Anti-Semite and Jew Sartre

8/13/2019 Anti-Semite and Jew Sartre

1/134


2/134

This Page Intentionally No Longer Blank


3/134

!"#$%#&'(#)*)"


4/134

+,-'"./0$11&)'#2&"1*/0$!&/3"

+,-'"./0$1

1&)

'#

2&"1*/0$

!&/3"


5/134

P R E F C E

Sometime in the second half of 1944, as the war inEurope drew to close, Jean-Paul Sartre noticed that indiscussions about postwar France, the imminent returnof French Jews deported by the Nazis was never men-tioned. Some of the speakers, he guessed, were notpleased by the prospect; others, friends of the Jews,thought it best to he silent. Neither they nor Sartreknew how many of the deported Jews would neverreturn.) Thinking about these discussions, Sartredecided to write critique of anti-Semitism. Both theoccasion and the subject of the critique were French.Having lived through the occupation, writing year orso before the great celebration of the resistance began,Sartre addressed the complicity of the French in theNazi project. He did so, however, at level of abstrac-tion that only few of the French found disturbing. Thecritique, as it turned out, was more disturbing to the

v


6/134

Jews, with whom Sartre meant to declare his solidarity.Sartre provides no account of the writing of Anti

Semite and Jew The book must been composed atbreakneck speed, for it was ready to be excerpted in oneof the first issues of Temps Modernes founded in 1945.Though Sartre reports on a number of conversations withfriends and acquaintances, he says that he did noresearch. He had read, of course, the most influentialanti-Semitic writers-Charles Maurras and Maurice Har-res; and he had encountered anti-Semitism in ownfamily and among schoolmates at Lycee. But didnot stop now to read about Jewish history or religion, andthe only Jews that he knew were highly assimilated, withlittle more understanding than he had of either one.Among committed he had no conneetions of anykind. So he wrote what he thought, describing a worldthat he knew only in part, reconstructing it in conformitywith existentialist psychology and enlightenment skepti-

and the version of Marxist class that he hadmade his own. In the ]940s, he regularly denied that hewas a Marxist, but his commitment-to-come is evident inthis book. He produced a phi10sophical speculation var-iously supported by anecdotes and personal observations.

The result, however, is a powerfully coherent argumentthat demonstrates how theoretieal sophistication andpractical ignorance can, usefully combineVI


7/134

There is much to criticize in the essay: reading it againfifty years after it was written, one sees immediately howmuch it was shaped by a specific (and no longer entirelypersuasive) political orientation. Its ignorance of Judaismwas willful and programmatic-for this parochial reli-gious doctrine, and the community it shaped, and allsuch doctrines and communities, had no place in theworld to come as Sartre conceived it, after the liberationof France and the future liberation of humankind. Butthe world as it is, France in 1944, is also Sartre s subject.He saw clearly that the defeat of the Nazis w s not yetthe end of the European catastrophe, and he set out, likemany other intellectuals in the 19408 and 50s, to under-stand the rootedness of prejudice, hatred, and genocidein his own society. Anti-Semite and Jew, in its best pas-sages, stands with Theodor Adorno s study of the author-itarian personality, Talcott Parsons essays on thesociology of Nazism, Erich Fromm s Escape from Free-dom and Hannah Arendt s account of totalitarian pol-itics.

But Sartre s book should not be read as a piece ofsocial science or even (as have described it as a philo-sophical speculation. His best work in the 1940s w s indrama No Exit was first performed in 1944; he Respect-ful Prostitute in 1946; Dirty Hands in 1948 , and Anti-Semite and ew is a Marxist/existentialist morality play,

VII


8/134

whose charaeters are produced by their dramatic inter-The interaetions are never actually hy

people with proper names; the dialogue h never renderedin the first person. remains imper-sonal., and 'si and the

dramatic. in o f;xit ofsmall. t of four the thedemocrat, the inauthentie Jew, the authentie Jew. rrhefirst and third of these play the the andfourth have only minor par t s hence the dramanot tragic finally., hut savagely critical of world itdescribes. offstage to the is therevolutionary worker.

the structure of the Sartrean drama: ehar-aeter creates the and doesboth from the inside of a situation that Sartre com-monly describes in a manner at partly learned from

that its charaeter. rrhe dramafrom the interplay of social forces and individual

deeisions. It virtually impossible to the relativeweight of these two. While Sartre always that indi-viduals are not only for what they do hut alsofor what they are, it is nonetheless elear that maketheir choices under duress.

' fhe tension is most apparent in the portrait of the anti-Semite, which is commonly and rightly taken to hp theVIIi


9/134

strongest part of the book. The anti-Semite is of alJ asocial-psychological type, shaped by the narrowness andvulnerability of the world he inhabits (Sartre writes aboutall four of his characters as if they were men, so I willuse maseuline pronouns in discussing them). Thedescription is familiar today, Sartre ib one of thefirst writers to provide it. The anti-Semite comes from thelower middle class of the provincial towns: he is a func-tionary, office worker, small businessman-a white col-lar proletarian. Member of a declining social C W,b, he isthreatened by social change, endlessly fearful andresentful. He possesses nothing, but hy i


10/134

anti-Semite] wishes, what he prepares, is the de th of theJew.

The rich, Sartre says, exploit anti-Semitism Uratherthan abandon themselves to it. And among workers, heconfidently claims, find scarcely any anti-Semitism.This very precise class analysis, which locates the anti-Semite in a fairly narrow segment of French society,poses a problem for Sartre's argument: if only a part ofthe society is anti-Semitic, why is the situation of the Jewso radically determined by anti-Semitism? In fact, Sartreis not wholly committed to class analysis. He startsindeed, from his own circle of family and friends, whocame, mostly, out of the provi ncial petty bourgeoisie, buthe moves on to a more abstract characterization. Anti-Semitism is also a free and total choice of oneself, andthis choice, it seems, is made at every level of Frenchsociety Sartre gives his readers a sense of pervasive anti-Semitism, motivated by a general fear, not only ofically modern uncertainties but also of 44 the humancondition, which is to say, of liberty, responsibility, soli-tude, and truth C'that thing of indefinite approxima-t ion -Sarlre 's argument about the fear of truth is verymuch like Adorno's intolerance of ambiguity ). Somepeople, the lower middle class especially, are morethreatened than others, but no one is entirely unafraid or

x


11/134

incapable of choosing the Jew as his enemy and himselfas an anti-Semite.

The anti-Semite creates the Jew, hut hefore that hecreates himself within his situation. (But isn t this situa-tion in part the creation of the Jew as the anti-Semite hascreated him? Sartre s argument is necessarily circular.The inauthentic Jew, who appears later on in the drama,is in fact an agent - though not the only or the mostimportant the modernity to which anti-Semitesreact.) Sartre sometimes writes as if anti-Semitism is asociological reflex, but it is also, again, a choice. Indeed,it is the very model of an inauthentic choice, for the anti-Semite cannot or will not acknowledge his actualsituation or the fear it produces. He responds willfully toa world that he willfully misrepresents. Though Sartrenever quite says this, it is strictly in line with his argu-ment: anti-Semitism is the inauthenticity of the lowermiddle class (and of anyone else who adopts it . But henever suggests what authentic lower middle class men orwomen would look like or how they would act-perhapshe doubted that authenticity was a likely, even if it was apossible, choice for members of a declining social class.

Authenticity is clearly not represented by the democ-rat, another bourgeois figure and the second of Sartre sdr m tis personae The democrat embodies the virtues of

Xl


12/134

the French revolution. A good liberal, poJitical centrist,defender of decency, f r iend so he would certainly

the Jews, he believes in the universal ofman, and he wants those rights to he recognized andexercised right now But his is a false universalism forhe is blind to the realities of the world he actually inhab-its He cannot acknowledge the strength of anti-Semitibmor the concrete conditions of Jewish life, and so he fearsand rejects any authentic Jewish response. In an exactlysimilar fashion, he eannot acknowledge the actual con-dition of the class, and bO and rejectsauthentic class consciousness.

The democrat defends the as a man hut annihi-lates him as a Jew (compare the argument of Clermont-Tonnerre in the Constituent 1791 debate onJewish citizenship: One musl refube to theJews as a nation, and to the 8... 't indi-viduals ). But it is a Jew (and a member of theJewish nation) that the Jew is hy the otherb,and this is an identity that he cannot escape-moreaccurately, that he is not allowed to escape. So thedemocrat's advocacy of aSbimilation for the Jews andelasslessness for the though no douht weJl-intentioned, is also cruelly premature. And iscrucial for Sarlre; his drama is historical as well as

XII


13/134

sociological; it moves in stages. The anti-Semite livesfearfully in the past; the democrat lives naively, senti-mentally, inauthentically in the future.

By contrast, the inauthentic Jew lives in what is forhim a desperate present. He seeks Uavenues of escape,hut the more he flees, the more he is trapped: the quintessential modern man. Exactly what i he fleeing from?Sartre's answer to this question is the most problematicpart of his argument-first , because it is far less clearthan the smooth surface of his essay suggests; and sec-ond, because its most insistent claims are radicallyimplausible. Sartre starts with an absence: Jewishness inthe modern world he announces, is an empty category.As a result of twenty-five centuries of dispersion, dis-solution, and political impotence (Sartre dates the Jewishcollapse from the Babylonian exile, not the destructionof the Temple), the Jews are an ancient but also an404OunhistoricaI people. This last term, horrowed fromHegel and Marx, suggests a political/cultural backwater,cut off from all progressive currents. Contemporary Jewshave, on this view no civilization of their own; they can-not take pride in any specifically Jewish collectiveachievements; they have nothing to remember but along martyrdom [and] a long passivity. More than any

other minority group, then, they are perfectly assimil-

XIII


14/134

able into the surrounding culture. Onlywith its construction of the Jew as alien, cos-mopolitan, bars the way

But then one would expect the inauthentic or escapistJew to do everything he can to deny the construction andto make himself, in France, more French than theFrench. He should hide, pass, intermarry, buyland, move to the provinces, adopt conservative or atleast conventional political views. Indeed, there havealways heen Jews who acted in this more or lesssuccessfully. Other Jews named them with somefunctional equivalent of inauthenticity-more obviouslymorally laden, which Sartre insists his own term is not:

false, disloyal. But Sartre's inauthentic Jewsare driven in the opposite direction; they are evermore

cosmopolitan, ironic, rationalist, and so on Nodoubt, this is a portrait (and in its psychosocial detailoften a shrewd and insightful portrait) of the assimilatedJewish intellectuals whom Sartre knew in the 1930s and'40s, many of them refugees from the East. But thesepeople were not only trying to escape anti-Semitism andthe anti-Semite's construction of lewishnes&, they werealso escaping the closed communities and orthodox tra-ditionalism of their own Jewish pa s t a presence, not an

analysis requires an account of thissubbtantive Judaism, for without it he cannot explain whyXIV


15/134

the Jew in flight confonns so closely to the conception heis supposedly fleeing.

If he were to provide this account, he would also beable to acknowledge that the of escapedescribed in his book are chosen in part because of anelective affinity between classical Jewish learning andmodernist intellectualism. I don't mean to suggest anidentity here, only an affinity-and one that is more amatter of style than of content. The content of Jewishlearning is often, obviously, anti-modernist. Nonetheless,one can recognize the interpretative freedom, the pursuitof complexity for its own sake, and the argumentativezeal of the classical yeshiva in the literary and politicalwork of Sartre's Jewish contemporaries. No doubt, thecosmopolitan and leftist politics of many) of these peopleserved their interests vis-A-vis both Jewish orthodoxy andFrench anti-Semitism. Many communist Jews, to take theeasiest example, were hiding from their Jewishness in theParty, while seeking a world- to which Sartre alsoaspired, presumably for different reasons-in which lew-ishness would not matter. Nonetheless, Jewish leftismwas not simply an invention of inauthentic Jews; its castof mind, intellectual tenor, and modes of analysis res-onated clearly with an older culture whose very existenceSartre denies.

Most of the features of Jewish intellectual success inxv


16/134

the modern world are by Sartre to the nightfrom anti-Semitic eonstruetions of Self-

reflfi::ti irony tthe critical these

the of figures of modernSrinoza, Kafka, Proust, Hut

these also very that thein order to prove that the Jews are endlessly suh-

versive, acid eali away at the fahrie, corrodinll:all traditional Even a.. .; they flee their

an anti-Semitic they aet outand confirm in hi: . ffl ar

and hatrtacl. the avenue of is not well eho-()r perhaps Jewish

tivf -sO that our of it ah,o ade-eper of the past.the Jew, has no sueh undfl r-

He, too, as Sartre him, a ereatureof the present. He affirms his Jewish hut thisaffirmation has nothing to do with or nos-talgia for the old community, or a search for valup in thetradition. It simply an aectaptance of thethat the anti-Semite has and aof the physical of the Jews within it (rememher thatthe y have, aeeording to Sartrfl no cultural life). PoliticalZionism is one of defense; theXVI


17/134

Anti-Defamation League would be another; Sartre praisesa Jewish league against anti-Semitism then in forma-tion in France. as authentic constantanalogy-rejeet the myth of social harmony, recognizethe reaJ i ty of class conflict, and make themsel ves intomilitant defenders of working class authenticJews give up the universalist false of thedemocrat, recognize social pluralism, and make them-selves into militant defenders of Jewish interest5,. Butthere is no real equivalence here. authenticity isonly a way of living well within the Jewihh situation; ithas no transformative force. (Years later, when he visitedIsrael in 1967, Sartre revised this Zionismhad created a 4 ne\v Israeli Jew rwhol, if he ean developin peace and understand all his and gobeyond th m his actions will be one of the mostsuperior men to be found in history. Neither in 1944 norin 1967 did Sartre display any p;ift for understatement.)That is why the authentic Jew is only a minor characterin the Sartrean drama. But the authentic worker is a rev-olutionary and, therefore, a key figure in what we mightthink of as the next play. Sadly, the anti-Semite and theinauthentic Jew are the key figures in this play, each ofthem creating and confirming the other's existence,locked together in a world from which there is, until therevolution, no exi t.

XVII


18/134

The working class militant waits in the wings. Oneday, not quite yet, he will appear dramatically in history,creating a classless society, which represents for Sartrethe end of every fonn of social division. The Jews willassimilate into this society, leaving nothing behind, with-out regret, giving up their lewishness just as the workergives up cla,ss consciousness for the sake of universality.Exactly what happens to the lower middle class provin-cial anti-Semite in the course of the revolution is unclear.Defeated, he presumably disappears from the Sartreanstage, along with the Jew he created.

But this is an ending to be wished for only on thefalse) assumption that there really is no Jewish history,

culture, or community. Nor are the Jews the only peopleabout whom this assumption would have to be made. Theanti-Semite chooses the Jew only because he is avail-able; any dispossessed, stigmatized minority, anytorical people could as easily be chosen. The Jew inEurope is the exposed face of modern life. But the samerole can be played, with the same degree of authenticityand inauthenticity, by other groups in other times andplaces. None of these groups have, in Sarlre's eyes, anyclaim on our moral attention beyond the claim they makeas persecuted men and women. We should defend thegroup's existence only so long as its members are perse-cuted as a group after that, we defend only their indi-XVIII


19/134

vidual rights. Sartre calls this position, which is his own,concrete liberalism. Indeed, he is a liberal, for all his

Marxizing sociology.But he is nol a pluralist liberal. The disappearance of

historical peoples, like the French, is obviously not onhis and so he must imagine a future internationalsociety of distinct nations (he would, of course, and inthe years to come he did, oppose every version of imper-ial and chauvinist politics, including the French version .With regard to a future France, however, he adopts a rad-ically antipluralist position. This position is alwaysdescribed in social and economic rather than culturalterms: Sartre looks forward to a France whose membersfeel mutual bonds of solidarity, because they are allengaged in the same enterprise. But he doesn't want torepeat the error of the democrat: solidarity and mutualengagement do not exist and cannot exist in contempo-rary France, where class conflict creates and intensifiescultural difference. Here and now, difference must beaccepted; there is no honest alternative. So the Jew has tobe granted his double identity, welcomed as a FrenchJew with his character, his customs, his tastes, hisreligion if he has one. Multi culturalism now so wemight describe the Sartrean program. But this is, for him,only a temporary and second-best solution to the prob-lem of anti-Semitism. In no sense does it represent a

XIX


20/134

recognition that there might be any value in Jewish char-acter, customs, tastes, or

This historically divided politics-difference now,unity la le r - ib Sartre helieves, what authe'ntieity

Even if anti-Semitism is a mythical repre-sentation of the class it nonetheless auine affliction for the Jews. t reflects the reality of adivided society, conflict of interests and the crOSb-currents of passions it a pheTWmenon oj. iocial p u

added). Living authentieally withinbituution means the eonniet and thenfor the rights of an(l

rrhis ib the point of book, whieh he' proh-ably of thought of it, u ') a polit-ieal But Jongterm a bo('iety whe're-

no longer exist to he and()nee again, Sartce' that this is what their mem-her:-, also want. Je'wish authentieity isfor the' who longs to he what Sartre already is,Freneh without qualification or addition.

But why is such an attractive t attractiveto Sartre of his eonviction that bocial pluralismto eonflict and conniet pro-duce'S and mythic:of Uothe'r of and fear ontosomp for Sartrexx


21/134

consequences of pluralism. He is prepared to fight theseconsequences, but he is sure that the fight wi never bewon until pluralism, indeed, groupness itself, is defini-tively transcended. The revolution will bring a new soli-darity, which will have no specific historical or culturalcharacter, the ethnic or national or religious equivalent ofclasslessness.

This is little more than the conventional left doctrineof Sartre s own t im e and before and after, too. Obvi-ously, the strength of Anti Semite nd ew does not liehere; it is the portraits of the main characters that earrythe hook. Still, it seems worthwhile to suggest an alter-native to Sartre s revolutionary transcendence, for hisposition is likely to look, today, as mythical as the anti-Semite s J e w a nd as inauthentic. After all, what wouldmen and women be like after the end of social pluralism?Perhaps Sartre believes that they will be simply and uni-versally human. In fact, as the whole argument of hisbook suggests, they will surely be French. And this willrepresent a universal identity only in the sense that itwill be universally available to the Jews and to all othernon-French minorities. In every other sense, it will he ahistorically particular identity, culturally rich, no doubt,but not obviously richer or better than the identities itsupercedes. Sartre s conviction that minorities like theJews were eager to assimilate in his very sense of

XXI


22/134

this word) has turned out to be wrong; indeed, it waswrong at the time, in 1944, even if many individuals rec-ognized themselves in his descriptions. Anti-Semite andew provoked an angrily defensive response from commit-

ted Jewish intellectuals, despite Sarlre's sympathy not onlyfor their hut for them, as authentic Jews. rrhey couldnot accept his insi&tence that they were, should be, andcould only be, heroic defenders of an empty Jewishness.

Even intellectuals heavily influenced by Sartre likeAlbert Memmi, who wrote several hooks analyzinf ; the"concrete negativity" of Jewish life in the diaspora, couldnot themselves a Sartrean authentieity: "'"[0 affirmmy Jewishness without giving it a specific content,"Memmi argued, "would have been an empty propositionand in the final analysis contradictory" The Liberationof the Jew 1966). And where could that eontent comefrom except from 4'a cultural and relip;ious traditioncollective habits of and hehavior",engagement with the tradition and the habits was in largepart oppositional, but it still represented a denial of

argument about Jewish absence.Nor could these Jewish intellectuals agree that theirrole was circumscribed and of only tempo-

rary use. Memmi was a Zionist, that afterthe revolution Jews would need a place of their own: Jew-ish authenticity-self-affirmation andXXII


23/134

w a s possible only in a Jewish state. Other writers,determined to find a place in France as well as in Israel,argued for a pluralist society-the source, Sartre thought,of all their troubles. They envisaged a perm nent multi-culturalism, an idea that was fully articulated only in themuch more radically pluralist United States, where theco-existence of cultural (most importantly religious)difference and common citizenship was figuratively rep-resented by the hyphenated American. Characteristi-cally, Sartre, who visited the United States in 1945 andwrote The Respectful rostitute immediately after, saw inAmerican pluralism only oppression and hatred: racismwas the anti-Semitism of the new world. He was notentirely wrong not then, not now. The (relative) successof religious toleration in breaking the link between plu-ralism and conflict has not yet been repeated for race andethnicity. But there seems no good reason not to try torepeat it, given the value that people attach to their iden-tity and culture.

Much can e learned, nonetheless, from Sartre's Marx-ist/existentialist psychology. Identity and culture are nottimeless essences; they develop and change within his-torical situations; and the self-perception of individualsand groups is radically influenced by the (often hostile)perceptions of the others. All this is true. Sartre is verygood at alerting us to the interpersonal construction of

XXlll


24/134

personal ident i t ies a process even more in evidencetoday than when wrote. At the samethis eonstruelive aetivily draws on and the dif-fprpnt huvp anthat never and the people they HUStain who al 'to them. are not yet for

Nor indeed, ha:; anti-Semitism disappeared. Jf its newforms are not accessihle to partieuJur of

they require an alongsimilar a seareh for people in trouhle., inea-

pahle of or with aetuulof their diffieultie-b., for to blame. Some-timeH inhabit the milieuthat Sarlrta hut (in eontenlporaryEastern Europe" for pxamp(e) workers and and(in the United members of the new

are more likely today than the-y were in 1944 to4"authenlically'" to ""ith anti-

Semit ism-that to affirm the value of their history andBut eontemporary response provide ; an

e-xample of what many Je\vs today would callinauthenticity, though it is not clear that would

it as bueh: that is, the effort toiue-ntity on the Holocaust Pfhis purely

to the most terrihle- work of eenturyXXI \


25/134

anti-Semites, but the insistence on remembering thiswork and identifying with its victims hardly representsan avenue of escape. Sartrean authentieity has takenon new meanings, a sign simultaneou&ly that his argu-ment is persuasive and that it is in need of revision.

Now that the revolution Sartre foresaw has been indef-initely postponed, it is time to imap ine a new drama inwhich the actors live a little more comfortably in eachother's eyes and in their own. The aim of a concreteliberalism, one would think, is to situations fromwhich n honorable escape is possihle--hut where it isalso possible to feel at home, to live with friends and rel-atives, chosen and inherited, not only in traditional hutalso in innovative ways, in peaee. Rising rates of inter-marriage and assimilation, which Sartre predicted wouldfollow naturally from any lifting of anti-Semitic pressure,now stand in tension with developments he neither pre-dicted nor could have understood: the institutionalstrength of diaspora Jewish communities, the rise of Jew-ish studies in universities throughout the Western world,the revival of religious interest (if not of religious faith),and a transnational solidarity that extends across thediaspora as well as binding diaspora Jews to Israel.

Sartre's revolutionary transcendence looks today verymuch l ike the long-imagined messianic age, aroundwhich Jews over the centuries have constructed a set of

xxv


26/134

arguments whose thickness and complexity hardly fit hisversion of their story. The arguments combine faith,skepticism, worldly wit, and prudence. And at least someof the commentators suggest a position that might fit achastened Sartreanism: while we wait for the unitaryworld to come, since the wait is likely to he long, it isurgently necessary and entirely possihle to repair andimprove the fragmented world, which is the only worldwe have.

-Michael WalzerThe Institute for Advanced Study

Princeton, NJanuary 1995

I am grateful to Menachem Brinker and Mitchell Cohen for theircritical reading of an early draft of this preface

.XXVI


27/134

!

!


28/134

#

#$4

#$4

-0)5")*#/$ )"#10$16


29/134

$


30/134

%


31/134

&

#7),7#*/0$


32/134

'


33/134

()

!"81


34/134

((

/4"#

/4"#0-*9"!"8


35/134

(*

5901"$ 0:;"5*1

1*#*"


36/134

(+

"*5


37/134

(!


38/134

(#


39/134

($


40/134

(%


41/134

(&

:"5#&1"

*9/$7


42/134

('


43/134

*)

#7#/$1*


44/134

*(


45/134

**


46/134

*+


47/134

*!

0$"


48/134

*#

40"1 $0* C)04&5"D


49/134

*$

:"9#3/0&)A


50/134

*%

*0 40 "3/'


51/134

*&

*040 "3/'6

*9"


52/134

*'

9/1 08$


53/134

+)


54/134

+(

/$*")C)"*#*/0$E

7/3"$A


55/134

+*

F# G)#$5" !&/3" 0-

59001"


56/134

++


57/134

+!


58/134

+#

H3#$90" &C

4"#*9

)"#'

C&)" 0- 9"#)*A -0)*9"1#I"0-J0046


59/134

+$

C")10$1A

4/1*/$7&/19"46#1


60/134

+%


61/134

+&


62/134

+'

"

C")10$


63/134

!)


64/134

!(

*00

:"/$7 50$1/4")/$79/@1"'-


65/134

!*

#

"*5 59001"0$"1"'-


66/134

!+

)#5"1A


67/134

!!


68/134

!#

1K$*9"1/1L

"*5A6"*5


69/134

!$


70/134

!%

$#*/0$#' )"'/7/0&1


71/134

!&

+0@#$ :K*9"+0@#$1


72/134

!'

5)"#*"4

MN9#*9#3"K0&@#4"0-*9"!"81OM

@#I"1


73/134

#)


74/134

#(

F"**)"1 G)#$P#/1"1


75/134

#*


76/134

#+

@#I"1

7004


77/134

#!

1C"5/#'$#@"A


78/134

##

0:;"5*1D

C")10$6


79/134

#$

@#)I"4


80/134

#%

Q#1*") #$4 ('#3"6


81/134

#&

*0&59"1


82/134

#'

*)&"

7"$&/$"

7"$&/$" 7"$&/$" 7"$&/$"


83/134

$)


84/134

$(

)#5"


85/134

$*


86/134

$+

R9"R)/#'


87/134

$!

#:#$40$"4


88/134

$#

#&*9"$*/5 /$#&*9"$*/5

0&79**0:"


89/134

$$


90/134

$%

#3"$&"0--'/79*A

/$#&*9"$*/5

1/**/0$


91/134

$&

5)"#*"1 *9/150@C'".

*9")"/1#!"86 /$9/1C")10$

:"5#&1"


92/134

$'

/$#&*9"$*/5

#1!"81 #1 G)"$59@"$A

C)#5*/5#'6 !"8 /$ 0)4") *0 4"$K


93/134

%)

4"*#59"4

S/'9&@##'/"$&@C&*0")7090@01&@AT

#$0*9"))#5"6

@"$E


94/134

%(

/$1C/*"0-


95/134

%*

*9"


96/134

%+


97/134

%!

@#$/-"1*1


98/134

%#

U* *9" '"#1*@/19#C6 9"@/79* )"C)0#599")8/*9#5*/$7!"8/19AM

;&47"1A


99/134

%$

$#*/0$E

9"


100/134

%%


101/134

%&

#**#59"4

U$*/70$"6


102/134

%'

#:1*)#5*6

)#*/0$#'/1*6/$*"''"5*'


103/134

&)

%9#"40D


104/134

&(

&$/-/5#*/0$


105/134

&*

59#''"$7"1A /*/1$0*0C"$*04/15&11/0$


106/134

&+

)#*/0$#'6


107/134

&!


108/134


109/134

&$

'/-"

)#5"A


110/134

&%

&$/3")1#' @#$

&$/3")1#'#$4)#*/0$#'/V"4:04K


111/134

&&


112/134

&'

9"5#$7/3"$0)"#10$A


113/134

')

5)/*/5#'6

1""I

1"" 40"1$0*:"'/"3"


114/134

'(


115/134

'*

3#'&"


116/134

'+

&1"A


117/134

'!


118/134

'#


119/134

'$

$#*&)#'


120/134

'%

C#)".5"''"$5"


121/134

'&

#'' #''

*9#*40"1$0* 50$5")$&1A

#1!"8


122/134

''

#11&59

@#I"19/@1"'-#!"8


123/134

())


124/134

()(

G)"$59

!"8A

1/**/0$


125/134

()*


126/134

()+

$


127/134

()!

*9"@#$A *9"@#$

#1!"816


128/134

()#

?/9/1*0)/5#'


129/134

()$

@&1*


130/134

()%


131/134

()&

9/1

-0) 9/@1"'-


132/134

()'

#'10

8" 0&)


133/134

(()

9/1 /$ *9"80)'4#*'#)7"


134/134

Documents

Anti-Semite and Jew Sartre