Back to our investigation. It isn't conclusive yet, but I didn't want you to think I had forgotten this.

What We Know

The Arab News story gave the trigger incident as a pro-Israel demonstration April 7, 2002, in Paris. RSF (Reporteurs Sans Frontiers) did file an official complaint, as described on their web site and in a document sent to me. Apparently, journalists on the scene were harassed and some were roughed up. Based on the RSF's account, performance of the demonstration's security force can best be described as inconsistent - some helped protect reporters, while others are reported to have attacked them. One journalists went to hospital with bruises, and was out in 3 hours.

Violence against reporters trying to do their job is morally unacceptable. The cement-heads who did it aren't helping anyone's cause but Arafat's. We did just fine in Washington and Ottawa without any of that, and anyone tempted to offer this kind of "help" in future should do the cause a favour and stay home.

We also have the ADL's larger take on the situation in France. Which proves nothing, but does establish the environment we're dealing in.

To Be Determined

As one might imagine, the Arab News appears to have exaggerated matters. The response I got from Laurence DeGuitre of the RSF made no mention of weapons seized, or of a police officer being knifed as claimed in the Arab News. I had specifically asked him about these things before he sent me the RSF's response. This is not proof the Arab News was lying, but it does raise strong questions.

No reply from the French Embassy in Tel Aviv, asking for confirmation or denial of Chirac's remarks to the Israeli Ambassador. The Israeli Mission in Paris can only be contacted by phone, but I did send an email query in to the London Mission explaining the request. One imagines they might be a bit busy at the moment. A query to the B'nai Brith A.D.L. (who monitors such incidents) also went into the void, though they warn that they get a lot of stuff in these days and responses may take a while.

Conclusion

We may never know. I tend to believe it, but acknowledge that hard evidence will be tough to come by.

The comments in question (Chirac to the Israeli Ambassador) are, by definition, not a matter of public record. This makes the story hard to confirm unless the Israelis want it made public. Which would be a very serious diplomatic slap, and might raise eyebrows in many other capitols including Washington. As a rule, one does not discuss the specifics of diplomatic conversations.

The Arab News report was based on leaks from Chirac's aides. Is this standard two-faced French diplomacy, trying to position Dassault Aviation for the coming $6 billion Saudi fighter contract via a media source likely to be slip "under the radar" of mainstream Western media? Possibly. Could the leaks still be true, even so? That's possible too. Given other statements recently by French officials, I find the story quite plausible.

Which is not the same as proof. I will continue to try and get a break on this. Until then, I leave it to my readers to draw their own conclusions.