Macron faced with his contradictions: when the President of the Republic seems to discover identity-based terrorism

N. Rochat — Genève, Suisse — 2026-10-23

A declaration too far, a failing memory, a Republic put to the test

On 23 October 2026, after the deadly shootings in Trappes and La Verrière, you affirmed that this was the first time a terrorist act had been planned to kill French people because of their skin colour or their presumed religion.

That sentence should have been weighed with extreme rigour. It concerned the dead, the wounded, a seriously injured child, families plunged into anguish, and a society confronted with the terrifying possibility that people might be targeted for what they are — or for what a criminal imagines them to be.

Instead of confining yourself to the absolute condemnation of racist hatred and to the demand for justice, your statement immediately raised an elementary question: how can a president present as a historic first a phenomenon whose tragic precedents are well known?

The office of the president imposes a duty of precision greater than that of a mere political comment. You are not an internet user reacting in the heat of the moment. You are the head of State. Your words commit the national memory.

And when they concern terrorism, the identity of the victims and the fractures of French society, that responsibility is heavier still.

First contradiction: you denounce forgetting while running the risk of erasing precedents

The historical facts are there.

In March 2012, children and a teacher were murdered at the Ozar Hatorah Jewish school in Toulouse. In January 2015, four Jewish people were killed in the Hyper Cacher attack. In July 2016, Father Jacques Hamel was murdered in his church. In October 2020, three people were killed in the Notre-Dame basilica in Nice.

These crimes are not details. They remind us that terrorism can target people precisely because they belong, or are presumed to belong, to a religious community.

So on what historical basis could one proclaim such a categorical first without clearly explaining what would distinguish this attack from the previous ones?

The nuance is nonetheless simple: an attack can present particular characteristics, constitute a turning point or reveal an evolution of political violence without being the first manifestation of a phenomenon.

You could condemn this tragedy with the utmost firmness without making such a general historical declaration. You could acknowledge the specificity of this attack without giving the impression that the previous victims were disappearing from the picture.

A president should not need a national controversy to recall that the memory of the victims must be complete.

Second contradiction: republican equality cannot be a variable-geometry value

Let us now speak of what lies at the heart of this affair: the victims in the Yvelines and the possibility that they were targeted because of their origin or their presumed religion.

If the facts establish that people were targeted because they were Muslim, or perceived as such, then anti-Muslim hatred must be named clearly. If the legal qualifications are met, the terrorist dimension must be pursued with all the necessary rigour.

This is not a favour granted to Muslims. It is not a concession to a community. It is the application of the principle of equality before the law.

The Muslims of France do not have to seek special recognition for their lives to matter. They do not have to prove that their suffering deserves the Republic's attention. They do not have to wait for a tragedy to become a major political event for their security to be considered a priority.

Islamophobia, understood here as hatred or hostility towards Muslims because of their real or presumed religion, is not a harmless opinion when it translates into threats, assaults or crimes. It can become a factor of deadly violence. It must be fought without ambiguity.

And this demand takes nothing away from the fight against antisemitism or against violence targeting Christians. It completes it.

The Republic does not have a limited stock of compassion that would have to be distributed among religions. It owes everyone the same protection and the same demand for justice.

Equality does not mean acknowledging one victim after another, according to the needs of political discourse. It means that no one should be forgotten because their identity is less visible or their suffering less present in the public debate.

Third contradiction: the correction does not make the initial question disappear

After the controversy, you recalled that attacks had already struck Jews and Christians and affirmed that no victim should be forgotten.

That clarification was necessary.

But it raises a legitimate political question: why not have formulated this distinction with the same clarity from your very first intervention?

When a president speaks before the victims, the residents and the entire nation, he must weigh the reach of his words. It is not enough to invoke afterwards the desire not to rank any grief. One must also avoid, from the outset, formulations likely to give the feeling that certain tragedies do not fit into the narrative being constructed.

A correction can clarify a statement. It cannot make pointless the question of why that statement was formulated in that way.

Political responsibility does not consist only in correcting after the fact. It consists in preventing errors of formulation when the stakes are this grave.

You wanted to underline the gravity of a racist act. That was legitimate. But the gravity of a crime does not require attributing to it a historical place that has not been demonstrated.

Fourth contradiction: one does not fight hatred by leaving society to doubt the universality of justice

France is going through deep identity-based tensions. In this context, every presidential statement is scrutinised, discussed and sometimes instrumentalised.

That should precisely lead the head of State to an absolute discipline: never confuse moral condemnation, historical fact and judicial qualification.

The facts of Trappes and La Verrière are grave enough not to need a spectacular formula. One dead, several wounded, a seriously injured child and an anti-terrorist investigation already constitute a terrible reality.

Justice must establish the motive, the circumstances, the responsibilities and the final qualifications. The president, for his part, must guarantee that racist and anti-Muslim hatred will be fought if the facts confirm it, without turning the investigation into an instrument of communication.

Firmness is not the art of finding the most striking formula. It is the capacity to name the facts with exactness, to protect the victims and to enforce the law, even when that disturbs the political narrative of the moment.

Mr Macron, Muslims are not a footnote of the Republic

It must be said plainly: if this attack targeted people because they were Muslim or presumed to be, then French society must face the reality of anti-Muslim hatred head-on.

Muslims are neither extras in the national debate nor a category summoned only when a crisis erupts. They are citizens whose security, dignity and rights are non-negotiable.

Their protection is not incompatible with that of Jews, Christians or people of no religion. It is its logical extension.

There is no legitimate competition between the victims of antisemitism, anti-Christian hatred and Islamophobia. The fight against one of these forms of hatred never justifies silence about another.

True republican universalism does not consist in reciting that all victims are equal after a controversy has erupted. It consists in acting and speaking in such a way that this equality cannot reasonably be called into question.

That is where a president's credibility is measured.

The political verdict: presidential speech must rise to the level of History

Mr Macron, you do not need to invent a first in order to denounce a horror. You do not need to stage a historic turning point to recall that racism is incompatible with the Republic. And you do not need an absolute formula to affirm that every victim deserves justice.

You had an opportunity to deliver a speech irreproachable in its principle: condemn the shootings, support all the victims, denounce racist hatred, take seriously the hypothesis of an anti-Muslim motive and recall the historical precedents without erasing any of them.

It is this requirement that citizens are entitled to expect of you.

The problem is not that you condemned a racist act. It is that your assertion of a historic first may have led people to believe that the history of identity-based terrorism in France began with this attack.

A president must be able to explain precisely what is unprecedented, acknowledge what is not, and correct his words without the memory of the victims becoming the hostage of a controversy.

The Republic is not asking you to choose which victims deserve to be remembered. It is asking you to protect them all, to respect their memory and never to sacrifice truth to the effect of a sentence.

And if the facts establish that Muslims were deliberately targeted, then their suffering must be acknowledged without evasion, their security defended without reserve and their attackers prosecuted with the same determination as in any other case of racist or terrorist violence.

The sentence France is entitled to address to its president

Mr Macron, you are not the owner of the national memory. You are its temporary custodian. You do not have the power to decree that a horror is unprecedented by the sole force of your words. And you cannot ask the French to believe in republican equality without accepting that each of your statements be confronted with the facts, with History and with the same demands of coherence.

The victims do not need a memorial competition. Muslims do not need conditional compassion. Jews and Christians do not need their history to be instrumentalised to defend another cause. And France does not need new solemn formulas: it needs rigorous justice, equal protection and an irreproachable presidential voice.

The Republic does not belong to Emmanuel Macron. It belongs to all citizens. And its duty of protection stops neither at a religion, nor at a skin colour, nor at the limits of a presidential speech.

📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY (rule no. 19)

1. Le Figaro, « "First time" a terrorist act aims to kill "because of the presumed colour of skin or religion": Macron's serious mistake on the Yvelines shootings », 23 October 2026 — https://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/premiere-fois-qu-un-acte-terroriste-vise-a-tuer-en-raison-de-la-couleur-de-peau-ou-de-la-religion-supposees-la-lourde-erreur-de-macron-sur-les-tirs-des-yvelines-20261023

2. Cited precedents : Toulouse (Ozar Hatorah school, March 2012), Hyper Cacher (January 2015), Father Jacques Hamel (July 2016), Notre-Dame basilica in Nice (October 2020) — documented historical facts.

⚠️ Published reservations. (1) Macron's quotation and the context of the Yvelines shootings (Trappes, La Verrière, 23 October 2026) are reported by Le Figaro. (2) The article is the editor-in-chief's version, faithfully recorded. (3) The terrorist precedents are documented historical facts.