UNHCR to investigate Israel for possible war crimes

Serious question, do you think it's possible to hold extreme misgivings about Israeli politics and policies, and yet not be anti-sematic?
I have some misgivings but then I realise what type of people they are surrounded by who do not respect human rights very much . Any sign of fairness towards them is seen as a sign of weakness and they will not hesitate to drive you into the sea if they could .
 
As I said the article covers lots of scenarios, many of which are disputed by the opposing side. My interest in the region was sparked many years ago as one of my uncles was based there during his National Service just prior to 1948. It was re-sparked when I joined the Colonial Police as a few of the older members had served in the Palestine Police. Few had good words for the Jews because of events like the King David Hotel bombing and other attacks by the Stern Gang. (for BB's info all before the declaration of the formation of Israel in 1948, However they all thought the Arabs to be equally bad.
My most informative time was in the late '80's where I spent several weeks on an extended business trip Travelling from the Golan Heights in the North down to the Gaza border, where I saw many Arabs coming through the border to work in various factories inside Israel. And from the Dead sea to Tel Aviv visiting numerous factories/kibbutz and offices. A lot of the time I was accompanied by an reserve IDF Major, who had actually fought to capture the Golan Heights. We actually lunched in a kibbutz just below the Golan heights where I was shown the armoured tractor (complete with numerous bullet pock marks on it), that they had had to use as the bored Syrian Soldiers on the border on the heights would often take pot shots at anything in the fields below.
In the nearby town of Qiryat Shemona, he showed me park where knocked out Syrian Tanks were used as play things for the children. He was very informative and explained the numerous problems Israel had in dealing with its hostile neighbours and the odd terrorist attack from some of its Arab residents.
I have never seen so many armed people as I did in the various bus stations at the weekends when numerous conscripts/reserves, all carrying weapons, were travelling to & from their bases. Another worrying site was seeing a young teenage (14 -16 yrs) boy & girl, complete with Uzi's slung over their shoulders, shepherding about 30 - 40 young children (6 -10 yrs) on to a bus in Jerusalem.
My escort explained that it was because the bus had been attacked several times previously while going through Arab villages and the 2 senior pupils were their escort!
It was quite a revelation of quite how threatened Israel is.
The few Arabs I met were probably a bit wary of what they said but I didn't hear any complaining.
As for smashing buttons, that is what they are for, to allow someone to express an opinion without continually resort to pixel diarrhea, which some posters seem to suffer from. When I have something pertinent to say I will post it, otherwise I use the buttons!
After myself and the wife decided to extend our holiday we moved out our hotel and moved to the other side of Eilat . It was like going from the French Riviera to Dodge City . Found a place to stay in concrete igloos think it was costing us about £3 per night , great but no catering . There were a couple of fish and chip shops nearby but the fish was not cod and I must admit revolting , however the owner of one of the chip shops turned out to have lived one road away from me in London and offered a couple of nights stay in Sdarot then put us in touch with people renting out apartments . We found a place in Ramot not too far from Jerusalem and spent the last three weeks there . Great times and fond memories .
 
Last edited:
All of this costs a huge amount of money which I am sure the Israelis would much rather be spending on other things.
The reality appears to be that that Israelis don't fund it themselves, the US taxpayer has that burden.

See https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf from the Congressional Research Service.

In summary:

"Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the UnitedStates has provided Israel $134.7billion (current, or noninflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistanceand missile defense funding. Almostall U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance, although in the past Israel also received significant economic assistance.

At a signing ceremony at the State Department on September 14, 2016, representatives of the U.S. and Israeli governments signed a new 10-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on military aid covering FY2019 to FY2028. Under the terms of the MOU, the United States pledges to provide $38 billion in military aid ($33 billion in Foreign Military Financinggrants plus $5billion in missile defense appropriations) to Israel. This MOU replacesa previous$30 billion 10-year agreement, which runs through FY2018
."
 
The reality appears to be that that Israelis don't fund it themselves, the US taxpayer has that burden.

See https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf from the Congressional Research Service.

In summary:

"Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the UnitedStates has provided Israel $134.7billion (current, or noninflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistanceand missile defense funding. Almostall U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance, although in the past Israel also received significant economic assistance.

At a signing ceremony at the State Department on September 14, 2016, representatives of the U.S. and Israeli governments signed a new 10-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on military aid covering FY2019 to FY2028. Under the terms of the MOU, the United States pledges to provide $38 billion in military aid ($33 billion in Foreign Military Financinggrants plus $5billion in missile defense appropriations) to Israel. This MOU replacesa previous$30 billion 10-year agreement, which runs through FY2018."
The US financed part of it. In return they are getting to buy the technology as a package.
 
Perhaps you can show which part Israel funded?

I don't understand your second sentence. can you expand?
I was under the impression that the US got access to the Arrow anti ballistic missile system, Davids Sling and Iron Dome as a result of any aid going to Israel.
 
All of the R&D and the first deployment.

Obama seeks $205 million for Israel rocket shield | Reuters

Israel to invest $1 billion in Iron Dome missile defense system

The Americans started contributing to expand the deployment and in return they get to buy Iron Dome units from the Israelis.
That seems to be at odds wtih the below, from Wiki on Iron Dome funding history:

"On 18 May 2012, the United States House of Representatives passed the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 4310, with $680 million for Iron Dome in Section 227. The report accompanying the bill, 112–479, also calls for technology sharing as well as co-production of Iron Dome in the United States in light of the nearly $900 million invested in the system since 2011.


SECTION 227, IRON DOME SHORT-RANGE ROCKET DEFENSE PROGRAM, would authorize $680.0 million for the Iron Dome system in fiscal years 2012–15 in PE 63913C for procurement of additional batteries and interceptors, and for operations and sustainment expenses. This section would also require the Director, Missile Defense Agency to establish within MDA a program office for cooperative missile defense efforts on the Iron Dome system to ensure long-term cooperation on this program. The committee is aware that National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) included $205.0 million for the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system for the State of Israel. The committee notes that the Iron Dome system has proven very effective at defeating threat rockets launched at protected targets. The committee also notes that if the full $680.0 million is used on the program, the total U.S. taxpayer investment in this system will amount to nearly $900.0 million since fiscal year 2011, yet the United States has no rights to the technology involved. The committee believes the Director should ensure, prior to disbursing the authorized $680 million for Iron Dome, that the United States has appropriate rights to this technology for United States defense purposes, subject to an agreement with the Israeli Missile Defense Organization, and in a manner consistent with prior U.S.–Israeli missile defense cooperation on the Arrow and David's Sling suite of systems. The committee also believes that the Director should explore any opportunity to enter into co-production of the Iron Dome system with Israel, in light of the significant U.S. investment in this system."​
It would appear that the majority of the funding came from the US, including blended funding from general Defence related grants. The quid pro quo is that some of the technology developed is required to be shared with the US. Other critical components were developed in the US, and manufactured by US companies.

It's very interesting, and has more than a whiff of a 21st century Peenemünde to it.
 
Here's one

Unless of course you just don't like the colour or something.
That's outrage?
You must be a very, very sensitive little soul.

Not sure what you mean about the colour. Don't worry about explaining.
 
That seems to be at odds wtih the below, from Wiki on Iron Dome funding history:

"On 18 May 2012, the United States House of Representatives passed the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 4310, with $680 million for Iron Dome in Section 227. The report accompanying the bill, 112–479, also calls for technology sharing as well as co-production of Iron Dome in the United States in light of the nearly $900 million invested in the system since 2011.


SECTION 227, IRON DOME SHORT-RANGE ROCKET DEFENSE PROGRAM, would authorize $680.0 million for the Iron Dome system in fiscal years 2012–15 in PE 63913C for procurement of additional batteries and interceptors, and for operations and sustainment expenses. This section would also require the Director, Missile Defense Agency to establish within MDA a program office for cooperative missile defense efforts on the Iron Dome system to ensure long-term cooperation on this program. The committee is aware that National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) included $205.0 million for the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system for the State of Israel. The committee notes that the Iron Dome system has proven very effective at defeating threat rockets launched at protected targets. The committee also notes that if the full $680.0 million is used on the program, the total U.S. taxpayer investment in this system will amount to nearly $900.0 million since fiscal year 2011, yet the United States has no rights to the technology involved. The committee believes the Director should ensure, prior to disbursing the authorized $680 million for Iron Dome, that the United States has appropriate rights to this technology for United States defense purposes, subject to an agreement with the Israeli Missile Defense Organization, and in a manner consistent with prior U.S.–Israeli missile defense cooperation on the Arrow and David's Sling suite of systems. The committee also believes that the Director should explore any opportunity to enter into co-production of the Iron Dome system with Israel, in light of the significant U.S. investment in this system."​
It would appear that the majority of the funding came from the US, including blended funding from general Defence related grants. The quid pro quo is that some of the technology developed is required to be shared with the US. Other critical components were developed in the US, and manufactured by US companies.

It's very interesting, and has more than a whiff of a 21st century Peenemünde to it.
I have no interest in sitting down and dissecting the maths, but suggesting the US paid for most of the R&D would be at odds with everything else I have seen on the subject.

The thing I can tell you as a fact is that this bit; 'the quid pro quo is that some of the technology developed is required to be shared with the US', is not correct. The US is buying Iron Dome launchers from Israel. US to buy Israeli missile defence system

Even if it did turn out that the US paid for most of Iron Dome, is them helping to stop Israeli civilians being murdered by Hamas and Islamic Jihad actually a bad thing?
 
Even if it did turn out that the US paid for most of Iron Dome, is them helping to stop Israeli civilians being murdered by Hamas and Islamic Jihad actually a bad thing?

Stops the Israelis indulging in a Kosher final solution to the Hamas question.
 
I have no interest in sitting down and dissecting the maths, but suggesting the US paid for most of the R&D would be at odds with everything else I have seen on the subject.
No interest in the debate? It was you who presented the matter as fact. I would suggest that the US Government budget notes are a more authoritative source than a traditionally biased media. Still, you take your "information" from where you choose.

The thing I can tell you as a fact is that this bit; 'the quid pro quo is that some of the technology developed is required to be shared with the US', is not correct.
Again, you appear to be incorrect. This matter is again dealt with in official US Government documents. Why do you make such a claim?

The US is buying Iron Dome launchers from Israel.
Yes, they are. Nobody has suggested that they are not. The US is purchasing a system who's R&D was funded in the majority by US taxpayers, and which uses US owned and manufactured technology. It really matters not, at the end of the day it's all wrapped up in the smoke and mirrors accounts around US aid to Israel.

Even if it did turn out that the US paid for most of Iron Dome, is them helping to stop Israeli civilians being murdered by Hamas and Islamic Jihad actually a bad thing?
There's no "even if" about it. As for your intentionally inflamatory question, I would very much rather see no Israeli dead, and no Arab dead. Full stop. Do you share the same deep concern for Palestinian civilians?

I looked into your claims solely to determine whether your posts on Iron Dome held water. They do not.
 
Last edited:
No interest in the debate? It was you who presented the matter as fact. I would suggest that the US Government budget notes are a more authoritative source than a traditionally biased media. Still, you take your "information" from where you choose.



Again, you appear to be incorrect. This matter is again dealt with in official US Government documents. Why do you make such a claim?



Yes, they are. Nobody has suggested that they are not. The US is purchasing a system who's R&D was funded in the majority by US taxpayers, and which uses US owned and manufactured technology. It really matters not, at the end of the day it's all wrapped up in the smoke and mirrors accounts around US aid to Israel.



There's no "even if" about it. As for your intentionally inflamatory question, I would very much rather see no Israeli dead, and no Arab dead. Full stop. Do you share the same deep concern for Palestinian civilians?

I looked into your claims solely to determine whether your posts on Iron Dome held water. They do not.
When you are going to use quotes from a Wikipedia page as the evidence of your 'research' you should probably read the rest of it first

The initial funding and development of the Iron Dome system was provided and undertaken by Israel.[28] This allowed for the deployment of the first two Iron Dome systems.[29] Subsequently, funding for an additional eight Iron Dome systems—along with funding for a supply of interception missiles—is currently being provided by the United States, with two of these additional systems having been delivered by 2012.
In May 2010, the White House announced that U.S. President Barack Obama would seek $205 million from U.S. Congress in his 2011 budget, to spur the production and deployment of additional Iron Dome batteries. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor stated, "The president recognizes the threat missiles and rockets fired by Hamas and Hezbollah pose to Israelis, and has therefore decided to seek funding from Congress to support the production of Israel's short range rocket defense system called Iron Dome." This would be the first direct U.S. investment in the project.
On 9 May 2011, Haaretz published that Defense Ministry director general Maj. Gen. (res.) Udi Shani said that Israel plans to invest nearly $1 billion in the coming years for the development and production of Iron Dome batteries. "We are no longer approaching this in terms of initial operational capabilities but are defining the final target for absorbing the systems, in terms of schedule and funds. We are talking about [having] 10–15 Iron Dome batteries. We will invest nearly $1 billion on this. This is the goal, in addition to the $205 million that the U.S. government has authorized," Shani said
I don't know for sure if there has been sharing of technology or not since the document you quoted from was written but it clearly says that it wasn't happening at that time.

The committee also notes that if the full $680.0 million is used on the program, the total U.S. taxpayer investment in this system will amount to nearly $900.0 million since fiscal year 2011, yet the United States has no rights to the technology involved. The committee believes the Director should ensure, prior to disbursing the authorized $680 million for Iron Dome, that the United States has appropriate rights to this technology for United States defense purposes
Given that the US are now buying the system from Israel instead of making it themselves it seems more likely that either the Israelis said no, or they didn't share all of it.
 

Latest Threads

Top