Palin vs Petreaus..and what about US Troops

[TM7]

Palin discounts Gen Petreaus than changes her mind..Was this while campaigning for McCain in Arizona who his up for re-election.?

Then Palin backtracking around the game board later..Petraeus says Israel jeopardizing US Troops...Moslems say, Huh!? Then a call once again to close ranks with key 'ally'.

fyi from ministryvalues.com      ..TM7

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Sarah Palin says U.S. Military Wrong on Israel, Netanyahu, and Middle East" 
                                                                                                                               

"General David Petraeus dispatched a team to brief the Joint Chiefs and the White House on the danger continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict posed to US troops in the Middle East."  Mark Perry



Former Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin, has now joined those willing to criticize Obama on foreign policy grounds. She is  weighing in with  Republican critics of his confrontation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 

Sarah Palin by all accounts is a quick study but we are not certain she understands that the United States is at war in the Middle East, that Obama is Commander and Chief and that the United States military including our troops have some skin in the game when it comes to Israeli policy and the  behavior of that country's leadership. The United States has now said US troops may be put at risk by continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In her confrontation with Obama she writes: "The Obama Administration reaches out to some of the world’s worst regimes in the name of their engagement policy. America and our allies watch as sanctions are eased on Cuba. Letters are written to Iran’s mullahs only to see that regime start killing protestors in the streets of Tehran. Envoys are sent to North Korea as they continue to defy the world’s demand to give up their nuclear weapons.  In the midst of all this embracing of enemies, where does the Obama Administration choose to escalate a minor incident into a major diplomatic confrontation? With Iran, Cuba, Sudan, North Korea or Burma? No. With our treasured ally, Israel."   

However, she and her fellow Republicans may find themselves back tracking if reports continue to come from the U.S. military that Netanyahu's hard line policies are putting US troops at risk. The slap in the face by Israel some are suggesting  was not only felt by Vice President Joe Biden, but  the strike has been felt by the United States military brass, and they are none to happy.

Huffington Post reported an amazing story  that originated in Foreign Policy  written by Mark Perry, the Middle East expert and security consultant which is reverberating throughout the Country and soon to be in the evangelical world. read here 

In the  Huffington article "Perry reports that the startling and unpredicted US -Israel smackdown did not really start in Jerusalem this week. It began months ago when CENTCOM Commander General David Petraeus dispatched a team to brief the Joint Chiefs and the White House on the danger continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict posed to US troops in the Middle East."

The 33-slide, 45-minute PowerPoint briefing stunned Admiral Mullen. The briefers reported that there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM's mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region, and that Mitchell himself was (as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) "too old, too slow ... and too late." 


The White House was so  stunned by the report it decided to act. According to Huffington Post " Its first move was to dispatch Vice President Biden to Israel and Palestine to announce the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Prime Minister Netanyahu''s government tried to abort the US policy shift (and avoid negotiations) by announcing the new settler units in East Jerusalem. But the attempt blew up in Bibi's face when Obama, Biden, and Clinton reacted with public fury at the unprecedented public diss of the US by an ally and #1 foreign aid recipient."

Huffington Post added "Perry concludes that the "lobby" that argued for the policy shift is even more powerful than AIPAC."

There are important and powerful lobbies in America: the NRA, the American Medical Association, the lawyers -- and the Israeli lobby. But no lobby is as important, or as powerful, as the U.S. military. While commentators and pundits might reflect that Joe Biden's trip to Israel has forever shifted America's relationship with its erstwhile ally in the region, the real break came in January, when David Petraeus sent a briefing team to the Pentagon with a stark warning: America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers. Maybe Israel gets the message now.

We reported earlier today that this stunning announcement may have a dramatic impact on foreign policy initiatives of many right wing evangelical groups which are huge supporters of Sarah Palin.  Now groups like Christians United for Isreal (CUFI)  may need to rethink their aggressive policies towards the Middle East.

If the contents of the military reports gain traction in US media it may turn out that the Evangelicals' and Sarah Palin's call for unquestioned loyalty to the current  Israeli administration may be defending a policy that is putting American troops at risk. Such a position, of course, would put them dramatically at odds with their core supporters.  The last  thing the lay faithful of the right wing evangelicals communities could ever accept from their leadership is a disagreement with US military strategy.   Sarah Palin's Tea Party would most certainly be over.

But it seems now right wing evangelical Superstar and Republican Presidential hopeful Sarah Palin is taking a big risk by  joining AIPAC and other influential leaders in criticizing US policy in the middle East. Sarah Palin needs to remind herself she is not just criticizing  the foreign policy of the Administration she is also questioning the policies of  Commander and Chief of the United States Armed Services.


Palin writes in a statement provided by an aide:

The Obama Administration reaches out to some of the world’s worst regimes in the name of their engagement policy. America and our allies watch as sanctions are eased on Cuba. Letters are written to Iran’s mullahs only to see that regime start killing protestors in the streets of Tehran. Envoys are sent to North Korea as they continue to defy the world’s demand to give up their nuclear weapons. The Burmese military junta’s representative is allowed to travel to our nation's capital. The President’s envoy for Sudan talks about giving that genocidal regime “gold stars,” while the President shakes hands with Venezuela’s tyrannical leader. In the midst of all this embracing of enemies, where does the Obama Administration choose to escalate a minor incident into a major diplomatic confrontation? With Iran, Cuba, Sudan, North Korea or Burma? No. With our treasured ally, Israel.

Last October, Secretary of State Clinton recognized Israel's desire for peace in the Middle East and praised Israel's “unprecedented” concessions for agreeing to halt settlement construction in the West Bank, a concession that did NOT include halting construction of apartments for Jews in Jerusalem. Even last week after planned construction was announced, Vice President Biden still expressed “appreciation” for the “significant” steps taken by the Israeli government to address this minor issue. Now, however, we see the Obama Administration has decided to escalate, make unilateral demands of Israel, and threaten the very foundation of the US-Israel relationship. This is quickly leading to the worst crisis in US-Israel relations in decades, and yet this did not have to happen. More importantly, it needs to stop before it spirals out of control. Vice President Biden should rein in the overheated Obama Administration rhetoric and chill the political spin masters' fire as they visit the Sunday media shows to criticize Israel.

Once again, the Obama Administration is missing the boat on a very, very important issue. They need to go back to the basics and acknowledge Palestinian leaders have not progressed any peace process since President Obama was elected. As Israel makes concessions (and is still criticized by the Obama Administration), Arab leaders are just sitting back waiting for the White House to further pressure Israel. The Obama Administration needs to open its eyes and recognize that it is only Iran and her terrorist allies that benefit from this manufactured Israeli controversy. Vice President Biden was actually right when he said last week, before the construction announcement, that “one necessary precondition for progress is that the rest of the world knows...there is absolutely no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to security.” Right now, thanks to the Obama Administration, there is a chasm. It's time for President Obama to push the reset button on our relations with our ally Israel.


from ministryvalues.com      http://ministryvalues.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=869&Itemid=214

.....fyi...TM7
 

[rex6666]

HUFFINGTON POST
that says enough.
IMHO we should be letting the world know we will satand beside Isreal before kissing these others #####
how much help will we get from any of the others mentioned.

[FourBee]

But it seems now right wing evangelical Superstar and Republican Presidential hopeful Sarah Palin is taking a big risk.............. 

Romans 8:35  Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
Romans 8:36  As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

Though the whole world turn against Israel because of fear, evangelical christians will not :   Evangelical Christians will hold fast to the teachings of scripture which include the covenant God (El Shaddai) made with Abraham concerning the decendants of Isaac, Abraham and Sarah's son.

[rex6666]

HUFFINGTON POST
that says enough.
IMHO we should be letting the world know we will satand beside Isreal before kissing these others #####
how much help will we get from any of the others mentioned.

.
Petreaus apparently sent a 33 slide and report to the JOint Chiefs explaining how US military is directly jeopardized by Israeli actions some time ago. Admiral Mullen was shocked and POed...this got over to BHO and he decided to support his men in uniform as per his job discription; and to send Biden over to Tel Aviv to see what's up wherein he got a slap in the face. Apparently, you and Ms Palin do not believe Petreaus and Mullen to be on the ball and are all in favor of our troops being in harm for another country...unecessarily.  If it was up to me I'd return those bunker busters to America right now and cancel that F-35 deal.

The article is a Ministry Values article ... not a Huffington Post article.


..TM7


..

TM7
did you see or read the report from Petreaus or hear about it? did you actualy hear what Mullen had to say?
do you think the obama administration might manipulate the good generals.
why would he send Biden any where, should have known what would happen
their.

[teamnelson]

Oh, and by the way, Petreaus does not have the entire US Military lined up behind his thinking. That slide is his view of CENTCOM, but the article you posted from ministryvalues, and the 33 slide brief all operate on a basic and very scary assumption ... that we do not have the strength to provide our own security in the region. If the commander in theater has placed our welfare in the hands of diplomacy, then he has forgotten his oath.

That's essentially what Petraeus is saying - our troops are safe from the Arab

constituency

as long as we keep Israel on a leash. Really?

Again, I think Petraeus has been staring so long at the COIN manuals he's forgotten how to think like a conventional warrior. If he has allowed us to reach a position where our very safety is contingent on our ability to placate our

host

nations, then it is his burden to bear. No commander should ever place his troops in a position of security that is entirely dependent on the happiness of the locals, especially if they are the ones we're fighting in the 3 block model.

This is a deep issue from the perspective of military thinkers and strikes at how policy is directly impacting military doctrine. We are not State Department flunkies, we are warriors. And thats from a Chaplain ...

[FourBee]

Boo to Palin who is too thick to figure this out and an idealoque.

She's not too thick to figure this out at all, I don't think.  But being as you call it : an idealogue or what I interpret here as ~
ideologue
 "An often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of impractical doctrine or faith."
I agree.  From what she says, she fits in the not so popular evangelistic christian groove.

[jimster]

My opinion is Israel should do what it wants to do in order to survive regardless of Petraeus or Palin, or any of us.

The rest of the world can think it all out and have all kinds of opinions.  Israel has it's own opinions and that is what counts above anything else, they don't have to listen to any general from another country any more than we would.   

[teamnelson]

Petraeus' job description is commander of troops, troops trained in the arts of war. Not the arts of diplomacy, civil affairs, politics, or nation building. That is what we've been forced to learn over the last decade, begrudgingly, but its not been a good fit, and an officer of his rank should not be a sycophant. But he was chosen for that position because he will allow the government to use the military outside of its appropriate lane.

My quibble isn't with his assessment of the impact of Israel on the region. My quibble is that he allowed us to be sucked into the position we are in; part of the checks and balance system is that his job is to make sure the civilian government does not inappropriately employ the troops into a situation in which they're safety is contingent on constituency support. His concern should be that the mission does not drift outside the scope of what is appropriate to military operations. You applaud his concern for troops, and you've never met him. I have. My life for the last 4 years has been heavily influenced by his management. If he was really concerned for the troops, he would be vocalizing the concerns that I know his subordinates are addressing to him about the politicization of the mission, and how that has put us in the precarious position where our friends are killing us when we fail to pay contracts.

TM7, you really do not understand the relationship between policy and strategy; that's clear from your post. The military does not implement politics, it implements strategies tied to political objectives. But we are only one form of power - military power, warriorisms. There are other forms of power available to the government separate from DOD, like State, DOJ, etc. Would you use a flat head screwdriver as a hammer? No. But that is what Petraeus, and other sycophant leaders have allowed congress to do with us since the war on terror began, and its a wrong fit. He may have bought into your label of political officer, but the rest of the DOD has not, and we have some very clear laws that are supposed to protect us from the politicization of the military.

[teamnelson]

I am suggesting, as have many other more senior folks than I, that if the mission were not political, and strictly military in strategy as is our Title 10 mandate, that the activities in Israel would be of no threat to our troops on the ground. That's informed advice ... not pontificating. You've not been paying attention or you would know what level of access I have.

Tell you what, you keep guessing, assuming and labeling about how the military works, and I'll keep posting information, published military doctrine, and facts from within the military community, and let the chips fall where they lay.

[teamnelson]

Never asked for undue protection of military, just plausible investigation versus demonization or dehumanization as many if your posts suggest. What you tout as Petraeus' strengths are actually the very characteristics that play into your theories ... but they are anathema to actual military doctrine. I am a uniquely assigned Chaplain with a unique background, but never claimed to know more than anyone.

[Dee]

My opinion is Israel should do what it wants to do in order to survive regardless of Petraeus or Palin, or any of us.

The rest of the world can think it all out and have all kinds of opinions.  Israel has it's own opinions and that is what counts above anything else, they don't have to listen to any general from another country any more than we would.   

Amen brother! When the wolf is pounding on my door, I don't need any advice from my neighbor. Just call the wolf an ambulance, and tell them the wolf ain't breathin.

[BBF]

My opinion is Israel should do what it wants to do in order to survive regardless of Petraeus or Palin, or any of us.

The rest of the world can think it all out and have all kinds of opinions.  Israel has it's own opinions and that is what counts above anything else, they don't have to listen to any general from another country any more than we would.   

 Then have them do it on their own merit and resources. Resources that they have built themselves or payed for out of their own pockets without "gifts" from other Nations.

[jimster]

That's fine with me too...

Bottom line is it's their country, nobody elses...with "gifts" or without.  Nobody should have any say what they do except them. 

We all have opinions...but I doubt they mean anything to Israel...as it should be.  Last people they need advice from is us for cryring out loud. 
Just look at us...   Our Congress is for sale...as is our military. 

[wreckhog]

I have zero problem with Israel taking my money and doing whatever they want. Just call it a loan. If they are taking money and not paying it back, that is a problem.

[FourBee]

If they are taking money and not paying it back, that is a problem.

Wonder if that has anything to do with a report from the "Jewish Insittute for National Security Affairs"?
They made this  statement :  Briefly ~ Israel has lost it advantage over the Arabs regarding the quantity and quality of weapons.

Obama has approved more than $10 billion worth of arms sales to Arab League states including  Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates.

Over the last year, the United States refused to approve any major Israeli weapons requests.   The White House has blocked key weapons projects and upgrades for Israel.

[nomosendero]

If they are taking money and not paying it back, that is a problem.

Wonder if that has anything to do with a report from the "Jewish Insittute for National Security Affairs"?
They made this  statement :  Briefly ~ Israel has lost it advantage over the Arabs regarding the quantity and quality of weapons.

Obama has approved more than $10 billion worth of arms sales to Arab League states including  Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates.

Over the last year, the United States refused to approve any major Israeli weapons requests.   The White House has blocked key weapons projects and upgrades for Israel.

Hmmm, how bout that!!
I have no problem understanding where Obummer's loyalties lie.

[teamnelson]

Yup. But they have been innovators of our technology and we've benefited from their research so it's not been lopsided. Anybody shoot Winchester made in Israel ammo? They have nukes too.

So do we bear responsibility if we arm the Arab nations with a stated agenda to destroy Israel? I'd say so, but the white house sycophant ethics advisors don't thin we do.

[wreckhog]

If they are taking money and not paying it back, that is a problem.

Wonder if that has anything to do with a report from the "Jewish Insittute for National Security Affairs"?
They made this  statement :  Briefly ~ Israel has lost it advantage over the Arabs regarding the quantity and quality of weapons.

Obama has approved more than $10 billion worth of arms sales to Arab League states including  Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates.

Over the last year, the United States refused to approve any major Israeli weapons requests.   The White House has blocked key weapons projects and upgrades for Israel.

Israel has nukes. I seriously doubt that ANYTHING Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates could buy can provide any advantage over that.

In addition, Israel sells weapons, a lot of weapons, to China. Think it has anything to do with THAT?

[nomosendero]

If they are taking money and not paying it back, that is a problem.

Wonder if that has anything to do with a report from the "Jewish Insittute for National Security Affairs"?
They made this  statement :  Briefly ~ Israel has lost it advantage over the Arabs regarding the quantity and quality of weapons.

Obama has approved more than $10 billion worth of arms sales to Arab League states including  Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates.

Over the last year, the United States refused to approve any major Israeli weapons requests.   The White House has blocked key weapons projects and upgrades for Israel.

Israel has nukes. I seriously doubt that ANYTHING Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates could buy can provide any advantage over that.

Depends on whether we go bankrupt before Obummer funds them more next year!

[wreckhog]

Selling arms to China, or not 
 
By Ze'ev Schiff 
 
The Israeli-American crisis over the sale of an advanced technology weapons system to China has also turned into an Israeli-Chinese crisis in the wake of an American demand that Israel not return to the Chinese the Harpy assault drone that China recently acquired and which it sent back to Israel for an upgrade.  Advertisement
 


The firm demand was raised at a meeting between Israel's representatives and the Pentagon's representative, Lisa Bronson. The Pentagon is demanding that Israel in effect break its contract with China and not return the drones, which have already become part of the Chinese operational deployment. Israel's representatives were shocked by the demand, but American sources say that Israel will give in. Either way, Israel will be damaged by the double crisis.

The assault drone, which is mostly meant against targets like various sorts of radars, is produced by the Israel Aircrafts Industries. It is based on Israeli technology and some technology purchased from Germany, through which the system was originally planned to be manufactured. As in the case of the Phalcon plane, there is no American technology on board.

There are those in Israel who argue that is enough for Israel to sell the Harpy to whoever it wants. But life is not as simple as those who want to sell nearly everything think it is. Israel often pleads with the U.S. not to sell weapons based on American technology that could endanger Israel. Washington often complies, but it argues that there is an understanding with Israel not to sell weapons systems that could harm U.S. national security, and in every case to consult with it first. Israel argues, as in the case of the Phalcon, that it reported on time about the deal, and the Americans say that if that is true, they would have vehemently demanded the deal be voided. They add that European countries complied last year with the American embargo on arms sales to China.

Those who present the affair as if it is a conflict between Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith and Defense Ministry Director General Amos Yaron are ignoring the political reality. Even if Yaron leaves his post (he has meanwhile won "immunity" because of the incorrect reports about the demand he be fired), the argument/clash will not be considered without some decisions of principle. Feith, whose support for Israel needs no proving, won complete backing on the matter of the sales to China from his direct superior, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who is also a friend of Israel. Both are also known for their hawkish approach to China.

The problem is that Israel walked into the problem of a severe clash - and not for the first time - with many members of Congress who maintain an anti-China line. In recent weeks there were hysterical reports in the U.S. about Israeli advanced technology sales to China. It's been said, for example, that American soldiers defending Taiwan could be harmed by Israeli technologies, and American ships by the Harpy. A special congressional committee held hearings and heard some very tough remarks against Israel.

A key question that cannot be ignored is why such misunderstandings repeatedly come up between Israel and the U.S. regarding China. There's a series here: once it was about the sale of Lavie technologies to China, then about the supposed sale of the U.S.-made Patriot missile secrets to China. One time it was in the wake of the sale of advanced air-to-air missiles to China, and then came the Phalcon affair - and there are plenty of other examples.

It is impossible to win with the argument that Taiwan is trying to drive a wedge between Israel and the U.S.; or that we told the Americans, who apparently did not understand the Israeli English; or that it is all a matter of jealousy in the arms industry, as if it were a matter of citrus exports. And there's too much counting on friends in Washington to get us out of every problem 

[wreckhog]

'Return of the Red Card: Israel-China-U.S. Triangle
By Dr. P.R. Kumaraswamy
May 2005

After months of hiatus, U.S.-Israel tension over China has returned. This time the dispute is over Israel's desire to upgrade the Harpy assault drone that it had sold to China in the mid-1990s. The drones are capable of destroying radar stations and anti-aircraft batteries; the U.S. fears that they could upset the delicate strategic balance between China and Taiwan as well as upset its interests in the Asia-Pacific region.

What was initially described as "repairing" later turned out to be "upgrading," thereby igniting a new controversy in bilateral relations. Citing a breach of trust and incomplete disclosure, the U.S. reacted strongly against Israel's work on the drone. As the controversy continued, Chinese State Councilor Tang Jiaxuan visited Israel in December and invited Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to visit Beijing. This was the highest visit from China in nearly five years. There were even suggestions that contrary to American fears and misgivings, the deal would not only consolidate Sino-Israeli ties but also further American intelligence capabilities vis-à-vis China.

Israel, however, eventually bowed to American dictates. After weeks of wrangling, pressure tactics and behind the scene negotiations, the issue was resolved. While China was keen to upgrade the Harpy assault drone, the U.S. demanded Israel "confiscate" it. Israel settled for a compromise and, according to a senior Chinese official, returned the drone without upgrading.

This, however, was not the first occasion when U.S.-Israel relations floated into rough waters over China. Since the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, bilateral relations between the United States and Israel have been marked and marred by periodic controversies over Israel's military relations with China.

Long before formal diplomatic relations were established in January 1992, both countries forged close military ties. Despite public acrimony and criticism over Israel's policy vis-à-vis the Palestinians, China found Israel to be an important player in its drive for military modernization. The U.S.-led sanctions following the Tiananmen controversy merely enhanced Israel's role as the proverbial "backdoor" to Western technology.

Likewise, Israel found China to be a prime customer, especially in the 1980s, when its lucrative arms markets in Latin America and South Africa were either drying up or becoming politically untenable. Strategically, the military sales to China smoothed the political differences between the countries and eventually paved the way for Sino-Israeli normalization in January 1992. Thus, both Israel and China benefited from increased military relations.

For its part, the U.S. was also an indirect player in the military saga. While demanding its European allies to continue military sanctions against China, it was indifferent toward the Sino-Israeli arms trade. Seeing the military route as a means of promoting the interests of the Jewish state, Washington was not concerned about Israel upgrading the Chinese military.


Post-Cold War Chinese Fever

The end of the Cold War, however, altered erstwhile American indifference toward Sino-Israeli ties. It no longer needed Beijing as a counterweight to Moscow, and Washington began to perceive Sino-Israeli relations, especially the military deals, as a threat to its interests in the Pacific region. The looming prospect of China emerging as a global player that could one day threaten American influence in Asia resulted in the U.S. becoming concerned over the entire development.

One could argue over the rationale or logic behind the new American obsession with the Chinese threat. Given its strong economic interests and involvement in China, one could even question its wisdom in provoking an emerging power. It is, however, undeniable that Beijing occupies a prime position in American global interests, especially its policy toward the Asia-Pacific region.

As a result, since the end of the Cold War, both Republicans and Democrats started viewing Sino-Israeli military ties with suspicion and periodically sought to slow down, contain and, if possible, scuttle any military deals between Israel and China. Unlike the past, mainstream American leadership, including those committed to strong U.S.-Israel relations, began to disapprove of Sino-Israeli military ties.

In early 1992, Israel was accused of the unauthorized transfer of American technology to China; the Washington Times argued that Israel had given China technological details on the Patriot anti-missile system that was deployed in Israel during the Kuwait crisis. Despite it being a strong ally, an official team was sent to Israel to verify the allegations. While the team was unable to confirm the allegations, the political damage was significant.

This was followed by charges that Israel had retransferred U.S. technology from the Lavi fighter program to China. The Lavi fighter plane that was to have been developed by Israel depended heavily upon American funding and technology. Having eventually canceled the project under intense American pressure, Israel was later accused of seeking to export the Lavi technology to China.

Then came the Phalcon controversy when Israel agreed to install the advanced early warning systems aboard a Russian platform. Under the deal, estimated at a billion dollars, Israel was to supply four such planes to China. This raised alarms in Washington, and Israel once again came under pressure. The Clinton administration, despite its friendliness toward Israel over the peace process, argued that the Phalcon would adversely affect American strategic interests in the Asia-Pacific. At one time, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak was even warned that annual American aid would be cut to express American anger and displeasure over his refusal to heed.

Eventually Barak buckled, and in July 2000, right in the middle of the Camp David talks with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, Israel canceled the deal, apologized to Beijing and agreed to pay huge financial compensation for reneging on its commitment. In response, the U.S. agreed to Israel's decision to sell the Phalcon to India. For its part, Israel agreed to exercise caution and exhibit transparency in its military dealings with China.

Yet, Israel could not avoid using the time-tested military means to regain the trust and confidence of China. Its ability to restore Sino-Israeli relations, especially against the background of growing international criticism and isolation due to the al-Aqsa Intifada, entirely depended upon the military route. Over the years, the military dimension has become the indicator to measure Israel's relations with the outside world. For example, military sales play a pivotal role in the close ties that Israel maintains with Turkey and India. Hence, the Harpy upgrading, to avoid American suspicion, was initially described as a "repair" rather than an "upgrade."

Israel's strategic decision to resume military deals with Beijing appears to have boomeranged. Israeli media admits that U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, the third most senior official in the Pentagon, demanded the resignation of Amos Yaron, the top bureaucrat in Israel's Defense Ministry, over the Harpy controversy. However, having learned from the Phalcon controversy, all parties decided to resolve the dilemma quietly.


Forgetting Lessons, Repeating History

The continuing nature of the Sino-Israeli-U.S. controversy underscores a number of important but often forgotten lessons. Astonishingly, Israel is yet to recognize and reconcile with the negative consequences of the end of the Cold War. It continues to dwell on the benefits of the new world order whereby countries such as Syria were forced to seek a negotiated political settlement with the Jewish state.

It is rarely recognized in Israel that the disappearance of the "evil empire" also meant Israel losing some of its relative importance to the U.S. This results in Israel not appreciating the new American concerns vis-à-vis China and its potential threats to American interests in the Pacific and elsewhere.

Moreover, by focusing on the non-American nature of its military exports to China, Israel is unable to comprehend the real issues involved. The problem is not whether they contain technology supported or funded by the U.S; indeed, both the Phalcon and Harpy programs do not appear to contain any American component or technology. Nevertheless, Israel's dependence upon the United States has limited its foreign policy leverage when dealing with countries about which Washington has strategic concerns. This exposes Israel's vulnerability.

The controversies surrounding Sino-Israeli military ties and Israel eventually yielding to American demands also undermines Israel's ability as a reliable arms supplier. At one level, Israel's ability to promote its foreign policy vis-à-vis the rest of the world largely depends upon it being a reliable arms supplier. At the same time, arms supplies to China bring Israel into a conflict situation vis-à-vis the U.S.


Conclusion

Israel is not the only country that faces growing American demands on strategic issues. Europe is facing the American music over the possible renewal of military sales to China, India over its bourgeoning energy ties with Iran, and China over its relations with North Korea.

Israel, unfortunately, is more vulnerable than most. Therefore, so long as it depends upon Washington for political support, economic largess and strategic backing, Israel's ability to pursue an independent arms export policy toward China will continue to be limited and circumspect.
 

[wreckhog]

If they are taking money and not paying it back, that is a problem.

Wonder if that has anything to do with a report from the "Jewish Insittute for National Security Affairs"?
They made this  statement :  Briefly ~ Israel has lost it advantage over the Arabs regarding the quantity and quality of weapons.

Obama has approved more than $10 billion worth of arms sales to Arab League states including  Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates.

Over the last year, the United States refused to approve any major Israeli weapons requests.   The White House has blocked key weapons projects and upgrades for Israel.

Reading between the lines, the US does not want Israel to be a reseller of American weapons to China. Especially when Israel is effectively getting the weapons for free.

[slim rem 7]

 although we ve been an israel ally.. we arn t thier best ally.
 the one who is..is just lettin things play out to thier predicted end..
 this to show once an for all ,the source of all righteous power..
 an in the end even the heavens will shake..but not our creator..
 hes got things well under control .. he s just letting the powers of evil prevail ,,
to test an prove to christians an jew alike .. the messiah already  has come.. an always has been,from before time began....hes all power ..good thing he loves us.. slim

[BBF]

Reading between the lines, the US does not want Israel to be a reseller of American weapons to China. Especially when Israel is effectively getting the weapons for free.

Exactly !! The other countries mentioned are more then likely paying for them.There is precious little the present Administration is doing right IMO. But that one is fine with me.