Behind the Scenes, the Western World Is Cutting Off Weapons Supplies to Israel The dark underside of calls for “restraint” after the Golan Heights massacre. P. David Hornik
https://pdavidhornik.substack.com/subscribe?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=email-subscribe&r=
Attitudes toward Israel in today’s world can be put into three categories:
1. It must not continue to exist.
2. It can exist, but it must not fight.
3. It can exist, and it can fight.
The first category comprises much of the Muslim world and just about all of the far-left world. The second category corresponds broadly—not always precisely—with official attitudes and policies toward Israel of the United Nations and most Western governments.
The third category comprises mostly conservative governments, parties, and sectors in the Western world.
Although, at the time of Hamas’s October 7 massacre against Israel, the Biden administration seemed to be staunchly in the third category, it eventually began shifting toward the second category and now hovers between the third and the second. While Israel fights on seven fronts of the Iranian ring of fire (Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Iran itself), the Biden administration’s endlessly repeated mantra is now “ceasefire”—along with all other Western governments that publicly address the issue.
Accordingly, in an effort to discourage Israel from fighting and constrain its ability to do so, since February the Biden administration has been substantially reducing arms shipments to Israel.
Imagine that, say, Belgium—a country roughly the size of Israel—had in less than ten months suffered a massacre and mass kidnapping of its citizens, as well as a constant bombardment of well over 20,000 rockets, missiles, and explosive drones from six different countries. (In Israel’s case, the six countries are Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Iran; by June 10 more than 19,000 unguided rockets alone had been launched at Israel.)
It would be strange, then, if Belgium—not any of the countries or terror organizations attacking it—were under constant, obsessive pressure for a ceasefire. It would be even stranger if Belgium—not any of those countries or terror organizations—were being charged by two international courts with “genocide” and other severe human rights abuses.
But the push to deny arms to Israel has, by now, gone well beyond the US.
The new UK Labour government sworn in on July 9 may announce an end to arms exports to Israel in the coming days. Britain is a significant player, and Jerusalem is worried that if it makes that move, other countries will follow.
The new UK defense minister, David Lammy, asked if he would stop “all UK arms exports to Israel,”
answered in the negative, stressing the need for Israel to have access to defensive weapons.
“Israel is a country surrounded by people who would love to see its annihilation,” Lammy said at the time. “It is being attacked by the Houthis, missiles are being fired from Hezbollah, notwithstanding the desire for Hamas to wipe Israel off the map.
“For those reasons, it would not be right to have a blanket ban between our country and Israel,” he added.
Not a blanket ban—but a partial ban. What would happen if the UK were subjected to a massacre, a mass kidnapping, and ten months of constant rocket, missile, and explosive-drone fire?
But it goes beyond US and UK arms cutoffs. Ynetnews, a website of one of Israel’s most popular dailies, reports about a
silent and unofficial arms embargo [on Israel] by Western countries in recent months. This includes delays in shipments of raw materials and parts to Israel’s defense industries, ultimately used to produce weapons for the IDF.
These silent sanctions come from major manufacturers in countries such as France, leading Israel’s Defense Ministry to seek alternatives in Eastern Europe, South America and Asia. For example, a French manufacturer delayed for months a shipment of raw material for a major operational project for the IDF, which is produced by an Israeli defense industry. The multi-billion-dollar project continues, but at a slower pace which has pushed back its completion date.
Partial slowdowns are also being felt in the development of other combat systems for the IDF. Even the Merkava tank and the Namer APC, produced by a joint directorate of the IDF and the Defense Ministry, rely on 200 different suppliers, some dependent on foreign manufacturers. Consequently, top officials in the Defense Ministry are making frantic efforts to find alternatives, including in countries such as India and Serbia.
Ask Western countries why they want to deny Israel weapons, munitions, and raw materials for weapons, and they’ll say it’s to protect Gazan civilians from Israel. John Spencer, expert on urban warfare at West Point, affirms that in Gaza, “Israel has done more to prevent civilian casualties in war than any military in history—above & beyond what international law requires & more than the US did in its wars in Iraq & Afghanistan….” Richard Kemp, a former British commander in Afghanistan, wrote on July 29 that “I and the group of former generals from Nato countries who accompanied me [on a tour of Gaza] had never before seen such monumental efforts to get aid into a combat zone by an army fighting an active war.”
But Western and other governments don’t want to be confused with such facts. Something else seems to be at play.
In the wake of Hizballah’s massacre of Israeli Druze children playing soccer in the Golan Heights, an Israeli counterattack on Hizballah in Lebanon is imminent—and the robotic calls for “restraint” from Western governments are pouring in. But is restraint the proper response to a massacre? In this case, the massacre was only the most egregious incident in almost ten months of almost daily Hizballah bombardment of northern Israel that has forced at least 60,000 Israelis to leave their homes, turning many northern Israeli communities into ghost towns and much of the northern farmland into black, charred fields.
Does “restraint” mean Israel hits Hizballah somewhat harder for a few days, and then we go back to the routine of daily Hizballah bombardment?
A larger question is: are the categories 1 and 2 with which I started this article really one and the same category? Given all that’s happened, “Israel can exist, but it must not fight” seems an untenable position. There’s a feeling that, by now, the world has had enough of Israel and wants to get rid of it.
Comments are closed.
