
These Patriot Missiles Are Israel's Trash And Ukraine's Treasure
MIM-104 Patriot missile air defense missiles previously in Israel's inventory may have reached Ukraine. Kyiv doubtlessly welcomes with open arms any help it can get bolstering its beleaguered air defenses, especially as it faces its heaviest missile and drone bombardments of the war. In Israel's case, its history with the Patriots suggests it's probably more than happy to dispense with them.
In an interview published on June 8, Israel's ambassador to Ukraine, Michael Brodsky, said that ex-Israeli Patriot systems are now in Ukrainian service.
'These are Israeli Patriots that were in service in the early 1990s. We agreed to transfer them to Ukraine,' Brodsky said. 'Unfortunately, not much was said about this… when people claim that Israel didn't provide military aid, that's simply not true.'
The Israeli Foreign Ministry swiftly denied Brodsky's comment, stating, 'It is not correct. Israel did not transfer Patriot systems to Ukraine.'
From the moment Israel decided to retire its Patriots in 2024, it was clear that Ukraine hoped it would receive at least some of them. By then, Kyiv had received some Patriot systems and already succeeded in shooting down some of Russia's most advanced missiles and aircraft.
The Israeli denial was noteworthy in light of a year's worth of reports indicating the contrary. The Wall Street Journal reported in June 2024 that the U.S. and Israel were nearing an agreement to transfer up to eight Patriot systems from Israel's inventory to Ukraine, a move it correctly noted would 'dramatically increase' Ukrainian air defenses.
Axios reported in January that the U.S. military had transferred approximately 90 Patriot interceptor missiles from Israel to Poland en route to Ukraine. Furthermore, the New York Times reported in May that an Israel-based Patriot system would be sent to Ukraine following refurbishment.
Israel may not want to acknowledge a transfer. The wording of the denial specifies it did not send systems but doesn't mention the interceptor missiles, which Ukraine could fire from its existing Patriot batteries. Consequently, Israel could truthfully say that it gave Ukraine the bullets but not the gun.
According to that Axios report, Israel reassured Russia it was 'only returning' a Patriot system to the U.S., not transferring it to Ukraine. A spokesperson for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said an Israeli Patriot was returned to the U.S. but also clarified that 'it is not known to us whether it was delivered to Ukraine.'
Israel's official denial may indicate it doesn't want any credit for helping beef up Ukrainian air defenses to avoid antagonizing Russia, which recently wanted to stay in Syria to counterbalance Turkey. When Russia's ally Bashar al-Assad was still in power, the Russian military was in a much more powerful strategic position in Syria than today. During those years, Israel invariably said it did not want to risk antagonizing Moscow, with which it had a deconfliction mechanism in Syria permitting it to bomb Iran-linked targets throughout the country, by supplying Ukraine with lethal weapons. It even refused an American request for vintage Hawk missiles it had retired long ago.
Now, Israel may be happy to dispense with its Patriots without acknowledgment. Israel noticeably did not use any Patriots during Iran's April and October 2024 missile attacks and the more recent Iranian bombardments that began on June 13, after Israel's Operation Rising Lion against Iran.
That's not surprising, considering Israel's Arrow and David's Sling systems are more suitable for intercepting ballistic missiles compared to its older Patriot PAC-2s. Furthermore, Israel's experience during its first major missile attack—during the Persian Gulf War all the way back in 1991—fostered a long-running distaste for the system.
America rushed Patriot systems to Israel ahead of that war to help defend against Saddam Hussein's Scud missiles. Washington feared an Israeli retaliation would splinter the coalition, which included many Arab states it had carefully united around the goal of ejecting Iraq from Kuwait. While over 40 Scud missiles hit Tel Aviv and Haifa during the war, an agitated Israel sat tight. Adding insult to injury was the inability of the Patriot interceptors to counter the overwhelming majority of the Scuds, despite widespread reports of its efficiency at the time.
The Israeli Air Force concluded after the war that there was 'no evidence of a single successful intercept' with 'circumstantial evidence for one possible intercept' at best. Defense Minister Moshe Arens recalled after the war that the number of Scuds intercepted was 'minuscule and is in fact meaningless.'
With some conspicuous exceptions, the Israeli Patriots spent the intervening decades, in the words of one Israeli news outlet, 'mostly gathering dust' and never scoring any intercepts until it shot down a Hamas drone during the 2014 Gaza war.
Israeli Patriots saw rare combat in the summer of 2014, just under a quarter century after entering service, when they shot down Hamas drones from Gaza and a Su-24 bomber over the Golan Heights. However, by then, Israel had the Iron Dome in service, and its David's Sling was just three years away from becoming operational. The older Patriots' days in Israeli service were numbered.
But its combat-proven efficiencies against drones and Russian-built aircraft in 2014 show, in retrospect, how suited it is for Ukraine at the moment. Since Kyiv launched its daring Spider's Web operation against Russia's strategic bombers on June 1, it has faced no fewer than 1,451 drones from Russia against its cities. Kyiv needs all the help it can get. And even some extra PAC-2s for its existing systems from Israel would go a long way in keeping its critical air defenses online.
Given Ukraine's present need and Israel's historical dislike of them, one could hardly find a more clear-cut example of the saying one man's trash is another man's treasure.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Israeli defense may falter at world court as starvation claims dominate global discourse
After the April win for Israel at the ICC, it did not need to be this way. Israel always had an uphill battle to fight back against war crimes allegations before the International Criminal Court. But after losing a series of those battles in 2019, 2021, and November 2024, it got a rare and important interim win in April of this year. Despite that interim win, the starvation narrative – now dominating global discourse and acknowledged by top IDF officials, who admit that even without mass starvation, food security in Gaza is at its lowest point of the war – has once again placed Jerusalem on the defensive in the war crimes case. When the ICC Appeals Court ruled in favor of Israel in April, it was likely that it was not only because Israel's lawyers made a number of strong legal arguments that the ICC lower court's prior rulings had skipped over. No court is completely immune to political context, and the ICC most definitely is not immune, with judges often connected to their country's policies. So it was likely that the ICC Appeals Court ruling also came as Europe and other international institutions were trying to find a halfway point with the new and aggressive Trump administration, as well as a belief that a new 60-day ceasefire might not be far off. It is noteworthy that the ICC Appeals Court issued its ruling on April 24, nearly two months after Israel began blocking new food aid from getting into Gaza. Had those two months of blocking food aid led to mass starvation, it is unlikely that the ICC Appeals Court would have issued any positive ruling for Israel, interim or otherwise. But at the time, despite repeated false charges of imminent starvation dating back to late 2023, the ICC Appeals Court could plainly see that no mass starvation had taken place. This critical political and ideological human rights context may all change now that even top US allies and an increasingly strident UN are calling the Gaza situation a starvation situation. Just on Friday, Israel filed its latest legal brief to try to convince the ICC lower court to cancel the arrest warrants issued against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant and to drop the entire war crimes case against the Jewish state. ISRAEL'S LEGAL brief made a number of critical arguments that, if the situation in Gaza were moderately stable, might have a chance of getting Jerusalem out of this jam. First, Israel asserts that the ICC lower court from 2024 could not ignore Jerusalem's substantive arguments attacking the idea of Palestine as a state, which can give the ICC jurisdiction, simply because an earlier ICC lower court in 2021 had ruled that Palestine was a state, and could do so. This kind of an argument is called 'res judicata,' meaning a later court can just lean on the ruling of an earlier court if an issue has already been litigated and decided. But Israel chose not to participate directly in the 2021 legal fight. This was probably a foolish move by the Jewish state, but when major issues are at stake, courts usually let a party, or here a country, make its arguments belatedly, if the court shows up before a final verdict at trial. Based on that general rule, Israel should get a chance to make its arguments at this stage, even if it had an earlier opportunity to make them and did not. There are counterpoints to this, where legal jurisdictions apply some version of the 'entire controversy doctrine' – that anytime a party misses a chance to make an argument, it has forfeited that argument. Palestinians do not control a terrority with set borders But that is usually a civil law concept, not applicable to criminal cases like this one, and is used against the plaintiff bringing the case, not against the defendant, who might lose something if they do not get to defend themselves. Moreover, as Israeli lawyers argue, the Palestinians do not control a territory with set borders right now, certainly not Gaza. If that is true, then how can 'Palestine' grant the ICC jurisdiction? Israel has not granted jurisdiction, so if Palestine cannot grant jurisdiction either, the ICC would need to drop everything. Next, Israel recognizes a number of potentially strong arguments for the ICC prosecutor and the Palestinians, and tries to disarm them all. For example, theInternational Court of Justice (ICJ) in a 2024 opinion ruled that Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and east Jerusalem is illegal. From this ruling, the ICC prosecutor contends that these areas are defined as Palestine, even if Israel allegedly illegally occupies them. Israel hits back that the ruling was a non-binding advisory opinion for the UN General Assembly, which itself also only issued non-binding votes. MOREOVER, ISRAEL argues that since the whole process was an advisory proceeding, it did not allow a full exploration of the most concrete facts on the ground, which is required in a criminal proceeding, such as the one the ICC is overseeing. The ICC prosecutor has said that even if Palestine lacks aspects of standard statehood, the inherent principles of self-determination cannot allow Israel to prevent the Palestinians from seeking ICC assistance to protect them from alleged Israeli war crimes. Jerusalem responds that the Palestinian Authority, which is purporting to try to give jurisdiction (it filed an accession document to the ICC's Rome Statute around a decade ago) only came into existence by virtue of the Oslo Accords agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. This agreement specifically prohibited the PA from trying to invoke criminal jurisdiction against Israelis. Next, Jerusalem asserts that even if an entity could somehow give jurisdiction to the ICC, even lacking fully set borders, that it at least must control the areas – in this case, Gaza – from which it wants to refer jurisdiction. The ICC prosecutor then employed a clever tactic and said that even if Israel has some technical points, to allow it to throw out the Palestinians' case based on such formalities would abrogate the whole 'object and purpose' of the ICC and its Rome Statute, which is to 'put an end to impunity.' Here, Israel quotes precedent that says that pursuing the ICC's object and purpose cannot come at the expense of Article 1 of the Statute, which requires that '[t]he jurisdiction and functioning of the Court shall be governed by the provisions of this Statute.' This means that the ICC judges cannot just ignore technical rules that apply because they do not like the result. Next, the ICC prosecutor argues that any finding by the ICC lower court that 'Palestine' is not '[t]he State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred' under 12(2)(a) – 'would be inconsistent with the principle of effectiveness' because it would 'defeat the effect of Palestine's accession to the Statute'. In other words, the ICC Assembly of State Parties, which governs the ICC, accepted Palestine as a state. How can that have happened while leaving the Palestinians no recourse to defend themselves against alleged war crimes? Israel responds, saying, 'The Parties continue to conduct themselves in accordance with the jurisdictional arrangements of the Accords. Moreover, the international community has continuously and steadfastly shown its support for the bilateral negotiation framework as the basis for the resolution of the conflict. This Chamber should not undermine the framework that governs the relations between the Parties and lays the foundation for the resolution of the conflict, as agreed to by the Parties and endorsed by the international community.' AND THESE high-minded-sounding words might have held the day or won further delays if the 60-day expected ceasefire had transpired. Or if the situation in Gaza was starting to stabilize and Jerusalem's 'only' problem was defending against past war crimes allegations as opposed to ongoing and potential future ones. But how will Israel have any chance in convincing the ICC to give it a win on technicalities and to ignore the object and purpose of the ICC itself when the judges are witnessing near universal global consensus that there is mass starvation in Gaza? Will they be more favorable to Israel than Trump's own recent statements on the issue? When Israeli ministers openly support blocking food to Gaza and remain in office, won't this influence the ICC's decision? In a situation where the IDF admits that there have been individuals who have starved to death, but is trying to deflect the negative impact of those individual cases by claiming that many or most of them had preexisting conditions, will the ICC give Israel a pass? Can Israel fight this fight by saying that maybe only dozens have starved, but not hundreds and not thousands? On legal blogs following the situation, the tone has shifted from summarizing both sides of the issue with some general bias against Israel, to asserting that third-party countries now have a duty to intervene to stop Israel from causing the alleged starvation. Some legal scholars are arguing that intent to starve does not even need to be proven in standard ways if it can be proven that a foreseeable consequence of certain policies would be to lead to starvation. It is hard to see how Jerusalem turns this case around. And yet, after the April win for Israel, it did not need to be this way. Israel had already been defeating Hamas for around 17 months straight. Pausing, even for an extended period, would not have left Hamas the same as it was in 2023 or even the same as it was in mid-2024. If Israel had agreed to a ceasefire then and stabilized the humanitarian situation, it might have still lost the war crimes fight, but it also might have capitalized on the interim win to get a total win. Instead, Israel pulled out all the stops both on the war front and the aid front and ended up having to mostly pause the war and give Hamas much of the aid it wants, receiving no hostages, and probably now teeing up a new low before the ICC. Solve the daily Crossword


New York Post
33 minutes ago
- New York Post
Zohran Mamdani's views on Palestine are embarrassing
Zohran Mamdani embraces countless lefty causes, but opposing Israel is — as he himself said on the campaign trail — 'central to my identity.' Believe him, judge him accordingly — and realize this isn't about justice, but hate. He may drop his calls to defund the NYPD or fall short in hiking taxes on the rich, but he'll never stop targeting the Jewish state and vilifying all who support it. Advertisement Only on the topic of Israel and Palestine does Mamdani lose his grin, quit cocking his head and enter a grim space of steely hate. It's a lifelong obsession, soaked up at the knee of his father, a career 'postcolonialist' academic. Palestinian 'liberation' (from Israel, not from the barbaric extremists of Hamas or the corruptocrats of Fatah) was a 'driving force' for Zohran way back in his days at Bowdoin College, where he started a chapter of an anti-Israel club — the only time he has run anything. Advertisement In December 2023 remarks now resurfacing, Mamdani insisted the rest of us are just ignorant: Pro-Israel politicians' 'answers were written around 20, 30 years ago. They speak to a reality that does not exist,' he charged — as if the worldwide growth of antisemitism somehow made the Jewish state less necessary, rather than more. Reality? Israel is an actual country of 10 million (including millions of Arabs!), whereas 'Palestine' is an entity that has never existed, one nobody even imagined before Israel's creation. Democrats' mayoral nominee also slammed Western supporters of Israel's answer to Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, atrocities as delusional, 'explaining' that 'for so many people, Israel is not a place, it is not a country. It's an idea.' Advertisement Funny: That's surely at least as true of him and his fellow anti-Israel obsessives the world over. He's not a Palestinian nor even an Arab, has never been to Israel and has no plans to go. Nor does he show anything like the concern for other oppressed Muslims, whether the Uighers in China or the Rohingyas in Burma. Those peoples are clearly targeted for elimination by the governments that control their lands, whereas the Palestinian population has grown several times over in the decades that Israel's supposedly been trying to genocide them. Advertisement This obsession isn't about the oppressed: It's about the Jews. We understand that lefties the world over don't consciously see that it's about the Jews, but the double and triple standards allow for no other rational explanation. That Mamdani dresses up this ancient hate in the latest jargon doesn't make it, or him, any less despicable.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Netanyahu pushing 'military solution' to free hostages: Source
Unable to find a diplomatic answer to the hostage crisis, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is pushing for a "military solution" to free the remaining hostages being held by Hamas terrorists, an Israeli official told ABC News on Sunday. Netanyahu has suggested expanding the Israeli military operation in Gaza and using military force to extract the final hostages who have been in captivity since being kidnapped in the Oct. 7, 2023, surprise attack on Israel by Hamas terrorists. It is believed there are about 20 living hostages still being held by Hamas. The Israeli official told ABC News that Israel and U.S. officials are in constant dialogue. The official said there is a growing understanding on the Israeli side that Hamas is not interested in a deal on the hostages. "Therefore, Prime Minister Netanyahu is pushing to expand military operations to release the hostages through a military solution," the Israeli official said. On Saturday, thousands of protesters filled the streets of Tel Aviv, demanding their government end the war and bring the last hostages home. "They are on the absolute brink of death," Ilay David, whose brother, Evyatar David, is believed to be among the remaining Israeli hostages being held by Hamas, told protesters gathered in Tel Aviv. "In the current unimaginable condition, they may have only days left to live. MORE: 28 countries sign statement calling for end of war in Gaza Hamas released a video over the weekend showing Evyatar David looking painfully emaciated. The protest erupted hours after Steve Witcoff, Donald Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, met in Israel with the families of hostages still in captivity. As global concern over the hunger crisis in Gaza intensifies, Witkoff and U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee traveled to the Middle East on Friday to inspect the U.S. and Israel-backed aid distribution system there. MORE: Timeline of Israel's actions in Gaza after end of ceasefire with Hamas For months, humanitarian aid organizations and international bodies have warned that Gaza is facing "critical" levels of hunger and that famine is "imminent" in parts of the Gaza Strip. An increasing number of deaths due to malnutrition have also been reported, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health. At least 175 people, including 93 children, have died from malnutrition in Gaza, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. Throughout the conflict, Israel has maintained that it is sending enough aid into Gaza, but international aid organizations have repeatedly said there is not enough aid, and the United Nations has reported conditions of malnutrition inside Gaza. The Israeli source who spoke to ABC News said humanitarian aid will continue to enter Gaza in areas outside combat zones and areas no longer controlled by Hamas.