Iron Dome & The Siege

Earlier this month, kids in Southern Israel received a never-before seen fireworks show. Hamas-deployed over 100 rockets and mortars over Israel’s entire southern region. To counter the attack, Israel decided to employ its much-anticipated anti-missile defense, which destroyed more then 10 of these rockets. The “Iron Dome” system, as it is called, is being hailed as a success. In reality, it represents a total failure of vision and erodes the concept of deterrence for the State of Israel. Now, the barometer for success is measured, not by Israel’s abilities to deter rockets, but by their ability to blow them out of the sky.

The deployment of the Iron-Dome illustrates an entrenched political weakness engulfing Israel today. On a tactical level, it cannot be denied that the Iron Dome represents a revolution in modern warfare. Since the early 1990’s an estimated $10 billion will have been allocated to anti-missile programs and with a cost of over $50,000 per Iron Dome missile the cost will continue to rise. The long-term investment gives the Iron Dome system more of a “golden dome” sheen. And though the Iron Dome may represent a new layer of defense, it in no way brings Israel closer to destroying Hamas. Herein lies the political weakness that the Iron-Dome exposes.

The technology employed and military imagery used by warring parties throughout history was indicative of the way each army saw itself. For the Greeks it was the phalanx, the Romans had the legion, the Mongols its horseman, the British with their frigate, the U.S. had the bomb, the Palestinian’s the suicide belt. As of this April Israel has the anti-missile. What does the imagery of a system, which does not confront the enemy head-on say about Israel’s narrative? The symbol of the Iron Dome does not paint a pretty picture for a country to thrive, not just survive.

The symbolism of the Iron Dome further engrains a “siege mentality” narrative among Israelis. Israel’s military, academic, and cultural celebration of a so-called “strategic” weapon system that neither neutralizes its threats nor expands its geo-political position ensures Israel will face more conflicts and hardships. It is only through the use of offensive vehicles that the enemy can be destroyed or deterred.

This siege mentality extends to how Israel interprets and employs its resources and power. The Iron Dome system is also indicative of how Israel approaches the moral dilemma it faces using offensive force. The last offensive military program Israel sought to develop was the failed Lavi fighter jet program during the 1980s. Since then, Israel has not invested in any major strategic military platforms other than anti-missile defenses. This reluctance to pursue offensive military capabilities is an ominous sign for a country surrounded by hostile elements which requires an exceptional fighting force unimpeded by international pressure. Instead of tools designed to achieve victory, Israel uses its resources to ensure survival. This leads to the pathetic situation in which a siege in our backyards and playgrounds is preferred over assaulting the attackers preemptively in their own territory given international considerations and political expedience.

Creating better tools requires the revaluation by the toolmaker. In order to make instruments of war that will incite fear and wreak havoc against Hamas and Hezbollah, the Israeli public must confront crucial decisions regarding their nation’s future. Possessing the right military posture requires narrative and cultural vigor, which promotes initiative and rewards risk taking. Israel must also address the complicity of a Palestinian family, which, though maybe not supportive of Hamas, allows them to launch rockets from their home, schools, hospitals and Mosque. Breaking the siege mentality means creating realistic and just rules of engagement for fighting an enemy that is embedded within a civilian population. Israel needs a cogent policy regarding proportionality, which does not render it toothless when hundreds of rockets are falling on civilian centers from civilian centers. These are difficult and wrenching decisions, but crucial if Israel wants more than mere survival.

If the Iron Dome is to be seriously deployed against Hamas it should be used in an offensive war strategy, for instance, using it to potentially protect a retaken Philadelphia corridor, a crucial supply line of Hamas. Breaking the siege mentality requires that Israel reassert its sovereignty in what is clearly a Just War. To do this, the cost of inaction or passive defense must be understood on a cultural level to be far worse than confronting facile accusations of “disproportionate response. ” Israel must show Palestinians that if they pursue a path of aggression through active or tacit support, Israeli public opinion will force its politicians’ hands. Only this Israeli mentality will support military initiatives to neutralize enemies rather than to purely defend themselves.