다음은 조선닷컴 http://www.chosun.com 에 있는 연합뉴스의 기사임. 이 기사와 관련이 있는 워싱턴포스트의 기사를 뒤에 올릴 것임. ---------------------------------------- 연합뉴스 입력 : 2007.09.21 16:00 http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2007/09/21/2007092100884.html "이스라엘 시리아 폭격전 부시와 정보공유"[WP] 이스라엘이 지난 6일 시리아의 북부 핵의혹 시설을 공습하기 전에 조지 부시 미국 대통령과 해당 시설의 정보를 공유한 것으로 밝혀졌다고 워싱턴포스트 인터넷판이 21일 미 정부 소식통을 인용, 보도했다. 이 소식통은 이스라엘 당국은 지난 여름 북한의 핵관련 인사가 시리아에 체류중임을 시사하는 정보를 부시 대통령과 공유했으며 이어 북한의 협력 아래 구축되는 것으로 의심하는 핵의혹 시설을 폭격했다고 전했다. 소식통은 미국은 이스라엘이 폭격을 감행하기 전 관련 기본정보에 확증을 제공한 것으로 보인다고 덧붙였다. 부시 행정부는 이스라엘의 폭격 및 관련정보에 직접 논평하지 않고 있다. 소식통은 부시 행정부가 이처럼 즉각 대응하지 않는 것은 비록 북한이 이란과 깊이 연관된 시리아의 핵 야망에 협력하고 있다는 이스라엘의 주장에 우려하고 있지만 자칫 북핵 포기를 설득하는 6자회담에 악영향을 미칠 수 있다는 판단에서라고 주장했다. 부시 대통령은 20일 백악관에서 가진 기자회견에서 북한이 핵기술을 시리아에 전달했는지 여부에 대한 확인을 거듭 거부하면서 “북한이 6자회담 성공을 원한다면 무기 확산을 해선 안된다”고 경고하는데 그쳤다. 이스라엘의 폭격 목표는 시라아 북부 터키 접경지역으로 전해지고 있다. 신문은 폭격작전을 감행한 조종사 중 한명과 인터뷰한 중동 전문가를 인용, 조종사들조차 당시 임무의 상세한 내용을 몰랐으며 폭격기에 올라탄 뒤에야 작전에 관한 짧은 설명을 들었다고 전했다. 이스라엘은 1981년 이라크 핵 원자로를 공격할 때와는 달리 이번 공격은 공식 발표하지 않았으며 이스라엘 언론의 보도도 엄격히 통제하고 있다. 시리아 역시 마찬가지이며 아랍 지도자들은 일제히 입을 다물었다. 이 때문에 폭격이 성공했는지는 불투명한 상황이다. 이스라엘의 일부 소식통들은 북한 선박이 시리아 북부 타터스에 입항한 지 사흘만에 폭격이 감행된 것을 들어 문제의 선박이 핵장비를 실었다는 주장을 펴고있다. 미사일 부품만을 실었다는 추측도 나왔다. 일각에서는 선박의 입항과 폭격은 우연한 일치일 뿐이라고 일축하고 있다. 미국 브루킹스 연구소의 전직 정보관리 출신인 브루스 라이델은 이스라엘의 폭격이 대규모로 감행된 것은 의심의 여지가 없다면서 폭격 대상은 “극히 중요한 목표였다”고 지적했다. 특히 그는 이스라엘이 시리아와의 전쟁을 우려하며 전쟁 가능성을 낮추기를 원하는 상황에서 폭격을 감행한 사실은 이번 작전이 그만큼 중요했음을 반증하는 것이라고 설명했다. 또 시리아가 생화학 무기를 넘어서는 결정을 했다면 이스라엘로서는 그것을 ’레드 라인’으로 받아들였을 수 있다고 덧붙였다. ------------------------------------------------------------ WashingtonPost 다음은 워싱턴포스트 Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com 에 있는 기사임. ---------------------------------------------------------- Israel, U.S. Shared Data On Suspected Nuclear Site Bush Was Told of North Korean Presence in Syria, Sources Say By Glenn Kessler and Robin Wright Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, September 21, 2007; A01 Israel's decision to attack Syria on Sept. 6, bombing a suspected nuclear site set up in apparent collaboration with North Korea, came after Israel shared intelligence with President Bush this summer indicating that North Korean nuclear personnel were in Syria, U.S. government sources said. The Bush administration has not commented on the Israeli raid or the underlying intelligence. Although the administration was deeply troubled by Israel's assertion that North Korea was assisting the nuclear ambitions of a country closely linked with Iran, sources said, the White House opted against an immediate response because of concerns it would undermine long-running negotiations aimed at persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear program. Ultimately, however, the United States is believed to have provided Israel with some corroboration of the original intelligence before Israel proceeded with the raid, which hit the Syrian facility in the dead of night to minimize possible casualties, the sources said. The target of Israel's attack was said to be in northern Syria, near the Turkish border. A Middle East expert who interviewed one of the pilots involved said they operated under such strict operational security that the airmen flying air cover for the attack aircraft did not know the details of the mission. The pilots who conducted the attack were briefed only after they were in the air, he said. Syrian authorities said there were no casualties. U.S. sources would discuss the Israeli intelligence, which included satellite imagery, only on condition of anonymity, and many details about the North Korean-Syrian connection remain unknown. The quality of the Israeli intelligence, the extent of North Korean assistance and the seriousness of the Syrian effort are uncertain, raising the possibility that North Korea was merely unloading items it no longer needed. Syria has actively pursued chemical weapons in the past but not nuclear arms -- leaving some proliferation experts skeptical of the intelligence that prompted Israel's attack. Syria and North Korea both denied this week that they were cooperating on a nuclear program. Bush refused to comment yesterday on the attack, but he issued a blunt warning to North Korea that "the exportation of information and/or materials" would affect negotiations under which North Korea would give up its nuclear programs in exchanges for energy aid and diplomatic recognition. "To the extent that they are proliferating, we expect them to stop that proliferation, if they want the six-party talks to be successful," he said at a news conference, referring to negotiations that also include China, Japan, South Korea and Russia. Unlike its destruction of an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, Israel made no announcement of the recent raid and imposed strict censorship on reporting by the Israeli media. Syria made only muted protests, and Arab leaders have remained silent. As a result, a daring and apparently successful attack to eliminate a potential nuclear threat has been shrouded in mystery. "There is no question it was a major raid. It was an extremely important target," said Bruce Riedel, a former intelligence officer at Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. "It came at a time the Israelis were very concerned about war with Syria and wanted to dampen down the prospects of war. The decision was taken despite their concerns it could produce a war. That decision reflects how important this target was to Israeli military planners." Israel has long known about Syria's interest in chemical and even biological weapons, but "if Syria decided to go beyond that, Israel would think that was a real red line," Riedel said. Edward Djerejian, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria and founding director of Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy, said that when he was in Israel this summer he noticed "a great deal of concern in official Israeli circles about the situation in the north," in particular whether Syria's young ruler, Bashar al-Assad, "had the same sensitivity to red lines that his father had." Bashar succeeded his Hafez al-Assad as president of Syria in 2000. The Israeli attack came just three days after a North Korean ship docked at the Syrian port of Tartus, carrying a cargo that was officially listed as cement. The ship's role remains obscure. Israeli sources have suggested it carried nuclear equipment. Others have maintained that it contained only missile parts, and some have said the ship's arrival and the attack are merely coincidental. One source suggested that Israel's attack was prompted by a fear of media leaks on the intelligence. The Bush administration's wariness when presented with the Israeli intelligence contrasts with its reaction in 2002, when U.S. officials believed they had caught North Korea building a clandestine nuclear program in violation of a nuclear-freeze deal arranged by the Clinton administration. After the Bush administration's accusation, the Clinton deal collapsed and North Korea restarted a nuclear reactor, stockpiled plutonium and eventually conducted a nuclear test. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice convinced Bush this year to accept a deal with North Korea to shut down the reactor, infuriating conservatives inside and outside the administration. But for years, Bush has also warned North Korea against engaging in nuclear proliferation, specifically making that a red line that could not be crossed after North Korea tested a nuclear device last year. The Israeli intelligence therefore suggested North Korea was both undermining the agreement and crossing that line. Conservative critics of the administration's recent diplomacy with North Korea have seized on reports of the Israeli intelligence as evidence that the White House is misguided if it thinks it can ever strike a lasting deal with Pyongyang. "However bad it might be for the six-party talks, U.S. security requires taking this sort of thing seriously," said John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who was a top arms control official in Bush's first term. But advocates of engagement have accused critics of trying to sabotage the talks. China on Monday abruptly postponed a round of six-party talks scheduled to begin this week, but U.S. officials now say the talks should start again Thursday. Some North Korean experts said they are puzzled why, if the reports are true, Pyongyang would jeopardize the hard-won deal with the United States and the other four countries. "It does not make any sense at all in the context of the last nine months," said Charles "Jack" Pritchard, a former U.S. negotiator with North Korea and now president of the Korea Economic Institute.