The ceasefire is not precarious, is non existent.
Why are these people being killed?
I'm telling you because this is the genocide that continues
through other means. Israel has 0 intention to
relinquish control of the Gaza Strip.
So what has been sold to the world as the peace plan is a way
to push the international community to have an alibi not
to continue to engage with Gaza. Governments are complicit it.
Hasn't the last two years proven that for most world governments,
international law is not super? They believe in real politic, in
workable solutions. Are you in danger of making
perfection the enemy of the good?
That's so scary. Hello and welcome to the
forecast. Phase one of the ceasefire in
Gaza is holding, but it's precarious.
Hundreds of Gazans have been killed since it began.
Hundreds of thousands remain homeless and displaced.
The Israeli Defence Force still occupies much of the territory
and Hamas have re established themselves in some areas.
So is Phase 2, with its transitional authority and
international peace Force, looking in any real way
possible? Benjamin Netanyahu says it's
close. But if it is, where does that
leave the rights of the Palestinians?
Francesca Albanese is the UN special rapporteur on the
occupied Palestinian territories.
She has been an outspoken critic of Israel's actions in Gaza,
accusing it of genocide since we last spoke.
She has been sanctioned by the Trump administration and has
published a new report on the complicity of much of the
outside world. Welcome and thank you for coming
back. Thank you, Krishnan.
The last time we spoke, you, you, you did speak a great deal
about complicity, but now you have written a a more formal
report about it. You know the world wants to move
on is the truth, doesn't it? They want to get on with the
peace process. With phase two, there isn't a
great desire to go back and examine what happened in the
past, but you're not going to let them move on.
No, no, I'm not going to let them off the hook because the I
understand that there is a great deal of interest in moving
forward. I think that the Palestinians
are the first to want to move forward, and I would be the
happiest not to have to document acts of genocide on a daily
basis. But The thing is that the
ceasefire is not, if you allow me, it's not precarious, is non
existent. You know, since the the day the
ceasefire was proclaimed, nearly 400 Palestinians have been
killed by the Israeli army in Gaza.
Israel has committed over 707 hundred violations of the
ceasefire. It remains in over 50% of the
Gaza Strip. It continues to demolish homes
to to pulverize what remains and what is more sadistic to
withhold aid 1/4 of what had been agreed as part of the
ceasefire, the so-called ceasefire as Hunter entered the
Gaza Strip. And I I really encourage
everyone who's listening to us try to Google any mage of Gaza
today. There are nearly 2 million of
survivors, genocide survivors, war survivors, whatever you want
to call them, who are literally literally in the storm without
anything to protect them. There is no shelter like a make
destroyed makeshift tents and they and the Gaza is is flooded.
There is a storm, a Byron storm which is hitting Gaza and these
people are led to die starving and freezing if not killed by
Israeli bombs. So where is the ceasefire?
I don't know. I mean, I suppose the argument
is that it's, it's, it's not at the intensity that it was.
The level of killing isn't as high as it was and more aid is
getting in and there is some political progress.
I mean, do you at least agree that things are better than they
were at the beginning of October?
If you're asking me a tough question because, you know, I
mean, if we had 24 British people killed every day, would
it be OK for you instead of 100? It's not OK to me because why
are these people dying? Why are these people being
killed? I'm telling you because this is
the genocide that continues through other means.
Israel has 0 intention to relinquish control of the Gaza
Strip. So what has been sold to the
world as the as the peace plan, which other is nothing else than
a 20 point thought bubble as Commissioner Sidoti has defined,
it is a way to push the international community to have
an alibi, not to continue to engage with Gaza.
But if Israel wants to continue the expulsion of Palestinians
from there, because this is the last attempt, the last chance
they have to regain control over Gaza.
And we should also be talking of what's going on in the West.
What do you mean by question? Because you have said Israel is
continuing the ethnic cleansing of of of Gaza.
What do you mean by that? Who is being expelled?
Where are they going? What?
What is the ethnic cleansing
beyond the killing? I accept that there is killing
going on. Yeah, there is.
There is killings. But I've said that in the
pursuit of this desire of ethnically cleanse what remains
of historical Palestine, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and E
Jerusalem, Israel has committed acts of genocide and using the
fog of war as an excuse. And now the ceasefire risks
allowing Israel to continue where the harshest face of the
genocide has not allowed it to to do because the Palestinians
have not left. Now with the storms, with the
with the freezing weather, without food, without shelter,
Israel is opening the Rafa border, telling Palestinians you
can go out, but you cannot come in again.
So this is again, it's in line with the trajectory that has
started in the 50s of Israel, encouraging what even that
minister Bang Veer calls voluntary migration.
There is nothing. Being voluntary is really one of
the most sadistic and international international
community backed forms of crimes that I've seen in my in my
lifetime. But there isn't there some
political progress? I mean, there is a process now
towards phase two, which is about creating a Palestinian
committee with international supervision with Palestinians
involved. People are people are now
starting to say it may actually have some representation from
the Palestinian Authority, which was something that was said it
they said it wouldn't have before.
So this is the beginning once again, isn't it, of a
Palestinian voice and Palestinian control over their
own affairs? I mean, isn't there a hopeful
way to look at progress as well? I don't want to sound like the
grumpy one who's never happy about anything because this is
not the case. I'm just someone who knows the
history. I mean, I've heard these
arguments at the end of the first intifada when the peace
process started with the Oslo Accords.
The Oslo Accords were saluted by everyone, including the
Palestinians, as a stepping or a building block of enduring
peace. Have you seen any day of that
for of peace for the Palestinians?
No, because the the World Peace has been used to distract people
from what was going on the enduring occupation.
And let me comment on the on the peace plan, which have been
quite together with other independent experts and human
rights organizations have been quite critical of.
And for me, it's very tough because now this this plan is
incorporated in Aun Security Council resolution.
So I'm really it's a dilemma because UN Security Council
resolution is law, but this is a law that violate basic tenets of
international because you say, yeah, but there is a a
government, there is a transition force, yes.
And look at them. I mean, they are headed by and,
and in basically the decision power is in the end of in the
hands of the United States States, which is the has been
the most significant partners of Israel in the in the genocide.
The Palestinians are brought in as as token as an act of
tokenism. There is a violation of the
International Court of Justice decision of July last year,
which orders, and this is for me, the road map to peace.
It orders Israel to withdraw the troops from the occupied, the
entirety of the occupied Palestinian territory, Gaza, the
West Bank and E Jerusalem. No mention of what's going on in
the West Bank. And please let's try to talk
about that later, but also to dismantle the colonies and to
stop using Palestinian resources.
This had this been incorporated in the UN Security Council
resolution, I've would have I would have been, but.
Israeli withdrawal will come, won't it, If, if, if Phase 2 is
implemented, there will be an international stabilisation
force which will also severely curtail Israel's ability to
continue mounting the strikes that it has been.
I don't see that that peace plan, because that peace plan
refers to demilitarization and the radicalization of the Gaza
Strip and Hamas, whatever it is, whatever remains, but not of
Israel, which is the state which has killed and and injured
nearly 200,000 people and left nearly 2 million to die.
What do you mean? Are you suggesting Israel should
be demilitarized? What I'm saying, I'm saying I'm
just say posing another question, why is the occupied
Palestinian territory, which is unlawfully occupied by Israel is
to be demilitarized while there is no, no, this is something
imposed on the Palestinians, which are the oppressed occupied
people. But there is no conditionality
imposed on the unlawful occupier which has committed crimes after
crimes. Israel has just killed.
And these are the numbers that are are ascertained, 70,000
people and there are up to 150,000 who are injured with
life enduring injuries, who I mean, I've seen bodies chopped
into pieces, Krishnan. And this is not something that
can be repaired. So the state which has
devastated the Gaza Strip, which continues to commit violence day
in and day out against the Palestinians in including in the
West Bank, whereas no Hamas, there is no question and no
conditionality about the restraint of military force of
the state. Again, it's a very, it's a very
disproportionate. Plan, it is clearly a
disproportionate plan because it was it was won by military force
ultimately. And, and, you know, in, in, I
suppose in the real world, we have to accept what we can take,
don't we? Vishnan, there was a genocide.
How how cynical it is to describe yes, there was military
force, there was unlawful use of force.
That doesn't mean by ongoing for the case this.
Is not a situation in which outside world came in and said,
right, break it up, we're going to sort out the future.
This was effectively a military victory by Israel, aided by the
United States. And then the United States said
stop now and enter a political process.
It's more a victory of impunity and lawlessness than military
victory. There has been a huge, huge
resistance inside the occupied Palestinian.
I mean inside occupied Gaza is true.
But the question is, what are the Palestinians supposed to do?
Do the Palestinians have the right to protect themselves, to
defend themselves? Yes or no?
According to the way the international community.
Well, but according to international, This is why I say
it's the success of lawlessness, not of military force.
This is the, the, the, the, the recognition of might makes right
again, fine. But this is not where I mean,
this is not what would lead to stable and enduring peace.
This is going to lead more violence.
Do you believe that you know, we we should as a international
community be engaging with the process or are you saying the
process is corrupt? Yes, No, I should.
The process should be premised upon respect for international
law. Because, you know, different
countries are engaging with it. The the Arab world has clearly
had some success in trying to shape what the the Board of
Peace will be. It looks like Tony Blair is not
going to be taking a leading role on the Board of peace, at
least at the moment. So again, in terms of trying to
trying to, I accept you think this is a terrible piece, but in
terms of trying to make progress, what do you think are
the steps now that's. Should happen I I think well I'm
not optimistic because 191 members of the international
community of the United Nations are bending backward in order
they're not to upset the United States and Israel with it.
So it's it's very difficult to enforce international law while
one states the United States calls the shot and no one reacts
against it. If, if, if the Saudi Prince MBS
is on the Board of Peace, where? Where does that leave the
concept of international human? Rights.
Why can't the Palestinians rule themselves?
Is it that that foreign to us, the idea that these people in
2025 can be treated as an independent people rather than a
colonial entity? Because this plan re proposes an
anachronistic idea that the Palestinian, the Palestinians,
have to be handled by someone. So you don't believe this plan
would ever lead to self determination?
No, I'm, I'm, I'm certain. I'm certain because there is.
Because if there was an interest in accompanying Palestinians, in
guaranteeing that the Palestinians enjoy their self
determination, and this is key. This is why I insist there would
be an adherence, A conformity with what the International
Court of Justice has already decided.
The International Court of Justice.
You remember, Sorry, let me do a, let me make open a
parentheses. Do you remember last time I was
here, we were discussing genocide and you were objecting
that International Court of Justice has not concluded that
there is genocide. And I was saying, yes, but this
doesn't matter because according to international law and the
Genocide Convention, as long as there is is a risk of genocide
or incitement to genocide, something that International
Court of Justice has recognized in January 2024, then the this
is when the obligation to prevent kicks in.
Now we are at the phase where the International Court of
Justice has already pronounced itself saying the occupation is
unlawful and member states cannot aid and assist
economically, financially, militarily, strategically,
politically. These states, So you see, the
starting point, should not be what is politically convenient
to the United States, accompanied or not, supported or
not by Arab states. It doesn't matter.
What matters is the realization
of the right of self determination of the Palestinian
people. And when they turn around to you
and say, well, OK, but the last time there was an election, they
voted for Hamas, and look where that got us.
What's the answer? I don't think I think that this
is this is not correct. This is a brutal simplification
of matters because when and this is not to defend Hamas or anyone
is just let's again, let's put the Hamas aside because in this
part of the world the the word Hamas generates such an
emotional hysteria that doesn't allow to progress in the
discussion. But there there were no
elections until 2005. And back then the Israeli
occupation had been there for many decades, oppressing and
ruling through military rules, the Palestinian governing
through military rules, the Palestinians.
So why after the elections there was no acceptance of the vote?
This would not be the first time the international community
didn't agree with an election that opposition from the from
the Western world and Israel was strategic to breakthrough the
the Palestinian secular political component.
And in fact, there are even Israeli commentators and former
prime ministers who said that, in fact, Hamas has been used as
an excuse to divert the political attention, or rather
the attention from the peace process to a security response.
So Hamas has been a very convenient card that Israel has
pulled to maintain the occupation.
But also look at who the Israelis have voted.
You have someone who has Bengavir, Bengavir and Smoltrik.
But even I mean look at the Israeli society keeping in power
people who are wanted by the ICCI mean this is this is called
the self determination, right? So why the Palestinians
shouldn't be able to determine and service and elect whom they
want? Right.
But but if you if you try to hold an election this year, this
coming year, there aren't any political structures or parties
or campaign groups or philosophies that people can
unite around, are they? There's no there's no political
culture around which you can suddenly say, OK, have
democracy. Krishnama, what do you care?
I mean, why do you all of a sudden care for Palestinian
internal self determination? Can we just annoy our?
Business, you're saying why don't we let them determine
themselves? I'm not saying that this is
international law and this has been the case for over 100
years, but. If you say, if you say, OK,
let's deliver that instead of a long transitional peace plan,
which is what is currently being proposed.
Is it practical? It is better, it's legal.
This is the only legal path. And you see this is the.
Practicality matters, doesn't? It practicalities matter when a
legal argument are are are distorted in order to
accommodate political convenience.
No one cares about the governing abilities of the Palestinians.
No ones. Because no one cares about the
Palestinians for real. Otherwise wise, we wouldn't
leave 2 million people in the abominable conditions they are
today. But I mean, and this may sound
very cynical, but hasn't the last two years proven that for
most world governments, international law is not
supreme? That is not the most important
thing in their minds. They believe in real politic, in
workable solutions. And if that is not in line with
international law, well. To an extent I agree with you.
The last two years have proven that not all governments,
because excuse me, there are governments in the global
majority, otherwise known as the global S, that have called out
the genocide, that have started to cut ties with Israel,
economic, military and political ties.
So no. So let's reframe it.
The last two years have demonstrated that the majority,
not even the totality, otherwise we would visibilize states like
Slovenia and Spain. The majority of Western
governments, primarily yours and mine, are very fine with the
continuous thrashing of international law.
And at the same time, these two years have proven another thing
that you know what, 450 millions of Europeans are not fine with
it. And This is why they are
protesting. They are protesting the genocide
from universities to to working places and they've been
protesting for over one year now.
And the response of the so-called the liberal
democracies look at this countries is criminalizing
journalist, criminalizing activist or in Germany beating
up demonstrators day in and day out or in France preventing
academic conferences to take place.
So, you know, Gaza and Palestine today have put ourselves in
front of a mirror and are telling us who we are as
individuals, as societies. And frankly, look at the Gov
Again, before thinking of what the Palestinians would be ruled
by, look at the governments we have with who have been teaching
and preaching international law and human rights worldwide until
they they were put on a test. We should step out of this
colonial posture. And this is the other thing for
the first time, I mean, if there is one thing that this genocide
has LED us to that makes me be optimistic is the awakening.
For the first time there is a global awakening of what
genocide is. It didn't happen with the
genocide in Rwanda. It didn't happen with the
genocide and former Yugoslavia. This genocide has provoked a
global outcry and doesn't matter how how hard so-called the
liberal governments push on their citizens to to obey and
and look away people. People don't bend because they
see the humanity of the other in their own humanity sacrifice in
Gaza. And so maybe maybe things will
change also politically for us, because I want to live in a
system which, which is coherent, where international law is
respected for the Israelis, for the Palestinians, for myself
and, and, and for you. Is it that much to to ask in
2025, Krishnan? Well, I mean, you know, isn't
the trouble that you are then in a situation where you say, well,
the law should be supreme and, and it doesn't matter about
whether practicalities mean it's too difficult to deliver.
You get into a very purist position when there is actually
a process that you can engage with that you can try and make
better. You know are are you in danger
of making perfection the enemy of the good?
That's so scary. That's so scary.
Well, well, I mean, it's I suppose.
Maybe it is scary. Maybe it is scary but but but
maybe it's also the reality of where we are.
And Krishnan, if you, if someone breaks into your house, you call
the police and the police comes and and arrests you instead of
the aggressor, wouldn't be, wouldn't you be appalled and
call for others to react and to protect you and to help you?
This is the situation of the Palestinians.
And again, I'm not. I mean, for me, it's I, I have
no stake in this other than being a a human rights expert
who's been asked by the United Nations to look at what happens
in nuclear Palestinian territory at the worst possible moment in
history for the Palestinian people.
And I have been the near, I mean, the quasi eyewitness of a
genocide, documenting it day, day after day.
And so, no, I don't think that asking for the application of
basic rules of international law is purism.
Actually, it's pretty basic to preserve peace and stability.
But international law has been defied defied in Israel for 40
years. And maybe this is the end of it.
May this be the end of it, because Israel's propaganda
doesn't work anymore. It doesn't work anymore.
It keeps on you. What makes you?
Think this is the end of it given where we have ended.
Up, I said. Where where in your own analysis
we've ended up in a very pro Israeli peace process?
Yeah, because this is where government, this is because
governments are complicit. Say I documented the level of
political, military, financial, economic, diplomatic, strategic
support that 62 states to different extent grant Israel,
which is the reason why the genocide continues, on top of
the fact that there are so many businesses and entities, banks,
pension funds that are profiting from it.
Do do you think the the complicity that you have
analysed will ever be called to account and and if so, how?
If human rights lawyers did their job, Oh yes.
So give me an example. I mean you, you in your report,
you take Britain as an example. Yeah, Partly because of the the
flights that were made over Gaza by by military aircraft and the
information that was handed on to them.
How do you think that you and you describe that as complicity?
How can that ever be prosecuted? Through domestic courts or an
international court, everyone should respect the law and This
is why I think that governments or government official officials
in an ideal world will have to be accountable for what they
have done in supporting the genocide.
Look, would you have imagined a Nuremberg trial in 1935 or
193036? Probably not.
And then there was, and this was the first time that, for
example, industrialists, people involved in providing the the
tools, the chemicals that were used in the gas chambers by the
Nazis, they were brought to trial.
Would you have imagined one day to have standards applicable to
businesses and not so as to make make sure that they would comply
with international law? While the old argument was, oh,
only, only states have human rights obligations.
No, Everyone with an ounce of power is to respect
international law, including businesses and multinationals,
especially today where multinationals have more
leverage and power than sovereign states.
And are you using Nuremberg as an example of how it can take a
long time to bring international justice?
Or are you, as some people will suspect, also using it to
compare Israel to Nazi Germany? No, I'm not comparing Israel to
to the Nazis. I'm I'm comparing what happened
after the the Nazi fascist Holocaust.
There was they did the Nuremberg tribunals and then they were the
Tokyo tribunals. But today to what is to what
needs to happen Today, the reality is different.
We have an International Criminal Court which should we
can prosecute, which can prosecute, investigate and
prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity,
genocide and the crime of aggression.
That court is being impaired and attacked as we speak so as to
hamper justice. But still there are national
courts. And you know, as we speak, it's
not that everything is grim and sorry, it's not that everything
is dark In the UK. There have been some, some
positive developments in courts. There was an activist charged
with terrorism that was that was acquitted recently and and
again, This is why I say eventually justice my knock at
the door of those who have betrayed it, I.
Mean you say the ICC is under attack and it is with with key
people sanctioned by the United States.
You are also sanctioned now since our last conversation.
How? How has that affected your life?
Badly. Honestly, it has, because it has
affected me. Because while I do what I do as
a human rights expert who's really devoting making huge
sacrifices to serve the United Nations, at the same time I am
treated as a as a criminal by the United States.
I've been sanctioned, which means just for doing my job,
which is even a violation if I were an American citizen.
It's a violation of the 1st Amendment.
How does it impact? You it impacts, I mean, I
cannot, there is a travel ban, I cannot travel to the US even in
the exercise of my function. In fact, the last reports to the
General Assembly, well, I had to present it from South Africa
because I could and travel to the United States.
But also it has it imposes penalties on those who work with
me. Anyone who's an AUS person,
meaning a citizen, someone who works in the US, who has assets
in the USA, USA resident who engages with me can face jail up
to 20 years and the penalties up to $1 million.
It's huge. And the fact and this.
Has implications. You can't have banking or.
No, my bank account. I mean I've been living in the
USI gave birth in the US and I was planning to return to the
US. My daughter is an American
citizen. She's US educated.
She goes to the American school. Her dream is in a few years to
go and study in the US. She cannot because the moment
she steps into the US, if the sanctions are not lifted, she
will She will risk felony for having offered a present to her
Mama. Can you believe this?
And also the implications are felt by me as a European citizen
in Europe, but also in someone who lives in Tunisia because I
cannot open a bank account anywhere because it doesn't
matter where you are. When it comes to banking, we are
under U.S. law. Why through the SWIFT code?
The moment I do a financial transaction that requires the
SWIFT code, virtually everything that is that happens
internationally through international circuit, it's I
get banned, there is a red flag. And so the the sanctions on me
pose a risk on the banks that open me open a bank account for
me, there is to incur in secondary sanctions.
And This is why I have to travel with with with cash.
But it's extremely complicated because I cannot get paid for.
What I was saying, how are you paid?
I'm not being paid, I've not been paid, I've not received a
payment for for work that I do other than as a special
rapporteur since August this year.
Because you can't be. I cannot be paid.
Who's going to receive this money?
It's extremely complicated. Also because with the money
laundering legislation, God bless it, it's impossible to
transfer money. I've been offered the
opportunity to open a bank account at the Cayman Island.
I don't want to do that. I don't want to to to to recur
to these dodgy expedients. I want to be protected as a
European who has committed no crimes.
And the United Nations has called for the sanctions to be
lifted. Absolutely, Absolutely.
But how? How long can you?
Do you think you can carry on living like this?
It's in, it's a, it's again, because it's a, it's a
significant violation of the UN Charter of the privileges and
immunity of the United Nations that protect me as a UN expert.
These sanctions must be lifted. So I do expect, I do expect
member states to come back to census and to stand up with the
United States persuading it to lifted the sanctions also
because it's a very dangerous president.
Think of the chilling effect it's having on anyone who's
working in the, I mean not just in the UN, but on this issue.
Can can I ask you what, what you think the effect of your
speaking out has had on the status of UN special
rapporteurs? You know, obviously your
opponents say that you are biased, that you've taken a
side, that you are, you know that you're not a impartial
rapporteur. You are now sanctioned.
As a result, Israel bans you. You're on persona non grata.
Do you think there has been an effect on your position that
affects other people as well as you?
It might. It might because again, the
chilling effect is felt and there are people who are
extremely courageous and defiant and they don't care.
They say I'm, I'm not going to be silenced, which is also my
position. I mean, I could have, you know,
I could have accepted to step, to step down from these
voluntary position. I mean, voluntary in the sense
that it's not even paid and say, look, this is the end of it.
You lift the sanctions and I stop.
I stop what I'm doing. But I decided not to do because
again, it would be it would be even more more insulting to the
to what I'm trying to stand for and encourage others to do the
same. We cannot be silenced all we
cannot be fired all we cannot be sanctioned.
All This is why this is a call for action to protect the the
rule of law based system that we have.
So with so much sacrifice built. And one thing I want to tell you
is that they had the United States has sanctioned me because
it couldn't silence me. It couldn't silence the truth.
And this is the thing, over three years, I think that my
reports have contributed and my being so active, which is what
anyone else, any other predecessor I've had would have
done had they found themselves facing a genocide.
But this work has created a better understanding of the
systemic structural issues that do not allow Israelis and
Palestinians to live in peace together or side by side.
Despite your insistence that you will stick to the law, that you
will not be silenced, that that that history will catch up.
Challa. You know, right, right now we
are in a situation where the most powerful country in the
world, the United States, supports Israel in a peace
process. That's, you know, Israel is, is,
is relatively pleased with it feels it's, you know, there is
no, there's no process of accountability right now that's
going on when it comes to Netanyahu, What is the, what has
the world really learnt about how might and strength and and
military might can get you what you want?
Krishna the risk of sound over optimistic.
I I would say that it's not, it's not a given that this
brutal system will will win. Look at the look at the South
Africa experience very different but with significant
similarities. I mean, the South Africa
apartheid regime has, has been able to survive, not just
because of the violence that the white S Africans were using
against black South Africans, but because of the complicity of
so many Western governments till the very end of the of the
apartheid. And and if you speak to the
South Africans, they tell you that the last four years of the
apartheid regime were the fiercest people wouldn't we
couldn't couldn't even imagine a day, a day where they wouldn't
be Apartheid meaning entrenched in the law because of course,
uprooting apartheid and what it has been over centuries, like
the racial segregation, it's the last part of it.
But undoing the, the, the settler colonialism of 350 years
of settler colonialism, of course takes time, but it
started and people in South Africa in the last years of the
apartheid could not imagine that one day that would happen.
I don't think that we can predict how it's going to be
based on the brutality of the system today.
Because, for example, Western governments, those we have
mentioned are acting so fiercely and even to the to the risk of
shrinking fundamental freedoms who have been the pillars of
their respective democracies as a result of fear, because they
feel the pressure of their own constituencies and politics
might change and people who are now in government will lose and
might face justice. So it's not it's not one, but
it's I wouldn't call defeat as of yet.
And the people who stand for human rights and justice have
just to be, have just to persist, to keep on believing
that justice is something worth standing for, because eventually
it would. It's what's going to allow them
to be spared by the brutality as that we are seeing today
unleashed against the Palestinians and others who
stand in solidarity with them. Francesca Albanese, thank you
very much indeed. And that's it for this edition
of the forecast. Until next time, bye bye.