On May 27, the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence sentenced me to pay a fine of €17,000 ($19,500), which includes compensation to Zionist associations that were civil parties to the case. It was a clear example of the troubling evolution in the French judiciary’s treatment of the Palestinian cause.
Today, another case deserves greater attention because of what it signifies and reveals, because it is difficult to distort, and above all because it sheds light on a profound transformation in the French judicial system’s approach to Palestine. In March 2024, the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, the highest court in the French judicial system, upheld the conviction of Mohamed Makni, a businessman, father, and deputy mayor of Echirolles.
The statement attributed to him did not exceed a single sentence: “They are quick to qualify as terrorism what in our eyes is a clear act of resistance.”
This statement did not come from a Palestinian military commander or a Hamas official. Rather, it was a quote from Ahmed Ounaies, Tunisia’s former foreign minister and former ambassador under the regime of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to Russia and India, a figure far removed from any revolutionary discourse.
Because he cited this political analysis, Makni was sentenced to four months in prison, suspended and barred from holding any public office for four months – a ruling upheld by both the Court of Appeal and in March this year, by the Court of Cassation, in a decision that can by no means be considered ordinary.
For the first time since October 7, 2023, France’s highest court intervened directly in the political and legal battle surrounding the classification of Palestinian resistance. At the heart of the issue, for more than a century, has been a fundamental question: do people living under prolonged military occupation have the right to resist?
While international law answers in the affirmative, and much of the Arab, African, Asian and Latin American world shares that view, official France now appears to answer differently. Makni’s conviction does not punish incitement to kill or commit attacks; rather, it punishes the mere linking of occupation and resistance. In other words, it criminalises a political framework shared by people far beyond Hamas supporters.
The Court of Cassation has provided a troubling answer, one that leads us to believe that French courts are not only operating under the influence of the government, but that the government itself is operating under foreign influence.
This development did not emerge on its own. Following the events of October 7, 2023, the French government chose to use the charge of glorifying terrorism as a primary tool for controlling public debate on Palestine. The function of this charge gradually changed after having originally been established to combat Islamic State (ISIL) propaganda and jihadist recruitment, becoming instead a means of policing discourse that refuses to separate the events of October 7 from their historical context. It is there that the core of the disagreement lies.
The dominant narrative among Western elites insists on treating October 7 as an isolated event, detached from any preceding history. The majority of the world, however, sees it as part of a historical process marked by occupation, colonialism, forced displacement and the ongoing denial of Palestinian national rights. It is this second interpretation that is now increasingly subject to judicial censorship.
The implications of the Makni case extend far beyond the man himself. Criminalising any attempt to connect the acts committed in Israel on October 7, 2023, with the claims of resistance is a slap in the face – not only to all French citizens of foreign origin who chose the path of republican integration, but also to Arab political elites and, more broadly, to the elites of the Global South who embrace the interpretation of the former Tunisian foreign minister and former ambassador of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, whose discourse on this issue differs radically from the statements and speeches issued by the Houthis in Yemen.
Ultimately, this constitutes a clear insult to the thinking of some of France’s most prominent political leaders. In 1967, General Charles de Gaulle explicitly acknowledged, as we have repeatedly point out, the connection between the right to resist unlawful occupation and the tendency of colonisers to describe that resistance as “terrorism”.
The Makni case therefore concerns everyone who refuses to allow Palestine to be excluded from the general rules of history. It concerns everyone who still believes that the concepts of colonialism, occupation and resistance remain valid when it comes to the Palestinian people. It also draws the attention of all those who reject the transformation of political debate into a criminal matter.
The question raised by this judicial ruling remains simple: Is it still possible in France to point out that occupation drives resistance without being accused of glorifying terrorism?
The Court of Cassation has provided a troubling answer, one that leads us to believe that French courts are not only operating under the influence of the government, but that the government itself is operating under foreign influence. That is precisely why this case deserves to be known and denounced widely beyond France’s borders.
A version of this piece in Arabic was originally published by Al Jazeera Arabic here.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.
