Éric Zemmour’s Obsession with Algeria’s History: An Attempt to Rewrite the Past

Éric Zemmour, a controversial figure in the French media and political landscape, has exhibited a persistent fascination with Algeria’s history. Through his statements, he seeks to deny the existence of an Algerian nation prior to French colonization, embracing an ideological narrative that disregards the most well-established historical facts. Why such insistence? What underlying motives drive this denial of an undeniable historical reality?

Born in France in 1958, Éric Zemmour comes from a family of Algerian Jews. His ancestors, originally from the Constantine region, were among those granted French citizenship through the Crémieux Decree in 1870, during the colonial era.

Yet, despite these roots, Zemmour categorically rejects any connection to Algeria and claims an exclusively French identity. A staunch critic of dual nationality and any notion of multiple identities, he upholds assimilation as an absolute principle and champions a vision of France in which colonial heritage is to be glorified rather than questioned.

Algeria: A Sovereign State Before French Colonization

Contrary to Zemmour’s claims, Algeria was not "created" by France in 1830. Its history as a state dates back far earlier, with its origins rooted in the unification of Numidia under Massinissa in 202 BCE. Massinissa established a structured kingdom, complete with governance, institutions, and a clear political vision that transcended tribal divisions.

Zemmour’s argument that Algeria was merely an Ottoman province is a gross historical distortion. In reality, the Regency of Algiers was an independent state, not an Ottoman colony. The Ottoman Empire exercised no direct control over Algiers, which had its own army, currency, taxation system, and foreign policy.

Diplomatic Evidence of Algeria’s Existence as a State

Algeria’s independence before French colonization is demonstrated by numerous treaties signed with European powers and even the United States:

• International treaties signed by Algiers: Many agreements were concluded between Algiers and European states, including France under Louis XIV in 1684, where Algiers negotiated directly, without Ottoman intervention.

• The War Between Algeria and the United States (1785-1795): In the late 18th century, Algeria engaged in a naval conflict with the United States over unpaid maritime tributes. This war led to the Treaty of September 5, 1795, in which Algeria formally recognized the United States as an independent nation.

• The Ottoman Empire recognized the U.S. long after Algiers did: The Ottoman Empire, which Zemmour claims ruled Algeria, did not officially recognize the United States until 1830, 35 years after Algiers. How could a supposedly nonexistent state recognize a foreign power decades before its so-called overlord?

These facts leave no doubt that Algeria existed as a fully sovereign state long before the French conquest.

Why Does Éric Zemmour Deny This Historical Reality?

Zemmour’s relentless denial of Algeria’s nationhood is not simply a case of historical ignorance; it is a deliberate ideological project designed to legitimize French colonization. By minimizing Algeria’s deep historical roots, he seeks to impose the idea that France “created” the country and granted it a national identity.

However, there is also a more personal dimension to this stance: the issue of the Crémieux Decree of 1870. This decree, enacted under the Third Republic, granted French citizenship to Algerian Jews, while Muslims remained subject to the oppressive Code de l’Indigénat (Native Code). At the time, this measure was widely perceived as a betrayal by some Algerian Jews towards their motherland, Algeria, thus favoring French colonization in Algeria.

However, it would be unfair to associate all Algerian Jews with this decision. Some opposed it, choosing to stand alongside their Muslim compatriots in the struggle against colonization. Algerian Jewish figures fought alongside the resistance, refusing to be forcibly assimilated into colonial France. The involvement of individuals such as Georges Smadja ou Daniel Timsit in the Algerian Revolution (1954–1962) serves as a reminder that generalizations should be avoided.

Zemmour’s Ideological Contradiction

Zemmour presents himself as a staunch French patriot and nationalist. Yet, he indirectly glorifies an act that, from a nationalist perspective, could be interpreted as a betrayal of his ancestors' homeland. How can one claim patriotism while celebrating an event that effectively severed the bond between a people and their native land?

This is where Zemmour’s argument collapses under the weight of its own contradictions. If he acknowledges the existence of the Algerian nation before 1830, then he must also concede that the Crémieux Decree was a betrayal by his ancestors against their motherland, Algeria. Yet such an admission would shatter his nationalist rhetoric. How can he be trusted when he glorifies his ancestors’ betrayal of Algeria?

Conclusion: A Manipulation of History for Political Ends

Zemmour’s narrative about Algeria is not a neutral historical debate—it is a political manipulation of history. By denying the existence of an Algerian nation before French colonization, he attempts to justify the occupation while avoiding an honest confrontation with his own ancestral history.

Yet, history is clear: Algeria was a sovereign state before 1830, with its own diplomacy, army, and international relations. The wars it waged, the treaties it signed, and its early recognition of the United States in 1795 provide indisputable proof of its independence.

Thus, regardless of Zemmour’s claims, Algeria is an ancient nation-state with deep historical roots. Attempts to erase this reality are not about historical truth but rather an ideological effort to rewrite the past.

Belgacem Merbah