Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967 - Press Conference

are deterred from voting, they are treated as second class members of the Knesset when they are elected, efforts are made to exclude them from having any role other than participation. And under the circumstances, when treated in this way as second class citizens, it's very difficult to see how they can participate fully within the state of Israel in the same way as non-Palestinian citizens of the state of Israel. Now, we can even, I mean, I make those comments without even going beyond the question of the role of those who are deeply affected by the results of the Israeli elections, who have been under Israeli occupation continuously now for something like 60 years. They're not citizens of Israel, but they are directly affected, even to the point of life and death, by what happens in the Knesset and the Israeli government. The simple fact is that the Knesset and the government do not represent all of the people, or even the majority of the people, under 60 years of direct Israeli control. But I'm even putting that to one side and saying in the comments that you quote, I made them at the beginning of October last year, that Palestinian citizens of Israel do not have the opportunity to participate fully on an equal basis within the state of Israel. That's what I was saying.

I mean, the same case, many of the points you make could be applied to the Israeli left, could it not? Are there not members of the government or are there not members of the coalition that are saying we won't sit with the Israeli left, the Jewish left? Does that mean that they're deterred from participating, that their rights are being violated?

Mike, you often miss the point.

I never missed the point, but go ahead.

Distinctions on a political basis within a parliament are perfectly natural and to be expected. What I am talking about and what you're ignoring is racially based and religiously based discrimination. That's different from political differences within a parliamentary authority.

I don't have time for another follow-up, but I did want to squeeze one in, and then we'll have this personal meeting in Geneva, Commissioner. To the Chair of the Commission, you were talking a few moments ago about the trolling of Commissioner Sidoti and the extremist views that he gets. And by the way, I actually applaud the Commissioner for engaging in some of these debates because most UN commission members and special rapporteurs and the so-called independent experts just don't. I don't quite understand. Are you saying that when the commission and the like are challenged, that it equates to trolling, that it equates to extremist views being propagated, that you should not be challenged on the report? It should simply be taken at face value? Where does that come in?

Not at all. I know what I'm saying when I say trolling. I know these are uninformed, not analyzed, properly formed views. See, in the age of social media, I think all of us know what trolling is, and all of us know what informed criticism and questioning is. So when you have statements that have no basis, like yesterday, you should have been, I don't know whether you watched the proceedings in the General Assembly, the things that Israel, the representative of Israel was saying It was simply outrageous, I would say, because the commission's work is very serious work. And he was trying to just rubbish it all by saying, we're just repeating what Hamas says, and we're speaking the language of the terrorists. So when you get these kind of comments on social media, on a Twitter handle, or on your WhatsApp messages or forwards, you know that this is the nature of a troll. I'm not saying for a minute that the commission should not take criticism. Its work should be critically commented on, and we welcome that. We welcome any informed criticism. There's no difficulty. We're not running away from it. In fact, Chris takes them on. He actually engages in a debate, like you say. But Chris also gets comments on the social media handle, which you can clearly see have no basis. They don't make sense. So I know when I say trolling, I know what I'm referring to, and I'm not for a minute suggesting that we are above criticism and our work should not be critically analyzed. And we welcome that, actually.

Okay, so one last thing. I don't want to take up more of your time. I know there are other people waiting there. To the points that were made specifically to Commissioner Sidoti, and anybody on the commission is welcome to answer this, I mean, there were fundamental flaws pointed out. in the process, and fundamental flaws pointed out in the terminology that's being used and the standards that are being used, the lack of clarity that's being used, are those taken into account in future reports and future investigations, or do you guys just shrug your shoulders and say, well, we do it the way we do it, and criticism be dark? Is it ever taken into account and the methods changed and corrected and adjusted?

Michael, I really wish you could have an inside view of how we do it, how would we go about drafting our reports, analyzing the evidence. We are very, very, very cautious in the conclusions we arrive at. We're very clear about the evidence we've gathered. We're very careful in the analysis of such evidence. And unless we are completely convinced that it leads to the conclusion that, you know, we speak of in our reports, we just don't put down those sentences at all. And Michael, for your information, this very report that we are discussing makes a distinction between what is happening in Gaza and what is happening in the West Bank. In the West Bank, we're able to draw out the chapeau elements of crimes against humanity. We also go into the particular instances like extermination, like persecution, the individual elements of crimes against humanity. So we're very careful. We are aware of the legal dimensions of all of this. We clearly are aware of what constitutes these individual categories of crimes. So every report, we, of course, build on the evidence that we've already gathered. Some of them do strengthen our conclusions. So I would request you to see all our reports in continuum. You will understand the seriousness with which we approach all these topics.

Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Todd.

Can I make one comment, Mike, in response?

Of course.

So far as I'm concerned, I take very seriously what is said in the kinds of meetings that you're referring to. And if issues are raised about the accuracy or otherwise of any of our reporting, I follow it up. And you can check with some of the people who have raised those issues with me that they get responses from me. I don't in the least mind being corrected. or even criticised for what I say. But by God, I get thoroughly ****** *** if I'm criticised for what I don't say. And when I'm criticised for what I don't say, I don't follow it up because it's not worthy of a response.

Yes. Yeah, if I may add that when we get the criticism and the sharp responses which try to view the commission in a negative sense, then we know that we are making a difference, we are making an impact, that our reports actually matter, because those people read them before they criticize. Some don't, of course, but it shows that we have been, the reports, the commission is effective.

Okay, thank you, Michael, for those questions. Let's take another question online. This one from Iftikhar Ali. His digital hand is not raised, but please unmute him. He's from the Associated Press of Pakistan. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much for this briefing. By now, all the questions have been asked, but Mr. Muralidhar, I would like to ask you that One question. You made a very well-reasoned analysis of the ineffectiveness of the Board of Peace in bringing about any change for the better in the horrible situation in Palestine. But I would like to know whether this has been reflected in your report as well, because I have not yet read the report.

Mr. Ali, thank you for that question. In our report, we do refer to the Board of Peace's reporting to the Security Council that things are improving in Gaza, and we say this is completely contrary to the ground situation. We have not gone into depth in analyzing the work of the Board of Peace, but frankly, not much is happening. Even the countries which had pledged some amounts have actually not paid up. So actually, the Board of Peace is going nowhere. So we don't want to devote so much space because as it is, we have constraints, word constraints. But I would expect the media to analyze what is the Board of Peace actually doing? What is it to show for all that bringing a resolution in front of the Security Council? We don't know why Russia and China abstained at that point in time, but they did, and it went through. But what is the Board of Peace to show in this last year, since ever the peace was, you know, ceasefire was declared? So even we are a bit in the dark as to the actual, you know, plans for the Board of Peace, because whatever is there in the public domain is there. But on the ground, you're not able to make a difference. You're not able to see the change. One major thing that the Board of Peace promised for Gaza, and which hasn't happened in the last one year, is increase in humanitarian aid. And on the ground, the situation is very dire. Children are dying for want of medical aid. People are not able to be evacuated from Gaza. And there is a large number of people in the refugee camps that have no basic facilities. When children go out in the refugee camps in Gaza for a new schooling space, not a school, regular school, that is getting bombed. So I don't think the Vote of Peace's main objective of increasing humanitarian aid into Gaza has taken off at all. And this is something that we should all be worried about.

Thank you very much, Mr. Brulmer.

Okay, thank you. Do we have any last questions from the room or online? Did you have one more? Okay, sure, go ahead.

Final question. Did it happen in history, this is a question for all the members of the Commission, that the occupied people are being assigned to protect the safety and security of their occupier and will be punished for if they don't do that? Thank you.

I think it's a rhetorical question. It's a comment, I think, more than a question. So it's, you know, which is why the UN is all here for. I think the UN is supposed to review what's happening within countries. And there have been, look, the whole Board of Peace says there will be another alternative mechanism, right? That mechanism is not in place. And I don't think it's going to take off because of the political, you know, formations around it. But Chris, if you want to add something, you can.

I am not a historian of every situation, and I try to avoid making comparisons.

Right.

Okay. All right then. Well, thank you, commissioners. Thank you, members of the media, for joining us today. And that will bring us to the end of this press conference. Have a good day.

Thanks, Todd, and I look forward to seeing you all in Geneva.

Thank you so much for the forum. Thank you.

Thank you.

I think we're ready to start. Yes. Okay.

Very good. All right. Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Are we going?

Yes, we can hear you. So I will do a short introduction and then we'll go to you. So welcome to this press conference by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967. Ms. Francesca Albanese. So we will, she will make some introductory remarks and then we will take questions. Special reporter, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Hello, everyone. Unfortunately, I cannot be with you in person today because of the sanctions imposed on me by the U.S. administration. But while I might be prevented from being in the US or even at the General Assembly, I will not be prevented from speaking out the truth. And my last report is about truth, truth that has been buried under the rubble. This report examines what is at stake when the truth becomes a casualty, when your very profession becomes a casualty. Journalism means the courage to question, the integrity to verify, and the determination to report the truth, even when it comes at a cost. What do you think is your role in these convulsed times, I'm asking? And I beg to ask yourself that, truthfully, because I have seen hundreds of Palestinians having answered this question, often at the cost of their own life. In Gaza alone, Israel has killed more than 300, sorry, nearly 300 of your colleagues, according to UN sources. Over 700 of their family members. It literally hunted them. 70 of them were shot in reprisal for their work, in their homes, in makeshift journalistic tents. in double-tap strikes on their cameras in hospitals. More than 100 of those who survived the genocide have been detained, many tortured, because of doing their job. Your job. And how does it make you feel, I wonder? Meanwhile, in the West Bank, the situation is not necessarily better, because settlers and soldiers keep attacking journalists, unpunished, as we speak. And recently, more than 139 attacks on journalists have been recorded. But back to Gaza, where Israel has destroyed 150 media centers and offices, which means 80% of the entire media infrastructure in the Gaza concentration area. Telecommunication networks, severing internet access, every one of these items is essential to your profession. And inside Israel, Israel has turned the media into its most refined weapon, a machinery to smither Palestinian stories and Palestinian lives. Once again, when it couldn't do it with bombs, it did it through words, or better, through their concealment. Post-October 2023, Israel has silenced and sanctioned dissenting media, banning more than 1,600 articles and redacting more than 1,100 articles in 2024 alone. 21 banned or redacted news items per day. Quite a record for the only democracy of the Middle East. And then they've even set up a legitimization cell to ruin the reputation of the journalists targeted for killing or for destruction before they were actually eliminated. And when I say Israel, it's not just the army or the government alone, because Israel's journalists, many Israeli journalists, have carried genocidal claims into the public arena. For example, broadcasters as Channel 12 or 14 have dehumanized Palestinians beyond imagination, calling Palestinians all sorts of repulsive names: a cancerous growth, Amalek, cannibals, a virus to be eradicated. This rhetoric goes beyond ordinary political discourse. Some statements constitute direct and public incitement to genocide, and so far, to my knowledge, no one has been indicted or even investigated. Meanwhile, worldwide, the social media and digital platforms have taken Israel's money, even up to 50 million at least, to promote genocidal campaigns, campaigns that have denied famine while Palestinians were starving to death, campaigns that have removed and silenced dissent. Around 38.8 million Facebook and Instagram posts were reportedly suppressed. Israeli government takedown requests were accepted at rates of 99.2% by TikTok and 94% by Meta. Information, the eighth front of the war, as Netanyahu himself called it. Where are the other seven? The countries and people that Israel has bombed. And this is just part of the broader picture, because globally, newsrooms around the world have become Israel's sounding board, with respected international media outlets amplifying unverified claims, obscuring Israel's responsibility, and often conflating expression of solidarity with the victims of a genocide as antisemitism. So what is happening is not incidental. It is intentional. This is why I provocatively called it Mediaside, the systematic destruction of the media's public function, the transformation of media itself into an instrument through which atrocities can be concealed, normalized, or justified. In a genocide, the systematic attack on the media is part and parcel of the crime. This has been established in Rwanda or in former Yugoslavia through the work, the precious work of international tribunals. And to comply with such policies breaches the law and for state-owned media engages state's responsibility, where it betrays ethics and professional responsibilities for all the others. And before finishing this brief, I want you to remember and honor the memory of Anas Al-Sharif, one of the most renowned Palestinian journalists, including during the genocide, a 28-year-old journalist like you, just from Gaza, who never left Gaza and was full of dreams, passion, and professionalism. Every day during the genocide, Anas documented the genocide against his people. He was He received threatening calls during day and night hours. His father was killed in a strike on his own in the first months of the genocide, and still, he kept reporting because he knew it was the only way to keep his people from vanishing into the abyss. He was branded a terrorist, and many journalists in the Western world parroted the Israeli army's words against their own colleague. What a disgrace. Anas al-Sharif was killed the 10th of August 2025 alongside five colleagues in a drone strike on a journalist tent near Al-Shifa Hospital. One story among hundreds. And today I want to end with his final words. May they light the way for so many of you who seem to have lost it. Quote, "I have lived through pain in all its details and have tasted loss and grief many times. Yet I never once hesitated to convey the truth exactly as it was, without falsification or distortion, so that God might bear witness against those who stayed silent, those who accept our killing, those who suffocated our breath, and those whose hearts were unmoved by the torn bodies of our children and women, and who did nothing to stop the massacre our people have endured for more than a year and a half. I entrust you with Palestine, the jewel of the crown of Muslims, and the heartbeat of every free soul in this world.” End of quote. Thank you.

Thank you, Special Rapporteur. And now let’s go to questions. Abdelhamid, please go ahead.

Thank you so much, Francesca, and nice to see you again, although we wish that you were sitting here in front of us. Like three years ago, I think you were here. My name is Abdulhamid Sayam from the Arabic daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, and I have a few questions. First, if you have any update on the case of Shireen Abu Akleh, which has never been really, no one was indicted for that crime. And the second, do you see also that Israeli banning any foreign press coming into Gaza also part of this campaign to smear the Palestinian and to silence their pain? And also, I want also to ask you about the Palestinian Authority, who's also is not doing a good job allowing Palestinian to express their views. If you can also dwell on that. Thank you.

Absolutely. Thank you very much. Sorry to say, but I would be — I would prefer not be called by name, if you don’t mind. I have no further updates on the on the case of Shireen Abu Akleh, there have been official, meaning there have been investigations by Al-Haq, by Forensic Architecture. We virtually know who is one of the killers because there was a given number of soldiers in the tank that shot at, from which Shireen was shot at. Nothing. Nothing happened. So the update is impunity. Impunity not just by Israel, but impunity by the United States. So the sodalis of impunity continues. Concerning the... Sorry.

Allowing foreign press. Foreign press entering Gaza.

Okay, sorry. Yeah, concerning the foreign press entering Gaza, there is no foreign press entering Gaza, as you say, and I think this demonstrates Israel's will to conceal the truth. Now, I do not believe that this is necessary in order to confirm, to validate what Palestinian journalists have documented. However, I can tell you personally, and this is the assessment of many, and I think this is the case, I mean, you might confirm this yourself, the killing of nearly 300 journalists and media workers is absolutely felt, because while Palestinians keep on documenting their their tragedy, the very fact that very few journalists actively remain on the ground, among them Bisan Odeh and a few others, makes impossible the analysis, the availability of precise analysis impossible. And having foreign journalists cannot replace it. So there is part of the truth of understanding, narrating, reconstructing the truth that can never be restored. Because it's gone. That local knowledge, the local understanding of the context is gone. However, however, it's absolutely outrageous that Israel prevents foreign journalists from entering. And the question is that why? It's clear, because Israel doesn't want anyone to see what's happening. I mean, Israel is literally packing, packing tons of rubble, which also contain and conceal parts of the evidence of the crimes it has committed, and clearing the area, claiming that it's reordering what has happened in Gaza. No, it's concealing the evidence. But it doesn't seem to me that there is a huge pressure from Western media, foreign media, to enter Gaza. So, and again, I think that this is a choice. It speaks, my report speaks also to the professionalism and lack thereof, to the double standards of Western media. I don't think that all of them consciously, consciously dehumanize or want to dehumanize the Palestinians. And this is part and parcel of the problem. They do it. They dehumanize Western, some Western media, segments of the Western media, dehumanize Palestinians. Palestinians by default. And so concerning the Palestinian, the Palestinian Authority, I have mentioned this in the report, saying that Palestinian journalists have faced intimidation and repression at the end of political, Palestinian political and armed groups. So both at the hand of the de facto authority, Hamas, in Gaza, where journalists have been assaulted by armed individuals, while Hamas has threatened journalists covering protests against the organization. And in the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority has constrained press freedom beyond individual arrest of journalists and ordering the suspension of Al Jazeera operation from January to May 2025. Of course, of course, most of my report focuses on Israel because of the abysmal amount of violations that it has committed. Thank you for your question.

Okay. Do we have any other questions in the room? Yes, please go ahead.

Xinhua News Agency in Chongqing, update us on your restrictive measures against yourself. Are they still in place? How do they affect your work and your personal life? Thank you.

It's heavy. It's very heavy. It's indecent. And look, I've said it over and over, and I really don't want to take, I thank you very much for your interest, and I don't want to take time from the discussion around Palestinian journalists. But what I want to add is that I'm extremely disappointed and frustrated with the United Nations, and not just the United Nations as an organization, because OHCHR is doing what it can to provide support and to assist me, as well as other special rapporteurs, I mean, this my case is clear. But what about member states? There is a clear breach of the Convention on Privileges and Immunities that gives a mandate, that gives the possibility to bring the United States before the International Court of Justice. This has happened in the past. It has been done against a state. It was the case of Malaysia, which had violated the privileges and immunities of a special rapporteur, and the privileges and immunities were asserted. Now, in the face of something as serious, which is impacting me, my personal assets, my ability to receive money. So I need — I have the financial independence of a seven-year-old person, of a minor. And And in the face of all these and the threats and the smears and all the restrictions I'm facing, no one single member state has had the courage to bring the United States before the International Court of Justice, and not that is raised as a possibility by the UN leadership. This is where we are. So I think that it's, I mean, it's understood. My frustration is understandable, because I want to remind also those member states who have stayed silent why yesterday I was offended, insulted, slandered by the US and the Israeli ambassador. Interestingly, the US ambassador was even more upset than the Israeli ambassador. But however, those who stayed silent, do you understand that I'm not even paid to do this job? Do you understand that I do that out of principle, decency, and humanity because I'm ashamed that we are staying silent in the face of a genocide, 21,000 children killed, and we are still talking of, you know, Israel self-defense. So in the face of this, I think that it's a matter shame that the United Nations is not more active in protecting people like me, because who would like to, who do you think will stand tomorrow ready to take on this function and take on one of the most sensitive mandates in the history of special procedures?

Do we have any more questions? I see Mike, you raised your hand. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much. Special Rapporteur Abennesi, there was a review within recent weeks by the Committee for the Protection of Journalists. They took, I believe it was 22, if I remember correctly, journalists who were killed during the Israel-Hamas war off of their list based on evidence. that they had ties to terrorist groups. The BBC is conducting its own review right now of its list based on a Telegraph investigation showing that 53 journalists that have been killed during this war also have terrorist ties, including some who participated in the October 7th massacre. Is there any accounting for this evidence in any of your reports? Because I haven't seen a word of it.

Absolutely. First of all, let me say that there is a discrepancy between the sources, sorry, between the figures provided by the Committee on the Protection of Journalists and the one I provided, because I rely on the figures provided by the United Nations. And everything I've asserted in my report has been checked and double-checked with UN personnel as well. There is one thing that it's clear, and there are different standards that are being used. International law, which is the only thing that guides my mandate, makes clear that being affiliated or even sharing information that is seen as coming from a belligerent party, to use international language, doesn't suspend the protection that is guaranteed by international law. It's only taking active part in combat while the person is hit that makes the person lose protected status. So all the journalists whose death I have analyzed have been hit or have been killed for being journalists, for having reported, and not because of being in active combat, which is, again, the only situation that can lead to loss of civilian status. If anyone of the Palestinian journalists had been involved in the attacks, as you claim, on the massacres that Israel suffered on October 7, they were supposed to face justice. And I don't have information that this is the case. If you do, I would be happy to receive and review. But this is not the case.

It's not me that's collecting this evidence. I mean, the Committee for the Protection of Journalists has made its own conclusions. The BBC is conducting its own investigation. I'm trying to clarify, though, because it goes back to the heart of the question on this. If you're wearing Hamas uniform, although they don't really wear uniforms when they go into combat, but if you're carrying a Hamas gun and posing for Hamas pictures by day and then strapping off, strapping on a press vest at night, By your standard, the way I just heard it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that means that you're a journalist. Is that correct?

Sorry, Michael, you lost me. Please repeat.

There are journalists that have been killed during this war that have posed in uniform for their particular terror groups that have a distinct role within their particular terror groups that were eulogized and their obituaries were written by the terror groups they belong to. I'm trying to make sure I'm clear, by the standards you're using, if they are a member of a terror organization that actually wrote their obituaries, but they put on a press vest for part of the day, then by the definitions you're using, the standards you're using, they are journalists and not members of terror organizations. Is that correct?

No, no, no. Let me clarify. Look, what I said, and let me expand, is that different organizations have different lists. It is important to flag that I think it's 77 people, 77 people appear on both the Israeli military list and the CPJ list. More than a half of the 170 people whom Israel presents as, as you say, militants masquerading as journalists, are not even counted by CPJ as killed media workers in the first place, while conversely, more than half of the journalists and media workers CPJ says were killed are not challenged by Israel. So yes, there are discrepancies, and this depends on how each organization lists the journalists. But what I'm saying is that having been photographed with a uniform, Doesn't make the journalist killable. And I'm saying that because there are Israeli journalists who have been active in the army, who have even taken part in the expeditions into Gaza. When they go back to do their journalist work, does it make a target, Michael? Does it make a target?

The fact that they were in beautiful You're asking rhetorically, or?

I'm asking. Because on the way you answer, for me, the answer is clear. A person who's not actively involved into combat doesn't lose civilian status. That's it. Israelis or Palestinians alike. So I don't even enter, I don't even enter the quagmire of the conundrum of Hamas and terrorists, because let's leave the terrorist scheme aside. It's very convenient. It has been the label to kill everyone, to bring famine upon everyone in Gaza, to destroy Gaza. I think you have seen the images of Gaza. So labeling everyone as terrorists. has paid off. Voila, the price is in the rubble. However, what I'm saying, in order for a journalist is a civilian, is a civilian, Michael. And in order to lose his or her civilian status, the journalist needs to take active part in combat. So even assuming that Israel had a right self-defense, and it doesn't. Under international law, Israel doesn't have and cannot claim the right to wage a war against Gaza. The reason why the international community is letting it happen not even a mystery, it's known and it's very saddening, depressing, in fact. But Israel could not be there shooting at everyone just because it claims that these people are terrorists. All the more, people who Israel deems have been affiliated to a terrorist organization. Because again, if you don't take part in active combat, If you are not a militant actively involved in combat, you cannot be shot at. And I say that also in protection of the Israeli soldiers who, sorry, of the Israeli journalists who have taken active part in the destruction of Gaza. When they stop being combatants, they return to be civilians. I hope it's clear. Can we move on, please?

It's not, but yes, let's move on. I have one more question for you. I don't want to take up everybody else's time. Part of your report is... So that's my prerogative, I guess, unless somebody else stops me.

Sure, we're used.

Yes, last question.

But I don't have the same patience as Commissioner Sidoti, who's happy to see you all the time. I mean, please go ahead.

Most people are happy to see me. So part of your report was dedicated to Israeli media. It wasn't just Palestinian media deaths, it was Israeli media incitement. I have a question for you, because you've made the case before that denial of genocide is actually a part and parcel of genocide itself. I'm an Israeli media figure. I don't think there's a genocide going on. I think the famine is a complete hoax, and the UNICEF numbers are now bearing that out. Should I be tried before the International Criminal Court? Should I have a warrant over my head?

It depends. It depends. It depends on your outreach and your capacity to influence and cause harm. Media companies have responsibilities. If they are state-owned, it's more than just responsibilities. It's that the state has an obligation to ensure that information is correct and it doesn't turn into incitement to genocide, incitement to crimes and hatred. If private companies do engage in hate speech and incitement, they have to, the state is to intervene. However, I don't know if you have the same outreach and the same ability to cause, to be directly linked, or to contribute to harm, as Channel 12 and Channel 14 have. But if you do, yes, you should be investigated, Michael.

I look forward to it. Thank you, Ms. Albanese.

Okay, let's go to Abdelhamid in the room.

Another question, Special Rapporteur, and I apologize for mentioning your first name. I thought that makes it a little bit closer to the heart. Do you see that the ICC also had failed the Palestinian people in the field of killing journalists? There are over 300 Palestinian journalists killed. And there is over 500 UN staff also killed, and the ICC did not investigate any of those, nor many of the Israeli generals. Only there was just a call for two Israeli officials, the prime minister and the former defense minister. But the genocide had been committed not only by two, but the ICC goes after individuals, not after governments, as you know. including killing of those many journalists. Thank you.

Thank you, no worries. I was just setting a rule for the future, because my male colleagues are not addressed by name, and I think I need to demand the same treatment. That's it. It's just because I don't like double standards. So I want to be very, very straight. Do I think that the ICC has failed the Palestinians, Palestinian journalists? Oh, yes. Big time. Before October 2023. Because the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh, the bombing of a TV tower in Gaza in 2014, if my memory doesn't fail me, you know, there have been so many military assaults on Gaza after 2007 that I sometimes I struggle to remember which crimes were committed when. But there was a case. There were cases. There were, no, no, there were cases filed. before the International Criminal Court for killing of journalists, for targeting the media. And we have not seen a single, we have not heard of a single investigation until post-October 2023, when the situation became unbearable, and it would have dragged the ICC into ruins and its reputation into the mud for not acting, I mean, for continuing, for delaying action. But yes, yes, of course. But again, now I wonder, as even the International Criminal Court, for what it is, is being dismantled, or it's a threat of being dismantled if there is no robust pushback. while this US administration tries to turn into, and the rest of the multilateral system into smithereens, I mean, can the International Criminal Court, a court which is universal, cover all the crimes that have been committed in the occupied Palestinian territory, or more, between the river and the sea, if Israel conceded to that? in its lifetime. This is huge. So this is why I think when I'm asked, will there be a Nuremberg trials? I don't know if there will be a special court, but surely the complementarity of international criminal investigation can be triggered, and there must be Palestine trials starting now with activating domestic courts, those who have universal jurisdictions, or those who should investigate and prosecute if evidence so warrants, starting with the citizens, their own citizens, French citizens, British citizens, US. was thinking, US citizens or Belgian citizens who have taken part in the army and might be connected to crimes, including toward journalists. This is something that cannot be delayed. And there are organizations and there are lawyers who are volunteering around the world, collecting information and making sure that the legacy of the Nuremberg trials and the legacy of the so many Jewish scholars and lawyers who have invested, dedicated their life to make sure that Nazi criminals could not roam around, and the legacy has been felt also in former Yugoslavia, in Rwanda, is not lost. This cannot be the end of the really one of the most important achievements of humanity, making sure that there is no place for perpetrator to be a safe haven after the commission of atrocity crimes.

Okay, I see Islam has his hand up online. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much, Special Rapporteur, Ms. Albanese. Thank you for doing this. Islam Doru from Anadolu. I have a question more hypothetical, and the answer is also should be more obvious, but I would like to ask to take your opinion. Do you foresee any changes in the discourse surrounding Gaza and West Bank following today's Israeli election, as well as with the arrival of new UN Secretary General later this year? Thank you.

Look, I don't want to entertain, I don't want to speculate too much because there are people who have more authoritative sources than me. But I really share what an Israeli-British commentator said today, Daniel Levy. He said that big changes are not to be expected because Palestinians and actually the ethnic cleansing, the genocide, the war crimes, the crimes against humanity, on the one hand, they're never been part of the political discussion, or they're not part of the political equation that preceded the, that was part of the election campaign. And also, look at the candidates, it's not going to change much. And so there is not going to be a dramatic change. There's not going to be a change, in my view, based on the electoral outcome. I was also very struck by one comment that Daniel Levy shared, said, you know why Netanyahu is not deeply challenged domestically, unless, I mean, compared to what happens at international level? Because Netanyahu embodies a system, he represents a system. So many have been advocating for the erasure of Gaza. So many believe that there is no alternative to the ethnic cleansing of what remains of Palestine. This is the problem for me, the fact that there is an Israeli society that needs to be helped, that needs to be healed. There is a trauma there, understandable, but the trauma cannot be tolerated up to you know, turning into the commission of crime against a population who frankly has endured enough. By the way, if I can add something that came up that I might not have, I should have answered to the previous question. It's not, again, the question was whether I think that the ICC has let down the Palestinians, yes. But it doesn't mean that this should be continued. And in fact, I did recommend that the ICC prosecutor should investigate direct and public incitement to commit genocide by both government officials and media figures. So while I understand that this might not be practical and feasible right now, that the court is under so much strain and pressure, of course, it should be top on the list.

Okay, I see no more questions online. Any more questions in the room? If there are no more questions, thank you all for coming, and thank you, Special Rapporteur, for being with us today, if not in person, then the only way you could.

Can I make a comment? Do you mind?

Yes, of course.

I find it really appalling appalling that the report, and also very revealing, that the report that was on the media has recorded the smallest number of journalists the room or connected online ever. And I thank those who were there and those who actively participated, including Michael. And again, I mean, this is really food for thought, because I know that this report is daunting. But as I thought yesterday for what happened in the General Assembly, in the Third Committee, where actually I was shocked by the fact that there was no robust opposition to the fact that that the Israeli and the US ambassador were offending, really insulting a UN official for doing her job. I mean, they can think whatever they like, and they should challenge me on the content of my work, but not calling me names. And yesterday, I thought that diplomats show more respect for their diplomats than a UN official today. I think that the absence of so many media, especially legacy media who are normally there, especially from Western countries, are not there. And I think that this is, I read it as possibly an act of solidarity toward the media. the media entities that were mentioned in the report. Frustrating, but this is for people who are listening to us to understand the world we live in. Thank you.

Thank you again, Special Rapporteur, and with that, we will close this press conference.

Thank you.