In the last couple of days, Max has ably fended off criticism of missile defense–a commonsense and effective tool in homeland security. He closes his second post on the subject with a question: “Why do so many critics have such an investment in trying to prove that missile defense doesn’t work? Isn’t a good defense the best way to keep the peace?”
Yes, it is, and it makes opposition to missile defense from the left quite strange for another reason. Those who want Israel to continue making territorial concessions to the Palestinians–after every single previous such concession brought terrorism and rockets–have much riding on the success of Israel’s missile defense systems, such as Iron Dome. It is absurd to believe that after what keeps happening in Gaza, Israel will allow the same to happen in the West Bank–where missiles can be launched a couple of miles from Judaism’s holiest sites in Jerusalem and would also have a better shot at hitting Ben Gurion airport near Tel Aviv. The former would be a physical assault on Israel’s capital as well as a conceptual assault on Judaism and Jewish history only the world’s basest anti-Semites could stomach, and the latter would bring Israel’s economy to a standstill.
Under such circumstances, Israel can only be expected cede territory if its citizens feel secure in doing so. A similar discussion has taken place around the chain-link fence Israel has been constructing to keep terrorists out–a step made necessary by the Arafatization of the Palestinian polity and the Palestinian strategy of instigating suicide bombing campaigns.
Yes, some dispute the “path” of the fence, arguing its placement. But isn’t the chain-link fence, which is meant to keep terrorists out, an incredibly peaceful and humane solution to the problem? Of course it is. But even if many on the left are unconcerned with Israel’s security, shouldn’t they support such nonviolent security measures as a tactical matter to encourage Israel to withdraw from territory the Palestinians want for a possible future state? After all, arguments that Israel cannot take even purely defensive measures to safeguard its people should not be taken seriously.
None of this is to say that missile defense will solve the conflict. It isn’t perfect, it’s expensive, and living under constant threat of rocket fire would still be hellish—it cannot be easy to get used to bombs exploding over your head all day long. The best solution, without a doubt, would be for the Palestinians to eschew terrorism and give up their mission to destroy Israel. The end of terrorism would bring peace. Until then, Israeli security is paramount. The lesson from Gaza is that complete withdrawal did not bring security for Israel. If the Palestinians really want a two-state solution, they should prove the same wouldn’t be true in the West Bank.
A few years ago, I wrote this: n n"A hundred years after the rebirth of the State of Israel, it has shrunk to a small statelet comprising the Tel-Aviv – Jerusalem corridor. It's remaining citizens squat cheek by jowl under a dome shaped force field, watching Arab, Persian, and EU missiles explode against it, showering fire and sparks into the night. They worry that it is only a matter of time before the enemies figure out how to penetrate the shield, for then it will all be over. The economic elites, who were at the vanguard of the Left, had left 20 years prior, using their foreign passports and connections to escape, leaving their poorer brethren to their fate. So ends the experiment of 'Land for Peace', which Israel facilitated by its brilliance in low impact defensive weaponry." n n nThe Iron Dome, brilliant as it is, is counterproductive long term when compared to actually defeating your enemies. n nTo the extent it prevents Israel from defeating its enemies by creating an opening for political pressure to stop them from defeating their enemies, it is no good thing. n nGlad that it is a success, and that many nations will line up to buy it, though. n
Although the Iron Dome anti-rocket shield has been successful in largely protecting the major Israeli cities
Although the Iron Dome anti-rocket shield has been successful in largely protecting the major Israeli cities, there have already been tragic casualties and regrettably more are likely if hostilities continue . The high cost of Iron Dome ($40,000 per missile?) and it's limited number make it a ineffective weapon against low-cost missile saturated attack. Also, if a sufficient quantity of Iron Dome missiles are not held in reserve ,then later when long-range missiles are fired against Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, etc., they will go unchallenged. Iron Dome is not an effective long-range strategy. Defense rarely is an effective long-range strategy. n
"If the Palestinians really want a two-state solution, they should prove the same wouldn’t be true in the West Bank." n nSeth, when do the opportunities to 'prove' they want peace stop being offered to the 'Palestinians'? n nAfter another 100 dead Jews? 1000? 100,000? n nJust curious what goes through your mind on this. n nWhat depravity to they have to sink to before you acknowledge openly that they never wanted 'peace' as we understand it, and likely never will, and that it is time for Israel to act accordingly? n nWhen do we stop the insanity of hoping for a different outcome?
The best defense is the destruction of the war mentality cultivated and promoted in the Muslim world as a standard and accepted form of proselytism.
The Iron Dome is on a micro level the successful implementation of the Star Wars and proves a success. The clash of civilizations would need an Iron Dom around every western city.