Both works The reaction philo or treason of the clerks and What do you think of Auschwitz are at complete odds with the positions we thought well established in the French intellectual field on the Zionism, antisemitism, the role of the State of Israel or the Holocaust's place in the history of the West.
Let the moment ; on What do you think of Auschwitz , book I, however, preferred and is of significance may be speculative more essential to our society's reaction philo .
But it is like a stir a debate that has crystallized as the second intifada since September 11. Recall the forces.
Since these two events, anti-Semitic acts were committed on French territory and a form of radical Islam has taken over the hackneyed themes of anti-Semitic propaganda of the last century.
The response of some intellectuals, mostly Jews, had was massive and disseminated through many channels, "community" and national print and broadcast form of discussions and articles. Some, such as Tariq Ramadan , people tried to find a doctrinal unity, essentially marked by the Jewishness of most of these authors. Bizarrely, some members of the Jewish community also had this reflex amalgam: "experienced all those who stand up for Israel and the Jews: Do not be too fussy about the goods, the main thing to find allies in this difficult time! "
Where Ivan Segre innovates, is that he wants to look in detail exactly what those supports. Is this really a defense of Israel? Or more subtly a defense of Western lifestyle (or Christian) through the defense of Israel?
Since they are called "community" can we really hold these intellectuals advocated in their arguments to the values of Jewish tradition? Or they are they ultimately have no say?
Is there no substantive difference between a Raphael Draï and Shmuel Trigano ? Or between a Finkielkraut and Bernard-Henri Levy ?
This debate is important because it should be wanting to irrigate any reflection on the strong Jewish community and its leaders: the LIRA does it take into account the ideological acquaintances with a French right of certain ultra-conservative supporters of Israel ;? Is there not a long-term risk for Jews and Israel want to assimilate tradition of Judaism and Western values ? can discuss and point out a particular weakness of the book of Ivan Segre. But equate it to a new "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" ? Yet the boldness with which smoking has delivered Jewish News from the pen of Franklin Rausky . Comparison that is answered by Ivan Segre, found below in this blog, hoping that it may this time launch a real debate on this fascinating and crucial.
Response to an "intellectual" French
In the issue of Jewish News dated September 3 was released on account of a book which I am the author The reaction philo or treason of the clerks (Lines, 2009).
Here's what you could read under the title "A disturbing manifest anti-intellectual" "This disturbing argument designed to prove that nowadays, reactionary thinking, cons-revolutionary, anti- Progressive has changed its face: after having been the spearhead of the "anti-Semitic reaction", it becomes the last few years the term a "philo-reaction" involving the defense of the West, capitalism, and, last but not least of Zionism. Among the intellectuals accused of participating in this sinister enterprise ideological volte face: Raphael Draï, Shmuel Trigano, Alexandre Adler, Alain Finkielkraut, Pierre Andre Taguieff, Orianna Fallaci, Robert Misrahi! The controversial author with his opponents, analyzing a few sentences alleged representative of this "philo-reaction" and pro-Zionist. In short, here is a new and original version of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" conspiracy myth and demonology of the early twentieth century ! .
The text is signed Franklin Rausky. Mr. Rausky is academic, he can read, at least we must assume, as we must suppose that he actually read the book he speaks. Consider the question yet. The book The reaction philo or treason of the clerks is indeed a critical intellectuals mentioned here, with the exception of Raphael Draï as far to criticize, I salute his book Under the sign of Zion (Michalon, 2001). Why did I pay tribute? Raphael Draï Because, unlike hereinafter named, do not confuse the defense of Israel with the defense of the West. The treason of the clerks question in my book is indeed this: the fact that intellectuals claim to the "fight against anti-Semitism" and the "defense of Zionism" to disseminate ideas that contradict the values of Judaism. In other words, I blame them not to be placed under the sign of Zion. And so I "controversy" with them, analyzing "few sentences" I judge precisely "representative" or symptomatic. I criticize So Shmuel Trigano, who writes for example, about the book St. Paul the philosopher Alain Badiou: "It is surprising how easily Alain Badiou, however famous libertarian and leftist going to endorse any doctrine Paul, up to and including his theory about the gender status of women. Defending the veiling of women advocates that Paul, a sign of "acceptance of gender difference" (sic), he believes it has the sense "is obvious that the universality of this statement includes women who endorse they are women " ( The e (xc) read. Between Jews and Christians , Denoël, 2003, p. 112). This is not Paul who advocates "the veiling of women" is the Jewish tradition. Paul, himself, took up position in the Christian debate, especially against the apostle John, to support the idea that conversion to Christianity does not require the break with Jewish religious practice. The fact is that Shmuel Trigano him, finds that the obligation for a woman to cover her hair is just another "gender theory" , and a philosopher worthy of the name should be indignant .
Finkielkraut I criticize that in a debate with Benny Levy, has taken a stand to ban the Islamic veil and the Jewish kippa in schools, arguing that he believes it is first to distinguish "opposition to any repressive measure" which defend "secularism" yes "to various forms of actual life: the veil, the yarmulke, the cap back, body piercing, the notebook, the baggy pants and navel air" (Book and books, Verdier, 2006, p. 91). Besides that Finkielkraut evades the essential point, namely that the law is perhaps not as innocent as she looks, especially since the ban in question does not on "piercing the notebook, the baggy pants or navel air" , but on the Islamic veil and the Jewish kippa, scarf and hat (or not returned), only referred by the prohibition in terms of Republican clothing, and Alain Finkielkraut also no mention of other religious symbols in its schedule, that Jewish and Muslim, one wonders: is it relevant to compare the "kippa " the" piercing " at " portable " at " baggy pants "or " navel air "? Admittedly, this was originally an oral presentation, but is then published as a book, The Book and books precisely. The speaker then reviewed. Finkielkraut is also a writer, he weighs his words. I criticize Alexandre Adler, who writes for example in U.S. Odyssey (Grasset, 2004): "Everybody knows that the capital of the Jewish world today n is neither Jerusalem remains a city gripped by the Arab world once within its walls, or even Tel Aviv is almost an intermediate step, but New York " (p. 280). This is the Copernican revolution that we offer Alexandre Adler: "American Odyssey" is central "Jewish world" , as was yesterday, Hellenized Jews, the Athenian Odyssey.
I Taguieff critic Pierre Andre, who in his book The purpose of anti-racism (Michalon, 1995, p. 98), pays tribute to Pope Pius XI and the Vatican for their "texts battle against Nazism 1937-1939 ", and concludes: " Should we add that the Nazi monstrosity, leading the Church to take a clear stand against anti-Semitism, provoked a turning of the utmost importance, allowing the establishment of a Jewish-Christian dialogue? ". But as a" combat text " against Nazi antisemitism, Pierre Andre Taguieff can give us to read a simple "declaration of Pius XI, 6 September 1938, a group of Belgian pilgrims" , in which the Pope should "anti-Semitism is inadmissible" . Furthermore, Peter Andre Taguieff ignores or pretends to ignore that Pius XII, who succeeded Pius XI in 1939, has not said a word about the extermination of the Jews, not even "to a group of Belgian pilgrims" . Finally here Hannah Arendt said that the "combat text" Vatican during the war: "The facts themselves are indisputable. Nobody denied that the pope had all relevant information on the Nazi deportation and" resettlement "Jews. Nobody denied that the pope was careful not to raise their voices in protest when, during the German occupation of Rome, the Jews, including Jews, Catholics (that is to say those who had converted to Catholicism) were rounded up under the windows of the Vatican, and headed toward the final solution ". Is this then the way the Church has taken "clear position against anti-Semitism ", according to Pierre Andre Taguieff?
I criticize Orianna Fallaci writes in The force of reason (Editions du Rocher, 2004), " halal slaughter is barbarian , and states: "It is, I'm sorry to say, in the same felling as shechitah . That is to say, the Jewish, which takes place in an identical manner and is to slaughter animals without stunning them first, so they die slowly. Very slowly, emptying their blood. If you do not believe, goes to a or halal slaughter shechitah, and observes that this agony is endless. Which is accompanied by tearing eyes and ends only when the lamb or calf has a drop of blood. Thus, the flesh has become a "pure" very white, pure ... " (P. 51-52). We know the risks facing today in Europe the freedom to perform ritual slaughter, and even import of meat slaughtered ritually. I also criticized because she writes about how the Koran appropriates the patriarch Abraham "And it goes without saying that if I was Jewish, I do not cry. I think it is better to lose than to have found a patriarche prêt à égorger son propre enfant pour la gloire de Dieu" (p. 162). Je la critique encore parce qu'elle écrit, au sujet du négationnisme de Faurisson et Amaudruz, que leur "révisionnisme" est une manière de "revoir l'Histoire, c'est-à-dire la raconter d'une façon différente de la version officielle" (p. 27).
Enfin je ne dis mot de Robert Misrahi, si ce n'est que je cite un texte de lui paru dans Charlie Hebdo en octobre 2003, dans lequel il rend hommage à la journaliste italienne en ces termes: "On découvre ainsi qu'Orianna Fallaci est non seulement genuine free woman atheist, progressive, independent and courageous, but it is also a real writer ". I do not have the same tastes as Robert Misrahi in literature, is a crime " anti-intellectual "?
short, it will be understood, I manhandled the idols of Professor Rausky and, beyond a certain Judaism and French university. I was told that I am the author a "conspiracy myth and demonology" . With this exception, therefore, that these "few sentences" , I have not invented.
Ivan Segre
0 comments:
Post a Comment