• Does Being ’Zionist Feminist’ Mean Betraying Women for Israel? - Tikun Olam תיקון עולם

    Rasmea Odeh participates in Detroit Black Lives Matter rally

    March 16, 2017 by Richard Silverstein Leave a Comment

    Yesterday, I wrote a critique of Emily Shire’s diatribe against the Women’s Strike Day USA protest. She especially singled out platform statements supporting Palestinian rights. Shire, a professed Zionist feminist, dismissed the criticisms of Israeli Occupation contained in the event platform as irrelevant to the issue of women’s rights. Then she launched into an attack on one of the conveners of the Strike Day, Rasmea Odeh. Shire alleges that Odeh is a convicted terrorist and former member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a U.S. designated terror group.

    A comment Deir Yassin published yesterday here got me to thinking further about this issue. I researched Rasmea’s case and the torture she endured. My view is this is precisely the sort of case and individual any women’s movement should embrace. Here is a summary of the facts of the case. In 1969, a cell of the PFLP planted bombs at a Jerusalem Super-Sol. They exploded, killing two Hebrew University students.
    shin bet torture

    Afterward, security forces arrested Odeh and jailed her without charges or access to counsel. She was tortured, by her account, for 45 days. Here is how she described her treatment in testimony to a UN commission on torture in Geneva:

    …”They beat me with sticks, plastic sticks, and with a metal bar. They beat me on the head and I fainted as a result of these beatings. They woke me up several times by throwing cold water in my face and then started all over again.”

    In addition to this physical torture, Odeh also faced sexual torture. Her father, a U.S. citizen, was also arrested and beaten, “and once they brought in my father and tried to force him under blows to take off his clothes and have sexual relations with me.” Later, interrogators “tore my clothes off me while my hands were still tied behind my back. They threw me to the ground completely naked and the room was full of a dozen or so interrogators and soldiers who looked at me and laughed sarcastically as if they were looking at a comedy or a film. Obviously they started touching my body.” In her father’s presence, interrogators threatened to “violate me” and “tried to introduce a stick to break my maidenhead [hymen].” Shackled naked from the ceiling, interrogators “tied my legs, which were spread-eagled, and they started to beat me with their hands and also with cudgels.”

    Every method described in her account is known from previous descriptions of the treatment of Arab terror suspects. We know, for example, that Doron Zahavi, an IDF AMAN officer, raped Mustafa Dirani in Prison 504. The beatings and positions she describes are also previously described in testimony by the Public Committee to Prevent Torture in Israel. Therefore, it’s not just conceivable that Rasmea endured the treatment she claims, it’s almost a certainty. Especially given that two Israelis were killed in the bombing.

    In summary, the Shin Bet tried to force her father to rape her. The interrogators themselves raped her and further degraded her sexually. And her father was tortured as a means of compelling her to confess. If this isn’t a perfect portrait of a cause that all feminists should embrace, I don’t know what is. So when Shire claims that Palestine is the farthest thing from what Women’s Strike Day’s mission should be, she’s engaging in willful blindness to the plight of another woman. A woman who happens to be Palestinian.

    Rasmea was tried and convicted in an Israeli military court, which features military judges and prosecutors using rules that favor the prosecution and shackle the hands of the defense. It can rule any evidence secret and so prevent the defense from seeing it, let alone rebutting it. Such a conviction could never withstand scrutiny under U.S. criminal procedures or even Israeli civilian courts.

    Further, Shire justifies her denunciation of Odeh by noting that Israel denies torturing Rasmea. So you have an Israeli security apparatus which is well-known for lying when evidence against it is damning. And you have Rasmea’s testimony, supported by scores of accounts by other security prisoners as to their treatment under similar circumstances. It reminds me of the story of the husband who returns home to find his wife in bed with another man. The man jumps out of bed and says: “Hey, this isn’t what this looks like. Nothing happened. I swear it. Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lyin’ eyes?” Emily Shire prefers to believe the agency that lies to her with a straight face. In doing so, she shows that she is a Zionist first and foremost; and a feminist second, if at all.

    As for the citizenship application infractions which the Justice Department is exploiting in order to expel her from the U.S.: she had been tortured once by Israel. Her decision to hide her previous conviction was surely founded on a fear that she might be deported once again back to Israel or Jordan (where Israel had sent her after her release from prison). The Jordanian security apparatus collaborates closely with Israeli intelligence. The former is quite handy with torture itself. Further, the U.S. judge in her first trial prohibited her attorney from raising torture as part of her defense. Her second trial will explicitly permit such testimony. Though I’m not privy to the defense strategy, I hope it will demand that a Shabak officer who participated in her interrogation testify at trial. And if his testimony diverges from the truth, I hope there is means to document this and hold him accountable. It would be one of the first times such an agent would be held accountable legally either inside or outside Israel.

    In the attacks against Rasmea, it’s certainly reasonable to bring up her participation in an act of terrorism: as long as you also examine the entire case against her. She admitted participation in the attack. But she denied placing the bomb in the supermarket. Despite her denial, this was the crime for which she was convicted. Further, Rasmea was released after serving ten years as part of a prisoner exchange. If Israel saw fit to release her, what is the point of using her alleged past crime against her today?

    As for her membership in a terror organization, she has long since left the militant movement. Her civic activism is solely non-violent these days. Further, virtually every leader of Israel for the first few decades of its existence either participated directly in, or ordered acts of terror against either British or Palestinian targets. Why do we grant to Israel what we deny to Palestinians?

    It may be no accident that two days before Shire’s broadside against the U.S. feminist movement (and Rasmea) in the NY Times, the Chicago Tribune published another hit-piece against her. The latter was credited to a retired Chicago professor. Her bio neglected to mention that she is also a Breitbart contributor who is the local coördinator for StandWithUs. This sin of omission attests either to editorial slacking or a deliberate attempt to conceal relevant biographical details which would permit readers to judge the content of the op-ed in proper context.

    The Tribune op-ed denounces Jewish Voice for Peace’s invitation to Rasmea to address its annual conference in Chicago later this month. As I wrote in last night’s post, what truly irks the Israel Lobby is the growing sense of solidarity among feminist, Jewish, Palestinian, Black and LGBT human rights organizations. Its response is to divide by sowing fear, doubt and lies in the media. The two op-eds in the Times and Tribute are stellar examples of the genre and indicate a coordinated campaign against what they deride as intersectionality.

    #Palestine #femmes #résistance #zionisme

  • Report: Russia behind disruptions in Ben Gurion GPS systems - Israel National News

    The Airports Authority announced yesterday that for three weeks pilots trying to land at Ben-Gurion Airport have been encountering mysterious disruptions in the aircraft’s navigation system.

    Galei Tzahal revealed that senior officials involved in the affair estimate that the reason for these disruptions is a hostile attack by Russia. It was also revealed that as part of the attempts to resolve the issue, a senior Israeli defense official is currently in Europe, where he met with American officials to discuss, among other things, the issue of the disruptions.

    The Airports Authority stated in connection with the disruptions: “As a result of the disturbances, some of the entry procedures for landing have been modified, via the safest and most professional medium at airports around the world (the ILS system) and in Israel, in particular. Ben Gurion Airport supervisors constantly carry out full escort of the aircraft taking off and landing, and at no stage was there a safety incident related to GPS interference in connection with the accuracy of navigation and flight routes.”

    It also noted that “From the first day that the disturbance appeared, officials in Israel have been working to solve the problem and find the source of the problem.”

    The IDF said: “This is an incident in the civilian arena, which the IDF is assisting with technological means, in order to allow freedom of action in the airspace of the State of Israel. At this point in time, this incident does not affect the IDF’s activity. The IDF is constantly working to preserve freedom of action and optimal operations across the spectrum.”

    #israël #russie #pirates_de_l'air

  • Les plantes franciliennes n’ont plus de secrets - Journal de l’environnement,98140

    L’application pour smartphones Florif a été lancée, ce 20 juin, par l’agence régionale de la biodiversité d’Ile-de-France (ARB-IDF). Elle permet d’identifier 1.600 plantes vasculaires en quelques clics.


    Le 31 mai, le Procureur de Paris, Rémy HEITZ donnait une interview au quotidien Le Parisien au cours de laquelle il s’exprimait sur les actes violents recensés au cours de la répression des mouvements sociaux du type « gilets jaunes ».

    Ainsi, il annonçait : « Je veux être très clair : il n’y a aucune volonté de ma part d’éluder les violences

    ou de les minimiser. […] Toutes les procédures vont être analysées avec beaucoup d’attention. Il y aura des classements sans suite. Il y aura aussi des renvois de policiers devant le tribunal correctionnel d’ici à la fin de l’année. »

    Cette annonce semble avoir surpris bon nombre de policiers malgré le fait que ces derniers soient rompus à la pratique de la convocation à la barre des tribunaux, du fait de leurs actions de service.

    Face à cette situation, la CGT-Police plutôt sereine, devant la mise en place d’enquêtes destinées à connaître le déroulement des faits ayant conduits à des blessures de part et d’autre, dans le rang des manifestants comme celui des forces de police, s’interroge devant l’attitude de certains syndicats professionnels qui diffusent de manière à peine voilée un climat menaçant à l’endroit des acteurs de justice.

    En matière de justice pénale, le policier ne bénéficie pas d’un régime spécial. Dans le contexte, ce dernier est responsable des conséquences de ses actes quelques soient les conditions dans lesquelles ils ont été commis ( unité constituée et légitime défense).

    La situation dans laquelle nos collègues se sont retrouvés est le fruit de l’incapacité des donneurs d’ordre, englués dans la panique générée par les réactions suscitées par la politique anti-sociale du gouvernement et les enquêtes devrait mettre cet état de fait en évidence.

    Ce qui veut dire que la justice doit passer ! Elle devra faire la lumière sur les conditions dans lesquelles un usage disproportionné de la force aurait pu naître. Nous sommes convaincus que les actes mis en lumière proviennent d’ordres reçus et appliqués de manière parfois trop rapide.

    Seul le magistrat indépendant pourra déterminer les circonstances et la nature des faits. Donc l’enquête et ses suites ne surprend pas . Elle doit être conduite dans les règles en respectant la présomption d’innocence, la confidentialité et surtout aller jusqu’au bout afin de mettre en lumière la responsabilité des donneurs d’ordres. La CGT y veillera et sera particulièrement attentive.

    Si nous demandons que les agents concernés bénéficient de la protection fonctionnelle, nous insistons aussi sur la nécessité d’entendre les enregistrements des bandes sonores du trafic radio entre les acteurs de terrain et les donneurs d’ordres abrités derrières leurs pupitres.

    Celles-ci pourraient livrer bon nombre d’informations, notamment sur l’incitation à la répression forte du mouvement.


  • Cip- Idf - SE DÉFENDRE contre les agressions sexuelles et...

    SE DÉFENDRE contre les agressions sexuelles et sexistes.
    Présentation de la commission sorcières de la CIP-IDF à l’attention des militant.e.s, sympathisant.e.s et autres concerné.e.s
    Cet hiver 2018/19, une réunion a été proposée au sein de la CIP-IDF pour parler des problèmes de violences sexistes et sexuelles au sein du mouvement des intermittent.e.s et précaires. Certain.e.s militant.e.s ont annoncé ne plus vouloir lutter aux côtés d’agresseurs et de leurs dé Pourquoi les agressé.e.s devraient-ils/elles toujours s’effacer et laisser la place aux ?
    Lors de cette réunion, une femme membre de la CIP a témoigné d’un viol qu’elle a subi en 2014. L’agresseur et ses dé – participant.e.s au mouvement – n’ayant pas été convié.e.s, la victime a pu s’exprimer avec un maximum de liberté.
    Ce témoignage a soulevé beaucoup de questions, personnelles et collectives, sur nos implications et nos aveuglements, sur ce que nous avions vécu, sur ce que chacun.e pouvait ou devait porter, sur la domination sexiste et autoritaire. S’affirmait ainsi la volonté d’un engagement féministe/antisexiste plus assumé au sein de la CIP. Les discussions ont abouti à la nécessité qu’une commission travaille sur les violences sexistes et sexuelles dans les milieux artistique et militant.
    Depuis janvier, cette commission qui a adopté le principe fondamental de garder une bienveillance et de l’empathie à chaque étape se réunit sur :
    – La réception de la parole de la/des victime.s et des personnes touchées de près, ainsi que de ce que cela implique pour les personnes qui reçoivent cette parole. Dans un contexte où la parole se libère peu à peu – et peu à peu, en l’occurrence, ce ne sera jamais assez –, le terme de « viol » n’est admis que dans une acception extrêmement restreinte, qui ne permet pas aux victimes d’être entendues pleinement. Le sujet peut réveiller du vécu, des projections personnelles intimes, en tant qu’ ou agressé.e, amenant parfois beaucoup de violence dans les réactions et les échanges à ce sujet. Ces sujets cristallisent des positions divergentes, des tensions et des incompréhensions qu’il faut prendre en compte.
    – Notre propre fonctionnement. Au sein de la CIP comme de tout autre groupe, pourquoi ne savons-nous pas empêcher les comportements violents ? Pourquoi refusons-nous de voir, négligeons-nous de réagir, acceptons-nous sans prendre conscience du risque ? Comment intériorisons-nous ces comportements sexistes et autoritaires ? Quelle est l’implication collective et individuelle de chacun.e dans les réseaux de complicité ? Comment interroger/déconstruire nos fonctionnements collectifs et individuels ? Comment prévenir un processus d’emprise, d’intimidation, sur soi-même ou autrui, et ne plus permettre la mise en place de telles dominations ?
    – Les moyens d’action collectifs et individuels. Comment relancer la lutte sereinement et de façon sécurisante pour tou.te.s ? Comment éviter d’autres victimes potentielles ? Comment signaler et prévenir des comportements violents : que peut-on « se permettre » de dire, de faire ? Comment dire, réagir, agir, être entendu.e ? Que faire de l’agresseur et de ses dé ? Qu’en est-il de l’implication au quotidien, des liens avec des « compagnons » de lutte ou de travail, des liens d’amitié ? Comment y faire face ? Avec qui accepte-t-on de lutter ?
    Exclure ces agresseurs, c’est prendre le risque de les renvoyer à des personnes ou des groupes qui ne savent pas ce qu’ils sont. On ne peut pas les exclure de tout mais on ne luttera/s’organisera plus avec eux.
    L’objectif de la commission sorcières est de s’ouvrir à d’autres et d’élargir ses champs de réflexion et d’action sur ces sujets.
    Pour l’instant, la CIP-IDF a décidé :
    – la désinscription de l’agresseur initialement évoqué, ainsi que des salarié.e.s de la compagnie de théâtre dans laquelle il travaille et qui le soutiennent, de la liste mail qui réunit les membres des différentes commissions composant la CIP. La réflexion ne pouvait se mener sereinement sous la pression de l’agresseur et de ses collègues niant la gravité des faits au point de pousser hors de leur compagnie toutes personnes ayant une parole dissonante ;
    – d’essayer de mettre en place une « veille anti-relous » lors des AG et actions où la CIP est présente, avec une prise de parole préventive au début et une vigilance en cours de route ;
    – d’entretenir un lien avec le collectif La Permanence, qui dénonce les violences sexistes, sexuelles et racistes dans le milieu de la danse afin d’« assurer une vigilance contre les discriminations dans le milieu chorégraphique ».
    Travailler sur cette question et gérer ce genre de situation est délicat et demande du temps. L’agression à l’origine de la création de cette commission continue de nous paralyser aussi bien dans la réflexion que dans l’action. Il nous semble indispensable de chercher des réponses adéquates et d’expérimenter des méthodologies car il y a des dégâts à éviter.
    Qu’est ce qu’on fait quand, pour un viol, il n’y a ni plainte, ni jugement, ni réparation ? Quand on est dans l’incapacité, parce que peu nombreux, d’assurer un service de sécurité, ou tout au plus de faire de la prévention lors des actions collectives ?
    Oui, on n’a pas de réponse. Mais personne n’en a. On n’est ni juge ni flic. Qu’est-ce qui reste ?
    Plutôt que l’impunité, il va falloir inventer... même si ce ne sont que des bricolages.
    Dans la défense militante, il faudra inclure l’autoéducation, des agresseurs et de tous et toutes, qu’ils trouvent eux-mêmes des solutions à leur masculinité toxique, qu’ils se cassent d’eux-mêmes quand ils empêchent les autres d’être là.
    Ou bien aller leur dire direct pour assumer la situation conflictuelle, leur demander : « Qu’est-ce que tu proposes ? »
    Et s’ils restent, on fait quoi ? Voilà toute la question, qu’est ce qu’on assume comme point de rupture ?
    C’est notre limite. Et là commence l’objet de la commission sorcières.
    Certes, la CIP a plutôt coutume de parler des droits sociaux mais le patriarcat fait partie des outils primordiaux du capitalisme, autant que la précarité et le chômage. Il est l’une des oppressions les plus ancrées, et donc considérées comme « usuelles ». Il s’agit maintenant d’inclure réellement les revendications intersectionnelles à la convergence des luttes.
    Il reste encore beaucoup à faire pour construire des espaces de travail et militants sereins, à la CIP comme ailleurs. Nous voulons participer à cette construction afin que chacun.e aiguise son regard et refuse les comportements sexistes, racistes, classistes et autoritaires, jusqu’à ce que les normes changent et que les rapports de pouvoir et de dominations disparaissent.
    Comme chacun.e doit se décoloniser, chacun.e.s devra se dépatriarcaliser. Un nouveau mot à notre dictionnaire.
    En attendant,
    la commission sorcières invite toute personne à se questionner sur son comportement possiblement sexiste ou autoritaire, ainsi que sur l’acceptation de cette norme dominatrice. Elle invite également les personnes mises en cause à avoir la bonne idée de se mettre en retrait d’elles-mêmes dans les actions collectives, par un mouvement d’autogestion salutaire pour autrui !
    Commission sorcière de la coordination des Intermittents et précaires - dimanche 16 juin 2019


  • Pollution de l’air : l’Etat jugé pour « carence fautive », une première

    Le tribunal administratif de Montreuil examine mardi un recours déposé par une mère et sa fille. Souffrant de problèmes respiratoires, elles réclament 160 000 euros d’indemnisation.

    [...] Le mémoire en défense de la Préfecture de police, de son côté, reporte la faute sur la victime, estimant que le dommage qu’elle a subi est « la conséquence directe et exclusive d’un choix strictement personnel ». A savoir, ne pas avoir quitté une ville polluée [Saint-Ouen (Seine-Saint-Denis)] alors qu’elle savait sa santé fragile. « La requérante n’a pas pris toute diligence pour éviter son préjudice et a laissé son état s’aggraver, sachant que le choix d’habiter la région parisienne lui est exclusivement imputable, faisant en conséquence preuve d’une imprudence caractérisée. »

    Selon la logique des services de l’Etat, la requérante serait coupable de ne pas avoir déménagé. Ce qui se traduit dans le jargon administratif : « Dès lors que [Farida] n’expose aucune circonstance impérieuse à demeurer à #Paris, celle-ci a commis une faute de nature à exonérer l’administration de sa responsabilité. »

    Une argumentation qui laisse pantois Olivier Blond, le président de l’association Respire. « Si on en croit la préfecture, il faudrait donc évacuer les 10 millions d’imprudents qui vivent en Ile-de-France. C’est très inquiétant, venant d’une institution censée nous protéger, commente Olivier Blond. D’un autre côté, c’est un aveu extraordinaire que la #pollution de l’#air fait planer un danger sérieux sur les Franciliens. »

  • Une page oubliée de l’histoire : comment 12 000 volontaires palestiniens se sont battus aux côtés des Britanniques durant la seconde guerre mondiale.

    12,000 Palestinians fought for U.K. in WWII alongside Jewish volunteers, historian finds - Israel News -

    In 2015, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sparked an uproar when he claimed that Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini was the one who’d urged Hitler to annihilate the Jews. In the wake of the criticism this elicited, Netanyahu said his intention was not to absolve Hitler of responsibility for the Holocaust, but to note that “the Mufti played an important role in the Final Solution.”

    But it turns out that there was another side to the story that also escaped mention by Netanyahu, the historian’s son: the forgotten role played by thousands of Palestinians who did not heed the Mufti of Jerusalem’s call to support the Axis countries, and went so far as to take up arms to fight the Nazis, often shoulder to shoulder with young Jews from Mandatory Palestine.

    Professor Mustafa Abbasi, a historian at Tel Hai Academic College, has spent years tracing their story. Having recently published an academic article on the subject, this week he suggested an opposite narrative to the one that Netanyahu put forward. The prime minister had sought to paint the Palestinians as supporters of the Third Reich, but Abbasi says, “The Mufti did not find a receptive audience among the Palestinians for his call to aid the Nazis. Not at all.”

    >> Read more: Moments before their fatal mission, Jewish WWII soldiers took these incredible photos of Egypt ■ 76 years later, stories of Jewish soldiers killed in Nazi bombing can finally be told

    The subject of Abbasi’s research is unusual. Many studies have been published about Jewish volunteerism in the war against the Nazis, which reached a peak with the formation of the Jewish Brigade. But “the thousands of Arab volunteers are hardly mentioned and sometimes the record is often distorted,” Abbasi says.

    In an article in the latest issue of the periodical Cathedra (“Palestinians Fighting the Nazis: The Story of Palestinian Volunteers in World War II”), he explains why these Palestinian fighters have been left out of the history books.

    On the one hand, Zionist historians naturally placed an emphasis on the role played by Jewish volunteers in the fight against the Nazis. On the other hand, their Palestinian counterparts were focusing on the struggle against British rule and were not eager to glorify the names of those who cooperated with Britain not so many years after the British put down the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939, and thereby indirectly helped the Jews establish a state.
    Stay up to date: Sign up to our newsletter

    “Neither side wished to highlight this subject,” says Professor Abbasi. “But I think it’s the historian’s job to be faithful to the sources and to try to describe history as it was, without being hostage to any national narrative that would limit him and prevent him from writing history freely.”
    Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem
    Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, greeting Muslim Waffen-SS volunteers with a Nazi salute, November 1943. Bundesarchiv / Wikimedia Commons

    One has to wonder why no organization was ever established to commemorate the actions of these Palestinian volunteers. “Many of them were killed and many others are still listed as missing. But no memorial has ever been established for them,” says Abbasi. In fact, the records of the Palestinian volunteers, along with much of their personal archives and papers, have disappeared, much of it lost in the War of Independence.

    Over the last few years, Abbasi was able to learn of their story in Palestinian newspapers from the Mandate era, in memoirs and personal journals, and through interviews he conducted with a few of the last remaining volunteers who are still alive. He also collected material from various British archives, from the Zionist Archive, and the archives of the Haganah and the IDF.

    Abbasi estimates that about 12,000 young Palestinians enlisted in the British Army in World War II. Hundreds became POWs, many others (the exact figure is unknown) were killed. “Compared to other peoples, this is not an insignificant number,” he says, and also points out that, unlike other groups, the Palestinians volunteered for the British Army from the first stage of the war.

    Initially, the Palestinian and Jewish volunteers served in mixed units. “They received training and drilled at the same bases and in many instances fought shoulder to shoulder, and were also taken prisoner together,” says Abbasi. And as reported here two years ago, the proximity of the Jewish and Palestinian fighters sometimes led to unusual outcomes, as in the case of Shehab Hadjaj, a Palestinian who enlisted in the British Army, was taken prisoner in Germany and died in 1943. To this day, he is listed at Mount Herzl as “a casualty of Israel’s wars” because someone mistakenly thought his surname indicated that he was Jewish.

    “Relations among the fighters were generally good, and if there was any friction it was mainly over service conditions, like mail and food,” Abbasi says. However, there were certain key differences between the two groups, too. For example, while the Jews were united in their goal of fighting the Nazis to promote the establishment of the Jewish state, the Palestinians “had no clear national agenda,” Abbasi writes. For this reason, unlike the Jews, they did not seek to form separate Palestinian units and there was no “Palestinian Brigade” parallel to the Jewish Brigade, in which thousands of Jews from Mandatory Palestine served.

    So who were the Palestinians who volunteered for the British Army to fight the Nazis? Abbasi says they mostly came from the Palestinian elite and that, contrary to what many think, represented “an important and central part of the Palestinian public.” A part of the public that believed it was necessary to stand by Britain at this time, and to temporarily put aside the Palestinian national aspirations – akin to the Jewish idea to “fight Hitler as if there were no White Paper, and fight the White Paper as if there were no Hitler.”

    They did this at a time when the Mufti of Jerusalem had left Palestine for exile in the Arab countries and Europe, where he met with Hitler and congratulated the Muslim volunteers of the Free Arab Legion – an Arab unit established in the army of Nazi Germany. “He left Palestine for a decade in 1937. What kind of leader abandons his people at such a time?” Abbasi wonders. “He had no influence on the public. He was detached and the public was already tired of him and his methods. They didn’t see him as a leader,” he says. “Anyone who says differently is distorting history,” he adds in a not so subtle dig at certain politicians.

    In his research, he documented pro-British propaganda conferences that were held from 1940 on in Abu Dis (next to Jerusalem), in Jenin, in villages in the Nablus area, in Tul Karm and in Lod. Among the supporters of Britain’s fight against the Nazis were the mayors of Nablus and Gaza. Radio Palestine broadcast the comments of an Egyptian writer who said, “The war is between the lofty and humane values represented by England and the forces of darkness represented by the Nazis.”
    Britain’s then-Home Secretary Winston Churchill, right, escorted by High Commissioner Herbert Samuel in Jerusalem during the British Mandate era, March 1921.
    Britain’s then-Home Secretary Winston Churchill, right, escorted by High Commissioner Herbert Samuel in Jerusalem during the British Mandate era, March 1921.GPO

    Motivations for volunteering were varied. “Some did it for ideological reasons, out of opposition to the Nazi ideology and loyalty to the British and the values that they represented,” says Abbasi. This motivation was common among upper middle class and highly educated Palestinian volunteers from urban backgrounds. Rural Palestinians were motivated largely by financial reasons. “And there were also those who were seeking adventure and wanted a chance to travel abroad,” he says.

    Abbasi found that some Palestinian women also volunteered to fight the Nazis. Almost 120 young women did so as part of the

    Auxiliary Territorial Service, the women’s branch of the British Army, alongside Jewish women. A British recruiting poster in Arabic, published in the Falastin newspaper in January 1942, read: “She couldn’t stop thinking about contribution and sacrifice, she felt ongoing pride and exaltation of spirit – when she did what she saw as her sacred duty for her nation and its sons. When your country is crying out to you and asking for your service, when your country makes it plain that our Arab men need your love and support, and when your country reminds you of how cruel the enemy is – when your country is calling you, can you stand by and do nothing?”

    Abbasi is one of the only researchers in Palestinian society who is studying this area, which was also the subject of a 2015 article by Dalia Karpel in Haaretz Magazine. He came to it thanks to his maternal grandfather, Sa’id Abbasi, who was one of the volunteers in the British Army during the war. “The family didn’t talk about it, until one day when I asked my grandmother why there was such a big age difference between her children,” he says. “Her answer was: ‘Don’t remind me of the time your grandfather left me for so many years.’” Abbasi decided to find out more about that time, and came to see that his family story was part of his people’s history.

    In the future, he hopes, the original material he has collected will be developed into a book that, for the first time, will tell the optimistic story of a rare moment in history in which Jews and Palestinians joined forces for a lofty shared goal.
    Ofer Aderet

    Ofer Aderet

    Haaretz Correspondent

  • Off-duty Israeli Soldier Caught on Video Torching Palestinian Farms– May 28, 2019 11:16 AM - IMEMC News

    Off-duty Israeli Soldier Caught on Video Torching Palestinian Farms
    May 28, 2019 11:16 AM IMEMC News Human rights, Israeli attacks, Israeli Settlement, Nablus, News Report, West Bank 0

    A video released by the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem shows a group of Israeli settlers attacking Palestinian villagers and setting their farms on fire on May 17th – and today, the group managed to identify one of the arsonists in the video as an off-duty Israeli soldier.

    According to B’Tselem, on Friday, 17 May 2019, Israeli paramilitary settlers torched Palestinian farmers’ fields in Burin and ‘Asirah al-Qibliyah. In both villages, the settlers threw stones at the residents’ homes.

    In ‘Asirah al-Qibliyah, where the area is controlled by military watchtowers, a settler even fired shots in the air. Soldiers nearby did not arrest the attackers and prevented the Palestinians from approaching their burning land.

    The Israeli military followed the attack with a public statement containing the absurd and easily disproved claim that Palestinians had started the fires – a version of events that was then unquestioningly repeated by the Israeli and US media.

    The attack took place about a kilometer away from the Giv’at Ronen settlement point, and the Israeli paramilitary settlers involved in the attack apparently came from the settlement of Yitzhar.

    Israeli Army Blamed Palestinians for West Bank Arson, but Settler Soldier Is Behind It
    Yotam Berger - May 27, 2019 12:20 PM

    One of the two settlers filmed setting fire to a field is an Israeli soldier who was on leave at the time ■ IDF initially blamed Palestinians, then admitted soldiers were involved too

    One of the two Jewish settlers caught on video setting West Bank fields on fire last Friday is an Israel Defense Forces soldier, Haaretz has learned.

    The army knows the identity of the settler, who was filmed by Israeli human rights nonprofit organization B’Tselem, and two security sources confirmed the details, saying that the soldier was on leave when the arson took place.

    Selon l’armée, la police israélienne devrait gérer l’incident. La police a déclaré qu’elle n’avait pas encore arrêté le soldat.

  • ضابط إسرائيلي : قمنا باغتيال سمير القنطار في سوريا بمساعدة أحد قادة فصائل المعارضة السورية | رأي اليوم

    Un officier israélien à la retraite déclare sur une chaîne israélienne que l’assassinat de Samir Kountar, proche du Hezbollah, en 2015 à Damas a été rendu possible grâce à des informations d’un « membre de l’opposition syrienne »... On apprend aussi que des commandos israéliens se seraient infiltrés en Syrie en prétextant apporter des soins aux blessés syriens [de l’opposition on suppose].

    #syrie #israël

    • L’original du Jerusalem Post en anglais

      Mossad, Saudi intel officials get along well, says former chief - Arab-Israeli Conflict - Jerusalem Post

      “You can be an enemy when you are walking from the room, but when you are sitting together, you can share your experience, you can talk a lot, and you can deal with many obstacles,” he continued.

      Mossad and Saudi Arabian intelligence agents communicate well, the agency’s former chief indirectly revealed in an interview with Intelligence Matters podcast host and former CIA director Michael Morell Wednesday.

      Discussing the strength of cooperation between agents of different countries’ intelligence agencies, Tamir Pardo started rattling off many of the usual suspects with whom the Mossad cooperates, and then unexpectedly tossed in the Saudis.

      Before talking about the relationship between the CIA and Israel and the United States, even to speak to Arab countries that you don’t have any kind of relation, when you meet people from your profession, it’s so easy, okay?” Pardo said.

      You can be an enemy when you are walking from the room, but when you are sitting together, you can share your experience, you can talk a lot, and you can deal with many obstacles,” he continued.

      Finally, Pardo said that when intelligence agencies “are looking for certain qualities, and whether you’re serving in the CIA, the MI6, or one of any other country, France, Italy, Saudi Arabia, you need the same people, the same qualities. So it’s quite easy… They can fight each other very well, but they can talk and communicate very well.

      In November and December 2017, there was a flurry of rare public confirmation of contacts between Israel and the Saudis by former IDF chief Gadi Eisenkot, minister Yuval Steinitz and then-CIA director Mike Pompeo.

      However, Pardo’s statement dated the Israeli-Saudi intelligence cooperation back to an earlier period, since he served as Mossad director from 2011 until March 2016.

      Furthermore, Pardo’s statement was a much more personal reflection about his dealings with intelligence agents from Saudi Arabia and other countries – implying that Mossad-Saudi dealings are often similar to dealings with traditional allied intelligence agencies.

      Besides cooperation, Pardo reflected on the current tensions between Iran, Israel and the US.

      Asked by Morell if Iran sought “the elimination of the State of Israel,” he replied: “Look, that’s what they are stating, okay? I think that they know that that’s an illusion. Maybe it’s good for their own propaganda, and it might serve us if we want to do a few things, but it’s – come on. When they are facing reality, they will never be able to do it. It doesn’t matter which kind of weapon they’re going to hold.

      The reason, he said, is “because I believe that we know how to defend ourselves. We showed it when we were a very young country, against, let’s say, combined forces from all Arab countries. Now we have peace with some of them, and quite good relations with others. So I think that maybe for them, it’s a dream, but it’s more an illusion than a dream.

      Despite Pardo’s confidence that Iran does not endanger Israel’s existence, he did warn of multiple threats from the Islamic Republic.

      One is the nuclear program,” said the former Mossad chief. “The other [is] their vision that they’re going to have a corridor between Tehran and the Mediterranean Sea. And the third thing is [to] be dominant in many other countries by supporting minorities like they’re doing in Yemen, like they did in South America, in certain places in Africa.

      Pardo also told Morell that cyberattacks pose a major concern.

      I believe it’s the biggest threat that the free world, our planet, is dealing with these days,” the spy chief said. “You can compare it to a nuclear threat that we used to see during the Cold War days.

  • Israeli Soldiers Shot Bound Palestinian Teen Because Live Fire Is Their Only Language- Haaretz.Com

    Two photographs tell the whole story, of about 2,000 words. In the first you see the Israeli commando soldier, armed and protected from head to toe, his face hidden, standing above a hooded mass. The obscure sight is Palestinian teen Osama Hajajeh from Tuqu village, 15 and a half years old, who was arrested a short while beforehand by Israeli soldiers in an ambush. The teen’s hands are tied behind his back, his eyes are covered with a piece of flannel, he is kneeling under orders on the ground, his face down, his back bent over as a soldier from an elite unit of the Israeli Defense Forces points a sophisticated sniper’s rifle at him.

    This is the #grotesque face of military action. All the training, all the equipment, all the prestige of a commando unit lead to a school boy, blindfolded and bound. A commando soldier facing a punk from Tuqu. That’s the booty. The Israeli military’s daily picture of victory.

    The suspicion: the youth from Tuqu threw stones at passing vehicles. If he were a settler teen, he would be chasing the soldiers away, throwing stones and cursing at them. The story would be over. But Hajajeh is a Palestinian teen. The main street leading to his village has been blocked lately, and not long ago a woman from his village was killed in a hit and run by an Israeli vehicle. His village decided to protest. The stone is his protest. The occupier is his enemy.

    The second photograph is much more grotesque than the first. The youth whose hands are tied behind his back, his eyes covered, somehow succeeds in getting up and fleeing from the Israeli commando forces. At least four armed soldiers surround him. They stand at point blank range, stretch out their arms to grab him, or catch him, if that was their intention. But IDF soldiers know to speak only one language. There is none other. The language of gunfire. Live gunfire, to be precise. Whether it’s a suicide bomber or a high school student throwing stones, only their gun can speak. Without it, there’s no other language. That’s how they were taught. That’s how they were trained. They no longer have the ability to discern right from wrong, war from antics. To grab a tied up teen with their hands and arrest him? That’s for the weak. And why should they even break a sweat? So they shoot the tied-up youth, whose eyes are covered, from point blank range, with live fire, straight at his crotch. The teen falls down, bleeding. The IDF has won.

    This picture can only raise much deeper questions: Who’s the blind one here? The teen whose eyes are covered by a rag or the soldiers whose eyes are open? And more than that, who’s the brave one and who’s a coward? The blindfolded and bound teen who tried to flee facing the ready rifles of commando troops, or the soldiers who shot him? It’s not hard to guess who the cowards are in this picture.

    And then comes a surprising turn of events, unexpected and unusual. A voice of reason awakens in the soldiers’ minds. They let the angry residents who gather around to take the wounded, bleeding teen to the hospital, to save his life. In one moment the soldiers rescue their nearly-lost honor. They treat the teen the same way as the officer from the Ahed Tamimi case did, wiser than the chain of command both above and below: He exercised restraint after Tamimi’s slap and showed strength and wisdom. Now it’s the commando troops’ turn to show restraint. The right-wing will of course scream and shout, “you’re not letting the IDF win,” but at least this farce ended almost okay. Good job, IDF.

    #sionisme #impunité #lâcheté

  • Settlers ’executed’ a Palestinian, and the Israeli army covered it up, rights group reports - Israel News -

    Abed al-Muneim Abdel Fattah. Explained repeatedly to investigators that his son had no family or other problems and was never active in any group. Credit : Alex Levac

    It’s a very busy traffic circle on Highway 60, the major route in the West Bank, between the Hawara checkpoint and the Tapuah settlement intersection, not far from Nablus. As you drive toward the spot, which the Palestinians call Beita Circle and the settlers call Beitot Circle, garbage is piled up along the roadside. This is the industrial zone of the town of Hawara, where there is no industry other than garages and workers’ restaurants that look out onto the highway.

    On April 3, three men, all of them on the way to work, arrived at the traffic circle separately. Only two of them left the site alive. The third was shot to death. The B’Tselem Israeli human rights organization asserted this week that the shooting was an execution and that the Israel Defense Forces destroyed evidence and whitewashed the findings.

    It all happened in a flash. A little before 8:30 A.M., Mohammed Abdel Fattah arrived at the circle. He was 23 years old, married and the father of 7-month-old daughter, on the way from his apartment in his uncle’s house in the village of Beita to his job at the uncle’s brick factory in the village of Jama’in. He had apparently been traveling in a shared taxi. Eyewitnesses saw him standing by the side of the road and smoking two cigarettes, one after the other. What was going on in his mind? What was he planning? What made him act? We are unlikely to know.

    He then crossed the road, to the west. He stood on the shoulder, within touching distance of the vehicles proceeding from north to south, a few meters from the circle, where traffic has to slow down. The road was very busy at that time of the morning. He threw two or three stones, not very big ones, at passing cars, hitting no one.

    Even a visit to the home of Mohammed’s family did not provide an explanation for why he threw the stones. He was not a teenager and had never been arrested. He was married with a child, had a steady job and was on the way to work. A few days earlier he’d been to Israel for the first time in his life; together with his wife he visited Jerusalem and they later ate fish at a restaurant in Jaffa. Perhaps that trip holds the key to what drove the young married father to throw stones or try to stab a settler that morning.

    One of the cars he’d thrown a stone at stopped. It was a white Renault with a blue poster of the Union of Right-Wing Parties displayed in the rear window. The driver was Yehoshua Sherman, from the settlement of Elon Moreh, who was working as a field director for the Union of Right-Wing Parties during the election campaign, which had then entered its final week. A blurry video clip from a security camera shows Sherman’s car, which had been traveling from north to south, stopping. Fifteen seconds later, Sherman gets out of the car and apparently shoots Mohammed Abdel Fattah, who’s seen kneeling behind the vehicle. We don’t know what happened in those 15 seconds – the car blocks the view.

    In the meantime a truck with Israeli plates also stops and the driver gets out. B’Tselem field researchers Salma a-Deb’i and Abdulkarim Sadi cite witnesses as saying that they heard two shots. They think Sherman fired them before leaving his car. Abdel Fattah apparently tried to seek refuge behind a dumpster, which this week was still there, overflowing with refuse, at the edge of the road. A second video clip shows him lying on the road on his stomach, and being turned over onto his back by soldiers trying to ascertain if he was carrying explosives.

    According to the testimonies B’Tselem took from four people, who all saw similar things, the two drivers fired a number of shots from close range even after Abdel Fattah lay wounded on the ground. B’Tselem also claims the Israel Defense Forces deleted footage from security cameras in the area of the shooting of the wounded man. Israeli media reported that “a Palestinian terrorist was shot and subdued by two drivers after trying to stab a father and his daughter near Hawara, south of Nablus.”

    From the B’Tselem report, on its website: “At that point, Abdel Fattah was crouching among the dumpsters. Sherman approached him and fired several more shots at him. A truck driving along the road also stopped, and the driver got out. He came over to stand next to Sherman, and the two men fired several more shots at Abdel Fattah, who was lying wounded on the ground… Abdel Fattah succumbed to his wounds a short while later, at Beilinson Hospital in Israel.”

    One of the shots hit Khaled Hawajba, a young man who works in a nearby store, in the abdomen. He was treated in Rafidiya Hospital in Nablus and discharged a few days later.

    Minutes after the shooting by the two settlers, military jeeps arrived at the scene. The soldiers used stun grenades to disperse the crowd that had begun to gather at the site. According to B’Tselem, immediately afterward a group of about eight soldiers entered two of the nearby businesses to check their security cameras. They dismantled a digital video recorder in one of the stores and left. About 20 minutes later, the soldiers returned to the store, reinstalled the DVR and watched the footage.

    “Two soldiers filmed the screen with their mobile phones. They then erased the footage from the DVR and left,” the B’Tselem report states.

    In one of the clips that was uploaded to social networks in Israel, the photographer can be heard saying in Hebrew: “The terrorist tried to jump onto the Jew’s car and stab him. Our heroic soldiers eliminated him, may his name be blotted out. There are no casualties.”

    After the incident, Sherman told Srugim, a website that calls itself “the home site of the religious sector”: “At Beitot junction a terrorist with a knife jumped on the car and tried to open the door. I got out and as the terrorist tried to go around the car in my direction I subdued him with gunfire with the aid of another resident of a nearby settlement who was driving behind me.”

    The media reported that Sherman’s daughter was in the back seat; the allegation was that Abdel Fattah tried to open the car door and stab her. In the clip B’Tselem attached to its report, her father is seen moving relatively coolly toward the young man who is hiding behind the car. What happened there?

    The human rights group is convinced, on the basis of the accounts it collected, that the shooting continued from close range as the wounded man lay on the ground. Moreover, B’Tselem believes that the two drivers shot Abdel Fattah with no justification, after he had moved away from the car and was kneeling behind the dumpster. According to the organization, the security forces who arrived at the scene made no attempt to arrest the two settlers, quickly dispersed the Palestinians and then proceeded to go to the stores and delete the documentation of the event “to ensure that the truth never comes to light and the shooters would not face any charges or be held accountable in any way.”

    It was reported this week that the Samaria Regional Council has decided to award citations to the two settler-shooters.

    The IDF Spokesperson’s Unit this week sent Haaretz this response: “On April 3, 2019 there was an attempted stabbing attack at the Beitot junction, which is [within the purview of] the Samaria Division of the IDF Central Command. The terrorist was shot by citizens and subdued after he threw stones at Israeli cars and then approached one of the cars in order to perpetrate a stabbing attack in the area. At the site of the incident a knife used by the terrorist was found. We would like to point out that the cameras that were dismantled by the security forces as part of their investigation of the incident were returned to their owners. The incident is under investigation.”

    Khirbet Qeis. A small village below the town of Salfit, in the central West Bank, where Abdel Fattah’s parents live. His father, Abed al-Muneim Abdel Fattah, 50, is a night watchman in Ramallah, who has five other children in addition to Mohammed. The house is well kept. Mohammed, the eldest, completed high school, but “regrettably,” his father says, he did not pursue his studies and went to work. In October 2017, he married his cousin, Rada Awadala, from the village of Ein Ariq, near Ramallah, and their daughter Jawan was born last fall. They visited every second Friday, rotating weekends between Rada’s parents in Ein Ariq and Mohammed’s in Khirbet Qeis.

    On the last Friday of Mohammed’s life they were at the home of his in-laws. The next day, when he and Rada went on an organized tour to Jerusalem and Jaffa, they left Jawan with her maternal grandparents. When they got back, Rada went to her parents’ home to collect the baby and stayed there for a few days. Mohammed remained alone in their apartment in Beita, close to his place of work.

    Mohammed’s father was on the job in Ramallah the day his son died. A relative called to inform him that Mohammed had been wounded. Shortly afterward, a Shin Bet security service agent called and ordered him to come to the IDF base at Hawara, Abed tells us now. The agent informed him that his son had tried to stab a soldier and afterward corrected himself to say that his son had thrown stones. The father replied that it was unimaginable for his son to have done that.

    Abed was asked in his interrogation whether Mohammed had been active in any sort of movement, whether anyone had tried to persuade him to throw stones or carry out a stabbing attack, whether he suffered from mental problems or problems at home or at work, or whether perhaps he’d quarreled with his wife. The father replied that his son had no family or other problems and was never active in any group. The interrogator repeated the questions twice, then a third time.

    At this point Abed still didn’t yet know that his son was dead. The Shin Bet agent said he’d been wounded and taken to Beilinson Hospital in Petah Tikva. He recommended that Abed get in touch with the Palestinian District Coordination and Liaison Office to arrange an entry permit to visit his son in Israel. Finally the agent said to the father, “From now on, you and your children are under surveillance. Dir balak [Watch your step]. Take this as a warning, as a red light. Anyone who lifts his head – we’ll cut it off.”

    Abed was at the base in Hawara for nearly three hours. By the time he got home, almost the whole village had gathered next to his house, and he understood that his son was dead. The social networks said he had been killed by settlers.

    Why was he throwing stones, we asked. Abed: “I don’t believe he did anything like that. He was on the way to work. But even if he did, sometimes the settlers provoke people who are standing on the road, spit at them or curse them or try to run them over. Even if he threw stones, by then he wasn’t endangering anyone. After all, the law says that it’s forbidden to shoot someone who is lying on the ground. Arrest him. But why did you kill him?”

    Israel has not yet returned Mohammed Abdel Fattah’s body; all the family’s efforts to claim it have been rebuffed. His grave has already been dug in the village’s small cemetery. There’s a mound of earth there now, but the grave is empty.

  • Actions pour le droit au chômage à Auch, Lille, Noisy-le-Grand (93) et Toulouse - CIP-IDF

    Après diverses initiatives de lutte dans l’hexagone [1], l’interpellation de la ministre du travail [2] et d’autres actions, de nouvelles actions ont eu lieu ce jeudi 28 mars à Auch, Lille, Toulouse et Noisy-le-Grand (93).

    Nous exigeons l’abrogation du décret du 30 décembre [3] qui
     planifie les radiations et les sanctions à l’encontre des chômeurs et précaires
     va fabriquer de nouveaux chômeurs privés d’allocation
     détruit la mission d’accompagnement de Pôle Emploi au profit de missions de contrôle et sanctions

    À la direction régionale IdF de Pôle emploi

    #chômeurs #droit_au_chômage #luttes sociales #occupation

  • Retour sur l’envahissement de la plateforme de contrôle des chômeurs de Rennes, et ses suites - Plutôt chômeur que contrôleur

    Le vendredi 15 février, répondant à l’appel public du Collectif contre la réforme chômage, une cinquantaine de personnes a envahi une plateforme de pôle emploi à Rennes. C’est dans ce lieu que travaillent les agents spécialisés dans le contrôle des chômeurs, autrement dit les agents qui sont amenés à mettre concrètement en œuvre les nouvelles sanctions à l’encontre de ces derniers. Le nombre de ces contrôleurs doit passer de 215 à 1000 au niveau national d’ici la fin de l’année. Depuis que la « loi pour la liberté de choisir son avenir professionnel » est passée en septembre 2018, un ensemble d’actions a lieu partout en France, s’inscrivant dans le rapport de force de grande ampleur face à la vie chère qui prend notamment place au travers du mouvement des gilets jaunes.
    Le rythme s’est accéléré après la publication du décret du 30 décembre : envahissement d’une plateforme de contrôle à Andrézieux (près de Lyon et Saint-Étienne) le 30 janvier, à Rennes le 15 février, à Paris le 22 et occupation d’une agence pôle emploi à Toulouse le même jour. Depuis ses débuts le collectif rennais est un espace public ouvert qui tient des réunions hebdomadaires, intervient chaque semaine dans l’AG des gilets jaunes et qui a mené nombre d’actions : diffusion de tracts au pôle emploi, CAF et entreprises, réunions publiques sur le contenu de la réforme, occupation de la direction régionale de pôle emploi, CAF et conseil départemental.

    Une semaine après l’action du 15 février, plusieurs articles publiés par les médias locaux (Ouest-France et Télégramme) dont la source est manifestement policière, viennent jouer les auxiliaires de justice par un discours à charge digne d’un procureur. Le vocabulaire utilisé, parlant de « commando » pour désigner les personnes ayant répondu à l’appel du collectif, et de « saccage » pour décrire un envahissement, correspond bien à cette logique de judiciarisation et criminalisation des pratiques de lutte. Dans un communiqué condamnant cette action la CGT Pôle emploi Bretagne renforce cette logique.

    Les actions d’occupation, d’envahissement, de déménagement sont des modalités habituelles de conflits et mouvements sociaux (on peut se rappeler par exemple du déménagement des locaux du Medef à Rennes pendant le mouvement contre la loi travail en 2016). De façon plus spécifique la question de l’occupation et de l’envahissement de Pôle emploi, des administrations et des institutions en charge des chômeurs, précaires et intérimaires est l’une des seules armes dont dispose ces exploités sans lieu de travail. Comment faire grève par exemple quand on ne travaille que sur des missions d’une ou deux semaines ? Comment les livreurs à vélo (travailleurs non-garantis dont le statut est celui « d’auto-entrepreneur ») peuvent-ils s’organiser collectivement contre leur boîte ? Comment des inscrits à Pôle emploi peuvent-ils ne serait-ce que se rencontrer quand les agences ferment de plus en plus souvent et sont désertées du fait de la dématérialisation ?

    L’offensive portée contre le collectif n’est pas isolée, elle s’inscrit dans une dynamique plus large visant les blocages, actions et manifestations notamment des gilets jaunes. Le discours gouvernemental qui désigne tous les participants à des manifs non déclarées comme « casseurs » potentiels va de pair avec les milliers d’arrestations, de poursuites judiciaires et les centaines d’incarcérations. Cette répression attaque la lutte en isolant et divisant ses participants, et cherche à entraver les pratiques qui débordent. Par exemple à Rennes, les récentes descentes du RAID, perquisitions suivies d’arrestations de deux camarades, et le discours journalistique qui l’accompagne, ont pour objectif de provoquer stupeur et effroi dans le mouvement et chez tous ceux qui veulent participer aux luttes actuelles.

    #chômage #chômeurs #contrôle_des_chômeurs #occupation #criminalisation

  • Élections israéliennes : une compétition entre criminels de guerre
    par Ramona Wadi - 14 mars 2019 – Middle East Monitor – Traduction : Chronique de Palestine– MJB

    Au cours des passes d’armes entre les candidats aux élections, l’ancien chef de l’IDF Benny Gantz a déclaré qu’il appliquerait la politique israélienne d’assassinats ciblés contre les dirigeants du Hamas s’il était élu, et si nécessaire.

    Ses commentaires visaient à contrer les remarques de Naftali Bennett, ministre de l’Éducation, au sujet de « l’opération Bordure Protectrice » en 2014, dans lesquels ce dernier a utilisé des propos désobligeants pour critiquer les décisions de Gantz qui, selon Bennett, mettaient en danger la vie des soldats israéliens. Bennett a avancé que Gantz serait l’option préférée du Hamas à la tête du gouvernement israélien. Cette affirmation est également soutenue par le Premier ministre israélien Benjamin Netanyahu, qui a déclaré que le parti de Gantz ferait « des concessions importantes aux Palestiniens ».

    Gantz et Netanyahu se concentrent de plus en plus sur Gaza dans leur campagne électorale, « l’opération Bordure Protectrice » et la Grande Marche du Retour servant de base à leurs arguments. Gantz, qui était aux commandes lors de l’agression contre l’enclave, a comparé l’après-2014 aux protestations en cours et à la réponse de Netanyahu, consistant à ordonner aux tireurs d’élite positionnés à la frontière de tuer et blesser les Palestiniens participant aux manifestations.

    Gantz a décrit la stratégie de Netanyahu comme une « politique usée ». La solution de rechange dans un tel scénario, selon l’ancien chef de l’armée, est de « revenir à une politique d’assassinats ciblés ». (...)

  • Desperate Gaza parents abandon children at Israel border

    Over the past few months, the Southern Command has seen a dramatic rise in efforts by young people to flee Gaza into Israel. The IDF has always considered illegal border crossings from the Gaza Strip into Israel as attempts by Palestinians to commit acts of terror or to place bombs alongside the border fence. More recently, however, there has been a new phenomenon of attempted border infiltrations for reasons of misery. More than 15 Palestinians, most of them young men and boys, have been caught doing this since the beginning of 2019. While they were armed with a knife, their primary objective in crossing the border was not to commit some act of terrorism but to get caught, tried and sent to prison in Israel. At least there, they can be sure that they will not go hungry.

    An Israeli security source told Al-Monitor that many young people try to cross the border every day but give up and draw back when the security forces on the ground fire warning shots at them, or use loudspeakers to warn them not to get any closer. Sometimes they return and even manage to cross the fence, but they are usually rounded up and returned to Gaza, despite their protests that Hamas is waiting for them on the other side.

    Another phenomenon that offers further evidence of the terrible state of affairs in Gaza was described Feb. 7 by the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), Maj. Gen. Kamil Abu Rokon, in an Arabic-language post on the COGAT Facebook page. He told the story of a four-year-old Palestinian boy who was abandoned by his father at the Erez border crossing while returning from medical treatment in Israel. After leaving his son at the border crossing, the father fled back into Israel, hoping to find work as an illegal immigrant. According to Abu Rokon, this was not the first time that something like this happened. Several toddlers and children are abandoned by their parents at the border crossing every month.

    #gaza #palestine

  • Heurts à la #frontière de #Gaza en 2018 : Israël pourrait avoir commis des crimes de guerre et contre l’humanité

    Jeudi, la Commission d’enquête internationale indépendante sur les manifestations dans les territoires occupés palestiniens a présenté son rapport au Palais des Nations. Elle juge « illégale » l’utilisation de #balles_létales contre des civils en grande partie pacifiques.

    Mohammad Obei, 24 ans, était un footballeur. A 9 heures du matin, le 30 mars 2018 à El Bureij, il était à près de 150 mètres de la frontière séparant Gaza d’Israël. Les forces de sécurité israéliennes lui ont tiré dans les jambes alors qu’il marchait, mettant une fin brutale à sa carrière sportive. Naji Abu Hojayeer, 24 ans, s’était enroulé dans un drapeau palestinien. Il était debout à 300 mètres de la barrière de séparation. Il a lui aussi été abattu d’une balle dans l’abdomen. Yousef, un étudiant en journalisme, portait le gilet indiquant qu’il était de la presse. Il photographiait les manifestants palestiniens à 800 mètres de la barrière. Visé par deux balles, il a perdu sa jambe droite. Il y a encore ce cas, terrible, de Fadi Abu Salmi. Amputé des deux jambes après avoir été victime de frappes aériennes israéliennes en 2008, se déplaçant dans une chaise roulante, il a été abattu par un sniper israélien à Abasan Al-Jadida, l’un des cinq lieux de manifestations alors qu’il était à 300 mètres de la frontière.
    Des amputations

    La liste n’est de loin pas exhaustive. 6106 Gazaouis ont été blessés au cours de manifestations tenues entre le 30 mars et le 31 décembre 2018 à la frontière entre la bande de Gaza et Israël. 4903 d’entre eux l’ont été aux jambes et 122 ont dû subir des amputations. 189 Palestiniens ont été tués dont 183 par balles réelles dont 35 enfants. C’est le constat qu’a dressé jeudi au Palais des Nations à Genève la Commission d’enquête internationale indépendante sur les manifestations dans les territoires occupés palestiniens mandatée par le Conseil des droits de l’homme de l’ONU. Celle-ci l’écrit noir sur blanc dans un rapport qu’Israël juge « hostile, mensonger et partial » : les sérieuses violations des droits de l’homme constatées pourraient constituer des crimes contre l’humanité, voire des crimes de guerre. Elle somme Tel-Aviv d’enquêter sur ces cas.

    Les manifestations de l’an dernier ont fait grand bruit, notamment le jour de l’inauguration de l’ambassade des Etats-Unis déplacée de Tel-Aviv à Jérusalem le 14 mai 2018 et du 70e anniversaire de la Nakba. Face au tollé international provoqué par la riposte de Tsahal, les autorités israéliennes avaient d’emblée justifié leurs actions pour contrer la volonté palestinienne d’en découdre avec Israël. Le 13 mai 2018, les forces israéliennes (IDF) avertissaient dans une vidéo : « L’organisation terroriste Hamas prévoit d’envoyer des terroristes armés parmi les 250 000 émeutiers violents pour franchir la frontière avec Gaza et entrer dans des communautés israéliennes […] et prévoit de perpétrer un massacre en Israël. » Le 14 mai, il en résulta bien un massacre. Mais ce sont les snipers israéliens qui tuèrent 60 manifestants et en blessèrent au moins 1162.

    Président de la Commission d’enquête, Santiago Canton conteste fermement l’idée selon laquelle les manifestants étaient des terroristes : « Les manifestations à la frontière n’étaient pas de nature militaire, mais civile. Dans leur écrasante majorité, les participants n’étaient pas armés. Le droit international humanitaire devait donc s’appliquer. » L’idée de la « grande marche du retour » a germé dans la tête d’Ahmed Abu Artema, un journaliste et poète palestinien de 34 ans au début de 2018. L’idée est devenue un mouvement.

    La commission, dont les trois experts ont mené plus de 325 interviews en Jordanie, en Egypte et en Turquie faute d’avoir pu obtenir de Tel-Aviv l’accès aux territoires palestiniens, s’est beaucoup penchée sur la doctrine d’engagement des forces israéliennes. Pour elle, vu la nature largement pacifique des manifestations, il était illégal d’utiliser des munitions létales contre les manifestants. La centaine de tireurs d’élite, dotés d’équipements ultra-modernes, postés à la frontière, n’aurait pas dû pouvoir tirer sur la foule alors qu’il n’y avait pas un danger de mort imminent. Seuls deux actes violents d’individus palestiniens auraient pu justifier un tel usage de la force. Une vidéo présentée à l’ONU montre de nombreux manifestants se faire abattre alors qu’ils se tiennent simplement dans la foule.
    Cour pénale internationale

    Une minorité de protestataires ont lancé des pierres, brûlé des pneus et utilisé des cerfs-volants ou des ballons incendiaires qui ont occasionné d’importants dégâts du côté israélien. Un soldat israélien a été tué et quatre autres blessés. Parmi les graves violations des droits de l’homme et du droit international humanitaire, la commission mentionne les tirs de snipers israéliens qui ont délibérément visé des journalistes, des travailleurs de la santé, des personnes handicapées.

    La commission d’enquête invite la haut-commissaire de l’ONU aux droits de l’homme Michelle Bachelet à soumettre les dossiers de responsables présumés aux juridictions nationales et internationales, y compris à la Cour pénale internationale. Elle appelle même les Etats membres de l’ONU à imposer des sanctions contre les individus identifiés par la commission comme responsables des massacres. Elle demande aussi aux autorités de fait de Gaza (Hamas) d’interdire l’usage de cerfs-volants incendiaires.
    #crimes_de_guerre #crimes_contre_l'umanité #ONU #Israël #Palestine #frontières
    ping @reka

  • Le Grand Paris ou le pactole pour les bétonneurs, par Hacène Belmessous (Le Monde diplomatique, octobre 2018)

    Maintenant en accès libre

    Attractivité, mobilité, innovation, excellence : pour se faire une place dans la compétition urbaine internationale, les grandes villes appliquent toutes les mêmes mots d’ordre. La capitale française ne fait pas exception. Elle s’est engagée, avec le Grand Paris, dans une course au gigantisme qui fait le bonheur des bâtisseurs privés, mais qui risque d’accentuer les inégalités.

    #Grand_Paris #IdF #urbanités

  • Old Palestinian photos & films hidden in IDF archive show different history than Israeli claims

    Palestinian photos and films seized by Israeli troops have been gathering dust in the army and Defense Ministry archives until Dr. Rona Sela, a curator and art historian, exposed them. The material presents an alternative to the Zionist history that denied the Palestinians’ existence here, she says.

    The initial reaction is one of incredulity: Why is this material stored in the Israel Defense Forces and Defense Ministry Archive? The first item is labeled, in Hebrew, “The History of Palestine from 1919,” the second, “Paintings by Children Who Go to School and Live in a Refugee Camp and Aspire to Return to Palestine.” The third is, “Depiction of the IDF’s Treatment and Harsh Handling of Palestinians in the Territories.”

    Of all places, these three reels of 16-mm film are housed in the central archive that documents Israel’s military-security activities. It’s situated in Tel Hashomer, near the army’s National Induction Center, outside Tel Aviv.

    IDF archive contains 2.7 million photos, 38,000 films

    The three items are barely a drop in an ocean of some 38,000 films, 2.7 million photographs, 96,000 audio recordings and 46,000 maps and aerial photos that have been gathered into the IDF Archive since 1948, by order of Israel’s first prime minister and defense minister, David Ben-Gurion. However, a closer perusal shows that this particular “drop in the ocean” is subversive, exceptional and highly significant.

    The footage in question is part of a collection – whose exact size and full details remain unknown – of “war booty films” seized by the IDF from Palestinian archives in raids over the years, though primarily in the 1982 Lebanon War.

    Recently, however, following a persistent, protracted legal battle, the films confiscated in Lebanon, which had been gathering dust for decades – instead of being screened in cinematheques or other venues in Israel – have been rescued from oblivion, along with numerous still photos. The individual responsible for this development is Dr. Rona Sela, a curator and researcher of visual history at Tel Aviv University.

    For nearly 20 years, Sela has been exploring Zionist and Palestinian visual memory. She has a number of important revelations and discoveries to her credit, which she has published in the form of books, catalogs and articles. Among the Hebrew-language titles are “Photography in Palestine/Eretz-Israel in the ‘30s and ‘40s” (2000) and “Made Public: Palestinian Photographs in Military Archives in Israel” (2009). In March, she published an article in the English-language periodical Social Semiotics on, “The Genealogy of Colonial Plunder and Erasure – Israel’s Control over Palestinian Archives.”

    Now Sela has made her first film, “Looted and Hidden: Palestinian Archives in Israel,” an English-language documentary that surveys the fate of Palestinian photographs and films that were “captured” and deposited in Israeli archives. It includes heretofore unseen segments from films seized by the IDF from Palestinian archives in Beirut. These documentary records, Sela says, “were erased from consciousness and history” for decades.

    Sela begins journey in 1998

    Getting access to the films was not easy, Sela explains. Her archival journey began in 1998, when she was researching Zionist propaganda films and photos that sought to portray the “new Jew” – muscular, proudly tilling the soil – in contradistinction, according to the Zionist perception, to the supposedly degenerate and loutish Palestinian Arab.

    “After spending a few years in the Central Zionist Archive in Jerusalem and in other Zionist archives, researching the history of Zionist photography and the construction of a visual propaganda apparatus supporting the Zionist idea, I started to look for Palestinian visual representation as well, in order to learn about the Palestinian narrative and trace its origins and influence,” she says.

    That task was far more complicated than anyone could have imagined. In some of the Zionist films and photos, Sela was able to discern, often incidentally, episodes from Palestinian history that had “infiltrated” them, as she puts it. For example, in Carmel Newsreels (weekly news footage screened at local cinemas) from 1951, showing the settlement of Jews in Jaffa, demolished and abandoned Arab homes are clearly visible.

    Subsequently, Sela spotted traces and remnants of a genuine Palestinian visual archive occasionally cropping up in Israeli archives. Those traces were not immediately apparent, more like an elusive treasure concealed here and there beneath layers of restrictions, erasures and revisions.

    Khalil Rassass, father of Palestinian photojournalism

    Thus, one day she noticed in the archive of the pre-state Haganah militia, stills bearing the stamp “Photo Rissas.” Digging deeper, she discovered the story of Chalil Rissas (Khalil Rassass, 1926-1974), one of the fathers of Palestinian photojournalism. He’s unknown to the general public, whether Palestinian or Israel, but according to Sela, he was a “daring, groundbreaking photographer” who, motivated by a sense of national consciousness, documented the pre-1948 Palestinian struggle.

    Subsequently she found hundreds of his photographs, accompanied by captions written by soldiers or Israeli archive staff who had tried to foist a Zionist narrative on them and disconnect them from their original context. The source of the photographs was a Jewish youth who received them from his father, an IDF officer who brought them back with him from the War of Independence as booty.

    The discovery was unprecedented. In contrast to the Zionist propaganda images that exalted the heroism of the Jewish troops and barely referred to the Palestinians, Rissas’ photographs were mainly of Palestinian fighters. Embodying a proud Palestinian stance, they focused on the national and military struggle and its outcome, including the Palestinians’ military training and deployment for battle.

    “I realized that I’d come across something significant, that I’d found a huge cache of works by one of the fathers of Palestinian photography, who had been the first to give visual expression to the Palestinian struggle,” Sela recalls. “But when I tried to learn more about Chalil Rissas, I understood that he was a forgotten photographer, that no one knew the first thing about him, either in Israel or elsewhere.”

    Sela thereupon decided to study the subject herself. In 1999, she tracked down Rissas’ brother, Wahib, who was working as a photographer of tourists on the Temple Mount / Haram a-Sharif in Jerusalem’s Old City. He told her the story of Chalil’s life. It turned out that he had accompanied Palestinian troops and leaders, visually documenting the battles fought by residents of the Jerusalem area during the 1948 War of Independence. “He was a young man who chose the camera as an instrument for changing people’s consciousness,” Sela says.

    Ali Za’arur, forgotten Palestinian photographer

    Around 2007, she discovered the archive of another forgotten Palestinian photographer, Ali Za’arur (1900-1972), from Azzariyeh, a village east of Jerusalem. About 400 of his photos were preserved in four albums. They also depicted scenes from the 1948 war, in which Za’arur accompanied the forces of Jordan’s Arab Legion and documented the battle for the Old City of Jerusalem. He photographed the dead, the ruins, the captives, the refugees and the events of the cease-fire.

    In the Six-Day War of 1967, Za’arur fled from his home for a short time. When he returned, he discovered that the photo albums had disappeared. A relative, it emerged, had given them to Jerusalem Mayor Teddy Kollek as a gift. Afterward, the Jerusalem Foundation donated them to the IDF Archive. In 2008, in an unprecedented act, the archive returned the albums to Za’arur’s family. The reason, Sela surmises, is that the albums were captured by the army in battle. In any event, this was, as far as is known, a unique case.

    Sela took heart from the discoveries she’d made, realizing that “with systematic work, it would be possible to uncover more Palestinian archives that ended up in Israeli hands.”

    That work was three-pronged: doing archival research to locate Palestinian photographs and films that had been incorporated into Israeli archives; holding meetings with the Palestinian photographers themselves, or members of their families; and tracking down Israeli soldiers who had taken part in “seizing these visual spoils” and in bringing them to Israel.

    In the course of her research Sela met some fascinating individuals, among them Khadijeh Habashneh, a Jordan-based Palestinian filmmaker who headed the archive and cinematheque of the Palestinian Cinema Institute. That institution, which existed from the end of the 1960s until the early ‘80s, initially in Jordan and afterward in Lebanon, was founded by three pioneering Palestinian filmmakers – Sulafa Jadallah, Hani Jawhariyyeh and Mustafa Abu Ali (Habashneh’s husband) – who sought to document their people’s way of life and national struggle. Following the events of Black September in 1970, when the Jordanian army and the Palestine Liberation Organization fought a bloody internecine war, the filmmakers moved to Lebanon and reestablished the PCI in Beirut.

    Meeting with Habashneh in Amman in 2013, Sela heard the story of the Palestinian archives that disappeared, a story she included in her new documentary. “Where to begin, when so much material was destroyed, when a life project falls apart?” Habashneh said to Sela. “I can still see these young people, pioneers, bold, imbued with ideals, revolutionaries, who created pictures and films and documented the Palestinian revolution that the world doesn’t want to see. They refused to be faceless and to be without an identity.”

    The archive established by Habashneh contained forgotten works that documented the Palestinians’ suffering in refugee camps, the resistance to Israel and battles against the IDF, as well as everyday life. The archive contained the films and the raw materials of the PCI filmmakers, but also collected other early Palestinian films, from both before and after 1948.

    Spirit of liberation

    This activity reflects “a spirit of liberation and revolt and the days of the revolution,” Habashneh says in Sela’s film, referring to the early years of the Palestinian national movement. That spirit was captured in underground photographs and with a minimal budget, on film that was developed in people’s kitchens, screened in tents in refugee camps and distributed abroad. Women, children, fighters, intellectuals and cultural figures, and events of historic importance were documented, Habashneh related. “As far as is known, this was the first official Palestinian visual archive,” Sela notes.

    In her conversation with Sela, Habashneh nostalgically recalled other, better times, when the Palestinian films were screened in a Beirut cinematheque, alongside other works with a “revolutionary spirit,” from Cuba, Chile, Vietnam and elsewhere. “We were in contact with filmmakers from other countries, who saw the camera as an instrument in the hands of the revolution and the people’s struggle,” she recalled.

    “Interesting cultural cooperation developed there, centering around revolutionary cinema,” Sela points out, adding, “Beirut was alive with an unprecedented, groundbreaking cultural flowering that was absolutely astonishing in terms of its visual significance.”

    IDF confiscates film archive

    But in 1982, after the IDF entered Beirut, that archive disappeared and was never seen again. The same fate befell two films made by Habashneh herself, one about children, the other about women. In Sela’s documentary, Habashneh wonders aloud about the circumstances in which the amazing collection disappeared. “Is our fate to live a life without a past? Without a visual history?” she asks. Since then, she has managed to reconstruct a small part of the archive. Some of the films turned up in the United States, where they had been sent to be developed. Copies of a few others remained in movie theaters in various countries where they were screened. Now in her seventies, Habashneh continues to pursue her mission, even though, as she told Sela during an early conversation, “the fate of the archive remains a puzzle.”

    What Habashneh wasn’t able to accomplish beginning in 1982 as part of a worldwide quest, Sela managed to do over the course of a few years of research in Israel. She began by locating a former IDF soldier who told her about the day on which several trucks arrived at the building in Beirut that housed a number of Palestinian archives and began to empty it out. That testimony, supported by a photograph, was crucial for Sela, as it corroborated the rumors and stories about the Palestinian archives having been taken to Israel.

    The same soldier added that he had been gripped by fear when he saw, among the photos that were confiscated from the archive, some that documented Israeli soldiers in the territories. He himself appeared in one of them. “They marked us,” he said to Sela.

    Soldiers loot Nashashibi photos & possessions, take photo from corpse

    Another former soldier told Sela about an unusual photo album that was taken (or looted, depending on one’s point of view) from the home of the prominent Nashashibi family in Jerusalem, in 1948. The soldier added that his father, who had served as an IDF officer in the War of Independence, entered a photography studio and made off with its archive, while other soldiers were busy looting pianos and other expensive objects from the Nashashibis. Another ex-soldier testified to having taken a photo from the corpse of an Arab. Over time, all these images found their way to archives in Israel, in particular the IDF Archive.

    Sela discovers IDF archive

    In 2000, Sela, buoyed by her early finds, requested permission from that archive to examine the visual materials that had been seized by the army in the 1980s. The initial response was denial: The material was not in Israel’s hands, she was told.

    “But I knew what I was looking for, because I had soldiers’ testimonies,” she says now, adding that when she persisted in her request, she encountered “difficulties, various restrictions and the torpedoing of the possibility of perusing the material.”

    The breakthrough came when she enlisted the aid of attorneys Michael Sfard and Shlomi Zacharia, in 2008. To begin with, they received word, confirmed by the Defense Ministry’s legal adviser, that various spoils taken in Beirut were now part of the IDF Archive. However, Sela was subsequently informed that “the PLO’s photography archive,” as the Defense Ministry referred in general to photographic materials taken from the Palestinians, is “archival material on matters of foreign affairs and security, and as such is ‘restricted material’ as defined in Par. 7(a) of the Archives Regulations.”

    Then, one day in 2010, Sela received a fax informing her that Palestinian films had been found in the IDF Archive, without elaboration, and inviting her to view them. “There were a few dozen segments from films, and I was astonished by what I saw,” she says. “At first I was shown only a very limited amount of footage, but it was indicative of the whole. On the basis of my experience, I understood that there was more.”

    A few more years of what Sela terms “endless nagging, conversations and correspondence” passed, which resulted in her being permitted to view dozens of segments of additional films, including some that apparently came from Habashneh’s archive. Sela also discovered another Palestinian archive that had been seized by the IDF. Established under the aegis of the PLO’s Cultural Arts Section, its director in the 1970s was the Lod-born painter and historian Ismail Shammout (1930-2006).

    One of the works in that collection is Shammout’s own film “The Urgent Call,” whose theme song was written and performed by the Palestinian singer Zainab Shathat in English, accompanying herself on the guitar. “The film was thought to be lost until I found it in the IDF Archive,” says Sela, who describes “The Urgent Call” as “a cry about the condition of Palestine, its sons and its daughters.”

    Viewing it takes one back in time to the late 1960s and early ‘70s, when the cinema of the Palestinian struggle briefly connected with other international revolutionary film movements.

    Legendary French filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard

    For example, in 1969 and 1970 Jean-Luc Godard, the legendary filmmaker of the French New Wave in cinema, visited Jordan and Lebanon several times with the Dziga Vertov Group of French filmmakers (named after the Soviet pioneer documentarian of the 1920s and ‘30s), who included filmmaker Jean-Pierre Gorin, who worked with Godard in his “radical” period. They came to shoot footage in refugee camps and in fedayeen bases for Godard’s film “Until Victory.” Habashneh told Sela that she and others had met Godard, assisted him and were of course influenced by his work. [Ed. note: Godard’s work on Palestine caused him to be accused of antisemitism by the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen and others. “In Hollywood there is no greater sin,” the Guardian reported.]

    Along with “The Urgent Call” – excerpts from which are included in her “Looted and Hidden” documentary – Sela also found another Shammout work in the IDF Archive. Titled “Memories and Fire,” it chronicles 20th-century Palestinian history, “from the days depicting the idyllic life in Palestine, via the documentation of refugeehood, to the documentation of the organizing and the resistance. To use the terms of the Palestinian cinema scholar and filmmaker George Khleifi, the aggressive fighter took the place of the ill-fated refugee,” she adds.

    Sela also found footage by the Iraqi director Kais al-Zubaidi, who worked for a time in the PLO’s Cultural Arts Section. His films from that period include “Away from Home” (1969) and “The Visit” (1970); in 2006 he published an anthology, “Palestine in the Cinema,” a history of the subject, which mentions some 800 films that deal with Palestine or the Palestinian people. [Ed. note: unfortunately it appears this book has never been translated into English.]

    IDF seals the archive for decades

    Some of the Palestinian movies in the IDF Archive bear their original titles. However, in many other cases this archival material was re-cataloged to suit the Israeli perspective, so that Palestinian “fighters” became “gangs” or “terrorists,” for example. In one case, a film of Palestinians undergoing arms training is listed as “Terrorist camp in Kuwait: Distribution of uniforms, girls crawling with weapons, terrorists marching with weapons in the hills, instruction in laying mines and in arms.”

    Sela: “These films and stills, though not made by Jewish/Israeli filmmakers or military units – which is the central criterion for depositing materials in the Israeli army archive – were transferred to the IDF Archive and subordinated to the rules of the State of Israel. The archive immediately sealed them for many decades and cataloged them according to its terminology – which is Zionist, Jewish and Israeli – and not according to the original Palestinian terminology. I saw places where the word ‘terrorists’ was written on photographs taken by Palestinians. But after all, they do not call themselves as such. It’s part of terminological camouflaging, which subordinated their creative work to the colonial process in which the occupier controls the material that’s captured.”

    Hidden Palestinian history

    Sela’s discoveries, which are of international importance, are not only a research, documentation and academic achievement: They also constitute a breakthrough in regard to the chronicling of Palestinian history. “Palestinian visual historiography lacks many chapters,” she observes. “Many photographs and archives were destroyed, were lost, taken as spoils or plundered in the various wars and in the course of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

    From her point of view, the systematic collecting of Palestinian visual materials in the IDF Archive “makes it possible to write an alternative history that counteracts the content created by the army and the military archive, which is impelled by ideological and political considerations.” In the material she found in the army archive, she sees “images that depict the history of the Palestinian people and its long-term ties to this soil and this place, which present an alternative to the Zionist history that denied the Palestinians’ existence here, as well as their culture and history and the protracted tragedy they endured and their national struggle of many years.”

    The result is an intriguing paradox, such as one often finds by digging deep into an archive. The extensive information that Sela found in the IDF Archive makes it possible to reconstruct elements of the pre-1948 existence of the Palestinians and to help fill in the holes of the Palestinian narrative up until the 1980s. In other words, even if Israel’s intention was to hide these items and to control the Palestinians’ historical treasures, its actions actually abet the process of preservation, and will go on doing so in the future.

    Earlier groundbreaking discovery – confiscated Palestinians books & libraries

    Sela’s research on visual archival materials was preceded by another groundbreaking study – dealing with the written word – conducted by Dr. Gish Amit, an expert on the cultural aspects of Zionism at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Amit chronicled the fate of Palestinian books and libraries that, like the photographs and films Sela found, ended up in Israeli archives – including in the National Library in Jerusalem.

    In his 2014 book, “Ex-Libris: Chronicles of Theft, Preservation, and Appropriating at the Jewish National Library” (Hebrew), Amit trenchantly analyzes the foredoomed failure of any attempt to conceal and control the history of others. According to him, “an archive remembers its forgettings and erasures,” “documents injustice, and thus makes it possible to trace its paths” and “paves a way for forgotten histories which may, one day, convict the owners” of the documents.

    However, Amit also sees the complexity of this story and presents another side of it. Describing the operation in which the Palestinian books were collected by Israeli soldiers and National Library personnel during the War of Independence, he raises the possibility that this was actually an act involving rescue, preservation and accessibility: “On the one hand, the books were collected and not burned or left in the abandoned houses in the Arab neighborhoods that had been emptied of their inhabitants. Had they not been collected their fate would have been sealed — not a trace of them would remain,” he writes, adding, that the National Library “protected the books from the war, the looting and the destruction, and from illegal trade in manuscripts.”

    According to the National Library, it is holding about 6,500 Palestinian books and manuscripts, which were taken from private homes whose owners left in 1948. The entire collection is cataloged and accessible to the general public, but is held under the responsibility of the Custodian of Absentees’ Property in the Finance Ministry. Accordingly, there is no intention, in the near future, of trying to locate the owners and returning the items.

    Israeli control over history

    Sela views the existence of these spoils of war in Israel as a direct expression of the occupation, which she defines, beyond Israel’s physical presence in the territories, as “the control of history, the writing of culture and the shaping of identity.” In her view, “Israel’s rule over the Palestinians is not only geographic but extends also to culture and consciousness. Israel wants to erase this history from the public consciousness, but it is not being successful, because the force of the resistance is stronger. Furthermore, its attempts to erase Palestinian history adversely affect Israel itself in the end.”

    At this point, Sela resorts to a charged comparison, to illustrate how visual materials contribute to the creation of personal and collective identity. “As the daughter of Holocaust survivors,” she says, “I grew up in a home without photographic historical memory. Nothing. My history starts only with the meeting of my parents, in 1953. It’s only from then that we have photos. Before that – nothing.

    “I know what it feels like when you have no idea what your grandmother or grandfather looked like, or your father’s childhood,” she continues. “This is all the more true of the history of a whole people. The construction of identity by means of visual materials is very meaningful. Many researchers have addressed this topic. The fact is that Zionist bodies made and are continuing to make extensive and rational use of [such materials too] over a period that spans decades.”

    Sela admits that there is still much to be done, but as far as she’s concerned, once a crack appeared in the wall, there was no turning back. “There is a great deal of material, including hundreds of films, that I haven’t yet got to,” she notes. “This is an amazing treasure, which contains information about the cultural, educational, rural and urban life of the Palestinian people throughout the 20th century – an erased narrative that needs to be restored to the history books,” she adds.

    Asked what she thinks should be done with the material, she asserts, “Of course it has to be returned. Just as Israel is constantly fighting to retrieve what the Nazis looted from Jews in the Holocaust. The historical story is different, but by the same criterion, practice what you preach. These are cultural and historical materials of the Palestinian people.”

    The fact that these items are being held by Israel “creates a large hole in Palestinian research and knowledge,” Sela avers. “It’s a hole for which Israel is responsible. This material does not belong to us. It has to be returned to its owners. Afterward, if we view it intelligently, we too can come to know and understand highly meaningful chapters in Palestinian history and in our own history. I think that the first and basic stage in the process of conciliation is to know the history of the Other and also your own history of controlling the Other.”

    Defense Ministry response

    A spokesperson for the Defense Ministry, which was asked to comment on the holdings in the IDF Archive, the archive contains 642 “war booty films,” most of which deal with refugees and were produced by the UNRWA (the United Nations refugee relief agency) in the 1960s and 1970s. The ministry also noted that 158 films that were seized by the IDF in the 1982 Lebanon War are listed in orderly fashion in the reading-room catalog and are available for perusal by the general public, including Arab citizens and Palestinians.

    As for the Palestinian photographs that were confiscated, the Defense Ministry stated that there is no orderly record of them. There are 127 files of photographs and negatives in the archive, each of which contains dozens of photographs, probably taken between the 1960s and the 1980s, on a variety of subjects, including visits of foreign delegations to PLO personnel, tours of PLO delegations abroad, Palestinian art and heritage, art objects, traditional attire and Palestinian folklore, factories and workshops, demonstrations, mass parades and rallies held by the PLO, portraits of Arab personalities and PLO symbols.

    The statement adds that a few months ago, crates were located that were stamped by their original owners, “PLO/Department of Information and National Guidance and Department of Information and Culture,” during the evacuation of the archive’s storerooms in the Tzrifin base.
    #historicisation #Israël #Palestine #photographie #films #archive #histoire #Khalil_Rassass #Ali_Za’arur
    ping @reka @sinehebdo @albertocampiphoto

  • Israeli TV journalist reacts to outcry after saying occupation turns soldiers into ’animals’

    Oshrat Kotler, who received death threats for her comment, says she can’t ignore ’heavy price that we are paying through our children for ruling over another people’
    Itay Stern
    Feb 24, 2019

    TV journalist Oshrat Kotler on Saturday responded to the uproar she caused last week, when she said Israeli soldiers become “human animals” during their army service in the West Bank.

    “They send children to the army, to the territories, and get them back human animals. That’s the result of the occupation,” Kotler said last week following a piece on the five Israeli soldiers who were indicted for beating two detained Palestinians, which aired on her Channel 13 show, “Magazine.”

    On Saturday night she spoke again toward the end of the program to clarify her comments, choking with tears as she spoke.

    “Last week we broadcast here a very complex and painful report about the soldiers of the ‘Netzah Yehuda’ [battalion] who were involved in a series of harsh acts of violence,” she said. “For two weeks we investigated, filmed and edited, reporter Arik Weiss and myself, this report with the greatest caution because both of us understood that the matter was very charged and very hard to absorb.”

    Thousands of complaints were filed against Kotler, as well as death threats, after which Channel 13 decided to provide her with a security guard. Many politicians rushed to condemn her comments, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Education Minister Naftali Bennett, both demanding she apologize.

    Kotler criticized politicians in the midst of an election campaign for making “cynical” use of her comments and portraying them out of the story’s context. “What I said here was directed only at the soldiers who violated the law and not toward IDF soldiers in general. They were spoken with great pain,” said Kotler. Channel 13 News came to her defense, saying she was allowed to express her opinion, even if it does not reflect the opinion of the entire editorial staff.

    “The purpose of the story, as was the purpose of my comments that followed it too, was to make us as a society to take personal responsibility for the actions of the soldiers of Netzah Yehuda, because it is impossible to accuse them of crossing moral and legal boundaries when we are the ones who put them in an impossible situation day after day,” she added. “The public criticism should not be directed at the soldiers, and it would be proper for the court to consider that and be lenient in their sentencing."

    • VIDEO. « Ils reviennent transformés en animaux. C’est le résultat de l’occupation » : une journaliste israélienne critique les soldats de Tsahal en plein direct
      Mis à jour le 22/02/2019

      Elle a prononcé ce commentaire après avoir évoqué le cas de soldats de l’armée israélienne soupçonnés d’avoir violemment frappé deux suspects palestiniens aux mains attachées et aux yeux bandés.

      Je vais continuer à parler dans cette émission. Vous ne me ferez pas taire." Le coup de colère, en direct, de la journaliste israélienne Oshrat Kotler a suscité une vive controverse, samedi 16 février, rapporte Haaretz. Elle a ainsi affirmé sur la chaîne HaHadashot 13 que le contrôle israélien de la Cisjordanie transformait les soldats en « animaux ».


    Le onzième samedi du mouvement des gilets jaunes en France, le 26 janvier 2019, a vu la mobilisation se maintenir un peu partout en France. Selon la police, il y a eu 69 000 manifestants dans tout le pays. Il est pourtant évident que le chiffre est largement minoré : elle annonçait 2500 manifestants à Paris alors qu’il y en avait bien entre 8000 à 10000 lorsque les deux principaux cortèges se sont rejoints à 16 heures à la Bastille. Les affrontements qui ont alors éclaté ont permis à la police de disperser la foule qui allait se réunir sur la place. Mais peu importe en vérité le chiffre exact. Le fait est que ce mouvement des gilets jaunes exprime une rage et une volonté d’opposition à la misère croissante imposée et promise par le capitalisme et de confrontation à l’État que la bourgeoisie n’arrive pas à éteindre. Tout comme les grèves en Iran de 2018 ou encore la grève de masse de dizaines de milliers d’ouvriers du nord de Mexique en ce moment-même, pour ne citer que celles-ci 7, la radicalité, la combativité, l’obstination de ce mouvement des gilets jaunes signale le degré atteint par les antagonismes de classe et le fait que nous sommes entrés dans une nouvelle période de confrontations massives entre les classes au niveau mondial. Ce climat généralisé de révolte sociale potentielle, et en partie déjà en acte, est pour l’essentiel la résultante des effets de la crise de 2008 qui se font toujours sentir et qui exacerbent les contradictions actuelles de tout ordre, politique, écologique, impérialiste, migratoire, social, etc. du capitalisme.

    Aujourd’hui, ces contradictions se sont accumulées et elles explosent les unes après les autres. Dans ce climat international de révolte sociale générale en devenir, le "ralentissement de la croissance mondiale" – pour reprendre les termes des économistes bourgeois – et les risques de krach financier et boursier ne peuvent qu’accentuer cette ambiance de fin de monde, de fin du monde capitaliste pour être exact, et porter les générations actuelles de prolétaires à la nécessité, à la conscience et la volonté de s’opposer à la misère du capitalisme et à la guerre généralisée qu’il nous prépare et, finalement, de le détruire. L’ensemble de la classe capitaliste, du moins ses fractions les plus éclairées, s’en inquiète au point que « les éminences réunies au sommet de Davos estiment qu’il est temps de "remoraliser" la globalisation (dixit Klaus Schwab, fondateur du Forum économique mondial) et de rechercher les voies d’une économie mondiale "plus inclusive" » (Libération, 23 janvier 2019) et que les États s’y préparent déjà tant au plan politique qu’au plan de la répression violente et massive.

    Mais avant de revenir sur la situation en France de cette fin de janvier, il convient de faire un bref résumé des événements depuis le communiqué que nous avions publié le 2 décembre pour les lecteurs qui ne vivent pas en France et n’ont pas pu suivre de près le cours de la situation. Les affrontements violents du 2 décembre autour de l’Arc de Triomphe à Paris mais aussi en province, y compris dans des toutes petites villes, et la rage qu’ils exprimaient ont surpris, et même en partie paniqué, la fraction des quadragénaires de Macron au pouvoir pour qui, formés dans les écoles de commerce et au management, la lutte des classes avait disparu. Il a fallu le renfort d’autres fractions politiques, Sarkozy en particulier, et de grands patrons, pour imposer à Macron le fait qu’il devait faire des "concessions" 8. À ce moment là, les médias se lamentaient du fait que les gilets jaunes n’avaient pas de leaders "avec qui négocier" tout comme du fait que les syndicats étaient discrédités et impuissants. Ce n’est qu’à la veille au soir de la manifestation du 8 décembre qu’un véritable premier contact s’est fait avec les principaux porte-paroles des gilets jaunes qui furent reçus par le Premier ministre et qui, à leur sortie, déclarèrent qu’ils attendaient une déclaration de Macron qu’on leur avait promise pour la semaine suivante. Ils lui redonnaient ainsi l’initiative et la contre-offensive politique de l’État se mettaient en place. Les manifestations du 8 furent aussi massives et violentes que celles du samedi précédent. Le lundi 10, Macron annonça une augmentation de 100 euros du SMIC – en fait une prime saurons-nous dans les jours suivants – et quelques autres mesures. En soi, elles ne sont que des concessions marginales même si elles vont contraindre le gouvernement à présenter un déficit budgétaire au-delà des 3% requis par l’Union Européenne 9. Politiquement, elles représentent cependant le premier véritable recul significatif de l’État face à une mobilisation massive depuis... 1968. Mais surtout, à l’occasion du 1er janvier, Macron annonce l’organisation d’un grand débat national planifié jusqu’au 15 mars pour répondre à la revendication des gilets jaunes sur une démocratie directe et, plus particulièrement, sur celle d’un "référendum d’initiative populaire".

    Depuis lors, c’est cette revendication typiquement petite- bourgeoise que l’ensemble de l’appareil d’État a repris à son compte et imposé comme question centrale de la situation faisant passer au second plan, sinon oublier, les revendications d’ordre salarial et de conditions de vie. En parallèle, la gestion des manifestations hebdomadaires s’est limitée alors à la répression violente qui, outre les milliers de victimes graves causés par les flash-ball et les grenades de désencerclement (les deux interdits dans la plupart des pays européens), visait à réduire la popularité massive du mouvement dans "l’opinion publique". En cette occasion, les discours officiels des politiciens, des médias et des éditorialistes rivalisaient d’appel à la répression la plus brutale et de morgue pour ce "peuple stupide, haineux, factieux, voire fasciste" : un ancien ministre de... l’Éducation de Sarkozy, philosophe de profession et grand bourgeois délicat et distingué des beaux quartiers de Paris de son état, appela même les policiers à se servir « de leurs armes une bonne fois ! (...) Ça suffit, ces nervis d’extrême droite et extrême gauche ou des quartiers qui viennent taper des policiers. (...) On a la quatrième armée du monde, elle est capable de mettre fin à ces saloperies ! » (Luc Ferry, Radio Classique, 8 janvier 2019). La haine de classe des Versaillais de mai 1871 face aux communards parisiens ne demande qu’à resurgir. Même s’il faut relever que ces discours provocateurs appelant à la répression généralisée et jusqu’au meurtre ont sans doute eu pour effet de participer à relancer la mobilisation des gilets jaunes, il n’en reste pas moins que depuis lors, l’initiative politique est restée dans les mains de la bourgeoisie. L’ensemble de l’appareil d’État s’est alors mobilisé pour focaliser toute la vie politique autour de l’organisation de ce "grand débat" : le président, les ministres, les députés, les préfets, les maires de villes et de villages, les médias, l’ensemble des partis politiques, jusqu’à faire que les gilets jaunes eux-mêmes se divisent entre eux sur le fait d’y participer ou non. Et y compris, ceux qui prônaient la non participation, pensant à juste titre qu’il ne s’agissait que d’un "enfumage", et en l’absence d’autre perspective de lutte, se sont enfermés dans l’impasse en justifiant le maintien des manifestations par la nécessité de faire pression sur le... grand débat ! La boucle est bouclée. Il ne suffit plus que de la serrer petit à petit sans briser la corde par une maladresse 10.

    Voilà où nous en sommes aujourd’hui. Le terrain est balisé par la bourgeoisie qui détient le timing des
    événements... jusqu’à l’appel du principal syndicat, la CGT, à une journée d’action et de grève pour le 5 février à laquelle les gilets jaunes les plus "radicaux" avec l’aide des trotskistes, NPA en particulier, appellent à se joindre pour une grève illimitée. Au cas où l’incendie reprendrait, le contre-feu est déjà en place. Le tour est joué et tous les terrains sont occupés maintenant par l’ensemble de l’appareil étatique bourgeois. Seules la rage et la colère peuvent maintenir plus ou moins longtemps les mobilisations du samedi.

    Le mouvement des gilets jaunes se trouve donc aujourd’hui dans une impasse politique sans réelle perspective alors même que le gouvernement Macron et, derrière lui, l’ensemble de l’appareil d’État ont repris la maîtrise des événements. Ce qui faisait la force et le dynamisme du mouvement des gilets jaunes dans un premier temps, jusqu’à la déclaration de Macron du 10 décembre pouvons nous dire, est devenu sa faiblesse et ses limites une fois que le gouvernement eut repris l’initiative politique. Son caractère "interclassiste", s’identifiant au peuple français et non à la classe prolétarienne, a alimenté et entretenu les illusions sur la démocratie du peuple, c’est-à-dire de fait la démocratie bourgeoise, et a fait que les revendications de classe qui tendaient à émerger sont maintenant noyées et étouffées au profit d’un référendum d’initiative citoyenne et, finalement, au profit de l’organisation par le gouvernement et l’État d’un grand débat national sur le terrain de la démocratie bourgeoise.

    Or même les comités locaux de gilets jaunes les plus liés à la classe ouvrière, dans les limites de notre connaissance, comme ceux de Commercy et de Saint Nazaire, sont entraînés sur le terrain de l’impasse, de "l’auto-organisation" et de la mystification idéologique de la démocratie au nom du peuple :
    « Depuis Commercy, nous appelons maintenant à une grande réunion nationale des comités populaires locaux. Fort du succès de notre 1er appel, nous vous proposons de l’organiser démocratiquement, en janvier, ici à Commercy, avec des délégués de toute la France, pour rassembler les cahiers de revendications et les mettre en commun. Nous vous proposons également, d’y débattre tous ensemble des suites de notre mouvement. Nous vous proposons enfin de décider d’un mode d’organisation collectif des gilets jaunes, authentiquement démocratique, issu du peuple et respectant les étapes de la délégation. Ensemble, créons l’assemblée des assemblées, la Commune des communes C’est le sens de l’Histoire, c’est notre proposition.

    La mise en place de structures d’auto-organisation telles que les Assemblées Générales est aujourd’hui un enjeu central pour le mouvement des Gilets Jaunes.
    VIVE LE POUVOIR AU PEUPLE, PAR LE PEUPLE, ET POUR LE PEUPLE ! » (Deuxième appel des gilets jaunes de Commercy, 30 décembre 2018 11).

    Dans la confusion générale et l’hétérogénéité sociale qui régnaient, et continue de régner, au sein des gilets jaunes, seul le maintien des revendications salariales, augmentation du SMIC et des salaires, "indexation" des retraites pour ne citer que les principales, peut asseoir leur combat et rejeter le terrain du démocratisme bourgeois dans lequel le "grand débat" veut les enfermer et les étouffer. L’augmentation des salaires et du "pouvoir d’achat" était, est encore au moment où nous écrivons, la seule revendication... politique, celle dans laquelle l’ensemble de la classe prolétarienne peut s’identifier comme classe, qui puisse permettre encore d’opposer une réelle résistance immédiate face à la contre-offensive du gouvernement et de la bourgeoisie.

    Malgré plusieurs conflits ou grèves locales, parfois en lien direct ou indirect avec les gilets jaunes, la classe ouvrière comme telle, à partir de ses lieux de travail et comme classe, n’est pas entrée directement en lutte. À l’exception de peu, trop peu, d’exemples comme ces jours-ci les débrayages chez Arc International dans la ville d’Arques dans le Nord, ou encore ceux à l’entrepôt Geodis à Bonneuil en région parisienne, les occupations de bureaux de Pole emploi à Vitry, à Rennes, à Lorient, les actions de gilets jaunes auprès des hôpitaux (informations reprises du Collectif Agitation et Gilets Jaunes IDF)12. C’eut été alors fournir une autre perspective à la révolte sociale qui eut pu briser le cadre et le timing du "grand débat" en imposant les revendications de classe comme question centrale. C’était là la seule voie. C’est toujours là la seule voie même si, chaque jour passant, elle devient plus improbable.

    Nous n’étions pas les seuls à avancer le mot d’ordre appelant à la constitution de comité de lutte ou de travailleurs pour lutter pour cette perspective qui aurait pu déplacer le cadre et les termes politiques de l’affrontement imposé par le gouvernement et la bourgeoisie depuis le 10 décembre. Force est de constater, dans la limite de nos connaissances, qu’il ne s’est pas réalisé. Et qu’ainsi aucune alternative politique réelle de classe n’a pu être présentée et, encore moins, représenter un facteur matériel de la situation.

    Pour autant ce mouvement des gilets jaunes, qu’il perdure ou non encore des semaines, marque un avant et un après dans la dynamique même du conflit de classe en France et une référence pour le prolétariat international. En particulier, au grand dam des syndicats et de leur tactique de journée d’action, il a montré qu’un mouvement "incontrôlé" et sans organisation – incontrôlé et inorganisé du point de vue de l’État et de l’idéologie bourgeoise – pouvait faire reculer la bourgeoisie 13. Il a montré aussi que le refus de subir la menace et la violence répressive de l’État, la volonté de ne pas céder à la répression et de continuer à manifester massivement malgré les risques, pouvait obliger la bourgeoisie à céder, dans certaines conditions et moments, à des revendications. Enfin, cet épisode particulier de la lutte des classes a fait entrer dans le combat des couches et des générations de prolétaires qui restaient à ce jour étrangères à celui-la et dont nous ne pouvons préjuger de l’expression dans les combats à venir tout comme de la prise de conscience. Il est trop tôt pour en déduire qu’une nouvelle génération de militants révolutionnaires puisse, directement ou indirectement, en émerger mécaniquement.

    C’est pourtant aussi à cette tâche que les révolutionnaires doivent s’atteler par la propagande et l’intervention. La (notre) faiblesse et la (notre) quasi absence des communistes comme force matérielle politique dans les manifestations et sur les ronds-points, aussi difficile une intervention active était-elle vu les réticences politiques des gilets jaunes et leur "interclassisme" affiché, est un élément de faiblesse, non pas en soi de ce mouvement en particulier qui ne fait que le souligner, mais du rapport de force international et historique actuel entre les classes. Nous ne développons pas plus ce point dans le cadre de ce communiqué dont l’objet immédiat se limite à la fois à fournir un positionnement immédiat sur la situation pour tous ceux qui y sont directement intéressés et pour l’ensemble du camp révolutionnaire international.

    Le GIGC, le 27 janvier 2019.
    Révolution ou Guerre # 11


    7 . Des États-Unis à la Chine, en passant par l’Afrique et tous les continents, grèves et conflits tendent à se multiplier ces derniers mois...

    8 . À ce titre, si le gouvernement et Macron ne comprirent pas ce qui se passait jusqu’au 10 décembre, l’appareil d’État comme un tout, à commencer par sa police, en passant par les syndicats et jusqu’aux autres forces politiques bourgeoises (dont l’ancien parti de Sarkozy mais aussi le PS) n’a à aucun moment perdu le contrôle de la situation. Contrairement à ce que des médias laissaient à entendre, nous étions loin d’une situation insurrectionnelle, voire révolutionnaire, même au plus fort des affrontements du 2 décembre. Macron et le gouvernement ont vacillé. Pas l’appareil d’État comme un tout, loin s’en faut.

    9 . Macron s’était engagé à la respecter... surtout pour asseoir son crédit international – impérialiste – auprès de la bourgeoisie allemande. De ce point de vue, le mouvement des gilets jaunes a affaibli le crédit et l’autorité de Macron auprès de ses alliées européens censé redonner à l’impérialisme français une place plus centrale, en particulier pour animer le renforcement de l’axe impérialiste germano-français.

    10 . Hier, 26 janvier, un des porte-paroles très populaire et "pacifiste", Jérôme Rodrigues a reçu un tir de flashball à l’œil alors qu’il filmait la scène – un Facebook live – et qu’il appelait les gilets jaunes à quitter la place de la Bastille. Et alors qu’il n’y avait aucun affrontement ou danger quelconque pour les policiers
    à ce moment-là . Il risque de le perdre définitivement et a été mis sous coma artificielle selon la presse de ce matin. Un tel dérapage peut très bien occasionner un sursaut de la mobilisation, voire en changer les termes et le timing tels que le gouvernement a réussi à les installer jusqu’alors.

    11 . cf le compte-rendu "à chaud", aujourd’hui même, de la réunion pour une coordination nationale des gilets jaunes à l’appel de Commercy réalisé par Matière et Révolution :

    12 . La diffusion de ce tract Place de la République le 26 janvier, là où devait se réunir les gilets jaunes après la manifestation, a été interdite par des gilets jaunes : « pas de politique au sein des gilets jaunes ! ». S’en est suivi une discussion difficile dans laquelle nous étions peu à critiquer cet "apolitisme" primaire et à argumenter sur la nécessité de s’emparer à bras le corps de la dimension politique de classe dans cette lutte comme dans toute lutte...

    13 . Nous-mêmes avions sous-estimé les potentialités de ce mouvement et écarté, trop rapidement, toute possibilité de "gain" pour les prolétaires dans notre communiqué du 2 décembre :
    « Sur ce terrain, les ouvriers qui s’y retrouvent isolés et noyés en tant que prolétaires dans une masse aux intérêts hétérogènes et même souvent contradictoires, isolés et noyés dans le "peuple", ne gagneront rien ». L’affirmation tranchée, sans doute car nous
    étions prisonniers d’un schéma, fut démentie par la réalité – du moins en partie. Le fait que nous n’ayons pas été les seuls à nous tromper sur ce point précis, n’enlève rien à la nécessité de comprendre où se situe l’erreur et quelle est sa dimension. En particulier, nous ne pensons qu’elle remette en cause l’analyse générale de ce mouvement et de ses limites du fait de son "interclassisme".

  • Israeli right up in arms over news anchor who said occupation turns soldiers into ’animals’ -

    Oshrat Kotler was responding to a report on the five Israeli soldiers who were recently indicted for beating Palestinian detainees in revenge for the death of their comrades
    Itay Stern
    Feb 17, 2019

    Israeli right-wing politicians harshly criticized Channel 13 TV anchorwoman Oshrat Kotler for saying soldiers become “human animals” during their army service in the West Bank during a broadcast on Saturday night.

    Kotler was responding to a report on five Israeli soldiers who were recently indicted for beating Palestinian detainees in revenge for the death of two soldiers from their battalion.

    “They send children to the army, to the territories, and get them back human animals. That’s the result of the occupation,” she said.

    >> Israeli army officer indicted for allowing soldiers to beat detained Palestinians ■ Palestinian father and son abused by Israeli soldiers: ’They beat us up, then started dancing’

    The statement sparked the ire of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who tweeted: “Proud of IDF soldiers and love them very much. Oshrat Kotler’s words should be roundly condemned.”

    Netanyahu addressed the remarks again at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting, saying “Yesterday I thought I did not hear correctly when I turned on the television. I heard an infuriating statement against IDF soldiers by a senior journalist, a news anchor. I would like to say that this statement is inappropriate and must be condemned - in a firm and comprehensive manner.”

    “I am proud of IDF soldiers. They are protecting us and we are carrying out the supreme humanitarian and moral mission of defending our people and protecting our country against those who want to slaughter us. The journalist’s words deserve all condemnation,” he said.
    Stay up to date: Sign up to our newsletter

    Education Minister Naftali Bennett wrote: “Oshrat, you’re confused. IDF soldiers give their lives so you can sleep peacefully. Human animals are the terrorists who murder children in their beds, a young girl on a walk or a whole family driving on the road. IDF soldiers are our strength. Our children. Apologize.”

    Bennett’s new party, Hayamin Hehadash, tweeted it would file an official request to the attorney general that he prosecute Kotler for defamation, “following her affronting comments which slander IDF soldiers.”

    Kotler, who realized during the broadcast that her statement sparked a storm, said later in the show: “I would like to stress: my children, and their friends, they’re all combat soldiers in the territories. My criticism was directed only at those soldiers led by our control over the Palestinians to hurt innocent people. Those who really listened and didn’t run to rail against me on the web understood that I’m in fact in favor of leniency toward the indicted soldiers, because we sent them into this impossible situation.”

    Meretz chairwoman MK Tamar Zandberg came to Kotler’s defense, writing: “How miserable and predictable is the attack on Kotler’s just statements. We don’t want a reality of occupation and violence? It must be changed. Closing our eyes and then scolding the messenger, that’s no solution.”

    Peace Now also voiced its support for Kotler, tweeting: “It’s permissible and desirable to look in the mirror sometimes and honestly admit the mistakes of the occupation. So when the right wing falsifies and incites and when MKs rush to join the crowd, Oshrat Kotler’s courageous words should be given a platform.”

    Channel 13 news issued a response saying “Oshrat Kotler is a journalist with strong opinions and she expresses them from time to time, like other journalists on our staff who hold other opinions. Oshrat expressed her personal opinion only.”

    The parents of the indicted soldiers called the statement “unfortunate and ugly," saying there is “no place in Israeli discourse and certainly not by a new anchorwoman who is meant to represent the facts and not her distorted worldview. Our boys went into the army with a feeling of mission and Zionism. They chose a hard road, they wanted to be combat soldiers in the IDF, they wanted no special conditions; they carry out a complex mission in one of the most difficult sectors. These are the best of the sons of the State of Israel, who although only a month ago they lost two comrades in arms, held their heads high, walked tall and carried out any mission they were assigned, without fault.”

    They further criticized Kotler for not enquiring into the identity of the soldiers, “what they went through when they enlisted, what huge difficulties they experienced.”

  • The Knesset candidate who says Zionism encourages anti-Semitism and calls Netanyahu ’arch-murderer’ - Israel Election 2019 -

    Few Israelis have heard of Dr. Ofer Cassif, the Jewish representative on the far-leftist Hadash party’s Knesset slate. On April 9, that will change
    By Ravit Hecht Feb 16, 2019

    Ofer Cassif is fire and brimstone. Not even the flu he’s suffering from today can contain his bursting energy. His words are blazing, and he bounds through his modest apartment, searching frenetically for books by Karl Marx and Primo Levi in order to find quotations to back up his ideas. Only occasional sips from a cup of maté bring his impassioned delivery to a momentary halt. The South American drink is meant to help fight his illness, he explains.

    Cassif is third on the slate of Knesset candidates in Hadash (the Hebrew acronym for the Democratic Front for Peace and Equality), the successor to Israel’s Communist Party. He holds the party’s “Jewish slot,” replacing MK Dov Khenin. Cassif is likely to draw fire from opponents and be a conspicuous figure in the next Knesset, following the April 9 election.

    Indeed, the assault on him began as soon as he was selected by the party’s convention. The media pursued him; a columnist in the mass-circulation Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, Ben-Dror Yemini, called for him to be disqualified from running for the Knesset. It would be naive to say that this was unexpected. Cassif, who was one of the first Israeli soldiers to refuse to serve in the territories, in 1987, gained fame thanks to a number of provocative statements. The best known is his branding of Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked as “neo-Nazi scum.” On another occasion, he characterized Jews who visit the Temple Mount as “cancer with metastases that have to be eradicated.”

    On his alternate Facebook page, launched after repeated blockages of his original account by a blitz of posts from right-wing activists, he asserted that Culture Minister Miri Regev is “repulsive gutter contamination,” that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is an “arch-murderer” and that the new Israel Defense Forces chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Aviv Kochavi, is a “war criminal.”

    Do you regret making those remarks?

    Cassif: “‘Regret’ is a word of emotion. Those statements were made against a background of particular events: the fence in Gaza, horrible legislation, and the wild antics of Im Tirtzu [an ultranationalist organization] on campus. That’s what I had to say at the time. I didn’t count on being in the Knesset. That wasn’t part of my plan. But it’s clear to me that as a public personality, I would not have made those comments.”

    Is Netanyahu an arch-murderer?

    “Yes. I wrote it in the specific context of a particular day in the Gaza Strip. A massacre of innocent people was perpetrated there, and no one’s going to persuade me that those people were endangering anyone. It’s a concentration camp. Not a ‘concentration camp’ in the sense of Bergen-Belsen; I am absolutely not comparing the Holocaust to what’s happening.”

    You term what Israel is doing to the Palestinians “genocide.”

    “I call it ‘creeping genocide.’ Genocide is not only a matter of taking people to gas chambers. When Yeshayahu Leibowitz used the term ‘Judeo-Nazis,’ people asked him, ‘How can you say that? Are we about to build gas chambers?’ To that, he had two things to say. First, if the whole difference between us and the Nazis boils down to the fact that we’re not building gas chambers, we’re already in trouble. And second, maybe we won’t use gas chambers, but the mentality that exists today in Israel – and he said this 40 years ago – would allow it. I’m afraid that today, after four years of such an extreme government, it possesses even greater legitimacy.

    “But you know what, put aside ‘genocide’ – ethnic cleansing is taking place there. And that ethnic cleansing is also being carried out by means of killing, although mainly by way of humiliation and of making life intolerable. The trampling of human dignity. It reminds me of Primo Levi’s ‘If This Is a Man.’”

    You say you’re not comparing, but you repeatedly come back to Holocaust references. On Facebook, you also uploaded the scene from “Schindler’s List” in which the SS commander Amon Goeth picks off Jews with his rifle from the balcony of his quarters in the camp. You compared that to what was taking place along the border fence in the Gaza Strip.

    “Today, I would find different comparisons. In the past I wrote an article titled, ‘On Holocaust and on Other Crimes.’ It’s online [in Hebrew]. I wrote there that anyone who compares Israel to the Holocaust is cheapening the Holocaust. My comparison between here and what happened in the early 1930s [in Germany] is a very different matter.”

    Clarity vs. crudity

    Given Cassif’s style, not everyone in Hadash was happy with his election, particularly when it comes to the Jewish members of the predominantly Arab party. Dov Khenin, for example, declined to be interviewed and say what he thinks of his parliamentary successor. According to a veteran party figure, “From the conversations I had, it turns out that almost none of the Jewish delegates – who make up about 100 of the party’s 940 delegates – supported his candidacy.

    “He is perceived, and rightly so,” the party veteran continues, “as someone who closes doors to Hadash activity within Israeli society. Each of the other Jewish candidates presented a record of action and of struggles they spearheaded. What does he do? Curses right-wing politicians on Facebook. Why did the party leadership throw the full force of its weight behind him? In a continuation of the [trend exemplified by] its becoming part of the Joint List, Ofer’s election reflects insularity and an ongoing retreat from the historical goal of implementing change in Israeli society.”

    At the same time, as his selection by a 60 percent majority shows, many in the party believe that it’s time to change course. “Israeli society is moving rightward, and what’s perceived as Dov’s [Khenin] more gentle style didn’t generate any great breakthrough on the Jewish street,” a senior source in Hadash notes.

    “It’s not a question of the tension between extremism and moderation, but of how to signpost an alternative that will develop over time. Clarity, which is sometimes called crudity, never interfered with cooperation between Arabs and Jews. On the contrary. Ofer says things that we all agreed with but didn’t so much say, and of course that’s going to rile the right wing. And a good thing, too.”

    Hadash chairman MK Ayman Odeh also says he’s pleased with the choice, though sources in the party claim that Odeh is apprehensive about Cassif’s style and that he actually supported a different candidate. “Dov went for the widest possible alliances in order to wield influence,” says Odeh. “Ofer will go for very sharp positions at the expense of the breadth of the alliance. But his sharp statements could have a large impact.”

    Khenin was deeply esteemed by everyone. When he ran for mayor of Tel Aviv in 2008, some 35 percent of the electorate voted for him, because he was able to touch people who weren’t only from his political milieu.

    Odeh: “No one has a higher regard for Dov than I do. But just to remind you, we are not a regular opposition, we are beyond the pale. And there are all kinds of styles. Influence can be wielded through comments that are vexatious the first time but which people get used to the second time. When an Arab speaks about the Nakba and about the massacre in Kafr Kassem [an Israeli Arab village, in 1956], it will be taken in a particular way, but when uttered by a Jew it takes on special importance.”

    He will be the cause of many attacks on the party.

    “Ahlan wa sahlan – welcome.”

    Cassif will be the first to tell you that, with all due respect for the approach pursued by Khenin and by his predecessor in the Jewish slot, Tamar Gozansky, he will be something completely different. “I totally admire what Tamar and Dov did – nothing less than that,” he says, while adding, “But my agenda will be different. The three immediate dangers to Israeli society are the occupation, racism and the diminishment of the democratic space to the point of liquidation. That’s the agenda that has to be the hub of the struggle, as long as Israel rules over millions of people who have no rights, enters [people’s houses] in the middle of the night, arrests minors on a daily basis and shoots people in the back.

    "Israel commits murder on a daily basis. When you murder one Palestinian, you’re called Elor Azaria [the IDF soldier convicted and jailed for killing an incapacitated Palestinian assailant]; when you murder and oppress thousands of Palestinians, you’re called the State of Israel.”

    So you plan to be the provocateur in the next Knesset?

    “It’s not my intention to be a provocateur, to stand there and scream and revile people. Even on Facebook I was compelled to stop that. But I definitely intend to challenge the dialogue in terms of the content, and mainly with a type of sarcasm.”

    ’Bags of blood’

    Cassif, 54, who holds a doctorate in political philosophy from the London School of Economics, teaches political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Sapir Academic College in Sderot and at the Academic College of Tel Aviv-Yaffo. He lives in Rehovot, is married and is the father of a 19-year-old son. He’s been active in Hadash for three decades and has held a number of posts in the party.

    As a lecturer, he stands out for his boldness and fierce rhetoric, which draws students of all stripes. He even hangs out with some of his Haredi students, one of whom wrote a post on the eve of the Hadash primary urging the delegates to choose him. After his election, a student from a settlement in the territories wrote to him, “You are a determined and industrious person, and for that I hold you in high regard. Hoping we will meet on the field of action and growth for the success of Israel as a Jewish, democratic state (I felt obliged to add a small touch of irony in conclusion).”

    Cassif grew up in a home that supported Mapai, forerunner of Labor, in Rishon Letzion. He was an only child; his father was an accountant, his mother held a variety of jobs. He was a news hound from an early age, and at 12 ran for the student council in school. He veered sharply to the left in his teens, becoming a keen follower of Marx and socialism.

    Following military service in the IDF’s Nahal brigade and a period in the airborne Nahal, Cassif entered the Hebrew University. There his political career moved one step forward, and there he also forsook the Zionist left permanently. His first position was as a parliamentary aide to the secretary general of the Communist Party, Meir Wilner.

    “At first I was closer to Mapam [the United Workers Party, which was Zionist], and then I refused to serve in the territories. I was the first refusenik in the first intifada to be jailed. I didn’t get support from Mapam, I got support from the people of Hadash, and I drew close to them. I was later jailed three more times for refusing to serve in the territories.”

    His rivals in the student organizations at the Hebrew University remember him as the epitome of the extreme left.

    “Even in the Arab-Jewish student association, Cassif was considered off-the-wall,” says Motti Ohana, who was chairman of Likud’s student association and active in the Student Union at the end of the 1980s and early 1990s. “One time I got into a brawl with him. It was during the first intifada, when he brought two bags of blood, emptied them out in the university’s corridors and declared, ‘There is no difference between Jewish and Arab blood,’ likening Israeli soldiers to terrorists. The custom on campus was that we would quarrel, left-right, Arabs-Jews, and after that we would sit together, have a coffee and talk. But not Cassif.”

    According to Ohana, today a member of the Likud central committee, the right-wing activists knew that, “You could count on Ofer to fall into every trap. There was one event at the Hebrew University that was a kind of political Hyde Park. The right wanted to boot the left out of there, so we hung up the flag. It was obvious that Ofer would react, and in fact he tore the flag, and in the wake of the ruckus that developed, political activity was stopped for good.”

    Replacing the anthem

    Cassif voices clearly and cogently positions that challenge the public discourse in Israel, and does so with ardor and charisma. Four candidates vied for Hadash’s Jewish slot, and they all delivered speeches at the convention. The three candidates who lost to him – Efraim Davidi, Yaela Raanan and the head of the party’s Tel Aviv branch, Noa Levy – described their activity and their guiding principles. When they spoke, there was the regular buzz of an audience that’s waiting for lunch. But when Cassif took the stage, the effect was magnetic.

    “Peace will not be established without a correction of the crimes of the Nakba and [recognition of] the right of return,” he shouted, and the crowd cheered him. As one senior party figure put it, “Efraim talked about workers’ rights, Yaela about the Negev, Noa about activity in Tel Aviv – and Ofer was Ofer.”

    What do you mean by “right of return”?

    Cassif: “The first thing is the actual recognition of the Nakba and of the wrong done by Israel. Compare it to the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions in South Africa, if you like, or with the commissions in Chile after Pinochet. Israel must recognize the wrong it committed. Now, recognition of the wrong also includes recognition of the right of return. The question is how it’s implemented. It has to be done by agreement. I can’t say that tomorrow Tel Aviv University has to be dismantled and that Sheikh Munis [the Arab village on whose ruins the university stands] has to be rebuilt there. The possibility can be examined of giving compensation in place of return, for example.”

    But what is the just solution, in your opinion?

    “For the Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland.”

    That means there will be Jews who will have to leave their home.

    “In some places, unequivocally, yes. People will have to be told: ‘You must evacuate your places.’ The classic example is Ikrit and Biram [Christian-Arab villages in Galilee whose residents were promised – untruly – by the Israeli authorities in 1948 that they would be able to return, and whose lands were turned over to Jewish communities]. But there are places where there is certainly greater difficulty. You don’t right one wrong with another.”

    What about the public space in Israel? What should it look like?

    “The public space has to change, to belong to all the state’s residents. I dispute the conception of ‘Jewish publicness.’”

    How should that be realized?

    “For example, by changing the national symbols, changing the national anthem. [Former Hadash MK] Mohammed Barakeh once suggested ‘I Believe’ [‘Sahki, Sahki’] by [Shaul] Tchernichovsky – a poem that is not exactly an expression of Palestinian nationalism. He chose it because of the line, ‘For in mankind I’ll believe.’ What does it mean to believe in mankind? It’s not a Jew, or a Palestinian, or a Frenchman, or I don’t know what.”

    What’s the difference between you and the [Arab] Balad party? Both parties overall want two states – a state “of all its citizens” and a Palestinian state.

    “In the big picture, yes. But Balad puts identity first on the agenda. We are not nationalists. We do not espouse nationalism as a supreme value. For us, self-determination is a means. We are engaged in class politics. By the way, Balad [the National Democratic Assembly] and Ta’al [MK Ahmad Tibi’s Arab Movement for Renewal] took the idea of a state of all its citizens from us, from Hadash. We’ve been talking about it for ages.”

    If you were a Palestinian, what would you do today?

    “In Israel, what my Palestinian friends are doing, and I with them – [wage] a parliamentary and extra-parliamentary struggle.”

    And what about the Palestinians in the territories?

    “We have always been against harming innocent civilians. Always. In all our demonstrations, one of our leading slogans was: ‘In Gaza and in Sderot, children want to live.’ With all my criticism of the settlers, to enter a house and slaughter children, as in the case of the Fogel family [who were murdered in their beds in the settlement of Itamar in 2011], is intolerable. You have to be a human being and reject that.”

    And attacks on soldiers?

    “An attack on soldiers is not terrorism. Even Netanyahu, in his book about terrorism, explicitly categorizes attacks on soldiers or on the security forces as guerrilla warfare. It’s perfectly legitimate, according to every moral criterion – and, by the way, in international law. At the same time, I am not saying it’s something wonderful, joyful or desirable. The party’s Haifa office is on Ben-Gurion Street, and suddenly, after years, I noticed a memorial plaque there for a fighter in Lehi [pre-state underground militia, also known as the Stern Gang] who assassinated a British officer. Wherever there has been a struggle for liberation from oppression, there are national heroes, who in 90 percent of the cases carried out some operations that were unlawful. Nelson Mandela is today considered a hero, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but according to the conventional definition, he was a terrorist. Most of the victims of the ANC [African National Congress] were civilians.”

    In other words, today’s Hamas commanders who are carrying out attacks on soldiers will be heroes of the future Palestinian state?

    “Of course.”

    Anti-Zionist identity

    Cassif terms himself an explicit anti-Zionist. “There are three reasons for that,” he says. “To begin with, Zionism is a colonialist movement, and as a socialist, I am against colonialism. Second, as far as I am concerned, Zionism is racist in ideology and in practice. I am not referring to the definition of race theory – even though there are also some who impute that to the Zionist movement – but to what I call Jewish supremacy. No socialist can accept that. My supreme value is equality, and I can’t abide any supremacy – Jewish or Arab. The third thing is that Zionism, like other ethno-nationalistic movements, splits the working class and all weakened groups. Instead of uniting them in a struggle for social justice, for equality, for democracy, it divides the exploited classes and the enfeebled groups, and by that means strengthens the rule of capital.”

    He continues, “Zionism also sustains anti-Semitism. I don’t say it does so deliberately – even though I have no doubt that there are some who do it deliberately, like Netanyahu, who is connected to people like the prime minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban, and the leader of the far right in Austria, Hans Christian Strache.”

    Did Mapai-style Zionism also encourage anti-Semitism?

    “The phenomenon was very striking in Mapai. Think about it for a minute, not only historically, but logically. If the goal of political and practical Zionism is really the establishment of a Jewish state containing a Jewish majority, and for Diaspora Jewry to settle there, nothing serves them better than anti-Semitism.”

    What in their actions encouraged anti-Semitism?

    “The very appeal to Jews throughout the world – the very fact of treating them as belonging to the same nation, when they were living among other nations. The whole old ‘dual loyalty’ story – Zionism actually encouraged that. Therefore, I maintain that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are not the same thing, but are precisely opposites. That doesn’t mean, of course, that there are no anti-Zionists who are also anti-Semites. Most of the BDS people are of course anti-Zionists, but they are in no way anti-Semites. But there are anti-Semites there, too.”

    Do you support BDS?

    “It’s too complex a subject for a yes or no answer; there are aspects I don’t support.”

    Do you think that the Jews deserve a national home in the Land of Israel?

    “I don’t know what you mean by ‘national home.’ It’s very amorphous. We in Hadash say explicitly that Israel has a right to exist as a sovereign state. Our struggle is not against the state’s existence, but over its character.”

    But that state is the product of the actions of the Zionist movement, which you say has been colonialist and criminal from day one.

    “That’s true, but the circumstances have changed. That’s the reason that the majority of the members of the Communist Party accepted the [1947] partition agreement at the time. They recognized that the circumstances had changed. I think that one of the traits that sets communist thought apart, and makes it more apt, is the understanding and the attempt to strike the proper balance between what should be, and reality. So it’s true that Zionism started as colonialism, but what do you do with the people who were already born here? What do you tell them? Because your grandparents committed a crime, you have to leave? The question is how you transform the situation that’s been created into one that’s just, democratic and equal.”

    So, a person who survived a death camp and came here is a criminal?

    “The individual person, of course not. I’m in favor of taking in refugees in distress, no matter who or what they are. I am against Zionism’s cynical use of Jews in distress, including the refugees from the Holocaust. I have a problem with the fact that the natives whose homeland this is cannot return, while people for whom it’s not their homeland, can, because they supposedly have some sort of blood tie and an ‘imaginary friend’ promised them the land.”

    I understand that you are in favor of the annulment of the Law of Return?

    “Yes. Definitely.”

    But you are in favor of the Palestinian right of return.

    “There’s no comparison. There’s no symmetry here at all. Jerry Seinfeld was by chance born to a Jewish family. What’s his connection to this place? Why should he have preference over a refugee from Sabra or Chatila, or Edward Said, who did well in the United States? They are the true refugees. This is their homeland. Not Seinfeld’s.”

    Are you critical of the Arabs, too?

    “Certainly. One criticism is of their cooperation with imperialism – take the case of today’s Saudi Arabia, Qatar and so on. Another, from the past, relates to the reactionary forces that did not accept that the Jews have a right to live here.”

    Hadash refrained from criticizing the Assad regime even as it was massacring civilians in Syria. The party even torpedoed a condemnation of Assad after the chemical attack. Do you identify with that approach?

    “Hadash was critical of the Assad regime – father and son – for years, so we can’t be accused in any way of supporting Assad or Hezbollah. We are not Ba’ath, we are not Islamists. We are communists. But as I said earlier, the struggle, unfortunately, is generally not between the ideal and what exists in practice, but many times between two evils. And then you have to ask yourself which is the lesser evil. The Syrian constellation is extremely complicated. On the one hand, there is the United States, which is intervening, and despite all the pretense of being against ISIS, supported ISIS and made it possible for ISIS to sprout.

    "I remind you that ISIS started from the occupation of Iraq. And ideologically and practically, ISIS is definitely a thousand times worse than the Assad regime, which is at base also a secular regime. Our position was and is against the countries that pose the greatest danger to regional peace, which above all are Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and the United States, which supports them. That doesn’t mean that we support Assad.”

    Wrong language

    Cassif’s economic views are almost as far from the consensus as his political ideas. He lives modestly in an apartment that’s furnished like a young couple’s first home. You won’t find an espresso maker or unnecessary products of convenience in his place. To his credit, it can be said that he extracts the maximum from Elite instant coffee.

    What is your utopian vision – to nationalize Israel’s conglomerates, such as Cellcom, the telecommunications company, or Osem, the food manufacturer and distributor?

    “The bottom line is yes. How exactly will it be done? That’s an excellent question, which I can’t answer. Perhaps by transferring ownership to the state or to the workers, with democratic tools. And there are other alternatives. But certainly, I would like it if a large part of the resources were not in private hands, as was the case before the big privatizations. It’s true that it won’t be socialism, because, again, there can be no such thing as Zionist socialism, but there won’t be privatization like we have today. What is the result of capitalism in Israel? The collapse of the health system, the absence of a social-welfare system, a high cost of living and of housing, the elderly and the disabled in a terrible situation.”

    Does any private sector have the right to exist?

    “Look, the question is what you mean by ‘private sector.’ If we’re talking about huge concerns that the owners of capital control completely through their wealth, then no.”

    What growth was there in the communist countries? How can anyone support communism, in light of the grim experience wherever it was tried?

    “It’s true, we know that in the absolute majority of societies where an attempt was made to implement socialism, there was no growth or prosperity, and we need to ask ourselves why, and how to avoid that. When I talk about communism, I’m not talking about Stalin and all the crimes that were committed in the name of the communist idea. Communism is not North Korea and it is not Pol Pot in Cambodia. Heaven forbid.”

    And what about Venezuela?

    “Venezuela is not communism. In fact, they didn’t go far enough in the direction of socialism.”

    Chavez was not enough of a socialist?

    “Chavez, but in particular Maduro. The Communist Party is critical of the regime. They support it because the main enemy is truly American imperialism and its handmaidens. Let’s look at what the U.S. did over the years. At how many times it invaded and employed bullying, fascist forces. Not only in Latin America, its backyard, but everywhere.”

    Venezuela is falling apart, people there don’t have anything to eat, there’s no medicine, everyone who can flees – and it’s the fault of the United States?

    “You can’t deny that the regime has made mistakes. It’s not ideal. But basically, it is the result of American imperialism and its lackeys. After all, the masses voted for Chavez and for Maduro not because things were good for them. But because American corporations stole the country’s resources and filled their own pockets. I wouldn’t make Chavez into an icon, but he did some excellent things.”

    Then how do you generate individual wealth within the method you’re proposing? I understand that I am now talking to you capitalistically, but the reality is that people see the accumulation of assets as an expression of progress in life.

    “Your question is indeed framed in capitalist language, which simply departs from what I believe in. Because you are actually asking me how the distribution of resources is supposed to occur within the capitalist framework. And I say no, I am not talking about resource distribution within a capitalist framework.”

    Gantz vs. Netanyahu

    Cassif was chosen as the polls showed Meretz and Labor, the representatives of the Zionist left, barely scraping through into the next Knesset and in fact facing a serious possibility of electoral extinction. The critique of both parties from the radical left is sometimes more acerbic than from the right.

    Would you like to see the Labor Party disappear?

    “No. I think that what’s happening at the moment with Labor and with Meretz is extremely dangerous. I speak about them as collectives, because they contain individuals with whom I see no possibility of engaging in a dialogue. But I think that they absolutely must be in the Knesset.”

    Is a left-winger who defines himself as a Zionist your partner in any way?

    “Yes. We need partners. We can’t be picky. Certainly we will cooperate with liberals and Zionists on such issues as combating violence against women or the battle to rescue the health system. Maybe even in putting an end to the occupation.”

    I’ll put a scenario to you: Benny Gantz does really well in the election and somehow overcomes Netanyahu. Do you support the person who led Operation Protective Edge in Gaza when he was chief of staff?

    “Heaven forbid. But we don’t reject people, we reject policy. I remind you that it was [then-defense minister] Yitzhak Rabin who led the most violent tendency in the first intifada, with his ‘Break their bones.’ But when he came to the Oslo Accords, it was Hadash and the Arab parties that gave him, from outside the coalition, an insurmountable bloc. I can’t speak for the party, but if there is ever a government whose policy is one that we agree with – eliminating the occupation, combating racism, abolishing the nation-state law – I believe we will give our support in one way or another.”

    And if Gantz doesn’t declare his intention to eliminate the occupation, he isn’t preferable to Netanyahu in any case?

    “If so, why should we recommend him [to the president to form the next government]? After the clips he posted boasting about how many people he killed and how he hurled Gaza back into the Stone Age, I’m far from certain that he’s better.”


    • traduction d’un extrait [ d’actualité ]

      Le candidat à la Knesset dit que le sionisme encourage l’antisémitisme et qualifie Netanyahu de « meurtrier »
      Peu d’Israéliens ont entendu parler de M. Ofer Cassif, représentant juif de la liste de la Knesset du parti d’extrême gauche Hadash. Le 9 avril, cela changera.
      Par Ravit Hecht 16 février 2019 – Haaretz

      (…) Identité antisioniste
      Cassif se dit un antisioniste explicite. « Il y a trois raisons à cela », dit-il. « Pour commencer, le sionisme est un mouvement colonialiste et, en tant que socialiste, je suis contre le colonialisme. Deuxièmement, en ce qui me concerne, le sionisme est raciste d’idéologie et de pratique. Je ne fais pas référence à la définition de la théorie de la race - même si certains l’imputent également au mouvement sioniste - mais à ce que j’appelle la suprématie juive. Aucun socialiste ne peut accepter cela. Ma valeur suprême est l’égalité et je ne peux supporter aucune suprématie - juive ou arabe. La troisième chose est que le sionisme, comme d’autres mouvements ethno-nationalistes, divise la classe ouvrière et tous les groupes sont affaiblis. Au lieu de les unir dans une lutte pour la justice sociale, l’égalité, la démocratie, il divise les classes exploitées et affaiblit les groupes, renforçant ainsi le pouvoir du capital. "
      Il poursuit : « Le sionisme soutient également l’antisémitisme. Je ne dis pas qu’il le fait délibérément - même si je ne doute pas qu’il y en a qui le font délibérément, comme Netanyahu, qui est connecté à des gens comme le Premier ministre de la Hongrie, Viktor Orban, et le chef de l’extrême droite. en Autriche, Hans Christian Strache. ”

      Le sionisme type-Mapaï a-t-il également encouragé l’antisémitisme ?
      « Le phénomène était très frappant au Mapai. Pensez-y une minute, non seulement historiquement, mais logiquement. Si l’objectif du sionisme politique et pratique est en réalité de créer un État juif contenant une majorité juive et de permettre à la communauté juive de la diaspora de s’y installer, rien ne leur sert mieux que l’antisémitisme. "

      Qu’est-ce qui, dans leurs actions, a encouragé l’antisémitisme ?
      « L’appel même aux Juifs du monde entier - le fait même de les traiter comme appartenant à la même nation, alors qu’ils vivaient parmi d’autres nations. Toute la vieille histoire de « double loyauté » - le sionisme a en fait encouragé cela. Par conséquent, j’affirme que l’antisémitisme et l’antisionisme ne sont pas la même chose, mais sont précisément des contraires. Bien entendu, cela ne signifie pas qu’il n’y ait pas d’antisionistes qui soient aussi antisémites. La plupart des membres du BDS sont bien sûr antisionistes, mais ils ne sont en aucun cas antisémites. Mais il y a aussi des antisémites.

  • Gantz, son of Holocaust survivor, mentions Bergen-Belsen but ignores the camp that is Gaza
    If Benny Gantz had the courage, he’d go to The Hague himself
    Amira Hass
    Feb 03, 2019

    Benny Gantz frequently mentions his mother, a survivor of Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, Anshel Pfeffer wrote in Haaretz on January 30. My mother also survived Bergen-Belsen. The former IDF chief of staff’s mother encouraged him to continue fighting in Gaza, but not to stop sending food to its inhabitants. (To make things straight: Israel did not and does not send food to the Palestinians. The food is bought at full price from Israeli merchants and producers. What Israel can do is to prevent food and other essential products from entering Gaza, as it has done more than once.) My mother was revolted by generals, their wars against the Palestinians and the trafficking in the memory of the murdered Jews.

    If Gantz had the courage, he would go to The Hague himself, to the Dutch district court there. The judge would have to decide whether the Dutch court has the authority to hear a civil suit against the former Israeli chief of staff for war crimes in Gaza in 2014 – the killing of six members of a family in one bombardment. Gantz’s lawyer would argue that the judge should reject the suit because the court has no jurisdiction, and in any case Gantz has immunity because he did what he did for the State of Israel, in the framework of his state-sanctioned role. This is also whyIsrael pays for his legal representation.

    >> Read more: Like Netanyahu, Gantz plays on the anxieties of his would-be voters ■ 180 Palestinian women wounded by live Israeli fire since start of Gaza protests

    Suing for war crimes specific people, who were serving in official capacities, is based on the concept that human beings, even soldiers and certainly their supreme commander, are creatures capable of thinking and are therefore responsible for their actions. They are not just following orders. A civil suit for a war crime committed in another country is based on the concept that universal values exist and that when international law is breached, a third state has the right to adjudicate.

    If Gantz had the courage, he would leave his new Knesset (or cabinet) seat for a day or two and stand in The Hague before the plaintiff Ismail Ziada. But even if Gantz doesn’t go, two tracks of uprootedness, injustice and trauma, will intersect there. Europe made clear to Gantz’s parents, who were born in Hungary and Romania, that they were not wanted there. In fact, that they didn’t deserve to live. They were not killed, and they arrived in this country. In Israel we became the victors, and we continue to take revenge on those who have nothing to do with the expulsion and murder of the Jews.

  • Depuis quelques jours, le collectif Désarmons-les se fait régulièrement agresser. Voici son communiqué :
    MISE AU POINT, sur les menaces que nous recevons.

    Depuis quelques jours, nous nous faisons régulièrement agresser.

    Notre collectif existe depuis 2012. Depuis 2014, il s’organise quotidiennement auprès de personnes mutilées par la police, y compris déjà en 1999. Certain-es de ces blessé-es graves l’ont été dans les quartiers populaires, d’autres en marge de matchs de foot, tous n’ont pas les mêmes convictions politiques. Nous n’avons pas attendu le mouvement des gilets jaunes.

    Oui, il y avait des blessé-es grave avant les gilets jaunes. Nous en comptions au moins 53 avant le mois de novembre 2018. On en parlait peu. Notre combat était peu visible. Nous n’avons jamais cherché la reconnaissance, notre priorité étant d’aider les blessé-es dans leur combat, en apportant un soutien juridique, psychologique, politique, selon des principes clairs et en accord avec une analyse radicale du système actuel.

    Depuis quelques semaines, des enjeux de pouvoir ont pris leur place dans un combat que nous menons depuis des années avec bienveillance. Des gens se présentent en icônes d’un mouvement qui avait pourtant affirmé qu’il ne voulait pas de porte-paroles, écrasant au passage les pieds des autres. Certaines croient également pertinent de dire qu’ils sont « neutres » et que leur action est « apolitique », tout en laissant agir des populistes de la droite dure et en condamnant les militants antifascistes qui combattent l’hydre fasciste avec conviction (autant préciser qu’on ne la combat pas avec des fleurs).

    Nous ne sommes pas d’accord avec cette neutralité, car pour nous les violences d’État, dont font partie les violences racistes et les violences policières, sont un problème politique. Depuis des années, nous essayons de faire admettre au plus grand nombre que ce ne sont pas des « dérapages », des « bavures », mais des violences systémiques, institutionnelles, assumées par le pouvoir.

    Aujourd’hui, nous faisons l’objet d’insultes diverses et de menaces.

    Des gens nous disent que nous mentons et que nous « ne maîtrisons pas notre sujet », sans avoir lu un seul des articles de notre site internet. Nous mettons au défi qui que ce soit de trouver un mensonge sur notre site ou une information qui soit fausse.

    Depuis quelques jours, nous faisons également l’objet d’attaques verbales et de menaces de personnes qui ne supportent pas la critique politique et ne sont pas capables d’autocritique, exigeant de nous qu’on supprime des publications sous prétexte qu’elles leur déplaisent, confondent « critique » et « appel à la haine ».

    Parmi elles, des personnes qui se disent « medics » et ont inventé un clivage entre « street medics » et « médics », comme si ces catégories existaient avant que ces mêmes personnes ne débarquent et négocient leur intervention avec les autorités, niant et piétinant du même coup des décennies de pratiques militantes, réfléchies et autonomes (qu’elles semblent mépriser). « street medic » n’est pas une identité, mais une pratique, au même titre que les « legal team » (soutien juridique), les « trauma team » (soutien psychologique), le « black bloc » (tactique collective permettant d’agir et se défendre en bénéficiant de l’anonymat), les « zones d’autonomie temporaire » ou les « cantines mobiles ». Cette pratique a une histoire et une philosophie, qui remonte au mouvement américain des droits civiques. Elle n’a jamais été neutre, ni apolitique.

    Déjà en 2012, nous avions des liens constants avec des groupes de « street medics ». Sur certaines manifestations, nous avons nous-mêmes été street medics.

    Faire « street medic », c’est être capable d’humilité, refuser la professionnalisation, dans le but de protéger les manifestant-es de la répression et d’organiser le soin en manifestation autour de principes de lutte clairs, qui n’acceptent aucune négociation avec les flics pour quémander le droit d’agir. Oui, être medic en manif, ce n’est pas offrir un substitut à la sécurité civile ou aux pompiers : il s’agit d’un combat politique, pas de l’encadrement légal d’un événement festif.

    Toutes celles et ceux qui voient dans ces pratiques une manière égocentrique d’exister, d’avoir de la reconnaissance, de se faire passer pour des héros, n’ont pas compris l’esprit de la chose.

    On n’a pas à nous faire des pressions parce que nous dénonçons les compromis avec la police. Nous avons nos valeurs et principes, nous les défendrons. Que ceux à qui ça ne plaît pas passent leur chemin au lieu de nous empêcher d’agir et de nous faire perdre notre temps.

    Laissez nous respirer !

    (je l’ai copié en entier parce que je veux être sûre qu’il soit lu, tant ses bases politiques / éthiques sont importantes !)

    #apolitisme #streetmedics #street_medic #trauma_team #legal_team #black_bloc #radicalité #oppression_systémique

    • ajout sur leur facebook : Une liste non exhaustive des avocat-es que Désarmons-les ! conseille, pour des raisons liées à leur compréhension des enjeux de la défense collective, leur fiabilité, leur accessibilité et leur engagement personnel dans la défense de personnes touchées par la répression ou les violences policières :

      Lucie SIMON (Paris / IDF) : 06 33 50 30 64
      Raphael KEMPF (Paris / IDF) : 06 28 06 37 93
      Ainoha PASCUAL (Paris / IDF) : 07 68 97 17 68
      Eduardo MARIOTTI (Paris / IDF) : 07 68 40 72 76
      Alice BECKER (Paris / IDF) : 06 23 76 19 82
      Samuel DELALANDE (Paris / IDF) : 06 01 95 93 59
      Matteo BONAGLIA (Paris / IDF) : 01 40 64 00 25
      Emilie BONVARLET (Paris / IDF) : 06 23 53 33 08
      Xavier SAUVIGNET (Paris / IDF) : 01 56 79 00 68
      Arié ALIMI (Paris / IDF) : 06 32 37 88 52
      Chloé CHALOT (Rouen) : 06 98 83 29 52
      Claire DUJARDIN (Toulouse / SUD OUEST) : 06 74 53 68 95
      Romain FOUCARD (Bordeaux / SUD OUEST) : 07 62 07 73 56
      Muriel RUEF (Lille / NORD) : 06 84 16 63 02
      Florian REGLEY (Lille / NORD) : 07 83 46 30 82
      Maxime GOUACHE (Nantes / OUEST) : 06 59 89 37 57
      Pierre HURIET (Nantes / OUEST) : 06 15 82 31 62
      Stephane VALLEE (Nantes / OUEST) : 06 09 93 94 61
      Florence ALLIGIER (Lyon / EST) : 06 07 27 41 77
      Olivier FORRAY (Lyon / EST) : 04 78 39 28 28
      Christelle MERCIER (Saint Etienne / EST) : 06 28 67 53 52
      Jean Louis BORIE (Clermont Ferrand / CENTRE) : 04 73 36 37 35

    • On remarquera que certain.e.s leaders blessé.e.s ne l’ont pas été dans un groupe de manifestant.e.s agité.e.s mais étaient seuls, dans un coin calme, presque en retrait.

      Exemple, Louis Boyard :

      à l’écart et sans gilet jaune, il prend la décision de s’éloigner « sans courir ».

      Questions :
      Qui donne l’ordre aux policiers de blesser volontairement les opposant.e.s qui dérangent ?
      Qui fournit les noms des opposants.e.s à « neutraliser » ?

      – Ministère de l’intérieur ?
      – Attaché au cabinet du président de la république ?
      – Direction de la police ?

  • Plongée au cœur du Facebook des « gilets jaunes »

    C’est une France qui ne manifeste pas spécialement de pensée raciste, homophobe ou antisémite, et se réclame plus volontiers de Coluche que de n’importe quel parti politique. C’est une France qui nourrit un sentiment de défiance, voire de ressentiment profond pour les « élites » de tous bords. C’est une France qui se sent vulnérable et injustement traitée, que ce soit par les forces de l’ordre, Emmanuel Macron ou les chaînes d’information. Et qui verse facilement dans un sentiment de persécution et dans une certaine forme de complotisme.

    Pour tenter de saisir la pensée des « gilets jaunes », nous avons réuni et analysé les deux cents publications les plus partagées au sein des différents groupes Facebook de la mouvance, depuis sa naissance jusqu’au 22 janvier.

    Au total, ces publications ont été partagées près de 6,9 millions de fois. La plus populaire d’entre elles a réuni à elle seule 340 000 partages et présente, ironiquement, une image qui aurait été « censurée par Facebook », selon l’auteur du message. L’intérêt de ce corpus est qu’il donne une vision des sujets qui rassemblent le plus d’internautes qui se revendiquent « gilets jaunes » en ligne, et permet d’appréhender les idées qui font consensus dans le mouvement.

    #Facebook #Gilets_jaunes

      Pour réaliser cette étude, nous avons répertorié les 200 publications les plus partagées sur Facebook dans un ensemble de 204 groupes de « gilets jaunes » entre début octobre et le 22 janvier, à l’aide de l’outil d’analyse Crowdtangle. Nous les avons ensuite consultées une par une, afin d’en étudier le fond comme la forme. Lorsque cela été possible, nous avons évalué la véracité des faits qui y sont présentés.
      Les données utilisées dans le cadre de cet article sont consultables ici.

      Après analyse, quatre grandes thématiques se dégagent de ce grand déversoir de frustrations. Elles se répondent, parfois se chevauchent, et souvent s’alimentent les unes les autres. Sans grande surprise, viennent d’abord les messages sur la mobilisation en elle-même et les instantanés de manifestations.

      Les #violences_policières sont vite devenues un sujet majeur au sein du mouvement
      Mais juste derrière, vient ce qui est rapidement devenu le grand sujet de discussion : la dénonciation de la #répression du mouvement, qu’elle s’appuie sur des faits avérés ou fantasmés. Dans ce contexte, le discours anti-élite et les #revendications précises de la mouvance sont finalement relégués au second plan.

      La répression du mouvement, sujet majeur de partage chez les "gilets jaunes"

      Parmi un ensemble de 200 messages publiés dans plus de 200 #groupes_Facebook avant le 22 janvier 2019.
      (graphique sous €)
      Autre élément intéressant dont nous avons pu mesurer l’ampleur : 35 de ces 200 messages n’étaient plus en ligne le 23 janvier, soit environ un sur cinq. Il s’agit de messages qui ont pu être modérés par les groupes Facebook en question, supprimés par leurs auteurs ou retirés par la plate-forme lorsqu’ils contrevenaient à ses conditions d’utilisation.

      La mobilisation jaune : fierté et #solidarité
      Il existe un très fort sentiment d’appartenance à la cause « jaune », qui se confond souvent avec une représentation idéalisée du #peuple. La part principale des posts les plus populaires porte sur la dimension massive de leur propre mouvement, soit pour l’alimenter, soit pour s’en féliciter, soit pour le relancer.

      Cela passe tout d’abord par des messages d’organisation, souvent rudimentaires. Ici, des #appels à bloquer un sous-traitant de la Bourse de Paris ou le marché de Rungis. Là, des appels à la solidarité, souvent lancés en direction des routiers, des motards, des chômeurs ou de figures du mouvement. A noter que si la volonté de paralyser le pays est explicite, les appels à la violence ne sont pas populaires à l’échelle du mouvement, d’autant qu’au fil des semaines, on a pu constater une #modération des propos à caractère violent, raciste ou conspirationniste. En 200 messages, nous n’avons ainsi recensé, encore en ligne à ce jour, qu’une seule glorification des violences contre les forces de l’ordre, et une invitation à mettre le « bordel » lors de la Saint-Sylvestre.

      La vidéo montrant la banda des « gilets jaunes » interprétant « Dans les yeux d’Emilie », au péage de l’autoroute A 64, à Pau (Pyrénées-Atlantiques), postée le 24 novembre. SAISIE D’ECRAN /FACEBOOK
      A travers leurs groupes, les sympathisants témoignent surtout avec enthousiasme du sentiment de faire corps, de faire masse. Photos de foule en jaune, appels à se compter, chansons ou clips louant le mouvement, partage de chiffres flatteurs des mobilisations, vidéos et photos de manifestants à l’étranger illustrent cette « fierté jaune », dont la mise en scène emprunte aussi bien à l’iconographie des révolutions françaises qu’à la musique populaire – de la guinguette au rap.

      La « répression » : entre violences avérées et théories du complot

      Dans cet imaginaire, face au mouvement populaire et pacifique des « gilets jaunes » se dresse une « forteresse d’Etat » qui tenterait d’écraser la révolte comme dans les pires dictatures. Et ce, avec la complicité des médias. C’est en tout cas ce que décrivent les nombreux messages fustigeant les méthodes employées par le gouvernement depuis le 17 novembre.

      Les « gilets jaunes » considèrent cette #violence_d’Etat comme injustifiée. Ils expliquent les débordements du mouvement par des théories aux accents conspirationnistes. Les dégradations lors de certaines manifestations ? Forcément la faute à des policiers déguisés en casseurs pour décrédibiliser le mouvement – une théorie qui n’a pas été avérée à ce jour. Des voitures saccagées à Paris ? De faux véhicules, sans immatriculation. Une mobilisation qui recule au fil des semaines ? La faute à de prétendus [ben voyons : contrôles des accès à l’Idf et aux villes et arrestations massives] barrages sur l’autoroute qui auraient empêché les manifestants de se rendre aux rassemblements.

      « On n’a plus le droit de reculer, maintenant »
      Parallèlement, dès les premiers rassemblements, la « jaunosphère » relaie massivement les photos et vidéos de ses « frères » aux visages tuméfiés, d’une femme âgée au bord de l’évanouissement ou de policiers frappant un « gilet jaune » par surprise. Dès le 29 novembre, un mot d’ordre soude la foule numérique :
      « On a plus le droit de reculer maintenant, pour tous ces gens décédés, blessés gravement, tabassés gratuitement… »
      Il est toujours délicat d’interpréter ces scènes, puisqu’il s’agit souvent de courts extraits, voire d’instantanés de situations beaucoup plus complexes, quand ce ne sont pas des clichés des blessures des contestataires a posteriori. Un constat d’ensemble s’impose tout de même : la quasi-totalité des images de personnes blessées que nous avons analysées nous sont apparues soit authentiques, soit invérifiables. Deux exceptions tout de même :
      la rumeur – infondée – d’un homme tué en direct à la télévision ;
      une vidéo qui compile des violences policières, mais remontait en réalité aux manifestations contre la loi travail en 2016.

      L’abondance des exemples entretient un #sentiment_d’injustice et de persécution, probant dans les commentaires. Face à ce qui est perçu comme un abus de pouvoir de la part des forces de l’ordre, les « gilets jaunes » partagent deux types de message, l’un faisant l’apologie de jets de cocktails molotov contre la police en Corse (un seul post de ce type, mais partagé près de 50 000 fois) ; l’autre suggérant le recours à des bombes de peinture, jugé plus ludique et plus pacifique (trois posts similaires, pour 105 000 partages au total).

      On trouve également des hommages appuyés aux « gilets jaunes » considérés comme « martyrisés » par le pouvoir. C’est le cas très médiatisé de Christophe Dettinger, le boxeur accusé d’avoir frappé des policiers lors de l’acte VIII du mouvement à Paris, présenté comme un héros ayant défendu des manifestants vulnérables. Ou de celui moins connu d’un Narbonnais condamné à un an de prison.

      Critique des #élites : Macron et le train de vie des #élus dans le collimateur
      Il y a les « gilets jaunes » d’un côté, et de l’autre eux, les nantis, les élus, les #médias, pour lesquels les membres de ces communautés nourrissent un profond ressentiment. Une personnalité concentre leur animosité : Emmanuel Macron. Le président de la République est la cible de nombreuses critiques et mises en scènes, dont certaines ordurières. On lui reproche, pêle-mêle, un exercice jugé monarchique du pouvoir, sa politique économique libérale, ses liens avec la finance… Sans oublier la hausse des prix des carburants : plusieurs photomontages le présentent ainsi comme « Miss Taxes 2018 » et appellent à sa démission.

      Mais au-delà du président, ce sont tous les élus qui sont visés. Trop rémunérés, pas assez actifs, déconnectés de la #vie_quotidienne des Français… Notre échantillon des coups de gueule des « gilets jaunes » est un bon condensé des procès faits aux représentants politiques. Certains sont fondés sur des faits – comme les avantages accordés aux députés français – ; d’autres, sur des rumeurs ou de fausses informations – comme l’affirmation selon laquelle ces mêmes députés seraient deux fois mieux payés que leurs homologues allemands ou britanniques.

      Les médias ne sont pas épargnés, à commencer par BFM-TV, qui fait l’objet d’une poignée de publications virulentes l’accusant de manipulation des chiffres ou des images. Mais ils sont souvent critiqués au détour d’une dénonciation plus large, comme des complices ou des idiots utiles du système.

      A la marge, une troisième catégorie plus étonnante apparaît : le showbiz, auquel les « gilets jaunes » reprochent de s’être détourné des #classes_populaires. Outre Franck Dubosc, deux posts très plébiscités accusent Les Enfoirés d’avoir tourné le dos aux plus démunis en ne soutenant pas les « gilets jaunes ». « Coluche aurait eu comme nous honte de vous », y lit-on. A l’inverse, ils ont été nombreux à faire circuler une chanson antipolitique de Patrick Sébastien (Ah si tu pouvais fermer ta gueule) et un sketch des Guignols de l’info sur les bénéfices de Total.

      Les revendications : #automobile, #justice sociale et #RIC

      Trois grands thèmes ressortent de notre analyse : un premier, historique, sur le traitement réservé aux automobilistes (péages, carburant, radars…), qui a été le ciment de la mobilisation à ses débuts. Un second, la #précarité, qui s’est ajouté dans un second temps. Puis un troisième, le référendum d’initiative citoyenne (RIC), qui s’est imposé progressivement dans les débats.

      Ainsi, dès le 28 novembre, un message posté par une internaute récolte près de 40 000 partages. Il liste six exigences : le retour de l’impôt sur la fortune, la suppression de la hausse de la CSG pour les retraités et les handicapés, la revalorisation du smic, l’annulation de la hausse du prix du carburant, la baisse des charges pour les petits commerçants et les artisans, et la réduction du nombre des élus et de leur train de vie.

      Ce message du 28 novembre, posté par une internaute, récolte près de 40 000 partages.

      Les « gilets jaunes » sont-ils « apolitiques », comme ils aiment à le clamer ? A parcourir leurs groupes Facebook, une chose est sûre : les discours et argumentaires des partis politiques traditionnels n’y tiennent qu’une place marginale, voire anecdotique. Sur deux cents messages, seuls trois relaient ainsi directement une personnalité politique : il s’agit de Marine Le Pen (RN), pour une vidéo par ailleurs mensongère sur le pacte de Marrakech, et de la députée de La France insoumise Caroline Fiat, qui apparaît deux fois pour ses prises de position en faveur des « gilets jaunes ».

      A l’inverse, bon nombre de thématiques chères à l’#extrême_droite ne sont peu ou pas abordées, à commencer par l’immigration. Tout comme la sortie de l’Union européenne, la pénalisation de l’interruption volontaire de grossesse ou l’abrogation de la loi sur le mariage pour tous.
      Si des sites et des figures de l’extrême droite ont parfois réussi à surfer sur le mouvement, c’est d’abord en dehors des communautés de « gilets jaunes ». La « pensée jaune » est sans doute elle aussi une « pensée complexe ».

    • Methodologie biaisée : 200 publies les plus partagées indiquent juste le (s) dénominateur(s) commun(s) entre plein de pensées différentes, pas la tendance politique. D’ailleurs la manière d’éluder la teneur des 35 (c’est beaucoup) publications supprimées est assez significative !