Olivier Samuel Interview | Alex Gilbert #271

Olivier Samuel is a religious association administrator at the Israelite Consistory of Bas-Rhin

A word for Jean Kahn, former president of the Israelite Consistory of Bas-Rhin ?
Olivier Samuel: My grandfather was close to Jean Kahn. We are the heirs to his commitment. He was the first to bring the issue of antisemitism before the European Parliament and the Council of the Order, even chairing a dedicated commission in the 1990s. He was truly ahead of his time on these issues. Today, I believe he would have been even more engaged. He is deeply missed. It was a time when the fight against antisemitism was more clear-cut—when we faced far-right antisemites and neo-Nazis with a distinct historical context.

Today, there has been a shift… And Pierre-André Taguieff foresaw it well. He highlighted it in his various writings. But antisemitism has fundamentally changed. Far-right antisemitism, when it comes to Israel and the Jews, now makes very explicit statements. They even claim to “protect their Jewish compatriots,” which, at times, infuriates me.

One thing they keep insisting on is that the RN is not the FN. But the FN is in the DNA of the RN—that’s something I really try to make people understand. Yes, the RN sometimes raises legitimate issues, but their solutions don’t have to be so extreme. Other republican forces can address these challenges effectively within a democratic framework.

A binary divide has emerged between the far-left and the far-right, a division that has, to some extent, been reinforced by our President. And that’s a real problem. However, there are alternative voices—people who can take a firm stance on issues like Islamism and secularism without resorting to extremes. The far-right is not the only solution.

Who was your grandfather?
Olivier Samuel: My grandfather was Jean-Samuel, known as Pikolo, a survivor of Auschwitz and a close friend of Primo Levi. As a family, we worked extensively alongside him and with Jean Kahn. We come from a village near Strasbourg, Wasselonne, which is right next to Westhoffen. They prayed at the synagogue in Westhoffen. The historian Jean-Marc Dreyfus served as my grandfather’s ghostwriter, helping to document his story. He acted as a scribe, carefully listening, because my grandfather didn’t want to write himself. After Primo Levi’s death, he felt as though Levi had been writing for him—and from that moment, he no longer wanted to write at all. Though we tried to encourage him, he remained reluctant. In the end, Jean-Marc collected his testimony and turned it into a book, preserving his history.

In July 2024, in the 8th constituency of French citizens abroad, Jordan Bardella withdrew his candidate’s second-round bid in favor of Meyer Habib. The score was about 10%. Marion Maréchal did slightly better with Reconquête. Why is it said that the Jewish vote is mostly RN ? That Jordan Bardella is the natural candidate of the Jewish vote ? We agree that this is fake news from A to Z, right? Or, put more simply, isn’t it nonsense to claim that Jews vote 50% for the RN, given that there would be 250,000 to 350,000 Jews in France ?
Olivier Samuel: The number of voters involved is insignificant compared to the total electorate in France, so we must keep things in perspective. To me, the electoral stakes are trivial. However, the real issue is ideological—and it’s not truly about Jews, but about Islamism.

We have to revisit Bardella’s statements. When he speaks in Israel, his message is straightforward: “We have the same fight.” This allows him to frame his rhetoric around both antisemitism and Islamism. In reality, though, the fight against antisemitism is often used as a pretext to push a broader agenda of Islamophobia. They have made this the centerpiece of French politics, alongside immigration, which is conveniently blamed for everything.

In short, this is classic populism, and we need to approach it with nuance. It’s nothing new—it’s the same old playbook. And we must remain vigilant. Just because they claim to defend us doesn’t mean we should accept everything at face value. Not only is this troubling, but it also frustrates me deeply because, in my view, we are dealing with political fantasy rather than reality.

Are we in the realm of metaphysics and allegorical fantasy ? are we above 40% ?
Olivier Samuel: I don’t know for sure. But one thing is certain—if Le Pen’s support in France stands at 40%, as recent polls suggest, then within the French Jewish community, the percentage is likely similar. French Jews vote like other French citizens; this has been consistently proven and demonstrated. However, within certain subgroups—those who emphasize identity, circumcision, or dual-national influences, such as Israelis, French expatriates, or Greek Jews—the dynamics are different.

Exactly. But the data is clear: within the overall population, there’s no debate.
Olivier Samuel: When it comes to the vote of French citizens abroad, there is an argument to be made that it leans conservative. But it can also be deeply skewed—especially by the Israeli context, which is unsurprising. I can understand why a French Jew living in Israel, still holding French nationality, would vote in Israeli elections while also casting a ballot for French deputies. But logically, this raises questions. If you have made your aliyah, if you live and vote in Israel, then why should you also vote for representatives in France? There is something morally inconsistent about this.

That aside, the core issue is that this vote is not rooted in the everyday concerns of the broader French community but rather in the perspective of a Jewish community in Israel engaging with French politics from afar. And at this point, the only figures appearing as “saviors” are from the far-right.

This brings us to the illusion surrounding Meyer Habib. For years, he was supported by the Jewish community as a champion of its interests—a defender, a fighter. But in reality, he has strong ties to the far-right and clear political ambitions. He will likely be a future candidate, officially independent but with the backing of the National Rally (RN). It was Habib who directly orchestrated Bardella’s visit to Israel, leaving no doubt about his affiliations.

I personally witnessed a striking moment at the ceremony at Les Invalides, held in honor of the French hostages who died on October 7. The embrace I saw there made me realize we had crossed a line. It was shocking. We need to reflect on this. Just because someone claims to defend community interests does not mean they should be given a free pass for extremist political positions.

Your viral confrontation with Bardella felt like a swan song, just before Marine Le Pen’s political collapse. Her die-hard supporters may believe she’ll return stronger, but that’s impossible. In that moment, history became unavoidable. The Alsatian tone, the sarcastic humor—it all underscored the failure of this visit.
Olivier Samuel: As an elected official from a concordat region, my approach is one of harmony. I do not seek to exclude any democratically elected official or party operating within republican norms. I value dialogue and respect for democratic principles—that’s why I ask questions. I don’t dismiss opponents or insult their voters. Instead, I challenge them: “Come, explain. What have you actually done?” Beyond claiming to protect Jews, what concrete actions have you taken? What is your party’s historical record? Has there been a defining speech—like Chirac’s 1995 address on Vichy—acknowledging past responsibility? Has the National Rally truly changed, or just rebranded? The reality is clear: they have only shifted their rhetoric. Have former FN members in the RN admitted past mistakes? Issued a mea culpa? The answer remains no.

Marine Le Pen herself said on April 9, 2017, between the two rounds of the presidential election: “France is not responsible for the Vel’ d’Hiv roundup.”
Olivier Samuel: I ask the question because I know the answer. Instead of attacking them outright, put them in a position where they have to acknowledge the truth. Maybe they will split. Maybe one day they will admit: “In 2017, we said nonsense about Vichy. Yes, Vichy was part of French history.” They must be confronted with reality. They should not be given political legitimacy just because they support Jewish causes and the Israeli state. This should not prevent us from critically analyzing their positions. So let’s ask real questions. On secularism—what is their stance?

If I wanted to be provocative, I would say that if Vichy was not just about French history, but about RN’s history itself. Then, there is another revealing statement. Jordan Bardella, in November 2023, said that the RN is “the best shield for French Jews.”
Olivier Samuel: This is their political rhetoric; they repeat it all day long. They claim to be a shield. It is obvious that they are borrowing from Israeli discourse. They draw on the “Iron Dome” concept—the ultimate protective shield against Hamas rockets. This whole narrative revolves around a defensive barrier. Interestingly, in our own tradition, we have the Shield of David. This imagery resonates strongly. And we see these themes repeated. Maybe some of it is true. Let’s assume it is. But that still does not mean we should ignore the bigger questions. Does this justify all of their political stances? Can we accept a party with ultra-reactionary values? What will happen when it comes to the kippah? What about circumcision? How will they handle the issue of brit milah? Give me examples of their stance on freedom of expression. This is a populist party implementing a populist agenda that threatens the fraternal balance of Jews in France. And I am worried.

Then, there is the case of Serge Klarsfeld, which was a major shock. And the stance of Arnaud Klarsfeld. I heard Elisabeth Lévy and Arnaud Klarsfeld say last week: “The CRIF, the organized Jewish community.” That is a phrase used by antisemites.
Olivier Samuel: Absolutely. First, we must acknowledge the role of the CRIF. We are fortunate to have it. It is easy to blame an institution when it suits one’s narrative. But historically, the CRIF was never left-leaning. It is a misconception to claim otherwise. For a long time, the CRIF leaned towards the right-wing of Israeli politics. That is a fact. So the claim that it is a bastion of leftists is a joke. Moreover, the CRIF operates through a democratic system. Its president is elected. It represents affiliated associations, which in turn represent their members. This is a democratic structure. Of course, there are unaffiliated members of the Jewish community. That is fine. It allows for independent voices. Well, there you have it. Non-affiliates are non-affiliates. But they are also somehow unrepresented. And the people who are represented—the affiliates—they are represented. They are part of the CRIF. That’s the framework that needs to be acknowledged first.

The second thing is that we should appreciate the CRIF, because we’ve always been glad to have them defending us on political and security issues, tough matters, and daily battles. I personally acknowledge our CRIF president, who is in a difficult situation, navigating a historic turning point. It’s complicated to make everyone understand that we are not obligated to agree with the majority. We don’t have to agree with the loudest voices. I mean—not necessarily the majority, but the ones making the most noise. Sometimes, that’s not. And that’s what I’m saying again. Just because someone is named Klarsfeld doesn’t mean they hold the absolute truth. Just because someone is named Meyer Habib doesn’t mean they have the absolute truth. Just because someone supports Jews doesn’t mean they can say anything they want and challenge everything.

So, in a way, the CRIF has a rather crucial role, in my opinion, as a guarantor of Jewish life in France, along with the Consistories, which focus more on cultural matters. But the CRIF—they have work to do. And I believe it’s pointless to recklessly attack them because it’s dangerous for us. We’re lucky to have this institution. And proof of that is the fact that if people want to destroy or dismantle it, it’s because it bothers.

However, I do think the CRIF should take a clearer stance—being respectful of people who vote for the RN while still raising questions and concerns about this party’s issues. We need discourse that is more factual, that presents concrete arguments. What exactly is the problem? Where is the problem? There’s a lot to discuss.

Yes, of course. There’s also another topic—the recurring controversy around the 1968 agreements, which keeps coming up in the rhetoric of the RN and the far right. It’s some kind of dangerous narrative. And what’s terrible is that, underlying all of this, something that’s rarely said out loud, is that these agreements obviously concern the Jews of Algeria. It’s madness. The idea of rehabilitating Pétain and wanting to repeal the Crémieux Decree, as suggested in the RN’s program, is absolutely shocking.
Olivier Samuel: This is exactly why we need to question the RN. What do they have to say about the Crémieux Decree and the issues it raises? It touches on broader topics like citizenship, the French Jewish identity, and citizenship rights. It also raises questions about secularism. And here, we find ourselves back in the classic patterns of populism—patterns we see in every country. And classism. Let’s call it populism because I refuse to grant them the privilege of simply calling them the far right. They play with that distinction, so let’s play along.

Explain to me what French populism is, from the Third Republic to today. This is it. It hasn’t changed. And the proof? When they are invited to Israel, it’s not by left-wing or far-left parties. They aren’t even invited by Likud, even though Likud is part of a coalition. They are invited by an Israeli far-right party. That’s the context. In the end, we are witnessing a global alliance of populists, just as there is an alliance of far-left groups. And the proof? In the European Parliament, the Israelis made a request—Chikli’s party submitted a request to be an observer in the same party group as Bardella’s. That’s quite significant. It says everything.

Is it Ben Gvir’s and Smotrich’s party?
Olivier Samuel: I think so, but I’m not sure—I don’t want to say something inaccurate. But I do know that an Israeli party has requested observer status in the same group as the RN. That’s why I struggle to believe this idea that 40% of Jews supposedly vote for Bardella, Marine Le Pen, or Éric Zemmour. Especially in Paris. But yes, because you’ve just connected two points—and that connection no longer exists. The issue of the worst antisemites, the Islamist cause, and tying the two together—this whole dynamic—the RN has worked to separate these two things, which were previously linked. And that’s the real problem.

The proof? We don’t even know how to classify them anymore. When we say “far right,” people argue, “Well, is it really the far right anymore?” That’s why I use the term “populist.” I think we need to accept a certain reality. Let’s assume that the RN and the FN have, at least outwardly, changed their rhetoric and evolved their stance on antisemitism and Israel. But we must understand that this is purely in service of their broader racist agenda. That’s all. These are people who say, “We need to get rid of everyone who is different from us. Everything that poses a problem is immigration. Every issue we face—immigration. There’s a crime—immigration. There’s an economic problem—immigration.” This is textbook populism.

Does this dynamic also apply to Strasbourg?
Olivier Samuel: In Strasbourg, we’re fortunate to have a unique situation regarding the FN. We still have the old-school FN members, the historic FN base. And it just so happens that they are also historical regionalists. It’s a very particular case. In Strasbourg, we have the real FN—the deeply rooted FN/RN. But in the south of France, the RN representatives are often former LR members. These are people who, in the past, would have been in the RPR. There’s a clear overlap. The proof? The entire Ciotti phenomenon originated in the south. Politics in the south of France operates very differently than in the east. It’s not the same political landscape.

Are you referring to the regionalists?
Olivier Samuel: Yes, what was called in the 1980s “les loups noirs” (black wolves), nostalgics of the Reich?

A new documentary by historian Romain Blandre, a specialist on the Natzweiler-Struthof camp, was just released. He found documents proving that the “Black Wolves,” who claimed they were defending the memory of their families imprisoned and tortured at Struthof as “Malgré-nous” after the war, were never actually prisoners there.
Olivier Samuel: I’m less familiar with that specific issue. But regionalism isn’t just about the Black Wolves. There’s also a regionalist movement that wants Alsace to be independent, preserve the Alsatian language, and so on. But that group formed the FN’s core base in the 1980s. These are the people who voted massively for Jean-Marie Le Pen in the 1995 elections—or was it 1992? I can’t recall exactly. They are the old guard. They are still in the FN—or rather, the RN.

Do you sense traces of the old FN, back when Robert Faurisson was denying the existence of gas chambers at Struthof?
Olivier Samuel: On the surface, not at all. Everything has been smoothed over and made to look clean. But it’s still in the DNA. The FN is in the RN’s DNA. That can’t be denied. Yes, today, the RN makes strong, clear statements about protecting the Jewish community and supporting Israel. But that doesn’t erase the past. The FN is the RN’s DNA. That’s a fact. We can’t be naïve about it.

Was Macron’s visit to Struthof something you expected and found important?
Olivier Samuel: I would have expected him to attend the march against antisemitism. Today, we are paying the price for his absence. The impact is incomparable. His absence at that march will have consequences for a long time. And the divide with the RN continues to widen.