Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ changes the face of battle

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 80 posts

Re: Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ changes the face of battle

#41

Post by Someone »

noir_lord wrote: post #13
denom wrote: post #4

The "Iron Dome" will not change the current situation in a way that, say, political negotiation will. It's really frustrating to watch the same process play itself out. Throw a few more bombs in, stir the ashes (so to say) and repeat in 2 years. Is the ongoing plan to degrade the operational capacity of Hamas _just so_ that they cannot seriously threaten? Does the Iron Dome entail perpetual open warfare? It's clear t…

This is pretty close to my summation to my gf the other evening "Every few years Hamas launches rockets at Israel, Israel then uses the opportunity to smash the crap out of Hamas for a few days while "international concern" grows, at a certain point Israel stops the attacks, the international community claims a victory and Hamas gets a bloody nose, nothing changes and it all happens again in 2-3 years" I suspect some…

You are not mentioning why Hamas starts the cycle time and time again: a young population (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Gaza_Stri...), continuously harassed by Israeli actions that Israel deems necessary for the security of its population. Those rockets are lethal, but also just signs of frustration. To me, this conflict looks like a twelve year old having an argument with a four year old. The twelve year old can harass the four year old with words until the four year old starts kicking/screaming/biting. When you force them apart, both will claim the other started it, and both will, in a sense, be right.

This area of the world has found a local optimum that isn't very optimal and that nobody wants, but that nobody sees a way out of, either.

Re: Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ changes the face of battle

#42

Post by dllthomas »

ibisum wrote: post #34
yazaddaruvala wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I agree one sided articles are generally very bad in regard to difficult situations like this. But in my opinion that is because they try to illicit sympathy for that particular side. However, in this case.. the post seemed to be about a new cool technology. Perhaps it was just me but at the end of this article I felt drawn to neither side. The only thoughts I had on the matter were, "Man that is cool. Its too bad…

>However, in this case.. the post seemed to be about a new cool technology. So the article is little more than a straw man to divert from the real atrocities being committed by the Israelis' in Gaza today. And that is entirely the point of the OP - that this article is little more than a technocratic diversion to feed the fetish of a homogenous target group, rather than real reporting on the issue.

That isn't what a straw man is. A straw man is a mischaracterization of an opposing argument that can be "successfully" argued against.

Re: Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ changes the face of battle

#43

Post by cdash »

nardi wrote: post #28
gcb0 wrote: post #3

the oppressed people on the other side now engage in a financial war. for the price they would build one rocket with explosive payload, now they can build some 4 dummy ones. making the invading state pay 20k x3 more than before. while also recruiting more people, who would be averse to the violence before.

A long-range rocket without a payload is probably still pretty expensive. Edit: Let me rephrase—"probably not much cheaper."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qassam_rocket

These seem to be about 800 dollars a piece with the payload

Re: Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ changes the face of battle

#44

Post by icebraining »

ibisum wrote: post #34
yazaddaruvala wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I agree one sided articles are generally very bad in regard to difficult situations like this. But in my opinion that is because they try to illicit sympathy for that particular side. However, in this case.. the post seemed to be about a new cool technology. Perhaps it was just me but at the end of this article I felt drawn to neither side. The only thoughts I had on the matter were, "Man that is cool. Its too bad…

>However, in this case.. the post seemed to be about a new cool technology. So the article is little more than a straw man to divert from the real atrocities being committed by the Israelis' in Gaza today. And that is entirely the point of the OP - that this article is little more than a technocratic diversion to feed the fetish of a homogenous target group, rather than real reporting on the issue.

The front page of the WSJ is covered with stories about the situation is Gaza, including the most prominent that has the number of deaths in the first phrase. Is it really fair to accuse them of diversion based on a single story?

Re: Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ changes the face of battle

#45

Post by forgotAgain »

hn_politics145 wrote: post #37
lutorm wrote: post #18

I'm impressed by how good of a job Israel does at painting itself as the victim despite being the perpetuator of 50 years of ongoing occupation.

The 'occupation' of course being the existence of Israel.

Nice try but no sale. The occupation being the land taken by Israel in the 1967 war.

Re: Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ changes the face of battle

#46

Post by [deleted] »

adamors wrote: post #32
noir_lord wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pretty close to my summation to my gf the other evening "Every few years Hamas launches rockets at Israel, Israel then uses the opportunity to smash the crap out of Hamas for a few days while "international concern" grows, at a certain point Israel stops the attacks, the international community claims a victory and Hamas gets a bloody nose, nothing changes and it all happens again in 2-3 years" I suspect some…

> Hamas gets a bloody nose Is Hamas even a target anymore? In 4 days Operation Protective Edge took the life of 114 people, 88 of which were non combatant civilians [1]. They even managed to destroy a centre for disabled people. [2] That's a quite a big margin of error for one of the most advanced armies on the planet. [1] http://www.sunherald.com/2014/07/11/5693711/gaza-death-toll-... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/…

[deleted]

Re: Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ changes the face of battle

#47

Post by CamperBob2 »

hn_politics145 wrote: post #39
ibisum wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>However, in this case.. the post seemed to be about a new cool technology. So the article is little more than a straw man to divert from the real atrocities being committed by the Israelis' in Gaza today. And that is entirely the point of the OP - that this article is little more than a technocratic diversion to feed the fetish of a homogenous target group, rather than real reporting on the issue.

Why is everything an Israeli conspiracy?

Because if this stuff were happening anywhere else, people in the Western world would be genuinely upset about it.

Re: Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ changes the face of battle

#48

Post by blhack »

nardi wrote: post #28
gcb0 wrote: post #3

the oppressed people on the other side now engage in a financial war. for the price they would build one rocket with explosive payload, now they can build some 4 dummy ones. making the invading state pay 20k x3 more than before. while also recruiting more people, who would be averse to the violence before.

A long-range rocket without a payload is probably still pretty expensive. Edit: Let me rephrase—"probably not much cheaper."

Not really. These are improvised rockets made of steel pipes and welded sheet metal fins. The propellant is fertilizer (smuggled from Egypt, usually), and sugar.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/graveyard-shift-fo...

Re: Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ changes the face of battle

#50

Post by copx »

Tycho wrote: post #12
gcb0 wrote: post #3

the oppressed people on the other side now engage in a financial war. for the price they would build one rocket with explosive payload, now they can build some 4 dummy ones. making the invading state pay 20k x3 more than before. while also recruiting more people, who would be averse to the violence before.

All they're doing is creating an excuse for Israel to move in and crush them.

Israel has absolutely no interest in crushing Hamas. Even before Iron Dome Hamas never posed a real threat to Israel. Hamas is in fact way more valuable to Zionists than Iron Dome.

It would be a catastrophe for Netanyahu and company if all Palestinians would suddenly stop fighting because then all attention would focus on Israel's settlement policy and its unwillingness to give the Palestinians anything deserving the name "state".

No, the Zionists do not want to crush Hamas. They tellingly call campaigns like the current one "mowing the grass". Thing is, mowing the grass is not an attempt to destroy it, the point is to preserve it in a manageable state. And that is exactly what Israel is doing with Hamas.

Post reply on HN