Bulletin N°65 2026 Several labor unions, summarizing the events of October 6, used the expression "the October 6 wave." Nearly 500,000 demonstrators, including 100,000 in Paris, more than 2,000 high schools blockaded or mobilized, and 90% of universities shut down. A resounding success that caught the government, its political allies and media outlets off guard, as well as the labor unions, which were forced to toughen their rhetoric.
Alongside high school and university students, numerous union members were present, from the CGT, FO, and Solidaires; some were even seen from the FSU and CFDT. Particularly within the CGT, where the leadership and congress have decided to pause the class struggle, the desire to confront Capital and its proxies—Macron, Lecornu, Geffray, and Nuñez—is evident in this active and large turnout. This demonstrates a genuine concern for young people, a true sense of solidarity, but also a rush toward indirect struggles, in the absence of direct ones.
This movement, as we stated in our press release, is full of promise. It represents a breach in the system of dismantling social gains wrought by Capital and its cronies. It is now imperative to widen this breach. We can count on high school and university students to take on this task. The FSE (French Student Federation) stated in a post on the evening of October 6th: “ We’re continuing all day, tomorrow, every day until the 17th and beyond! Only a show of strength will make our university free and open to all, and will give us teachers and high schools in good condition, so join the mobilization! ”
But expansion is also on the agenda, meaning the convergence of struggles. For the Revolutionary Communist Party, the task of workers, and union activists first and foremost, is no longer simply to help and support high school students, but to build its own strike movement, one that will complement the youth struggle. And, while all obstacles lie ahead, starting with the main one—the permanent inter-union alliance calling for a day of strike action against the budget on November 5th—there are stirrings of change.
Finally, let's not assume that French youth are isolated. Similar demonstrations and struggles are currently taking place in Germany, Italy, and Belgium, which are also resulting in very violent repression.
The movement offers hope for all public sector employees and users, demanding resources in terms of teachers, facilities, and class sizes. But it also offers hope for those who yearn for a school system free from the ideological apparatus of the state and social sorting. It calls, often unintentionally, for a different kind of school, one far removed from the needs of capital, based on human needs, training, and skills development to foster emancipation.
Police repression: the only means by which the government can extinguish the simmering fire!
The police repression suffered by high school students is unprecedented. It is worse than that against the Yellow Vests, firstly because there was a period of latency before Philippe and his government decided to massacre them, and secondly, because years have passed and the number one repressive force of the French imperialist state, the police, is running amok, emboldened by the prospect of the "license to kill" law and protected by the number two repressive force, the justice system. For example, an off-duty police officer is caught trying to smash a bus shelter, and the Reims prosecutor covers for him. There are hands torn off, eyes gouged out, teeth broken, hundreds of brutal beatings, thousands of arrests, and 15-year-olds in handcuffs. This escalation of repression is very clear from the official figures: in two weeks, we have seen 5,060 people taken into custody, 4,400 of whom are minors. In comparison, the Yellow Vest movement in 2018-2019 resulted in 6730 GAVs in one year; the demonstrations against the Labour law in 2016 resulted in 890 GAVs in three months and the anti-CPE movement in 2006 resulted in 1920 (GAVs) in six months.
The dual repressive apparatus (police and justice system) of the French imperialist state is equally active, because the actions and demands of high school and university students make it impossible for the ruling class to concede even small concessions to calm the situation and pick up the austerity budget where it left off. Everywhere, demands are flourishing, with young people calling for funds to be diverted from the war budget to education. Slogans like " The rich want war, the youth want a future " are emerging. Even the labor unions cannot guarantee a "return to calm," meaning the end of the mobilization. All that remains is repression, and, here and there, the closure of high schools is also, in a way, a form of repression.
The police may be the last bastion of Macron's faltering regime; at least, that's what they're convinced of, hence the abuses and the growing number of officers taking responsibility for them. Naturally, this is accompanied by an attempt to discredit them—the work of the vehicles of the dominant ideology. The media tell us that chaos is caused by rioters, conveniently "forgetting" to inform the remaining listeners about student protests or police brutality. Of course, there's no question of mentioning the provocateurs: plainclothes officers or, sometimes, idle kids hired as useful idiots. It's as old as class society itself, but for our BFM, LCI, France Info, and the like, it simply doesn't exist.
However, this episode tells us that it doesn't work. The media can no longer completely ignore police violence; while they gave little coverage to Nuñez's statement " I don't have to apologize " regarding the mutilated high school students, they are all obliged to mention the Minister's decision of October 7th to suspend the use of stun grenades by the police. This decision is an admission by the occupant of the Place Beauvau and a way of obligating "journalists" to explain why he is forced to make this decision.
Furthermore, however violent it may be, police repression does not deter high school students, who sometimes do not hesitate to confront the henchmen of Big Business. Regarding the repression in Toulouse, particularly against the students of Déodat de Séverac, the former first technical high school in the Pink City, La Cause du Peuple writes: “ The police brutality has not, however, diminished the determination of the high school students, who are fully resolved to resume the movement once the weekend is over. The youth have witnessed a State that does not hesitate to use almost military-style force to repress them rather than listen to their demands. They have seen its watchdogs revel in blinding young people and take pleasure in inflicting suffering upon them.” At Déodat-de-Séverac, the dividing line is now clearly drawn between the people and their enemies, but also much has been learned by the high school students, who are witnessing day by day the true nature of the bourgeois state, but above all their strength and their need to organize .
Prime Minister Lecornu's "response"
With much fanfare, Lecornu and then Minister Geffray announced, through the press, the instructions sent to school principals to organize both the resumption of classes and supposedly democratic procedures. It's quite confusing; it seems some class time would be set aside to bring all students and staff together, but other times would not. It's a way of telling principals, "Figure it out yourselves ," which is rather ridiculous. It's worth noting that this approach has been the same since Blanquer's time. The principals in question won't receive any official circulars; they're informed through the press, at the same time as everyone else. This method led an academic director (head of national education services in a department) to say to staff representatives, after a Blanquer appearance on the island of Ibiza, " I'm being informed at the same time as you, through the press ."
The minister wants to organize periods of "internal democracy." Left to the headteachers who are suppressing the movement, this pseudo-democracy could be an excuse for the minister, trembling in the face of the mobilization, hoping it will calm down. In reality, it's not even that. Initial reports, and this was highly predictable, show that the headteachers will do very little, perhaps convene the Student Councils (CVL), an advisory body on which a few high school students sit. This is all the more true given that the SNPDEN-UNSA, the main union representing school principals, is furious. Its press release, dated October 7, was titled " The situation is intolerable and simply not possible!" and states, among other things: "Today's announcements by the Prime Minister in the National Assembly regarding the reduction of class time in favor of discussions with students are unrealistic and irresponsible. A declaration is not the same as a regulatory text." We, the school administrators, therefore reaffirm that we are best placed to define, within our schools, the conditions for welcoming our students back (partial resumption of classes, transition to remote learning) and the framework for communication with them. We, the school administrators, refuse to implement a completely improvised and ambiguous announcement that puts schools and all colleagues in a very difficult position. They want neither to reopen the closed high schools, nor to participate in the farcical charade orchestrated by the minister and Lecornu. In reality, the announcements by Lecornu and Geffray have only one intended audience: the media , whose role is now to spread far and wide the idea that the minister should initiate a dialogue, and, if it doesn't work, it won't be his fault.
The SNES-FSU, an institutional union and the main representative of secondary school teachers, which cannot be considered a dangerously revolutionary organization, also raised its voice regarding these announcements: “ Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu and Minister of National Education Édouard Geffray are asking high school principals to bring together staff and students to prepare for the resumption of classes, even though no satisfactory answers have been provided to the students. Staff should not have to shoulder the responsibility of a government that refuses to respond to the demands of young people! The SNES-FSU calls on staff not to participate in these meetings or to turn them into general assemblies. ” The CGT Educ'Action, which represents national education staff, is equally angry: “ Lecornu’s response, in the form of pseudo-consultations in schools, is unworthy of the scale of this exemplary mobilization. It is yet another sign of governmental contempt for the social movement. ”
Finally, the Student Union Federation (FSE), the class-struggle student union, firmly responded to the minister: “ We don’t need democracy, we know what we want, our demands are clear: take billions from the military to give billions to education! Nothing will calm down until we get what we want. ” Everyone understood perfectly well that this announcement didn't reflect reality, wasn't even a diversion or an attempt to confine high school students to pointless local meetings, but simply an instruction given to the media , and none of this would be implemented, since the struggle would continue with even greater intensity.
The unions' rhetoric: is the tide turning?
The union leadership, it seems, is beginning to grasp the importance of the mobilization, because of the events of October 6th. The day before, Monday the 5th, five confederations (CGT, CFDT, FO, UNSA, and FSU) announced a day of strikes and demonstrations against Lecornu's budget on November 5th—which, in such a tense situation, is practically in the distant future. This date is far enough away that those promoting it might think they'll be rid of the youth movement by then. The same tactic was used to dismantle the social movement that began on September 10, 2025, last autumn. While any class-struggle unionist can only think one thing—that the strike must happen now, in solidarity with the youth—the bureaucrats running the unions insist that it's urgent to wait.
The CGT is a stakeholder in this process. Worse still, after Lecornu's announcement of the "five priority projects," the CGT's general secretary, Sophie Binet, reacted in a way that completely missed the point. BFM commented on her statement on TF1; the day after the Prime Minister's letter outlining "a roadmap with five priority projects," Sophie Binet remarked: " It was about time, but he's ten days late ," and continued: " You don't decree a return to calm from your ivory tower; you enable it by responding to demands and putting the necessary resources on the table. There are several important points in this letter ," she acknowledged.
Then came the 6th, and in the evening, the reaction from the CGT and other unions was of a completely different nature. After the inevitable and ritual call to the government to change course, or listen to the anger, or meet the demands—calls never heeded, but systematically renewed—one felt it impossible not to continue the struggle: “ The CGT calls on its activists to remain alongside the youth and to organize General Assemblies in the workplace to express demands and increase mobilizations, particularly regarding wages. On Thursday, October 8, we will be mobilized again with high school and university students. ”
That same evening, the Solidaires trade union federation was equally clear about its involvement in the ongoing struggle of high school and university students: “ High school and university student organizations, including Solidaires students, are calling for another national day of mobilization on October 8th. The trade union federation supports this call and urges its members to join and protect the marches. The Solidaires trade union federation will convene its National Committee tomorrow. The current social movement, its expansion, and the building of alliances will be the main agenda. ” It should be noted that this statement goes further than that of the CGT (General Confederation of Labour) by mentioning the building of alliances.
The FNEC-FO (federation of education and culture) is also taking action: " The FNEC FP-FO has taken note of the call from the High School Union and the Student Union for a new day of mobilization on Thursday, October 8th. We will be there! They are calling on all staff to meet in a general assembly tomorrow and to decide on a strike to win on all of our demands. High school students have opened a breach! Let's seize it! "
The SNES-FSU, as mentioned earlier, is clearly in a zealous mood: "The SNES-FSU calls for continued and intensified mobilization through demonstrations and strikes, standing alongside high school students for their renewed mobilization on Thursday, October 8th. The SNES-FSU is convening its governing bodies on Wednesday afternoon, October 7th, to decide on the course of action for next week, including a major national education event. " If we understand correctly, the SNES is expected to propose a one-day strike for secondary school teachers next week.
The CGT Educ'Action union has a much stronger reaction than its national leadership: "CGT Educ'Action calls for a boycott of the government's proposed resumption of work and these so-called internal democratic processes. It calls on all staff to join the general assemblies at their workplaces to discuss continuing the strikes immediately. It also calls for joining and supporting the high school student mobilizations and actions on Thursday, October 8th, through strike action. "
In conclusion
Some union leaderships, it seems, particularly in education, are beginning to realize that the movement is gaining traction and, more importantly, that it will become a long-term fixture. Solidaires is talking about the convergence of struggles, the FNEC-FO is discussing seizing the opportunity, and the CGT Educ'Action is discussing extending the strikes immediately. Some are therefore starting to think that this opportunity needs to be broadened to include workers' struggles and, above all, that the time for action is now, not November 5th. It's not quite the right pace yet, but we're getting there. The question arises regarding the low participation of teachers in the days of action, even though their demands are often identical to those of high school students, and the possibility of victory, in the event of convergence, is significant. The unions must seize this opportunity. Perhaps they are beginning to realize this.
Of course, the Revolutionary Communist Party supports the just struggle of high school and university students for a different kind of education where they can flourish and progress towards their emancipation. It supports this struggle, which awakens their consciences to the reality of the capitalist system in its imperialist stage—a reality they face with the police, these dogs with their cowardly guards, with this government that refuses to negotiate, with these watchdogs who never speak of their demands.
He also supports everything that will contribute to the convergence of struggles, to the building, alongside the struggle of youth, of the sustainable strike of workers, to throw Lecornu's budget in the trash and overthrow capitalism.
Bulletin N°65 2026 The 18th BRICS + Summit1 , was held in New Delhi on September 12 and 13 in the presence of 11 heads of state; including N. Modi for India, Xi Jinping for China, V. Putin for Russia; and government2 as well as foreign ministers. At the conclusion of the proceedings, a joint declaration was adopted3 .
This summit followed the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit.The BRICS + summit in Bishkek brought together some of the key players in the BRICS+ group, particularly China, Russia, and India. The summit made several joint decisions, especially regarding the role ofemergingin global governance. They specifically called for reform of the UN, particularly the Security Council, where China and Russia already hold permanent seats alongside France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In this regard, the BRICS+ group supports Brazil and India's bids for permanent membership.
The BRICS+ countries have clearly rejected restrictions on international trade, particularly sanctions and tariffs. While they are committed to reducing their dependence on the dollar in international trade, no progress has been made toward a common currency to compete with the dollar.
Regarding the situation in the Middle East, the text is very limited in scope since, while expressing deep concern about the escalating violence, it merely calls for " maximum restraint, dialogue, and diplomacy "—something unlikely to offend anyone. The commitment is equally discreet on the question of Palestine, where the text simply reaffirms support for a political solution based on the coexistence of two states and the strengthening of the UN's role. Here too, it's the bare minimum. The BRICS+ also considered the question of their expansion and the institutional consolidation of their organization.
The most salient point, which has been widely discussed, is Xi Jinping's proposal for open AI. This announcement was all the more noteworthy as it came amidst a heated debate on AI and its potential dangers. For example, Anthropic CEO David Amodei, supported by figures such as Steve Altman and Elon Musk, believes that these systems are progressing too rapidly for their risks to be properly managed and calls for slowing their development. These statements were vehemently refuted by the US administration, with President Trump stating that such a move was out of the question given the fierce competition in this field and the potential impact on the United States' ability to maintain a dominant position. Clearly, China is leading the race with the United States in the field of AI, and it does not intend to remain on the sidelines of this strategic competition. Instead, it aims to develop an environment conducive to its AI policy by offering less expensive tools that are easier to adapt to local needs in order to compete with major American companies. By presenting its model as more open and more inclusive, it intends to maintain and expand its current and potential markets in the field of AI and all communication technologies.
In conclusion, while this summit highlights the growing influence of the BRICS+ countries in the global economy, it also confirms that their primary objective is to challenge their position within the global capitalist system. In other words, they are not anti-imperialist but, more prosaically, candidates for the leadership of a new, more favorable imperialist world order.
Technology and AI : The BRICS countries want to strengthen their scientific and technological cooperation. China has notably proposed a BRICS AI Open Source Zone , while the declaration highlights cooperation in AI, quantum computing, and knowledge sharing.
This has not been decided
Two points often mentioned before the summit did not result in a dramatic decision :
1. No common currency for the BRICS .
2. No single BRICS payment system immediately replacing Western infrastructures.
The summit favoured a gradual approach: national currencies, interoperability of payments and financial cooperation.
In summary
The New Delhi summit primarily marks a political and economic consolidation of the BRICS , rather than an immediate break with the Western financial system. The central message is: greater influence for the Global South, reform of the international order, increased trade in national currencies, and technological cooperation , all while maintaining common positions on major international conflicts.
China will hold the next BRICS presidency in 2027 and will host the next summit.
1 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS%2B
2. Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira, United Arab Emirates leader Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Chinese President Xi Jinping, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, Iranian President Massoud Pezeshkian, and Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Ali
3 https://www.mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents?dtl/41776/BRICS_New_Delhi_Declaration_Building_for_Resilience_Innovation_Cooperation_and_Sustainability_September_12_20
4 https://www.sitecommunistes.org/index.php/monde/monde/4111-sommet-de-bichkek
Bulletin N°65 2026 On September 1st , the leaders of the Shanghai Cooperation OrganisationOne (SCO) member state signed the Bishkek Declaration on the occasion of the SCO's 25thanniversary, along with 27 other documents covering topics such as security, the fight against drug trafficking, artificial intelligence, biodiversity, energy and climate cooperation, nuclear security, and regional logistics. Two contrasting interpretations have emerged to analyze this summit, set against a backdrop of high international tensions and a war affecting SCO member states, particularly Iran. The first interpretation underestimates the summit's significance, reducing it to mere formal meetings that produced no meaningful decisions and allowed each participant to claim international prestige. The second interpretation portrays the SCO as an organized structure, bringing together dictatorial states whose objective is to attack self-proclaimed Western democracies. Finally, some see in the SCO, as in the BRICS+, a challenge to what they call Western imperialism and particularly American imperialism, thus idealizing what is in fact the expression of the clashes within the global imperialist system.
If we approach the SCO summit from the perspective of the facts, it is possible to draw far more interesting lessons about the evolution of international relations within the context of the growing contradictions and confrontations within the imperialist system for control of resources, communication routes, science and technology, and the workforce, between a more or less homogeneous bloc with organized military structures: NATO and AUKUS.2 for Asia,a blocdominated by the United States and ablocin formation dominated by China.
The discussions, far from questioning the mechanisms of the capitalist economy, focused on a desire for a more prominent role in international institutions. This included both a reaffirmation of the UN's role—the presence of its Secretary-General was a strong signal—and a more significant presence in both the WTO and the IMF. In short, the final resolution, like the other 27, sought to challenge the preeminence of an imperialist bloc that was no longer entirely dominant.
In this context, the emphasis placed on the financial architecture takes on great significance. The Declaration contains a comprehensive financial framework that formalizes the continuation of the roadmap for the gradual increase of the share of national currencies in mutual settlements, support for a reform of the international financial architecture aimed at increasing the influence of developing countries at the World Bank and the IMF, and, as noted by everyone, a call to accelerate the connection of the mandated Iranian bank to the SCO Interbank Association. In other words, to allow Tehran a payment system independent of the dollar. While a joint banking project has been underway for some years, it has not yet been implemented, and for the time being, dedollarization is proceeding through bilateral channels in trade between various SCO countries.
Regarding positions on ongoing conflicts, while Ukraine is not mentioned in the declarations, the military aggression against Iran is addressed. The ten members condemn the military strikes on the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which resulted in numerous civilian casualties and considerable damage to the country's economy. They deem these actions to violate the principles and norms of international law and the UN Charter, and offer their condolences for the tragic death of Supreme Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei. They reaffirm the inalienable right to civilian nuclear power and declare restrictive measures in this area contrary to international law. This represents an undeniable diplomatic success for Iran, although its limitations lie in the following: during the vote at the UN Security Council3 On March 11, 2026, condemning in the strongest terms the Iranian strikes against Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Jordan, thirteen votes were cast for this resolution, zero against and the two abstentions of China and Russia cannot be interpreted as explicit support for Iran.
In summary, Xi Jinping proposed four directions to Bishkek4 , which describe less ablocthan an alternative project for the global governance of the imperialist system, including development first, common security, civilizational dialogue, and institutional reform. These orientations, it must be acknowledged, while they may hold some appeal for secondary powers within the imperialist system, do not alter its internal logic of confrontation.
1 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_de_coop%C3%A9ration_de_Shanghai
2 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
3 https://press.un.org/en/2026/sc16315.doc.htm?ref=geopolitico.fr
4 https://eu.china-mission.gov.cn/eng/mhs/202609/t20260901_12014119.htm?ref=geopolitico.fr
Bulletin N°65 2026 The documentary Naza, applauded and awarded at the Venice Film Festival, was condemned by Zionist politicians.
Presented at the Venice Film Festival , the documentary film Naza (meaning collateral damage) by Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, financed in part by the British newspaper The Guardian, received a tremendous ovation: more than 20 minutes of applause after its screening at the Venice Film Festival, and the Special Jury Prize. The film is based on interviews with members of the Israeli Army. The faces of the twenty-four interviewees remain blurred, and their voices have been altered. The interviews took place discreetly, in the dim light, on a terrace overlooking the city.
A journalist from 20minutes , who saw the film, wrote: “ The testimonies of those interviewed are appallingly natural and straightforward. We discover that the Israeli army considers a 15% margin of error in the number of people killed acceptable and that it is legitimate to kill suspected terrorists at night in the midst of their families, including wives and children. What is said is astounding. One of the soldiers compares the strikes to a video game, and another admits to having enjoyed shooting Palestinians trying to reach supply points. These men are not monsters. Between the dehumanization inherent in drone attacks and a carefully cultivated hatred, they carry out their duty without much remorse. They even end up admitting to having killed innocent people, knowing that they were neither armed nor threatening. ”
Among politicians of all stripes within the Zionist colonial entity, the film and the award it received sparked outrage. Culture Minister Miki Zohar spoke out on September 13th, declaring: “ The filmmakers’ burning self-hatred, their willingness to harm their homeland in order to receive applause from anti-Semites worldwide, is incomprehensible and constitutes treason against the State. ” That same evening, he demanded that the two filmmakers be stripped of their citizenship. Regarding the opposition coalition to Netanyahu, the “liberal Zionists,” the ultra-reactionary Avigdor Lieberman, former Defense Minister, denounced “a web of defamation and slander against the State of Israel, against the IDF, and against our magnificent fighters .”
Rachel Szor, director, and Yuval Abraham, investigative journalist who has ventured into documentary filmmaking, are also the authors, in 2024, of the film No Other Land, showing the reality of the pressure of the colonial occupation on the Palestinians of the West Bank, through the village of Massafer Yata, the demolitions of houses by the Zionist colonial state, the arbitrary arrests, the murders, and the resistance of the Palestinians rebuilding the destroyed houses at night.
We could end there and join the chorus of praise and those who consider Abraham and Szor as heroes, but the reality shown by this film and the analysis that can be made of the event at the Venice Film Festival are much more complex.
The validation of a crime by the criminals
The enthusiastic audiences at the Venice Film Festival and the people celebrating the two "heroes," particularly the unanimous "left" in France, perfectly illustrate the problem. In concrete terms, a film made by citizens of the Zionist entity has made the Palestinian reality credible enough to be confronted. Simply because an Israeli says so. Today, the film is celebrated because Zionist soldiers recount the details of the murder of Palestinians. We didn't experience such fervor or emotion when Palestinians recounted these same details, when the inhabitants of Gaza filmed their children under the rubble and their doctors amputating the wounded without anesthesia. Western self-righteousness hasn't really reacted to the considerable mass of images and testimonies documenting the annihilation of entire families and the murder of journalists while they were reporting the truth. Judging by these enthusiastic reactions, one might conclude that there was a need for a voice from within the occupying army itself to confirm the reality of what has been happening for three years in plain sight. What moral failing leads to suspending the credibility of a victim's testimony until it is validated by a member of their oppressor's army?
We are undeniably witnessing a denial of the Palestinians, since the Venice Film Festival doesn't show their own suffering, filmed by them , but only the perspective, however criticized, of the occupying colonial army. Moreover, there were two Palestinian films at the festival, including "Citizen Osama," by Ahmed Hassouna, a Palestinian director from Gaza. The official synopsis of his documentary reads: " In Gaza, between the bombings and his dreams of cinema, a journalist navigates between professional duty, family anxieties, and the emotion of becoming a father, striving to preserve what remains of humanity in a world plunged into chaos. " However, "Citizen Osama" was selected only out of competition at the Venice Film Festival ; neither the director nor the actors were able to attend.
A large part of the Western ideological petty bourgeoisie cannot or will not believe the Palestinian narrative, labeling them terrorists, Islamists, and anti-Semites, and only lends credence to it when "good guys" from the Zionist colonial "democracy" validate it. This is the harsh reality that the Venice Film Festival confronts us with . And it's not new. We need only recall Waltz with Bashir , released in 2008. This title referred to a scene where a Zionist soldier fired while dancing in the heart of Beirut, surrounded by portraits of Bachir Gemayel, the Zionist enemy's ally in Lebanon! The film revisited the invasion of Lebanon and the Sabra and Shatila massacres through the memories, nightmares, and remorse—poor man—of this IDF soldier. He naturally won a Golden Globe in 2009, awarded to the Zionist colonial state, the very same one that perpetrated these massacres in Lebanon!
The Zionists benefit from this.
With the film Naza and its harrowing testimonies about the crimes of the occupation, the same question resurfaces regarding the meaning of this fascination. And what are its consequences? The blood of Palestinians and Lebanese is relegated to the background behind the psychological crisis of a soldier who participated in the invasion, the genocide, the killings, the bulldozing, and the mutilations. Ultimately, his moral conscience takes center stage, and his confession becomes an achievement worthy of awards and enthusiastic applause. Certainly, revealing the crime can serve the truth. But transforming this into a celebration of Zionist conscience allows the colonial state to accumulate moral capital and the colonial entity to polish its image, while the rights of the victims remain suspended or are forgotten. Thus, the Occupation manages to absorb the condemnation of its crimes and present it as proof of its capacity for self-criticism, without, however, questioning its foundations. This is his work, this film he produced. The courage of this confession does not grant the state a certificate of innocence; at best, it earns them another film award. Palestinian and Arab blood cannot be used to polish the image of the occupation!
These testimonies can certainly provide evidence for accountability, but transforming this confession into an act of moral bravery, while concealing the identities of those involved, amounts to celebrating them while absolving them of all responsibility. Palestinian blood cannot be used to rehabilitate the image of those who shed it. Everything we observe about this film places the Zionists at the center of everything. The film presents the war crimes of the Zionist colonial entity against the Palestinians in such a way that it refuses to humanize them. Because we barely see them.
An internet user posted this message on X: “ Two settlers record interviews with genocidal settlers to get them to testify about how they exterminated indigenous Palestinians, while guaranteeing their anonymity to protect them from potential trials and imprisonment. A standing ovation at the Venice Film Festival. Israel has created a specific film genre, ‘ Shoot and Cry , ’ based on the psychological shock felt by Israeli soldiers after killing Palestinians or Lebanese. ” We are once again at the heart of the problem. Because this “film genre,” as described, transforms the perpetrators of genocide into traumatized victims of a colonial system that is never questioned. All these poignant films are acclaimed and awarded prizes at Western film festivals, like Naza in Venice. These Western imperialist countries, by rewarding these works of propaganda, support the Zionists’ substitute colonialism. They all try to make us believe that the elimination of the natives was inevitable, while pretending to have felt uneasy about it, as in Waltz with Bashir.
Or perhaps they suggest the existence of a fringe of settlers opposed to these "excesses," and that colonization must be more "humanitarian"; that a part of colonial society demonstrates humanity, like the filmmakers of Naza . The film can thus be interpreted as "There is a reality of anti-Zionist resistance within the colonial entity ," which is a lie, and all those praising the film know it. But the message is this: "There is hope within Zionist colonial society; therefore, the colonial entity can and must be rehabilitated." In reality, the society of the colonial entity is riddled with Zionism, and the two filmmakers serve, at best, as tokens. Among these settlers, whoever they may be, a humanity is ultimately recognized, unlike the exterminated indigenous people, who are not considered human beings and therefore do not deserve to have the spokespeople of Western imperialists hold out a microphone to them to recount their own extermination. For three years, no Western journalist or filmmaker has penetrated the vast death ghetto that is Gaza, and no "humanitarian Zionist" has produced an epic film about the Gaza ghetto uprising, unlike what has been done for the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising or the German extermination camps. The objective of this "cinematic genre" is to allow the continuation of extermination and ethnic cleansing by offering a disguise based on the self-victimization of both soldiers and some settlers.
Finally, it also serves to absolve Zionists. Naza also fulfills a crucial propaganda function: it allows Zionists, fully aware of what their genocidal entity was doing and supporting it wholeheartedly, to feign shock and sudden discovery, while simultaneously realizing the brand's tarnished image. It transforms them, superficially, into "moral" beings. For example, the Zionist TV presenter, Raviv Drucker, watched the film. He commented that he saw himself " like Germans during the Second World War discovering what their country had done. "
The summary of Naza and his projection is as follows: he doesn't name names, therefore no accusations can be made against any individual who actively participated in the genocide; he reveals, with great fanfare, what everyone has known for ages; and finally, he is a way of extending compassion to those who commit genocide. As if they didn't already receive far more empathy than their victims!
The ambiguity of Yuval Abraham
In April 2024, Yuval Abraham was among the many "left-wing" intellectuals within Zionist colonial society who spread lies about rapes allegedly perpetrated by the Resistance. The staunchly pro-Zionist New York Times, as we know, had to throw in the towel after a four-month investigation in March 2024, revealing that it had found no evidence. Undeterred, the media of the Zionist colonial state attempted to get former captives of the Palestinian Resistance to speak out, one of whom vaguely fulfilled this role after remaining silent for several weeks. Here is the content of Yuval Abraham's message: " The silence of those who spent months sowing doubt about Israeli rape testimonies is shameful. Today, when a courageous hostage describes in detail how she was chained and sexually tortured, it is equally shameful." Those who exploit these facts to justify crimes in Gaza are equally guilty. Propagandists, all of them… .” Like other Zionists, he amplified fabricated lies about rapes perpetrated by Palestinians that never actually occurred. These lies contributed to plunging the public of the Zionist colonial entity into a genocidal frenzy, further exacerbating their bloodlust, and served up a ready-made pretext for Western “progressives” to stand idly by and do nothing. The very purpose of this mass rape hoax was for these Western “progressives” to perceive genocide as a justified punishment. It was all a lie, and Yuval Abraham helped to legitimize it.
Yuval Abraham himself served in the colonial occupation army. And, in all his publications, he framed the context in a degrading light, placing the occupier and the occupied people on equal footing in their condemnation, while admittedly acknowledging the existence of the occupation. He is like our "good-hearted" colonialists in France, who vilify Netanyahu (but not Zionism) and Hamas, treating colonizer and colonized alike. This approach cannot contribute to the end of colonization.
Finally, upon the release of No Other Land , Abraham claimed to be interconnected with the Palestinian actors and their village. Since then, several villagers have been abducted, a Palestinian assistant director was murdered by the occupying army, the village has seen increased destruction, and, in his second film, there are no Palestinians at all. Where does this "interconnectedness" end?
In conclusion
Beneath every rock highlighted by the colonialist "left" of good intentions and the petty bourgeoisie, there's a hidden eel. And this one is a big one!
The validation three years later, when a settler speaks the truth, by all the self-righteous "leftists" might seem surprising. Yet it stems from their difficulty, even their inability, to grasp the reality of colonization. For them, Zionist colonial society is a "normal" society, a "democracy," as Sophie Binet would say. However, while it is a bourgeois democracy, and not a true democracy like Western imperialist countries, it is impossible to forget that it is distinct because it is a settler society, and that colonial identity has a very specific character. Within the framework of a colonialism based on the forced demographic replacement of indigenous populations by foreign settlers, the latter develop their own mode of capital accumulation—in terms of land, resources, or the exploitation of indigenous labor—during the process of invasion. This is a distinct form of wealth accumulation, specific to both the settler society and the individuals themselves, in addition to that which benefits the metropolis from the existence and operation of the settlement. Among the six million settlers, primarily of European origin, only a handful are genuinely anti-Zionist; after a long personal journey to free themselves from indoctrination, they consider themselves Palestinians, their "Israeli" identity being merely the product of an imposed necessity. It can therefore be stated that virtually the entire society of the Zionist entity is a settler society because, despite internal dissension, it supports a colonial regime that it does not question and upon which its privileges and material conditions are based. Those who do not grasp the imperialist stage, nor the fundamental nature of this replacement colonization, cannot understand or accept this evident reality.
Obviously, this analysis can be unsettling and trap some in a difficult contradiction. One might initially welcome this achievement, this revelation that helps in the fight against the actions of the Zionist colonial state and its Western imperialist backers. But then one realizes that this supposed capacity for self-reflection is intrinsically part of the system at work within the pariah state, supported by an overwhelming majority of the settler population. And, as one understands, the filmmakers, however respectable they may be, are in fact the guarantors of an unreformable state. This forces all sincere supporters of the liberation of Palestine to confront the only path that will lead to an end to the horror of this unfolding genocide: the dismantling of the genocidal Zionist colonial entity .