Israel Denies Pressing U.S. to Strike Iraq : Allies: Spokesman says government has ‘full confidence in American policy’ and is urging no specific action.

The Israeli government Friday denied reports that it is urging the United States to take immediate and decisive action against Iraq to end the Persian Gulf crisis.

“We are not advising the Americans to take any specific course of action,” Yosef Olmert, the chief government spokesman, said in an interview. He said the Israelis “have full confidence in American policy, and we are impressed by the American buildup in the gulf as the crisis appears to be reaching its peak.”

Olmert was asked to clarify his government’s position in light of reports in the international media that unidentified Israeli officials are calling on the United States to strike quickly and with massive force against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Ariel Sharon, the former defense minister who is now the minister of housing, has said publicly that President Bush must soon launch a major attack to bring down Hussein. Some Foreign Ministry officials have said as much in private, as have strategic analysts and members of the military in debating whether Washington would be better off attacking now or later.

Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir has offered no advice to Washington in public, nor has Defense Minister Moshe Arens or the military chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Shomron.

Spokesman Olmert said there are some who share his view that “time is not on the side of the Americans because an economic embargo can’t be upheld for too long.” But other Israeli analysts believe that time is, in fact, helping Washington although it may take a while for the world trade embargo against Iraq to become fully effective.

In an open society such as Israel’s, where a broad range of officials are accessible to the media and the public--on and off the record--a certain amount of confusion arises about official policy. This is particularly true when officials speak in English rather than Hebrew, and nuances of meaning are lost.

On Thursday night, for example, Prime Minister Shamir reportedly told a group of visiting American donors to the United Jewish Appeal that “our major task is to prevent war, or to preempt it, and if, heaven forbid, these two fail and there is no alternative, we have to win quickly and decisively.”

These were his words, according to sources who were present and heard him. But immediately afterward, reporters asked Shamir if he was calling for a preemptive attack against Iraq, and he said, “No, not at all.”

Similarly, the new director of civil defense, Col. Dov Peled, suggested in a radio interview Thursday that Israelis should stockpile food and prepare their homes for a possible Iraqi attack with chemical weapons.

This statement provoked a run on food stores, and senior military officials quickly issued a “clarification” advising the public not to hoard food or to take any other unusual steps.

“There is altogether too much loose talk in recent days,” a senior government official said Friday. He said this is due partly to “a certain tension in the air.”

Most Israeli officials admit privately that they would like to see the United States get rid of Hussein by any means, including military action. But they differ on the best way to go about it.

The believe that Israel’s defense posture would be eased considerably if Iraq no longer posed a serious challenge.

Israeli strategic planners believe that even if Hussein withdraws from Kuwait, he will continue to be a threat if he is not ousted. They also believe that if he stays in office, he will eventually have nuclear weapons to go along with his chemical weapons.

A top strategist, Prof. Gerald M. Steinberg of Bar-Ilan University, said in an interview that the different points of view among Israeli generals and politicians are an outgrowth of the different policies followed by Israel in the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli wars.

“In 1967,” Steinberg said, “Israel launched a preemptive attack against Egypt and six days later won the greatest war in its history. In 1973, Israel waited and was hit by Egypt and Syria--and suffered greatly before winning.

“So naturally, in military staff colleges these lessons are examined, and there is a predilection toward striking first,” he added. “That concept tends to carry over into the political area and is responsible for urging the U.S. to strike first. It may be the wrong analysis, but it is very strongly embedded.”