It’s the story of a lame joke and, above all, fundamentally wrong. Then that of the excessive excitement that followed it. And this excitement is yet another indicator of the deep fault lines in our society, of its hysterization, of the radicalization of debates. So if Guillaume Meurice’s joke itself deserves nothing other than disdain, even disgust, the scale of what it provoked constitutes a remarkable fact that we must look at more closely to understand what it is about. .
First of all, what is satire – which Meurice claims to be? An ultra-condensed, concise social, societal and political critique, served by an ironic tone which aims to provoke, if not laughter, at least a smile.
The type of humor can vary: absurd, grotesque, clownish, lampoonish… In sketch, in text or in drawing. It can be biased, politically oriented (it often is), questionable, but for it to be effective, the statement must be fair.
But this is where everything is wrong with Meurice’s joke. All the elements of this joke collide in a catastrophic way to produce something that is not far from intellectual disgusting.
I quote: “Netanyahu […] a kind of Nazi without a foreskin.”
What is being invoked here?
The target is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. We can of course attack the kleptocrat, who retains power through all possible alliances even with the worst fringes of the political spectrum, who stands on democratic principles by trying to stifle justice, his colonialist policy in the West Bank. .. the list is long !
“Gloubiboulga” for a good word
Meurice calls him a Nazi. It is the ultimate insult, the Godwin point that we can sometimes use, but with caution because it is the weapon of mass destruction of a debate.
But to say that he is a Nazi just after acts of absolute barbarity took place on October 7 (which have exactly the same desire for annihilation as the Shoah), is implicitly to completely reverse the roles. in an abject way and put into perspective, even find a justification, for the absolute horror.
Then he is described as having no foreskin. Which brings him back to his “nature” as a Jew through sex and religion. It is, on the one hand, essentialization by the physical which has little to envy of the use of hooked noses and fingers in anti-Semitic caricatures. We also remember the search for Jewish children during the war by removing their pants, the nudity in the camps and all the dehumanizing humiliations to which this designation by the foreskin, or rather its absence, can evoke. On the other hand, talking about the foreskin still confuses politics, religion, identity… Let us remember that not every Jew is Israeli, not every Israeli is Jewish, not every Jew is religious, nor circumcised. etc…
Meurice makes a gloubiboulga of all that for an intrepid bon mot that unites opposites (Nazi-foreskin). Like a kid saying pee-poo at school. And as a kid, he got his knuckles slapped.
In his defense, he invokes the spirit Charlie and says he is transgressive and outrageous: “It’s my job.” Well, transgression when you make left-wing humor for a left-wing audience remains a fairly relative concept.
For the Charlie spirit, we can claim it but it all depends on what we put in it. And for Riss, its director, it’s quickly seen: “Charlie’s spirit has a good back: it’s not a trash can that you take out to throw your junk in.” End of the sketch
I have nothing against transgression and excess, quite the contrary. In satirical drawing, I am a fan of Reiser, Vuillemin. Desproges of course, and many others who push “incorrect” humor quite far. But it’s like in ballistics (it’s seasonal): power is good, it’s effective. But the aim must be good. Otherwise we arrive very, very far from the target.
*Xavier Gorce is a press cartoonist and regular contributor to Point.
.