Lavi
Posted on 06/22/2005 5:19:10 AM PDT by thierrya
Jun. 22, 2005 0:50 | Updated Jun. 22, 2005 3:01
China, Israel discuss expanding defense ties
By NINA GILBERT
Expansion of defense ties with Israel was on the agenda during talks with his Israeli counterparts this week, Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said Tuesday.
Li, who spoke at the start of a meeting with the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, did not go into detail about the current dispute between Israel and the US over the Israel upgrade of Chinese Harpy drones.
He said that during his visit he had held talks on expanding ties in the fields of "trade, army, culture, education and tourism."
Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom apologized to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice earlier this week over the deal, and expressed hope that the crisis would be quickly resolved.
Defense Minister Director-General Amos Yaron is expected to be sacked as part of the deal to resolve the crisis with the US.
Li was asked by Labor MK Danny Yatom about US-Chinese relations and how the ties were affecting Israel's ability to sell arms to China. Li responded that ties between the US and China were improving, and that the main problem in the ties was Taiwan. He said China also opposed the sale of US arms to Taiwan that could pose a threat to it, according to Yatom, who heads the Israel-China parliamentary friendship association.
Li also told Israel to prepare for an imminent influx of Chinese tourists as an outgrowth of deepening ties.
"I can let you know with some certainty that thousands of Chinese tourists will visit Jerusalem and other parts of the country. You are such an attraction. I have already advised enterprises of this country to prepare more hotel rooms for the upcoming Chinese tourism," he said.
Li also told the MKs that he was moved by his visit to Yad Vashem, saying it made him feel a bond between the Jewish people and the Chinese. He said 20 million Chinese were "slaughtered by the Japanese aggressors" during the same period of World War II.
"We should never forget history, instead we should turn it into united efforts to maintain world peace," he said.
Committee chairman Yuval Steinitz said the relations with China were "extremely" important for Israel, referring to China as the "giant" and Israel as the "dwarf."
Thanks. Do we have a fairly complete list of what is being sold to China by Israel? Hopefully not these systems, or anything close?
I don't see a reason for anyone else to tour Israel in meaningful quantities given the regions instability.
"Before I forget let me respond about the price of oil bringing about unity in the U.S."
That was not my trigger for unity. I said the crash of the US economy. And I still think most of the left(not the commies of course) would be screaming for action should they have no gas for their cars and no value for their money and investments.
But again this and the war against SA are digressions from my broader point. We are not dependant on SA oil. This is a fear tactic that needs to be challenged. It is dangerous to base foreign policy around this myth. It takes us back to the failed policies of the realist school which led to 9/11.
You and Rove say the left did not unify and blamed the US after 9/11. Well the Bush Doctrine blamed the failed policies of realism after 9/11. Pres Bush said - you're either with us or you're with the terrorists.
Who do you think the Saudis are with? We are not living up to our own policies. Freeing Iraq and coddling SA is meaningless since SA is a more direct exporter of terrorism than Iraq ever was. They fund terror and teach it to children all over the world. 15 of 19. Why has the right forgotten that.
"Reformists ? How many ? 1% of the whole population ? "
Where do you get your numbers from? How many outspoken reformists were there in Poland under the Soviet system? Did that number represent the portion of the population who wanted to throw the Communists out?
Me: "And if that were so where are the Saudi Jihadists coming from? Where did Bin Laden come from?"
You: What do you mean ? Do you think that Saudi royal family send them ?
What did you mean when you claimed that the people will be deprived of oil revenues in SA, be impoverished, and be placated by - It's Allah's will. Which people? The Jihadists, the regime supporters, or the 1% you claim are reformists?
Me: "In which direction should the US try to push the regime?"
You: First situation in Iraq must be stabilized before US will start pushing anything in SA. Chaos in both states would be very danger.
You did not answer.
"to keep the lid on the radical fundamentalists in SA by keeping the present branch of the family in control."
Great. So the policy that failed and caused 9/11 is the same policy you are advocating now. That puts you in the camp with the likes of John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.
The answer is that without oil the Saudis are worth nothing to us. The question is what is their oil worth to us. The answer - much less than they would have you believe. And much less than the deference they are given by our government.
To me what is Saudi oil worth is a serious existential question.
"The forces on each side are well-defined, and fight each other using weapons that primarily target the opposing army."
There you go. By your own definition Iraq is NOT conventional.
I suppose you call the terrorists there "insurgents?"
Further you ignored my point about how the war was conducted. On some level it is very simple -- us or them.
Did you even read this the last time I posted this to counter your misinformation??
Again get some facts. Russia sells China these systems directly, no middleman needed. And as has been said elsewhere, Pres Clinton did his share too:
“Russian media reports suggested both sides had in advance of the visit agreed to keep all future arms deals secret--apparently for both public-relations and defence reasons. And officials from both sides declined in Beijing to talk about what deals might be on, or under, the table. But despite the official silence, senior Western defence officials say that it was highly likely the talks behind closed doors would include China's desire to buy nuclear submarines, and more advanced surface ships and to speed technology transfers to the People's Liberation Army as part of its arms race with United States-armed Taiwan. Because it is Russia's sales of weapons and military technology that are gradually bringing the PLA within sight of its goal of transforming into a modern, hi-tech force. And, in turn, it is largely China's weapons purchases that are keeping the Russian defence industry and its ever-important research and development alive until the Russian economy recovers enough for Moscow to rehabilitate its own military.
The big loser is of course the island of Taiwan. As mainland China's surging economy allows it to more easily afford advanced Russian hardware, Taiwan is in greater danger of being outgunned in an accelerating arms race because the government can't keep up with the amounts being spent…”
http://www.cdi.org/russia/234-7.cfm
Meanwhile, China is on the verge of deploying its DH-10 long-range cruise missile. The subsonic missile appears to be in the final stages of development. It is to be deployed on a three-launcher road mobile platform. The DH-10 has a 930-mile range.
Its guidance system is reportedly based on U.S. technology obtained by the Chinese during the Clinton administration, using GPS navigation with electro-optical digital scene mapping for terminal strike.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/12/1/152935.shtml
And no, Russia, not Israel, sold China AWACS.
“Russia has sold Beijing about 50 Sukhoi-27 fighters and several dozen advanced Sukhoi-30 warplanes. It has been lobbying hard to sell its Beriev A-50 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) surveillance planes that would erode Taiwan's dominance of the skies over the Taiwan Strait.
Taiwan's Air Force has U.S.-supplied AWACS planes.
"We are watching very carefully," the diplomat told reporters.
But he added: "I don't think it's affected the balance of power across the Taiwan Strait yet."
Russia has been touting its AWACS planes since Washington blocked the sale to mainland China of an Israeli version of the surveillance aircraft in July. “
http://taiwansecurity.org/Reu/Reuters-121300.htm
So dumping all the blame for China’s acquisitions on Israel suggests that you are anti-Israel.
And how about this gem:
China, France hold joint naval drill
http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/16/content_315366.htm
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
You can't read.
Yawn.
In my world ad hominem attacks ("you can't read") mean you have forfeited the argument.
"Did you even read this the last time I posted this...?"
Sorry, I forgot about that one, I will answer later.
BTW If you are so militaristic, why you aren't in Iraq right now ?
“Are you suggesting we should invade and occupy SA? Would not the rest of OPEC boycott us in response? “
No to invasion and occupation. I merely said if we had to we surely could. And while I don’t recommend the Chinese model, there is plenty of ground in between the current model in Iraq and the killing you say China would commit.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“Are you saying that as a result of that that the U.S. would be thrown into economic and social chaos, thereby bringing about unity?”
No. I am saying that if circumstances required US invasion of SA, such circumstances including a total collapse of the US economy due to their actions, or a terror attack with mass casualties which dwarf 9/11, people would be united in a way they have not been following 9/11 and US invasion of Iraq.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
”Or, are you saying we should take punitive action against SA because of the terrorist activity originating there? Again, would not all of OPEC respond in support of SA?”
Yes. We should treat SA as Pres Bush first outlined: State’s that harbor terrorists are not to be tolerated. We should stop buying oil from SA. We should not allow their citizens in. We should pursue their terror funding relentlessly. We should have extremely chilly diplomacy, not Abdullah hand holding at the ranch. We should be outspoken in support of their dissidents and reformers and condemn their lack of human rights.
Will OPEC react punitively? I doubt it. They need to sell their oil. Also there are non-OPEC sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC#Members
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
”Look at Iran. How forceful have we been there, other than talk? What is the cost of being more forceful? What is the cost of not being?
North Korea?
Russia?
China?
There is always a grab bag of options that need tending to. Each has its pluses and minuses. Thanks to Clinton our options are more limited than before.”
It is silly to lump states like Russia in with China, NK, and Iran. Russia is an ally with more freedom than the others.
It is silly to lump China and NK in with Iran. Non-nuclear States are in a different position than those that are already nuclear. I believe we should be much more forceful including military options in Iran. Once a country goes nuclear the available options are much more limited. Hence the barrel we are over in NK. To allow Iran to go nuclear would be a grave mistake of the scale we made in dividing Europe with USSR after WWII. It would define an era. The radical terrorist nature of Iran should not be underestimated.
I am not militaristic. I never recommended invading SA. In fact I questioned the reasons the US went in to protect SA in Gulf 1. (see post 77 for a further explanation)
I do recommend whatever it takes to stop Iran from getting nukes.
Your views confuse me. Are your views of Muslims uniform or do you single out those in SA as singularly robotic? In other threads you condemned Russian treatment of Chechen Muslims. Why?
You: "Tell the Saudis that Allah want them to be poor, they would reply: Great ! So I want to be even poorer !"
That is Robotic.
So I asked:
"Are your views of Muslims uniform or do you single out those in SA as singularly robotic?"
You: "Saudi fanatics would attack in human waves smiling that soon they will see Allah."
So basing my question on your view of Muslims as robotic and Jihadist I asked:
"In other threads you condemned Russian treatment of Chechen Muslims. Why?"
So if Muslims attack in "human waves" as described by you what choice do the Russians have in fighting the Chechens? Or are Saudis different than Chechens? And if so how and why.
You can't have it all ways. You say the US would not be able to fight the Saudis because of the ferocity of Saudi response and their willingness to die, yet you condemn the Russians for their approach.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.