Le vent tourne, la “réalité” revient

Finalement, la “réalité” commence à prendre le dessus à Washington et à Tel Aviv. La “réalité”, c’est-à-dire l’interprétation de la “deuxième guerre du Liban” qui fait de ce conflit pas loin d’un succès d’Israël. D’une façon générale, on sait que ce conflit a mis en évidence des faiblesses considérables de l’armée israélienne et qu’il a été aussitôt considéré, — relativement aux buts recherchés et à la réputation de Tsahal — comme une sévère défaite pour Israël.

Ce n’est plus le cas.

Selon le commentateur de Haaretz Shmuel Rosner, en date du 15 septembre :

«Far removed from the military and political squabbles rocking Israel, something has changed in the way Washington leaders are assessing the outcome of the Lebanon war.

»The war is no longer seen as a “failure,” but as an “achievement” and even a “success.” The terms are still cautious, but American diplomats are describing the progress in Lebanon optimistically.

»A senior State Department official told Haaretz on Wednesday that U.S. President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's promises to change the status quo were fast becoming a reality. There is a chance to change the atmosphere, he said.

»This sentiment was echoed in Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's talks with Bush and Rice and, to a certain extent, with Vice President Dick Cheney.

»On Wednesday morning, before Livni began her meetings, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch spoke optimistically about the war in the Senate Foreign Committee.

»He told the senators that the new rules laid down by the Security Council in Resolution 1701 “would change the situation in Lebanon and the region for the better and would more than meet our standard of no return to the status quo ante.”

»The senior official said the way the Security Council handled the issue so far indicated that other resolutions would also be promoted in the next few weeks, including the release of Israeli prisoners of war.»

Les raisons de ce changement d’évaluation de la guerre sont diverses. La plus évidente est tout de même énoncée par le commentateur cité, et il est intéressant de la mentionner bien qu’elle soit de la catégorie de l’enfoncement des portes ouvertes : «Israeli Foreign Ministry officials believe much of the criticism derives from certain politicians' excessively high expectations at the beginning of the war. Some see the administration's positive tone as the need of senior administration officials to find retroactive justification for their support of the war. Had the war been a failure, it would have been their failure, as well.»

D’autres sont bien douteuses, sinon franchement surréalistes comme celle qui laisse entendre que la guerre a affaibli le Hezbollah: «There is an overall change for the better in the international community's attitude and a real awakening regarding Hezbollah and its Iranian patrons, a senior Israeli Foreign Ministry official said.» D’autres, encore, utilisent largement la langue de bois internationale comme celle qui nous signale que de plus en plus de pays proclament qu’il faut désarmer le Hezbollah, tout en ajoutant, — salut au réalisme, — qu’on ne sait comment faire : «[Israel’s Foreign Affairs ministry] Livni met several European ministers before coming to Washington and will meet others in New York next week. Most of them appear to agree that neutralizing Hezbollah is vital for Lebanon's stabilization. It does not follow, however, that the parties agree on how exactly to accomplish this goal.»

Il reste que, d’une façon générale, nous sommes en bonne voie pour faire de la défaite une victoire et, ainsi, pouvoir songer à de nouvelles guerres.

Mis en ligne le 16 septembre 2006 à 21H23