost guest lecturing the seminar with her. Some student was always reciting a reiteration of Foucault or Butler. Theory was invoked to replace thought. In the West, discourse always precedes practice. That night class, I fell into what has since become a two-year love affair with a painting - an imbrication of art, politics, and culture.\\My professor introduced me to one of my favorite pieces of art: Amorous Couple, early nineteenth century. Two androgynous figures are framed with a rich palette of oil strokes that refuses governable gender. It’s an insurgency against the taxonomies of gender, sexuality, and nation. The painting doesn’t beg for inclusion in the queer archive; it exposes the limits of the archive itself.",
"content" : "During a graduate school seminar, my professor asked questions - not about my takeaways from the text or theory, but to check her own. I was almost guest lecturing the seminar with her. Some student was always reciting a reiteration of Foucault or Butler. Theory was invoked to replace thought. In the West, discourse always precedes practice. That night class, I fell into what has since become a two-year love affair with a painting - an imbrication of art, politics, and culture.\\My professor introduced me to one of my favorite pieces of art: Amorous Couple, early nineteenth century. Two androgynous figures are framed with a rich palette of oil strokes that refuses governable gender. It’s an insurgency against the taxonomies of gender, sexuality, and nation. The painting doesn’t beg for inclusion in the queer archive; it exposes the limits of the archive itself.Being proud to be Iranian is often thought to be antithetical to queer liberation – the way being a patriotic American is deemed antithetical to queer liberation today. I’ve often felt that these parts of me sit like oil and acrylic paints on a canvas – handled as an impossible pairing, even as they blend. The work – and by “work” I mean our lives – does not plead with, or seek permission from, Whiteness. Art takes us places we would otherwise not be able to access with only words.Art historian Najmabadi, once self-described as art-blind, went to the Brooklyn Museum in 1995, where she “realized doing history only with texts…had actually deprived me of an enormous resource for study, especially for issues of gender and sexuality.” I took in the painting, watching it metamorphose into a mirror. Words have never been able to paint me the way this did.Pieces like Amorous Couple (early 19th century) and A Couple Embracing are not just historical artifacts of queerness, but also a political intervention: an assertion of legitimacy within both art and politics. It takes the allegorical into documentarian. In Qajar era Iran (1789-1925), femininity and masculinity were not attached to gender or sexuality. Qajar Era Iranians didn’t need to “perform” gender in the way Judith Butler wrote about, because gender performance presupposes repeated cultural practices. Those cultural practices weren’t part of Qajar Iran because gender expression or sexual partners did not imply a rigid sexuality. Many paintings make it impossible to tell who is of which gender, or whether their relationship is heterosexual.What was freedom in Iran became a means of oppression in the West. Both Westerners and Iranians were anxious about how their culture would appear to one another. However, Western politicians misread Iranian culture through their own homophobia and influenced how sexuality in Iran is understood. As Michel Foucault might say, the concept of sexuality was not repressed - it was talked about more, politicized, and defined into homosexuality and heterosexuality. Creating these cultural categories expanded the governments reach of power. People have always had sex with the same gender. It wasn’t until the 19th century that they were called “homosexuals,” and put into that category with sociopolitical effects.\Political art simply cannot address tasks that exist entirely outside of the scope of art. Writer Maggie Nelson has said that, “Neither politics nor art is served if and when the distinctions between them are unwillingly or unthinkingly smeared out.” However, art is not apolitical - the archive of cultural production is held by branches tethered to state sponsored social engineering. Curation is an arm of control. It upholds the manufactured illusion that art and cultural institutions are liberal while ensuring compliance with capitalism and censorship. Art takes the allegorical into documentarian. It records, resists, ruptures. When it cannot influence the law, it increases literacy. When it cannot free people, it frees perception. If art cannot legislate freedom but can expand perception, then it is implicated in how freedom itself is imagined. The history of gender in Iran shows that perception is produced by cultural institutions. Najmabadi once wrote that “to be modern was to be gendered.”This production necessitated a “cultural labor” of gendering. This modernization required a labor of gendering – work that constructed and upheld the binary itself. What Najmabadi reveals is that gender was not simply “discovered” or “expressed” but produced. [Gender]queerness was actively removed from literature and the arts. Heteronormalization was also integrated through laws the state enacted. The education system also promoted binary gender through curriculum and school segregation, teaching children the “right” way to be a man or woman. This labor continues in art institutions today, where censorship begins with aesthetics, visually reinforcing the gender binary and censoring cultural institutions.Art and politics have a reciprocal dynamic: art is always one of the first cultural institutions to be censored and defunded. The change in gender aesthetic aligns with the timeline of Iran’s deepening politics with the West. Paintings, like Lovers, began to have one person topless with exposed breasts and another with facial hair. Despite wanting to reject Western influence, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) came to depend on a concept of sexuality corresponding to that of the West more than its own. Along with the art, cultural attitudes began to change, and did so definitively with the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Just as Western influence politicized queerness in Iran, the US’s invasion of itself is rewriting the laws, culture, and curricula it once claimed as part of its freedom.In March 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order to “Restore Truth and Sanity to American History” by banning art exhibitions involving queerness or gender identities that do not align with the administration’s gender ideology. Trump’s order reads like a decree from the Ministry of Culture – ironically, the kind of censorship the U.S. once condemned abroad. The national gender policy is also transphobic, recognizing only “male” and “female” according to another of Trump’s executive orders. The administration will also pull funding from schools with queer inclusive education.The policies have reverberated through the politicization of art and queerness. In both countries, queerness continues to come up in unquestionably national terms while contemporary politics makes queerness a national threat. There’s a quiet kind of grief that washes over you when you begin to think about the queer/trans families and adults fleeing the country – a country your family fled an authoritarian state for.Trump’s presidency is not a prior condition so much as a confirmation of what has always been. If we lived in a culture that was less homophobic and anxious about the [gender]queer experience, then queerness would be less troublesome - since part of what it’s doing is troubling the assumptions around the construction of sexuality. The US is not yet a gender apartheid, but Qajar era art functions as both witness and warning to countries that claim freedom in the name of patriotism yet repress queerness in the same terms.America is not just a country; it poses a mission: the “free” world. Many queer/trans adults and families are having to choose safety over a sentiment. To be queer in the United States is to be patriotic - because it demands the country invest in its own promise. And criminalizing queerness is not very patriotic when the basis of this country is (supposedly) the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Qajar era art paints a time when queerness was not politicized – destabilizing both the Islamic Republic’s homophobic dismissal of queer history and the West’s hold over queer identities.In both the U.S. and the Islamic Republic of Iran, censorship of queer art[ists] is justified through nationalism. The US is a museum of the “free” world, its galleries and libraries where the nation performs itself. Like Iran’s Ministry of Culture, US cultural institutions are curators and librarians, deciding what belongs on the walls and shelves. To have US laws be like that of the IRI’s makes me think of art like Amorous Couple not as subverting the IRI – that’s part of it – but as primarily revealing Islamophobia. The irony is that the Iran being called upon to address homophobia wasn’t even homophobic. Putting queer liberation in terms of only freeing them from the IRI disregards the actual cause: the US. To address the oppressive politics of transphobia and homophobia includes - no, necessitates - taking apart the Western empire. Addressing the politics of transphobia and homophobia doesn’t stop at critique - it necessitates dismantling the Western empire itself.What happens when art can hold queerness in a way that politics cannot? Does it only succeed as art – or can it enact political and cultural change? If political and cultural change cannot be attributed to the piece, is that a failure on any part of the artist or a failure of broader politics? The paintings may not answer these questions, but it pursues them, deepening possibilities. Qajar era Iran can teach the US about the role of art at a historical juncture where the construction of freedom is positioned against self-determination.There is a Western hold on queerness that once made me feel like I wasn’t as Iranian for being queer and not as queer for being Iranian.The artwork reimagined queerness not as a site of fragmentation but as a continuity – testimony to Western efforts that were never entirely successful. Many have so little concern for how an artwork has been politically, culturally, and artistically conceived that they accept art devoid of politics. When art is treated like a luxury, it’s because a culture doesn’t want it to be a tool for liberation. As show cancellations increase in the United States, uncertainty deepens about whether the supposedly liberal politics of the art world are confined to the walls of exhibitions.Ultimately, Amorous Couple confirms that art is not merely archival - it is a political intervention beyond the reach of culture and law."
}
]
}