THE CRIF AND COMMUNAL TRANSFORMATIONS

Gérard ISRAEL and Adam LOSS

Gérard ISRAEL is president of the Political Commission of the CRIF (Conseil Représentatif des Institutions juives de France — the umbrella body representing French Jewish institutions), and Adam LOSS, former director of the FSJU (Fonds Social Juif Unifié — the United Jewish Social Fund) and of the Fondation du Judaïsme (Foundation for Judaism), is a member of it.

In the years to come, the CRIF will have to situate itself in relation to a community whose contours are less and less precise and whose contradictions are more and more apparent. Any reflection on the evolutions of the collectivity of French Jews must take account of this new set of circumstances, a generator of confusion, indeed of conflict.

The first observation that imposes itself is that many Jewish persons — in fact the majority — do not wish to be subsumed under any definition whatsoever of a collective being supposed to represent them. It would be tempting, in a report such as this, to set aside methodologically those Jews who are not interested in Jewish associative life and who do not recognize themselves in the Jewish community.

The CRIF’s first duty, however, is precisely to define and to build a bridge capable of establishing lines of communication between Jews who are members of Jewish organizations and those who do not wish to be. The case of the intellectuals, individualists by nature (like that of the Jews remote from institutional life), must not furnish an alibi for the CRIF’s inaction in this domain.

In this perspective it would be important to renew the analysis of the relations that institutional Jews maintain with 1) public opinion in general, 2) the public authorities in particular, and finally to seek out 3) what the new cohesion might be that could gather Jews in their diversity.

I. Public Opinion.

In the aftermath of the war, Jews were dramatically perceived as the victims of a horrible massacre and enjoyed the sympathy — in the strong sense — of a French people that had discovered to what horror antisemitism could lead. The result was also that the distinction between foreign Jews come from the East and native-born israélites completely disappeared from the minds of the French in general. The consequence of this was the relative fading of the old prewar antisemitic themes about the foreign Jew, rootless, come from elsewhere. The birth of the State of Israel constituted, in the eyes of many, an answer of history to history.

It could be feared at one moment that a reproach of dual allegiance might be made against French Jews. But the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War, in their turn, set aside this fear, for, mutatis mutandis, the entire French people thrilled for Israel in those periods of danger.

The massive arrival of the Jews of North Africa and their very strong sense of religious belonging somewhat altered the course of things, giving of the Jewish collectivity the image of a very cohesive social group possessing institutions, a foreign culture, and its own means of expression through a written and spoken press.

But, since the 1980s, the appearance of a hyper-religious tendency has utterly transformed the image that the Jew gives of himself and risks calling into question his place in the community and in the City. One may think that French society today permits the existence of particularisms. That is the property of a society of freedom. But it remains that more or less radical expressions of identity may appear contrary to the very definition of a French people, rich in all its components, in the service of a France “one and indivisible.”

Generally speaking, the France of today must face a problem tied to the presence on its soil of a great number of foreigners (which Jews are not). The difficulty comes from the fact that these foreigners cannot, for moral and social reasons, remain on the margins of society. It would indeed be inconceivable that French society, with its traditions and its characteristics, could transform itself into a multiform entity granting specific groups a kind of permanent right to heterogeneity. To be sure, every society includes minority groups claiming to be such, even if, as is the case in France, these groups have no real status. But their existence is always regarded as provisional.

Faced with this situation, any ostentatious affirmation of identity risks creating a barrier between certain Jews and the other members of society. The grand media shows organized by the Chief Rabbinate also give the impression that Judaism in France lets itself be tempted by a certain isolation and seeks its bearings outside any reference to its socio-cultural environment.

Thus it appears that two fault lines threaten Jewish existence in France: the first lies among the Jews themselves and risks depriving of their Jewish identity all those who would not entirely observe religious practices. One cannot forget — if only to regret it — that two Jews out of three, perhaps, enter into mixed marriages. These latter are not all conduct of flight with respect to Judaism.

The second fault line lies within French society considered as a whole. Whatever one may say, despite the importance of the problems tied to immigration, to the evolution of mores and to a certain laxity, society remains on the whole conservative and, despite the evolutions observed notably in the wake of European integration, is still founded on a Jacobin and unitary conception of the State. In this regard the danger is great, above all for the Jews, that the country might become tomorrow a France of communities — that is, a France within which individuals would have no other choice than to exist through the medium of religious collectivities speaking in their name. It behooves us not to neglect the importance of individualism, intimately tied to citizenship. It is this citizenship that confers all their political rights on individuals, ensures the “living together” of the French, and runs counter to any form of “communitarianism” calling into question the democratic character of society.

II. The Public Authorities.

The secularism (laïcité) of the State, which implies at once its neutrality with respect to religious expression and its refusal to privilege any religion whatsoever, does not in principle prevent the establishment of relations between the religious authorities and public authority. Thus it is useful that the whole of the Jewish organizations, notably the CRIF, be able to maintain relations of consultation with the representatives of the other religions. But it is equally evident that the whole of religious expressions cannot constitute a kind of exception to the principle of laïcité. On the contrary, laïcité appears as the best guarantor of religious freedom. The interest of Jews, members of a very minority religion, consists in supporting the existence of a secular State. In fact, the Jew must be at the forefront of the struggle for the State, any weakening of state power being in this regard fraught with dangers.

It is certain that both the institutions of the Republic and the collective mentality of the French assimilate Jewish belonging to a formally religious belonging. Such was the theory until 1945. In fact, after the Shoah and since the birth of the State of Israel, it is readily admitted that Jews may situate themselves collectively in relation to an event such as the Shoah, which marked their own history, and also in relation to Israel, which concretely represents a number of their aspirations, including that of a national rebirth.

Thus, progressively, the highest authorities of the State consult the Jewish community, in particular the CRIF — a pluralist expression — on this or that point concerning communal life, the possible rise of antisemitism, and policy toward Israel.

The CRIF, in consequence, has been able to find a kind of legitimacy that seems to suit perfectly each of the two partners: public authorities and Jewish community. But it behooves us to pose the question of whether this representativeness of the CRIF is desirable and whether it conforms to the well-understood interest of the Jews of France. That, at least, is the question posed by all those who wish to retain their belonging but remain perplexed at the appearance of a specific Jewish body, politically recognized and socially present.

Faced with this questioning, the public authorities, who do not always understand the complexity of Jewish existence, may well find themselves at a loss. A will on the part of the rabbinic hierarchy to substitute itself, in the political debate, for a plural expression of the Jewish community would lead, all the more so, to a change of orientation on the part of public authorities conscious of the danger that a multi-communitarian society would represent.

III. What can the CRIF do?

Everyone, no doubt, knows and appreciates the CRIF. It remains that many pitfalls lie on its road. In particular, the error would consist in asserting itself as a kind of parliament made up of elected — hence legitimate — representatives, capable of defining and defending the general interest of the community. A conception situated a little above the preceding one would consist in regarding the CRIF as a trade union, as a grouping of interests, as a pressure group liable to manifest itself each time society enters a period of crisis, but representing only its member adherents, in competition with other “lobbies.”

The diversity of the political commitments of the associations belonging to the CRIF cannot permit such interventionism — except, as we wrote, in the case of a grave crisis bringing about the adhesion of the entire community.

In fact, the CRIF has no choice. It can appear only as what it truly is — that is, an association of associations representing the opinion of Jewish persons who are conscious and organized within associations as diverse and active as possible.

Is it possible to define a set of orientations constituting the resultant of the various options proper to the Jewish organizations belonging to the CRIF?

The experience of the last fifty years makes it possible to give a positive answer to this question, notably as regards the defense of democracy, the memory of the Shoah, the struggle against antisemitism and support for the State of Israel — while insisting on the protection of human rights, the defense of minorities and European construction. Moreover, in a society that is undergoing upheavals and that is, in fact, in full mutation, notably in relation to the traditional values that were long its raison d’être, the CRIF can and must appear as a moral authority situated well beyond the temptations of politicization and avoiding the pitfall of hyperbolic representativeness. Moreover, the CRIF can represent a certain autonomy of the community in relation to the religious structure — that is, in relation to an exclusively religious definition of Jewish existence.

The CRIF must therefore observe a certain modesty with respect to the political and try to limit the temptation of a politico-religious demonstrativeness that manifests itself marginally among the most radical of the Jews of France, who willfully ignore the existence of a surrounding society.

It is not in the interest of the CRIF to appear as a separate body endowed with a will and a doctrine capable of modifying the republican order and the secular foundation of French society, and the foreign policy of France.

Were such an illusion to be created within the most popular fringe of the community, a grave obstacle would be raised against a humanistic definition of Jewish identity.

Report adopted by the CEP, Monday 13 September 1994 (by kind permission of the CRIF)

Michelangelo: Adam and Eve Driven from Paradise

Contents, Nos. 1 to 3

PLURIELLES published in its previous issues:

No. 1

Editorial…….When the mingled waters turn out to be all Jewish Roland Doukhan

Reflection…Albert Memmi. Humanism.

Politics: Tribune……..Maurice Politi. The Israeli elections. The eye and the tooth. Rolland Doukhan, Izio Rosenman, Violette Attal-Lefi Kurt Niedermeier. A lexicon of Israeli political life.

Society…….Izio Rosenman. The Jews and Europe.

Narrative……….Anne Rabinovitch. Return to Lithuania.

Humor……Daniel Farhi… The Beth-Din.

Chronicle…Violette Attal-Lefi. Secular Jews. A movement on the march.

Literature: Short story……Rolland Doukhan. The Credit Unit.

Poetry……….Two poems from beyond the grave. Zishe Weinper and Moshe Kulbak.

Books……….Mr. Mani, by A. B. Yehoshua. Evelyne Dorra Botbol

Performances: Theater………The Knight of Olmedo, by Lope de Vega. Estelle Dorra Cinema……….Jewish identity and French cinema. Violette Attal-Lefi News…….Briefs. Daniel Botbol

No. 2

Editorial: Our duty to intervene

Inquiries: Me Théo KLEIN: What future for the Jews of France?

History: Alexandre ADLER: Immigration and the integration of Jews in France

Topical: For a map of racism in France: a project, an interview

Dossier: The fiftieth anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising - Annette WIEVIORKA: The Warsaw Ghetto, the Uprising. - Excerpts from texts on the Warsaw Ghetto. - POEMS by: Peretz MARKICH, Hirsch GLIK, Paul CELAN, Nelly SACHS, David SFARD - Chajka GROSMAN: Fifty years after.

Politics: After a year of the Rabin government: Interview with Gavri BARGIL

Culture: Hubert HANNOUN: Maimonides, son and father of History Rolland Doukhan: Radio broadcast: At the crossroads of three anniversaries

Contents, Nos. 1 to 3

Remembrance:

Albert MEMMI: Tribute to Maurice POLITI, a departed friend

Notes:

Martine TIMSIT: G. WEILER: Israel, the Law and the Political. Evelyne DORRA-BOTBOL: On the meanderings of identity.

Letters to the editor.

No. 3

Editorial: Izio ROSENMAN: A horizon of peace

Topical: Théo KLEIN: French Judaism, decline or rebirth

Dossier: The new Judeo-Arab dialogue

Itzhak RABIN: A humanistic address. Hirsh GOODMAN: 1973–1993: from war to peace. André AZOULAY: The virtues of dialogue. Dr. Ciella VELLUET: A visit to the PLO in Tunis: questions of health. Violette ATTAL-LEFI: Tunisia in the mirror of its Jewish community. Lucette VALENSI: Tunisia: public spaces, communal spaces. Albert GABRIELEFF: An unusual and promising encounter.

Human rights:

Gérard ISRAËL: Immigration and solidarity.

Culture:

Annie GOLDMANN: The fascination of the non-Jewish woman in the work of Albert Cohen. Anny DAYAN-ROSENMAN: On “Me Ivan, You Abraham.” Alain PENSO: When television deals with History. Briefs.

Subscription

PLURIELLES

Subscription Form

Surname, first name: …………………………

Profession: …………………………….

Address: …………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………

Telephone: ………………………………

I subscribe to: - A simple annual subscription (4 issues): 120 Francs

Form to be returned completed and accompanied by your payment to:

AJHL, 253, avenue Daumesnil — 75012 PARIS

Membership

Association pour un Judaïsme Humaniste et Laïque (A.J.H.L.)

Membership Form

Surname, first name: ………………………..

Profession: ……………………………

Address: …………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………..

Telephone: ……………………………..

Subjects of interest: ……………

Dues (including the subscription to the newsletter): 250 F

Supporting dues: 300 F and above.

Student dues: 100 F

Newsletter-only subscription: 150 F

Please let us know the names of people in your circle who might be interested in the AJHL. We will send them a few copies of our monthly Newsletter free of charge.

Surname, first name: ………………………..

Profession: ……………………………

Address: …………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………..

Telephone: ……………………………..

Form to be returned completed and, where applicable, accompanied by your payment to:

AJHL, 253, avenue Daumesnil — 75012 PARIS — tel. 40 19 99 70

← Previous article · Back to issue 4