France holds a position that is both paradoxical and specific when it comes to antisemitism. Although the country is home to half of Europe’s Jewish population and has long been regarded as a refuge for the continent’s Jews, the antisemitic issue is particularly acute in France today. As in other countries, antisemitic violence involves terrorist attacks, but it also involves cases of homicide and sexual violence that seem to have no equivalent elsewhere in Europe. Recently, the case of the antisemitic rape of a very young girl, aged 12, in Courbevoie in June 2024 hit the headlines and caused scandal. Yet this is not the only known case of antisemitic rape in France. Why have the other cases gone unnoticed? Against this backdrop, why is there so little research in gender studies on the interplay between antisemitism and sexism in France? Who are the few voices interested in the issue? If public emotion is to be replaced by an effective fight against such violence, what are the possible strategies for ensuring that reflection on the subject is taken seriously in contemporary France?

The international community’s hollow promise of “Never Again” served to absolve them and placate the Jews without necessitating change. Drawing on the work of Dr. Einat Wilf and Dr. David Hirsh, I investigate the parallels between the nice guy trope and what I call the nice goy. The nice guy trope refers to men that believe themselves to be allies to women or saviours for them. They speak over women about the definitions of feminism and sexism, and either directly engage in sexist behaviour, or defend others that do so. When women reject their advances or call their behaviour sexist, nice guys play the victim and turn on the woman. Like the nice guy, the nice goy champions themself as a human rights advocate, while masking their prejudice with social justice jargon. Nice goys act as the authority on what constitutes antisemitism, and they define Zionism for Jews – typically as Nazism, racism, etc. Nice goys argue that they are not antisemitic, they are just “anti-Zionist” – but will either directly engage in antisemitism or march alongside others that do so. They like to believe that they would have saved Jews from the Nazis, yet they demonize Jews they disagree with as “Nazis”. Nice guys and goys deflect responsibility when their prejudice is laid bare, discredit and gaslight the accuser, and do so, ultimately, to cling to the idea that they are the good person.

Following Hamas’ brutal attack on 7 October 2023 numerous reports of sexual and gender-based violence committed against Israelis have become public. The UN’s Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict identified ‘reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred in multiple locations.’ Starting with Amit Sousanna’s account, reports of sexual violence on Israeli hostages also exist. This remains, for Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, ‘one of the most documented atrocities in history.’

Yet some critics reject this. Summarised by Sherene H. Razack, they claim that these reports are a ‘weaponization of feminist truths.’ For Sophie Lewis they speak only from the ‘Ziofeminist camp’s […] crudely intellectualised anti-intellectual ambiance of jingoistic bloodlust.’ Andrea Long Chu assumes a broader vantage point, asserting that the issue is one of reading, and thinking ethically means ‘skip[ping] right to Israel’s acknowledgments page.’

This paper will explore the relationship between rape denial and antisemitism regarding 7 October. Following recent work by Alenka Zupancic I argue that disavowal is a useful psychoanalytic structure for analysing 7 October’s sexual assaults. By exploring rape disavowal as gendered epistemic antisemitism, I take Chu’s claim seriously but dispute the conclusions. This does, indeed, require a different strategy for reading.

Since October 7^th , antisemitism has surged in healthcare spaces – a recent survey of Jewish healthcare professionals in the UK revealed that 73% had experienced antisemitism, much of it from colleagues. Unconscious bias and incivility in healthcare not only distress staff and patients but are linked to poorer care outcomes.

One particular trope, that of Blood Libel, has been a constant by birth workers (defined as registered healthcare professionals such as midwives, doctors and nurses as well as informal workers such as doulas, lactation consultants and antenatal teachers). The claim that Israel is deliberately, and with intent, harming and killing babies during this current conflict has been perpetuated in countless social media actions, open letters, petitions and exchanges between practitioners. This population of healthcare workers are especially susceptible to any actions perceived to be of harm to mothers and babies, and the idea has therefore become entrenched, causing much distress to Jewish birth workers and families going through childbirth.

One particularly pernicious open letter, written by a reproductive rights academic, titled ‘Resistance is Fertile’ in December, 2023, claimed Israel has deliberately targeted Palestinian women and children since 1948, through reproductive policies, discrimination and conflict as well suggesting there has been bias against Mizrahi women and children as further proof of Israel’s evil and malicious intent.

This presentation, delivered by a Jewish NHS midwife, will explore the use of Blood Libel in birth spaces. It coincides with the launch, in early 2025, of Shifrah UK, a new organisation co-founded by the speaker and a group of UK Jewish birth workers, which is focused on advocating for Jewish families in maternity care, amplifying the need for inclusion and culturally safe practices and tackling damaging antisemitism.