It is clear that the transmission of the memory of the Shoah exceeds the Jewish framework and comes to wake up questions of the resurgence of anti-Semitism. Between anti-Semitism and Shoah (devour of memory), the dialogue has never been appeased.
The same event may be subject to conflicting readings and different reactions within the community. What makes the transmission of the memory of the Shoah so difficult?
Is the history of the Shoah so fragile and can it, despite the calls for the duty of remembrance, fall into oblivion.
Why do we tolerate amateurism in the transmission of the memory of the Holocaust ?
Confusions, historical errors in the order of the chronology or geography, the hazardous shortcuts are perpetuated or reborn in new forms. If they are not recorded, it is as if they were irrelevant. Which means he there is no common knowledge of Holocaust history, no more in community circles than in the general public even though we believed the methodologies, the vigor and prolixity of the history of the Shoah was finally installed, in the last forty years, on the republican scene, from where it was formerly absent, without it being inadvertently.
This emptiness was of course related to the perpetuation of a set of witnesses’ silence and
prejudices, whose genealogy can not be traced here, a long essentializing tradition
of the European Jew – a reality whose obvious subtext was the notion of a “culprit” and thus put into play the history of contempt.
Many community leaders struggle, each in their own way against anti-Semitism but the motives in contradiction not only with Zionist aspirations, but also with Jewish tradition and values. The very fact of attacking the motivations of the anti-Semites by relativizing the Shoah is a way to resign oneself, which in turn reinforces the temptation of the anti-Semite to play its role in an endless perverse cycle
Ilan, after you, nothing has changed
