Talk:Israel-United States military relations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
An entry from Israel-United States military relations appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 1 May 2007.
Wikipedia

Contents

[edit] Explanation of template

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)

[edit] Comments on new article

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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
  • support merge less POV.--Sefringle 21:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • A far more balanced, and sourced entry. I endorse the merge. TewfikTalk 02:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

  • Support the obvious Merge' - This is a Far more balanced and more importantly encyclopedic entry. No doubt. Go through it.Amoruso 16:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse merge - per WP core policy: NPOV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse merge. Jaakobou 10:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse merge. per ChrisO, Zleitzen, and Humus sapiens. <<-armon->> 02:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About merging

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)
What information appears in the other article that does not appear here?-- Zleitzen(talk) 18:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
Agreed.-- Zleitzen(talk) 11:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)
As per ChrisO above.-- Zleitzen(talk) 08:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. --Timeshifter 09:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

I already answered that question. --Timeshifter 21:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
No, you have not. Isarig 01:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have. --Timeshifter 02:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
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)
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)
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)
It was a straw man argument to begin with. --Timeshifter 17:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
Funny. I was referring to your straw man argument. --Timeshifter 03:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Where? Isarig 14:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
In this thread and in others. But why waste more time? --Timeshifter 14:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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

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

[edit] U.S.-supplied weapon systems

(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.

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b Berrigan, Frida; William D. Hartung (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.
  2. ^ Congress. "U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel - Report to Congress January 5, 2006", Congress, 2006-01-05. 
  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.

[edit] United States military aid to Israel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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)

[edit] US funding of indigenous Israeli weapon development programs

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)

[edit] Invitations

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)

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)

[edit] worldpolicy.org

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)


[edit] Improving the article

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

"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)

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)

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)

See my previous comment up above. --Timeshifter 01:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
So you are suggesting this be split into a new article? OK, will do. -- Kendrick7talk 21:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
Some of the history of the 2 articles is in the next section. --Timeshifter 01:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
What AfD?? You were quick to delete the split, but not quick to restore it here.... -- Kendrick7talk 21:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
The articles were merged after much discussion and near-unanimous agreement on this talk page. --Timeshifter 01:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, then. I'll merge the sections. -- Kendrick7talk 21:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some history of the merged articles

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

[edit] Tidying up the list

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)

[edit] Continuing deletion efforts

Tewfik is continuing his deletion efforts. See this diff. Tewfik initiated the AFD for United States military aid to Israel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 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)

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

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)

[edit] Eurocopter

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)

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)
No, not the military range. Isarig 17:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
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)

[edit] Standard Air-to-Ground missiles?

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)


  • 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)
Thanks for the info. --Timeshifter 19:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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