On June 17, 2024, historian Ludivine Bantigny and other intellectuals stated in a long defense text by Jean-Luc Mélenchon that the accusations of anti-Semitism against him were nothing more than an infamous disqualification. Historians Tal Bruttmann and Christophe Tarricone respond to them.
A squad therefore flies to the rescue to denounce the “infamous” suspicion of anti-Semitism which weighs on the LFI and launches into a money laundering enterprise based on a simple principle, move around, there is nothing to see. Their column states that “these are several comments made by Jean-Luc Mélenchon” which would merit criticism on the subject. We must here praise the authors who, undoubtedly not wanting to make this already very long forum seem interminable, reduce the remarks that would be problematic to simply “several”. Because they are in fact innumerable, to which for good measure we could add just as many (which is a lot) coming from executives of the LFI, often from its close guard. Besides, it's not just the words, there are also the writings that are problematic. Enough to constitute a real little red (brown) book.
So only a few remarks are mentioned, and brushed aside with lenient explanations. Let the LFI guide explain Zemmour's extremism by its origins (“we don't change anything about tradition, creolization, my god, what horror… All these are traditions which are very much linked to Judaism. That has its merits, that allowed it to survive in history”) poses no problem: “To say that the history of Judaism is partly steeped in a relationship of fidelity to traditions, to transmission, to perpetuation of a culture in order to survive sometimes in the worst imaginable conditions of adversity and persecution, this is undeniable”, summoning Yosef H. Yerushalmi. Does this explanation also work to define Blum, Mendès-France and some others? Does saying that the history of this or that other religion is partly steeped in a relationship of loyalty to traditions also work to explain the radicalism of other political leaders who are of religions other than Jewish? By the way, until proven otherwise, Zemmour does not claim the application of the law of Moses as the key to his racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic program, and his Judaism has little to do with it. Unless there are traits specific to Jews due to their loyalty to traditions which would make them more particularly likely to be racist?
It must be said that Mélenchon likes to emphasize the Jewish origins of one or another, as recently with the subject of Jérôme Guedj. In 2013, when he was not yet the grand mamamouchi of LFI, he attacked Pierre Moscovici, about whom he considered that he had the “behavior of someone who does not think French”. The outing does not differ either from Vallat's attack against Léon Blum in 1936, nor from those of Poujade against Pierre Mendès-France. Faced with criticism pointing to anti-Semitism, Mélenchon responded: “I did not know what Pierre Moscovici's religion was and I do not intend to take it into account in the future, any more than in the past.” We need to know why it suddenly changed and takes people's religion into account. A sudden change of mind?
When Mélenchon declared in July 2020 “I don’t know if Jesus was on the cross, I know who put him there, it seems they were his own compatriots” (the inhabitants of Judea were Jews, if necessary to clarify – Judea, the existence of which Danielle Obono is visibly unaware of, unless she has knowingly opted to denaturalize Jesus, which we will admit is very little left-wing), what is it about? One of the signatories of the tribune proclaimed that Jean-Luc Mélenchon had “a sacred culture of Roman history”. Which sacred culture would be insufficient for him to know that it was not the Jews who crucified Jesus? Or could it be because – the jurisprudence allowing Zemmour to be explained by his religion has no reason not to be able to apply to others – of a traditionalist Catholicism rejecting Vatican II that Jean-Luc Mélenchon considers the Jews to be deicides?
In short, the authors of the column claim, this outing on Zemmour “is an error and moreover Jean-Luc Mélenchon immediately recognized it by explaining that he had “expressed himself badly””. Yes, Mélenchon became adept at backpedaling, probably in order to become a pedal boat lieutenant, as the captaincy eluded him. But to get there, his supporters must come to the rescue. One might be surprised that all these good people are suddenly offended that the LFI is accused of anti-Semitism, when the outbursts of one and the other which they defend are spread over years, and this anti-Semitism has been regularly pointed out. No doubt the prospect of the upcoming legislative elections is not unrelated to this sudden attempt at whitewashing.
Let there be no doubt, the signatories who came to defend the LFI have an exonerating explanation for each of the outings playing with anti-Semitism. Residual anti-Semitism? New backpedaling exercise from Mélenchon – the thighs can be worked on. We can bet that as the headliners of the LFI did, the signatories will explain to us that we misunderstood it, that they used residual in the sense of significant, persistent. Either.
Except that the sentence in its entirety is: “Because contrary to what official propaganda says, anti-Semitism remains residual in France”. And Mélenchon clearly formulated a denial of the anti-Semitic explosion in France. It is still remarkable that this is so consistent that the founder of LFI has difficulty finding the right words when it comes to talking about Jews or anti-Semitism. Perhaps it is a blow from the “paralyzing ray” that he himself patented, for two reasons? Because Mélenchon was not content to theorize this vague concept. He tried it a few years ago, when when it came to discrediting Putin's opponents he called Boris Nemtsov an anti-Semite. Contradicted by a journalist, he then claimed to think of Alexeï Navalny. Everyone is able to appreciate against whom Mélenchon used the accusation of anti-Semitism, and for what purpose. Mélenchon not having refrained from using this accusation to try to disqualify the two main adversaries of his Muscovite comrade, there is no reason why he should subsequently refrain from accusing others of having identical practices. to his own. Questions to the petitioners rejecting the accusations of anti-Semitism: were the accusations launched, these without any basis (neither words nor writings), against Nemtsov and Navalny infamous?
With all their goodness, the signatories also came to the aid of David Guiraud, repainted as a “good manga connoisseur” in order to exonerate him of having released an anti-Semitic meme on X (ex-Twitter). Still no luck drawing from a manga which has 108 volumes (and tens of thousands of pages) the characters who have become among fans of Soral and Dieudonné – among other champions of anti-Semitism – a symbol of “domination Jewish. Bad luck again when another member of the LFI (and the La Boétie institute) Isabelle d'Artagnan also makes the same reference, congratulating Rima Hassan for executing “celestial dragons”. A strange recurrence among the members of the LFI, this love of evoking “celestial dragons”. Is it the modesty of gazelles, or simply a sudden amnesia, which would explain why the signatories of the tribune forget to recall that David Guiraud himself explained that he had fed on the manes of Soral and Dieudonné? Based on their analysis, there is no doubt that in the event of a tweet of an image of Pepe the frog they will explain to us that it was a tribute to Kermit the frog and that we should see no harm in it, Guiraud being a fan of the Muppet Show.
The stacking of arguments intended for their demonstration does not lack a certain sense of timing. The signatories are offended that Blum's name is inappropriately brandished by opponents of the left. There is no doubt that this is indeed funny and deserves to be ridiculed. But as long as we are defending the key man in the victory of the Popular Front, we could also have expected a reminder aimed at Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who enjoys portraying Léon Blum as an inexperienced art critic who would have found himself at the head of the Popular Front, blandly forgetting that he was a member of the Council of State at the age of 23 and president of the SFIO group in the assembly for two decades. It is surprising (no, we're kidding) that the authors of the column who praise Léon Blum are not offended to see him thus belittled by Mélenchon. The posture of the signatories is simple: the LFI and its leaders can indulge in all excesses, indulge in anti-Semitism, nothing poses a problem. In their long process, they summon Clémentine Autain, Alexis Corbière, Raquel Garrido. Perhaps they neglected to read the declarations of the first concerning the exclusion of the other two from the LFI: “At France Insoumise, it is better to have been condemned for domestic violence than to have defended democracy, demonstrated against anti-Semitism after October 7”?
But it is above all a last point which says everything about the nature of this forum. The authors make their strong argument, the one agitated for months by the LFI: “It is a reminder, but it is significant: never has a member of the LFI been convicted of anti-Semitism. » A strong argument of course, but the club is made of foam. Surprising posture of the signatories, many of whom are researchers, who therefore believe that only justice would be able to qualify what anti-Semitism is. Anti-Semitism only exists when only justice condemns? Marine Le Pen has never been condemned on this subject, nor have the main executives of her party. Does that happen too?
We could ask them in return if this position also applies to racism? In which case some of their analyzes on the subject take no account of it. Does David Dufresne rely solely on judicial decisions to denounce police violence? Does Ludivine Bantigny rely solely on judicial decisions to denounce Islamophobia? Good news for all those who want to fight against different forms of hatred, given the low number of legal convictions in France, anti-Semitism, racism, xenophobia and homophobia are indeed residual. Close the ban. Make no mistake, the threat posed by the National Rally, heir to the most fetid hatreds, cannot serve to exonerate those on the left who have no problem with anti-Semitism like this squad of launderers does.
© Tal Bruttmann and Christophe Tarricone, 6/26/2024
Source: Daï! New Jewish Magazine
https://www.dai-la-revue.fr/articles/denegatio
