In The Real and its double, the philosopher Clément Rosset describes this fascinating disposition of men to send “reality to be seen elsewhere” without ever truly denying it. This way “of putting an end to reality,” he says, “resembles a fair reasoning which would crown an aberrant conclusion.” In other words, splitting reality to recognize it as it is without drawing the slightest conclusion that would contradict the previous point of view.
Expressed this way, the thing seems abstract; but the examples are innumerable. Latest, and not least, the incredible platform published by lawyer Arié Alimi and historian Vincent Lemire in the columns of World to account for the resurgence of left-wing anti-Semitism. The authors note the existence of left-wing anti-Semitism, but as soon as observed, this “Achilles heel of the New Popular Front” is attenuated, on the grounds that it would be used by its adversaries to parasitize the debate. Better yet, this anti-Semitism would not be anti-Semitism, since it is not “foundational, historical and ontological” like that of the far right, but “contextual, populist and electoralist.”
Here the splitting of reality takes place. We can clearly see left-wing anti-Semitism, but it stops there. Let us not ask us to act accordingly, as we would with right-wing anti-Semitism, since, precisely, this anti-Semitism serves to combat the other. On the contrary, what is despicable is not left-wing anti-Semitism – therefore morally justified – but the fact that by pointing it out, we are playing into the hands of the extreme right – whose anti-Semitism is morally unacceptable. .
Sophistry
This logical sleight of hand is reminiscent of that of feminist associations which dissuaded women victims of sexual assault from filing a complaint if the attacker was “racialized”, on the grounds that they would thus encourage systemic racism. In these two situations, the same consequence: the refusal of reality always harms the victim whose guarantee of rights depends on the identity of the person who violates them. Rape is not totally rape – or rather it is but is no longer condemnable as such – if it is committed by someone whose guilt would play into the hands of the political adversary; anti-Semitism is not anti-Semitism – or rather it is but becomes understandable or even desirable – if the person who engages in it is on the left.
But how can we be convinced that two identical things can be different? Rape is rape, hatred of Jews is hatred of Jews, right? Undeniable. And the authors are not fooled. To delude themselves, they will then resort to stratagems that resemble sophisms. The first is historical. Léon Blum, they recall, had allied himself in his time with a French Communist Party “prone to this left-wing anti-Semitism”; and to ask: “Can we nevertheless regret the anti-fascist victory and the political and social conquests of 1936?” In other words, anti-Semitism was a necessary evil to make the left triumph. The same is true today. An argument which leaves one wondering if we reformulate it to make it a little more explicit: “Can we regret that we are arousing hatred of Jews on the left if it is a necessary step to win the elections?”
And even so, the reasoning is biased for two reasons which are each sufficient on their own: unlike Jean-Luc Mélenchon, Blum was certainly more attentive to the anti-Semitism of the then minority party with which he decided to ally himself. Why ? Because he was surely held back by “the leash of his memberships” as Mélenchon said about Jérôme Guedj. More importantly, although they have the same name, these Popular Fronts are different. In the old, anti-Semitism was grafted onto socialism, in the new, it is the opposite. The anti-Jewish obsession trickles down, from top to bottom: Who said that Yaël Braun Pivet was camping in Tel Aviv? Who spoke of the genuflections before the arrogant ukases of the Crif communitarians?
Good and bad totalitarianism
Suspecting that it will not hold, the authors add a second to this sophism. Moral this time. Beginning by recalling the historical proximity of the National Front to real Nazis and the existence, still today, of close links between the National Rally and “pillars of neofascist and neo-Nazi demonstrations”, they explain that the “New Popular Front is the only electorally credible alternative to prevent an openly xenophobic party from taking control of our institutions.” In other words, this union of the left cannot be anti-Semitic since it presents itself as the last bulwark against a supposedly anti-Semitic party. Here is the socialist reassured. Deep down, for him, hatred of Jews is only instrumental, and necessary if he wants to avoid the worst (except for the Jew for whom anti-Semitism is everywhere, the worst is already there).
Unstoppable argument. Or rather, an illusion to which anyone sensitive to humanist values will agree to allow themselves to be taken in. Because it plays on an even greater illusion that no one, absolutely no one, wants to denounce: the idea that morality is on the left. Is not it true ? How else can we explain that there remains a communist party? There is good and bad totalitarianism. How can we explain that we tolerate the sound and the fury, the chaos and calls for revolt, the all-out “messiness” when it comes from the left? There is the good factious and the bad factious. And how can we explain the silence of a certain left in the face of attacks coming from their ranks with regard to secularism, homosexuals and universalism? There is a good obscurantist and a bad obscurantist.
This is ultimately the role of such a forum, and the reason why it is making so much noise. She is the sheet of paper that hides the “elephant in the room”. Its authors know well that their defense of the anti-Semitic left is vain. But while we debate it, on the left we can still avoid asking ourselves the ultimate question: if the extreme left is not populated by good guys, who are these people with whom we have allied ourselves?
*Pierre Bentata is a lecturer in economics at the Faculty of Law and Political Science of Aix-Marseille.
.