On September 27, the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, was killed in an Israeli strike on the Islamist movement’s HQ. A thunderclap in the region and the starting point of a controversy targeting several press titles – from New York Times At Guardianpassing through The World – which was criticized for a biased presentation of the life of the leader of Hezbollah, omitting his most bloody feats of arms.
François Zimeray, lawyer for families of victims of October 7 and former French ambassador for human rights, is one of those who was moved. For L’Express, the latter soberly returns to this episode – “our era lacks this mixture of lucidity and moral clarity that we call discernment” – before analyzing Emmanuel Macron’s silence on the announcement of the death of the Shiite leader. “In the light of History, it is our silences which, as much as our excess words, have damaged the image of France, as with the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda for example. The words are corrected, but the silences remain “, he judges. A keen observer of this conflict, François Zimeray also draws up, a few days before the commemoration of the date of October 7, a painful assessment of this past year. “What strikes me is the illegibility of the European line, its lack of consistency.” Interview.
L’Express: You are usually rather rare on social networks. But after the publication of a newspaper article The World regarding the death of Hassan Nasrallah, you wrote on Why this reference?
François Zimeray : Was I looking at a portrait or a eulogy? It’s up to readers to judge for themselves: THE World outlines the journey of a “respected” man and “outstanding” strategist, a “sayyid” [NDLR : littéralement ‘seigneur’, ‘prince’, ou ‘maître’] embodying the “resistance” to Israel, with “exceptional qualities” who carves out the “stature of a war leader”. His “integrity as well as the modesty of his lifestyle” are remembered, as is the death of his son “as a martyr” (sic). It is clear that the article allows us to see the character through the eyes of his supporters and, therefore, allows us to better understand the reasons for their support. But an essential dimension was missing, the central contribution of Hassan Nasrallah to an enterprise of death and crime (drugs), his anti-Jewish and anti-French passion, the holding hostage of Lebanon and, ultimately, of peace.
Lawyer François Zimeray, former ambassador for human rights.
© / /
How do you explain that these different aspects were missing?
This does not only concern The World. Our time lacks this mixture of lucidity and moral clarity that we call discernment. What I call moral clarity is first of all, as Péguy said, the courage “to see what we see and to say what we see”. Too many people are prisoners of the ideological framework which structures their thinking, they refuse to take note of a reality which does not conform to the idea they have of it. Moreover, this conflict has something singular, which has always struck me: the further we move away from its epicenter, the more passionate it is. There are excesses here, in the public debate, that I have never heard either in Tel Aviv or in Ramallah.
In the Middle East, particularly in Syria, we were able to observe scenes of jubilation at the announcement of his death. In the West, however, some voices were moved by the news – like decolonial activist Houria Bouteldja. How do you explain this discrepancy?
As ambassador for human rights, I traveled extensively in the region during the Arab Spring, and I had unforgettable encounters there. I assure you that the women and men who courageously carry the cause of freedom and who, for decades, have suffered the consequences of this religious fanaticism (among them Iranian women or LGBT people whom Nasrallah recommends to “kill at the first impure act”) know exactly who they are dealing with. If the hopes of democratization have most often been crushed, the aspiration for freedom is still present, and it would be a mistake to underestimate the lucidity of populations regarding religious fanaticism and its consequences.
With us, it’s something else. Our approach to this conflict is determined by several factors, all of which converge on the disapproval of Israel, the tenacious hatred of democracy against a backdrop of a mixture of guilt – whether it is the Shoah, the colonial past or slaveholder – and of good conscience, this aspiration to place oneself in the camp of good, which is the exact opposite of conscience. It is as if we are settling scores with our own past on the backs of Israel and the Jews.
The Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, reacted to the news by recalling that Hassan Nasrallah was the head of a “terrorist organization that attacked and killed innocent civilians.” Joe Biden, for his part, called the Israeli strike that killed him a “measure of justice.” In France, Emmanuel Macron has so far remained silent. Do you understand it?
I understand the prudence, the concern to be heard by everyone; diplomats always fear a misstep, but in the light of History, it is our silences which, as much as our excess words, have damaged France’s image, as with the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda for example. The words are corrected, but the silences remain. I am always surprised to realize how much is lacking in the basic courage to say things simply.
Emmanuel Macron, however, condemned “the strikes and actions of Hezbollah”. Adding that “Lebanon must not become the new Gaza. Israel must stop its strikes and Hezbollah must abandon its logic of retaliation.” Doesn’t that convince you?
Language matters, for example what does “action” mean in the presidential statement you cite? Why not talk about attacks as cowardly as they are cruel, about deliberate aggression against the civilian populations of a friendly country? ? What is happening in Gaza, like what we are observing in Lebanon, is a tragedy that revolts our humanity. But would we be here if the international community had hammered home since October 7 the priority demand for the release of the hostages? This was not the case, or too timidly. How can we not see in this silence, if we place ourselves from the point of view of Hamas, an encouragement to continue since this requirement quickly became secondary, and how can we not see, on the Israeli side, an abandonment with the consequence of feeling that only force pays? In the end, our cowardice will have contributed to the excessive number of civilian deaths.
Do you nevertheless agree with the President of the Republic, who, on September 26, judged that by refusing the ceasefire proposed in Lebanon, Benjamin Netanyahu would be “making a mistake” and “taking responsibility for a regional escalation”?
Lebanon’s involvement in the war is indeed tragic, but it is rooted in an old hold-up – that of Hezbollah precisely – again covered by our silence. We would have been more credible and better heard if we had forcefully and consistently denounced the hijacking of this country by Hezbollah and if we had audibly condemned each attack on the civilian population of Israel from Lebanon. Only then could we have expected everyone to give credence to our recommendations.
It remains thatIsrael continues its operations in Lebanon. Some people worry that the Jewish state is finding itself more and more isolated on the international scene because of its military strategy… Isn’t that a risk?
We can understand that the Israelis are seeking to eliminate the risk of seeing their population once again under fire from Hezbollah missiles. Israel’s diplomatic isolation is obvious, but their priority is not to please, it is to defend their skin. Israel can be criticized for its deafness to the calls of the world. But the world – at least the Western world – would be better listened to and heard if its line was consistent: we encourage Ukraine to defend itself and seem to deny Israel the right to do so.
In a few days, we will commemorate the date of the October 7 terrorist attacks carried out by Hamas. What assessment do you make of this past year?
I have closely observed Western reactions, as a citizen of course, as a former European parliamentarian, as a diplomat, but also as a lawyer for victims of October 7. What strikes me is the illegibility of the European line, its lack of consistency. There were real moments of solidarity and empathy, like the ceremony at Les Invalides for the murdered French people. But consistency in diplomacy, which is a condition of our credibility, is not about telling everyone what they want to hear, it is about using the same language everywhere.
Since you asked, a lot of things struck me this year. The release of an all-out anti-Semitism, the incomprehensible aggressiveness of those whom the hostage posters disturbed to the point of tearing them off, the shelling of Israel in the press and its unscrewing in world opinion, but also the incapacity of Israel to get rid of a leadership that has seriously failed, particularly in Gaza where too many innocent civilians have died and where so many hostages still remain. The relish with which Israel is accused of genocide, this word taken up and savored everywhere even though this accusation is legally absurd and contradicted by the facts. All this makes you dizzy, and inspires the feeling that the facts no longer matter. In short, October 7 and its aftermath will have served to turn the page of the Nuremberg trial to open that of the trial of Israel.
.