About the recent political discussions between France and Israel, it was refreshing to read a relatively neutral column in Sweden's best-selling quality daily paper, Dagens Nyheter (on 21 July 2004). My informal English translation follows below.
Sharon provides arguments for anti-Semites
President Jacques Chrac isn't afraid of speaking his mind and risking diplomatic crises. The world's politicians have known this for many years. But in Ariel Sharon he has met his superior. It is hard to believe that even Chirac would proceed to insult the nation to which he has been invited. Now an explanation is being demanded from Sharon before he can be welcome again in France.
The French reaction is understandable. When Israle's prime minister challenges French jews to emigrate immediately to Israel - on account of the country's "wild anti-semitism" - it is taken as an attack on the social order. It impacts strongly in a country where liberty, equality, and fraternity still have deep meaning.
All this Sharon must have understood - just like Chirac, he is a politician who never says anything without a purpose - when he gave his address in Jerusalem last Sunday. So what was his intention?
Surely not to provoke a long-lasting opposition. To judge from the latest gestures from Paris and Jerusalim, feverish efforts are taking place to find conciliatory formulations. We can thus expect clarifications about a regrettable misunderstanding, and mutual assurances of friendship and common interests.
This is not just a word. Such a relationship actually exists. France is a major player in the Middle East and wishes to remain one. Israel has every reason to maintain good contacts with the country in Europe that has the best sense of the Arab world.
The realm of political interests originates in a shared history and culture. France has the most Jews in Europe, around 600,000. Their presence and influence is public and real. A reciprocial interaction occurs here that can't be compared with any other Western European country.
French Jews also identify themselves strongly with the secularised state's boundaries between private and public, between religion and politics. When Foreign Minister Michel Barnier asserted that Sharon had questioned the very principles that the French Republic rests on, he was not exaggerating. Moreover, representatives from Jewish organizations were deeply critical.
Above all, the Israeli Prime Minister's comments were interpreted as an attack on France's diplomacy in the Middle East. Sharon was upset that Michel Barnier spent a night last week as a guest of Yassir Arafat in Ramallah. There Barnier challenged Israel to stop isolating the PLO leader in his headquarters. As far as Israel was concerned, Barnier's efforts were a directly hostile act.
In other words: Sharon struck back. But through his accusations, he also struck an exposed nerve. France is just recovering from a huge scandal, where a young woman's accusations - of having been the victim of anti-Semitic insults by a gang of Arabs and Africans - were shown to be a bluff. Her story shook the nation. President Chirac brought it up in his address on [the French Independence Day].
The debate is now instead about how media and politicians could so readily place their faith in unreliable information. The most probable, and for France unflattering, explanation is that they originated in real circumstances. Muslims are not merely discriminated against, but they are also interpreted as a threat. For most Frenchmen, the information about the insults merely confirmed their expectations.
Another explanation is the insults and attacks that have actually befallen French Jews in the last few years. They are often discussed in relation to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Muslims without a future in hopeless suburban ghettos find an outlet for frustrations. But anti-Semitism cannot be explained away. It is Frenchmen who happen to be Jews who are being attacked.
Sharon's urgent request for a mass exodus will never be followed. French Jews are much too asimilated and secularised. Only a fraction will leave the country, not on account of fear, but rather out of Zionist convictions. The anti-Semitic attacks are shameful, but despite everything they are relatively few.
The accusations against France, for being a stronghold of anti-Jewish hatred, is unreasonable. A few years ago, it could be said that politicians didn't take anti-Semitic colored assaults seriously enough. But today the situation and the societal debate are different. French legislation is uncommonly strict against racially motivated crime.
Ariel Sharon was also well acquainted with these facts. He chose instead to ignore them to strengthen his political standing.
It is possible that he succeeded. But Israel's standing in France became even weaker, if possible, while anti-Semites gained new arguments. And the rest of the world was reminded again why dialog on piece and security is so hopelessly difficult to achieve.
Mats Wiklund
