You keep referring to Albanese’s piece as “just her opinion” because it’s written in the first person but that’s not an accurate or meaningful distinction. A first-person account from a UN Special Rapporteur describing how she was treated by a member state is not mere "opinion,” it is testimony. Testimony is a form of evidence. It can be corroborated, challenged, or contextualized but it’s not dismissed simply because it’s personal.

If you want to argue that her account is factually wrong or incomplete, make your case on the merits. Be specific. What exactly is she missing out or lying about? Receipts. But just calling it “opinion” doesn’t do that work. Her claims about how German authorities responded to her visit are either true or they aren’t. Multiple independent reports already confirm similar incidents in Germany involving restrictions on pro-Palestinian expression, which means her testimony is at minimum credible enough to merit engagement, not automatic dismissal.

So no, this isn’t about being “emotional” or “biased.” It’s about recognizing that firsthand testimony from an official acting in their mandate is itself a source of public record, and treating it accordingly.

She’s not an antisemite. But the people who spuriously accuse her of antisemitism tend to be genocide deniers and apartheid apologists. Are you one of those?

Or what? People might think that Fransesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories who authored this article, talking about how the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories was treated in Germany, is a credible report when it …what, isn’t? Because Bloomberg said that some substacks are not credible? Like, are you serious here or are you just trolling?

Lol, talk of a desperate attempt to discredit Zeteo.

She didn’t blame the Jews for wildfires. That’s a stupid and extremely bad faith misinterpretation of what she actually said. She reposted an article about the climate footprint of war.

What a ridiculous accusation.

The part of the article beyond the paywall:

Culture of Dehumanization: Anti-Palestinian Racism

The extreme nervousness surrounding my visit is a symptom of the systemic crackdown on Palestinians, their allies, and pro-Palestinian stances – part of a wider culture of dehumanization of the Palestinians and anti-Palestinian racism that, in the West, has helped enable Israel’s genocide. Numerous individuals shared harrowing accounts of overt discrimination and racism, intimidation, suppression, and punitive measures, each more disturbing than the last.

At a time when the International Court of Justice has 1) deemed Israel’s occupation unlawful, amounting to racial segregation, apartheid, and partial annexation, 2) acknowledged plausible genocide (South Africa v Israel), and 3) warned states – Germany specifically – against arming potential war criminals (Nicaragua v Germany), Germany’s unwavering support for Israel is not only crushing the rights of those advocating for justice in Palestine, but also violating the most fundamental principles of international law. It is absolutely worth reminding people that the Apartheid Convention lists “persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid” among the acts constituting apartheid.

The lengths to which repression is used to shield Israel from accountability – even if only by suppressing the exposure of the facts and their legal ramifications – had made me vividly aware of the state of collective hysteria in which Germany seems to be trapped, and the complex legal dimension underpinning it. Even with prior knowledge of worrisome restrictive trends in the country, I could not have anticipated how Germany – with its proud and decade-long history of advocating for the rule of law – would suddenly feel disconcertingly reminiscent of an era long past. This is all the more true given Germany’s contribution to developing the international normative, regional, and multilateral system to advance the rule of law.

At the core of this issue lies Germany’s rigid ideological alignment with Israel – a relationship that purports to safeguard not only the historical responsibility of Germany towards the Jewish people post-Holocaust, but unquestioningly supports any policy of the Israeli state, even when unlawful and plausibly criminal, and even when contested by Jewish people, including in Germany.

In the face of all this, I left Germany wondering: Where are the intellectuals, the historians, the principled civil servants, and the independent journalists? Where are the legal scholars, the international and constitutional lawyers, the formidable philosophers of legal sociology that this society nurtures, and where are civil society organizations, as well the German Institute for Human Rights, which have not only shaped but also benefited from Germany’s decades-long and heralded reputation as a bastion of democracy and human rights? Justice Because It’s Right

As an Italian, I carry a profound awareness and sense of responsibility – an evolution beyond guilt per se – regarding my society’s historical injustices toward its Jewish citizens during the Holocaust. Jus quia justum, not merely jus quia iussum – justice because it is right, not merely because it is commanded – this is the principle taught in Italian and German law schools. It is through unthinking obedience that ordinary citizens become instruments of oppression. This legacy has been fostered in many, especially in Western societies that perpetrated the Holocaust and other genocides before that, with a deep-seated commitment to combat all forms of racism, discrimination, and dehumanization of others. This is the purest meaning of ‘Never Again.’

This time, many in Germany were unable to hear these messages from me, Eyal, and others. May the next opportunity be different. I hope this moment sparks introspection and a reckoning, encouraging us to realize that speaking out for the oppressed should not be viewed as an act of bravery, but as a fundamental duty we all share to uphold the rights and freedoms of all people, regardless of nationality or religion – from every river to every sea, in Palestine/Israel, and beyond.

The most certain way to deradicalize the Palestinians is simply to deradicalize and demilitarize the Israeli state and to dismantle its apartheid and occupation edifice.

I think you hit the nail on the head exactly. That’s it, the whole affair in one line.

“maybe ham fisted, in which case I apologize”

So now that the misunderstanding is cleared, I call you again to examine your assumptions and blind spots.

Stop both sides-ing for goodness sake! There are no two equal sides here. There are the perpetrators and the victims of a genocide, of apartheid, and of occupation.

Not to mention that you are literally factually wrong. Hamas controls Gaza but the PA controls the West Bank. There is nothing the PA does that “creates violence, hatred, destruction and desire for vengeance” among Israelis. So to be extremely clear YOUR FRAMING IS FACTUALLY WRONG. The PA has recognized Israel, supports the two state solution. The PA is so actively trying to supress radicals that if you look around this thread you will see people accusing it of being collaborationists. And what do they get in response? Colonization, occupation, apartheid, and pogroms. If Israel achieves its war goals and eliminates Hamas from Gaza, the result will be that that insufferable misery also extended there. The Palestinians are literally given a choice of genocide or apartheid, of a quick fiery death or a slow bleeding death. This is Israel’s policy and it isn’t just Bibi, it is the Israeli state policy of the last 30 fucking years.

No, it is an attempt (maybe ham fisted, in which case I apologize) to make you reflect on whether you have the cultural middleware to really understand that 50 years of occupation is not “forever”, that longer timelines have existed. It’s a call to examine your assumptions.

What absolute position? I wrote a whole paragraph after the bit that you quote exactly on why it is not an absolute position.

Justice by the way does not mean that Palestinians get everything. It means that they get enough to feel that they have gotten a deal they can live with. Ireland is a fantastic example here actually. The Irish didn’t get a united Ireland in the early 20th century, but they got an independent country. And in the next chapter of struggle, the republicans and the unionists again didn’t get everything, but they got enough to get to a place they can live with. But Britain had to fucking let go in both cases. The Israelis have to fucking let go and they have to come to terms with what they’ve done and realize that they will have to pay some kind of reparation at the very least.

I acknowledged that when I said “If a Palestinian leader becomes too moderate, Hamas will do their own thing.”.

Like I told you, it’s Israel that “mows the grass” to make sure no moderate gets ahead. Bargouti is in an Israeli jail.

“what will lead to an enduring peace is actually more important than what is just.”

But that’s the point: if it is not just, it will not be enduring. I don’t understand what is confusing about “no justice no peace”. Justice by the way does not mean that Palestinians get everything. It means that they get enough to feel that they have gotten a deal they can live with. Ireland is a fantastic example here actually. The Irish didn’t get a united Ireland in the early 20th century, but they got an independent country. And in the next chapter of struggle, the republicans and the unionists again didn’t get everything, but they got enough to get to a place they can live with. But Britain had to fucking let go in both cases. The Israelis have to fucking let go and they have to come to terms with what they’ve done and realize that they will have to pay some kind of reparation at the very least.

Hamas is not Palestine and Palestine is not Hamas.

The victims of genocide, apartheid, occupation do not have the same level of culpability as the perpetrators. And it’s not the current right wing government that’s to blame, sorry. It is the whole edifice that the Israelis have built of occupation, apartheid, and now genocide.

You want a moderate palestinian leader? He exists. His name is Marwan Barghouti. And it’s not Hamas that has “done their own thing”. He’s in an Israeli jail, with that worm Ben Gvir torturing him.

And if 50 years seems like a long time to you, and that they should just grow up and accept the fait accompli of the occupation and the defeat, well sorry but that says more about you. I know nothing about you but I wouldn’t be surprised if you come from a cultural background that doesn’t have a history of resistance and struggle for freedom. My Greek ancestors were occupied for 400 years. The Irish for 800. Warmongering? Wars for freedom are just wars. Peace is not the absence of war, it is the presence of justice. No justice? No peace. As simple as that.

So yea, I’m going to take a side.

Sure. He’s writing a book: https://www.tadstoermer.com/

This isn’t 2005, where things are either newspapers or blogs. Welcome to 2025, where entirely online media organizations exist.

What You Can Do Right Now to Prepare for Resistance | Microresistance and Readiness (from 5 months ago)

Has A New “Long, Twilight Struggle” Begun? The End of World War II History (from 2 weeks ago)

Read the article. It is about what to do AFTER the protest.

The No Kings demonstrations cultivate a sense of solidarity. They embolden people. They show that there is a base of opposition to this sickening president and his sordid agenda. But at the end of the day, the right has to be thrown out of power. In states like Louisiana and Florida, that means working to end right-wing rule in the state government. In blue state cities, that means electing city officials who are going to effectively resist Trump’s meddling rather than rolling over or staying silent. Around the country, it means people with progressive values need to start running for office themselves. But wherever you are, it means taking the next step beyond carrying signs, and strategizing to take back power and enact more just and humane policies.

Look back in the history of the US. Specifically how the abolitionists in the Northern States resisted the Slave Republic that your founding daddies built up until your civil war. They gradually installed state governments that started putting in place state laws that resisted in practice the federal mandates to protect slavery. Things like the personal liberty laws. That’s your next move here: use municipalities and state governments and legislatures to pass laws that resist the enshittification of your democracy and get your local police to enforce them. Take power and use it. That’s what the article is trying to say too.

You got to go beyond protesting. Protesting is asking state power to do something. You got to take power wherever you can and resist, i.e., attach a cost to every authoritarian move. But to do that you need to let go the founding daddy issues and embrace the spirit of John Brown, Frederick Douglass, King, and X, i.e., stop revering the framework built by a bunch of white supremacist slavers and get to framing your own free multiracial democratic Republic.

Time bandits even!