44 thoughts on “Hamas Is Losing”

  1. Asymmetric warfare is measured by more than body counts. The Israeli Iron Dome defense system is very expensive to operate while the rockets Hamas is using are dirt cheap.

    Frankly I am more concerned about the fact that Al-Qaeda i.e. ISIS is using recent generation Chinese shoulder mounted missiles in Syria and Iraq. If these separatist groups get their hands on more recent generation weaponry than something they can concot in a shed things will get a lot more dangerous in the Middle East.

    1. Yep, all they can really do is rattle their cage to keep their situation in the world media.

    2. “Frankly I am more concerned about the fact that Al-Qaeda i.e. ISIS is using recent generation Chinese shoulder mounted missiles in Syria and Iraq. ”

      They now also have a lot of advanced American weapons and armored vehicles.

    3. It’s not just the Middle East that’ll get more dangerous; advanced shoulder-fired anti-air missiles are easy to smuggle, and could be used anywhere (such as within a few miles of airports, to bring down airliners).

    4. The Israeli Iron Dome defense system is very expensive to operate while the rockets Hamas is using are dirt cheap.

      True, but that’s not the complete picture. While those rockets are cheap, they can do a lot of damage. Compared to the cost of the damage, the Iron Dome rockets are often cheap. I’ve read different price points for the Iron Dome missiles ranging from $20K to $100K. Iron Dome only attempts to intercept those rockets that are likely to hit a populated area. So far, they’re reporting a 90% success rate. When solid state lasers become more powerful, they’ll replace the interceptor missiles.

      1. Also, “cheap” is relative. The Israelis can afford Iron Dome, while Hamas is going to run out of rockets, with no way to resupply as tunnels from Egypt are cut off.

          1. It must really bother you that we helped build a missile defense system, something Democrats have fought against for a generation, and that the system helps save the lives of Israelis, a people the Democrats have hated for several generations.

          2. ” a people the Democrats have hated for several generations.”

            You are completely wrong. There are many ways to refute this, but I’m not sure what would be effective in your case, because I’m not sure what sort of insanity you have developed. Would focusing on Presidential politics be a fruitful conversation? We could start by talking about Bill Clinton treated Rabin as the father he wanted to have (according to Aaron David Miller, who was there, and who is a Republican. I strongly recommend his book “The Much Too Promised Land: America’s Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace ” if you want an inside account of how various Presidents interacted with various Israeli PMs.) But maybe Presidential politics isn’t what would sway you. If not, what would? Opinion polls?

          3. After I posted that, I wondered why I thought Aaron David Miller was a Republican, so I googled a bit, and sure enough,while he supported Romney, lots of people can’t agree on his political ideology, despite his many political publications.

          4. “You are completely wrong. ”

            No, I am not. There is a large part, if not an outright majority, of the Democrat party that is anti-Israel. Do you deny this?

            “But maybe Presidential politics isn’t what would sway you. If not, what would? Opinion polls?”

            I just look at the Democrat activists, politicians, and what takes place on college campuses. What would convince me? A refutation and expulsion of these elements from the Democrat party. But we both know the Democrats wont kick their base out.

            If you found what I said offensive, then take it up with your party and not me for calling them out on it.

    1. I always thought it looked like the Scours. Oh wait, we’re talking about Hamas, not Hummus. Nevermind.

  2. Hooray for President Obama, for personally requesting that Congress fund the Iron Dome project. Phooey on Rand Paul, as well as John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, and Pete Stark, the four members of Congress who voted against Iron Dome.

    1. I’m sure you just forgot to thank Reagan for pushing the concept in the first place. A concept that was scoffed at as impossible by….Democrats.

      Now explain to us if Obama was so hep on helping Israel, why did he scrap the same plans for Eastern Europe?

      1. Reagan’s proposal led scientists and engineers to discuss nuclear explosions which would power x-ray lasers. And then there were the tungsten non-explosive Brilliant Pebbles “Rods from God” parked in orbit. I didn’t scoff at either of these – I thought SDI was quite exciting, as an excuse to further space development if nothing else. But is it wrong to think that Iron Dome seems rather different?

      2. About Eastern Europe, I understand what you’re referring to. It is going to be deployed.

        I believe Chris Gerrib has previously explained the technological differences between the first version of the proposal (which was canceled) and the second version of the project (which is on track to be deployed on the same schedule as the first version.)

        See this article for more details, including a proposal to develop something that sounds more like Iron Dome:

        http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140201/DEFREG01/302010028/US-Ready-Assist-Poland-Indigenous-Missile-Defense-System

        WARSAW — The US wants to partner with Poland as the Eastern European nation pursues its own missile defense system separate from the American system already planned for the region.
        […]
        The US is already slated to install missile interceptors in Poland by 2018, part of the Phased Adaptive Approach mission. The plan calls for deploying missile interceptors used on Navy Aegis destroyers, according to a program fact sheet. US officials say the system will defend Europe against potential long-range missile attacks by Iran.
        […]
        But Poland is looking for its own missile defense system, as well. “As Poland explores its own missile defense possibilities and options, we are closely coordinating with the Polish military and the Polish government on working with them technologically, operationally and in every respect,” Hagel said.

        1. Heh, here’s an Israeli perspective:

          http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-likely-to-lose-out-on-polish-missile-defense-contract/

          Poland will most likely pick a US contractor over an Israeli one for a new missile defense system, but Israel could still end up profiting from the deal, according to an Israeli defense official, who said lobbying by Washington had all but assured the outcome.

          “The Americans will be happy, the Poles will be happy, and there’ll be something left over for us,” the official, who has knowledge of the competition, told the Reuters news agency regarding the possibility that the US could include Israel’s David Sling missile defense system in a future sale to Poland.

      3. Because it is just too expensive. Besides Iron Dome, which is used to fend off artillery rockets, the Israelis have multilayer missile defenses including the Arrow missile. Israel has a small land area to defend. The cost of missile defenses for covering large land areas like Eastern Europe or Northern America is many orders of magnitude higher. If the adversary has submarines they can basically do a launch from anywhere they want to. Then you need to cover the entire borders and it costs even more money.

        1. “Because it is just too expensive.”

          Says who? Poland didn’t seem to think so.

          I agree with your original statement at the top though – in situations like these, body count doesn’t matter much. The Jihadi side almost always loses more.

          So did the North Vietnamese.

  3. Hooray for President Obama, for personally requesting that Congress fund the Iron Dome project. Phooey on Rand Paul, as well as John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, and Pete Stark, the four members of Congress who voted against Iron Dome.

    (Rand, sorry if this is a duplicate – my kid banged on the keyboard)

  4. The concept of Iron Dome began around 2004 and actual work began in 2007, both dates prior to Obama’s administration.

    1. Larry, your statement doesn’t contradict the notion that Obama pushed for funding the project. Israeli officials have thanked the American taxpayers in general and Obama in particular on numerous occasions for that support, and the Israeli press generally distinguishes between who designed and built the project (the Israelis are proud of their accomplishment) and who paid for a big portion of it (the Israelis are thankful for the US support).

      1. Yes, kudos to Obama for continuing another successful Bush policy. Will you or other Democrats give any recognition to Bush and will Democrats finally get behind other missile defense programs?

          1. Did you read your own link?

            Keep in mind that the Israeli missile defense system is made up of more than one system with overlapping capabilities. One example is the Patriot missile system and there are others like David’s Sling and the Arrow.

            From your link, “There may be a sincere reason why conservatives believe that Bush launched funding for Iron Dome; he did sign off on the similar (but separate) David’s Sling project in 2007.”

            So Bush was working with Israel on missile defense. The Iron Dome was a continuation of the efforts under Bush to develop a missile defense systems with different capabilities.

            Obama deserves credit for continuing with the work that Bush started in helping Israel develop missile defense systems. Will you give Bush any credit or will you continue to deny that he did anything?

            You want us to be happy that Obama didn’t mess something up, perhaps you should return the favor?

          1. My argument doesn’t depend on Biden refraining from exaggerating. The JTA piece I linked to cites the Congressional Research Service.

          2. Okay, I’ll give it up on my face, but my crotch? Never.

            One word: wax.

            Annoying Old Guy, I don’t use after-shave unless I cut myself (which I hardly ever do anymore), to disinfect the cut with the alcohol.

            Why not just use alcohol?

          3. “The JTA piece I linked to cites the Congressional Research Service.”

            Your link merely states that we did not fund Iron Dome under Bush. It doesn’t say if we did or didn’t help them develop the system. It does say that we helped with other parts of Israel’s missile defense system.

          4. My argument doesn’t depend on Biden refraining from exaggerating. The JTA piece I linked to cites the Congressional Research Service.

            Hahahahhaha, didn’t click my link did you? Factcheck noted the CRS report too and how the CRS report notes that the funding starts with the Bush Agreement.

  5. Obama allowed the funding to continue because a defensive system give Israel options on how to respond to rocket attacks. Without Iron Dome, Israel (or any other country) would send in land forces and/or launch massive air strikes in response to rocket attacks.

    1. It is a major achievement for Israeli foreign policy. It probably took a lot of work to get Obama to go along.

      1. Apparently all it took was Obama agreeing to the same funding levels agreed to by Bush in 2007.

        I guess we found the one thing Obama won’t blame on Bush. Hooray for that I suppose.

        1. As far as I can tell, your argument seems to hinge on this sentence:

          “The CRS report says that the Bush administration and Israel signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding in 2007 on a 10-year, $30 billion military aid package that would “raise Israel’s annual Foreign Military Financing grant from a baseline of nearly $2.55 billion in FY2009 to approximately $3.1 billion for FY2013 through FY2018.”

          I’m pleased that such a non-binding agreement was signed, and I’m pleased it was adhered to, but actually getting the money spent on your watch, after the economy shifts, is different from making non-binding promises about the future. I’m glad Bush supported Israel, but Iron Dome was an Obama Program, to the extent that it was an American program

          1. “I’m pleased that such a non-binding agreement was signed, and I’m pleased it was adhered to”

            Yes, Obama continued a Bush policy. Too bad he didn’t follow more of them and maybe our economy would be doing better, Iraq would be at peace, and Islamist militants wouldn’t be rampaging across the globe.

            “I’m glad Bush supported Israel,”

            I bet it took a lot to say that.

            ” but Iron Dome was an Obama Program”

            The Iron Dome is just part of Israel’s missile defense system and just because we did not give money to it directly until Obama took office, it doesn’t mean we didn’t work with them developing it considering it is part of a larger system.

          2. but Iron Dome was an Obama Program, to the extent that it was an American program

            It was never an American program. It was developed by Rafael, an Israeli company. To the extent US agreed to provide money for Israeli to procure defense products, that decision was made in 2007 as stated in the CRS report. As Wodun notes, Obama merely agreed to continue the agreement made by Bush. As Factcheck says, Obama is just taking credit for honoring a Bush agreement. But ok, Hooray Obama for not effing up one Bush policy! That’s not much of a high bar, but there you go.

          3. Sure. But had the US actively hindered the project, like they did with the Lavi fighter project, I doubt the Israelis would have been able to finish the system. For one it would have been harder to get the money to do it. For another if the US blocked sale of relevant components it would have been extremely hard to do it.

  6. Israel should establish a policy of promptly bombing sites from which missiles are launched against it. Keep a good radar system running so the sites can be quickly and precisely located. If the Palestinian Arabs have any sense that should make such launch sites very unpopular as neighbors.

    1. That’s actually the problem. Launch sites have been located in schools, UN missions, etc… The launch equipment is rather small and easily dismantled and moved. Bomb craters are huge. Subsequent news is that Israel bombed Palestinian schools, UN missions, etc… Then we have the knuckleheads, such as Vox, that know Hamas is doing these things and still blame Israel.

  7. Bob-1, your eagerness to lavish praise on Obama for continuing a successful program is laughable. Yes, he didn’t kill the program so ISN’T HE WONDERFUL??!!! Given his pathetic foreign policy – especially in regard to the Middle East and Israel – I can understand the fervent desire to find something Obama has done to cheer about. Hey, he hasn’t completely sold out Israel or nuked them, so ISN’T HE WONDERFUL??!!!

Comments are closed.