On May 27, the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence sentenced the author to pay a fine of €17,000 ($19,500), including compensation to Zionist associations that were civil parties. This was a clear example of the troubling evolution in the French judiciary's treatment of the Palestinian cause.
Today, another case deserves attention for what it signifies. In March 2024, the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, France's highest court, upheld the conviction of Mohamed Makni, a businessman, father, and deputy mayor of Echirolles.
The statement attributed to him was a single sentence: 'They are quick to qualify as terrorism what in our eyes is a clear act of resistance.' This quote came not from a Palestinian commander or Hamas official, but from Ahmed Ounaies, Tunisia's former foreign minister and former ambassador under President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to Russia and India.
For citing this political analysis, Makni was sentenced to four months suspended prison and barred from holding public office for four months, upheld by the Court of Appeal and in March by the Court of Cassation.
For the first time since October 7, 2023, France's highest court intervened directly in the political and legal battle over classifying Palestinian resistance. The core question: do people under prolonged military occupation have the right to resist? International law answers yes, but official France now appears to answer differently.
Makni's conviction does not punish incitement to kill or attack, but merely linking occupation and resistance. It criminalizes a political framework shared by many beyond Hamas supporters.
The Court of Cassation's ruling suggests French courts operate under government influence, and the government itself under foreign influence. This development followed the French government's choice after October 7 to use the charge of glorifying terrorism to control public debate on Palestine.
The dominant Western narrative insists on treating October 7 as isolated from history, while much of the world sees it as part of a historical process of occupation, colonialism, and denial of Palestinian rights. This second interpretation is now increasingly subject to judicial censorship.
The Makni case concerns everyone who refuses to exclude Palestine from the general rules of history. It concerns those who believe concepts of colonialism, occupation, and resistance remain valid for Palestinians. It also draws attention to those who reject turning political debate into a criminal matter.
The question remains: 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, leading to the belief that this case deserves to be known and denounced beyond France's borders.
Source: www.aljazeera.com