|
Barak Ben Zur
This week's dialog will focus on the conflicts in Gaza and in Lebanon. Our guest, Barak Ben Zur, former head of the research division and later special assistant to the director in the Israeli Security Agency (known as "Shin Bet"), is now a visiting fellow at The Washington Institute. A colonel in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Dr. Ben-Zur served the military intelligence branch from 1991 to 1994 as head of the terrorism section (read his full bio here).
His latest analysis - Containing Hezbollah's Terrorist Wing, published Sep. 7th - concludes that "Although Hezbollah's military capacity has undoubtedly been degraded by Israel's recent offensive in southern Lebanon, the organization's will to rebuild its resources and to continue its conflict with Israel remains undiminished - as does the willingness of Syria and Iran to support Hezbollah's military and terrorist capabilities."
As usual, readers can send questions to rosnersdomain@haaretz.co.il.
Dear Barak,
And another one on the same subject. What do you make of the
conclusion that "the underlying factors fueling the spread of the
[Jihadist] movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do
so for the duration of the timeframe of this estimate." Does that mean
that the West is going to lose this war?
Best,
Rosner
We have to remember that intelligence reports and evaluations are politically oriented and are meant to assist the decision-making process. They are not visions or prophecies and should be considered with a sense of proportion. The lesson: What do we have do and what should be done in order to respond and face the threat. The U.S has done a lot in the inter-agency arena, financing and establishing the international framework against terror. The fact is that since 9/11, there have been no terror attacks on American soil.
In Britain there were some significant success. Russia, India and other nations are mobilized in that effort. Is it a global issue - yes, by all means. Is the world doing well in order to respond? No.
The United States is conducting the struggle, but it is a long and winding road.
Dear Barak,
I'd like to try to get your reaction to the recent news now making headlines in America. How would you treat an intelligence analysis concluding that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has fueled Islamic extremism and contributed to the spread of terrorist cells? Do you find it credible, and if so, what is the key element that was not taken into account?
Best,
Rosner
Dear Shmuel,
Right! In my opinion there are two different aspects to this subject. The global Jihad engaged with the west -and mainly the U.S. - long before the present Iraq war.
The first terror attack on the World Trade Center (in 1993), the second (in 2001) and the London plot to bring down 10-12 jets all actually did cause or could have caused thousands of casualties. And the main lesson is that when the terrorists do manage to obtain weapons of mass destruction, they won't hesitate to use them. This is the major threat that we should take into consideration. Imagine how the world would look if the London plot had had even partial success. Extreme ideas were around long before the attack on Iraq. The war against the global terror should be unconditional.
The second issue/aspect is Iraq as the "target." The same intelligence community provided the data about the non-conventional capabilities of Saddam Hussein prior to the war, perhaps received from other people. I agree that the first stage of the war was prepared perfectly, but the consequences of dismantling Saddam's horrific security services, which had maintained Iraq's unity through a continuous campaign of terror, was not taken into consideration.
I have a question of my own: How come that two months before the November elections the report was leaked? Who is behind that?
All the best,
Barak
Dear Barak,
Let's leave Lebanon for a while and turn to the Palestinian Authority. In the last couple of days it has seemed as though a Palestinian unity government could easily be formed and I'm not sure what other kinds of developments are in the making in the PA.
In your opinion, what should the other players - Israel, the U.S., theEU, the UN - do in the meantime to preserve some hope for an improved situation in the near future? Is it time to start negotiating alread? If so, who should we be negotiating with and what should be the main topic?
Best,
Rosner
The main problems that the Palestinians are facing now, especially in Gaza Strip, are domestic.
The issue was raised very clearly and with frankness by the Hamas parliament speaker, Ghazi Hamadi. He wrote in an article a few weeks ago that the Palestinians should question themselves and not blame the Israelis.
He criticized the Qasssm rocket launching and he put the blame on the armed groups as well for the deteriorating situation and the anarchy that is going on in Gaza Strip.
... It is a positive sign but not a reason to change Israeli policy vis-à-vis the Hamas movement.
The Israelis should keep channels of communication open with the Palestinian Authority chairman and proceed with the political process in accordance with Abbas' limited abilities - meaning assisting him in accomplishing what he declared he would at the UN last week.
The road map should remain the framework for future negotiations. The parties/players that you have mentioned have to keep that position in order to convince even those that are opposing them right now to walk another mile.
All the best,
Barak
Dear Barak
In my first question of the week I will ask you for a more general assessment of the developments in Lebanon. In an analysis you recently wrote, you highlighted some deficiencies in Resolution 1701: That there were no solutions to the problems of long range missiles, Hezbollah's external funding, terrorist training camps etc. Taking all these into consideration, would you say that 1701 is, so far, a success story? Are Lebanon and Israel better off now than they were 3 months ago?
Best,
Shmuel Rosner
Dear Shmuel, here we go...
There are two main problems with resolution 1701: Number one - there is no mechanism of disarming Hezbollah. It remains an armed group with military capabilities. As such, they will be able to find the way to remain an active military force and endanger Israel even with the presence the Multi National Force and the Lebanese Army in south Lebanon. Number two: There is no focus on the global terror capabilities of this organization. As for the first demand that Hezbollah disarm, there is a previous base with which to work on using resolutions 1559 and 1680. The second issue Israel must insist upon is that Hezbollah ceases its hostilities including their support of Palestinian terror groups and encouraging Israeli Arabs to subversion and terror activity.
Shana tova,
Barak
So are we better off now than we were 3 months ago?
We're better especially (and may be only) from the point of view that there is a deep understanding of what we're facing, the scope of the threat and what should be done about it, be it politically and militarily (I.E preparation for the future challenges, and prevention vis-à-vis the terror campaign conducted by Hezbollah).
|
