JERUSALEM — French President Emmanuel Macron’s declaration that Israel’s military campaign in Gaza is “shameful” has drawn a forceful response from Israeli officials, who are emphasizing a historical comparison with France’s record in Algeria in an effort to highlight what they describe as hypocrisy and selective outrage on the part of European leaders. The diplomatic dispute underscores growing tensions between Israel and segments of the European community as the war against Hamas nears its eighth month, following the deadliest antisemitic massacre since the Holocaust on October 7, 2023.
In his remarks from Paris, Macron criticized the civilian toll and the humanitarian situation in Gaza, describing Israel’s conduct as crossing a moral line. In Israel, his words were met with anger and derision, with officials and commentators invoking France’s suppression of the Algerian independence movement (1954–1962)—a campaign that resulted in tens of thousands of civilian deaths, widespread torture, and forced displacement—as context for what they say is a double standard in international criticism of Israel’s right to self-defense. “Remove your shoes from your feet,” an allusion to humility before sacred ground, circulated widely on Israeli media alongside a demand for moral consistency from European leaders.
France’s Colonial War in Algeria and Present-Day Debates
From 1954 to 1962, France’s campaign to retain Algeria as part of its colonial empire saw mass arrests, extrajudicial killings, and systemic torture. Civilian casualty estimates from the Algerian War vary widely; some historians cite a total of 20,000–40,000 deaths attributable to the French response to the independence revolt, with higher numbers in some Algerian accounts. French officials have in recent years begun to acknowledge these crimes, but national reckoning remains deeply contested.
Against this background, Israeli officials argue that Israel, unlike its European critics, conducts its military operations according to international law—even under the extremely challenging conditions imposed by Hamas’s use of human shields, tunnels under civilian infrastructure, and the deliberate embedding of command posts in densely populated areas. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) point to their efforts to warn civilians in advance of operations, create humanitarian corridors, and facilitate aid, as evidence of a clear moral and legal distinction from the atrocities of the colonial era.
Israel’s Campaign: Self-Defense Against Iranian-Backed Terrorism
The military operation in Gaza commenced after Hamas terrorists stormed the Israeli border on October 7, killing over 1,200 men, women, and children in southern Israel and abducting more than 250 hostages as part of a broader campaign directed by Iran and its regional proxies—including Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and others. Israeli officials stress that the war is not a matter of choice, but a necessity imposed by a terrorist infrastructure that threatens Israeli civilians and the broader region.
Israel contends that its campaign is governed by transparency and accountability, with military actions regularly reviewed by domestic and international legal advisors. The IDF further asserts that countless missions have been aborted or altered to reduce civilian harm—even as Hamas launches rockets indiscriminately into Israeli towns and cities, and continues to hold dozens of hostages in clear violation of international norms.
The Hostage Crisis and Moral Asymmetries
Israel’s government regularly contrasts its own legal obligations and humanitarian efforts with the actions of Hamas, whose tactics have included summary executions, sexual violence, mutilation, and the use of Gaza residents as human shields. The ongoing hostage crisis, in which innocent Israelis are held by force in Gaza, is cited as emblematic of the fundamental moral divide between the democratic state and terrorist adversaries. In past prisoner exchanges, Israel has released convicted terrorists to recover even a single citizen, demonstrating an overriding commitment to the sanctity of civilian life.
European Responses: Patterns of Selectivity and Political Pressures
The Macron government’s criticism reflects broader trends in European political discourse, where support for Israel’s security is often counterbalanced by concerns for Palestinian civilians and calls for accountability. French domestic politics—shaped by the legacy of colonialism, waves of Islamist terror, and a diverse electorate—require nuanced calibrations, but Israeli officials assert that such nuance rarely extends to a full appreciation of the threat posed by Iranian-backed groups after October 7.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reiterated that Israel welcomes legitimate scrutiny but rejects any attempt to negate its right to protect its citizens from terrorist organizations committed to its destruction. Official Israeli statements repeatedly note that Hamas’s enmity is not based on grievances over territory but on an ideological commitment, inspired and supplied by Iran, to eradicate Jewish sovereignty in the region.
Historical and International Context
The legacy of French action in Algeria—and Europe’s overall attitude toward postwar conflicts involving Israel—has shaped Israeli anxieties about neutrality and fair treatment in international forums like the United Nations. Many Israelis perceive a pattern in which democratic self-defense against terror is held to a stricter standard than similar past operations by other Western countries, including recent U.S.-led campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The UN, Israel argues, has often exacerbated anti-Israel bias, with disproportionate resolutions targeting the Jewish state while sidelining terrorism and violations by Hamas or other Iranian-backed groups. This sense of isolation has fueled Israeli distrust of international intervention and skepticism toward European governments that, they say, preach values not always reflected in their own histories.
Conclusion: The Stakes for Historical Truth and Moral Clarity
As the conflict continues, Israeli leaders and senior commentators call for what they describe as historical coherence: acknowledgment of the unique security challenges posed by terror organizations that exploit their own populations, and a willingness among Europeans to apply equal standards to all sovereign democracies facing existential threats. The controversy following President Macron’s criticism is emblematic of a larger debate—over the meaning of self-defense, the legacy of colonial violence in Europe, and the persistent need for rigorous, evidence-based journalism to inform global public opinion in times of war.
The immediate fallout from Macron’s remarks may be diplomatic, but the underlying issue is far broader: how the international community chooses to interpret, remember, and apply lessons from its own troubled past as Israel pursues its campaign against terror in the 21st century.
