Published in French on 26 February 2024

On 7 November 2023, Aurélien Saintoul, LFI deputy for the 11th constituency of Hauts-de-Seine, had asked the defense minister ["le ministre des armées"] about arms transfers to Israel. After mentioning some precise information, Saintoul expressed the wish to know whether France, in conformity with her international commitments, had suspended her exports of war materials to Israel.

The response was given on 20 February 2024 and said: "The principle of banning without express authorisation from the administrative authority lies at the base of France’s policy on arms exports (article L. 2335-2 of the defense code). Consequently every request for the export of war materials and related materials is subject to robust controls. The statutory authority for requests for prior exportations is the Prime Minister, who receives advice from the inter-ministerial commission for the study of war-related exports (CIEEMG). (...) France has stated again that Israel has a right to self-defense, and this must occur with respect for international humanitarian law. Respect for human rights and international humanitarian law by the destination country are taken fully into account in CIEEMG’s examination of war materials, as are the consequences for peace, security and regional stability. This strict framework for analysis has not led to an integral suspension of the flow of war materials since 7 October 2023."

What does this sentence say? "This strict framework for analysis has not led to an integral suspension of the flow of war materials since 7 October 2023."

Is it that this framework for analysis has not halted the flow of exports to Israel, in any way? Or that it has led to a suspension but only partial?

In either case, the CIEEMG and the Prime Minister of France, by refusing to suspend all deliveries of "war materials, components or related accessories", consider that the destination country Israel is doing no more than defending itself with strict ’respect for human rights and international humanitarian law’ when, since 7 October 2023, it has killed over 30 000 Gazans, mostly civilians, women and children, and wounded thousands of others, while depriving hundreds of thousands of the most basic means of survival.

Thus, after the abominable crime against humanity committed by Hamas on 7 October 2023 - the result of the intolerable fate imposed on Palestinians for 75 years by a colonising State which is all the more confident because it holds the nuclear monopoly in the region - Israel can reply with a crime against humanity that is no less abominable (merely thirty times more murderous) while still respecting "international humanitarian law" and without provoking "consequences for peace, security and regional stability". That is if we can believe the CIEEMG and the Prime Minister!

What can we say about such a judgement and such an attitude adopted in the name of France "the homeland of human rights"? It is simply an abominable hypocrisy and a criminal complicity.

The CIEEMG and the Prime Minister, or more precisely the PMs in office since 7 October 2023, are liable for prosecution for complicity in crimes against humanity, non-respect for international law, non-respect of France’s Constitution and betrayal of the values of the French Republic.

It’s the same abominable treason that exempts something from all judicial pursuit: "the fact of using, to accomplish an act needed by France in the exercise of her right to self-defense, a nuclear weapons or any other weapons whose use is not banned by an international convention to which France belongs" (Article 462-11 of the Penal Code). Thus the President is not only physically sheltered from a nuclear exchange (in his Jupiter Bunker) but is also sheltered from any judicial prosecution if he uses the nuclear bomb and thus commits a crime against humanity. The President of France is not only the supreme head of the armed forces, he is the supreme irresponsible. The untouchable mass criminal.

And what applies to him applies to all heads of nuclear states.

In fact, by the same reasoning, Israel should be able, in the exercise of its "right to self-defense", to use its nuclear weapons, provided the target is a little further away than Gaza and the West Bank.

Already Mr Putin, using the same "self-defense" reasoning, has threatened to use his nuclear bombs. There is nothing to stop him doing so tomorrow - France’s Penal Code absolves him in advance.

Nuclear weapons are the mother of all abominations. Let’s seize them away from all the heads of state, be they democratic or dictatorial, and let’s rid the planet of this infamous rot.

Jean-Marie Matagne
Doctor of Philosophy
President of ACDN
Action des Citoyens pour le Désarmement Nucléaire
contact@acdn.net