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" : "Argentina’s Migration “Security Turn”: How Javier Milei’s Migration Policies Are Reshaping Belonging in Argentina",
"author" : "Marina Simonet Hernandez Jurado",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/argentinas-migration-security-turn",
"date" : "2026-03-17 10:39:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Screenshot-2026-03-12-at-4.14.21PM.jpg",
"excerpt" : "",
"content" : "In late January, Argentina’s Ministry of Security published a video on Instagram showing federal forces conducting an operation in Villa Celina, a working-class neighborhood in La Matanza, reportedly searching for undocumented immigrants. Days earlier, a Colombian-born trans man who had requested asylum in Argentina, was detained at the airport for six days, unable to communicate with his family. According to La Izquierda Diario, his asylum claim was rejected, and he was placed on a flight to Porto Alegre, Brazil, under the classification of a “false tourist. ” According to an X post by Alejandra Monteoliva, Argentina’s Minister of National Security, “in December and January, nearly 5,000 foreign nationals were either denied entry or expelled from the country”. These episodes unfolded amid significant changes to Argentina’s immigration governance. Before Javier Milei took office in December 2023, immigration policy fell under the Ministry of the Interior, but former Minister Patricia Bullrich transferred oversight of immigration to the Ministry of National Security in November 2025, effectively redefining migration not as a matter of civil administration, but as an issue of national security. There have been no large-scale arrests of undocumented migrants in Argentina. Yet the symbolic force of security operations in poor neighborhoods and the high-profile expulsion of an asylum seeker signals to a broader political narrative. Like Donald Trump’s “law and order” rhetoric in the United States, Milei’s discourse relies on nationalist appeals and moral distinctions between “decent Argentinians” and those portrayed as threats. Slogans such as “el que las hace las paga” (an idiom similar to “do the crime, do the time”) compress complex social realities into punitive certainties, repositioning immigrants, workers, and other vulnerable groups as subjects of suspicion rather than individuals with rights. The correlation between Milei’s and Trump’s anti-immigrant policies is clear from the dates of implementation: Javier Milei took office in December 2023 and made no major changes to immigration policies until May 2025 (only five months after Trump took office) with the publication of the decree 366/2025 that announced modifications to the Migration Law, especially in article 114 where the creation of the “Auxiliary Migration Police” was announced. Furthermore, the desire to emulate Trump’s ICE is explicit even from members of the Milei administration, as reflected in these statements published by La Nacion, by a source close to Patricia Bullrich’s office: “The ANM (National Migration Agency) will adopt a security-driven approach. It will be modeled on the United States Department of Homeland Security, including its Border Patrol and the TSA [Transportation Security Administration, which oversees airport screening]. We are working to establish a civilian-police force operating at all of Argentina’s border crossings — an agency that centralizes migration control and maintains comprehensive records of individuals with criminal backgrounds”. Argentina’s Ambivalent Immigration TraditionArgentina’s national mythology celebrates immigration more explicitly than that of most countries in the Americas—a tradition rooted not only in historical narrative but also in constitutional language, and linked to the country’s vast, sparsely populated territory. The 1853 Preamble famously commits the nation to “secure the blessings of liberty … for all men of the world who wish to dwell on Argentine soil,” embedding an explicit invitation to migrants within the country’s founding legal imagination and framing hospitality as a foundational principle rather than a contingent policy choice. Dominant narratives credit European migration in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries with shaping Argentina’s economic and cultural development, as well as its national identity—one that has often imagined Argentines as descendants of Europeans and, therefore, distinct from the rest of Latin America. However, enthusiasm for immigration was never universal. In 1899, physician and intellectual José María Ramos Mejía wrote in Las multitudes Argentinas that immigration had “made Buenos Aires ill,” contaminating the traditions of established families. This anxiety reflected elite fears of demographic change, urban disorder, and political radicalism. In the context of the country’s expanding capitalist economy, these fears translated into hostility toward labor organizing, often portrayed as a foreign and subversive activity, as unions began to develop under the influence of anarchist and socialist ideas, including organizations such as the FORA, the country’s first major anarchist labor federation, as documented by Working Class History. The state also responded with legislation facilitating deportations, most notably the 1902 Ley de Residencia (Law 4144), which allowed the executive to expel foreigners deemed a threat to public order. Today’s nostalgia for a “good immigration” rests on two fragile premises. First, European migration is interpreted through a contemporary lens that imagines Europe as inherently prosperous and orderly, projecting present-day “First World” status onto a past marked by poverty, instability, and social conflict. Second, that race did not matter. Yet Argentina’s self-image as a predominantly white nation emerged alongside the violent erasure of much of its Indigenous population, including state campaigns such as the Conquest of the Desert, and the marginalization of Afro-Argentine communities. The celebration of European immigration has always been intertwined with racial hierarchy, evident in the markedly different treatment given to European migrants compared to those from neighboring countries such as Paraguay and Bolivia, who were racialized in distinct ways. The distinction between “good” and “bad” immigrants persists, now recorded through the language of legality and security. The False Security ArgumentThe Milei administration justifies its migration policies in the name of public safety. However, official data complicates that claim. Administrative data from the National Registry of Persons (RENAPER) indicates that Argentina has roughly 2. 3 million foreign-born residents, representing about 5 percent of the total population. Compared to countries where immigration dominates electoral politics, Argentina’s foreign-born population remains relatively small. According to 2023 national penitentiary statistics, foreigners account for roughly 6 percent of Argentina’s incarcerated population, approximately in line with their share of the country’s population. These figures suggest that migrants are not overrepresented within Argentina’s criminal justice system. Essentially, migration has not been a central axis of political instability or social crisis in recent years. Framing migration as a primary security concern appears disproportionate to the available evidence and contrasts with claims by President Javier Milei that migrants disproportionately benefit from public services such as health care and education or contribute significantly to Argentina’s economic crisis. Emulation and Political StrategyThe parallels with Trump-era discourse are not accidental. Javier Milei has openly aligned himself rhetorically with global right-wing leaders who frame migration as both a cultural and criminal threat. The emphasis on border control, internal enforcement, and moral categorization mirrors strategies used by U. S. and European conservatives to consolidate political identity around fear and grievance, while also resonating with broader regional trends. Argentina is not an isolated case in the adoption of restrictive migration policies; rather, it reflects a broader regional trend. In Chile, President-elect José Antonio Kast campaigned on proposals that included large-scale deportations of undocumented migrants. Similarly, in Costa Rica, President Rodrigo Chaves Robles declared a state of emergency in 2023 in response to migrants transiting the country en route to the United States, as reported by Reuters. In a recent interview with Louis Sarkozy, son of former French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Milei argued that when a migrant “does not adapt to your culture,” it constitutes an “invasion” capable of “altering the cultural foundations” of a country. Yet beneath this security narrative lies a broader political project. The administration’s economic agenda (including labor reforms framed as “modernization”) favors deregulation and business interests. In this context, anti-immigrant rhetoric functions less as a response to empirical conditions than as a symbolic instrument: it constructs an internal adversary while redirecting attention away from structural economic transformation. The coherence of this narrative is further complicated by reports, including those published by The New York Times, suggesting an alleged agreement between Trump and Milei for Argentina to receive deported migrants from the United States. In this sense, security has become the language through which a deeper class realignment is articulated. Argentina’s history shows that debates over immigration have often reflected anxieties about identity, race, and labor control rather than measurable threats. The current turn toward securitization thus represents not merely a policy shift, but a transformation in democratic language itself. The question, then, is not whether Argentina faces a migration crisis, the available data suggests it does not, but what political purpose is served by insisting that it does, and what this insistence reveals about the broader direction of governance under Milei. By constructing an internal enemy embodied by vulnerable populations, the government seeks to redirect attention to politically expedient scapegoats. This logic is reflected not only in the immigration policies described here, but also in labor reforms that frame workers’ rights as a burden on public spending, the repression of retirees demanding improved pensions, and new restrictions on protest and the right to strike that limit collective organization. Taken together, these measures suggest that immigration restrictions form part of a broader institutional reconfiguration, one that prioritizes the projection of authority over the resolution of concrete social and economic challenges. In doing so, the government reframes manageable social dynamics as existential threats, a shift that risks undermining the very constitutional principles it claims to defend, both domestically and in its international positioning. "
}
,
{
"title" : "Borrowed Geography: How US Bases Serve the Empire",
"author" : "Jwan Zreiq",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/borrowed-geography",
"date" : "2026-03-17 10:03:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/us-syria.jpg",
"excerpt" : "Who are the bases for? For decades, the United States and Arab regimes have rehearsed the same script: the lie that American military presence in the region protects the Arab world, to preserve stability, and to defend against external threats. Hundreds of bases, tens of thousands of troops, naval fleets parked in the Gulf, all of it, supposedly, for Arab safety. But if protection is the purpose, then the question answers itself: protected from what, exactly? The Arab region has endured more wars, more destruction, and more instability since the establishment of these bases than in any comparable period before them. Iraq was invaded. Syria was shattered. Yemen was starved. Libya was bombed into state collapse. Palestine remains under occupation and siege. If this is what protection looks like, then the word has lost all meaning.",
"content" : "Who are the bases for? For decades, the United States and Arab regimes have rehearsed the same script: the lie that American military presence in the region protects the Arab world, to preserve stability, and to defend against external threats. Hundreds of bases, tens of thousands of troops, naval fleets parked in the Gulf, all of it, supposedly, for Arab safety. But if protection is the purpose, then the question answers itself: protected from what, exactly? The Arab region has endured more wars, more destruction, and more instability since the establishment of these bases than in any comparable period before them. Iraq was invaded. Syria was shattered. Yemen was starved. Libya was bombed into state collapse. Palestine remains under occupation and siege. If this is what protection looks like, then the word has lost all meaning. The Scale of PresenceThe American military footprint in the Arab region is staggering. The United States maintains forces in more than a dozen countries, with at least nineteen military sites, eight considered permanent. Qatar hosts Al Udeid Air Base, the largest US installation in the Middle East, serving as the forward headquarters for US Central Command with around 10,000 troops. As of mid-2025, roughly 40,000 American service members were deployed across the region. The narrative behind the purpose of these bases were sold to Arab governments, and by extension, to Arab publics, as shields against regional threats, primarily framed as Iran. But the record tells a very different story. They have served as launch pads for the destruction of Arab states, not their protection. What the Bases Did to IraqThe invasion of Iraq in 2003 remains the most damning evidence, and a vital one to read alongside what is happening today with Iran. Here is an Arab country, a founding member of the Arab League, destroyed using bases hosted by neighbouring Arab states. Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and others became staging grounds for an invasion whose human cost is staggering. Population-based studies estimate over one million Iraqi deaths resulting from the war, while the Iraq Body Count project has documented between 186,901 and 210,296 violent civilian deaths. Brown University’s Costs of War project estimates that over 940,000 people were killed by direct post-9/11 war violence across Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan, with more than 432,000 of those being civilians. The bases did not protect Iraq. The bases destroyed Iraq. And the Arab states that hosted those bases were complicit, whether they admitted it or not, in the annihilation of an Arab neighbour. If the bases exist to protect Arab nations from external aggression, then what do you call an invasion launched from those very bases against an Arab capital?At the time of writing this, the pattern is repeating, and it is vital to read what is happening today alongside the record of Iraq. The US-Israeli alliance has launched strikes on a sovereign nation, Iran, calling it preemptive. Unnecessary, unprovoked, and deeply violent. What much Western media has failed to acknowledge is that the strike is unlawful. Not a grey area. A criminal act under international law. The current escalation is driven not by any genuine Iranian or Arab interest but by Israeli strategic calculations that position American bases as staging grounds for strikes against a neighbouring, non-Arab, Muslim-majority country with which Arab states share geography, trade, and centuries of cultural exchange. The shield became the target. Exactly as predicted. Netanyahu’s Guarantee; Peace Is Always One War AwayThere is no better illustration of Israel’s role as the architect of this configuration than the words of Benjamin Netanyahu himself, whose career has been defined by a single recurring promise: destroy the current enemy, and peace will come. The enemy changes. The promise never does and it never will. In the 1980s, Netanyahu told Pat Robertson that the Soviet Union was “a major force” behind international terrorism and that “if you take away the Soviet Union, its chief proxy, the PLO, international terrorism would collapse. ” In 2002, Netanyahu appeared before the US Congress to lobby for the invasion of Iraq. He told lawmakers: “If you take out Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations in the region. ” Predicting that regime change in Baghdad would trigger the implosion of Iran. In 2015, he returned to Congress to sabotage the Iran nuclear deal, claiming it would guarantee an Iranian bomb. The same language of certainty he had used about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, which never existed. In 2024, he stood before Congress again: “Israel will fight until we destroy Hamas’s military capabilities and its rule in Gaza. That’s what total victory means. ” He framed every front as one war: “When we fight Hamas, we’re fighting Iran. When we fight Hezbollah, we’re fighting Iran. When we fight the Houthis, we’re fighting Iran”. The normalisation agreements of the Abraham Accords were about integrating Israel into a security architecture in which American bases, Arab territory, and Israeli strategic interests become indistinguishable. Even the $142 billion Saudi arms deal is constrained by America’s guarantee that Israel receives more advanced weaponry than any Arab state, a policy known as the “qualitative military edge. ” A deal that, as Foreign Affairs documented, was designed to normalise relations with Israel without demanding, in exchange, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. The bases that were once justified as protecting Arab sovereignty now serve a framework that prioritises Israeli security at Arab expense. At no point in this trajectory have the bases served the interests of ordinary Arab citizens. They have served American power projection, Israeli regional ambitions, and the narrow survival calculations of ruling elites who exchange sovereignty for patronage. The geography has been borrowed for decades. The return on that investment has been the destruction of Iraq, missiles falling on Doha, and trillions flowing in the wrong direction. The Geography Reclaims ItselfBut the myth is fracturing. In January 2026, the Iraqi army assumed full control of Ain al-Asad Airbase after a complete US withdrawal, ending more than two decades of American military presence in western Iraq. In Jordan, daily protests after October 7 forced the government to recall its ambassador from Israel; Israel evacuated its own and has not replaced its diplomatic mission since. In Morocco, which normalised relations with Israel in 2020, public support for normalisation collapsed from 31 percent to 13 percent after October 7, and in 2025, the country’s largest labour union called for banning Israeli-bound ships from Moroccan waters and organised protests in support of Gaza. The 2025 Arab Opinion Index, the largest public opinion survey in the Arab world, covering 40,000 respondents across fifteen countries, found that 87 percent of Arabs oppose recognition of Israel, citing its status as a “settler-colonial state occupying Palestine”. Despite the Abraham Accords, support for normalisation dropped even further, including in signatory states. This is not passive discontent. It is a political force constraining governments that would otherwise deepen their alignment with Washington and Tel Aviv. Within the Arab world, a generation of writers, organisers, and researchers from Azmi Bishara’s work on sovereignty and the failure of normalisation, to Abdel Razzaq Takriti’s recovery of Gulf revolutionary traditions, to the policy analysts at Al-Shabaka dismantling the security-sector myth, is building the analytical tools to name what previous generations could not say aloud: that the security architecture sold to them was never designed for their protection, and that genuine regional security begins with sovereignty–not the kind performed at summits and investment forums, but the kind that decides who can and cannot wage war from your soil. The Yemeni blockade of Red Sea shipping, whatever one’s position on the Houthis may be,, demonstrated something that decades of Arab League communiqués never did: that collective action rooted in solidarity with Palestine can materially disrupt the logistics of empire. "
}
,
{
"title" : "Kurdistan and Palestine: Mapping Solidarity Beyond Colonial Borders",
"author" : "Rojin Namer, Jwan Zreiq",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/kurdistan-and-palestine",
"date" : "2026-03-17 10:00:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/shutterstock_232668253-956x539-c.jpg",
"excerpt" : "“No one can understand the suffering of the palestinian people more than the Kurds. No people can share a relationship of empathy more than the peoples of Palestine and Kurdistan. This has been proven by their experiences and joint struggle. It was as such yesterday and it is as such today.” - Duran Kalkan",
"content" : "“No one can understand the suffering of the palestinian people more than the Kurds. No people can share a relationship of empathy more than the peoples of Palestine and Kurdistan. This has been proven by their experiences and joint struggle. It was as such yesterday and it is as such today. ” - Duran KalkanKurds live under imposed borders and know occupation firsthand. People shaped by displacement do not romanticize occupation or occupiers as allies. Kurdish writer Egultekin’s words cut through decades of propaganda that has painted Kurdish movements as Israeli proxies. The truth is simpler and far more painful: the “Kurdish-Israeli alliance” is a narrative weapon wielded by the very states that carved up Kurdistan, designed to turn regional solidarity into suspicion and transform indigenous resistance into foreign conspiracy. As a result, Kurdish and Palestinian struggles have been deliberately misunderstood as competing, when in fact they share a common root. Both of their people live as the largest stateless populations in the world, their identities fractured across borders drawn by colonial powers who never asked for their consent. The Kurds estimated number is 40 to 45 million across Turkey (Bakur), Syria (Rojava), Iraq (Başȗr), Iran (Rojhilat) – names the Kurds use for their own lands– as well as in diaspora. Palestinians number 15. 5 million, scattered across Palestine and the diaspora. Both peoples have lived and survived through genocide, displacement, and the systematic erasure of their existence, still fighting, relentlessly, just to assert their right to exist. The Architecture of FragmentingKurdistan is often described as if it were an absence, a land that does not exist because it does not appear on official maps. This absence is political, not historical. What appears today as four separate “minority” populations spread across widely recognized nation-states was once a connected social, linguistic, and cultural landscape where the Kurds lived as the indigenous people of the mountains, which is where the famous saying comes from, “No friends but the mountains,” a phrase born from watching these mountains given to different countries while the Kurds themselves were denied the ability to move through land that had always been theirs. Those same mountains were also pathways for commerce, escape, and cover for those fleeing or fighting. Many Kurds lived as Koçers–a Kurdish word related to families’ seasonal migration with their belongings, their sheep and goats, between lowland winters and highland summers. Their routes never knew the borders that would later claim to define them. Borders that would turn their ancestral movement into crime, making them “illegal” on land their ancestors had traversed freely for generations. To understand the ties between Palestine and Kurdistan, we must trace the borders that fractured them. In 1916, Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, dividing Bilad al-Sham, the Levant. They partitioned what had been a living geography of different tribes, faiths, and peoples into Syria, Jordan, Palestine, and Lebanon, carving nations from what was once one land. The same lines fractured Kurdistan across Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran, leaving its people stateless across four different borders. The agreement laid the ground for the Balfour Declaration the following year, which promised Palestine to a European Zionist movement while Palestinian hands still worked its soil, cultivating the land while it’s being promised away. These colonial borders made Kurdish existence itself a threat to four different nation-states simultaneously, which means attempts at autonomy have been met with violent repression to this day. Because acknowledging Kurdish identity challenges the legitimacy of the borders themselves, and challenging the story these states tell about who belongs and who doesn’t, also challenging who controls the resources beneath their feet. Kurdish lands, recognized as one of the world’s most significant untapped energy frontiers, holding massive reserves of oil, gas, minerals, and fertile agricultural land, none of which has benefited Kurdish populations. In Iraq alone, Kurdish regions sit on an estimated 45 billion barrels of oil reserves, resources that all four states have consistently fought to keep out of Kurdish hands. Taken together, control over these resources has allowed these states to determine who holds political power and who remains outside it; who sits at the table, and who is never invited. So when we ask why the mere existence of Kurdish identity remains so threatening to the states built on their erasure, the answer lies in understanding how statelessness becomes not just a condition but a tool. Israel’s interest in Kurdish movements has nothing to do with self-determination and everything to do with weakening Iran, fragmenting Iraq. The same imperial logic that created Kurdish statelessness is now offered back as an alliance. Rojava: Liberation, ethnic and gender justice movementIn 2012, amid the Syrian civil war and the withdrawal of regime forces from Kurdish-majority areas, Kurdish political forces in northern Syria began to organize autonomous self-governance. While defending their territories against ISIS, they initiated a political project grounded in grassroots democracy. This radical resistance movement evolved into what is known today as the Autonomous Administration of North Syria. Crucially, what began in predominantly Kurdish areas expanded to include Arabs, Assyrians, Armenians, Turkmens, and other communities as they joined the autonomous regions. The system adapted a council-based structure extending from local communes to district and regional assemblies. Representation is based not on ethnicity nor religion, but on a shared participation in self-governance. In a region marked by unresolved national questions and sectarian fragmentation, this model represents both a rupture and a possibility; challenging the nation-state through decentralization and multi-ethnic coexistence. Crucially, gender equality is not an addendum but the structure itself. The women’s movement within the revolution has transformed social and political life, placing women’s liberation at the center of democratic transformation. In this way, every governing body in Rojava operates under mandatory co-leadership between a woman and a man, with a minimum 40% quota for women’s participation across all institutions, and women’s councils hold autonomous veto power over community decisions, meaning that no law, no policy, or local decision can ever be moved forward without women’s consent. One of the most notable accomplishments perhaps is how the administration has banned polygamy, child marriage, and forced marriage. Equally significant, it criminalized honor killings and gender-based violence –transforming what were once dismissed as private cultural matters into prosecutable violations. Alongside this legal transformation, women formed their own armed units, the YPJ (Women’s Protection Units), founded in 2013 as an autonomous military formation that fought ISIS on the frontlines as independent fighters, defying the narrative of women fighters as auxiliaries to male forces by becoming instrumental in the liberation of Kobani and the rescue of thousands of Yazidis from genocide on Mount Sinjar. Beyond military defense, Kurdish women established their own justice system through Mala Jin (Women’s Houses), a network of more than 60 centers across the region. Here, women resolve disputes, address domestic violence, and challenge patriarchal practices without state or male mediation; offering reconciliation and mediation processes at the community level, instead of through courts or police. Educational academies followed, training women in everything from political theory to cooperative economics, and in the process, they created the infrastructure for women’s autonomous power. In the spirit of women resisting together, Leila Khaled, the Palestinian revolutionary and PFLP member, has consistently recognized the Kurdish struggle as inseparable from Palestine’s. Khaled visited Leyla Güven, a Kurdish parliamentarian imprisoned for opposing Turkish incursions into Syria, during Güven’s hunger strike demanding an end to the isolation of imprisoned Kurdish leader Abdullah Öcalan. Khaled draws direct parallels between the partition of Palestine and the partition of Kurdistan, between the denial of Palestinian return and the denial of Kurdish movement through their mountains. A Bijî Kurdistan & Free PalestineKurdish writer Özlem Goner’s words map the liberation path forward when she wrote: “Kurds and Palestinians in this particular context have suffered various forms of colonial violence at the hands of Turkey and Israel respectively, and it is our alliance, together with all the other colonized and oppressed populations of the Middle East and beyond, that can bring justice and peace. From learning to self-defend together, to invaluable moments of solidarity. ”Daily resistance is not always courageous. Sometimes it is a compromise you’re willing to take in simply choosing not to disappear. In both Kurdish and Palestinian contexts, resistance then, is a condition of existence, perhaps the only one available when your whole being is read as a political stance. The question has never been whether there will be one state or two, but whether that state will be based on equality or continue to be based on domination. The map with further fragmentation of lands promises resolution while preserving the very architecture of oppression. So, until the maps and borders reflect justice rather than colonial division, until Kurds can traverse their mountains and Palestinians can return to their lands, the project of liberation remains unfinished. Liberation will emerge, if at all, from the recognition that to be Kurdish, to be Palestinian, is to have one’s very existence made political by those who drew borders to erase it, and that survival itself no state has managed to extinguish. From women governing in Rojava to families returning to olive groves in Palestine, the stubborn refusal to stop being who we are is the political act no state or borders can legislate away. "
}
]
}