click here to jump to start of article
Join Our Newsletter

Get latest articles and videos with Jewish inspiration and insights​

France and England's Jewish Problem

France and England's Jewish Problem

When a British journalist blows the whistle on European anti-Semitism, some try to minimize the damage.


A week before Christmas, the Israeli ambassador to Berlin wrote a letter to Der Spiegel, Germany's leading news magazine, protesting an editorial they had published comparing the policies of the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, to those pursued by Adolf Hitler.

The comparison, wrote the ambassador, was "an insult to all Holocaust survivors and to the entire Jewish people."

In the ensuing days, the editorial was widely condemned in Germany. Though neo-Nazi elements do still exist in German society, the postwar majority has taken large and largely successful strides to purge itself of the legacy of anti-Semitism.

That the same cannot be said of France, however, was inadvertently given away by the writer of Der Spiegel's editorial, Rudolf Augstein, who is one of Germany's best-known journalists. Rather than properly apologize for his obscene comparison, Augstein made a telling remark in reply to the ambassador's letter: "In France one can say that, but apparently not in Germany."

In France one can be anti-Semitic, but apparently not in Germany.

Augstein may have had in mind comments of the kind recently made by Marc Gentilli, the president of the French Red Cross, who described as "disgusting" a request by the American Red Cross that Israel be admitted to the International Red Cross, and that the Star of David be accepted alongside its existing emblems the Cross and the Crescent.

Gentilli, head of one of France's leading humanitarian organizations, left little doubt of the disdain he holds for the Star of David, but less he be thought hostile to all "foreigners", he did call at the same time on the Palestine Red Crescent Society to immediately apply for membership to the international body, even though Palestine is not yet a state.

But if anyone still had doubts that Augstein was correct in his reading of French attitudes, they would have been dispelled the very next day by a column by Barbara Amiel in the London Daily Telegraph.

Amiel revealed that at a reception at her house, the ambassador of "a major EU country" told guests that the current troubles were all because of "that sh***y little country Israel."

"Why," he asked, "should the world be in danger of World War Three because of those people?"

Within 24 hours, the Guardian newspaper identified the ambassador in question as Daniel Bernard, France's man in London and one of President Chirac's closest confidants. (While Bernard has not admitted using these exact words, he hasn't clearly denied doing so either.)


Several conservative columnists in the United States have condemned the ambassador for his "crude anti-Semitic remarks."

What has not been properly noted in the US media is that in the British and French media, it is not the French ambassador or anti-Semites who are being condemned, as one would expect, but Barbara Amiel and "those people." As for Israel, it seems to be open season.

A piece in the Independent, for example, by one of the paper's regular columnists (titled "I'm fed up being called an anti-Semite," by Deborah Orr, 21 December 2001) described Israel as "sh***y" and "little" no fewer than four times.

"Anti-Semitism is disliking all Jews, anywhere, and anti-Zionism is just disliking the existence of Israel and opposing those who support it," explains Orr. "This may be an academic rather than a practical distinction," she continues, "and one which has no connection with holding the honest view that in my experience Israel is sh***y and little."

Every salon tells a story -- that's why the lady is a hack.

In the Guardian, another British daily that claims to represent enlightened views, columnist Matt Wells ("Every salon tells a story - that's why the lady is a hack," December 20, 2001), denounced Amiel as "an arch-Zionist" but had nothing but sympathy for poor Mr. Bernard who, he claimed " was struggling against a tide of anger from Israel." (In fact the Israeli government hasn't made a single official comment in relation to the whole affair).

Indeed, rather than impinging on the distinguished diplomatic career of M. Bernard, who previously served as France's ambassador to The Netherlands and at the United Nations, it is Amiel who apparently made the "diplomatic gaffe," according to the British and French commentators. (Le Monde ran a front-page attack on Amiel, and rubbished the Daily Telegraph as "reactionary," "paranoid" and "preachy").


If the French are now almost as open about their anti-Semitism as the Egyptians (the best-selling song in Cairo in 2001 was titled "I hate Israel"), England seems to be a country where the real crime is to condemn someone for their anti-Semitism rather than being one.

Writing in the (London) Observer, columnist Richard Ingrams (in a piece titled "Black's hole," December 23, 2001 - Black is a reference to Amiel's married name), says the "gaffe" wasn't made by the ambassador, but by Amiel for "betraying the confidences of the dinner table" and writing such an "intemperate article."

Ingrams predicted that it would not be Bernard who would no longer be welcome in polite London society, but the Blacks, who he guessed would have to "shortly decamp" to Manhattan.

As if one column of this stripe in a single edition of a newspaper wasn't enough, another of the Observer's columnists, Euan Ferguson, ("Gossip: 'tis the reason to be jolly", December 23, 2001), that same day writes "Ms Amiel is apparently as welcome now in the chic salons of north London as a fatwa in a sauna."

Ferguson has no criticism to make of Bernard or the French government that has given him its full backing, but he does say as part of his commentary on 'l'affaire Bernard' that Israel has "the stubborn belief that the lifelong wish of our current pin-up boy, little baby Jesus, was to have his birthday celebrated by the shooting of innocent children in the street."

The level of denial in Britain extends so deep that many seem to not even realize what anti-Semitism is.

The level of denial of British racism extends so deep that many in England seem to not even realize what anti-Semitism is.

Columnist Joan Smith ("Dinner at Amiel's leaves a bad taste," 23 December 2001) writes that Amiel's "assumption that Bernard's remark was anti-Semitic, is pretty dubious. ...If there is a lesson to be learned from this episode, it is not the French ambassador's politics that have been called into question on this occasion, but his taste in friends."

Richard Woods in the London Sunday Times (23 December 2001, "When silence speaks volumes") says the ambassador's remark was only "apparently anti-Semitic."

There have been one or two admirable exceptions to this pattern, notably Andrew Sullivan (a British commentator who has been based in the US for over two decades) and the Anglo-Jewish writer Melanie Phillips, but they are very much in the minority. Phillips has been left to make her strongest remarks on the subject outside the UK ("British Polite Society Has Found a Not-So-New Target," December 24, 2001, The Wall Street Journal Europe).


For every Sullivan and Phillips there seem to be many among the "chattering classes" in London that actually find attacks on Jews rather amusing. Here, for example, is columnist Alexei Sayle in the Independent, writing shortly after the latest batch of Israeli teenagers had been blown to pieces by suicide bombers: "If a vivisectionist has their car burnt or a right-wing Israeli is shot or Ben Elton's musical closes early because of poor ticket sales, I can't say I can find it within myself to care very much." (Ben Elton is a British playwright and stand-up comedian).

A few days earlier, gasoline bombs were hurled into a Jewish school in Paris.

Since Bernard's remarks were reported, there have been over a dozen fresh anti-Semitic incidents in France. Only last weekend attackers firebombed a synagogue in the northern Paris suburb of Goussainvil. A few days before that, gasoline bombs were hurled into a Jewish school in the southeastern Paris suburb of Creteil, setting a classroom on fire. On the same day another synagogue was torched.

Fortunately, no one was injured in these particular incidents. But it can only be a matter of time before someone is. Have the French and English learned nothing from the 20th century?

January 12, 2002

Give Tzedakah! Help create inspiring
articles, videos and blogs featuring timeless Jewish wisdom.
The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 17

(17) jobardu, June 2, 2014 10:23 AM

This article is from 2002

I read the article date as being January 12,2002. Twelve years is an entire generation. While it seems that matters have, unfortunately, gotten worse, I think that it would have helped to alert readers as to the historical nature of the article and why it is still relevant.

(16) Ilene Richman, June 1, 2014 4:27 PM


During WWII, the Arab countries fought on the side of the Nazis. but Jewish Americans and Jewish people in the land of Israel fought on the side of the allies. I hope the Muslims take over the British Isles and France. That would be the best punishment. Then we will see the side of these two traitorous countries-and it won't be the Jewish people. The British and French people had better not turn their backs-their will be a knife in their backs by the Muslims in their countries. A Muslim has already cut off the head of a British soldier. Britain and France will get what they deserve. France surrendered the Jewish people to be slaughtered by the Nazis-let us never forget. The British are a bunch of hypocrites but in the end they will face the truth of being overrun by the Muslims in their country. Too bad Queenie.

(15) Anonymous, October 27, 2002 12:00 AM

The only way to stop anti-Semitism is to expose it.

Exposing anti-Semitism and the people and countries they represent on a regular basis as a despicable and cowardly act can and will eventually have a positive effect. Such a thing must no longer continue to exist in the 21st century. Anti-Semitism doesn't end with the Jews. It eventually strikes at everyone. The perpetrators must be exposed and condemned for what they are; cowards and ignorant dogs of war. The world will never be civilized until such cowardly acts are condemned in the most vehement manner.

(14) emma gorb, April 16, 2002 12:00 AM

i like everything

I cannot sleep because of all that
I see reality and it is very bad
everything comes back.
I feel that HOLOCOST doesnt mean nothing to those people they would doit againe with no problem

(13) Anonymous, February 2, 2002 12:00 AM

Not surprised

While I welcome Germany trying to bury its past anti-Jewish feelings, I have always questioned France's acceptance of the Jews. As for the Guardian, a paper that looks right to see Karl Marx, I'm not surprised at all.

See All Comments

Submit Your Comment:

  • Display my name?

  • Your email address is kept private. Our editor needs it in case we have a question about your comment.

  • * required field 2000
Submit Comment