Jon Henley

But, when it responds to provocative comments by Israeli prime ministers and when it beats its collective breast so fiercely about anti-semitism (as President Chirac did this month in a magnificent speech on the racist attacks “soiling” the country, and as the whole nation did a few days later after what turned out to be an imaginary attack on a young woman by six Arab youths), France is missing the target.

That is not to say that France does not have a problem with anti-semitism; it does. There are three main kinds of anti-semitism here. There is the old, ingrained, Catholic kind, those unspoken and unchallenged assumptions that put Captain Dreyfus on Devil’s Island and that still produce, in polite conversations at middle-class dining tables, the kind of remarks you would never hear in London or New York.

A new kind is also perceived by the Jewish community, that of the intellectual left, the Rive Gauche penseurs, whose anti-Israeli polemics are interpreted, by extension and by association, as in essence anti-semitic.

And thirdly, there is the nastiest, the most violent and the most visible kind: the anti-semitism of disaffected youths, mainly of north African origin. This is partly unthinking, knee-jerk violence, a half-baked spin-off of the intifada – the number of attacks on Jews in France follows almost exactly the same curve as the bloodshed in the Middle East. Mixed up in the motivation, too, is all the resentment, frustration and envy of an underprivileged group prompted by the perceived advantages of another.

The common consensus is that this last kind of anti-semitism is responsible for almost all of the recent anti-semitic physical and verbal assaults registered against Jews in France: 510 in the first six months of 2004, up from 593 in the whole of 2003.

But this consensus view cannot be backed up with statistical evidence, because in France there are no statistics to show exactly how many attacks on Jews are carried out by angry and disadvantaged Muslim youths. In fact, there are no statistics to show how many Jews there are, or how many Muslims. And that, in itself, is an indication of where the real problem lies.

For it seems to me that the real racial and religious problem in France, the real time-bomb quietly ticking away at the heart of 21st century French society, is not anti-semitism, but France’s absolute failure, over the past 50-odd years, to properly integrate its Muslim community (estimated, and only estimated, at 5-6 million strong).

France has created a genuine racial underclass, disadvantaged and discriminated against daily in terms of housing, education and employment, living in those decaying, crime-ridden, immigrant-filled, out-of-town sink estates in which France has sadly come to specialise. And until France understands this, it will not able to address what lies behind its intensifying climate of anti-semitism.

The problem of failed Muslim integration in France is made 100 times worse by the nation’s profound inability to recognise it. The very principles of the Republic – the watchwords of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity that have supposedly governed this country for more than 200 years – prevent it from doing so.

For the most sacred article in all France’s grand republican and secular creed is the principle that everyone is equal and indistinguishable in the eyes of the state: no matter where they come from, all French citizens are identical in their Frenchness. In the much-vaunted “Republican model of integration”, all immigrants go through the Gallic mill, shedding their ethnic and religious differences and emerging as shining new French citizens. In theory.

In practice, this explains why France cannot say, and does not know, how many citizens it has who are of north African origin, or who are Muslim, or who are Jewish. For the purposes of the Republic, it simply does not matter.

It explains too why France does not know how many children of its north African immigrants leave school without useful qualifications, or fail to get a job. (Only unofficial reports are available, for example, to show that unemployment among 20 to 29-year-olds of north African origin is currently up around 40%, against 10% for youths of French origin.)

It also explains why France cannot make any attempt to introduce programmes of positive discrimination; make extra resources – in education, for example – available for specific ethnic groups; encourage companies to hire north African staff; make sure there are Arab presenters on TV and Arab politicians in the national assembly; undertake what is really needed: a massive, society-wide effort to raise the status of an entire community.

To do so would be to reject part of the very bedrock of France, to admit that the Republic has, quite simply, failed 6 million of its citizens. For those 6 million, there may be a fair whack of fraternity, but it is true to say that there is precious little liberty and far, far less equality.

Few French people, of course, and even fewer French politicians, are prepared to acknowledge this horrifying hypothesis. (Typically, one of the very few who has is the hyper-realistic young presidential hopeful Nicolas Sarkozy.) Unless and until they do, France’s recent upsurge in anti-semitic violence looks like just the tip of a potentially disastrous iceberg.

It is, in secular France, a heretical notion indeed, that the grand founding ideals of the nation are now obstructing its progress, blinding it to its biggest problems, preventing it from addressing its most critical issues. But that is, I believe, the case. Anti-semitism is, to use a common French phrase, the tree that hides the forest.

The Unites States and Europe should try to move beyond “a partnership based on common threats” and focus instead on “common opportunities, beyond the transatlantic community,” she said at the Institut d’Etudes Politiques, the elite politics college better known as Sciences-Po.

Rice’s choice of France for the formal unveiling of Washington’s effort to mend badly damaged fences was deliberate: Paris was by far the most outspoken opponent of George W. Bush’s handling of the Iraq war, and popular anti-American feeling here still runs high.

Tuesday, in a 45-minute speech aimed at convincing Europeans of a more conciliatory mood in Washington, Rice said the two continents should put their experience and resources on the table and “discuss and decide together” the best way forward. But she was uncompromising in demanding European backing for Bush’s pledge, in his State of the Union speech last week, to spread freedom around the world. “America stands ready to work with Europe on our common agenda, and Europe must stand ready to work with America,” she said. “After all, history will surely judge us not by our old disagreements, but by our new achievements.”

Washington’s charm offensive has been broadly welcomed by European diplomats, particularly since the Iraq elections on Jan. 30. At a joint press conference with Rice later Tuesday night, French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier spoke of “a new phase, a clean sheet” in European-U.S. ties, adding that both partners must aim “to speak and listen more to each other, and respect each other’s convictions.”

Several French commentators have said they see clear signals that the Bush administration, for long happy to ignore the views of all who did not agree with it, is now determined to place improved transatlantic relations at the heart of the president’s second term.

Rice, telling reporters it was time to “reinvigorate” the French-U.S. relationship, noted that France had been America’s first ever ally and that “when we do work together, there is a great deal we can achieve.”

On Iraq, Rice said Islam and democracy were not mutually exclusive, and that while the political process would be difficult, she was confident that the Shiite majority that is expected to emerge understood “their responsibility not to do to their fellow Iraqis what was done to them by those who had them live in tyranny and fear.”

She added: “I think they will come to a conclusion that will surprise us all in how well they do it.” Rice had brief talks with President Jacques Chirac Tuesday night, and dined with Barnier at the Foreign Ministry headquarters on the Quai d’Orsay.

In a further sign of apparently thawing relations, Bush is due to meet Chirac in Brussels on Feb. 21.

Security arrangements at Sciences-Po, on Paris’ Left Bank, were unprecedented, said the institute’s director, Richard Descoings. An entire wing of the building had been sealed off since Saturday. The venue of the speech was announced publicly only on Monday. Only 100 places were available for students and teachers at the college, with the remainder reserved by the U.S. Embassy.

Those who heard Rice speak, however, were largely skeptical. “There’s still a lot of anti-American feeling in France,” Anne-Laure, a student, said afterward. “I’m not sure any one person can overcome the instinctive reaction here to Bush.”

Rice insisted that the United States had “everything to gain” from a stronger, more united Europe as a “partner in building a safer and better world.” Transatlantic ties, she noted, were unbreakable. “We respect each other,” she said.