Fifty Years of French Intellectual Bias against Israel
An Interview with Simon Epstein
[Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs publication, Post-Holocaust and
Anti-Semitism]

In recent years France has stood out negatively, not only because of its
many violent assaults on Jews and their institutions but also due to the
often anti-Semitic intellectual and media attacks on Israel. Simon Epstein,
researcher at the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of
anti-Semitism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, points out that the
origins of French intellectual anti-Israelism date back almost to the
creation of the Jewish state. To gain a perspective on present problems, one
must have a better understanding of its historical development.

The Soviet Doctors' Trial
Epstein elaborates on one early, particularly low point of moral abuse
against Zionism: "In November 1947 the Soviet Union voted in the United
Nations for the creation of the Jewish State; therefore, French communist
intellectuals had a positive attitude toward Israel. When, after a few
years, the Soviet Union started to adopt anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic
positions, the views of many French communists also shifted.
"In January 1953 the newspaper Pravda broke the news of the indictment of
nine doctors, six of whom were Jews. They were accused of having caused the
death of leading Soviet figures by incorrect diagnoses and treatment, and of
planning further assassinations. At the same time, the Soviet press
intensified its campaign against 'Cosmopolitanism and Zionism.'
"French communist intellectuals organized a major solidarity rally in Paris
in support of the official Soviet position on the 'doctors' plot.' The
organizers saw to it that there were enough Jews among the many speakers on
the podium. The key figure was Annie Kriegel, who later became a fervent
anti-communist and pro-Zionist, and wrote for the right wing daily Le
Figaro.
"The message of the speakers was frightening. Many of them explained that it
was normal to suspect doctors of poisoning people: one only had to look at
Mengele's role in Auschwitz. If he was capable of what he did, why should
other physicians not use poison? A Jewish physician was among those who
publicly took such a stand. As a medical doctor, he bore witness that the
charge was not absurd. He also based his position on the misconduct of
German physicians during the Second World War, stating that it could not be
definitely excluded that Jews or Zionists decided to poison Soviet
personalities. (In later years he very much regretted his words.)"

Instrumentalizing Jewish Communities
"The moral aberration of these 'witnesses' was so great because France,
unlike the Soviet Union, was a free country. The speakers spoke voluntarily.
Communist organizations also arranged a large media campaign. Intellectuals
wrote articles about the 'criminal doctors,' or signed petitions against
them. Again, Communist Party organizers saw to it that many Jews were among
the signatories.
"This party contained identified Jewish organizations, among them L'Union
des Soci?t?s Juives de France and the MRAP movement against racism. Both
were mobilized for agitation on the 'doctors' plot.' Many anti-Semitic
themes used at that time resurfaced in anti-Israeli campaigns following the
Six Day War in 1967.
"The initial intensity of these campaigns was much lower than in the pre-war
decade. The communists attacked Zionism, while always recognizing - like the
Soviet Union - Israel's right to exist. In the 1950s they dominated the
French Left. Trotskyism was very small then, expanding only twenty years
later after the events of May 1968, when communism began losing power.
"At about that time, the extreme right gained strength in France. By 1953
all collaborators condemned after the war had been freed. Many took part in
the French democratic society, where everybody is entitled to assemble and
express himself. The extreme right-wing press again published anti-Semitic
articles. A rightist populist movement led by Pierre Poujade won about 50
seats in the Parliament at the time. It concentrated its attacks against
Pierre Mend?s France, a progressive Jew who had become Prime Minister in
1954. The anti-Zionist publicity was almost entirely fed by the Communists."

The Characteristics of French Intellectualism
Epstein explains the multiple deviations of French intellectualism by
referring to its general characteristics: "It is typified by a tendency
toward extremism. The French intellectual's position is by necessity one of
representing absolute morality and imparting the feeling that his analysis
is the only justified one. He must be confrontational and define enemies;
nuances and intermediary positions are not permitted.
"Another characteristic concerns the way the intellectual expresses himself:
language, which is very important, must always be complex and contain highly
rhetorical aspects. Thought departs from reality and is embodied in
theoretical constructions aspiring to an absolute world. The combination of
these features stimulates major intellectual distortions."
Epstein provides an unrelated example of the same phenomenon: "Since the
1970s, many French thinkers have been interested in the role of words and
the multiplicity of concepts. They have generated schools of intellectuals
whose words are incomprehensible. When standing before an audience they
produce endless abstractions without using simple words. This leads to an
absurd intellectualism, which exists also in the social sciences elsewhere,
but has initially been developed in France."

The Success of Marxism
"Marxist intellectualism was far more than a play of words. The fascination
Marxism exerted on major parts of the French left led to a much larger
percentage of intellectuals being attracted by it than elsewhere in the
West, with the possible exception of Italy. It became extremely successful
in post-war France among intellectuals, both in its orthodox communist and
in various Trotskyite forms.
"There were multiple reasons for this. Marxism is a superb theoretical
construction, opening a fascinating world, which attracted entire
generations. Once one accepted it, one could find explanations for
everything from short-term issues to long-term developments. It was a
complete system, applicable to both politics and history.
"Other factors also played a role. After the Second World War, the Soviet
Union enjoyed great esteem in view of its important contribution to the
defeat of Nazism. This status added to Marxism's prestige and to the
fascination of its all-embodying theory."

Another Complete System: Fascism
Epstein points out that in the 1930s, fascism was also a complete system
with similar characteristics, and increasingly attracted intellectuals. Some
anti-fascists changed their positions radically in 1933 or 1934. Among them
Ramon Fernandez and Pierre Drieu la Rochelle. Under the Nazis, the latter
would become editor of the leading literary magazine Nouvelle Revue
Fran?aise (NRF). In their later works one finds an aesthetic fascination
with fascism, which also has a reply to all questions.
"Fascism's attraction to intellectuals who had formerly written against
anti-Semitism was very widespread. Among the first to support it in 1933
were pacifists opposing war on Germany. They were not interested in what
happened to German Jews. Others changed direction in 1936, and many more
followed in 1938 at the time of the Munich agreement. They claimed that the
Jews would be responsible for a possible war. Many intellectuals who had
formerly written against anti-Semitism became either moderate or extreme
anti-Semites. This shift from being pro-Jewish to anti-Semitism was an
important phenomenon in the 1930s."
Epstein has dealt with one aspect of this phenomenon in a book on the
attitudes of former supporters of Dreyfus under the German occupation, for
which he received a French Academy award. His main and surprising finding is
the high probability that if one had been an active, ardent and well-known
Dreyfusard during the "Affair," chances were high that one would later
become an anti-Semite.1
Epstein is now working on a new book, dealing with a much broader
cross-section of French intellectuals and politicians who supported the Jews
and protested against racism and anti-Semitism before World War II. Under
the Vichy government and the German occupation, a majority of these favored
collaboration in a variety of forms.2
"This major shift from philo-Semitism to anti-Semitism has a double meaning.
It confirms the multiple left-wing roots of collaboration with Germany. It
also shows the fragility of philo-Semitism and of all systems of Jewish
defense against anti-Semitism.
"The search for the absolute manifests itself in different ways in French
intellectualism. For instance, France took the intellectual lead in
Holocaust denial after the war, as if it had a need to support the Germans
after their defeat. This can hardly be explained."

After the Six Day War
"After the Six Day War and the events of May 1968, intellectual anti-Zionism
exploded for a second time. Its student leaders belonged to various
factions. Some were Trotskyites and others extreme leftist intellectuals.
Among them were many Jews, such as Alain Krivine, leader of a Trotskyite
party. Some were communists, who wrote regularly against Israel in the
communist daily L'Humanit?.
"In June 1967 Benoit Frachon, a leader of the French Communist Party,
described the Israeli victory ceremony in Jerusalem in the following terms:
'The presence of leading personalities from the financial world gave [the
ceremony] a different character than the religious fervor which the true
believers who participated in it tried to find there. The spectacle gave the
impression that, like in Faust, Satan directed the ball. Not even the golden
calf was lacking. contemplating its diabolic machinations. In fact, the
information indicated that two representatives of the cosmopolitic tribe of
bankers, well known in all countries of the world, participated in these
Saturnals: Alain and Edmond de Rothschild.'3
"Others attacking Israel were left-wing Gaullists, such as Jacques
Deb?-Bridel and Emmanuel d'Astier de la Vigerie. Both had been in the
Resistance and had belonged to the extreme right before the war. Yet others,
no less vehemently anti-Israeli, like Georges Montaron, came from
Catholic-Social backgrounds. In the left-wing Catholic intellectual journal
T?moignage Chr?tien, he constructed an analogy between Christ and the
Palestinians.
"In this atmosphere, De Gaulle's declaration in November 1967 about the
Jewish people being a people who were 'sure of themselves, ?litist and
inclined to domination' generated a huge public debate about the loyalty of
the Jews to France. The Jewish political philosopher Raymond Aron intervened
in the discussion, reproaching De Gaulle for having resurrected ancient
anti-Semitic myths."4

Supporting the PLO
"From 1967 till 1973, while verbal anti-Zionism was strong, classic
anti-Semitism seemed insignificant. The extreme right was politically weak.
There were few violent incidents against Jews during that period, and many
Jews thought that anti-Semitism had finally ended. They were aware of the
anti-Zionism, but considered that the old anti-Jewish prejudices had
definitely vanished.
"When the PLO made its first public appearance, the intellectuals of the
extreme left accepted all its arguments. They entirely supported the
Palestinians and delegitimized Israel, expressing themselves in favor of its
elimination and the creation of a democratic and secular Palestine in its
place.
"The one dominant figure in the extreme left environment who distanced
himself from the anti-Zionist campaign was the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre.
The Israeli historian Eli Ben Gal, who was particularly close to him at the
time, was a witness to this.

Jewish Reactions
"Many Jewish intellectuals reacted against the attacks on Israel. Among the
most important was Jacques Givet with his 1968 book The Left against
Israel?5 in which he gave a systematic response to anti-Israeli propaganda.
He used the expression 'neo anti-Semitism' for the anti-Semitism of those
who said they were against anti-Semitism.
"L?on Poliakov published a short hard-hitting book on anti-Zionism in 1969,
explaining that it was a form of anti-Semitism.6 Poliakov was well equipped
to do so, as he was the first to write a coherent history of anti-Semitism
for which he is mainly known - turning its study into a new field of
scholarship. Before that, it appeared in Jewish history books in a
fragmented way. Poliakov also devoted his attention to the concept of 'new
anti-Semitism.'
"Both authors distinguished between moderate and extreme anti-Zionists. The
first category makes a false equivalence between terrorist attacks and
Israeli retaliation, using distorted base data of the Israeli-Arab conflict.
The second frequently criticizes the Rothschilds - symbols of Jewish
wealth - as supporters of Israel. They also reproach pro-Israeli Jews for
being more Israeli than French, and deny Israel's right to exist as a normal
state. They thus consider the Jews the only people on earth not entitled to
a state of their own.
"Outside France this was seen very clearly by Daniel Elazar who wrote: 'The
passing of the post-war generation in the mid-1970s marked among other
things the demise of the taboo against Jew hatred. Now in the early years of
the second generation since the Holocaust, the Jewish people must come to
understand that we face a new situation, one which will allow certain kinds
of expressions of anti-Semitism with relative impunity.'7
"Most anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic motifs appearing in current campaigns
were already present more than 30 years ago, albeit in a less intense form.
In the early 1970s, the anti-Zionists started a deliberate strategy of
presenting the Palestinians as victims and the Jews as perpetrators. The
vocabulary of the Holocaust was applied to the Palestinian side of the
conflict. This recurred in the war in Lebanon: the Palestinians were
presented as confined in camps and in ghettos, the Israelis as barbarian and
brutal."

The War in Lebanon
"In 1982 - during and after the Lebanese war - there was a new outburst of
anti-Zionism, often sliding into open anti-Semitism. Again, verbal violence
of the leftist intellectuals went very far. There were calls for a boycott
on Israel, and the Shoah vocabulary was used when discussing the siege of
Beirut in August 1982. That war was much shorter than the present one, and
the attacks did not develop in such great detail.
"The philosopher Alain Finkielkraut (1983) gave various examples of Nazi
metaphors being applied against Israel. The French daily Lib?ration wrote
that the survivors now resemble their persecutors. T?moignage Chr?tien
called the Palestinians of West Beirut 'the fighters of the Warsaw Ghetto.'8
The false equivalence with the Shoah focused on another major parallel: the
French village Oradour, which was burnt with its inhabitants in 1944 by the
Germans - a symbol that evokes strong associations.
"These distortions point to a false interpretation of the Israeli 1982
intervention: exaltation of Palestinian heroic resistance, demonization of
Israeli premier Menahem Begin. This was accompanied by accusations of
Israeli war crimes, especially after the Sabra and Shatilla tragedy. The
second distortion was linked to the reemergence of basic anti-Zionist
arguments, emphasizing the illegitimacy of the State of Israel and
developing the concept of 'the criminal State.'
"The attacks sometimes took ridiculous forms. One day a reporter of Le Monde
saw Israeli reserve soldiers passing. He wrote that the neglect of their
attire was insulting to the Lebanese population. A few days later he saw
regular Israeli soldiers passing, and wrote that the correctness of their
clothing was insulting to the Lebanese population. This is only a small
example of media bias.
"The intellectuals manifested themselves anew against Israel at the
beginning of the Intifada in 1988, with much less verbal violence than in
1982, although themes were similar. They called for a boycott on Israel.
Nazi language was applied to Israel and magnified Israel's actions,
depicting them as major atrocities. Yet the verbal attacks remained
substantially below current levels."

Physical Violence
"The waves of anti-Israeli verbal violence of the leftist intellectuals
should not be confused with those of the physical attacks in France.
Physical and intellectual anti-Semitism do not follow the same cycles; they
work according to different rhythms. Sometimes they may coincide, as in the
past two years, when there has been major verbal violence against Israel and
at the same time many physical assaults."
A number of years ago, Epstein stated in an essay: "The first wave, which
came to be dubbed the 'swastika epidemic,' was observed in Western Europe,
the United States and Latin America. It started with the desecration of a
synagogue in Cologne on December 25, 1959 by two young Germans, who were
promptly apprehended and severely punished. Some 685 incidents were recorded
in Germany, and over 600 in the United States. All told, nearly 2,500
incidents were recorded in 400 localities throughout the world."9 However,
after the 1962 Evian agreements many Algerian Jews arrived in France, and
they were not confronted with substantial anti-Semitism.
"The second, much more intense wave of physical violence began in 1974/5,
peaking in the early 1980s. Synagogues were burnt. The most dramatic event
in France was the bomb outside the synagogue in Copernic Street in Paris in
October 1980 that killed four passers-by.10

The 1980s
"In 1982, the intellectual anti-Israeli cycle coincided with the tail-end of
the descending classical violent anti-Semitic cycle. Then, as today, a
series of symposia on neo anti-Semitism were held. By the middle of the
1980s anti-Semitic violence declined significantly.
"By 1987 the number of incidents of physical violence was mounting once
more, with this third wave reaching its peak in 1992. It is unclear what
incited this cycle. It could not be the Palestinian Intifada, because that
started well before. It seemed almost as if the violence had a natural
rhythm.
"The physical attacks increased during the period 1990-1992. In 1990, the
Jewish cemetery of Carpentras was desecrated. Initially, the extreme right
was blamed. The entire left, including President Mitterrand and many
intellectuals, participated in a big anti-fascist protest demonstration in
May 1990. From 1992 physical violence declined again, and a number of quiet
years followed. The new wave of assaults started just before 2000."

The Present
"In the last two years, the campaign of physical violence clearly coincided
with the intellectual one. Many more violent incidents occurred than ever
before in a similar time-span. However, the difference from previous waves
is that, according to estimates, about 80 percent of the perpetrators are
youngsters from the Maghrebian (Arab) immigrant community. The remaining 20
percent are extreme rightist rowdies, as in the past.
"This leads to four important observations:
1. The number of attacks in France is relatively higher than in any other
country. This is due to the fact that it is the main Western country in
which the Muslim population is predominantly Arab.
2. Anti-Jewish violence is not exclusively linked to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, even if triggered by it. There are many indicators that these
assaults also have a social basis, as the Maghrebian youth identify the Jews
with money and power.
3. A careful look at the statistics shows a rise in incidents before the
start of the Intifada.
4. There is some relation to the rise of the extreme right in the last two
years, that reached its peak in the presidential election in spring this
year when National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen eliminated the socialist
candidate Lionel Jospin's access to the second round.
"The wave of intellectual and media hostility against Israel and the Jews
expressed itself in the lack of reactions to the burning of synagogues and
Jewish centers, especially by leftist circles that reacted very strongly in
the past to anti-Semitic incidents perpetrated by the extreme right.
Incidents were belittled, because they were perpetrated by young Arab
immigrants.
"These developments occur against the background of the discovery by the
political parties of the electoral strength of the Arab and Muslim
population. For instance, Pascal Boniface, a Socialist strategist, wrote a
study for his party stressing that there are ten times more Muslims in
France than Jews, and suggesting that it should consequently shift to a more
pro-Palestinian position. He also published an article in Le Monde on this
subject, which created much polemic."12

Deafening Silence Accompanies New Attacks
"The deafening silence about the violent anti-Semitic incidents is
accompanied by a stream of verbal attacks against Israel which rehash
arguments from earlier anti-Zionist campaigns. The moderates compare Sharon
to Milosevic; the extremists compare him to Hitler.
"One extreme example of left-wing distortions was an article written by Sara
Daniel in the leading intellectual weekly Le Nouvel Observateur, edited by
her father Jean. The article dealt with the crimes of honor against women
suspected of illegitimate sexual relations in Arab society. It also
mentioned, by the way, that Israeli soldiers deliberately rape Palestinian
women because they know that, now dishonored, they will be killed upon
returning home. Israeli soldiers are thus presented as Machiavellian
rapists. The passage had been copied, without mention by the author, from a
Palestinian militant source with no credibility whatsoever. Daniel presented
it as proven facts. Her father was asked to apologize, and did so
half-heartedly.13
"At the same time, another shocking phenomenon has become known: teachers
who mention the Holocaust in French classrooms are intimidated by pupils of
Maghrebian (Arab) origin, who do not want the Shoah to be taught. A kind of
Islamist censorship on teaching the Shoah has emerged - a widespread and
well-documented phenomenon.14
"The current emphasis on 'new anti-Semitism' is thus futile. Several authors
are publishing books on this subject, forgetting history and assuming
everything starts today.15 France's most acclaimed scholar of anti-Semitism,
Pierre-Andr? Taguieff, has been studying already since 1980 what he calls
'the new Judeophobia.'16 When I hear people speaking about new
anti-Semitism, I always wonder whether they are not simply ignorant of past
history."

Interview by Manfred Gerstenfeld
This interview is based on Dr. Epstein's lecture, entitled, New and Old
Elements in French Anti-Semitism - Monitoring, Analysis and Struggle,
delivered in the JCPA's first series of Herbert Berman Memorial lectures, on
April 24, 2002

Simon Epstein came to Jerusalem in 1974. In France he had been inter alia
the secretary general of the French Zionist Federation. He worked as an
economist in the budget department of the Israeli Ministry of Finance. Since
1982 he has published books and articles on anti-Semitism and racism. He is
a former director of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of
anti-Semitism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he now carries
out research. He also teaches at the Hebrew University.

Notes:
1. Simon Epstein, Les Dreyfusards sous l'Occupation, Paris, Albin Michel,
2001. [French]
2. Simon Epstein, Les Antiracistes dans la Collaboration (provisory title).
Publication planned. [French]
3. L'Humanit?, June 16, 1967. [French]
4. Raymond Aron, De Gaulle, Isra?l et les Juifs, Paris, Plon, 1968. [French]
5. Jacques Givet, La Gauche contre Isra?l, Paris, Jean-Jacques Pauvert,
1968. [French]
6. L?on Poliakov, De l'antisionisme ? l'antis?mitisme, Paris, Calmann L?vy,
1969. [French] See also on the same subject, but in a less scientific and
more polemic style Paul Giniewski, L'antisionisme, Brussels, Librairie
Encyclop?dique, 1973. [French]
7. Patterns of Prejudice, Vol. 16, No. 4, Oct. 1982
8. Alain Finkielkraut, La R?probation d'Isra?l, Paris Deno?l/Gonthier, 1983.
pp. 122-123. See also on the same subject: Annie Kriegel, Israel est-il
coupable?, Paris, Robert Laffont, 1982. [French]
9. Simon Epstein, "Cyclical Patterns in Antisemitism: The Dynamics of
Anti-Jewish Violence in Western Countries since the 1950s," Acta no. 2,
Jerusalem, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1993.
10. Simon Epstein, Cry of Cassandra: The resurgence of European
anti-Semitism, Bethesda, National Press, 1985.
11. Quoted in L'Arche, March 1983.
12. Pascal Boniface, "Lettre ? un ami isra?lien," Le Monde, August 4, 2001.
See also by the same author: "Est il interdit de critiquer Isra?l?" Le
Monde, August 31, 2001. [French]
13. See Jean Daniel, "Pour cinq lignes que nous regrettons.une erreur et une
cabale," Le Nouvel Observateur, November 22, 2001.
14. See for instance: Eric Conan, "Islam, ce que l'on n'ose pas dire." L
'Express, September 12, 2002.
15. Gilles William Goldnadel, Le nouveau br?viaire de la haine, Paris,
Ramsay, 2001 and Raphael Dra?, Sous le signe de Sion. L'antis?mitisme
nouveau est arriv?, Paris, Michalon, 2001.
16. Pierre-Andr? Taguieff, La Nouvelle Jud?ophobie, Paris, Mille et Une
Nuits, 2002.