In solely secular terms, the US has found Israel far more frequently friend than enemy. It hasn’t been 100.00% friend of course.
In spiritual terms, the biblical promise that God will bless those who bless Israel, looms large.
[ This article provides yet another occasion to raise the question, on a cost benefit analysis, is the United States more secure or less secure for its support of Israel? ]
When it comes to supporting Israel, i have always felt that the best way to do so is to NOT support the Islamist Regimes in the middle east.
It makes no sense to send one million to Israel if we are sending a million to every country that hates it that surrounds it.
Israel is a “big boy” now and the best thing we can do is not send it’s enemies any sort of aid even if that meant sending nothing to Israel. They are industrious, they can support themselves better than the lazy ass saudis and their trillions of oil that are just bubbling up into the sand.
I don’t see that it raises any issues for the US whatever. It is an issue between the UK and Israel.
Should the Israelis (IF the report is true) have sold arms to the Argentinians at that time? I would say not, but the UK has not always been such a friend to Israel. It’s a matter for them not the USA to be concerned about.
hmmm... while I support Israel, I think the CBA shows on the negative side.
This does not answer Nathan’s question, but I would suggest caution (like always) when reading newspaper articles. The headline and the text do not match. And the report from the Ambassador, if not directly misleading is definitely not as clear cut as the DT makes it out to be.
What is clear is that Israel had sold aircraft technology to Argentine for years prior to the Falkland’s War. It is also clear that they continued to sell arms to Argentine after the war. But nowhere is it shown that Israel actually provided Argentine with weapons during the actual conflict.
Another country that also sold weapons to Argentine prior to the conflict was France. France blocked further sales to Argentine once the war started, whereas Israel at the time did not acknowledge any arms deals with Argentine.
In the DT article is mentioned the Argentine Skyhawks, maybe returned to usable condition by Israel, but the Dassault-Breguet Super Étendard and the Exocet missiles were not mentioned.
In actual fact losses to the British Navy were inflicted by the Daggers (Israeli converted Mirage), the Skyhawks and the Super Étendard, and at least one ship was sunk by an Exocet missile fired from land.
Thus, the problems with arms sales; when you sell the arms the customer may be a friendly nation, but one can never be certain that is the case once the arms are being used. Also, stopping the sales once war breaks out does not stop the already sold arms to be used.
Why would this be a surprise?
Argentina was flying Israeli, French, and American jets, using French anti-ship missiles. Everything high-tech weapon with which they fought, except the Pucara, was provided by another nation.