On the Jewish press
L’Arche, mensuel du judaïsme français (14, rue Berger, 75017 Paris) has adopted a new format, rejuvenated and pleasing, whose quality is beyond dispute. The team, now led by Meïr Waintrater, can congratulate itself on having opened L’Arche to a questioning of the destiny of Judaism and of the Jews in France. Which can only encourage one to read this new Arche.
For those of our readers who do not yet know it, the newspaper Regards (52, rue Hôtel des Monnaies, B 1060 Brussels): we draw attention to this fortnightly published by our friends at the Centre Communautaire Laïc Juif of Brussels (CCLJ), whose founder David Süsskind has just been elected President of the CCOJB, the Belgian equivalent of the CRIF. Regards and the CCLJ have, for many years, been at the forefront of numerous struggles for the Jews and for freedom:
- They campaigned for the right of the Jews of the USSR to emigrate.
- They uncovered and denounced the construction of the Carmelite convent at Auschwitz.
- They were behind many initiatives to advance the Israeli-Palestinian dialogue on the basis of mutual recognition — the dialogue to which we devote our feature.
- And they have always been committed to Jewish secularism.
Jewish intellectuals against extremism?
Under this title, the February 1994 issue of L’Arche publishes the full account of the study days organized by the Gesher group — in Hebrew, “bridge” — founded by a group of Jewish intellectuals who lay claim to the religious tradition: Shmuel Trigano, Raphaël Draï, Georges Hansel, Josy Eisenberg, Gilles Bernheim, Armand Abécassis, and Gérard Haddad, all “concerned for the unity of the Community and the present risks of schism,” spoke there. A most interesting debate, for that matter, which could have been more so had a true dialogue been struck up with Jews of differing persuasions, but which nonetheless bears witness to a certain openness. A few slip-ups aside — as the following excerpt from Armand Abécassis’s intervention testifies, whose intolerance, in such a setting, is rather astonishing:
“The same goes for the pride and insolence of the secular Jew. Does he know exactly what he is criticizing? Can he even read Hebrew? Does he have, like any intellectual, the concern to spend sleepless nights over a text or some rite, before pronouncing upon them?”
We might suggest to Armand Abécassis that he look for a definition of secularism other than that of “pride and insolence”; failing to “spend a few sleepless nights,” he might inform himself about these secular Jews before pronouncing upon them with so much hatred, contempt, and, above all, ignorance.
He who claims to draw inspiration from the Jewish tradition ought to remember the name and the tolerant attitude of a certain Hillel, instead of adopting that of a Torquemada or a Savonarola — both very far from Jewish!
The Editorial Board