A graduate in physics and atomic engineering, Metin Arditi is an essayist and novelist. He published in the collection "Placards et Libelles" du Cerf, "The eleventh commandment, when to obey is to betray".
FIGAROVOX. - Your childhood and your mother helped forge your Zionist feeling. Do you still live in this one?
Metin ARDITI. -
Yes, of course.
It should be remembered that the word
Zionism
can refer to policies that are very different from one another, or even opposed.
During the 20th century, the idea of creating a “Jewish Home” in Palestine took hold, but it has seen many faces.
Between the integration Zionism of the Sephardic Jews of the East, the radical Zionism of Vladimir Jabotinsky and Abraham Stern, or the rabbinic Zionism of Rav Kook, the differences are profound.
By putting Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, and Jerusalem, the “capital of the Jewish people,” on the same level, Mr. Netanyahu sowed division between the French of the Jewish faith and their country, France.
Metin Arditi
In the years 1925-1930, Martin Buber and his “Brit Shalom” movement, supported by great intellectuals close to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, advocated an egalitarian cohabitation between Jews, Muslims and Christians throughout Palestine: a secular Zionism.
Antithesis to the ideas of Martin Buber, messianic Zionism, also known as neo-Zionism, claims the purely Jewish character of all the territories which can be found in the Bible.
Not to mention that it is now a Christian Zionism, mixing good feelings with real ambiguities.
It is of course Buber's Zionism with which I unreservedly associate myself, which can only be secular in essence.
You criticize the amalgamation between the Jewish people and the Israeli nation. Why ?
The State of Israel has been pursuing in the West Bank, for more than fifty years, a policy of occupation contrary to international law. Whoever creates the amalgam must be aware of the consequences of such a rapprochement. Whoever opposes Israeli policy will tend to associate the Jews of the Diaspora with it. That won't define anti-Semitism, of course. But let's not be naive, this can only help.
This amalgamation is often found where it is not expected.
In July 2017, Mr. Macron invited Mr. Netanyahu to the national day commemorating the Vél d'Hiv roundup fomented by the Vichy regime in 1942. The Israeli prime minister was not invited at the same rank as other heads of the military. State or government: he was guest of honor, called to speak in the same way as the President of the Republic.
Read also Israeli-Palestinian conflict: "The creation of two states will not succeed"
One can wonder about the very principle of the invitation.
The roundup had been, is, will remain a French drama, and of course a Jewish drama.
At the material time, the State of Israel did not exist.
Inviting his Prime Minister to speak was already strengthening the amalgam between the Jewish people and the Israeli nation.
But there was more serious.
In his address, Mr. Netanyahu referred to Jerusalem, "the
indivisible capital of Israel and all Jews
."
These few words carried several messages within them.
Jerusalem, capital of Israel?
This was contrary to international law, a statute refused, since the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, by almost all countries, which maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv.
On July 30, 1980, the Knesset passed a “Basic Law” making reunified Jerusalem the capital of Israel. This annexation was condemned by Security Council resolutions 476 and 478, stating that "
the adoption of the" Basic Law "by Israel constitutes a violation of international law
"
.
The Resolution also called on "
States which have established diplomatic missions in Jerusalem to withdraw these missions from the Holy City."
Jewish people = Israel, answered by tacit acceptance Mr. Macron.
The acts committed by Israel in the occupied territories, its policy of colonization, therefore bore the signature of the entire Jewish people.
How not to be saddened by so much irresponsibility on the part of a president, a sincere friend of the Jews?
Metin Arditi
By putting Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, and Jerusalem, the “capital of the Jewish people,” on the same level, Mr. Netanyahu sowed division between the French of the Jewish faith and their country, France. Should the president, after having listened to Mr. Netanyahu, thank him with a doubly unhappy "Dear Bibi"? By dubbing Mr. Netanyahu's speech in this way, he reinforced the amalgam. Israel = Jewish people, said Mr. Netanyahu. Jewish people = Israel, answered by tacit acceptance Mr. Macron. The acts committed by Israel in the occupied territories, its policy of colonization, therefore bore the signature of the entire Jewish people. How not to be saddened by so much irresponsibility on the part of a president, a sincere friend of the Jews?
In these exchanges of words which wanted to be amiable between a cunning Prime Minister and a new president, there was worse.
The insinuation of a suspicion as to the loyalty of the French of the Jewish faith to France.
A religious or cultural link was transformed into a political link.
Suddenly, their capital would not be in Paris (Say: not quite. Or not only.) One could not give a better argument to the conspirators who see in any Jew a cosmopolitan whose loyalty to his country is never acquired.
(Say: not 100%.)
Do you understand that one criticizes a
"
double allegiance
"
, as Eric Zemmour does?
A few years ago, a poll conducted by the Foundation for Political Innovation (Fondapol) hinted at what I believe to be the greatest danger facing Jewish communities in the diaspora. Namely the suspicion of double allegiance.
In France, 91% of people polled said they were indifferent when they learned that someone they knew was Jewish.
But respondents were only 84% to think that a Jew is a French like any other.
One of their compatriots in six therefore thought the opposite.
This last figure carries the seeds of a definitive anti-Semitism, that of Drumont and Maurras, or Drieu and Brasillach, the anti-Semitism which nourished Vichy and which is "without return".
We do not say "I like" or "I do not like" the Jews.
We could even be indifferent to it.
We say, more simply, "they are not ours and never will be."
Read alsoAmerican, Jewish and hostile to Israel
More recently, the Israeli daily
Haaretz reported
on another poll, this time conducted in Australia, a country known to be among the least anti-Semitic in existence.
Yet nearly one in five Australians question the loyalty of fellow Jews to their adopted country.
The same goes for Eric Zemmour as for Jean-Marie Le Pen, to use the term, at the time, of Laurent Fabius: he sometimes raises the right questions, but he does not provide them with the right answers.
What are the forms of anti-Semitism today in France?
Today in France, anti-Semitism is plural, it ranges from Islamist networks to traditional far-right anti-Semitism. What seems essential to me is to take care not to contribute to increasing anti-Semitism by taking positions full of good will, but with the opposite effects to those desired. Jews and Philosemites have a duty in this regard. To say - it is common - that anti-Semitism is "other people's business" is philosophically correct, but practically irresponsible. It is of course above all the business of the Jews. Who would dare to tell the ghosts of the Shoah, eye to eye, that anti-Semitism is not the business of the Jews?
A journalist (Laure Adler) once interviewed Aharon Appelfeld, one of the greatest writers of the 20th century.
How did he cope with the sounds of Tel Aviv?
Didn't she need absolute calm in order to write?
Of course, replied Appelfeld, a great uproar made any writing impossible.
But paradoxically, the ideal situation for him was not absolute calm.
A little hubbub offered an ideal compromise, not so intrusive as to prevent the writer from thinking, but enough to force him to "come inside himself."
He put him in a position to find himself.
There is no completed Jewishness except in the unique fidelity to humanity.
Metin Arditi
The notion of background noise is a perfect metaphor for anti-Semitism.
It will be bearable, or not, depending on the place it occupies on the cursor.
At three percent, a society will provide a pleasant living environment for its Jewish community.
One can even imagine that, as for the writer, a slight background noise will remind the community of its uniqueness and allow it to live it happily.
At ten percent, the situation will be tense.
At thirty percent, it will become unlivable, especially since at such a level, speech will be freed: expressing anti-Semitism through words or deeds will become a right.
A banality.
Why have you been criticized for not being
"
a good Jew
"
?
When with fellow believers I share my questions, their often declamatory tone, their words that announce the tragedy, their guilt-inducing attitudes make me think of the sounds of the timpanist. In a symphony orchestra, it occupies a special place, always at the top of the orchestra, in its median axis, and visible from the whole room. Musically, his role is immense: he dictates the dramaturgy. Despite the apparent simplicity of his art - compared to that of a violinist or oboist - the timpani must be a very talented soloist. It will be he who announces the drama and will make it vibrate at its strongest. This is how it is played to me, if I dare say: "
You are turning against yours, already that the whole world is against us." You betrayed. You are not a good Jew.You are anti-semitic
". Finally comes the coup de grace: “
You are not proud to be Jewish
”.
Can we be proud of a legacy for which we are not responsible?
Does the billionaire's son have to brag about the amounts of money that are owed to him?
Because that is what it is all about: the Jew inherits an exceptional moral and cultural heritage.
The Torah, the Midrash, the Talmud, the Kabbalah…, not to mention the Yiddish theater, Groucho Marx, the tales of Isaac Bashevis Singer… He must be happy, admire the legacy and, above all, preserve it.
I feel extraordinarily fortunate to be a son of the Jewish people.
The heritage here is of abysmal depth.
I receive it with emotion.
But can I be proud of it?
It would be to want to collect applause to which I have no right.
It would even seem obscene to me.
Read also Luc Ferry: "What is it to be Jewish?"
Above all, there is a legacy that I must not destroy or squander in backfiring demonstrations and narcissistic acts.
A heritage that I must receive without pouring into the
hubris
against which Greek mythology warns me.
And ideally, a legacy that I should strive to enrich, if only a very small amount.
But to be proud of it, no.
We cannot be proud of what we have only received "by taking the only trouble to be born".
What heritage and what contribution does Jewishness have to offer our world?
The heritage is exceptional, I have just sketched out some of its components.
Jewish thought was the first to rise to the height of one God.
It gave birth to Christianity and Islam, which recognizes many of its prophets.
But this places the recipients of such a legacy facing a responsibility of equal rank.
There is no completed Jewishness except in the unique fidelity to humanity.