So, Emmanuel Macron sent his package to Benjamin Netanyahu: and bang. He had promised it in a statement from the Élysée Palace: “The analysis,” wrote the Élysée, “that France’s decision to recognize the State of Palestine in September explains the rise in anti-Semitic violence is wrong, despicable, and will not go unanswered.” » And indeed, there was a response. It dates back a few days now and is already withered, with all eyes now turned to September 8, the date of the Bayrou government’s self-programmed self-destruction. Bayrou will leave, of course, but Emmanuel Macron will stay. It is therefore worth taking a closer look at his “response” to the Israeli prime minister, which we imagine he considers terrible and final.
First, he gives him a lesson in etiquette. A lesson in « French etiquette “—you don’t publish a letter before its recipient has received it—which, let’s admit, was ”amply“ deserved. Except that this etiquette is ‘amply’ outdated, replaced by ”living together » etiquette, which has nothing to do with the former and couldn’t care less about the rules of courtesy. Emmanuel Macron, a president who is attentive to the spirit of the times, should be the first to know this.
He then gives the Israeli Prime Minister a history lesson. And here, you have to hang on tight because the logical connections are mind-boggling. “Protecting our Jewish compatriots against the rise of anti-Semitism has been an absolute priority of my work since day one,” he begins by justifying himself. He then lists a series of measures against anti-Semitism—normal ones (protection of synagogues, etc.)—that are so long that they end up looking like “favors” granted—and not owed—to the Jews of France. But that’s not the most important thing. The most important thing is his logic of history. Here it is: “History teaches us,” writes Emmanuel Macron, « that wherever anti-Semitism tries to take root, all forms of racism and hatred flourish with it. It is in the name of this lesson that the French Republic has been the tireless enemy of anti-Semitism since the Revolution of 1789. “ Let’s try to understand what is written here: if all other forms of racism (”and hatred,“ adds the President, committing a strange anachronism) had not ‘flourished’ alongside anti-Semitism, the Republic would not have become the ”tireless enemy » of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism alone would not have been enough to make it take action. No matter how you look at it, there is only one possible interpretation: the “lesson” of history is that anti-Semitism is linked to other forms of racism and hatred. That is what makes it so terrible and hateful. This reasoning is all the more surprising because it is clearly false. For example, the anti-Black racism that underpinned slavery did not wait for anti-Semitism to “flourish.” And while it is true that France was the first country to grant Jews full citizenship, what is known as the “emancipation” of the Jews was in no way due to the fight against anti-Semitism, which did not yet exist: only anti-Judaism “flourished,” which is not the same thing. Simply put, the founders of the new republican regime listed those who could become citizens of the Republic and those who could not, such as executioners and actors: for Jews, there were those in favor and those against. And if the answer was ultimately positive, it was in no way in the name of combating anti-Semitism and the possible aggregation of other forms of racism.
However, according to Emmanuel Macron, it is in the name of this “lesson” from history that the moral lesson of the anti-anti-Semite who is the President of the French Republic comes into play. It is in the name of this anti-anti-Semitism that he can allow himself to have an opinion—negative, but that’s not his fault—on everything concerning Israel. Without this opinion having the slightest impact on the way anti-Semitism “thrives” in France. So, it is in all good anti-anti-Semitic faith that Emmanuel Macron believes it is urgent to recognize the existence of a Palestinian state, which, of course, will love its Israeli neighbor as it loves itself. “This commitment is unprecedented,” he writes. “It stems from our indignation at the appalling humanitarian disaster in Gaza, for which there can be no justification.” None, really? Once again, let’s examine the logic of this letter. The recognition of a Palestinian state would stem from his indignation: but Gaza was already a proto-state, administered without any external countervailing power by Hamas. It could dig as many tunnels as it wanted. Suppose that the new state so desired by Emmanuel Macron engages in a pogrom of the same kind. Would the Israeli response be any different on the pretext that the pogrom was perpetrated by a fully-fledged state? No, of course not. And it is not this response, whatever form it takes, that is immoral. It is the famous outrage at this response that is deeply immoral.
For what should Emmanuel Macron be outraged about, tirelessly, daily, powerfully, as indeed should his fellow European heads of state and government, whose outrage is equally misplaced? He should be indignant that Hamas, a political force in the Middle East hosted by a country that is oh so “friendly,” Qatar, with which we discuss, negotiate, and appease, that Hamas, therefore, uses a means of warfare that even in the Middle Ages people were reluctant to use: hostage-taking. Hostage-taking is profoundly immoral, and it is immoral not to shout this from the rooftops every day. Every day, if he is so keen to meddle in Middle Eastern affairs, he should hold Hamas responsible for the civilian deaths that its policy of hostage-taking consciously forces the Israeli army to cause. Every day. Instead of being outraged by Israel’s moral response to this immorality. And that’s not even mentioning the horrors of the pogrom.
But no. He prefers facile indignation. Let’s dare to say it: this indignation is unworthy. And it is not “abject”, dispictable, to believe that it fuels anti-Semitism in France and elsewhere.
© Julien Brünn
Journaliste. Ancien correspondant de TF1 en Israël.
Dernier ouvrage paru :
L’origine démocratique des génocides. Peuples génocidaires, élites suicidaires. L’harmattan. 2024
Poster un Commentaire