Israel seeks operational link with U.S. missile defense system

[lovuian]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/808848.html

Israel seeks operational link with U.S. missile defense system

By Aluf Benn and Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz Correspondents

Israel wants to increase the likelihood of the U.S. deploying emergency missile defense systems within Israeli territory. The heads of the Homa anti-missile project in the Defense Ministry asked the U.S. Department of Defense about two months ago for information on two advanced defense systems being developed in the U.S.:

The ground-based Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, and a new model of the Aegis naval defense system.

According to a Defense Ministry source, the request for information was aimed at promoting the possibility of an "operational link" between the Israeli and U.S. defense systems, as a continuation of an ongoing project.






The U.S. Army has deployed Patriot missile batteries in Israel on a number of occasions. The American-made missiles were integrated into Israel's anti-aircraft and ground-to-ground missile defense systems and were used in exercises in combination with Israel's Arrow missile system.
more...
I think Congress needs to investigate this???
:nuke:

[Kagemusha]

1. Why investigate? Congress is aware Israel is an ally

as is, for example, Japan...

[The Magistrate]

2. What Is To Investigate, Sir?

Do you imagine these exercises were carried out by commanders without official autohority to participate in them?

[lovuian]

3. Why ask permission then guys if they already have it

??? And why not an answer yet???

Why even an article???
We have many allies but that doesn't mean we give them our missile defense codes

Theres a NEW CONGRESS in town as of January

[The Magistrate]

4. You Are Mixing Apples And Oranges, Sir

The exercises involved integration of the U.S. systems with the existing Israeli defences, and their electronics. That is perfectly normal, as otherwise a much greater deployment of U.S. electronic equipment would have been required, or the batteries would have been much less effective, and of little practical use.

If the new systems are to be deployed in emergency in Israel, this sort of integration will be required. Such deployment is a possibility. Hence the Israeli request reported in this article. That no answer has been received suggests there is no hurry on the part of the U.S. government to share the information as yet.

[lovuian]

5. Thanks for clearing that up I'm surprised with Iran breathing

down everybody's necks that urgency didn't seem appropriate

Thanks for clearing a very confusing article

[bananas]

9. This seems to be about future weapons systems

stuff that won't be ready for a few years: "information on two advanced defense systems being developed"

[High Plains]

19. Iran is not threatening to attack Israel, but vice versa.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. What's to investigate?

Well, I'd hope the Israelis are wise enough to investigate why their elected officials are choosing to dump taxpayer money into a boondoggle.

[Tom Joad]

6. Hell NO! It would be illegal under US law.

Because Israel is a nuclear state, and it has not signed the NPT, and not acknowledged officially their possessions of weapons. That's just one reason.

It is actively engaged in an illegal military occupation is another.

[lovuian]

7. Perhaps thats the holdup It needs somebody's siggy

and they have been on vacation or perhaps someone is waiting for Congress to Ok it when they get in
office

or maybe this is all mute but then why did haaretz bring up the point maybe to give comfort to their citizens Its a puzzler of an article

[Tom Joad]

8. Although, i should point out, US often ignores laws on the books

especially in regards to its dealing with Israel. I don't think one congressperson will speak out against it.

[Solo_in_MD]

10. Cite for it being illegal?

[The Magistrate]

12. There Is No Citation For It, Sir, Because It Is Not Illegal

Mr. Joad is simply engaging in his customary hyperbole on the subject of Israel.

[Solo_in_MD]

13. I agree it is not illegal, but was being polite...

[cali]

14. It's the old hit and run

technique of posting combined with the telling a lie often enough tactic.

[Lurking Dem]

15. He probably got tired

of the ADL is a fascist organization one he had been repeating.

[Tom Joad]

26. False charge, Lurking.

I never made such a statement. I have been critical of the ADL, especially as it has backed many of Bush's most extreme appointees, (including ones the republican senate refused to approve), but have never called it a fascist organization.

Perhaps you support ADL's support of Bush's appointees, perhaps you support the unfair attack on Carter, that is your choice.

Do NOT attempt to put words in my mouth.

[Tom Joad]

30. Read post #21

[Tom Joad]

32. I will await your citation. Obviously, because it is false, you will not find it.

[Lurking Dem]

33. Oh MY mistake!

You called the ADL an apologist for racist extremism and said that FOXMAN was the ideological twin to (Avigdor) Lieberman and you said LIEBERMAN and the members of his political party were fascists!

No wonder I was confused! :sarcasm:

[Tom Joad]

34. Foxman has not stated any problems with A. Lieberman in the Israeli

govt, and i think most people here think Lieberman & his party is an extrmist. I did not believe i used the word fascists, that is your term.

You think Lieberman is a fascist?

[Lurking Dem]

35. You seemed to be all in agreement

in this thread which you posted:

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=152203&mesg_id=152203


I'm not sure that Lieberman is a fascist. He may be. He is certainly an extremist. But my feelings about him have nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand.

Did you find a cite yet for your claim?

[Tom Joad]

38. A few hours ago. Read post #21

[Violet_Crumble]

44. Then why did you bring it up in the first place?

I'm not sure that Lieberman is a fascist. He may be. He is certainly an extremist. But my feelings about him have nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand.

You were the one who made some totally incorrect claim about something Tom had said that had zero to do with this thread....

[Tom Joad]

25. Read post #21

[Tom Joad]

23. Magistrate apparently does not feel the need to be polite.

He is also not knowledgable regarding US law in this area. Quite obviously.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

21. Here is one reliable source. Remember Olmert's gaffe?

He basically admitted that Israel had nukes. Why was that so bad? After all, the best things about nukes is that you advertise your nation's got them, so as to deter attack and can do many things a nation without nuclear weapons could not get away with. But in Israel's case... everyone knows, and then the US pretends they do not have nuclear weapons, otherwise, the US would have openly flaunt its own laws, instead of doing it with a wink.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2500541,00.html#

"Israel's policy of silence also allows it to skirt a US ban on funding countries that proliferate weapons of mass destruction and collect about $2 billion a year in military and other aid."

Maybe later i should find the US law that specifically applies.

[cali]

29. And how does that apply to this

particular story? Not that I don't agree that the U.S. should cut aid to Israel, but from what I understand this is pretty innocuous, and it doesn't seem that they are giving or selling Israel these missiles, so how is that aid. Perhaps I'm missing something, but of all the things to rail against, this seems pretty silly.

[Tom Joad]

31. It still is military aid, and all military aid to a nation acting outside the

NPT is forbidden.

so i think this law still applies.

[The Magistrate]

40. You Will Search In Vain, Mr. Joad

For a line of the Federal Code that actually states this in a manner that applies to Israel, and the long-standing military co-operation between that country and the United States.

Among other things, Israel is not officially a nuclear power, and while this may be a legal fiction, it removes any general applicability of regulations on the subject, as it does not meet the legal threshold. Common knowledge widely accepted has no standing under laws that specify particular tests for applicability. The fact is that all law on the subject was written with the knowledge Israel possessed nuclear weapons, and with the intent that co-operation between the states in military matters not be disrupted. You may depend upon the people drafting the regulations to have known their business well.

[Tom Joad]

42. It doesn't specifically apply to Israel.

It applies to any nation the US might give military aid.

The fact remains that Israel is a nuclear nation. The Israeli Prime Minister has admitted it. The Secratary of Defense of the US has acknowledged it. No more pretending. If lawmakers feel the law should not be applied, then they should write an exemption. At least it would be honest, at least there could be some debate.

I don't expect the Bush administration to follow the law. I don't expect the US Congress to follow the law. It is not the custom of politicians to think the law applies to their activities.

People can make a difference, however. Peace activists can call on Congress to live up to its laws.

[The Magistrate]

43. You Will Find, Sir

Should you look beyond your hopes and the surface, that the law is structured in such a way that it does not apply to the routine co-operations between Israel and the United States that have been going on for decades. The common knowledge Israel doubtless does possess nuclear weapons is certainly not sufficient to trigger any broad application of it: there are certification procedures, that have not been carried out, and will not be carried out, because it is not deemed in the nation's interests by our government to perform them. The law in question long pre-dates the present administration, so attempting to rope this in as an anti-Bush item holds no water at all, present policy being no different than that of President Clinton, or any preceeding administration.

Your invocation of 'peace activists' in closing strikes me as a trifle odd. Persons who are genuinely advocates of peace maintain a stance of neutrality between the sides of a conflict, and agitate against the violence and illegalities of all participants in it. They have no interest at all in the victory of one side over another, and would never approve any course for either side but a negotiation of their differences, however rocky the course of those negotions might be, or even however short of maximum desires for one side or the other might be the end to which they lead. Certainly most of the agitators you would seem to be refering to as "peace activists" do not come close to meeting the genuine standard: they want the victory of one side over the other, and view its violence as legitimate and that of the other side as illegitimate.

[Solo_in_MD]

11. Its called an IADS

Integrated Air Defense System, and is the best way to run the air battle in modern warfare. Its a network of survelaince, tracking, targeting radars, missile batteries, command and control sites, air traffic control etc. Its also helps avoid misunderstandings and accidental shoot downs.

Having a IADS integration point with Israel and excersizing it regularly is a good thing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Well that will fatten the portfolios of the "defense" industry.

Just what the Middle East needs, more and more efficient arms.

[hack89]

17. At least they are defensive

or do you think a country can defend itself too well?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. So was their invasion of Lebanon..."defensive".

As was Hesbullah's attacks on Israel.."defensive".

And, I suppose the American rationale for supplying more arms to Israel and Saudi Arabia is for "our" defense.

History is jampacked with wars fought for "defense".

[hack89]

20. We are not talking about wars

we are talking about weapon systems. Has it ever crossed your mind that if Israel was able to neutralize Iranian or Syrian missiles then it would be less likely that Israel would have a need to attack them?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. So, under that rubric we should supply Iran & Syria with similar systems?

A sort of reverse "Mutually Assured Destruction"? Or, maybe we should supply Iran & Syria with Atomic weapons to counter Israels nuclear capabilities.

[Tom Joad]

28. I think the people of Iran or Syria has much more to fear from Israel

than the other way around.

[hack89]

36. But don't you agree ,,

that if Israel could neutralize Iranian missiles it would be much harder for them to justify an attack? And if they were to attack, wouldn't it make it harder for anyone to defend their actions?

As far as I am concerned, effective purely defensive weapons are a good thing.

[Tom Joad]

39. It may be that it would much more likely to initiate an attack

If they think their casualties can be limited.

That's the way it was during the cold war too. Even these so called "defensive weapons" can be seen as an escalation in the arms race. If it is purely defensive, then perhaps we should share the technology with Iran and Syria?

What needs to happen is serious negotiation, not more military aid.

[oberliner]

37. Have Israeli civilians not already been killed

by organizations that receive funding from Iran and Syria?

[westerebus]

41. Integrating Aegis information

into the Israeli air defense system would give them a look into the whole Persian Gulf without risk to any of their assets. It may also give them a look at any thing moving that the US military finds interesting in real time. That is a huge force multiplier in itself. Problems arise in the "what if category"; will they use it for targeting for a pre strike? Just asking.