Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Monday, Nov. 26, 2012 | 2:01 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
Iron Dome, Israel’s rocket defense system, fundamentally altered the dynamic between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza. The system intercepted about 90 percent of the thousand or so missiles launched by Hamas. Israelis, for the most part, survived the onslaught, certainly in comparison to the casualty toll among Palestinians. But as the ceasefire negotiated on Wednesday takes hold, it’s important not to overstate the system’s role in taming the crisis: Iron Dome reduced tensions by preventing civilian deaths, but it didn’t thwart Hamas’s aims. It may have provided a window for negotiations, but the negotiators did all the work themselves.
Nonetheless, Iron Dome has been described in various media reports as the “break-out star” and the “game changer” in this conflict. Idan Yahya, a 22-year-old gunner with the Israeli Air Defense Wing, is being lionized as a Hollywood-style hero, with stories about how he grew up playing the video game Warcraft and now holds the title for striking down the most Hamas rockets.
Iron Dome, to be clear, is a weapon. Israel began embracing the notion of an air-defense system to protect civilian areas from missiles after its 2006 war with Hezbollah militants in Lebanon. Its success is not debatable, but its legacy is. The fascination with Iron Dome risks elevating a tactic into a strategy. Iron Dome is not a weapon of war or, as many Israelis argue, a weapon of peace. It is merely a weapon of delay. It buys time for the inevitable negotiations.
For Hamas, the elected Palestinian government in the Gaza Strip, Iron Dome’s success was less of a frustration than it might have seemed. Hamas did not launch missiles solely to kill Israelis. If that were its objective, then it failed. Rather, its goal was to showcase Hamas’s strength against the Israeli foe; Iron Dome may have decreased the number of civilian casualties, but it didn’t decrease the number of rockets Hamas launched. Hamas is in a political struggle with the more moderate Palestinian Authority, which was essentially sidelined by all parties — including the United States and Israel — at the Gaza peace talks in Cairo.
Hamas’s rocket launches, therefore, were not just about killing Israelis; they were about enhancing Hamas’s standing in a divided Palestinian leadership. For Hamas, taking action was an end in itself. Iron Dome may have prevented the ultimate blows to Israel, but it didn’t diminish Hamas’s ability to show its strength.
For Israel, the chorus of cheers about Iron Dome risk muting the smart strategic reason why it was put in place: to ensure that a huge number of Israeli fatalities did not force the government’s hand in launching a land war in Gaza. The shield provided the political space for a conservative leadership, and a divided nation, to consider alternatives to an invasion that would have surely inflamed Palestinian and Arab sentiment.
For the United States, Iron Dome shouldn’t mask the reality that a negotiated settlement of the underlying issues that divide the Israeli and Palestinian people is the only lasting solution. This week proved, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton flew from Asia to the Middle East to handle the crisis, that America will never be able to pivot from the Palestinian conflict, as long as it rages.
Unfortunately, some of Israel’s supporters in Congress are drawing the wrong lessons from Iron Dome’s success, calling for more U.S. military aid to expand the missile shield rather than addressing the untenable situation on the ground.
Even worse, some American hawks are suggesting that the dome is proof of the need for more missile-defense programs for the East Coast of the United States. Iron Dome’s fans in America are underestimating the vast technological differences between intercepting small rockets from an enemy a few miles away and trying to shoot down ballistic missiles that come from hundreds of miles away at 10 times the speed. The most sophisticated inter-continental missiles even come embedded with technological countermeasures to thwart any defense shield. Iron Dome is not a video game to be shared among friends.
Indeed, Iron Dome is not a game at all. It also is not a solution. The best thing it did was to buy all the parties some time. It cannot bring them lasting peace. They still have to do that themselves.
Juliette Kayyem is a columnist for the Boston Globe.
In reply to Juliette Kayyem; this article you wrote is exactly what I expected from a liberal minded "desk jockey" type journalist.
What strengths did Hamas show? That they can fire missiles blindly towards Israel and have them repeatedly intercepted by the Israeli's "Iron Dome" defense system? You call that strength? Who in their right mind of thinking cares about the inflamed Palestinian and Arab sentiment when countless missiles are being hurled at Israel from the Gaza? Not me.
As a former U.S. Marine back in the 1970's into the early 1980's it only took once for my Sergeant to say that we were "sitting ducks"; and then have to actually experience it. I would have loved to have had an "Iron Dome" defense system protecting me and my fellow Marines.
Easy for you to say, Juliette, that the enemy launching missile attacks against Israel and the successes of the "Iron Dome" intercepting the majority of those same missiles just "buys some time" for Israel. That is absurd!
I got some reality for you, that" Iron Dome" defense system of Israel just saved all of the people of Gaza. It gives those terrorists a time for pause, or, "buys them some time". Hamas did not show any strength. In fact, all their weaknesses were exposed. I say, thank you "Iron Dome"!!! And, the people of Gaza should also be saying, "Thank you, 'Iron Dome', for saving us too!"
And, if your article was not ridiculous enough, you went on to write, Juliette, "Even worse, some American hawks are suggesting that the dome is proof of the need for more missile-defense programs for the East Coast of the United States.
That is not what was recommended. What was suggested is a need for a multi-layered missile defense system such as Israel's "Iron Dome" for our deployed troops in forward combat zones such as in Afghanistan.
Wouldn't even a liberal, like you, Juliette, see that an "Iron Dome" defense protective shield for our troops is a necessary defense system for them? Or would you prefer that our troops today, continue to be "sitting ducks" for missile attacks like us soldiers were back in the 70's and 80's?
I agree the "Iron Dome" is not a game. But, it is a darn good defense solution both for Israel and America. The "Iron Dome" defense system should even be a good solution for you liberals too. It gives our enemies, in which progressives seem to value, pause for thought before they launch attacks against us.
The Gaza/Hamas-Israeli truce is tenuous at best. Yes, it buys more time for Hamas to rebuild and launch another strike against Israel. Just as this recent assault on Israel showed that rocketry, provided by Iran and smuggled into Gaza, can reach 50 percent of the population of Israel in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Hamas' stated mission is the annihilation of Israel and its poeple. With that as a goal, peace is never a lasting outcome. Just a temporary lull to regroup and attack.
CarmineD