► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Iron Dome’

Israel deploys Iron Dome defense system ahead of possible U.S. strike on Syria

by Mojambo ( 1 Comment › )
Filed under Headlines, IDF, Israel, Syria at August 30th, 2013 - 4:08 pm

Let’s hope it works! I would still like to see some Israeli offensive systems used as a deterrent.

by William Booth

JERUSALEM — Israel deployed a battery of its missile defense system, Iron Dome, to the Tel Aviv suburbs Friday to defend its citizens against possible retaliation if the threatened U.S.-led military strike against Syria is carried out.

As part of preparations against rockets that could be fired either by forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad or by Assad’s allies in the Lebanon-based Shiite militant organization Hezbollah, the Israeli air force also deployed Iron Dome batteries north and south, in Haifa, Ashkelon and Eilat, and is ready to move two additional units, Israeli officials said.

The United States and its allies are considering a military strike in coming days against Syria as punishment for its alleged use of chemical weapons last week. A poll released Friday by the newspaper Israel Hayom found two-thirds of Israeli Jews in favor of U.S. and European military intervention in Syria. But a majority also said such an action would probably lead to retaliation against Israel.

In the northern Israeli city of Safed at the Ziv Medical Center, which cared for 1,500 casualties during the Lebanon-Israel war in 2006, doctors said they were ready for anything, including chemical or biological attack.

The hospital, which specializes in war-related injuries and has surgery suites and intensive care units in air-tight bomb shelters, is already involved in the Syria conflict. In the past six months, it has quietly received 76 severely wounded patients from Syria.

The patients have been shot or injured by shrapnel, bombs and mortar fire. They arrive in Israeli military ambulances after being allowed into the country through border gates normally closed to Syrians in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

Many of the wounded are women and children. Others are fighters, most of them probably rebels, as Syrian army forces would have their own field hospitals. When several reporters sought to interview two young, wounded Syrian men lying in beds at Ziv hospital, they were shooed away by two Israeli soldiers.

“We don’t know and we don’t want to know who they are,” said Itzhak Koifman, a doctor at the bedside of a Syrian man who had been shot in the stomach. “We don’t ask. To us, they’re just patients.” The hospital says it has spent $1.5 million treating Syrians.

Shokrey Kassis, a plastic surgeon, was treating a woman from Daraa, in southern Syria, whose leg and foot had been severely injured. In many hospitals, “they would have amputated,” Kassis said. “But we are saving her leg. She will walk again.”

The woman, who was prevented by hospital officials from giving her name for fear of what might happen to her or her family if it became widely known she was being treated by Israelis, said she wanted to return home as soon as possible.

“I will ask God to help the hospital and to bless the staff. I can say nothing but good about my care here,” she said, wincing as her foot was prepared for another round of surgery.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met Friday with security chiefs and made a toast to mark Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, according to a statement from his office. The leader of the Israel Defense Forces, Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, reflecting on the past year, said, “There have been many operations, which we cannot expand on in front of the cameras, of course, and preparations for what may come.”

In the Golan Heights village of Majdal Shams, just a few miles south of Syria, Taisseer Maray, a leader of the nongovernmental organization Golan for the Development of the Arab Villages, said he opposes any outside intervention in Syria.

“I am very much worried about what the Americans will do,” said Maray, who suggested that he supports Assad over the rebel forces and played down the alleged use of chemical weapons. “The Americans, Turks, Russians, Iranians, Turks, even the Israelis have their own interests,” he said. “Whatever happens, we will pay the price.”

But the Druze — a monotheistic social and religious group that is distinct from Islam, Judaism and Christianity — are divided about Syria, he said. About 20,000 Druze live in the occupied Golan Heights; many consider themselves Syrians, while others have accepted Israeli citizenship.

[……….]

Read the rest – Israel deploys Iron Dome defense system ahead of possible U.S.; strike on Syria

The Washington Post thinks that the iron dome anti-missile system is anti peace; the E.U. will soon list Hezbollah as a terrorist group

by Mojambo ( 107 Comments › )
Filed under Hamas, Hezballah, IDF, Iraq, Islamic Terrorism, Israel, Media, Palestinians, Syria, Turkey at December 19th, 2012 - 12:00 pm

File this under  the heading of  “Can you believe this dreck”? Recently on PBS an idiot named Mark Shields actually complained that only a few Israelis were killed by Hamas’s rockets while scores of Palestinians have been killed, Charles Krauthammer rolled his eyes at him  and gave him a “What kind of moron are you?” stare.

by Barry Rubin

I hate to spend time discussing US media coverage of Israel. It should be clearly understood that in general this coverage is a farce and should not be taken seriously. Yet there are examples which are irresistible because they are so revealing of the political as well as media assumptions made about Israel that so mislead the Western public and policymakers.

The Washington Post ran a major article explaining that while, on one hand, the Iron Dome missile defense system is a good thing because it blocks missiles that would otherwise kill and injure Israelis as well as cause damage, it is also a bad thing. Thomas Friedman made similar claims. Why? “For a nation that longs for normalcy and acceptance, one question being debated here is whether Iron Dome will motivate Israel’s leaders to pursue peace with the Palestinians and the wider Arab world or insulate them from having to do so.”

In other words, if a lot more Israelis were being killed and wounded, Israel would have more incentive to make peace with the Palestinians and Arabs. But since their lives are merely being paralyzed, Israel just isn’t interested in making peace.

And who is “debating” this? Well, basically the Post comes up with one name: left-wing author Tom Segev.

Nobody is interviewed who ridicules this bizarre thesis.

And who in Israel is arguing that if only they were more bloodied, their hearts would be softened and they would prefer peace to endless conflict? Supposedly Israelis are saying: “Wow, we wish our leaders tried harder to make peace with the Palestinians. Maybe it’s because we are too strong and secure.” Well, basically the Post comes up with one name: left-wing author Tom Segev.  [……..]

JUST TO make the situation completely clear let me be very explicit: In the 1980s and in 1993 at the time of the Oslo agreements many Israelis argued that because Israel was more secure it could take risks and make concessions to try to achieve peace. A number of specific steps, including Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, were based on this same premise.

[………]

That’s the historic argument: The more secure Israel was, the more it could offer the Palestinians in the hope that they would make peace. Is that clear? When a country becomes less secure it must increase its ability to protect itself, including by retaining territory useful for that defense, spending more on military equipment, and not making concessions and taking risks. The only exception is if people feel certain that such concessions and risks would definitely bring a full response from the other side and thus lead to a secure and lasting peace.

Now even leaving aside the Palestinian Authority’s intransigence and desire – clearly visible for the past 12 years – to avoid a compromise two-state solution, Israel also faces the following new regional features:

• Hamas, which constantly attacks Israel and would continue to do so (indeed, it would escalate attacks) if Israel did reach an agreement with the PA.

• An Islamist Egypt whose ruling Muslim Brotherhood group daily speaks of genocide against Israel and Jews, plus not accepting the 30-year-old peace treaty, not to mention the even more extreme Salafists.

• An Islamist-ruled Lebanon, where Hezbollah, the ruling group, constantly threatens to attack and also daily calls for Israel’s extinction.

• A hostile Turkey whose rulers support Hamas and Hezbollah.

• A Syria where radical Islamists seem poised to gain power. They cannot possibly be more anti-Israel than the current regime, but they are willing to make the anti-Israel war a higher priority for direct action.

So this is an era where Israel clearly needs to defend itself. Compare this to the early 1990s.

Saddam Hussein had been defeated in the 1991 war; the radical Arabs’ main ally, the USSR, had fallen; America was the sole superpower; the PLO was so weak and depressed that it seemed conceivable it might be pushed into peace because it had no other alternative (in contrast to the contemporary Palestinian Authority which just got recognition as a state and is feeling very confident); and other factors.
[……..]

SO HOW do we get from here to demands that Israel must keep doing what has failed and the claim that the weaker Israel’s strategic position, the more it can and should make concessions and take risks? Such a stance is just about equivalent to saying it is a pity US counter-terrorism measures are working, because if more September 11-type attacks were to succeed, Americans would be nicer to Muslims.

Or that if the British air force had only not defeated the Luftwaffe, perhaps prime minister Winston Churchill wouldn’t have been so insulated from the need to make peace with the Axis.

What’s most infuriating about all of this is not just that Israel has tried so hard to make peace – including risks and concessions – but that the very attacks referred to in the Washington Post article were made possible only because Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in an attempt to promote peace! Yet the essential insanity of the kind of thinking epitomized by this article is shielded when it comes to Israel, by the media’s bias and sense that it can get away with any nonsense when it comes to discussing Israel.

MEANWHILE, THERE is some concern among Israeli intelligence officials with regard to a possible new intifadah in the West Bank. This would be due to new confidence created by the UN’s decision to make Palestine a non-member state (the UN’s contribution to peacemaking); a rapprochement between the PA, which rules the West Bank, and Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip; and the PA’s wish to compete with Hamas in attacking Israel and trying to kill Israelis.

Following the logic of the Washington Post we should hope lots of Israelis are killed by terrorists as a way to pressure those obdurate Israelis to make peace.

The Washington Post article basically follows the same Palestinian political line that has prevailed since the 1960s: forget about a negotiated compromise, Israel must be defeated, and Israelis made to suffer. The main goal is to get Israelis to give up altogether and abandon their state; the shorter-term goal is to get Israelis to accept a Palestinian state unconditionally so it can get on with the task of finishing that job.

BEFORE AROUND 1980, the above analysis would have been considered normative in Israel. Between the 1980s and 2000, when there was rising hope of a compromise peace with the PLO and its child, the PA, it would have been considered a right-wing view.  [……..]

Internationally, the refusal to face the fact that the Palestinian side is responsible for the failure of peace leads to such bizarre theories and blinds people to the actual situation.

Read the rest – Is iron dome anti peace?

Chuck Hagel several years ago refused to sign a letter to the EU asking that Hezbollah be designated as a terror group. Something to think about, if Hezbollah is not a terrorist group I do not know who is.

by Hilary Leila Krieger

The US State Department indicated Tuesday that it expected the EU to finally designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, following an intensive US lobbying campaign and suspected Hezbollah plots on European soil.

“We’ve been engaging with our partners in Europe and we are cautiously optimistic – at last – about the prospects for an EU designation of the group,” Daniel Benjamin, the State Department’s coordinator for counterterrorism, said during an address at the Brookings Institution.

Benjamin, speaking later to The Jerusalem Post, didn’t give a specific date when he anticipated the designation to be made, but suggested the Europeans will have to “think hard about things in the next few months.”

The US and Israel have long pressed the EU to include the Lebanese group on its terror list, and recently US officials have publicly been making the case that that designation would help with enforcement efforts against the organization and its criminal activities.

Benjamin told the Post that the US has also been sharing information with European counterparts on Hezbollah’s increased activities in their region.

The US and Israel have accused Hezbollah of being behind a bombing that killed Israeli tourists in Bulgaria in July and a disrupted plot against Israelis in Cyprus less than two weeks earlier.

[……]
Clear Hezbollah ties to the attack could be a significant factor in the EU determination on whether to label Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

“Obviously if the Europeans feel that the proof is decisive then they’ll have to confront the fact that Hezbollah carried out an attack in Europe,” Benjamin said.

Benjamin, speaking ahead of his departure from the State Department, told Brookings that overall the appeal of extremist groups such as al-Qaida is diminishing.

“There are clearly indications that the al-Qaida message continues to wane in popularity,” he asserted.

He said that many of the new governments in the Middle East are also contributing to eroding the capabilities of this and similar groups.

“These governments increasingly show the will to tackle the terror threat,” he said, pointing to the attack on the US outpost in Benghazi, Libya, in September that left four American diplomats dead as an act that awoke many to the internal threat posed by terror groups.

[…….]

“The populations that have historically produced lots of the extremists, these people aren’t interested in violent extremism but in building better lives for their families and their communities within the international system,” he said.

But he added that despite these positive developments, “This is not a reason to relax.”

Read the rest – EU will soon list Hezbollah terrorist group, US expects

 

Initially derided, Israel’s fanstastic Iron Dome Defense struggled to see the light of day

by Mojambo ( 112 Comments › )
Filed under Gaza, Hamas, Hezballah, IDF, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Military, Palestinians at November 27th, 2012 - 12:00 pm

President Reagan proposed an anti-missile missile system and that was derided as “Star Wars” by the know-it-alls.

by Charles Levinson and Adam Entous

TEL AVIV—Israel’s Iron Dome rocket-defense system spent the past two weeks successfully blasting Hamas rockets out of the sky—many in dramatic nighttime explosions—helping to end the recent hostilities between Israel and Hamas in just seven days.

The battle to build Iron Dome, however, lasted years and provided fireworks of its own.

The Israeli Iron Dome missile defense system intercepts an incoming rocket on November 14, 2012. Courtesy Associated Press.

Before Wednesday’s cease-fire, Iron Dome knocked down 421 rockets launched from Gaza and bound for Israeli cities, an 84% success rate, according to the Israeli military. The system limited Israeli casualties to six during the seven days of bombardment. As a result, there was markedly less political pressure on Israel’s decision makers to invade Gaza.

“If it was not for Iron Dome, for sure you would have seen a more aggressive action in Gaza by air and ground,” said an Israel general and member of Israel’s joint chiefs of staff.

For Israel’s primary foes Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, their weapon of choice—rockets and missiles—could soon prove nearly obsolete. That could alter the strategic calculation for Israel and its enemies alike. Despite initial Pentagon misgivings, President Barack Obama has given $275 million to the project since 2010 with the aim of reducing the rocket threat and eventually bolstering chances of a peace deal by making Israel feel more secure to agree to territorial concessions.

For years, Pentagon experts dismissed Iron Dome as doomed to fail and urged Israel to instead try a cheaper U.S. approach. Iron Dome faced similar skepticism at home. But an Israeli mathematician-general, along with a labor-organizer-turned-defense-minister, pushed the project through, overcoming the opposition of some of Israel’s most powerful military voices.

In 2004, then-Brig. Gen. Daniel Gold was named director of the Ministry of Defense’s Research and Development department, responsible for overseeing the development of new weapons systems. Mr. Gold, who also has a Ph.D. in mathematics, took up the rocket challenge with a zealot’s gusto, according to people involved in the project.

That August, he put out a call to defense companies for proposed antirocket systems. Few took notice within the defense establishment.

Israel’s Hezbollah foes in Lebanon first turned to short-range rockets in the mid-1990s. The first Hamas-fired Palestinian rocket hit Israel in early 2001. The crude projectiles rarely hit their intended targets, yet over the years they rained down by the thousands—some 4,000 by 2008.

Almost no one in Israel’s military brass believed rocket defense could work. Palestinian rockets from Gaza fly erratically and can hit Israeli communities within seconds. Most are just a few feet long and a few inches wide.

Gen. Gold and his team, deep in the bowels of the Defense Ministry in central Tel Aviv, reviewed the options. They considered lasers and giant shotguns. In March 2005, they agreed on a patched-together concept for the system that would become Iron Dome, drawing on technologies from three Israeli defense companies.

European Pressphoto Agency421: The number of Hamas rockets destroyed in flight by a hotly debated rocket-defense system during the latest skirmish.

He called up Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd., an Israeli weapons maker, and asked the company to head the project. A 2008 audit by the Israeli state comptroller, an independent government-oversight office, criticized this step, saying he bypassed required approvals from the military’s general staff, the defense minister and the Israeli government.

That report didn’t lead to formal charges of wrongdoing. But it fueled years of heated political criticism of the project and its backers—showing how close the highly controversial Iron Dome idea came to never happening at all.

Gen. Gold said in an interview that the auditor’s report misrepresented some facts, declining to be more specific. He disputes any allegation that he broke rules, saying he simply sidestepped red tape.

“I just canceled all the unnecessary bureaucracy,” Gen. Gold said. “I left only the most crucial bureaucracy needed for success.”

At the time, according to Gen. Gold as well as to the auditor’s report, he told Rafael’s chairman of the problem that no one in the government had agreed to pay for the project. Rafael’s chairman, Ilan Biran, confirms that account.

[……]

It was no ordinary feat. The project’s specs demanded a system that could continuously scan all of Gaza, detect a rocket the instant it was fired, no matter how big or small, pinpoint its likely strike location, and finally, if it was going to hit a city, blast it out of the sky with a missile. The system needed to do all that within about 15 seconds.

Gen. Gold also said the interceptor missiles would need to cost about one-tenth of what your average air-to-air missile costs, or else Israel’s rocket-flinging foes would be able to bankrupt Israel. And instead of taking 10 years or more to develop, typical for new weapons systems, Iron Dome needed to deploy in half that.

In the summer of 2006, war broke out with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Over the 33 days, Hezbollah fired more than 4,200 rockets into northern Israel, killing 44 Israelis. Suddenly, stopping rockets was a government priority.

So in August 2006, Gen. Gold and his team briefed the man who was then Israel’s minister of defense, Amir Peretz, on Iron Dome. Mr. Peretz had spent most of his career as a labor organizer. As a civilian with little military experience, he had been an unlikely choice as defense minister. He hails from Sderot, a southern Israeli town that borders Gaza and has borne the brunt of Palestinian rocket fire.

[……..]

Instead of scaling back the program, Gen. Gold upped the ante. In November 2006, he “directed Rafael to begin full-scale development of the Iron Dome project when Rafael had no order to do so,” according to the Israeli comptroller’s audit report. “The directive was not under his authority,” the report concluded.

“I cannot say that the report is wrong,” said Yossi Drucker, who headed the team at Rafael overseeing the system’s development. “But if you want to achieve something in a very short time…you have sometimes to bypass the bureaucracy.”

The gamble paid off. In early 2007, Mr. Peretz threw his full ministerial weight behind the project, committing another $10 million in Ministry of Defense funds to keep Iron Dome alive. The government’s auditors later found he violated regulations by committing the funds without military or government approval for the project.

But if the government hoped to have enough Iron Dome batteries to provide meaningful protection against rockets, it would need more money than that. Israel’s Defense Ministry approached the U.S. administration of President George W. Bush with a request for hundreds of millions of dollars for the system. The reception at the Pentagon was frosty, according to current and former U.S. defense officials.

Mary Beth Long, the assistant secretary of defense who oversaw the Iron Dome review process, sent a team of U.S. military engineers to Israel to meet with the developers. After the trip, in a meeting in her office, the team voiced skepticism about the technology, citing poor performance in initial testing, Ms. Long said in an interview.

Rafael’s Mr. Drucker recalls an even harsher U.S. response. He said the U.S. team told them: “This is something that cannot be done.”

Some U.S. military officials argued that Israel should instead consider using a version of the U.S.’s Vulcan Phalanx system, which the Army was deploying in Iraq to try to shoot down incoming rockets, current and former defense officials say. Gen. Gold’s team had already considered and dismissed the Phalanx system.

[…….].

As it became clear that Israel was going to be spending hundreds of millions of dollars on rocket defense, the industry scrambled. Rafael’s rivals lobbied for their proposals to be reconsidered.

Israel’s government auditors began investigating the project and issued a report singling out Gen. Gold for launching a billion-dollar project without the necessary approvals. “Brig. Gen. Gold decided on the development of Iron Dome, determined the timetables and ordered predevelopment and full development before the relevant authorities had approved the project,” the report said.

But Iron Dome was making lightning progress. An all-star team of engineers assembled from across Israeli defense companies worked around the clock. Pensioners were called out of retirement. The contest to design the warhead for the interceptor missile pitted a 25-year-old woman, fresh out of university, against a 30-year veteran of Rafael.

And in 2009, during the first field test, an Iron Dome prototype successfully intercepted an incoming rocket.

Iron Dome got a significant boost soon after President Obama came to office in 2009. Mr. Obama visited Sderot as a presidential candidate and told his aides to find a way to help boost Israel’s defenses from the makeshift rockets, his aides said, although defense officials at the time still doubted Iron Dome was the way.

[……..]

In 2009, the peace process topped Mr. Obama’s foreign-policy agenda. But the administration’s call for a freeze in Jewish settlement growth badly strained ties with Israel’s right-wing prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Top Obama administration advisers saw supporting Iron Dome as a chance to shore up U.S.-Israel security relations and balance some of the political strains.

At the direction of a White House working group headed by then-National Security Council senior director Dan Shapiro (who today is the U.S. ambassador to Israel), the Pentagon sent a team of missile-defense experts to Israel in September 2009 to re-evaluate Iron Dome. The decision raised eyebrows in some Pentagon circles. Iron Dome was still seen as a rival to the Phalanx system, and previous assessment teams had deemed Iron Dome inferior.

In its final report, presented to the White House in October, the team declared Iron Dome a success, and in many respects, superior to Phalanx. Tests showed it was hitting 80% of the targets, up from the low teens in the earlier U.S. assessment. “They came in and basically said, ‘This looks much more promising…than our system,’ ” said Dennis Ross, who at the time was one of Mr. Obama’s top Middle East advisers.

That summer, Mr. Kahl’s office drafted a policy paper recommending that the administration support the Israeli request for roughly $200 million in Iron Dome funding.

Mr. Ross said the threat posed by Iran was also part of the calculation to invest in Iron Dome. By showing how seriously the U.S. took Israel’s security needs, the administration hoped Israel would “provide us the time and space to see if there was a diplomatic way out of the Iranian issue,” Mr. Ross said.

The system went operational in March 2011. It shot down its first Palestinian rocket on April 7. Within three days it had shot down eight more rockets. But it wasn’t until the recent Gaza flare-up that the system made its mark on the public consciousness.

[…….]

Read the rest – Israel’s Iron Dome Defense Battled to Get off Ground