FACTS ABOUT US AID FOR ISRAEL

[mshasta]

Sunday, 16 July 2006

The myth that Israel wants peace (the government, not the people) and the United States is an unbiased broker

*Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid, receiving over one-third of total US aid despite being home to just .001% of the global population and having one of the highest per capita incomes in the world.
*
*
Since 1949 the US has given Israel a total of $84,854,827,200. The interest costs born by US taxpayers on behalf of Israel are $49,937,000,000 - making the total amount of aid given to Israel since 1949 more than $134 billion.
*
*
The total cost of this financial aid to US tax payers per Israeli is $23,240. For the 2005 fiscal year, Israel received $357 million in Economic Support Funds (ESF), $2.202 billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF), and $50 million in migration settlement assistance.
*
*
For 2006, the Administration has requested $240 million in economic support and $2.28 billion in military support .
*
House and Senate measures also add $40 million for the settlement of migrants from the former Soviet Union and take note of Israel's plan to bring remaining Ethiopian Jews to Israel in three years.
*
*
Israeli press reported that Israel is requesting some $2.25 billion in special aid in a mix of grants and loan guarantees over four years, with one-third to be used to relocate military bases from the Gaza Strip to Israel.
*
*
To help Israel out of its economic slump, the U.S. provided $9 billion in loan guarantees over three years, use of which has since been extended to 2008.

We hear all the time that 'Iran arms Hezbollah', but when are we told that 'America arms Israel'?

Talking of arms supplies:

*
Israel is ranked fourth among the world's arms suppliers.
*
*
Israel is reportedly China's second major arms supplier, after Russia.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-United_States_relations and http://www.palestinemonitor.org/factsheet/US_Aid_to_Israel.htm

[Captain Hilts]

1. I wouldn't trust Wikipedia on something controversial like this. nt

[StClone]

10. I fear this is controversial

And I do understand why, though not completely. We talk about other countries in terms like this, however Israel is based on a wonderful and long-lived Religion. Does discussing aid make it appear anymore antisemitic than anti-Catholic for discussing the horrible Pedophile scandal?

[Canuckistanian]

73. Well, then, register with Wikipedia and set them straight

Rememeber, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone.

Now as far as the facts go, can they be disputed? The OP quoted a long list of verifiable facts.

If the facts are in doubt, then this can easily be corrected.

[populistdriven]

75. Remember, the Wiki was judged accurate in a Scientific analysis

Wikipedia no worse for science info than Britannica, study finds

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/2005/12/14/wikipedia_no_worse_for_science_info_than_britannica_study_finds.html

I bet the Britannica's accuracy on Israel would be questionable also.

[TahitiNut]

2. Taxpayer subsidies of armament manufacturers.

By far, the "aid" is nothing but profiteering on human misery and death. How many billions would it take to build schools and hospitals in Palestine that would accommodate every child and person in need of medical care? How many billions would it take to subsidize farms and livstock to feed the entire poulation?

[serryjw]

35. Have you ever seen this website?

It will answer your question for US..then it would not be a major leap for the ME.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/

[sabbat hunter]

71. how many billions

did arafat steal that should have gone to the palestinian people?

how much money did hamas/islamic jihad/al asqa waste on building bombs, rockets that could have been used to help the palestinian people.

[cantstandbush]

3. Well, check out other sources. Like the Congressional Record. nt

[blurp]

4. So what.

Without the help of the US, you'd have another Jewish Holocaust.

I think spending the money to prevent that is worth it.

[Clark2008]

5. That has nothing to do with arming Israel.

You can protect Jewish people without arming a theocratic "democracy" to the teeth.

[WilliamPitt]

7. How?

[High Plains]

11. Force them into a just peace.

If there were a just settlement of the Palestinian issue support for "driving the Jews into the sea" would melt away. Yes, there would surely be hard-heads and probably continued attacks for awhile, but a moderate, restrained response that does not engage in collective punishment--my God, you would think the Jews would know better--is the path to peace.

On edit: How to force Israel to a just peace? Quit paying for their war machine.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. I think a case can be made that their response here is wrong-headed

and counterproductive.

That said, though, to blithely ignore or belittle the FACT that Israel's enemies have spent the last 60 years seriously engaged in the pursuit of 'driving the Jews into the sea' ignores the historical realities of the region. The Palestinians could have had a state- a much bigger one- in '48, if they could have accepted Israel's existence.

There was no occupation or "Palestinian Issue" in '65, when the PLO was formed, nor was there any before '67, when the surrounding Arab states were geared up and completely prepared to destroy Israel militarily and totally. The Israelis pull out of Gaza- all the way- and they are attacked from Gaza. The Israelis pull out of Lebanon, and they are attacked from Lebanon.

The Israelis were at the table for a comprehensive peace agreement and a Palestinian state in 2000, and Arafat walked away. I hardly think it's the Israelis, alone, who need to be "forced" into a "just" peace.

[Chulanowa]

69. Maybe they've been "serious"

But one just needs to perform a casual look at the numbers to see that no matter how "serious" Hamas and their sort are about destroying Israel, they are horribly ineffective at accomplishing that goal. Israel is, in point of fact, in no danger of being destroyed whatsoever. Individual Israelis are sometimes in danger, but the populace as a whole? Only in neocon fever-dreams. Also compare the lives lost in this coinflict. Casualties are higher than twenty to one, with Israel winning.

Forgive my skepticism when the world's fourth most powerful and second most militarized nation on earth claims that it is in danger of "destruction" from people armed with third-rate cold war rockets.

[blurp]

9. They really are a democracy and not really theocratic.

You can protect Jewish people without arming a theocratic "democracy" to the teeth.

You really don't know anything about the Israeli system of government, do you?

[n2doc]

12. Why does their system of Government matter?

Would what is happening be worse if Israel was a dictatorship? I get really tired of the crap about defending "the only democracy in the mideast" with huge amounts of borrowed money. Their system of government matters not. Their people can be manipulated into supporting bad policies just like our people can.

Just a suggestion- Maybe if Israel could not count on our 100% support-no matter what-they might have to be a bit more cautious and measured in how they respond to provocations.

[Clark2008]

26. I know more than you, apparently.

Israel, is, by definition, a Jewish state, thus a theocracy.

I used "democracy" in quotes because I'm giving the citizens the benefit of the doubt. Why would they have ever voted for the Lucid Party if they truly want peace?

[Warren DeMontague]

37. Because they voted for Peace in the '90s, and despite the best

efforts of Barak as well as the overtime work of Bill Clinton, Yasser Arafat walked away from the table.

It's hard to have peace if the other side steadfastly refuses to play ball.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. Texas is more of a Theocracy than Israel.

At least they don't put people in the slammer for selling sex toys in Israel.

[NoPasaran]

53. I think you have us confused with Alabama

It's only illegal to possess multiple dildos in the Lone Star State.

Hmmm, I need to search through the State Journal. Must have been an interesting debate in the Legislature when they enacted that law.

[girl gone mad]

60. Oh, come on.

I'm an atheist and I have a comfortable life in Texas. Most of my friends are non-christian and they do just fine here. The Texas bigotry is uncalled for.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. See the post directly above yours.

My facts aren't that far off.

For the record, I've got atheist friends in Israel, too. My point was, if Israel is a "theocracy", then one could certainly make the same argument about the US, or parts of it.

[NoPasaran]

50. "Lucid" didn't win the 2006 election

The new Kadima party won the most seats and its leader Ehud Olmert is the current prime minister.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. I hope Lucid wins the 2008 election.

This particular lucid individual, in fact.

[sabbat hunter]

72. israel

is not a theocracy.

[AnOhioan]

14. Oh for chrissakes

Israel is the only country in the mideast that has nuclear capability. No other country or group is going to affect another Holocaust.

The whole "Israel being driven into the sea" nonsense is just that.

Israel is more than capable of handling herself without US financial assistance.

We have done our part to assure their survival.

Time to lessen the flow of US tax dollars to that country.

And while we are at it I wish the UN were strong enough to outright ban arms transfers of any kind between nations.

That would be a huge step towards peace and survival for all concerned. ALas it will never happen because it is too lucrative a trade.

[Clark2008]

28. I know that and you know that, but try telling that to the

average American.

I know tons of Middle Eastern people. My son is related to half of Jordan because my ex-husband is Palestinian (born in Jordan, however, and his family is monsterously huge).

My current husband is Jewish and pretty much denounced Israel after a visit there. He could not stand to see how they manipulated his faith in order to treat the Palestinians as dogs.

The average Arab does not want to see Israel driven into the sea any more than the average Israeli thinks they should round up the Palestinians and treat them like dogs.

The people want peace - it's the powers that be that want profit through war.

[BillZBubb]

15. What a crock!

Pull out the old "holocaust" card. The state of Israel could defend itself adequately without the US bankrolling them.

Plus, the financial strain would force them to accept reality: They need to make peace with their neighbors on terms that are acceptable to their neighbors.

With Uncle Sam covering for them diplomatically and financially, Israel can continue on it's self destructive path.

Every dime we give Israel is a dime borrowed from our own future to prop up a destructive policy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. A Question

"They need to make peace with their neighbors on terms that are acceptable to their neighbors. "

What if some of their neighbors just want them to move?

[BillZBubb]

19. An answer

None of their neighbors seriously believes they will move. Surely you don't believe the propaganda?

All of Israel's immediate neighbors have stated publicly that a return to the 1967 borders, a solution to the "right of return" question, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state would bring immediate recognition of Israel.

Israel has created more serious problem inside the Palestinian camp by smashing up the PLO. That let the more radical Hamas rise to the forefront. It's typical of Israel's heavy-handed and self-destructive policies. Even so, even Hamas would come around if the points I mentioned were met. They have insinuated as much AND a vast majority of the Palestinians are known to support recognition and acceptance of Israel if their rights and claims are given just treatment.

Turkey, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinians would all be on board. The rest of the Arab states would have no serious grievances with Israel once the Palestinians are treated fairly.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. And what was the problem with the terms offered in 2000 that Arafat

walked away from?

"Believe the propaganda" about the goal being the destruction of Israel? Whose propaganda? Ours? Or Hamas's? Hezbollah's? At some point, one not only has to look at their statements (saying they support the total destruction of the "illegitimate" state of Israel) but their actions- Israel pulls out of Gaza, and the first thing the Palestinians get on is using Gaza as a staging ground to launch rockets into Israel. Israel pulls out of Lebanon- and Hezbollah uses south Lebanon for the same thing.

You're right- a majority of Palestinians do understand that a lasting peace involves recognition of Israel. A Majority of Israelis want to make peace with the Palestinians, as well. The last time we had competent leadership in the WH, the whole area came pretty damn close to a long-term solution that ALL sides understood to be fairly close to what a realistic final deal would look like.

Unfortunately, Yasser Arafat torpedoed the peace process. In part, by dragging in last-minute demands for the "right of return" as the deal breaker. Now, a minute about that 'right of return'. You want to talk about what people seriously believe- no one can seriously believe that Israel- a nation with a population of 6 million- can seriously be expected to take in 3 million Palestinians. That would mark the destruction of the State of Israel as it currently exists, no question.

Part of the problem with the PLO was that it was horribly corrupt. That wasn't Israel's doing. If Hamas had concentrated on bettering the lives of the Palestinians after being elected, as opposed to going into the Cape Canaveral Business from Gaza, perhaps they would be taken more seriously as a peace-minded player.

[BillZBubb]

25. More propaganda. You have swallowed the bullshit.

The terms Arafat walked away from were a joke. No right of return of any sort--and THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A PALESTINIAN POINT. You are either ignorant of that fact or dishonest. The Israeli's would hold onto huge chuncks of the West Bank. The resulting Palestinian "state" would resemble a Swiss Cheese. The Israeli's would control water rights in the Jordan river. There were many other restrictions on the Palestinian "state".

Arafat did the right thing. You bought the propaganda hook line and sinker.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. "Arafat did the right thing" - and are his people better off for it?

Insistence on the right of return- no ifs, ands, or buts- is equivalent to insistence on the destruction of Israel -pre 1967 borders Israel- as we know it. Period. No reasonable negotiators expect them to accept that.

Can you find me a map of this "Swiss Cheese"? Can you tell me what percentage of West Bank lands Israel would hold on to, and how much land inside Israel proper the palestinians would receive in return?

And again- if this is just about occupation, how come Israel pulls out of Gaza and is attacked from Gaza? How come Israel pulls out of Lebanon and is attacked from Lebanon?

I bought the propaganda? I think Israel has a right to exist. I make no bones about that fact.

[The Magistrate]

33. There Is Not Going To Be A Right Of Return, Sir

To hold out for it is to commit to unending hostilities.

Would you argue, Sir, that the condition of the people of Arab Palestine has improved over the last several years, since the late Mr. Arafat rejected that offer, or has it deteriorated?

[Recursion]

24. Don't gloss over the sticking point

a solution to the "right of return" question

That and the status of Jerusalem are the sticking points. The "right of return" is an existential threat to Israel as a Jewish homeland because it would mean there would no longer be a Jewish majority in the country.

Now I, for one, could give a fig whether there is a Jewish homeland or not, but I recognize the fact that many people in Israel do care. If everyone Israel drove out in '48 and their descendants go back to where they came from (in what we now call Israel), they and the Israeli Arabs are the majority in the country.

I wonder what would happen then?

[BillZBubb]

29. I'm not glossing over anything.

I suggest that Israel fairly COMPENSATE Palestinians in lieu of the "right of return". I don't think that's a big problem. They could pay them tons of money and it would still be far cheaper than a year of occupation. I also have no doubt Uncle Sam would pick up the tab.

Some few hard-headed Palestinians might refuse compensation, but that could be worked out. I think very few would refuse a generous settlement because it's mostly the old timers who really want to return and they are dying off. This problem is not as big as people seem to think.

Jerusalem is another huge problem. The Israeli's want it, but it wasn't theirs prior to 1967. But it comes back to what do the Israeli's really want? The land and perpetual war or peace and stability. I've always thought they wanted the land more than peace. Their actions demonstrate that. This would be the acid test.

BTW, I also think a deal could be had to fairly partition Jerusalem. The Palestinians, given the right incentives would agree to a partition.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. I think the only workable solution for Jerusalem is for it to be

Internationalized. Neither side is going to agree to have the "other" run it. Although it's interesting, when the Arabs controlled it, the Jews were not allowed to visit their holy sites. Now that Israel runs it, the Arabs have access to Al Aqsa, for instance.

If compensation rather than actual return had been the issue in 2000, I strongly suspect it could have been worked out.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. The Israelis Offered Compensation

But if Israel repatriated all 650,000 Palestinians and their progeny who fled or were expelled depending on which narrative you subscribe to Israel would cease to exist as a Jewish state. It would be the destruction of Israel by alternate means.

I favor a two state solution but I think you overestimate the willingness of certain groups in the area to accept Israel.


For instance Hezbollah has stated as its goal the destruction of Israel as political entity and the eradication of all Jewish cultural and religious influence in the area. Hezbollah did state that those Jews who were willing to live under Sharia law will be allowed to stay.

[Singular73]

64. This is the same type of logic that makes hard-right wingers hate Mexicans

Gotta keep a white majority in the US!

Gotta keep a Jewish majority in Israel!

Why do you think Israel hasn't annexed Gaza, etc...they CANT lol.

[serryjw]

32. Soooooo instead we can have

Arab/Muslim holocaust. May want to re-think your position, will never bring peace to either side.

[ThomWV]

6. Considering needs elsewhere its a disgrace we give them anything

Why in hell do we give them a dime? It is unimaginable how much good we could do with that sort of spending in sub saharan Africa or all of central America.

[Minnesota Libra]

8. There is an obvious issue with................

....your two sources.

Number one source; is wikipedia which can be edited by most anyone, including anyone who is biased on either side.

Number two source; is the Palestine Monitor. Now come on :eyes:, do you REALLY expect anyone, with even a mustard seed amount of fairness left in them, to take anything seriously that the Palestine Monitor says about Israel???:banghead:

At the same time, before the flame war begins, let me point out that I wouldn't believe any Israeli media source on the subject of Palestine/Arabs/Muslims/pick your term.

I want independent sources for anything either side has to say.

[hpot]

13. Israel is a taboo subject, be prepared to be labeled as an anti-semite

The United States of Israel?

""John" is John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago. Walt is a 50-year-old tenured professor at the John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. The two men have caused one of the most extraordinary political storms over the Middle East in recent American history by stating what to many non-Americans is obvious: that the US has been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of Israel, that Israel is a liability in the "war on terror", that the biggest Israeli lobby group, Aipac (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), is in fact the agent of a foreign government and has a stranglehold on Congress - so much so that US policy towards Israel is not debated there - and that the lobby monitors and condemns academics who are critical of Israel.

"Anyone who criticises Israel's actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle East policy," the authors have written, "...stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-Semite."

http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk04272006.html

[Erika]

16. Yep Israel can do no wrong to many

and deserves every cent plus more of our tax $.

[Posteritatis]

40. And, to many others, it can do no good

and must be driven into the sea or worse.

[cali]

17. Criticism

of Israel and strong condemnation of its actions is, of course, not anti-semitism. Having said that, I disagree with much of Mearshimer and Walt's paper. For an academic paper it was startling short of nuance. The claim that AIPAC has a stranglehold on Congress without comparing the influence of other lobbies places their argument in a vacume. They also don't take into account the power of Institutional habit; in this case that the US position on Israel is deeply ingrained within the Institutions themselves.

It's also important to note that the there is anti-semitism that burrows into some of these discussions, and that the cry of "I'm going to be called an anti-semite" is often used pre-emptively, before any such accusation has been made, as a way of shutting down any criticism of criticism of Israel.

[Howardx]

41. without comparing the influence of other lobbies?

what other lobbies? what other COUNTRIES have substantial lobbying efforts going on in the US?

[Warren DeMontague]

44. Yeah. Enough with the crazy talk- like other COUNTRIES have undue

influence on Bush, his administration, or the Neo-Cons in general!



Imagine, thinking that anyone besides Israel is behind anything! :rofl: :crazy:

[Howardx]

48. personal and prior business relationships

do not constitute a lobby. my question is specifically this, what other countries besides israel have a lobbying organization here in the us specifically to attempt to influence the us governments policy towards their country? i am personally unaware of any other than aipac. enlighten me.

[Warren DeMontague]

51. "personal and prior business relationships". Yep, that sums up the

multi-trillion dollar relationship between the current US govt and the Family Saud. Sure.

Whereas Israel, Israel that has NO OIL, is the secret chief behind every weird Neo-Con dream.

Mmmm Hmmm.

[Howardx]

58. again

"what other countries besides israel have a lobbying organization here in the us specifically to attempt to influence the us governments policy towards their country?" it should be a simple question to answer. if the sauds have one let me know what it is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

62. Many Countries Have Lobbies

Many countries have lobbies to influence policy. The Greeks and Indians come foremost to mind.


I can supply links if you want.

[Howardx]

63. ok thanks for answering

i'll check it out

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. A Start

http://www.cfr.org/publication/6429/getting_uncle_sams_ear.html

[DemocratSinceBirth]

66. I Forgot The Cuban Lobby

http://www.cfr.org/publication/6501/

[cali]

54. Big Oil has

an incredibly powerful lobby, as do other countries. You're naive if you think that AIPAC is the only powerful lobby in D.C. And you didn't address my argument.

[The Magistrate]

23. If Anyone Calls You An Anti-Semite, Sir, Use The Alert Function

Boldly proclaiming you are going to be called an Anti-Semite is a pretty tired wheeze that impresses no one....

[hpot]

27. I'm not accusing anyone here

Just pointing out how some can be overly quick to pull the racism card to stifle genuine debate. I've seen many examples from documentaries involving AIPAC representatives and the 9/11 forum.

[The Magistrate]

30. Do Not Levy Accusations Here, Sir, If You Are Not Accusing People Here

The person who has pulled this "card" out overly quickly is you, and your purpose is exactly the same, to stifle disagreement with you by pre-emptively putting those who disagree with you in the wrong. It is an amatuer hour technique, Sir, as over-done as "rock and roll will never die"....

[hpot]

39. Chill out dude

Rock & roll will never die!

:P

[The Magistrate]

59. Oh, It Is Very Dead, Sir

The Beatles made it sick, and Led Zepplin killed it....

[U4ikLefty]

42. I have seen many posts where somone is called an anti-semite

are you saying that you will delete their posts? Cause I haven't seen many of them deleted.

[Howardx]

43. ive seen a few times today alone

in threads that have been locked

[The Magistrate]

49. When A Thread Is Locked, Sir

We often do not bother with further action, having only limited quantities of time and attention, and a great deal to do. The presence of such violations is often why a thread is locked as a flame-war or flame-bait.

[Warren DeMontague]

45. And I've seen posts where people are called all kinds of names.

In clear violation of the rules. :hi:

[U4ikLefty]

47. Yeah, me too. What is up with that???

[The Magistrate]

52. If You See Personal Attacks, Sir, Please Alert On Them

We cannot possible examine every post ourselves, and are in a degree dependent in our actions on what the members of the site direct us to by use of the alert function.

[U4ikLefty]

55. Sir, I will be dilgent with the use my alert function, thank you.

[The Magistrate]

46. The Rules Prohibit Accusations Of Bigotry, Sir

If you think you see one, alert on it. We will review it and decide if it is actionable.

[4freethinking]

70. I can testify to that

I brought up AIPAC one time and was accused of anti-semitism. It turns out one of my posts was deleted while none of the other person's were who was accusing me of anti-semitism.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5623918

[mmonk]

20. The last part about China is the most worrisome.

I believe they aren't supposed to give certain weapons technology to China but have done so anyway. Israel is loyal to Israel of course, but to the point they don't mind sticking a finger in our eye every once in awhile and have been caught spying on us as well. So the bigger question is why do we risk so much for them or never try to rein them in a little on over-aggressive occasions? I understand support of them, but not when it jeopardizes us.

[Malikshah]

36. Here's a nice link from WRMEA-- July 2006

http://www.wrmea.org/archives/July_2006/0607016.html


The tables are quite telling.

[hpot]

56. Interesting

2006

2,280 million for military
240 million for economy

Money well spent. :sarcasm:

[Malikshah]

57. Now let us compare....Katrina aid....US Aid for...

oh, forget it. I'm too depressed as it is.

[chill_wind]

74. Well, here's a 2005 CRS issues brief, chock full of Israel Aid Facts.

and much more.

The BA, Condi Rice, the conservatives and the political ilk of both Trent Lott and Diane Feinstein, with the help of MSM are making a huge issue of Lebanon's rockets coming from Iran. (on CNN with Wolf Blitzer this Sunday AM..)

Never is it mentioned that Israel, like the United States, has also been alleged to share and transfer its weapons/technology around too, despite stipulations and agreements.

ANALYSIS
Since 1976, Israel has been the largest annual recipient of U.S. aid and is the largest recipient of cumulative U.S. assistance since World War II.

(see all)

The United States stipulates that U.S. aid funds cannot be used in the occupied territories. Over the years, some have suggested that Israel may be using U.S. assistance to establish Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, but Israel denies the allegation.Because U.S. economic aid is given to Israel as direct government-to-government budgetar support without any specific project accounting, and money is fungible, there is no way to tell how Israel uses U.S. aid.


Also, the United States stipulates that U.S. military equipment provided through the FMS program can be used only for internal security or defensive purposes, and that U.S. weapons and equipment cannot be transferred to a third countrywithout U.S. approval. (See Sections 3 and 4 of the Arms Export Control Act, P.L. 90-629, as amended.) In 1978, 1979, and 1981, the executive branch notified Congress thatIsrael “may have violated” U.S.-Israeli agreements by using U.S. weapons for non-defensive purposes, and in 1982, the United States suspended shipments of so-called cluster bombs after allegations that Israel violated an agreement on the use of the bombs during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

(...)

In 1982 testimony before Congress, executive branch officials said Israel transferred U.S. arms to Iran and the Israeli-funded surrogate force known as the “South Lebanon Army” without U.S. permission, and similar charges emerged in 1992 concerning Israeli transfers of U.S. technologyor equipment to China, South Africa, Chile, Ethiopia, and other countries.
A U.S. Defense Department team went to Israel in late March 1992, to investigate the alleged transfer of Patriot missile technology to China, but announced on April 2 that it found no evidence of an unauthorized transfer. The State Department Inspector-General released a
report on April 2, 1992, that suggested that Israel had transferred other U.S. arms technology without U.S. permission.

full report: pdf version: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/47088.pdf

html version: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:EfQuKl86AkkJ:fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/47088.pdf+US+foreign+to+Israel&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&client=firefox-a

(bold-text mine)

[Lithos]

76. Locking per I/P guidelines

Article not based on recent news or op-ed article.

Lithos
DU Moderator