Over the last 15 months, the chorus of voices calling out Israel’s genocide in Gaza has grown exponentially. Israel’s shocking actions have emboldened people around the world – including state and cultural figureheads – to voice their condemnation. Nevertheless, few people could have predicted that among the most strident voices since 7 October would be a United Nations official.

Francesca Albanese is the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories since 1967, and the first woman in the role since its establishment in 1993. A human rights lawyer of over two decades’ experience, she is one of 12 country-specific rapporteurs who document human rights violations on behalf of the United Nations human rights council, including in Myanmar, the Central African Republic and Iran. Since taking up the position in May 2022, Albanese has been widely recognised for her relentlessly analytical, plain-speaking criticism of Israel’s regime of apartheid and blockade.

Unlike most western diplomats, who tend to be more cautious in their assessments, Albanese has not hesitated to call Israel’s war in Gaza genocidal (see her UN reports ‘Anatomy of a genocide’ and ‘Genocide as colonial erasure’), a claim that she justifies with detailed reference to the UN genocide convention and a comparative history of other recognised genocides.

Over the last decade, Albanese’s reports and books – in particular J’accuse (2024) and Palestinian Refugees in International Law (2020) – have chronicled Israel’s decades-long abuse of Palestinians, including settlement building, annexation, unfair imprisonment, apartheid and ethnic discrimination. More recently, her critiques have focused on exposing the double standards of those who claim to uphold the rule of law, such as western countries being more vocal about human rights violations by Russia in Ukraine than about Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Like many other high-profile advocates for Palestinian rights, Albanese has been victim to smear campaigns aimed at branding (and silencing) her as an antisemite, including from Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the former US ambassador to the UN.

Novara Media met Francesca Albanese in mid-January, shortly before the announcement of a ceasefire in Gaza.

UK foreign secretary David Lammy has said that terms such as genocide “are quite properly legal terms that must be determined by international courts”. Do you think it’s premature to call Gaza a genocide before the ICJ has made a final ruling?

No, he’s wrong. First of all, the genocide convention doesn’t say that it must be established by a judge. Genocide is defined by article 2 of the convention and there are obligations to prevent, stop and punish. It’s not even necessary to have genocidal acts committed. The incitement to genocide is sufficient to trigger the obligations of the genocide convention. So no, it’s not true that you need a judicial body to determine that a genocide is happening. When there is the possibility and plausibility that a genocide is being committed – hence the ongoing ICJ and ICC cases – then the obligations are triggered.

My sense is that many in the political establishment are making up arguments to justify Israel’s conduct and allow it to continue. Countries like the UK also have direct interests in terms of arms trade with Israel, not to mention [many other economic ties] – and this is something that should be heavily scrutinised.

It is also curious that UK and US politicians who now hesitate to call it genocide in Gaza were happy to use that label in other contexts before a legal ruling. For example, [former US] secretary of state [Anthony] Blinken recently called the situation in Sudan a genocide. Is it only a genocide when it’s convenient for them? Apparently 15 months of documented and televised atrocities in Gaza are not enough evidence to provoke serious concerns about genocide.

This hypocrisy is so in our faces that people can no longer ignore it. The world is changing. We need to get rid of the old system epitomised by hypocrisy and kept alive by inertia. [We] get rid of it through justice and accountability. This is the only peaceful means I know of – the rest is violence and I would never condone that, despite understanding why people get enraged against the system. I want to encourage people to use the legal system as much as we can.

The genocide in Gaza is often spoken about as the first to be live-streamed on social media. How has this both affected your own work as rapporteur and informed the political, media and civil society response to what’s happening? There are certainly fewer places for Israel to hide than during previous escalations.

There will be fewer and fewer places for them to hide, I promise, so may this be a lesson for other criminals and other settler colonial endeavours. The livestream[ed footage of the genocide] has affected me deeply. It has shaken many of my convictions. I was so naive: I really believed that the international and western system would have reacted to what we’ve seen. Something has broken inside me, but not my trust in humanity. Not my trust in international law. I know the limits of international law but I still believe in peaceful means of conflict resolution and prevention. So I want to make the system work, but I know that it will take a longer time than normal to fix it – and meanwhile, many more people will die. Even with the ceasefire, I’m very worried about the future of Gaza.

The bits of me that have died are compensated by the solidarity we’ve seen. So many people have come out so strongly [on the streets]. On a personal level, I’ve been uplifted to see so many people working in the UN and the wider diplomatic community express their dismay at the system and give their support to me.

How hopeful are you that the ICC and ICJ cases against Israel will result in concrete action? Are the mechanisms of international law and its enforcement adequate to subdue the forces of western imperialism?

It’s not that I don’t have hope, but hope doesn’t come into the equation right now in my work. In my work, there is dedication, commitment, integrity and principles. And I’m convinced that, if all those who have the capacity to act – the legal community, the NGO community, journalists – then something will change. I already see the cracks in the system. We are standing on a thick layer of ice and many of us are banging our heads against it. I see the cracks growing. It will break but we need to have a strategy and an end goal: end the genocide now and then end the occupation and apartheid in the coming years.

It will take a while to dismantle it, of course, and it will take a while to re-educate people who have grown up with hatred toward the other. It’s very widespread in Israeli society, we can see that. But there are many Israelis who are against the system and we need to trust them as part of the bridge that we need to walk on. There are also Palestinians who are clearly in need of healing and we need to make sure that there is space for healing, as the pain, humiliation, deprivation and annihilation that they’ve endured is hard to [fathom], especially for the kids as they grow up. If this pain is not filled with immense healing and love … We can’t let resentment fester.

If Israel continues to act with impunity (and western support), what will be the consequences for international law or geopolitical stability? What does another 10, 20, 30 years of this look like?

Even if Israel stopped committing crimes today, it would have already put the entire human rights system in danger. Israel should be held accountable for what it has done to the Palestinians and what it has done to the world by, for example, selling weapons to dictatorships. I encourage everyone to read The Palestine Laboratory by Antony Lowenstein, a brilliant documentation that exposes how Israel has turned an entire population into a laboratory of guinea pigs on whom weapons and techniques could be tested and then sold globally. Israel is a big contributor to the militarisation of global societies.

If Israel and the US don’t make this stop, thereby dismantling the international multilateral order even more, brick after brick, the system will fall down straight on our head in the west. We will pay the consequences of the collapse of the international system. How could we then expect people in the rest of the world in other regions to feel compelled to abide by an international justice system that is totally disregarded and dismissed by western leaders. In short, there would be less or no accountability. Israel is imposing a new way of interpreting law applicable to conflict, a world without protections for civilians. What will now stop others from saying that there are alleged weapons under every hospital and every bed?

Why do you think you’ve become such a lightning rod in discussions of Palestine in a way that your predecessors were not? Do you think your approach to your role differs from theirs?

A: Substantively, my approach is not that different to my predecessors, such as Richard Falk. I have kept a lot of continuity with their work, while also adapting to the time. Another predecessor of mine, John Dugard, was the first [diplomatic official] who announced Israel as an apartheid state, in 2005. Some of my legal analyses are novel, within this role and the UN. There were not many people who had spoken about genocide before, or linked Israel’s detention system to a broader carcerality, and not many people who had spoken of Palestine’s right of self-determination with clarity. But there is nothing celebratory about that, seriously. It’s just my job and I do it with the utmost dedication, because if we don’t do that at the time of genocide, when else?

None of my predecessors operated in a context as severe as the last 15 months. And things were already dire before October 7. In the months and year after my start as special rapporteur, back in May 2022, I saw the largest mass eviction of Palestinians sanctioned by an Israeli high court in Masafer Yatta [an area in the West Bank where Israel regularly demolishes Palestinian homes and infrastructure], the killing of [Al Jazeera anchor] Shireen Abu Akleh, and the beating of hundreds of worshipers at the Al-Aqsa mosque [in east Jerusalem, also known as the Temple Mount] – not to mention the new Israeli government coalition that pushed forward annexation of the West Bank that accelerated the pogroms against Palestinian villages.

All in all, I’ve been a special rapporteur during a time of particularly shocking violence. I have become a different person since the start of my job. My main mandate has been to help change the narrative that has been so manipulated and distorted by Israel’s heavily invested propaganda machinery, which sells itself as the “only democracy in the Middle East” and the “bastion of civilization against the savages”.

I know the question of Palestine inside out, thanks to the experience of its people who I have worked [with] and learned from for many years as a humanitarian, academic and legal advisor to the UN. I do not call them “Palestinian refugees” anymore. They are the Nakba survivors – because this is what Palestinians are. It is a matter of fact.

I have also pushed for a very strong engagement with the media and have undertaken many diplomatic visits around the world, given that I’ve been unable to travel to Gaza. My message has been simple: the question of Palestine can and must be resolved in international law and cannot be treated as a humanitarian issue. [Israel’s actions] violate the Palestinian people’s [legal] right to self-determination. Everything that I hear at the international level is a continuous reminder that the west has not understood, or taken seriously, this right to self-determination.

Can you elaborate a little on how your communications strategy has differed from that of your predecessors?

People are not used to seeing a UN staff member like me speaking the truth in very normal, undiplomatic language. But the truth can be revolutionary and undiplomatic when diplomacy is used as a cloak for crimes. While I don’t mince my words, I’m careful with the words I use, too – in fact, I sound quite conservative compared to many other voices in this space.

The Palestinians have many among their own who are speaking out relentlessly and who they can be proud of – people like [Palestinian-American author] Susan Abulhawa, [Palestinian-American activist] Noura Erakat, [founder of the political and cultural boycott of Israel] Omar Barghouti and [Palestinian author and poet] Mohammed El-Kurd. So many. However, it’s rare for Palestinians to see an international who is relentless too. I think they have seen that I’ve been speaking everywhere this year – which has given me very little time to rest and very little time for my husband and two children. Maybe they also see the threats to me and the lightness with which I’ve remained undeterred. I’m so grateful to have been supported and welcomed by Palestinians. If I were them I would probably be furious at every international [westerner], but Palestinians are so generous and have kept such grace. I’m Mediterranean, so I know and appreciate this hospitality. It’s our culture.

Do you feel safe from those threats, you just mentioned?

I wouldn’t say that I feel safe, I feel above these fears, psychologically. I don’t mind the risks, I’m serious. I have two young kids, so it’s heavy for me to say that. I’ve always had this fire for justice and it grew bigger and bigger with the genocide. I’ve made many sacrifices, as have my family, husband and kids, but it’s been considered and discussed. There’s been no risk that I’ve taken where we have not considered the consequences. My husband and I have said that, if something happens, there would be consequences, no matter what. As a result, I can walk down the street [without fear].

What strategies have you developed to deal with unfounded accusations of antisemitism?

Ignoring them. Seriously, I have no time for that. I have more important matters to deal with than false accusations. I’ve been really lucky to have so many Jewish organisations and scholars supporting me from the very beginning, and who have helped redirect false accusations of antisemitism. As such, I will not give time to people who use the label of antisemitism to attack those who criticise Israel for its appalling human rights records – those people are not concerned with addressing real antisemitism, which is something that very much exists and is revolting.

In 20 years, will the west call what’s happening in Gaza a genocide? Or will genocide denialism continue for decades to come?

There are many ifs. If we have not been burnt due to the climate and global warming, if we have not been wiped out by a nuclear war – if, if, if. I suspect that if the west continues as is, whatever it says in 20 years will be so irrelevant it will be inaudible.

Any parting thoughts for us, as we conclude this interview?

A: I want to recognise all the British people who have not fallen into apathy, and who are sacrificing so much of their time, sometimes paying huge costs. I know that there are journalists and advocates who have paid a heavy price in their professions or in a private capacity because of their work. Remember that this has not been in vain and that you are part of a successful story. We will make sure that justice is delivered.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.