MG What brought you to the subject of Palestine, and to your present role – as the UN’s special rapporteur for the human rights of Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories?

FA Little by little, Palestine emerged from my background knowledge to become more and more of a test for understanding the dysfunctions of the system – the UN, international law, and the international justice system. At university, something that struck me was Georg Simmel’s description of the “other” and how we set boundaries. Historically, Palestinians have represented the “other” in an almost archetypal way. They are people who have been sacrificed in the name of a greater interest. I understand the lack of choice that many, many Jewish people from Europe had 80 years ago, but I do not understand the continuous lack of recognition of what has befallen the Palestinians – as a nation, as individuals, as families, as inhabitants of a land.

MG All legal systems are made possible by a state’s access to the use of legitimate force. What is the basis of international law, which has no recourse to enforcement?

FA There are enforcement mechanisms, but they do not work. I would like people. who don’t necessarily have a legal background to understand that international law is not substantially different from domestic law. States are premised upon a social contract between the citizens and the state, and in the international community, the basis of that contract is the consent of the member states. States consent to be part of the international multilateral order and the [UN] General Assembly, and to have rules together that advance the legal system by signing treaties and agreeing on principles. When there is an emergency concerning an executive, however, the enforcement of international law requires the action of member states. This is the weak part because member states’ commitment to international law is partial and selective. There should be a change in the way member states engage with the US. There is a lingering, never-resolved imperialism in the multilateral order that has existed since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, where an alternative force never emerged to contest the superpower of the US. However, the global south is rising, and there are member states in the south that have taken a principled stand on Palestine. This doesn’t mean that these countries don’t have their own human-rights issues, but South Africa, Colombia, Brazil, Chile, and countries in Europe like Ireland and Spain, have taken steps to combat the genocide. However, there is no way to ensure an end to the brutality against Palestinian people without a total arms embargo. 

MG Can the current situation in Israel and Palestine be accommodated in a new form of international order, with one state, two states or even three states?

FA What is needed is an order that recognises the same rights and duties to everyone, with no privileges unless they are accorded to everyone in the form of rights. Having said that, there is much that needs to be corrected in the current international order for the harm that has been done to entire nations and their peoples during 500 years of colonialism. I would accept a privilege granted to certain countries in terms of, for example, fees paid to the United Nations. But what does the question of Palestine require? I don’t think that there is a need to reinvent the international order. There have been important changes propelled by the decolonisation movement and African and Asian nations joining the General Assembly. But the shift should be from a political or humanitarian solution to a human-rights-based solution. The right of all rights is the right to exist as a people, and if this is not recognised, all the others do not matter. Who’s going to guarantee the right to education and the right to work to the Palestinians? It won’t be the Palestinians themselves if the right of self-determination is not respected. I’m agnostic about one state or two states. There is international consensus that the two-state solution is the way forward, and it should be the starting point for the realisation of Palestinian self-determination as an exclusive right to statehood in what remains of historical Palestine. That doesn’t mean that this solves all issues of the Palestinian people, because there are Palestinians with Israeli citizenship and there are Palestinian refugees. The territorial solution is not a response to their quest for justice and rights. If there is one thing that the world has understood it is that the Palestinians don’t want to be subjugated. Most of Israeli society seems unwilling to make what they see as concessions, but again, they must be forced to give up their privileges.

MG We are speaking as news of a ceasefire deal is breaking. When the guns stop, when the bombing stops, what happens then? 

FA My fear – and this is nurtured by current discussions, or lack thereof at a political level, about the rights of the Palestinians – is that Gaza will be largely ignored in the West, while Israel, with the support of the US and other allies, will try to impose its own vision on the territory. 

MG  Do you have any idea what that vision is? An enormous concentration camp? 

FA It will probably be going back to what Gaza was, but smaller. Gaza was unliveable in the long term before. It didn’t have enough hospitals to treat leukaemia; it cannot survive as a concentration camp. I don’t have the answers, I just know that what Israel seems to be envisioning is not sustainable. [Israel’s minister of finance] Bezalel Yoel Smotrich released a statement saying that any ceasefire deal is a threat to national security, and that Israel must fully occupy and cleanse Gaza. Israel sees the Palestinians as an unwanted encumbrance and a security threat that must be dealt with as such. There is no possibility to ensure the safety and prosperity of either the Palestinians or the Israelis under this system. 

MG What has this process done to you? What have you lost? What have you gained?

FA Grey hair! But I wear my grey with pride. But still – I’ve aged, and I’ve lost lightness. Not light, but lightness. I am quieter in my daily life, less eccentric with my friends, and I’ve withdrawn a lot from the public. I don’t think I’m not in love with life, but I don’t have a decent private life, as I used to. I have very few close friends compared to before; I am more upset. 

MG I completely understand what you mean. The world has lost some colour. But also with age, you get wisdom and you get power. 

FA Well, if there’s any wisdom I’ve gained, it’ll be used for the greater good. .