“Are we ready to carry out an intifada in Paris? In the banlieues? In our neighborhoods?”

When Elias d’Imzalene pronounced these words in front of a pro-Palestinian crowd in Paris on the 8th of September 2024, no soul could have predicted the swift turn of events about to unfold. Elias, one of the key leaders of Urgence Palestine — the main pro-Palestinian group in France — had been at the forefront of every protest against the genocide in the country. With his bold and proud Muslimness on display, he achieved what seemed impossible in France: imposing a relevant voice firmly rooted in Islam in a pro-Palestinian space long dominated by the Left.

As the genocide continued (and continues…) unimpeded, the movement’s psyche could have easily faltered, falling prey to the Zionist regime’s determination and the inflation crisis. Like an army, a popular movement cannot run on a depleted spirit and an empty stomach. Therefore, the gathering was organised to reinvigorate the movement during a depressing moment.

“Soon Jerusalem will be liberated! And we will pray once again in Masjid Al Aqsa! And Jerusalem will become the capital of every revolutionary!”

Through Elias’ timely fervor, the message was not just sent: it was warmly welcomed. The crowd passionately cheered and applauded him. The eloquent speech succeeded in its intent: it imparted renewed motivation to sustain the movement’s efforts.

Mechanics of a national aggression

Omar Youssef Soulaimane is a famous native informant. A Syrian refugee in France, he successfully built his name as a legitimate indigenous voice staunchly opposing both the Assadist regime and Islamic revolutionary movements. Hiding his identity, he secretly recorded the speech and published parts of it on its X account.

According to Soulaimane’s comments and (mis)interpretation, Elias chose to use the word “intifada” with one purpose in mind: civil war. Rapidly his posts’ reach grew exponentially, gaining traction amongst far-right spaces. Soon enough, BFM TV and CNEWS — the French equivalent of CNN and Fox News — took interest in the “story”. It became their main headline for days. The case continued to spread: major political figures were asked about their position. Elias was now accused of fomenting sectarian violence on a national platform.

From a native informants’ deranged comments to mainstream media… We didn’t come full circle yet. Our experience of French Islamophobia’s mechanics sufficiently sharpened our intuitions to anticipate one thing: the State was about to take legal action against Elias.

We were right indeed. On Friday the 13th — only 4 days after the gathering — the prosecutor’s office announced that, after receiving a report by the minister of the Interior himself, an official investigation had been launched. It unveiled the three offences it was considering as potential charges :

“public incitement to hatred or violence against a person or group of persons on the grounds of their origin, nationality, race or religion”;

“public and direct provocation, without effect, to commit intentional attacks on the life or physical integrity of the person, aggravated by origin or religion”;

“public and direct provocation, without effect, to commit crimes or offences affecting the fundamental interests of the nation”.

 The news whipped our blood, as the third one caught us off guard. In French criminal law, the offence is listed as a “crime against the Nation”. It is punishable for up to 15 years of imprisonment.

Two weeks later, Elias was summoned and interrogated at the headquarters of the French police for three very long days. The prosecutor himself came to the headquarters to supervise the interrogation process. The questions were politically driven toward criminalising his allegiance to Islam and the Ummah. What sect was he following? Did he support Hamas? Did he support the 7th of October? What did he truly mean by “intifada”? The Arabic word was here the key focus. The police officer had clear instructions: force Elias into admitting that he was indeed trying to start a civil war in order to secure the third decisive charge or, at least, that he was trying to encourage acts of violence against the Jewish community.

French legislation strictly describes the “fundamental interests of the nation” : independence, the integrity of its territory, its security, the republican form of its institutions, the means of its defence and diplomacy, the protection of its population in France and abroad, the balance of its natural environment and the essential elements of its scientific and economic potential and its cultural heritage.

During the interrogations, the State needed to gather sufficient elements that supported the Islamophobic conspiracy theory according to which Elias’ true message — hid behind an ambivalent wording — aimed at undermining at least one of those interests; chiefly, the protection of the population.

The leader of Urgence Palestine answered with sincerity, resilience and common sense. For three days the officer asked the same questions on a loop, using different angles, hoping to tire Elias enough to extract a prejudicial answer. D’Imzalene stood his ground and finally got out. A trial was announced on the 23rd of October.

A few days before its start, we received our first good news. Thanks to Elias’ steadfastness and nerves of steel during the interrogation, the “crime against the Nation” charge was dropped. We were not facing the eventuality of a 15-year-long imprisonment anymore.

An 8-hour long trial

The nature of the last two charges was not as threatening. On paper, they both could lead to imprisonment but in practice, no precedent suggested this possibility. The fines were our main concern as we knew Elias could be sentenced to 50k, an amount that would have carried paralysing consequences for his personal and political future. It appeared clearly that an acquittal was out of our reach. The State, through both its executive and judiciary branches, went too far in terms of political exposure. It couldn’t let Elias walk away without any legal consequence.

The trial lasted 8 hours. Elias, his lawyer Rafik Chekkat and myself faced more than 10 lawyers representing Zionist organisations, on top of the State’s prosecutor. Elias answered their pressing and biased questions. Again, the debates echoed the interrogation and maintained the same intent: forcing the laughable idea according to which the use of the word “intifada” meant or could have meant Elias encouraged Muslims to engage in acts of violence against the Jewish community and the State.

We received the verdict on the 19th of December 2024: Elias was convicted to a suspended sentence and was fined 10k euros. The sense of relief dominated our hearts as we avoided significant penalties. But a strong aftertaste of injustice remained. Still, Elias’ political language and behaviour were criminalised. His depiction of Jerusalem as an occupied revolutionary capital requiring liberation to achieve spiritual success and his call to continue the global struggle against oppression stemmed from a sense of allegiance to the Ummah and the oppressed; a sense of allegiance inherent to our Muslimness. The State’s attempt at framing his speech as being antagonistic to its fundamental interests only partially failed. If the charge was dropped as a result of Elias’ resistance during the interrogation, it nevertheless fueled the case’s gravity and legitimised the need to punish him. Moreover, it carried a deeper meaning which served both as a reminder and a warning. Ethnonationalist projects, especially in the context of the War on Terror, demand a loyalty bound to the State’s frontiers. As former Minister of the Interior Darmanin once declared: “Muslims in France belong to no-one, to no community other than the national community, and no country has any rights over them.” Freedom of speech knows no confines they say, until one reaches the tall walls defining the West’s allegiance. The French Nation-State does not and will not tolerate Muslim calls for liberation and autonomy. Unrestricted by any border, they defy the covenant we refuse to be a part of: “our country, right or wrong.”