You will have understood by reading these different blogs all the admiration, respect and friendship that I have for Elie Barnavi, this man who is so courageous, so intelligent and so committed.
I might not conclude without mentioning a certain number of reflections that Elie Barnavi makes in his memoirs, “Confessions of a good for nothing” (Grasset), regarding a certain number of people, countries or situations not falling within the scope of the topics discussed above.
“I was very fond of Rocard, who immediately became a friend and would remain so until the end of his life. I admired his intelligence and quick-wittedness. He would have made, I believe, a real statesman, moreover he had to prove it during his time at Matignon. But what a poor politician! (p.242)
“It is from this campaign that my antipathy towards communication advisers dates. There is indeed an aristocracy of the profession, a handful of communicators who feel their time, know how to identify the qualities of their clients and are able to magnify them. Séguéla, precisely, is one of those, like his American colleague James Carville, Clinton’s adviser. When the time comes, Jean will bring one back, Clinton will send Barak the other, and they’ll both do a great job. But the others, all those balloon dealers whose arrogance matches their incompetence, whom I had seen at work in Peres’ disastrous campaign, what a waste of time and money! Even if it was only a question of time and money, but, by dint of instilling in their foals hollow slogans and ridiculous gesticulations, these people are killing politics. (p.279)
“We don’t understand Belgium if we don’t see that the quarrel between the communities has nothing to do with ethnicity, but with language and culture. Jean Dupont can be a perfect “flamingant”, Van Damme a pure Walloon. What separates them is a sense of belonging to a language community. However, what language masks is the bitter memory of social antagonism. From the beginning, French was the language of the elites, Dutch, or what took its place, that of the Flemish peasants. French was the language of social advancement; it gave access to high culture, as well as to the civil service. The bourgeoisie of Ghent, Antwerp and Bruges spoke French. Most Flemish writers, Maeterlinck, Rodenbach, Eekhoud, Verhaeren, Gevers, Lilar, Mallet-Joris, wrote in French. To speak Dutch was to declare in spite of oneself, then, more and more deliberately, to belong to a disadvantaged and despised class. (p.288)
“There I found the Susskinds, David and Simone, a marvelous couple whose role within Belgian and European Judaism deserves a book on its own. David had founded following the war what was to become the CCLJ (Jewish secular community centre), an institution unique in Europe, and as soon as I arrived he involved me as closely as he might in his activities. He was an extraordinary character, one of those Jews who are both totally Jewish and totally universalist, whose species is becoming rare. The influence he exercised over all those he approached was as powerful as it was impossible to analyze. He wasn’t handsome, didn’t speak any of the many languages he spoke correctly, but his eloquence and charisma were no less obvious, undeniable. Of course, he had been a communist in his youth, but with his independence of mind, his chances of remaining one were nil. This is how David is the only activist I know who managed to get himself expelled from of them communist parties, the Stalinist and then the Maoist. He told me how, while awaiting his appearance for heresy before the court of the first inquisition in the company of a young pregnant woman, the latter whispered to him, with tears in her eyes: “My child will be born outside the Party. . A wonderful profession of faith from a believer who unknowingly rediscovered this old dogma of the Church: Outside the Church there is no salvation… He then got involved in Jewish causes, but always from a humanist perspective: the CCLJ, the emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union, the Auschwitz Carmel affair, especially Israeli-Palestinian peace. It was in the house of David and Simone that the first clandestine contacts took place between Israelis from the peace camp and Palestinians from the PLO. » (p.319-320)
“We found Brussels with pleasure. Kirsten and I had become attached to this abused city which we guessed had once been beautiful, anarchic and friendly, a city on a human scale which does not take itself for the navel of the world, whose symbol is not some coin of grandiose architecture but a little man who pees. Paris is intimidating, Brussels is friendly. I don’t know an expatriate who doesn’t appreciate the kindness, hospitality and sense of humor of the people of Brussels. (p.427)
“On July 13, 2008, this honest man killed himself at the wheel of his car on a Polish road. On the 19th, Benoît Remiche, Kzrysztof Pomian and I published in The world a tribute to the departed great friend: “A high figure of Europe is no more. Bronislaw Geremek represented in short this second half of the XXe European century, which, all things considered, ended better than it began. Few men can claim to have contributed so powerfully to it…” (p.443)
“Let me be well understood, I fully understand that we are not “European”, that to the European adventure we prefer national self-segregation, warm and cozy within its borders. If I consider sovereignism as a siding, I don’t think it is morally reprehensible. What I can’t stand is the lie and the trial of intent. If I judge Boris Johnson immoral, it is not because he is a sovereigntist; it is because he is a liar. » (p.448-449)
A big thank you to Elie Barnavi for sharing so many thoughts in his memoirs. I hope that these different blogs will inspire the reader to read the entire “Confessions of a good-for-nothing”. Regards to you and your wife Kirsten.