Therefore it is no wonder that Israel is a major developer of drones, only second to the US. UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) are a key export of Israel’s arms industry, most prominently Aeronautics Defense Systems, Elbit Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries. UAVs are used for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and targeting missions. A growing number of models have begun carrying missiles. Israeli drones are used and improved with battlefield experience since 1982.

The use of drones in the 2009 Gaza war is well documented in the Human Rights Watch Report Precisely Wrong

European countries are very eager to profit from Israeli technology. Joint-ventures between have advantages for both parties: for Israeli firms they provide access to EU markets (revenues), for European companies they enable technology transfers. That Israeli military know-how is gained at a high cost in terms of peace and human rights seems no objection for Europe.

The UK is developing several surveillance drones, most notably the Watchkeeper, jointly produced by Elbit and Thales UK. The first ten are built in Israel after which production is transferred to the UK. Although Watchkeeper was expected to enter service in 2010 it is repeatedly delayed further into 2012. the Watchkeeper is a surveillance drone but may be armed in the future.  The UK is already using the US-made armed Reaper drone in Afghanistan.
The UK also has Israeli Hermes 450 surveillance drones in production for use in Afghanistan. Production takes place in Leicester with U-TacS, a company jointly owned by Elbit systems and Thales UK.

Germany ordered a small fleet of Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) Heron 1 spy drones for use in Afghanistan. German soldiers received practical training for the Heron 1 in Israel. Heron is also used by Canadian, French, Australian and Spanish forces in Afghanistan. Israelis are barred by Afghanistan, so IAI ceded maintenance services to its German partner Rheinmetall Defense.
The deaths of a German citizen in Waziristan by an American drone strike in 2010 confronted Germany painfully with the consequenses of drone warfare. Targeted assassinations have been developed as a tactic by Israel. The first high-profile use of drones in killing was the assassination of Hizballah Sheikh Abbas al-Musawi in 1992 when an IAI Scout was used to identify the target and lead the attack.

France bought the IAI Hunter in 1997 and the Heron 1 based Harfang in 2001, the latter developed by European defence company EADS and IAI. The French state and EADS invested 380 million euro for the French heron-version but already the system is outdated and needs replacement. This replacement is the topic of fierce debate between the French government and members of the Senat, maily focussing on the price and capabilities of different systems.  Competition is between those that want to buy American Reaper drones and those that want to support the development of a European drones industry by buying adapted Heron TP drones built by Dassault and IAI. EADS appears to be losing out because of failing cooperation between EADS and IAI.

In a letter to newspaper Le Monde four French senators claim that not only is the American drone less expensive but also that one of the disadvantages of the Heron is that it cannot be armed. This is however contradicted by many sources. . Precision weapons that could be adapted for armed drones include the Lahat missile, designed by IAI subsidiary MBT, and Rafael’s Spike, which is produced in Europe by EuroSpike, a joint venture of German Diehl, and Rheinmetall with Rafael.

Fortunately, financial and military questions are not the only issues in the French UAV debate. The French BDS movement has raised the ethical question of buying Israeli weapons and has started an online petition.

Photo: Two men were killed by targeted drone attack in Gaza City 08/11/2011

Part of the Common Position on the Export of Military Technology and Equipment, as it is fully named, is the obligation to publish an Annual Report on arm exports, based on contributions from Member States, and also for Member States to publish national reports.

According to the most recently published report, the major EU arms exporter to Israel in 2010 has been France, exporting weapons for over 35 million euro. This picture however is somewhat distorted by the fact that many important arms exporters do not hand in their export figures to the EU. A tiny footnote on page 8 warns that Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Greece, Ireland and the United Kingdom “could not supply these data”. It is a shame that, thirteen years after the entry into force of the common EU arms export policy, it is publishing a document that is giving a very incomplete picture and cannot be used  to analyze accurately the actual arms exports of EU countries.

There is another figure in the document however that does shed light on EU arms exports to Israel. Although not all countries publish actual deliveries they all publish figures on granted licenses. Based on that, one can see that France is the major European arms exporting country to Israel, with licences granted for over 32 million euro. France is followed closely by Germany, with licences for arms to Israel worth 31 million, and on the third position is Rumania, with export licences to Israel worth 15 million euro and actual deliveries 11 million.

Against 808 granted arms export licences for Israel there are a meagre 20 refusals of arms export licences. Refusal grounds were the lack of respect for international obligations and commitments by Israel (criterion 2, 10 refusals based on this), the internal situation in Israel and the existence of tensions or armed conflicts (criterion 3, 11 refusals based on this), the need to preservation regional peace, security and stability (criterion 4, 9 refusals) and the risk that the military technology will be re-exported under undesirable conditions (criterion 7, 3 refusals). Considering these reasons for denial it would be interesting to know how, when applying the EU criteria on arms export properly, the other 808 military exports did manage to receive export licenses.

Completely missing in the report is any indication of the amount of military parts exported from Europe to other countries, notably the US, where these parts are build into big systems to be exported to Israel. Because the EU is not asking the US for a Declaration of Final Destination, it can act as if this indirect exports to Israel do not exist.

The deal is supported by the German tax payer with € 135 million Euro, which is a third of the total cost. For the German government, this subsidy is a very expensive job support program of which shipyard HDW in Kiel (north Germany) is the main profiteer. For the Israeli navy it is a free contribution to its budget, even more welcome now Israel has plans to cut 5% of its defense costs, thanks to the Israeli version of Occupy and leading to debate in the US. 

In total the German support for the Israeli submarine procurement over the last two decades will be more than € 1 billion once Germany’s share in the costs of the sixth warship is paid. Two other Israeli Dolphin submarines are still under construction at HDW in Germany. Delivery is scheduled for 2012 and 2013 respectively. They are also co-financed by Germany with one third of the price tag directly from the German budget and another third by procuring military goods from Israel. Thus Tel Aviv only has to pay a third of the costs. There is one small delivery problem however. The Government of Norway has informed HDW that for reasons of Norway’s restrictions on arms exports, it will not allow HDW to use Norwegian military infrastructure to test these boats in deep waters. Traditionally all submarines build at HDW undergo these tests in Norway.

HDW claims on its website that hardly any other yard is so experienced in building non-nuclear (powered) submarines.  The Federation of American Scientists, leaves no doubt about the nuclear possibilities of these ‘hunter, killer and patrol’ vessels. Its missiles are very well capable of reaching Iran and of containing nuclear warheads. It is not so strange Iran feels threatened. Still Israel, contrary to Iran, so far never had to face any sanctions because of its nuclear program.

It is unclear how the German submarine export can be brought in line with criterion 3 of the EU Common Position on Arms Exports which says that “EU Member States will not issue export licences if the internal situation in the country of final destination is characterised by tension or armed conflicts if such export could provoke or prolong armed conflicts or aggravate existing tensions or conflicts.”

But if you ask the common Israeli citizen, as the Saban Center for Middle East Policy did, they would prefer a nuclear-free Middle East over Israel and Iran endangering each others very existence.

This month the UK based Palestine Solidarity Movement published an excellent briefing paper on military relations with Israel.

What makes the briefing paper interesting is that it not only focuses on arms exports to Israel but also on other forms of military cooperation. It highlights what makes the Israeli arms industry successful in the international marked – Israel being the world’s 5th arms exporter. A quote from the briefing: “In terms of marketing, every military operation acts as an endorsement for the weapons and techniques used.”

Battlefield as a showcase for your military products. In this, Israel is not alone. It is common arms trade marketing to point to battlefield for sales promotion. The use of Rafale fighter jets by France in the bombing of Libya is a recent example. In trying to sell the Rafale to the UAE, French Defense Minister Longuet said Libyan operations did show the plane met the UAE’s requirements.

Israel, however, has the marketing advantage of a constant ‘battlefield’ in Palestine and has therefore a permanent testing ground for its weaponry which it then sells to the rest of the world. As the briefing paper notes, even the Israeli Defense Force itself advertised the use and success of its drones in the ‘Operation Cast Lead’ – the assault on Gaza in 2008/9. It depends, of course, on what is considered a success. According to Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem Cast Lead left 1,385 Palestinians dead, 762 of whom did not take part in the hostilities; 318 of them were minors.

On the defense industry portal EPICOS the advantages of working together with the Israeli military industry are highlighted once more. Israel has a “unmatched pool of highly skilled workers and world-renowned research and academic capabilities” with “operational experience gained from serving its Defense Forces, which explains why the Israeli engineers are close to the operational user, simply because they have the proper experience and knowledge.”

Battlefield tested products and battlefield experienced researchers: the Israeli arms industry definitely has something special to offer. This is one of the reasons why some European institutes are keen on common R&D projects with Israel. In the European Union funded security research program known as FP7, Israel is the biggest non-EU recipient of funds. Not only industries but also many European universities participate in FP7 research with the Israeli arms industry. In a small country like Belgium, already two universities are involved. The Catholic University of Leuven is participating in common research with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), a state‐owned manufacturer of drones, and the University of Namur participates in research with Elbit Systems, one of Israel’s largest military technology firms. In this way, European universities are building on Israeli knowledge, gained by repression and tested on Palestinians in Gaza.

In the past the US compensated Israeli defence cuts but this time that might be less likely. Therfor the Israeli arms industry is working harder than ever to compensate for a shrinking home market by promote itself to potential international costumers. Last month for example, two major arms exhibitions and fairs took place in which Israel played a major role.

One was the Milipol Homeland Security Fair in Paris. Of the exhibitors, 61 were Israeli. Companies were offering products varying from computer security to police force equipment. The French arms research group Observatoire des Armements (Armaments Observer) pointed at the lack of transparency and control of this type of trade, which is, as they phrased it, “only subjected to the law of supply and demand”.

Another huge homeland security and defence event is ISDEF, the International Security and defence Expo and Fair, which took place in Tel Aviv from 31 October to 2 November. The ISDEF promotes itself as “a vital opportunity for high-profile experts to establish professional relationships while serving as a platform for the formation of international cooperation”. This is referring to the Israeli wish to establish production relationships with foreign arms companies to enter foreign markets. The international industry is eager enough to cooperate and use the Israeli combat experience to improve their product.

An example is German Rheinmetall, exhibiting at ISDEF and working with Israeli partner Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) to adapt the Heron 1 drone for the German Bundeswehr. Rheinmetall is also collaborating with IAI to develop a new system known as WABEP, the German acronym for “weapons system for standoff engagement of individual and point targets.” WABEP is designed as a kind of kamikaze drone, attacking targets by self-destructing into them. Apparently Rheinmetall is working itself into the profitable booming market of killer drones, profiting from the Israeli experience of targeted killings in occupied territory. In this way the German company makes itself complicit in human rights violations.

• Immediately cease any provision to Israel of arms and related material of all types, including the sale or transfer of weapons and ammunitions, military vehicles and equipment, para-military police equipment, including dual-use equipment, and spare parts; and also cease the provision of all types of equipment and supplies and grants of licensing arrangements for the manufacture or maintenance of these weapons.
• Stop all military and dual-use imports (equipment, assistance and munitions) from Israel.
• Stop the transfer of military products to and from Israel through national ports, territory and airspace.
• Stop cooperation with the Israeli army, military companies, and military-related R&D projects, including joint ventures (whether bilateral or multilateral).
• Halt all military-related training and consultancies with the Israeli army, military companies and academic research institutions.
• End all military aid to Israel.
• Refrain from any cooperation with Israel in the manufacture and development of nuclear weapons and mobilise for a nuclear-free Middle East.

Signed by:

• Campaign Against Arms Trade – UK
• Campagne tegen Wapenhandele – Netherlands
• Centre d’Estudis per a la Pau JM Delàs (Justícia i Pau) – Barcelona, Spain
• Gruppe für eine Schweiz ohne Armee (GSoA) – Switzerland
• Spokeman for Kampagne gegen Rüstungsexport – Germany.
• Bundesausschuss Friedensratschlag – Germany
• Norwegian Peace Association – Norway
• Osservatorio Permanente sulle Armi Leggere (OPAL) di Brescia – Italy
• Peace Union of Finland – Finland