Mister Ambassador,
Rabbi Michel Serfaty,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Dear Friends,
First of all, I would like to tell you how happy I am to be among you to
conclude this initial conference, intended to strengthen relationships
between the Jews and Moslems of France.
I wish to thank all those who are responsible for this meeting, Mr.
Boubakeur, Director of the Mosque of Paris as well as Rabbi Michel
Serfaty.
For a lay person, such as I am, you may well ask how did I myself feel,
when Rabbi Serfaty asked me to preside, together with Ambassador
Stétié, over this meeting of the new Association of Judeo-Moslem
Friendship, concerning my legitimacy in accepting his proposal and in
being among you today.
If I accepted, it is, first of all, because I think that everything that is done
to bring together men and women of good will, must be encouraged,
particularly in these times, when spirits are troubled and when the most
serious forms of violence erupt incessantly everywhere in the world.
But it is also because, if the representatives of the religions have a role to
play, as much in the fight against anti-Semitism and racism, as in the
fight against the numerous acts of discrimination and violence of which
Moslems are the victims, it remains vital that these problems must not be
considered as interdenominational problems, or worse as problems
between the “denominationalists”, but, rather, that they be treated at the
political and national level. The French, whether they be Moslems, Jews,
or Christians, are, first and foremost, French citizens who are not
defined, or certainly not solely or principally defined, as a function of
their particular and private religious persuasion. None the less, I feel
that individual identities, as they become crystallized as a function of
education, of social milieu, of relationships with mothers, with fathers,
with countries of origin and their history, when it is a matter of recently
immigrated generations, can not be ignored.
It is now time, because in France, for far too long a time, speeches
promoting racial hatred and exclusion nave become common place, antiSemitic acts and attacks have multiplied and become every day
occurrences, and, as a result, it is incumbent upon us to analyze their
1
causes in order to be able to prevent them. On the other had, I, like many
others, deplore the fact that young Moslems, whether religious or not,
most often French, sometimes for several generations, are victims of
discrimination and even of Islamophobic acts of real gravity.
Finally, it is because I am always more mindful of the lessons learnt from
reality and from facts, than those drawn from ideological discourses.
But, what does reality teach us?
Even though we desire that the separation between “Church and State”,
according to the expression consecrated by French law, continue to be
and remain respected by all, we know how much everyday reality is
different.
The recent debate, in France, on the secular nature of society, the debate
over the European Constitution, the wars of ethnic, tribal, economic or
territorial interests, which have turned into “crusades”, the
fundamentalisms and religious fanaticisms, which support the fist of
terrorists or develop into reactions of intolerance, constitute sufficient
examples to cause political authorities to become involved just as much
as religious figures.
A priori, I would have the tendency to think that our reality is otherwise.
It is, moreover, complicated and even contradictory when politics and
religion sometimes become mixed. I observe, at the same time, that the
initiatives taken by strong and eminent religious personalities have
permitted the weaving of solid bonds, which are of such a nature as to
calm passions, bring an end to tensions and bring one another together.
Simple brotherhood contributes to it just as much as theology.
Thus, the Chief Rabbi has shown us with great powers of persuasion and
with his subtle intelligence that which the religious are able to provide us.
As a member of the Constitutional Council, it has not been possible for
me to express myself on the question of religious symbols in the school.
Never the less, that which I can say today is that this debate has clearly
and legitimately demonstrated the preeminence, within our republican
and democratic society, of the common and fundamental values of social
harmony and the equality of man and woman, but wherein, without
doubt, it has not always been well understood that a “habit”, in this case,
the “head scarf”, might also, for these young girls, be the sign of a desire
to rebel against or to break away from a set of values which, to them,
seems to have been imposed upon them. It is up to civil society, each one
among us, the teachers, and the principals to show them the richness of
these values. However, on condition that neither do we fall into an
2
equally militant secularism of exclusion, which may hide, as we have
recently seen, the vile stench of an extreme-right xenophobia racist, antiSemitic, revisionist, or, just as well, some other “alter-worldism”, in
reality equally racist and anti-Semitic, under the guise of anti-Zionism.
To return to the heart of the debate, each one must thus play his role and
fulfill his mission; that of persons of religious faith is clearly
essential…..essential in so far as the faith in mankind, in life, and in the
brotherhood of men takes precedence over all other convictions.
You seen then why, Mister Representatives of the Moslem and Jewish
faiths, Ladies and Gentlemen, I think that this fraternal meeting is most
welcome and I thank you for having invited me here.
My past as Minister for the city and then as President of the High Council
for Integration and the interest that I have always had in these sorts of
questions, has, without doubt, also amounted to something, like the
particular attention which I paid to the situation of Algerian women,
when I had previously been the Magistrate for the administration of
penitentiaries and, since then, through the amicable relationships which
I have maintained with many among them. I would like to take
advantage of this occasion to say to Kahalidja Klali, how much pleasure I
had in seeing her again, today.
But, above all, it is my past as a former deportee, although I was then no
more than an adolescent, which leads me to be so revolted by all those
things that stigmatize, exclude, persecute, and even murder, simply
because of or, more likely, due to some pretext connected with the
circumstances of one’s birth.
Therefore, permit me to add another few complementary reflections,
which arise within me as a result of this conference and the role of your
association, in regard to the questions, which bring us together, today.
I think, first of all, that it is essential to combat the ignorance and the
fantasies which ensue, no matter whence they come: they form the
breeding ground for violence and barbarity.
So, all that which leads to a greater understanding of the other and places
the accent on that which the great religions of “the book” and of
monotheism have in common ought to be encouraged. In principle, the
school is that place of understanding and of learning to live together. But
that, in itself, is not sufficient and it is also the mission of organizations,
such as the Jewish, Christian or Moslem scouting movements, to
3
strengthen this dialog between the younger generations, precisely at that
moment when they are developing their sense of responsibility, just at
the time, moreover, when they are being subjected to the very strong
pressures of their environment.
But, in addition, it is imperative that the diabolizing of the Jews cease
and that one we longer fear Islam.
The studies, today, which have analyzed the causes of this violence, are
numerous, but, still, the proposals for solutions are rare…. It is always
easier to light the fire than to extinguish the conflagration.
That which I know, for my part, is that first of all it takes courage and
especially intellectual courage to respond to this violence. And this
intellectual courage begins by the examination of ones own heritage, by
the affirmation of the right of every person to freedom, to call to account
one’s own tradition and to expurgate from it that which contributes to
the negation of others, the contempt for others.
To dare to confront, within our fundamental texts, those passages which
reflect and inspire this denial of and scorn for other peoples, in order to
favor those which, on the contrary, lead to brotherhood; this
modernization, to which the majority of Frenchmen, what ever their
religion may be, aspire, is, I am convinced, the only path to follow. That
is exactly the approach taken, shortly after the end of the Second World
War, by eminent Jewish and Catholic personages, thus anticipating
Vatican II and the position taken by the Catholic Church, which, by
renouncing the accusation, which, until then, had been formulated
against the Jews, of being a deicidal people, opened the way to a true
dialog and deprived anti-Semitism of its religious foundation. In this
regard, I can do nothing but profoundly deplore the fact that the film by
Mel Gibson on the Passion of Christ has enjoyed such success, at least in
the United States, and has won the support of the Catholic Church. It
advances, anew, that thesis which originated during those centuries when
anti-Semitism was the most virulent.
I am happy that the political debate in France has, finally, understood the
importance of accompanying it with programs, which concretely put
these ideas into practice.
But nothing substantive will be built if one doesn’t begin by rejecting the
negations, the compromises, the omissions and the lies or even rumors,
devices which one would think belonged to the past, yet, of which one
4
still sees, even today, the harmful effects and the consequences; I tell you,
clearly, it always ends by turning against those who spread them.
How can we forget and not protect ourselves against the processes and
mechanisms, which, if not controlled, lead to genocides…….
I know that those who accompanied Father Shoufani to Auschwitz
understood that the Shoah could not be compared to anything similar
and that this paroxysm of anti-Semitism surpasses, alas, all forms of
human barbarity yet known.
To say that is not to deny the suffering of others. To recognize that is not
to renounce ones own history. It is simply a matter of confronting the
truth.
But in so far as we are concerned, we must also resist the temptation to
see in Islam nothing but a place of communal sequestration, a producer
of radicalization, of violence and of hate. Just the contrary, as the
sociologist Michel Wiewiorka has told us, “in just such cases, certain of
these places of worship appear as places of socialization, they thereby
bring to their youth the comfort and the moral force, which prevents
them from drifting towards delinquency, or towards radical Islamism.
They offer, therefore, to those who frequent them, the resources, notably
religious ones, which help them continue to exist in a difficult society, to
be able to face up to racism, to discrimination, to unemployment, to
precarious circumstances, to poverty, and to remain within the modern
stream”.
It is by strengthening those avenues which are most open, and I know
that you represent them here, that we will succeed in stemming the tide
of hate.
And that is why, Ladies and Gentlemen, I think that people of faith can
contribute greatly to this dialog.
However, and I wish to restate it, in concluding, regarding the tensions
with which we live today, but which it is advisable neither to exaggerate
nor to stir up further, the role of the State should never be forgotten.
Before being Jews, Christians, Moslems or Sikhs, we are, I repeat, above
all, French citizens and Europeans.
One of the factors in the integration of the Jews, into French society, has
been our capacity to cause to emerge from within ourselves a thought
process and a philosophy, nourished at the sources of religious tradition,
5
certainly, but which were turned towards the problems of a secular
society and modernity. This humanist way of Jewish thinking and the
applications to which it has lead, are, today, the object, I tell you, of
common thought among Moslem, Jewish and Christian intellectuals.
Assuredly, it behooves us to encourage them.
Permit me, in conclusion, to quote Levinas, who wrote in his “Difficult
Liberty” that “Judaism is not defined by opposition to Christianity any
more than it can be defined as anti-Buddhist or anti-Islam; rather, it
consists of a desire to achieve mutual understanding with all persons who
cleave to morality. It desires this détente, firstly, with the Christians and
the Moslems, our companions in civilization. However, the basis of this
civilization is Reason, which the Greek philosophers revealed to the
world.”
I hope that your association continues along the path, which it has drawn
for itself. But, without doubt, this dialog will also have to be pursued,
soon, with not only Christians, but also with nonbelievers or secularists
who, in the name of Reason, have sometimes moved too far away from
men of faith instead of reflecting together, each in his own way, on how
to regain the value of respecting other people, of good sense and of
generosity.
Finally, I am happy that the Fondation pour la Memoire de la Shoah,
over which I have the honor to preside, has been able to contribute to
bringing together these “companions in Civilization”.
6