French court orders release of Lebanese militant who killed diplomats
Georges Ibrahim Abdallah was serving a life sentence for complicity in the murders of two diplomats, one American and one Israeli, in Paris in 1982.
The Paris Court of Appeal ruled Abdallah, who has been imprisoned in France since his arrest in 1984, can be released next Friday on the condition that he leaves France and never returns, judicial authorities said.
His lawyer, Jean-Louis Chalanset, told reporters that Abdallah wants to return to Lebanon upon his release and remains "a communist militant who supports the Palestinian struggle and fights against the invasion of his country by Israel."
He described Abdallah as the longest-held political prisoner in Europe.
"He has never renounced his convictions," Chalanset said, adding that US authorities had lobbied the Paris court to reject the 74-year-old's release request.
"So it's also a political victory, even after nearly 41 years in detention, against the United States."
'Political scandal'
Abdallah's lawyer Jean-Louis Chalanset welcomed the decision, saying "It's both a judicial victory and a political scandal that he was not released earlier."
A French court ordered Abdallah's release in November last year, conditional on him leaving France.
But anti-terror prosecutors opposed the move, arguing that he had not changed his political views and appealed the decision which was subsequently suspended.
A verdict was supposed to have been delivered in February, but a Paris appeals court postponed a decision, saying it was unclear if Abdallah could prove he had paid compensation to the plaintiffs, something he has consistently refused to do.
Abdallah has always refused to acknowledge his involvement in the assassinations of the diplomats, describing them instead as "acts of resistance" against "Israeli and American oppression" and considering himself a political prisoner.
He was sentenced to life in prison in 1987 for his involvement in the murders of US military US military attaché Charles Robert Ray and Israeli diplomat Yacov Barsimantov.
At the last hearing on 19 June, the appeals court ruled in favour of his release on the grounds that the length of his detention was "disproportionate" to the crimes committed.
The court said his release will allow him to return to Lebanon and "finish his days" in his village in the north of the country, adding that he no longer posed a risk of disturbing public order.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
LeMonde
42 minutes ago
- LeMonde
France strives to revive the two-state solution at UN conference
As Jean-Noël Barrot walked up to the podium at the United Nations headquarters on Monday, July 28, he hoped that his speech would make history, placing France at the forefront of global diplomacy by laying out a path to peace between Israel and Palestine. Yet the foreign minister's words could also just vanish into thin air, fueling well-intentioned – yet ultimately futile – rhetoric that had already been heard at the UN countless times. The French Foreign Affairs Ministry has, therefore, been working to turn his words into action. Barrot had been tasked with confirming the promise President Emmanuel Macron had made four days earlier, his pledge to recognize the State of Palestine at the UN General Assembly in September. In his speech, Barrot reiterated how this position, which has been criticized by Israel and its ally, the United States, is clearly in line with France's longstanding political philosophy. From Charles de Gaulle to Jacques Chirac, French presidents have always been mindful of the "right of peoples to self-determination." This principle led France to recognize Israel in 1949, and it now compels it to recognize the State of Palestine, the foreign minister said at a conference on the two-state solution co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia. "Nothing is more precious to man than the dignity of standing free and upright on the land where their roots run deep. Because, to deprive them of this right inevitably leads to resentment, violence and war," Barrot said, speaking before an audience of over 100 representatives of UN member states.
Euronews
43 minutes ago
- Euronews
EU and US spin conflicting versions of trade deal
The trade deal between the European Union and the United States is off to a rocky start. The preliminary agreement, announced at the end of a face-to-face meeting of Ursula von der Leyen and Donald Trump in Scotland, has prompted a massive wave of criticism over its heavily lopsided nature in favour of American interests. On Monday, the European Commission spent the day briefing journalists to defend the deal as an anchor of stability and predictability in troubled times, a pill that is hard to swallow but necessary to avoid a havoc-wreaking tariff war across the Atlantic. Then the story took a new twist when the White House published a fact sheet about the agreement with multiple claims that mismatched or downright contradicted the version of events presented by the Commission just hours earlier. On Tuesday, Brussels replied with its own statement, sowing further confusion. Euronews takes a closer look at the clash of narratives. Pharmaceuticals What the White House says: Pharmaceuticals will be subject to the across-the-board 15% tariff that will apply to the majority of EU-made products as of 1 August. What the Commission says: Pharmaceuticals will, for the time being, be spared from the 15% tariff and instead remain under the current 0% rate until the Trump administration completes its Section 232 investigation into the sector. "There will be no tariffs on pharmaceuticals this Friday," a senior official said. While the US' Section 232 investigation could lead to a tailor-made, painfully high tariff, as was the case for steel and aluminium, the Commission expects the 15% will act as the maximum ceiling, blocking the imposition of any additional duties on top. "I believe that this commitment will be honoured and respected in this case," said Maroš Šefčovič, the European Commissioner for Trade. Energy purchases What the White House says: The EU will "double down" on its purchases of American energy, buying $750 billions' worth by the end of Trump's second term. In practice, this will amount to $250 billion each year. What the Commission says: The Commission, which negotiated the deal on behalf of all 27 member states, lacks the competence to determine the amount, the type and the origin of the energy supplies acquired by governments and companies. Therefore it cannot legally bind the bloc to the goal of spending $750 billion on American energy. The announced number is an indication based on the needs the EU will face in the coming years to phase out the consumption of Russian fossil fuels, an arduous effort that has boosted the role played by American liquefied natural gas (LNG). "It's important to remember that the European Commission is not buying any of these commodities and neither is the US government selling any of this," a Commission spokesperson said. "These are all commercial decisions made by the companies: those companies that buy and those companies that sell." The spokesperson noted the annual figure of $250 billion would be all-encompassing, covering ordinary purchases of American fuel, which currently range from $92 to $100 billion, as well as technology and investments. Investment pledge What the White House says: The EU will invest $600 billion in the US by the end of Trump's second term. "This new investment is in addition to the over $100 billion (that) EU companies already invest in the United States every year," the fact sheet says. What the Commission says: As with the energy purchases, the Commission is unable to design and implement investments on behalf of the private sector. The $600 billion is another indication based on the executive's contacts with industry. "It's not something the EU, as a public authority, can guarantee – it's something based on the intention of private companies," a senior official said. The aggregated $600 billion figure might shrink once the impact of the EU-US trade deal, which is disadvantageous for the bloc, begins to take effect. Despite the uncertainty, the White House is portraying the energy and investment pledges as a fait accompli. Weaponry What the White House says: The EU "agreed to purchase significant amounts of US military equipment", the fact sheet says, without citing any financial figure. What the Commission says: Absolutely not. The Commission has resolutely denied making any pledge to ramp up purchases of American-made weaponry. This is a highly sensitive matter for Brussels, given that defence is a strictly national competence that member states zealously guard. While Ursula von der Leyen has promoted ambitious initiatives to boost defence spending, the final decision of how this money is spent – or if it is spent at all – rests exclusively in the hands of capitals. "Arms procurement is not a matter for the Commission," the senior official said. "I think this was more an expression of expectation on the part of President Trump that the increased defence expenditure (in Europe) would benefit US defence companies because of the quality of the US defence equipment, but it was not calculated in any way in the figures we talked about." Steel and aluminium What the White House says: The sectoral tariffs on steel and aluminium will remain "unchanged", meaning the EU will continue to pay the 50% rate imposed by the Trump administration as a result of the Section 232 investigation. "This new tariff regime will generate tens of billions of dollars in revenue annually and help to close the longstanding trade imbalance between the United States and Europe by encouraging local sourcing, reshoring production and ensuring that foreign producers contribute their fair share to the American economy," the fact sheet says. What the Commission says: The EU insists the deal will establish a specific quota system to settle the long-standing dispute over steel and aluminium. Under the system, the volume of EU exports that fall within the quota will benefit from a lower tariff rate. Once the quota is exceeded, the 50% will apply, senior officials explained. Due to the embryonic state of the agreement, the Commission is still unable to provide technical details on how the quota will work in practice. Its press release simply says the system will be based on "historic levels" of steel and aluminium exports. The White House's fact sheet mentions a commitment to provide "meaningful quotas" for several products, but only in the context of US products bound for the EU market, not vice versa, as the Commission has stated. Digital and agricultural barriers What the White House says: As part of the new deal, the US and the EU will address "non-tariff barriers" in food and agricultural trade, "including streamlining requirements for sanitary certificates for US pork and dairy products". The two sides will also address "unjustified digital barriers", the White House adds, with commitments to maintain network usage fees and zero duties on electronic transmissions. What the Commission says: Yes, the EU is willing to streamline sanitary certificates, which are forms, and discuss network fees, but that's as far as it goes. The bloc will retain its "right to regulate autonomously" at all stages, said Olof Gill, the Commission's spokesperson for trade, in reply to the White House's claims. "We're not moving on our regulations. We're not moving on our rules. We're not moving on the system that we built up over many decades that our citizens trust," Gill said. "That will not form part of this agreement with the US." Throughout the negotiations that preceded the deal, US officials consistently denounced the bloc's regulatory framework, calling for the abolition of its digital rules, food safety standards and value-added tax (VAT) as top irritants.
France 24
2 hours ago
- France 24
French health experts speak out against bee-killing pesticide
The legislation to reintroduce in France acetamiprid, a pesticide that is harmful to ecosystems but popular with many farmers in Europe, was adopted on July 8, but without a proper debate to bypass gridlock in a divided parliament. The move sparked anger in France, and support for a student-initiated petition against the legislation has snowballed, with university lecturers, left-wing lawmakers and star chefs backing it. The petition had garnered more than 2 million signatures by Tuesday. Health experts and patient associations have now weighed in, saying in an open letter in French daily Le Monde that they cannot back "a law that is dangerous to the health of our fellow citizens". President Emmanuel Macron, who has been under increasing pressure to act, said he is waiting to hear the verdict of the Constitutional Council, which is expected to rule on the constitutionality of the law on August 7. The health experts and patient associations urged the Constitutional Council to reject the legislation, calling on its members to "respond to the democratic demand strongly expressed by French citizens". The signatories included Agnes Linglart, president of the French Paediatric Society, Olivier Coutard, president of the scientific council of France's flagship scientific research centre CNRS and Gerard Socie, president of the scientific council of the National Cancer Institute. The Constitutional Council, the letter said, must protect future generations from the legislation that "without a shadow of reasonable doubt compromises the health of young people, children and the unborn". The letter said the Senate committee preparing the bill heard from agricultural unions and government agencies but not "doctors, toxicologists or epidemiologists". The senators did not consult representatives of the CNRS, health and labour ministries, even though occupational exposure to pesticides is a risk factor for humans, the letter said. Citing the INSERM health and medical research organisation, the letter pointed to evidence of a link between exposure to pesticides and the occurrence of cancers, neurodegenerative, pulmonary and hormone-related disorders. Banned in France since 2018, the chemical remains legal in the European Union.
