Is the leader of La France Insoumise anti-Semitic? The question is not new. For more than ten years, Jean-Luc Mélenchon has been suspected of having ambiguous relationships with stereotypes about Jews. Is this suspicion an “ignominy” as the accused claims? Or, on the contrary, has he given obvious signs of his anti-Semitism? The problem is whether we can put forward rational arguments on this subject. It seems to me that yes.
Taken separately, Mélenchon’s thunderous declarations can sometimes – in case of doubt – be exonerated from the suspicions they arouse. Other times, it is more difficult: as when he wrote on his blog, while anti-Jewish acts exploded after October 7: “Contrary to what the official propaganda says, anti-Semitism remains residual in France.” The problem is precisely that these different declarations should not be analyzed separately. The fact is that one cannot answer the question of what is the exact probability that this allegation or that one is really anti-Semitic. On the other hand, because they are made by the same person, it is necessary to see these probabilities as linked to each other.
To completely exonerate the leader of the rebels, the only question that matters is: what is the probability that such a statement is naive? And such other And such and such another… The addition of these probabilities is very easily calculated by multiplying them. Since the value of each is between 0 and 1, you don’t need to be a mathematician to understand that by accumulating speeches of a dubious nature, the overall estimate of his innocence tends towards 0. Let’s suppose that we can establish at 50% the chance that a given statement that falls under anti-Semitic stereotypes was made in all naivety (as Mélenchon’s defenders claim), there would then in reality only be a 6% chance that this interpretation would be admissible if he had made 4 of the same kind. However, the articles that have tried to count these slip-ups have noted many more for years.
Of dog whistle ?
Without being able to clearly establish the result of this calculation, we can nevertheless say two things. On the one hand, the result of this type of probabilistic structure often leads to excessive optimism – as I was able to show in my book Uncertainty (PUF) –, that is to say that, in the present case, we will intuitively overestimate Mélenchon’s innocence. We will obviously do so all the more since his political sensitivity will go in the direction of the radical left and we will judge these statements on a case-by-case basis, as the treatment of current events invites us to do.
On the other hand, if the conjunction of these suspicious statements does not establish with certainty the anti-Semitism of the rebellious leader, one cannot, on the other hand, because of their accumulation, rationally believe in a simple coincidence. What then? One can at least conclude that Mélenchon practices the dog whistle. This is a technique also called “sub-discourse” which consists of using suggestive language that will be decoded by particular social groups without arousing the disapproval of others. The operation is not entirely successful in this case but, as long as the majority is not convinced of the guilt of the messenger, it can be an interesting political calculation. Interesting, if one is of a sordid cynicism.
What we can therefore say, without being able to firmly respond to the title of this column, is that Mélenchon no longer maintains an ethic of conviction concerning anti-Semitism: this fight no longer seems important enough to him for him to forbid himself from emitting ambiguous symbols to parts of the population that are supposed – and this is already problematic – to be sensitive to this type of discourse. This sad conclusion marks the decline of rationality of an important figure in contemporary political life. When we lose our values and the unconditionality that some should entail, such as the unambiguous fight against anti-Semitism, it is because we do not have enough backbone to be great. By looking for the storm, we find ourselves without a sextant.
Gérald Bronner is a sociologist and professor at La Sorbonne University.
.