by Richard Edmondson
Monday, November 26th, 2012
By Richard Edmondson
What exactly is the “Iron Dome Missile Defense System”? The commonly held view is that it’s a US technological achievement made available to Israel. But it is growing increasingly difficult these days to determine exactly where to draw the line between “US technology” and “Israeli technology.” This is underscored by a recent article at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, or JINSA:
Iron Dome’s proven effectiveness has greatly increased expectations that it will be a popular product on the world market and has drawn considerable attention to possible co-production in the United States.
Developed by the Israeli firms Elta, mPrest Systems, and Rafael, the relatively low-cost Iron Dome system (estimated to be $85,000 per Tamir interceptor missile and $20 million per battery), enjoyed an unprecedentedly rapid development cycle going from drawing board to operational system in five years.
Would it be more accurate, then, to think of Iron Dome as Israeli technology whose research and development was funded by US taxpayers? An article by Bloomberg News here seems to take that view, referring to Iron Dome as “Israel’s U.S.-funded anti-missile system.”
Last month I published an article entitled Will America Become the Second Jewish State (Some Would Say It Already Is), in which I discussed the integration of Israeli companies into the US economy—a process I described as an “interfusing of the commercial and economic DNA of both countries.” The JINSA article serves to provide us with but another example of this.
Iron Dome’s affordability and effectiveness has had an enormous impact on both the United States government and the American aerospace and defense community. Congress increased U.S. assistance to allow Israel to field additional Iron Dome batteries after the system proved itself highly successful at intercepting Hamas rockets from its first in April 2011 through mid-2012.
Support within Congress was made palpable by the recent insertion of language into the not-yet-approved FY-2013 Defense Authorization Act endorsing potential coproduction with Israel. The House Committee on Armed Forces wrote into the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2013 that the Director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, “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.”
The recent Gaza conflict afforded Israel an opportunity to “showcase” its Iron Dome technology, and in fact that may have been one of the Zionist state’s primary reasons for initiating the attacks. At the Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C., an event was held last month entitled “Iron Dome: An Examination of the Important Strategic Partnership on Missile Defense Between Israel and the United States.” The focus of the program was to explore the potential of US and Israeli firms entering into “co-production” of the technology. Featured speakers included a liaison officer with the Israeli Missile Defense Organization, Lt. Col. Merav Davidovits, who discussed the missile capabilities of Hamas and Hezbollah, along with Iron Dome’s potential for neutralizing the threat. Davidovits also is quoted in the JINSA article (where her name is spelled “Davidovitz”) as saying, “Terrorist organizations around the world have the same capabilities as Hamas and Hezbollah, making the Iron Dome useful to all nations.” The article mentions that the audience consisted of “policy professionals, Congressional staff and Pentagon analysts.”
It does seem, then, that Israel’s murder of a 13-year-old Palestinian boy on November 8, followed by its assassination of Ahmed al-Jabari on November 14, were intended primarily to provoke the Hamas “terrorist organization” into firing rockets, and thereby allowing the Israeli firms who developed Iron Dome to advertise and promote their product on the world arms market. Perhaps now we better understand why al-Jabari was assassinated within hours after the drafting of a truce agreement. And as we see by the reference to the “not-yet-approved FY-2013 Defense Authorization Act” in the JINSA article, the timing was rather crucial.
Another commonly held view that perhaps might need addressing is that America is Israel’s “client” or “puppet state.” That is the view expressed by Paul Craig Roberts in an article published as the most recent carnage in Gaza was underway. “In the past few days we have witnessed, yet again, the ‘American superpower’ groveling at Netanyahu’s feet,” he writes. I have been a fan of Mr. Roberts’ writing for a while now, but I think he may be missing something here. From the media, to the financial sector, to the political system, Jewish power and predominance in America are unmistakable. This simply is not a statement that can be credibly contested any longer, and in fact many Jews don’t. If Jews are dominant in America, it is only natural that the country would adopt a policy perceived as being in the best interest of the Jewish people everywhere, though perhaps particularly in Israel. This is not particularly a characteristic of a puppet state per se. It would perhaps be more accurate to think of America in terms of an “occupied” state, one that is beginning to take on characteristics of apartheid.
It should be pointed out that the number of Jews holding powerful positions in the US government has risen to unprecedented levels—yet at the same time, the number still resides below 50 percent. This is advantageous for the powerful Jews who hold the real reins of power in the country, for having Shabbat Goyim still with a majority of the (mostly ceremonial) high profile offices gives them a certain camouflage. The difference between Palestinians and Americans is that Palestinians know they are living in an apartheid state; Americans have yet to wake up and discover it. However, Jews fully anticipate the arrival of that day, and they are preparing for it. Laws such as H.R. 347, making it a felony to protest in areas where certain government officials are likely to be either present or nearby—or the NDAA for FY 2012, signed into law by Obama on New Years Eve of 2011 and which allows the US military to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial—are breezing through Congress on a regular, periodic basis now. H.R. 347 passed the House on February 28, 2012 by vote of 399-3.
The Jewish Virtual Library provides some interesting information on trade and economic cooperation between individual US states and Israel. Pick any state in the union and you can find information on total exports to Israel as well other data, including Jewish percentage of the total population. In New York, for instance, where Jews make up 8.4 percent of the population, exports to Israel totaled $5,149,863,894.00 in 2011. Israel ranks as New York’s fourth largest trade partner. Another major trading partner for Israel is California, where exports in 2011 totaled $2,682,469,132.00, and Jews make up 3.3 percent of the population. Israel is the west coast state’s 15th largest trade partner.
Even in states where Jews make up only a tiny, minute portion of the population, trade with Israel is hefty. Take Idaho, for instance. In 2011, that state’s exports to Israel totaled $17,968,184.00. This is all the more remarkable considering that Idaho is one of America’s less populated states (ranked 39th according to Wikipedia ) and that Jews do not account for even one percent of the population (only 0.1 percent, according to Jewish Virtual Library ).
In addition to each state’s total exports to Israel for 2011, the JVL also supplies a table showing percentage of increase or decrease from the year 2010. All but 16 states show an increase, and most of the increases run somewhere between 1 and 50 percent. However, one state—New Mexico—reflects a staggering 2,016.17 percent increase! Furthermore, Israel is now New Mexico’s second largest trade partner (first is Mexico), and plans are underway for a New Mexico-to-Israel trade mission. While the date has not been set, Sherwin Pomerantz, director of the state’s Regional Trade Office for the Middle East, says the “big synergies” for New Mexico companies are technology and cybersecurity.
“This is where Israel excels. It’s like an undiscovered jewel,” he enthuses.
But how many of Israel’s “jewels” in these areas have come from its own initiatives, and how many have been, as in the case of Iron Dome, made possible by huge subsidies from the US taxpayer? The US has been appropriating money for the missile shield at least since 2010, while the JINSA article reports an additional $70 million being doled out as recently as July of this year.
Like Idaho, New Mexico is one of America’s less populated states—ranked 36th by Wikipedia—with Jews making up a mere 0.6 percent of the population. The state’s upcoming trade mission to Israel is being sponsored by the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Trade Alliance, and according to the organization’s director, Randy Trask, the main objective is to provide opportunities for NM companies seeking to expand into international trade with Israel.
By the way, NM exports to Israel last year totaled $442 million. Its exports to the rest of the Middle East combined came to $50 million.
Israel is claiming that its Iron Dome missile intercept rate exceeded 80 percent. Other sources are saying the rate was much lower, and one intercept projectile is reported to have veered off course and landed near a busy highway in Ashdod. And of course we know that some Palestinian rockets did indeed reach Tel Aviv. Some observers are going so far as to view the conflict as an Israeli defeat and a Palestinian victory. Wherever the actual truth may lie, it’s probably safe to say that a considerable number of rockets were indeed shot down. And of course the US media are currently abuzz with the Israeli-claimed figures, which doubtless will boost the missile system’s marketability.
Meanwhile, as JINSA reports, “Iron Dome coproduction would benefit not only the U.S.-Israel bilateral relationship, by lowering the cost per unit for both countries and promoting closer integration within the alliance, but could be expected to provide a boost to the American economy.” A “boost” to the economy, of course, by providing Americans with minimal or barely-living-wage jobs manufacturing weapons for the Jewish state. If this doesn’t make America, in essence, a Jewish state, I don’t know what does.
The question people might want to consider is whether or not it can in any way be regarded as coincidence that the world’s only two Jewish states at present * are also its greatest threats to peace.
* It’s my guess Europe, should it hold together, will eventually become the third. But also you might want to read about the rather curious entity, Birobidjan, which some are also describing as a Jewish state: http://www.boldfacenews.com/support-the-state-for-jews/ and at http://www.birobidjan.co.uk/