Israel deploys 'Star Wars' missile killer system

[mitty14u2]

Source: Reuters



Israel's upgraded ballistic missile shield became operational on Wednesday, in a "Star Wars"-like extension of its capabilities to outer space where incoming missiles can be safely destroyed.

The Defence Ministry said the U.S.-funded Arrow 3 system, jointly developed by state-owned Israel Aerospace Industries and U.S. firm Boeing Co. (BA.N), was handed over the Israeli Air Force.

The Arrow 3, together with the Arrow 2, which has been operational since 2000, would "significantly reduce the possibilities of ballistic missiles" hitting Israel, the ministry said in a statement.

The Arrow 2 is designed to intercept projectiles high and low within the atmosphere. Arrow 3 missiles will fly into space, where their warheads detach to become "kamikaze" satellites that track and slam into their targets.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-missiles-idUSKBN15229U

[tenorly]

1. Courtesy of the ever-generous U.S. taxpayer.

Who of course then gets nothing but insults and disrespect from Bibi.

Such a deal.

[leftynyc]

2. The technology for

Iron Dome (Israel) and the Patriot missile (US) came from Israel. The money came from the US. In return we get intelligence and technology. This has been going on since long before bibi was elected PM. Now how about asking what we get in return for the same amount of money going to Egypt that nobody here seems to give a crap about?

[NWCorona]

7. Umm, I care.

[Rex]

23. LOL!

Good call!

[DavidDvorkin]

11. The money going to Egypt never gets mentioned on DU.

[Igel]

16. It's assumed that the defense system doesn't work.

Therefore, having assumed the premise, it doesn't work.

Any evidence to the contrary is contradicted by the premise. Those who assert contrary evidence are deluded.

Oddly, this has involved basic research that's commonly called "science." But since it can't possibly work, this isn't considered science research.

I grew up around this. The space race was a boondoggle and all the money was stolen. We didn't actually go to the moon. Therefore, all the alleged results of research for the Moon missions weren't from that at all. Having declared this to be the case, there were then no benefits of any kind from the Moon missions, therefore who got all the money? My mother may have voted for Johnson twice, but she considered him a thief and a liar. But being her thief and liar, she was much better than any (R). Still a bit of a loon. Took months after she started having delusions to ponder that maybe she had dementia.

[lark]

3. Hmm, wonder if this works?

When we were trying to develop Star Wars missile interceptors, they failed every time, even when we knew the exact launch times. Is this just us selling BS to Israel, or do these actually work now?

[Lurks Often]

10. The technology wasn't up to it in the 1980's

"It's like trying to shoot down a bullet with another bullet" that is best analogy I have heard to describe the complexities in creating a working ballistic missile interceptor. It requires a lot more time and space to provide a definitive answer, but my overall impression is that the Navy and Army versions, each developed from successful existing anti-aircraft missile systems, work fairly well. The Air Force system, from what I have heard, it not as successful. However it's been a couple of years and I have not paid a lot of attention to the latest news.

[Igel]

17. Took years to develop fixed-wing aircraft.

Quite a while to develop helicopters.

Supersonic flight was a massive impossible boondoggle. Then it happened.

And we'd never put a man on the Moon. Some still believe that's the case.


I remember a friend working on the jitter-error correction system necessary for the first drone prototypes back in the late '70s. He said it was a tough problem and nobody would solve it. Mostly said by those who hadn't been able to solve it.

I can go and by the results of the research on that "unsolvable problem" for a few hundred dollars now. It's not 1979 any more.


Star-Wars had a political antipathy to it, fact-based opposition with a decided agenda: If Reagan was right, it would mean the zombie apocalypse was upon us, An MIT guy even said it was impossible, and everybody glommed onto what he said. He was wrong, mostly: Given the technology then, no, it wasn't possible. That was then, this is now. His agenda blinded him. His faith was in failure, and that's where all the facts ineluctably led.

It's not the early '80s anymore.


It's worth pointing out that those failures mostly weren't a problem. They weren't testing the entire system. It's a complex set of problems. You don't put it all together and expect it to work the first time. Most of the failures were testing components. Many "failures" were successes. Even actual failures gave information on how to fix the problem.

[guillaumeb]

4. Are they worried about North Korea?

More wasting money on the Israeli military by a thoroughly militarized state.

[LanternWaste]

5. I doubt NK is more than an e-blip on Tel Aviv's radar.

There are more than a handful of nations close-by which have never recognized Israel and/or do not engage in diplomatic relations that posses ballistic missile capable of reaching the region.

I doubt NK is more than an e-blip on Tel Aviv's radar.

[MosheFeingold]

8. Yeah 'cause preventing a nuclear holocaust is a waste of money

After all, it's just a bunch of Jews who will die.

(sarcasm, in case you missed it)

[guillaumeb]

12. Possessing nuclear weapons is more likely to lead to more instability.

And a nuclear exchange would be a disaster for the world.

[JudyM]

19. Not being able to defend would be the disaster.

[leftynyc]

26. Without the nukes

Israel would have ceased to exist long ago. Frankly, I've never seen even one post from you that would indicate you would have a problem with that.

[guillaumeb]

28. You start with pure speculation, and end with a huge assumption about my beliefs.

Please feel free to clip relevant citations from my posts to support your last assertion. In my view, responses such as yours are intended solely to shut down any debate about Israeli Government actions by immediately referencing the holocaust.

[leftynyc]

29. Oh please

No speculation needed when Israel's neighbors shriek to everyone that will listen that they will drive the Jews into the sea at any opportunity. Nobody mentioned the holocaust but you. Are you denying that from the day they declared their independence, their neighbors haven't been attacking them through words AND actual wars? You can't possibly be serious.

[guillaumeb]

33. You made a specific assertion, or insinuation if you will, about my posts.

And I asked you to provide any credible evidence for your insinuation/assertion. So absent any evidence on your part, I will take your answer as evidence that you have no actual proof.

[leftynyc]

37. Feel free to link to ANY

of your posts that indicate a desire for Israel to exist. That shouldn't be too hard, should it? All the proof I need for my assertion that Israel would be gone if not for the nukes is a history book - attacks since they day they declared independence and countries STILL calling them a cancer that must be removed from such a stellar neighborhood. Other than Egypt and Jordan, every other country is still in a state of war with Israel (from the hood).

[guillaumeb]

39. So I must prove that your assertion is false?

Nice try. You made an accusation and have not backed it up.

What happened in the area of Israel/Palestine has been the subject of endless debate. I can bring up Beit Hanina, and Deir Yassein, and Sabra, and Shatila, and a long list of Israeli atrocities, and you can bring up a long list of Palestinian atrocities. We are unlikely to convince each other of anything.

Israel was created and since that creation, there have been hostilities on both sides and an endless series of land grabs on the part of the Israeli State. Dose the land theft help the situation, or does it hurt?

And Palestinians have renounced the idea that Israel has no right to exist.

But all of this does not excuse or justify you stating that I do not want the Israeli State to even exist. It is in the best interest of both peoples that peace be achieved, but it can only be achieved in the context of two viable states, or one state where Israeli Arabs and Christians would have the same rights as Israeli Jews.

[leftynyc]

46. Back up and prove

you've never posted - even once - any indication that you think Israel has a right to exist? Prove a negative. Sounds like a republican argument to me. Instead I made it easy for you and asked for one measly link to prove me wrong and you obviously can't do that.

Do link me to where hamas has renounced the idea that Israel has a right to exist. That would be helpful since they are the elected leaders of the Palestinians in gaza. Yes, that's right - a terrorist organization is who they voted to lead them.

[guillaumeb]

50. You made an assertion. The burden of proof is on you.

Again, nice avoidance. Why not simply admit that you cannot prove your assertion?

[leftynyc]

53. Yawn

I gave an opinion of what I've seen from you. I don't have to prove a fucking thing. You aren't fooling me and it looks like you're fooling fewer people here every single day. That warms my heart.

[guillaumeb]

55. You made a claim. You obviously cannot support your claim.

Call it whatever makes you feel good, but I call it a baseless accusation.

[leftynyc]

57. Gee - so sorry an OPINION

such as this:

Frankly, I've never seen even one post from you that would indicate you would have a problem with that.

gets your knickers in a knot. Accusation, my ass. Go whine to someone else.

[JudyM]

31. Please reconsider what you just wrote. It is a racist objection to the poster's point.

[guillaumeb]

34. It has nothing to do with race. The poster wrote:

Israel would have ceased to exist long ago. Frankly, I've never seen even one post from you that would indicate you would have a problem with that.

The claim that Israel would have ceased to exist is a clear reference to genocide, which is what the holocaust was. And my response pointed out that this type of argument is intended, in my view, to shut down all debate and criticism of the Israeli State.

If you can find racism in that please point it out.

Plus, the poster added a reference to my supposed beliefs in the last sentence that cannot be supported by any of my posts. Did you notice that, and if you did, what would you call that type of tactic?

[JudyM]

35. Their desire to obliterate Israel is a well-documented fact that is a separate issue than

The Holocaust. The latter was perpetrated by a different people under different circumstances. To conflate the two as you did, in a jabbing way that minimizes the very real threat to the Jewish people, is a racist tactic. As if Jews are crying wolf. Really, if you don't believe this is racist, you might want to reconsider, is all I'll suggest.

[guillaumeb]

36. Your response seems to have ignored what I said.

I was basically accused of having no problem with the Israeli State ceasing to exist, a clear reference to genocide. Racism has nothing to do with my response.

And the threat to the Israeli State is, in the view of many people, exacerbated by the actions of the Israeli State toward the Palestinians. Are relations between Israel and Iran bad? Clearly they are.

The Palestinians have renounced the idea that Israel as a state should be eliminated, but that renunciation is often ignored. But when Israeli Government officials state that there will never be a Palestinian State that is generally ignored in the US. Why the double standard?

Plus I do resent the implication on the poster's part that I would have no problem if the Israeli State ceased to exist. An implication that cannot be supported by my actual posts.

[oberliner]

77. Iran has made some threatening remarks with respect to Israel

And they are interested in nuclear technology. And they are run by a far-right wing theocratic dictatorial regime.

They are among the 30 countries that do not recognize Israel's existence.

[guillaumeb]

81. No argument.

But adding weapons and capabilities on one side often leads to the other side adding the same weapons and capabilities. My actual original point that was buried under spurious accusations about my supposed real meaning.

[EX500rider]

92. Israel is worried about already existing Iranian ballistic missiles..

.....like Shahab-3, range 1,200m, range from Tel Aviv to Tehran? About 1,000m

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahab-3


But adding weapons and capabilities on one side often leads to the other side adding the same weapons and capabilities.

Iran is more then welcome to try and develop a modern multi-layered ABM defense with space based sensors and networked AESA radar/X Band/Lidar etc with boost, mid range and terminal missile defenses......good luck with that Iran.

[guillaumeb]

93. But Iran has no capability of nuclear weapons.

And Israel does. Thus the instability.

[oberliner]

95. If they did have such capability, you think things would be more stable?

Or less?

[guillaumeb]

99. If Israel withdrew to the 1967 borders, would things become more stable?

Or less?

[hack89]

108. Less

there are too many Arabs that don't want Israel to exist at all. They would view a Palestinian state as the perfect place to launch the final battle against Israel. It would certainly involve a bigger war between Hamas and Fatah as they fight for total control.

[guillaumeb]

111. So between the Arabs who resent the creation of an Israeli State,

and the Israelis in authority who obviously, and admittedly, have no intention of allowing any viable Palestinian State, the world community has a recipe for constant tension and instability.

[hack89]

113. I certainly don't see a solution

it would be one thing if the Palestinians (or any Arab country for that matter) showed any desire to embrace secular pluralistic democracy but given the cultures and dynamics in the region it is hard to see a peaceful solution.

[guillaumeb]

115. Well, one reason that there can be no peaceful solution is that one country,

with full US backing and support, is slowly dismembering another country. And the country being dismembered is understandably upset.

As to democracy, Israel is no true democracy except for its Jewish citizens. Israeli Arabs and Christians are less equal.

[hack89]

119. There is plenty of blame to go around nt

Last edited Thu Jan 26, 2017, 08:20 AM - Edit history (1)

[oberliner]

120. They would become less stable, for sure

If Israel withdrew to the 1967 borders, there is no question that the result would be a spike in violence from extremist groups, both Palestinian and Israeli. Similar to what happened when the Oslo Accords were signed, but with even more violence and upheaval both within Israel and across the region.

Edit to add: Did you have any response to my question about potential nuclear weapons proliferation in Iran?

[guillaumeb]

123. Nuclear proliferation 101:

Which Middle East States currently possess nuclear weapons?

The answer, as we both know, is that Israel is the only state in that area that has nuclear weapons. And with the development of a so-called shield, Israel could be free to use those weapons with no fear of retaliation by surrounding states.

And it is this one-sided capability that could spur surrounding states to also acquire nuclear capabilities.

[oberliner]

126. Which country in North and South America possesses nuclear weapons?

There is only one - the United States.

Would you support the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries in the hemisphere?

[guillaumeb]

129. Which country is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons?

And not once, but twice?

So should the US, Israel and every other nuclear weapon state support an immediate ban on possession?

[oberliner]

132. USA, of course

There is definitely some hypocrisy there.

My view is that nuclear proliferation is bad and that it is not a good idea for more countries to acquire nuclear weapons.

Is that not your view as well?

[guillaumeb]

135. We are in agreement on that, and much else regarding the

Middle East. Having read many of your posts, I will say that you are among the few posters in the I/P group that I personally feel are reasonable and aware. But the US decided long ago that, in the interest of realpolitik, absolute support for the Israeli Government is deemed essential.

[oberliner]

140. Yes, we have a good deal of agreement on many points

Along with some sharp disagreements. But I always enjoy these back-and-forths and appreciate you taking the time to consider the information I present. In terms of the US supporting Israel, I think there are a variety of complex reasons for this. But I would argue that there are some similarly shady motives behind certain countries that oppose Israel so vehemently.

[guillaumeb]

142. Agreed, power politics is one reason that Iran and the US support

different sides. Iran wishes to exert regional influence while the US feels that the entire globe should be run by the US. My feeling is that the US uses Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and is in turn used to a degree by them.

[Scurrilous]

6. How well does it work against a flying rain gutter?

[MosheFeingold]

9. Iron dome

targets the mortars and little rockets.

As you know, these humble-looking rockets are used by the Arabs to attack soft civilian targets, randomly raining down hell on such evil places as . . . . elementary schools.

[guillaumeb]

13. And how many casualties have these weapons acused?

Compared, let us say, to the casualties inflicted on civilians by the IDF?

[Devil Child]

14. Since 2001

33 killed and at least 1971 injured by Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks on Israel.

Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks remain a real threat to any Israeli in range.

[guillaumeb]

15. You omitted 1/2 of the question.

I also asked about civilian casualties of IDF violence. So allow me to give a more complete answer:

This chart shows how many Palestinians have been killed by Israelis (red bar) and how many Israelis have been killed by Palestinians (blue bar) each year since the Second Intifada began on September 28, 2000. In total, at least 9,454 Palestinians and 1,211 Israelis have been killed.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stat/deaths.html

And on these numbers,

The numbers also do not include the sizable number of Palestinians who died as a result of inability to reach medical care due to Israeli road closures, curfews, the Israeli closure of border crossing from Gaza, etc.
The figure for Palestinian deaths is extremely conservative, since it is difficult for B'Tselem to report on deaths in the Palestinian territories. The Palestine Red Crescent Society, internationally respected for its statistical rigor, reports significantly higher numbers of Palestinian deaths. We do not doubt the reliability of their data, and only use B'Tselem's more conservative numbers because they collect data on both populations.

[DavidDvorkin]

18. How is this relevant to Israel defending its citizenry against attacks?

You seem to be implying that because the death toll is disproportionate and Israel's defensive measures are effective, therefore they shouldn't take any more defensive measures.

[JudyM]

20. Israelis should stop defending themselves altogether until the numbers are in balance.

I believe that would suit some people just fine.

[DavidDvorkin]

22. Apparently so.

[leftynyc]

30. They couldn't make it more obvious

if they tried. Sickening.

[Bradical79]

24. More like their defensive measures aren't actually defensive -nt

[DavidDvorkin]

25. The system described in the article is.

[guillaumeb]

27. Defining all Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians as "defensive measures"

is an interesting exercise in logic.

[DavidDvorkin]

41. What does that have to with the system described in the article?

[guillaumeb]

42. The system described is called defensive, yet it will

undoubtedly lead to increased militarization of an already over-militarized region. Other countries will feel compelled to develop counter measures and nothing will be achieved.

Calling it defensive is an exercise in public relations.

[DavidDvorkin]

43. That's an argument against any defense at all by Israel of its own population

That's utter nonsense.

[guillaumeb]

44. Not at all.

Israel has a military, and police forces. But history shows that when weapons and systems are developed, countermeasures soon follow.

If any country developed an effective anti-ballistic missile system, that country could, (please note the use of the conditional), that country could decide that this system would allow it to attack another country with no fear of retaliation.

George W. Bush called the Iraq war an exercise in pre-emptive self-defense. Do you agree with that characterization?

[Marengo]

45. What defensive measures by Isreal would be acceptable to you?

[guillaumeb]

48. Too open ended of a question.

Is the Israeli separation wall, a wall built on Palestinian land, acceptable to you?

Are Israeli only roads that link Israeli only settlements, both built on Palestinian land, acceptable to you?

The Israeli Government has fenced off and blockaded Gaza, controlling all access in and out. Is that acceptable to you?

[Marengo]

51. In your opinion, what action(s) should Israel take to stop the rocket attacks?

[guillaumeb]

52. Recognize that the current situation is untenable,

and recognize that both sides must work together.

And further recognize that there are only two choices:

1) A single state where Jews, Christians, and Arabs enjoy equal rights and opportunities, or

2) Two viable, contiguous states where each has control over their own borders and security.

And you?

[Marengo]

54. Will all of the factions behind these attacks accept this solution and cease firing rockets?

[guillaumeb]

56. Unanswerable. Will every armed Israeli settler accept what might be negotiated?

Even if it meant abandoning the illegal settlements?


And I ask again, I gave my suggestions. Your comments or thoughts?

[Marengo]

59. In your opinion, what is the likelihood the rocket attacks would cease?

[guillaumeb]

62. Asked and answered.

[Marengo]

64. No, you evaded. Do you expect me to believe you have no opinion?

[guillaumeb]

66. You asked me a hypothetical, and i noted the impossibility of answering.

And you have, so far, evaded all of my questions.

[Marengo]

68. An opinion, which is what I am asking for, is not impossible to form as you well know. Your...

Continued evasion is suspect.

[guillaumeb]

70. Is your evasion also suspect?

Evidence of bias perhaps on your part?

[Marengo]

79. If your questions were anything other than an obvious diversionary tactic, I might reply.

But they aren't, so I won't. Now, if you were to reply to post #s 54 & 60 in the manner I have requested as I know you are capable of, I might reconsider.

[guillaumeb]

82. You are actually the one who sidetracked the discussion,

and ignored or did not read my actual responses.

[Marengo]

84. In your opinion, what is the likelihood the rocket attacks would cease?

[guillaumeb]

86. There are two sides to this problem.

In your opinion, if Israel had actually returned control of the West bank to the Palestinians and invited in UN peacekeepers, would the history have been different?

I do not expect an answer, but far too often the issue is simplified to a narrative of evil Palestinians and Israelis who are merely defending themselves.

[guillaumeb]

100. The so-called rocket attacks are more of a psychological weapon than an actual

military weapon.

Nice ignoring of all of my questions, by the way.

Do the questions make you uncomfortable?
Do they challenge your view of the situation?
Do they challenge your preferred narrative?

[Marengo]

104. "So-called rocket attacks", eh? That is VERY revealing, and what it reveals is VERY unflattering....

At best.

[guillaumeb]

106. You win the prize for avoidance.

Easy to see for those reading this exchange.

Do you have a problem with dialogue?

[Marengo]

109. "So-called", eh? Are rockets not launched? Have civilians not been killed?

[leftynyc]

96. Israel has ALREADY tried that

with their withdrawal from Gaza. And what did they get for forcing the settlers out of gaza? Nothing other than more rockets, more threats, more violence. Tell me, why the fuck should they believe ANYTHING coming from the Palestinians about getting peace if they withdraw from settlements when - not in theory, in ACTUAL HISTORY - they achieved absolutely nothing of the kind?

[guillaumeb]

112. Nice try.

Gaza is an open air prison, with mainly Israeli jailers controlling access.

And Palestine is slowly being dismembered so that Israel's right wing can achieve their openly stated aim of a greater Israel.

I understand this narrative that you are posting, but it is contrary to actual history.

[leftynyc]

116. They share a border with Egypt

Let them take their chances with hamas. Anything built can be unbuilt. You don't want to face the fact that the Palestinians are victims of the leaders THEY elected, that they chose to go to war the very day they were offered a state they have NO chance of seeing again (size wise) and have NEVER stopped fighting that war. Unlike you, I don't think this deserves infinite do-overs until they get it right. They've been fucking up their own lives for 70 years.

[guillaumeb]

117. The Israeli State has been stealing Palestinian land for 70 years.

Easily verifiable history, assuming that one wishes to verify it.

There are numerous sites that show graphically how Palestine is slowly disappearing as the Israeli State expands.

And numerous Israeli politicians have admitted that they have no intention of ever allowing a Palestinian State.

But again, your preferred narrative obviously fits with your worldview.

[leftynyc]

118. BULLSHIT

The Israelis ACCEPTED the state offered to them in 1947 - and then what happened? You think that should be to CONTINUALLY IGNORED when the actions of the Palestinians are a FAR larger reason of why they don't have their state. One war after another with terrorism in between. You want them to be rewarded for that. I don't. You don't reward terrorism. Ever.

[guillaumeb]

122. Your narrative here has nothing to do with anything except your narrative.

You cannot refute the fact that the Israeli State is slowly stealing all of Palestine so you ignore it.

You cannot refute that many Israeli politicians have stated that there will never be a Palestinian State so you ignore that also.

As I said, your narrative obviously appeals to you and all facts to the contrary will be dismissed.

[leftynyc]

127. If you would just once admit

that 1. The Palestinians were offered a state and decided to go to war instead, 2. the Palestinians have been let down by their corrupt and terrorist leaders time and time again, 3. that those same leaders continue to tell the Palestinians they can get ALL the land if they just would commit enough terrorism (while they steal all the aid money to build tunnels instead of schools and hospitals) and 4, that you obviously think they deserve continual do-overs, then we can have a conversation. Once you admit YOUR narrative is that Israel is to blame for all the Palestinian trouble, then you'd be finally telling the truth.

[guillaumeb]

130. So you want me to replace actual history with your carefully crafted narrative?

As I said, your narrative obviously fulfills your need.

[leftynyc]

131. Are you seriously denying

1. The Palestinians were offered a state (the size of which they have ZERO chance of ever seeing again) in 1947 and went to war instead - HISTORY

2. That the Palestinian leaders - from Arafat on down have continually let down their own people by not only throwing candy and parades for terrorists but also tell them they can just wait out the Israelis?

3. That terrorist hamas - their ELECTED LEADERS is STILL committing terrorism, stealing aid money to build tunnels instead of hospitals, still teaching that Jews (not just Israeli's ALL JEWS) are monkeys and apes - not learning just in school, but portrayed that way on hamas tv?

4. That you believe they deserve continual do-overs until they get it right even after what the withdrawal from gaza has proved giving up settlements - actually going in and throwing out the settlers brought anything but more violence.

You can support the Palestinians and still see history for what it is. Until you do, we've got nothing to discuss.

[guillaumeb]

134. And are you seriously denying that more than one Israeli Government

has stolen Palestinian land?

Are you denying that the continued land theft is a violation of International Law?

Are you ignoring the fact that Netanyahu, and other Israeli politicians before him have stated that they have no intention of allowing any Palestinian State?

[leftynyc]

137. So you're not going to answer

my questions. We're done.

[guillaumeb]

138. You are firmly set in your opinion.

I answer only to counter your narrative of one side being the pure victim and the other being the pure villain.

[oberliner]

78. Gaza has a border with Egypt

So Israel could not fence off and blockade Gaza since there is a border that Israel does not control. Also, Gaza is run by a terrorist organization responsible for numerous murders of Israeli civilians over the past few decades, so it makes sense to keep the border tight between Gaza and Israel.

Most of the West Bank is completely off limits to Israelis. It is illegal for Israelis to even set foot in the majority of the places where Palestinians live. There are separate roads for Israeli citizens who travel to the settlements, but these are open to Palestinian citizens of Israel as well.

The Israeli West Bank barrier has led to a signifiant decrease in terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians since its construction began. In the year 2001, for example, there were several terrorist attacks conducted against Israeli citizens each month such as this one:

Dolphinarium discotheque massacre

The Dolphinarium discotheque massacre was a Hamas terrorism attack on 1 June 2001 in which a Hamas-affiliated Islamist terrorist blew himself up outside a nightclub in Tel Aviv, Israel, killing 21 Israelis, 16 of them teenagers

[guillaumeb]

87. Egypt and Israel cooperate in controlling Gaza.

And all of the West bank is controlled by the Israeli military. As you admit, there are Israeli only illegal settlements in Palestine, and Israeli only roads connecting these illegal settlements.

And in the interest of truth, the separation wall is actually built on Palestinian land.

As to terrorist organizations, how do you think the Palestinians under Israeli military control view the IDF? My guess is that these Palestinians view the IDF as a terrorist organization.

Finally, we can trade massacres starting prior to 1948 on the (now) Israeli side, but what is the point?

[oberliner]

89. Egypt is an independent country

If they choose to open the border with Gaza, they are free to do so and there is nothing Israel could do about it.

It is not true that all of the West Bank is controlled by the Israeli military. Area A is under Palestinian civilian and security control. This is the area where the majority of Palestinians live. The IDF can only enter under special circumstances, such as arresting militants. This is generally done with the cooperation of the Palestinian authorities. My view is that there should be two independent states living side by side at peace with one another, and the IDF should not have the presence it currently does.

The separation wall/fence does cut into the West Bank by several miles in places, but it mostly hews close to the Green Line. I do not find this to be acceptable, but there is an argument that can be made with respect to it being effective in preventing terrorist attacks.

Palestinians do generally view the IDF as a terrorist organization. That doesn't make it one.

I am not interested in "trading massacres" - my only point in bringing up the mass murder of Israeli teenagers at a dance club in 2001 was to provide an example of the sorts of attacks against Israeli civilians that occurred with regularity particularly in the years just prior to the separation barrier being constructed.

[guillaumeb]

91. For all of your attempts to qualify and "explain",

the unavoidable fact is that the IDF is the arm of the Israeli Government that is controlling all of Palestine and Gaza. And all of these apartheid type settlements are built on another state's land. And that state is Palestine.

And successive Israeli governments have refused to allow a two viable state solution. The only solution offered has been a series of disconnected and walled off bantustans that would be policed and controlled by the IDF. And the Israelis would have the only military force in that supposed two state solution.

As to the why of massacres, we are not going to solve that debate, but the fact is that Israel is stealing and illegally occupying Palestinian land, not the opposite. Could the decades long occupation and land theft have anything to do with Palestinians being frustrated?

[oberliner]

94. Fair enough

Just to be clear, I was not making any comment on the "why" of massacres. I was just making the point that there were a lot of them happening prior to the barrier being built and fewer since. There was a wave of violence against Israeli civilians during the 2000-2002 period, and the barrier was a response to that violence. There were 70+ suicide bombings over that period and that number has lowered substantially since then.

[guillaumeb]

102. And there is still no solution in sight,

and the current Israeli Government, like all the previous Governments, has zero intention of allowing a viable two state solution.

The Israelis have solved the smallest of their problems while allowing the underlying causes to continue. And Netanyahu's latest announcement of even more settlement activity is clear evidence to all but the deliberately blind of his real intentions.

[oberliner]

121. Unfortunately

The current Israeli government is as you describe them - though your characterization of past Israeli governments is not accurate.

I would also point out that preventing terrorist attacks against civilians is not what Israel (or any other country) would consider the smallest of their problems. In fact, pretty much every country considers that the most important role of government (keepings its citizens from getting blown up).

Netanyahu's settlement expansion approvals does make it clear that he has no interest in the two-state solution, sadly. I hope he gets voted out of office soon.

[guillaumeb]

124. Even if Netanyahu were to lose a majority, is that any reason to think

that a successor governing coalition would reverse course on a 50 year policy of constant expansion via land theft? I have no such feelings.

As to your point about past Israeli Governments:
Moishe Dayan:

Early 1970's: "We
have no solution… You [Palestinians] shall continue to live like
dogs, and whoever wishes may leave, and we will see where this process
leads."

Rafael Eitan:
May 3, 1983:"When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged roaches in a bottle."

Dov Weisglass:
October 8, 2004:
"The significance of the [Gaza Strip disengagement] plan is the freezing of the peace process," Dov Weisglass told Haaretz newspaper, adding the US had given its backing. …"

I could continue, but I feel my point is made that the unwritten but official policy of numerous Israeli Governments is that there will never be a Palestinian State.

Edited to add:
Allow me to add one more quotation from Yitzhak Laor, an Israeli poet:

Israel is engaged in a long war of annihilation against Palestinian society. The objective is to destroy the Palestinian nation and drive it back into pre-modern groupings based on the tribe, the clan and the enclave. This is the last phase of the Zionist colonial mission, culminating in inaccessible townships, camps, villages, districts, all of them to be walled or fenced off, and patrolled by a powerful army which, in the absence of a proper military objective, is really an over-equipped police force, with F16s, Apaches, tanks, artillery, commando units and hi-tech surveillance at its disposal.

[oberliner]

125. Using quotes

I enter negotiations with Chairman Arafat, the leader of the PLO, the representative of the Palestinian people, with the purpose to have coexistence between our two entities, Israel as a Jewish state and Palestinian state, entity, next to us, living in peace.

-Yitzhak Rabin, former Israeli PM, April 2002

A solution of two national states - a Jewish state, Israel; an Arab state, Palestine. The Palestinians are our closest neighbors. I believe they may become our closest friends.

-Shimon Peres, former Israeli PM, January 2012

One can find quotes to promote whatever narrative one chooses to promote. Of course there are extremists and right-wingers who have said extreme right-wing things over the years, but there have always been leaders who espoused peace. One could do that with quotes from US leaders as well - or the leaders of almost any country in the world.

[guillaumeb]

128. Yes we can trade quotes, but history supports my version.

Israeli Governments since 1967 have been illegally seizing and settling Palestinian land. And making of Palestine a number of disconnected, walled off bantustans. So nice sounding rhetoric is window dressing to disguise the actual policies and the actual history.

[oberliner]

133. It does not

Since 1967, Israel has given up more land than it has seized.

You are no doubt aware that after 1967, this is the land that Israel controlled:



The totality of the Sinai Peninsula was withdrawn from by Israel as part of the peace treaty with Egypt in 1979.

A peace treaty, I might add, that led to the assassination, by his own people, of the Egyptian leader who signed the treaty.

I would also remind you that in the period between 1948 and 1967, the West Bank was occupied by Jordan and no attempt was made to allow for the establishment of a Palestinian state there (which would have included the entire West Bank and all of East Jerusalem).

In fact, the only time in history that the Palestinians were given any kind of actual autonomy was with the signing of the Oslo Agreement. Prior to that, they had always been occupied by other foreign powers.

[guillaumeb]

136. An interesting example of visual and verbal semantics on your part.

Given that most of the land depicted was land illegally seized and held, the fact that Israel gave back some of the stolen land is meaningless.

An equivalent would be me stealing one million dollars from a person, and then voluntarily giving back $900,000. Would you praise me for relinquishing the $900,000, or would you correctly demand that I return all of the stolen money?

And Israel has kept what is often called "greater Israel", citing Biblical promises as justification.

[oberliner]

139. Take the time to consider the following points

1. The West Bank (including East Jerusalem which includes the Jewish Quarter of the Old City where Jews had lived for hundreds of years) was occupied by Jordan in 1948.

2. Jerusalem is the city that is central to Judaism in much the same way that Mecca is central to Islam.

3. Under Jordanian occupation, Jews were not permitted to set foot in the Jewish Quarter - or visit any of the religious holy sites located there. They were evicted and banished from their homes, and their places of worship were desecrated and destroyed by the Jordanian forces.

4. At this point in time, none of Israel's neighbors recognized it as a country and all were committed to its destruction (and made statements to that effect repeatedly).

5. While Jordan occupied the West Bank, they made no effort whatsoever to establish a Palestinian state there, nor was there even any serious movement among Palestinians to do so.

6. At this time, the Gaza Strip was occupied by Egypt, and, similarly, Egypt did not extend any sort of autonomy to the Palestinians it was occupying.

7. After the 1967 war, Israel seized Gaza from Egypt and the West Bank from Jordan. Most Israelis viewed the latter as the liberation of Jerusalem, the holiest city in Judaism, from the unjust rule of the Jordanians. This is celebrated as Jerusalem Day. Jews were finally permitted back to their ancestral homeland and allowed to worship in centuries old synagogues and pray at the Western Wall.

8. Also after the war, Jews living in countries around the region were expelled. Synagogues across Lebanon, Tunisia, and Morocco were burned and Jews living in those countries were attacked - many at this time moved to Israel as a result of this.

9. In the weeks following the war, Israel offered to return the land it seized during the war to Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in exchange for a peace agreement. They were turned down (See the Khartoum Summit).

10. The first and only time in history that Palestinians were given any independence or autonomy was as a result of the Oslo Accords, the signing of which resulted in a wave of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians by several different Palestinian organizations.

As I have said in our exchanges, I respect your viewpoints and am well aware of the many injustices that Palestinians have faced at the hands of Israelis. I wish you would similarly be able to accept some of these other points that I have raised as well.

[guillaumeb]

143. I would not deny the history that has taken place in that area.

But it seems to me that the Arabs resented, and some still resent, the imposition of a state in their midst. An imposition that came from the same colonial powers that had dominated that region for many years. The same colonial powers that drew national boundaries with no respect for tribal, linguistic, or religious differences.

From my reading of history, I see the Europeans deciding to establish a Jewish state as partial atonement for allowing the holocaust in the first place. And given that there has been a Jewish State for over 70 years, obvious accommodation must be made. The Israeli State is a legitimate actor with legitimate concerns. But those concerns cannot be allowed to override the ability of the Palestinians to establish and defend their own viable state.

As to the 1967 war, that was actually started by Israel. The Israelis claimed that it was a pre-emptive self-defense. True or not, it did happen, and Israel seized land from Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. Israel still occupies the land stolen from Syria, and has in fact settled much of Palestine.

And more than one Israeli politician has expressed the idea that there will never be a Palestinian State.

The obvious problem is how does the International Community solve a problem like this? Is the solution an imposed peace, with UN peacekeepers separating the two sides? If so, who would force a nuclear armed Israel to comply? I know that the BDS movement was a large factor in isolating South Africa.

I do not pretend to have the answer, but one would think that 70 years of mutual slaughter and terror would be enough to convince both sides to stop.

[oberliner]

144. You make some very good points

But you have some of your historical information wrong. For instance, the decision to establish a Jewish state predates the Holocaust. With regard to the 1967 war, it is interesting that you write that Israel seized land from Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, but you don't mention Jordan. Are you saying that the land seized from Jordan was actually seized from Palestine? What are you defining as Palestine, Israel and Jordan at that time? I agree that many Israeli politicians have expressed the idea that there will never be a Palestinian State, but many have expressed the opposite idea. In terms of the International Community, I would suggest that they keep promoting things like the Geneva Initiative which is really the only way forward in my view.

[guillaumeb]

145. No matter what the world decides, or does not decide, the problem

remains of how to force something on two sides.

The advantage of the BDS tactic was that it isolated the South African State. If Israel were to be isolated and financially penalized the economic consequences would act as a huge incentive to sit down and actually deal with the UN.

And I am aware of Sykes-Picot and the Zionist Movement but I was not trying to make a thesis out of my response so I condensed.

[oberliner]

146. Clinton almost pulled it off

I think he had the right idea. Get the leadership of both sides to sit down and keep shuttling back and forth between them until a deal is brokered. Having read Bill Clinton's autobiography, it seems like they were actually pretty close to making it work.

[guillaumeb]

147. Agreed. But I fear that Trump will be seen by Netanyahu

as someone who can be manipulated. And Trump will be seen as a tool by the Palestinians. And every year more innocent lives will be lost on both sides and that loss of life will lead to more hatred.

[oberliner]

148. Maybe Merkel could serve that role

Trump being POTUS makes everything worse, that's for sure. And the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships are also less than ideal.

I think one of the problems with the BDS movement is that there is no clear goal. Different people have different ideas about what it is all about and what conditions would constitute a solution. The founder of the movement, for example, supports a one-state solution. There is also language on the BDS website that is quite extreme.

For example, Israel could remove all settlements and withdraw completely to the 1967 line and that would not satisfy the conditions indicated on the BDS website.

I think there needs to be more energy around the Geneva Initiative instead which actually presents a solution that is reasonable and that asks for compromise from both sides.

[guillaumeb]

149. The details of any agreement are important.

If Angela Merkel was willing to serve as moderator it would still depend on both sides being willing to work together. I do not see the current Israeli Government being willing to concede any land.

And I was not suggesting that the leaders of the BDS movement in any way be involved in negotiations. My only point was that economic pressure might do what world opinion and International Law have failed to do.

[Marengo]

98. Do you think Islamic Jihad would accept the two state solution?

[guillaumeb]

103. You have posed many questions and answered none.

A revealing and obvious tactic.

[Marengo]

105. A yes or no answer to the question in post #98, please.

[guillaumeb]

107. World class avoidance on your part.

An endless series of questions coupled with a refusal to engage in actual dialogue.

Does this make you feel as if you are winning some sort of contest?

[Marengo]

110. In you opinion, would Islamic Jihad accept the two state solution and cease artillery operations?

[guillaumeb]

114. The answer to my posed question is obviously, yes, you will continue to avoid.

I do think you hit nearly every one of the popular memes about besieged peaceful Israel and the obstinate Palestinians.

[Marengo]

141. In your opinion, with a yes or no answer, do you believe Islamic Jihad would accept the two state...

Solution and cease bombardment of Israeli targets?

[DavidDvorkin]

58. Are you comparing defending against incoming rockets to Bush's invasion of Iraq?

That's absurd.

[guillaumeb]

61. I believe you are reading only what you want to see here.

And that is your right.

[EX500rider]

150. "when weapons and systems are developed, countermeasures soon follow"

Yes, that is why after Iran developed IRBM's capable of reaching all of Israel (and with GPS guidance many likely to land a ton of HE on target) Israel developed countermeasures. A multi-layered networked ABM system. Purely defensive.

[guillaumeb]

152. Except of course for the fact that Iran has no nuclear weapon capability.

And Israel had nuclear weapons prior to Iran developing its weapons. So the Israeli nuclear threat might have prompted Iran to develop its own offensive weapons.

Nice rationalization on your part, but it ignores that Israel has nuclear weapons.

[EX500rider]

153. No, Iran developing long range missiles is not in response to Israel unless..

.....Iran builds nukes also. Nobody sane fires conventional long range munitions at a nuclear armed opponent.
Of course Iran has been found to be working several times on nuclear R&D.
So Israel is looking forward to Mullahs with their finger on the nuclear button, of course they see a robust ABM system as a national survival necessity.

[guillaumeb]

154. Your first sentence removes all reason for Israel to develop this weapon.

And again, Iran has no nuclear weapons, and is not developing them.

[EX500rider]

156. Actually Iran was long under sanctions for working on developing them..

.....and nobody puts 12,000 centrifuges in carved out chambers in the middle of a mountain for purely peaceful research.
They have been caught working on all aspects of a nuclear missile program, long range launchers, nose cones, uranium enrichment etc... Also possibility of Iran buying nukes from N Korea or Pakistan etc.
And Israel has more then Iran to worry about when it comes to missile defense, Hezbollah in Lebanon has been stockpiling missiles in all sizes for awhile now.

In 1970, Iran ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),making its nuclear program subject to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verification.

[guillaumeb]

157. And Iran is not working to acquire nuclear weapons.

Israel has them. And now, with the construction of this shield, Israel could use these weapons with even less worry of a response.

So explain how this defensive weapon does not further destabilize the region.

[Marengo]

38. In your opinion, are these rocket attacks justifiable? Closed question, yes or no.

[guillaumeb]

40. Easy one to answer.

No attacks on civilian populations are legal or justifiable.

[Marengo]

47. That being the case, is Israel's ballistic missile defense system justifiable?

[guillaumeb]

49. See #44 or #32 for an answer.

[Marengo]

60. Yes or no, is the ballistic missile defense system justifiable?

[guillaumeb]

63. Still waiting for you to answer my questions.

Or to read what I suggested.

[Marengo]

65. Yes or no, is the ballistic missle defense system justifiable?

[guillaumeb]

67. See #63

[Marengo]

69. Why can't you answer in the manner I have requested?

[guillaumeb]

71. I already answered. But my answer apparently does

not conform to your requirements.

And you have refused to answer.

[Marengo]

80. You are well aware it does not, as I have repeatedly told you. Being well aware as I know you are...

May I assume that doing so would compromise your position?

[guillaumeb]

83. I would say that you and a few other posters assume far too much.

And try to find hidden meanings to support your assumptions.

[Marengo]

85. Yes or no, is the ballistic missile defense system justifiable? Answer and I won't be compelled to..

Assume.

[guillaumeb]

88. It is a militarization that will inspire similar militarization by the other parties.

Obviously the Israeli Government feels it is justified, as did Reagan when speaking about his missile shield fantasy.

[Marengo]

97. Again with the diversion. I didn't ask what you thought of the Israeli government's position...

I asked whether or not YOU believe it's justified. Closed question, yes or no?

[guillaumeb]

101. Start replying to my questions for a change.

Instead of ignoring what you obviously refuse to consider.

[Fast Walker 52]

32. while at first glance, such technology seems good, it is actually very destabilizing

having an effective ballistic anti-missile system will tempt people to use nukes or to try a first strike before these systems are completely developed.

[MosheFeingold]

72. Given Israel has nukes

By your logic, it would have turned Iran to glass already.

In reality, Israel is mostly pretty good people and, while I am not crazy about Israel's leaders, they are sane and love their grandkids.

Iran's leaders, in contrast, are unstable members of the 12er cult, a Westboro-Baptist style offshoot of Islam, that is bat shit crazy. They WANT to start Armageddon and bring their magic iman out of a well.

That's a material difference, and why Israel developed this system.

[Fast Walker 52]

75. sorry-- I meant if the US was planning on using these

obviously it is a bit different for Israel

[Devil Child]

73. At first glance, such technology seems good because it is good

Israel has smartly developed a multi-layered system of defense targeting threats ranging from intercontinental ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, aircraft, and all the way down to rocket artillery or mortars. This defensive network is provided by Arrow 3, Arrow 2, David's Sling, Iron Dome, Patriot and others. Considering that Israel is under active threat of missile/rocket/mortar attack from Palestinian militants, Hezbollah, and Iran the development of these defenses are prudent. Israel has every right to fully develop their defensive capabilities to counter nations and groups who seek their destruction.

Simple fact of the matter is Israel would have no need for these systems if Palestinian militants and Hezbollah ceased all attacks.

[Fast Walker 52]

74. sorry, I meant if the US deployed such systems, with our nuclear arsenal vs Russia nukes

[Devil Child]

76. No apology necessary

I agree that US deploying anti-ballistic systems targeting Russia's strategic weapons would be very problematic and potentially destabilizing. That is a whole other can of worms that I fear Trump's administration will not possess the ability to manage.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

90. With ABM technology being over 30 years old...

...why would you infer that we don't already have one?

[EX500rider]

151. Indeed, with AEGIS, GBI's, Thaad and Patriot the US has boost, mid-course and terminal covered.

Assuming you have some AEGIS destroyers close enough to N Korea to target on launch during boost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_national_missile_defense

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

155. "Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity'...

...in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men."