Text primit de la dl Nicu Pîrîu
Dacă nu vă descurcaţi cu româna, încercaţi în engleză(google mai ştie şi alte limbi, eu nu):
Many detractors of Israeli politics (and that whatever it is: that of Barak no less than that of Netanyahu), leftists, Zionists „plural and fruitful” blame us for „Jewish indigenism”, the overkill, argumentative manichaeism, rightization, identitarianism, racism, fascism, „Muslimophobia”.
As if being pro-Israel necessarily meant being all of that. It is clear that most of these reactions come from people who put their Jewishness ahead to proclaim their disagreement with our analyzes.
Our opponents criticize us for not being objective and for not quoting the works of people who „criticize the policies of the government of Israel”. It is curious that our readers and critics fail to understand that we are analyzing anti-Semitic discourses and their cultural, religious, political and rhetorical sources but that we are not pretending to be involved in politics. In writing this post of reaction to an avalanche of disapprovals, anathemas, disagreements and moral lessons, I remembered the preface that Jacques Givet gave to his book written in 1968 The Left Against Israel?
The editor-in-chief had announced that his essay could only be published as a counterpart to another, pro-Arab essay. Givet then replied, that being pro-Israeli does not amount to being anti-Arab, that the left was betraying its raison d’être and that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism of the left reflected a „neo anti-Semitism ”, which more often than not being unconscious, always covered itself with the mask of good conscience.
The „Open Letter to the President of the Republic” – signed by myself with my colleagues: Roland Assaraf and Georges-Elia Sarfati – provoked the ire of certain members of the university community who expressed their „total disagreement”  with the analysis, admittedly, schematic of anti-Jewish speeches, but this is inherent in the genre of the open letter. It is curious to see that each time that we analyze the French political and media discourses which carry in germ or openly the intention of delegitimization of Israel, each time that we denounce the authors of these discourses, which moreover adopt the tone of the donors of lessons – such as priests addressing their flock disrespectful of good speech – these intellectuals accuse us of belonging to „the hard Israeli right”, of being part of „the pharmacy of the Likud”. While not once have we spoken out on Israeli politics or Prime Minister B. Netanyahu.
We talked about words, their manipulation, their demantization in the French media discourse, we analyzed the discursive device at work in texts and interviews, forums and petitions, in television and radio programs, we we paid particular attention to the speeches of the murderers of the Jews and we compared them with the French-speaking media speeches. It is astonishing that so many educated people take words for things and pretend to ignore the scope of language at work in the construction of ideology, despite their great philosophical and literary culture.
Challenging the vocabulary instituted by the decades of domination of the anti-Israel apparatus which has succeeded in weaving a false vision of the Jews and Israel, this provokes anger. It is pretty funny to blame us for not taking on board the AFP’s doxic language: „international law”, „settlers”, „occupation”, „oppression”. We show that these words are used to legitimize the murder of the Jews. Because they have a precise meaning in the texts analyzed, they do not refer to „Israeli policy”, but to the Jewish presence, designated as illegal in Jerusalem and in Judea. If the Jews are killed in France and in Israel, it is because they are Jews and that the Jews have nothing to do, where they are.
This is what M. Merah, A. Coulibali and the Kouachi brothers (French terrorists) say, this is what European media discourse repeats relentlessly. And those who are indignant against the observation of the influence of these words on murderous behavior, do nothing but validate these speeches.
Among other universalist indignation which is expressed in texts signed by „Jewish intellectuals” and which we analyze, „the criticism of the State of Israel” consists in postulating that the Jewish identity is „dangerous for democracy „. This is what a „cosmopolitan” sociologist, but of Jewish origin, who puts himself on the scene when it suits him, Alain Policar.
Likewise, a platform expressing its disagreement with the law recently passed in Israel on the self-determination of the Jewish people, explains to the readers of Libé that the principle of a Jewish majority is pernicious for the preservation of the democratic character of the State of Israel (see here). We end up with aporias some of which are not aware. But little about them, the main thing is to display a virtuous, moral, universalist, anti-community and therefore anti-Jewish ethos.
Naturally, according to this logic, when one poses as a universalist, one cannot approve of the particular character of a state. Oddly enough, it is the only state in the world, whose particular character is not approved and which is accused of identity crime. When it comes to considering the other states that spread over the surface of the Earth, the universalism of these detractors is completely dissipated. No one criticizes Russia for being Russian or Turkey for being Turkish or Armenia for being Armenian. But the idea and the fact that Israel has a Jewish character, and that this state defends its Jewish character, that constitutes an attack on democracy, it is pure communitarianism, needless to say!
The paradox is for the indignant to put forward their Jewishness in order to better dissociate themselves from it. I am a Jew, but that is to say that I criticize the Jewish character of the State of Israel. I am Jewish, but a little, in private, to tell Jewish jokes to friends. I am a universalist and humanist Jew, and it is for this reason that I criticize „the policy of the government of Israel” (expression become frozen as it is harassed and clubbed), and above all I am a Jew to better type on others Jews who do not criticize this policy as it should be in universalist, humanist and pacifist circles.
Look, I am like you, I criticize „the politics of Israel”, I adhere to the thesis of „colonization” (common to AFP and the official speech, the speech of Hamas as that of a great number of Arab countries for which the „colony” is the entire territory of the State of Israel, without exception). Universalism concerned with all peoples on Earth, except for the Jews? Universalism which recognizes Palestinian, Russian, Turkish, Iranian, Egyptian nationalism, but which rejects that of the Jews? Basically, when Jews who criticize „the politics of Israel” – an authentic obsessional motive – call themselves „universalists” today, what do they mean? They are not Jews because they are part of humanity without further specification. And by that, they only contribute to nurturing anti-Jewish stereotypes: treachery, cowardice, double allegiance, etc.
The Jews defeated their enemies in successive wars, but to defeat enemies is to do harm, it is to make the enemy suffer! Danièle Sibony has finely analyzed this phenomenon in her Antisemitic Enigma. Having enemies is suspicious, it proves that we have hurt them, we made them suffer, otherwise why would they be enemies? In the borderless world, there is only universal love for the neighbor, and if this neighbor does not love you, too bad for him! Pauline logic is still at work in the moral posture of these people. When Alain Policar defends cosmopolitanism and makes it a social objective (see: How can we be cosmopolitan?), He places himself in this logic.
Any difference is perceived as „communitarianism and identitarianism” without seeing that the religion of cosmopolitan universalism is nothing other than another type of identity. The floating, fuzzy, „fluid” identity, as it is customary to say among post-modernists-progressives. And what characterizes this position is intolerance of any identity other than their own. Obviously, the Jews represent a resistance to this ideal. Any Jew is suspected of opposing the ideal by the fact that he is a Jew. These cosmopolitan, universalist, republican Jews who see themselves in the place accorded to them by Stanislas de Clermont-Tonnerre („We must refuse everything to Jews as a nation and grant everything as individuals”) are exasperated by the existence of those among the Jews who question the idea of „universal” without advocating any particular identity.
And why must all follow them? Why must we adopt the moral postures of false devotees like that of Edgar Morin, or his clones of lesser scale, but whose posture is no less absurd, or abject when we think of the practical implications of their ideology. Their simplistic slogans are fueled by Islamist-leftist propaganda and are based on ignorance of reality and belief in ideals: „The Jews who were victims of the ruthless order impose their ruthless order on the Palestinians. Jewish victims of inhumanity show terrible inhumanity. The scapegoat Jews of all the words scapegoat Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. „
No wonder, after all, Morin being a non-Jewish Jew, but „a little Jew” by Leila Shahid anyway, which he prides himself on (see P. A. Taguieff (2018: 73)
“In his book of interviews with Tariq Ramadan, At the Peril of Ideas, published in 2015, Edgar Morin says that he had bonded with Leïla Shahid, former delegate of the Palestinian Authority in France, who used to to say about himself, Stéphane Hessel and some other Jewish personalities who were demonstrating for Palestine: „I put my little Jews at the head of the procession” „(Leïla Shahid, quoted by Edgar Morin, in Edgar Morin & Tariq Ramadan , Peril of Ideas: The Big Questions of Our Time, Interviews with Claude-Henry du Bord, Paris, Presses du Châtelet, 2014, p. 185.)
Not everyone goes as far as masochism to enjoy public humiliation as Morin does, needless to say. But still, what is the substance, in this phenomenon of typically Jewish embarrassment, in these hasty statements in the public square: we are not like you (when we did not ask for anything anyone by doing our analyzes)? Why are they so embarrassed, so annoyed, so worried, so bent on shouting their universalism – or, depending on the circumstances: their cosmopolitanism or their anti-racism, or whatever else on all networks, lists, associations, etc. . ?
Why, when we show the springs of the generalized anti-Israeli discourse, do they tax us with natives, communitarians or sectarians of the extreme right. And if a non-Jew defended Israel, would he also be communitarian? Pierre-André Taguieff is it? Is Guy Millière? Menahem Macina too? Really ? And what to do with these goyim who defend Israel? Would they also be envoys from the Likud dispensary? When you want to drown your dog, you say they have rabies. And when you want to drown your conformism, you say that the other is fascist. Left-wing Jewish intellectuals seek to provide a bond to the socialist left by adopting the anti-Israeli discourse, its phraseology which explains the world. The words they take on their own: „colonies”, „occupation”, „discriminations”, are also the words which condition their thinking, these words come under the strong sense of historical revisionism.
It is as if pointing to the double political and media discourse which on the one hand condemns anti-Semitism, and on the other opens wide the doors to the pogroms to come, one deprived these Jews of their identity of republican „citizens”. They recognize of course, that Jews are the target of anti-Semitism, they say they fight anti-Semitism, but when it comes to defending Israel’s right to defend itself, or its right to denounce the double standard systematically adopted in his regard, his right to show that behind the declarations of friendship hides the most absolute cynicism, they are no longer Jews but „citizens” understanding of this policy.
They are fighting with the decolonial movements, with the PIR, because they are afraid – an absolutely legitimate fear, and that we share – that these movements are using „anti-colonial” means: suicide attacks, ram cars, butcheries in the public square (we only remember those that have already happened in France and those that happen in Israel every day). Because for the „decolonials”, French or European citizens are „colonizers”. So these Jews are the first to fight these dangerous ideologies.
On the other hand, when it comes to Israel, their position is quite different, they condemn the responses of the Hebrew State (always qualified as „disproportionate”, according to old terminology), they condemn „colonization”, ” occupation ”and make themselves seen by all“ good ”people:“ anti-racists ”,“ humanists ”,“ pacifists ”, etc.
„The problem is not anti-Semitism”
When it comes to speeches about Israel, the communion of condemnations forms a beautiful unison. The basic argument is this: the problem is not the anti-Semitism inherent in the Palestinian cause. (The murder of the Jews in France to avenge „the Palestinian brothers”, as Merah and Coulibali explained, are just the details, which have nothing to do with the real problem).
The ideology of Haj Amin al Husseini still alive, the negationism of Abbas and the fierce hatred of Hamas: all this is not a real problem. The problem, according to the universalist „citizen” Jews, who speak the same words as the sworn enemies of Israel, is that „the Jews came to occupy the land which is not theirs”. That one is not to be done. It’s not good. It is against the law. The problem, they argue, is not that it was the Jews who invaded Palestine, but that anyone else in their place (Lapps, Malagasy or Eskimos) would not find favor in the eyes of the invaded Palestinians.
The Jews are therefore „perceived” by the Arabs as the occupiers for understandable anthropological reasons. This argument ignores the history of Judea, called Palestine since Hadrian’s time, the history of the Zionist movement and its financial relations with the Ottoman Empire, it ignores the fact that Zionism has nothing conquered by force, but progressed in legality (by a policy of repurchase of the lands from which the different empires had robbed them), they pretend to ignore what historical circumstances presided over the establishment of the new Yishouv:
„The name Judea for centuries has only retained its meaning for the only Jews, excluded from history. The history of this exclusion merges with that of theological substitutions, but also with the transmission, which has become mechanical of learned terminology, once Judea… wiped off the map, by the Roman Empire, and after the latter, by all empires that have taken over its soil, its people and its symbols. The change of toponym was the first substitution. Others followed: the Holy Land, Dar al Islam, Kingdom of Jerusalem, Crusader kingdoms, Greater Syria region, Mandatory Palestine. Palestine is a palimpsest, its original texture is found under all these coverings, under which is found the name of Judea. „(G.-E. Sarfati, G.E. 2020)
Leftist Universalist / Zionist Jews ignore or deny history, as do the enemies of Israel, who, in order to gain acceptance for their genocidal project, deny any historical link between the Jews and the Land of Israel, and make „as if”, this story did not exist. The story begins for them, as for the detractors of Israel, after 1967. This attitude justifies, perhaps unconsciously, the negationism of the left. There is a link between this negationism there and the so-called universalism. A Jewish joke illustrates this trend very well:
At the UN, Arabs and Jews complain to the Council over security issues. A Jew says that King Solomon went to swim one day, and that when he got out of the water, he did not find his clothes, they were probably stolen by Arabs. An Arab retorts: it is false, we did not exist yet at that time. The Jew replied: „This is a good start” … ”
The argument of Jews who are not at home in Judea is in agreement with Christian theology, which prohibited the land from the Jews by explaining that they were cursed and expelled from their land as a sign of divine punishment. The reader can refer in this regard to the classic study by Jules Isaac: The teaching of contempt. This discourse, recycled by post-national republican universalism, has conditioned people’s minds to the point where they no longer realize its ideological lineage.
And since our detractors absolutely want to talk about politics, let’s talk about it.
Some explain to us that their Zionism is that of Amos Oz, „fruitful and pluralist”. They are for „the two-state solution”. See Amos: Oz Help us divorce! Israel Palestine, two states now. Given all that we know of events on the ground, on the speeches of the Palestinian leaders, addressed to the Arabs and to Europe whatever the fraction to which they belong (be it Mahmoud Abbas, Hamas , Fatah, Islamic Jihad), on the disaster of the Oslo Accords, on the failure of Camp David, on the successive Intifada and on the role of European speeches as well as the European money distributed to anti-Israeli NGOs, we want to remind a few facts to these followers of soothing speeches:
In a divorce, both parties have the same rights and the same duties, each side is recognized by the other. And the divorced parties stay far apart from each other. One of these states must not be obsessed with the annihilation of the other, its destruction and the expulsion of its citizens. Very officially, the goal of Palestinian autonomy, of Fatah, of Hamas is to liberate „Palestine from all Jewish presence”. Since Oslo, this policy has been very consistent.
This is not a state that Arab leaders want alongside the State of Israel, it is an additional Arab state IN PLACE of Israel. Contrary to false information, which has passed for historical truth for a quarter of a century, the PLO charter did not abolish all the articles which called for total jihad against Israel, it maintained the call to ” struggle army ”, and to ” the war of liberation ” (G.-E. Sarfati, The PLO charter pending repeal, Mots / Les langages du politique, n ° 50, 1997)
The salaries that Mahmoud Abbas continues to pay to the murderers of the Jews by calling them „martyrs”, the Palestinian textbooks that educate against hatred of the Jews, the daily television broadcasts directed at Palestinian children educated to become „martyrs”, the training camps for young people, run by Fatah members, and by Hamas are not really signs of a desire for a peaceful divorce.
The second point which seems not to be noticed by Zionist universalists – and peacekeepers at any cost – are the conditions for the establishment of these two states. Palestine is conceived of as a state which will take over Judea and Samaria at the cost of the departure of the Jews from these lands. The Palestinian state acclaimed by the pacifists must be Jüdenrein, and Jerusalem will be its capital. Mahmoud Abbas, by denying all legitimacy to the State of Israel, accusing him of „ethnic cleansing”, speaks of Jerusalem, the eternal capital of Palestine alone (see here); he explains that in the new Palestinian state, there will not be a single Jew. These are the very words of his statement in Cairo in July 2013: “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli – civilian or soldier – on our lands.” (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/14/all-jews-out-palestine-is-not-peace-plan.html) (In the final resolution, we would not see any Israeli presence in our lands).
Hamas, for its part, has no intention of changing its anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist charter, nor its strategy of fighting to exterminate the Jews. Journalists in al Jazeera seem to be better informed or more honest about this than French journalists inspired by AFP dispatches. (See here). As for the left tirelessly inspired by Amos Oz, it claims to ignore these discourses or does not understand the relationship between their senses and what they are actually referring to. Some leftist Jews claim that these are self-explanatory statements, that they do not relate to the world, and that they should not be taken seriously.
When Fathi Hamad, the leader of Hamas calls his flock to „kill the Jews” everywhere (see here), he knows that these murders will go unpunished: in Europe, it will be enough to smoke cannabis, to be disempowered and in Israel , it will encourage people of Shalom Ahshav to make more sacrifices to obtain peace. The more the terror increases, the more the concessions to stop it multiply: This is what we have seen since Oslo. The craziest thing is that the Jews on the left maintain and endorse this scenario.
When Jews support the idea of ethnic purification
It follows that the pacifist Jews (of Shalom Ahshav, JCall and JStreet) support the idea of the ethnic cleansing of Judea and Samaria, that they support the idea of the expulsion of their lands from their Jewish inhabitants, and the creation of a space from which they will be the only ones excluded. Basically, they advocate the self-excommunication of the choir of nations. They basically replay, by these kinds of proposals, the old Christian anti-Jewish ideology which today still combines with some with the Islamist ideology.
After all, in the name of peace, and their guilt (for example, the condemnation of Israel’s always „disproportionate” responses), they are ready to go to the slaughterhouse to sacrifice themselves, to purify their unhappy identity and to sacrifice those among the Jews who asked for nothing like that. It would be funny if it weren’t tragic to see those whose intellectuals are so eager to „divorce” come to Jewish homes to kill them. To recall the most famous murders: the Fogiel family in 2011, the family of „settlers”, as all the French media announced without exception (we have a comprehensive media corpus), even „the baby colonist” was not spared neither by the killers nor by the media, Hallel Ariel, a 13-year-old girl killed in her sleep, Dafna Meir was killed while protecting her children, etc.
The sums paid to the killer families by Mahmoud Abbas can only encourage people to help their families while passing by as a „martyr” (see here and here). Terrorists who remain alive after their acts and who go to prison continue to receive wages. One billion shekels (250 million euros) is the annual amount that the Palestinian Authority pays terrorists. The murder of the Jews is a well-regulated business for the Palestinian Authority.
Because this trade is part of the self-determination of this future Jüdenrein state of which the pacifists dream: the extermination of the Jews. If the logic of concessions were pushed to the end, the Jews would have to start from Tel Aviv and Jaffa, which are cities also claimed by Arab-Palestinians. See for example this children’s program on Palestinian television (here).
All of this discussion shows that the ideology behind „the two-state solution”, at the cost of all concessions, is both suicidal and genocidal.
Linguist and discourse analyst, Yana Grinshpun is interested in argumentative strategies at work in activist discourses and victimization discourses based on the implementation of doxa. She is a member of the RRA, the French research network on anti-Semitism and racism.