Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.
1362Lorsque nous parlions de la presse MSM dans notre F&C du 25 juillet, d’une façon qui était après tout façon de lui rendre hommage, nous écrivions :
« La presse MSM l’est avec eux, grotesque et pathétique. Elle affabule et fait de la propagande, puis revient à la réalité, puis retombe dans le virtualisme, etc. Ces hauts et ces bas rendent eux-mêmes une impression de grotesque et de pathétique lorsqu’on les met à jour après les avoir suivis à la trace. On aurait tort de dénoncer simplement une presse “aux ordres”, sacrifiant à la propagande. Parfois, la presse MSM le cède à la réalité, surtout quand elle n’a pas reçu les consignes (et les consignes sont longues à venir, dans le bordel général).
» La presse MSM est totalement libre. Elle choisit donc ce qui lui est le plus naturel lorsque ce “plus naturel” se manifeste : la position officielle, la raison et la puissance du pouvoir et de l’establishment ; vu les circonstances, elle choisit donc la servitude voyante, dans le plus pur style La Boétie mais dans ces conditions qui font qu’elle apparaît absolument grotesque et pathétique. L’effet est en général très contre-productif, lorsqu’on lit les stupéfiantes et hilarantes sottises auxquelles elle sacrifie, comme dans cet exemple du “Daily Telegraph” qu’on a rapporté dans notre Bloc Notes d’hier. Prendre pour cible cette presse MSM relève d’une facilité qui vous gêne aux entournures. De même qu’on ne tire pas sur une ambulance, on n’a pas toujours le cœur de se moquer du collègue très chic et très sérieux qui écrit avec son entonnoir sur la tête. »
Voyons si notre rosserie est justifiée, à partir d’un exemple. L’intérêt de la chose est que ce même exemple nous éclairera sur le cheminement de la “politique” américaniste, sur son extraordinaire absence de perspectives, sur son improvisation complète, sur son référencement à des thèses et des conceptions naïves, folles, improbables et bizarres. Il nous éclairera encore plus avec les prolongements d’aujourd’hui même. L’exemple, pour qui sait y voir, nous plonge au cœur même de la plus formidable imposture en cours aujourd’hui, — et encore, une imposture inconsciente, née de l’emprisonnement de l’esprit dans une psychologie complètement subvertie.
Il s’agit de deux articles, dans le même journal, du même auteur, à trois jours d’intervalle.
• Dans le Washington Post du 13 juillet, l’article « Options for U.S. Limited As Mideast Crises Spread », de Robin Wright.
• Dans le même Washington Post, du 16 juillet, l’article « Strikes Are Called Part of Broad Strategy », du même Robin Wright.
Que se passe-t-il ? … Le 13 juillet, rien, nada, le désert total. La crise libano-israélienne vient d’éclater et rien n’est prêt encore pour son interprétation virtualiste. Elle est donc observée en réalité, placée dans son contexte réel qui est celui des deux autres crises en cours (Irak et Iran). « The Bush administration suddenly faces three rapidly expanding crises in the Middle East, but it has limited options to defuse tensions in any of them anytime soon, U.S. officials and Middle East experts say. […] The Bush administration has few ways of directly pressuring Iran on any of the three fronts. “They have sanctioned themselves out of leverage on Iran,” [director of the International Crisis Group's Middle East program] Malley said. “They have cornered themselves out of a lack of influence on any of the parties that are driving this — Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran. Counseling restraint or condemning actions is pretty meager when you think of the influence the United States should be wielding.” »
Le 16 juillet, formidable! Quelle opportunité… Tout est prêt, tout était prévu, nous démarrons sur les chapeaux de roue. “We seize the Moment”. Ce mot-là ne va plus nous quitter: “The moment”, ou encore “a moment of opportunity”, — jusqu’à ce que, tout de même, quelqu’un, et des plus distingués encore (Richard Haass), ait le bon goût et le bon sens d’en éclater de rire. Le deuxième article vous présente religieusement ce montage rocambolesque où l’on vous annonce que tout cela était quasiment programmé, qu’après le Hezbollah liquidé (autour d’une grosse semaine sans doute, comme nous l’avons vu), nous passerons à l’Iran et à la Syrie, jusqu’au terminus, — “the new Middle East”.
Ces deux textes nous paraissent exemplaires par la différence d’“esprit” qu’on y trouve alors qu’il s’agit du même esprit (celui de Mr. Robin Wright) qui préside à la manoeuvre.
Notez que la machine est bien huilée. Il n’y a pas changement de méthode ni dégradation du “professionnalisme”. On trouve dans les deux textes l’attirail habituel du journaliste extrêmement américaniste, très professionnel et très admirable; précision, sobriété, “objectivité” (mais oui mais oui), les experts qui vont bien et l’inévitable et naturellement inénarrable “administration official” qui requiert l’anonymat (on le lui accorde bien volontiers) à cause de la “sensitivity of the subject” dont il va nous instruire. Tout est en place, la pièce est déjà écrite. Le choeur des admirateurs (en général les journalistes européens continentaux) s’exclame. — ça, c’est du journalisme professionnel.
… Et puis, patatras. L’un nous dit blanc, l’autre, trois jours plus tard, nous dit noir. Le même sujet, la même crise, les mêmes circonstances, sont présentés comme le trou sans fond d’un épouvantable chaos où la plus grande puissance du monde ne peut rien; et, trois jours plus tard, comme une habileté exceptionnelle, une manoeuvre sublime, la prémisse d’un triomphe absolument extraordinaire (pensez donc: “the new Middle East”).
Le même homme, Mr. Robin Wright, semble être passé d’un monde à l’autre sans coup férir, sans noter le déplacement. Comme une mécanique bien huilée, il enregistre trois jours plus tard le contraire de ce qu’il a écrit trois jours plus tôt.
Ces trois jours, on le comprend, ont été nécessaires pour permettre à l’équipe de la Maison-Blanche de lire le dernier article du Weekly Standard pour présenter la nouvelle réalité que Mr. Wright devra présenter à ses lecteurs. Dans tout ce processus, nulle part, dans aucun esprit n’existe la moindre notion de culpabilité. Il s’agit du monde de l’inculpabilité.
Nous avons donc, pièces en main, la démonstration de l’imposture générale du système. Le virtualisme qui conditionne absolument l’élaboration d’une politique, laquelle n’est plus du tout élaborée aujourd’hui, mais “rêvée” et issue d’un phantasme. Le journalisme professionnel imbu de son “objectivité” et de son professionnalisme, qui s’avère une matière manipulable à volonté, et un exercice en servilité inconsciente d’une impudence à couper le souffle. Tout le reste est à l’avenant. Terminus: le monde postmoderne.
By Robin Wright, Washington Post, July 13, 2006
The Bush administration suddenly faces three rapidly expanding crises in the Middle East, but it has limited options to defuse tensions in any of them anytime soon, U.S. officials and Middle East experts say.
Israel has sent troops into Gaza and Lebanon over three captured soldiers — one held by Hamas in Gaza and two seized yesterday by Hezbollah in Lebanon. The United States and its allies set a collision course with Iran over its nuclear program. And there is mounting concern that Iraq's sectarian violence is crossing the threshold to a full-blown civil war.
A common thread in the three crises is Iran — for its support of the two Islamist groups, its alleged funding and arming of Iraqi militias and extremist groups, and its refusal to give a final response to the Western package of incentives designed to prevent it from converting a peaceful energy program into one to develop nuclear weapons.
''There seems to be a hand in each one of these — Iran's and Syria's,'' Assistant Secretary of State C. David Welch said in a telephone interview from Amman, Jordan. ''Today does cross a threshold because, as Hezbollah has now said, this action was planned. It was intended to escalate and widen the battleground.''
U.S. tensions with Iran have not been this high — or covered so many issues — since the 1979-1981 hostage crisis, said Shaul Bakhash, an Iran expert at George Mason University. Shortly after Iran's 1979 revolution, 52 Americans were seized at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held hostage for 444 days.
The common tactic in the three crises appears to be daring defiance by Iran and its allies, particularly in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza, to gain position at the same time they are facing mounting pressures. ''Here you have actors who are basically pariahs who are trying to find their way back in. They're doing it the way they know best — brinksmanship,'' said Robert Malley, director of the International Crisis Group's Middle East program “They want to change the rules of the game.''
Because of the simultaneous crises, the Bush administration is poised to use the Group of Eight summit of industrialized nations in Moscow this week to rally support against Iran as a bad actor unwilling to embrace the standards of the international community, U.S. officials say. The United States is also pushing for a new resolution at the United Nations next week on Iran's failure to suspend uranium enrichment.
The White House said it is holding Iran and Syria responsible for the flare-up along Lebanon's border because of their long-standing support for Hezbollah. It charged that the seizure of two soldiers was deliberately timed to ''exacerbate already high tensions in the region and sow further violence.
''Hezbollah's actions are not in the interest of the Lebanese people, whose welfare should not be held hostage to the interests of the Syrian and Iranian regimes,'' a statement said.
Iran's role differs in each crisis, as do the issues.
The most pressing is the new violence along Israel's borders. Overnight, the confrontation with Hamas mushroomed dramatically into a confrontation that includes Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Iran is using Hezbollah to improve its own leverage, analysts say.
''The Iranians think they have a regional role,'' Bakhash said. ''If the Israelis are beating up the Palestinians in Gaza, they may feel compelled as supporters of the Palestinian cause to have Hezbollah take a stand at this difficult moment.'' Hezbollah was founded in 1982 with the funding, arms and training by Iranian Revolutionary Guards dispatched to Lebanon after Israel's invasion.
On the nuclear issue, Tehran has taken a tough position on its right to enrich uranium for its civilian energy program, which is allowed under terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but which can be subverted for a nuclear weapon. Iran says that the United States particularly wants it to surrender this right to undermine its long-term development as a modern nation. But several Western nations are convinced Iran is intent on procuring a nuclear weapons capability.
In Iraq, Iran has fostered sectarianism by aiding fellow Shiites in powerful militias, including renegade cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's militia and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq's Badr Brigades, which were originally trained in Iran, U.S. officials say. The militias have defied calls to disarm, undermining the control of the new government and preventing smaller Sunni militias from cooperating as well. U.S. officials say Iran's goal is to prevent stability and a U.S. victory in Iraq that might lead to pressure on Iran.
The Bush administration has few ways of directly pressuring Iran on any of the three fronts. ''They have sanctioned themselves out of leverage on Iran,'' Malley said. ''They have cornered themselves out of a lack of influence on any of the parties that are driving this — Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran. Counseling restraint or condemning actions is pretty meager when you think of the influence the United States should be wielding.''
The United States reached out to Arab allies — Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia — to weigh in with Syria and, through Damascus, to Iran. In Paris for talks on Iran's nuclear program, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called on all sides to ''act with restraint.'' She also talked to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan.
But the U.S. options stand in stark contrast to the U.S.-brokered cease-fires in 1993 and 1996 between Israel and Hezbollah, via Syria.
[Notre recommandation est que ce texte doit être lu avec la mention classique à l'esprit, — “Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.”.]
By Robin Wright, Washington Post, July 16, 2006
Israel, with U.S. support, intends to resist calls for a cease-fire and continue a longer-term strategy of punishing Hezbollah, which is likely to include several weeks of precision bombing in Lebanon, according to senior Israeli and U.S. officials.
For Israel, the goal is to eliminate Hezbollah as a security threat — or altogether, the sources said. A senior Israeli official confirmed that Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah is a target, on the calculation that the Shiite movement would be far less dynamic without him.
For the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East, U.S. officials say.
Whatever the outrage on the Arab streets, Washington believes it has strong behind-the-scenes support among key Arab leaders also nervous about the populist militants — with a tacit agreement that the timing is right to strike.
''What is out there is concern among conservative Arab allies that there is a hegemonic Persian threat [running] through Damascus, through the southern suburbs of Beirut and to the Palestinians in Hamas,'' said a senior U.S. official who requested anonymity because of sensitive diplomacy. ''Regional leaders want to find a way to navigate unease on their streets and deal with the strategic threats to take down Hezbollah and Hamas, to come out of the crisis where they are not as ascendant.''
Hezbollah's cross-border raid that captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight others has provided a ''unique moment'' with a ''convergence of interests'' among Israel, some Arab regimes and even those in Lebanon who want to rein in the country's last private army, the senior Israeli official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing conflict.
Israel and the United States would like to hold out until Hezbollah is crippled.
''It seems like we will go to the end now,'' said Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon. ''We will not go part way and be held hostage again. We'll have to go for the kill — Hezbollah neutralization.''
White House officials said Friday that Bush has called on Israel to limit civilian casualties and avoid toppling the Lebanese government but has not pressured Israel to stop its military action. ''He believes that the Israelis have a right to protect themselves,'' spokesman Tony Snow said in St. Petersburg, where Bush is attending the Group of Eight summit. ''The president is not going to make military decisions for Israel.''
Specifically, officials said, Israel and the United States are looking to create conditions for achieving one remaining goal of U.N. Resolution 1559, adopted in 2004, which calls for the dismantling and disarming of Lebanon's militias and expanding the state's control over all its territory.
''We think part of the solution to this is the implementation of 1559, which would eliminate that [armed group operating outside the government] and help Lebanon extend all of its authority throughout the whole country,'' national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley told reporters with Bush in Russia yesterday.
The other part of the resolution calls for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which was completed in April last year — after the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri, which was widely linked to Syria.
If Lebanon as a first step takes over Hezbollah's stockpiles, which included more than 12,000 rockets and missiles before the current strife began, then cease-fire talks could begin, the Israeli official said.
''The only way a cease-fire will even be considered is if 1559 is fully implemented,'' said the senior Israeli official. Lebanese troops must be deployed to take over positions in Hezbollah's southern Lebanon strongholds to ensure that there are no more cross-border raids or rocket barrages into northern Israel.
There are no guarantees, however, that this strategy will work. Israeli airstrikes could backfire, experts warn.
''Hezbollah was risking alienating not only the Lebanese public at large but, incredibly, its very own Shiite constituency. But if Israel continues with its incessant targeting of exclusively civilian targets, and, as a result, life becomes increasingly difficult for the people, I would not be surprised if there is a groundswell of support for Hezbollah, exactly opposite of what Israel is trying to achieve,'' said Timur Goksel, an analyst and former spokesman for the U.N. force in Lebanon who lives in Beirut.
The Bush administration's position — and diplomacy — are the opposite of what happened during the Clinton administration.
The last Hezbollah-Israel cease-fire was just before dawn on April 27, 1996, after the United States brokered a deal to end a punishing 16-day Israeli offensive designed to end Hezbollah's rocket barrages. More than 150 Lebanese, mostly civilians, were killed; more than 60 Israelis were injured. Tens of thousands on both sides of the border had fled or gone into bunkers.
Then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher shuttled for a week between Jerusalem and Damascus to mediate a written agreement, a sequel to a similar oral deal he negotiated after skirmishes in 1993.
For now, that is not a viable option to end the current conflict, U.S. officials say. With its diplomacy redefined by the war on terrorism, the Bush administration has opted for a course that plays out on the battlefield.
Pressed on whether a cease-fire was possible soon, the Israeli official said it was ''way, way premature'' to consider an end to hostilities. ''There is no sense to have a cease-fire without a fundamental change,'' he said. ''That change is to make sure the explosiveness of the situation cannot carry over to the future. That means neutralizing Hezbollah's capabilities.''
The Bush administration is also using Resolution 1559 as a barometer, U.S. officials say, acknowledging that the Lebanese government has shown neither the ability nor the willingness to deploy its fledgling army to the southern border.
U.S. officials have cautioned Israel to use restraint, particularly on collateral damage and destruction of infrastructure, which might undermine the fragile government. There was some U.S. concern about attacks on the Beirut airport, but otherwise Washington is prepared to step aside and defer diplomacy unless there is a dramatic break, U.S. officials say.
''They do have space to operate for a period of time,'' the U.S. official said about Israel. ''There's a natural dynamic to these things. When the military starts, it may be that it has to run its course.''
Israel and the United States believe that the Israeli strikes in Gaza, following the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier, have undermined Hamas. ''There is no Hamas government — eight cabinet ministers or 30 percent of the government is in jail, another 30 percent is in hiding, and the other 30 percent is doing very little,'' said the senior U.S. official.
[Notre recommandation est que ce texte doit être lu avec la mention classique à l'esprit, — “Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.”.]
-
