Investigating an antisemitic RN: Interview with Jonathan Hayoun and Johan Weisz

Some people claim that the French far-right party National Rally (Rassemblement National – RN) is no longer antisemitic, and that the vast majority of Jews would vote for Bardella. To discuss these two dubious assertions, we spoke to film director and essayist Jonathan Hayoun — notably the author, with Judith Cohen-Solal, of La main du diable : Comment l’extrême droite a voulu séduire les Juifs de France (Grasset,2019) [TN:The Devil’s Hand: How the far right tried to seduce the Jews of France] –, and Johan Weisz, journalist and editor-in-chief and committed founder of the online media StreetPress. Interviewed by Elie Petit, they question the idea that, beyond the communication strategy, there would be a real normalization of the RN, while questioning the feeling of danger in which the Jews of France live, and its political consequences.

 

 

K. : How did you come to work on your book La Main Du Diable – Comment L’extrême Droite A Voulu Séduire Les Juifs De France (TN:The Devil’s Hand: How the far right tried to seduce the Jews of France) (Jonathan Hayoun, Judith Cohen Solal, Éditions Grasset)?

Jonathan Hayoun : I became interested in the RN’s strategy of seducing Jews very early on. As an activist and then President of the UEJF (French Union of Jewish Students), the fight against the Front National (former name of the RN party) at the time was at the heart of my commitment, particularly during the 2012 presidential election when it was crucial to fight against Marine Le Pen. And it was while campaigning against the extreme right that I was targeted and saw extreme right-wing antisemitism up close. At that time, Marine Le Pen, who had just taken over the leadership of the FN, immediately sought to be invited to appear on Jewish radio, multiplying her speeches aimed at the Jewish community under the pretext of wanting to protect them. This approach was particularly indecent, as she simultaneously claimed her party’s heritage while denying the antisemitism that surrounded it. What’s more, she was making comments that fueled racism and antisemitism. So there was a strategy behind these actions which, on further investigation, turned out to be less new than it seemed – I’ll come back to that later.

I wanted to understand this strategy, beyond the simple quest for respectability, and to see how it played out. It also coincided with my research into the figure of General de Gaulle and the reasons why the Rassemblement National sought to appropriate this historic figure. There was a point of intersection between these two attempts at appropriation by the RN: the idea that de Gaulle and the Jews who had taken refuge in London in 1940 had agreed to join forces with the far right to save France, a myth that the far right nurtured and which intrigued me. I wanted to dismantle the myth of the alliance between the synagogue and the far right – the so-called “common front of the Synagogue and the Hood” – in London during the Second World War. Finally, it seemed important to me to first take a concrete look at the situation of Jewish communities living under an RN municipality. What happens when the RN comes to power and there’s an established Jewish community there?

K. : Johan, you set up StreetPress 14 years ago, a leading medium for documenting the far right in France. Why did you choose to investigate, in particular, the milieu of violent groups? Also, how difficult is it today to show the racist and antisemitic side of the RN?

Johan Weisz : I’d like to start by saying a few words about my family: my grandparents were in hiding during the war, and my mother stood by the Klarsfelds in all their actions over the last 40 years. I’ll always remember, for example, my mother explaining to my grandmother that she was going to take the train to Auschwitz in the early 90s, when the Beate and Serge Klarsfeld association organized the train de la mémoire, the remembrance train. My grandmother couldn’t understand why anyone would take the train to Auschwitz, knowing that the rest of the family was still there! I grew up with that. This commitment to memory. And at the same time, as I was building my life as a man born in the mid-80s, I saw the extreme right rising in France. At StreetPress, we documented the violence committed by these extreme right-wing groups.

Far-right violence isn’t just something you read about in history books! Last year, the murder in the middle of Paris of a rugby player who crossed paths with neo-fascist militants. Also last year, black and Arab high school students were beaten up as they left the Lycée Victor Hugo in central Paris. In 2022, a pregnant Roma woman was killed in her caravan by radicalized hunters. And let’s not forget Utoya and the 77 young socialist activists murdered by Breivik on the island – the man was fed the theory of the Great Replacement, a theory dreamed up by the French far right. It’s worth noting in passing that the violence perpetrated by these far-right groups is committed by the same people who are putting up posters for the RN during the current campaign. As journalists, we carry out precise documentation work as a team, and what we document is that those who stick up the posters for Jordan Bardella or are parliamentary assistants of members of the French parliament also belong to violent groups. In 2022 we showed how supporters of Éric Zemmour^[1] were training with weapons, shooting at caricatures of Jews, Black people and Muslims. Knowing all this, it’s hard to believe that these people can appear respectable or dediabolized, and especially that once in power, they intend to stop all this… This subject worries me enormously, and I can say that I became interested in the RN out of necessity.

In fact, the Jews are being asked to abandon the universal.

K. : Do you see these violent groups at work in the towns where the RN has taken power, or is the RN’s local management, in relation to the Jewish communities, exempt from their action?

JH :I don’t see these violent groups taking action against Jews in municipalities where the RN is in power. It’s not part of their strategy to do so. But it’s not a question of using physical violence as a yardstick. Nevertheless, some attacks have been foiled, notably in Limoges. Should we wait until an attack has been foiled before taking it seriously? On the other hand, there is a very clear antisemitic accusation and harassment of many Jews who are political opponents of the RN. In other words, they attack Jews as soon as they are political opponents, but they also attack them as Jews. So, in municipalities where the RN is in power, Jews have to keep a low profile. If they speak out against it, they are reassigned as Jews and attacked as such. For now, it’s verbal. As the very clear examples in Fréjus show, notably in the book co-written with Judith Cohen Solal, The Devil’s Hand. Being Jewish and against the extreme right where it has power is dangerous, both as an opponent and above all as a Jew.

JW : And then you have to look at what’s happening in other countries. If we take Hungary, for example, I think it’s an excellent laboratory for understanding the logic at work. We’re seeing strategies already replicated in France by the far-right media. In Hungary, for decades, a Jewish billionaire, George Soros, supported a whole range of initiatives such as the protection of Roma families, gay communities, and the development of rather alternative Jewish initiatives. As soon as it came to power, the far right fought against it, denouncing it in numerous antisemitic campaigns, even moving its progressive university to Vienna. In France, newspapers such as Valeurs Actuelles and other far-right titles covered George Soros in the same way, portraying him as a billionaire seeking to control the world. Beyond Soros, it’s his values that are under attack. They had a Jewish billionaire as an easy, useful and instrumental scapegoat for their vindictiveness.

JH : France has seen a little-publicized case that resembles the anti-Soros campaigns in Hungary: a family of philanthropists, like Soros, called Cohen, based in Paris. They wanted to finance a refugee center, a reception center for migrants, in Callac. They were subjected to a terrible campaign by the extreme right, to the point that the project was cancelled. The mayor was threatened with death, and they themselves were threatened with death and harassed as Jews, with all the rhetoric of the great replacement or the organization of immigration allegedly orchestrated by the Jews. Because their name is Cohen, they are still today in a situation of unsafety for simply wanting to exercise their solidarity and civic commitment.

K. : In this campaign, the RN seems to be going back and forth on the issue of repression of minority rights.

JW : Perhaps the RN’s strategy will be not to bother the Jews too much as long as they don’t make waves. Sebastien Chenu said a few days ago that kosher food wouldn’t be a problem after all, even if they are half-heartedly announcing that they want to ban it. In reality, the RN is a catch-all party. It bothers them a little to leave kosher on supermarket shelves, but that’s okay, it’ll help their image. This morning, Bardella announced that people with dual nationality would not be able to hold positions of responsibility. We looked at each other in the newsroom, and one of our Franco-Swiss colleagues said: “Don’t worry, I’m not concerned”. I think the communities that will suffer most if the extreme right comes to power are our Muslim, North African and Black friends. As a citizen, I have one responsibility, I can’t let that go without doing something about it.

JH : What’s also interesting is that Jews can’t raise their voices too much as Jews and as anti-racist citizens. If they raise their voices as citizens and anti-racists to defend other minorities or simply to defend equality, which is a fundamental principle of France, they are sent back to their Jewish identity, but a Jewish identity in a state of unsafety. They are therefore asked to lower their voices and give up part of their civic commitment, if they don’t want to fall victim to antisemitism.

Jews in France don’t need the RN to feel fear right now. In this area, it’s the spontaneous perception of danger that comes first.

JW : That’s what’s so important. In fact, Jews are being asked to abandon the universal. I’d like to add a testimonial. At StreetPress, we have several journalists who have been investigating the far right and its radical groups for years. My colleague Mathieu Mollard, who is co-editor-in-chief, receives countless antisemitic messages, even though he is not Jewish. Even a statement in favor of universal values, which is not made by a Jew, ends up being assigned a Jewish identity.

K. : If you were to write a second book today on this attempt at seduction, what aspects of the RN’s evolution would you address? And what was the response of the Jewish community, or some of its segments, to this strategy?

JH : I find it hard to say whether it’s the strategy that has evolved or whether, in reality, it has remained unchanged, while the ambient climate has changed. You could say that the battle has been won culturally, without any real change in the Rassemblement National’s discourse. What has changed is the trivialization of this discourse, notably through the emergence of media sharing the same ideology, such as CNews and the JDD. With the RN making less of an effort to normalize, the game seems largely won, with others doing the work: the far-right opinion media. And that’s without taking into account the dangerous game being played by the left of the left, which is helping to tip the balance.

K. : Until Marine Le Pen’s column in Le Figaro on June 22.

JH :The timing is remarkable. For a long time, Marine Le Pen wanted to avoid any controversy about the Vel d’Hiv roundup or the Holocaust. But in this article, by invoking Klarsfeld, she takes a step that should be highlighted, by reiterating the RN’s historic position that France bears no responsibility for the Vel d’Hiv roundup. That’s what she’s saying, in a roundabout way.

It’s the latest stage in the global strategy of far-right ideology today, served up in particular by CNews and the JDD. This idea, popularized by Éric Zemmour, is that Christian civilization must be saved. Marine Le Pen maintains that it was this Christian civilization that saved the Jews in France during the Second World War. Using a phrase from Klarsfeld, she asserts: “Christians were on the right side. So we were on the right side, and today we will be on the right side to save the Jews as we saved them yesterday. It is to us that you must turn.

K. : It’s an unfortunate fact that Jewish personalities who have long been on the right now endorse or trivialize the RN, but Serge Klarsfeld’s speech was an electroshock.

JH :There has been an evolution among some Jews, which is embodied by Klarsfeld’s position, even if it doesn’t reflect an evolution in Jewish institutions. Klarsfeld, sensing an existential threat, reacts to current political events as if they were the Second World War. “They’re good people,” he says, “they would have saved us”. Marine Le Pen, for example, comes back in her column by saying: “Yes, we are the party of good people. We will not only save you in the future, we have already saved you”. It’s a rewriting of the history of the Second World War, of France’s responsibility, and of collaboration, using Klarsfeld. It’s quite unheard of, and Klarsfeld participates directly and indirectly.

JW : It’s a kiss of death, considering that Klarsfeld’s 30-year battle has been to get Jacques Chirac to recognize that France was a party to the deportation and extermination of the Jews, and to establish its responsibility as a country.

JH : Why this insistence on Jewish intellectuals? The real problem with some of the most media-savvy Jewish intellectuals in France was that they were also identified as those who had waged the greatest battle against the far right in the past, whether it was Klarsfeld or Finkielkraut. They were seen as moral authority figures on this subject. Now others must emerge.

K. : To attract Jews to the extreme right, by making them believe that it’s the only safe place for them, you have to have led them to believe that their survival is at stake. There are many factors that contribute to making Jews fear for their safety on a daily basis. Does the RN also work specifically to stir up fear of antisemitism and antisemitic violence? Are they seeking to instill fear in Jews while trying to reassure them of their ability to protect them?

JW :Jews in France don’t need the RN to feel fear right now. The aggressions experienced, the hate messages received, the lack of empathy on these subjects sometimes considered residual… all this contributes to reinforcing this perception that things are not going well for the Jewish community.The RN has not changed its discourse, but the context has changed, particularly since October 7, when every antisemitic incident that occurs in radical pro-Palestinian spheres or in certain currents of the radical left plays into the RN’s hands.

JH : But where they exploit fear in a particularly pernicious way is when we see Jews so scared – and they’re right to be worried – that they’re desperate for a solution, to the point of being prepared to give up fundamental freedoms to keep the Republic alive. For example, there are Jews who explain that, for their own safety, it would be wise to remove the yarmulke in the street. Individually, they have the right to make this choice, but to consider that it should be enshrined in law, to the point that they could be arrested if they wear a kippah in the street, is incredible that this could even be envisaged. You have to realize that this idea is being defended by Jews themselves in the name of security. The RN, which always exploits the notion of security against that of equality and freedom, has succeeded in convincing some Jews that giving up freedom and equality to guarantee their security is a good solution. This revives traumatic memories and exploits an ancestral fear: who really protects the Jews? Is it the Republic? This deep-rooted Jewish question is manipulated by the RN. Some are even taking positions that betray the entire history of the Jews: after centuries of struggle to ensure that Jews can simply display their identity in the street in complete safety, it is distressing to see that some are ready not only to renounce this, but to campaign in favor of laws that would restrict these rights, convinced that this will protect them.

K. : What role has Éric Zemmour played in the growing tendency of some Jews to vote for the extreme right? And what can we make of his transformation within this movement, from an influential figure to an outsider?

JW : I think there’s an aspect that often comes up in the discourse of the far right: they always try to approach the Jewish community by saying, “We’ve been designated as your enemies, but look, today we have a major common enemy, Islamism. Let’s start from there, we are allies against this enemy, which is also your main enemy”. This strategy has been used in France since the early 2000s. We’ve seen it with figures like Alexandre Delvalle, Guy Millière, and other geopolitologists who sowed these ideas at conferences, on media platforms, and on Jewish radio too. The seeds they sowed were largely watered by Éric Zemmour, who singled out Islamism and Islam as the main threat. As for what he has become today, it’s his choice – and his personal destiny matters very little here – but he acted as a catalyst, opening all those doors.

The same tropes are often found, regardless of political affiliation: there is no antisemitism specific to the left or the right. Often, it’s the same motives that resurface. No category of the population is spared.

K. : What about the interactions or growing influence of the speeches and strategies of Soral and Dieudonné, which are appearing on both the far right and the far left?

JH : When Soral and Dieudonné first appeared, they were effectively categorized as being on the extreme right. However, Dieudonné didn’t originally come from the extreme right. As for Soral, he had a diverse background. He had tried to get involved with the RN without success. Rather, their ideas emerged in response to the zeitgeist. These ideas, often associated with the far right for various historical, discursive and thematic reasons, pre-existed their current emergence. It’s hardly surprising, then, that they have fed not only the far right, but also a fringe of the far left.

It is a common error of analysis today to classify antisemitic discourse or antisemitic tropes according to a specific political orientation. Antisemitism has historical roots and manifests itself in a variety of political contexts. For example, the question of dual allegiance or Jewish power has been exploited on both the left and the right. Today, these discourses circulate freely and feed off each other. A telling example is Alain Soral, whose comments have been taken up in far-right circles and, more recently, by a Gilets jaunes activist towards Finkielkraut. The phrase, “Go home to Tel Aviv”, had been popularized on social networks since the 2000s, initially launched by Soral at a time when he was affiliated with the Front National and close to Marine Le Pen.

Today’s trap consists in trying absolutely to attribute antisemitic discourse to a defined political orientation, be it right-wing or left-wing. This is the danger posed by Soral and Dieudonné: by embracing the zeitgeist, they fuel antisemitism in the media and on social networks, which serves as fodder for those interested in it, regardless of their apparent political affiliation.

JW : To add to this, I’d like to give the example of the young people who committed the antisemitic rape in Courbevoie. Is this left-wing or right-wing antisemitism? In reality, it’s French antisemitism. Have they been influenced by Soral and Dieudonné videos? Or do they see all Israelis as bloodthirsty organ thieves, as described by instagram accounts with millions of subscribers? In fact, we don’t know. Antisemitic tropes linked to Palestine are present both on the far right, where figures like Soral express unprecedented violence when evoking Gaza and Palestine, and in radical pro-Palestinian discourse on the left. The same tropes are often found, regardless of political affiliation: there is no antisemitism specific to the left or the right. Often, it’s the same motives that resurface. No category of the population is spared.

K. : This is an interesting phrase: “Go back to Tel Aviv”, because it implies that Jews have a link with Israel. Similar slogans are sometimes heard in pro-Palestinian demonstrations in the United States or on certain campuses, but in the form: “Go back to Poland”. Is there nowadays a division in antisemitism between those who are antisemitic and anti-Zionist, and those who are antisemitic but not anti-Zionist, for example? Does it make a difference to Jews?

JH : Personally, I don’t believe that Jews establish or need to establish a hierarchy of antisemitism, contrary to what some on the left seem to think, which is really problematic. Rather than declaring that antisemitism exists on their side too, but is more dangerous on the other side, left-wing leaders should simply acknowledge that antisemitism is very worrying in France, and that it must be fought indiscriminately. Jews don’t fall into the trap of categorizing antisemitism. The real problem is not that there is an extreme right that remains antisemitic but not anti-Zionist; it’s rather that there is an extreme right that denies antisemitism while ignoring the question of racism. In fact, it is this position that leads them to this, because they are able to say: “Above all, we must protect ourselves, no matter what happens to others”. In this way, they contribute to marginalizing a Jewish identity that is integrated into the Republic and French society.

The RN, which always exploits the notion of security against that of equality and freedom, has succeeded in convincing some Jews that giving up freedom and equality to guarantee their security is a good solution.

JH : I would remind you that Jean-Marie Le Pen himself tried to play with this, without success, in the 70s and early 80s, before his phrase that named the Shoah as but a detail of the history of the Second World War, which brought his strategy to a screeching halt. Before that, he had pseudo-Jewish associations say: “No, the real antisemitism isn’t with us. What is very dangerous is state antisemitism. And today, where is there state antisemitism? In the Soviet Union.” True antisemitism… When you hear this term, there’s a problem. Once again, we point the finger elsewhere to clear our own. It didn’t work with Jean-Marie Le Pen. But with Marine Le Pen, it works better. Jean-Marie Le Pen was chosen for similar reasons. He was the first president of the Front National because, unlike all the other co-founders of the party, he was the only one who hadn’t spent too much time in active service during the Second World War. A fresh face was needed…

K. : The Jews of France gradually developed a feeling of besiegement, verified in political practice. How did they try to protect themselves?

JW : In the early 2000s, during the second intifada, the Jewish community had the impression that the majority of the French media were in favor of the Palestinians. One reason for this was that the media counted suicide bombers among the victims. During this period, many turned to the Jewish media: radio stations, websites, newspapers, etc. At the time, I was working for a Jewish radio station and was also preparing a book on the period. I remember this sign in the radio station, which contained a lexicon for replacement journalists, often unfamiliar with the geopolitics of the Middle East. It suggested, for example, replacing terms like “settlers” in agency dispatches with “settlement dwellers” and “West Bank” with “Judea-Samaria”. This lexicon was designed to avoid offending listeners, who were well aware that the struggle also involved the choice of words. Finally, to hear a voice that didn’t sound anti-Israeli, people turned to Jewish media.

Today, it’s the same phenomenon, exponentially on social networks. We look for information that confirms our opinions. We’ve found ourselves consulting media outlets that are unwittingly gradually isolating us. The radio stations where I worked, for example, had no such intention, but we found ourselves, in terms of information and the way we were informed, somewhat removed from the national public debate: an accident on the freeway between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem took precedence over the major debates in French society! But this phenomenon is not confined to the Jewish community – it can be observed in all walks of life!

We have to fight for the one thing that brought Jews to France and made them stay: the Universal and the Republic. A Jew in France is fighting for the Universal Republic, and if he thinks it’s lost, he might as well pack his bags.

What Jewish friends are saying is: “If Éric Zemmour is elected, maybe I’ll make my Aliyah. If Jean-Luc Mélenchon is elected, maybe I’ll make my Aliyah”. Is that the right answer? I don’t know. But it does express exhaustion in the face of an increasingly polarized public debate. In the same way, today, many left-wing Jewish acquaintances tell me: “Since October 7, I only watch CNews because it’s the only channel that isn’t anti-Israel”. And Cnews is one of the far-right’s Trojan horses for infiltrating their ideas into the Jewish community. The far right isn’t stupid. They see how Islamism has targeted Jews, even on French soil. They don’t support Jews out of sincerity, but out of expediency. It’s important not to flinch.

But Jews are not naive; they know that the Rassemblement National was founded by former Nazis. We’ve all been taught in our personal family histories to recognize this. If some people slip an RN ballot into the ballot box, it’s not out of adoration for the Third Reich, but because the Republic is powerless to protect them, and major figures on the left have failed them.

But Bardella means a return to the status of dhimmis for Jews! Jews who don’t make waves will be able to go on living normally. But those who oppose the government will be singled out for popular vindication because of their Jewish identity! This is already happening on the networks, where armies of far-right trolls are attacking left-wing personalities solely on the basis of their Jewish identity.

We have to fight for the one thing that brought Jews to France and made them stay: the Universal and the Republic. The first thing the Jews of France want to hear is about the Republic and fraternity. What drew their forebears to France was the Republic.

There’s an ambiguity among many Jewish intellectuals in France today. It’s as if they’ve put aside the basic lesson of political Zionism, which is that antisemitism in Europe and throughout the world is a constant. Antisemitism can rise, it can fall, it can be tamed, but it is a constant. That said, when faced with a spike in antisemitism, there are only two options. Either they draw the Zionist conclusion, and make Aliyah. Or they stay in France and fight for the only thing that can protect the Jews of France: the Republic and its values, which are not compatible with the extreme right. In other words, a Jew in France is fighting for the Universal Republic, and if he thinks it’s lost, he might as well pack his bags. Accommodating the RN means participating in the weakening of the Republic, without drawing the necessary conclusions.

K. : Since the weekend, we’ve seen a site appear on the Internet called “Bloquons-les” (“Block them”), which lists candidates, mainly from the RN and some from LFI, who are deemed problematic for their antisemitic, racist, anti-republican or other positions. The site responds to a request from a public that has difficulty synthesizing and sharing concise information on antisemitism in politics: “Give us a resource center, give us a directory,” they ask the media. And that’s called “Block them”. Have journalism and surveys not responded sufficiently to the demand and need for information on the genuinely racist and antisemitic element, which persists in a non-residual way on the far right, in particular?

JH : There’s no doubt that the response at this level has not been sufficient. But the cultural battle isn’t just fought by documenting what people say. It’s fought on the terrain of ideas: what project is being proposed, in what history, in what ideological or political vein…? It’s also as if voters don’t want to ask themselves these questions, don’t want to think about what’s being proposed to them collectively. Hence the answers that are only given to individual cases, or the sum of their parts. It’s very important to identify all these people, but they belong to political groups and projects.

We need to be able to identify what’s in the discourse that leads to hatred of the other, of otherness, that leads to hatred of anything that doesn’t serve homogenization, which is the project of the extreme right. The Republic leaves room for everyone to be different. Let’s not think that simply by saying who the racists and antisemites are, Jews and non-Jews alike will be able to open their eyes to the danger posed by the extreme right.

JW : We’re moving from the republican barrage to a cultural cancel led by a religious minority with a few allies. In reality, what will make us stronger is a strong Republic, and mobilization against discrimination. After all, I completely respect the fight of people who won’t let go of people who have made antisemitic remarks, because if the Republic doesn’t do the job, it has to be done in spite of everything.

K. : It can also be seen as a way of trying to get back in the game, because in political soccer, Jews have definitely been the ball for some time now.

JH : Another thing about “Block them” that I think might be interesting is that, despite everything, in the current climate, Jews keep saying to themselves: “We’re fed up with being treated like objects and used as tools in the political battle”. And while there’s a lot of talk about those who were sensitive to the far right, there are still many who say they can’t stand either the way the far right tries to recuperate them, or the behavior of the left, which has abandoned them and spends its time trying to justify itself. They want to feel part of the electoral process, and “Block them”, like others, has come to offer them a place where they can take action. By relaying this, they are both part of a place of information and action. They’re relaying something that will lead to direct action. It’s not just an investigative survey we’re sharing, it’s a mode of action.

---

Interview Elie Petit