Iron Dome: short-term benefit, long-term catastrophe (written 20 Nov 2012)
No other country in the world would accept, even in principle, the concept of the Iron Dome as a long term defence/deterrent, because no other country in the world would accept a situation where it is subjected to continuous unprovoked rocket attacks from a bullying neighbour. Don't believe me? Then read the following from a commenter on Debbie Schlussel's blog this evening:
“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.”
The Obama administration is right now trying to force Israel to stop a ground invasion with the promise of an extra 250 million dollars to pay for more Irone Dome batteries. This is the ultimate indication that Obama believes Israel has to simply allow the Islamist bully to carry on doing what the Islamist bully does best while Israel has to pay for the privilege of only being struck by 140 rockets a day rather than 200. This is back to the mentality of living in a ghetto under the Nazis. Obama is going to 'allow' Israel to have a half-baked defensive capability but no offensive capability. That's like allowing your 'friend' to wear a gum shield to protect him from the school bully but not allowing him to wear boxing gloves.