WEB REVIEW: «HEZBOLLAH: WHAT IS
IT ?, WHAT IT WILL BE?»
Stéphane VOLLE
PLAN
INTRODUCTION
Depuis la mort de
l’ancien Premier Ministre libanais Rafic Hariri en février 2005, le Liban est
revenu pour un temps au centre de l’actualité. Parmi les acteurs politiques
libanais de la crise actuelle, on retrouve le « Hezbollah ». Ce
groupe est tout autant associé à des attentats terroristes et des actions
contre Israël, des attentats en Europe dont la France, et aujourd’hui la
capacité de provoquer des manifestations pacifiques au Liban de plusieurs
centaines de milliers de personnes. Les documents présentés ici sont tous
orientés vers l’analyse de ce qu’est le Hezbollah. Le choix de sources
anglo-saxonnes s’est imposé afin d’obtenir une vision non pas unique mais
cohérente dans leur origine. Ce sont des articles de fonds, ou des analyses qui
ont été choisies pour dépeindre ce qu’est le Hezbollah, ou comment il est
perçu, et les possibilités qui s’ouvrent aujourd’hui devant lui.
Since
former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri death n Febuary 2005, Lebanon is
once again in the foreground of the international current events. Among local
or international actors of the Middle-East, the one to be the most concerned by
theses events is probably the Hezbollah. This terrorist Islamist radical
movement is also a political party of the Lebanese political life with the 12
seats it hods at the Lebanese Parliament, its social action and the reality of
the fact that it carries out an important part of the Lebanese defense territory.
If one of its raison d’être was the struggle against Israeli’s occupation of
south Lebanon, since May 2000 and the Israeli withdrawal, Hezbollah has to find
a goal. The withdrawal of its project to institute in the Lebanon a kind of
Islamic Republic - like the Iranian one - has the same impact on the
organization.
Terrorist
action was methods of Hezbollah and today it refuses to disarm its thousands of
men. International and US pressure not only Hezbollah but also on its two main
patrons(Syria and Iran) are increased, in particular since the Sadam Hussein
regime fall.
In
this Web review, I wanted to observe how Hezbollah is perceived by English
media(BBC and Daily Mail), by a specialized media research institute(MEMRI), by
specialized organizations or research centers on terrorism( Council on Foreign
Relation, International Crisis Group). These various sources led me (and let
us, I hope) to a better and more precise comprehension of this changing
movement, which certainly have an important part in the future of this region.
I/What English newspapers tell about
Hezbollah?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4314423.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4356411.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=340601&in_page_id=1811
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=340593&in_page_id=1811
II/ What the Middle East Media
Research Institute tells about it?
http://memri.org/aboutus.html
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP87805
http://memri.org/bin/articles
III/ How specialized organizations or
research center analyzed the Hezbollah?
http://cfrterrorism.org/
http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/hezbollah.html
http://www.crisisgroup.org
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=1828&l=1
IV/How the Hezbollah justify it’s
action?
Http ://moqawa.net
End of the Web Review
PART I
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4314423.stm
What is Hezbollah?
09/03/2005
This article is a presentation of
Hezbollah, since it’s foundation in the 1980s until today. It describes the
Hezbollah action evolution : with 2000 Iranians Revolutionary Guards,
Hezbollah wanted to resist and to defend Lebanon against Israeli invasion.
Today, social and political action compose an important part of its action.
Links between Hezbollah, Syria and Iran are developed and analyzed with
pertinence : Iran has helped to the foundation, Syria support Hezbollah
with material, and Hezbollah is a kind of special tool for the foreign politic
of these states. Its methods of fight are described. The end of the article
draw the importance of Hezbollah in the social life with the imposition of
Islamic behavior in the south of Lebanon. Hezbollah benefited from the withdrawal
of Israeli forces in 2000 : Hezbollah has fulfill the mission to give back
it’s territory to Lebanon, and Lebanese people is still today grateful for
that ; but so few people can accept the transformation of Lebanon to a new
Iranian Islamic Republic.
Cet article présente rapidement et synthétiquement la création, l’action et
l’évolution du Hezbollah en tant qu’organisation, ainsi que ses liens avec la
Syrie et l’Iran. Ses objectifs se sont adaptés à la situation : de la
défense du Liban contre l’agression israélienne à la conquête politique du
pouvoir par une action sociale.
Struggle :lutte
broad support : important soutien
militia :milice
withdrawal :retrait
backed :soutenu
blessing :bénissant
mainstream :courant dominant
endangering :mettant en danger
plunged :a sombré
sought :a recherché
poured :s’est déversé
emphasizes :insiste
Hezbollah - or Party of God - is a powerful political and military organisation of Shia Muslims in Lebanon. It emerged with financial backing from Iran in the early 1980s and began a struggle to drive Israeli troops from Lebanon. In May 2000 this aim was achieved, thanks largely to the success of the party's military arm, the Islamic Resistance. In return, the movement, which represents Lebanon's Shia Muslims - the country's single largest community - won the respect of most Lebanese. It now has an important presence in the Lebanese parliament and has built broad support by providing social services and health care. It also has an influential TV station, al-Manar. But, it still has a militia that refuses to demilitarise, despite UN resolution 1559, passed in 2004, which calls for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Lebanon and the disarming of militias. After Israel withdrew from Lebanon, Hezbollah was expected to integrate its forces into the Lebanese army and focus on its political and social operations. But, while capitalised on its political gains, it continued to describe itself as a force of resistance not only for Lebanon, but for the region.
Syria
The Islamic Resistance is still active on the
Israel/Lebanon border. Tension is focused on an area known as the Shebaa Farms.
Hezbollah says the Shebaa Farms area is occupied Lebanese territory, but
Israel, backed by the UN, says the farms are on the Syrian side of the
border and so are part of the Golan Heights, which Israel has occupied since
1967.
The
movement has long operated with neighbouring Syria's blessing,
protecting Damascus' interests in Lebanon and serving as a card for Damascus to
play in its own confrontation with Israel over the occupation of the Golan
Heights.
But
pressure on Syria to withdraw 14,000 troops deployed in Lebanon, could now
present Hezbollah with a serious challenge: how long it can remain a guerrilla
movement without endangering its growing role as a mainstream,
albeit religious-based, political party.
In
February, 2005, Lebanon was plunged into a political crisis after the
assassination of a former prime minister Rafik Hariri, widely believed to be
the work of Syrian intelligence. Opposition parties sought a dialogue
with Hezbollah in an attempt to get it to join their ranks.
Analysts
say Hezbollah has adopted a cautious policy since the crisis. It has continued
to profess its support for Syrian involvement in Lebanon, while not criticising
the Lebanese opposition. It has also stressed Lebanese unity by arguing against
"Western interference" in the country.
In March,
after weeks of unprecedented anti-Syrian demonstrations in Beirut, Hezbollah
proved it, too, had people power on its side. Hundreds of thousands of its
followers poured on to the streets of the capital in support of
Lebanon's historic and strategic relationship with Syria.
Starting out
Hezbollah
was conceived in 1982 by a group of Muslim clerics after the Israeli invasion
of Lebanon. It was close to a contingent of some 2000 Iranian Revolutionary
guards, based in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, which had been sent to the country to
aid the resistance against Israel. Hezbollah was formed primarily to offer
resistance to the Israeli occupation. It also dreamed of transforming Lebanon's
multi-confessional state into an Iranian-style Islamic state, although this
idea was later abandoned. The party's rhetoric calls for the destruction of the
state of Israel. It regards the whole of Palestine as occupied Muslim land and
it argues that Israel has no right to exist. The party was long supported by
Iran, which provided it with arms and money.
Passionate and demanding
Hezbollah
also adopted the tactic of taking Western hostages, through a number of
freelance hostage taking cells. In 1983, militants who went on to join
Hezbollah ranks carried out a suicide bombing attack that killed 241 US marines
in Beirut. Hezbollah has always sought to further an Islamic way of life. In
the early days, its leaders imposed strict codes of Islamic behaviour on towns
and villages in the south of the country - a move that was not universally
popular with the region's citizens.
But the party emphasizes that its Islamic
vision should not be interpreted as an intention to impose an Islamic society
on the Lebanese.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4356411.stm
Hezbollah rejects
call to disarm
This short article explains clearly
how Hezbollah is perceived by the US government. The criterion used to define
the organization as a terrorist group is the possession of weapons. The fact
that Hezbollah holds 12 seats at the Lebanese Parliament is not enough. The stumbling
block is the thousands arming men. Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader
claimed that they will not be used inside Lebanon but to defend it against
Israeli aggression. That’s why Hezbollah refuses the UN Resolution, backed by
the US, asking the disarmament of militias.
Cet article
rapporte que le désarmement du Hezbollah est la condition sine qua non pour les
Etats-Unis afin de lui confier un rôle politique au Liban. Tant que ce
désarmement n’aura pas lieu, le Hezbollah sera considéré comme une organisation
terroriste. Ce en quoi,le chef du Hezbollah libanais, Hassan Nasrallah oppose
un refus catégorique. Pour lui, les armes du Hezbollah sont destinées désormais
à défendre le Liban contre les agressions extérieures et non à être utilisées à
l’intérieur même du pays.
To deter :
détourner, empêcher
pull-back : se
retirer
to quote :
citer, rapporter
mustered :
rassemblé
rally :
rassemblement
statement :
situation, état(d’esprit)
quashed :repousser,
rejeter
stumbling block : pierre
d’achoppement
Nasrallah said the
weapons would only be used to protect Lebanon.
Hezbollah's leader
has said it will keep its weapons, despite pressure from US President George W
Bush to disarm. Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said the group, a powerful pro-Syrian
political and military movement in Lebanon, needed to protect the country from
Israel.
President Bush had
said on Tuesday that Hezbollah could "prove" they were not a
terrorist group by laying down weapons. Meanwhile, Syria's intelligence
agents have left their headquarters in Beirut, as part of a phased Syrian
withdrawal.
'Deter aggression'
Speaking in a televised
debate, Mr Nasrallah insisted Hezbollah would remain armed in the face of US
demands and despite Syria's pull-back under international pressure.
"I'm holding on
to the weapons of the resistance because I think the resistance ... is the best
formula to protect Lebanon and to deter any Israeli aggression," Reuters
news agency quotes him as saying.
Mr Nasrallah said
the group's arms would not be used domestically but only against Israeli
forces.
Hezbollah mustered
widespread support at a rally in Beirut last week. His statement
followed comments made by Mr Bush after meeting Jordan's King Abdullah II in
Washington on Tuesday.
"I would hope
that Hezbollah would prove that they're not [terrorists] by laying down arms
and not threatening peace," Mr Bush said.
Mr Bush later quashed
suggestions he had left the door open for the group to play a political role in
Beirut.
"Hezbollah is
on the terrorist list for a reason and remains on the terrorist list for a
reason. Our position's not changed on Hezbollah," he said.
The movement has
been on the US state department's list of terrorist organizations for years,
with Washington accusing it of sponsoring Palestinian attacks against Israel.
Agents leave
Last year, a United
Nations resolution, backed by the US, called for Lebanon's militias to disarm.
Hezbollah, which has
thousands of armed fighters and holds 12 seats in Lebanon's parliament,
demonstrated its strength with a mass pro-Syria rally in Beirut last week.
Meanwhile Syrian
intelligence agents loaded trucks with office equipment as they pulled out of
their headquarters in Beirut's Ramlet al-Baida district and branches in other
towns on Wednesday.
However, the US
state department's Adam Ereli told Reuters news agency it was difficult to tell
whether the agents were all moving back to Syria.
About 4,000 Syrian
soldiers have left Lebanon in the last week, leaving about 10,000. Most of
these are being redeployed to Lebanon's eastern Bekaa Valley.
Syria has promised
the UN a full timetable for the withdrawal of its intelligence agents and
14,000 troops.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=340601&in_page_id=1811
The main facts to know about Hezbollah are presented in
this article of the Daily Mail : the foundation by Iranian Revolutionary
Guards ; inspired by the ideas of Iranian revolutionary Leader Ayatollah
Khomeini and supported the new government of Tehran, its methods of fight
against Israel, its aim to establish an Islamic Republic in Lebanon...In 1992,
Nasrallah stand in for Sheikh Al-Musawi, killed by Israeli helicopter strike.
This death caused an important support to Hezbollah, from Lebanese people. And
the social help program of Hezbollah has developed this feeling.
Voici, selon le Daily Mail, les principaux faits à
connaître concernant le Hezbollah. Après sa création par des Gardes
Révolutionaires iraniens, sa politique d’attentats suicides et de prises
d’otages(dont la plus célèbre, celle qui a coûté la vie à près de 241
militaires états-uniens en octobre 1983), son importance dans la lutte contre
Israël, et enfin aujourd’hui sa capcacité à mobiliser de nombreux partisans
dans la vie politique libanaise.
Vowed : Jurer, prêter serment
Shadowy : sombre
sparking : allumant(ici, déclenchant)
withstood : résister(part. pass.)
large-scale : grande échelle
hailed :a salué
swapped : échangé.
In focus: Hizbollah
15:06pm
8th March 2005 Lending
support to Syria, the Lebanese Hizbollah group called a mass rally in Beirut to
denounce what it sees as Western meddling in Lebanon.
Following
are key facts about the group:
•
Hizbollah, or Party of God, was founded by Iranian Revolutionary Guards during
Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. The Shi'ite Muslim group adhered to the
teachings of late Iranian revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who vowed
holy war against Israel and its Western allies.
• Funded
and armed by Tehran, the group began a guerrilla war to evict Israeli forces
from Lebanon. Shadowy groups linked to Hizbollah launched suicide
attacks on Western targets and took Westerners hostage in Beirut. The most
spectacular attack was a suicide bombing that destroyed the US Marine
headquarters in Beirut in October 1983, killing 241 servicemen.
•
Hizbollah announced its political programme in 1985, aiming at establishing an
Iranian-style republic in Lebanon. It fought rival Lebanese groups until the
civil war ended in 1990 and kept up attacks on Israeli forces.
• An
Israeli helicopter strike killed Hizbollah chief Sheikh Abbas al-Musawi in
February 1992, sparking a wave of sympathy with the group among many
Lebanese. Musawi had set up a welfare arm caring for the long-deprived Shi'ite
community. Current Hizbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah replaced him. The group
entered parliament in 1992 in the first general election after the war,
effectively abandoning its goal of setting up an Islamic state.
•
Hizbollah withstood large-scale Israeli bombing campaigns in 1993
and 1996. The group emerged with some international recognition that its
attacks against Israeli military forces were justified acts of resistance.
• Israel
ended its 22-year occupation in Lebanon and pulled out in May 2000. Lebanese
from various sects and political affiliations hailed Hizbollah as
liberation heroes. The group vowed to keep fighting as long as Israel remained
in the disputed Shebaa Farms border area. It also declared support for a
Palestinian uprising against Israel. Hizbollah has since launched sporadic
attacks in the Shebaa Farms.
•
Hizbollah and Israel exchanged prisoners in January 2004. Israel swapped
more than 400 Palestinians and Lebanese for a captive Israeli businessman and
the remains of three soldiers.
• UN
Security Council resolution 1559, sponsored by the United States and France,
and adopted in September 2004, called for all Lebanese militias to be disbanded
and disarmed. Hizbollah, the only such militia, has defied the resolution.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=340593&in_page_id=1811
Hezbollah
gave evidences of its height in Lebanese political life with the mobilization
of hundreds thousands people in rally to support and thank Syria for its help
during the Civil War. Despite of international pressures on Syria for its
withdrawal, Hezbollah claimed the attachment of Lebanon to the Arab World, face
to Israel. Hezbollah denounced interference in Syria and Lebanese political
life.
Gathering :réuni
dismissed :abandonné, écarté,
to blare :retentir,
bearded :barbu
hoisted :hissé, remonté
fierce :féroce, ardent
mayhem :mutilation, destruction
staged :organisé, manigancé
dismantling :démantèlement
Pro-Syria crowds in
Beirut protests
Rally:
Thousands turn out to back Syrian troops
Tens of thousands of pro-Syrian demonstrators have gathered in central Beirut
to denounce what they see as Western interference in Lebanon at a rally
highlighting deep divisions in the country over Damascus's role.
In
Damascus, a Syrian official source said Syria's promised two-stage troop
pullout from Lebanon would include the powerful intelligence services - a key
international demand.
The source
gave no timetable for the total pullout but said: "This doesn't mean it
won't be soon."
The gathering, called by the Shi'ite
Muslim Hizbollah group and its allies, attracted Shi'ites and others from
across Lebanon to a central Beirut square only 300 metres from where opposition
protesters, largely Christian, have held daily rallies to demand a complete Syrian
withdrawal form Lebanon.
Hizbollah
chief Hassan Nasrallah had said the rally would be held to thank Syria for what
he calls its sacrifices in Lebanon and to oppose a UN resolution demanding the
disarming of militias. Shi'ites are Lebanon's largest religious sect.
Hizbollah,
which began as a small guerrilla force devoted to ending Israeli occupation in
the south, has developed into a sophisticated group with political, military
and welfare bodies. It has several MPs in parliament and runs several
charities. The United States considers it a terrorist organisation.
Syrian
troops in a mountain ridge east of Beirut continued preparations to pullback
from their posts, a day after Syria promised to redeploy its troops to eastern
Lebanon this month under a two-stage withdrawal.
The United
States has dismissed the plan for failing to set a deadline for a full
pullout.
Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad agreed the withdrawal plan in talks with Lebanese
President Emile Lahoud in Damascus. Syrian forces intervened in Lebanon's civil
war in 1976 and Damascus still has some 14,000 troops in the country.
'No to foreign interference'
"Israel
listen to our voices: We will not compromise and will not sell our honour to
the foreigner," loudspeakers blared across the central Beirut
Square. "Our homeland is Arab."
"Bashar,
with you we will not be shaken and the resistance will continue... Thanks for
the Syrian blood that protected us from our enemies and the fire of civil
war."
Bearded young men in black looked
after security, searching streets and even drainage holes for suspect
objects.
"Thank
you, Syria's Assad," a large banner said. "No to foreign
interference," another said.
Nasrallah
had urged demonstrators to carry only Lebanese, not party, flags. Pictures of
Assad and Lahoud were also hoisted.
Syrian
forces are credited with helping ending the civil war that tore Lebanon apart.
Christian, Muslim and Druze militias fought each other in rounds of sectarian
and inter-sectarian fighting.
About
150,000 people were believed to have died. Syria's role in Lebanon has come
under fierce fire since a February 14 bomb killed former Lebanese Prime
Minister Rafik al-Hariri. Damascus denied any involvement in the blast.
US
President George W. Bush's administration warned Syrian leaders it would
"hold their feet to the fire". Britain, Germany and Lebanon's former
colonial power France also put pressure on Damascus.
Pull-back
plan
Hizbollah
(Party of God) warned of mayhem if Syrian troops were to leave Lebanon,
where the 1975-90 civil war ended with a fragile balance between the country's
diverse main religious groups. Lebanon is due to hold a general election
by May.
Set up by
Iran's Revolutionary Guard in 1982, Hizbollah is the only Lebanese faction to
keep its guns. It won wide popularity after helping drive Israeli troops from
southern Lebanon in 2000.
Opposition
demonstrators, mainly Christian and Druze with some Sunnis, have staged
several large anti-Syrian protests since Hariri's killing. On Monday, tens of
thousands again took over central Beirut's Martyrs Square to demand a complete
Syrian withdrawal.
Syrian
soldiers based in the Lebanese mountain towns east of Beirut were dismantling
military and communications equipment for a second day on Tuesday.
A Lebanese
security source said a joint Lebanese-Syrian military committee would meet on
Tuesday to fine-tune the pullback plan and give the go-ahead.
Under the
agreement by Assad and Lahoud, Syrian troops will complete their move to
eastern Lebanon by March 31. The Syrian and Lebanese militaries will then
decide how long the troops should stay in the eastern areas before returning
home.
Lebanon's
Lahoud was set to hold consultations on Wednesday with parliament before naming
a new prime minister-designate. Political sources said outgoing Prime Minister
Omar Karami, who resigned last week under pressure from protests, appeared
favourite to be asked to form a new government.
PART II
http://memri.org/aboutus.html
The Middle
East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) explores the Middle East through the
region's media. MEMRI bridges the language gap which exists between the West
and the Middle East, providing timely translations of Arabic, Farsi, and Hebrew
media, as well as original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual,
social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East.
Founded in
February 1998 to inform the debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East, MEMRI
is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501 (c)3 organization. MEMRI's
headquarters is located in Washington, DC with branch offices in Berlin,
London, and Jerusalem, where MEMRI also maintains its Media Center. MEMRI
research is translated to English, German, Hebrew, Italian, French, Spanish,
Turkish, and Russian.
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP87805
Hizbullah Leader Nasrallah at Pro-Syrian Beirut Rally: If U.S. Navy Fleet Returns to Lebanon They Will Be Defeated Again
This is the Hassan Nasrallah speech to
the US Governement, the response to Bush demand to disarm Hezbollah. It is
interesting to analyses this as a kind of « sovereignty
declaration ». The Hezbollah Leader refuses all kind of interference in
the Lebanese political life. This is also a thank to Syria and to its
president, Bashar Al-Assad. If we don’t look at the most violent part of this
speech, it’s possible to consider Hezbollah as a common political party. The
tone used in this speech is clearly intended to show Hezbollah power in
Lebanon, its capacity to mobilize thousands of people and its determination to
fight if necessary.
Ce discours a été prononcé par le chef du Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah au
cours d’un très important rassemblement en faveur de la Syrie. Il y remercie ce
pays et ses présidents pour leurs actions en faveur du Liban. Il revendique
également la souveraineté du Liban face aux ingérences étrangères en général et
états-uniennes en particulier, en allant jusqu'à rappeler les attentats dont
ont été victimes les militaires de ce pays en 1983 et les menace du même sort.
L’aspect souverainiste et national de ce discours est interressant en ce qu’il
place clairement le Hezbollah au sein d’un champs d’action qui se situe dans la
politique intérieure du Liban.
scarves :
écharpes
strife :
conflit
attire :tenue,
vêtement
den :
tanière, antre
"We
say to Syria, as your president, Bashar Al-Assad has said: "In Lebanon,
your presence is not material or military. You are present in the souls, the
hearts, the minds, the present, the past, and the future…" I say to you,
no one can get Syria out of Lebanon, or out of its mind, its heart, and its
future.
"We
emphasize that any mechanism for Syria's remaining or withdrawing from Lebanon
must be subject only to the Al-Taef agreement. We, who are gathered here, have
come to tell the world that we reject resolution 1559.
"Lebanon
is a unique case. Lebanon is not like Somalia, in case you are thinking of
military intervention. Lebanon is not Ukraine. Lebanon is not Ukraine. Lebanon
is not Georgia. Lebanon is Lebanon, a unique case in this world. If there are
those who think that they can bring this country down, with its regime, its
security, its stability, and its strategic choices, with their connections,
their positions and sponsors, with some demonstrations, some scarves,
some slogans, and some the media - then they are wrong.
"I
address the following to America… I address the following to America. I say to
President Bush… And to Ms. Condoleezza Rice… and to the American-Lebanese field
commander, Satterfield: You are wrong about Lebanon. You are wrong about
Lebanon. Lebanon rejects the partition. Lebanon rejects civil strife.
"Lebanon
rejects defeat. And I say to you, this Lebanon rejects death. Never will
Lebanon change its name, its history, its identity, or its attire.
Lebanon will not tear off its skin, or throw its heart to your soldiers' dogs
so they will eat it. Lebanon will remain the Lebanon of the homeland, of Arab
identity, the Lebanon of the resistance, the Lebanon of the entire nation.
"I
ask you… You can make yourself heard by the commander of the American forces in
the region, who is of Lebanese origin, John Abizaid – Are you Lebanese afraid
of the American naval fleets? These naval fleets have come in the past, and
were defeated, and if they come again, they will be defeated again. I say to
the Americans: 'Don't interfere in our internal affairs.
"Let
us be, and keep your ambassador in his embassy in Awkar. He should let us
Lebanese be. We Lebanese are the most devoted to our homeland, to defending our
homeland, to the existence of our state, to our national unity, to our life
together, and to our internal peace. Remove your fingers - the fingers of civil
strife - from our country.
"To
Syria we say: Long live Assad's Syria! Long live Assad's Syria! Long live
Assad's Syria! Long live Assad's Syria! Long live Assad's Syria! Long live
Assad's Syria! The den of the lion (Assad) in Damascus will remain a den
for all the lions of Lebanon."
|
April 1, 2005 |
No.887 |
Editor of Kuwaiti Daily: 'Nasrallah Has Lost His Mind'
sharp :
aiguisé, vif
wisdom :sagesse
to
chant :scander
jeopardize :
mettre en danger
gap :brêche,
intervalle, écart
to echo :répercuter,
renvoyer, résonner
cornered :acculé,
coincé
tune :
air, ton, tempo
To
taunt :railler, se moquer de
boasted :fanfaronnant
to
chop :tailler, couper(du bois)
The Kuwaiti journalist, Ahmed
Al-Jarallah, Editor-in-Chief criticizes Hassan Nasrallah for theses violent
speeches against the USA. He compares him with Sadam Hussein for the kind of
talks, arrogant, foolish and dangerous because, if the USA decide to intervene
in this part of Middle-East, the first victims will be the Lebanese and Syrian
populations. He considers that the way Nasrallah talks come under the 50s and
60s. For him, Hezbollah Leader is not aware of consequences in the case of an
US military intervention.
Editor-in-Chief of the Kuwaiti Daily
Al-Siyassah and Arab Times, Ahmed Al-Jarallah recently wrote an article
critical of Hezbollah and its leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah. The following are
excerpts from the article:
Nassrallah "Has Chosen to Adopt an
Arrogant Attitude, Similar to that of Saddam Hussein"
"…If
the [Syrian] regime is subjected to a military attack, as in the case of Saddam
Hussein, what will happen to its allies in Lebanon, such as Hizbullah and its
leader Hassan Nasrallah? This question has come to the fore after the speech of
U.S. President George Bush, who promised to dismantle all dictatorial regimes
in the Middle East.
"Hassan
Nasrallah, who has a sharp brain, is aware of the oncoming dangers and
has built a network of connections through southern Beirut, Damascus, and
Tehran. In his wisdom, Nasrallah has vowed to inflict a disgracing
defeat on the U.S. troops if they approach Lebanon. This man has chosen to
adopt an arrogant attitude, similar to that of Saddam Hussein, knowing fully
well how Saddam's power and authority came to an end.
"Nasrallah
is speaking the language of the Fifties and Sixties. He is acting in line with
the slogans of Syrian students, who in those days used to chant 'half of
the Americans died in Vietnam and we will kill the other half.' It is
unfortunate some wise people are delivering such speeches to the Syrians and
Lebanese.
"Such
speeches may jeopardize the lives of the people in Syria and Lebanon
because neither Syria, nor Hizbullah, can fill the huge gap in the
balance of power with their adversaries. It appears Hassan Nasrallah has lost
his mind because he has abandoned his political wisdom and angered the only
superpower in the world instead of calming his people. The Lebanese are aware
of the capabilities of the United States. They, and all Arabs, know the real
size of this man and his threats."
Assad Should Follow Gaddafi
"Nasrallah
is threatening the opposition in Lebanon, echoing the voice of the
Syrian regime. The whole world - including the Secretary General of Hizbullah -
knows the battle is … between the international community and the Syrian
regime. Nasrallah knows his speech won't delay the Syrian withdrawal or end the
international pressure on Syria to comply with UN Resolution 1559.
"We
hope the Syrian regime, which is struggling under international pressures, won't
dance the tune of Hizbullah. This cornered regime should
seriously think about accelerating its withdrawal from Lebanon and give in to
international demands, Gaddafi style.
"The
Syrian regime has to make a wise choice to save its people…"
"Threatening and Taunting the
U.S troops Won't Help Hizbullah "
"[Syria and Hizbullah] should show their patriotism by wanting to see
Lebanon free and independent. They should know Syria won't remain in their
country for long but there will be mutual ties between two equal countries.
Threatening and taunting the U.S. troops won't help Hizbullah, Lebanon, Syria,
or Iran. Hassan Nasrallah won't be able to face them if the U.S. forces come to
Lebanon. We remember how Saddam boasted he would chop the heads
of Americans if they dared to come near Baghdad. In the end it was his head
which was chopped off."
To
read an analyze an a criticize of the Hezbollah Activity in Lebanon from a
journalist of the Lebanese Christian daily Al-Nahar, go to this page : http://memri.org/bin/articles, at the date of August,
25,2003, N° 557, named « Lebanese Daily Decries Hizbullah Activity Against
Israel ».
|
August 25, 2003 |
No.557 |
Lebanese Daily Decries Hizbullah Activity Against Israel
In an August 14, 2003 editorial in the Lebanese Christian daily Al-NaharEditor Jubran Tweini attacked Hizbullah's renewed activity against
Israel in Southern Lebanon and the inability of the Lebanese government to
impose its military authority there. The following are excerpts from the
editorial:
With a Powerless Government, Lebanon is a Jungle
"Who
determines military actions in the south [of Lebanon]? We, as Lebanese, have a
right to know how these types of decisions are made, [decisions] that directly
affect all of Lebanon and all Lebanese.
"It
is our right to know if Hizbullah alone makes these decisions and on what basis
they do so. Is it Syria who makes the decisions and passes orders onto the
Hizbullah? Is it Iran? Lebanon? And what is the strategy? It is our right to
know and even participate in such critical decisions; otherwise, Lebanon is a
jungle with no central decision-making authority.
"The
Lebanese country, and particularly the government of Lebanon, as the executive
authority responsible for policy-making, must be directly responsible for
Hizbullah operations in the south, since it purports to be a country of laws
and institutions that has full sovereignty on the entire land of Lebanon.
However, essentially, we know that it is not the country that determines the
perpetuation of military operations in the south, and that Lebanon has no
strategy in this area…
"It
can be said that the government's powerlessness, and the fact that it does not
shoulder its national responsibility, have, in the eyes of the world, made it
chiefly responsible for the breaches of peace in southern Lebanon – though some
of its members attempt, through communiqués and statements, to conceal
Hizbullah and its operations."
Hizbullah: A State Within a State
"We
are not saying we must relinquish our right to oppose the enemy [meaning
Israel] in order to liberate the Sheb'a Farms. But the main problem is who
determines the timing and location of operations. Our controversy with
Hizbullah centers on the fact that it has no right to exist as an armed
movement within the state, especially following the Taif agreement. The Hizbullah has no right to operate as a state
within a state, as a fait accompli, and to carry out its own policies as if
there were no government institutions or people in its midst. It cannot be that
the initiative to use force against Israel lies in Hizbullah's hands. [This
initiative] must lie in the hands of all Lebanese in order to formulate an
overall national decision and clear strategy.
"Who
told Hizbullah and its allies in the government and in the country that all
Lebanese agree with its policies, which cause Lebanon serious losses of life
and material? Or, that its strategy is the correct strategy for this situation?
Who gave it the right to make a decision that comes at the expense of other
Lebanese? Is it not clear that war-and-peace decisions are made at the national
level, by a government that represents all the people?
"We
want to know, honestly, who supports the exclusive right of Hizbullah to
conduct operations from Lebanese territory, according to its will and the will
of its regional partners. We want to hear a clear position, and not
'diplomatic' declarations supporting the problem but not clarifying if they
actually support the operation, the decision-making [that led to it] and its
implementation – unless the ghost of fear – of whom? – has taken control of
those responsible and put a damper on them and their independent
decision-making."
The Greatest Gift to Israel: Justification for
an Attack
"Does
the government [of Lebanon] not know we have enough social and economic
problems, and there is no need to add another blow that is likely to lead to an
Israeli response during tourist season, a response that might harm, for
example, the infrastructure and electricity? Or, perhaps the authorities 'hope'
that Israel will strike electrical facilities in order to justify the shameful
rationing of electricity and place the blame on Israel?
"What
justification is there in conducting military operations and taking on the
burden of the response they draw, and later complaining to the Security
Council, while the group conducting the operation – Hizbullah – does not
recognize the authority of the UN
and personally attacks its Secretary-General,
Kofi Annan? What is the use of turning to the Security Council at a time
when [Lebanon] refuses to fulfill the Security Council's and
Secretary-General's recommendations regarding the deployment of the army along
the border, and at a time when Hizbullah does not recognize international
authority and rejects the 'purple line?'
"Is
Hizbullah's rejection of the 'purple line' not mutiny and revolution against
the position of the Lebanese government, which recognizes this border, and is
it not a sign that [Hizbullah] is a state within a state? What would be the
position of the country if the Security Council were to meet in response to
complaints – by Lebanon and Israel – and decide, not just propose, to deploy
the army in the south and cease the illegal armed presence?
"Would
Lebanon carry out the decision or oppose it – rebel against a legitimate
international resolution and give Israel the greatest gift and the best
justification for attacking Lebanon and Syria, with international support? Or
would Hizbullah oppose military deployment in the south, as did the Palestinian
resistance in 1977? Everyone knows what happened afterward and how much it cost
Lebanon."
Lebanon - Fated to Be a Negotiating Chip?
"Is
it in Lebanon's interest today to forfeit international society, the entire
world, and its credibility because of this policy, which serves not Lebanon but
Hizbullah and those standing directly behind it, not to mention Israel's
interest? Does Lebanon think that we do not need international support in order
to withstand the earthquake striking the region and threatening to topple one
regime after another? Are we always fated to implement the policy of the
'other' on our land and to give Israel justification for derailing the road
map, as happened as a result of Palestinian resistance operations on the
occupied land?
"Is
it merely a coincidence that suicide operations returned to Israel at the same
time the southern front was heating up? How long will we be a negotiating chip
between Syria and America, Iran and America, and America and Israel?
"We
once again stress that resistance to the enemy is a legal right. But the issue
of the Sheb'a Farms must first be settled with Syria in order to gain
international support for its liberation and return. The right of [resistance]
does not belong exclusively to Hizbullah. We object to political parties and
factions holding the weapons of liberation, since liberation of the land
through diplomatic or military means is a national issue that extends to the
country's military and political institutions. We reject Hizbullah's claim that
it alone shall determine the timing of the operations, since it is not the only
landowner."
PART
III
http://cfrterrorism.org/
About the Council
Founded in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations is a non-partisan
membership organization, research center, and publisher. It is dedicated to
increasing America's understanding of the world and contributing ideas to U.S.
foreign policy. The Council accomplishes this mainly by promoting constructive
discussions both in private and in public, and by publishing, the leading
journal on global issues. The Council is host to the widest possible range of
views, but an advocate of none, though its research fellows and independent
task forces do take policy stands. Like the great universities, foundations,
and other think tanks in America, the Council on Foreign Relations aims to
enhance the quality of study and debate on world issues, develop new generations
of thinkers and leaders, and help meet international challenges by generating
http://cfrterrorism.org/cfr/ concrete and workable ideas.
http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/hezbollah.html
Hezbollah (Lebanon,
Islamists)
Updated March 9,
2005
What is Hezbollah?
Subsumed :subsumé
planner :planificateur
expelled :expulsé
credentials :références
to
shell :décortiquer, ici piloner
pledged :
promis
involvement :
rôle
smuggle : faire
passer en contrebande
lengthy :
interminable, très longue
hijacking :
détournement
Hezbollah is a
Lebanese umbrella organization of radical Islamic Shiite groups and
organizations. It opposes the West, seeks to create a Muslim fundamentalist
state modeled on Iran, and is a bitter foe of Israel. Hezbollah, whose name
means «party of God,» is a terrorist group believed responsible for nearly 200
attacks since 1982 that have killed more than 800 people. Experts say Hezbollah
is also an significant force in Lebanon’s politics and a major provider of
social services, operating schools, hospitals, and agricultural services, for
thousands of Lebanese Shiites. It also operates the al-Manar satellite
television channel and broadcast station.
What are Hezbollah’s
origins?
Hezbollah was
founded in 1982 in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and subsumed
members of the 1980s coalition of groups known as Islamic Jihad. It has close
links to Iran and Syria.
Who are Hezbollah’s
leaders?
Sheikh Mohammed
Hussein Fadlallah is considered the group’s spiritual leader. Imad Fayez
Mugniyah is considered the key planner of Hezbollah’s worldwide
terrorist operations. During the Lebanese civil war in the 1970s, experts say
Mugniyah trained with al-Fatah. When the Palestine Liberation Organization and
al-Fatah were expelled from Lebanon by Israeli forces in 1982, Mugniyah
joined the newly formed Hezbollah and quickly rose to a senior position in the
organization. Hassan Nasrallah is Hezbollah’s senior political leader.
Nasrallah was originally a military commander, but his military and religious credentials—he
studied in centers of Shiite theology in Iran and Iraq—quickly elevated him to
leadership within the group. Experts say he took advantage of rivalries within
Hezbollah and the favor of the head of Iran’s theocratic government, Ayatollah
Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini, to become the group’s secretary general in 1992, a
position he still holds.
Where does Hezbollah
operate?
Its base is in
Lebanon’s Shiite-dominated areas, including parts of Beirut, southern Lebanon,
and the Bekaa Valley. In addition, U.S. intelligence reports say that Hezbollah
cells operate in Europe, Africa, South America, and North America. Despite
Israel’s 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon, Hezbollah continues to periodically shell
Israeli forces in the disputed Shebaa Farms border zone.
Hezbollah has also
carried out attacks outside the Middle East. In his September 20, 2001, speech
to Congress, President Bush pledged that the U.S.-led war on terror
«will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found,
stopped, and defeated.» Hezbollah’s cells outside the Middle East, its reported
involvement in the January 2002 attempt to smuggle a boatload of
arms to the Palestinian Authority, and its role in the 1992 and 1994 attacks in
Argentina imply that it might meet the president’s definition, terrorism
experts say. In June 2002, Singapore accused Hezbollah of recruiting
Singaporeans in a failed 1990s plot to attack U.S. and Israeli ships in the
Singapore Straits. Hezbollah was also among the few terrorist groups that
President Bush mentioned by name in his January 2002 State of the Union
address.
How big is
Hezbollah?
Its core consists of
several thousand militants and activists, the U.S. government estimates.
What major attacks
is Hezbollah responsible for?
Hezbollah and its
affiliates have planned or been linked to a lengthy series of terrorist
attacks against the United States, Israel, and other Western targets. These
attacks include:
a series of
kidnappings of Westerners in Lebanon, including several Americans, in the 1980s;
the suicide truck
bombings that killed more than 200 U.S. Marines at their barracks in Beirut,
Lebanon, in 1983; the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847, which featured
the famous footage of the plane’s pilot leaning out of the cockpit with a gun
to his head; and two major 1990s attacks on Jewish targets in Argentina—the
1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy (killing 29) and the 1994 bombing of a
Jewish community center (killing 95).
http://www.crisisgroup.org
About Crisis Group
The
International Crisis Group is an independent, non-profit, multinational
organisation, with over 100 staff members on five continents, working through
field-based analysis and high-level advocacy to prevent and resolve deadly
conflict.
Crisis
Group’s approach is grounded in field research. Teams of political analysts are
located within or close by countries at risk of outbreak, escalation or
recurrence of violent conflict. Based on information and assessments from the
field, Crisis Group produces regular analytical reports containing
practical recommendations targeted at key international decision-takers. Crisis
Group also publishes CrisisWatch,
a 12-page monthly bulletin, providing a succinct regular update on the state of
play in all the most significant situations of conflict or potential conflict
around the world.
Crisis
Group’s reports and briefing papers are distributed widely by email and printed
copy to officials in foreign ministries and international organisations and
made generally available at the same time via the organisation’s Internet site.
Crisis Group works closely with governments and those who influence them,
including the media, to highlight its crisis analyses and to generate support
for its policy prescriptions.
The Crisis
Group Board – which includes prominent figures from the fields of politics,
diplomacy, business and the media – is directly involved in helping to bring
Crisis Group reports and recommendations to the attention of senior
policy-makers around the world. Crisis Group is co-chaired by President
Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations Leslie Gelb and the former
European Commissioner for External Relations Lord Patten of Barnes; and its
President and Chief Executive since January 2000 has been former Australian
Foreign Minister Gareth Evans.
January 2005
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=1828&l=1
Hizbollah: Rebel
Without A Cause?
Middle East Briefing N°7
30 July 2003
OVERVIEW
Few
political actors in the Middle East have seen their environment as thoroughly
affected by recent events in the region as Hizbollah, the Lebanese
political-military organisation that first came on the scene in the mid-1980s.
In U.S. political circles, calls for action against Hizbollah, which is accused
of global terrorist activity, are heard increasingly. With the ouster of
Saddam Hussein’s regime, the U.S. has upped its pressure on Syria and Iran –
Hizbollah’s two most powerful patrons. Meanwhile, Israel has made clear
it will not tolerate indefinitely the organisation’s armed presence on its
northern border. Within Lebanon itself, weariness with Hizbollah and
questions about its future role are being raised with surprising candour.
PANORAMA
Au Moyen-Orient, peu d’acteurs politiques ont vu leur environnement si
fondamentalement affecté par les événements récents comme cela a été le cas
pour le Hezbollah, l’organisation politico-militaire libanaise dont la première
intervention sur la scène date du milieu des années 80. Au sein des cercles
politiques états-uniens, les appels à l’action contre le Hezbollah, qui est
accusé d’activités terroristes, sont de plus en plus entendus. Avec l’éviction
du régime de Sadam Hussein, les Etats-Unis ont augmenté la pression sur la
Syrie et l’Iran, les deux principaux protecteurs du Hezbollah. Dans le même
temps, Israël a clairement fait savoir qu’il ne tolérerai pas indéfiniment la
présence armée de l’organisation sur sa frontère nord. Vis-à-vis du Liban
lui-même, les questions que se posent le Hezbollah concernant son futur rôle se
posent désormais avec une étonnante sincérité.
One after
another, its local and regional cards appear to have been lost: Israel’s May
2000 withdrawal from southern Lebanon deprived Hizbollah of its principal
raison d’être; America’s swift military success reduced the immediate prospect
of it being drawn into a costly confrontation in Iraq; and renewed
international efforts to restore calm in the Israeli-Palestinian theatre
combined with intense pressure on radical Palestinian Islamist groups have
diminished its ability to invoke the Palestinian struggle as a justification
for armed action. Today perhaps more than ever since its establishment in 1984,
the organisation’s purpose and fate hang in the balance.
Hizbollah
is engaged in its own soul-searching. Pressured to undertake a strategic shift,
it faces the decision whether its future is one among many Lebanese political
parties or whether it will maintain the hybrid nature, half political party and
half armed militia, part local organisation and part internationalist movement,
that has defined it from the outset.
L’une après l’autre, ses cartes locales
et régionales sont perdues : le retrait israélien en mai 2000 du Sud Liban
a dépourvu le Hezbollah de sa principale raison d’être ; le succès
militaire états-uniens rapide a réduit les perspectives immédiates de voir se
dessiner une confrontation coûteuse en Irak ; et les efforts
internationaux renouvelés pour restaurer la paix dans le conflit
Isarélo-Palestinien combinés à l’intense pression sur les groupes Palestiniens
Islamistes radicaux ont diminué son recours d’invoquer la lutte palestinienne
pour justifier son action armée. Aujourd’hui, peut-être plus que jamais depuis
sa création en 1984, le but et le destin de l’organisation sont mis dans la
balance. Le Hezbollah est engagé dans la recherche de sa propre âme. Pressé
d’entreprendre un changement de stratégie, il est face à la décision de devenir
un parti politique libanais comme un autre ou bien de conserver cette nature
hybride, moitié parit politique, moitié milice armée, moitié organisation
locale et moitié mouvement international, ce qui le définit depuis ses débuts.
Fully
penetrating Hizbollah’s decision-making process is almost impossible. The
movement enjoys a highly effective regime of internal discipline and concealment.
External influence, whether emanating from Iran or Syria, is extremely
difficult to assess. Nevertheless, various sources – including ICG interviews
with Hizbollah members and with informed Lebanese political observers as well
as Hizbollah’s own public statements and commentaries in its weekly al-Intiqad (critique) – offer important insights
into its dilemma and the directions in which its thinking is leading.
The
picture pieced together by ICG on the basis of fieldwork between April
and July 2003 is that of a movement perplexed by recent developments and still
struggling to find its footing. Outward self-confidence conceals deeper
doubt and uncertainty about its role and possible theatres of action.
Uncomfortable in its current pose yet unwilling to change in fundamental ways,
it has opted for a posture of wait-and-see, maintaining the rhetoric and armed
capability of a militant organisation but few of its concrete manifestations.
Pénétrer à l’intérieur du processus de
décision du Hezbollah est chose impossible. Le mouvement jouit d’un régime
interne très efficace de discipline et de dissimulation. L’influence externe,
si elle provient de l’Iran ou de la Syrie, est extrêmement difficile à évaluer.
Quoiqu’il en soit, diverses sources, y compris des interviews de membres du
Hezbollah réalisées par l’ICG et des observateurs politiques libanais bien
informés comme les déclarations publiques du Hezbollah et ses commentaires dans
son hebdomadaire Al-Intiqad(la Critique), donne une bonne idée du dilemme et
des options possibles auquel il mène. Le puzzle constitué par ICG sur la base
d’un travail de terrain entre avril et juillet 2003 représente un mouvement
embarrassé par les récents développements et à la recherche de son équilibre.
Des confidences échappées reconnaissent un profond doute et une incertitude
concernant son rôle et ses possibles théâtres d’actions. Mal à l’aise dans sa
posture actuelle indécis à changer son comportement traditionnel, le Hezbollah
a opté pour une posture d’attentisme, maintenant la rhétorique et la capacité
d’une organisation militante mais avec peu de manifestations concrètes.
In so
doing, it is postponing an inevitably wrenching internal debate
and banking on future developments in Iraq and on the Israeli-Palestinian front
that, by radicalising the region, might renew either Hizbollah's purpose
or its patrons’ strength. The U.S. could fail to establish a political
authority viewed as legitimate by the Iraqi people, Iranian or Syrian influence
might grow there, and that country might yet turn into a deadly quagmire
for the occupying forces; violence between Israelis and Palestinians could rekindle.
Under either of these scenarios – even more so under a combination of them –
pressure on Hizbollah to disarm and normalise its status, it believes, would fade.
Faire cela, c’est remettre à plus tard
un inévitable débat interne déchirant et opérer un virage sur les futurs
développement en Irak et sur la question Israélo-Palestinienne, ce qui, en
radicalisant la région, pourrait renouveler chacune des propositions du
Hezbollah et celles de ses protecteurs. Les Etats-Unis pourraient échouer à
établir une autorité politique considérée comme légitime par le peuple irakien,
l’influence iranienne ou syrienne pourraient y grandir, et ce pays pourraient
alors sombrer dans un bourbier meurtrier pour les forces occupantes ; la
violence entre les Israéliens et les Palestiniens pourrait se rallumer. Selon
chacun de ces scénario - voire selon une combinaison de chacun d’entre eux - la
pression sur le Hezbollah pour le désarmer et pour normaliser son statut, va
faiblir.
There is
little doubt that international and principally U.S. pressure in the Middle
East has helped lead Hizbollah to its present stance of relative
passivity. But pressure alone – and, to date, it has essentially been pressure
alone – can only move it so far. Indeed, Hizbollah believes that the strong
U.S. rhetoric and aggressive approach toward Syria and Iran may already be
producing a backlash. A highly tense and polarised atmosphere in which
Washington appears to be asking regional players to choose sides is one in
which even Lebanese actors inherently hostile to Hizbollah are reluctant
to be seen as backing the U.S. Lebanese who in recent months had become more assertive
in their denigration of both Hizbollah and Syrian policies toward and presence
in their country have felt compelled to mute their criticism since
Damascus has become an overt U.S. target.
Il y a peu de doutes que la pression
internationale et états-uniennes en particuliers au Moyen-Orient a aidé à
conduire le Hezbollah dans sa situation actuelle de relative passivité. Mais
une pression seule - et, à cette heure, cela a été une pression unique - peut
seule le faire bouger autant. En effet, le Hezbollah croit que la puissante
rhétorique états-unienne et une approche agressive contre l’Iran et la Syrie
peut seule produire à une marche arrière. Une forte tension et une atmosphère
polarisée est celle dans laquelle Washington apparaît comme celui qui demande
aux acteurs régionaux de choisir le camps qui est celui où même les acteurs
Libanais fondamentalement hostiles au Hezbollah sont peu disposés à être
considérés comme les soutiens des Etats-Unis. Les Libanais, qui ces derniers
mois étaient devenu plus assurés dans leur dénigrements tant du Hezbollah que
de la politique syrienne à leur encontre et de cette présence dans leur pays,
ont le sentiment d’être contraint de mettre en sourdine leur critique depuis
que Damas est devenu une cible déclarée des Etatts-Unis.
Being
tough-minded need not mean being single-minded. To be effective, a policy that
pressures countries and organisations that sponsor or engage in armed attacks ought
also to offer the prospect of genuine gain if they cease to do
so. The U.S. should be much clearer in presenting these potential gains and in
putting forward an overall, positive vision of the region's future. Members who
aspire to see Hizbollah play a more restrained role ought to be encouraged. The
U.S. ought to refrain from references to forcible regime change
in Syria or Iran. It should put before Damascus its conception of a fair and lasting
Israeli-Syrian peace, even if its implementation cannot be immediate and its
realization will depend on clear-cut Syrian steps designed to boost
Israel’s confidence – particularly concerning support for radical, militant
groups. And Iran ought to hear some acknowledgment of its security concerns and
of the trade-offs that Washington is prepared to undertake.
Putting
and maintaining pressure on Hizbollah, Syria and Iran undoubtedly will play an
important part in determining the future of the region. But for the United
States and its vision for the region, getting things right in Iraq and moving
forcefully toward a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, seriously
engaging Syria and Iran and encouraging Hizbollah's conversion into a purely
civilian political actor are likely to have the greatest and most sustainable
impact.
Amman/Brussels, 30 July 2003
Devenir résolu ne doit pas signifier devenir obtus. Pour
être effective, une politique qui contraint des pays et des organisations qui
patronnent ou engagent des attaques armées devrait aussi offrir la perspective
de gains véritables s’ils cessent d’agir ainsi. Les Etats-Unis devraient être
bien plus clairs en présentant ces gains potentiels et en mettant en avant une
ligne directrice, une vision positive du future de la région. Les membres qui
aspire à voir le Hezbollah jouer un rôle plus restreint devraient être
encouragés. Les EU devraient s’abstenir de références pour le changement des
régimes autoritaires en Syrie ou en Iran. Il aurait fallu demander avant à
Damas sa conception d’une paix Israélo-Syrienne juste et durable, même si son
exécution ne pouvait être immédiate et que sa réalisation dépendrait de
franches avancées syrienne de confiance en direction d’Israël -
particulièrement concernant le soutien au groupes militants radicaux. Et l’Iran
devrait admettre quelques erreurs dans ses affaires de sécurité et de commerce
extérieur que Washington se prépare à entreprendre.
En mettant et en maintenant la pression sur le Hezbollah,
la Syrie et l’Iran joueront indubitablement un rôle important dans la
détermination du futur de la région. Mais pour les EU et sa vision de la
région, obtenir de bons résultats en Irak et se diriger massivement vers une
résolution du conflit Israelo-Palestinnien, impliquer sérieusement la Syrie et
l’Iran et encourager la conversion du Hezbollah vers un acteur politique
purement civil sont considérés comme ayant le plus profond et durable impact.
PART IV
Hezbollah justifies
its actions : moqawama.net.
Despite of the interest of this
text, in particularly the analyze of the rhetoric, examples used,
references...., the author of this Web Review hadn’t time enough to do it. But
he will be very interrested to read such work. So please, go
on ! ! ! !
END OF THE WEB REVIEW
There no conclusion in this Web
Review, because the situation can’t be analyzed with more precision that we can
find in theses documents. Hezbollah situation is clear : something will
change - have to be changed - but no one outside Hezbollah can say what, and
maybe it’s the same thing inside.