Comments on: France and the Jews

By: roger

roger — Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:59:41 +0000

David, Hasty typing, that’s all. Jews are Jews. As for the rest of it—since you have been teaching French and lecturing in it, then surely you know the political connotations of Klarsfeld’s terms, and you know that when he speaks of French Jews as Marranos he is taking something from the anti-Dreyfusard vocabulary of abuse—the idea that the Jews couldn’t be good citizens. To speak of French Israelites is, contra vous, not simple a formal way of talking, but one in line with the Klarsfeld’s whole point—a sort of inversion of the Baron de Charlus’ fantasies about Jews. Am I over-interpreting? No, actually I am adhering to Klarsfeld’s express point. He is well aware of the political connotations of his terms, and talks about it at the beginning of the article: “D’abord, pourquoi “juifs de France” et non “juifs français” ? Je suis un de ceux qui ont le plus employé l’expression “juifs de France”…” etc., etc. The excursus is a response of French speaking writers to his French—a pretty good sample of the effect of connotation, I would say. Connotation isn’t universal—it might really not sound to you like his terms are instilling a separation between French and Jewish. But that is the deal with language—it is full of codes, some of which are unclear. Your riff about small letter j jewish is a good example—is this really some new way of signalling anti-semitism? That’s not an unreasonable question—it could be. A code has to start somewhere.

By: David Demille

David Demille — Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:02:37 +0000

“The future? Certain French jews will bow their heads, express their difference with Israel or even their indifference, will dive, or at least seem to dive, into the “ethic of judaism” [little hit at Derrida there] and content themselmselves with being only political marranos… Political Marranos, eh? Christian on the outside, jewish on the inside.” Is there a certain type of discourse about Jews that requires the use of a lower case “j”?

By: David DeMille

David DeMille — Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:53:32 +0000

Roger, my “claim” to reading French is based on the minor fact that I’ve spoken it since childhood and have written and lectured in the language for nearly 25 years. Clearly you haven’t the foggiest idea what Klarsfeld is actually saying—denoting or connoting.

By: roger

roger — Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:41:19 +0000

PS —David, Klasfeld’s article is about exactly the kind of nationalistic identification that I was going on and on about. Here’s a graf, in the French first, then translated: L’avenir ? Certains juifs français courberont la tête, exprimeront leur différence avec Israël ou même leur indifférence, se plongeront ou feront semblant de se plonger dans “l’éthique du judaïsme” et se résoudront à n’être que des marranes politiques. The future? Certain French jews will bow their heads, express their difference with Israel or even their indifference, will dive, or at least seem to dive, into the “ethic of judaism” [little hit at Derrida there] and content themselmselves with being only political marranos.” Political Marranos, eh? Christian on the outside, jewish on the inside. Interesting how this is the kind of phrase one would encounter in Maurras—which makes my point. The logic of denying that a Jew can be a citizen of anyplace but Israel eventually leads you to using precisely the tropes of anti-semitism.

By: roger

roger — Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:20:05 +0000

David, Oh, but I do read and speak French. And English, too. You should try the latter language some time. It’s fun, and it’s easy! Hebrew is a good example of what I mean. I can go to the store and get Hebrew kosher dogs. But try using the phrase, “American Hebrew.” Try dropping it into an article you write for, say, the NYT. Watch the blue pencil come out. Watch your writing jobs with the NYT dry up. This is not even difficult. Denotation and Connotation are two separate things. Since you claim to read French, I suggest you start with Leon Bloy to find out how many variations a French writer can ring on the word Juif. Again, the

By: Conrad Barwa

Conrad Barwa — Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:16:09 +0000

Re: Geras’s response: initially the corrections made here increased my respect for Geras, a respect based on the high opinion I had of having read some of his work and I just want to put on record that I like the fact that he responded and was honest about any oversight on his part, an etiquette all too rare these days unfortunately so it is good to see that some still adhere to these standards. However, I am not so sure about some of the things he seems to be saying and now that his purpose is clearer and since he says that the comments thread in CT has skirted around the whole thrust of what he wanted to explore, it may be worthwhile to quickly sketch out a brief response to some of the points he has raised in his reply. While Geras acknowledges that Clermont-Tonnere’s extract was basically misquoted by Klarsfeld, and that the former was making an argument about legal and civil equality and not some jibe at Jewish nationhood – at least in the sense that it was presented he then goes on to qualify it by saying that the extract was quoted to align himself with the view that French foreign policy was not even-handed between Israel and the Arab countries except for the 1946-67 period. There are a number of things wrong with this argument: 1) the extract quoted from Klarsfeld does not back up or even seem to have any relevance directly to this supposed bias in French foreign policy. Now there might actually be some ideological consistency in the kind of Republican Nationalism espoused by Clermont-Tonnere’s ideas of civic nationalism and the antagonism it might display towards an ethnic nationalism such as Zionism (something that I had actually pointed out earlier but which is not addressed, in the differing German/French conceptions of nationalism, by Geras). But to do this more detail would be needed on the linkage and consistent line of development to show how exactly this works and how French Nationalism has had this bias; one would also need to explain why it did not operate with the period 1946-67 while supposedly existing outside this timeslot. No evidence is put forward apart from the erroneous Clermont-Tonnere extract to demonstrate this. 2) There is also the problem of what exactly is meant by this bias. I can only take it to mean that for whatever reason, French foreign policy is held to have been favourable to the Arabs and not so much towards the Zionist movement/Israel for large periods of time. What evidence there is for this is not really produced either; as mentioned earlier, no major European state pre-WWI as far as I know was in favour of a Zionist state and why the French should be singled out is beyond me. After the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, since Palestine went to the British sphere of influence, I am at a loss to understand as to how the French are involved; given that the Zionists had obtained some limited support and aligned themselves with British interests and so co-operated with the Mandate authorities; one could perhaps see that the French would have seen any potential Zionist claim as part of a British colonial scheme of control – not unnatural given that they regarded British moves in this region as a violation of wartime agreements on who would get what and reflects at least in part, an older colonial rivalry that existed before WWI – the stand-off at Fashoda being a good case in point. In anycase, there seems to have been no principle at stake here that should indicate why the French in particular should object to a Jewish state in Palestine; certainly when it suited them, as Napoleon’s campaign in Egypt shows, declarations towards supporting such a goal were made (a source of ire for amongst others Said who recounts this with ill-grace, in “Orientalism”). As to how favourable the French were to the Arabs, this seems doubtful, like their British counterparts, French colonialism faced not inconsiderable resistance and hostility from the Arab locals upset at what they perceived to be foreign and exploitative rule by an unfriendly power. Certainly bloody episodes like the suppression of the 1926 Druze rebellion in Syria were hardly going to endear the French to the Arabs. 3) One also needs to provide an underlying rationale for this argument. Why any state should as a default position be expected to conduct their foreign policy either in favour or not in favour of another state/group of states is unclear. Generally speaking I think a realist paradigm here is a good way to understand and interpret the foreign policy of states; which means to say that, each state will act in accordance to its own perceived national interests. This should hold true of France in her policy towards the ME as well; unless there can be some national interest at stake which persistently made the French state act against Zionism/Israel and in favour of Arab states, then this would not be a correct way of interpreting French Middle Eastern policy. I can think of no such national interest justification and neither is one provided; certainly French interests may have changed somewhat but remained broadly no different from that of other European colonial powers and I would suggest that this reflects the shift by which it has been favourable towards Israel in some periods, less so in others. As the old adage goes ”states have no permanent friends only permanent interests”. Either way one would need to show how either the French states does not subscribe or follow this pattern and how it is different from any other European state for that matter. Certainly African states which have had close ties with Israel on security or economic matters, have taken strongly pro-Palestinian positions in the UNGA and other international forums, in a manner not too dissimilar from many European ones. If it could be shown that French foreign policy is somehow radically different in this regard than say Germany or Ireland then there would be a case to investigate. As it is, I do not see that one exists. 4) Lastly, and perhaps most troublingly of all; very little evidence or support is offered up to back these allegations of French foreign policy bias. What instead is offered is “an impression” without any else to substantiate it. Nothing wrong with this in the sense that opinions are free and can be so held; but they should not be presented as historical or empirical facts when they clearly are not. The willingness to, how shall I say, jump to certain conclusions so readily suggests to me that there is a preconceived bias, which is casting around rather selectively for any material that will confirm its suspicions. Needless to say I think this is not a very rigorous nor intellectually honest way to proceed. I must say something about what is also mentioned as “an aspect” of the discussion which is given as a sort of warning for those who come to CT for the first time. I do not think this is something tolerated or in anyway a routinised aspect of most discussions on CT; and neither are the sentiments therein shared by a large part of both commenters and posters. A perusal of most posts and their comment threads will demonstrate that this is the case.

By: David DeMille

David DeMille — Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:50:00 +0000

“Similarly, the words Jew and Israelite are not semantically indistiguishable in French. The semantic charge comes, obviously, from context. The context of Klarsfeld’s remarks clearly has a history — that history in which a certain Zionism developed a certain polemical contempt for those Jews who did not want to support the Zionist project. The sin of omission, for the latter, consisted in thinking of themselves as still part of the nations in which they lived — French Jews thinking of themselves as French, for instance.” Sorry, Roger, but this is (mostly) BS. As Stephen Marks pointed out, the term “Israelite” long predates Zionism (as a political movement) or the State of Israel, and was up until recently the common (if slightly formal) term in France for “Jew”. If you read French (the evidence from your comment suggests that you don’t), here are Klarsfeld’s original words (which just happen to contradict almost everything that you say): http://www.desinfos.com/article.php?id_article=842

By: morton

morton — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:22:32 +0000

Geras responds.

By: morton

morton — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:17:56 +0000

Douglas—Thanks for the link. Christopher Caldwell is indeed an exception but he also makes my point, doesn’t he? He writes, referring to condemnation of the French law, that “These are cheap shots. Americans overestimate the constitutional issues involved primarily because they are ignorant of the historic ones.” Caldwell digs a bit deeper than most commentators but I think it’s just a matter of time before better informed articles appear in the U.S. press. And some of these articles will appear in the conservative media and will link the French position to positions widely held among U.S. conservatives (such as Robert Bork) against multiulturalism. This is also the view of Alain Finkielkraut who has long argued against pandering to “particularisms” (defending actions or “relativist arguments” that are reprehensibleor untrue for example because they are carried out in the name of a minority group).

By: roger

roger — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:42:15 +0000

Steve, Where I live, in Austin, there are several different protestant churches with Zion in their names—Zion Baptist Church, Zion Church of God, etc. However, I would not refer to these people as Zionists—although I suppose I could. Similarly, the words Jew and Israelite are not semantically indistiguishable in French. The semantic charge comes, obviously, from context. The context of Klarsfeld’s remarks clearly has a history—that history in which a certain Zionism developed a certain polemical contempt for those Jews who did not want to support the Zionist project. The sin of omission, for the latter, consisted in thinking of themselves as still part of the nations in which they lived—French Jews thinking of themselves as French, for instance. Now, I’m not for super-charging this issue with references to the Nazis, but since the Nazis are an extreme case, it will make the semantic point clearer. The preferred German term, in France, for Jews during the occupation was Israelite, as in the ‘Union Generale des Israelites de France.’ And the reason for that was the Nazi idea that Jews were not a part of Europe—hence, Eichman’s bizarre idea that he was some kind of Zionist. I hope it is obvious that I am NOT saying that Zionism is Naziism. I’ll repeat that: Zionism does not equal Naziism. That’s an equation that makes no sense. I am saying that nationalist movements in Europe have a similar conceptual base in a romantic notion of the “people:” the German people, the Italians, etc. This notion gets projected on people who don’t necessarily want to politicize their ethnic identity—the Germans of Romania, for instance. But as their identity is politicized, their range of choice diminishes—slowly, the idea of being different within a political union that can tolerate differences is eroded away: on one side, by the attacker—the anti-semite, say, in France—and on the other side by the ideologue of nationalism—the super-Zionists in France, for instance. The relevance of this to Klarsfeld’s words is that they succeed insofar as they make it seem somehow illegitimate to be both French and Jewish. Clearly, one of the ways this happens is to skew the language in which the question of identity is talked about—when you substitute Israelite for Juif, you are engaged in making the identity of Juif depend on the tie to Israel. But if you point to that, the nationalist can easily fall back upon the excuse that this is just a semantically indistiguishable term—just a less used one, in these contexts. Political rhetoric consists of just this kind of linguistic hocus pocus, a zigzag from denotation to connotation and back.

By: David DeMille

David DeMille — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:14:25 +0000

“But with reference to Klarsfeld’s quoted reference to ‘French Israelites’ does not the French word ‘Israelite’ just mean ‘Jewish’, as in for example the French Jewish philanthropic body ‘Alliance Israelite’ which I believe antedates the Zionist movement, let alone the Israeli state?” Stephen Marks: Yes you are entirely correct. “Israelite” and “Juif” are interchangeable in French and there is no reference in the first to the modern state of Israel. Israelite is roughly equivalent to “Hebrew” as the word was used earlier in the 20th century for many Jewish institutions—“Hebrew Benevolent Society of Brooklyn” etc. Both the French and English terms have a certain archaic quality, but while no one today refers to Jews as Hebrews, Israelite is still fairly common in France.

By: Douglas

Douglas — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 06:45:37 +0000

Hey Morton, You write, “You would think American conservatives, who have criticized multiculturalism as responsible for a breakdown in American republican values, would be more sympathetic to the French on this count.” What makes you say they aren’t? http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/583lxmcr.asp

By: Glenn Condell

Glenn Condell — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 06:30:11 +0000

Well, I’m with Bob.

By: msg

msg — Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:58:21 +0000

“…regarding attacks on innocent Jews as justifiable or excusable.” “…exonerate attacks on innocent Jews on the basis of the terrible provocation offered to their attackers by the spectacle of Israel’s putative misdeeds…” “…recalling recent history of current affairs is not a widely distributed faculty.” “…to smear as anti-semites anyone who recalls the suppressed history.” Sacre bleu, le quagmire! The imprecision of the language, which seems to have been just as indefinite and charged with hazard in 18th century France as it is now, keeps things at the boiling point. – An American, alone in northern Sudan, set upon by Muslims burning with hatred for the US. Not for what he is as a human being, but simply for his nationality. That same American stumbling into a delegation of USAID workers and taking refuge among them, protected by their superior force whether he agrees with their roles and philosophies or not. The subjective experience of repudiation, then welcome; I am not that, I am. – Our grasp of history, recent as well as ancient, is so partial as to be more rumor than established truth. The innocent Jews who were attacked in France were innocent Frenchmen, that’s the point I think. Or innocent human beings.

By: stephen marks

stephen marks — Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:45:48 +0000

I tend to agree with the criticisms of Klarsfeld and Geras expressed here. But with reference to Klarsfeld’s quoted reference to ‘French Israelites’ does not the French word ‘Israelite’ just mean ‘Jewish’, as in for example the French Jewish philanthropic body ‘Alliance Israelite’ which I believe antedates the Zionist movement, let alone the Israeli state?