Believe it or no, and despite the almost science fiction success, there is and always were strong opponents and arguments against Israels missile defense program.This is what they say – and do we agree?
Last Thursday Iranian Fajr Missiles were shot from Gaza to Tel-Aviv and were successfully intercepted by Iron Dome. There is a lot to praise over Israels missile defense, which is probably the most advanced in the world, because the missile threats it faces are the biggest and most various – In fact no country is more heavily protected from missile attacks than Israel.
The Israeli systems at present are the Arrow 2+3, David sling, Iron Beam which is in development (and which talked about in our previous post) and off course the Iron Dome which was the “lucky” one which saw action on Thursday. The attack itself was surreal and out of the blue because it was completely unexpected – normally when such things happen – in 2014 and 2012 – there was a serious deterioration of a few weeks before that so the attacks on Tel-Aviv were expected. The attack Thursday had NO deterioration before that and according to defense sources, is a product of an internal civil war which is going on in Gaza at present in which some parties are trying to drag Israel into it (although we won’t get into geopolitics in this publication).
A German tourist having a beer with Israelis completely baffled by the sirens and booms. The attack was completely unexpected.
Yet, believe it or, there is actually strong opposers, today and in the past, to Israels missile defense. Here is the argument, at least in regards to the missile attacks from Gaza.
By having this missile defense – Israel is using a band aid for broken leg. Israel is letting the problem go on instead of solving it for once and for all by either destroying Gaza or occupying it and ending COMPLETELY all missile attacks from there. Instead of solving the problem strategically, it is letting the problem go on low intensity tactically. It is effectively Forsaking a part of the country for the rest of the country – “so those spoiled liberals in Tel-Aviv can drink their latte quietly” – a charge you routinely hear o social media. The Missiles that get shot, mostly to the south, either get intercepted and destroyed in mid air or land in open terrain and no economic damage is done and most importantly no loss of life. But still damage is done – people get hurt psychologically and are scared, it hurts tourism – especially when there are periodic deterioration – and most of all it enhances its image as a dangerous place and hurts Israel in the long run.
In 2006 Israel didn’t have Iron dome, David’s sling or any of this missile defense (although it had arrow which ineffective for the missiles shot on Israel) and nor did anybody else in the world have a similar system, so it could not protect itself against Hezbollah rockets.
What did Israel do? Destroyed most of South Lebanon and completely destroyed entire neighborhoods in Beirut. The destruction was so bad Hezbollah didn’t dare attack Israel since then and Nasaralleh, their leader, has been hiding like a rat in a bunker ever since. Same as the allies in WW2 – It was total war all the way and destroyed Germany and put end to German aggression for once and for all and some might say it is same as the Russians did in Syria to ISIS. And that is basically what Israel would have done in Gaza if not for the missile defense – It would have invaded Gaza, completely occupying it, a few thousands of Gazans and a few hundreds of Israeli soldiers would have been killed but that would have put an end, for once and for all, to the missile problem called Gaza.
Critics claim is that the missile defense actually caused Israel fall into a sort of “comfort zone” by “allowing” occasional missile harassment to hit in what it perceives as a “backwater” part of the country – the south near the Gaza border, and as long they don’t go to far – like shooting too much, to other parts of Israel, or let alone Tel-Aviv itself – we are going to “tolerate” the shootings towards the south and here, frankly, the critics in this case are right – nobody deserves to live in this reality, where the southern “backwater” of Israel is effectively abandoned and repeatedly targeted and seen as “Fair game” by the rest of Israel.
The argument is that by creating and successfully using this missile defense and NOT going all the way and putting an end to these missile attacks, we are tired, we are weak, we don’t want to go all the way – and pay the price – to finally make life better for all us and get rid of the daily harassment from Gaza and are basically saying we are willing to tolerate a certain amount of violence as long as it does NOT do any real damage in property or loss of life. That it is behaving tactically and strategically. This is a charge that has been leveled against Netanyahu himself for a long time – that he is afraid of going all the way on a lot of issues – not only Gaza. And by not “solving” the problem it is only making it worse. Like putting a band aid on a broken leg.
The claim is NOT only against the Iron Dome missile or about the missile attacks from Gaza and not only against the tolerating a limited amount of attacks on Israel because of Iron dome offers and but also the perceived missile threat from Lebanon, Syria and Iran and the whole concept of missile defense in general. Back in the 90’s, when Israel started developing the Arrow missile, one of Israel’s leading defense analysts – Reuven Pehotzur from Haaretz – (along with a few other critics) was the leading critic in Israel of the missile defense program when Israel started to develop the Arrow missile and claimed it was a waste of money (and even could create economic bankruptcy), that the cost of one Arrow missile was super expensive vs the cost of one Scud missile ,didn’t close Israels skier hermetically and simply wasn’t a “solution” to the missile threat. He, and other critics , basically said lets invest in offense and deterrence and solve any problem STRATEGICALLY either with destruction of the other side or occupation of any place where missiles were shot from.
Here is our take and analysis on it:
There isn’t a cut dry and answer and some of the critics claims are partially correct. What is not correct, we know today, are the economic claims regarding “waste of money”. Most of the systems, or at least components of them -radars, command and control and etc, were already sold to foreign buyers (Part of the Iron dome to Britain to used in their Sky Sabre air defense system or the whole system to Romania and the Arrow “Green Pine” Radar to India, for example) with no doubt a lot more to be sold as the world is becoming more dangerous and unstable although whether the foreign sales covered all or some of the costs was not published. Also, the Claim that one Arrow missile, Iron Dome’s Tamir Missile, or any other missile defense missile costs a fortune vs the “dirt cheap” short range Qassem, Grad or fajer, or ballistic Scud or any other short/long ballistic missile is simply not the correct comparison – the correct comparison is how much economic damage is on the ground from the missiles landing, including the insurance costs for physical damage (without getting into the non economical costs of injuries and death). And in this case there is basically no comparison. But aside from that, Critics are basically right – missile defense does NOT close the skies hermetically, does NOT offer full protection against a full barrage of dozens and even hundreds of missiles at once and in general is NOT a strategic solution for somebody wanting to shoot missiles on you. There is a limit to how much batteries Israel can spread out and operate simultaneously.
What it does offer is more breathing space and tools in dealing with the threats Israel is facing whether from Gaza, Syria, Lebanon or Iran and without having to take drastic steps IMMEDIATELY to put an end to it NOW, which in turn will cost Israel (and for the other side also whomever it maybe – Gaza, Lebanon, Syria or whomever) a huge price. He best example is with Gaza – or more like a full fledged war and invasion and subsequent occupation of Gaza in the event Israel did not have missile defense. If Israel did a full invasion of Gaza hundreds and maybe thousands of Israeli soldiers would be killed (let alone thousands of the other side) – but Israel as a society is extremely sensitive to the lives of its soldiers, probably the most in the world (not the place to get into the sociological reasons why) and dead soldiers are perceived like dead civilians. In addition to causing death on both sides, it also cause economic and image damage for both sides. Tourism, for example gets wiped out almost immediately and take years for them to return back, after every mini war or operation. The missile defense allows Israel more time, before doing drastic steps like full invasion, and occupation and war (if any at all). If Israel didn’t have this missile defense it would have already invaded and occupied Gaza and Israel would have paid whatever price it would be. And the missile defense is the supposible cause for this – it allows Israel to tolerate a small nuisance and as long as what is perceives as a “backwater” part of the country and not pay a high price to finally put an end to it. At least regarding Gaza it is true that the missile defense did effectively eliminate the REAL threat of the missiles, however a small portion of southern Israel routinely has to deal with this and for them it is NOT a nuisance. Our take, at least regarding to Gaza, is that the missile defense offered does what it does well, and it effectively eliminated the missile threat from Gaza as a threat for human life or property damage. but there is only this much, even “nuisances”, Israel can tolerate, can take and allowing a whole region of the country for 17 years to live under occasional bombardments and air raid sirens is certainly NOT a solution and Israel should find some STRATEGIC solution, whether by invasion or some other permanent solution.
And Regarding claim that it is NOT a hermetic closure of the skies to protect against missiles – that is off course true. if Israel’s enemies, like in Syria, Lebanon or Iran decided to send their whole arsenal of missiles towards Israel at once – let alone if 1 or 2 of the missiles were tipped with a chemical or nuclear warhead – missile defense won’t be able to stop that ALL of them. Clearly the strategy CANNOT be only defensive but needs to a combination of both. And it is not. Despite Israel Missile defense, Israel seems to have NOT abandon its offensive capability and has the best offensive weapons you can ask, far better than before Israel was developed missile defense. So Israel did NOT abandon its offensive capabilities – to the contrary – it only strengthened them and it seems like it was NOT either or for Israel.
If in fact they sent a whole barrage of missiles towards Israel, missiles defense would knock out many, maybe even the most, but some would penetrate. But the other side needs to be know, and it does know, that it is suicidal for it to do that and for that you have Israel’s mighty air force, artillery, and its own thousands of missiles –ballistic, smart and cruise – (including is new missile ballistic and that will return Lebanon, Syria or Iran to the stone age if in fact they did that. However what it does offer is protection against asymmetric nuisance from those threats (like in the video with the ski above when the Iranians shot a missile form Syria to the Golan Heights) . if any terrorist organization wants to harass Israel by shooting a missile or a few missiles, the missile defense eliminates that as a threat and allows Israel to respond asymmetrically or limitedly without dragging itself to a quagmire. or if they decide to go on a full barrage defense will knock out the most, but it will have to be retaliated with full force.
Missile defense, as long as it doesn’t become a comfort zone like with Gaza, widens the option Israel has against against its enemies.
Israeli FirePower LTD. 