The aftershocks of October 7 within Western societies reveal the extent of the identity divides that are cracking our countries. United Kingdom, United States, Germany, Netherlands, France… If our fault lines present similarities, their nature and depth diverge from one society to another; from one model to another. And we could say, diverting from Tolstoy, that the nations which are doing badly are doing badly each in their own way.
In the United Kingdom, for example, things have taken a spectacularly serious turn – to a level that we do not measure enough from France. Latest shock to date, this headline from Daily Telegraph (the equivalent of Figaro) noted, on March 8, with a touch of astonishment: “London has become a no-go zone for the Jews”. Since October 7, identity hatreds wherever they come from have been galvanized. Virulent Islamism is expressed in the streets of the English capital, notably through numerous demonstrations taking the tragedy in Middle East to pour out a mixed flood of hateful slogans, vengeful promises, and radical preaching. A way of counting one another, of warming up some and intimidating others. A way, too, of “holding the street” : February 21, the slogan From the River to the Seawhich promises a Palestine from the Jordan to the Mediterranean – that is to say excluding de facto the survival of an Israeli state –, was screened on Big Ben without the helpless police intervening. The British extreme right is firing on all cylinders – anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim racism… And a part of the left, misguided, is blowing on the embers of the most radical “anti-Zionism”.
British society, the flagship of multiculturalism, is poorly resisting the “crash test” of October 7, 2023. And the tension is likely to rise further in the coming months. A report published on March 11 by independent researchers shows that pro-Palestinian mobilizations have been infiltrated by a Pakistani extremist party, which intends to radicalize the issue of blasphemy in the United Kingdom, and is increasing promises of death for everything it he calls it an insult to religion. Several members of the chamber were threatened after not voting on the demand for a ceasefire in Gaza. “The omnipresence of extremist ideologies has become increasingly evident and poses a real risk to the security of our citizens and our democracy,” declared Michael Gove, Secretary of State urgently mandated to redefine the notion of “extremism”.
In France, the situation hardly gives one the desire to boast either. Here, as everywhere in the West, October 7 rained salt on our identity wounds. Our nation is witnessing an increase in anti-Semitic acts, strong rises in tension on campuses, and the electrification of public debate which does not bode well for anyone. But, even in the slump and worry, we must keep a cool head for analysis and action: our model is more resilient. We must learn lessons from it.
Let us assume a secularism of self-defense
Until now, the debate between Anglo-Saxon multiculturalism and French-style universalism was essentially theoretical. Everyone defended their philosophy, their way of seeing. The Anglo-Saxons: the exaltation of individual choice, absolute respect for differences and cultures. To the point of tolerating since the 1980s – as far as the United Kingdom is concerned – that “local sharia councils” say religious law, mainly in matters of family affairs, in parallel with British law – which we we see, from France, as an indefensible “double standard”, particularly in matters of women’s rights. The “French” way of seeing is, it is true, less broad towards the cultures of origin in the City: its assimilationist crucible supposes the discretion of particularisms, and the principle of secularism goes so far as to prohibit ostentatious signs of religion at school – which the Anglo-Saxons consider liberticidal, even hostile to minorities. Philosophical debates; historical legacies. Here we were in our debates, with a de facto lead for the Anglo-Saxon model, which benefits in particular from American soft power (what can Montesquieu do in the face of Instagram?). After all, some said, what if their model was more effective? If it allowed greater fraternity; if it guaranteed a more peaceful society… But the last few months show the opposite.
Will we be able to learn lessons from the aftershocks of October 7? Our model produces more antibodies in the face of identity tensions. But it is weakened by years of progress in multiculturalism. We must urgently reaffirm universalism, the guarantor of republican fraternity. We must assume a secularism of self-defense. To do this, let’s stop expecting everything from school. Our model will only be defended by the mobilization of French people of all origins and all sides, who can clash on other subjects, but must come together around what we want to pass on to our children, to build the future .
.