Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jamey who wrote (37608)	6/10/2004 12:23:22 AM
From: Jamey	Respond to of 39621

"Brothers in Arms for better or worse" "The main concerns of the United States with respect to its arms trade relationship with Israel are strategic, industrial, and political. The strategic problems stem from Israel's propensity to re-export American hardware and technology. Defense is a dominant industrial sector of Israel, and in an otherwise struggling economy, economic imperatives provide a strong driving force for Israel to export whatever defense products it can. Given that Israeli defense firms cannot compete with the larger American and European aerospace defense firms, who sell to the United States, Western Europe, and other nations friendly to the West, Israel is largely left with the "shadier" markets of Africa, South America and East Asia. The strategic problems of course arise from the altered balances of power affected by Israeli weapons transfers to these parts of the world. For example, it has been the policy of the United States since the Korean War to prevent the rise of a hegemon in East Asia, and Israel's continued transfers of sensitive and sophisticated military technologies to the PRC are not helpful in this regard. American industrial concerns arise both from Israeli re-export practices and from the policy of the U.S. Government itself. Israel's practice of routinely reverse engineering American defense hardware and then either selling the technical data or repackaging and re-exporting it in an Israeli form is economically injurious to the American defense firms who have invested in the research and development of such technologies, and are having those technologies illegally expropriated for profit by Israeli firms. Secondly, the U.S. policy of allowing Israel to spend FMF in Israel is problematic for U.S. industry. The main complaint from defense contractors is that United States (tax payers) is essentially underwriting the Israeli defense industry, which is more and more becoming a competitor for foreign contracts in a market that has been contracting since the end of the Cold War. A "softer" concern of the United States is the political situation that its close relationship with Israel creates. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the United States to appear as an honest broker in the search for a negotiated peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - despite the U.S.'s very significant military support of Egypt, which is designed to avoid the impression of open bias - when on an almost daily basis American guns, helicopters and missiles are being used to destroy Palestinian facilities, homes and lives. However, in spite of these misgivings, the relationship between the United States and Israel is not likely to change any time in the foreseeable future. The central reasons for this is that there are too many segments within American government and industry that consistently and forcefully back Israel, and that shows no sign of changing. It is mostly the defense and intelligence communities who have strong misgivings about Israel and Israel's handling of U.S. aid. They feel that Israel's strategic importance has been grossly overstated, that the United States' relationship with Israel unnecessarily poisons relations with Israel's Arab neighbors, and that Israeli abuse of generous American aid threatens the security interests of the United States. However, those with different professional imperatives feel very differently. The American diplomatic community, beginning with the State Department, continues to back Israel, as illustrated by its relatively casual willingness to clear Israel of wrongdoing in the Patriot case. These government officials are primarily concerned with the smooth functioning of America's external relations, which would not be well served by a high profile confrontation with Israel. United States congressmen are perhaps the most formidable obstacle to meaningful change in the U.S.-Israel relationship. As long as the United States Congress continues to control the purse strings of the American government - which it has since 1789 - and as long as the political climate in Washington remains so strongly pro-Israel, Israel will continue to receive its $2.5-$3 billion each year, at the very least. The consequences of this reality are troubling. The level and form of American aid have at least partially enabled increasingly aggressive Israeli policies during the current Intifada, none of which have thus far appreciably improved Israel's security - the argument has been made that such policies have in actuality contributed to Israel's worsening security situation. It is very difficult to say whether American military support actually promotes more aggressive policies vis-à-vis Palestine, or if it simply enables Israel to pursue its preferred policy, but it can be safely said that in the absence of such robust American support Israel would be pursuing a significantly different course of action. In any case, the IDF is using American equipment in the occupied territories on a sometimes daily basis, in outright defiance of UN resolutions. All the while, the American government supports Israel to the hilt, and American corporations materially benefit as a result. Ignoring the strategic and economic implications of this last point, this reality should present a serious moral dilemma for the American public, which ultimately finances Israeli arms purchases from American defense firms. Perhaps most distressing, any significant change will inevitably cause major upheaval. Any sort of rift with Israel would ultimately harm American defense firms, who have come to count on the business Israel provides. Furthermore, Israel's level of dependence on the U.S. is such, that a sudden suspension of American aid would drastically undermine Israel's position in the Middle East, in all likelihood making it militarily vulnerable to its many hostile neighbors. This is an eventuality the U.S. government is not prepared to allow." This Briefing Note was written by Sean Odlum, student at Stanford University, during his research internship at the BITS. bits.de