‘Minimizing the danger the far right would represent for Jews if it came to power is naïve and dangerous’

French debate of note:

Serge Klarsfeld’s recent statements describing the Rassemblement National (RN) as a “pro-Jewish party” that “supports the State of Israel” and justifying a possible vote for this party against a La France Insoumise (LFI, radical left) candidate have provoked astonishment and sadness among many historians, including us. Is it necessary to recall the considerable role Klarsfeld has played in favor of understanding Vichy’s mechanisms and responsibility in the deportation of Jews? When one has worked on these subjects, it is even more astonishing.

We will not go back over the reasons behind Klarsfeld’s statement: There is no doubt that some more-than-ambiguous, if not anti-Semitic, positions have been expressed within the ranks of LFI – not least certain statements made by its leader. Whether these positions are the result of a calculated electioneering move aimed at an Arab-Muslim electorate or of more deeply rooted prejudices does not change their seriousness. However, minimizing the danger that the far right would represent if it came to power today, for Jews and for all minorities, is naïve and dangerous.

One could criticize the position of choosing a political party solely on the basis of its declared support for a minority as hardly being a universalist one. One could also explain that the RN’s “transformation” into a respectable party remains superficial, and that it has never truly condemned the historical heritage from which it stems, as political scientists and historians of the far right have repeatedly pointed out.

A form of blindness

By posing as “self-proclaimed defenders of the Jews of France,” the RN’s leaders are not only seeking to break the last barrier to their de-demonization. In a position mirroring the open anti-Zionism of certain LFI leaders, they are trying to appeal to an electorate that is paralyzed by anti-Semitism, whose disturbing resurgence is flourishing against the backdrop of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Yet to give in to this temptation would be nothing more than a form of blindness that consists of ignoring the intimate link between xenophobia and anti-Semitism, which has been amply documented by the work of Klarsfeld himself. Need it be recalled that most contemporary anti-Jewish policies were preceded by measures against foreigners and that, despite the initial differences that persecuting states often professed between so-called “national” Jews and foreign Jews, discrimination eventually became widespread?

History shows that anti-Jewish accusations, or “anti-Semyths” [a neologism coined by Marie-Anne Matard-Bonucci], are liable to be reactivated in particular contexts when certain players see them as politically useful. Need we recall that the great universalist anti-racist associations did not conceive, and rightly so, of the fight against anti-Semitism without taking into account all forms of racism? On the other hand, communitarism and competition over historical legacies, encouraged by both the Soral-Dieudonné far right and the Parti des Indigènes de la République, provide a breeding ground for identity-based hostilities….

Source: ‘Minimizing the danger the far right would represent for Jews if it came to power is naïve and dangerous’