Levy barred from Libya for being Jewish, should Sarkozy have refused to go?

Great Debates
1

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/author-barred-from-libya-for-being-jewish-8546522.html

If this story is true, it is quite extraordinary.

Bernard Henri Levy was one of the vocal supporters of NATO support for the rebels in Libya so one would expect that the current Libyan government would have been thrilled with him accompanying the former French PM Nicholas Sarkozy to Libya, but instead they said that Sarkozy could come, but Levy could not because Levy is Jewish. Ostensibly this was done so as not to infuriate Islamists and cause attacks. FWIW, I think Sarkozy alone visiting Libya would be enough to infuriate the Islamists but I’ll take them at their word.

For those not aware, all Jews were forcibly expelled from Libya decades ago and like virtually all Middle Eastern countries Libya has been violently anti-Semitic for many generations ever since the growth of Zionism(not of course to say that anti-Semitism wan’t an issue prior to Zionism).

Anyway, Sarkozy apparently wanted to cancel the whole visit but Levy argued against this saying they needed to show support for the new Libyan government and Sarkozy in the end decided to agree with Levy and not cancel the visit.

The question I have is, assuming this story is true(and I’d be quite happy if it turns out to be false) did Sarkozy make the right decision or should he have said “no thanks, if Jews aren’t allowed into Libya neither am I”?

I personally agree with Levy and think that it was better to give such a concession to the Libyan rebels. I’m not an apologist for anti-Semitism, but one has to recognize that anti-Semitism is extremely strong in the Middle East and if you’re going to have relations and dealings in the Middle East it does mean having dealings with people who quite literally believe that Jews are the descendants of apes and pigs, just as many members of the Solidarity Movement in Poland had attitudes towards Jews that most of us would find quite offensive.

It should be noted that when the US and allied forces restored the Kuwaiti government we didn’t require them to rescind laws on the books that prohibited Jews from owning property in Kuwait(whether such laws are still on the books or not I don’t know) and have had dealings with plenty of other countries which are officially anti-Semitic or at least might as well be. I.E. Egypt’s government TV stations under Mubarak put out a 50 hour miniseries treating the Protocols of Zion as a historical document.

I also think that in the long run, canceling the trip would be counterproductive.

That said, I can also understand many people feeling that one has to draw the line in the sand somewhere and this is a place to draw the line and I can certainly understand why some Jewish posters(and non-Jewish posters as well) might feel that I’m being insensitive and feel that what I and Levy are proposing is a disgusting form of appeasement or an example of the soft bigotry of low expectations.

What do others think?

2

He should have refused to go. In fact, he shouldn’t go there at all. Ideally, he shouldn’t go anywhere, it would definitely helps me maintain a low blood pressure. Last time I heard about his post-presidential foreign trips, he was congratulating his great friend Putin.

Sarkozy never had, and won’t ever have any sense of the fundamental values of the French Republic. He doesn’t even try to pretend to. In this particular case, I’m not going to forget anytime soon his policies toward Arab dictators in general and Khadaffi in particular.

He has a gorgeous wife, a very young kid, and some court appointments. That should keep him busy enough to not look like he’s representing my country by travelling to foreign places.

3

If true than frankly everyone should avoid Libiya. However, the story in the link is third hand. So I have my doubts, especially since I doubt your average man in Libiya knows who Bernard Henri Levy is.

4

I tried to look up more on your story but it looks like the reports there of it are part of an echo chamber originating from the French news story. It might very well be bogus.

Regardless, we should not tie diplomatic relationships/visits to the average level of antisemitism or anti-anything in a nation. Instead, we should as much as possible, engage with those who share our ideology in a nation. Libya is a great example of the idea espoused by Levy in the article (if the story is true). After the Benghazi attacks, it would be easy to see Libya as a nation of terrorist thugs that is not worth our time. Yet afterwards a huge number of Libyans showed their support of the US and the militants were driven out of Benghazi and several other strongholds. In every nation where you can point to virulent antisemitism you can also find people who are tolerant and calm and “Westernized” in their beliefs. They should be strengthened without making them dictators.

Besides, why worry about antisemitism in Arab nations? How many Jews are actually left in these countries? If we are going to get on an Arab country’s case about their bigoted behavior perhaps we should focus on their treatment of women, homosexuals, and other 2nd class citizens that actually live in those countries.

5

I have no info on the veracity of the story, but I have no doubt whatsoever that an anti-semite anywhere would know that Levy is a Jewish name. In a country where not many Jews live, an uneducated illiterate lower class individual may not be able to list common Jewish names but the “leaders” of the community, anyone with influence to raise outrage from the uneducated illiterate lower class masses, would certainly know that Levy is a Jewish name.

6

Sarkozy should not have refused to go on account of Jews not being allowed in. No need to be more upset than the primary person involved, so as long as Bernard Henri Levy says no problem, then no problem.

7

Wonder what the reaction would be if a Mideast country blackballed a member of Obama’s staff from a presidential visit for the same reason.

8

Frankly, any country would react badly. If one government bars another’s representative that is taken as slight against the latter country. For example, if you barring (i.e. persona non grata) an official USA governmental representative you are barring the USA.

I don’t think Bernard Levy is acting in any official capacity for France (Sarkozy might not be either), so this would not be an official French issue.

9

The reaction would not be good.

For that matter, quite a few Jewish Americans have served in official capacities in a number of Muslim Middle Eastern countries without any issues.

10

Yep, the major insult here is to Sarkozy and Levy. Although given Levy’s reputation in France, it’s still an affront to all Frenchmen.

11

In this you are wrong. In the arab region there is not much mastery of the various names that particularly the european versus the middle eastern jews have carried. It is not obvious to them. in my experience this usually works to even the quite educated persons confusing certain of the christian european names with the jewish names and vice versa. This is more true even for libya which has lived very closed off and for whose educational system became a great catastrophe under Qadafi.

But of course Levy himself, he is very famous and very known to be one of the leading jewish figures of France, so there are no doubts.

and the libyans they were foolish and very stupid here. It is the price of having Qadafi which left them in ignorance.

12

It’s even more ironic when you remember that Levy is a native North African.

13

But I find no informations in French on this supposed barring of BHL from Libye which he has visited before. All the claims of the barring, they come from partisan anglophone jewish sources of the extreme zionist angles and right wing anglophones who wish to sow hatreds and exploit the jews for own purposes. It is once again a story of lies for propaganda of those persons who wish to make the muslim and arab worlds appear worse than they even are, it appears, as from BHL own website you can read from him that is a lie:

It is to be added that the article of rue89 does not claim that BHL was barred from Libye but that someone in the mayoral house of the city of Tripoli has said they would refuse to meet BHL. This in a certain progandistic press was transformed. addedL it is at the end of his note BHL does ask “is it not possible that some person in the mayoral house did say such a thing?”

It is very unfortunate that lies like this are circulated and that they are made the object of the speculations and the controversy, when in fact BHL has just been to the city of Tripoli. If I had not suspected the anglosaxon press, this information would be taken as something verified.

14

The most of the irony is it turns out this is a great lie, the entire story, as we know now from BHL himself, made it seems by persons who desire to promote tensions and hatreds.

15

I think you’re premature in dismissing the story as a “great lie” promulgated by those nasty “partisan anglophone jewish sources of the extreme zionist angles” and the “anglosaxon press”. Levy, it appears, is not happy about the story as it appeared on the French news website (calling the reporting vague and carelessly sourced), but certainly is not terming it a lie.

*"Could it be that the report in the French online newspaper contained a grain of truth?

Could there be, within the Tripoli city government, officials irresponsible enough to have said the visit of a “Jew” might, in today’s climate, cause tensions, unrest, or even the revival of this or that militia?

The idea overwhelms you, fills you with sadness—and anger.

And telling yourself that this is the way things go in the war between the two Islams, a war about which you have so often spoken and in which you appear, regrettably, and like so many others, to have become part of the stakes—far from bringing consolation, such ruminations just compound your sadness."*

16

It is in fact a lie, a great lie. It is first a great lie since the story as being made in the anglophone press has no basis in truth at all. He has said at the very start, which I quoted in the French and made an English translation, there was no truth in the story.

It also seems that you do not understand the French and the writing of BHL in his philosophical style, for he is not giving credit to the rue89 story about his own self, and who knows better, but expressing the regret about the instrumentalisation of this.

I have already given you the English of the part of his comment. There was not a trip of his programmed to be cancelled, he has just newly renewed the visa for the Libya and he is received by the Prime Ministre.

The “grain of truth” he evokes is about the instrumentalisation of the clash of civilisaitons discourses by parties of both sides, and that makes him sad that perhaps someone in the city government of Tripoli has said something like that quoted by the rue89 article, which was in all its fundamental aspects without any truth.

This is a great lie. It is the pure demarche of propaganda.

is it news there are anti-jewish feelings among the arabe populations and that someone, a low person who is not even identified could say “I will not meet the Jewish BHL”? No, this is not news. What was pretending to be the news was the official action supposed of the Libyan gouvernment. But this is a pure fiction, in fact he has the visa states clearly, and he is maintaining good relations with the high officials.

17

Why do you need to ruin it for everybody?

We know you hate Jews but why do you hate America?

18

“A Horse With No Name” is a pretty dumb song. :slight_smile:

19

I have noticed now that you have linked to a translation appearing in the american press, but you strangely skip the first paragraphs that state already the article is a lie (a crock is how it is translated), the very ones I gave you from the very website of BHL himself.

Perhaps it is the problem that the philosophical style and french style of BHL is not direct enough for English so that things that should be obvious are not.

Because the text is presenting all of the facts that the article is a lie or as the translation of the american website says “a crock.”

BHL is not a fool of course, his action and his reflections are about the discourses of both the sides and what has happened between the currents in Libya regret the instrumentalisation of these discourses.

20

How can you tell? That’s got to be the most overwritten article I’ve ever read. Maybe it works better in French?