State Papers: Government divided over purchase of military equipment from Israeli firms

Foreign affairs minister David Andrews wrote in 1992: 'The continuing political view is that Ireland is making an error of judgement in purchasing this equipment from Israel.' Picture: PA

Ireland’s purchase of military equipment from Israeli firms created divisions in the government in the early 1990s, with minister for foreign affairs David Andrews expressing “strong reservations” about what he claimed was “an error of judgement".

However, newly released State papers show Mr Andrews was overruled by the tánaiste and minister for defence John Wilson and the minister for finance Bertie Ahern, who both argued military equipment from Israel was cheaper than alternative sources.

Between 1983 and 1992, about 7% of Ireland’s military equipment purchases came from Israeli companies, including ammunition, grenades, rifles, and helmets.

The deals were facilitated through Dublin-based firms such as Arcon, on behalf of a group called Israeli Military Industries, and Wescare Safety.

Concerns about the purchase of military equipment had been raised before in the 1970s, and again in 1989, when officials concluded there were “no objections” to the purchase of ammunition from an Israeli company based on “foreign policy".

Despite the lower cost of Israeli military equipment, officials highlighted ethical and political considerations when the issue resurfaced in 1992 due to the political implications of using Israeli-sourced equipment in peacekeeping operations, particularly in Lebanon.

Files show a senior official in the Department of Foreign Affairs raised the question: “What would be the reaction if a Lebanese were shot by an Irish soldier with an Israeli bullet?” The official added: “I can also well understand that Irish people would be unhappy with military equipment being purchased from a country which is responsible for the deaths of Irish soldiers.” 

He claimed there were “good arguments for purchasing from sources other than Israel” and recommended the Department of Defence look at other potential suppliers unless there were “compelling economic reasons”. 

In May 1992, Mr Andrews wrote: “The continuing political view is that Ireland is making an error of judgement in purchasing this equipment from Israel.

"The idea of selective non-use of ammunition supplied by Israel in the Middle East by our respective Unifil troops [a suggestion made by officials] is an unusual suggestion. The bullets used by the Israelis to kill Irish troops presumably come from different manufacturers and are of a different make than those intended to be supplied to our highly regarded army."

Financial considerations

The following month, the Department of Foreign Affairs said Mr Andrews questioned whether it was “politically appropriate” to purchase military equipment from Israel, although it noted the minister was not making a formal objection because of financial considerations given the “economic climate” in Ireland at the time.

“The minister has particularly in mind Israel's record over 14 years of involvement in Unifil-related incidents in South Lebanon resulting in fatalities and injuries to and repeated intimidation of Defence Forces personnel serving with the United Nations force there,” it added.

The letter continued: “While his reservations are based in principle, the minister is also concerned about public and Dáil perceptions of the propriety of the proposal.” 

Other files show the Department of Defence pointed out purchasing a required quantity of ammunition would cost £570,000 from Israel but £647,000 from the next lowest tender.

It also claimed a ban on the purchase of military equipment from Israel “would be prejudicial to Irish peacekeeping efforts in the Middle East as it would be seen by Israel as a less than impartial stance”. 

However, a memo from the Department of Foreign Affairs noted the reason Israel’s prices were lower was likely to be because “Israel sends out dummy requests to competitors for tenders, and couches their own prices based on that”. 

In September 1992, the Department of Defence notified the Department of Foreign Affairs that Mr Wilson and Mr Ahern had spoken about the issue and the minister for finance believed the contract should be awarded to Israeli Military Industries because it had provided the lowest competitive tender.

It added: “The Tánaiste is of the view that it is difficult to disagree with the minister for finance on the basis of cost.”