L’administration GW est-elle antisémite ?

La thèse selon laquelle Israël a été encouragé à attaquer le Hezbollah par les USA, et qu’elle a fait cette deuxième Guerre du Liban “pour le compte” (comme “proxy”) des USA est aujourd’hui très largement acceptée. Le professeur Stephen Zunes, de l’université de San Francisco et auteur de Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism, développe cet aspect de la crise (sur le site CommonDreams le 19 août) et conclut évidemment dans le sens d’un Israël largement manipulé par les USA.

Dans le cours de cette analyse, il pose une question intéressante : le comportement de Washington n’est-il pas un comportement antisémite classique dans le sens où il fait des juifs les bouc-émissaires de la politique belliciste américaniste? Zunes rappelle quelques précédents historiques fameux. Il éclaire ainsi la crise d’un jour original, qui a le mérite de donner une mesure plus réaliste des motifs, du comportement et de la responsabilité morale du gouvernement bush.

« One of the more unsettling aspects of the broad support in Washington for the use of Israel as U.S. proxy in the Middle East is how closely it corresponds to historic anti-Semitism. In past centuries, the ruling elite of European countries would, in return for granting limited religious and cultural autonomy, established certain individuals in the Jewish community as the visible agents of the oppressive social order, such as tax collectors and moneylenders. When the population threatened to rise up against the ruling elite, the rulers could then blame the Jews, channeling the wrath of an exploited people against convenient scapegoats. The resulting pogroms and waves of repression took place throughout the Jewish Diaspora.

» Zionists hoped to break this cycle by creating a Jewish nation-state where Jews would no longer be dependent on the ruling elite of a given country. The tragic irony is that, by using Israel to wage proxy war to promote U.S. hegemony in the region, this cycle is being perpetuated on a global scale. This latest orgy of American-inspired Israeli violence has led to a dangerous upsurge in anti-Semitism in the Middle East and throughout the world. In the United States, many critics of U.S. policy are blaming “the Zionist lobby” for U.S. support for Israel’s attacks on Lebanon rather than the Bush administration and its bipartisan congressional allies who encouraged Israel to wage war on Lebanon in the first place.

» Unfortunately, most anti-war protests in major U.S. cities have targeted the Israeli consulate rather than U.S. government buildings. By contrast, during the 1980s, protests against the U.S.-backed violence in El Salvador rarely targeted Salvadoran consulates, but instead more appropriately took place outside federal offices and arms depots, recognizing that the violence would not be taking place without U.S. weapons and support.

» Israel is no banana republic. Even those like Hersh who recognize the key role of the Bush administration in goading Israel to attack Lebanon emphasize that rightist elements within Israel had their own reasons, independent of Washington, to pursue the conflict.

» Still, given Israel’s enormous military, economic, and political dependence on the United States, this latest war on Lebanon could not have taken place without a green light from Washington. President Jimmy Carter, for example, was able to put a halt to Israel’s 1978 invasion of Lebanon within days and force the Israeli army to withdraw from the south bank of the Litani River to a narrow strip just north of the Israeli border. By contrast, the Bush administration and an overwhelming bipartisan majority of Congress clearly believed it was in the U.S. interest for Israel to pursue Washington’s “dirty work” for an indefinite period, regardless of its negative implications for Israel’s legitimate security interests. »

Mis en ligne le 20 août 2006 à 12H53