La comunidad internacional no mantendrá contactos con Hamas, informa Infolive.tv

El Cuarteto mantiene el boicot sobre Hamás. El grupo conformado por los Estados Unidos, Rusia, la Unión Europea y la ONU emitió un comunicado en el que llama a la unión palestina y aboga por la formación de un gobierno que no apoye la violencia y que reconozca a Israel. Fecha: 04/02/2007 Duración: 2’10

Ver la noticia en o pulsando el logotipo de Infolive.tv:http://www.infolive./

comnetar 4 Febrero 2007

La batalla del Líbano, en un interesante artículo aparecido en el Turkish Daily News

The Battle for Lebanon
Saturday, February 3, 2007
 
Barry RUBIN
Round one of Hezbollah’s attempt to take over Lebanon has failed. Watch out for Round Two. The struggle over Lebanon is a battle in the war being waged by Iran, Syria, and their allies seek to control the Middle East.

Hezbollah is the largest group representing the Shia Muslim community in multi-cultural Lebanon. But Hezbollah is also the client of Tehran and Damascus, acting in their interest more than that of Lebanon itself. Indeed, Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah is the official local representative of Iran’s spiritual guide.

Against Hezbollah stand the majority of the other communities, Christian, Sunni Muslim, and Druze. This alliance controls the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora; the president, Emile Lahoud is a Syrian client, elected in 1998 when Damascus controlled the electoral process. Last summer’s war, set off by Hezbollah’s cross-border raids against Israel, let the Islamist group pose both as victor and as Lebanon’s patriotic champion.

Both claims are thin. Hezbollah did not so much win as survive the war. Lebanon suffered tremendous material damage. While Hezbollah staged showy ceremonies to give money for reconstruction—reportedly counterfeit U.S. dollars—it has done little since then. Moreover, the dispatch of a UN force to southern Lebanon as part of the ceasefire blocks Hezbollah’s ability to attack Israel or control that area.

Whatever political capital Hezbollah gained in the war was quickly squandered as the group sought to take over Lebanon. Hezbollah’s arrogance and aggressiveness forced most other political forces to align against it.

In its propaganda, Hezbollah denounced these rivals, known as the March 14 movement, as American and Israeli agents. This movement began after the assassination of popular former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri by Syria in February 2005. Since then, there have been about twenty terrorist operations, mostly attempts to murder other leading politicians or journalists, engineered by Syria.

In his shrill speeches, Nasrallah—who remained in hiding fearful of Israeli retaliation—took a hard-line stance. Demonstrations were organized, roads blocked, and massive sit-ins established to show Hezbollah’s power.

But the majority struck back. Christian and Sunni Muslim militias asserted their control over the places where those communities lived in Beirut. They also cut roads, showing that Shia neighborhoods could be easily surrounded and isolated. The government refused to resign.

Two things particularly anger most Lebanese. First, in its bid for power, Hezbollah is ready to drag the country back to communal civil war. Everyone remembers the terrible strife and bloodshed that shook the country from 1975 to 1990 when 100,000 people were killed, 100,000 seriously injured, 250,000 emigrated, and almost 1 million displaced during that fighting in a country whose population is under 4 million. That Hezbollah is ready to revive that senseless slaughter and wreckage in order to impose a Shia Islamist state on Lebanon—a country about half non-Muslim and 70 percent non-Shia–is horrifying.

The second problem is Hezbollah’s subservience to Iran and Syria. While the group does represent most, though by no means all, Lebanese Shia, its positions are often dictated by foreign interests.

For example, Hezbollah is trying to block any serious inquiry into the Hariri murder and punishment of those responsible. Both UN-directed and Lebanese investigations have shown direct involvement by Syria’s regime and its Lebanese clients. Indeed, the UN investigation named both the brother and brother-in-law of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as being behind the killing. Hezbollah’s and Syria’s number-one demand is that the Lebanese government must abandon the effort to find who killed Hariri.

The number-two demand is that Hezbollah be given 30 percent of the power in Lebanon’s government. This alone would let it veto anything, like an attempt to disarm Hezbollah’s private army or put southern Lebanon under government rule. This would also be enough to give Hezbollah, along with its pro-Syrian allies, control of the government altogether.

The other two demands, backed by Syria, are to have quick parliamentary elections, to get rid of the March 14 movement’s legislative majority, but no presidential elections, to keep Syria’s man in office. Lebanon’s government is never going to accept these conditions. It is also unlikely–despite the temptation felt by many in the West–that democratic countries are going to turn over Lebanon to Syria in order to appease the Damascus regime.

As a result, Hezbollah’s first bid for power has been turned back. But it may not be long before Hezbollah, and its Syrian sponsors, turn to Plan B. This would involve the assassination of Lebanese leaders. One cabinet minister, Pierre Gemayel, was killed last November, on a day when an attempt against another minister failed. If two more ministers are killed, the government would fall.

The other tactic could be attacks on UN forces in southern Lebanon in an attempt to drive them out of the country. Syria has hinted such assaults may take place. They would be blamed on shadowy al-Qaeda forces though carried out by Syrian agents.

Lebanon is a battlefield in the broader effort of Iran and Syria to gain hegemony in the region. It is imperative that Lebanon’s government and majority be given international support so they can resist this campaign, whose ultimate power rests on a base of terrorism and subversion.

* Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center of the Interdisciplinary Center, and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. He can be contacted at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com
 
 
 

comnetar 4 Febrero 2007

Irán podría tener la bomba nuclear en dos o tres años, asegura el IISS de Londres

Irán podría tener acceso al arma nuclear en sólo dos o tres años, afirmó el miércoles en Londres el Instituto Internacional de Estudios Estratégicos (IISS), al presentar su informe anual sobre la situación militar del mundo en el año 2007.

Al resumir el estudio, John Chipman, que dirige el IISS, indicó que Irán ha acumulado unos 250 toneladas de gas hexaluororuro de uranio (UF6), la materia prima que, enriquecida, podría ser suficiente para unas 30 o 50 armas nucleares.

Sin embargo, reconoció que el proceso técnico es complejo, y que aún faltan "dos o tres años, por lo menos", para que Irán pueda producir el arma nuclear.

Irán ha anunciado que empezará a instalar 3.000 máquinas centrífugadoras en su instalación de enriquecimiento de uranio en Natanz, y es posible que esté cerca de producir esa meta, "en marzo o poco después", indicó el experto del centro de estudios estratégicos londinense.

Pero el objetivo de enriquecimiento de uranio precisa no sólo la instalación de máquinas centrífugadoras, sino que éstas funcionen bien. "Y eso es algo que tomará al menos un año o más", señaló Chipman.

Además de Irán, el terrorismo, así como Corea del Norte, la situación en Irak y Afganistán y las "ambiciones geopolíticas" de China seguirán dominando la agenda de la defensa y la seguridad global, concluyó el informe del ISSS.

El IISS, que cree que Irán podría producir de aquí al 2010 unos 25 kilos de uranio enriquecido, o sea la cantidad necesaria para producir una bomba nuclear, confirmó que la adquisición por Teherán de esas armas nucleares modificaría el balance regional de poder.

La publicación del IISS coincide con nuevas amenazas de Washington a Teherán, que han provocado temores de que Estados Unidos recurra a la opción militar para solucionar su contencioso con Irán.

El Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU votó el 23 de diciembre en forma unánime una resolución contra Irán por su programa nuclear, que demanda a Teherán cesar su programa de enriquecimiento de uranio, que los occidentales temen sea utilizado con fines militares.

La resolución contra Teherán demanda además que suspenda todas las actividades relacionadas con el enriquecimiento y reprocesamiento de uranio, incluyendo investigación y desarrollo.

El director de la Agencia Internacional de la Energía Atómica (AIEA), Mohamed ElBaredei, propuso el viernes pasado una "pausa" en la crisis, con la suspensión simultánea de las sanciones de la ONU contra Teherán y de las actividades de enriquecimiento de uranio por parte iraní.

Noticia de la AFP.

comnetar 4 Febrero 2007

Nasrallah reconoce que haber atacado a Isael pudo ser un error, asegura Haaretz

Report: Nasrallah says attacking Israel may have been a mistake
 
By Jack Khoury, Haaretz Correspondent
 
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah admitted that the group's attack against Israeli soldiers July 12 may have been a mistake, an Egyptian human rights activist said Saturday.

"It could be that I made a mistake, only God doesn't make mistakes, and for that I apologized before the Lebanese nation and for that we paid a very heavy price in blood. [Nonetheless,] We do not hesitate to bring our boys into our just struggle," Nasrallah reportedly said.

The activist, Dr. Sa'ad al-Din Ibrahim, said he met Nasrallah several days ago in Lebanon.

Ibrahim, a vocal critic of the Egyptian regime, is among the founders of the Arab Organization for Human Rights and head of the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies.

Ibrahim recounted his meeting with Nasrallah to the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai al-A'am.

He said Nasrallah rejected claims that he is aiming to become a leader of the Arab or Islamic worlds, or even of Lebanon.

"My agenda is based on one principle: removing the discrimination suffered by Shiites in Lebanon and to turn the Shiites into real partners in the work and leadership of the state. As well, removing the Israeli threat," he said.

According to Ibrahim, Nasrallah also rejected comparisons between him and former Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser - who in 1952 led a military officers' coup against the existing government - and of this summer's war against Israel to the Suez Crisis of 1956, in which Egypt suffered heavy losses by Israel, Britain and France but obtained control of the Suez Canal.

"There is no room for comparison between Nasser and any other Arab leader in our time - Nasser led a historic revolution and became the leader of the largest Arab country. In the Suez War he achieved results on a global scale, but my aspirations do not extend beyond the Lebanese arena," he said.

According to Ibrahim, Nasrallah said his organization is willing to accept aid from any source - not only Iran but also Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

He said that Nasrallah told him other things as well, which the Hezbollah leader asked not be released until they are authorized by the group's "Shura" council.

comnetar 4 Febrero 2007

Un jeque de Australia llama al odio racial hacia los judíos

 Australia: un jeque sigue incitando al antisemitismo y al odio racial 

Está previsto que un controvertido líder musulmán que apoya la inmolación de niños y utiliza el término ¨cerdos¨ para los judíos, sea juzgado y sea condenado a 15 años de prisión por transgredir la ley contraterrorista de Australia.
El jeque Feiz Muhammad ha sido acusado por políticos y otros líderes musulmanes de incitación al odio y el terrorismo en las conferencias que divulga por medio de DVD en Australia. En estas casetes Feiz Muhammad dice que los herejes son ¨una roña¨ y se escuchan las voces de un cerdo, después de lo cual afirma: ¨Los judíos son una roña que morirán con el fin del mundo¨. Se pueden obtener copias

comnetar 4 Febrero 2007