SUNDAY, JUNE 12. 2005
SECURITY DANGER - US SANCTIONS ISRAEL'S OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY
[FREEMAN CENTER NOTE: PLEASE READ MY EDITORIAL FROM MAY 1999 BELOW TO SEE HOW AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY ANTI-ISRAEL.]
[IMRA: US sanctions impair Israel's operational capability, US demands veto on Israeli sales while unrestricted US sales to Arabs continue
If Prime Minister Ariel Sharon thought that Washington's "reward" for
retreating from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria would be long term in nature, American sanctions - including a freeze on the supply of night
vision equipment which could harm the IDF's operative activity send a clear message that he was terribly mistaken.
Does this mean that the Arabs are fools when they spend billions of dollars on American weapons that, according to the very same American authorities involved in the sale, have no significance?
Or, alternatively, does this mean that the American government believes that the people in the Congressional oversight committees that should be monitoring compliance with the requirement that sales to the Arabs not tip the scales are fools?
And while on the topic - why is it that a quick check of the AIPAC website
www.aipac.org finds no mention of the issue of American weapons sales to the Arabs? The word "Tabuk" - the Saudi air force base near Israel's border where, in gross violation of an American commitment the Saudis deploy American jets - does not even appear anywhere in the AIPAC website. ]
U.S. To ISRAEL: TIGHTEN CONTROL OF ARMS EXPORTS
By Ze'ev Schiff, Haaretz Correspondent 12 June 2005
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/587093.html
WASHINGTON - The crisis between Israel and the United States over the sale
of assault unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) to China is deepening: The U.S.
has been imposing harsh sanctions on Israel for a few months now, following
the dispute between the two states over the sale of the drones.
The moves, which are damaging to Israel, involve undermining security deals
and information exchanges on advanced weapons systems, and freezing
shipments of military equipment required for operative activity.
The U.S. has made three demands of Israel in order to settle the crisis,
involving supervision of defense industry exports and coordination with the
United States.
The controversy erupted over a deal Israel made to sell its Harpy Killer
UAVs to China. The U.S. claims that the deal was made behind its back and
against its express wishes.
In 2000 Israel canceled the sale of Falcon airplanes to China following U.S.
pressure.
The U.S.'s first demand is that Israel provide it with details of more than
60 deals it made with China in recent years, so that Washington could assess
the damage caused to its security, if any.
Mofaz has appointed former Air Force commander Major General Herzl Bodinger
to settle this issue with Washington.
The second demand is a close examination of the Israeli security equipment
supervision system. Washington wants to know how "holes" are created in the
system, how those who break regulations are punished and why the government
is not directly involved in the supervision.
The third demand is the formulation of a memorandum of understanding (MOU)
about arms sales. Sources in the U.S. administration say it will be possible
to draft the MOU once the differences over the Israeli supervision are
ironed out.
The controversy triggered a personal trust crisis between outgoing U.S.
Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith and Defense Ministry
Director General Amos Yaron. Recently, however, the dispute deepened and
expanded into several security areas that could gravely damage Israel.
The sanctions against Israel were approved by the highest ranking American
officials. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice approved them about seven months ago, and they were imposed
with the knowledge of Steve Hadley, national security adviser to President
George W. Bush.
This is contrary to the Israeli assumption that the crisis would blow over
with the departure of the officials with whom the argument had erupted.
These include Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who already left
for the World Bank, Feith and Undersecretary of Defense for Technology,
Security Policy and Counterproliferation Lisa Bronson. Feith and Bronson are
soon to end their tenures in the defense department.
Israel has agreed to the Americans' demand that it change its supervision
regulations on security exports. However, an Israeli delegation to
Washington failed to settle differences on this in recent days.
The sanctions have been imposed on Israel's entire security industry, not
merely on plants that made deals with China. One company that could be
damaged, although it did not make arms deals with China, is Elbit. Elbit is
contending with other companies in the U.S. to sell equipment for the
advanced F-22 Raptor aircraft. So far it has competed successfully against a
British company, but it is feared that if the crisis continues the Americans
may prefer the latter.
The Americans have also suspended technological cooperation with the Israel
Air Force on the future Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft. Air Force
Commander Major General Eliezer Shakedi recently visited the U.S. and voiced
his fears regarding the operative effects of the sanctions.
The U.S. has halted cooperation on a large advanced simulation system for
the IDF's ground forces, dealing with the future battlefield, and stopped
the information exchange on Hunter 2, the assault UAV Israel is developing
with an American company.
The crisis has disrupted the contacts of senior Defense Ministry officials
with their counterparts in the American Defense Ministry, who are not
responding to telephone calls from Israel. A meeting of a strategic work
team that convenes every six months was put off.
Yaron has recently written to Deputy Minister of Defense Gordon England, who
replaced Wolfowitz, suggesting settling the crisis. But England replied only
to Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz.
The U.S. is also holding up a shipment of night vision equipment. Some of
the equipment disappeared from one of the shipments, and an Israeli probe
indicates it was stolen before the goods left the U.S. Meanwhile, Washington
has declared a freeze on all such equipment shipments to Israel, which could
harm the IDF's operative activity.
Following the crisis, one can sense the repulsion toward Israel among lower-
and middle-ranking officials in Washington. More and more of them are saying
that it is not worth doing business with Israel.
==========================================
The editorial below was written for the May 1999 issue of The Maccabean Online
AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY AND ISRAEL
A Maccabean Perspective by Bernard J. Shapiro
This article is quite critical of American Foreign Policy, therefore, I would like to say a few positive things up front. The American people when properly polled come out consistently in support of Israel. There are at least 50 million Evangelical Christians who are friends and dedicated supporters of Israel. Many of America's presidents have bucked the US State Department to help Israel with arms and money. The US Congress and Senate have consistently been friends of Israel. Martin Luther King, Jr. expressed his love of Israel many times. My own grandfather, for whom the Freeman Center was named, expressed his love of America upon his arrival on our shores:
"But what a change in life upon arriving in America - Free America. Here I suddenly found myself unbridled, the air free, no stifling, atmosphere - I could give free _expression to the cravings of my soul! Life began to have a different meaning. What a blessing to have free assemblage, free speech free press! Can an American who has always enjoyed these blessings appreciate what it means to one who was deprived of them until manhood?"
Unfortunately there are institutions in America that don't love Israel as much as most of us do. Israel's relations with America go back even before statehood in 1948. During the critical years of WWII, the Zionist community of both America and Israel appealed to President Franklin Roosevelt to take action to stop the Holocaust. They were rebuffed at every turn. It was apparent that neither America nor any of its allies were very interested in saving Jewish lives. England was the most persuasive when arguing that the Jews saved would want to go to Palestine. This would anger the Arabs and should be avoided at all cost. It is true that European Jewry would have been a vast reservoir of new citizens for the emerging State of Israel. Their sheer numbers would have eliminated the Arab demographic problem in the new State. American policy came down solidly on the side of dead Jews as opposed to live Jews.
When Israel declared its independence in 1948, we were all pleased that the American president, Harry S. Truman, made America the first nation in the world to recognize the Jewish State. Yet even here there was a dark side to American Foreign Policy. The State Department had argued in vain against the recognition of Israel. When they didn't succeed at that they successfully placed an embargo of arms to Middle Eastern States. Seemingly neutral it only affected Israel since the British and French were arming the Arabs. So we have the spectacle of American recognition of Israel's independence while at the same time refusing the arms it needed to survive, to defend their lives.
Following Israel's Sinai Campaign in 1956, Eisenhower and Dulles forced Israel to withdraw with little political gain. Two "benefits" appeared to be: a UN Force in Sinai to guarantee free passage for Israel in the Gulf of Eilat; and an American promise to guarantee such free passage. In 1967 the UN Force disappeared, as did the American promise, which the State Department claimed they could not verify.
In the period since 1967, the US State Department has devoted an excessive amount of time developing and promoting plans to force Israeli withdrawal to the 'suicide' borders of pre-1967. With amazing regularity, the State Department has failed to be honest about violations of the agreements it has negotiated between the Arabs and Israelis. The US has been blind to Arab violations from the failure to see missile movements in Egypt (1970-76) to the failure to see Palestinian violations of the Oslo and Wye Agreements. This US blindness has always been one way. The Israelis are subjected to constant misinterpretations of agreements. For example, never having agreed to a freeze in Jewish building, US spy satellites are active daily counting houses in YESHA. And then publicly rebuking Israel for a normal activity of a sovereign country.
In order to pressure Israel, stories appear on a regular basis claiming that Israel is transferring American technology to third parties. In every case they are proven false, but the constant repetition is meant to weaken Israel diplomatically. The State Department has orchestrated a media campaign to damage Israel's reputation in general and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in particular. A few examples:
1. Netanyahu is the "hardline" PM of Israel while other world leaders are Statesman. Arafat is a 'leader'
2. Ethnic cleansing is bad in Kosovo but the ethnic cleansing of Jews from YESHA is good
3. All disputed land in YESHA 'belongs' to Arabs even when Israel has clear title
4. All foreign capitals are recognized 'except Jerusalem'
5. Israeli soldiers defending themselves from attack have been treated by the media as the 'bad guy'
6. Rock throwers who can crush you skull have been treated as 'demonstrators or protesters' by the media
7. Jewish villages are 'settlements' and 'illegitimate' while Arab villages are all considered legitimate
The list could on but now we must say something that should have been said years ago. It is very important for Israel to disengage from its close embrace with American diplomacy. It should be obvious to all that American and Israeli interests differ markedly in relation to the negotiations with the Palestinians. America has by its own admission ceased to be either pro-Israel or a neutral mediator (the Americans claim to be 'even-handed'). American policy in the final analysis will leave Israel with indefensible borders and an irredentist Palestinian neighbor yearning for all the land "from the river to the sea." Then, of course, they will also want Jordan.
Much more can be gained for Israel by negotiating directly with the Arabs. This used to be Israeli policy. In reality, Arafat has ceased negotiating with Israel and now is negotiating only with Washington.
It may be necessary to give up American aid dollars and possibly weapons to break out of the current US embrace. It will certainly be difficult, but in the end, there will exist a truly free and sovereign Israel. The alternative is to learn nothing from history: placing Israel's destiny in America's hands as was done during WWII. America won the war, but 90% of Europe's Jews were already dead. I would prefer Israel to survive.
INSS Insight No. 237, January 12, 2011
Stein, Shimon]
Earlier today we sent a more accurate analysis:
US Aid to Israel Not Worth the ’Real Cost,’ Researcher Says
P.O. Box 35661 * Houston, Texas 77235-5661
Phone or Fax: 713-723-6016 * E-mail: bernards@sbcglobal.net
Self-Inflicted Ignorance Is Suicide
The Freeman Center Is A Defense Against Ignorance
threat, and clearly this impacts attitudes on how to resolve the crisis...
United States-Israel Relations: Is Anything Forever?
INSS Insight No. 237, January 12, 2011
Stein, Shimon
The 112th Congress, elected in November 2010, convened on January 5, 2011.
Various Israeli elements have expressed satisfaction with the election
results – a resounding defeat for the Democrats and President Obama and a
rise in the GOP’s power – because they believe that Israel can take
advantage of the Republicans’ achievement to curb undesirable ideas and
initiatives by the administration. Time will tell if their assessment proves
right.
One of the few subjects on which there is unanimity in Israel has to do with
the country’s relations with the United States. Without a doubt, this
relationship is special, if not unique. Some within the Israeli political
establishment feel this relationship is immune to any change, and on more
than one occasion this assumption has led Israeli governments to adopt
positions that disregard Israel’s tremendous dependence on the United States
in matters of foreign policy and security. In other words, as far as these
individuals are concerned, the fundamental assumption about the relationship
is that it is forever – that what was once will be forever.
America’s attitude to Israel rests on three major pillars. The first is the
idealistic dimension in United States foreign policy: America’s commitment
to fight for and defend democracies abroad. Since Israel is a democracy,
supporting Israel is an American interest. The second is the American Jewish
community, which serves as a bridge between Israel and the American people.
The third pillar is shared security and foreign affairs interests. During
the Cold War, the Soviet Union was the common enemy in every way. Since the
end of the Cold War, a shared interest has been the war on terrorism, as
terrorism is viewed as a common threat and as such is supposed to ally the
two nations (although unlike Israel, America has made no official
declarations linking al-Qaeda terrorism to Palestinian terrorism aimed at
Israel). In Israel’s view, the Iranian threat, first and foremost the
nuclear challenge, is another threat linking the two nations.
How strong are these pillars today? Are cracks appearing in them, liable to
affect their stability? Official American statements reiterate the two
nations’ shared values and the commitment to Israel as a Jewish state.
However, Israel’s conduct in Judea and Samaria on the one hand and the
growing extremism and intolerance in Israeli society on the other are liable
to erode Israel’s image as a democracy in the eyes of the American public.
Within the American Jewish community there are segments unwilling to
automatically accept Israeli government positions on the Palestinian issue
(just as in a different vein they are unwilling to cede to Israel’s official
position on matters of Jewish ritual law) and are prepared to publicly
oppose the Jewish establishment for its blind support of Israeli government
policy. These voices are not unknown to the American administration.
Consider, for example, the presence of National Security Advisor Jones at
the anti-establishment J Street conference, although no official
representatives of Israel attended; J Street is known for its public
criticism of Israeli government policy. In addition, statements such as the
one by General Petraeus, whereby the Israeli-Palestinian conflict creates an
anti-American atmosphere and challenges the ability of the United States to
promote its interests in the Middle East are disturbing; so too is the
question posed lately (not for the first time) with greater force by certain
circles about Israel being an asset or a burden. These are challenges to the
prevailing Israeli assumption about Israel’s contribution to the lasting,
unshakable fact of the nations’ shared interests.
President Obama’s approach to international relations in general and to
relations with the Muslim and Arab world and the Israeli-Palestinian issue
in particular has differed from that of President Bush. In an attempt to
learn from the mistakes of his predecessors, who postponed their attempts to
solve the conflict to the end of their terms in office, President Obama
decided to tackle the issue right at the start. There is no doubt that his
decision to turn the end/freeze of Jewish settlement in the territories into
a pivotal condition even before the start of the dialogue was one of the
reasons the talks went nowhere. The Palestinians were able to stand on the
side watching the US try to promote their interests without having to enter
into the negotiations themselves. At the same time, a crisis developed in
the relationship between Israel and America (one of its results being a loss
of trust between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, which may
continue to mar their relations for as long as each is in office). The
far-reaching, generous benefits package that America was reportedly willing
to grant symbolized the great importance the administration – justifiably or
not – attributed to extending the construction freeze for another three
months, with the hope (it is unclear what this hope was based on) that in
this period of time there would occur a significant breakthrough on some of
the core issues. The failure of the American effort represented the end of a
chapter from the administration’s perspective; this will no doubt negatively
affect future relations between the nations.
It remains to be seen if the president, whose status and chances for
reelection do not depend on his success or failure to resolve the conflict
but rather on his ability to stimulate the American economy and create jobs,
will decide to become personally involved in the effort to force the parties
to abandon their current positions and enter into negotiations on the core
issues. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s December 2010 speech at the
Saban Forum did not indicate explicitly what approach President Obama may
adopt should he decide to intensify his efforts on the issue.
Continued American activity, and certainly increased involvement, will yet
again expose the fundamental differences of opinion regarding the strategy
and tactics of negotiations. The Iranian nuclear issue, too, beyond the
level of official declarations, also reveals disagreements between Israel
and the United States, stemming from their different geographical locations
and balance of interests. Unlike Israel, the United States does not view
Iran as an existential threat, and clearly this impacts attitudes on how to
resolve the crisis.
It should be noted that alongside political disagreements, the Obama
administration has worked to intensify security relations between the
nations, believing that strengthening Israel’s security enlarges its room
for political maneuvering in the context of negotiations. At the same time,
it strengthens Israel’s deterrence vis-Ã -vis the regional threats against
it, first and foremost the Iranian threat and its regional derivatives.
In the final analysis, as a nation lacking alternatives in terms of
strategic alliances, Israel must do its utmost to preserve the support of
the United States, its only ally. Conduct that assumes symmetry in the
relations, as well as some sort of determinism in terms of American support
for Israel, jeopardizes this special relationship. It is imperative that
Israel's leaders make every effort to maintain the relations, which, given
the environment of change the United States is facing in the coming decades,
cannot be taken for granted.
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
SECURITY DANGER - US SANCTIONS ISRAEL'S OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY
It should be noted that the American supply of the most advanced weapons systems to Israel neighbors takes place without any serious examination of the consequences of the sales. Instead they are covered by the following circular logic: since sales to the Arabs are restricted by law not to change the balance between Israel and the Arabs, by definition any sales to the Arabs does not have an impact on the balance. Thus there is the dubious assertion that the supply of billions of dollars of advanced weapons is of no significance.
The Freeman Center wishes to apologize to its readers for sending out this stupid and inaccurate analysis of American Israeli Relations.
[ United States-Israel Relations: Is Anything Forever?
[Freeman Note: Please read my earlier articles: Click on link:
Shevat 7, 5771, 12 January 11 02:12
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu(Israelnationalnews.com) Israel is paying through the nose for US aid and would better off without it, says a researcher for the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies (JIMS).
FREEMAN CENTER BROADCAST - JANUARY 12, 2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For Zion's sake I will not hold my peace
and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest." Isaiah 62.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FREEMAN CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES
OUR WEB SITE (URL): < www.freeman. org >< /FONT>
=============
Ignorance Is Weakness - Know The Truth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unlike Israel, the United States does not view Iran as an existential
....Dr. Aaron Lerner
Posted by
Britannia Radio
at
21:44
Posts
