U.S. Investment in Israel Pays Off

While the America-Israel relationship began as one of a great power extending a hand to a vulnerable fledgling state, it has grown, in the words of Yoram Ettinger, into “an exceptionally productive, mutually beneficial alliance.” He explains:

Israel has been the most cost-effective, battle-tested laboratory of U.S. defense industries [and] the most reliable and practical beachhead and outpost of the U.S. defense forces, sharing with the U.S. unique intelligence, battle experience, and battle tactics. . . .

The plant manager of Fort Worth-based General Dynamics/Lockheed Martin, which manufactures the F-16, asserted that Israeli lessons have spared the manufacturer ten to twenty years of research and development, leading to over 700 modifications in the current generation of the F-16, “valued at a mega-billion-dollar bonanza to the manufacturer.” . . .

According to George Keegan, a former U.S. Air Force intelligence chief, the value of intelligence shared by Israel with the U.S.—exposing the air capabilities of adversaries, their new military systems, electronics, and jamming devices—“could not be procured with five CIAs.” . . .

Israel [is] a special strategic partner to America—and not a member of the “foreign-aid” club of supplicants—increasingly contributing to mutually beneficial . . . joint ventures.

Read more at inFocus Quarterly

More about: CIA, Israel & Zionism, Israeli military, U.S. military, US-Israel relations


The ICJ’s Vice-President Explains What’s Wrong with Its Recent Ruling against Israel

It should be obvious to anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of the Gaza war that Israel is not committing genocide there, or anything even remotely akin to it. In response to such spurious accusations, it’s often best to focus on the mockery they make of international law itself, or on how Israel can most effectively combat them. Still, it is also worth stopping to consider the legal case on its own terms. No one has done this quite so effectively, to my knowledge, as the Ugandan jurist Julia Sebutinde, who is the vice-president of the ICJ and the only one of its judges to rule unequivocally in Israel’s favor both in this case and in the previous one where it found accusations of genocide “plausible.”

Sebutinde begins by questioning the appropriateness of the court ruling on this issue at all:

Once again, South Africa has invited the Court to micromanage the conduct of hostilities between Israel and Hamas. Such hostilities are exclusively governed by the laws of war (international humanitarian law) and international human-rights law, areas where the Court lacks jurisdiction in this case.

The Court should also avoid trying to enforce its own orders. . . . Is the Court going to reaffirm its earlier provisional measures every time a party runs to it with allegations of a breach of its provisional measures? I should think not.

Sebutinde also emphasizes the absurdity of hearing this case after Israel has taken “multiple concrete actions” to alleviate the suffering of Gazan civilians since the ICJ’s last ruling. In fact, she points out, “the evidence actually shows a gradual improvement in the humanitarian situation in Gaza since the Court’s order.” She brings much evidence in support of these points.

She concludes her dissent by highlighting the procedural irregularities of the case, including a complete failure to respect the basic rights of the accused:

I find it necessary to note my serious concerns regarding the manner in which South Africa’s request and incidental oral hearings were managed by the Court, resulting in Israel not having sufficient time to file its written observations on the request. In my view, the Court should have consented to Israel’s request to postpone the oral hearings to the following week to allow for Israel to have sufficient time to fully respond to South Africa’s request and engage counsel. Regrettably, as a result of the exceptionally abbreviated timeframe for the hearings, Israel could not be represented by its chosen counsel, who were unavailable on the dates scheduled by the Court.

It is also regrettable that Israel was required to respond to a question posed by a member of the Court over the Jewish Sabbath. The Court’s decisions in this respect bear upon the procedural equality between the parties and the good administration of justice by the Court.

Read more at International Court of Justice

More about: Gaza War 2023, ICC, International Law