a

22 août 2006

Compléments

Je viens de compléter deux des précédents billets de ce blog. Il s'agit d'extraits du livre de Georges Corm, Le Liban contemporain, qui appuient et complètent les informations déjà publiées ici. Comme les billets sont vraiment longs, voici les quatre passages qui y ont été insérés. Évidemment, si vous n'aviez pas encore lu ces deux billets, n'hésitez pas à les consulter dans leur intégralité.

1. Dans le billet sur l'introduction de «L'Ethno-politique au Moyen-Orient», le passage suivant a été introduit vers la fin du texte.

Dans Le Liban contemporain (La Découverte, édition 2005) Georges Corm conclut ainsi un passage consacré à cette question:
Ainsi, la déstabilisation de la région du Proche et du Moyen-Orient sur des bases ethniques et religieuses à l'époque contemporaine trouve bien son origine dans les ambitions des puissances extérieures. Toutefois, il faut attendre la création de l'État d'Israël et l'éviction de la population palestinienne de son territoire en 1948 pour assister à la création du premier État à base confessionnelle exclusive. Toutes les autres avaient lamentablement échoué, y compris celle du XIXe siècle (qui dura quinze ans, de 1845 à 1860) de couper le Mont-Liban en deux cantons (caïmacamats), l'un druze et l'autre maronite, ou celle du XXe siècle de créer en Syrie un État druze et un État alaouite, ou la tentative anglaise en Égypte de couper la minorité copte du mouvement national incarné par le parti Wafd. C'est donc l'émergence de l'État juif qui a constitué le véritable précédent. Dans une région aussi sensible que le Moyen-Orient et aussi riche en communautés diverses, ce précédent devait, par la force des choses, relancer les germes d'une désintégration à base ethnique et religieuse de la région; désintégration sans laquelle la survie isolée d'un État, dont le critère exclusif d'existence et le fonctionnement reposent sur une identité religieuse, peut en effet être difficilement envisageable à long terme.
2. Pour le billet sur le «Coup d'État au Liban», j'ai trouvé les précisions suivantes au sujet de l'article sur la «Stratégie pour Israël dans les années 1980»:
La Revue d'études palestiniennes reproduit le texte à l'automne 1982 sous le titre «Stratégie pour Israël dans les années 1980» (j'ignore si c'est le titre d'origine dans Kivounim), et l'attribue à Odel Yinon, «journaliste et ancien fonctionnaire des Affaires étrangères».
3. Toujours au sujet du même texte, deux réactions israéliennes à la publication de la «Stragégie»:
Georges Corm, dans Le Liban contemporain (La Découverte, édition 2005), présente deux positions qui ont suivi la publication de ce document:
S'agit-il d'un «fantasme aberrant, irrationnel, analphabète, qui remplit la tête des dirigeants israéliens»? C'est ce que pense un bon connaisseur de la réalité israélienne [Ilan Halevi, dans une table ronde sur le Liban dont le texte est publié dans le revue Peuples méditerranéens, n°20, juillet-septembre 1982, p. 5 – numéro sur le thème: «Liban, remises en cause»], qui affirme par ailleurs: «Cet orientalisme israélien officiel, militaire, pense avoir découvert la réalité de la société moyen-orientale; un ordre de paix au Moyen-Orient doit être fondé sur la nature profonde de cette société et non pas sur des formes artificielles, importées de l'Occcident comme le sont les États-nations modernes à bases territoriale; l'idéal de ce nouvel ordre régional dans lequel l'État sioniste d'Israël s'intégrerait comme un poisson dans une colonie de poissons, c'est le démantèlement des États dans leurs frontières actuelles et leur remplacement dans une multitude de mini-États confessionnels.»

De son côté, Israël Shahak, président de la Ligue israélienne des droits de l'homme (non reconnue par le gouvernement israélien), commente le texte «Stratégie pour Israël dans les années 1980», cité ci-dessus, en ces termes [Revue d'études palestiniennes, n°5, automne 1982.]: «Il ne faudrait pas pour autant regarder ce projet comme dénué de toute portée pratique ou irréalisable, au moins à court terme. Le projet reproduit fidèlement les théories “géopolitiques” qui avaient cours en Allemagne dans les années 1890-1933, qui furent adoptées telles quelles par Hitler et le nazisme, et qui guidèrent leur politique en Europe de l'Est. Les objectifs fixés par ces théories, en particulier le démantèlement des États existants, reçurent un début de réalisation de 1939 à 1941, et seule une coalition à l'échelle mondiale en empêcha l'application à long terme.»
4. Toujours pour «Coup d'État au Liban», des avertissements bien avant 1982.
Des avertissements sur les risques d'éclatement des entités nationales au Moyen-Orient apparaissent alors. Georges Corm, dans Le Liban contemporain (La Découverte, édition 2005), le souligne:
Il faut ici rappeler les cris d'alarme de Raymond Eddé, chef du parti politique le Bloc national, qui n'a cessé de dénoncer un «complt américano-sioniste», dont Henry Kissinger serait l'inspirateur, qui aurait commencé avec l'invasion de Chypre par la Turquie en 1974 et la division de facto de l'île entre une zone grecque et une zone turque. Chyprianisation du Liban entre chrétiens et musulmans, balkanisation de l'ensemble de la région: c'est ce qu'a dénoncé avec la plus grande constance depuis 1974 cet homme politique resté au-dessus de la mêlée. «Je continue à soutenir, déclarait-il au journal Le Monde le 16 décembre 1975, que nous sommes en présence d'un plan américain visant à la partition du Liban, laquelle conduirait, à plus ou moins brève échéance, à l'éclatement de la Syrie. L'objectif est la création, aux côtés d'Israël, de plusieurs État à caractère confessionnel, des États tampons, qui contribueraient à la sécurité de l'État juif. Bref, le plan est de balkaniser la région.

De son côté, l'ex-président de la République libanaise durant les années de troubles 1975-1976, Soleiman Frangié, a affirmé dans plusieurs déclarations à la presse, après avoir quitté le pouvoir, que les États-Unis ont cherché à implanter les Palestiniens au Sud du Liban et à évacuer les chrétiens du Liban vers le Canada; puis, devant les obstacles s'opposant à ce dessein, ils ont cherché à créer un État chrétien au Liban à partir de 1978 [Voir, par exemple, ses déclarations à la revue Al Jamhour le 3 mai 1978, et au journal Al Anouar le 27 août 1979, tous deux paraissant à Beyrouth.]. Il n'a d'ailleurs pas été le seul à le dire dans la région. Ainsi, le prince Hassan, frère du roi Hussein de Jordanie, homme lui aussi de réflexion sereine, écrivait le 3 septembre 1982 dans le Times de Londres: «La perspective d'un éclatement de la Grande Syrie entre druzes, maronites et fondamentalismes chiites et sunnites coïncide avec le développement du Grand Israël. Tout cela implique une aggravation de la souffrance des Palestiniens dépossédés dont le respect des droits est inaliénable et crucial pour la paix durable.»

2 commentaires:

Hamid-Liban a dit…

Lebanese Professor: "To Be a Shi'ite Now..."

In an article published on August 7, 2006 in the Lebanese daily Al-Nahar,
Mona Fayyad, a professor at the Lebanese University, attacked the uniform
pro-Hizbullah, pro-Iran thinking expected of and imposed upon Shi'ites in
Lebanon.(1) In the days following its publication, several reactions to
Fayyad's article were published in Al-Nahar and on the Internet.

The following are excerpts from an English translation of Fayyad's article
that was posted on the Internet,(2) and excerpts from the reactions.


"To Be a Shi'ite Means That You Do Not Question the Meaning of Resistance
and Pride"

"We are going through a catastrophic and existential period that will have
long-lasting impacts on our country and region for the next century; and
since we are facing such a dangerous juncture, I saw fit to pose some
questions that one might pose to one's self, or in secret, and wouldn't dare
publicize, in fear of being accused of being a foreign agent or a traitor,
or even a blasphemer. Confronting difficult questions and putting them out
in public could help prevent us from falling to the precipice from which
there is no return, and could help leaders take the appropriate decisions in
order to stop this hellish war, whatever the cost may be.

"What is the meaning of being Shi'ite for the majority of Shi'ites at this
point and at this critical juncture?

"To be a Shi'ite means that you entrust your fate to the wise and infallible
leadership without daring to ask any question, even if just as a point of
understanding.

"To be a Shi'ite means watching the Al-Manar channel, or New TV or NBN,
exclusively, and that you enjoy their inspirational songs and their
exclusive news, and that you look with enmity on all other channels because
they are either 'American' or 'Zionist,' as long as they refer to Israeli
forces by their name, and do not call them the 'forces of the enemy,' and do
not have enough eulogies and only broadcast information.

"To be a Shi'ite means that you do not question the meaning of victory. Is
it the victory of armies while keeping soldiers - flush with weapons -
alive, while destroying all of what is built, and the killing of the human
beings that worked hard to build it up, and constitute the true protection
for the fighter himself?

"To be a Shi'ite means that you do not question the meaning of resistance
and pride. Is it fleeing from bombing and being heaped together on the tile
floors of schools...?

"To be a Shi'ite is to contribute to the creation of a Lebanese 'Karbala 2,'
as the Iraqi 'Karbala 1' did not perform its role as needed in building up
the Arabs and carrying them on to victory over the enemy."


"Didn't We See... That Syria is the Cornerstone of This Region?"

"To be a Shi'ite is to be a hero that does not feel hurt nor complain, and
does not have psychological crises, and accepts sacrificing himself and his
country and everything that was accomplished so that he can teach Israel a
lesson, and expose its craziness and ensure its defeat, as was indicated to
us by the Syrian Minister on the BBC, that Israel is the loser... You see it
is now hated more than ever before, and it is indicted by most of the
nations of the world... now that they see for sure - and the lesson is still
proceeding - the extent of its savagery and folly.

"When you are Shi'ite, you have to accept this logic, and even praise it,
admiring its eloquence, its wisdom, and its global role in spreading the
legal education and the enactment of international treaties and its role on
a popular level, in resistance and liberation. Didn't we see, through this
war on us, that 'Syria is the cornerstone of this region?' These are the
very words of the [Syrian] minister himself.

"Of course all this destruction was necessary in order to ensure with
concrete evidence the validity of this reasoning; because of the level of
our objective thinking, we only work with evidence and empirical
experimentation.

"To be a Shi'ite is to accept that your country be destroyed before your
very eyes... and that it comes tumbling down on your head, and that your
family be displaced and dispersed and becomes a 'refugee' at the four
corners of the nation and the world, and that you accept standing up to the
enemy with no complaints as long as there is a fighter out there with a
rocket that he can launch at northern Israel - and maybe even at its south -
without asking about the 'why' or about the timing or about the usefulness
of the end result.

"To be a Shi'ite is to accept that you sacrifice all, as long as you have
someone who will compensate you with money, and that someone will look over
you as you rebuild what he destroyed. What is your problem with that?

"You see, we are a people of heroes that knows nothing but sacrifice, and we
can absorb mental shocks and the death of loved ones and the humiliation of
displacement and the destruction of the infrastructure of the state - since
it is a weak, corrupt and follower state. Is it not enough to have on our
side a strong country [i.e. Syria] whose foundations we work to support in
confronting the unjust American might and the Israeli war machine from
hell? - that machine whose weakness we have to prove, as well as its
inability to inflict any harm on the fighters of Hizbullah, or on its
ability to limit their military capabilities, and to prove that at any
price?"


"What is the Purpose of Liberating a Country? Is it to Destroy it All Over
Again and to Make it Possible for it to Be Occupied Once More?"

"To be a Shi'ite is to keep silent and not to ask what is the purpose of
liberating a country. Is it to destroy it all over again and to make it
possible for it to be occupied once more? And not to ask about the role of
the leadership: Is it to preserve its military power and keep its men flush
with arms without any care or concern for the normal human being? Being a
Shi'ite means that you can only thank Hizbullah for its heroism and
sacrifice. It is not your role to contribute to 'weakening' it or to
'breaking its word' or to making it know when to back down or compromise to
preserve its victory on the one hand and to preserve the Lebanese nation and
its people, as well as its development, on the other hand!! That means never
to question whether pride takes precedence over the lives of others and
whether stones take precedence over arms."


"To Be a Shi'ite Means to Incapacitate Your Mind and to Leave it to Khamenei
to Guide You... and He Imposes on You a Notion of Victory That is No
Different Than Suicide"

"To be a Shi'ite means to confer on the leader of the resistance his role as
a loyal hero to the cause of the Arab nation in its entirety, not only
whether you like it or not, but whether that nation likes it or not. You
only have to hear the popular praise of the masses, that was preceded by the
praise the masses heaped on their loyal hero 'Abd Al-Nasser, and is still
shedding tears for its other hero, Saddam Hussein. And the masses are still
able to heap praise on any hero that tickles its dreams and its feelings so
that it can sleep tight at night... or to recover its lost dignity under the
boots of rulers like Saddam, as long as we, and only we, pay the price until
your real awakening.

"But the question is, to what degree can we rely on these incapable masses,
who are enslaved by their rulers, to liberate themselves without even
thinking about reconsidering this Jihadist and revolutionary plan!! Are they
empowered? Are they wise enough? Have they prepared the ground for that? Do
they have tools for fighting and remaining steadfast other than the arms of
zeal and emotion and oratory?

"If you are a Shi'ite you are not to ask this leadership how the groundwork
was prepared to absorb this indiscriminate war and its 'potential'
consequences. Where are the hospitals, the ambulances, not to speak of the
shelters? These are the responsibilities of the state - which was never
consulted in declaring war - so that it can be blamed for its weakness and
lack of wit. You see, the state is only needed when it is called upon to
heal wounds, but the wise and existential decisions are not within its
realm.

"To be a Shi'ite means to incapacitate your mind and to leave it to [Iranian
Supreme Leader] Khamenei to guide you and to decide for you what he wants
concerning arms for Hizbullah, and he imposes on you a notion of victory
that is no different than suicide."


"Isn't it a Priority to Make Iran a Regional Shi'ite Superpower? What is the
Problem With Sacrificing a Country Called Lebanon?"

"To be a Shi'ite means to defend the meddling of the Iranian [Foreign]
Minister Mottaki in Lebanese state affairs without even trying to care for
appearances. Maybe he came to 'point out' to the ministers of Hizbullah that
they [the Hizbullah ministers] 'did not agree' to the seven-point plan,
especially the point about the multinational force, so that the door of the
resistance would not be shut, and so that we can remain a country exploited
and abused, after it was proven that the Shab'a Farms are Syrian and would
be dealt with in accordance with Resolution 242... And in that he is warning
them about putting their Lebanese identity before their following Iran.

"They have to, against their own will, put the Iranian nuclear program and
the interest of the state of Iran ahead of the interest of their state, and
ahead of the preservation of the lives of the Lebanese or their possessions,
whether these Lebanese are Shi'ite or otherwise, but especially if they are
Shi'ites. Isn't it a priority to make Iran a regional Shi'ite superpower?
What is the problem with sacrificing a country called Lebanon? Or the
Shi'ites of this 'Lebanon'?"


"If You are a Shi'ite and You Dare Write Such Writings and Think Such
Thinking, Then You Must Be a Foreign Agent and a Traitor"

"And in this tense mood, if you are a Shi'ite you have to listen to your
Shi'ite speaker, who is disturbed and angry, and who wants to turn the world
on top of the [Lebanese reform movement] 14th of March, and who wants to
forbid the deployment of multinational forces. And you hear him distribute
labels of foreign servitude, treason, Americanism and Zionism left and
right, without raising your lip. You have to absorb his anger and agree with
all his opinions, of which we have mentioned but a small sample. This is
what takes you as far as possible from thinking: who the heck you are? Are
you a Lebanese citizen? Does your being a Shi'ite mean that you have to give
priority to Iran over Lebanon? Do you have the freedom to have your own
opinions? Freedom of expression? Is it possible to think calmly and to ask
where are we going with this nation, the institutions of this state, with
pluralism, with the coexistence that we have to defend now?

"If you are a Shi'ite and you dare write such writings and think such
thinking, then you must be a foreign agent and a traitor, in favor of
partition and naturalization of Palestinians [in Arab states]. You must be
with the Zionist and Israeli projects, and you defend the state, with its
corruption and favoritism, and you support the biased American policies, and
you accept its short-sightedness, and its support for the terrorism of the
Zionist state, and its failure to give the Palestinians their state like all
other creatures of God, under the pretext of not supporting the terrorism of
Hamas. And that means you support Israel itself and its satanic war machine
and its extreme savagery, and you justify its killing, its occupation, and
its folly, and you are lucky if you are not accused of being the one
destroying houses on people's heads and the dismemberment of children's
corpses and scattering them on the heaps of debris - [all this] by raising
your voice.

"Did I forget any of the symphony? If I did, please excuse me, because I
cannot miss any of the news shows any more. I have to go see who is being
displaced and whose house is being destroyed at the moment - that is, if he
manages to survive."


Reactions to Mona Fayyad's Article

Two articles in the Lebanese daily Al-Nahar - one from August 10, 2006, by
Naif Karim and another from August 12, 2006, by Sanaa Haj - accused Mona
Fayyad of superficiality and of distorting the facts, and mimicked the style
of her article.

Karim wrote: "The hypothetical Shi'ite is supposed to give up his weapons
and sleep in the arms of the wolf, relying on the protection of the
international community and not troubling himself or his country with
[issues of] liberating territories... [or] liberating Lebanese prisoners...
The hypothetical Shi'ite is supposed to accept it as inevitable fate that
there are networks of Israeli agents who plant bombs and kill activists from
Sidon to Ba'albek... A Shi'ite who counts as a pure Lebanese is one who
condemns [Syrian Foreign Minister] Walid Al-Muallem and [Iranian Foreign
Minister] Manuchehr Mottaki for their open interference in Lebanon's
affairs, [but] throws flowers to Condoleezza Rice and approves of the New
Middle East that she is weaving from the blood of our children."(3)

Sanaa Haj, a university lecturer, wrote: "To be a Shi'ite means having to
justify [the activity of] the resistance [i.e. Hizbullah] - to foreign
[parties] and unfortunately also to domestic [ones]... [It means having] to
convince others every day that you are loyal to your country, which you
nourish with your blood and your determined stand, and to constantly prove
that you are an Arab and not an Iranian... to endure the sight of your
family members in South Lebanon being killed and uprooted from their
homes... to keep silent and not dare to express your enthusiasm and your joy
at the victories of the resistance, so as to not offend the sensibilities of
certain people in Lebanon..."(4)

In an August 12, 2006 article in Al-Nahar, Isma'il Sharaf Al-Din responded
to Naif Karim's claims, saying that Karim had not answered the legitimate
questions raised by Mona Fayyad. Sharaf Al-Din, who sees himself as a
displaced Shi'ite, wrote that he agreed with Fayyad's statements and wished
to add one of his own: "As a Shi'ite, you must first of all demand an
accounting from those who started this adventure, which, as an initial
result, caused more than one million Lebanese, most of them Shi'ites, to be
displaced from their homes, with [entire] cities and villages being emptied
of their inhabitants."(5)

Reformist columnist 'Aziz Al-Haj posted a reaction on the reformist website
Elaph, stating that Mona Fayyad "is not the only one who writes with such
candor out of love for Lebanon and its people." He listed many others who
had written in the same vein, in the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq
Al-Awsat and in the Kuwaiti press, and who had incurred a torrent of curses,
insults, and accusations of being communists.(6)


Endnotes:
(1) Al-Nahar (Lebanon), August 7, 2006.
(2) The translation was posted on the website "New England Americans for
Lebanon" and has been lightly edited for style.
http://www.10452lccc.com/hizbollah/fayad10.8.06english.htm , August 11,
2006.
(3) Al-Nahar (Lebanon), August 10, 2006.
(4) Al-Nahar (Lebanon), August 12, 2006.
(5) Al-Nahar (Lebanon), August 12, 2006.
(6) http://www.elaph.com/ElaphWeb/ElaphWriter/2006/8/168599.htm , August 10,
2006.

Ibn Kafka a dit…

Georges Corm est effectivement une voix francophone appréciable sur le Liban, et on pourrait y rajouter Walid Charara. Mais que pèsent-ils par rapport aux deux Antoines, Sfeïr et Basbous, abonnés aux médias mainstream, principalement audiovisuels.

Je n'ai pas entendu Ghassan Salamé, lui aussi ancien ministre. Quelqu'un l'aurait-il entendu sur la guerre d'agression israëlienne?