Ln October 5, President Macron asked “that we stop delivering weapons to fight in Gaza”. A few days later, following the scale of the strikes in Lebanon and Gaza, he called for “stop exports of arms that are used in these theaters of war”.
This position now allows France, like other European countries, to comply with international law: in application of the first article common to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, France has the obligation to “respect” and of “ensure respect, in all circumstances”including by Israel, its obligations under international humanitarian law (IHL). This requires not transferring weapons, ammunition, spare parts and licenses to a party to an armed conflict that is suspected of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.
Since October 2023, United Nations special rapporteurs, human rights organizations, humanitarian actors and research groups have documented international crimes committed by the Israeli army in the occupied Palestinian territory of the Gaza Strip. Unfortunately, political considerations have often taken precedence over respect for the mandatory rules of IHL, sometimes even by invoking a “right of Israel to defend itself” questionable for an occupying power, and which cannot exempt this country from respecting “in all circumstances” its international legal obligations, including in the conduct of hostilities.
Read also | Emmanuel Macron speaks out in favor of stopping arms deliveries to Israel for the war in Gaza: “shame”, replies Benyamin Netanyahu
Read later
The argument of self-defense, however, has largely lost credibility following the recent positions of the International Court of Justice. In 2024, on three occasions, it confirmed the existence of a plausible risk of genocide and the commission of numerous serious violations of international humanitarian law by the Israeli army in Gaza, thus supporting the calls of United Nations experts in favor of an arms embargo on Israel. The July 19 advisory opinion, which strongly condemns Israeli policies and practices and demands an immediate end to settlement and discriminatory practices, has made this legal obligation even stronger.
At the risk of becoming complicit
The recent declarations of the President of the Republic therefore appear to be the natural variation of this obligation to respect IHL. This speech can, however, be criticized for its lateness (why did you wait eight months?), its vagueness (it does not specify that France will no longer deliver offensive or defensive weapons to Israel) and its lack of transparency (no precise information on French arms exports to Israel).
You have 54.99% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
