Friday, June 07, 2024

 

Jewish extremists clash with Palestinians, burn fields in West Bank town

Palestinians throw rocks at troops who arrive on scene to disperse rioters, with 2 injured as soldiers return fire; Hadash-Ta’al MK calls incident ‘another pogrom’


Fires allegedly lit by Jewish extremists burn an agricultural field in the West Bank town of Qusra, June 6, 2024. (Social media/X; used in accordance with Clause 27a of the Copyright Law)

Jewish extremists rioted Thursday night in the West Bank town of Qusra, throwing stones at Palestinian residents and burning property, Hebrew media reported.

The apparent settler “hilltop youth” tried to burn down a house, and successfully burned several agricultural fields in the town, near the city of Nablus, a security source told Army Radio, which referred to the incident as Jewish terrorism. Footage circulating on social media appeared to show the blazes.

Palestinians threw stones at the perpetrators and at Israeli troops who arrived at the scene to disperse the crowd, Army Radio reported.

Soldiers returned fire, injuring two Palestinians, according to the report.

The Israel Defense Forces have not commented on the incident.

Hadash-Ta’al MK Ofer Cassif called the incident “another pogrom in a long chain of crimes by scumbags from the hills and their allies,” and blasted the army and police for not assisting the town’s residents.

Settler violence in the West Bank was already at a more than 15-year high in 2023 and surged further after the Israel-Hamas war began on October 7. Several countries, including the United States, have recently issued sanctions against those accused of violent attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank.

At least 520 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces or settlers across the West Bank, Palestinian authorities say, since Hamas’s October 7 attack on southern Israel, most in violent clashes with Israeli troops, but a few were shot dead by settlers during altercations.

Since October 7, troops have arrested some 4,150 wanted Palestinians across the West Bank, including more than 1,750 affiliated with Hamas.

Times of Israel staff contributed to this report.

Ultra-cheap meals from China’s delivery giant are hugely popular. Drivers are bearing the costs

Meituan’s group order program boomed amid China’s post-Covid-19 thrift economy, but delivery drivers say they’re working longer for less pay.
By VIOLA ZHOU
7 JUNE 2024

China’s food delivery giant, Meituan, is attracting lower-income consumers by offering discounted meals if multiple people order from the same restaurant.
The program is part of the country’s post-Covid-19 thrift economy, as consumers seek discounted goods amid economic uncertainties.
Gig riders say they are working more for less pay while delivering batched orders.


On a rainy day in November, food delivery worker KX Wu loaded 16 packages of rice bowls, noodles, and bubble tea onto his scooter, balancing some items on the handles, and began going door-to-door in a dense neighborhood in the southern Chinese city of Nanning. Some customers lived in high-rises with elevators, and others in walk-ups. As time went on, Wu grew worried that the customers would complain because the noodles were already cold.

He spent more than an hour delivering to nine different locations. For those deliveries, Wu earned just about 30 yuan ($4.15).

To many customers, however, the risk of cold noodles is worth the money saved on “group” orders from China’s leading on-demand delivery company, Meituan. Under the Pinhaofan program (which means “grouping for good meals”), Meituan users place group orders by sharing links with people who live nearby, and enjoy a big discount if two to four people end up ordering the same things together. The goal is to make delivery so cheap that even frugal or low-income buyers could afford frequent orders. “Eat well for 9.9 yuan ($1.4) and no delivery fee,” the program’s tagline reads.

Meituan is offering ultra-cheap meals under its group delivery program, including noodle bowls, dumplings and peking duck, priced at as low as 52 cents each. Meituan

But the program is a headache for delivery workers. They usually need to travel to multiple locations to deliver one group order, and the pay is often not worth it, five current and former workers told Rest of World. By adding to delivery riders’ workload, Meituan is able to offer steep discounts and attract new users in the low-income population, experts said. Workers’ grievances have led to an increase in customer complaints and arguments erupting between drivers and customers.

First introduced in one city in 2020, Meituan has gradually rolled out Pinhaofan across China, hitting almost 5 million orders per day in 2024, according to Chinese business news outlet LatePost.

Its success is another sign of China’s post-Covid-19 thrift economy, as consumers seek discounted goods to counteract the impact of economic uncertainties. On Pinhaofan, users often get meals for under $3 if they join group orders. “They are pretty tasty and very cheap,” Fandara Cao, a 21-year-old engineering major in Ganzhou, Jiangxi province, told Rest of World. Cao has been ordering dinner on Meituan almost every day since she discovered the app’s group-order feature. Her go-to options include a 10.4-yuan ($1.44) wrap-and-congee set and a 7-yuan (97 cents) bubble tea.

Meituan customers spent an average of 48.2 yuan ($6.7) per order in 2021, the last time the company disclosed the data. As the dominant delivery platform, Meituan needs to offer something cheaper if it wants to grow its user base, especially in the lower-income populations, Li Chengdong, head of Chinese tech think tank Haitun, told Rest of World. Having users from the same area order as a group allows each person to save on delivery costs, he said. The rider Wu, for example, was paid 1.8 to 2.5 yuan (25 to 35 cents) for delivering each Pinhaofan meal in late 2023, compared with 5 yuan (69 cents) for a regular order.

Alibaba’s Ele.me, China’s second-biggest delivery platform, has launched a similar group-ordering feature. But Li said it would be hard for Ele.me to compete, given its smaller user base.

Meituan did not respond to a Rest of World request for comment.

Millions of people work for Meituan. Chinese food delivery apps’ evolving algorithms that squeeze workers’ income while making deliveries faster have come under public criticism over the past few years. To earn the highest possible income, workers have to take as many orders as possible, meet all individual deadlines plus earn positive customer reviews.

Riders said they occasionally make good money from Pinhaofan: If people from the same school or office join a group order, workers deliver only to one location. But in many cases, they are picking up from one restaurant and delivering to customers living in different buildings. On social media and in Chinese media reports, riders have spoken of long elevator wait times and sprawling apartment complexes as reasons why they struggle to deliver orders on time.

“The rate was too low,” a 27-year-old former delivery rider from Sichuan province, who requested anonymity for privacy reasons, told Rest of World. “I could accept it if I didn’t have to climb up buildings. The walk-ups were brutal.” The single mother spent three months delivering Pinhaofan orders before quitting.


“It’s a way that the platform as a technological system takes the autonomy away from the workers.”

In 2021, Chinese regulators ordered delivery and ride-hailing platforms to compensate workers fairly. But a subsequent slowdown in economic growth and high youth unemployment have sent a steady supply of young workers to the gig economy, giving platforms little incentive to raise wages, according to Julie Yujie Chen, an assistant professor at the University of Toronto who has studied China’s food delivery industry.

Disputes have erupted between disgruntled delivery workers and price-sensitive consumers. On social network Xiaohongshu and consumer complaint platform Black Cat, Pinhaofan users have complained about delivery workers displaying sour attitudes, arriving too slowly, or refusing to deliver food to their doors. Unlike regular orders, Pinhaofan does not set deadlines for riders and this often leads to longer waiting times.

A Xiaohongshu user posted a chat record showing a delivery rider calling them a “Pin dog” after the user requested the food be brought up to their apartment rather than handed over by the elevator, as the rider intended. A food stall owner in the southern city of Guangzhou told Rest of World that Pinhaofan had brought more business to her small noodle shop, but the “poor attitude” of riders had led to an increase in negative reviews for the shop as well as refund requests.

Chen said that in the past, Chinese delivery workers could choose to take on multiple orders if they found the payment, route, and deadlines acceptable — similar to how batched orders work on Uber Eats and DoorDash. But with the group-order feature, customers and the platform decide which orders should be delivered together. “It’s a way that the platform as a technological system takes the autonomy away from the workers,” Chen said. “[Customers] wouldn’t really think about the decrease in [pay] that would affect workers and, in turn, affect their customer experiences.”

While many delivery workers resent Pinhaofan, Wu said, they order the cheap meals themselves. Wu, who quit his Meituan gig in April, said he understands if the food takes a long time to arrive.

“We have worked as riders,” Wu said. “So we know how hard it is to deliver Pinhaofan.”


Viola Zhou is a Rest of World reporter based in New York City.

 

The Postwar Revival of British Fascism

Attacks by Zionist paramilitaries in Mandatory Palestine in 1946-7 provided an opening for a campaign of antisemitism

The Postwar Revival of British Fascism
The former leader of the British Union of Fascists, Oswald Mosley, addresses a crowd in London in 1948. (© Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images)

In a cramped and poor suburb of east London, a crowd of over 1,000 people gathered to hear a fascist orator declaim his views, including the usual antisemitic invective. On the fringes, a group of Jews and communists were waiting for the perfect moment to leap into action and disrupt the open-air meeting, hiding crude weapons such as coshes and even tightly rolled-up newspapers to deliver a drubbing to the fascists in the crowd. Here and there, members of the Metropolitan Police kept an eye on proceedings. Some of them, though by no means a majority, were even sympathetic to the message the fascists were spreading. The scene was reminiscent of many meetings of the 1930s, when fascist clashes with Jewish, socialist, trade unionist, communist and other opponents were common in London.

But this was not the 1930s. It was August 1947. Adolf Hitler had been dead for two years, the horrors of the Holocaust were slowly being recognized, and years of wartime propaganda, hardship and loss meant that to nearly every British person, fascism was a hated ideology that had darkened their lives, bombed their homes and killed friends and loved ones.

After years of war against a fascist enemy in Europe which had affected every man, woman and child in the country, why were crowds willing to gather en masse in east London to listen to what fascists had to say? The answer is tied to events over 2,000 miles away in the British Mandate for Palestine. As violence rages today in Israel and the Palestinian Territories, we are once again seeing war in the Middle East polarizing communities and contributing to dangerous discourse. The events of 1946-1947 in Britain provide an earlier example of how public concerns about distant conflicts can fuel social divisions at home, and be weaponized by groups seeking to push their own divisive and hateful agendas.

Under British rule since 1917, by the 1940s Palestine had become a liability, with frequent clashes between Zionist Jews, now arriving in large numbers, Palestinian Arabs and British forces. By 1944, the main sources of violence were two small but very active Jewish militant groups, the Irgun and Lehi, who sought to evict the British from Palestine by force and declare a Jewish state. These organizations wrought havoc across Palestine, targeting British personnel in the country and blowing up railway lines, communications infrastructure and buildings. Most famously, the Irgun blew up the southern wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on July 22, 1946, killing 91 people. The Lehi, meanwhile, even threatened to bring carnage to Britain by sending (ultimately defective) letter bombs to important political figures living in London.

After the trials and tribulations of years of war, amid the efforts to rebuild a devastated country, the grim news coming out of Palestine was hardly welcome. Britain, a victorious power, had suffered enough: The fact that British Tommies were dying in a country thousands of miles away, where Britain seemed to have no real interests, was too much for many people to stomach. Yet it was impossible to avoid. Nearly every day, news stories would appear in all the major newspapers about the latest shooting, bombing or atrocity. Radio bulletins and newsreels shown before films also graphically depicted the chaos unfolding in Palestine.

It certainly didn’t help that few people understood what these Jewish paramilitary groups wanted and why they were willing to use violence to achieve their aims. Many people hadn’t even heard of Zionism. Mass Observation, a social research project that probed the opinions of the U.K. populace on a wide array of issues, found in 1947 that 1 in 3 people had either never heard of the term “Zionism” or had the wrong idea as to what it meant. Incorrect guesses show a not insignificant number of people thought it was related to Christian Science, the British Israelites or even the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Among those who had heard of the term, there was still only a vague understanding of what the movement was, with answers varying from the crass (“Yes — lot of Jew boys”) to the muddled (“A sort of Mecca for Jews. On a par with Pakistan, something of a pipe dream”). Even more disturbingly, many people did not differentiate between Jewish militants in Palestine and British Jewry, often tying them together. According to Mass Observation, 1 in 5 people believed that British Jews supported the actions of the Irgun and Lehi.

Without a clear understanding of the two groups’ aims, and greeted with near-daily reports of casualties and violence in Palestine, many people became increasingly angry — and hateful. Mass Observation estimated, from polling in 1946 and 1947, that nearly half of the population held views that were to some extent antisemitic. Respondents gave numerous different reasons for their dislike of Jews, including ancient tropes, from their appearance to their supposed behind-the-scenes control of power. The latter conspiracy was so ubiquitous that the document’s author noted that “from different reports, one would gather that London, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Brighton, and indeed all large towns, are mainly run by Jews.” Yet a new factor affecting people’s feelings was also cropping up in reports — the violence in Palestine.

This violence was the subject of a considerable amount of public discussion, casual conversation and private thought in the immediate postwar period, as contemporary diaries show. A young typist in Cheshire noted that after a bombing at a Jerusalem railway station the previous day, conversation in her office turned to Palestine, recording several particularly angry remarks. One of her colleagues went so far as to suggest that for every British subject murdered in Palestine, 10 Jews should be shot, concluding her argument with the phrase, “Hitler knew what he was doing.” Another young woman, Maggie Joy Blunt, recorded how the conversation during her lunch break became lively when someone mentioned the problem of Palestine, degenerating into antisemitic comments. Meanwhile, Mr. B. Charles, an antiques dealer in Edinburgh, offered his solution to the Palestine issue in his diary: “We should drop six atomic bombs on six cities in Palestine and wipe out as many Jews as possible.” Ironically, in the next paragraph he noted that he was reading Emery Reves’ “The Anatomy of Peace.”

British fascists looked on with glee. Their main vehicle for spreading fascist ideas in this period was the British League of Ex-Servicemen and Women. The group was led by Jeffrey Hamm, who had himself sat out much of the war after being detained under Defense Regulation 18b, which aimed to keep potential traitors and fifth columnists behind bars. Hamm had been a disciple of the aristocrat, former Labour member of Parliament and fascist demagogue Oswald Mosley before the war. As leader of the British Union of Fascists from 1932, Mosley spent the entirety of the war imprisoned and then under house arrest. Since Mosley’s activities and involvement in politics after 1945 were closely monitored, he gave his blessing to Hamm to prepare the ground for his eventual comeback by spreading the fascist message using the league as his vehicle.

Palestine thus offered Hamm an excellent opportunity. Here was a chance to relaunch the movement. Events in Palestine gave fascists’ antisemitic tirades direction, and these words now resonated with increasing numbers of the British public. Many of those in the crowd who gathered to hear Hamm speak in this period would not have identified themselves as fascists, but they were nevertheless supportive of what he had to say, much of it explicitly antisemitic in nature. If he had not been able to capitalize so successfully on the issue of Palestine, it is likely that Hamm would have emigrated from Britain, returning to the Falklands where, before the war, he had been teaching. Militant attacks in Palestine kept him active, gave his antisemitism an “acceptable” gloss and allowed him to whip up hatred. Indeed, the League often claimed that their outdoor meetings were not strictly fascist gatherings, but “were designed as protests against terrorism in Palestine.”

Given the rising antisemitism and widespread ignorance about Zionism, fascists were easily able to conflate Zionist paramilitary attacks with Judaism in their speeches, meaning British Jews came to be seen as complicit in violence in Palestine. Bertrand Duke Pile, a key member of Hamm’s League, informed a cheering crowd that “the Jews have no right to Palestine and the Jews have no right to the power which they hold in this country of ours.” Denouncing Zionism as a way to introduce a wider domestic antisemitic stance was common to many speakers at fascist events and rallies. Fascists hid their ideology and ideological antisemitism behind the rhetorical facade of preaching against paramilitary violence in Palestine. One of the league’s speakers called for retribution against “the Jews” for the death of British soldiers in Palestine. This was, he told his audience, hardly an antisemitic expression. “Is it antisemitism to denounce the murderers of your own flesh and blood in Palestine?” he asked his audience. Many audience members, fascist or not, may well have felt the speaker had a point.

On July 30, 1947, the bodies of two British soldiers, Clifford Martin and Mervyn Paice, were found hanging in a eucalyptus grove in Netanya, Palestine. They had been kidnapped over two weeks earlier by the Irgun and despite frantic efforts being made to find them by British forces and the Haganah — the mainstream Jewish paramilitary group and the proto-army of the nascent Jewish state — they had remained hidden away. Their killing was a retaliation by the Irgun for the British execution of several of their own members who had been involved in attacks. More gruesomely, the ground under Martin and Paice was booby-trapped with a mine so that when the bodies were cut down further chaos unfolded.

On Aug. 1, The Daily Express published a picture of the two bodies hanging limply from a eucalyptus tree on their front page under the headline, “HANGED BRITONS: Picture that will shock the world.” The image was captured by Jim Pringle, an Irish-born photographer from The Associated Press. He had been part of a group of photographers who had been accompanying a search party looking for the bodies of the two sergeants when they came across the grisly spectacle. The police, clearly panicked, commandeered the group’s cameras to avoid any horrific images reaching the press, but after angry protests from the photographers, the administration agreed to return the cameras and to develop the film they had shot, removing any particularly gruesome pictures before returning the developed photos to their rightful owners. Pringle’s photographs turned out to be completely unexposed. He had switched his film at the last minute before his camera had been confiscated and the exposed film was already on its way to London. Pringle received an official reprimand from the mandate authorities. His employers, on the other hand, gave him a bonus.

Pringle’s photo promptly made numerous appearances at fascist meetings, often attached to the speaker’s platform. In at least one meeting, several British soldiers on leave from serving in Palestine attended Hamm’s speech, giving further legitimacy to his remarks. And with soldiers and policemen in Palestine showing increasing signs of overt antisemitism as a result of their experiences, the director of public prosecutions warned that the fascists might receive a steady stream of new recruits. MI5, the U.K. domestic security service, noted with some alarm that “as a general rule, the crowd is now sympathetic and even spontaneously enthusiastic.” Opposition, it was noted in the same Home Office Bulletin of 1947, “is only met when there is an organized group of Jews or Communists in the audience.”

The major opposition came from the 43 Group, formed by the British-Jewish ex-paratrooper Gerry Flamberg and his friends in September 1946 to fight the fascists using the only language they felt fascists understood — violence. The group disrupted fascist meetings for two purposes: to get them shut down by the police for disorder, and to discourage attendance in the future by doling out beatings with fists and blunt instruments. By the summer of 1947, the group had around 500 active members who took part in such activities. Among these was a young hairdresser by the name of Vidal Sassoon, who would often turn up armed with his hairdressing scissors.

The 43 Group had considerable success with these actions, but public anger was spreading faster than they could counter the hate that accompanied it. The deaths of Martin and Paice had touched a nerve with the populace. On Aug. 1, 1947, the beginning of the bank holiday weekend and two days after the deaths of the sergeants, anti-Jewish rioting began in Liverpool. The violence lasted for five days. Across the country, the scene was repeated: London, Manchester, Hull, Brighton and Glasgow all saw widespread violence. Isolated instances were also recorded in Plymouth, Birmingham, Cardiff, Swansea, Newcastle and Davenport. Elsewhere, antisemitic graffiti and threatening phone calls to Jewish places of worship stood in for physical violence. Jewish-owned shops had their windows smashed, Jewish homes were targeted, an attempt was made to burn down Liverpool Crown Street Synagogue while a wooden synagogue in Glasgow was set alight. In a handful of cases, individuals were personally intimidated or assaulted. A Jewish man was threatened with a pistol in Northampton and an empty mine was placed in a Jewish-owned tailor shop in Davenport.

As violence spilled into the streets, British fascists looked on with glee, occasionally taking an active part in the riots, but overall their involvement was negligible — most of the rioters were not in any way active in fascist movements. Indeed, at a league speech shortly after the riots, the fascist activist Harold Robinson stated that the unrest was “very comforting to me because it means we have far more supporters than we thought.”

However, British fascists soon learned that antisemitic violence in an area did not mean they had support in that locale. When Hamm and Pile — the league’s self-proclaimed “expert on Palestine” — traveled up to Liverpool to help the local fascist leader Joseph Morrissey, they had high hopes. Liverpool had seen some of the worst rioting and the leadership of the league naturally assumed that the city would be sympathetic to their message. Yet when Hamm arranged a meeting and began to speak, he was attacked, and the rostrum he had been talking from was smashed by his audience. In the brawl, Pile found himself knocked down while an old lady stood over him, beating him with part of the splintered rostrum. Hamm decided the trip was not likely to be successful and immediately scarpered back to London. Yet fascist rhetoric certainly helped foment the conditions that allowed for the riots, even if their ideology was rejected by much of the population.

In November 1947, Mosley launched the Union Movement party in an attempt to turn the anti-Jewish sentiment Hamm had been able to mine into political success. By the end of 1947, the British government had made the decision to abandon the Mandate for Palestine and hand the matter to the newly formed United Nations. By May 1948, the last British soldiers and personnel were leaving the country for good. British fascists had lost one of their favorite talking points, and soon the crowds began to dwindle. The 1949 municipal elections led to an electoral drubbing for Mosley’s new party. Its eight candidates polled only 1,993 out of a total of 4,097,841 votes.

By March 1949, British fascists were considered to be so little risk to national security that MI5 ceased its monitoring of them. They quickly descended into infighting, and schisms soon developed. In 1951, Mosley left Britain for Ireland, where he focused (unsuccessfully) on spreading his new pan-European fascist ideology. Hamm followed him, eventually becoming Mosley’s secretary — a role in which he served for 25 years. The end of British rule in Palestine had spelled the end of the British fascist revival — never again would Mosley or his adherents be able to exert such influence on British society or receive such support for their speeches. While they had held the public’s attention, they had nurtured and fed British anger at events in Palestine and fueled a rise in antisemitism. Yet while Hamm and the League had instrumentalized hate, they had been unable to win the public over to their ideology. In an age of division, partisanship and the reemergence of chauvinistic populist politics, this ultimate failure to mobilize hatred offers a ray of light.

How Exiles in Argentina Shaped France’s Resistance to Nazi Occupation

During WWII, a Latin American network fought to liberate their homeland from afar, with Buenos Aires — the Paris of South America — at the heart of a transnational movement

How Exiles in Argentina Shaped France’s Resistance to Nazi Occupation
Illustration by Joanna Andreasson for New Lines Magazine

Summer 1940. A young boy reads in his parents’ living room as a portrait of the French Gen. Charles de Gaulle watches over him from the mantelpiece. The house is not in Paris or Nice, but Alta Gracia, Argentina. And the young boy’s name is Ernesto Guevara.

Sixteen years later, Guevara would lead Cuba’s armed communist revolution. But at the time, “El Che” was a schoolboy in a small town in Argentina.

Guevara’s political consciousness came from his mother, Celia de la Serna. In the late 1930s — already married and with four children — de la Serna joined various anti-fascist groups and began to engage in left-wing activism. When war broke out in Europe, she helped resettle Spanish Republican refugees in Argentina. Then, when Hitler marched west in summer 1940, she turned her sights to France.

De la Serna must have listened to, or at least been aware of, de Gaulle’s June 18, 1940, speech on the BBC, in which he condemned the French armistice signed with the Nazis and called on the army to keep fighting. Around the world, French expatriates and Francophiles tuned in to this broadcast. The most active of them began to form external resistance committees. The constellation of these networks made up Free France, a state in exile that claimed to be the true incarnation of the fallen Republic, with de Gaulle at its helm.

In Cordoba, near Alta Gracia, de la Serna co-founded the local Free French chapter. Roughly 300 committee members met weekly to recap the latest news from the front and gather funds for the liberation of Paris by selling hand-bound French recipe books. They were not alone. Of the 400 Free French committees founded around the world, 300 of them were in Latin America, and more than 40 in Argentina. Committees sprouted up in Mendoza, Posadas and as far away as Tucuman, near the Bolivian border.

From June 1940, Buenos Aires became the beating heart of the French resistance-in-exile. In this cosmopolitan port city, French expats and Argentinians alike drummed up resistance to — and raised money to counter — France’s collaborationist regime headquartered in the spa town of Vichy. Around 400 recruits left the port of Buenos Aires on boats headed for England, where they would put their lives on the line to free a country most of them had never seen. At home, volunteer civilians published newspapers, hosted radio shows, sold pins and badges and held high-society galas to support Free France. These Argentinians — who had strong historical and cultural ties to France — may have also seen in the French civil resistance echoes of their own situation: emerging fascist sentiment that would eventually boil over into a military coup.

The story, then, of how de Gaulle’s portrait ended up on the mantle of Guevara’s family home is also the story of how French expatriates and exiles and their Argentinian allies resisted fascism at home and abroad — and it begins with one mustachioed Frenchman.

Little in Albert Guerin’s past made him a likely candidate for resistance leader. Wounded in World War I, the Avignon-born Guerin was a disabled business owner who dealt in perfume rather than politics. He had moved from France to Buenos Aires after the war and, by 1940, had lived half his life outside his home country.

Still, when de Gaulle made his June 18 speech, the 47-year-old Guerin, head of the WWI veterans association in Buenos Aires, was one of the first people to answer his call.

A week after de Gaulle’s BBC radio address, a telegram arrived at the Foreign Office in London, where de Gaulle was attempting to establish his Free French government-in-exile. It came from Argentina and read: “Former French combatants united [in] Buenos Aires have set up [a] French National Committee approving your initiative [to] continue resisting until victory and await your orders.”

Several weeks later, de Gaulle wrote back to Guerin: “I congratulate you, confirm your appointment as Buenos Aires French group representative, and invite you to form a French action group and keep me informed of the situation.”

Guerin called his group of resistors-in-exile the “de Gaulle Committee.” And with the approval of the general himself, he got straight to work.

From a Hausmannian building on the aptly named Libertad Street in central Buenos Aires, Guerin founded and bankrolled a free, monthly bulletin called Pour la France Libre that would serve as the Free French mouthpiece in Latin America.

Readers of the bulletin admired Guerin’s daring and sharp tongue. “One finds his reward in reading your articles that are of an admirable verve and flame,” the New York-based art historian and Free French commentator Henri Focillon wrote to Guerin in August 1941. De Gaulle, too, wrote to Guerin to encourage him: “The Argentinian de Gaulle Committee, by its efficient action, is at the forefront of all of the committees formed around the world.”

The first issue of Pour la France Libre featured a red, white and blue cover and an image of Francois Rude’s sculpture “La Marseillaise.” The following bulletins were littered with crosses of Lorraine, the symbol of Free France, designed to counter the Nazi swastika. He paired it with the Latin words “In hoc signo vinces,” meaning, “In this sign thou shalt conquer.” Guerin, as it turned out, was not only a sharp writer but also a visionary propagandist.

Guerin was very much a “precursor” to the broader movement of resistance-in-exile, Vladimir Trouplin, a historian and head curator at Paris’ Museum of the Order of the Liberation, told New Lines. Flipping through archives, he explained that Guerin was both “the first to join and one of the most active members of the resistance-in-exile” and that his grassroots efforts in Argentina were key in making Free France a government in its own right.

Trouplin’s office is decorated with a large poster of the two-barred Cross of Lorraine, alongside the motto “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite” and the tricolor flag of Republican France. Guerin, he explained, could use these three symbols at a time when de Gaulle himself wasn’t able to. London, where de Gaulle had set up the Free French headquarters, had broken diplomatic relations with Vichy in July 1940, though the two countries were never officially at war. As a result, criticism of the Vichy regime and its 84-year-old leader, Marshal Philippe Petain, was expressly forbidden, including in broadcasts by the government-funded BBC.

The BBC’s censorship did not apply to Argentina, though, and Guerin could afford to be as virulently anti-Vichy as he wished. “Could we accept this forfeiture, this degeneration inflicted upon France by this handful of traitors?” he wrote in fall 1940. “No, a thousand times no!” he responded. In early 1941, on Argentinian public radio, he declared: “To obey Petain is to obey Hitler. It’s as simple as that.”

Bruno Leroux, a historian and author of several books on the French Resistance, told New Lines that Guerin, unlike most of his contemporaries, was “not just against Vichy, but against Petain himself.” By August 1940, Guerin was already calling Petain a “dictator.”

It’s obvious from Guerin’s editorials that he had read not only “Mein Kampf” but also de Gaulle’s and Petain’s respective books and was fluent in their ideology and rhetoric. This, according to Leroux, made his own writing all the more convincing: “When Guerin — a war veteran himself — wrote that Petain had been a horrible general in WWI and should not be trusted to save France from the Nazis, people paid attention.”

Guerin’s propaganda led to his being condemned to 15 years in prison and stripped of his French nationality in absentia. In October 1941, a few months after Vichy effectively rendered him stateless, de Gaulle granted Guerin wartime France’s highest honor: the Cross of the Liberation, a medal bestowed upon only about 100 civilians. De Gaulle had rewarded him not as a soldier but as “Free France’s first propagandist,” Trouplin explained.

That Guerin built his propaganda machine 7,000 miles away from France, in an office in central Buenos Aires, was not as surprising as it may seem: Argentina has a long history of Francophilia.

Miranda Lida, a historian and professor at the University of San Andres in Buenos Aires, explained that from 1857 to 1940, Argentina received some 200,000 French immigrants — of whom more than half permanently settled in the country. A popular saying at the time went: “Argentina was built by Italian brawn, English capital and French thought.”

“In the prewar years, French culture was very important,” Lida told New Lines. “People read in French. They were up to date on all of the debates on the French left.” When the French socialist leader Jean Jaures was assassinated in 1914, she explained, “Argentinian newspapers commented on it, and some reacted with outrage.” Argentinians had first heard about the Russian Revolution through the effect it had in Paris, she added.

Buenos Aires in the early 20th century was like a modern Babel. The French community regularly came into contact not only with Spanish and Italian immigrants but also Germans, who published their own Spanish-language newspaper, El Pampero.

Despite the German presence, in May and June 1940, as the Nazis marched across France, Argentinian students backed France. They took to the streets singing “La Marseillaise.”

“South American elites are so traditionally attached to our culture,” wrote the French cultural attache Henri Seyrig in 1941, that the fall of France had felt “as though their entire spiritual universe was collapsing.” For the people of Latin America, Vichy signified “the annihilation of the social gains of the French Revolution” — in the name of which their own countries had been constituted as independent states.

This made supporting the war effort second nature to many in the “Paris of South America.” Argentines felt that if France fell, so too could their relatively new republic.

The fact that de Gaulle took a special interest in Latin America may have also spurred them on. On April 19, 1943, he gave one of only two wartime speeches directed to non-French listeners (the other being Canadians). “No other part of the world has shown suffering and fighting France a more ardent sympathy than Latin America,” he said. “Your souls and ours drink from the same sources of inspiration.”

By early 1943, Guerin had gathered some 4,000 dues-paying members across the country. His Buenos Aires committee was more than just a political entity: It was a hub of cultural preservation, hosting art shows, lectures and concerts that showcased prewar France to fund the fight for a postwar order.

The committee linked up with Accion Argentina — one of the anti-fascist groups Guevara’s mother, Celia de la Serna, had joined — and began to cross-syndicate content aimed at drumming up support for de Gaulle’s liberation army. At a time when fascist ideas were also beginning to take hold in Argentina, “the de Gaulle committees are an act of faith in France,” they wrote in a joint editorial, “which is in itself an act of faith in democracy.”

Latin American and Free French anti-fascist intellectuals frequented the same salons and republished one another’s work in their newspapers and magazines. In Lida’s book-filled Buenos Aires apartment, she kept dozens of copies of the magazine Sur, edited by the Argentinian editor Victoria Ocampo — a Francophile and close confidant of Guerin’s.

During the war, Ocampo was particularly active in supporting the Free French. In 1940, her publishing house translated and released de Gaulle’s 1934 missive, “The Army of the Future,” which had called on the French army to modernize in the face of the fascist threat. As the war went on, she joined forces with Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges and French intellectual Roger Caillois in publishing a number of manifestos calling on Latin American governments to cut ties with Vichy and recognize the Free French.

From Argentina, Guerin also began to coordinate the broader Latin American resistance effort, reaching out to various Free French committees by letter and telegram.

Across the region, contemporaries had responded to de Gaulle’s call to arms. By June 22, 1940, committees had popped up in Mexico, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil and Cuba — the latter would become the first country to recognize Free France as a government in its own right, in 1942. These committees gathered hundreds and sometimes thousands of members in many capital cities and smaller towns.

Guerin’s strongly worded and increasingly international bulletin (boasting roughly 150,000 readers across Latin America by late 1941), his financial heft and his close connection to de Gaulle made him a natural leader of this regional movement.

World-famous French writers often sent Guerin articles and editorials from their forced exile. Eve Curie, daughter of the scientists Pierre and Marie, mailed in an excerpt of “Journey Among Warriors,” her Pulitzer-nominated reportage on the war fronts of Africa, East Asia and the Soviet Union. Out of Brazil, author Georges Bernanos published several pieces urging his compatriots not to give up the fight. Jacques Maritain, Philippe Barres, Genevieve Tabouis and countless others also contributed from New York.

Guerin’s bulletins were translated into Spanish under the name Por la Francia Libre and widely distributed across the region. According to Leroux, roughly three-quarters of its readers were Spanish-speaking.

In January, Guerin transitioned the monthly bulletin into a bilingual weekly newspaper called La France Nouvelle. Subtitled “The Great Weekly of Latin America,” the operation was truly a transnational affair. Tono Salazar, a Salvadoran diplomat and artist, joined the newspaper as a caricaturist. Pedro Olmos Munoz penned monthly illustrations from Valparaiso, Chile. New York’s own Free French weekly, France-Amerique, sent in regular editorials from its director, Henri Torres.

The movement created by Guerin’s call was so compelling that some decided to embark on the long boat ride to Europe to join the fight, including 15-year-old Benjamin Josset. On June 15, 1940, Josset was on his way home from school when he saw the front page of the newspaper, La Gaceta. “The German Army has occupied Paris,” it read.

Josset must have felt devastated. “My professors had always told me that Paris had given culture and liberty to the rest of the world,” he said in an interview years later.

Josset, whose parents had emigrated from the Ottoman Empire (modern-day Syria) to Tucuman, a city in the Argentinian high plains, read about the newly formed de Gaulle committee. In October, he made the 745-mile journey to the committee’s office on Libertad Street in Buenos Aires to enlist — and in typical teenage fashion, he took off without telling his parents. “I’m leaving to liberate France,” he later wrote to them in a letter.

Other volunteers came from even farther away.

In April 1941, a 20-year-old Chilean of French Basque ancestry, Margot Duhalde, joined a group of a dozen Chileans traveling from Santiago to Buenos Aires to enlist. Duhalde sailed to London, where she went on to become the first and only woman to join the Free French air force and was later honored with France’s Legion of Honor. She was nicknamed “Chile.”

Across the muddy Rio de la Plata, the river separating Buenos Aires from neighboring Uruguay, Domingo Lopez Delgado also chose combatant exile. Delgado, 21, enlisted at the Montevideo Free French chapter in 1941. He boarded the Northumberland, a frigate designed for anti-submarine warfare, to London, where he was trained by the Royal Air Force. His combat missions took him to Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, as well as northern Italy and France.

“I went to war dragged by my love for France, mother of civilization,” Delgado, who had never been to France before the war, declared. “And I went to war to be able to shout loudly that I have defended with my arms the ideals of democracy and that I have the right to be a free man!”

Today, a monument to the Free French still stands in Rocha, the town in Uruguay where Delgado was born. The giant Cross of Lorraine is dedicated to “Charles de Gaulle, citizen of the world.”

Others fought for France without leaving Latin America.

Latin Americans, themselves recent victims of settler colonialism, had taken the occupation of France particularly hard. In defense of France, Peruvian writer (and future prime minister) Luis Alberto Sanchez compared the subjugation of Paris to that of the Aztec Empire under Hernan Cortes or the Inca Empire after Pizarro’s conquest.

The Guatemalan poet Miguel Angel Asturias, who went on to win the Nobel Prize in literature, was deeply devoted to France and to de Gaulle, who, like him, categorically refused to see the country fall. “On the coasts of Central America,” he wrote, “facing the furious waves of the Pacific, while we were fishing for sharks, a portable radio had transmitted to us the words of the one who, because of something that touched us deeply, we already called ‘our General.’”

In a warehouse in downtown Buenos Aires, the Free French Feminine Union, founded in April 1941, collected fabric donations from around the continent, which they sewed into clothing and uniforms. This “hive of women animated by patriotic faith,” as Guerin’s paper called them, donated no fewer than 26,000 items to Free French soldiers in Africa and the Middle East.

Women at the Feminine Union opened a shop, La Petite Boutique. The shop’s earnings were sent to London to help run the Free French orphanage in Beaconsfield, northwest of London. Young female volunteers dressed in typical Alsatian garb sold rings, pins, bracelets and handkerchiefs on Libertad Street.

According to the committee’s archives, their most popular items were the ones emblazoned with the tricolor flag of France, forbidden by Vichy and dear to so many Argentinians.

On the home front, Argentinians were also fighting their own battles — not unlike the ones at play on the other side of the Atlantic.

Already virulent in its attacks against the Vichy regime in France, La France Nouvelle began to lambast the Argentinian state for its complicity in the Nazi takeover of Europe. Despite pressure from the United States, Argentina refused to break relations with the Axis powers until January 1944.

Throughout the war, Argentinian society was split into two factions, pro-Allies (“aliadofilos”) and pro-neutral (“neutralistas”). When it became clear that a soon-to-be new president would declare war on the Axis, the armed forces, who favored the neutralistas, staged a military takeover. The June 1943 coup greatly destabilized the French resistance-in-exile and the burgeoning anti-fascist movements in Argentina.

From June onward, the junta under Gen. Pedro Pablo Ramirez began cracking down on press freedom and banning groups like Accion Argentina. The next year, La France Nouvelle was banned from distribution in Argentina. Guerin was unfazed. He moved publishing operations to neighboring Uruguay and sneaked in the paper across the Rio de la Plata on commuter boats. “Only victory will stop us,” he wrote.

Guerin had reason to be hopeful. By June 1943, the tide of the war was beginning to shift in favor of the Allies. France was still under occupation, but on the Eastern front, Soviet forces had just won a major battle at Stalingrad and Allied soldiers — including roughly 70,000 to 130,000 Free French — were preparing to launch their invasion into Italy. A year later, on June 6, 1944, the Allies landed on the beaches of Normandy.

“After having set foot on French soil,” Uruguayan volunteer Delgado wrote in his memoir, “we could have the consolation that if fate had marked us to die in this chaos, we would fall into the land of heroes and thinkers, of ideals and greatness.”

Nearly three months later, on Aug. 25, 1944, de Gaulle marched into the French capital at the head of a liberation army.

The young Josset, from Tucuman, was among them. The previous day, his Romilly tank had been one of the first to enter Paris. There, in the midst of an insurrection, he met Odette, a young French woman who was pushing her father in a wheelchair along the cobblestone streets. They married three years later.

Latin America celebrated the liberation of Paris like a personal victory. Nowhere were the celebrations as boisterous as in Buenos Aires. About 200,000 people spontaneously gathered at the Plaza de Francia, a square in the capital’s Recoleta district. Cries of “Viva la Resistencia!” and “Viva la libertad!” resonated across the city.

According to Lida, at the University of San Andres, the liberation of Paris had a lasting effect on Argentina — and may have even played a role in the toppling of the military dictatorship one year later. The return to democracy in France gave Argentinians the push they needed to begin their own resistance to military rule. “Ya basta,” they cried — “That’s enough.” Spurred by the liberation, “society rose up to demand the end of the dictatorship,” Lida said.

The Free French in Argentina, she added, had shown that there are many ways to resist occupation. Despite their government’s lack of engagement, “Argentinian civil society refused to accept the fall of France and helped turn the tide of the Second World War,” Lida said.

“Governments can profess their neutrality all they want,” she added, “but the people can never be neutral.”

 

Huge collapse in migratory fish populations


World trout populations have collapsed. Image: Rostislav Stefanek/Shutterstock

A new study has revealed a staggering 81 per cent collapse in worldwide migratory fish populations in the 50 years since 1970


By 

The recently published Living Planet Index (LPI) report on freshwater migratory fishes reveals an average 81 per cent collapse in monitored population migratory fish populations, including salmon, trout, eel, and sturgeon, between 1970 to 2020. The situation in Latin America and the Caribbean is especially marked where populations have fallen by 91 per cent.

The reasons are, as so often, habitat loss and degradation of freshwater habitats, including the fragmentation of rivers by dams and other barriers and the conversion of wetlands for agriculture. Other key reasons for the declines include over-exploitation, increasing pollution and the worsening impacts of climate change.

‘The catastrophic decline in migratory fish populations is a deafening wake-up call for the world. We must act now to save these keystone species and their rivers,’ said Herman Wanningen, founder of the World Fish Migration Foundation. ‘Migratory fish are central to the cultures of many Indigenous Peoples, nourish millions of people across the globe, and sustain a vast web of species and ecosystems. We cannot continue to let them slip silently away.’ In addition to providing sustenance for millions migratory freshwater fish also support livelihoods, including local fisheries to the global trade in migratory fish and fish-byproducts, and the multi-billion dollar recreational fishing industry.

‘In the face of declining migratory freshwater fish populations, urgent collective action is imperative. Prioritizing river protection, restoration, and connectivity is key to safeguarding these species’, said Michele Thieme, Deputy Director, Freshwater at WWF-US. She continued with a call to arms, ‘Let’s unite in this crucial endeavour, guided by science and shared commitment, to ensure abundance for generations to come’.

The report, which was produced by the World Fish Migration Foundation, ZSLIUCN, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Wetlands International and WWF, is not all doom and gloom. Nearly one-third of monitored species have increased, suggesting that conservation efforts and improved management can and are having positive impacts. Some promising strategies include the improved and/or species-focused management of fisheries, habitat restoration, dam removals, the creation of conservation sanctuaries, and legal protection.

An example of conservation actions that have helped migratory fish populations increase comes from Europe and the United States where thousands of dams, levees, weirs and other river barriers have been removed in recent decades. In 2023 alone, Europe removed a record 487 barriers – a 50 per cent increase over the previous high reported in 2022. Meanwhile, in the United States, the largest dam removals in history are currently underway along the Klamath River in California and Oregon. Dam removals can be cost-effective, job-producing solutions that help reverse the disturbing trend of biodiversity loss in freshwater systems as well as solutions that improve river health and resilience for people, too.

A WWF statement said that while scaling up dam removals is a key solution to reversing the collapse in freshwater migratory fish populations, more action can be taken. Decision makers across the globe must urgently accelerate efforts to protect and restore free-flowing rivers through basin-wide planning, investing in sustainable renewable alternatives to the thousands of new hydropower dams that are planned across the world as well as other measures that contribute to the ambitious goals in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework to protect 30 per cent of inland waters and restore 30 per cent of degraded inland waters.

Along with protecting and restoring healthy rivers, WWF says that there is an urgent need to strengthen monitoring efforts; better understand fish species’ life-history, movement and behaviour; expand international cooperation, such as adding more freshwater migratory fish species to the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS); and promote greater public and political engagement.

Mayor of Gaza's Nuseirat killed in Israeli attack: sources

IT'S NOT A CAMP IT'S A CITY




The Palestinian mayor of central Gaza's Nuseirat refugee camp, Iyad al-Mughari, was killed in an Israeli airstrike on Thursday, Palestinian medical and security sources said.

Palestinian security sources told Xinhua that the mayor was killed, along with a number of his family members, as an Israeli attack targeted a building in the camp.

Medical sources said al-Mughari's body was transferred to al-Aqsa Hospital in Deir al-Balah city in central Gaza.

Al-Mughari, one of the cadres of the Hamas movement, was appointed mayor by acclamation, the sources noted.

The killing of al-Mughari came hours after the killing of about 35 Palestinians in an Israeli attack on a school affiliated with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, which was housing displaced people in the Nuseirat camp.

Israel said Hamas and Islamic Jihad "terrorists" were embedded themselves inside the school, and a number of steps had been taken to reduce the risk of harming uninvolved civilians.

The Israeli army has been conducting a large-scale offensive on Gaza since Oct. 7, 2023, after Hamas carried out an unprecedented attack on the Israeli towns adjacent to the strip, during which approximately 1,200 people were killed and about 250 others were taken hostage.

The Palestinian death toll from the ongoing Israeli attacks in the enclave has risen to 36,654, with 83,309 people injured, updated the Gaza health authorities on Thursday.

xinhua