French Ambassador to Israel: ‘Enough is enough’ – my response

French Ambassador to Israel, Mr. Frédéric Journès, claimed in the Jerusalem Post on May 25, 2026, that “he cannot remain silent anymore; enough is enough.” What has provoked the anger of the most prominent French representative within Israel’s borders? According to him, it is the fact that Israelis keep criticizing France’s policies and displaying what he calls a “staged hostility” toward his country.

Ambassador Journès’ outburst is altogether childish, disingenuous, misinformed, haughty, and hypocritical.

Childish: Ambassador Journès concludes his article by lamenting that France had pushed for direct talks between Israel and Lebanon, only for Israel to reject the proposal and then launch the very same talks one week later. He seems offended that Israel did not begin negotiations when France demanded it, implying that this was motivated by hostility toward France itself.

A child might interpret the facts this way. An adult would understand that France has long maintained a so-called “special relationship” with Lebanon, which unfortunately it failed to use to help rid the country of Hezbollah — perhaps even the opposite. The talks only began in Washington once the Lebanese government showed genuine willingness to engage.

Equally childish is the complaint that Israel failed to inform or consult France before major strategic decisions. One clearly senses President Macron’s frustration at not having been informed prior to the US-Israeli strike against Iran on February 28, 2026. That frustration eventually evolved into France’s strategic posture: “this is not our war.”

Disingenuous: Ambassador Journès demonstrates this repeatedly. First, he pretends to ignore the insulting attitude France has displayed toward Israel since October 7, 2023. President Macron refused to participate in the march against antisemitism in Paris just weeks after the massacre. France barred Israeli companies from participating in trade fairs. President Macron suggested that Israel’s creation by a UN decision was something that “could be reversed.” The same president accused Israel of “barbaric acts” in what he called “civilized southern Lebanon,” conveniently forgetting that the area is effectively controlled by Hezbollah.

And, of course, France committed itself to recognizing a Palestinian state only once certain conditions had been met — including the release of Israeli civilian hostages — only to later abandon those preconditions altogether, thereby rewarding pure and barbaric terrorism.

There are many more examples, and it is understandable that the Ambassador finds it difficult to defend France’s image in Israel. But accusing Israelis of irrational hostility toward France while ignoring these facts requires an extraordinary degree of bad faith — one that will certainly not improve France’s standing among Israelis.

Misinformed: Ambassador Journès argues that France’s negative image in Israel stems from Israel having lost its “traditional taste for debate and controversy.” He claims that criticism of France originates with Israeli leaders and is then repeated uncritically by the public. According to him, this alleged disappearance of debate increases Israel’s vulnerability by making it more predictable.

It is difficult to understand how Ambassador Journès could seriously believe that the culture of debate has disappeared from Israel. He must have lived in a bubble, refusing to observe anything happening in Israeli society that is unrelated to France.

It is true that, regarding France, Israelis — including politicians across the spectrum — have been unusually united since October 7. But instead of trying to understand what led Israelis to unite so strongly in their criticism of France’s attitude, Ambassador Journès simply laments the supposed disappearance of debate.

Indeed, it is remarkable that over the past three years Israelis have been relatively united on only a handful of issues: horror at the October 7 massacres, the Iranian threat… and France.

Haughty: Ambassador Journès acknowledges France’s flaws, but like a young graduate attending his first job interview, the only flaws he admits to are exaggerated versions of supposed virtues: being outspoken, “speaking its mind to friends and allies.”

In doing so, he overlooks France’s long-standing condescension toward Israel, likely rooted in its colonial past — a condescension all the more striking when contrasted with the caution and submissiveness France often displays toward today’s Algerian regime.

This same sense of superiority is apparent when Ambassador Journès laments Israel’s growing isolation due to the erosion of support from France and other European countries. Such arrogance blinds him to a fundamental geopolitical reality: Israel is on the verge of becoming one of the major powers in its region.

The expansion of the Abraham Accords, the weakening of Iran — Israel’s principal enemy since 1979 — and Israel’s growing alliance with the UAE will make European support increasingly less relevant. The strength of Israel’s economy and currency, despite the absence of peace, should be enough to convince any open-minded European ambassador.

Hypocritical: Ambassador Journès claims that France was deeply shocked by the October 7 massacres because they revived memories of Bataclan and Nice. But however horrific those attacks were, they are not comparable to October 7.

Not in scale.
Not in cruelty.
Not in the taking of hostages.

And above all, Israel did not behave toward France after Bataclan and Nice the way France has behaved toward Israel over the past three years.

Israel’s Prime Minister traveled to Paris immediately to participate in demonstrations against terrorism. President Macron, by contrast, was among the last world leaders to visit Israel after October 7. And regarding public demonstrations, he did not even need to travel abroad: a march against antisemitism took place directly under his own windows in Paris. Yet, as previously mentioned, he refused to participate.

Then there is France’s famous distinction between Hezbollah’s “armed wing” and its political branch. How has France still not understood that this distinction is hypocritical at best — and perhaps even criminal — and that it has contributed to Lebanon’s collapse over the past forty years?

Ambassador Journès claims that France has always been a hardliner toward Iran. But can France seriously make such a claim while simultaneously refusing to designate as terrorist the so-called “non-armed branch” of Hezbollah, Iran’s most powerful proxy?

I made Aliyah from France in 2008. I value the French education and culture I received. But lately, when it comes to France, my shame has outweighed my pride.

After all, what do people in France constantly say? That one should be allowed to criticize Israel without automatically being accused of antisemitism.

The same principle applies here, Mr. Ambassador. Israelis should be allowed to criticize France without provoking your anger.

As we say in French: “La colère est mauvaise conseillère.”
Anger is a bad adviser.