Permit to kill in Gaza, pro-Israeli lobby, harassment: Pascal Boniface denounces the pressures suffered
On the Oummatv program this week, an interview with Pascal Boniface, director of the Institute of International and Strategic Relations (IRIS), around his latest hard -hitting work: license to kill – Gaza, Genocide, Negationism and Hasbara, published by Max Milo. In a context marked by a genocidal war in Gaza, Pascal Boniface returns without detour to media treatment in France, the excesses of political discourse, and the way in which international law is too often flouted when it comes to the Palestinian people. He denounces the logics of intellectual disqualification, the demonization campaigns, but also the invisibilization of critical Jewish voices and any support for the rights of the Palestinians. A dense exchange, without language of wood, where it is a question of the influence of the Hasbara (Israeli propaganda), the evolution of Franco-Israeli relationships, and the deleterious effects of certain political silences. An interview to discover absolutely, to better understand the mechanisms of opinion and the challenges of justice around the current genocide in Gaza.
Interview report with Pascal Boniface
In his work License to kill: Gaza, Genocide, Negationism and HasbaraPascal Boniface, director of IRIS, analyzes the situation in Gaza through the prism of international law, media treatment and French political dynamics. He defends a position based on universal legal principles, refusing partisan labels.
An ethical and legal positioning, not a supporter
Pascal Boniface begins by recalling that he does not consider himself pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli, but defender of international law and the law of peoples to have themselves. He denounces the double standard of Western powers which, according to him, apply the law selectively: farms towards Russia in Ukraine, but complacent towards Israel in Gaza.
Unbalanced media treatment
The author criticizes a pro-Israeli media bias, which he describes as “Westernist bias”. He rejects conspiracy theses on Jewish media domination, stressing that many Jewish intellectuals favorable to international law are themselves marginalized. This bias would be fueled by the fear of the attacks, a latent anti-arabic racism and a European memory centered on the Holocaust, contrasting with that of the Global South, marked by colonization.
A powerful and transversal pro-Israeli lobby
Pascal Boniface says that there is no “Jewish lobby”, but a pro-Israeli lobby in France, made up of Jewish and non-Jewish people. This network, according to him, acts to stifle diplomatic support to Palestine. He criticizes the “unconditional” support for Israel, recalling that any attachment to a country, including his, must remain conditional on respect for the law.
Hasbara: an influence strategy deployed in France
One of the chapters of the book relates to the hasbaraIsraeli communication strategy. He quotes the Elnet association there, which organizes parliamentarians’ trips in order to present an idealized Israel, while obscuring the reality of the occupation. These trips, according to Boniface, aim to influence French political accounts.
French diplomatic rupture between 2005 and 2007
Pascal Boniface identifies a break in French politics between 2005 and 2007. Jacques Chirac, despite his opposition to the war in Iraq, would have rehabilitated relations with Ariel Sharon, under the pressure of the fight against anti -Semitism. This trend is increasing with the arrival of Nicolas Sarkozy, and a majority of parliamentarians become pro-Israelis, including the extreme right.
Bouamrane case: controversy and instrumentalization
The author returns to a personal controversy: his words about Karim Bouamrane, PS mayor, whom he had described as a “Muslim appearance”. This poorly perceived expression earned him a media storm, masking according to him the real subject: the silence of the elected official on the bombings in Gaza.
Conclusion: “Be on the right side of history”
Despite the attacks suffered, Pascal Boniface claims to prefer to have taken a position against injustice in Gaza. He concludes that it is better to undergo criticism than to remain silent in the face of what he considers to be crimes of ignored humanity.
