I say this is more than an appropriate response.
It is FAR overdue.

Lets take a look at unclas Isreali security breaches/attacks vis a vis America.

Pollard Case-literal reams of sigint sent to the Soviets in exchange for increased Russian Jewish immigration quotas. The then Isreali PM confides it is justified because the Americans didn't bomb concentration camp trains.

Patriot missiles stolen from US Army Patriot batteries during GW1. Technology ends up with Chinese.

Lavi technology, paid for by the US, being incorporated into Next generation Chinese fighters.

Aggressive probing of DEA assets in the US.

Look, I try to be a fan of the Isrealis as much as anyone. After all, our interests are reasonably congruent, and no one can doubt that since 1973, our support of Isreal has been critical to their continued prosperity. However, we can't allow their actions to continue degrade American security.

Joe,

Israel definitely needs to be slapped down for transferring our technology without agreement. I am a supporter of Israel, but not a blind one.

A side point:

My knowledge of our AAM technology is limited, but isn't the AMRAAM missile at least somewhat comparable to the AA-11/AA-12 based on range, home on jam, self guidance, etc.? Every time I see the comparison against the AA-11/AA-12, it seems it is being made to the AIM-7/AIM-9 missile series. I am hoping someone can educate me here.

In this point I think the American Govt is rightly tough with the Israeli Govt.

But not in the point of giving legitimacy to the terrorrist's idea of forcing the Israeli democracy "to freeze settlement activity" and "help [aka finance] Palestinians [aka Muslim thugs and their submitted plebs] build a thriving economy and ensure that a new Palestinian state [i. e., a second Arab state after the creation of (Trans)Jordan] is truly viable, with contiguous territory on the West Bank.”

A "contiguous Palestinian state" means a discontiguous state of Israel.

By the way, what credible guarantees can give that bunch of Arab thugs to anyone that surrenders his defense of a free contry in the middle of a totalitarian hell? Their contempt for the West only increases when they see reinforced their (wrong but politically useful) prejudice that we are materialistic (read here "keeping-the-oil-flowing-is-what-really-matters").

The Israelis really shouldn't expect anything else, either - not when the game is played in another region, and the diplomatic stakes rise this high.

That's fair. But then given the amount of American support for Israel's enemies, we shouldn't pretend this is a one way street.

Bill, to reiterate - they aren't transferring your technology. They're transfering theirs. Your technology cannot be transferred without say-so.

I'll add that Lavi development was paid for by Israel. And that the US moved Patriot batteries from Germany to Israel as a matter of national policy. And that Chinese SAM assets built around the (quite effective) Russian S-300 these days, not anything to do with the Patriot.

Tinfoil hatter is well named,

#1

"Pollard Case-literal reams of sigint sent to the Soviets in exchange for increased Russian Jewish immigration quotas. The then Isreali PM confides it is justified because the Americans didn't bomb concentration camp trains."

You got links to this?

As for:

" "including its work on Harpy anti-radar attack UAVs acquired by China from state-owned Israel Aircraft Industries in 1994."

which seems to have been OK'ed by Clinton Admin.
Then again the wealth of strategic technology Clinton permitted the Chinese makes the above rather weak.

Then again what the Chinese have been getting from the Europeans makes one wonder why only now the US is objecting.

POdPoet,

You are correct, I mispoke. Point taken, and I do see Joe highlighted this point.

Pollard Case-literal reams of sigint sent to the Soviets in exchange for increased Russian Jewish immigration quotas.

Pollard has served 20 years of a 2-4 year sentence. Is that enough?

POdPoet,

Uh, no. To say the Lavi was indigenous is like saying the Kfir was. Just because someone makes a better clone of your technology (Mirage - Kfir, F16 - Lavi) doesn't make it "theirs". US Aid paid for almost all of the Lavi development, and when Congress realized they were just funding an F16/F18 export competitor, they paid them to shut it down. Then we give them loans to buy F-16's and then we forgive the loans.

See the Congressional budgets for first half the 80's for total numbers.

This is just political wrist slapping. I'm sure they would never, ever export any of the other technologies we share with them (SDI, HARM, Main battle tank armor...).

Actually, the Israelis don't use your main battle tank armor (the Egyptians do, though they don't assemble it - hope they don't sell it off for examination). Their requirements ad conclusions re: the critical importance of low turret silhouette in a desert environment made it a non-fit with their needs. Instead, they use a kind of reactive armor of their own design. Which they do export... apparently, it has been saving American lives in Iraq.

As for the Lavi, it was not an F-16 clone (the Pakistani/Chinese FC-1/J-17 would be much closer to a clone). The Lavi airframe was a new canard design, which is now seen on 4th-gen aircraft like Sweden's JAS-39 Gripen, France's Rafale, and the Eurfighter Typhoon. The engine would have been American, and so would some of the electronics. But most electronics would have been Israeli - they strip many of the U.S. electronics out of their F-16s and F-15s, for instance, on the grounds that their stuff is better. Which may be true. Key weapons systems, esp. the Python 4 with its helmet mounted sight, would also have been Israeli (and if you know planes, you know that's an important part of the package).

The Lavi was paid for, again, by Israel. The USA does provide military aid, but it was not paid out to develop the Lavi. Which is why, when the US wanted to get Israel buying more F-16s and take out a potential export competitor (much as the Swedish Gripen has become), they offered an inducement to take it off the table so Israel would feel its costs had been at least somewhat recovered. They also offered additional F-16s as a security guarantee and show of support, given that the point of the Lavi was to reduce dependence on the USA. This is what you'd expect in a situation of normal human behaviour and bargaining under similar circumstances.

As Fisher's link above notes, China got plans for the Lavi's airframe and controls, but couldn't get the American engine and electronics it had planned on because the USA slapped an embargo on that technology. So they had to go to Plan B, and use Russian engines, electronics, radars, etc. Which has meant heavily redesigning the airframe plans they bought. Hence the delays, costs, etc.

China's SU-30 buy was seen in some quarters as a vote on non-confidence in the J-10 kludge... but in a face culture, others are betting some kind of reduced production will go ahead. The result will be better than the J-7/Mig-21s it replaces, but not as good as using the funds to buy more SU-30s. It's probably a bit better than Taiwan's indigenous 'Ching-Kuo' IDF, however, largely because the Russian engine, avionics, and esp. missiles are better than the stuff Taiwan has.

As an interesting background point, The Kfir derived from the Nesher, a Mirage 5 but with the J79 engine from U.S. Phantom jets rather than the weaker (and no longer available) French SNEMCA engine, and Israeli electronics. That experience gave Israel the confidence to try the Kfir, with an improved airframe (incl. delta canards), avionics, etc., that improved performance and integrated it with a number of newer weapons systems. It is a "clone" of the Mirage 5 in roughly the way the Mirage 2000 is a "clone" - people who say stuff like that simply don't understand aircraft design, and choose to display that.

Finally, Cynic, the reason Feith was so mad at the Israelis and demanding resignations is that the Harpy sale in 1994 may NOT have been communicated to the USA. It isn't US technology (so no obligation) and has no US counterpart (note: the USA should buy a bunch, they're good and very useful!). But the USA expects the courtesy - rather than finding out about it 6 years later when the CIA photographs them during an exercise around the Taiwan Straits. I can understand that.

Hope this helps clarify.

Actually, the Israelis don't use your main battle tank armor (the Egyptians do, though they don't assemble it - hope they don't sell it off for examination). Their requirements ad conclusions re: the critical importance of low turret silhouette in a desert environment made it a non-fit with their needs.

They also put a small compartment in the back that can carry 4 soldiers (or a litter). Great for urban combat.

Once the Israelis are jerked into line on this issue, the EU will have even less wiggle room, and the USA will be one step closer to its overall objectives.

Who says that the EU will fall in line. It is not in their best interest.

"The Lavi was paid for, again, by Israel. The USA does provide military aid, but it was not paid out to develop the Lavi."

Again, NOT.

From thomas cache

"S.AMDT.2550 to H.J.RES.413 (To amendment 2545) perfecting, providing $250,000,000 for the procurement of defense articles and defense services in Israel for the Lavi program.
Sponsor: Sen Kasten, Robert W., Jr. [WI] (introduced 11/10/1983) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 11/10/1983 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SP 2550 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote."

I can't find an HTML version of the GAO report, it is referenced in this PDF
PDF

"GAO reported in January 1987 that the United States provided $1.3 billion of $1.5 billion Lavi development costs between 1980 and 1986."

It isn't clear whether $300M or 400M wsa approved for cancellation costs.

It is not in France's best interest. It is definitely very much in Britain's interest, given the cross-ownership between the British and US defense industries (The M2 Bradley is currently made by a BAE subsidiary, for instance).

Of course, there is also the curious notion that perhaps ones weapons export policy might be based on something more than mercantilism. Which is in fact EU policy. This has been used by Denmark, The Netherlands, Sweden, a majority of the EU Parlimentarians (not that anyone in the EU cares about them), and also a majority of German Parliamentarians (including, credit where it's due, many Green members of Schroeder's coalition) to put the brakes on lifting the weapons ban.

By eliminating any exception for the Israelis, the Americans accomplish 2 things: [1] their no exceptions approach clearly forces European manufacturers to choose between losing the U.S. market (and future U.S. development partnerships) and serving the Chinese one; [2] They make the threat of retaliation both credible AND APPLICABLE, given the number of European countries involved in the F-35 program.

A GAO PDF Foreign Assistance Analysis of Cost Esimates for Israel's Lavi Aircraft

I'm open to the possibility that SRV is correct - but the link given, and all associated links, has only this deeply cryptic reference in it:

"Amends the Arms Export Control Act to provide assistance to Israel for the procurement of defense articles and defense services for the Lavi program to Egypt in order to release Egypt from its contractual liability to repay the U.S. government. Earmarks specified appropriated funds for Israel and Egypt."

I confess to having no idea what that means.

First, I didn't come here to debate the Pollard case but,

1) Pollard wasn't a observant Jew until he went to prison. Over the time of his treason, he stood to have received in the neighborhood of $540,000.

2) Pollard recieved a life sentence. Not 2-4 years. He also never denied any of the substanial facts of the case. He has only tried to downplay the amount and significance of the data he compromised.

3) As far as reams of information, Pollard himself estimated the amount of material as a stack of paper 6' × 6' x 10'. Rafi Eitan has only said that Pollard was productive.

J.K., being kicked out of the F-35 program is a positive not a negative.

It is in Israel's interests to phase out US aid and go for a greater degree of independence in arms development. When the US is no longer involved, Israel can tell them to go fly. But the trembling Israelites will never say no to the 700-pound gorilla America. More's the pity. As for Pollard, would you have preferred that he not have passed the intel on Osirak to Israel and Saddam would have had nuclear armament? He deserves a prize FROM THE US, not jail.

a:
Being kicked out of the F35 JSF would be a massive negative for the UK. Both BAE and Rolls Royce are major contactors on the project. The development and demonstration phase of the project alone is worth north of £1 billion to BAE in the UK. Full production will be much bigger.

In addition to commercial arguments, the F-35 is crucial to UK defence plans, i.e. requirements for an advanced STOVL capable aircraft for the new fleet carrier programme.
It is also quite likely to be ordered by the RAF for the attack/strike roles for which the Tornado and Typhoon are unsuited.
In part this partnership with US aerospace is due to reaction in UK aerospce/defence circles to the Eurofighter farce (getting a good plane decades late and billions overbudget due to the political manouvering and technical shortcomings of our partners.)

Finally, even on grounds of pure self-interest, it might be doubted that any arms sales to China which increase the chance of a potentially catastrophic crisis over Taiwan have been well thought through.

If US actions re. Israel wake up the dozier sorts at the Foreign Office who incline to "go along" with the latest EU {=French} wheeze for the sake of European "reconciliation" and "communality" it will be a kick well-aimed.

I'm a nearly unconditional supporter of Israel. However, if Israel is going to cooperate with China in ANY way, I'd throw them to the wolves in a heartbeat.

#21 HA

However, if Israel is going to cooperate with China in ANY way, I'd throw them to the wolves in a heartbeat.

Do you know how many Israelis have been killed with American weapons, American money and American diplomatic cover?

" Pollard wasn't a observant Jew until he went to prison."

What does this have to do with anything?

#20 The UK is not the only EU country investing in the JFS and i seriously doubt you can say that it is such a financial benificial program for them. It is also the question if the JFS will be build and if the EU countries get what they bargained for (the "same" version as the American)

Given this latest news from France, descending to further depths... France Backs China on Taiwan

"During a state visit to China, French Premier Raffarin threw support behind a law allowing China to attack Taiwan and continued to push for a lift of the EU arms embargo.
.........and vowed to keep pushing for an end to an EU arms embargo that could open the door for Paris to sell weapons to the Asian giant."

and assuming that Britain continues in the EU how is the US going to protect its secrets?
That almost 500 page "constitution" they will sign will forcce them into a "One for All and All for One" situation.

Maybe it will be for Israel's good that Israel won't have to give up its technical secrets to later be used against itself?

a., The Europeans probably won't get the same version - each one of them has locally-made items they'll want in their own versions, just as our Canadian F-18s aren't exactly like American F-18s, or Australian F-18s, etc. But the planes will be substantially the same except as altered by each government, and the research benefits are real. Hence its success to date in European procurement competitions.

With "same" version i meant with the secret US stuff and not a striped down version. But every country will naturally add their favorite toys. But the secret US stuff is the problem. I somehow doubt the US will give everything.

It usually does to NATO military allies (and France is neither). That has certainly been the history. ou're entitled to any parsanoid thoughts you wish, a., but they should be backed by something.

So the UK could buy F117 in 1985?

a:
The UK could certainly not have bought an F-117 in 1985. So what? That was a very special piece of kit. There are some things the UK doesn't share (from the outset at least) with the US.

However, in the case of the F35 BAE is not just "investing" in the F-35, it is one of Lockheed Martin's partners on the project, with Northrop Grumman, and will be making sizable elements of its airframes and standard electronic systems, in its UK and US plants, for planes destined for the USAF.

Likely the USAF are going to include some items that are ether private tricks, or just not required by others.
Here's a suprise for you: the RAF will do exactly the same. It is virtually certain that RAF and RN-FAA requirements will involve modifications: hardly ever was an air force customer yet that'll take a plane 'as is'.

Knew I'd find something eventually. SRV is correct, and I apologize. From the Jewish Virtual Library:

"The total cost for the development and production of the Lavi was 6,400 million US dollar in 1983 and approximately 40 per cent was paid by the US government. The fly-away price for the Lavi would be between 15 and 17 million US dollar. The development costs of 1,370 million US dollar were relatively low, because much use was made of existing technology.

Even before the first Lavi (B-01) flew, the storm clouds were gathering. In 1983, the US government refused to give the export licences for a number of essential parts (for example the wings), because the parts provided high technology products. A total of 80 US firms would provide technology through licences. In 1984 the licences were awarded. Furthermore, the US government was not prepared to give money and technology to an aircraft that could be a major concurrent for the F-16C/D and the F/A-18C/D on the future export market.

In the spring of 1985, Israel was in an economic depression and the Lavi program was almost canceled.

Then, a dispute arose as to the final unit cost, the Israeli figure being far less than the US calculations showed. The US Congress withdrew financial support for the Lavi program.

The Israeli government could not finance the project without US support and canceled the Lavi program on 30 August 1987. The vote was 12 to 11 to cancel the Lavi program. After the cancellation the US government offered the A-10A, AH-64A, AV-8B, F-15I, F-16C/D and UH-60A as replacements for the Lavi, all Israeli wishes that were previously rejected."

At that price, it would have been a very serious export competitor to the F-16. Just as the USA refused certification for the Israeli Kurnass 2000 "F-4 Super Phantom" re-equipped with modern PW1120 engines, as this gave the 25 year old Phantoms equivalent performance to the F/A-18.

Many air forces flew the Phantom, and would have seriously considered upgrading instead of buying. This probably would have also touched off a vibrant resale market, as countries sold their F-4s to developing powers who would then turn around and upgrade (something that already happens, by the way).

You can see how the relationship with the USA is really something of a mixed blessing here. The Lavi I can understand given 40% funding for development, but the Phantom move was a pretty blatant abuse.

Israel would go on to buy AH-64 Apache helicopters, the F-15I, The F-16 (now upgraded to Block 50+ F-16I status with pretty much all-Israeli electronics), and UH-60 Blackhawk.

For reasons that are entirely unclear to me, they did not snap up the unbelievably excellent close support A-10 'Warthog' - and at a time when the USAF thought they were getting rid of them, and would probably have given them away for a song. Aaargh.

Anyway, as my subsequent post has noted, the Harpy situation got resolved pretty much the way everyone expected it to, and Israel is back in the F-35 program where it is contributing mostly to the plane's electronics and special systems like the helmet-mounted display that will give the JSF "look and shoot" capability.

wery strong and best