U.S. Arms Sales to Israel End Up In China, Iraq

[elena_m]

Published on Thursday, May 9, 2002 by CommonDreams.org
U.S. Arms Sales to Israel End Up In China, Iraq
by Jonathan Reingold

Bill Clinton spoke at Hunter College in New York on Tuesday, challenging President Bush to send American troops as part of an international peacekeeping force to the Middle East. What many Americans don’t know is that U.S. forces might as well be there already.

From 1990 to 2000 U.S. military aid to Israel totaled over $18 billion. No other nation in the world has such a close relationship with the U.S. military and arms industry.

The UN, Amnesty International and other groups have raised questions about the extent the to which U.S. military aid is abetting human rights abuses by Israeli forces operating in the West Bank. These debates will no doubt continue for some time. In the mean time, however, there is another aspect of the American-Israeli relationship that may have an even greater impact on U.S. and Israeli security in the long run: the ongoing transfer of American arms technology from Israel to potential U.S. (and Israeli) adversaries around the globe.

From the most sophisticated warplanes to tank engines, artillery systems and armored vehicles, the United States is Israel's one-stop shopping center. Last year alone the U.S. sold one hundred top-of-the-line F-16s to Israel for a total of over $3 billion. That same year Israel purchased 9 of the newest Apache helicopter version equipped with the Longbow Radar system. The helicopter-buying spree didn't end with the Apaches. Israel bought fifteen Cobra attack helicopters last year along with twenty-four Black Hawk transport helicopters.

Besides selling aircraft, the United States is also Israel's preferred vendor for missiles. Although Israel has designed its own version of the U.S. air-to-air AIM9 sidewinder missile, the Python 3, it still relies on the U.S. for its ground attack technology. Two years ago Lockheed Martin sold Israel approximately 80 AGM-142D Popeye air-to-surface missiles. Israel also buys the AGM65 Maverick air-to-surface missile produced by Hughes and Raytheon.

In addition, the U.S. sells Israel the engines for its "indigenous" Merkava main battle tank. In 1999 Israel purchased 400 power packs for their Merkava fleet. The Merkava was developed by Israel so that it wouldn't have to rely on "fickle" countries like Britain, France or Russia when it was in the midst of a conflict.

Transactions between the U.S. and Israel are not necessarily worrisome by themselves; after all, as Israel has proved, there are a host of countries willing to sell the weapons it needs. Currently, Germany is Israel's source for submarines, and if Israel really needed fighters, Russia is always looking to make a buck and always seems to have a surfeit of aircraft and other excess defense articles.

The real danger comes in Israel's habit of reverse engineering U.S. technology and selling to nations hostile to U.S. interests. Israel's client list includes Cambodia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, the South Lebanon Army, India, China, Burma and Zambia. The U.S. has most recently warmed up to India and is now in fact competing with Israel for arms sales there, but the other Israeli customers remain dubious at best.

Perhaps the most troubling of all is the Israeli/Chinese arms relationship. Israel is China's second largest supplier of arms. Coincidentally, the newest addition to the Chinese air force, the F-10 multi-role fighter, is an almost identical version of the Lavi (Lion). The Lavi was a joint Israeli-American design based upon the F-16 for manufacture in Israel, but financed mostly with American aid. Plagued by cost overruns, it was canceled in 1987, but not before the U.S. spent $1.5 billion on the project.

Last April, when the Navy EP-3E surveillance plane was forced to land in China after a Chinese F-8 fighter flew into its propeller, photos show Israeli built Python 3 missiles under the fighter's wings.

If Israeli weapons sales to China induce misgivings, including the most recent U.S. blocked sale of Israel's Phalcon airborne radar, the beneficiaries of Chinese arms transfers of Israeli-American technology are even more disturbing. In 1996, as disclosed in the UN Register of Conventional Arms, China sold over 100 missiles and launchers to Iran, along with a handful of combat aircraft and warships. Even worse, in 1997 the New York Daily News reported that Iraq had deployed Israeli-developed, Chinese PL-8 missiles in the no-fly zones, endangering American pilots.

Americans deserve to know where their money is being spent, and how money allocated for friends and technology shared with friends can all too easily end up in the wrong hands, threatening all parties involved. At a minimum, discussions on a new security framework for the Middle East should include plans to monitor and restrict Israeli transfers of U.S.-origin military equipment to potential adversaries. Otherwise, this deadly technology could come back to haunt U.S. and Israeli forces in future conflicts.

Jonathan Reingold is a research associate for the Arms Trade Resource Center at the World Policy Institute http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/
and a military analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/

[NewsGuy]

So what is your point, exactly? Instead of copying and pasting someone's anti-Israel opinion piece, why don't we hear from you directly, what is your point?

I can see that people who despise Israel, of course HATE the fact that Israel has an independent weapons industry. The fact is that Israel can manufacture its own Merkava tanks or its own Uzi and Galil machine guns, as well as missiles and war-planes like the Lavi.

Someone needs to tell Mr. Reingold that it is within Israel's right to modify, improve and resell the weapons systems it buys from the US and other countries, and when the US objected to Israel's proposed sale to China, that sales was CANCELLED by Israel.

So, basically, Reingold is entitled to his opinion, but it doesn't mean he is correct. He apparently is having amnesia about 2 things:

1. The right to combine parts of foreign-made weapons systems into other original Israeli weapons systems is governed by contracts. If anyone has a problem, they can approach it from a breach of contract standpoint. So far, I've seen no such action against Israel, but rather, just the usual Arab-apologist drivel. When the US made an official request to Israel, that request was handled and resolved along time ago.

2. The biggest danger of US weapons comes from being sold to Arab countries, from which Islamic terrorists are launched against Israel and the US, as we've seen on 9-11. The Saudi terrorists of al Qeada and the Egyptian right-hand of Osama bin Ladin caused the massacre of 3,000 Americans and the loss of untold billions of dollars to the US economy.

Nonetheless, the US continues to sell weapons to the Saudis (whose ENTIRE military infrastructure was built by the US) and the US' second largest recipient of military equipment is Egypt.

These sales of advanced US weaponry to corrupt Arab dictatorships are very alarming and should be the real focus of US and international investigation.

[elena_m]

other than informing there's no other point....

if you're doing a tit for tat enjoy the game with another

[Mediocrates]

But what you describe is transfers of technology of Israeli origin to other countries. The examples you list are specifically Israeli arms not US arms.

"The real danger comes in Israel's habit of reverse engineering U.S. technology and selling to nations hostile to U.S. interests. Israel's client list includes Cambodia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, the South Lebanon Army, India, China, Burma and Zambia. The U.S. has most recently warmed up to India and is now in fact competing with Israel for arms sales there, but the other Israeli customers remain dubious at best. "

Those are countries that US does business with as well. So clearly it is acceptable to you for Lockeed and Raytheon to sell via the US government, to these countries directly but not for this third party, Israel to do so. Moreover the US, who as we already discussed is exempt from your criticism also sells its own technology to Saudi Arabia and this technology as in the recent transfer of advanced F16s is in fact more advanced than can be procured by the US Air Force.

The main technology transfer problem between Israel and the US concerned the sale of Israeli developed AWACS technology to the PRC. This was stopped at the behest of the US because they did not want to quid pro quo an advanced Aegis-like navionics system to Taiwan and the cost it would incur.

[elena_m]

"acceptable"

not at all
I've always found it quite interesting that the superpower regurgitating "axis of evil" is continually conscious of arm deals caterring to supposed enemies...they freely sell their shipments to allies who graciously then feed to the chain.....

the US knows but is indifferent due to the fattenning of pockets
the hypocrisy is beautiful
alive and well

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by elena_m
other than informing there's no other point....

if you're doing a tit for tat enjoy the game with another

The purpose of this forum is not provide you with a podium to "inform" (or dis-inform) the world of your anti-Israel copy-and-pastes. Instead, we are here to discuss and to debate the issues.

If this doesn't work for you, and you are just seeking a news group to distribute your baseless anti-Israel propaganda and then evade opposing opinions, then please feel free to "enjoy the game with another" forum.

Plenty of anti-Israel members have figured out how to participate here and be heard, so maybe you should take some more time to figure it out too before starting more new threads.

[Mediocrates]

That's I guess the downside of 'most favored nation' status - globalization cuts both ways. If you want to export embargo military technology you will do as much to upset various countries in the world.

[elena_m]

"anti israel"

ah you're one of those, I see

any form of criticism of Israel is stapled as anti-semitic, anti-Israel...how perfectly convenient....

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by elena_m
"acceptable"

not at all
I've always found it quite interesting that the superpower regurgitating "axis of evil" is continually conscious of arm deals caterring to supposed enemies...they freely sell their shipments to allies who graciously then feed to the chain.....

the US knows but is indifferent due to the fattenning of pockets
the hypocrisy is beautiful
alive and well

Some things you are overlooking:

1. Military arms can be used for aggression, or they can be used strictly in self defense.

2. It's difficult, if not impossibe, to prevent countries from buying arms.

3. Contrary to your assertion above, the U.S. does block specific sales.

4. The U.S. believes that as countries move towards democracy they become better world citizens.

You find fault with the U.S. for selling arms that are necessary for self-defense, but what really bothers you is that the U.S. has branded the gov'ts of Iran, Iraq, and N. Korea as an Axis of Evil.

Sounds like a case of condemning the world's main (if imperfect) defender of freedom, while defending countries that practice naked aggression and terrorism abroad while brutally suppressing their own people at home.

Talk about hypocrisy...

[elena_m]

defenders of freedom?



clearly we'll fail to comprehend eachother

[elena_m]

and bothers me...no

you've perfectly added to the hypocrisy
Iraq and Iran were both conveniently fed arms for yrs by the supposed defender of freedom....

once the regimes were unwilling to scratch the back of the USA they were perfectly stapled as enemies who my goodness "make horrific violations towards human rights"


I guess you never heard of the Carlyle group, or Pinochet for that matter.

[Mediocrates]

Have you heard of German weapons sales to Libya and both sides in the Somalian conflict? Have you heard of Cuban troops in Angola and Namibia and Ethiopia? Or French missile sales to whomever has hard currency? During the Falklands is was ironically the Hundred Years War fought all over again with French missiles sinking British ships. Or perhaps the greatest "Peace Dividend" of all the wholesale transplant of Russian weapons around the world in exchange for anything fungible.

True enough in most of the those cases there is nothing motivating it beyond simple money with no politics attached - but how is that preferable? It's not simply a case of the big bad US shipping arms around the world. Why is that? Well for one reason the US has to remain engaged because of the high tech high maintenace of the systems they sell. Whereas a rifle is a rifle and you can sell 10 million rifles and forget about it... I think that's where you see the difference in political vs. non political involvment. For example out involvement in Saudi Airbases has as much to do with training and maintenance contracts for the equipment we've already sold them as it does any higher geopolitical gamesmanship.

But at any rate, yes US weapons sales are one expression of its foreign policy. I think though that in Israel's case its simply trade and trade partners. In a world where there are few partners willing to admit they trade with you you sell simply to who you can. The EU is Israels largest trading bloc yet the EU wants and needs little military technology from Israel so they go to other markets but it is rather self serving to claim that out of all the industrialized nations in the world only the US has the audacity to lack a concience when discussing arms sales. Toxic waste kills lots of people and the EU loves to dispose of it in non EU countries - go figure ?!?!

[elena_m]

and where did I declare that the USA was solely worthy of the criticism?

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by elena_m
and where did I declare that the USA was solely worthy of the criticism?

ah... I think we're just now getting to the bottom of it.

Let's see, you criticise Israel, you criticise the US, who else do you blame?

[elena_m]

is that how you'd like to package my post?

it's easier that way?

fine my friend, do so... no harm done.