An undercover reporter joined France’s anti-Israel movement. Here’s what she found
If antisemitism has long plagued France, dating back to the Middle Ages, it’s now metastasizing in new, alarming ways, according to a recently published book by French journalist Nora Bussigny.Trump’s Fateful Choice in Iran
Titled “Les Nouveaux Antisémites” (“The New Antisemites”), it exposes virulent Jew-hatred endemic to many far-left organizations in France, infiltrated by Bussigny as part of a lengthy undercover investigation. Using a false identity, Bussigny uncovered pervasive antisemitism and anti-Zionism, now a common denominator among diverse groups that often disagree on other matters.
“I saw with my own eyes to what degree Islamists, far-left so-called ‘progressive’ militants and feminist, LGBT and ecological activists are closely linked in their shared hatred of Jews and Israel,” Bussigny told The Times of Israel during a recent interview on Zoom.
“It’s ironic because historically, the extreme left was fragmented. Many radical groups never got along despite dreaming of a convergence of their struggles. Before October 7, [2023,] I was convinced they could only unify around a common hatred of the police and what it symbolizes for them. But I’ve now seen how their hate for Jews, or rather Zionists, to use their term, is more effective in bringing them together in common cause.”
The Hamas-led invasion on October 7, 2023, saw some 1,200 people in southern Israel slaughtered by thousands of marauding terrorists, and 251 abducted as hostages to the Gaza Strip. The massacre touched off the two-year war against Hamas in Gaza and an unprecedented spike in global antisemitism.
“Les Nouveaux Antisémites” — whose subtitle translates in English as “An Investigation by an Infiltrator within the Ranks of the Far Left” — opens with a dedication to Régine Skorka-Jacubert, a Holocaust survivor and member of the French Resistance. Nora Bussigny at the podium of the French Senate as she receives the 2025 Prix Edgar Faure for best political book of the year. (Courtesy Nora Bussigny)
“While writing the book, I was invited to the Mémorial de la Shoah in Paris,” said Bussigny, 30, speaking in French. “As part of its education program, they have a terminal which scans your face and attributes to you someone deported to a Nazi concentration camp. You’re then asked to commit yourself to help preserve the person’s memory and keep their story alive. I told myself I’d dedicate my book to Régine.”
In the book’s introduction, Busssigny explains her incognito endeavor, for which she risked her personal safety.
“During an entire year, I participated, with full discretion, in demonstrations, meetings, online discussions,” she writes. “I investigated university campuses. I applauded next to hysterical crowds glorifying terrorism. I took part in feminist protests and dialogued in municipal facilities with members of an organization [Samidoun] outlawed in many countries for its close, proven links to terrorism. I chanted against ‘genocide’ and for ‘Palestinian resistance’ — obviously armed ‘resistance’ — during demonstrations supposedly defending the rights of women and LGBT people, with no mention of homosexuals being tortured or murdered in the name of Sharia law in the Gaza Strip, governed by Hamas.”
To be sure, there are valid strategic reasons for his reluctance. Most U.S. interventions to exact justice on foreign tyrants have ended poorly. No American silver bullet will cleanly depose Tehran’s Islamist leaders and peacefully transition the country to a stable, representative democracy. Since World War II, fewer than a quarter of authoritarian collapses have led to democracy, and those triggered by foreign intervention have been particularly unlikely to do so. Violent revolutions are coercive contests; they are won by those who can organize force, not mobilize hashtags.The Silence of the Left on Iran
That said, U.S. military action can still constructively shape events, even if it can’t control their ultimate outcome. Foreign intervention will not spawn an Iranian Denmark, in other words, but it could prevent the entrenchment of an Iranian North Korea.
In this context, Trump should be clear about his objectives, focusing on three fronts. He should seek to deter the violence against civilians by signaling that the cost of this slaughter will outweigh the benefits of suppression. He should insist on tearing down the digital iron curtain that has allowed the regime to massacre people in the dark (for the past week, connectivity in Iran has hovered at 1 percent). And he should make a goal of fracturing Iran’s security forces by degrading the regime’s command and control, thereby creating doubt within their ranks and emboldening the population.
On the last point, I consulted with three friends in the U.S. military and intelligence communities who have a century of collective experience dealing with Iran. Johnny Gannon, a Persian-speaking veteran of the CIA, advised that any U.S. action should serve to “demoralize, damage, and denigrate” the adversary. He paraphrased Machiavelli’s advice to the Prince about the risk of half measures: “One should either caress a man or crush him. If you injure him, you should do so in such a way that you need not fear his revenge.” If you aim for the supreme leader, you best not miss.
A retired senior U.S. military official who has studied Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for decades recommended striking the country’s missile capabilities and also aiming for command centers, such that the regime would be unable to coordinate internally and protesters could reemerge without fear. According to another former intelligence official, Trump’s action must convince the IRGC that it has just three options: change voluntarily, be changed by protesters, or be changed by Donald Trump.
The Islamic Republic may have prevailed in this latest battle, but it is destined to lose the war against its own society. The medium-term bet on who will prevail between an 86-year-old dictator and his young society is clear. Khamenei will soon be vanquished by time, and 47 years of the Islamic Republic’s hard power will eventually be defeated by the soft power of a 2,500-year-old nation that wants to reclaim its proud history.
Trump appears relaxed about the fate of Iran. Yet the machinery of war is already in motion: The USS Abraham Lincoln, an aircraft carrier, is reportedly en route to the Middle East. Given their violent history with Trump, Iran’s leaders know they cannot rest easily.
For the exiles I spoke with, the most disturbing—and telling—thing about the tepid response was the contrast with the impassioned reaction to Gaza. “Why is it that when Palestinians—armed or unarmed—fight for liberation, it is seen as a moral duty to support them, but when Iranians protest, they are labeled ‘armed terrorists’ or ‘agents of Mossad?’” Shams, the feminist scholar, said.
Janet Afary, a religious-studies professor at UC Santa Barbara, helped put this dissonance in context. She described for me a long history that would explain the left’s knee-jerk sympathy for the Islamic Republic, starting with the leftist elements that helped lead the 1979 revolution (alongside the clerics who ended up seizing full control). For those who want to see the end of Israel, the regime’s identity as a defender of Palestinian rights—and a funder of extremist anti-Israel groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah—has given it cachet.
Afary recalled confronting a colleague who was dismissive of the 2022 protests, which were largely driven by feminists; this person wondered why Iranian women can’t just wear hijab like other women in the Middle East. “Are you saying this because you don’t want the government of the Islamic Republic to be overthrown because it supports the Palestinian cause?” Afary asked her. She said yes. “To my face!” Afary said.
The ideological left doesn’t know what to do with violence that doesn’t involve a Western aggressor, according to Kamran Matin, another exile and an international-relations professor at the University of Sussex in England. Matin noted other groups that received only muted support from anti-imperialists, including the Yazidis, persecuted by ISIS, and Rohingya, victims of the Myanmar government—in which case the aggressors were not Western hegemons. If you jump to the barricades against these atrocities, “then the whole edifice of postcolonial anti-imperialism basically collapses. Because for them, it feels like they dilute their case against the West by accepting non-Western cases.”






















