Iron Dome

…is morally reprehensible:

Back in mid-June, during the great Paris weapons show, the Rafael pavilion was absolutely the busiest around, and everybody wanted to look at the new, exciting, Iron Dome system, the greatest achievement in rocket defense ever. But by the end of the show, Rafael hadn’t made a single sale. The Arrow sold well, other systems did great – Iron Dome wasn’t moving. So they contacted their big clients, the serious ones, and asked what gives. And those clients told them no one except Israel has any use for these things. Because in any normal, sane country, if some hooligans were to start targeting civilians with rockets – the army would go and kill them.

Like it or not, there is only one solution to the Hamas tyranny of terror in Gaza: they need to be rounded up and killed, and their terrified subjects need to be permitted to pursue their lives with dignity and liberty and happiness.

That Israel has to live in such lunatic circumstances is a symptom of a continuing deep anti-semitism of the Left the world over, and particularly deep rooted in the UN.

[Update a while later]

Want to end the Hamas war? Here’s how.

33 thoughts on “Iron Dome

  1. Larry J

    The sad fact of the matter is that too many of the “terrified subjects” in Gaza are ready, willing and able to step in to take the place of those Hamas members that get killed. As Golda Mier said, “Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.”

  2. Andrew W

    Yori Yanover demonstrates the insanity of the fanatic with his theory that “they need to be rounded up and killed, and their terrified subjects need to be permitted to pursue their lives with dignity and liberty and happiness.”
    The “terrified subjects” hate Israel, not Hamas, and see Israel as the impediment to their their living “with dignity and liberty and happiness.”

    1. Rand Simberg Post author

      The “terrified subjects” hate Israel, not Hamas, and see Israel as the impediment to their their living “with dignity and liberty and happiness.”

      Then what is your proposed solution?

      1. Andrew W

        Sadly, to some problems there is no pretty solution, genocide happens. If you think genocide isn’t desirable, if you want a peaceful solution, it’s the strong that has to take the initiative in finding peace, the weak don’t have the power to change things, in this case the strong party is Israel.

          1. Andrew W

            No, the strong are satisfied with the status-quo, they have no reason to allow for the dramatic change that might bring about peace, especially when there’s the risk of the result of a far worse situation for them.

          2. McGehee

            No, it’s a risk, maintaining the status-quo also carries a risk, but that risk is pushed into the future.

            No. There is no evidence of strength in putting off resolution of the problem. What that is, is cowardice.

            Our elected officials in Washington have been kicking cans down the road on everything important, not because they’re strong, but because they’re afraid of the political risks they’ll encounter if they address the problems. As a result we are facing comprehensive national disaster.

            Cowardice.

    1. ken anthony

      You’ve been reading my thoughts Old Guy. I’ve always said, the solution is bulldozers. The biggest mistake Israel has made is giving back territory after defending themselves.

      There are no saints, but you have to pick a side. If Israel is not allowed to live in peace they should embrace war to the full. We saw in Iraq what happens when you stop war too soon under Bush Sr. War is how you resolve issues when nobody will allow you to do it otherwise.

    2. Larry J

      Between drones and radar, the Israelis have a very good fix on the launch locations for those rockets. They should promptly flatten those locations into rubble. They can do it with bulldozers should they invade or by higher energy methods. If you happen to live in one of those locations, you should consider relocating post haste. While it’s true that some innocent people will be harmed and can’t fight back against Hamas, there doesn’t seem to be a shortage of personally owned firepower in the neighborhood. If the neighbors started greeting the Hamas rocket teams with AK-47 gunfire, they might reconsider their launch locations.

    3. ken anthony

      It is beyond ridiculous that they drop leaflets before hitting any place. These people need to learn if they are shielding a launch site, they are risking their lives. If you say they are doing it involuntarily… too bad, they need to be pressuring those that would put them in that position.

      War has a purpose. You defeat that purpose when you try to play politics.

      War is hell. The less you try to make it so the more it actually is. The suffering will only end when war is used for its purpose.

  3. Bart

    Let us be sure, though, to hail the achievement of Iron Dome. I’ve been trying to bring it up with people who previously pooh-poohed the notion of missile defense, but they seem not to be in a mood to talk about it.

  4. Martijn Meijering (@mmeijeri)

    The reason the normal approach won’t work is because Israel would have to reoccupy Palestinian land. This is the same problem as in Northern Ireland.

    Note that this isn’t an assessment of who’s right and who’s wrong, just an observation that as long as there is a sufficiently large minority of people willing to engage in terrorism, normal methods won’t work. Either you have to act as ruthlessly as the Soviets, the Nazis or your average Arab depot, or you have to accept the casualties associated with an occupation that the British accepted in Northern Ireland.

    And in the case of Israel and the Palestinians it’s even worse: it isn’t just a sufficiently large minority of the population that supports terrorism, it’s the *&ing majority that supports shelling residential areas and blowing up buses filled with civilians.

    Of course the Palestinians have a right to their own country, it’s not their fault that the Romans destroyed the Jewish state almost two thousand years ago. It bloody well isn’t the Jews’ fault either and Israel is their ancestral homeland, whether you believe in what’s said in the Bible or not. And personally, I don’t. And what’s more, what about the many Israelis who were born in Israel itself?

    As long as Palestinian violence threatens Israel, Israel has every right to defend itself, by occupation, establishment of a buffer zone, a blockade, and targeted strikes against terrorist leaders if necessary. Proportionality and effectiveness should be considered of course.

    Note that this isn’t the same as arguing against collective punishment. Also note that since the majority supports terrorism, the majority actually does deserve collective punishment. The argument against collective punishment for its own sake, rather than mere defensive action, is that there is a minority of decent Palestinians too, and that in peaceful circumstances that might grow to a large majority. Another argument is that an collective punishment would be counterproductive.

  5. ken anthony

    Of course the Palestinians have a right to their own country

    You only that the right to your own country when you keep war within it’s boundary. Once you engage in war beyond your border you have given up the right to your own country. You then are subject to the result of war. Your country might then grow or shrink and you are no longer entitled to the old boundaries.

    This is why issuing passports to large populations of people outside your boundaries is also an act of war and should be dealt with appropriately (expulsion.)

    1. Martijn Meijering (@mmeijeri)

      This is why issuing passports to large populations of people outside your boundaries is also an act of war and should be dealt with appropriately (expulsion.)

      I don’t think you want to go there. Israel offers passports to people with one or more Jewish grandparent, regardless of where they live and what language they speak.

      1. ken anthony

        Yes, I do. Israel does it so they can migrate in. I’m talking about what Hitler and currently the Russians do. Give passports to enclaves in other countries for the purpose of justification for later invasion.

  6. Rand Simberg Post author

    Of course the Palestinians have a right to their own country

    There was never a country called “Palestine.” The “Palestinians” are just Arabs who were used as pawns by other Arabs against Israel, and have been for over sixty years now. If they want their “own country,” the best way to do that would be to have Jordan reannex the West Bank, and Egypt reannex Gaza. But that’s not going to happen, either — Jordan learned their lesson forty years ago. It can’t reabsorb the population until it is ridded of those who want to destroy Israel.

    1. Martijn Meijering (@mmeijeri)

      If they see themselves as a people now, that’s good enough for me. Of course, the fact they cannot even agree on who their prime minister is suggests they have some way to go on this issue.

      But if they can’t peacefully coexist with their neighbours, that’s another matter.

      As for redrawing the borders of Egypt and Jordan, very many borders in the Middle East probably need to be redrawn. You’re probably familiar with this article by Ralph Peters:

      Blood borders – How a better Middle East would look

      And the accompanying map.

      1. Rand Simberg Post author

        I don’t think they really have a national identity, not having ever been a nation. They are primarily united in their hatred of Israel, which isn’t a very good foundation for nation building.

        1. Roy

          Hating another country is a national identity, it’s a lousy one but it an identity. Heck just not being another country has served several states as a national identity, eg Canada.

        1. ken anthony

          They don’t even want Israel. They just want all Israelis dead. Along with the rest of us. This is Islam folks at the very heart… (waiting for Bob to misunderstand.)

      2. Roy

        That Ralph Peters article and map is insane, Just looking at Armenia and Azerbaijan is nuts. Another part of it is devoted to creating a sub Trianon Persia, which is a recipe for endless war. The idea of ethnic cleansing to reach such a magic state is not inherently insane, but even Sennarchib might quail before the amount suggested here. It also completely ignores several specific areas, for example Turkey’s Hatay Province, its greater Lebanon, aka total victory for Hezbollah, and God knows how much else. Even by Ralph Peters standards this is masturbation.

        Why don’t we carve up India and Russia some more as well, unless Peters is a devotee of el Plan Espiritual de Aztlán, it makes no sense for anyone.

    2. Roy

      Sadly there is now a country called Palestine, if Israel had expelled the Arab population during and immediately after the Six Day War there would not be such a nation, but it exists and I can’t really see how denying it gets any of us anywhere. Unless of course you are a Palestinian, in which denying the Palestinian nation would go a long way toward achieving peace.

      That this Palestinian nation was created out the most cynical behaviors by both their leaders and supposed friends is irrelevant, that this nation behaves in a manner that would lead to the utter and justified destruction of any other nation is also made irrelevant by the international community which has chosen to hold the Jewish people to a higher standard than that imposed on any other people in history, while simultaneously expecting nothing at all from their adversaries.

      Of course this is rank antisemitism, but when we look back at the past two and a half millennia why should we expect anything else? This is normal and this is reality.

      And this ugly reality is what has to be dealt with.

  7. Godzilla

    Because in any normal, sane country, if some hooligans were to start targeting civilians with rockets – the army would go and kill them.

    So much for the right to bear arms and a citizen’s militia. One for the goose another for the gander eh?

    1. someguy

      What are you even talking about?

      If Palestinians would stop shooting at Israeli civilians as primary targets and suicide bombing buses full of civilians, no one would have an issue with a Palestinian militia.

  8. wodun

    The Palestinians already had a state called Trans-Jordan and that wasn’t enough. Now they have two additional states, Gaza and the West Bank. Will that be enough. Maybe by adding a city state called East Jerusalem will be enough.

    Israel keeps giving up territory and it gets them nothing in return.

  9. ken anthony

    So much for the right to bear arms and a citizen’s militia. One for the goose another for the gander eh?

    A ten year old might think this a clever thing to say. I have a right to arms. I do not have a right to shoot up the neighbor because I don’t like them. Have a talk with your father or any other handy adult.

Comments are closed.