In France, Did Antisemitism Really Have Nothing to Do with a Muslim Nanny Poisoning a Jewish Family?

In Paris, a French Jewish family had hired a nanny, originally from Algeria, in a display of astonishing naivete. They apparently had no idea of what hate for Jews this Arab woman likely harbored in her heart; in this respect, they were simply like so many people in Western Europe who still do not realize what the Muslims in their midst think of them.

Unbeknownst to the family, the nanny was not only illegally in France, but subject to a deportation order that she had simply ignored.

She was entrusted with looking after three small children. Raised to hate Jews, the nanny tried to poison the entire family but they survived, and provided the forensic experts of the French police with samples of the food that they had been given, in which the evidence of her attempt to poison them was quickly revealed. Now that nanny has been sentenced to a preposterously mild sentence of two-and-a-half years in prison, because the court in Nanterre concluded that there was “no evidence of antisemitism.”

More on this judicial travesty can be found here: “Nanny Sentenced in France for Poisoning Jewish Family as US Ambassador Slams French Gov’t Over Rising Antisemitism,” by Ailin Vilches Arguello, Algemeiner, December 18, 2025:

An Algerian woman residing illegally in France was sentenced on Thursday to less than three years in prison for poisoning the food of the Jewish family that employed her as a nanny, but was acquitted of antisemitism-aggravated charges — a ruling that has come amid renewed criticism of the French government’s response to rising antisemitic incidents.

The 42-year-old nanny, who has worked as a live-in caregiver for a family with three children aged two, five, and seven since November 2023, was sentenced at the criminal court in Nanterre, just west of Paris, to two and a half years in prison for “administering a harmful substance that caused incapacitation for more than eight days,” French media reported.

However, the court declined to uphold antisemitism charges against the nanny, accused of poisoning the family by contaminating their food and drinks with toxic substances, noting that her incriminating statements were made several weeks after the incident and recorded by a police officer without a lawyer present.

So what if her self-incriminating statements were made a few weeks after the incident? She tried at first to brazen it out by denying her guilt, but once the evidence of the poison was presented to her, she realized there was no point in further denials, and to get the best deal from the court, she had best fess up. And so she did, that is, she admitted to the poisoning, but still denied that antisemitism had played any part.

Solange Marle, the nanny’s lawyer, praised the court’s ruling as “satisfactory.”

“Antisemitism was not at all the motive behind this act. In this case, justice was applied independently, free from political or media influence,” she told French media.

For their part, the family’s lawyers described the ruling as “incomprehensible,” insisting that “justice has not been served.”

They said the court failed to consider the full range of converging evidence — including the children’s testimony, statements from third parties, the nanny’s social media posts, and religious objects vandalized in the house — which, they claimed, showed the antisemitic motive behind the poisoning.

Apparently the children — or at least the five- and the seven-year-old — testified as to their rough treatment by the nanny, while others — not family members — had listened to her hate-filled rants about her employers. There was also evidence that the nanny had deliberately damaged Jewish religious objects in the house, such as a menorah and kiddush cups.

The nanny, who has been living in France in violation of a deportation order issued in February 2024, was also convicted of using a forged document — a Belgian national identity card — and barred from entering France for five years.

First reported by Le Parisien, the shocking incident occurred in January last year, just two months after the caregiver was hired, when the mother discovered cleaning products in the wine she drank and suffered severe eye pain from using makeup remover contaminated with a toxic substance, prompting her to call the police.

After a series of forensic tests, investigators detected polyethylene glycol — a chemical commonly used in industrial and pharmaceutical products — along with other toxic substances in the food consumed by the family and their three children.

According to court documents, these chemicals were described as “harmful, even corrosive, and capable of causing serious injuries to the digestive tract.”

This was no mere “warning,” as the nanny claimed. It was an attempt to cause grievous bodily harm, perhaps even to kill, Jews for being Jews.

Even though the nanny initially denied the charges against her, she later confessed to police that she had poured a soapy lotion into the family’s food as a warning because “they were disrespecting her.”

And what was the evidence the family had “disrespected” her? Had there been any, it would surely have been reported by those covering the trial. There was none. Nor is there evidence that she only intended to provide a“warning” to make them treat her with more respect. She was determined to harm them, poisoning not only their food and their wine, but even the wife’s makeup remover.

“They have money and power, so I should never have worked for a Jewish woman — it only brought me trouble,” the nanny told the police. “I knew I could hurt them, but not enough to kill them.”

She means that “I should never have worked for Jews because I hate them.”

There is no evidence that the Jewish family that provided this Muslim Arab with gainful employment treated her badly. She apparently resents that they had “money and power,” but what did she expect? People who hire full-time nannies in an expensive city such as Paris are bound to have “money and power.” In her view, Jews are, as Infidels, “the most vile of created beings,” and as Jews, they are also “the strongest in enmity to the Muslims.” So they deserve whatever they get, including poison in their food.

Don’t all domestic servants — cleaners, cooks, maids, nannies — want to kill their employers, who have too much money and don’t give enough of it to them? No, of course not. But if the nanny is a Muslim Arab, and her employer is a Jewish family, well then…

This was a potentially murderous attack by the nanny, prompted by antisemitic hate, and the French court’s refusal to recognize that is a sign of moral decay and the judges’ fear of being labeled as “racists” and “Islamophobes.” Instead, they turned the case into one of purely financial jealousy; Islam, they insist, had nothing to do with it. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?