You are here:   Dispatches > Paris: Prisoner of the Barbarians
 

Two members of Fofana's defence team — Maître Isabelle Coutant-Peyre, the wife of Carlos "the Jackal", the Venezuelan-born pro-jihadi serving a life sentence for multiple terror attacks, and Maître Emmanuel Ludot, who represented Saddam Hussein — were interviewed on an Agence France Press video on the opening day of the trial. Angered by hecklers shouting at defendants and lawyers outside the court, they denounced political and media pressure against their client, claiming that President Nicolas Sarkozy was using the case for ignoble electoral reasons. They also claimed that some of the plaintiffs were backed by a "certain lobby", and that blacks had been
attacked by thugs from the right-wing Zionist Betar and the Jewish Defence League groups "when the Halimi family organised a demonstration". Maître Coutant-Peyre declares in the video: "Fofana is a scapegoat." A young lawyer joins them. They discuss the case. He thinks they'll be able to get the court to drop the aggravating circumstances of anti-Semitism. They joke about Maître Szpiner. Is the Elysée (the presidency) paying his fees? The young lawyer guffaws. "It's the Crif [the umbrella body of French Jewry]!" he says, provoking derisive laughter, "and the Elysée is funding the Crif." According to leaked information, Fofana subsequently dismissed Coutant-Peyre in an outburst of paranoid anti-Semitic rage, shouting, "Peyre, that's a Jewish name, isn't it?"

In the absence of reliable information about the trial, which is scheduled to run until 11 July, how can one predict the verdict? The death penalty was abolished in 1981. Life imprisonment is a relative concept. Prisons are overcrowded and dangerous criminals are often released early. Confidential sources have told me that Fofana could be "rubbed out" in prison.

Journalists who were present at the start of the trial, until a motion brought by the Halimi family to hear the case in an open court was defeated, reported that Fofana entered shouting "Allahu Akhbar" ("Allah is Great"). Asked to identify himself, he replied in mangled French, "Arabs, African armed revolt, Salafist barbarian." He gave the day of Ilan's death as his date of birth. 

Will lawyers, if any are left to defend him, use Fofana's megalomaniac defiance as an argument for diminished responsibility? In 2003 a Muslim neighbour lured a Jewish DJ, Sebastien Selam, into the underground garage of their building, slit his throat, gouged out his eyes with a carving fork, went home and told his mother: "I killed my Jew, I'll go to paradise." He was released after spending a few years in a mental hospital and will apparently never be tried. The anti-Semitic motivation in that case was so thoroughly denied that commentators systematically referred to Halimi's killing as the first anti-Semitic murder in France.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Andrew Bostom
July 3rd, 2009
11:07 AM
Elsewhere in reports on the trial mentioned in the article Fofana is quoted as saying that he is right to hate Jews because it says so in the Koran, and/or he learned from the Koran to hate Jews. Below are links to but a sampling of the motifs of purely Islamic Jew hatred found in the Koran and the hadith, and the ugly acts of anti-Jewish hatred they have engendered across space and time by Muslims, past and present over a continuum of almost 14 centuries. These are—wait for it—facts, as opposed to ignorant, self-righteous and corrosive fantasies. http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/2008/04/020584print.html Antisemitism in the Qur’an: Motifs and Historical Manifestations http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/2008/04/020709print.html Antisemitism in the Hadith and Early Muslim Biographies of Muhammad: Motifs and Manifestations

Matt Juden
June 30th, 2009
4:06 PM
I didn't intend to implicitly deny what you've pointed out Raymond. It is nevertheless unproductive to ever call Jew-hatred in general or in a specific case 'Islamic' as this denies the legitimacy and profusion of expressions of Islam which do not involve such hatred. I remain open to the author of the piece defending their wording, of course.

Raymond in DC
June 29th, 2009
10:06 AM
While the author may have been inconsistent in choice of adjectives, his intent should have been clear. Matt Juden may be uncomfortable with the implications, but Andrew G Bostom's "The Legacy of Islamic AntiSemitism" shows that such events have a long history, indeed, going back to the very founding of this movement. It was, after all, during Mohammed's time that the targeting of Jews - and thus their despoliation, murder and exile from Arabia - was given theological foundation. The Koran itself is rife with Jew hatred, as it is of all "unbelievers" (infidels), but the particular animus toward the Jew is undeniable.

Laura
June 29th, 2009
12:06 AM
How could there be doubt that the police intended to fail to rescue Ilan? Multiple phone calls that weren't traced? Screams heard over the phone? Taunts by the torturers? Failure to understand the anti-semitic insanity that drives the murderers? How can a reader evade the conclusion that that the police either intentionally connived with the crime, or else are so incompetent and blase about the nature of Ilan's abductors as to amount to the same thing?

Matt Juden
June 28th, 2009
11:06 PM
'Islamic Jew-hatred' from the second paragraph contains an ill-chosen adjective. The writing in the next paragraph follows a useful convention when it mentions 'Islamist anti-Semitism'. It is, surely, essential to distinguish between sentiments which are 'Islamic' and those which are 'Islamist'. This makes it clear that the author is not talking about all expressions of Islam, just those which are Islamist. Probably, the author does not mean to suggest that the Jew-hatred in question is even 'Islamist' let alone 'Islamic', but rather that the Jew-hatred was part of Fofana's brand of Islam. 'Jew-hatred' and a supplementary sentence or 'Jew-hatred, part of his radical Islamism' would both be better. Whatever the author meant, it seems to me that a more precise expression was very necessary unless the author wished to suggested that it is reasonable to consider Jew-hatred Islamic. Is the adjective used in paragraph two an error, or do I mistunderstand and the author intended to signify that the Jew-hatred in question or Jew-hatred in general should be considered Islamic?

Bill Corr
June 28th, 2009
4:06 AM
Simple piggy indolence and incompetence and a quite understandable reluctance to tangle with the "youths" known to be willing to fire on the police with hunting rifles. THE SOLUTION: A minister of justice with guts, balls and backbone. C'est tous, mes amis!

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
More Dispatches
Popular Standpoint topics