Where Is Our Outcry?
Liebes deutsches Völkerrecht, dear colleagues,
We are not always on the best of terms. Nonetheless, I feel the need to write to you. I know you are busy. You have books to write, conferences to organize, funding applications to finalize and all these emails and requests piling up. Yet, I would appreciate if you could spare a few minutes. Things are not going well for international law these days. I think you do agree. Some of you have been particularly vocal in denouncing the disregard for international law – by politicians who seek to restrict the right to asylum, critique the European human rights regime, question decisions by international courts and, of course, you have called out Trump’s blatant disrespect for the right to self-determination by the inhabitants of Greenland and Gaza.
And yet, most of us have been rather silent – myself included – when it comes to the mounting attacks on human rights and international law in our immediate surroundings, including within the university. The list of disinvitations, cancellations, criminalizations, and repressions against individuals defending the rights of Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem continues to grow. In the past fortnight then, within a couple of days only, two universities – the LMU Munich and the Freie University Berlin – cancelled events featuring Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967.
Isn’t this the moment when we should finally speak up, even if we have not done so before for fear of taking a wrong step in the minefield that is the Israel/Palestine debate? Francesca Albanese is our colleague. The holder of a mandate by the Human Rights Council. A globally well-respected scholar of international law who speaks at universities around the world. Governments treat UN Special Rapporteurs as they treat ambassadors from foreign countries. Never before has UN Special Rapporteur Albanese been disinvited from a university.
Where is our indignation and outrage, dear fellow international lawyers, at her disinvitation from LMU and Freie University? Where is our outcry at the smear campaign against her by politicians and interest groups? Berlin’s minister of science, Ina Czyborra, publicly announced that Albanese’s statements “met all criteria of antisemitism.” Neither did she spell out what these criteria were nor which expressions by Albanese she was referring to. In addition to being defamed as an antisemite, Albanese was compared to politicians from Germany’s extremist right-wing party and accused of glorifying Hamas terror. An article in the “Jüdische Allgemeine” referring to the name of the group of organizers of the LMU event – the “Decolonial Practices Group” – even asked whether ”Decolonial Practices” also entailed massacres like the one on October 7, 2023.
When pressure mounted and Berlin’s mayor, Kai Wegner, intervened, the president of Freie University caved in. President Ziegler cancelled the in-person event and justified this decision with the “present polarization and unpredictable security situation.” Upholding academic freedom only in words, not deeds, he offered the organizers could hold an online event.
Where is our outcry? Some of you have expressed regret about the violation of academic freedom that this incident entails. I thank you for that. Yet, I also have some questions. Why do you feel the need for public caveats, or for critique of the title and concept of the event with Francesca Albanese and Eyal Weizman “Conditions of Life Calculated to Destroy. Legal and Forensic Perspectives on the Ongoing Gaza Genocide” organized by four colleagues – not from international law but from FU’s faculty of philosophy? You “would have preferred a conception of the event which would not have anticipated the outcome of a debate in the title.” I understand that you might have done things differently; but is a statement so urgently needed to defend academic freedom really the right place for quarrels with colleagues about the design of an academic event?
The mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967 is to “investigate Israel’s violations of the principles and bases of international law, international humanitarian law and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967”. This has been the case since the position was created in 1993. Francesca Albanese, in her work, has come to the conclusion that Israel commits genocide against the Palestinians. As international lawyers, we should welcome her to explain her findings. We should listen to her. Then we can ask questions and have a conversation. But we should not try to achieve some “fair balance” by inviting also “the other side.” Do we really want to turn our university debates into yet another mediocre talk show format?
“We distance ourselves from antisemitic positions.” We all have a responsibility to speak out against antisemitism wherever and whenever it occurs. Of course, we do! Yet, in this context, the phrase “We distance ourselves….” can be read to suggest that the Special Rapporteur’s positions are indeed or might be antisemitic. Given the current damage being done by the instrumentalization, including by the far right, of accusations of antisemitism, mere allusions that someone who defends justice and international law might engage in antisemitic acts is reckless. Yesterday, a location in Berlin where Francesca Albanese was scheduled to speak was graffitied with the words “Albanese you are an antisemite.” I trust that as international lawyers, you do not, as some others insidiously do, interpret compliance by Special Rapporteur Albanese with her mandate as inherently antisemitic. We become complicit in this witch hunt if we allow unfounded allegations or even just insinuations of antisemitism to stand without opposing them.
I would like to invite you to watch the conversation with Albanese that the LMU’s Decolonial Practices Group was not allowed to hold at LMU and therefore livestreamed and recorded from another venue. Throughout the conversation, she reminded listeners of Germans’ and Europeans’ responsibility for the Holocaust and other genocides. This responsibility is what motivates and drives her work. She also reminded her audience of the fact that extermination of Jewish life in Germany was not limited to concentration camps and that Jews, even after the war, continued to face severe discrimination and antisemitism in Germany, but also other parts of Europe and the United States (I highly recommend The Brutalist on that latter point). She clearly denounces all violence against civilians. Seldom have I listened to an international lawyer talking with such intelligence and wit, with such ability to explain complex matters in an accessible way, with nuanced judgment, introspection, a willingness to learn and listen, fearlessness and dedication to justice – not just for Palestinians but for all who are victims of oppression.
While our politicians and universities fail to pay respect to a UN Special Rapporteur, we as international lawyers fail a colleague and a luminary in these dark times by not standing up for her against false and unfounded accusations. Most of all, however, we fail our students, broader society and the very idea of human rights, which – if they are to have any meaning – have to serve the powerless. Francesca Albanese will likely be fine without our support; her office will hopefully serve her as a shield. But the time has passed when we could leave the debate on what constitutes antisemitism to others. The time has passed when we could work on human rights, humanitarian law, the use of force, and economic sanctions while refusing to engage with Israel/Palestine.
The moment has come to finally speak out for human rights and against the German state’s complicity in their violation – even if this means losing some friends and funding. The next annual conference of the European Society of International Law is to take place at Freie University in Berlin in September of this year. Its theme is “Reconstructing International Law.” International Law is being dismantled before our eyes, at the universities and in the streets of Berlin as I write this letter. The damage won’t be repaired with conferences and peer-reviewed articles. Let us put aside, for a moment, the unfinished writings and applications and make sure that Francesca Albanese is allowed to speak in Germany!
Yours faithfully, a colleague in international law
A German version of this letter has been published here.
Thanks for your well thought and most convincing intervention in times of challenges to rule of law on far too many levels in German politics and even academic institutions.
Great and unfortunately so necessary comment. What is going on in our beloved country, our Rechtsstaat, with regard to Palestinian events and expressions of opinion, interfering not just with freedom of speech but also freedom of science (academic speech), indeed needs many outcries from us international lawyers and beyond. Thanks Isabel for having given us a voice and, most importantly, shown the world that there are still some true liberals in Germany.
“The mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967 is to “investigate Israel’s violations of the principles and bases of international law, international humanitarian law and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967”. ”
It is curious that the mandate starts from the explicit assumption that Israel violated the law. Since other commentators have raised the issue of the Rechtsstaat, I will say that it has been held to be a core precept of that principle that investigations should have an unbiased starting point and not assume their conclusions. Imagine a prosecutor is given the task of investigating the crimes of X instead of investigating if X committed any crimes. How could this be compatible with the Rechtsstaat?
What you are doing here has a name: SILENCING.
Albanese is not a prosecutor, her mandate is limited to an occupation and violations of law occur under the occupation. Still, it is always good to question if someone with the mandate to “investigate violations” is biased. But cancelling public events is exactly the opposite of asking that question. It is silencing.
To say that I am “SILENCING” is a serious accusation. Please substantiate your claim. How exactly is anyone hindered in their ability to voice their opinions because of my comment?
To your other point: She may not be a prosecutor but she is tasked with an investigation. How is that possible if the end point of the investigation is already determined?
If an investigation by the special rapporteur reveals wrongdoing that is documented and verified, it is crucial to determine whether crimes have been committed.
If the investigation can find no verifiable wrongdoing then there is likely to be further pursuit of justice by prosecutors.
If that special rapporteur is threatened and thwarted from speaking freely by government, politicians, police or others (including you) that constitutes “silencing” and you should be ashamed of your behaviour.
eaay, because it has already been established for decades that Israeli settlements are violations of the Geneva convention, because there is a mountain of video evidence of IDF soldiers using rocks to break the bones of Palestinian teenagers during the first intifada, because the home demolitions ar flagrant violations as well, etc…
It’s absolutely undeniable that violations of the law have occured
ok, so what you are doing is not silencing but derailing. Instead of focusing whether or not Israel is committing crimes, as usual you prefer debating the way the mandate is formulated. Which of the two is really the more important issue?
It is extraordinary that the Verfassungsblog would publish such defamatory comments.
“If that special rapporteur is threatened and thwarted from speaking freely by government, politicians, police or others (including you) that constitutes “silencing” and you should be ashamed of your behaviour.”
@Lisa Barret
Please point me towards a statement of mine that threatened or thwarted the special rapparteur from voicing her opinions. Are you under the impression that I am in charge of scheduling events at Freie University? Or is it your position that even raising questions on the wording of the mandate is a “threat”?
“ok, so what you are doing is not silencing but derailing. Instead of focusing whether or not Israel is committing crimes, as usual you prefer debating the way the mandate is formulated. Which of the two is really the more important issue?”
If you want to have an investigation that produces a solid factual basis, you need to spend a certain amount of time on the mandate and process of that investigation. And yes, I don’t think it’s outrageous to suggest that questions of process are important. Are there really people reading this constitutional law blog hat think we should only care about ends and not means?
It is telling that an international fugitive with an outstanding arrest warrant is treated with leniency, while an international authority on the rule of law, mandated to enforce fundamental documents of international law, is treated as a criminal. Hard not to find that strange.
ok, so what you are doing is not silencing but derailing. Instead of focusing whether or not Israel is committing crimes, as usual you prefer debating the way the mandate is formulated. Which of the two is really the more important issue?
What is going on in Germany is deeply concerning. A UN Special Representative has just been here for 4 days and not one of the events with her could take place, unless it was invite-only & private or the location was moved at short notice due to security concerns or because the location owners had received threats. 2 of 2 universities caved in and cancelled. I was in the audience at junge Welt last night and I cannot explain yet with words how it feels when 5 police officers in full gear stand at all exits and listen to every word. The police had indicated that they might arrest Francesca Albanese, because she had spoken about the Herero genocide and the Holocaust in the same breath. Public german institutions or think tanks did not even invite her (unlike last year). It is shocking and unforgivable to see so many in the legal and political community who claim to uphold democratic values and fundamental and human rights being completely silent. This goes also for my bubble in the business & human rights community.
Thanks for this crucial and important article. Hope it gets shared widely.
Alabanese have muddled the waters by emphazising the right to resist occupation in the direct aftermath of October 7.
She is not fit for her role. That said, the cancellation was unnecessary but please don’t turn the legitimate criticism against her into some nefarious smear campaign.
https://www.adl.org/resources/article/francesca-albanese-her-own-words
https://unwatch.org/germany-france-condemn-uns-francesca-albanese-for-disgraceful-antisemitism/
The criticism by UN Watch is bizarre. UN gives her budget to travel to the oPT twice. She does not get permission, cannot go. Then, UN Watch accuses her in an angry tone of not having gone to the oPT but to Australia instead. Obviously, some are trying hard to smear her.
Thanks, Verfassungsblog, for giving a platform to Prof. Feichtner’s courageous, human and important article, unfortunately not a given in these dark times.
Thank you very much, Isabel! A great and necessary intervention, which I support.
Thank you very much for your statement and you have my full Support!
We as the law community should try our best to defend the fundaments of Fundamental and Human Rights and so fulfill our task as defenders of the rule of law.
Francesa Albanese is a real impressive person and I could just everyone recommend to watch an interview with her.
For me as german citizen, it is deeply disturbing, how a regulation and norm, is misused to stifle dissent, restrict free speech, is made to silence critics of serious and by ICC, judged and ordered, as crimes against humanity, to be criminalized, when someone would not silently accept, the crimes committed and the restriction of it’s own human rights, the democratic freedoms as german citizen, when it failed all principle norms of the democratic principles.
To not been allowed to speak or criticize about systemic violation of human rights, restricts my own democratic freedoms and it denied the rights of the victims to be adressed, for me as german citizen, it turns all we learned in school and of the barbarity of the Nazi-ideology, which was of an identity based of: Superior humans and of less worthy individuals, which made possible the dehumanization of specific groups of people, which enabled the cruel, barbaric killings of specific groups of people, beginning with T4 program, Slavic people, Sinti and Roma and also the Holocaust on the Jewish people in Europe, the remembrance and burden of guilt, as well the safety of jewish people and Israel as state, has to have a special connection and should not end, it should not be misused to accept another crimes against humanity or legitimise it, especial not in germany, a country of a very divers civil society, where no discrimination should declare any specific group of people, less worthy and systematic dehumanising or denying of rights, should never ever should have happened.
It is definitely the wrong lesson learned from all, what is teached in school about the cruel and barbaric ideology of Race, which the Nazis used to kill different groups of people and which the german had to accept or be punished as traitor too. They hanged the “possible treacherous people” on street laterns, that is why it is really disturbing to have a law, which takes all rights to dissent and to criminalize dissenting voices. It is a shame.
57 out of the 193 countries that comprise the UN body are Islamists countries. All these countries commit more atrocities against their own citizens that Israel can ever commit against the Arabs that live in Gaza and the West Bank. These Islamists countries exploit the UN and other international bodies to make stands against Israel. It has become very clear and for a long time that these Islamists countries keep the focus against Israel to divert attention from the atrocities that they themselves commit against their own citizens. For decades Palestinian activists has provided tyrants like Saddam with political cover and the legitimacy while he was slaughtering tens of thousands of Iraqis. Worse, Palestinians actively participated in spying against Iraqis on behalf of Saddam. They assassinated Iraqis on behalf of Saddam. They worked as his henchmen at his chambers of torture. They actively participated in suppressing the popular uprising that took place in many Iraqi cities while savagely destroyed cities and Shia Holy sites in 1991. Then after the liberation of Iraq from grips of Saddam in 2003, they played a major role in the unrest that lasted for years that was topped by the rise of ISIS and the subsequent murdering of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. My point is, the UN is a joke and it’s time has come to be abolished.
Hi, thanks for sharing this! I really understand you, as I, too, come from an islamic country and have experienced firsthand what it means to live under an Islamic regime. Unfortunately, it seems to be our fate to witness many Westerners and especially academics naively embracing certain misconceptions, unaware of the harsh realities that come with them.
Now, I am not advocating for the abolition of the UN, but I am truly astonished that this passionate outcry for a particular group comes without even the slightest acknowledgment or condemnation of their actions over the past decades. I cannot help but wonder, has Ms. Feichtner deliberately turned a blind eye to history, or is she simply unaware of it?
One cannot help but notice a certain strain of snobbery among those who see themselves as an elite caste—entitled to deference, their presence a privilege that must not be denied. After all, “Francesca Albanese is [a] colleague, […] a globally well-respected scholar of international law who speaks at universities around the world.” Naturally, such figures, adorned with lofty titles, ought to be received like “ambassadors from foreign countries.” Never mind the overwhelming evidence of Albanese’s vile antisemitism and rabid hatred for Israel. The pervasive anti-Israel bias in UN agencies? Not a cause for concern. The author sees no reason to pause for reflection—tragicomically citing sources meant to exonerate Albanese but which, in reality, expose her true colors, such as her direct comparison of Netanyahu to Hitler. The essay, cloaked in a performative display of bewilderment over the lack of outcry, ultimately retreats into a self-serving belief in the infallibility of the legal profession and the moral purity of international institutions, as if possessing legal credentials and the letters “U” and “N” in one’s professional orbit conferred not just expertise but unimpeachable virtue.
Now, do I find the disinvitations in Munich and Berlin problematic? Yes, I do. My commitment to academic freedom and free expression extends even to those whose views I find utterly repugnant—including obsessive Israel-haters. That is, after all, the very definition of free expression. Universities, in particular, should be spaces where even the most controversial scholarly debates can take place. And yet, in Munich and Berlin, one gets the distinct impression that freedom of expression is a privilege reserved for antisemitic positions, while antisemitism itself is met with anything but serious scrutiny. At the same time, it should be obvious that universities also have a duty to prevent the public endorsement of crimes. In addition, there is little reason to believe that Albanese’s talk offered any genuine scholarly insight or novelty. On both counts, Albanese has consistently demonstrated the opposite of what a university should platform: borderline unlawful rants rather than anything of remote academic value. As Volker Beck aptly put it in an academic setting, “for such fringe positions, field sermons are an inappropriate format.” So yes, these disinvitations raise concerns. But let’s be honest: few will lose sleep over antisemites being denied yet another opportunity to preach their well-worn gospel of Israel hatred. Heaven knows, we are not suffering from a shortage.
“Reconstructing International law” sounds like a fine topic. I do wonder if the parts of the deconstruction of international law that the “western bloc” carried out, notably in the attacks on Yugoslavia 1999 and Libya in 2011, are to be discussed. Both of the present state leaders involved in such deconstruction, Putin and Netanyahu, are marching into. and enlarging, the breach created by actions like that.
(Inb4 any questions: I did not name any Hamas leader here because Hamas because Hamas is not a state. A criminal gang cannot deconstruct international law. It can abuse it all right and Hamas does that)
Where Is Our Outcry?
https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-843119
https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/fire-un-special-rapporteur-francesca-albanese/
There is a rightist antidemocratic and anti humanrights-universalism Internationale of mainly oligarchic and refeudalising global patriarchal-capitalist Internationale. They disrupt all rights exept their own to profit from destruction and despair!
We need to unite against their efforts to dismantle the international formulates standards for humanrights started after the Nazis, Japanese and Iralian fascists were subdues by the allied forces in WWII
We need to united under the slogan Free-free humanrigths for all ! Including thus also the rights of women, LGBT, refugees and people discriminated against for diffentent reasons.
We may unite on 8. Mai to stand together in the streets and defend refugees from beeing deported. In the same urgency we may defend Franceska Albanese, who has been so bravely speaking up for the humanrights of Palestinians. We include Iranian women and are for humanrights everywhere
and in work global democratic and international rights ..
solidar
Ruth Luschnat
Berlin
Isabel Feichtner criticises those who “distance [them]selves from antisemitic positions,” where such distancing could be understood “to suggest that the Special Rapporteur’s positions are indeed or might be antisemitic.” She continues that “mere allusions that someone who defends justice and international law might engage in antisemitic acts is reckless.” Those who consider that Albanese’s statements might cross the threshold to antisemitic speech, “as some […] insidiously do, interpret compliance […] with her mandate as inherently antisemitic.” They are engaged in a “witch hunt.” Conscientious international lawyers must oppose these “unfounded allegations or even just insinuations of antisemitism.”
Let’s read this statement carefully. The criticism of Albenese is not just unfounded. She is attacked simply for complying with her mandate. Even more than that, already the suggestion that statements by Albenese might be antisemitic is reckless and insidious.
Thus understood, Albenese is beyond reproach by definition. The attempt to scrutinise her record is ex ante taken to be part of a smear campaign.
Consequently, Feichtner declines to engage with any of Albanese’s statements that many understand to endorse, trivialise, or condone antisemitic views. Here is a brief selection:- In 2014, Albanese stated that America is “subjugated by the Jewish lobby.” In 2024, she endorsed the statement on X that the “Israel lobby has bought and paid for Congress and the two ruling parties.” Also in 2024, Albanese said of an Israeli academic who she shared a panel with that he “comes across as a Jewish prophet,” emphasising that he grew up “according to Zionist principles and religion.”
– In 2014, Albanese cheered the (later rescinded) “removal of hamas from the list of terror organizations.” In 2022, Albanese stated that “Palestinians have no other room for dissent than violence” and that the “Palestinian violence that we see is inevitable because for 55 years […] the right to exist of a people has been denied.”
– In the afternoon of 7 October 2023, Albanese tweeted: “Today’s violence must be put in context.” In 2024, Albanese tweeted that the “intent” behind October 7 did “not poin[t] to aggression against the Jews.”
The list could be extended. Against this background, the Jüdische Allgemeine, the largest Jewish outlet in Germany, condemned the fact that liberals were willing to entertain Albanese’s “antisemitic invectives,” asking the same question that Feichtner begins her article with: “Wo bleibt der Aufschrei?” — “Where is the outcry?”
Ominously, Feichtner declares that “the time has passed when we could leave the debate on what constitutes antisemitism to others.” Given the above — Feichtner’s lack of interest in the evidence that Albanese’s statement are antisemitic — I struggle to interpret this statement, and its endorsement by many in the comments section, in any other way other than as a threat: first, a threat against antisemitism scholarship, but more broadly and more worryingly, against all who intend to take antisemitism seriously without first testing whether doing so is politically convenient.
If we agree with Feichtner that “[w]e all have a responsibility to speak out against antisemitism wherever and whenever it occurs,” we need to begin by calling to account those who appropriate the language of concern while showing no interest in recognising and rejecting contemporary forms of antisemitism.
I think the cancellation of this event is a dark spot to the rigth of free speech and the shadow of the McCarthy rules turn over this land. In the case of Israel is widely known, that the german government and political partys support the illegal long therm Occupation, of Palestinian territorys. So is not surpricing that they attack defender of human rigths and International Law as Antisemitic. But that has be change, and i think we have to learn to figth four oure rigths of academic freedom, expression and so on.
No matter whether it’s from an UN or a NPD representative – anti-Semitism shouldn’t have any place in Germany
In a previous article [1], one of my colleagues argued that Francesca Albanese is a respected scholar of international law whose disinvitation by the universities in Munich and Berlin was wrong and even dangerous for our democracy.
In this article, I will present an opposing view.
Francesca Albanese has become famous (or rather infamous) in particular thanks to a long list of anti-Semitic outbursts.
The fact that she is not given automatic speaking rights at German universities is not censorship, but the only correct lesson to be learned from the Holocaust.
Albanese has even participated even in conferences of Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization, although a small, but loud minority of students may have a positive view about Hamas [2]. The conference was covered by PressTV [3], a state broadcaster of Iran, a state which is not exactly a champion of a “feminist foreign policy”.
I.
Here is an excerpt from Albanese’s anti-Semitic statements and activities
1. Albanese said: “America is subjugated by the Jewish lobby.”
Incidentally, the newspaper “Deutsche Stimme” [4] of the German Nazi party NPD also put forward the thesis that the USA is controlled by a Jewish lobby, although the NPD was at least clever enough to replace the word “Jewish” with “Israeli”, while Albanese – to her credit – at least did not disguise her view [5].
2. Albanese said [6] that Europe is subjugated by the sense of guilt from the Holocaust.
Incidentally, the youth organization of the German Nazi party NPD demanded: “Stop the guilt cult!” Sound’s pretty similar, doesn’t it?
Albanese’s anti-Semitic comments have been condemned [7] by the globally recognized Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt.
3. In July 2024 [8], Albanese trivialized the Holocaust, reposting an image comparing Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu to Adolf Hitler, with the comment: “This is precisely what I was thinking today.”
4. In February 2024 [9], in response to French President Emmanuel Macron referring to the October 7 massacre as “the largest antisemitic massacre of our century,” Albanese tweeted: “The greatest antisemitic massacre of our century? No, @EmmanuelMacron. The victims of 7/10 were not killed because of their Judaism but in response to Israel’s oppression.”
Regarding her statement, the governments of France and Germany condemned Albanese for her antisemitic statement.
That was the first time in the history of the UN, that both France and Germany condemn [10] a UN rapporteur for antisemitism.
5. Albanese compared Israel to the “Third Reich” [11]. By equating the only democracy in the Middle East, where Arab Supreme Court judges have already sent Jewish prime ministers to prison, with the Nazi regime, the National Socialists, it trivializes National Socialism.
The view that Albanese’s disinvitation was wrong is repeatedly justified [12] by “the lessons of the Holocaust”. However, it absurd to think that there is a lesson from the Holocaust that is supposed to justify the invitation of a Nazi trivializer.
Alabanese’s anti-Semitic remark has been globally [13] condemned, among others by Germany, France, Canada, the USA, as well as by Deborah Lyon, the Canadian envoy for Holocaust Rememberance.
Unfortunately, Albanese’s views do not represent an isolated case within the UN. Rather, they are an example of the deep-rooted anti-Israel bias inside the UN.
In the UN General Assembly, Israel, as the only democracy in the Middle East, was condemned by the UN General Assembly 15 times in 2023 – more than all other states combined (13 condemnations). It seems as if the UN General Assembly is only interested in the Palestinians when they are abused by Hamas as human shields and die in the war with Israel. But when they are murdered by Arab dictators, the General Assembly remains silent. One gets the impression that the General Assembly is not for the Palestinians at all – it is simply against Israel.
The UN Human Rights Council, which currently includes human right’s champions like Qatar, Sudan, Pakistan and Eritrea, among others, has a standing agenda item 7 dealing exclusively with Israel. This is unique. Agenda item 7 is singling out at every council’s meeting the one and only Jewish state. This obsession does not exist for any other state in the world and was described by the United Kingdom as “unacceptable and systematic bias” [14].
Even the former UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, said himself [15] after his tenure that UN resolutions against Israel are disproportionate and demonstrate an anti-Israel bias.
Therefore, it seems all the more incomprehensible that my colleague is not criticizing the UN for its anti-Israel bias, but – on the contrary – is taking sides [16] with one of the UN representatives who, even by UN standards, can demonstrate a remarkable level of anti-Semitic statements.
My colleague is citing [17] the Holocaust, the most heinous crime in human history, for explaining her “outcry”. First of all, it is impudent towards the descendants of Holocaust victims and survivors that a German lawyer uses “lessons from the Holocaust” to justify inviting the anti-Israel activist Albanese, who made deeply anti-Semitic statements.
But, as my colleague already mentioned “lessons from the Holocaust”, I want to invite her, but, maybe even more important, all the readers:
Go deep inside yourself and ask yourself:
Where is your outcry about the murder of the Shiri Silbermann-Bibas and her two sons, Kfir (1) and Ariel (4). Why is there a long article about the disinvitation of a speaker with a long record of antisemitic outbursts? And why can’t I find one single word – not to mention an article – about the fate of a mother and her two children who were murdered just because they are Jews and whose dead bodies have been exhibited by Hamas? Why isn’t there one word of criticism about Hamas and Gazan civilians who have cheered and celebrated while terrorists paraded the bodies of murdered Jews in Gaza?
In fact, it seems that over the last year and a half some authors have demonstrated that they have not learned a single lesson from the Holocaust.
Don’t get me wrong: If someone wants to listen to a speaker who is known for her anti-Semitic remarks, one can of course express this wish.
However, I see no legal obligation for a university, which is not least obliged to protect its Jewish students, to provide rooms for this purpose.
Those who want to listen to Albanese are free to visit the halls of Junge Welt, a far-left extremist newspaper that has glorified [18] Hamas’ October 7 massacre, the greatest mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust.
Last but not least, it is interesting that some of the voices that defend a boycott of Israel as freedom of expression suddenly complain about the boycott of a person like Francesca Albanese.
How can you explain this other than with a double standard against Jews?
The boycott of Jews falls under freedom of expression and has to be accepted, but the boycott of conspiracy theorists like Francesca Albanese is said to be a threat to democracy? That’s inconsistent, to say the least.
Academic freedom, Art. 5 I 3 S. 1 GG, is also not without limits.
It has its limitation in the constitutional limits.
These are fundamental rights of third parties and legal interests with constitutional status. One such legal interest with constitutional status is the preservation of the dignity of the victims of the Holocaust.
The detailed consideration and appreciation of values exercised by the university presidents when using their directive authority and their domestic authority, e.g. Section 52 II BerlHG, was carried out without errors in the case of Albanese.
The presidents had to make a forecast decision based on past experience.
Since Albanese has already trivialized the Holocaust and spread hatred of Jews several times, it was not at all unreasonable to assume that she would display her past behavior again this time – in Berlin and Munich, 80 years after the liberation of Auschwitz.
This would not only have endangered the dignity of the Holocaust victims, but also Germany’s reputation as a centre of science.
Finally, it should be noted: The fact that there are actually people in Germany who apparently want to support a person who trivializes the Holocaust like Francesca Albanese is Germany’s problem rather than Israel’s.
Israel, a technological superpower with an innovative economy and a GDP per capita higher than that of the UK, France, Italy and Spain, will continue to prosper even after an antisemitic speech by Francesca Albanese in the rooms of Junge Welt, an insignificant and extremist German newspaper.
And the Jews in Germany will simply leave the country, if the Jew-hatred remains as high as it is since October 7. That’s sad, but fleeing anti-Semitism has been part of the fate of Jews for thousands of years.
German society in particular will ultimately feel the consequences of the acceptability of anti-Semitic statements like Albanese’s within some academic circles.
In this regard, I would like to do the same as my colleague and also make a recommendation for a movie: Tragic awakening [19]. In this documentation, it says: “When a society starts to indulge in this lurid paranoid fantasy [of antisemitism], every other hatred comes next.”
Sources:
[1] https://verfassungsblog.de/where-is-our-outcry/
[2] https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/muenchen-nahostkonflikt-palaestina-camp-hamas-terror-antisemitismus-firm-lux.Qegy4B26haaHXbX6aVFa5t?reduced=true
[3] https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2022/11/28/693554/Gaza-holds-international-conference-on-Israeli-blockade
[4] https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/fub188/14691.2/Koschmieder_Antisemitismus.pdf?sequence=7&isAllowed=y
[5] Gerd Sudholt: „Der zahnlose Tiger vom East-River“, DS 12/2006, S. 20.
[6] https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-palestinian-rights-officials-social-media-history-reveals-antisemitic-comments/
[7] https://www.timesofisrael.com/appalled-us-israel-jewish-groups-slam-un-official-for-past-antisemitic-rhetoric/
[8] https://x.com/ADL/status/1816581111050375178
[9] https://x.com/USAmbHRC/status/1757103240817078396?lang=en
[10] https://www.adl.org/resources/article/francesca-albanese-her-own-words
[11] https://www.adl.org/resources/article/francesca-albanese-her-own-words
[12] https://verfassungsblog.de/where-is-our-outcry/
[13] https://unwatch.org/global-condemnation-of-un-rights-official-comparing-israel-to-third-reich/
[14] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/human-rights-council-40-uk-explanation-of-vote-item-7-resolutions-regarding-israel-and-the-occupied-palestinian-territories
[15] https://www.bnaibrith.org/bnai-brith-commends-un-secretary-general-ban-ki-moon-for-acknowledging-un-bias-against-israel-at-the-un-html/
[16] https://verfassungsblog.de/where-is-our-outcry/
[17] https://verfassungsblog.de/where-is-our-outcry/
[18] https://www.jungewelt.de/loginFailed.php?ref=/artikel/461022.gaza-schl%C3%A4gt-zur%C3%BCck.html
[19] https://raphaelshore.com/tragic-awakening/