It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defence of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents.

What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the US exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.

My new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status. It is already possible to judge public and media reaction. Sales are brisk, and I have had interesting interviews on TV. But I have seen few news stories in major newspapers about what I have written.

Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organisations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel. Two members of Congress have been publicly critical. Some reviews posted on Amazon.com call me "anti-semitic," and others accuse the book of "lies" and "distortions". A former Carter Centre fellow has taken issue with it, and Alan Dershowitz called the book's title "indecent". Out in the real world, however, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. The book describes the abominable oppression and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine's citizens and Jewish settlers in the West Bank. An enormous imprisonment wall is now under construction, snaking through what is left of Palestine, to encompass more and more land for Israeli settlers. In many ways, this is more oppressive than what black people lived under in South Africa during apartheid. I have made it clear that the motivation is not racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis to confiscate and colonise choice sites in Palestine, and then to forcefully suppress any objections from the displaced citizens. Obviously, I condemn acts of terrorism or violence against innocent civilians, and I present information about the casualties on both sides.

The ultimate purpose of my book is to present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbours.

Another hope is that Jews and other Americans who share this goal might be motivated to express their views, even publicly, and perhaps in concert. I would be glad to help with that effort.

"Israel heard that they decided not to come. We had not given them a negative response, our final decision was pending," Regev said.

"At times not making a decision is making a decision," said Tutu. "We couldn't obviously wait in limbo indefinitely."

The former Anglican archbishop of Cape Town said he had accepted the mission on behalf of the UN Human Rights Council "at short notice."

"We cancelled important commitments to make ourselves available for this task and to submit a report by mid-December to the council," Tutu said, adding that to take up the mission he had left the bedside of his wife, who was in a hospital following a knee operation.

Christine Chinkin, a law professor at the London School of Economics, said she and other members of the a team had hoped to meet with Israeli authorities and had therefore decided against entering Gaza through Egypt.

"That would be one-sided. It would not give us the full picture. It would also look as though we were going in the back door," she said. "It was in no way at all a one-sided mission."

Because of the failure of Israel to approve the mission in time, the mission team had had to cancel its appointments in Israel and the Gaza Strip with people involved in the conflict.

Tutu was to begin leading a six-member team over the past weekend in the
northern Gaza town of Beit Hanun to investigate the killings of 19civilians in an Israeli artillery barrage last month.

But Israel refused to grant the South African anti-apartheid campaigner the necessary travel clearance, said officials in two separate UN departments who spoke on condition of anonymity before Tutu spoke.

Tutu's team was supposed to report its findings to the UN Human Rights
Council by Friday. It is unclear if Israel will allow the fact-finding mission to take place at a later date.

Israeli officials have expressed concern that Tutu's mission was only
entrusted with investigating alleged human rights violations committed by
Israel, and not also by Palestinian militants.

The 47-nation council authorized the mission last month, asking Tutu to assess the situation of victims, address the needs of survivors and make
recommendations on ways to protect Palestinian civilians against further
Israeli attacks.

The shelling, which Israel said was unintended, came after its troops wound up a weeklong incursion meant to curb Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel from the town.

Palestinian militants frequently use Beit Hanun as a staging ground for their rocket attacks on Israel.

"We had a problem not with the personalities, we had a problem with the
institution," Regev said. "We saw a situation whereby the human rights
mechanism of the UN was being cynically exploited to advance an anti-Israel agenda. This would do the Israelis, the Palestinians and peace in the Middle East no good at all. This would also have done nothing to serve the interest of human rights."

The council, which replaced the widely discredited Human Rights Commission in June, has been criticized for passing eight resolutions criticizing Israel in its six-month existence, but none censuring any other government's policies.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged the watchdog last month to deal with the Mideast conflict in an impartial manner, and said it was time to focus attention on "graver" crises such as Darfur. After that, European countries rallied enough support to require the council to hold a special session on Darfur, which has been scheduled for Tuesday.

"I'm glad the council will be discussing it, because it does underscore what makes for the credibility of an institution or of a person," Tutu said. "Human rights violations are human rights violations wherever they would occur."

The foreign minister spoke at the opening of the Saban Forum in Washington Saturday. Although she did not directly name the Baker report, her message was clear: "Today there is a completely different distribution of the Middle East. The conflict is between moderates and extremists, and in effect, Israel is on one side with the moderate Arab nations in the region.

"Some of the leaders, even if they are aware of it, don't always express it out loud because public opinion there is influenced by old impressions," she noted.

Livni further addressed the threat of Iranian nuclear armament. "Iran constitutes a threat not just on Israel but on all Muslim Arab nations in the region. No one in the moderate Arab world wants to see Iran, Hizbullah or Hamas succeed."

Livni was the keynote speaker at the forum's opening ceremony organized by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. Senior Israeli and American officials participated in the forum.

Livni is slated to meet with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice later Saturday; the Baker report is likely to come up during the talks.

The Washington forum was initiated by Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban, who flew dozens of Israeli officials to Washington to attend the three-day event. Ex-president Bill Clinton and expected presidential candidate Hillary Clinton are expected to attend, as was as Israel ministers Shimon Peres, Yuli Tamir and Avigdor Leiberman.

In 2006 the Israeli Military Industries ended the year with an all time record sum total of USD 4.2 billion in exports, not counting the several multi-million dollar deals which are already in their final stages.

Israel exports virtually everything, from Tavor assault rifles to artillery shells to fortification systems, intelligence solutions, missiles, drones and space equipment.

"The ability of the Israeli Military Industry annoys certain US administration officials," said a source from within the security industry on Saturday. He claims that these officials are making allegations that Israel has sold technological information to 'problematic' countries like China.

The most noticeable growth in security exports was recorded in Israel Aerospace Industries sales. In the first nine months of 2006 IAI sales stood at USD 2 billion compared to USD 1.75 billion for the same period the year before - a 14 percent increase.

Orders from the IAI reached USD 6.9 billion in late September compared to USD 5.8 billion in 2005 - a 19 percent increase.

To compare, Russia's 2005 arms sales totaled at USD 7 billion (a 22 percent increase from 2004's USD 5.4 billion) but, as recently revealed by President Vladimir Putin, will drop to USD 6 billion in 2006.

"As Baker sees this, the conference would provide a unique opportunity for the United States to strike a deal without Jewish pressure," an official said. "This has become the most hottest proposal examined by the foreign policy people over the last month."

Officials said Mr. Baker's proposal, reflected in the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, has been supported by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns and National Intelligence Director John Negroponte. The most controversial element in the proposal, they said, was Mr. Baker's recommendation for the United States to woo Iran and Syria.

"Here is Syria, which is clearly putting pressure on the Lebanese democracy, is a supporter of terror, is both provisioning and supporting Hezbollah and facilitating Iran in its efforts to support Hezbollah, is supporting the activities of Hamas," National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley told a briefing last week. "This is not a Syria that is on an agenda to bring peace and stability to the region."

Officials said the Baker proposal to exclude Israel from a Middle East peace conference garnered support in the wake of Vice President Dick Cheney's visit to Saudi Arabia on Nov. 25. They said Mr. Cheney spent most of his meetings listening to Saudi warnings that Israel, rather than Iran, is the leading cause of instability in the Middle East.

"He [Cheney] didn't even get the opportunity to seriously discuss the purpose of his visit-that the Saudis help the Iraqi government and persuade the Sunnis to stop their attacks," another official familiar with Mr. Cheney's visit said. "Instead, the Saudis kept saying that they wanted a U.S. initiative to stop the Israelis' attack in Gaza and Cheney just agreed."

Under the Baker proposal, the Bush administration would arrange a Middle East conference that would discuss the future of Iraq and other Middle East issues. Officials said the conference would seek to win Arab support on Iraq in exchange for a U.S. pledge to renew efforts to press Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Golan Heights.

"Baker sees his plan as containing something for everybody, except perhaps the Israelis," the official said. "The Syrians would get back the Golan, the Iranians would get U.S. recognition and the Saudis would regain their influence, particularly with the Palestinians."

Officials said Mr. Baker's influence within the administration and the Republican Party's leadership stems from support by the president's father as well as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Throughout the current Bush administration, such senior officials as Mr. Hadley and Ms. Rice were said to have been consulting with Brent Scowcroft, the former president's national security advisor, regarded as close to Mr. Baker.

"Everybody has fallen in line," the official said. "Bush is not in the daily loop. He is shocked by the elections and he's hoping for a miracle on Iraq."

For his part, Mr. Bush has expressed unease in negotiating with Iran. At a Nov. 30 news conference in Amman, Jordan, the president cited Iran's interference in the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki.

"We respect their heritage, we respect their history, we respect their traditions," Mr. Bush said. "I just have a problem with a government that is isolating its people, denying its people benefits that could be had from engagement with the world."

Mr. Baker's recommendation to woo Iran and Syria has also received support from some in the conservative wing of the GOP. Over the last week, former and current Republican leaders in Congress-convinced of the need for a U.S. withdrawal before the 2008 presidential elections-have called for Iranian and Syrian participation in an effort to stabilize Iraq.

"I would look at an entirely new strategy," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said. "We have clearly failed in the last three years to achieve the kind of outcome we want."

In contrast, Defense Department officials have warned against granting a role to Iran and Syria at Israel's expense. They said such a strategy would also end up undermining Arab allies of the United States such as Egypt, Jordan and Morocco.

"The regional strategy is a euphemism for throwing Free Iraq to the wolves in its neighborhood: Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia," said the Center for Security Policy, regarded as being close to the Pentagon. "If the Baker regional strategy is adopted, we will prove to all the world that it is better to be America's enemy than its friend. Jim Baker's hostility towards the Jews is a matter of record and has endeared him to Israel's foes in the region."

But Defense Secretary-designate Robert Gates, a former colleague of Mr. Baker on the Iraq Study Group, has expressed support for U.S. negotiations with Iran and Syria. In response to questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee, which begins confirmation hearings this week, Mr. Gates compared the two U.S. adversaries to the Soviet Union.

"Even in the worst days of the Cold War, the U.S. maintained a dialogue with the Soviet Union and China, and I believe those channels of communication helped us manage many potentially difficult situations," Mr. Gates said. "Our engagement with Syria need not be unilateral. It could, for instance, take the form of Syrian participation in a regional conference."

God's chosen people

Jostein Gaarder
Aftenposten 05.08.06

From the Norwegian by Sirocco

There is no turning back. It is time to learn a new lesson: We do no longer recognize the state of Israel. We could not recognize the South African apartheid regime, nor did we recognize the Afghan Taliban regime. Then there were many who did not recognize Saddam Hussein's Iraq or the Serbs' ethnic cleansing. We must now get used to the idea: The state of Israel in its current form is history.

We do not believe in the notion of God's chosen people. We laugh at this people's fancies and weep over its misdeeds. To act as God's chosen people is not only stupid and arrogant, but a crime against humanity. We call it racism.

Limits to tolerance

There are limits to our patience, and there are limits to our tolerance. We do not believe in divine promises as justification for occupation and apartheid. We have left the Middle Ages behind. We laugh uneasily at those who still believe that the God of flora, fauna, and galaxies has selected one people in particular as his favorite and given it funny stone tablets, burning bushes, and a license to kill.

We call child murderers 'child murderers' and will never accept that such have a divine or historic mandate excusing their outrages. We say but this: Shame on all apartheid, shame on ethnic cleansing, shame on every terrorist strike against civilians, be it carried out by Hamas, Hizballah, or the state of Israel!

Unscrupulous art of war

We acknowledge and pay heed to Europe's deep responsibility for the plight of the Jews, for the disgraceful harassment, the pogroms, and the Holocaust. It was historically and morally necessary for Jews to get their own home. However, the state of Israel, with its unscrupulous art of war and its disgusting weapons, has massacred its own legitimacy. It has systematically flouted International Law, international conventions, and countless UN resolutions, and it can no longer expect protection from same. It has carpet bombed the recognition of the world. But fear not! The time of trouble shall soon be over. The state of Israel has seen its Soweto.

We are now at the watershed. There is no turning back. The state of Israel has raped the recognition of the world and shall have no peace until it lays down its arms.

Without defense, without skin

May spirit and word sweep away the apartheid walls of Israel. The state of Israel does not exist. It is now without defense, without skin. May the world therefore have mercy on the civilian population. For it is not civilian individuals at whom our doomsaying is directed.

We wish the people of Israel well, nothing but well, but we reserve the right not to eat Jaffa oranges as long as they taste foul and are poisonous. It was endurable to live some years without the blue grapes of apartheid.

They celebrate their triumphs

We do not believe that Israel mourns forty killed Lebanese children more than it for over three thousand years has lamented forty years in the desert. We note that many Israelis celebrate such triumphs like they once cheered the scourges of the Lord as "fitting punishment" for the people of Egypt. (In that tale, the Lord, God of Israel, appears as an insatiable sadist.) We query whether most Israelis think that one Israeli life is worth more than forty Palestinian or Lebanese lives.

For we have seen pictures of little Israeli girls writing hateful greetings on the bombs to be dropped on the civilian population of Lebanon and Palestine. Little Israeli girls are not cute when they strut with glee at death and torment across the fronts.

The retribution of blood vengeance

We do not recognize the rhetoric of the state of Israel. We do not recognize the spiral of retribution of the blood vengeance with "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." We do not recognize the principle of one or a thousand Arab eyes for one Israeli eye. We do not recognize collective punishment or population-wide diets as political weapons. Two thousand years have passed since a Jewish rabbi criticized the ancient doctrine of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."

He said: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." We do not recognize a state founded on antihumanistic principles and on the ruins of an archaic national and war religion. Or as Albert Schweitzer expressed it: "Humanitarianism consists in never sacrificing a human being to a purpose."

Compassion and forgiveness

We do not recognize the old Kingdom of David as a model for the 21st century map of the Middle East. The Jewish rabbi claimed two thousand years ago that the Kingdom of God is not a martial restoration of the Kingdom of David, but that the Kingdom of God is within us and among us. The Kingdom of God is compassion and forgiveness.

Two thousand years have passed since the Jewish rabbi disarmed and humanized the old rhetoric of war. Even in his time, the first Zionist terrorists were operating.

Israel does not listen

For two thousand years, we have rehearsed the syllabus of humanism, but Israel does not listen. It was not the Pharisee that helped the man who lay by the wayside, having fallen prey to robbers. It was a Samaritan; today we would say, a Palestinian. For we are human first of all -- then Christian, Muslim, or Jewish. Or as the Jewish rabbi said: "And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others?" We do not accept the abduction of soldiers. But nor do we accept the deportation of whole populations or the abduction of legally elected parliamentarians and government ministers.

We recognize the state of Israel of 1948, but not the one of 1967. It is the state of Israel that fails to recognize, respect, or defer to the internationally lawful Israeli state of 1948. Israel wants more; more water and more villages. To obtain this, there are those who want, with God's assistance, a final solution to the Palestinian problem. The Palestinians have so many other countries, certain Israeli politicians have argued; we have only one.

The USA or the world?

Or as the highest protector of the state of Israel puts it: "May God continue to bless America." A little child took note of that. She turned to her mother, saying: "Why does the President always end his speeches with 'God bless America'? Why not, 'God bless the world'?"

Then there was a Norwegian poet who let out this childlike sigh of the heart: "Why doth Humanity so slowly progress?" It was he that wrote so beautifully of the Jew and the Jewess. But he rejected the notion of God's chosen people. He personally liked to call himself a Muhammedan.

Calm and mercy

We do not recognize the state of Israel. Not today, not as of this writing, not in the hour of grief and wrath. If the entire Israeli nation should fall to its own devices and parts of the population have to flee the occupied areas into another diaspora, then we say: May the surroundings stay calm and show them mercy. It is forever a crime without mitigation to lay hand on refugees and stateless people.

Peace and free passage for the evacuating civilian population no longer protected by a state. Fire not at the fugitives! Take not aim at them! They are vulnerable now like snails without shells, vulnerable like slow caravans of Palestinian and Lebanese refugees, defenseless like women and children and the old in Qana, Gaza, Sabra, and Chatilla. Give the Israeli refugees shelter, give them milk and honey!

Let not one Israeli child be deprived of life. Far too many children and civilians have already been murdered.

J and I met in middle school. He was a thin guy passionate about music; I was a raging teen who smoked way too much pot. We both went through our parents' divorces at the same time. We celebrated our birthdays in the same week. We were good friends- best friends at times. We graduated from high school and served in the army. I married, had a family and moved to the United States. He stayed, not only in Israel but also in the military, eventually becoming a high-ranking intelligence officer. We managed to keep our friendship for twenty years now.

When I visited Israel this summer we spent some time together, cruising the streets of Tel Aviv where the best lattes in the world are served in sunny, stylish sidewalk cafés. We talked about love, family and yoga. J, who had just returned from a month long retreat in India, shared his experiences and photos. We discussed old friends, music and art. There's nothing like hanging out with a childhood friend.

Then the war started. The way I saw it Israel was showering Lebanon with bombs, spraying it with artillery. My friend J said Hezbollah had too much ammunition. We had to destroy it sooner or later, this is as good a time as any, he said. Fine, I argued, I could see the need to destroy weapons that are aimed at civilian targets inside Israel, but why bomb Beirut? Why bomb civilians? Everyone does that, said J, the trick is to kill them three by three, not in big numbers. That way the world doesn't even notice.

Israel's summer adventures in Lebanon left the region with more grief, vengeance and hate. I flew back to California, inspired by my friend J to take up yoga.

Israel is still killing its neighbors three by three and as my friend pointed out, the world doesn't seem to notice. When 17 civilians, mostly women and children were killed in their sleep in the northern part of Gaza strip, there was some discussion about it in the UN. But Israel is killing civilians every day claiming it to be a war against those who are launching rockets at the southern Israeli towns of Shderot and Ashkelon.

In the winter of our senior year of high schools J and I would climb on the roof of his Jerusalem apartment building. Those were the days of the Gulf War and schools were closed. We would climb up there when the sirens sounded and cheer the scud missiles on their way to Tel Aviv. Our friends from the coast were terrified; a fact we found to be amusing. Only weeks before, they refused to visit us claiming that Jerusalem was too dangerous because of the riots and stabbings. And yes, it was dangerous, and we were afraid to walk to school. But now we knew that the Iraqis wouldn't aim at Jerusalem. Enjoying the unexpected school break, the fear of our friends in Tel Aviv felt surreal. The fact that it was they who were now in greater danger was a comic relief.

It's so easy to lose your capacity for empathy when you are scared.

A preschool teacher was killed in Gaza this past November while riding a bus with her students on their way to school. Well, there might have been someone driving on that same road that was planning to launch a missile, an Israeli would say to herself. She won't be thinking what it would be like for her own daughter to see her preschool teacher falling to the floor of the bus in a pool of blood.

Of course she can't be thinking of that, this Israeli mother who could have been me. That kind of thought is too terrifying. For an Israeli mother this situation is so real that when it happens to others it might actually be relieving. For her and other Israelis, who have been subject to attacks on civilians for as long as they can remember, it might not be possible to see the suffering of others. They're too scared.

But their government, generals and intelligence officers have no right to be scared. They are abusing their people's fear, their inability to empathize. They're killing and wounding Palestinian civilians one by one, two by two, three by three every day in the name of this fear.

Israeli society is worn, torn and terrified. It's led by an irresponsible government that is making them all into criminals of war. Because what Israel is doing in Gaza these past months is a war crime by any standard.

My friend J is very dear to me. I know he thinks his service in the Israeli Intelligence saved lives. Perhaps it did. Still I think nothing can justify civilian killings- neither mass killings nor killings that are done one by one. For those families it really doesn't matter if their children were all killed on the same day or during a course of a whole month.

Those of us who are lucky not to be living in fear, those of us who know this kind of life is possible, are obligated to stand up against war crimes that are committed in the name of fear and in abuse of peoples inability to see their neighbors' pain.

Orit Weksler, a psychotherapist living in the East Bay, emigrated with her family from Israel to the United States in 2003.

Olmert's remarks came in response to questions that in case Israel possesses nuclear arms, whether its argument against Iran's nuclear program would be weakened.

This was the first time Israel said it has nuclear arms, a break from its traditional policy of opacity, namely, neither confirming nor denying it has nuclear weapons.

Foreign experts suspected Israel has some 50-200 warheads.

Immediately after the interview, Israeli officials dismissed the premier's remark as mis-interpreted saying its was taken out of context.

Olmert's spokesman Miri Eisin said he did not mean to say Israel had or aspired to pursue nuclear weapons.

Olmert's visit was aimed at enlisting Europe's support for its opposition to a nuke-armed Iran.

"We will do our job, nobody should think that with all that is happening we will remain indifferent," Peretz was quoted by the paper. He continued to demand that the international community act on the Iran issue.

During an interview to a German television, Olmert, who was kicking off a three-day visit to Germany and Italy, said "Iran,openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?"

Olmert's remarks came in response to questions that in case Israel possesses nuclear arms, whether its argument against Iran's nuclear program would be weakened.

This was the first time Israel hinted it has nuclear arms, a break from its traditional policy of opacity, namely, neither confirming nor denying it has nuclear weapons.

Foreign experts suspected Israel has some 50-200 warheads. Immediately after the interview, Israeli officials dismissed the premier's remark as misinterpreted saying its was taken out of context.

Olmert's spokesman Miri Eisin said he did not mean to say Israel had or aspired to pursue nuclear weapons.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said Olmert had meant to categorize the four nations as democracies to set them apart from Iran, and was not referring to their potential nuclear capabilities or aspirations.

Widely considered the Middle East's sole nuclear power, Israel has for decades refused to confirm or deny whether it possesses the atomic bomb. Mr Olmert appeared to break that taboo in an interview with a German television station as he began a visit to Berlin.

"We never threatened any nation with annihilation," Mr Olmert, speaking in English, told the N24 Sat1 station.

"Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as France, America, Russia and Israel?"

Mr Olmert's spokeswoman, Miri Eisin, was quick to deny that the Prime Minister had admitted to Israel having nuclear weapons, saying that "Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons to the region."

Israel's Negev nuclear research centre has been capable of creating nuclear-grade weapons material since the early 1960s, but has never been subject to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The IAEA has said, however, that it considers Israel "to be a state possessing nuclear weapons" and proliferation experts reckon that it could have more than 100 devices.

Israel's policy of silence also allows it to skirt a US ban on funding countries that proliferate weapons of mass destruction and collect about $2 billion a year in military and other aid.

Mr Olmert's blunder came less than a week after Israeli officials rounded on Robert Gates, the incoming US Defence Secretary, for making the same slip-up during his Senate confirmation hearings.

"The staggering comments of Ehud Olmert only serve to reinforce the doubts on his capacity to remain Prime Minister," said Yossi Beilin, a leftist MP.

Yuval Steinitz, from the opposition Likud bloc, Yuval Steinitz called on Mr Olmert to step down after having made "an irresponsible slip which puts into question a policy that dates back almost half a century".

Meanwhile, observers warned that Mr Olmert's statement threatened to undercut efforts by Israel and the West to prevent Iran from pursuing its nuclear programme, which Tehran says is for civilian purposes and the West fears is a cover for acquiring atomic weapons.

Mordechai Vanunu, who served 18 years in jail after blowing the whistle on Israel's nuclear program in 1986, welcomed the comment.

"Olmert's remark is nothing new, but it is a good thing that Israel decided to make it public," he told AFP.
"The world should now not only talk about Iran but also about Israel as a nuclear threat that has to be dealt in order to make a nuclear-free Middle East and bring peace."

In scrambling to contain the damage, Israeli officials said that Mr Olmert's slip would not change the decades-old policy of silence on the country's nuclear capacity.

"I support the policy of ambiguity and I don't see Olmert's statement as a declaration that Israel has nuclear weapons," said Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, the Infrastructure Minister. "I would suggest that all those who want to talk about the issue, for God's sake and for the sake of Israel's security, stop it."

A senior Government official added: "This is a real slip of the tongue which was not planned. It is embarrassing for Israel particularly when it is dealing with such a sensitive issue. But this does not change a thing. Our policy stays the same."

Asked by a television interviewer if Israel's alleged nuclear activities weakened his argument against Iran's atomic plans, Mr Olmert said: "Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level - when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons - as America, France, Israel, Russia?".

Israeli officials were quick to deny that the comments marked any policy change. Mr Olmert's spokeswoman, Miri Eisin, said he did not mean to say that Israel had or aspired to acquire nuclear weapons.

The CIA first concluded that Israel had begun to produce nuclear weapons in 1968, but few details emerged until 1986 when Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician at Israel's nuclear weapons facility, gave the Sunday Times detailed descriptions that led defence analysts to rank the country as the sixth largest nuclear power.

Although Tehran says its nuclear programme is designed solely to generate electricity, Israel has warned that Iran is intent on developing atomic weapons. Mr Olmert told Germany's Spiegel magazine at the weekend that he ruled "nothing out", when asked about the possibility of an Israeli military strike against Tehran.

In addition, the US will allow Israel to use the remainder of the US's monetary guarantees given to them that have not been used yet, and add up to USD 4.5 billion, by 2011.

The emergency stockpiles are meant to store American military equipment in the Middle East in case of an emergency. However, in case of an emergency, Israel is allowed to use the stockpiles.

The value of the equipment currently stored in Israel amounts to USD 100 million and the American government approved doubling its value to USD 200 million in the coming year.

In 2008 the military stock will be doubled and refilled once again in the value of USD 200 million.



Pro-Israel decisions

The Congress decided to give special aid to Israel in order to minimize war damages, without having to give Israel additional direct financial aid.

The bill was approved by the Senate and House and it renewed authority to transfer equipment to be stored in Israel.

A great portion of the American equipment stored in Israel last year was used for combat in the summer war in Lebanon.

The US approved guarantees in the sum of USD 9 billion to Israeli to be used over a period of three years, and this period was then prolonged an additional year.

Israel has only used half of this amount and has requested the United States again extend the time limit on using these guarantees. Following the second Lebanon war the US agreed to extend this period until the year 2011.

These pro-Israel decisions were made due to the lobbying efforts of Senate heads Democrat Harry Reid and Republican Bill Frist, and through Head of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations John Biden and Richard Lugar.

The bill was lead by the House of Representatives' heads of the Democratic Committee on Foreign Relations Tom Lantos and the Republican Committee on Foreign Relations Ileana Ross-Lehtinen and the House's republican head Jo Bonner.