Hezbollah Is A Terrorist Group

[Rasputin]

نخست وزير لبنان
اجرای خلع سلاح در لبنان
و جمع آوری سلاح مقاومت




نخست وزير لبنان، 48 ساعت پس از سخنرانی حسن نصرالله در راهپيمائی لبنان كه در آن دولت كنونی لبنان را ضعيف و ناكارآمد اعلام كرده بود، طی يك مصاحبه تلويزيونی گفت:

جنگ اخير و بمباران لبنان توسط اسرائيل، اين كشور را برای 10 سال به عقب برد. او از جمله دستآوردهای مثب جنگ اخير لبنان را اعزام و تسلط ارتش اين كشور در جنوب شيعه نشين لبنان دانست و اضافه كرد اين جنگ باعث شد تا روند صلح ميان اعراب و اسرائيل سرعت يابد! نخست وزير لبنان با اشاره به بمباران لبنان و ويرانی های باقی مانده از آن گفت: ما آموخته ايم كه از سلاح در جای خود استفاده كنيم و آن را درجائی به كار نبريم كه بی فايده است.

نخست وزير لبنان دربخش ديگری از سخنان خود گفت كه ارتش لبنان برای استقرار دائم به جنوب لبنان رفته است و از اين پس ارتش اين كشور هيچ سلاحی را در دست هيچ گروهی تحمل نخواهد كرد. هيچ سلاحی جز سلاح دولتی كه در اختيار ارتش لبنان است نبايد در لبنان و از جمله درجنوب كشور وجود داشته باشد حتی اگر سلاح مقاومت باشد.

نخست وزير لبنان تاكيد كرد: هر دو طرف لبنانی و اسراييلی بايد نسبت به توافقنامهی صلح متعهد باشند.

[Rasputin]

MIDDLE Eastern states, including Iran and Syria, must “use their influence” over terror organisations waging war against Israel, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer told the United Nations (UN) General Assembly last week.

In his address to the 61st session of the UN last week, Downer said: “Some countries continue to sponsor terrorist groups to promote their own political agendas. In the Middle East, it is essential that all countries, including Iran and Syria, use their influence over organisations such as Hezbollah to stop terrorist assaults, including those directed at the State of Israel.

“Any viable resolution of the conflict must include Hezbollah’s disarmament, its renunciation of violence and a recognition of Israel’s right to exist in peace.”

Downer told delegates that there should be a “comprehensive convention on international terrorism”.

“This would demonstrate an unambiguous commitment, ensuring all terrorist acts are criminalised in international law. It is disappointing that the UN still cannot agree on the scope of such a convention,” he said.

Downer said Afghanistan represents “a fundamental test for each of us”, and added that “we know what will come of Iraq if it is won by the extremists”.

“Iraq is not America’s burden alone and Afghanistan is not NATO’s burden alone, because if terrorism prevailed, the consequences would be catastrophic for each of us, wherever we may live.”

He said the crisis in Darfur is “a litmus test of the UN’s responsibility to help people who desperately need its protection”.

“It is a test of the most basic principles of civilisation. We all know this. We also know it is a test that, so far, the UN has failed.”

Last week, Downer also met with Jewish community leaders from B’nai B’rith, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee in New York in what was described as a “very positive” meeting. B’nai B’rith Australia/New Zealand president James Altman told the AJN the meeting was “very fruitful and positive.”

While unable to comment on the issues discussed, Altman said that the “discussions were serious” and that the participants and the foreign minister “agreed on almost all the issues discussed” and that the overall outcome of the meeting was “very satisfactory”.

[Rasputin]

US Says Hezbollah Still Strong After War With Israel

.S. counterterrorism officials say Lebanon-based Hezbollah terrorists remain a threat to the survival of Lebanon's government, Israel's security, and regional stability following its month-long war with Israel. The officials told Congress Thursday that Hezbollah has an increasing global reach and is capable of harming U.S. and other western interests around the world.


Hassan Nasrallah
The 34-day war between Hezbollah and Israel was triggered when Hezbollah fighters crossed into Israel, kidnapping two Israeli soldiers and killing eight others.

Israel responded with a military offensive intended to destroy Hezbollah's rockets, weaken its fighters and diminish its threat to Israel's security. But just last week, Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, told a rally of hundreds of thousands of supporters in Beirut, that his organization was as strong as ever and still had an arsenal of 20,000 rockets capable of striking Israel.

Frank Urbancic is a counterterrorism official at the U.S. State Department. He says Hezbollah is a capable terrorist organization with a growing reach.

"We could think of it perhaps as almost an octopus, with its head in southern Lebanon and tentacles moving around the world," said Frank Urbancic.

In the Middle East, Urbancic says Hezbollah is interested in expanding its links to other terrorist organizations and has so far succeeded in the Palestinian territories.

"Hezbollah has supported terrorist activities in the Palestinian territories since at least 2000, by providing financial, training and logistical support to Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian terrorist groups," he said.

Hezbollah's growing reach, the officials say, is due in large part to the support it receives from its biggest backers - Iran and Syria - who provide Hezbollah with money, arms and training.

Counterterrorism officials are also concerned that Hezbollah is looking to expand into Central and South America, where the group's supporters and sympathizers are involved in drugs and arms trafficking, money laundering and other criminal activities.

Hezbollah was founded in 1982 as a response to Israel's invasion and occupation of Lebanon. Prior to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States Hezbollah was responsible for more American deaths than any other terrorist group.

The officials testified that they do not think Hezbollah is planning any terrorist operations in the United States right now, but they warn that the group operates in the United States to raise money to support its terrorist activities.

John Kavanagh is a counterterrorism official with the Federal Bureau of Investigation:

"Within the United States, Hezbollah associates and sympathizers have engaged in a wide range of criminal activities to include money laundering, credit card fraud, immigration fraud, food stamp fraud, bank fraud and narcotics trafficking," said John Kavanagh.

The officials warn that Hezbollah remains a highly organized and well-trained organization with funding from many sources. They say it is capable of acting against U.S. interests on several fronts and on several continents.

The officials said close cooperation with U.S. allies is the most effective way to counter the Hezbollah threat.

[Rasputin]

Israeli minister wants Nasrallah killed

Jerusalem: An Israeli cabinet minister said on Saturday Israel should assassinate Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah when an opportunity arises to do so without causing many casualties among bystanders.

Revered by many Arabs as a hero and hated by Israelis as a terrorist, Nasrallah has become the Jewish state's most wanted man since Hezbollah fired thousands of rockets on northern Israel after guerrillas abducted two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid in July.

"Nasrallah's life is forfeit," Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer told Israel's Army Radio. "He's bad for the Jews, he's bad for the Arabs, he's bad for the Christians. We should wait for the right opportunity and not leave him alive."

Israeli officials have increasingly called for the assassination of the Lebanese Shiite Muslim cleric since the July 12 raid which touched off a month-long war that killed some 1,200 people in Lebanon, mostly civilians, and 157 Israelis, mostly soldiers.

Nasrallah made his first public appearance last week to address a massive Hezbollah "divine victory" rally in Beirut, despite speculation that Israel might try to assassinate him.

But Ben Eliezer said he would have opposed such a move.

"Yes, we should eliminate him. But we have to make sure that thousands of people aren't vulnerable (to injury)," he said.

"We must liquidate Nasrallah at the first opportunity, because he is the embodiment of evil, not just for us but for Muslims and Christians too," Ben Eliezer said.

The minister is a member of the centre-left Labour party, the main coalition partner of the centrist Kadima formation of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

His comments came as Lebanon said it had been informed that Israel planned to complete its pullout from the south on Sunday, following its devastating 34-day conflict with the Shiite militants of Hezbollah in July and August.

Nasrallah's predecessor, Sayyed Abbas Mousawi, was assassinated in a 1992 Israeli helicopter air strike that also killed his wife and child.

Israel's failure to retrieve the two captured troops has led many Israelis to predict another round of fighting with Hizbollah, which advocates the Jewish state's destruction.

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

Meeting the Establishment

Perhaps Ahmadinejad's biggest coup was his closed-door tête-à-tête on September 20 with a select group of America's private foreign-policy establishment from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Participants in the exclusive conclave included the organization's chairman emeritus David Rockefeller, current chairman Peter G. Peterson, CFR President Richard Haass, and prominent CFR members such as Newsweek editor/columnist Fareed Zakaria, former national security advisor Brent Scowcroft, New York Times reporter David Sanger, and former White House adviser Robert Blackwill.

The CFR's website described the event as a sparring match, reporting that "the Iranian leader engaged in a protracted punch and counterpunch with the [CFR] panel." The outcome of that meeting is likely to have profound implications for U.S. policy vis-à-vis Iran. Washington Post ombudsman Richard Harwood once referred to the CFR as "the American ruling class," a description that is quite apropos. Other Washington insiders have noted that it is the council that draws up most of the plans that eventually become official U.S. government policy. And it is a fact that hundreds of council members have held top positions in one White House administration after another, a feat unmatched by any other organization.

Shiite "Stability"

So, what is the council's "line" on Iran? What "advice" is it likely to push as official policy for the Bush administration? It would appear that we are going to see a great reversal. For the past year, prominent CFR members and many of the major media organs in the CFR orbit of influence have been beating the war drums, giving the appearance that war with Iran was imminent and unavoidable. But the message to come out after the Ahmadinejad meeting would seem to signal that we will be moving toward a period of "constructive engagement" with Tehran.

Richard Haass, the council's president and a former senior U.S. State Department official under Bush, told the Reuters news service, following the meeting: "My sense was that, in principle, he [Ahmadinejad] was open to a relationship [with the United States] but that he wanted the United States to take the initiative to bring it about."

While some of the CFR's leading experts continue to rattle sabers and appear to be beating war drums, the dominant strain in the council's media chorus is sounding the siren song of "new thinking" concerning our relationship with Tehran. And the Bush administration has already signaled that it is adopting this line, issuing conciliatory statements about adopting a "diplomatic" rather than military approach to a regime Bush once called part of the "axis of evil."

One of the main pieces setting this CFR theme is an article that was penned several months before the Ahmadinejad meeting, by CFR Adjunct Senior Fellow Vali Nasr. Published in the July-August 2006 issue of the council's journal, Foreign Affairs, it is entitled, "When the Shiites Rise." According to Professor Nasr, the terror regime represented by Ahmadinejad and Khamenei, and their whipping up of Shia Islam to serve their revolutionary purpose, is actually "constructive" and positive. "The emerging Shiite revival [in Iraq and throughout the Middle East] need not be a source of concern for the United States, even though it has rattled some U.S. allies in the Middle East," Nasr claimed. "In fact, it presents Washington with new opportunities to pursue its interests in the region."

How so? "Building bridges with the region's Shiites could become the one clear achievement of Washington's tortured involvement in Iraq," argues Nasr. "Succeeding at that task, however, would mean engaging Iran, the country with the world's largest Shiite population and a growing regional power, which has a vast and intricate network of influence among the Shiites across the Middle East, most notably in Iraq."

Incredibly, the CFR's Iran expert Nasr asserts that the Tehran regime actually should be considered a vital security ally who can help assure that Iraqi factions do not "spin out of control, destabilize southern Iraq, and erode government authority in Baghdad." But are we truly supposed to believe that the best course of action is to support "stability" in Iraq under Shiite fanatics backed by Iran? The same Shiite militants who are already killing U.S. troops in Iraq? Apparently so. According to Nasr, "Iranian cooperation is crucial" to achieving U.S. goals in Iraq. In fact, he fantastically asserts that "Iran's cooperation would help address Iraq's security and reconstruction needs, as well as buttress the central government in Baghdad."

As absurd as this all is, it appears to have been adopted by the Bush administration, which seems to happily accept Tehran's new Iraqi influence on the one hand, even as it rhetorically swats Iranian terrorism with the other hand. And when Iraq's Tehran-allied Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani becomes the new Ayatollah Khomeini of Baghdad, issuing "Great Satan" declamations against the United States and sending terrorist cells to attack us, what then?

Professor Nasr has been retailing this same pro-Tehran message for the CFR in other articles, speeches, and media interviews. But he is not alone. Other CFR "experts" have been delivering the same message in higher academic and political circles, and now it is making its way into the popular press. Some of these enlightened intelligentsia are now even suggesting that we may need to negotiate something similar to the arrangement that President Clinton came up with for North Korea: i.e., win the hearts of Iran's mullahs by providing them with peaceful nuclear power plants and whatever else they need to show that we mean them no harm. Of course, North Korea has rewarded our largesse by becoming even more belligerent and developing even more threatening weapons of mass destruction.

[Rasputin]

Architects of Catastrophe

On September 20, the same day that Presidents Bush and Ahmadinejad addressed the UN, the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler, in an analysis piece entitled, "U.S. Policy on Iran Evolves Toward Diplomacy," reported that behind the scenes the Bush administration was moving from a confrontational mode with Iran to a "diplomatic solution."

This is supposed to make us all so relieved that we are not going to war that we uncritically embrace the new "diplomatic option" as a godsend. But as has so often been the case in U.S. foreign policy "options" scripted by the CFR "wise men" (as they refer to themselves in their in-house literature), we are being presented with false alternatives. War and diplomacy are both legitimate functions of the State; but the history of our world has shown that both have been deceitfully abused by rulers to advance their own schemes for power.

Either option exercised by the CFR power elite who dominate the Bush administration is bound to be a prescription for disaster. If it's war, we can expect our already stretched-thin military forces to be bogged down not only in Iran, but in an ever-expanding war against inflamed world Islam. Meanwhile, our still unprotected borders will invite more terrorism at home.

On the other hand, a CFR-led diplomatic solution would no doubt follow the pattern of past initiatives that have ended up strengthening America's enemies: think North Korea, China — and Iran — to name a few.

It should not be forgotten that it was the same academic, media, and political elites — led by the Council on Foreign Relations — that set the disastrous diplomatic course that has brought us to our current dilemma. It was President Jimmy Carter and his entourage — Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, Ambassador William Sullivan, Adviser George Ball, Ambassador to the UN Andrew Young, National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, General Robert Huyser (CFR "wise men" all, to name but a few) — who combined the power of the U.S. government with that of the CFR's opinion cartel to topple America's most important ally in the region, anti-communist Shah Reza Pahlavi of Iran. The Soviets wanted him out desperately. The Carter administration's CFR brain trust could not have been more helpful to Moscow in realizing that objective.

Under pressure from Carter, the Shah released from prison hundreds of terrorists and criminals whom Carter and the media had designated "political prisoners" and "human rights activists." When these same individuals began stirring up violent demonstrations and engaging in criminal acts, the Shah, under pressure from the Carter administration, ordered his military and police to back off. As the situation predictably worsened, Carter stepped up the pressure, including threats to cut off Iran's military supplies unless the Shah left his country. Finally, the Shah did that and Ayatollah Khomeini was installed as the new grand vizier of the Persian Gulf.

All should have been wonderful; after all, didn't President Jimmy Carter refer to Khomeini as "a man of God," and didn't his UN Ambassador Andrew Young identify him as a "Twentieth-century saint"? The truth, of course, is that the overthrow of the Shah and his replacement with Khomeini set in motion a tectonic shift of incredible magnitude, and the aftershocks have been rocking the world ever since. Shah Pahlavi's dynasty may not have been perfect, but it was a positive force for modernization and moderation of Persia's Islamic society, as well as for human rights progress, and security against both Soviet domination of the area and the growing threat of Soviet-sponsored terrorism. The overthrow of the Shah's leadership, enlightened by Middle East standards, planted a virulent regime in Tehran, that, with support from Russia, Communist China, and North Korea, has been transformed into a global terror axis.

What Now?

Tehran's danger to the United States and other nations now extends beyond the threat posed by its terrorist networks. Iran now exercises tremendous economic and political influence through its oil production, its control of the Persian Gulf's strategic Straits of Hormuz, and its growing influence in OPEC, the UN, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Economic Cooperation Organization, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the World Islamic Council.

Every step of the way leading toward this dilemma, the CFR policy elites in both Democrat and Republican administrations have failed to take any beneficial actions, most notably, not only failing to make credible efforts to pressure Moscow and Beijing to stop building Iran's terror potential, but actually rewarding both Russia and China with financial and technological assistance in spite of their support for terror. Another round of that kind of diplomacy could be catastrophic for America.

So how should the United States respond to Iran — diplomacy or war? The short answer is that we do not need to do either. We certainly should not agree to make any accommodations with a terror state such as Iran. Any agreements that are made with such a regime — the transfer of technological assistance in exchange for a promise not to develop nuclear weapons, for instance — would be broken as soon as it is in the interest of that regime to do so. Nor should we go to war against Iran, unless of course we have absolutely no other choice because of Iranian aggression against us.

Instead, we should safeguard our country against treachery, including drastically increasing our own border security. We should also stop giving financial and material aid to governments such as China and Russia that support Iran. We cannot now undo the damage that was done when our policy elites supported the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in the 1970s. But we can — and must — stop helping unsavory regimes or the sponsors of those regimes.

[Rasputin]

www.awakenthesenses.com

[Rasputin]

Jerusalem - Reliable Israeli intelligence sources now report that Hezbollah suffered significant setbacks as a result of the Lebanon War, both in terms of its fighting force - one-tenth of which was reportedly killed - and in terms of its hold on southern Lebanon. Those sources say that Hezbollah's hold on southern Lebanon has been significantly altered with the loss of the Shiite movement's entire front-line of outposts along the Israeli border, and by the presence of Lebanese army troops and a substantially larger UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) that is deployed in the area that was once solely under Hezbollah control.
Hezbollah envisions another military round against Israel at any time. This is the working assumption on which Hezbollah has been operating since the end of the war, and it has been trying to restore its military capabilities and political standing.
Meanwhile, rehabilitation is taking place on three levels. On the military level, Hezbollah is currently engaged in deployment along a new line in southern Lebanon. While Hezbollah is still operating south of the Litani River, it is now deploying on a more northern line there. The large center of "nature reserves" in the center of southern Lebanon is still under Hezbollah's full control, and is defined as a "closed military zone" with the consent of the Lebanese army and the U.N. forces. In the villages located along Hezbollah's new line, it has purchased or rented civilian buildings, and is turning them into warehouses of military equipment and weaponry.
Rebuilding the strategic layer - the medium-range and long-range rocket array - that was destroyed in the first days of the warfare is advancing more slowly.
Despite the fact that Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah declared a "divine victory," his popularity is in a sharp decline. In public opinion polls held over the past few days in Beirut and towns in northern and southern Lebanon, 51 percent said that they support disarming Hezbollah. Forty-nine percent believe that Hezbollah suffered defeat in a war that was "completely illegitimate."
The American perspective on the power of Hezbollah is quite different.
Frank Urbancic Jr., principal deputy coordinator of the U.S. State Department's Counterterrorism Office, told the House Subcommittee on Middle East and Central Asia on Sept. 28 that Hezbollah could be compared to an "octopus with the head in southern Lebanon and tentacles moving around the world." He said Iran and Syria were responsible for Hezbollah's supply and support.
"Hezbollah has assets around the world, and it can mobilize them on a a moment's notice," Urbancic said.
Urbancic said Hezbollah has been financing other groups in the Middle East deemed terrorist organizations. Since 2000, he said, Hezbollah, which raises most of its funds in the Middle East, has provided "financial, training and logistical support to Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian terrorist groups." Hezbollah was also said to have financed Fatah cells in the West Bank.
Hezbollah has maintained a major presence in South America. Officials said Hezbollah, with interests in criminal activities, has raised millions of dollars from such countries as Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay.
Urbancic said the United States has been "very, very concerned" regarding a Hezbollah alliance with FARC [Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia], the insurgency group in Colombia and a major player in the illegal drug market. He said such an alliance could ensure funding for Hezbollah operations in the United States and the Middle East.
"It's something that we are very much worried about in the tri-border area [Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil]," Urbancic said.
Officials said Hezbollah has also been financed through the Shi'ite diaspora of West Africa and Central Africa. He said Hezbollah has interests in diamonds and other businesses in the region.
"Contributions there often are in the form of religious donations and paid in cash," Urbancic said. "They're difficult to track, and collected by Hezbollah couriers transiting the region."

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

Ex-Mossad chief says Hamas cannot win

Efraim Halevy was head of the Mossad, Israel's intelligence and special operations agency, from 1998 to 2002. On leaving he assumed the role of national security adviser to Ariel Sharon, Israel's former prime minister, resigning a year later.



He played a significant role in negotiating Israel's peace deal with King Hussein of Jordan, the bringing of Ethiopian Jews to Israel and Israel's response to the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.



In the second instalment of a two-part interview he discusses his views on Palestine, the Middle East road map, Hamas and Iran's nuclear programme.



Halevy is currently head of the Centre for Strategic and Policy Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His book Man in the Shadows: Inside the Middle East Crisis with a Man who led the Mossad was published in March 2006.



Aljazeera.net: You have said that the world should take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's desire to annihilate Israel seriously. Given the international community's apparent inability to agree on how to handle the situation, can you see a long-term failure to act ending up with the US, and perhaps Israel, taking military action in the form of a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities?



Efraim Halevy: I indeed think that Israel and the world as a whole should take the threat of President Ahmedinejad of Iran very seriously. I am gratified to see that this is how the world is indeed approaching this defiant position of Iran which is flouting international decisions, hitherto with impunity.



I do not think that meeting threats with counter-threats is a useful way of making progress on this delicate issue. Iran has just suffered a very serious setback in Lebanon: its quarter of a century investment has been virtually destroyed; its proxy badly mauled; its strategic missiles supplied to the Hezbollah wiped out in the first 48 hours of the war; and its frantic calls for a ceasefire rejected until UNSC resolution 1701 was unanimously approved in the face of its strong objections.



There are many ways whereby Iran's designs can be foiled and Iran's responsible leaders would do well to ponder the results of this recent round.



Maziar Bahari, a prominent Iranian journalist and cinema producer, writing from Tehran on 24th August, had this to say in the concluding lines of an article published in the New York Times of that day: "The bearded men in the saunas must be sweating more than usual, even though in public they toast Hezbollah's 'victory' with glasses of pomegranate juice. The Islamic Republic is coming to the point where it has to choose: destroy itself by repeating the same slogans, or come up with new definitions for itself, its friends and foes." I could not state this in better words.



Has Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip been a success?



I do not think that the withdrawal from Gaza has been a success. The notion that left to their own with all the territory of Gaza restored to the Palestinians, they would create a viable responsible governmental leadership has not come about. Instead, the Palestinians have maintained their steady rocket firing into Israel territory and have resorted to massive smuggling of tonnes of weaponry into the Gaza strip. The Hamas government is refusing to meet basic international standards of conduct and therefore the future is not at all hopeful.


Should Israel repeat the process in the West Bank?



In the light of the above, I do not think Israel should repeat the Gaza withdrawal in the West Bank.



You have not ruled out an accommodation with Hamas over the West Bank and say that Hamas is still deciding what direction it wants to take on peace talks. What would be your strategy if you were leading Hamas?



In recent weeks Hamas has unfortunately taken a direction that is leading to the possibility of renewed hostilities and confrontation. The local leadership has bowed to the dictates of the exile group in Damascus and, as a result, the unity government that Abu Mazen, the Palestinian president, has been striving to create has little chance of getting off the ground. Hamas has reached the point where it is forgoing a golden opportunity to establish itself as a responsible and credible leadership, and it will fail dismally in improving the lot of the Palestinians in the streets of Gaza, Ramallah and elsewhere.



Hamas is rapidly reaching the stage where it will be publicly denounced as a failed leadership and this could spell added disaster to the Palestinian people. I held a minority opinion in Israel that we should try and "do business" with Hamas; it now appears that Hamas does not wish to act as a government but to continue with the "armed struggle". This struggle they cannot and will not win.



You have been extremely critical of the Middle East road map, stating that it takes the final responsibility for a peace deal out of Israel's hands, and that it would involve Israel and the Palestinians moving directly to a final peace treaty, whereas you would prefer an interim agreement so that both two sides can get used to the idea of co-existence. In the long term, perhaps with lobbying of the US, do you feel Israel can disentangle itself from the road map?



I think that the road map has become a relic of the past. I never thought it was feasible and now that the Palestinian leadership is disintegrating before our eyes, the roadmap is finally no longer relevant.



In the final pages of your book, you pose the possibility of an accommodation with Hamas and Hezbollah in which these groups could help engage and counter al-Qaeda. How serious are you about this?



The future of movements like Hamas and Hezbollah is unavoidably linked to the outcome of the third world war now raging between International Sunnite Terror and the world at large. This monumental struggle finds al-Qaeda in Iraq not only fighting against the coalition presence in Baghdad led by the United States of America but also against the Shia majority in that country. Al-Qaeda has attempted to spread its patronage over Hamas and Hezbollah and has tried to move into the entrails of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It has listed Israel as one of its targets and sees it on par with Arab "infidel" leaderships throughout the Middle East.



In the depth of their hearts, the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah fully realise that in the designs of al-Qaeda they have no place. There can be no true permanent partnership between the land-based movements of Lebanon and Palestine and the internationally orientated movement of al-Qaeda. The Iranians experienced this when ten of their best intelligence officers were killed in Mazar-i-Sharif in northern Afghanistan in September 1998, three years before the September 2001 attacks, by the Taliban. Hamas and Hezbollah must know that as far as al-Qaeda is concerned, they are outside the camp. If they do not find ways of accommodating with the anti-terrorist forces of al-Qaeda, their ultimate fate is sealed.



In your book you talk about an almost complete absence of professional initiatives from the political policy-making level and how you became more and more emboldened in promoting your own ideas and course of action. You state that you were the main driver behind the creation of an alternative leadership to Yasser Arafat in the Palestinian Authority, which you described as "certainly the first time that such a concept was proposed to the political level in Israel by an intelligence chief". Do you feel in a democratic society that it is the role of intelligence to dictate such policies?



I think that in a democratic society it is the duty of all office holders in government administrations to be active and productive in analysing situations and proposing plans of action. As stated in your question, I related in my book the process whereby I proposed a line of action to my political master. This is exactly what my duty was. It was for me to propose and for him to decide if he wished to adopt my ideas. There was no element of dictation here at all.



You recently said that "by the middle of the century major cities in Germany will have a Muslim majority and so will many federations in Russia". What do you see as the potential implications of such a development? I understand you have made analogies with Arab-Israelis.



I see no analogy between the growing situation in Europe and that in Israel. There is a steady influx of Muslims from a variety of countries into Europe and the estimates concerning Europe are those of UN census officials. I think that the situation in Israel will remain stable and the Jewish majority is assured. I believe that the challenge that the Muslim communities in Europe will pose to the future of European society and culture will be profound and the leadership in Europe will have no escape from facing these dilemmas. I do not think it possible to forecast the outcome of this cultural and social confrontation. I have dwelt on these themes in my book.

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

Lebanon/Israel: Hezbollah Hit Israel with Cluster Munitions During Conflict

(Jerusalem, October 18, 2006) � Hezbollah fired cluster munitions into civilian areas in northern Israel during the recent conflict, Human Rights Watch reported today. This is the first time that Hezbollah's use of these controversial weapons has been confirmed. Hezbollah's deployment of the Chinese-made Type-81 122mm rocket is also the first confirmed use of this particular model of cluster munition anywhere in the world. Human Rights Watch documented two Type-81 cluster strikes that took place on July 25 in the Galilee village of Mghar.

"We are disturbed to discover that not only Israel but also Hezbollah used cluster munitions in their recent conflict, at a time when many countries are turning away from this kind of weapon precisely because of its impact on civilians," said Steve Goose, director of Human Rights Watch's Arms Division. "Use of cluster munitions is never justified in civilian-populated areas because they are inaccurate and unreliable."

While it is not known when and how Hezbollah obtained these foreign-made cluster munitions, and while Hezbollah used far fewer cluster munitions than Israel did in the recent war, the new findings raise serious concerns about the proliferation of these weapons to non-state armed groups, as well as states.

Human Rights Watch has previously reported on Israel's extensive use of cluster munitions in southern Lebanon during the conflict and has documented civilian casualties caused by these weapons both during the war and afterwards. The UN has estimated that Israel fired as many as 4 million submunitions into Lebanon, which left as many as 1 million hazardous unexploded "duds" still threatening Lebanese civilians and disrupting economic recovery from the war. These submunition duds have caused an average of nearly three civilian casualties a day since the cease-fire.

Cluster munitions endanger civilians in two ways. First, they spread submunitions over a broad area, virtually guaranteeing civilian casualties when fired into populated areas. Second, they leave a large number of duds that become de facto landmines, killing or maiming people well after the conflict.

Each of the Type-81 cluster munition 122mm rockets used by Hezbollah carries 39 Type-90 or MZD submunitions. Each submunition in turn shoots out hundreds of steel spheres, about 3.5mm in diameter, with deadly force. Human Rights Watch discovered evidence of Hezbollah's unprecedented use of this cluster munition in the course of ongoing investigations of the group's attacks on northern Israel during the war that lasted from July 12 until August 14. Israeli authorities had until now prevented publication of details of Hezbollah cluster strikes in Israel, citing security concerns.

Cluster Munitions in Mghar

On July 25, 2006, between 2:15 and 2:30 p.m., according to 43-year-old Jihad Ghanem, a cluster munition landed between three homes belonging to his family in the western part of Mghar village (population 19,000). The attack injured three family members: his son Rami, 8, his brother Ziad, 35, and his sister Suha, 33. Rami's arms bore irregular scars caused by pieces of shrapnel as well as smaller round marks that Jihad said were caused by steel spheres.

Jihad Ghanem, a factory manager, showed Human Rights Watch 3.5mm steel spheres and pieces of metal which he said landed at the scene, and were consistent with the top of Type-90 submunitions. He said he saw in his yard a canister with small weapons stacked on top of each other. This and the relatively light injuries suffered by his son suggest that the submunitions may not have deployed properly.

According to other villagers, the rocket that hit the Ghanem's property was part of a volley of some 10 to 12 rockets that landed in or near Mghar that afternoon, one after the other. Human Rights Watch could not determine how many of the rockets in this volley contained submunitions, but witnesses said that at least one of the other rockets contained cluster submunitions. Amal Hinou, 42, who makes plate-glass products for construction, showed Human Rights Watch pieces of it that he said he collected in an open field in the Hariq area just outside of Mghar. These included several clearly identifiable pieces of submunitions and their casings.

The Type-90 submunitions are easy to identify. They resemble small cylindrical bells with a ribbon at one end. A plastic band full of 3.5mm steel spheres wraps horizontally around the middle of the cylinder. Inside is an armor-piercing "shaped charge." The steel spheres carried by Hezbollah's regular 122mm and 220mm rockets � that is, those that do not contain submunitions � are 6mm in diameter.

Israeli police officials told Human Rights Watch that they documented 113 cluster rockets that were fired at Israel during the conflict, causing one death and 12 injuries in all: in Mghar one death and six injuries, in Karmiel three injuries, in ***yat Motzkin two injuries, and in Nahariya one injury. The police said they discovered the first of these rockets on July 15 in the Upper Galilee village of Safsufa. A total of 113 Type-81 cluster munition rockets would contain 4,407 individual submunitions.

Israeli police also showed Human Rights Watch physical evidence of a submunition from a Type-81 rocket that they said landed in the town of Karmiel and matched the one Human Rights Watch researchers saw in Mhgar.

Police and army officials did not disclose to Human Rights Watch the estimated dud rate of the submunitions from the 113 cluster rockets that they said they had handled.

Legal Analysis

International humanitarian law (the laws of war) obliges warring parties to distinguish between combatants and civilians (the principle of distinction) and, when attacking legitimate military targets, to ensure that the military advantage gained in the attack outweighs any possible harm caused to civilians.

Hezbollah launched cluster attacks that were at best indiscriminate, i.e., they violated the principle of distinction by using unguided and highly inaccurate cluster munition models against populated areas. At worst, Hezbollah deliberately attacked civilian areas with these weapons.

Five countries � China, Egypt, Italy, Russia, and Slovakia � produce nine types of 122mm rockets carrying submunitions. At least two other countries, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates, also stockpile them.

In November 2006, the Review Conference of the Convention on Conventional Weapons will decide whether to begin work on a new international instrument addressing the problem of cluster munitions. Although these weapons have been used in recent conflicts, including Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo, a growing number of nations have joined a movement to stop the use of unreliable and inaccurate cluster munitions because of the danger they pose to civilian life during and after strikes.

[Rasputin]

Hizbullah accused of using cluster bombs

Hizbullah was accused of firing cluster bombs into civilian areas of northern Israel in a statement by Human Rights Watch today.
The Lebanese Shia militia used two Chinese-made Type-81 rockets for cluster strikes that hit the Galilee village of Mghar on July 25, according to evidence gathered by the US-based organisation.

Although Israel made extensive use of cluster weapons against Lebanon during the last days of the conflict, this is the first independent confirmation that Hizbullah used the controversial weapons too.

Cluster weapons scatter hundreds of small "bomblets" as they land, and can cause death or injuries over a wide area.
"We are disturbed to discover that not only Israel but also Hizbullah used cluster munitions in their recent conflict, at a time when many countries are turning away from this kind of weapon precisely because of its impact on civilians," said Steve Goose, director of Human Rights Watch's arms division. "Use of cluster munitions is never justified in civilian-populated areas because they are inaccurate and unreliable."

The organisation cited statements from witnesses in Mghar, including some who had found "clearly identifiable pieces of submunitions and their casings".

Israeli police told Human Rights Watch they had documented 113 cluster rockets fired at Israel during the conflict, causing one death and 12 injuries in all. If the police figure for the number of rockets is correct, the total number of bomblets would be about 4,400.

In Lebanon, the UN has identified at least 749 locations that it says were hit by Israeli cluster weapons, making an estimated total of 4m bomblets.

Although Hizbullah used fewer cluster bombs than Israel, Human Rights Watch says: "The new findings raise serious concerns about the proliferation of these weapons to non-state armed groups, as well as states."

A group of countries led by Sweden is urging a worldwide ban on cluster bombs at arms talks in Geneva, but this move is opposed by Britain, as well as the US, China and Russia. Cluster weapons have been used in most conflicts since the Vietnam war. Critics argue that they virtually guarantee civilian casualties when fired into populated areas. Many of the bomblets fail to explode initially and in effect become landmines, killing people who accidentally touch them - often long after the conflict has ended.

Twenty deaths and 115 injuries from cluster weapons have been reported in southern Lebanon since the ceasefire. Many farmers in the area have been unable to harvest or plant crops because of the danger from unexploded munitions on their land.