Are French judges against Palestine? | | Thoughts

On May 27, the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence he judged me to pay a fine of €17,000 ($19,500), which includes compensation to Zionist organizations that were government parties in the case. It was a clear example of the troubling evolution of the French judiciary in the fight against Palestine.

Today, a case must be very careful because of what it means and reveal, because it is difficult to distort, and above all because it highlights a major change in the administration of French law in Palestine. In March 2024, the Court of Cassation, the highest court in France, accepted the decision of Mohamed Makni, businessman, father, and deputy mayor of Echirolles.

The words attributed to him did not go beyond one sentence: “They can easily be qualified as terrorism which in our eyes is clearly unacceptable.”

These words did not come from a Palestinian military commander or a Hamas official. Instead, it was a statement from Ahmed Ounaies, former Tunisian foreign minister and former ambassador in the administration of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to Russia and India.

Because he mentioned this political analysis, Makni was sentenced to four months in prison, suspended and prohibited from holding any public office for four months – a decision that was confirmed by the Court of Appeal and in March this year, by the Court of Cassation, in a decision that cannot be considered ordinary.

For the first time since October 7, 2023, the Supreme Court of France directly intervened in the political and legal issue related to the partition of the Palestinian Authority. At the center of this issue, for more than a century, has been a very important question: do people who have been living in the armed forces for a long time have the right to refuse?

Although international law responds positively, and most of the Arab, African, Asian and Latin American countries share that view, the French government now seems to respond differently. Makni’s conviction does not punish incitement to murder or criminal activity; on the contrary, it punishes only the coordination of work and resistance. In other words, it violates the political agenda that people share far from the followers of Hamas.

The Court of Cassation has given a disturbing answer, which makes us believe that the French courts are not working under the guidance of the government, and that the government itself is working under the guidance of foreign countries.

This development did not come by itself. Following the events of October 7, 2023, the French government decided to use the crime of glorifying terrorism as a primary tool to manage the public conflict over Palestine. The work of the case changed gradually after it was established to fight the propaganda of the Islamic State (ISIL) and to recruit jihadists, instead it is a police communication system that refuses to separate the events of October 7 from their history. Therein lies the basis of this disagreement.

A major issue among Western elites is insisting on treating October 7 as a special event, separate from history. Most of the world, however, sees it as part of a long history characterized by occupation, colonialism, forced displacement and the denial of Palestinian independence. It is this second interpretation that is now increasingly used in forensic analysis.

The consequences of Makni’s case go beyond the man himself. Violating any attempt to link what happened in Israel on October 7, 2023, with claims of resistance is a slap in the face – not only to all French citizens from other countries who chose the path of Republican integration, but also to Arab political experts and, to a greater extent, to the elite of the Global South who accept the interpretation of the former Tunisian minister of Zine, the former Tunisian ambassador, Abidine, the former Tunisian ambassador. especially from the statements and speeches given by the Houthis in Yemen.

Ultimately, this shows contempt for the views of some of France’s most prominent political leaders. In 1967, General Charles de Gaulle clearly accepted, as we have repeatedly explained, the connection between the right to refuse illegal work and the colonial tendency to describe this resistance as “terrorism”.

Therefore, Makni’s case affects anyone who rejects the removal of Palestine from the laws of history. It affects anyone who still believes that the concepts of colonialism, occupation and resistance remain valid when it comes to the Palestinian people. It also expresses the interest of all those who reject the transformation of a political debate into a criminal matter.

The question raised by this decision is simple: Is it still possible in France to say that work leads to resistance without being accused of glorifying terrorism?

The Court of Cassation has given a disturbing answer, which makes us believe that the French courts are not working under the guidance of the government, and that the government itself is working under the guidance of foreign countries. This is why this case deserves to be known and widely criticized beyond the borders of France.

The Arabic version of this piece was originally published by Al Jazeera Arabic Here.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.