Amid Gaza War, Israel Defense Exports Jump 13% in 2024 to Record $15 bln
Israel's defense exports rose 13% in 2024 to a record of nearly $15 billion, led by missiles, rockets and air-defense systems with over half the deliveries going to European militaries, the government said on Wednesday.
Military exports, the Defense Ministry said in a statement, have more than doubled over the past five years, reaching nearly $15 billion in value in 2024.
The ministry said that since the outbreak of the Gaza war on Oct. 7, 2023, Israel's defense industries have operated in emergency mode with round-the-clock arms production while also maintaining manufacturing for foreign clients.
"The new record in Israeli defense exports, achieved during a year of war, reflects more than anything else the growing global appreciation for Israeli technology's proven capabilities," said Defense Ministry Director-General Amir Baram, Reuters reported.
"Israeli systems have resonated throughout the Middle East this past year. More nations want to protect their citizens using Israeli defense equipment."
The ministry said there was significant growth in contracts from Europe last year, where exports accounted for 54% of the total, up from 36% in 2023. Asia-Pacific was next at 23% with the United States at 9%.
Missile, rocket and air defense systems comprised 48% of defence exports, followed by vehicles and armoured personnel carriers at 9%, and satellites and space systems, radar and electronic warfare, manned aircraft and avionics at 8% each.
Some 57% of contracts amounted to more than $100 million.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
18 minutes ago
- Arab News
Britain still has work to do on defense
The British government last week published its long-awaited Strategic Defence Review. Led by former Defence Secretary and NATO secretary general Lord Robertson, the review outlines the major geopolitical challenges facing Britain and offers 62 recommendations to make the UK and its allies more secure. The government accepted all of them. Unsurprisingly, the review identifies Russia as the most acute threat to UK security. However, it also highlights the challenges posed by China, North Korea, and Iran. While many of the findings reaffirm existing concerns, the review makes three particularly important observations and course corrections that deserve attention. First, it shows that the UK is taking seriously the military lessons from Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. After three years of near-nightly missile and drone strikes on Ukrainian cities, the need for robust air defense is clearer than ever. The review pledges £1 billion in new funding for homeland air and missile defense, a long-overdue investment. Another lesson from Ukraine is the critical importance of a strong defense industrial base capable of producing large quantities of munitions and artillery shells. At points during the war, Russia and Ukraine were expending more shells in a week than some European countries manufacture in an entire year. When the time came to supply Ukraine, many European nations lacked sufficient stockpiles. This was a wake-up call — especially for countries that had allowed their defense industries to atrophy. The UK is now taking steps to address this. The review commits £6 billion to build six new munitions and missile factories, including £1.5 billion for an 'always-on' production facility. This means Britain will be able to rapidly surge production in a crisis without starting from scratch. Additionally, the review commits to producing 7,000 long-range strike weapons in the near term, another recognition of evolving battlefield needs. Second, the review firmly reorientates the UK toward European security by adopting a 'NATO First' policy. This means prioritizing Britain's role in the alliance above other regional or global commitments. The timing is appropriate. Since Britain left the EU in 2019, its place in Europe has often been questioned. But following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the UK has reasserted its leadership role in European defense — both within NATO and through bilateral and multilateral cooperation. The document also emphasizes the UK's continued engagement in the Middle East, especially with the Gulf states. Luke Coffey The explicit commitment to NATO First is a welcome signal to Britain's European partners. It affirms that, even outside the EU, the UK remains a key pillar of the continent's defense architecture. Third, while NATO remains the primary focus, the UK will continue to project power globally. The review confirms plans to produce a new class of nuclear-powered attack submarines, developed jointly with the US and Australia under the AUKUS partnership. This capability extends Britain's reach far beyond Europe and demonstrates that, in the words of the review, 'NATO First does not mean NATO only.' The document also emphasizes the UK's continued engagement in the Middle East, especially with the Gulf states. Each of the six Gulf monarchies is mentioned by name, and the review reaffirms Britain's long-standing naval presence in Bahrain — an essential strategic foothold in the region. Despite these strengths, the review contains gaps and raises concerns, particularly around funding. Accepting all 62 recommendations is politically bold, but doing so without guaranteed funding is risky. Although the government has pledged to increase defense spending from 2.3 percent to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027, this falls short of the 3–5 percent levels being discussed by NATO leaders before their summit this month in The Hague. Take, for example, the eight new attack submarines: there is no full funding commitment. The government promises new investment 'in future years,' but offers no guarantees. A so-called Defense Investment Plan will be published this year to detail how these ambitions will be financed. But for now, this ambiguity leaves observers uncertain. Why accept all recommendations if the Treasury hasn't formally agreed to pay for them? Another concern is the lack of whole-of-government coordination. Unlike the previous Conservative-led government, which conducted numerous Strategic Defence and Security Reviews, the Labour government dropped the 'security' component. Past reviews incorporated not only military planning, but also issues such as cybersecurity, border control, counterterrorism, and resilience against pandemics and disinformation. These are vital elements of national security, and omitting them risks undermining Britain's broader preparedness. The new review does warn of threats from cyberattacks, assaults on critical infrastructure, and disinformation campaigns, but these threats are often outside the remit of the armed forces to address. Unless the government embraces a cross-departmental approach and integrates other security agencies into defense planning, it risks creating dangerous blind spots. Perhaps the most glaring issue is the size of the British armed forces. If there is one lesson from Ukraine, it is that large, professional armies still matter. Britain's Army currently stands at just 74,400 soldiers. The review proposes to increase this to 76,000 after the next election, a marginal boost that will also take years to implement. This is insufficient. Moreover, a smaller conventional force shrinks the recruitment pool for the UK's elite special forces, who are typically drawn from the regular military. Despite these challenges, the review is an important first step. Its focus on NATO, industrial resilience, and lessons from Ukraine are encouraging signs that Labour is serious about restoring Britain's defense credibility. But serious work remains. Unless the government fully funds its promises, addresses the absence of cross-government security integration, and expands the armed forces in a meaningful way, the review will fall short of its ambitions. When Labour last came to power in 1997, they published a defense review in 1998 but then failed to produce another during their entire 13 years in office. This time, they should follow the Conservative model and commit to conducting reviews every few years. As this review rightly notes, the world is becoming more dangerous. It is in everyone's interest for Britain to remain a strong, credible force on the global stage. • Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. X: @LukeDCoffey.
Arab News
18 minutes ago
- Arab News
How companies should — and should not — deploy AI
Even though nearly half of office workers now turn to generative AI in their daily work, fewer than one in four CEOs report that the technology has delivered its promised value at scale. What is going on? The answer may lie in the fact that generative AI was initially presented as a productivity tool, which led to it being strongly associated with cost-cutting and workforce reductions. Spotting the risk, some 42 percent of employees surveyed in 2024 worried that their job might not exist in the next decade. In the absence of training and upskilling to harness the technology's potential, it is not surprising that there would be more resistance than enthusiasm. Like antibodies fighting off a foreign body, there can be an 'immune response' within organizations, with employees and managers alike resisting change and looking for reasons why AI 'won't work' for them. In addition to slowing adoption, such resistance has prevented a fuller exploration of other potential benefits, such as improved decision-making, enhanced creativity, the elimination of routine tasks and higher job satisfaction. As a result, there has been little consideration of how to 'reinvest' the time that AI can save. AI adoption is not about saving minutes. It is about reinventing work for the benefit of employees and the organization. Vinciane Beauchene and Allison Bailey Yet our research finds that employees who use generative AI regularly can already save five hours per working week, allowing them to pursue new tasks, further experiment with the technology, collaborate in new ways with coworkers or simply finish earlier. The challenge for business leaders, then, is to emphasize these potential benefits and provide guidance on where to refocus one's time to maximize value creation. Consider the example of a global healthcare provider that recently deployed generative AI across its 100,000 employees. It created a scalable AI learning program with three objectives: high AI literacy across the organization, so that all employees could make the most of the technology; a broad suite of AI tools for every work scenario; and compliant usage. Owing to this holistic approach, the company soon improved employee satisfaction and productivity at the same time. But AI adoption is not about saving minutes. It is about reinventing work for the benefit of employees and the organization. When a company treats generative AI merely as a timesaving tool, it is more likely to chase piecemeal use cases — 10 minutes saved here, 30 minutes saved there — which will not have a meaningful impact on the overall business. After all, small-scale AI applications that yield diffuse productivity gains are difficult to reinvest or capture on a profit and loss statement. Without a holistic strategy to redesign their core processes around AI, organizations risk optimizing isolated tasks rather than fundamentally improving how work gets done. The result, all too often, is that bottlenecks will simply be relocated to other parts of the process or value chain, limiting overall productivity gains. For example, in software development, an AI that speeds up coding can lead to more arduous debugging or other delays, negating any efficiency gains. Real value comes from integrating AI across the entire development lifecycle. This example also raises a larger issue: Too many organizations pursue scale without first reimagining the structures and workflows needed to harness cumulative gains. The usual result is a missed opportunity, because time savings that are not reinvested strategically tend to dissipate. Rather than adopting a let-a-hundred-flowers-bloom approach, organizations should pursue a few big transformational initiatives focused on reimagining work from end to end. The true promise of generative AI lies in unlocking what we call the 'golden triangle' of value: productivity, quality and engagement/joy. An AI strategy should reimagine workflows to eliminate inefficiencies, augment decision-making and processes to encourage innovation and creativity, and enhance work, not mechanize it. Employees are more likely to embrace AI enthusiastically when it eliminates drudgery, feeds creativity and accelerates learning. Proper attention to upskilling will ensure that the technology augments human potential, boosting workplace engagement and job satisfaction. By emphasizing engagement and the quality of experience alongside productivity, organizations can move beyond a cost-driven perspective to one that creates more value for the business, its employees and its customers. AI can be much more than an automation mechanism, provided that firms adopt a comprehensive strategy for deploying it. Organizations should pursue a few big transformational initiatives focused on reimagining work from end to end. Vinciane Beauchene and Allison Bailey Business leaders should keep five imperatives in mind. The first is to focus on the biggest pools of value with the best-defined business cases for integrating AI. The second is to reimagine work, rather than simply optimizing it. AI should be used to transform entire workflows, not just automate a few steps. Third, managers must invest in upskilling, so that everyone understands the technology and its potential. Fourth, the golden triangle, with its balance between productivity, quality and employee engagement/joy, should be businesses' golden rule. Lastly, organizations should measure value beyond cost savings. Businesses that deploy generative AI most effectively will track its effects on workforce empowerment, agility and new revenue streams, not just operational costs. By heeding these imperatives, companies can use AI as a force for reinvention, rather than just a productivity tool. In the process, they will set the pace for the next era of business.
Arab News
37 minutes ago
- Arab News
‘No Eid' for West Bank residents who lost sons in Israeli raids
JENIN: Abeer Ghazzawi had little time to visit her two sons' graves for Eid Al-Adha before Israeli soldiers cleared the cemetery near the refugee camp in the occupied West Bank city of Jenin. The Israeli army has conducted a months-long operation in the camp, which has forced Ghazzawi, along with thousands of other residents, from her home. For Ghazzawi, the few precious minutes she spent at her sons' graves still felt like a small victory. 'On the last Eid — Eid Al-Fitr, celebrating the end of Ramadan in March — they raided us. They even shot at us. But this Eid, there was no shooting, just that they kicked us out of the cemetery twice,' said the 48-year-old. 'We were able to visit our land, clean up around the graves, and pour rosewater and cologne on them,' she added. As part of the Eid celebrations, families traditionally visit the graves of their loved ones. In the Jenin camp cemetery, women and men had brought flowers for their deceased relatives, and many sat on the side of their loved ones' graves as they remembered the dead, clearing away weeds and dust. An armored car arrived at the site shortly after, unloading soldiers to clear the cemetery of its mourners, who walked away solemnly without protest. Ghazzawi's two sons, Mohammed and Basel, were killed in January 2024 in a Jenin hospital by undercover Israeli troops. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad militant group claimed the two brothers as its fighters after their deaths. Like Ghazzawi, many in Jenin mourned sons killed during one of the numerous Israeli operations that have targeted the city, a known bastion of Palestinian armed groups fighting Israel. In the current months-long military operation in the north of the West Bank, which Israel has occupied since 1967, Israeli forces looking for militants have cleared three refugee camps and deployed tanks in Jenin. Mohammed Abu Hjab, 51, went to the cemetery on the other side of the city to visit the grave of his son, killed in January by an Israeli strike that also killed five other people. 'There is no Eid. I lost my son — how can it be Eid for me?' he asked as he stood by the six small gravestones of the dead young men.
