Jump to content

Talk:Israel–United States military relations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Explanation of template

[edit]

This is intended to be a possible prototype for a series of articles on <foo>-United States military relations. The objective is to create a standardised template for bilateral military relations articles, patterned very roughly along the lines of the topical coverage provided in Jane's Sentinel. (Much of the information in this article is taken from there.) The outline template is as follows:

  • Overview
Summary history of military relations (since WW2?). Needs to link into other general articles.
  • Military aid
Figures for bilateral military aid from the US taken from the most recent Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations (a regular Congressional Research Service publication).
  • Foreign Military Sales
Figures from the most recent Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations.
  • Foreign Military Financing
Figures from the most recent Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations.
  • Major U.S. military systems in country X use
A short list of key U.S.-developed military systems in use by the forces of the country to which the article relates. Includes items such as military aircraft, armoured vehicles, missiles and munitions, etc.
  • Procurement
Summary overview of procurement issues.
  • Significant major procurements
Summary of recent major procurements (generally from the US; there aren't too many the other way!). Cut off date 1990?
  • Joint military activity
Summary of major areas of joint military activity. Most obviously alliances (NATO etc) but also touching on other things such as exercises, transit rights, logistical support, joint deployments etc.
  • Controversies
Summary of controversial issues. There's always something!

The same format should be directly applicable to any country, and indeed any bilateral military relationship (US-Colombia, UK-Poland, France-Chad, etc). -- ChrisO 23:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on new article

[edit]

Following the AfD debate and DRV discussion on United States military aid to Israel, I've created this article in an effort to resolve the outstanding issues. Key points:

  • The new article has a wider scope, covering military relations in general, military aid, procurement, joint military activities and significant controversies.
  • The article is intended to be the prototype for a series of x-United States military relations articles; I've written it around a template that can be used for any article of this type. See above for an explanation of the template.
  • The article parallels the existing Israel-United States relations article as a spinout and expansion of the military relations aspects.
  • All the content is referenced. :-) It's a combination of expanded relevant bits from Israel-United States relations, merged content from United States military aid to Israel and a substantial amount of new content, mostly from Jane's.

I've proposed a merger of United States military aid to Israel into Israel-United States military relations (although I should note that I've already merged everything I feel need to be merged).

Please take a look at the new article and leave comments below. -- ChrisO 10:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I endorse this article in respect to resolving POV issues that are emanating from the Israel articles, that presently seem to be spreading out all over wikipedia it seems. The format could be applied to any bilateral military relations, provided that the articles themselves require the extra article. Make sure you run this by Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations as well if you haven't already.-- Zleitzen(talk) 01:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great article. I still see the need though for the spinout page United States military aid to Israel. I have looked for info on the web before for articles focussed on U.S. military aid to other nations in the form of military-related grants, loans, and specific weapons sold, given, or traded to specific nations. That page serves that need. Your great article does not have the room for that kind of detail, especially on the specific weapons. Not all the articles following your template (x-United States military relations) will need such a spinout page. --Timeshifter 15:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I now support the merge. The new condensed format for the list of U.S.-supplied weapon systems greatly reduced its length without deleting any of the list. That allowed the list to be added here, and there is no longer a need for the other article. --Timeshifter 20:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO, this page is quite good, but the "Controversies" section does actually need sourcing. I've tagged most of the relevant statements, and hopefully will source them shortly. --Fsotrain09 15:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About merging

[edit]

Following up on my comment in the previous section where I pointed out the need for the spinout article United States military aid to Israel there is this:

From WP:NOT#PAPER

"This also means you don't have to redirect one topic to a partially equivalent topic that is of more common usage. A 'See also' section stating that further information on the topic is available on the page of a closely related topic may be preferable." --Timeshifter 18:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What information appears in the other article that does not appear here?-- Zleitzen(talk) 18:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list of weapon systems. This article is also missing some of the funding info, tables, and notes. If all of it (and more later) were added here, then I would have no problem deleting the other article. But adding it here would make this a much longer article. So I think there is a need for the spinout article.

Someone has recently started an overall article called United States military aid. The article in question, United States military aid to Israel, is already too long to merge with that overall article. I would like to see more info on controversial weapons such as land mines, cluster bombs, flechette bombs and tank rounds, depleted uranium rounds, etc.. This is not a partisan POV desire to focus criticism on Israel or the USA. It is an ongoing controversy worldwide concerning these and other weapons being used, sold, traded, or given away to any nation from any nation. I would also like to see articles on Iranian military aid to Hezbollah. There is a small section about this in Military and economic aid in the 2006 Lebanon War. I would like to see a spinout article on it.

I would also like to see United States military aid to Colombia. There is the article, U.S.-Colombia military relations, but I could not find anything so far in my quick skim of the page about specific weapons. The overall article called United States military aid could be used to catalog some of the funding and weapons to various nations. One nation per subheading. Spinout articles can be created if needed for some nations if any subsection becomes too big.

There is some related info at Arms industry, but it is more of a general article, and does not have much of a breakdown for individual nations, and bilateral transfers. --Timeshifter 19:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S.-supplied weapon systems list on the other page just needs reformatting away from the linear list into a more condensed format - retaining the information - which would make it easier to read anyway. Then there is no reason why it shouldn't be on this page.-- Zleitzen(talk) 09:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean something like this below. I condensed the list found in this intact version of the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_military_aid_to_Israel&oldid=127900153
Yes. That type of thing. Providing it is all correctly sourced there should be no reason not to add that to this page and merge the other page into this.-- Zleitzen(talk) 10:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If all of the list is moved here in some form, then I have no problem with merging the pages. Because the tables are already all copied over to this page, I believe. Not sure. I just do not want to lose any info from the other page. --Timeshifter 10:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.-- Zleitzen(talk) 11:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list is of "US supplied" weapons systems, and none of the provided sources explicitly or implicitly say that all, or even specific parts of it, are aid. Those arguing for its inclusion accept that, but argue that much of it is aid - they just don;t know which parts and so include even those that aren't that is OR at best, and simple inclusion of information that is acknowledged to not be accurate at worst. TewfikTalk 01:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I would support the inclusion of the list, but only if (a) it's reliably sourced and (b) if we characterised it as "Major U.S. military systems in service" (or something like that). I don't doubt that much of the list does comprise aid items, but it wouldn't be straightforward to identify which specific items are aid. Plus I think it would be more useful - bearing in mind that I envisage this article providing a template for others of a similar nature - to characterise it in terms of much use country X makes of U.S. military equipment. -- ChrisO 08:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per ChrisO above.-- Zleitzen(talk) 08:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --Timeshifter 09:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Chris O and Timeshifter should complete the merge now, and consider it a job well done.-- Zleitzen(talk) 10:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. United States military aid to Israel is now a redirect pointing here. Sorry, I jumped the gun on the latter part. Let's make sure people at Talk:United States military aid to Israel are happy with the situation before merging. -- ChrisO 18:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shotguns? Seriously, the list deals with far more than "major military systems" and is lacking in precedent. The existing table of "major procurements" is far more encyclopaedic and relevant to the entry's topic than logging every US-origin product, especially when that list is structured to advance a specific, critical POV ("President Bush needs to go beyond vague calls for “restraint” to demands for a cease fire between Israel and Hezbollah, bringing in other key actors in the region, including Iran and Syria"). As an aside, at least some of the items listed or their number are not even sourced to that paper, in which a cursory glance has already found an intentional omission as well as a wrong "fact", which go far to erode confidence in the rest of it, while other parts are redundant to the second table. TewfikTalk 04:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment on the sourcing - Timeshifter, any thoughts? As for the "precedent" issue, well, that's obvious; as I've already stated at the top of this page this article is meant to be a prototype for a range of similar articles. The definition of a prototype is that it's a new precedent. Don't be scared of novelty - it doesn't automatically mean that something is bad. :-) I also have a set of data for Egypt-US military relations which I'll work up into an article, structured on the same lines as this one, when we've got this article sorted out. Final question - what are you quoting in your line about a specific critical POV? -- ChrisO 09:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is one of several indicating the partisan nature of the WPI report to which the chart is partially sourced. While that doesn't disqualify it as a source outright, it is a red-light for the both the quality of its contents, as well as for any chance that we might be trying to copy that content here in order to suggest the same type of argument, something that violates the neutrality policies of WP. Forgive me if you already understood this, but my main concern was not the novelty, but that the new chart not only repeats the information presented below it in the chart documenting "Significant major procurement", but isn't even limited to its own criteria of "major military systems". The lack of sourcing for parts of the chart even to the listed source is a secondary source of concern. TewfikTalk 03:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with worldpolicy.org, but I'd like to offer a couple of observations. First, whatever the motives of worldpolicy.org, a simple list of US military systems in use is trivial to source - you could pull exactly the same data from Jane's, for instance. Would you be happier if the list was referenced to Jane's instead? Second, the chart of US systems in use doesn't necessarily replicate the list of procurements - or at least, it won't for other articles of this kind, because there's an international market in second-hand military systems. For instance, suppose we had an article on Canada-Germany military relations. It would have to include the Leopard 2 under the list of "Major German military systems in Canadian use". However, there wouldn't be a corresponding entry in the "Significant major procurements" section because the Canadian Army's Leopard 2s are being purchased second-hand from the Netherlands, not directly from Germany. I don't know if Israel has purchased equipment second-hand, but the procurements section in this article reflects the major purchases from the U.S. that I was able to verify from Jane's. The military systems section makes no distinction as to whether the systems in question came directly from the U.S. or second-hand from other countries. -- ChrisO 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
without getting into the issue of the reliability of worldpolicy.org, the above rationale is clearly wrong. This article is about 'Israel-United States military relations ' - and as such, 2nd hand sales, over which the US has no say or approval, have no place in the article. Imagine a hypothetical situation in which Israel strikes a deal with Iran to procure the latter's aging F-14 aircraft in exchange for the release of Hezbollah terrorists held by Israel. Would it be conceivable to list these F-14s under this article, as part of US-Israeli military relationships? This is absurd. Isarig 00:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you believe it's absurd. The degree to which country X uses country Y's military equipment is an important factor in bilateral military relations, because it greatly affects interoperability. Israel's use of U.S. equipment and adoption of a lot of U.S. doctrine means that its military is extremely interoperable with that of the U.S. - actually more so than quite a few NATO countries. A counter-example would be a country like Romania - even though it's now a member of NATO, most of its equipment and a lot of its doctrine is largely a holdover from the old Warsaw Pact days, and its military isn't very interoperable with the U.S. or indeed with the western European NATO countries. (I spent a couple of years working on that issue in the late 1990s.) As another example, Egypt seems to fall somewhere in the middle - according to Jane's, it's currently in the middle of switching over its equipment and doctrine from a Soviet model to a more modern U.S. model. -- ChrisO 00:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is absurd because such sales have NOTHING to do with the military relationship between the 2 countries. The US may be completely OPPOSED to such sales, so it is absurd to list them as part of the "relationship". If my above example was not clear enough, consider the following: Israel fields several reserve regiments of modified Soviet T tanks, captured from Egypt and Syria. Do you think it is reasonable to start an article titled 'Russian-Israeli military relations', which are non-existent in any normal sense of the word, which would list these? How about 'Nazi Germany-Israel military relations' to cover the sale of Nazi-Germany manufactured Messerschmitts by Czechoslovakia? Isarig 00:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Jane's does cite $300m worth of Israeli procurements from Russia in the 1990s, though I'm not sure what that consisted of; maybe spares for the Israeli-operated Soviet equipment. But I'm still not sure what your objection is. Are you saying that the list is inaccurate? I've already explained why it's relevant, namely interoperability - I've explained that as clearly as possible above. -- ChrisO 01:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My objection is to the rationale of listing as part of a "relationship" things that have nothing to do with such a relationship. Attributing a hypothetical sale of F-14s by an enemy of the US to Israel, over the objection of the US to such a sale, to a military relationship between the US and Israel not only strains credulity, it also renders the term "relationship" meaningless. Isarig 02:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chris: yes I would be happier if the list was referenced to Jane's, since certain factual errors that I've caught taken alongside its partisan arguments only lead me to distrust it as an RS. I'm sorry that I wasn't clear enough, but my primary concern isn't the 'indirect purchases', but that the list doesn't follow its own limits for inclusion, "major systems", while the procurement table does. I agree that US systems acquired elsewhere could be relevant, but I think a source discussing that aspect of the relationship would be better than us determining where the limits of relevance lay (our friend OR). I also suggest that you remind Timeshifter to refrain from [unprovoked] uncivil comments that border on personal attacks. TewfikTalk 06:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Israel will require some help for parts, advice, and repairs for many of the U.S.-supplied weapons, regardless of the source. --Timeshifter 01:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And those parts, advice and service can be listed, and will likely be sourced to a list of Israeli procurements from the US. Conversely, if Israel gets these parts advice and service from the UK, or from Rwanda, they cannot be listed as part of the US-Israeli military relationship because, quite simply, they are not part of that relationship no matter how hard you strain the meaning of the word. Isarig 02:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are straining at gnats. Kind of like how Tewfik repeats things ad nauseum. Please assume you are dealing with intelligent people. People want to know what U.S.-made weapons Israel is using. Period. End of story. Therefore it needs to be in the article. It is encyclopedic info. It is not a great plot against Israel that people want to know this stuff. You and Tewfik need to get off your soapboxes. There have been many incident reports where you two have been mentioned unfavorably for these continual attempts at deleting info you don't like. Please stop. --Timeshifter 03:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying hard to assume that I am dealing with intelligent people, but responses like the one above make that very hard. The article is not called U.S.-made weapons used by Israel - it is called Israel-United States military relations. Some POV-pushers want to make that relationship appear even stronger than it is. Why they do is beyond me, as there's more than enough evidence that it is a very strong relationship, without having to strain the bounds of credulity the way you and ChrisO are doing, by claiming that even weapons that Israel obtains over the objections of the US would be the fruit of that relationship. As a final note , please review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. One more post like the one above, and you'll be featured at WP/ANI. There will be no further warnings. Isarig 03:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF says "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." After many encounters with you and Tewfik it is hard for me to continue to assume good faith. It is you two who have this continual, demanding, accusative uncivil tone. You just insinuated I am not intelligent. You said I was a POV-pusher. You are mischaracterizing the comments of ChrisO and myself. All U.S.-supplied weapons are important in a military relationship. The U.S. administration and Congress take into account what weapons Israel already owns. They aid or block repairs and upkeep of those weapons. They monitor where Israel transfers or sells those weapons or the technology for those weapons. --Timeshifter 04:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are repeatedly commenting about editors, rather than edits. This is a serious violation of Wp:NPA and if you keep it up, you will be blocked. If you have any problem with any of my edits to this page, let's hear it. If you instead continue commenting about me, I will report you, it is as simple as that. Your above comment ('All U.S.-supplied weapons are important in a military relationship) is a strawman as it relates to my discussion with ChrisO, as he was pushing the POV that even weapons not supplied by the US should be mentioned, if they were origianlly made in the US, and you supported that ridiculous contention. You have now, belatedly, changed your argument, from one claiming that US-made systems should be listed to one that US-supplied systems should be listed. I have no problem with the latter, which would have been obvious to you had you bothered to carefully read and understand my arguments. Isarig 04:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have already reported editors with your uncivil tone. I am quite willing to do it again. It is you who are being uncivil. I said nothing uncivil about you. I commented on the tone of your comments. The uncivil tone continues. Such as "ridiculous contention". The nitpicking about U.S.-supplied versus U.S.-made. You know what I meant if you bothered to read what I said in context. There should be a list of U.S.-MADE weapons in this article for all the reasons I mentioned. I have not "belatedly, changed" my argument. You mischaracterized it. This type of tendentious talk of yours has gotten many editors blocked. I urge you to tone it down. --Timeshifter 05:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
telling editors to "get off your soapboxes" is uncivil. Responding to people with "Period. End of story. " is uncivil. Both of those comments proceeded anything uncivil I wrote in response. You are strongly cautioned to stop this.
Before I got involved in the latest part of this discussion you repeatedly used the word "absurd" concerning the comments of ChrisO. You also frequently used all-caps words in your comments. That is considered to be shouting when done repeatedly. That is the type of soapboxing I am talking about. This is not Fox News where people shout over each other, and attack each others' comments as absurd. Here is my other comment in context: "People want to know what U.S.-made weapons Israel is using. Period. End of story. Therefore it needs to be in the article. It is encyclopedic info." That is not an attack on you. That is an opinion of mine on the issue at hand. --Timeshifter 05:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As to your arguments: there is a difference between US-made and US-supplied. You most certainly argued for a list of the former earlier (" People want to know what U.S.-made weapons Israel is using") and are now arguing for the latter ("All U.S.-supplied weapons are important in a military relationship."), if you do not understand the difference, ask me and I will help you see it, as I have attempted to do with several extreme or hypothetical examples that should make the distinction quite clear. If you understand the difference, but still argue that US-made should be listed, even if it was not provided as aid or as part of the relationship, then you are simply wrong, as I have explained above. Isarig 05:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, "U.S.-supplied" and "U.S.-made" are very close in meaning. One could argue that U.S.-made weapons bought from 3rd parties can still be considered to be U.S.-supplied in a roundabout way. But to remove doubts I changed "U.S.-supplied" to "U.S.-made" in the article section titled "Major U.S. military systems in Israeli use." --Timeshifter 05:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not close in meaning at all, and arguing that "U.S.-made weapons bought from 3rd parties can still be considered to be U.S.-supplied in a roundabout way" is simply fallacious, as the F-14 or Messerscmidt examples above show. Changing the list title to "Major U.S. military systems in Israeli use" is at least accurate, but this then begs the question of how are US systems in use part of the military relationship, if it cannot be shown that the US supplied them? Isarig 06:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered that question. --Timeshifter 21:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have not. Isarig 01:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have. --Timeshifter 02:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the article is Israel-United States military relations not Israel-United States Government military relations. Surely the current title's scope suggests including Israel's relationship with the U.S. military-industrial complex shouldn't be a problem. -- Kendrick7talk 22:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point. If Israel does not buy those weapons from the US, they are not related to either the US gov't or the U.S. military-industrial complex. They are related to the military relationship between Israel and whoever supplied those weapons. Isarig 01:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained why ownership of U.S.-made weapons (no matter how) is part of the Israel-United States military relationship. Please read this section again. --Timeshifter 02:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have asserted that to be the case, but that is not according to any common meaning of the word relationship. Isarig 03:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like idle conjecture, Isarig. I don't see anything to suggest Israel actual got these weapons second hand from Libyan terrorists or anything. -- Kendrick7talk 03:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Pinball machine parts! Oy vey Amir -- how many times do I got to tell you about the Libyans![reply]
Let's leave the question of whether or not this is idle conjecture aside for a moment. Do you agree that if Israel had gotten these weapons second hand from Libyan terrorists, it would be ludicrous to claim that this is part of a military relationship between Israel and the US? Isarig 03:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly agree. But I don't think we need to demonstrate some perfect chain of custody here. -- Kendrick7talk 04:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I hope I'll be able to count on your help in persuading ChrisO and Timeshifter that their position that all that matters is where the weapons were originally made is untenable. Once we have consensus on that, I'll be happy to make some suggestion on how we may improve the current list. Isarig 04:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a straw man argument to begin with. --Timeshifter 17:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think your argument was a strwaman argument. It was fallacious, to be sure, but it wasn't the strawman fallacy. Isarig 23:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funny. I was referring to your straw man argument. --Timeshifter 03:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And where, pray tell, have I made a strawman argument? I addressed your exact arguments, which were, and I quote "U.S.-made weapons bought from 3rd parties can still be considered to be U.S.-supplied in a roundabout way", and it seems even Kendrick7 has agreed this is a ludicrous argument. Isarig 03:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you have made several straw man arguments. Along with red herrings, obfuscations, diversions, logical fallacies, and other weapons of mass distraction. --Timeshifter 04:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Isarig 14:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this thread and in others. But why waste more time? --Timeshifter 14:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what relevancy do other threads have to this? Where exactly in this thread were such arguments allegedly made? If you don't want to waste time, admit you are wrong , as others have agreed already, and be done with it. Isarig 14:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have made many claims in this thread that I have already refuted. I don't have time to go into all your methods in detail. --Timeshifter 14:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have three times asked you to point out a single specific instance of what you allege - i.e - the use of a straw man argument. You have been unable to do so. Isarig 15:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am able, but I am not interested. I already refuted some of your other claims. You did not acknowledge them. So why bother going into details again? Additional comments from me are mainly for other readers who might be interested. So that they have reason to investigate your claims. --Timeshifter 16:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, enough with the rubber and glue bit. Let's start over in a new section to cleanse the palette and try to be WP:CIVIL. -- Kendrick7talk 02:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon you two -- y'all are arguing like two old hens. This is unproductive. -- Kendrick7talk 16:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it is unproductive. I'm starting a new section with a suggestion. Isarig 16:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S.-supplied weapon systems

[edit]

(this is not a comprehensive listing)

The list below is of U.S.-supplied weapon systems paid for from funding provided by the USA, by Israel alone, or by a combination of funding from both nations. The list is from Appendix 1 of "U.S. Military Assistance and Arms Transfers to Israel: U.S. Aid, Companies Fuel Israeli Military." A World Policy Institute Issue Brief. By Frida Berrigan and William D. Hartung. July 20, 2006.[1] Appendix 1 is titled "U.S.-Supplied Weaponry in Israel’s Military Inventory". From that report: "The bulk of Israel’s current arsenal is composed of equipment supplied under U.S. military aid programs."[1]. From another report (January 2006): "Recent U.S. Military Sales to Israel. Israel uses almost 75% of its FMF [Foreign Military Financing (direct military aid)] funds to purchase U.S. defense equipment."[2]

Military aircraft:

Fighter aircraft. A-4 Skyhawk. F-15 Eagle. F-15I. F-16 Fighting Falcon. F-16I. Israel has the world's largest F-16 fleet outside the United States Air Force. With the delivery of 102 F-16Is, scheduled through 2008, the Israeli Air Force will have a total F-16 inventory of 362, in addition to 89 F-15s. [3] [4]
Transport planes. C-130 Hercules. Boeing 707. Gulfstream G-550.
Utility aircraft. Cessna 206.
Training aircraft. Northrop Grumman TA-4.
Attack helicopters. AH-1 Cobra. AH-64 Apache. AH-64D Apache. CH-53 Sea Stallion.
Utility, cargo, and support helicopters. Bell 206. Bell 212. C-47. Sikorsky S-70. UH-60A Black Hawk.

Land warfare systems:

Armoured personnel carriers. Over 6000 M-113.
Tanks. Over 700 M-60 Patton tanks.
Assault rifles. M16. CAR-15. M4 carbine
Sniper rifles. M82. M24 Sniper Weapon System. SR-25. Ruger 10/22
Machine guns. M1919 Browning machine gun. M2 Browning machine gun
Shotguns. Remington 870. Mossberg 695
Artillery. M109 howitzer. M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System.
Munitions. Precision guided bombs. Bunker buster bombs. Missiles (air-to-air, surface-to-air, anti-ballistic, e.g. MIM-104 Patriot)

Missiles:

Man-portable air defense missiles. Stinger.
Surface-to-air missiles. Redeye.
Tactical Air-to-Ground missiles. Hellfire, Walleye, Maverick, AGM-78 Standard ARM.
Tactical Air-to-Air missiles. AMRAAM, Sparrow, Sidewinder.
Air-to-surface missiles. PAC-2.
Sea-to-sea missiles. Harpoon missiles.

References

  1. ^ a b Berrigan, Frida (July 20, 2006). "U.S. Military Assistance and Arms Transfers to Israel: U.S. Aid, Companies Fuel Israeli Military" (PDF). Arms Trade Resource Center Reports. World Policy Institute. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Congress (2006-01-05). "U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel - Report to Congress January 5, 2006" (PDF). Congress. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ "More than 50 Lockheed Martin F-16s planned for Israel, more than $2 billion value". Lockheed Martin press release. June 19, 2001.
  4. ^ "Lockheed Martin, Israel mark F-16I first flight". Lockheed Martin press release. December 23, 2003.

References

[edit]


[edit]

That is the links bar for the merged article. I suggest looking at Tiamut's last revision to see if there is any other useful sourced info remaining that could be merged after the main stuff is added here. Here is Tiamut's last revision:

The links bar is created with this code:

{{la|United States military aid to Israel}}

The talk page from that link bar may have other useful sourced info. --Timeshifter 18:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US funding of indigenous Israeli weapon development programs

[edit]

Here is a sentence snipped from the Israeli-based MERIA journal:

"The United States also agreed to fund indigenous development of weapons by Israel, including the Merkava tank and the Lavi combat aircraft. Before the project was canceled in 1987, the Americans provided $2 billion towards the Lavi program."[1]

Here is part of a State Department report on the matter:

"In addition to the foreign assistance, the United States has provided Israel with $625 million to develop and deploy the Arrow anti-missile missile (an ongoing project), $1.3 billion to develop the Lavi aircraft (cancelled), $200 million to develop the Merkava tank (operative), $130 million to develop the high energy laser anti-missile system (ongoing), and other military projects."[2]

--64.230.121.213 18:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitations

[edit]

I know some of the editors here work on various Arab/Israeli/Palestinian articles. Feel free to visit these projects below, and to add links to related projects of interest below. --Timeshifter 18:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Palestine is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Palestine. Ahlan wa Sahlan! (Welcome!)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine

Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict. --Timeshifter 18:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

worldpolicy.org

[edit]

The more I read it, the less this seems like a reliable source. The referenced article is riddled with errors of fact, from recent history, which a WP:RS with a good reputation for fact checking would have caught and corrected. As one example, the article makes reference to "the Iranian C-802 radar guided missile that sank an Israeli civilian ship" - an event that never took place. I suggest we try to find more reputable sources for this list . Isarig 04:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Improving the article

[edit]

As it stands now, this article has two lists of US systems used by Israel, which is repetitive. One such list is the list of US systems "in use" by Israel, the other is a list of systems procured by Israel. If all the systems in use are assumed to be procured by Israel from the US, this is mere duplication. If some systems were not procured from the US, then as we have agreed above, they ar enot part of the Isreal-US military relationship. My suggestion is to remove the list of "US Systems in use", since we have agreed that "in use" does not, in iself, indictae a military relationship, and use only the "procurement list". Right now, there is about 60% overlap in the systems listed, anyway, and they certianly cover all the "Major" systems - jet aircrfat, attack helicopters, Patriot, MLRS. We can add the other "Major" systems procured to this list, properly sourced, so we end up with one list, not 2, of all major systems procured by Israel. Isarig 16:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to misrepresent the positions of others. There was no agreement. The US does not take lightly to its weapon systems being transferred to others without being consulted. Israel got into trouble for this. So the USA does take into account the U.S. weapons Israel has in its possession no matter how they got them. The USA takes into account the balance of power in the region and the world. The USA takes into account the repair and upkeep needs also. I have no problem with combining the 2 lists so that we have both the historical timeline record of procurements, and the current systems in use. That means nothing is deleted, though. If the list becomes too long when it is put in the format of the timeline table, then we can create a spinout article again. But wikipedia is not paper, and a long list is fine. See: WP:PAPER. --Timeshifter 18:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that many editors only agreed to a merge on the condition that the list you are proposing to delete remain part of the article, I would have to say that I disagree. We can find a way to accomodate your concerns while retaining the list out of respect to other editors. Tiamut 16:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Scratch that. Many attempts have already been made to accomodate your concerns. I think you should try to meet others halfway. Tiamut 16:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggetsing meeting others, even more than halfway. I am just opposed to having duplicate information. If you can source each one of the "in use" systems to a purchase, we don't need the second list. Isarig 16:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to believe Israel got these systems second or third hand; it's a perfectly reasonable inference from the sources that Israel got these systems from U.S. manufactures directly, with U.S. supplied funds, and with U.S. military consent, and therefore belong in the article. It might be worth noting, perhaps as an editorial footnote, that we can't definitely show that. Per Tiamut many editors only agreed to a merge on the condition that the list you are proposing to delete remain part of the article. If we split this out again we'd just be going in circles. -- Kendrick7talk 18:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that I did notice the overlap, and would support merging the sections if we can come up with an overarching theme that encompasses the language used in different sources. -- Kendrick7talk 18:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication whatsoever that Israel bought these with "US supplied funds", and the list contains an explict disclaimer that says this is not the case. But putting aside this sneaky litte POV-push, if you, too, noticed the duplication, and support removing it - why don;t we just eliminate the duplication? How hard is it to merge these two lists into one? Isarig 18:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to POV push. I just can't imagine that during the Cold War, for example, the U.S. was funneling all that money to Israel without some expectation that Israel would be kicking that money back to U.S. military suppliers, and not, say, the Soviet Union. The U.S. Congress is more beholden to the industrial half of the military-industrial complex than the military half, even though the relationship between them makes the U.S. Congress and K Street look like distant cousins; the U.S. builds weapons all the time the military does even want just because the plant doing the work is in some important congress person's district. But exactly how that balances out with how beholden they are to AIPAC is anyone's guess. I'm not about to dig through either U.S. or Israeli appropriations bills to try to sort all that out!
Compared to all that, a merge here should be a piece of cake however. -- Kendrick7talk 18:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"it's a perfectly reasonable inference" - that is called OR; "it might be worth noting...that we can't definitely show that" - if we can't support it with sources, it is OR. For the record "many editors only agreed to a merge on the condition" is simply not true, this page will record that Timeshifter is the only editor to make that condition. Kendrick, your analysis may be entirely accurate, but as long as there are no specific sources, it is just that, your "original" analysis. Why don't we do some research, find out which "major systems" were supplied, and include that instead of what is admittedly OR? TewfikTalk 20:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no original research. The list is of U.S. weapon systems in use by the Israelis. --Timeshifter 01:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sections overlap, and most of the "In Use" section is based on original research. They need to be merged into one non-OR section. Jayjg (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my previous comment up above. --Timeshifter 01:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you are suggesting this be split into a new article? OK, will do. -- Kendrick7talk 21:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not, and there was an AfD on this that said the opposite. Please don't make WP:POINT suggestions. Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the history of the 2 articles is in the next section. --Timeshifter 01:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What AfD?? You were quick to delete the split, but not quick to restore it here.... -- Kendrick7talk 21:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article you created was almost identical to the recently merged United States military aid to Israel, as you well know. WP:POINT is a bad thing. Jayjg (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I didn't realize you had removed it, but why would I want to restore original research that overlaps existing material? Jayjg (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The articles were merged after much discussion and near-unanimous agreement on this talk page. --Timeshifter 01:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then. I'll merge the sections. -- Kendrick7talk 21:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some history of the merged articles

[edit]
Kendrick7 then combined the list and a table into one table in the merged article. --Timeshifter 02:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tidying up the list

[edit]

The table currently lists (in the incorrect place, under the heading "helicopters") the C-47 Dakota. According to List of aircraft of the Israeli Air Force , these planes , of WWII vintage, were procured in 1948, and decommissioned 7 years ago. Unless someone can show why this constitutes a "major system" procured in "recent years", I'm removing it. Isarig 02:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing deletion efforts

[edit]

Tewfik is continuing his deletion efforts. See this diff. Tewfik initiated the AFD for United States military aid to Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He lost the AFD, and all subsequent efforts to delete the material in whole or in part. See the section higher up called "Some history of the merged articles". So now Tewfik is just deleting sourced info in spite of all opposition. --Timeshifter 08:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a long article. There is no need to shorten this article. See WP:PAPER. --Timeshifter 08:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring your total misrepresentation of history, Wikipedia was still subject to both sourcing and neutrality mandates. If a shotgun is a "major military system", what pray tell is a minor one? TewfikTalk 16:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still haven't looked at the sources, but we should reflect what they say. I clicked on one of those guns; it didn't exactly look like something I could pick up from my local drug dealer.... -- Kendrick7talk 16:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of where you could buy one, is is your opinion that a shotgun is a ""major military system"? Isarig 17:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One shotgun, no. 30,000? Arguably, yes, in a distributed system sort of way. Having to have to argue about what's "major" or not on a talk page is certainly a good reason to WP:AWW/WP:APT in the first place. Obviously the source felt these were worth mentioning. -- Kendrick7talk 17:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
is there any indication that the number was 30,000, vs. 3? Do the sources list these as "major sytems"? Isarig 17:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Timeshifter's proposal to change the heading to remove the word "major" seemed sensible. We might as well be comprehensive here, and small arms are an important component of warfare, though I'd be fine with de-tabling this section. I'd be happiest if we just reflect the sources, as I have no idea what among these are the latest-and-greatest sniper rifle, or what I could just pick up at a weekend gun show, or even if those two things completely overlap. If Timeshifter comes around and wants to add knifes, now that would be overdoing it. I don't even want to try and figure out where Swiss Army knives are manufactured these days. -- Kendrick7talk 18:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Beyond not even being mentioned in the cited source, as I pointed out a little bit above, the WPI source is clearly forwarding an agenda critical of Israel and has some factual problems; it seems that any information that should be listed can be found in neutral RS like Janes, which Chris already replaced it with. TewfikTalk 18:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Removing "major systems" makes no sense, since it now leaves line-drawing to me and you, something totally inappropriate (knives), as well as lowering the encyclopaedic quality of this entry. Over 70 countries are listed as users of M-16s, where Israel is listed like the others; including such lists on every country is overkill. TewfikTalk 18:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocopter

[edit]

The Eurocopter is a French designed, French made helicopter. The US subsidiary does not make these, and its web site clearly says "Eurocopter military helicopters are exclusively marketed and supported from Eurocopter's company headquarters in France."[3]. This is part of Israel's military relationship with Europe (France), not the US. Isarig 17:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And manufactured in Grand Prairie, Texas.[4] I might have even taken the tour there a long time ago on the pretext of making a field trip mostly to Six Flags look educational.... -- Kendrick7talk 17:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not the military range. Isarig 17:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oohh... I must have been thinking of a different company. Though if there were just civilian copters there that may be why I've wasted no brain cells remembering the details of the tour. -- Kendrick7talk 17:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Air-to-Ground missiles?

[edit]

Please see:

Go to appendix I titled: "U.S.-Supplied Weaponry in Israel’s Military Inventory".

There is a row there with this info in 3 columns:

Tactical Air-to-Ground missiles (AGM)

Hellfire, Walleye, Maverick, Standard (numbers unknown)

Lockheed Martin/Boeing (Hellfire); Raytheon (Standard, Maverick); Martin Marietta – now Lockheed Martin (Walleye);

I want to link to the relevant wikipedia page with info on Standard Air-to-Ground missiles. The link is needed for the list here:

in the missiles section. Does Raytheon make a Standard Air-to-Ground missile? --Timeshifter 21:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • The answer to your question is: no. Currently, standard missile is strictly a navy Surface-to-air missile, and Raytheon makes no Air-to-ground variant. However, there may be a disconinued variation that performs the mission you discribed. Lasre 13:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. --Timeshifter 19:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be looking for AGM-78 Standard ARM. It's an A-G anti-radiation weapon, there's even a picture of an Israeli variant there. --Dual Freq 22:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied all the above discussion from Talk:Standard missile. --Timeshifter 14:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Us Will Supply Israel With Bunker Busting Bombs For Bombing Iran

[edit]

Major development in my opinion:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/14/gates_surrenders_us_will_suppl/

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1020702.html

--John Bahrain (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

original research in the introductory section

[edit]

The user named CasualObserver'48 maintains that Israel–United States military relations is the result of a pro-Israeli lobby. Not denying that such lobby exists, the scope of its influence is a subject of debate. Saying that such lobby played a decisive role in establishing US-Israel cooperation is original research, not supported by public statements from Israel and U.S. government. The point that I'm trying to make is that reasons for US-Israel cooperation is a complex issue, highlighting just one potential factor and presenting it as the most important is inappropriate and controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keverich1 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it again to what it said previously: Israel-United States military relations have been extremely close,[1] reflecting both shared security interests in the unstable Middle East and the influence of a strong pro-Israel lobby in the United States. It does not say the relationship is ‘the result of a pro-Israeli lobby, but it acknowledges its strong influence. Take a look at the link, or better yet the AIPAC quote I tried to add, because the initial deletion edit summary stated “removed controversial statement about "Israeli lobby". Reasons of US support for Israel is complex issue which doesn't belong to the intro section. If it had appeared else where there might be no problem, but the lede is the place, for now. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the question is why the article about military relations should make any mention of lobby at all, especially in the introductory section of article. There is no apparent logical connection here, unless you believe that this lobby has brought about military cooperation, which is original research.Keverich1 Again, irrespective of the influence that lobby might have, this issue is simply not relevant here(talk) 16:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted again and tried to correct some shifting refs and the increase in the number of paragraphs based on them. I expect the linked lobby reference to stay there, based on the following.

  • The disputed usage of ‘lobby’ has been in the article since the beginning[5], ref’d to two Jane's articles. It has never been deleted, except for you. Jane's are accepted RSs for military stuff.
  • Except for this[6], where we specifically get ‘extremely close’, the inclusion of lobby influence has remained, ref’d to Jane's.
  • The wording specifically has also been defended[7].
  • It has passed consensus.

It stays. Should you have a better way to reference it, other than by duplicating the refs, which I have done, please feel free or provide something verifiable. Continued deletion may be seen as removal of referenced material, or vandalism. We edit in a big world with many points of view; consensus reigns here. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. However, Jane's doesn't identify specific elements of the lobby; mentions of AIPAC etc would not be supported by this reference. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are the user, who originally made the claim about the "lobby", could you please provide the exact quote from "Israel: External Affairs", in Jane's Sentinel: Eastern Mediterranean 2007. Jane's Information Group, 2007. which describes the role of Israeli lobby in US-Israeli military relations.?Keverich1 (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was hoping you'd be watching, again. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 10:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but just because Jane's makes a mention of some Jewish lobby, doesn't mean that we should present it in the article as a proven established fact. At best, it can be presented as a personal opinion of Jane's, and definitely not in the introductory passage, since the specific role of this "lobby" is not described in the article.
The links provided by you doesn't indicate that this exact wording has ever been subjected to major scrutiny and passed consensus.
This link [8] merely shows that the phrase was initially formulated as explicitly anti-Semitic, that replaced with a more neutral wording. No reliable sources to support any version of the statement had been provided.
Since the article by Jane's is not available online, it doesn't exactly conform to the rule of verifiable. The exact role of the "lobby" in US-Israeli MILITARY relations as described by Jane's remans unclear. It may have been the case that CasualObserver'48 has misinterpreted some particular statements of Jane's to back up his highly controversial point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keverich1 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And finally these statements by CasualObserver'48("Except for this[9], where we specifically get ‘extremely close’, the inclusion of lobby influence has remained, ref’d to Jane's." and [10] ) are not correct. This is the original wording produced by ChrisO when he created the article

Israel-United States military relations are extremely close, representing both shared security interests in the unstable Middle East and the power of an extremely strong lobby in the United States' domestic political and economic establishment. Israel is the largest recipient of United States overseas assistance. It is a major purchaser and user of US military equipment, is involved in the joint development of military technology and regularly engages in joint military exercises involving United States and other friendly forces.[2][3]

Clearly the references in this section serve to support statements about Israeli purchases of US military equipment, not the influence of some "lobby".Keverich1 (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from the BBC [11]:

"Clearly the pro-Israel lobby in the United States is significantly stronger than in European nations, for example. So it is not surprising that Israel receives significantly more financial assistance from the United States than from any other country. Every year, $3bn flow from the US to Israel in economic and military aid."

Strafor on the matter [12]:

"The Israel lobby, which has a great deal of money and experience, is extremely influential in Washington. For decades now, it has done a good job of ensuring that Israeli interests are attended to in Washington, and certainly on some issues it has skewed U.S. policy on the Middle East. There are Jews who practice being shocked at this assertion, but they must not be taken seriously."

--John Bahrain (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From Startfor:

"To sum up: There is a powerful Jewish, pro-Israel lobby in Washington, though it was not very successful in the first 20 years or so of Israel's history. When U.S. policy toward Israel swung in 1967 it had far more to do with geopolitical interests than with lobbying."

So you see even Friedman doesn't go so far as to claim that the "lobby" has been a decisive factor. He also notes that the "lobby" seemed to made little impact during the first 20 years of its existence. It was not until 1967 when Israel proved its ability to combat Soviet allies in the region that American policy shifted decidedly pro-Israel. As for the quote from the BBC, Nick Mile's remark merely shows his ignorance and bias against Israel. He implies that the "lobby" may be somehow connected to military aid to Israel, but fails to identify any specific connection. Trying to explain US assistance to Israel through the influence of some "lobby" does represent a prejudice against Israel, because same people who question $3 bln that go to Israel, never raise similar questions with regars to US aid to Egypt, which amounts to as high as $1.7 billion every year [13]. Egypt is the second largest recipient of US aid in the world, yet no one has ever attempted to explain it though the influence of extremely strong pro-Egypt lobby in America.Keverich1 (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keverich1, you should learn your history in more detail. Egypt has been getting that massive foreign aid since it signed on to the Israel-Egypt peace deal. Also you should look at the per capita figures of foreign aid as Egypt's population drawfs Israel's.
and John Bahrain shouldn't forget that in economic and military terms Israel has always been bigger than Egypt, so the fact that it is getting sligtly bigger assistance than Egypt is perfectly understandable and doesn't require conspiracy theories about the "lobby". The fact that many people believe in the influence of the "lobby" is not a reason to include it in the article as a proven fact. There was a time when most people believed in blood libel, this doesn't mean that it was true. What we need here is some specific facts, provided by accurate reliable sources.Keverich1 (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your response is not on topic thus I can't respond to it here. If you would like to discuss topics not directly relevant to the matter at hand please take it to my talk page. --John Bahrain (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The quote you selected from the Strafor article is about 1967 and prior. Why are you quoting a sentence that is clearly not dealing with today's situation and ignoring the rest of the article as well as ignoring the BBC article? --John Bahrain (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The passage provided by me is the most relevant part of that article as it sums up the basic points of the article.Keverich1 (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point about US foreign policy in 1967 may be part of the article's summary but it isn't about the topic at hand, it is about 1967. The quote from that article I selected is directly relevant and on topic. The same with the BBC quote. Why can't you address either of them directly? --John Bahrain (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you'll have to wait until the New Year before I can get hold of the exact quote from Jane's Sentinel - the library in question is closed until then. However, the line quoted above about "the existence of an extremely strong lobby" is very close to a direct quote; Jane's Sentinel explicitly talks about an "extremely strong lobby" being a major factor in the defence relationship. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not surprised that you failed to provide the quote in question...Keverich1 (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a chance to look up the exact quote. It reads: "The [Israel-US military] relationship is underpinned by a powerful pro-Israel lobby in the US." -- ChrisO (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the time to re-check, Chris; dealing with this type of edit can be a pain, but it is the NPOV Wiki-way. Since the question has come up however, maybe we should discuss a better way to present the ref, which now seems somewhat understated in a foundational way. To me, the current ‘influence of a strong’ (lobby) and ‘underpinned by a powerful’ (lobby)’ just don’t quite seem the same. It is no biggie for now, but as other edits are made, particularly regarding history of the relationship, the appropriateness of the ‘underpinning’ will likely become more apparent. Inserting the quote in footnotes might prevent similar pov’d edits in the future. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gregory S. Mahler, Israel After Begin, p. 45. SUNY Press, 1990. ISBN 079140367X
  2. ^ United States: External Affairs", in Jane's Sentinel: North America 2007. Jane's Information Group, 2007.
  3. ^ "Israel: External Affairs", in Jane's Sentinel: Eastern Mediterranean 2007. Jane's Information Group, 2007.

Primary source data from USAID

[edit]

See FY 2012 TOTAL FOREIGN ASSISTANCE PROFILE: ISRAEL 

  All amounts in millions of $US

Year Economic  % Military  % Total
1951 0.756 100.0 0.000 0.0 0.756
1952 627.907 100.0 0.000 0.0 627.907
1953 525.346 100.0 0.000 0.0 525.346
1954 527.170 100.0 0.000 0.0 527.170
1955 369.048 100.0 0.000 0.0 369.048
1956 346.758 100.0 0.000 0.0 346.758
1957 268.902 100.0 0.000 0.0 268.902
1958 390.805 100.0 0.000 0.0 390.805
1959 314.034 99.2 2.517 0.8 316.551
1960 343.070 99.1 3.108 0.9 346.178
1961 294.730 100.0 0.006 0.0 294.737
1962 428.485 84.3 80.000 15.7 508.485
1963 379.414 82.7 79.593 17.3 459.007
1964 218.805 100.0 0.000 0.0 218.805
1965 283.721 79.1 75.000 20.9 358.721
1966 209.448 29.0 512.237 7 1.0 721.685
1967 33.646 46.6 38.610 53.4 72.256
1968 275.972 67.4 133.191 32.6 409.164
1969 187.054 30.2 433.231 69.8 620.285
1970 198.647 57.8 144.998 42.2 343.644
1971 256.906 9.3 2,509.208 90.7 2,766.114
1972 458.022 25.8 1,318.681 74.2 1,776.703
1973 462.511 26.8 1,263.690 73.2 1,726.201
1974 202.358 2.0 9,755.065 98.0 9,957.422
1975 1,255.690 54.1 1,066.856 45.9 2,322.546
1976 2,371.062 29.6 5,642.217 70.4 8,013.279
1977 2,533.498 40.6 3,704.847 59.4 6,238.345
1978 2,290.425 44.2 2,892.682 55.8 5,183.107
1979 2,114.829 16.5 10,706.63 83.5 12,821.47
1980 1,933.456 44.0 2,460.025 56.0 4,393.481
1981 1,710.703 35.3 3,134.796 64.7 4,845.499
1982 1,689.373 36.5 2,934.395 63.5 4,623.769
1983 1,575.989 31.6 3,412.969 68.4 4,988.958
1984 1,761.518 34.9 3,290.747 65.1 5,052.265
1985 3,656.572 58.2 2,625.164 41.8 6,281.736
1986 3,478.835 52.4 3,156.679 47.6 6,635.514
1987 2,142.092 40.0 3,213.138 60.0 5,355.230
1988 2,075.406 40.0 3,113.110 60.0 5,188.516
1989 1,998.002 40.0 2,997.003 60.0 4,995.005
1990 1,918.805 39.0 2,995.076 61.0 4,913.881
1991 2,862.005 50.1 2,849.808 49.9 5,711.813
1992 1,824.487 39.3 2,812.515 60.7 4,637.002
1993 1,770.434 36.2 3,119.191 63.8 4,889.624
1994 1,733.853 40.0 2,604.856 60.0 4,338.709
1995 1,704.867 40.0 2,553.813 60.0 4,258.680
1996 1,846.197 42.3 2,513.317 57.7 4,359.513
1997 1,867.248 43.2 2,458.077 56.8 4,325.325
1998 1,722.746 41.5 2,424.747 58.5 4,147.492
1999 1,527.630 37.9 2,497.898 62.1 4,025.529
2000 1,331.149 26.5 3,700.625 73.5 5,031.774
2001 1,082.265 30.0 2,531.169 70.0 3,613.434
2002 909.710 26.1 2,580.314 73.9 3,490.024
2003 805.946 17.5 3,788.713 82.5 4,594.658
2004 666.198 20.5 2,590.928 79.5 3,257.127
2005 558.592 17.8 2,585.620 82.2 3,144.211
2006 320.245 11.2 2,530.343 88.8 2,850.587
2007 182.897 6.7 2,548.981 93.3 2,731.877
2008 47.131 1.8 2,533.307 98.2 2,580.438
2009 42.331 1.7 2,502.879 98.3 2,545.210
2010 37.725 1.3 2,912.558 98.7 2,950.284
2011 37.735 1.2 3,064.600 98.8 3,102.334
2012 25.060 0.8 3,075.000 99.2 3,100.060

Sorry for crummy formatting.

--FeralOink (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Separate page for US-Israel aid

[edit]

Shouldn't there be one? There is one about United States foreign aid, Israel–United States military relations and Israel–United States relations. But not one specifically about the military and economic aid given to Israel. I think there should be one because it is a huge topic. But I'm not prepared to write that page. You could "refactor" the aid part from the other pages to that new one. ImTheIP (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Israel–United States military relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Israel–United States military relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Israel–United States military relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A US base in Israel

[edit]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-first-us-establishes-permanent-military-base-in-israel/

Sammartinlai (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)and[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–United_States_military_relations&oldid=1211242821"