100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

The University of Michigan Library provides access to these materials for educational and research purposes. These materials may be under copyright. If you decide to use any of these materials, you are responsible for making your own legal assessment and securing any necessary permission. If you have questions about the collection, please contact the Bentley Historical Library at bentley.ref@umich.edu

June 07, 1991 - Image 29

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Detroit Jewish News, 1991-06-07

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

BACKGROUND

Mixed Message

Israel is confused by Washington's arms delivery,
on the heels of a call to curb nuclear weapons.

HELEN DAVIS

Foreign Correspondent

I

sraeli officials may be ex-
cused for suffering a bout
of severe confusion late
last week.
Less than 24 hours after
President Bush had unveiled
a far- reaching Middle East
arms control proposal in
Colorado Springs, Secretary
of Defense Dick Cheney
breezed into town with some
good news — and a fistful of
dollars — for his Israeli
hosts.
Not only was the United
States preparing to deliver a
$65 million package of 10
F-15 jet fighters to Israel, he
said in Jerusalem, but it was
also planning to kick in a
cool $300 million to pay for
additional R&D into Israel's
anti-missile Arrow system,
which is designed to combat
ballistic missiles.
While news of the Arrow
funding was welcome, it was
not entirely unexpected:
Israel had, after all, em-
barked on the project jointly
with the United States
under the umbrella of the
Strategic Defense Initiative
(Star Wars) program.
But there was a palpable
sense of relief that Washing-
ton had decided not to settle
for second-best and opt for
the much-vaunted Patriot
systems, which were
deployed with only limited
success against Iraq's Scud

missiles during the Gulf
war.
There was also a certain
relief that the,Bush ad-
ministration remained
committed to the high-tech .
Israeli system, still at least
four years from completion,
despite bitter wrangling
over the project last year
which raised fear that the
Arrow would fall victim to
U.S. budget cuts.
What caused an unusually
mixed response in
Jerusalem, however, was the
news that the United States
would go ahead with its
delivery of the F-15 fighter
jets.
The aircraft are part of a
$700 million package that
had been authorized by Con-
gress last year as part of a
U.S. military "draw-down"
plan, but there was concern
that they might be held up
as part of a possible "policy
re-assessment" in the wake
of the stalled peace initiative
by Secretary of State James
Baker.
To that extent the an-
nouncement was welcome.
But the nagging question in
Israeli minds was why Mr.
Cheney had rushed in with
his bundle of military
largesse even as his master's
voice continued to echo
around the world's defense
departments with the tough

message of Middle East
arms control, calling for a
curb on nuclear, chemical
and biological weapons.
Was it an attempt to soften
Israel up in advance of the
proposed $18 billion arms
deals with the Arab world,
principally Saudi Arabia?
Was it a signal that the
proposal was really intended
to rein in non-conventional
weapons, a field in which
Israel's reported nuclear
capability continues to exer-
cise a decisive edge in the
otherwise lopsided military
balance in the region?

By the time Mr. Cheney
arrived in Jerusalem, Israeli
leaders had already given a
highly qualified response to
the Bush proposals, its
suspicions heightened by the
enthusiastic response from
Saudi Arabia, the largest
regional customer of U.S.
weapons.
Israeli Defense Minister
Moshe Arens declined to en-
dorse the proposals, but he
promised to study them
"very closely."
Former Labor Party
Defense Minister Yitzhak
Rabin granted that "it's not
nice to say no to any arms
controls," but added: "We
should make it plain that
while we are ready to play
ball with the U.S., we will

take a tough line on
specifics."
The caution was summed
up best, however, by Prime
Minister Yitzhak Shamir, a
master of the art of say-
nothing: "The Bush in-
itiative could be very signifi-
cant," he said. "But from our
point of view, we have many,
many questions."
Mr. Cheney strove val-
iantly to overcome the per-
vasive unease. In addition to
the tangible offers of planes
and research funds, he reaf-

Israelis say words
are cheap, and
despite the warmth
of the Cheney visit,
they remained
suspicious.

firmed Washington's
"absolutely unshakable
commitment to Israeli
security" and "the enormous
importance the United
States places upon the stra-
tegic relationship with
Israel."
Israelis, however, say
words are cheap, and despite
the warmth of the visit, the
suspicions had still not been
shaken by the time Mr.
Cheney took off for the one-
hour flight to Cairo on Fri-

day afternoon for a weekend
of talks with Egyptian
leaders, who have repeated-
ly stressed the need to elim-
inate Israel's nuclear
stockpile.
While Israel declines to
comment on its nuclear
capability, it is believed to
possess up to 200 nuclear
warheads and its response to
the Bush proposal was
predictably geared to focus-
ing the spotlight of attention
on the region's massive
stockpile of conventional
weapons.
Articulating official policy,
a senior Israeli spokesman
insisted that the sheer
number of conventional
weapons in the region con-
stituted a potential for mass
destruction and that it was
this area that cried out for
immediate curbs.
On the question of nuclear
weapons, he repeated the
longstanding ambiguity that
"Israel will not be the first to
introduce such weapons into
the Middle East."
What concerns Jerusalem
is that despite the arms con-
trol proposal, Washington is
showing no signs whatever
of reducing its own sales of
conventional weapons to the
Arab world.
Another question exercis-
ing Israelis is why Mr. Bush
is seeking to impose an arms

TERNATIONA

------ • ---
— -
-
Artwork from the Los Angeles Times by Catherine Kanner. Copyright. 1991, Catherine Kanner. Distributed by Los Angeles Times Syndicate.

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan