Introduction

If you follow the news, you could not have missed that since October 7th, France Insoumise is accused in mainstream media of being anti-Semitic.

My first reflex, like that of many people in my environment (and not only people on the left or even pro-Palestinian), was to dismiss his accusations by brushing them off as fanciful (to be polite).

However, I think this is a mistake and that we should seize this moment to finally place at the heart of our concerns, the fight against anti-Semitism (which is anything but residual, much to the disapproval of Mélenchon) and which is very much present within France Insoumise (but not only within the France Insoumise).

So, this text is therefore both aCritical review of LFI's reactions to the events of October 7th, une Broader reflection on antisemitism in France:, and an attempt, modest but sincere, to think about the contradictions of the left in this domain.ine.I do not claim to have all the answers. This note is a progress report. A moment of leveling out, written in the urgency of anger, confusion, and shame. It is imperfect, but honest.

In order to soften my style and avoid shocking, I have exceptionally asked for the help of ChatGPT to write this text. Usually, I prefer to keep my controversial tone but the subject is so hot that it deserves to be handled with kid gloves.

Looking back at October 7th and on the instrumentalization of anti-Semitism.

Response to criticisms of the reaction of France Unbowed to the attacks of October 7th.

preamble

But as usual, before tackling this subject head-on, I am going to digress on peripheral topics.

Already, I would like to talk about the related problem of France Unbowed's reaction to the attacks of October 7.

However, I am not going to respond to the weak accusations made against France Insoumise by columnists as ignorant as they are indifferent to the fate of Jews or Palestinians (whether they live in France or Israel).

Others have taken care of it before me and it wouldn't be of much interest to replay the match two years later.

Nor to the criticisms formulated by far-right Jewish groups openly advocating for the massacre or deportation of Palestinians (those who believe that an independent Palestinian state would mean the end of Israel and a new massacre of Jews).

I am going to instead respond to the criticism made by Jews from the right or left who, for once, have been very little heard (because as usual, only the most outrageous words are highlighted by mainstream media and social networks).

Insensible rebellious France

A first criticism addressed to France Unbowed concerns its immediate reaction, judged to be cold, if not indifferent, to the attacks of October 7th. Many believed that the movement did not give the Jewish community time to mourn its dead, and that it had too quickly plunged into a political reading of the events.

This feeling of a hijacked mourning is not marginal. It is deep, sincere, and was even shared by people not prone to demonizing France Unbowed. It expresses a wound, that of having seen a tragedy experienced as personal, intimate, immediately seized by controversies, without the slightest respite. This, while the same left had shown empathy and restraint in other cases.

On this point, I share some of the criticism. The first few hours after a massacre should be a suspended space, where reflection takes precedence over speeches. LFI did not respect this time. This is a mistake. But - and this is where the discussion becomes complex - this reproach only holds if we agree on a fundamental principle: that the time for reflection precedes that of analysis.

Now this principle, the right wing and mainstream editorialists have themselves trampled on for a long time.

Remember the Charlie Hebdo or Bataclan attacks. Within less than 24 hours, some media outlets were already associating terrorism with Islam. TV panels were filled with "specialists" in security or Islamic civilization. The stateAn emergency was declared almost immediately, with as a consequence repressive measures - which were then used... against environmentalists.

The left, meanwhile, has waited. Waited too much. It played themap of thedignity,As an AI, I need you to provide the text that needs translation first. Once the text is provided in a specific language, I can translate it into English.calm,durespecteShe has lost,As a language AI model, I need the text you want me to translate. Could you provide it?The media field does not wait.Whatever happens iYou didn't provide any text to translate. Please add a text in a specific language for translation."must"filledFor each hourly speech box.And if we don't fill it with progressive speech, it gets filled with that of reactionaries.

And in the case of October 7, I would like to remind that from October 8 onwards, mass massacres of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army and explicit calls for genocide from members of the Israeli government took place (quickly echoed by French politicians and editorialists). If the enemies of LFI (who I remind are also those against the respect of human rights) do not respect the truce, then it would be irresponsible for LFI to respect it.

That's why I don't blame LFI for reacting.alsoQuickly. I blame the left for taking so long to understand that the battle of ideas begins in the first few seconds. Not once the mourning is over. Because the war - ideological, media, real - does not take a break.

And for me, this difference in reaction does not show that the left cares more about thea This text is already in English. It just says "vi", which doesn't form a complete text or sentence. Please provide a full and contextually correct text for translation.eMuslims that ofthat of theJews. This reaction mainly shows that the left-wing of2015was much more Islamophobic and authoritarian than today's left. Indeed, I believe that if in the past the left reacted so late and weakly to attempts at Islamophobic and security-based manipulation, it was not due to a sense of restraint and duty (which as everyone knows are qualities found in abundance among politicians), but because a good portion of them were strongly influenced by its discourse.nauseating.

For me, this reaction does not show a retreat from the fight against antisemitism on the left, but on the contrary a sharper awareness among left-wing politicians of the stakes of anti-racism, anti-authoritarianism, and decolonial struggles. And for me, this is good news.

Obviously, this logic can shock.And I understand that one may disagree with it (especially if one is among the affected people). But it's mine.

Small digression, before moving on to the next part. OOne can expect from a political movement that it knows how to arrange a moment of silence.mThe text provided "ais" does not appear to be in a specific language or does not provide a complete context. Could you please provide more information or check the spelling or language?One cannot impose it on them.militantsbasicallyor to the ordinary citizens.

Indeed, mEven if I understand and respect that some may need(or even just desires) for a moment of contemplation, there are people like me who, on the contrary, are deeply annoyed by these moments of contemplation.

Personally, I have always found moments of silence, shows of respect for victims directed towards one's TV, perfectly ridiculous and mind-numbing.Candles placed at the site of an attack and other more or less spontaneous displays of emotion after a disaster.

When I am a victim of a catastrophe, nothing irritates me more than receiving pity or symbolic support. What I want is an explanation of the problem and a solution. And possibly being able to talk about it to a stranger who won't give a damn.

But, the declarations of support, the 'poor you' and other such theatrics, you can keep them. That's why personally, when I have a problem (except in the rare cases where they can help), my loved ones are the last to know. Having to additionally manage their demonstrations of support and their condolences is the last thing I need in those moments.

On a personal note, I have always found the pressure to participate in these ridiculous public demonstrations under the pretext of respect to the victims and their families revolting (what good will it do them, after all they are not there to see me). Personally, once an adult, I have always refused to succumb to these charades. For example, following the attacks in Paris, in my company, I was among the few idiots who did not participate in the minute of silence.

And, already as a kid, I remember having laughed during the minutes of silence that had been imposed on us in honor of the September 11 attacks, then of some massacre committed in a school during the war in Chechnya (no idea if the massacre had been committed by the Russians or the Chechens, anyway during these wars whole cargos of children were massacred by both sides in general indifference).

It's not that I was insensitive, but put yourself in a child's place: it's just hilarious as shows. Luckily I am white and bourgeois, so no one ever told me anything, but recently kids have ended up at the police station for less than that.

And anyway, starting from middle school, I had found the workaround: close my eyes and imagine sad things.

All this to say that we all react differently to a disaster and those who need a moment of reflection do not have the right to impose their need on those who, on the contrary, immediately need to plunge into the search for cause and solution. And vice versa.

But, let's get back to our topic. I am the first to say that it's disheartening, that you now have to experience the lack of empathy from our society for the victims of heinous acts, but the war does not wait for us to finish mourning our dead to crush survivors under its inhuman demands.

And, even if I have a strong desire to place all the responsibility on the opposite camp, the truth is, it is no camp's fault. Neither the LFI's nor the Macronists', nor the fascists'. It is the deeply conflictual nature of our societies' fault.

I therefore think that instead of blaming France Unbowed for its contribution (very real) to this sad observation, you should join the groups that are trying to find solutions so that this is no longer the case in the future (and unfortunately LFI is not part of them).

And if you really want to criticize this fact then do not reserve your criticisms only for the left or for events that personally affect you.

France Unbowed refuses to label the attack of October 07 as terrorist.

Another criticism, this one much more publicized: The refusal of France Insoumise to qualifyerThe terrorists' attack of October 7th.

And I am sorry, but you have no right to demand that the attacks of October 7th be qualified as terrorist.

I will not elaborate further here, but the conclusion that many people on the left have had from the sequences that followed the Paris attacks, is that accepting to qualify an event (whatever it may be) as terrorist is accepting a narrative which has the consequence of reducing our ability to fight against the retreat of our public freedoms and warlike policies that in turn lead to other massacres.

Saying that something is a terrorist act, the work of a madman, kills all capacity for reflection with an illusion of explanation. To make this clearer, I will use a less controversial and complex example (which I have already used in another post, but what can I say, I'm eco-friendly and therefore practice recycling):

If I ask: "why is it raining?" and I am answered: "because God has willed it," intuitively, we understand that this is not a satisfactory answer.

Even if we are believers and we believe that indeed, it was God's will, we must admit that this explanation doesn't get us very far. Indeed, if we start accepting this kind of explanation, we stop doing research and explain everything by saying 'it's God's will.' As a result, we no longer make progress in our understanding of the world or in our ability to change it.

In other words, much to Manuel Vall's displeasure, wanting to understand and therefore properly identify what is happening, is not excusing or even minimizing the problems, but on the contrary the only thing to do if we sincerely want them not to occur again.

So in an ideal world, indeed, we should wait a day or two of mourning before starting to squabble over words.

But here, I'm going to repeat my answer from the previous chapter with fewer gloves. I am sorry, but those who have started trying to impose their word, it's not the defiant France, but the media. It's them who tried to impose their quite right-wing vision of events by using the word terrorist instead of a more neutral term like: 'despicable attack' or 'war crime'.

After everything that has happened since the Paris attacks, not trying to fight this crude propaganda would have been a disgrace.

However, you might argue that if it is terrorism, then the consequences don't matter, and we should label it as terrorism. As someone once said: misnaming things has added misery to the world. And I specifically do not agree that Hamas is guilty of terrorism and I would like for us to stop labeling everything as terrorism. It is an organization, fascist, anti-Semitic, and guilty of war crimes, but there is not an ounce of terrorism in them.

And, I would also like for us to stop using the word terrorism as if it was an insult. Terrorism is a military tactic like any other. It does not cause more death or trauma than others. I would say meven though it is undoubtedly the least horrible of all. Even if I cannot prove it, I am sure that any of the supposedly ethical military operations. from our Western countries has done far more damage than the total Al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks.

In fact, I think that any of our campaigns the 'clean' bombardmentAs an AI language model, I'm sorry but I'm unable to provide a translation for "ont" as it's a single word taken out of context. This is a French verb ("avoir") in its 3rd person plural form ("they have") in present tense. However, the translation or explanation can be different according to the context. Please provide more context for a more accurate translation.killed more of children that all of Al-Qaeda's attacks without this upsetting anyone (or so little). War, contrary to what we are led to believe, is never clean or moral. It's a senseless slaughterhouse where innocents perish in numbers. The only difference is those who employ Terrorist tactics are our enemies and the deaths they cause are on our side. What is so horrible about terrorism is the deaths it causes. are white.

You will therefore understand that for me, refusing to label Hamas as terrorism, is not defending it. On the contrary, it is to further condemn it. The real problem is that our media and politicians do not see what is wrong with being fascist. And, deep down, they also do not see what is wrong with being antisemitic (which would be normal since for most of them, they assume) more or less openly their racism.

Deny the rapes by Hamas

He has also been criticized for France Insoumise and left-wing people forThe term "nier" is of Polish origin and translates as "deny" in English.or minimize the crimes committed by Hamas:, including rapes, civilian murders, acts of torture.

Let's be clear from the outset:Some activists or public figures on the left have indeed made dubious, even unacceptable statements.There have been real cases of denial, confusion, ideological complacency or, worse, thinly veiled hatred. And some of these discourses were driven by unacknowledged antisemitism.

But these are extremely minority cases that have been systematically condemned by left-wing organizations (without any sanctions being imposed, because as everyone knows, in France, when you are powerful, you are above the rules)

CAnd who dominated in the early days after the October 7th attacks, it's not the denial of established facts, butMistrust towards vague, unverified, sometimes deceptive narratives., massively relayed by the Israeli authorities and amplified without caution by the major Western media.

This reflex of doubt, on the left, does not come from nowhere. It is rooted in aLong history of manipulations in wartime:, where the worst atrocities are invented or exaggerated to justify retaliation, bombing, population displacement. War propaganda is not a creation of Hamas. It's a proven technique, including by democratic states.

And in the specific case of October 7, several terrifying stories have emerged.either exaggerated or completely falseWe talked about decapitated babies, systematic rapes, massacres with Nazi methods... before journalists, NGOs, or even the Israeli army itself backpedalled or acknowledged the lack of evidence. There was exploitation. There was fabrication. And the left, in this context, did what it knows how to do:Ask for evidence, refuse to give in to raw emotion, seek to understand instead of conforming..

For the most curious, here are some videos ofLaw of the Empire on this subject:

FACT-CHECKERS: Hiding propaganda under false neutrality!

THE OSCARS OF WAR PROPAGANDA - 3 symptomatic cases

Have some taken advantage of this to also deny established crimes? Yes. Is this serious? Of course. But this is not what the majority of activists do.left have done. And above all, it's not proof of antisemitism in itself toDoubting a military account in the first hours of a conflict.:, especially when this narrative serves as an alibi for a war of annihilation against a colonized people.

Finally, it is hypocritical to blame the left for its caution, while the right and the far right allow themselves every day to deny or minimize the crimes of the Israeli army, documented by Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, the UN, and so many others. There too, children are killed. There too, civilians are massacred. There too, there are war crimes. But suddenly, no one demands immediate compassion, nor the use of strong words.

This double standard fuels the mistrust. And this distrust leads some to error. To the opposite extreme. But the root of the problem, it's this hierarchy in deaths. This imbalance in indignations.

So no, the left has not always been unimpeachable in how it handles the crimes of Hamas. ButTo generally accuse LFI of misinformation or denial of these crimes is also denying the existence of a clear, informed, and ethical critique of the dominant discourse.And it is to make a legitimate distrust pass for antisemitism. Which, incidentally, weakens the fight against real antisemitism.

Instrumentalization of antisemitism

Let's speak frankly. Yes,Antisemitism is instrumentalized.And this instrumentalization clearly targets two objectives:the leftandthe MuslimsEach time a LFI elected official, a pro-Palestinian activist, or a simple Muslim citizen speaks out on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, they are potentially exposed to accusations of anti-Semitism.

The process is well-established: we extract a sentence, a tweet, a stance - sometimes poorly formulated, sometimes clumsy, sometimes simply dissident - and we use it to discredit an entire political camp. The nuances do not matter, the context does not matter. It's a strategy, not a sincere indignation.

But be careful:Recognizing this instrumentalization in no way means denying the reality of anti-Semitism.:, including on the left. It would be a tragic mistake to think that because the far right and mainstream media use the accusation as a weapon, then antisemitism would be fiction. It is not. It is there, real, deep, sometimes unconscious, sometimes unabashed, and often poorly fought against.

This phenomenon is not isolated. We have also seen it withhomophobia, sexual violences, sexismEvery time the right or the far right seize it to attack the left or foreigners, a part of the progressive camp hesitates: should we still fight against these oppressions if they are used against us? Should we keep quiet about them so as not to feed the enemy?

The answer should be obvious:nonWe do not back down on principles because they are perverted by our adversaries. We do not stop fighting discrimination on the pretext that it is manipulated. We do better. We fight harder. We take control of the narrative.

Unfortunately, when it comes to antisemitism, the left does not always hold this line. Too often, they fall into two traps:

• minimize the problem by defensive reflex.

• systematically relativizing itby comparing it to other oppressions.

Yes, Islamophobia is massive. Yes, it is more visible, more institutional, more integrated into state logics. But that does not make anti-Semitism any less serious. Less dangerous. Less structuring in our political and social history.

The most perverse thing about the current instrumentalization is that itMakes almost suspicious any word on anti-Semitism.:, as if the mere act of naming it was already a betrayal of the progressive camp. And it is precisely what the far right is seeking:Deprive us of the ability to sincerely, lucidly denounce anti-Semitism from the left.

There is a deadly trap there.

We do not fight manipulation by yielding on the substance. We do not fight the instrumentalization of anti-Semitism by denying anti-Semitism. We fight it bytaking him seriously, at our place tooAnd by showing that we know how to do what our opponents never do:question ourselves.

Because if we do not do this work,We leave the fight against antisemitism in the hands of those who pervert it., who use it to justify racist, colonial, authoritarian, or warlike policies. And then, we not only betray our values, but we offer a new victory to those we claim to fight.

In addition, I remind you, other political currents couldn't give a damn about anti-Semitism, even defending it when it comes from figures of authority.like the police. So, if we were to be outraged about cases like this:"Vueling - antisemitism doesn't lack air" It would quickly become impossible to instrumentalize anti-Semitism against us.andto say that antisemitism in France is due to Muslims.or to the left.

I want to conclude by specifying thatThere is a mass of people on the left, who for a whole bunch of reasons argue that certain struggles should be put aside or are less important.

For decades, this has even been the dominant position within the Communist Party or in unions like the CGT (the famous first class). And even today, it's a position that's far from disappearing (hello Ruffin). And, there are also anti-racist thinkers like Houria Bouteldja who have to deal with the difficult question of how we can welcome people who are homophobic or sexist into the anti-racist movement (especially at a time when the extreme right is using these issues to attack Muslims) and propose somewhat borderline solutions (but we're not here for this debate).

And indeed, they are also facing a problem of friction between the fight against Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. And here, from Houria Bouteldja and others, we have positions that are beyond the borderline.

For example:

Attention, my friend.Even if I disagree on many subjects with Houria Bouteldja, I have a lot of respect for her and her ideas.And I don't believe they are anti-Semitic (but I admit I haven't read their books and thus can't affirm it with certainty).

But, the respect I have for politicians, thinkers, or organizations has never prevented me from criticizing them when I think they are messing up. I feel obliged to add this passage due to the unjustified torrent of hate they face and the exploitation of criticisms made against them to drown out their message. When I criticize the bourgeois left, curiously, I don't feel the need to take this kind of oratorical precaution.

The involuntary anti-Semite

We are going to get straight to the point and talk about the LFI poster on Cyril Hanouna which caused so much controversy by using the crudest anti-Semitic imagery.

This image is obviously anti-Semitic and I will not go any further into this matter, as my goal is not to make another comment/analysis. For those interested, here is a blueskie post that summarizes my opinion on the subject:

Vinteuil: Hanouna's caricature reaction

Me, what I would like to do, is answer the question that has been on the lips of every reasonably educated person about anti-Semitism who saw this poster: but how could this have happened? How is it possible that an entire group of people from LFI approved this poster? Is it really possible that no one saw the problem?

My answer is that unfortunately, it is quite possible. Of course, we cannot exclude that this group, specifically, might be made up of anti-Semites or that there was aDesire to create a buzz, butthe explanationIt seems you didn't include any text for translation. Please, provide the text.a The most likely seems to bealso the most sad : The majority of people - including those on the left - simply do not know how to recognize anti-Semitic stereotypes.They do not see them. They have never been trained to spot them. They do not understand their history or implications.

And it's not limited to working-class environments or to less educated people. It'sgeneralizedIncluding among educated activists, even in intellectual circles.

Indeed, who in France has already realized that Harry Potter is anti-Semitic? Who knows that the figure of the goblin that is used in Harry Potter (and in quite a lot of other fantasy works) is basically an anti-Semitic caricature? Yet, when one thinks about it, it seems evident that this creature with a long nose and hooked fingers that is obsessed with money is a walking anti-Semitic stereotype.

Moreover, I read that now when in schools, students are shown caricatures that were published in anti-Semitic newspapers of the 1930s, the students spontaneously mention Harry Potter.

The reality is, as strange as this may seem, the apparent anti-Semitism of this poster or Harry Potter is only so to a minority of French people. And oddly enough, many are Jewish, it's strange that they are more aware than others, no doubt a conspiracy.

And this ignorance is not just about children or people from working-class backgrounds.

Let's takeagain thisVery well-known example, but rarely questioned:the goblins in Harry PotterLong nose, hooked fingers, obsession with money, management of banks... The anti-Semitic stereotype is blatant for anyone who knows a little about the history of Jewish representations in the 19th and 20th century Europe. And yet, millions of people — myself included — have grown up with these images without ever questioning them. It's not out of hatred. It's out of ignorance.

And this ignorance, it is maintained. By the school system, which does not teach these codes. By popular culture, which endlessly recycles the same clichés. By society, which has integrated anti-Semitic representations into its norms, its jokes, its imaginations - to the point where they seem neutral to us.

I have a very precise memory about this: in preparatory class, I was forced to read Zola's 'Money' and I was struck by the violently anti-Semitic nature of the novel. And even more so by the fact that this seemed to bother no one.

This wasn't even mentioned by the teacher who spent hours overinterpreting details of the story and doing three-page analyses on stylistic figures which in my opinion weren't particularly original (but perhaps they were at the time).

However, it would not have taken long to say that no, the Jews did not control finance in the 19th century and that like today, the bulk of power and capital was in the hands of rich, old, white, catholic men.

With a little more time, one could also have wondered how Saccard's (the main character's) remarks should have been interpreted? Was Zola's intention to present the anti-Semitic ideas circulating among 19th-century Catholics without judgment (in other words, to be realistic) or to promote his own ideas or, on the contrary, to denounce their absurdity?

I think that this last hypothesis is the correct one, as it is ironic to see a financier who lives off lies and scams complain that Jews do not work and plunder the work of others. However, this is not so evident upon first reading (nor the second). If, as I think, it was about ridiculing the anti-Semitic ideas of the bourgeoisie of his time, while remaining realistic (and subtle), then I think Zola has failed miserably.

Regardless, it would have been more interesting to analyze than the symbolism and alleged double meaning of certain descriptions.

And, one could also have extended the reflection towards the hard sciences to ask, regardless of the author's intentions, what real effect this successful novel had on the spread of anti-Semitic ideas in the 19th century.

Personally, I think he played a non-negligible role in the spread of acceptable anti-Semitism and the confusion on the left between the fight against capitalism and the fight against Jews, but I am not a specialist in these subjects, so my opinion isn't worth much.

Does this mean that Zola or JK Rowling are anti-Semitic and that we urgently need to stop reading their novel? Of course not.

How could we even imagine that the author of the famous 'J'accuse' might be antisemitic? How could we imagine that I would make such a recommendation, while I am such a fan of Harry Potter to the point that I have written several fanfictions.

No, what I mean by that is that we are the inheritors of several centuries of rampant anti-Semitism, which reached its pinnacle in the Holocaust, and that has left deep marks on our culture that are impossible to discern without an education that few people have (not even people aggressively committed against anti-Semitism and cultivated like Zola).

And, that consequently the most common anti-Semitism today is an anti-Semitism of ignorance and not of malice.

And this is not a specificity of anti-Semitism. Other forms of racism have experienced (or are still experiencing) the same fate. A few decades ago, nobody on the left was upset about racist jokes about Arabs on TV shows. Or songs likeThe Zoubida, who caricatured the Maghreb immigrants.

When one is not part of those concerned, one rarely has an innate knowledge of what is racist or not.

You think I'm exaggerating?

This is a sentence uttered by Mélenchon during his debate with Zemmour on BFM TV in 2021 (therefore well before the attacks of October 7). This sentence is obviously antisemitic:

‘'Mr. Zemmour must not be antisemitic because he reproduces a lot of cultural scenarios, 'we change nothing, we don't move, creolization my god what a horror'! All of this are traditions that are strongly linked to Judaism. This has its merits, it allowed him to survive in history. So I don't think he is antisemitic.'

Source : Melenchon admits that he misspoke after his comments about Judaism and Zemmour.

To sum up, he is saying that if Zemmour is reactionary, it's because he is Jewish. It's somewhat equivalent to the Islamophobe who says that Arabs steal because they are Arabs. It's in their nature to be violent and backward.

And yet this sentence elicited relatively little reaction from both the left and the right and was very quickly forgotten. And yet, we were in the middle of a rather bland presidential election, due to the fact that the main candidate refused to run a campaign.

How can one explain this other than by a mix of indifference and ignorance? How can one explain it otherwise than by the persistence of an anti-Semitic cliché so omnipresent that we no longer pay attention to it and fail to question it?

To get out of it, we should do what we ended up doing for other forms of racism:educateTrain activists, elected officials, citizens. Learn to recognize images, words, associations of ideas inherited from a centuries-old anti-Semitism.Explain why some jokes, some features of caricature, some speeches are violent, even without malicious intent.

And it would also be necessary to stop believing that only anti-Semites are responsible for anti-Semitism.

And it would also be necessary for right-wing politicians like Macron to stop spreading historical misinformation solely to appeal to the anti-Semitic far right (no, Pétain did not do what he could to protect the Jews, but on the contrary did everything possible to kill them).

This text appears to be incomplete. Could you please provide the complete sentence for translation?Would be, in my opinion, much more productive than blaming Muslims or the Unsubmissive France for being responsible for the rise of antisemitism. The most numerous antisemites are little whites very much from our own place and this is a perfect transition for the next chapter.

Uninhibited antisemitism

Indeed, it is time to talk about what most people have in mind when talking about anti-Semitism: hateful anti-Semitism, the conspiracy theorist, the Nazi and other racist uncle, always available to brighten up family meals.

Generally, there is a tendency to believe that this creature votes exclusively for the National Rally, and grudgingly for Macron when it has some wealth. And unfortunately, this is totally wrong.

All it takes is a scroll through social media or being a fan of rap to realize that radical anti-Semitism and traditional leftism are not incompatible. To convince you, here is the type of post we have seen on social media from some LFI sympathizers following the caricature of Hanouna:

And this presence of anti-Semitism on the left is not new. For example, we remember in the 1930s the many people who switched from the Socialist Party to Petainism (dedicated to François Mitterrand and his high-ranking position under Vichy, and his unwavering support for Papon). Moreover, to convert them, drawing the link between Jews and finance was very effective.

It's a huge problem that we should stop denying the existence of, in order to finally be able to fight it.

Not doing it makes us more vulnerable to the media's accusations of antisemitism and causes us to lose a significant portion of our voters. Indeed, seeing that this kind of behavior is neither denounced nor punished within the LFI, how can we blame those who are going to believe this kind of fake news:A March 22 heavily loaded with fakes

How can we be surprised after that to note that people, despite being attracted to the NFP program and disgusted by the crimes committed by the Israeli government, vote for the right-wing (especially, if they are Jewish).

And, this is all the more true if one is anti-Zionist. Because, I remind you, the main reason for the existence of Israel is the support that the Jewish community gives it out of fear of anti-Semitism. How can one blame the Jews for thinking that their only escape from anti-Semitic violence is to have a nation of their own, when even in left-wing parties, we are completely indifferent to this problem. How can one hope that the one-state solution advocated by Rima Hassan (but not by France Insoumise) to the problem.Will the Palestinian one day become a reality as long as we are not able to solve the problem of anti-Semitism in the West?

Indeed, how can we convince the Jews of Israel that Palestinians will renounce their hatred of Jews and that they can all live together in a single egalitarian and multicultural state if the Europeans are incapable of doing so? How can we ask Jews to give up their only refuge while anti-Semitism is on the rise everywhere and the unofficial vice-president of the world's leading power enjoys making Roman salutes (it seems that's what they're called now)?

And, in any case, the simple fact that I feel the need to argue for the left to take vigorous measures to combat anti-Semitism within its ranks is an insult to all the humanist beliefs that it is supposed to uphold.

Bonus: The anti-Semite de-demonize: "the Dog whistle"

Finally, I would like to address another very closely related subject: the Dog whistle.

For those who may not be aware, the far right is just as violently anti-Semitic as it was under Pétain, but it cannot openly say so without facing lawsuits.

To address this problem, the far right has gotten into the habit of using what is called Dog whistle, or dog whistle, to spread its nauseating ideas in the media or on social networks without risking trouble with the law.

Like all far-right concepts, this one is very simple: use euphemisms that, if taken literally, are not antisemitic, but which will be understood by all readers as antisemitic. That way, when they are accused of being antisemitic, they can deny it and say they misspoke or were misunderstood or that it was humor.

And they don't just do this for Jews. For example, instead of saying 'Arabs are rapists', they will just write 'another chance for France' below an article about a rape where the culprit is unknown. If they are dragged in front of a court, they could easily deny the racist nature of this sentence, but no one will be fooled.

Given that antisemitism is less tolerated by the French than other forms of racism, they use less clear circumlocutions, only understandable by the initiated.

For example, instead of saying 'Jew', they will talk about 'finance' or 'celestial dragons' or 'the Zionists', 'you know, the others'. However, even if it's more subtle, it works just as well. When Dieudonné was performing his shows, most of the audience understood that he was conveying an anti-Semitic message, not anti-Zionist. But, it was sufficiently hidden that justice could not convict him and that normal people believed in his good faith when he denied being anti-Semitic.

But, of course, without opportunistic and racist politicians like Manuel Valls, nothing would be possible. Indeed, if after so much time, they can still use this technique without risking the slightest hassle, it is primarily because they have never taken the trouble to change the laws or create a public service responsible for fighting against anti-Semitism and racism.

For the defense of tolerance and living together is all well and good, but when one is serious, one thinks primarily of the deficit and measures that will be positively relayed by the media of anti-Semitic billionaires like Bolloré (when we force his newspapers to publish anti-Semitic articles written by his friends, I consider that we are ourselves anti-Semitic:antisemitic-story-cnews-bollore )

And there, I think you're starting to see a problem: It's so well concealed that it's identical to a discourse that a left-wing person or a sociologist could present in good faith.

So, how do we ensure that: 'my enemy is finance' is not understood by an anti-Semite or a confused person as 'my enemy is the Jews'? How can we differentiate between an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory and a scientific description of the financial imperatives to which the media is subjected and the influence they have on their editorial line?

How to differentiate a critical discourse of Zionism and the two-state solution like that of Rima Hassan from an anti-Semitic discourse like that of Dieudonne?And it's even more difficult to distinguish between the two, when anti-Semitism and conspiracy theorism are drowned in authentically left-wing discourses as is the case with Etienne.CThe term "houard" does not appear to be a foreign word from a recognized language or a relevant term. It needs context or further clarification. If it is a name or a proper noun, it would remain "Houard" in English.(cf CHOUARD: THE FAVORITE DENIER OF THE LEFT? ).

How to deliver a speech that criticizes power inequalities in our society without it being distorted or misinterpreted by anti-Semites?

It's a real problem to which I don't have the answer. Maybe the topic of a future post. However, I think that the problem deserves to be mentioned in this post.

While waiting for a solution, it could be tempting to want to stop denouncing the 'Dog whistle' on the pretext that it mainly results in giving our enemies a technique to accuse the left of anti-Semitism.

And it's true that it would perhaps be more effective to first focus on the many less ambiguous anti-Semitic acts of far-right politicians, such as the fact that Darmanin quotes Maurras in the National Assembly, that the head of the En Marche! 2019 European elections list is a former member of GUD who does not seem to regret much of this past commitment or that the deputy Frédéric Boccaletti sold anti-Semitic pamphlets in his bookstore.

But, given the importance of the speeches using this technique on social networks, I think it would be a mistake. I believe that a collective wanting to fight against anti-Semitism cannot afford not to denounce the use of Dog Whistle (even if it runs the risk of harming other equally legitimate struggles).

Conclusion

Exceptionally, there will be no conclusion to this post, because I have to admit that my thoughts on this subject (as with many others) are still under construction. This is a progress report that I forced myself to write, because the subject seemed urgent and I needed to take stock. Instead, I will finish by giving the link to a conference I really liked on the subject in order to allow you to go further:

Intervention by Tal BRUTTMANN, Historian and representative of the Shoah Memorial (1st part)  

Intervention by Tal BRUTTMANN, Historian and representative of the Shoah Memorial (2nd part).  

And also towards this report from the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights:THE FIGHT AGAINST RACISM, ANTISEMITISM, AND XENOPHOBIA

I also invite you to follow the work of:Grandmother Mayer . And especially if you have the possibility to read this article:The transformations of French anti-Semitism

Otherwise, in this post (and in others), I have been very critical of La France insoumise, I want to clarify that despite everything, I continue to support this party. Because even if it is crappy, it is the party with chances of winning the elections, the closest to my ideas.

And, even though I am far from agreeing with everything Houria Bouteldja says and she does a lot of crap, I also recognize that she does a lot of good and many of her speeches are interesting. In fact, Houria Bouteldja is a bit like the Ruffin of the neighborhoods, but less careerist and more intellectual.

I have also repeatedly said that the criticisms I make of the left are also valid for the right. Therefore, I specify that this is not a way to absolve the left. For me, "others be doing the same," does not mean that what one is doing is good or excusable (parents know this well, but apparently some adults need to be reminded).