I must admit, though I'm relatively familiar with the Dreyfus Affair, I didn't realize it had led to real violence and pogroms - she doesn't mention any casualties, which I hope means there weren't any, but even so. And I like her take on it, and the way she explains the various ways of looking at it, and the difficult position of the French Jews on the affair.

Unfortunately, she felt the need to throw in some comments on contemporary politics inbetween, and several of those I found cringeworthy, or at the very least simplistic and not worthy of the generally high-quality lecture. She would've done better to shut up about the US - the remark about the UK and how dangerous the "we can't reveal this evidence because of national security" thing is, that was good, but pretty much whenever she mentioned the US, it was silly. In the case of the Scott Brown comparison, I'd even say outrageous. I'm curious if somebody will comment on that in the Q&A (I read the written version of her speech rather than watching it, goes a lot faster that way).