Would the Yadan law prevent criticism of the State of Israel?

The debates in the National Assembly will be particularly scrutinized on Thursday April 16 and Friday April 17, 2026, with the examination of the Yadan bill – named after MP Caroline Yadan, elected from the 8th constituency of French people abroad. Originally tabled in November 2024, an amended version of this text was adopted by the Law Committee on January 20, 2026, taking into account the recommendations of the Council of State.

The announcement of his examination sparked an outcry. A citizen petition strongly opposing it has to date gathered more than 700,000 signatures. According to its detractors, the law would prohibit criticism of the State of Israel, would create confusion between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, and would overall be an attack on freedom of expression.

A first article which “adds vagueness to vagueness”

Of the four articles that make up the text, the first two raise the most questions. The first, because it proposes to extend the offense of apologizing for terrorism to “even implicit” provocations. A term considered vague and subjective, especially since the current interpretation of the offense of advocating terrorism is extensive.

“There is no legal definition of the term “terrorism”, which makes it an offense that was insufficiently defined from the outset,” underlines Me Brigitte Jeannot, lawyer in immigration law and member of the French Lawyers’ Union. An imprecision which has already resulted in “numerous summonses and convictions of people participating in the public debate”.

The creation of a new offense

The second article would create a new offense punishing “any call for the destruction of a State recognized by the French Republic”. For opponents of the text, it is precisely the ban on criticizing the State of Israel that is hidden between these lines. Written like this, the article could just as easily concern Palestine, recognized by France since September 2025.

However, it appears in the explanatory memorandum which supports the proposed law that “hatred of the State of Israel” having become “consubstantial with hatred of the Jews”, “the call for the destruction of Israel and its comparison to a Nazi regime” is a renewed form of anti-Semitism. However, “the interpretation of a text is done in the light of legislative work”, recalls Me Vincent Brengarth, lawyer in criminal law and public liberties.

With the creation of such an offense, “will calling for the reunification of the two Koreas be considered a call for destruction?” », questions Me Brigitte Jeannot.

Interpretation of the law

Could the slogans “Free Palestine” or “From the river to the sea” still be chanted if the law passes? “They are in the crosshairs of the drafters of the law,” assures Me Brigitte Jeannot, who fears in the long term a disproportionate liberticidal effect. The major unknown therefore lies in the interpretation and application of the law by judges, as Mr. Vincent Brengarth points out.

“This risks reinforcing an already existing trend,” he further specifies, relying on a judgment rendered on March 31 by the Court of Cassation which confirmed the conviction of an elected official for having re-shared a platform assimilating the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023 to an “act of resistance”. According to the Court, he would not have brought “any criticism or nuance to this forum (…) encouraging a judgment favorable to the abuses committed”.

This bill would therefore be almost premature according to the lawyer, as the case law on this subject has not yet had time to be questioned.

The alert from the United Nations special rapporteurs

On April 1, 2026, five United Nations special rapporteurs communicated to the government their fear “that this bill could be applied in a discriminatory manner.”

They also underline its potential “deterrent effect” and obstruction of “academic freedom, historical interpretation, the formulation of legal opinions, political criticism, satire or the expression of comments, actions in favor of human rights, as well as the free conduct of public debates”. In other words, freedom of speech.