Gilles-William Goldnadel is a lawyer and essayist. He is president of the France-Israel association. Every week, he decrypts the news for FigaroVox.

No matter how much Jerusalem makes you mad and Donald Trump makes you hysterical, the way in which part of the press has reported on the latest news in the hierarchy undermines common sense.

Of course, we have the right to say everything about the controversial decision of the US president, Jerusalem, to transfer the diplomatic offices of his country from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

We can perfectly believe that this decision will throw oil on the embers of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for nothing. And the author of these lines is not far from considering it. We can tell everything and prophesy. One can even argue that it is these worst prophecies that are the best fuel of violent passion. To anticipate radically is the best way to help oneself. After all, the Jews did not threaten anyone after UNESCO (including France) challenged their historical ties with Jerusalem. We can say everything except anything. All except blatant untruths.

The past week is a sad example of what ideology can hide or disguise, even when its job is to inform. How, then, can one hope that the lost public will be able to form an enlightened, fair and balanced judgment?

So on December 7, in his stern editorial, The world writes: "If the Israeli government was installed in Jerusalem in 1948, East Jerusalem was entirely Arab until 1967."

This is perfectly true, except that it is singularly missing: if East Jerusalem was "entirely Arab" until 1967, it was because the Jordanian army had expelled during the 1948 war the thousands of Jews who lived there mostly for centuries, their holy places their remains banned until 1967. Hide this ethnic and religious cleansing while arguing its consequences literally gives vertigo.

The next day, December 8, the same daily newspaper publishes a new article on the same subject: "Why the recognition by Donald Trump poses a problem?".

Let us read this sentence: "In 1947, the United Nations (UN) voted to divide Palestine into two states: one Arab, the other Jewish. Jerusalem is excluded from this plan and must come under the control of the United Nations, which guarantees freedom of access to places of worship. Yet in 1949, after the end of the British mandate and a first war with the Arab countries, the young state of Israel transferred its capital from Tel Aviv to West Jerusalem. " Let's close our eyes to the fact that the newspaper contradicts itself overnight on this "capital" of Tel Aviv that was never transferred by the Israeli government from 1948 to 1949. Again, the same incredible occultation. A little, a simple little detail: even as the newspaper insists on the administrative location of the capital of the Jewish state in West Jerusalem, it forgets to mention that Jordan with its Arab Legion, after defeating and expelling the Jews, physically occupied without right East Jerusalem while forbidding them to come to pray on their sacred places, largely devastated.

At this degree of occultation of the facts, the spectator, even if he is engaged as the author of these lines, remains powerless to wish to reason.

Similarly, the entire French press thought it necessary to present the controversial initiative of the controversial American as a "recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel". New untruth. It was the US Congress in 1995, under Bill Clinton, which almost unanimously passed this legislation, ordering the transfer of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. It is only for security reasons that successive US presidents have timed. Obama the beloved in 2008, during a visit, recalled that for America: "Jerusalem was the capital of Israel". He did not unleash fire from heaven. Russia, last April, pronounced the same creed without the sky falling on the head of Putin.

It is perfectly right to think and say that this type of decision is offensive to the Arab-Muslim party whose rights to the holy city are also inalienable or contradict the UN plan of partition of 1947, so undermined by the Arab refusal to its application. The practical decision taken by the outgoing President may well be considered to be motivated by internal considerations. The comments are perfectly free, but the truth is rigorously restrictive.