This article is 7 months old.
The part of the article beyond the paywall:
Culture of Dehumanization: Anti-Palestinian Racism
The extreme nervousness surrounding my visit is a symptom of the systemic crackdown on Palestinians, their allies, and pro-Palestinian stances – part of a wider culture of dehumanization of the Palestinians and anti-Palestinian racism that, in the West, has helped enable Israel’s genocide. Numerous individuals shared harrowing accounts of overt discrimination and racism, intimidation, suppression, and punitive measures, each more disturbing than the last.
At a time when the International Court of Justice has 1) deemed Israel’s occupation unlawful, amounting to racial segregation, apartheid, and partial annexation, 2) acknowledged plausible genocide (South Africa v Israel), and 3) warned states – Germany specifically – against arming potential war criminals (Nicaragua v Germany), Germany’s unwavering support for Israel is not only crushing the rights of those advocating for justice in Palestine, but also violating the most fundamental principles of international law. It is absolutely worth reminding people that the Apartheid Convention lists “persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid” among the acts constituting apartheid.
The lengths to which repression is used to shield Israel from accountability – even if only by suppressing the exposure of the facts and their legal ramifications – had made me vividly aware of the state of collective hysteria in which Germany seems to be trapped, and the complex legal dimension underpinning it. Even with prior knowledge of worrisome restrictive trends in the country, I could not have anticipated how Germany – with its proud and decade-long history of advocating for the rule of law – would suddenly feel disconcertingly reminiscent of an era long past. This is all the more true given Germany’s contribution to developing the international normative, regional, and multilateral system to advance the rule of law.
At the core of this issue lies Germany’s rigid ideological alignment with Israel – a relationship that purports to safeguard not only the historical responsibility of Germany towards the Jewish people post-Holocaust, but unquestioningly supports any policy of the Israeli state, even when unlawful and plausibly criminal, and even when contested by Jewish people, including in Germany.
In the face of all this, I left Germany wondering: Where are the intellectuals, the historians, the principled civil servants, and the independent journalists? Where are the legal scholars, the international and constitutional lawyers, the formidable philosophers of legal sociology that this society nurtures, and where are civil society organizations, as well the German Institute for Human Rights, which have not only shaped but also benefited from Germany’s decades-long and heralded reputation as a bastion of democracy and human rights? Justice Because It’s Right
As an Italian, I carry a profound awareness and sense of responsibility – an evolution beyond guilt per se – regarding my society’s historical injustices toward its Jewish citizens during the Holocaust. Jus quia justum, not merely jus quia iussum – justice because it is right, not merely because it is commanded – this is the principle taught in Italian and German law schools. It is through unthinking obedience that ordinary citizens become instruments of oppression. This legacy has been fostered in many, especially in Western societies that perpetrated the Holocaust and other genocides before that, with a deep-seated commitment to combat all forms of racism, discrimination, and dehumanization of others. This is the purest meaning of ‘Never Again.’
This time, many in Germany were unable to hear these messages from me, Eyal, and others. May the next opportunity be different. I hope this moment sparks introspection and a reckoning, encouraging us to realize that speaking out for the oppressed should not be viewed as an act of bravery, but as a fundamental duty we all share to uphold the rights and freedoms of all people, regardless of nationality or religion – from every river to every sea, in Palestine/Israel, and beyond.
Germany never learned from the Holocaust. V1 is also heavily complicated in Holocaust V2.
Francesca Albanese is a known antisemite and has been for many years.
Have you ever heard her talks about free speech for the people in Gaza?
Awww did your wittew fee-fees get huwt because someone pointed out your genocide?
You do know that Israel is a country, not a religion right?
She’s not an antisemite. But the people who spuriously accuse her of antisemitism tend to be genocide deniers and apartheid apologists. Are you one of those?
Link to this supposed antisemitism?
Dear readers that antisemitism was describing the actions of the genocidal state of Israel.
Many examples. Blaming Jews for forest fires in California is a well known one.
She didn’t blame the Jews for wildfires. That’s a stupid and extremely bad faith misinterpretation of what she actually said. She reposted an article about the climate footprint of war.
What a ridiculous accusation.
Pretty sure you’re thinking of Marjorie Taylor Greene there, a completely unrelated person
Link to one of those many examples?
Apart from the controversies surrounding her person, the post is a substack.com publication.https://substack.com/@teamzeteo
According to mediabiasfactcheck, All sides and bloomberg not the best source.
What the heck do you mean “not the best source” the source is literally Francesca Albanese herself; she’s talking about her own experiences. Also MBFC and similar sites have very little reason to believe them on their own merit; MBFC itself admits Zeteo has failed no fact checks in the last five years. Their rating is apparently due to “one-sided reporting” and “a lack of opposing viewpoints” which literally has nothing to do with factuality. If you made your comment in good faith, know it makes no sense whatsoever.
the source is literally Francesca Albanese herself; she’s talking about her own experiences
Exactly, you are answering your own question. This is not news, it’s just HER experience. At best it’s an opinion piece and should be marked as such.
Or what? People might think that Fransesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories who authored this article, talking about how the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories was treated in Germany, is a credible report when it …what, isn’t? Because Bloomberg said that some substacks are not credible? Like, are you serious here or are you just trolling?
Should I be impressed by your with your " Or What?" remark or something. Why are you so happy to use her charged and enticing opinion, which you also seem to carry, on this forum, but become so emotional engaged and are asking me if I’m trolling, for just trying to fact check an opinion piece ? Please, be real, I don’t get your hostile reaction.
You keep referring to Albanese’s piece as “just her opinion” because it’s written in the first person but that’s not an accurate or meaningful distinction. A first-person account from a UN Special Rapporteur describing how she was treated by a member state is not mere "opinion,” it is testimony. Testimony is a form of evidence. It can be corroborated, challenged, or contextualized but it’s not dismissed simply because it’s personal.
If you want to argue that her account is factually wrong or incomplete, make your case on the merits. Be specific. What exactly is she missing out or lying about? Receipts. But just calling it “opinion” doesn’t do that work. Her claims about how German authorities responded to her visit are either true or they aren’t. Multiple independent reports already confirm similar incidents in Germany involving restrictions on pro-Palestinian expression, which means her testimony is at minimum credible enough to merit engagement, not automatic dismissal.
So no, this isn’t about being “emotional” or “biased.” It’s about recognizing that firsthand testimony from an official acting in their mandate is itself a source of public record, and treating it accordingly.
Lol, talk of a desperate attempt to discredit Zeteo.





