I was unaware that was happening here, thanks for putting this up. Get them while they're young, I guess, they're easier to propagandize.
The organization seems well-funded, and the website is rather slick. Clearly there's some real organizing going on behind this. The anti-68 rhetoric is an effort to roll back much of the progress which was made in French society in the late 60s, and a reaction to the general movement towards more liberal policies around the world since then.
They're part of a larger effort, and were apparently formed as the "youth" wing of a far right wing group formed in 2003 called Bloc identitaire - who became known for their media stunts, and other activities, such as organizing "soupe identitaires" (soup kitchens for homeless -but with pork, for obvious reasons), and hors-d'oeuvres outside of mosques in Paris and the like. It looks rather like a French version of the islamophobic charades of members of the "clash of civilizations"/Muslim menace network, such as Pam Geller, Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders.
All in all, though, it seems pretty small in numbers.
Such proto-fascist ideologies will likely continue to gain strength across Europe if the economy continues to stagnate and scapegoats are identified. We can't say that we haven't had our share of these things in the US, however...
Excellent analysis. Also correct on the misuse of the "guilt by association" fallacy, as that's not really the issue.
This is not, after all, about Wright, and she has no right to expect that the people on the Estelle jeopardize their mission in order to "prove" that they don't consider Wright an antisemite.
What Wright should have done was to quietly bow out instead of making a story of it - but I suppose she wanted to clear her name and reputation, which is understandable.
The only people who have the right to decide who goes on that boat are the participants themselves, and it is unfair to criticize them for excluding her without being familiar with all of the discussions engendered, and the circumstances and pressures to which the group was subjected. The ego of any one member is far less important than the overall guiding concept - when one's participation might be a detriment to the overall effort, even through no particular fault of one's own, the correct course of action is to remove oneself, if that's what the consensus has decided.
Has it occurred to you that she may be so stunned and shocked by the viciousness with which she has been attacked that she can barely put two words together at the moment?Oh, come on now, Sean. They saw something and wanted to get to the bottom of it. That's not a "vicious attack". There is clearly some obfuscation around these Facebook groups, including the expression of some ugly sentiments (which do no service to Palestinians), as well as this Ofer, who may or may not have been using sockpuppets, impersonating Palestinians. Clearly somebody is not on the level, and people owe it to others to be as transparent and honest as possible, fostering an atmosphere of trust and openness, without having their privacy infringed upon.
The same things have happened to me before, and I took the time to refute the attacks, calmly explain my positions, ideas, and tried to make myself as clear as possible - it's not demanding the heavens and the earth, for crying out loud.
It has been explained already that it's not just the posting of the video. That's not what this is about.
Abbas, who garnered 60 percent of the vote for President, wrote his doctoral thesis on the topic of Zionist cooperation with the NazisI've read about this, but don't know much about it.
As for the interview with Haniyeh on Harry's Place, as smart as you are, I'm surprised you aren't more skeptical of the origins of this discussion, as HP is a known hotbed of Islamophobic and vulgar, insipid mindless discussion. I have seen no other links to this interview, nor on the Guardian website, so though I don't know for certain, I wouldn't be surprised if it were a fabrication originating over at Harry's Cesspool.
There won’t ever be an end to the conflict if we wait around for leaders with perfectly spotless records or who never say stupid thingsObviously. Real change usually comes from below, and not from leaders, who are quickly co-opted and are often invested in the status quo. That's why it isn't the end of the world when certain individuals are discredited or removed - they do not embody any movement entirely in and of themselves.
Like Berlin, he is accused of not offering an acceptable explanationI think Berlin's explanation for this little event is, as I said, plausible. I don't think one should be ostracized from a movement for simply sharing a video on Facebook. However, I've seen little convincing discussion from her about this, and few real arguments - she just didn't really react in the way you'd think someone would who is trying to clear her name or reputation, it's pretty thin gruel. I also saw no approval on her part of the recent statement on anti-racism at EI - she could have said a word on it. If she wants to continue with her activities, though, I say more power to her. The problem of conspiracy-mongering and other forms of bigotry are much more subtle and coded to be simply attributed to one act by one person - as someone said, it's a pattern of activity.
To err is human, to forgive is divine;-)Fully agree. Like I said, this isn't really about Greta Berlin, it's a broader refutation of racism, and a clarification of what the movement is about. That some commenters are trying to portray the whole episode as only about Berlin shows how much they're totally and utterly missing the point.
Anti-Zionists ARE Anti-Semites because most Jews are ZionistsWith all due respect, clearly you haven't been paying attention. After all this time, opportunities to read material from people running this site, and others, this is the conclusion you reach?
This is not about Greta Berlin, and this is not about you - it's about Palestinians. It's unfortunate that some seem to have forgotten that. Those that remember might recall the Palestinian-led call for BDS, as well as the numerous statements made by Palestinians rejecting racism in all its forms.
It's a shame to have to realize that, rather than being a victim of tribal and destructive "infighting", on the contrary, the solidarity movement is weakened much more by a lack of clear thinking. What's vital to understand is that the consequences of this lack of clear thinking will be suffered not by those of us not living in Palestine or in the diaspora, but by those whose rights some of us ostensibly support. Please think this through.
Chomsky refused to express an opinion on Faurisson’s Holocaust denial claims, but strongly vouched for Faurisson’s motives"strongly vouched for Faurisson’s motives" is somewhat of a fabrication. Whatever merits - or lack of merits - Faurisson's "scholarship" has, Chomsky's signing of the petition was motivated by a concern for free speech, and had absolutely nothing to do with endorsing the actual content of Faurisson's work. Faurisson was actually brought to trial. The simple core idea, which stems from the liberal Enlightenment tradition (reflected in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, and subsequent jurisprudence in criminal law over more than a century which made free speech a reality only relatively recently), is that the state should not have the power to silence or punish people for what they say, or expressing political ideas, unless their words are immediately connected somehow to and encourage the commission of a crime.
It seems to me something of a scandal that it is even necessary to debate these issues two centuries after Voltaire defended the right of free expression for views he detested. It is a poor service to the memory of the victims of the holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of their murderers.
Brandenburg v. Ohio is a landmark case in this regard:
For those saying that this is a "free speech" issue, they are confusing the issues: no one is prohibiting Greta Berlin (or anyone around these particular Facebook groups) from saying anything at all, and obviously no one is bringing her to trial. Free speech is a restraint on the State to punish citizens, and not a guarantee to be free from criticism of one's statements. They're free to say whatever they like, and others are free to disagree with them, or rebut their statements. Characterizing this as a "witch hunt" is really an exaggeration.
Regarding possible Zionist collusion with Nazis as to emigration to Palestine, this is a documented fact, even if a minor one, and there is nothing "antisemitic" about openly discussing it, and deciding on the merits and accuracy - or lack thereof - of the historical arguments.
Regarding the accusations of Chomsky's supposed "liberal Zionist gatekeeping" from some commenters, I'm really not sure where this is coming from. Here is a talk he gave with Israel Shahak in 1994, in which he openly discusses the attitude of Israel and Zionists with regard to Palestinians as "racist", discusses the funneling to Israel of US tax-exempt money through the JNF, apartheid-like policies, along with other issues, and was generally far more virulent in his criticism of US and Israeli policy towards Palestinians than most others were at the time: