Meet France’s Holocaust-Apologist, Anti-Muslim Presidential Candidate

Since Eric Zemmour—a far-right journalist, television commentator, and provocateur—declared his candidacy in France’s upcoming presidential election, his poll numbers have been high enough to suggest that French citizens are taking him seriously. Zemmour’s signature issue is hostility to immigration in general, and Muslim immigration in particular. His hostility extends to the children of immigrants, although he is himself the son of Algerian-born Jews. Zemmour is also hostile to much else, as David Berlinski explains:

Multiculturalism, women’s rights, homosexuality, American historians, the young, the fat, no-fault divorce, 1968, dowdy women, the Rolling Stones, hairy transsexuals, . . . affirmative action, the feminization of French society? He was opposed to them all, professional French women especially. . . . He is in favor of female modesty, good manners, decorum, the elegance and refinement of life, the arts, fine dining, and the sense of virility that affords a man the pleasant sense that, Thank God, he was not born a woman.

On Islam, Zemmour is unyielding. There is an irremediable clash between French and Islamic civilizations. Should they find themselves in the same room, one of them must get out.

While, Berlinski writes, Zemmour’s political incorrectness can offer a certain kind of transgressive thrill, his dangerousness becomes clear in his treatment Vichy France, and the French role in deporting some 75,000 Jews to their deaths. Zemmour clings stubbornly to long-discredited myths about the war years, such as the claim that French officials protected those Jews who were French citizens.

The Jews whom the French sent to their death, Zemmour believes, were sent to their death because they were not French enough. Citizenship is no longer at issue. A sinister new moral calculus has come into play. In his desire to champion being French beyond the possibility of denial or defection, Zemmour has come close to excusing mass murder.

Anxieties that have affected so many others have affected Eric Zemmour. He is what he seems, an outsider forever burrowing into the center of things but forever consumed by the anxiety that he is not burrowing far enough. It is hardly a surprise that he feels obliged to suggest that 100 years after his innocence was decisively established, Alfred Dreyfus may well have been guilty. . . . Both French and German Jews were consumed almost to the point of madness by the wish to demonstrate that they were French or German enough. It did them no good.

And what exactly, does Zemmour propose to do about France’s Muslim population, about which he is so concerned? He’s never been very specific.

Like the coarser figures in the Vichy regime—the odious Louis Darquier de Pellepoix, for example—he wishes chiefly to get on with it and never mind how. The idea that France has been invaded or otherwise infected or that the French are in danger of replacement by Muslims—these are ideas that drag the soul downward. The word expulsion comes too readily to Zemmour’s lips. It would have been far better had he managed to keep down what should never have come up.

Read more at Cosmopolitan Globalist

More about: Anti-Semitism, European Islam, France, Immigration, Vichy France

To Save Gaza, the U.S. Needs a Strategy to Restrain Iran

Since the outbreak of war on October 7, America has given Israel much support, and also much advice. Seth Cropsey argues that some of that advice hasn’t been especially good:

American demands for “restraint” and a “lighter footprint” provide significant elements of Hamas’s command structure, including Yahya Sinwar, the architect of 10/7, a far greater chance of surviving and preserving the organization’s capabilities. Its threat will persist to some extent in any case, since it has significant assets in Lebanon and is poised to enter into a full-fledged partnership with Hizballah that would give it access to Lebanon’s Palestinian refugee camps for recruitment and to Iranian-supported ratlines into Jordan and Syria.

Turning to the aftermath of the war, Cropsey observes that it will take a different kind of involvement for the U.S. to get the outcomes it desires, namely an alternative to Israeli and to Hamas rule in Gaza that comes with buy-in from its Arab allies:

The only way that Gaza can be governed in a sustainable and stable manner is through the participation of Arab states, and in particular the Gulf Arabs, and the only power that can deliver their participation is the United States. A grand bargain is impossible unless the U.S. exerts enough leverage to induce one.

Militarily speaking, the U.S. has shown no desire seriously to curb Iranian power. It has persistently signaled a desire to avoid escalation. . . . The Gulf Arabs understand this. They have no desire to engage in serious strategic dialogue with Washington and Jerusalem over Iran strategy, since Washington does not have an Iran strategy.

Gaza’s fate is a small part of a much broader strategic struggle. Unless this is recognized, any diplomatic master plan will degenerate into a diplomatic parlor game.

Read more at National Review

More about: Gaza War 2023, Iran, U.S. Foreign policy