The controversial “Iron Dome” short-range missile defense system scored its first operational hits yesterday when militants fired Grad rockets from Gaza into southern Israel.
According to reports from the area, the interception could be seen in Israeli towns near northern Gaza. The second Iron Dome battery was positioned in the area of Ashkelon over the weekend, in addition to a battery already placed north of Be’er Sheva.
The Iron Dome consists of a tracking radar, battle management system and a battery of Rafael-made Tamir missile with EO guidance. The system has been criticized for its expense, with each missile reportedly costing upwards of $50,000 each. The Iron Dome is designed to determine which rockets are likely to hit populated areas and intercept those. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me…
The system was approved for deployment back in July, and according to the Haaretz report, was only recently made operational in border towns.
– Christian
{ 127 comments… read them below or add one }
Sounds like a GREAT deal…at least if you can get another nation to pay for the development, fielding, and the missiles themselves.
Most of the cost was funded by Israel. The US Congress approved $205 million towards development and Singapore also provided funds and possibly India as well.
And why not? All those countries will benefit from its success as well as NATO, Europe and potentially the forces in Iraq and Afganistan.
It is a great deal for the US Military and the US taxpayer. The Israeli defense industry has helped us get our act straight on almost evry major American weapon system in the last 40 years. Why do you think 20 F-35s have pipelined for the initial delivery to Israel. Why? Because Lock-Mart, IBM, L3 and Raytheon can not get things to work right. Just like the F-16 and F-15, those damn Israeli will figure it out faster, for less money. Probaly need to send them the F-35B and the EFV and get those right for the Marines too.
Even if only one person is wounded by one of these un-guided rockets Hamas uses, I would think the health care costs associated with caring for that person would be far in excess of $50,000.
NOt to mention the individuals output in the economy. If 2 people making 40-60 thousand a year were killed, thats 40-60 thousand in 1 year that wont be created in the economy. Multiply that by a few decades that the person may have lived and thats a lot of money.
By the time you get all your multiplying done for 40 yrs in advance, Israel will be bankrupt, a Grad rocket costs 250$ and most of those launched don’t hit squat anyway. Israel is prepared to pay settlers to live in disputed territories, build their homes and defend them with silver bullets against the proverbial slingshot. That’s the best road to ruin.
It's incredible how you try and justify the launching of missiles against civilians from Gaza by a dispute that is happening in the Judea and Samaria regions…
You're sick.
But if you read the article more closely you'll see that it says that they only launch against missiles that are likely to land in populated areas, so it's not like they launch on every rocket they detect.
That was beautiful. Some Professor in Israel said the system wouldn't work. Sucks to be him now that it made a direct hit on a Grad rocket.
Bullets? Those Centurions you're talking about are based on the Phalanx, right? Each pull of the trigger shoots out 100 rounds of 20mm Cannon Shells?
Yeah, that *might* be cheaper than a $50k missile, but not by that much… and, what effect do all the 20mm Depleted Uranium shells have on the surrounding territory? Most of them *are* going to miss, and that stuff's pretty toxic! These are populated areas you'd be firing in, right?
The Phalanx systems for use on land use a timed explosive round that is designed to detonate before it comes back to earth. The DU/Tungsten rounds are used at sea.
I thought Phalanx was optimized for protecting a given target (e.g. a ship) from an approaching missile and less appropriate for something that is many miles out and traversing.
Another issue: the timed explosive rounds are going to (naturally) have a failure rate. With the rate of fire of a phalanx, you are going to have live rounds falling all over the place.
DU is about as toxic as iron, the hand wringing press to the contrary.
A $50k missile to destroy a $50 rocket. Must be nice to have a sugar-daddy like the U.S. picking up the tab….
Grads aren't cheap on the open market. They only seem cheap because someone is supplying them at well below cost…
What do we spend to kill 1 taliban ? I'll bet its much, much more than $50k
We are playing the same losing game against islam in the "war on terror".
The west needs to rethink our approach to war as we have lost hold of the entire notion of decision. Perhaps at root it is because as a society we lack the moral certitude that we deserve to prevail or even survive….
You obviously don't understand economics and do go shopping for insurance by yourself. It doesn"t matter how much the rocket costs, its how much the target is worth! Policemen wear really expensive vests to protect them against dirt cheap pistol rounds, does that make sense? If you were using a $50k missile to defend a $50 target, that would be different. Its all about the target. It is just like a APS system, if a $20k missile defeats a $100 RPG that would have destroyed a $4million tank, is it worth it?
In further rocket attacks today, the "Iron Dome" shot down three more Grads (modified Katyushas) that were launched against Ashkelon while a fourth was correctly ignored and landed in open areas.
A success story if I've ever heard one.
"Iron Dome" just intercepted another Grad missile headed for Beer Sheba and ignored several that landed outside Kirayt Gat in open areas. So far "Iron Dome" has has a perfect success rating and it is not even fully operational.
Here is an exclusive video showing Iron Dome in actual combat footage shooting down another Grad rocket:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4054360…
I'm sorta thinking that Israel should just make their own Katayusha rockets and use them to respond to rocket attacks from Hezbollah and Hamas. No more airstrikes, no more ground troops….if terrorists want to play Russian roulette with civilian lives then simply return the favor. At least that would get rid of the "we need to deter Israel from invading our country" argument.
Don’t forget people that the US forces Germany to pay Israel over $10 billion every year. Not sure why that continues over 60 years since the end of WW2.
Where do people come out with this tripe?
I wonder if you could document that figure of $10 billion
. And at the same time calculate in today's currency the property, valuables etc. etc etc taken from the Jews, not to mention the lives and the potential productivity of all those Jewish scientists, doctors etc etc murdered.
Oops, sorry, that's right there was no holocaust, was there??
Do you defend reparations for black slaves in the US?
Worked at Patton Barracks along time, now why would the US Force in Germany give away more money than their operational budget. At least it was not to Planned Parenthood.
I wonder where you got that "information" from? Der Stirmer?
Scientific studies have shown that 68 percent of all statistics are complete fabrications.
It’s actually 47.3%. It’s the irrational number that makes it believable
Yes, but its going to be a lot harder to hide a battery of rockets, and politically a lot easier for the IDF to attack a battery than an isolated rocket.
And thats the hard part. Financially a campaign in Gaza would be more expensive
then Iron Dome. Politically, because Al Jazeera would have a field day with all of the dead civilian reports. I dont disagree with you, I just think that at this point in time it would be a bad move for Isreal. Hamas is baiting Isreal to come into Gaza.
The dynamics of the situation change politically a great deal. If Hamas continues to bombard civilian targets and fire HEAT missiles at school buses, and Israel's primary response is defensive weapons, it becomes harder and harder for the world at large to pretend who is at fault for the continuing violence.
Hmm, lotsa thumb downs, gotta love the people that hide in the shadows even on an anonymous forum, probably because they haven't got anything intelligent to add.
Some might think that having your land taken away from you by colonial powers and made into an ethnoreligious nationstate that robs you of sovereignty over the ever-shrinking remainder of your territory, takes your water, throttles your economy, and engages in collective punishment with the ongoing support of those same ex-colonial powers would make it quite easy for people to continue to believe that Israel is responsible for the continuing violence. Of course Israel wants "peace". Anyone would rather take from a passive victim. Israel is consciously fighting a demographic war through its settlements. Maybe Palestinians should just make doe eyes so that Western liberals cry until the UN wags its finger? I guess it'll have to be that or a futile engagement with the military of one of the highest per capita rates of defense spending, because I certainly couldn't stand to see a messy war! That is, of course, unless the mess is a bunch of JDAM-killed Arabs who live on the same block as a guy who launched a rocket.
I believe UN resolution 181 split the land, and far more evenly than present. You might want to check your history because it was essentially the same tyrannical power structures in various Arab capitals that led them down this path, plus the misguided hate mongering of the PLO.
Truly funny that the very same centers of power in the Arab world's own citizen are now rising up and rejecting them. Speaks volumes about the hollow and meaningless nature of your rant.
UN resolution 181 certainly did split the land more evenly, but it was still favorable to Israel. Still, the Palestinian Arabs would very probably be better off today if they hadn't gone to war instead. So? 181 was still not legitimate. It would still have been the creation of an ethnoreligious nationstate by an organization dominated by colonial powers on what had been Palestinian land, it would have just given the Arabs better terms than the alternatives. Why should they be forced to give up any land at all? Because otherwise it would just be taken from them in a war by the Israelis? They didn't perpetrate the Holocaust. Preemptively, I'll say that the Grand Mufti had limited influence.
It may not have been the best choice, but I can't blame Arab leaders for their decision to fight. I've never seen any indication that it was not a popular one. Do you really think that the Israeli leadership ever had any intention of not expanding? I don't want to demonize Israelis as a whole, but it must be acknowledged that the leadership has always been rather hard line and unabashedly expansionist. For a small selection of quotes see http://www.monabaker.com/quotes.htm
The Arab world's citizens aren't rejecting their leaders because of their supposedly militant stance toward Israel. It's about democracy and economy. For some, Islam, and for others, liberalism. If anything, they want leaders who they see as more willing to stand up to Israel. Nasser remained popular even after the disastrous defeat of 1967. Sadat was unpopular largely because of the treaty he signed. Hamas won the Gaza elections because of their willingness to resist. When I watch Doha Debates, nobody among the seemingly well-educated and fairly liberal audience seems to question the legitimacy of militancy against Israel.
Jeez, way to rewrite history.
Quick question to you, before 1967 the people in Judea and Samaria (proper regional names) were citizens of which country?
Bonus question: Did they ever assert that Judea and Samaria were occupied land while under the previous power?
Good point, I don't recall the Palestinians waging war against Jordan.
It occurs to me that you might object to the way I sort of made it seem as though Israel were given its independence by the UN or Britain? The colonial powers taking the land was a reference to the British Mandate being given control in the first place, while "made into an…" refers to the British and UN support for a Jewish state in Palestine, British passivity in the civil war and their provision of arms, and to American money for the support of the Israeli militia.
The misunderstanding is my fault, as my wording seems to put too much responsibility on the former colonizers. However, I don't want to give the impression that I don't think they were material sources of support and I wanted to make that complicity clear in my original post.
Still, that issue is tangential at best to my point.
I agree entirely. Its a tough situation and I think Israell can reverse the pressure by being patient and going after selected targets while acting defensively.
I think the role of Hezb'allah and Iran will also come out in this escalation and as STemplar says, it will be harder and harder for the West to deny what's happening.
Yes, probably "the world" feels good about standing by its "collective word". That is the world I'm familiar with.
Israel is like a child that never leaves home and wants his/her parents to take care of them financially forever.
Ahh yet another victim of the American public education system waving their arms in the air.
It is a bit befuddling though, with all scrutiny over the US budget and how we are spending too much, military aid to Israel is never even questioned… I mean, I understand that there is A LOT of jewish power in the US, but you'd think they'd want to support the nation in which they live when it begins to struggle.
Not to mention that AIPAC would ruin any congress-person that would vote in favor of aid cuts.
St dont be so hard on the politariate. I went to public school and I can spell Isrellell, Ismaelian, Israygunl&^%%, you know, Jewland. You cant cure stupid with public school.
I thought we were over the whole "DU gives you super-cancer" phase. Yeah raining 400 rounds of 20mm DU tungsten rounds on a neighborhood is terrible, but radiation isn't going to kill the people in it.
a few question: 1) how many targets can the Iron Dome engage before it was overwhelmed or run out of ammo? 2) if Iron Dome run out of ammo, can they reload it before the enemy launch a second salvo? 3) how vulnerable is Iron Dome when it is engage by an enemy (infantry assault or rocket launch)? 4) is Iron Dome's engagement envelop enough to cover enough grounds so that it's blind zone is less vulnerable?
How many rockets can the same Hamas squad fire in a row before they get hit? If you read the news of the Iron Dome operation, the radar system also notifies the air force as to where the rocket was launched from. The loop is closed by a helicopter dropping a missile on their head before they can clear the area.
Also, Iron Dome doesn't try to shoot down rockets that are calculated to fall in open areas. It only intercepts ones that are calculated to land in an urban area.
well, they didn't necessary have to launch from a same spot, hit-and-run tactics with synchronize attacks from multiple squads and multiple angle at multiple targets can be done with simple planning and a little leadership, and what about the system itself? is it vulnerable to enemy assault (any kind, from infantry to suicide bombing to rocket strike……….etc)?
What suicide bombing? It's an anti-aircraft unit deployed in front of two cities. The suicide bombers and/or Hamas fighters would have to hop over the fence, somehow avoid tanks, snipers, infantry, and helicopters, to disable the launchers. Dream on.
Point is, there are no hit-and-run for these units. It takes a while to set up and leave, and the fact is that they have been taken out within minutes of launch.
1) Enough
2) Yes
3) Like any target, except that it defends itself from missles.
The one state solution is the only way to end the madness. Ask the South Africans how well apartheid worked.
All that nonsense about a second holocaust is just that, nonsense.
Time for one man one vote in Palestine.
Forget a two state solution, Hamas and Fatah will never work together. It looks like it will be a three state solution and the facts are already on the ground. Israel should cede a similar amount of land to the West Bank and keep the settlements that are most important to them. Then let Gaza's Hamas figure out that being late to the dance means you dance with the ugly girl.
Right, well you're calling it 'Palestine' for one thing, which just demonstrates why your view will never be accepted by Israelis.
You might think it is the best solution, but in reality it just isn't going to happen.
1. Have you been to Israel? The Arabs go to the same beaches, movie theaters, universities, and vote and hold office. There are Arabs in the parliaments and supreme court. Compare to apartheid south africa…there is no similarity.
2. Tell it to the Iranian government who is on record as wanted a second holocaust and is trying to develop nuclear weapons.
3. They have it in Israel. Even the women vote, unlike in Arab "democracies".
When they voted in Gaza they elected Hamas.
"Grad"???
Grad is Russian multiple launch rocket system. AFAIK Palestinian insurgents don't have these systems. They producing their own homemade rockets.
I really don't understand why Israelis named counterfeit Palestinian rockets as "Grad" and "Katyushas"(Soviet ww2-era system) ?
No.
There are many rocket system in the hands of the Palestinian terrorists these days, among them are Katyushas and Grads.
I myself have seen them firsthand.
I doubt that Palestinian guerrillas have WW-2 era MRLS "Katyusha". I doubt even more that they have BM-21 rocket systems. Otherwise show me any photo or video proof.
For your information:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=palestinian+katyusha
And I'm sure you would deny that school bus in israel was destroyed by a simple RPG at two miles away.
Then you would start saying the school bus was mistaken for a "giant, yellow, zionist wartank."
My mistake on my writing, that bus was OBVIOUSLY hit by a very complex, and very pricey, russian ATGM.
Imagine if that money was being used to FEED palestinians instead of just blaming their poverty on the israelis and buying more guns.
Probably true. ATGM is portable thing and could be (relatively) easily delivered to Gaza from neighbouring Arab countries. But "Katyusha" vehicle from World War 2 ??? No way!
USSR did not stop making "katyushas" after WW2.
Hamas is indeed using katyushas, grads, and whatever else they can get, but not mounted on vehicles which would make them easy targets for counter battery fire. They get individual missiles and make their own launch rails.
The only people who called them Palestinian were the European Colonizers. The fact is that the UN-backed Jewish leaders wanted the Arabs to stay, as a shield to war. The UN offered to pay the Arabs to stay. The Arab powers offered more, money now and ALL of the land later. The Romans perfected the census because they loved taxes and tribute. The 120AD census is availible for anyone to read in Rome(if you read latin). The land under dispute was over 95% Jewish, later to be taken by force and violence. How is the Israeli force so much worse than Arab force? Make Nice smooth borders build the wall, cut off all Israeli aid to the Palestinians(yes they give the most) and watch all the Eoropeans and Arabs stop giving a HOOT. The bottom line is look around your house except for oil, trinkets and cheap shirts from Bangladesh you have nothing worthwhile produced by Arabs or Muslims. Look at your computer screen and your internet service and think, oh Israeli.
"Look at your computer screen and your internet service and think, oh Israeli."
The internet and my computer screen are not Israeli. What makes you think they are?
Intel chip?
Israel – (Core processor series was invented in Haifa)
Medical cabinet?
99% chance there is an Israeli medicine inside (Teva is the largest pharmaceutical company in the world)
Now tell me one thing the Palestinians have contributed to humanity besides missiles?
Teva is the largest GENERIC producer, not the largest Pharma company.
Silly Joe. Hamas didnt invent those missiles, the Russians did. DOn't give them undue credit.
The Intel chip is not the internet.
"99% chance there is an Israeli medicine inside"
I guarantee you there is not Israeli medicine in my cabinet.
"Now tell me one thing the Palestinians have contributed to humanity besides missiles?"
What are a people living under a savage military occupation supposed to invent exactly?
Correction: I guarantee you there is no Israeli medicine in my cabinet.
How about rocket propelled RPG GPS guidance Iron Dome shield?
It's called trophy, it's deployed on tanks. no GPS involved
Ok, i did some search on the Palestinian weaponary.
HAMAS producing their own homemade rockets, for example "Kassam-1"/"Kassam-2"/"Kassam-3" etc.
HAMAS using Chinese/Iranian made clones of Grad rocket, and probably clones of ww-2 design (Katyusha). But they don't have MRLS vehicles for those rockets.
Hamas is indeed using katyushas, grads, and whatever else they can get, but not mounted on vehicles which would make them easy targets for counter battery fire. They get individual missiles and make their own launch rails.
The NVA didn't need MRL vehicles for their rockets, they built cheap tripods with crude timers and fired them off; disappearing into the jungle.
Moron. Do you really think that the IDF is anywhere near as stupid? Some kid will get his hand blown off. Not only is this terrible for the kid and his family, but its a terrible propaganda victory for the enemies of Israel, who will parade pictures of the injured child all over the news.
The Israeli army never cared about civilians so why would they now? Remember the Israeli army dropped hundreds of cluster bombs on civilian areas in Lebanon.
If the IDF never cared about civilians or world opinion, it could have slaughtered the Palestinians like you see in other ethnic conflicts (e.g. Rwanda, Bosnia, etc). Yes, there is brutality on both sides, and mistakes, but there are strict rules of engagement for the IDF
Israel has slaughtered Palestinians by the thousands so what are you talking about? 1400 alone during the assault on Gaza.
Those 1400 weren't civilians!
Even Hamas said that around 900-1000 were of it's own fighters, not to mention from other factions and random people picking up guns.
We are sick of your false propaganda, pander it to fools elsewhere.
There is a world of difference in the organized rounding up and execution of tens of thousands of civilians, and accidently killing them because you are targeting fighters who are hiding among them.
There is no inconsistency here: the US prosecuted Germans who worked at concentration camps, but not those who flew bombers that laid waste to English cities.
Explosives aren't magically guaranteed to not explode.
We need to stop sending billions of taxpayer dollars to Israel, Egypt, Palestine, Jordan and the rest of the Middle East. All those countries do is cause the West pain and misery while raking in the money for oil. Hell Israel spies on America almost as much as China and Russia. Ungrateful the lot of them are.
Robert Fritts, are you serious? Israel does no more than any other country we sell weapons to. Providing feedback is part of what purchasers do. Every single buyer of F-16s, F-15s, M16s, ect sends back feedback to the weapons manufacturer. Just like we do when we purchase foreign made weapons. Too say that Israel fixes all our major weapons is just plain ignorant.
What Israel does do is pressure jewish American citizens into spying for them. That's how they've gotten most of their advanced tech like nukes, ect.
pretty bombastic. How do YOU know that Israel pressures american jews into spying for them? Are you experiencing it?
If not zip up.
Another ignoramus.
Israel got nuclear technology from France in the 1950's.
Kind of defeats the rest of your statement.
Have you heard of the HUD? The Israelis developed it for their F16I and it is now standard gear on the F16 and other planes. You can google the differences btwn the F15I/F16I and standard models – then compare how many of the improvements in the "I" version have been incorporated into later iterations of our planes.
Robert's intent was that since the Israelis use American products in a tough environment, they improve upon them and we also get the benefits of those improvements. The iron dome system is a great way to improve our own anti missile systems. The same software could be applied to ballistic missiles, mortars, etc in our systems.
Militants in Gaza? You mean terrorists, right? Were the 9/11 hijackers "militants" or "terrorists"…? What would you call people that decided to fire rockets into your backyard? Let's leave the "spin" to the talking heads on TV, okay?
The 'militants' in Gaza celebrated 9-11 and were giving out candy in the streets. I saw it on CNN, but no one talks about it anymore.
You can probably find video of it online, tho youtube removed the video.
Yep, I remember seeing the video of them dancing in the streets. Even the PA leadership views the terrorists in Gaza as a thorn in their side. Why do so many people keep siding with this element in Gaza? In the 20's, Churchill, then Colonial Secretary, advanced the perfect two state solution – Jordan for the Arab Nationalists and Israel for the Jews. Problem solved! Until Gaza and the West Bank are part of Israel there will be no peace. You'd think that the Two Seas Canal project would be enough of a carrot to make peace over, but … Jordan's hatred of the Jews seems to be more important to them and the PA than potable water. If that be the case, then let them drink sand. Very sad….
Indeed.
Gaza and the PA have received over $27,500 for each family, yet where has the money gone?
To put that into perspective, that is over 2 1/2 years of average salary for an ISRAELI family, not to mention for a Palestinian.
So Sam and Galosh, WHERE HAS THE MONEY GONE TO BESIDES WEAPONS?
I’m so tired and tired of people saying that the Israeli military is so great. They’re not. The main reason is conscription. Most of their enlisted soldiers don’t even want to be in the military. You can see that in the unprofessional way they’ve conducted themselves in the last few “conflicts.” Using cell phones during operations to call their mothers or girlfriends thus giving away position info to the enemy and senior field commanders disobeying orders among other things. Not the sign of a “great” military.
You take a very few cherry picked cases in an army of over 300,000!
Way to go with your unattainable expectations. By your standard every NATO military are nonprofessional.
On the other hand, if you go for rockets, the next step will be rapid counter-battery fire, or area-denial munitions into optimal launch sites. If your foes like to use the same launch sites over and over again, you just shower it with land mines and park UAVs nearby.
In the long run, Iron Dome is nice, but we should view it as a last ditch weapon system. You win by parking enough UAVs along the borders at night, monitoring for foes and then dispatching them with as much precision as can be managed.
Maybe Hellfires will be the right weapon, or maybe something like an accurized 30mm cannon. However, it is certainly cheaper than a 50,000 dollar rocket, and killing launching crews is bound to hurt more than simply neutralizing rockets in mid-air.
These lessons are not unlike the ones America has been chewing over in Iraq since 2003. I guess we could trade this operational experience with the Israelis for their technology; though America also took a few lessons from Israel into Iraq, for better or for worse.
Palestinian Land? Please define precisely what that non sense means, because the area changed hands between Islamics, the Christians, Romans, Greeks, Hebrews, but there was never any defined Palestinian kingdom. Sultanates and "ethnoreligious nationstate"s ruled by one faith or another for more or less the entire history.
Your assumptions about what Israel may or may not have done are simply fiction. I could say they were going to develop mind powers and rule us all and would be as correct.
If someone has to explain why it would have been better to accept a treaty that resulted in peace instead of 4 generations being raised at war, I think you clearly demonstrate the futility of it all by your own opinion.
Actually the PLO waged major war against Jordan and Egypt forced nearly 250,000 out of Egypt back into Gaza. The PLO tried to overthrow King Hussien in a major 45day war in Jordan. The military arm of the PLO is/was called "Black September". Because that was the month that Jordan with the help of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt crushed the PLO and forced Arafat to move to Beruit. More Palestinian fighters have been killed by their Arab brothers than Israelis. Arafat had to accepted Hamas moving into Lebanon. This lead to 1982 invasion of Lebanon by Israel, and the PLO moving to Tunis. Didn't anyone read the newspapers in the 70s & 80s?
People don't have to have an ancient claim to land. They don't have to be a member of a clearly defined ethnic group. There was no "Kingdom of Palestine". Irrelevant. There were Arabs. Living in Palestine. People call them Palestinians. Jews lived there as well. They were also Palestinians until the explicitly Jewish state of Israel was founded on territory on which Muslims also lived. Ancient history is not terribly relevant. At one time, yes, religion and government were explicitly and inextricably connected all over the world. That was not the case in the early 20th century. The land was a British mandate of predominantly Muslim character. The Zionists wanted a Jewish state on that land, not a multi-confessional state.
All predictions, all interpretations of anything are abstractions. My view of Israeli motivations is, though speculative, I believe, more credible than the speculative vision that the partition would have put an end to expansionist ambitions. My assumptions are consistent with the desires of Zionists and what I know of the attitudes of actual Israeli leaders, whereas your example is physically impossible.
Don't get bogged down in '48. There have since been new partition plans, which Israel has since overstepped.
We can argue about whether submission would have been efficacious in '48, that chance is long gone. Palestinian arabs face a different choice. Settlements are encroaching in the West Bank and East Jerusalem no matter what. The Israelis have no political reason to give those, the aquifers, the cheap labor, the military control, etc. up. Palestinian Arabs don't even have the possibility of choosing comfort over dignity any longer, in fact, they can hardly even struggle anymore. Regardless, you're not the party who gets to decide which is better, are you? Nor am I. If the people of the region opt for struggle, in this particular instance, I sympathize.
People don't have to have an ancient claim to land. They don't have to be a member of a clearly defined ethnic group. There was no "Kingdom of Palestine". Irrelevant. There were Arabs. Living in Palestine. People call them Palestinians. Jews lived there as well. They were also Palestinians until the explicitly Jewish state of Israel was founded on territory on which Muslims also lived. Ancient history is not terribly relevant. At one time, yes, religion and government were explicitly and inextricably connected all over the world. That was not the case in the early 20th century. The land was a British mandate of predominantly Muslim character. The Zionists wanted a Jewish state on that land, not a multi-confessional state.
It's not a good point. If Palestinians don't want to fight Jordanian control over the area, they don't have to. What would have happened to the area if Jordan hadn't annexed it in the war? In any case, I don't see how this is a refutation of my history…
As for the bonus question, I don't know. I've never heard that complaint, but I think it's probable given the tension between Jordan and the PLO during that period.
I should say "didn't" just so there's no confusion over the accuracy of my history.
So, according to your narrative, a priory, whatever Palestinians will do will be just and whatever Israelis will do, will be unjust?
Also, I should clarify that I'm referring to large scale resistance to the Jordanian government prior to 1967.
All predictions, all interpretations of anything are abstractions. My view of Israeli motivations is, though speculative, I believe, more credible than the speculative vision that the partition would have put an end to expansionist ambitions. My assumptions are consistent with the desires of Zionists and what I know of the attitudes of actual Israeli leaders, whereas your example is physically impossible.
Don't get bogged down in '48. There have since been new partition plans, which Israel has since overstepped.
We can argue about whether submission would have been efficacious in '48, that chance is long gone. Palestinian arabs face a different choice. Settlements are encroaching in the West Bank and East Jerusalem no matter what. The Israelis have no political reason to give those, the aquifers, the cheap labor, the military control, etc. up. Palestinian Arabs don't even have the possibility of choosing comfort over dignity any longer, in fact, they can hardly even struggle anymore. Regardless, you're not the party who gets to decide which is better, are you? Nor am I. If the people of the region opt for struggle, in this particular instance, I sympathize.
Your assertions are ridiculous and to be able to say nothing that came before this point matters only what happened after some point in history fit your view point is even more ridiculous. History is also relevant when you throw around terms like "ethnoreligious nationstate" which is just pseudo intellectual BS to support your position. Precisely how would you characterize Muhammed and the boys showing up in the 600s other than outsiders imposing a "ethnoreligious nationstate" on the indigenous peoples of the region.
You hop around cherry picking facts to support your slanted view without taking everything into perspective. This conversation isn't worth continuing.
No. For one, I wouldn't bring deontological ethics into this. Any ideas of "justice" are inherently incoherent. Instead I would talk about things that I like and don't like. I don't like Israel's foundation as a religious state or the disregard of its leaders for the quality of life of Arabs living in the area. I like a spirit of resistance in the face of this treatment. I don't like violence, especially when directed toward non-combatants. Obviously, these preferences are bound to conflict.
I don't think the bad feeling that Palestinian political violence gives me is enough of a disutility to me that I would stop supporting their cause. To use your terms, Palestinian actions can be just or unjust, but I think that theirs is still the more just side.
Structurally, Israel is the party that has the power to restore Palestinian sovereignty and property rights, allow freer movement of goods, stop settlement, and improve access to water. All Hamas can do is agree to stop fighting Israel in retaliation for not doing these things (say what people will about its charter, it's said that it's willing to accept Israel's inevitable existence). If Palestinians renounce arms completely, they'll have nothing to bargain with. Therefore, Israel would have to make concessions first. I don't think Israel will do this because of its right-wing leadership, far-right and religious ideologues, insufficient international pressure, and powerful economic interests in maintaining the current situation. I think Israel's failure to do what is within its power to stop the brutal situation is a far greater transgression than targeting civilians, though of course both are offensive to me. The point of my original comment was not to praise civilian killing but to say that Israel is the aggressor in the wider conflict and resistance will take whatever form it is able to take.
Hamas leaders publicly call “destruction of Israel” as their ultimate goal. Yet you claim that this is not their actual goal. On what basis?
Can we all just agree that the SOLE reason and true reason Arabs want Israel gone is because they're Jewish? It's so blatantly obvious. Muslims hate Jews and want them wiped out of existence. There were Ayatollahs comending Nazi soldiers for the Holocaust and visiting the death camps
Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas in Gaza since 2006, has said that Hamas would accept a two state solution on 1967 borders if prisoners were released and the question of refugees were resolved. He's been making similar statements since at least 2008. Here's the URL of a Ha'aretz article regarding this:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/haniyeh-hamas-willing…
Please give examples of Hamas leaders saying that their goal is the desruction of Israel since 2006. The previous president, Mahmoud al Zahar, was much more hard-line and may well have said something like this. I see plenty of talk about fighting Israel to the last, but this isn't indicative of a lack of willingness to negotiate, just what will be done if Israel isn't willing to accept the minimum criteria for a reasonable peace settlement.
I wouldn't and haven't said that anything that came before that point is irrelevant. What I am saying is that ANCIENT history is not what's relevant. Don't go back to the Caliphate to justify a Jewish state. The people living there were different people in a different world. I've already addressed this. What was possible from 1900 or so on? We don't have to behave like historical conquerors. Arabs didn't like Ottoman rule, the British was promising independence in exchange for opposition to the OE during WW1. Then the British turn around and declare their support for Palestine as a Jewish national state in 1917 and subsequently promote immigration. Don't blame the Arabs in early 20th c. Palestine for the conquests of the caliphates, that's just absurd.
Also, ethnoreligious nationstate has quite a clear meaning: A nationstate which has an explicit ethnic and religious affiliation. I couldn't condone not allowing Jews to live in the region, but the creation of an "ethnoreligious nationstate" by Zionists, the West, and the Soviet Union was a move that was obviously reneging on the self-determination promised to the Arabs of the region.
"Hopping around cherry picking facts" might also be called "Making claims and providing evidence", you should try it.
At least the israelis TRY to limit collateral damage, the militant palastinian groups, have shown they DO NOT.
The palastinian groups are either too blind, or too stupid to fight the BIGGEST MILITARY TARGET THERE.
No. Undoubtedly there are Arabs for whom this is true, now and in the time of al-Husayni. Hamas continually says it is not true of their organization. Israel made itself a Jewish state and Israel has created unbearable conditions for Palestinian Arabs. Such a situation can lead to a hazy boundary between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism when people are feeling inflamed.
Israelis have a modern military and one of the highest rates of per capita defense spending in the world. They can afford precision weapons. Which they then launch into urban areas. That's how you "try" to limit collateral damage. They know perfectly well that they'll kill civilians, but they have the ability to aim to hide behind. Not that Hamas never targets the IDF, but they really don't have the means to do much besides launch rockets that probably won't hit anything. Given that, they can't really do anything but aim them at crowded areas. Occasionally killing a civilian is the only leverage they have. It's not pleasant or noble, but it's the way asymmetric military actions have to be, if they're going to be fought at all.
If your forces are grossly inferior, you'll get destroyed if you engage the BIGGEST MILITARY TARGET THERE.
Israel targets civilians and has been for over 60 years.
To the extent that genuine anti-Semitism is alive in the Arab world, Israeli concessions would work to change the circumstances that fuel that bigotry and channel it into something dangerous for Jews.
First, hidden from and ignored by the Western Media, Hamas clearly states on local TV stations, that total destruction of Israel it’s the ultimate goal. This video from 2008 but you can easily find also later ones.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUG-Q2lp20s
Second, Haniyeh didn’t say that Hamas would accept a two state solution. He did say that he accept 20 years truce while Hamas “will never recognize the usurper Zionist government and will continue our jihad-like movement until the liberation of Jerusalem.”
http://www.haaretz.com/news/haniyeh-calls-for-formation-of-palestinian-state-on-1967-lines-1.207641
Well, it is still in their constitution…?
It is also pretty obvious that the leader of Hamas feels he can say he'll accept the existence of Israel so long as they sort out the right of return because there will never realistically be a resolution of that problem to his satisfaction.
Galosh,
Thank you for your support. You are clearly highly intelligent and have put a lot of thought into this subject. Keep up the good work.
A few days ago Hamas fired an anti-tank missile on a big yellow school bus.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4053704,00.html
Deliberate targeting of civilians is never acceptable. If you are going to flagrantly ignore international law and norms and do so, then you shouldn't cry foul when those you're attacking fight back with similar means. I also find you description of 'occasionally killing a civilian' pretty disgusting. If you hadn't forgotten, more than 1000 Israelis died during the Second Intifada, many of them at the hands of Hamas suicide bombers and it is only because of actions taken by Israel that this stopped. Again, intentionally targeting civilians is never acceptable and always illegal and it is NOT asymmetric MILITARY action; it is terrorism by any definition of the word. Recklessly endangering civilian lives is also wrong (i.e. proportionality) which is why Cast Lead was a disgrace, I might add. Nonetheless, it is different to intentionally trying to kill as many civilians as possible.
I think you're also being ridiculously disingenuous about the role of Britain in Israel's foundation. After the Balfour declaration (which was antisemitic in sentiment, ironically) Britain was extremely ANTI Jewish immigration to the area. This is not difficult research to carry out.
Out of interest, what do you think of the Peel Commission? Though you apparently think the UN Partition Plan was illegitimate (not sure what basis you say this; if both sides had accepted it then it would've been legitimate) do you not think that the Arabs, who had been attacking legal Jewish immigrants, were ill advised to reject it? Was partition of some sort not the only feasible option?
Finally, I think you'll find there's a pretty obvious reason for Israel having such high defence spending.
I don't think you're being realistic about civilian casualties. Sure, it's disgusting, but it happens everywhere. Killing civilians-accidentally, strategically, in massacres even, has been part of warfare since warfare began, call it terrorism if you want, but it can be used for strategic purposes against a superior force. I don't approve of it,
but there are worse things, like the situation in which the Palestinians live and the unwillingness of Israel to make a settlement possible.
Britain did indeed want to control immigration after the consequential violence started. Attempts were weak, though I don't think egregious. Britain did provide Spitfires and other modern weapons to the Israeli fighters during the '48 war, which is a large part of what I was thinking of when I wrote my OP. I've said elsewhere in this thread that I shouldn't have implied as much direct British involvement as I did.
I say the partition plan was illegitimate because it granted a majority of land to a group who were barely a majority even in the region they were given with the understanding that they would make that state an explicitly religious one. That it wasn't accepted is precisely the point, Arabs didn't consider it legitimate, and I agree. I've said from the beginning that rejection of the numerous partition plans, including the Peel recommendation, was probably unwise. Still, I sympathize with their decision to fight. The Jewish settlers were coming with the purpose of establishing their state, not just to live in the region. Whether they were doing it legally or not is sort of beside the point since the Palestinians didn't have autonomy, and they're the people who should have had authority over immigration.
wrt your last comment, I was never surprised by it, I was just highlighting the difficulties that direct military confrontation would pose.
I previously thought that the '67 state was a long term goal, and the cease fire and "national recognition" an interim measure. Still, I think a long-term truce will result in condition that will make a return to hostilities unattractive for all but the most intransigent.
The statement that Israel would never be recognized was made in front of an Iranian audience, not in the speech that the article was primarily about. I think the statement is more about Iranian-Hamas relations than an accurate account of his intentions. Iran wants to keep up the rhetoric and Hamas needs weapons if it's to maintain even a credible threat.
As for the first guy, I can't find a profile of him and search results are pretty much just in connection with this video, so I doubt his importance. Maybe the political leadership of Hamas is actually more progressive than some of their constituents that they have to play to? Remember a year or two ago that Hamas waged an armed campaign against a more radical Islamist group operating in Gaza.
As a bit of an aside, keep in mind that exterminationist rhetoric, while not excusable, is not endemic to Hamas or Palestinians. Consider the Kahanists or Yitzhak Shapira.
I'm well aware of this, but question its relevance… King Hussein is an autocrat, he'd like to preserve the good thing that he has going for himself and not be exposed to Israeli retaliation for actions launched from his territory. Same goes for Sadat, al-Assad or Hussein. The Phalanges valued the integrity of the Lebanese state more than support for the PLO. That says nothing about what people generally feel or felt about the rightness of the Palestinian cause.
There's also been plenty of Palestinian infighting and endless factionalism, but that's nothing remarkable when a powerful centralized state is absent. However many of each other they kill, though I don't want to overstate the internecine violence, is not a legitimizer of Israel's conduct.
oops, al-Bakr was president of Iraq, not Hussein
Sorry, missed your point regarding your disgust at my comment. I wasn't talking about the suicide bombings of the Second Intifada, I was thinking only of the current situation and the rocket/missile campaign. I certainly wouldn't trivialize the terror of that period.
Also, I don't mean to imply that calling the attacks "terrorism" is dubious.
Israel must be pretty horrible shots, seeing as they are killing terrorists at the same time.
/sarcastic reply to an idiot
It too bad they haven’t been doing a better job…after all, you’re still around
Was supposed to be a reply to sam’s “60 years” comment