Did Hezbollah Thwart a Bush/Olmert Attack on Beirut?

By FRANKLIN LAMB

This week Israel's Military Intelligence Chief, Major General Amos Yadlin complained to the Israeli daily Haaretz that "Hezbollah proved that it was the strongest power in Lebanon... stronger than the Lebanese and it had wanted to take the government it could have done it," He said Hezbollah, continued to pose a "significant" threat to Israel as its rockets could reach a large part of Israeli territory."

Yadlin was putting it mildly.

But what Intelligence Chief Yadlin did not reveal to the Israeli public was just how "significant" but also "immediate" the Hezbollah threat was on May 11. Nor was he willing to divulge the fact that he received information via US and French channels that if the planned attack on Lebanon's capitol went forward that Tel Aviv was subject, in the view of the US intelligence community to "approximately 600 Hezbollah rockets in the first 24 hours in retaliation and at least that number on the following day".

The Israeli Intel Chief also declined to reveal that despite Israel's recent psyche-war camping about various claimed missile shields "the State of Israel is perfecting", that this claim is being ridiculed at the Pentagon. "Israel will not achieve an effective shield against the current generation of rockets, even assuming no technological improvements in the current rockets aimed at it, for another 20 years. And that assumes the US will continue to fund their research and development for the hoped for shields" according to Pentagon, US Senate Intelligence Committee, and very well informed Lebanese sources.

The planned attack on Beirut

According to US Senate Intelligence Committee sources, the Bush administration initially green lighted the intended May 11 Israel 'demonstration of solidarity with the pro-Bush administration militias, some with which Israel has maintained ties since the days of Bashir Gemayal and Ariel Sharon.

In the end, "the Bush administration got cold feet", a Congressional source revealed. So did Israel.

Israel was not willing to proceed with the original Bush Administration idea which was to have Bush attend the May 15 Israel anniversary celebrations following the Israeli attack meant to hit Hezbollah hard, and give Bush the credit for coming to the dangerous region. The message was to be that Bush comes to the rescue 'on horseback and leads the US Calvary charge straight out of a B western movie where the bugle would sound and flag would be unfurled and the white hat good guys would show their stuff before riding into the sunset and back to Texas, leaving the results to the likely Obama administration to sort out.

The plan involved Israeli air strikes on South and West Beirut in support of forces it was assured would be able to surprise and resist Hezbollah and sustain a powerful offensive for 48 hours.

Also presumably disturbing to Israel was the report it received that Hezbollah "had once again in all probability hacked its "secure" military intelligence communications and the fear that the information would be shared with others.

The Hezbollah rout of the militias in West Beirut plus the fear of retaliation on Tel Aviv, ruining 60th anniversary celebrations, forced cancellation of the supportive attack.

Israel limited its actions to sending two F-15's and two F-16's into as far North as Tyre, one more of literally hundreds of violations of Lebanese airspace, sovereignty and SCR 1701.

Clearly frustrated, Cabinet Minister Meir Sheetrit said Israel should not yet take any action now, but warned" those things could change if Hezbollah takes over Lebanon." a few minutes earlier he had declared that Hezbollah had done just that and had treated the Lebanese army as a doormat.

Later in the Sunday cabinet meeting, Minister Ami Ayalon called for an emergency meeting of the political-security cabinet to discuss "the ongoing crisis in Lebanon and why Israel was not assisting friendly forces."

Minister Yitzhak Cohen (Shas) said that "Israel must immediately ask the [United Nations] Security Council to hold renewed discussions over resolution 1701." The minister was referring to the resolution that stopped the Israeli actions against Lebanon during the 34-day between in 2006, maintaining a fragile cease-fire.

Finally Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert informed Israeli supporters in Lebanon, through the media, and presumbly other means that" Israel was following the violence in Lebanon closely, but would refrain from intervening. Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai told Army Radio Sunday that Israel was prepared for the possibility that the situation in Lebanon will deteriorate into another civil war (meaning future opportunities for Israeli influence and interventon in Lebanon) and that the current fighting could end with a Hezbollah takeover of the government. "We need to keep our eyes peeled and be especially sensitive regarding all that is happening there," Vilnai told Army Radio.

The Bush administration, also disappointed, switched tactics and is opting for domination of the narrative of the fairly complicated events of the past week and using their media and confessional allies to launch a media blitz (minus Future TV for a few days} to flood the airways with:

· Hezbollah staged a coup d'état. Even Israel, if not the Bush administration, concedes Hezbollah has no interest in taking over the Government. (One observer, paraphrasing Winston Churchill's comment, deadpanned, "Some Hezbollah Coup! Some Hezbollah Etat!")

· Hezbollah brought it forces from the South and occupied West Beirut: Hezbollah not only did not bring their forces from the South to Beirut (rather they remained on alert for an Israel attack down South)

· Hezbollah broke its pledge not to use Resistance arms against Lebanese militias and shot up West Beirut.

The facts are very different when viewed close up on the streets here.

When the Lebanese Resistance took the decision during the early hours of Friday morning to engage in civil disobedience, it delayed its actions so as not to preempt the Labor movement strike for higher wages which it supported. When the marching Strikers were prevented from moving into West Beirut the Opposition extended its civil disobedience manifestation.

Various militias, including the smartly outfitted Hariri "Secure Plus" with its distinctive maroon tee-shirts and beige trousers, (now know locally by some as "Secure Minus") a hoped for future Blackwater operation in Lebanon disintegrated surprisingly quickly because many of its green recruits brought down from Tripoli felt misled and betrayed regarding their job description as they were handed weapons an instructed to fight Hezbollah. Snipers from anti-Opposition factions killed civilians from rooftops in Beirut trying to ignite a civil war.

Hezbollah, acting in self defense, according to various officials, quickly clamped down on the trouble makers, took control of the streets, within hours handed them over to the army, and virtually evacuated West Beirut, retaining one position near Bay Rocks manned by unarmed representatives.

Meanwhile the Hariri influence has been greatly weekend in Akkar near the Palestinian Refugee camp of Nahr al Bared and in the Tripoli area. According to some political analysts, including, Fida'a Ittani, a regular columnist for the independent pro-opposition newspaper Al-Akhbar, wrote on May 14, the Future Movement, defeated in Beirut, no longer has any serious influence in the north.

Several Salafi al Qaeda admiring movements are present in Lebanon and like Fatah Islam's declaration this week that they will fight for the Sunnis, they vary in their attitudes from silent opposition to Future leader Saad Al-Hariri to fully supporting him as the leader of the Sunnis. These groups are valued by certain 'leaders' in Lebanon because are the only ones with coherent structures at the ideological, political, technical, and field levels.

Judging from Saad Hariri's confused statements at his subsequent news conference and statements by other parties, the bitterness of promised but unforthcoming assistance was evident.

For two days following the debacle of his forces imploding the head of the Future Movement said nothing. Finally on the 14th he broke his silence. The Halba massacre, committed by Hariri's Mustakbal militiamen which brutally and barbarically murdered 11 people from the opposition did not seem worthy of discussion as he spoke. In a press conference on Tuesday, Hariri simply ignored what all the Lebanese had seen on TV from weapons, ammunition and alcohol found in Future movement offices, and instead listed a series of delusions. "We awaited an open war on Israel, and yet here is an open war on Beirut and its people" he stated. Some interpreted this rather odd statement either as a subconscious slip of the tongue on Hariri's part expressing his frustration that the Israelis help did not arrive or that his reported earlier incoherent state persisted.

Hariri's original speech was so confused that the Saudi channel al-Arabiyya stopped broadcasting it and only read excerpts from what he said, without showing his recorded speech.

When American criticism resumed, and Hezbollah fighters withdrew from the alleys surrounding his house, Hariri was urged to stand up and speak again, this time with a stronger tone, saying "This has been decided by the Iranian and Syrian regimes that wanted to play a political game in Lebanon's streets. For us nothing has changed. We will not negotiate with someone having a pistol pointed to our heads."

Anger at the Bush administration and Israel by certain warlords in Lebanon must feel much like the frustration of Secure Minus personal who rushed from Tripoli and felt misled, abandoned and cheated.

May 16, 2008

http://counterpunch.com/lamb05162008.html

Accused AIPAC Israel Spy Turns Peacenik

Embattled Aipac Lobbyists Take Divergent Paths

Weissman Dons Keffiyeh, Rosen Maintains Stance on Mideast

By Nathan Guttman

Washington - In this city, keffiyehs - the Arab headdresses closely associated with the Palestinian cause - are regular sights at Middle East-related events. But at an event last fall, one keffiyeh in particular drew stares and gasps.

The checkered scarf in question was wrapped around the neck of Keith Weissman, the man once recognized as a top analyst at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerhouse pro-Israel lobby. These days, of course, Weissman is better known as defendant No. 2 in United States v. Rosen and Weissman, a case in which he and another former Aipac analyst, Steve Rosen, have been accused of handing over top-secret American documents to foreign officials and journalists. Both have pleaded not guilty.

The intertwining tales of powerful lobbyists and backroom Washington meetings have brought worldwide attention to the investigation and indictment. But less has been said about the surprising and very different paths taken by the two, as they adjust to life as unemployed, indicted defendants in the midst of a seemingly endless legal battle.

The Rosen-Weissman duo is usually mentioned as an inseparable pair, but, while the men remain close friends, people close to them say that they hold different views on many topics - starting with the hot-button issues on which they used to work. And although neither will speak to the press on advice of legal counsel, numerous conversations with friends and sources paint a vivid picture of their divergent paths post-indictment.

Rosen, the group's former policy director, continues to take a front-row seat at major foreign policy events and has positioned himself as a continuing presence in the ongoing debates about the Middle East. Weissman, on the other hand, has put a distance between himself and his former identity as a pre-eminent pro-Israel lobbyist.

Weissman has told friends that, free of the constraints posed by his employment by Aipac, he now sees himself as returning to his roots as a peace activist.

"I decided not to suppress my political views any longer," Weissman, age 55, told a friend, according to sources close to the situation.

In addition to the keffiyeh, this has meant sporting a longer haircut and the earring that his Aipac superiors asked him not to wear. He has also offered to volunteer with Americans for Peace Now and Human Rights Watch - though he was politely turned down, sources say, presumably because of the difficulty in associating with a person under indictment for espionage charges.

The saga began in August 2004, when the FBI raided Aipac's offices in Alexandria, Va. The following April, the two were dismissed by Aipac and a few months later they were indicted. The indictment charged both men with one count of conspiracy under the Espionage Act and Rosen with an additional count of passing classified information.

Lawyers for both Rosen and Weissman - they have separate legal teams - have said the charges are unfounded and that the activities in question are routine elements of the work of many lobbyists.

For Weissman, the first months of the current ordeal were apparently the worst. The firing and the accusations of breaking the espionage law led him to a personal crisis, friends said, causing an emotional breakdown for which he required psychological treatment.

Most of his contacts in the American administration, the Israeli government and Aipac itself have cut their ties with Weissman, sources say, and he himself has been careful not to initiate contact, fearing that others might end up in trouble. Many people who previously had contact with Rosen and Weissman told the Forward they were questioned by the FBI.

Without a job, Weissman now spends his time writing, walking his two golden retrievers and working out at the gym, according to friends. He helped his 17-year-old son study for his driving test and took his family to the Baseball Hall of Fame.

But the lack of a job has taken a toll on Weissman, who friends say struggles with not having a schedule - "sometimes he doesn't even know what day it is," one noted. In addition, though his wife is a lawyer at a white-shoe law firm, the family is said to be concerned about funding college tuition for the eldest of their three children.

Rosen, 65, has encountered some similar problems, sources say. The lobbyist, whose Rolodex once included every major player on the Washington foreign policy scene, has suddenly found himself isolated. Last week, at a Washington think tank event, Rosen came across a colleague he had known for three decades. The two didn't even exchange greetings.

Rosen - who has three children, the youngest 8 years old - is now doing some part-time consulting work. According to media reports, he also relies financially on help from unnamed supporters, though sources say that some of those mentioned in the reports have since received calls from the FBI.

Rosen frequently described his job at Aipac as "my life's work," in which he invested endless hours and a great deal of personal commitment. Indeed, these days he is still trying to maintain his status as a leading expert on Middle East foreign policy by spending hours surfing the Internet for every tidbit of news and attending various briefings around the city.

Weissman, on the other hand, is described by people close to him as having always been to the left of Aipac's political line. As a graduate student at the University of Chicago, he used to drive around with a bumper sticker calling for a "free Palestine."

Weissman began working for the lobby shortly after the Oslo agreements were signed in the 1990s, and he focused mainly on issues related to the peace process. As the accord seemed to unravel, he moved on to deal with Iran and oil. Neverthless, within Aipac he was said to have developed a reputation for being critical of Israel's actions regarding the Palestinians.

"He was the lobby's leftist," an acquaintance said.

In addition to the political differences between Weissman and Rosen, friends say they have also developed different attitudes toward their trial, which is set to begin in January 2008. Rosen is said to be optimistic and believes that an acquittal is inevitable. Weissman, on the other hand, believes he is innocent but seems less hopeful to friends and observers.

But both are said to be thinking about life after the trial. Rosen does not rule out going back to his old job at Aipac, if acquitted, though it is not clear how possible that will be. The former policy director, who was a household name in the corridors of power, wishes to return to "doing something big," as sources close to him have said.

Rosen is also interested in dealing with another problem he claims surfaced during this case: the strong anti-Israel sentiment among individuals in Americas intelligence community, which he believes is what led to the investigation against him in the first place.

Weissman has, perhaps predictably, taken a more combative approach to his former employer. Friends say he is in the process of writing a tell-all book about the past few years. Sources say he recently waived an estimated $250,000 in lawyers' fees from Aipac in order to ensure that he would not be restricted in the future from criticizing the group.

Patrick Dorton, a spokesman for Aipac, said, "Aipac is fully paying for Keith Weissman's defense through appeal if necessary."

Weissman is also said to have become disenchanted with many on the left, who, driven by their resentment of Aipac, did not take on the free-speech issues raised by the case.

As for the future, Weissman's friends say he hopes to do work related to promoting Middle East peace or to focus on issues stemming from his personal encounter with what he sees as the government's attempts to limit public discourse on policy issues.

In the interim, the two defendants mark the time since the investigation began by watching their families grow older. Rosen's daughter started college the year the investigation began, and she is now close to graduation. Weissman's son started high school at the same time and is currently readying for his senior year. Friends say that the question in the Weissman family is who will graduate first: the father from his lengthy legal ordeal or the son from school. Weissman, who has clearly been pushed into a certain pessimism, is said to believe his son will be first.

Wed. Sep 12, 2007

http://www.forward.com/articles/11608/

Levantine Politics as Tangled as Ever

Levantine politics are notoriously complex, with divisions along sectarian lines and further divisions within sectarian communities; with groups forming alliances only to switch them and ally with former enemies. No wonder novices like George Bush and Condoleezza Rice don't really understand what's going on and so make flawed decisions. Poor Condie: the monolithic Soviet Union (her specialty) was sooo much easier to understand. Here's some explanation (or at least narrative) of recent events in Lebanon.

The enemies within

By Zvi Barel

Sad and tired, wearing shabby clothes and with tears in his eyes, Druze leader Walid Jumblatt stood on the veranda of his luxurious home in Beirut's Clemenceau neighborhood and explained his decision to television viewers. A few hours before the interview, he had called his political rival, Talal Arsalan, and asked him to coordinate with Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah the cessation of the fighting in Mount Lebanon, Aley, Chouf and the Maten region, the power centers of the Druze. In return, Jumblatt ordered his people to lay down their arms and hand them over to the Lebanese Army. Within the framework of the well-planned battle Hezbollah is conducting with the aim of changing the balance of power in Lebanon, the Mount Lebanon struggle, involving rival Druze families, might constitute Nasrallah's most important victory.

After having occupied Beirut within hours and demonstrating his power in the northern city of Tripoli, Nasrallah succeeded not only in taking over the mount, but also in handing a huge victory to the Syrians. Arsalan, an ally of Syria, is now the mediator on behalf of that country, while Jumblatt is standing around, waiting for Nasrallah to put forward his next conditions.

A small account and a large insult are now being settled between Arsalan and Jumblatt. Arsalan's rivals among the Druze relate, among other things, that he laundered money the Syrians received from Saddam Hussein in case it would be needed later in an emergency. According to them, the money laundering was accomplished through the Lebanese Al-Mawarid Bank, owned by the Kheireddine clan, to which Arsalan's wife belongs. When she decided she wanted to divorce her husband upon learning that he was having sex with his chauffeur, the Syrians began to pressure her family to order her to change her mind - after all, they still needed the bank's services. But the Syrian aid was not of much help to Arsalan in the 2005 elections. Back then Jumblatt won in the town of Choueifat, Arsalan's stronghold, but now the wheel has turned. Arsalan is striking back at Jumblatt.

Political kaleidoscope

In internal Druze politics, this is a big deal; in Lebanese politics it is a routine matter. Shifting alliances, the betrayal of partners and the adoption of new ones are part and parcel of Lebanese politics, which in part accounts for its uniqueness. This is the way it works now and this is the way it has worked for generations. This is how Lebanon has lured foreign elements - be they French, Syrian or Israeli - into playing its domestic game, in the mistaken belief that its sectarian structure is easy prey for dragging the country to their side.

It is enough to examine the political career of Jumblatt - who is today considered anti-Syrian, but was pro-Syrian in the past; at various times he was both pro- and anti- Palestinian, and an ally of the Shi'ites as well as their determined enemy - to understand the workings of Lebanese politics. Another telling sign is the change undergone by General Michel Aoun, who fought the Syrians bravely in 1990 and was forced into exile in Paris for about 15 years as a result. Today Aoun is Nasrallah's dear Christian ally and has adopted a pro-Syrian stance, at least according to his statement. Lebanon truly is a political kaleidoscope.

"The Lebanese democracy is steeped in local colors. The rules taught in the political science department do not apply to it. The results of elections alone are not sufficient for running the country. Representation is lacking in a situation where not all the Lebanese families are participating in the government banquet and the decision-making banquet," is how Ghassan Charbel, editor-in-chief of the London-based Arabic newspaper Dar Al-Hayat, puts it. Participation in the banquet is one thing. But Nasrallah now intends to preside over the event itself, while his rivals wail and hope that he will leave them an adequate part of the feast. Throughout the week it was possible to hear the wails of the losers, among them Prime Minister Fuad Siniora who, in lacerative rhetoric, described Hezbollah as "insurrectionists," exactly the same word Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas uses to describe Hamas. "They have stabbed democracy in the back," "They have colonized the center of Beirut," "We thought the enemy was Israel but now the enemy is here within," Siniora fired off.

Former president Amin Gemayel also attacked Nasrallah at a press conference he gave on Monday, in front of a large picture of his son Pierre, who was killed about a year and a half ago by assassins, apparently affiliated with the Syrian regime. However, Siniora, Jumayyil, Samir Geagea - the fearsome commander of the Phalanges - and Walid Jumblatt all stood beggars this week, waiting for Nasrallah to have his say.

The term that kept coming up was "dialogue," negotiations among the groups, or more precisely, "renewed participation in the banquet." Each of them have their own conditions. Siniora outlined his in the most detailed manner. For his part, he will revoke the decision that constituted the proximate cause of the explosion - that is to say, Nasrallah's private communications network will not be uprooted and the issue will be sent for examination to the army. In addition, the security chief at Beirut International Airport, Wafiq Shuqair, will be reinstated. In return, Hezbollah will withdraw all its armed forces from the streets, leaving the army the only power in charge of security. According to Siniora's proposal, after these conditions have been met, an agreed-upon president will be chosen - at present, the most likely incumbent is Michel Suleiman, the commander of the army - and, the most important condition as far as Siniora is concerned, Hezbollah's use of arms will be brought up for discussion in a joint dialogue between the sides.

It is worth paying close attention to the formulation. Siniora is wary of talking about disarming Hezbollah, and said: "We have never sought the disarmament of Hezbollah." He just wants to set conditions for the group's use of arms. By Monday these conditions had changed. After it emerged that Hezbollah had gained control over Mount Lebanon and Jumblatt gave the order to lay down arms, Amin Gemayel, a leader of the Christian Phalange Party, came along and stipulated only one condition for holding a national dialogue: that Hezbollah make a commitment never to use weapons against Lebanese in Lebanon. This is the ironclad condition. A mere commitment. Not disarmament and not discussion on the use of weapons.

A short time later Talal Arsalan, the new Druze leader, appeared and announced that all the weapons of the coalition - i.e., the Christians and the Sunnis - must be handed over to the army. Arsalan made it clear that he knows the locations of all the arms depots and that he has the names of those men bearing arms, and emphasized that there is thus no point in trying to cheat him. And so the wheel turned: Those who had demanded that Hezbollah lay down its arms are now being told to disarm.

The diva's role

And these were just the opening salvos of the media diplomacy in which the sides engaged this week, as a continuation of the armed diplomacy. The next stipulation was advanced by Druze Member of Parliament Wiam Wahab, a Hezbollah supporter, who called on the army to enter the government palace and eject Fuad Siniora.

At the moment, this is the goal of Nasrallah and his partner Michel Aoun, who has made it clear that the precondition for any negotiations is an agreement to establish a national unity government, in which Hezbollah and its partners will be ensured a total of one-third plus one of all government members. This ensures Hezbollah veto power over any major governmental decision. These are the conditions put forth by the party considered the victor of the present crisis, with the aim of preventing a swift descent into an all-out civil war.

"Those who love Lebanon do not sing in honor of its jailers. You have described to us the nation of dreams, do not diminish that dream the way the dictators of Damascus have diminished our dream of a democratic and free country," pleaded Lebanese MP Akram Chehayeb.

The Druze Chehayeb, a member of the Progressive Socialist Party headed by Walid Jumblatt, addressed his plea to the national diva, the singer Fairuz. He issued this emotional call because she agreed - after some 30 years of absence from Damascus - to participate in the opera "Awaken!" (Sah al Noum), which was produced in Damascus in the framework of a festival celebrating its inauguration as "the capital of Arab culture for 2008."

Today the MP will need far more than that. It is those forces singing in honor of Syria that are dictating how Lebanon is run. The question now is not whether Siniora's government will fall, but rather when and how. This will be the grounds for the next demonstration of force between Hezbollah and the government. The relative quiet that has prevailed in Lebanon in recent days should not mislead anyone. Nor should the deployment of the army. Nasrallah is now loping toward the government building.

Last update - 20:21 16/05/2008

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/984023.html

Bush Comes Out As Extreme Christian Zionist

The religious extremism in Bush's rant is truly appalling. News coverage in the US has largely swept it under the kippa.

QUOTE: Speaking of the "promise of God" for a "homeland for the chosen people" in Israel, Bush told the Knesset after a visit to the Roman-era Jewish fortress at Masada: "Masada shall never fall again, and America will always stand with you." . . . "There is no doubt in my mind that the patriarchs of ancient Israel and the pioneers of modern Israel would marvel at the achievements of this nation," he said.

Arabs slam Bush's warm rhetoric towards Israel

Palestinians bristle at terminology used by US president in support of Israel, say religious analogies hailing Israelis as 'chosen people' prove Washington bias. Meanwhile Bush's Knesset address causes furor among Democrats back home who view denunciation of appeasement as jibe against Obama

Ynet

While it remains unclear if US President George W. Bush's visit will yield any political gains in the race to achieve an agreement of any sort between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, it has certainly been an

eventful one; its echoes carried all the way back to the heated campaign trails leading to Washington.

US Democrats were outraged at what they perceived to be an attempt to equate presidential hopeful Barack Obama's willingness to engage Iran with those who advocated appeasing the Nazis.

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said in his historic address before the Knesset on Thursday. He did not mention Obama by name or even seem to allude to any partisan divide on the hotly-debated isolation question.

''We have heard this foolish delusion before," he continued, "as Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.''

Bush with Olmert, Itzik and Peres (Photo: Alex Kolomoisky)

Obama responded with a statement, seizing on Bush's remarks even as it was unclear to whom the president was referring.

''It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack,'' Obama said in the statement. ''George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.''

White House press secretary, Dana Perino, denied Bush's comments were directed at Obama. ''I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you," she said, "that is not always true. And it is not true in this case.''

Palestinians: This was a spit in the face

Speaking of the "promise of God" for a "homeland for the chosen people" in Israel, Bush told the Knesset after a visit to the Roman-era Jewish fortress at Masada: "Masada shall never fall again, and America will always stand with you."

He predicted the defeat of Islamist enemies Hamas, Hizbullah and al-Qaeda in a "battle of good and evil".

Letting Iran have nuclear weapons would be an "unforgivable betrayal of future generations", he said.

Bush described the "bonds of the Book" - faith in the Bible shared by Christians like himself and Jews - as bolstering an "unbreakable" alliance between Israel and the United States. During a later visit to the Israel Museum, Bush, referring to the old biblical texts housed at the building, said "these documents tell the story of a righteous God and his relationship with an ancient people."

"There is no doubt in my mind that the patriarchs of ancient Israel and the pioneers of modern Israel would marvel at the achievements of this nation," he said.

But while the president's speech garnered a standing ovation among most Israeli lawmakers, it grated Palestinian nerves already on edge as thousands gathered to commemorate the 'Nakba.' Though Bush, in speaking of what he hoped the next 60 years would look like, said he envisioned for the Palestinian people "the homeland they have long dreamed of and deserved" - many saw the gesture as far too modest compared to the towering praise heaped on Israel.

Hamas slammed Bush's words as those more suitable to "a priest or a rabbi" and said the president had delivered a "slap in the face" to those Palestinians who placed their hopes in him.

Palestinian political analyst Ali Jarbawi said Bush's rhetoric showed Washington was not being an honest broker: "He is not talking about a two-state solution. He is talking about a state of leftovers for the Palestinians," Jarbawi said.

Published: 05.16.08, 01:12 / Israel News

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3544033,00.html

"Slim Fast" Fattens Wallet of Israel's Prime Minister

QUOTE: Sherman also testified that he gave Olmert funds from Abraham, who denied any connection to the money. Sherman said that the money was hidden in packages of the diet drink "Slim Fast," which is a product manufactured by Abraham's company.

Driver: I personally handed Olmert envelopes stuffed with cash

By Jonathan Lis, Haaretz Correspondent

Avi Sherman, a limousine driver who drove Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during his tenure as mayor of Jerusalem, testified to police on Thursday that he personally gave Olmert envelopes stuffed with cash from several businessmen, among them U.S. businessman and fund-raiser Morris Talansky and American billionaire Daniel Abraham.

Olmert is currently facing a criminal investigation over suspicions that he took bribes from Talansky during his tenures as Jerusalem mayor and later as trade minister.

Channel 2 on Thursday aired excerpts from Sherman's testimony. "When Olmert would arrive in New York," Sherman is heard saying in one of the excerpts, "he would coordinate his trip with Shula Zaken, and I would go to the offices of the non-profit organization raising funds for Sha'arei Tzedek ? which was headed by Talansky ? and I would collect an envelope from his secretary. The envelope was full of cash dollars. Then I would go to the Regency Hotel and give the envelope to Ehud personally, in his hand."

Sherman also testified that he gave Olmert funds from Abraham, who denied any connection to the money. Sherman said that the money was hidden in packages of the diet drink "Slim Fast," which is a product manufactured by Abraham's company.

Sherman was questioned by the National Fraud Investigations Unit several months ago, before the investigation into Olmert's conduct was launched. However, after Talansky testified some two weeks ago, Sherman was summoned to testify for a second time. Police sources said they were not convinced of Sherman's credibility. According to the sources, the investigators tried to corroborate his testimony this week, but it is not clear whether they will be able to rely on it.

Several days ago, the police confronted Abraham with Sherman. Abraham vehemently denied Sherman's allegations, and denied even knowing who Sherman was.

Last update - 22:54 15/05/2008

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/984041.html

Nuclear Holocaust: Christian Zionists' Dangerous Flirtation with Israel

This article is especially useful because it gives names of those involved in this wacky infatuation with Israel.

The Politics of Armageddon

Hillary's "Final Solution" to the Persian Problem

By ROBERT WEITZEL

"To misunderstand the nature and threat of evil is to risk being blindsided by it . . . An evil unchecked is the prelude to genocide." - - Dr. Mordechai: The Ezekiel Option

There are over 70 million human beings living in Iran, 17.5 million of whom are under the age of fifteen. Hillary Clinton vowed to attack Iran and "totally obliterate" the majority of the Persian race in a furnace of primordial fire should the Iranian government attack Israel with nuclear weapons, which they do not now possess or are likely to for some time-if ever.

Hillary's "final solution" to the Persian problem bests Adolf Hitler by a magnitude of ten.

Missing in Clinton's campaign trail pandering to America's pro-Israel lobbies and the mushrooming evangelical Christian Zionist movement is the "inconvenient truth" that Israel has the most modern and most deadly army in the Middle East thanks to an annual $3.5 billion in American aid-one third of the U.S. aid budget.

Israel is also a major nuclear power in the region-though it refuses to admit it-with up to 200 nuclear warheads and the inter-continental-range ballistic missiles to deliver them and, according to the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, also has an undeclared offensive chemical and biological warfare program.

Israel, along with India and Pakistan are the only three nations not to have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is a signatory of the NNPT, by the way.

The most inconvenient truth, however, is that Israel has a 60-year history of attacking- with American-supplied armaments-any Arab country it perceives as a threat, nuclear-armed or slingshot-armed alike. Israel's bombing of Iraq's Osirak nuclear facility in 1981 comes to mind as an example of the former, its shelling of Gaza the latter.

Israel can and will " preemptively defend" itself against Iran, the country that a February 2008 International Atomic Energy Agency report concluded has not diverted nuclear material to non-peaceful purposes. Unfortunately for the 70 million Persians in Hillary's bombsight, Iran's biggest liability is its president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad-but then the U.S. is equally burdened.

So the real truth behind Clinton's "final solution" to the Persian problem or John McCain's "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran" off-key hyperbole is not simply a "David and Goliath" struggle for survival, but is instead a cynical exploitation of the unholy marriage of convenience between fanatical Jewish Zionists who want a Muslim-free Eretz Israel in order to fulfill Old Testament prophecy and bring about the first coming of their Messiah and fanatical Christian Zionists who want the entire Middle East in flames to fulfill New Testament prophecy and bring about the Second Coming of their Messiah.

Jewish Zionists need the money and the political clout of the Christian Zionists. Christian Zionists need the Semitism and the chutzpah of the Jewish Zionists. Politicians need the votes that both groups can deliver, which in religion-drenched America is a hefty consignment.

According to a 2006 Pew Research Center poll, fully 44 percent of Americans believe that "God gave the land that is now Israel to the Jewish people" and 36 percent believe the "creation of the state of Israel is a step toward the Second Coming of Jesus."

Depending on which poll is the most accurate, there are between 105-135 million evangelical and born-again Christians in the United States. Of these Christians, a 2004 International Fellowship of Christians and Jews poll found that 31 percent identified U.S. support for Israel as their "primary consideration" in selecting a presidential candidate, while 64 percent cited it as an "important factor."

Predictably then, when Hillary Clinton or John McCain threaten to obliterate Iran, or any predominately Muslim country in the Middle East, with nuclear weapons, the primary audience for their saber rattling is not the Muslim "evildoers" but is, instead, the pro-Israel lobby and the Christian Zionist muscle in America who are willing to see the "ultimate evil" committed to further their ideological and eschatological agenda.

Nowhere does "ultimate evil" play a more prominent role than in the End Time machinations of two well-connected Christian Zionists, Tim LaHaye and John Hagee.

Tim LaHaye is best known as the coauthor of the blockbuster Left Behind series, which has sold over 60 million copies worldwide. The pulp fiction series takes the Book of Revelation as its inspiration and chronicles the tribulations that will occur between the Rapture of born-again Christians and the Second Coming of Jesus. The blood and viscera of millions of infidels and heretics-unrepentant Atheists, Jews, Muslims, and Catholics-are spattered on every page.

Tim LaHaye is least known as the founder and first president of the secretive Council for National Policy. The CNP was formed in 1981 as an umbrella organization to advance an ultra-conservative, right wing Christian agenda. LaHaye's particular agenda items include replacing U.S. secular law with Old Testament biblical law and a Middle East foreign policy that expedites the Second Coming.

According to the New York Times, the CNP consists of "a few hundred of the most powerful conservatives in the country" who meet "behind closed doors at undisclosed locations...to strategize about how to turn the country to the right." Though the membership of the CNP is a guarded secret, a list of those known to have been associated with it reads like a who's who of Christian Zionists and neocon ideologues whose passion is to see the Middle East in flames and in chains.

A short list includes: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, former Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, the late Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Phyllis Schlafly, and Oliver North-the guy who sold weapons to Iran using Israel as the middleman.

Do not be blindsided. The CNP is a major player in domestic and foreign policy decisions and the "evil" that results.

John Hagee, televangelist and pastor of the 19,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, is the founder of Christian United for Israel. Hagee formed CUFI in 2005 following the publication of his book, The Jerusalem Countdown: A Warning to the World, which sports a mushroom cloud on its cover and argues for a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West.

Hagee's theology-and vision of the future-focuses on selected apocalyptic passages from the Old Testament. He believes that a nuclear strike against Iran will cause Arab nations to unite under Russian leadership, as outlined in the Book of Ezekiel, leading to an "inferno [that] will explode across the Middle East, plunging the world toward Armageddon." Consequently, CUFI exists to set the fires of the Apocalypse and bring about the Rapture and the Second Coming, but it needs Jewish Zionists to strike the match.

Christians United for Israel is the evangelical equivalent of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful pro-Israel lobby courted and placated by every American politician who has national aspirations. John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barak Obama have each pledged their fealty to AIPAC.

John Hagee is not without his own short list of beltway benefactors. The list includes, but is not limited to: George W. Bush, House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, Senator Joe Lieberman-who called Hagee an "Ish Elokim," a man of God-and John McCain who was "very honored by Pastor John Hagee's endorsement [for president]."

When Christian Zionists with the stature of LaHaye and Hagee shill for fanatical Jewish Zionists who are promoting the ethic cleansing of Eretz Israel for biblical or nationalistic reasons or the pre-emptive "defensive" nuking of Iran, politicians with the stature of Hillary Clinton and John McCain, along with a hefty consignment of the electorate, are their willing dupes. It's just the politics of religion as usual in America.

But Jewish Zionists need to understand that the difference between Christian Zionists and Muslim suicide bombers is scale, a nuclear warhead versus a backpack bomb, and a willingness to let others do the killing-and the dying-for them.

Jewish Zionists should also keep in mind that Christian Zionists have no intention of being around when the sands of the Middle East are turned to glass in a furnace of primordial fire. They will have been Raptured and out of harm's way in Paradise. Their Bible tells them so.

Robert Weitzel is a contributing editor to Media With a Conscience. His essays regularly appear in The Capital Times in Madison, WI. He can be contacted at: robertweitzel@mac.com

May 14, 2008

http://counterpunch.com/weitzel05142008.html

Hamas Condemns "Holocaust Denial"

They're not likely to get credit for their condemnation, however, because to say anything nice about the group wouldn't fit with its "terrorist" group status in US-Israeli propaganda.

Hamas minister condemns Shoah denial

By JPOST.COM STAFF

"The Holocaust was not only a crime against humanity but one of the most abhorrent crimes in modern history," according to a senior Gaza-based Hamas official.

The London-based Guardian published an op-ed on Monday written by Dr. Bassem Naeem, Hamas's minister of health and information in the Gaza Strip.

Naeem addressed several topics in his piece, including Holocaust denial by Palestinian media, the alleged exploitation of the Holocaust by Israel and what he described as continued "occupation and oppression" of Palestinians.

The Hamas minister, referring to a recent broadcast on the Gaza-based Al-Aksa channel that claimed the Holocaust was a 'joke' put on by prime minister David Ben-Gurion - wrote that the network "is an independent media institution that often does not express the views of... the Hamas movement" and that "in the case of [this] opinion it is alone and is solely responsible for it.

"But it should be made clear that neither Hamas nor the Palestinian government in Gaza denies the Nazi Holocaust," his op-ed continued. "The Holocaust was not only a crime against humanity but one of the most abhorrent crimes in modern history. We condemn it as we condemn every abuse of humanity and all forms of discrimination on the basis of religion, race, gender or nationality."

Naeem then went on to write that while he "unreservedly condemns the crimes perpetrated by the Nazis against the Jews of Europe, [he] categorically rejects the exploitation of the Holocaust by the Zionists to justify their crimes... of ethnic cleansing and subjection they have been waging against us."

He further stated that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was not a "religious" one between Muslims and Jews in Palestine or anywhere else, but rather that it was "of a purely political nature - it is between a people who have come under occupation and an oppressive occupying power. Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust but find themselves punished for someone else's crime. But we are well aware and warmly welcome the outspoken support for Palestinian rights by Israeli and Jewish human rights activists in Palestine and around the world."

May 13, 2008 14:39 | Updated May 13, 2008 19:22

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1210668624631&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Egypt, Israel "At Peace" for Almost 30 Years

Opinion polls within the last year found that only 5% of Egyptians have a favorable view of Israel.

Egyptian culture minister: I would burn Israeli books myself

Israel files official complaint with Egypt over Farouk Hosni's remarks, may thwart his appointment as UNESCO secretary-general

Itamar Eichner

Diplomatic tensions have arised [sic] between Israel and Egypt due to a harsh statement made recently by Egyptian Culture Minister Farouk Hosni. In a conference that took place in the Egyptian Parliament last week, the minister said that he "would burn Israeli books himself if found in Egyptian libraries."

Israeli Ambassador to Cairo Shalom Cohen defined this statement in a classified report that he submitted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Jerusalem as "harsh and especially blunt, in a way which makes it impossible for Israel and for the international community to continue a regular agenda with Egypt."

Yedioth Ahronoth was informed that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs received and accepted the Israeli ambassador's suggestion to present a severe protest to the Egyptian government. Simultaneously, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs passed on a severe protest to the Egyptian ambassador in Israel.

On Sunday, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is scheduled to leave for Sharm al-Sheikh in order to participate in a summit with US President George W. Bush, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Jordan's King Abdullah and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. She is likely to raise the issue in her discussions with the Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit.

The anger in Israel over Hosni's statement is especially emphasized due to the fact that the Hosni is Egypt's candidate for the UNESCO position, as the United Nations' education, science and cultural organization secretary-general, and he has good chances of being chosen.

Israel is weighing the option of bringing the case to the attention of the international community and thus harming his chances of receiving the position.

Hosni is considered one of the strongest opposition leaders in the Egyptian government to stand against normalization with Israel. In the past, he accused Israel of trying to steal Egyptian culture, and he adamantly opposes any cooperation with Israel.

Moreover, he opposed an initiative presented by the American-Jewish Committee to establish a museum of Jewish antiquity and culture in Cairo.

Published: 05.14.08, 14:25 / Israel News

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3543242,00.html

Abu Quisling On the Way Out?

QUOTE: If Abbas were to run against Haniyeh [the Hamas leader in Gaza], he'd get 32 percent to Haniyeh's 34 percent. . . . The approval rating of the Palestinian government in the West Bank has dropped 13 percentage points since January and President Mahmoud Abbas would have trouble winning if elections were held now, according to a poll published Wednesday. . .Abbas' government, meanwhile, is slipping in popularity. Only 20 percent of respondents said Prime Minister Fayyad is doing a good job, compared to 31 percent in January.

COMMENT: This isn't surprising: Abu Quisling Abbas has been unable to deliver any improvements in life to the Palestinians. Even promises Israel made to Bush and Rice in this respect have not been kept. You'll read talk of postponing the election, which is the only way to keep this Bush puppet in power.

Poll: Abbas' popularity has slipped dramatically since January

By The Associated Press

The approval rating of the Palestinian government in the West Bank has dropped 13 percentage points since January and President Mahmoud Abbas would have trouble winning if elections were held now, according to a poll published Wednesday.

The poll was conducted at a time of growing Palestinian frustration over

stalled peace talks with Israel and a stagnant economy. Negotiations on the so-called core issues - the borders of a Palestinian state, a division of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees - resumed earlier this year.

Abbas and his prime minister, Salam Fayyad, are being hurt by the lack of

progress, according to pollster Nader Said. "This goes to illustrate that

Palestinians will always come back to the core issues," he said. "Not to make progress on these issues will harm the stakeholders trying to achieve a solution."

The survey was conducted among 1,200 Palestinians by an independent think

tank, Arab World For Research & Development, and had an error margin of 3

percentage points.

The poll indicated that Marwan Barghouti, an imprisoned militant leader, is by far the most popular Palestinian politician. Barghouti is serving five life sentences in an Israeli prison for involvement in attacks that killed four Israelis and a Greek monk.

In a presidential race, Barghouti, a former leader of Abbas' Fatah movement in the West Bank, would comfortably defeat the head of the Hamas government in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, by 47 percent to 29 percent. If Abbas were to run against Haniyeh, he'd get 32 percent to Haniyeh's 34 percent.

Abbas' term formally ends in January, but it's unlikely presidential elections will be held in the current political climate.

Hamas seized power in Gaza by force a year ago, and Abbas says he won't talk to the Islamic militants unless they cede control there.

In parliament elections, Fatah would win 47 percent of the vote, down from 53 percent in January. Hamas would come in second, with 37 percent, but has gained ground from its 32 percent rating in January.

Abbas' government, meanwhile, is slipping in popularity. Only 20 percent of respondents said Prime Minister Fayyad is doing a good job, compared to 31 percent in January. Another 25 percent said the government's performance is average, compared to 27 percent in January.

Last update - 16:42 14/05/2008

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/983420.html

Douglas Feith: Liar or Alzheimer's Victim?

Douglas Feith, the notorious Neocon, is either very forgetful or lying, because news stories from August, 2002 (see below), had the Israeli Prime Minister (Sharon) and Foreign Minister (Peres) urging Washington to attack Iraq as soon as possible.

NOTE: the last story raises a strong suspicion that Israel might have been the source of faked evidence on Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Doug Feith: Israel didn't push for Iraq War

Former US undersecretary of defense tells Ynet he never saw evidence of Israeli pressure on America to launch Iraq War. In private conversations, Israelis warned that Iraq failure could undermine effort against Iran, he says

Yitzhak Benhorin

WASHINGTON - As opposed to frequently cited claims, Israeli officials did not push their American counterparts into launching a war in Iraq, Former United Stated Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith told Ynet in a special interview.

Addressing claims that Israel pushed the US Administration into the war, Feith said "I never saw that."

"What you heard from Israeli officials in private discussions was that they were not really focused on Iraq," Feith said. "They were much more focused on Iran."

When asked why Israel did not publically object to military action in Iraq, he said this was a result of the strong relationship between Israeli officials and the Bush Administration.

"The relationship between Bush and Israel was so strong and so friendly that the Israeli government was not going to join Germany and French in opposing the US," Feith said, and added that "what you heard from the Israelis was not any kind of advocacy of war with Iraq."

Feith said that he heard "constant (Israeli) emphasis on the importance of the Iran danger" and added that Israel was worried about a scenario that ended up materializing, namely that "if the US got into a military conflict in Iraq and it didn't go well, it could make our diplomacy with Iran less credible."

'People were looking for ways short of war'

Feith, whose new book War and Decision aims to present his take on the Iraq War, also dismissed claims that the Bush Administration had its mind set on war in Iraq even before the September 11 attacks.

"A lot of the decisions came after September 11th," he told Ynet. "I think one of the things the book explains is that Iraq was a major issue before September 11th - it was a major issue since 1990 for the US, and there was a debate within the US government on what to do about Iraq."

"After all, you had the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, which said the US policy is regime change, the Senate passed that law unanimously, and President Clinton signed it," he added.

"I review the debates inside the administration on what to do about Iraq and what I point out is that no decisions were made," Feith said, referring to his book. "There were debates about the no-fly zone enforcement, strengthening economic sanctions, and the CIA had been talking about the possibility of a coup. There were debates about whether we can create an autonomous enclave in the south... people were looking for ways short of war to deal with the problem."

Feith also rejected suggestions that the Bush Administration chose to target Iraq because it was the easiest move at the time.

"I don't think it was the easiest," he said. "We looked at each of the states supporting terror, and we said we need a policy appropriate to that country. In the case of Iran and North Korea, it was clear that before anyone could even consider any military action there was important diplomacy that had to be tried."

"At the time the UN was dealing with Iraq for 12 years," Feith said, and added that "the risks of leaving Saddam Hussein in power were very serious."

Published: 05.13.08, 19:41 / Israel News

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3542925,00.html

============= August 2002 stories ======

(In addition to these, there are more, and a much later one had Israel's Prime Minister Sharon ordering government officials to stop talking about an Iraq invasion.)

Friday, August 16, 2002 Elul 8, 5762 Israel Time: 05:00 (GMT+3)

PM urging U.S. not to delay strike against Iraq By Aluf Benn

Israel is pressing the United States not to defer action aimed at toppling Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

[Compete story below]

Israel Urges U.S. to Attack Iraq

Israel Urges United States Not to Delay Military Strike Against Iraq

The Associated Press

J E R U S A L E M, Aug. 16 [2002] - Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday.

[Complete story below]

Friday, August 16, 2002 Elul 8, 5762 Israel Time: 05:00 (GMT+3)

PM urging U.S. not to delay strike against Iraq By Aluf Benn

Israel is pressing the United States not to defer action aimed at toppling Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has sent messages to the U.S. administration in recent days saying that postponing the Iraq operation "will not create a more convenient environment for action in the future." But Sharon added that Israel would support any American action, and would respect U.S. decisions regarding the method and the timing.

Foreign Minister Shimon Peres sent a similar message yesterday during an interview with CNN television. "The problem today is not if, but when," he said, adding that while attacking now would be "quite dangerous... postponing it would be more dangerous," as "he [Saddam] will have more weapons."

But like Sharon, Peres also added a disclaimer, saying he did not want to be seen as urging the United States to act and that America should act according to its own judgment. Israel, he said, "will be a good soldier" in the camp led by President George W. Bush.

Sharon has also repeatedly informed Bush that if Iraq were to attack Israel, Israel would respond. During the 1991 Gulf War, the United States effectively prevented Israel from retaliating against Iraqi missile strikes by refusing to give it the "friend-foe" codes required to keep U.S. and Israeli planes from shooting at each other. But in closed discussions recently, Sharon told associates that he had a clear understanding with the United States that this time, if Saddam were to attack, Israel would be allowed to exercise its right to self-defense.

However, he added, the Israeli response would be closely coordinated with the Americans - and, as he told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee earlier this week, it would not be automatic.

A senior government source explained: "If we are talking about a single missile that falls in the middle of the Arava [Desert], far from the major population centers, or into the sea, it is hard to believe that we will respond."

But if missiles strike Israeli cities, as they did during the Gulf War, Sharon told the committee, "we cannot sit with folded hands."

Asked by CNN whether and how Israel would respond to an Iraqi strike, Peres gave a similar answer, saying the response would depend on the type of attack. Asked what Israel would do if attacked with weapons of mass destruction, Peres said, "I wouldn't commit myself. I don't think I can give you a response. Israel will be very careful and reluctant to go out of the conventional domain of weaponry."

Peres believes that Israel must preserve some room in which to maneuver, but at the same time, it must not say or do anything that would be perceived by the Americans as impeding their war effort.

Senior Israel Defense Forces officers have also told American officials in recent days that Israel must respond if attacked in order to maintain its deterrence, which was badly damaged by Israel's restraint during the Gulf War.

But Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, in contrast, objects vehemently to publicly-voiced Israeli threats against Iraq. He believes that the various media reports in Israel in recent days, indicating that a U.S. attack is near, are exaggerated and create unnecessary tension among the Israeli public, while public threats of an Israeli response merely hurt the American effort.

"We are dependent on the Americans," explained a defense source. "We need their cooperation in intelligence and in giving us prior notice. Our public threats don't help them."

Senior government sources said yesterday that the possibility of an Israeli military response to an Iraqi attack made the U.S. administration very uncomfortable, but for now, it prefered to ignore the Israeli threats rather than deal with the issue directly.

The defense establishment believes that the United States will not attack before the end of the year. It also believes that while Saddam will attack Israel if "pushed into a corner," he does not have many missiles or launchers.

===========================

Israel Urges U.S. to Attack Iraq

Israel Urges United States Not to Delay Military Strike Against Iraq

The Associated Press

J E R U S A L E M, Aug. 16 - Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday.

Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin.

"Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose," Gissin told The Associated Press. "It will only give him (Saddam) more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction."

The United States has been considering a military campaign against Iraq to remove Saddam from power, listing him as one of the world's main terrorist regimes. However, there is considerable world opposition to a U.S. strike.

As evidence of Iraq's weapons building activities, Israel points to an order Saddam gave to Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission last week to speed up its work, Gissin said.

"Saddam's going to be able to reach a point where these weapons will be operational," he said.

Gissin said Israel was not seeking to dictate the timing of a U.S. military campaign but said that, faced with the threat of one, Saddam was fast developing weapons.

While the Israeli government backs U.S. action against Iraq, there is also concern in Israel that in response, Iraq would launch missile attacks against Tel Aviv and other cities in Israel.

During the 1991 Gulf War, in which U.S.-led forces pushed back an Iraqi invasion of neighboring Kuwait, Iraq hit Israel with 39 Scud missiles none of them with chemical or biological warheads causing few casualties but extensive damage.

In the 1991 conflict, the United States worried it would lose Arab support if Israel retaliated for the strikes, and under heavy pressure Israel reluctantly agreed to hold back. However, Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said Israel would defend itself against any new attacks.

In an interview published Friday, Ben-Eliezer told the daily Yediot Ahronot that Israel would surely become a target during such a conflict and would consider retaliation in coordination with U.S. forces.

"We will be one of the main targets," he told the newspaper. "What I told the Americans, and I repeat it: 'Don't expect us to continue to live with the process of restraint. If they hit us, we reserve the right of response.'"

Iraq has few chemical and biological weapons, Ben-Eliezer said. "We are taking this into account and we are prepared. But we are so far away from this right now that all this hysteria is simply unnecessary," he said.

A survey in the daily Maariv newspaper showed 57 percent of Israelis were in support of an American battle to wipe out Saddam's leadership, though about the same percent of people questioned believed Iraq would attack Israel. The survey found that 28 percent of them thought Iraq would use chemical or biological weapons against Israel.

The poll, which surveyed 590 adult Israelis and quoted a 4 percent margin of error, found 23 percent were in favor of using nuclear weapons against Iraq to retaliate for such an attack.