USNATO RESPONSE TO ISRAELI MOD NATO PERSPECTIVES

C O N F I D E N T I A L USNATO 000274

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/18/2017
TAGS: MARR NATO PREL IS
SUBJECT: USNATO RESPONSE TO ISRAELI MOD NATO PERSPECTIVES

REF: TEL AVIV 01063

Classified By: Charge d'Affairs Richard Olson, reasons 1.4 (b)
and (d)


1. (C) We appreciated receiving reftel and congratulate
Embassy Tel Aviv and EUCOM for engaging with the MOD on the
subject of Israel's cooperation with NATO. That engagement
showed that there is apparently some confusion amongst GOI
officials about the nature of its relationship with NATO. We
offer the following as background for Embassy Tel Aviv to
draw on in briefing the GOI and provide suggested talking
points, should the Embassy wish to re-engage on this topic.

--------------
Israel's Partnership with NATO
--------------


2. (C) Israel's relationship with NATO is through the
Mediterranean Dialogue, one of NATO's four partnership
programs (the others are: Partnership for Peace (mostly
European and Eurasian),the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative
(Gulf countries) and the Global Partnership. US Policy is to
break down the somewhat arbitrary boundaries and barriers
between these partnerships, but as currently constituted the
Med-D is a collective partnership (in NATO-speak, 26 7)
meaning that most of its interaction with the alliance is in
conjunction with the other partners. Frankly, this somewhat
constrains the ability of the USG to promote "bilateral"
Israeli-NATO cooperation, since such cooperation must take
place at 26 7.


3. (C) The sole area where Israel's relationship with NATO
is bilateral (in NATO-speak, 26 1) is in the development of
Israel's Individual Cooperation Program (ICP),which is the
document in which Israel outlines the areas in which it seeks
to benefit from Alliance, e.g., by seeking training
opportunities. Israel is the only Med-D country to have
filed an ICP and we support Israeli efforts to take full
benefit of the ICP.


4. (C) The comment that Israel would perhaps be interested
in becoming a "global partner" seems odd from the NATO
perspective, since global partnership was created to
recognize a category of countries that while cooperating with
NATO, previously did not have a formal partnership
relationship with the Alliance. Since Israel is part of
Med-D, it already has such a formalized relationship. Some
Allies might argue that Israel &gets more8 under Med-D than
it would under GP, although as noted above the USG seeks to
break down boundaries between the partnerships.

--------------
OAE Liaison
--------------


5. (C) When Israel agreed to join Operation ACTIVE ENDEAVOR
(OAE) last September, the resulting Exchange of Letters
authorized Israel to provide liaison officers within various
sub-commands of NATO's Joint Forces Command-Naples
(JFC-Naples),including Allied Component Command Maritime
(CCMAR)-Naples/Commander, Active Endeavor (COM AE),and/or
within the Task Group Commander (TFE). NATO expects there
will be at least one Israeli liaison
officer at CCMAR, focusing on intelligence sharing.

--------------
NAMSO
--------------


6. (U) In order to facilitate case-by-case participation in
the NATO Maintenance and Supply Organization (NAMSO),in
September 2006, the NAC approved a standard draft MOU between
NAMSO and NATO's Med-D partners, which will become the
standard template for all partners. It is incumbent for
individual MD states and other partners to craft their own
bilateral MOUs with NAMSO using the NAC-approved template.


7. (C) Israel has not yet approached NATO to negotiate a
bilateral MOU. Israel does not appear interested in the MOU,
as it does not provide anything more than a framework to make
administration easier for occasional NAMSO procurement from
an Israeli firm. Israel wants more, objecting to the
distinction, inherent in the standard MOU and in NAMSO,
between Shareholders (Allies) and partners. Israel wishes to
compete for NAMSO procurements. However, NATO member states,
most notably France, United Kingdom and Belgium will continue
to resist any Israeli invitation into potential Weapon System
Partnership or other competition from Israeli firms in order
to protect their domestic defense industries. USNATO
believes Germany is opposed to Israeli participation in
NAMSO, but prefers to let other countries express opposition.

--------------
Possible Talking Points
--------------


8. (U) Releasable to Israel: USNATO believes there is room
for enhanced Israeli cooperation with NATO.

-- NATO now offers more than 600 training activities to Med-D
countries in 30 areas of cooperation;

-- Israel, in its ICP, indicated it was interested in
cooperation in 26 of the areas;

-- Israel may decide to send students and possibly faculty to
the NATO School in Oberammergau Germany or to the NATO
Defense College (NDC) in Rome;

-- At the NDC, Israel may engage in courses now offered in
the Med-D work program or in an expanded Middle East Faculty
that will open in Rome later this year;

-- Med-D states now are able to establish Liaison Officers at
the Partnership Coordination Cell (PCC) at Supreme
Headquarters Allied Powers (SHAPE) in Mons, Belgium. Liaison
officers will be involved in the planning of activities and
operations involving partners;

-- The MOD also may want to designate forces under the
Operational Capabilities Concept (OCC)- Level 1 pool of
forces, which is designed to evaluate designated forces for
NATO interoperability and to provide feedback. Other highly
advanced non-NATO militaries including Australia, Austria,
Sweden and Finland have found NATO interoperability tools
useful.


9. (U) We understand that Israel values Med-D as a venue
where it can sit down with Arab countries with which it does
not have relations. This has been confirmed on numerous
occasions:

-- in April 2006 at the Med-D meeting in Rabat, when Israel's
Ambassador invited Med-D countries to expand the dialogue to
include meetings of provincial authorities from each Med-D
nation;

-- the Egyptian Ambassador Mahmoud Karem proposed at a Med-D
luncheon in February, hosted by Ambassador Nuland, that
representatives of Israel and Jordan host a seminar on their
countries' mutual experience with confidence building
measures related to peace treaty implementation. USNATO
will seek to develop both the Egyptian and the Israeli
proposals at neutral venues, including the NATO Defense
College;

-- Israel may also enjoy sustained cooperation with Arab
military and national security professionals at the PCC at
SHAPE (para 5),NATO schools and in OAE.


10. (U) USNATO would be interested to hear MFA views on
avenues for Israel's expanded cooperation with NATO.
OLSON