EFTA00935805

by his opponents in Gaza, who refused to dismantle the Hamas government 
there. They view the strip as a captured "fortress" that should never be 
relinquished, and as "the shortest route to al-Aqsa Mosque," in Haniyeh's 
words. 
Moreover, while Mashal aspires to reshape Hamas as a Palestinian Muslim 
Brotherhood in line with the Arab Spring trend in other countries, his 
adversaries want to maintain the movement's standing as an armed 
resistance. Like some Gaza members, Mashal also believes that Hamas 
should maintain its distance from Iran despite receiving some $400 million 
annually from Tehran. Yet the military wing, and certainly Alami, see no 
alternative to close collaboration with the Islamic Republic as their main 
supplier. They also want to curb intensive Iranian support for Palestinian 
Islamic Jihad's military buildup in competition with the Qassam Brigades. 
Before deciding to leave Damascus, Mashal had an advantage over Hamas 
officials in Gaza, since he held the purse strings and supervised arms 
smuggling to the strip. The center of gravity has now shifted back to the 
Gaza leadership, which is capable of developing its own network of 
foreign support given the upheaval in neighboring Egypt. 
As a result, Mashal's capacity to lead the movement has been severely 
impaired. He is no longer first among equals, but more of a figurehead. 
Every move he makes from now on will need to be approved by his 
partners in Gaza beforehand, and military interests will likely trump 
political calculations in many situations. 
Regarding specific issues, Hamas will no doubt resume the dialogue with 
Mahmoud Abbas, but reconciliation will now need to be reached on Gaza's 
terms. The group is also bound to be more attentive to Egyptian priorities, 
especially in maintaining the de facto ceasefire with Israel and avoiding 
open clashes with Cairo's interests in the Sinai. One may also assume that 
Qatar's influence will grow as its contributions to the Hamas treasury 
increase beyond the $200 million provided last year. Finally, in much the 
same way that the PA's establishment sidelined the PLO, the local Gaza 
leadership is now gaining ground at the expense of the outside leadership. 
Ehud Yaari is an Israel-based Lafer international fellow with The 
Washington Institute. 
EFTA00935825

Artick 8. 
The Washington Post 
Is the U.S. going too far to help Israel? 
Walter Pincus 
May 17, 2012 -- Should the United States put solving Israel's budget 
problems ahead of its own? 
When it comes to defense spending, it appears that the United States 
already is. 
Ehud Barak, Israel's defense minister, will meet Thursday in Washington 
with Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta to finalize a deal in which the 
United States will provide an additional $680 million to Israel over three 
years. The money is meant to help pay for procuring three or four new 
batteries and interceptors for Israel's Iron Dome short-range rocket defense 
program. The funds may also be used for the systems after their 
deployment, according to the report of the House Armed Services 
Committee on the fiscal 2013 defense authorization bill. 
The Iron Dome funds, already in legislation before Congress, will be on 
top of the $3.1 billion in military aid grants being provided to Israel in 
2013 and every year thereafter through 2017. That deal is part of a 10-year 
memorandum of understanding agreed to in 2007 during the George W. 
Bush presidency. 
"Those funds are already committed to existing large-ticket purchases, 
such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, C-130J transport planes and other 
items," according to George Little, spokesman for Panetta. He also said the 
Israelis had increased their own spending on Iron Dome this year and the 
U.S. funds are to "augment" their funding. 
And there's more money involved. The House committee version of the 
defense authorization bill, up for debate on the House floor this week, 
includes an additional $168 million "requested by [the] Government of 
Israel to meet its security requirements," according to the panel's report. 
This money is to be added to three other missile defense systems that have 
been under joint development by the United States and Israel. The $168 
million is in addition to a separate $99.9 million requested by the Obama 
administration for those programs. 
EFTA00935826

Israel has had its own debate over what its defense budget should fund. 
Given its economic problems, the country has cut its defense budget for 
this year by roughly 5 percent, with another 5 percent cut planned for next 
year. Its defense experts have debated whether it is more important to put 
scarce funds into offensive weapons that could destroy enemy missiles or 
into missile defense systems to protect civilian and military targets. In 
contrast to the United States, it has raised taxes on wealthier citizens and 
upped its corporate tax rate. 
The Israeli military has long-term plans to deploy 13 to 14 Iron Dome 
batteries to defend military and civilian targets against rockets launched 
from the Gaza Strip and Lebanon. If there is any doubt that the U.S. 
Congress will continue to support the program, one only has to look at the 
Iron Dome Support Act. The bill was introduced in the House in March by 
Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.), the ranking minority member of the 
Foreign Affairs Committee, along with the panel's chairman, Rep. Ileana 
Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.). A companion measure is in the Senate. 
The first four batteries of Iron Dome, deployed last year in towns near the 
Gaza Strip, have proved successful in protecting against Hamas's rocket 
attacks. Israeli military sources have said the system had more than a 70 
percent success rate last month against incoming rockets. 
In early 2007, then-Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz chose Iron Dome 
to meet the short-range rocket threat. Testing began in 2008, and by 
January 2010 the system showed it could be effective. 
In May 2010, President Obama said he would ask Congress to add $205 
million to the fiscal Pentagon budget for the production phase of Iron 
Dome. The funds were approved, and in March 2011 the Israel Defense 
Forces declared the first batteries operational. 
Iron Dome was developed and built by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems 
Ltd., an Israeli-government-owned, profit-making company that since 2004 
has been headed by retired Vice Adm. Yedidia Yaari, the former 
commander in chief of the Israel navy. Rafael's board chairman is retired 
Maj. Gen. Ilan Biran, former general director of the Ministry of Defense. 
In August, Rafael joined Raytheon Co. to market the Iron Dome system 
worldwide. The two are already partners in one of the other anti-missile 
systems being jointly run by Israel and the Pentagon. The House 
committee report noted that the United States will have put $900 million 
EFTA00935827

into the Iron Dome system if the full $680 million is used on the program 
"yet the United States has no rights to the technology involved." It added 
that the Missile Defense Agency director, Lt. Gen. Patrick J. O'Reilly, 
should explore opportunities to enter into a joint production arrangement 
with Israel for future Iron Dome batteries "in light of the significant 
investment in this system." So here is the United States, having added to 
its own deficit by spending funds that it must borrow, helping to procure a 
missile defense system for Israel, which faces the threat but supposedly 
can't pay for the system alone. 
To add insult to injury, Pentagon officials must ask the Israeli government-
owned company that is profiting from the weapons sales - including Iron 
Dome - if the United States can have a piece of the action. 
EFTA00935828