Comparison is not always right. Last week, the leader of La France Insoumise (LFI), Jean-Luc Mélenchon, compared the president of the University of Lille, who had canceled one of his conferences, to the Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann. The number 1 of the Communist Party, Fabien Roussel, estimated this Monday, on BFMTV and RMC, that Jean-Luc Mélenchon was “discredited” after his “indefensible” comments.
What Jean-Luc Mélenchon said
The founder of LFI therefore opened the front on Thursday to a new controversy by evoking Adolf Eichmann, responsible for the logistics of the final solution, during a meeting in Lille, organized in the middle of the street after two refusals of rooms by the prefect and of the president of the university.
“I did nothing,” said Eichmann. “I only obeyed the law as it was in my country.” So they say they obey the law and they implement immoral measures that are not justified by anything or anyone,” he said.
Campaigning for the European elections in June, Jean-Luc Mélenchon then justified himself by citing the book The Origins of Totalitarianism by the philosopher and political scientist Hannah Arendt, to explain that the president of the university had “behaved in this logic of the propagation of evil”.
What Fabien Roussel criticizes him (or not)
This explanation is insufficient for Fabien Roussel, who “no longer finds himself in Jean-Luc Mélenchon at all, since his excessive comments discredit everything else”. The boss of the PCF had himself been compared, a few months ago, to the collaborationist Jacques Doriot by MP Sophia Chikirou, a member of the rebellious leader’s close guard.
Nevertheless, Fabien Roussel gave his support to another Rebel, Rima Hassan, candidate for the European elections and summoned by the police for “apology of terrorism” in connection with her positions on the conflict between Israel and Hamas.
Despite his “disagreement” with LFI on the subject, the leader of the PCF “did not see any apology for terrorism in the comments they may have made” and considers that these procedures are “a way of muzzling the debate” .