By Roget-Pol Droit
Beatings and threats. A rape recently
in Créteil. Murder
in Toulouse.
Insults, most of the time. The list is long.
The attacks against Jews explode in France: in 2014 the antisemitic
incidents increased by 91%. All too often people forget that half of the
incidents classified as “racial incidents” are directed against Jews. This, in
spite of the fact that they form less than 1% of the general population. Under
these circumstances it is understandable that the Minister of the Interior has
recently declared that the “struggle against racism and anti-Semitism” is “a
national matter”. This is necessary and commendable. It is hard to criticize
the will to fight against “the evil that eats away the
republic”. But nevertheless, such a mixture of all types of hatred is also an
illusion, if not a trap.
No doubt there are common attributes
to all types of contempt for the other; therefore it is necessary to get rid of
general behaviors. However, the large general gatherings – under the labels
“racism” “exclusion” “x-phobia” (the phobia of the unknown) – have a
significant drawback: it blurs the precise outlines of each type of hatred,
obscures its uniqueness. When one merges today’s French antisemitism with any
form of racism generally, or even with the types of past antisemitism, one
cannot distinguish exactly what it involves. One may be satisfied with uttering
expressions to expel ghosts, to take only inefficient measures. But in order to
better understand, it turns out that specific studies regarding any specific
form of hatred are very rare.
Therefore one must examine thoroughly
the detailed study about “Antisemitim in the French public opinion”, that has
recently been published, under the direction of Dominique Reynié, the foundation for political
innovation (1). Two public surveys conducted by the Ifop, illustrate, among
other things, how the agreements are divided to six “indices of antisemitism”.
They deal with statements like “The Jews have too much power in the area…”
(Items distinguishing between the economy, the media, the politics), but also
with grotesque theses (“There is a worldwide Zionist conspiracy”, or “the Jews
are responsible for the current economic crisis”). What is amazing is that most
Frenchmen (53%) do not agree with any of these statements. But sections of the
public in which the percentage of agreement to the six indices are extremely
high are the far right, the far left and the traditional Muslims.
A few conclusions must be drawn from
this. Under the altered disguise of a “respectable” national front, a live legacy of Vichy, in which Jew hatred was not indebted
at all to the Nazis, but rather much to the nineteen century church, to the
church and to Drumont, to Vacher de Lapouge and their comrades. Less pronounced
is the far left antisemitism that inherited its share from Voltaire, Proudhon,
the newspaper L’Hmanité caricatures from the thirties, in which all the bankers were depicted
with thick lips and a crooked nose. The new trait is the constant development
of harsh antisemitism among French people who declare themselves as being of
Muslim origin. 74% of those calling themselves “traditional and Muslim
believers” believe that “the Jews have too much power in the area of economics
and finances.”
There is a distance between opinions
and acts. But this distance can be traversed very easily. Undoubtedly, it is
easy to note that France
is not antisemitic – neither in its official discourse, nor in its institutions
nor among the majority of the population. But it is a fact that prejudices and
antisemitic attacks are on the rise. The worst disgrace becomes a routine on
the internet. The actual attacks increase, and the media is slow to become
upset over attacks that “seem” to be antisemitic. When the different types of
existing racisms are mingled, they become diluted. People avoid calling them by
their name, as well as grasping their significance and their scope. Anything
connected to globalization at first looks generous and democratic, but right
away blocks real action. Therefore it is preferable to begin with recognizing
what is going on, no matter the unpleasantness involved. Otherwise, there is no
effective combat.
