In response to an earlier post,
Wikipedia Article: China-Israel relations
Israel and China began extensive military cooperation as early as the 1980s, even though no formal diplomatic relations existed. Some
estimate that Israel sold arms worth US$4 billion to China in this period. China has looked to Israel for the arms and technology it wants but
cannot acquire from either the United States or Russia. Israel has now become China's second-largest foreign supplier of arms (following Russia).
China has purchased a wide array of military equipment and technology, including communications satellites. The building of military cooperation
and trade has softened China's historic anti-Israeli policy over Palestine and Middle East issues. China has become a vital market for Israel's
extensive military industries and arms manufacturers. Israel has also limited its cooperation with the Republic of China (Taiwan) in order to
foster closer ties with the People's Republic of China.
The US Defense Intelligence Agency compiled evidence that Israel had transferred missile, laser and aircraft technology to China in the 1990s. Israel
was set to sell China the Phalcon, an airborne early-warning radar system, until it was forced by the United States to cancel the deal.
On 19 October 1999, the Defence Minister of China, Chi Haotian, flew to Israel and met with Ehud Barak, the then-Prime Minister and Defence Minister
of Israel. The two men discussed military relations and made several high-level arrangements, including a $1 billion Israeli-Russian sale of military
aircraft to China. On 25 May 2011, the Commander of the People's Liberation Army Navy, Admiral Wu Shengli, made an official visit to Israel,
meeting with Barak and Rear Admiral Eliezer Marom.
On 14 August 2011, General Chen Bingde, Chief of the People's Liberation Army General Staff Department, arrived for an official visit to Israel,
scheduled for three days. He came a guest of the Israeli Chief of Staff Benny Gantz, who received him with an honor guard at the Kirya military
headquarters in Tel Aviv. The visit came after Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s visit to China in June, the first visit of a defense minister
to the country in a decade. Bingde’s visit was part of a tour that included stops in Russia and Ukraine.
On 13 August 2012, vessels from the PLA Navy's 11th escort fleet, led by Rear Admiral Yang Jun-fei, anchored at Israel's Haifa naval base for a
four-day goodwill visit to mark 20 years of cooperation between the Israel Defense Forces and the PLA. The vessels and crewmen were welcomed
by the Haifa base commander, Brigadier General Eli Sharvit, and Chinese embassy officials.
On 3 July 2011, Israel and the People's Republic of China entered into an economic cooperation agreement that aimed to boost trade between the two
countries. According to Eliran Elimelech, Israel’s commercial attaché in Beijing, the agreement was expected to deepen ties between Israeli and
Chinese businessmen in the short term, and in the medium to long term to improve trade conditions between the countries. In January 2011, the Israeli
Central Bureau of Statistics stated that Israeli exports to China had grown by an annual 95 percent in 2010 to $2 billion.
In September 2011, the Israeli Minister of Transport, Israel Katz, stated that China and Israel had entered negotiations regarding the construction of
a high-speed rail link joining the Mediterranean Sea with the Red Sea. This joint project would permit the mass overland transport of Chinese goods to
Israel and Eastern Europe, and would involve both Chinese and Israeli railway developers. The following month, the Chinese and Israeli governments
signed a memorandum of understanding regarding the joint construction of a 180-km (112-mile) railway linking the Israeli city of Eilat with the Negev
Desert's Zin Valley, Beersheba, and Tel Aviv. In August 2012, with Sino-Israeli trade growing, the University of International Business and
Economics in Beijing set up a department dedicated to studying Israeli economics and Judaism, while some Chinese universities began offering Hebrew
Israel's increasing defense cooperation with China has caused concern in Western nations, such as the United States, which is the largest foreign
supplier of military equipment to Israel. Owing to strategic rivalry and concerns over the security of Taiwan, the United States has pressured Israel
against selling sophisticated equipment and technology to China. In 1992, the Washington Times alleged that exported American Patriot missiles and
Israel's indigenous Lavi jet aircraft technology had been shared with China, although official U.S. investigations did not substantiate these
charges. In 2000, Israel cancelled the sale to China of the Israeli-built Phalcon Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) in the wake of
pressure from the U.S., which threatened to cut off US$2.8 billion in yearly aid if the deal went through. Israel's decision drew condemnation
from China, which stated that the cancellation would hurt bilateral ties.
In 2010, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1929, imposing a fourth round of sanctions against Iran for its nuclear enrichment
program. China ultimately supported this resolution, although initially, due to the strong Chinese-Iranian relationship, China opposed the
sanctions. According to the New York Times, Israel lobbied for the sanctions by explaining to China the impact of any pre-emptive strike on Iran
would have on the world oil supply, and hence on the Chinese economy.
After a thorough investigation, Israel has alleged that over a hundred of its government targets in defense and security industries recently
received Trojan-infested email seeking to steal sensitive information from Chinese defense industries. However, according to Israeli tech
security expert Dr. Tal Pavel: "China and Israel are already close economic allies, and are becoming closer all the time, but business is
business, and hacking into Israeli systems in order to get Israel’s tech secrets for free is part of business."
Some info from the same sources on Israel-US Relations:
Israeli–U.S. relations came under increased strain during Prime Minister Netanyahu's second administration and the new Obama administration.
After he took office, Obama made achieving a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians a major goal, and pressured Netanyahu into accepting a
Palestinian state and entering negotiations. Netanyahu eventually conceded on 14 July 2009. In accordance with U.S. wishes, Israel imposed a ten-month
freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank. As the freeze did not include East Jerusalem, which Israel regards as its sovereign territory, or
3,000 pre-approved housing units already under construction, as well as the failure to dismantle already-built Israeli outposts, the Palestinians
rejected the freeze as inadequate, and refused to enter negotiations for nine months.
In 2009, Obama became the first U.S. President to authorize the sale of bunker buster bombs to Israel. The transfer was kept secret to avoid the
impression that the United States was arming Israel for an attack on Iran.
In March 2010, Israel announced it would continue to build 1,600 new homes that were already under construction in the eastern Jerusalem neighborhood
of Ramat Shlomo, during Vice President Joe Biden's visit to Israel. The incident was described as "one of the most serious rows between the two
allies in recent decades". Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Israel's move was "deeply negative" for U.S.–Israeli relations. East
Jerusalem is, on the international diplomatic stage, widely considered to be occupied territory, while Israel disputes this, as it annexed the
area. Obama was reported to be "livid" over the announcement.
US President Barack Obama meeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shortly after arriving on a visit to Israel in March 2013.
Shortly afterward, Obama instructed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to present Netanyahu with a four-part ultimatum: that Israel cancel the
approval of the housing units, freeze all Jewish construction in East Jerusalem, that Israel make a gesture to the Palestinians that it wants peace
with a recommendation on releasing hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, and that Israel agree to discuss a partition of Jerusalem and a solution to the
Palestinian refugee problem during the negotiations. Obama threatened that neither he nor any senior administration official would meet Netanyahu and
his senior ministers during their upcoming visit to Washington.
On 26 March 2010, Netanyahu and Obama met in the White House. The meeting was conducted without photographers or any press statements. During the
meeting, Obama demanded that Israel extend the settlement freeze after its expiration, impose a freeze on Jewish construction in East Jerusalem, and
withdraw troops to positions held before the start of the Second Intifada. Netanyahu did not give written concessions on these issues, and presented
Obama with a flowchart on how permission for building is granted in the Jerusalem Municipality to reiterate that he had no prior knowledge of the
plans. Obama then suggested that Netanyahu and his staff stay at the White House to consider his proposals so that if he changed his mind, he could
inform Obama right away, and was quoted as saying "I'm still around, let me know if there is anything new". Netanyahu and his aides went to the
Roosevelt Room, spent a further half-hour with Obama, and extended his stay for a day of emergency talks to restart peace negotiations, but left
without any official statement from either side.
On 19 May 2011, Obama made a foreign policy speech in which he called for a return to the pre-1967 Israeli borders with mutually agreed land swaps, to
which Netanyahu objected. Obama was criticized by Republicans for the speech, and some of these criticisms were found to be misleading.
The speech came a day before Obama and Netanyahu were scheduled to meet. In an address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on 22 May,
Obama elaborated on his 19 May speech: "It was my reference to the 1967 lines — with mutually agreed swaps—that received the lion's share of the
attention, including just now. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what '1967 lines with mutually agreed
swaps' means. By definition, it means that the parties themselves—Israelis and Palestinians—will negotiate a border that is different than the
one that existed on June 4, 1967. That's what mutually agreed-upon swaps means. It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a
generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. It allows the parties themselves
to take account of those changes, including the new demographic realities on the ground, and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states
for two people: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian
people—each state in joined self-determination, mutual recognition and peace. In his speech to a joint session of congress on May 24, Netanyahu
adopted some of Obama's earlier language: "Now the precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated. We'll be generous about the size of the
future Palestinian state. But as President Obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on 4 June 1967. Israel will not return
to the indefensible boundaries of 1967."
In October 2011 the new American Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, suggested that Israeli policies were partly responsible for its increasing
diplomatic isolation in the Middle East, but the Israeli government responded that the problem was the growing radicalism in the region rather than
their own policies.
In 2012, President Obama signed into law a bill that would extend by another three years the program of United States guarantees for Israeli
Tony Blinken, National Security Advisor to U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, lamented in 2012 a tendency by U.S. politicians to use the debate over
policy toward Israel for political purposes. Until then, Israel had been a bastion of bipartisan consensus in the U.S.
In 2010 and again in July–August 2012, Israeli exports to the United States surpassed those to the European Union, usually the top destination for
Reaction in Israel was mixed to the Geneva interim agreement on Iranian nuclear program. Prime Minister Netanyahu strongly criticized it as a
"historic mistake," and finance minister Naftali Bennett called it a "very bad deal." However, Kadima Party leader Shaul Mofaz,
opposition leader Isaac Herzog, and former Aman chief Amos Yadlin voiced some measure of support for the agreement and suggested it was more
important to maintain good ties to Washington than to publicly rebuke the agreement.
President Obama's Fiscal Year 2010 budget proposes $53.8 billion for appropriated international affairs' programs. From that budget, $5.7
billion is appropriated for foreign military financing, military education, and peacekeeping operations. From that $5.7 billion, $2.8 billion, almost
50% is appropriated for Israel. Israel also has available roughly $3 billion of conditional loan guarantees, with additional funds coming
available if Israel meets conditions negotiated at the U.S.-Israel Joint Economic Development Group (JEDG).
In 2010, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees approved President Obama's request for $3 billion in military aid to Israel in the 2011
budget. The appropriation has not yet been approved by Congress.
Throughout 2009, however, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a Republican think tank, reported that Obama has imposed a virtual arms
embargo on Israel. Obama blocked all major Israeli weapons requests, including key projects and upgrades, linking arms sales to progress in the peace
process. At the same time, Obama approved $10 billion in arms sales to Arab states, including fighters, missiles, helicopters, and fast attack craft.
Israel did not protest, despite reports that its qualitative military edge was being eroded.
I honestly think if Israel ends up on an opposite side of the conflict due to Obama and possible successive administrations, it will be due to the
US's continued support of radical fundamentalist Islamic jihadist factions being hailed as "Freedom Fighters" against anti-US/EU leaders in various
countries, similar to what happened in Libya, Yemen, and what is currently happening in Syria and Ukraine.
The way I see WW3 happening is a bit more complex than simply Islamic nations vs. Non-Islamic nations, as a majority of the people on this site tend
to disagree with. I see it being more of a Red Dawn scenario. The US and the UK will end up pissing off a majority of Europe, along with Russia,
China, Japan, and most of the population of the US itself. The US will end up overthrowing the people in power (its going to happen, and despite that
many people will disagree with me on this ... Occupy Wall Street is an impending Second American Revolution in its embryonic stage.
what will happen if the Ukrainian people succeed in their efforts to overthrow the people in power, inspiring something similar over here and possibly
in the UK as well. If that happens, the US Establishment will likely secede from the US, and form a separate state centered around New York City (the
home turf of the UN), which will then most likely grow to encompass the entire Northeastern States region. The US and USE would then fight,
diplomatically at first, and then militarily if the situations exacerbate, over jurisdictional and potentially even territorial control over
Washington, DC and its branches of government, the White House would most likely end up becoming a puppet division of the UN's NYC USE.
If this happens, World War 3 would follow soon after the foundation of the USE. Through their financial connections, the elite would have Israel, the
Vatican with their mercenary state Switzerland, Netherlands, UK, Saudi Arabia and the GCC, Egypt, Iraq, Belgium, Germany, France, China, and Russia.
The US, assuming a isolationist strategy, would be surrounded by UK-puppet-states Canada, Australia, but would procure economic and military allies in
Japan, Italy, Mexico, Thailand, Ireland, Iceland, and many others in South America and Africa. As well as the support of West Bank, Palestine, Turkey,
Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Algeria, Morocco...
Ultimately it could possibly end up folding in our direction, the Independence Front. (Optimism at its finest.) This is a purely theoretical scenario
though, and would require the success of the American people, and a diligent and well-organized resistance to the structures and individuals in