An Israeli arms company that is set to enjoy more than $900 million in Australian taxpayer funds is heavily involved in Israel’s suppression of Palestinians and its maintenance of apartheid, has been previously banned for producing cluster munitions, and has recently been banned by Australia’s ally Japan.
The ABC’s Andrew Greene today revealed Elbit Systems has won a $917 million contract to supply systems for the Australian Defence Force’s Infantry Fighting Vehicles. As Greene noted, the ADF in 2021 began stripping Elbit systems out of ADF equipment due to serious security risks the ADF believed the systems posed.
At the time, Elbit was also on the Future Fund’s list of excluded investments due to its production of illegal cluster munitions, which Elbit claims it no longer manufactures. The company was removed from the excluded list last year.
The company has also in the past manufactured white phosphorus munitions, but hasn’t reported manufacturing them in the past decade. The use of white phosphorus munitions near civilians is banned, but Amnesty International claims to have compiled detailed evidence that Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) have used the munitions in southern Lebanon in recent months. The IDF has used the munitions in previous attacks in Gaza but there are no claims it is in use in the current assault on Gaza.
However, on February 5, Japanese trading giant Itochu Corp’s aviation arm announced it was suspending all work with Elbit under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed in 2023. “Taking into consideration the International Court of Justice’s order on January 26, and that the Japanese government supports the role of the court, we have already suspended new activities related to the MOU, and plan to end the MOU by the end of February,” the company said.
Israeli newspaper Haaretz has also reported Elbit Systems gave weapons to Myanmar’s military regime in 2022, despite the Netanyahu government claiming Israel had ceased providing weapons in 2018. That means Elbit was providing weapons while the junta was murdering more than 1,500 people, including 100 children, in a brutal crackdown that, according to Human Rights Watch, involved:
Mass killings, torture, sexual violence, arbitrary arrests, and other abuses against protesters, journalists, lawyers, health workers and political opposition members amounting to crimes against humanity. Military attacks in the country’s northwest and southeast have resulted in numerous war crimes.
Elbit’s weapons have been extensively used by the IDF against Palestinians, with Israel advertising its weapons systems with footage of how they have been tested on Palestinians. Elbit products include surveillance systems, including equipment to prevent the movement of Palestinians between Jerusalem and the West Bank, attack and surveillance drones, so-called “smart” bombs and combat systems. The company is also currently involved in the forced displacement of thousands of Arab Bedouin Israeli citizens to accommodate its manufacturing plants.
Crikey has contacted the Department of Defence for comment but it did not respond in time for publication.
Does Defence have any ethical standards on its purchasing? It turned against Elbit a few years back for security reasons, as the article says, and obviously there are countries where making deals is politically unacceptable, but does Defence ever decline to deal with a company because of its lack of any ethics?
More generally, can ethics ever be taken seriously when making deals in a properly neoliberal capitalist environment?
I know that we have had our differences in the past SSR but I totally support your comments in this post.
“I’ve always felt there’s something inherently psychopathic about joining the army in peace time, as far as I’m concerned people join the army to find out what it’s like to kill someone. I hardly think that’s an inclination that should be encouraged in modern society, do you?”
Brendan Gleeson, Calvary.
Are ethics ever a consideration in the manufacturing, supply and purchasing of armaments?
Fair point. It is not easy to see how exactly profiting from making and selling things for killing people is going to be entirely ethical.
But I’ll give one example of an armaments designer and manufacturer who arguably had at least one ethical standard. James Puckle, a London lawyer, invented and patented a primitive machine gun in 1718. There were two types of ammunition, with matching barrels: square section bullets for use against non-Christian Turks, and ordinary round section bullets for use on Christians. Puckle decided the square section bullets were not acceptable for use against Christians because they supposedly caused such horrible wounds. But being killed and maimed with square bullets ‘would convince the Turks of the benefits of Christian civilisation’, according to the patent document.
Beyond that, there are various weapons that are banned now (even if it’s easy to see gaping inconsistencies in the reasoning behind some of these bans). Arguably, a weapons manufacturer who declines to make banned weapons is showing some sort of ethics, as well as abiding by the law.
Wow, SSR, where do you find all this information? No sarcasm implied here.
I agree with your comment in your final paragraph, but it would seem there are no real winners other than the arms manufacturers, and the general populace are of course, always those who suffer most.
But, that’s another conversation…
There is a difference between arming ourselves in order to protect themselves and buying from a company which has manufactured banned weapons………
How low can our military materiel acquisitions go?
When is Richard Marles going to pull them into line.
Thanks for your response ratty. All I can think of at times, is ‘follow the money’…
If Israel’s conduct in the West Bank and Gaza had been perpetrated by any other country, not aligned with the western alliance, severe economic and sporting sanctions would have been imposed by the USA and its allies. If we are genuine in our desire for a two state solution those sanctions should be instituted. Obviously, Elbit would be a prime target of such sanctions.
If we were genuine in our desire for Israel to stop killing civilians, we’d be doing a lot of things we aren’t doing.
More generally I think a Royal Commission into defence procurement is really needed. God knows how many billions of our money has been spent on unsuitable, not to say ridiculous, unworkable purchases. The money wasted could have been used in so many better ways. This should include Aukus – just why have we signed onto a brain fart from Morrison. Neither the U.S. nor the U.K. have covered themselves in glory with their respective defence objectives. And what are our defence objectives – to keep our country safe or to be aggressive to others? Reminds me of an episode of Utopia, which no longer seems funny.
yes the govt needs serious ICAC with teeth – vote Teal and Independants with teeth who also support real women who are abused and gaslit
I encourage all readers to click on the tested on Palestinians link in the second to last paragraph. This gives you some idea of how far this horror extends.
Thank you for pointing that out. Now we lnow why Netanyahu wants to be in charge of what a new state of palestine might become withput his interference. It means that Palestinians will have peace if Israel is still holding any kind of power over them, Israel will find some excuse to test it sweaponry on Palestinians. We only need to look at the reesponse going on now. All because a man wrote a zionist version of the bible just over a century ago.
Sorry about all the typos. It shouldvread that Palestine will have NO peace if Israel holds power over them. And its weaponry
Be very careful Bernard, Dreyfus and Marles will be itching to send the Mossad operatives around to show you the error of your ways….
I’m expecting to have my front door kicked in at 4.00 am any morning by them, too. Although, if some of their past terrorist activities are any guide they will probably kick the next-door neighbors door in and shoot them.