Israel Successfully Tests David's Sling Rocket Interceptor

[News_Editor]

Israel successfully tests David's Sling rocket interceptor < br />

2012-11-26 07:54:28 GMT+7 (ICT)

JERUSALEM, ISRAEL (BNO NEWS) -- Israeli and American defense officials have successfully tested the David's Sling weapon system which has the capability of intercepting missiles with ranges of up to 300 kilometers (186 miles), officials said on Sunday. It will add to the capabilities of the Iron Dome and Arrow.

Josh Hantman, a spokesman for the Israeli Ministry of Defense, said the test was conducted by Rafael Advanced Defense systems at a test range in the southern part of Israel at an undisclosed date. "This test included for the first time a successful interception by the Stunner Missile of the DSWS," he said, referring to David's Sling.

The system is designed to provide an additional layer of defense against ballistic missiles by adding additional opportunities for interception to the joint U.S.-Israel Arrow Weapon System. David's Sling will be able to intercept missiles fired from both Iran and Lebanon, and is expected to become operational in 2014.

The new weapon system will be part of Israel's missile shield that includes the Iron Dome, which uses sophisticated radar to track, intercept and destroy incoming missiles. During this month's conflict in Gaza, Hamas militants fired a total of 1,506 rockets at Israel, of which 421 were intercepted by the Iron Dome.

David's Sling is being developed by the Israel Missile Defense Organization and the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, with the prime contractors being Rafael Advanced Defense and Raytheon. The system's radar is being developed by ELTA Industries and the Battle Management Center by Elbit Systems.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-11-26

[Sing_Sling]

450-odd out of 1500 intercepted simply isn't good enough for a country the size of a postage stamp

[Ulysses G.]

A computer only launches missles to intercept the rockets that are going to actually hit something. The ones headiing for barren land are ignored. So far, Iron Dome has been pretty effective.

[Sing_Sling]

A computer only launches missles to intercept the rockets that are going to actually hit something. The ones headiing for barren land are ignored. So far, Iron Dome has been pretty effective.

There's not a lot of barren land in Israel, too many settlements, Kibbutz etc . . . added to which trajectory and the like may be calculated but not distance.

Don't forget that the missiles are not smart missiles

[Morch]

A computer only launches missles to intercept the rockets that are going to actually hit something. The ones headiing for barren land are ignored. So far, Iron Dome has been pretty effective.

There's not a lot of barren land in Israel, too many settlements, Kibbutz etc . . . added to which trajectory and the like may be calculated but not distance.

Don't forget that the missiles are not smart missiles

If you replace "barren" with "open areas" or "non-residential areas" it will make more sense. Quite a bit of that in the south of Israel, actually, which is where most of the rockets were fired at. A rocket hitting a field, a garbage dump, or anything of the sort might do some damage, but the risk to human life is low. Not too sure why you assert that distance (range?) cannot be calculated, sort of essential for a successful interception.

The system attempts interception only in cases where an incoming rocket is defined as a threat according to certain parameters.

The hit rate refer not to all of the rockets launched at Israel, but only to those who were considered a threat by the system.

Saying it's not good enough - well, it was never meant to be a full proof solution (talking from a military/technological point of view), but as part of a whole array of means, both defensive and offensive. Iron Dome will never be 100% successful, but considering there is no other existing defense system that comes close, it's as good as it gets.

[uptheos]

Don't forget that the missiles are not smart missiles

I would say that any missile fired from Gaza into Israel isn't smart, especially if Hamas value's its people (which of course we know they don't).

Edited November 26, 2012 by uptheos

[geriatrickid]

A computer only launches missles to intercept the rockets that are going to actually hit something. The ones headiing for barren land are ignored. So far, Iron Dome has been pretty effective.

Please indulge my amendment to your post;

The ones headiing for barren land or falling within Gaza are ignored.

In the last attacks, many of the Hamas/Islamic Jihad launched missiles misfired or landed within Gaza causing terror, injuries, fatalities and desruction.

[SiameseCurios]

A computer only launches missles to intercept the rockets that are going to actually hit something. The ones headiing for barren land are ignored. So far, Iron Dome has been pretty effective.

"The success of the Iron Dome missile shield over Israel last week in downing nearly 90% of incoming missiles its software deemed threatening is already being used as justification for more ambitious missile defenses"

http://nation.time.com/2012/11/26/iron-domes-lessons-for-the-u-s/

[uptheos]

A computer only launches missles to intercept the rockets that are going to actually hit something. The ones headiing for barren land are ignored. So far, Iron Dome has been pretty effective.

Please indulge my amendment to your post;

The ones headiing for barren land or falling within Gaza are ignored.

In the last attacks, many of the Hamas/Islamic Jihad launched missiles misfired or landed within Gaza causing terror, injuries, fatalities and desruction.

Hamas don't mind where they land. If in Israel they are happy. If in Gaza they are also happy for the martyrs, who they can parade for the news team.

[Steely Dan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-20498971

For many Israelis, the recent fighting in Gaza provoked mixed feelings of both fear and a certain euphoria.

Fear because, for the first time, longer-range missiles from Hamas and other Palestinian groups reached the outskirts of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem; and euphoria because of the remarkable success of Israel's Iron Dome defensive system.

After airport security reduced one avenue for terrorists Israel's defensive wall reduced the number of suicide bombers, now the missile threat looks to be heading the same way. I wonder what the forces of evil will try next? My bet is economic warfare.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Steely Dan

[folium]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-20498971

For many Israelis, the recent fighting in Gaza provoked mixed feelings of both fear and a certain euphoria.

Fear because, for the first time, longer-range missiles from Hamas and other Palestinian groups reached the outskirts of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem; and euphoria because of the remarkable success of Israel's Iron Dome defensive system.

After airport security reduced one avenue for terrorists Israel's defensive wall reduced the number of suicide bombers, now the missile threat looks to be heading the same way. I wonder what the forces of evil will try next? My bet is economic warfare.

I very much doubt that Hamas/Hizbollah etc will be putting their missiles away quite yet. Iron Dome's success was based on the fact that, according to IDF data no less, the anti-missile batteries opened up 573 times, knocking down 421 out of 1,506 missiles fired from Gaza (a 73% kill to launch ratio). Not bothering to engage some 62% of launched missiles, or rockets to be more precise, reflects more on the home built nature/inaccuracy of Qassams than the efficacy of ID. Even the IDF cannot justify launching a $50,000 missile to knock out an $800 Qassam heading for the Negev, there is a limit to US generosity. Sadly it is unlikely that Qassams will be around much longer and enhanced Grads/Fajr 5s will become the norm. Quite how good ID is against multiple real missiles rather than souped up fireworks is yet to be seen.

Some interesting stats re launch numbers here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-20473672

Terrorism does not need a 100% strike rate, it's rather like cold calling, 1-2% pays the bills and anything more is just "cream".

The bottom line is that one can get all Top Gear and geeky about kill ratios etc but none of this actually addresses the real issues that might bring long term peace to a part of the world that deserves it almost as much as the DRC.

PS. al-Qassam was a Palestinian extremist killed in a shoot out by British-led Palestinian police in 1935. Though of course Palestine has never existed....see below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:British_Mandate_Palestinian_passport.jpg

[Morch]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-20498971

For many Israelis, the recent fighting in Gaza provoked mixed feelings of both fear and a certain euphoria.

Fear because, for the first time, longer-range missiles from Hamas and other Palestinian groups reached the outskirts of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem; and euphoria because of the remarkable success of Israel's Iron Dome defensive system.

After airport security reduced one avenue for terrorists Israel's defensive wall reduced the number of suicide bombers, now the missile threat looks to be heading the same way. I wonder what the forces of evil will try next? My bet is economic warfare.

I very much doubt that Hamas/Hizbollah etc will be putting their missiles away quite yet. Iron Dome's success was based on the fact that, according to IDF data no less, the anti-missile batteries opened up 573 times, knocking down 421 out of 1,506 missiles fired from Gaza (a 73% kill to launch ratio). Not bothering to engage some 62% of launched missiles, or rockets to be more precise, reflects more on the home built nature/inaccuracy of Qassams than the efficacy of ID. Even the IDF cannot justify launching a $50,000 missile to knock out an $800 Qassam heading for the Negev, there is a limit to US generosity. Sadly it is unlikely that Qassams will be around much longer and enhanced Grads/Fajr 5s will become the norm. Quite how good ID is against multiple real missiles rather than souped up fireworks is yet to be seen.

Some interesting stats re launch numbers here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk.../world-20473672

Terrorism does not need a 100% strike rate, it's rather like cold calling, 1-2% pays the bills and anything more is just "cream".

The bottom line is that one can get all Top Gear and geeky about kill ratios etc but none of this actually addresses the real issues that might bring long term peace to a part of the world that deserves it almost as much as the DRC.

PS. al-Qassam was a Palestinian extremist killed in a shoot out by British-led Palestinian police in 1935. Though of course Palestine has never existed....see below

http://en.wikipedia....an_passport.jpg

From the Hamas's (and other outfits) there is no reason to let go of rockets. Rockets are generally not an effective means to inflict casualties on the other side (doesn't hold in regard to advanced/modern rockets, perhaps). They are very useful at disrupting and terrorizing relatively large areas at a low cost.

The BBC report seems odd as the IAF website doesn't specify interception success rates. The "anti-missile batteries opened up 573 times" bit isn't there as well - instead, the data states 421 Iron Dome Interceptions and 152 Failed launching attempts. Since Iron Dome does not attempt to intercept each and every launch, there's no special reason to assume it specifically did so with regard to failed launches (http://www.iaf.org.il/4388-39969-en/IAF.aspx).

Also, don't quite understand the assertion that " Not bothering to engage some 62% of launched missiles, or rockets to be more precise, reflects more on the home built nature/inaccuracy of Qassams than the efficacy of ID" - as far as I understand , the system still identifies and tracks any launch it detects. In some ways dealing with "standardized" launches should be easier than figuring out launches gone wrong.

50k missile cost is again a tossed around figure, and more of an upper range one at that. If I'm not much mistaken estimates ranged between 35k and 50k. Granted, not a fundamental difference as far as the cost effectiveness argument goes, but still a few bob.

But "Even the IDF cannot justify launching a $50,000 missile to knock out an $800 Qassam heading for the Negev"? The whole point is that they don't try to intercept missiles which aren't identified as threats. If we accept the 50K price tag and estimated number of interceptor missiles used - adds up to about 3$ million per day. Sounds unreasonable? Certain reports estimate that one day of fighting cost Israel circa 40$ million or more (much of this due to using precision weapons, btw, carpet bombing and indiscriminate shooting are way cheaper). Waging war is expensive.

Missile per missile, of course it makes no economic sense, but that's rather a simplification of factors included when making the decision to deploy such a system. Would costs is damages be higher? Would not having Iron Dome entail even more intense air attacks? A ground invasion? Would these alternative cost less (both in human lives and financial terms)?

At some point during the recent confrontation it was said that Iron Dome uses a single interceptor missile per launch, compared with two missiles used earlier. This might reflect some of the differences in figures of costs and interception success rates.

Yes, the Iron Dome presence will most likely lead to an arms race of sorts as far as rocket capability goes. Then again, those longer range rockets were already around (both in Lebanon and Gaza), so not exactly a new threat as such. Apparently dealing with them is within the current system's capabilities, more a question of coverage (ie, number of batteries deployed). On the other side of the fence, the logistics involved in transporting, storage and launching more advanced rockets aren't negligible - in some ways they make for easier targets. Probably costs a wee bit more.

Iron Dome and the like aren't a replacement for a political solution to the conflict. One may claim it allows Israel to further ignore the route of diplomacy as the military threat decreases, another may claim that it gives Israel greater freedom for diplomay as threats are toned down some. For me those claims just point out to the obvious - Iron Dome is a tool, with a certain level of effect on conditions - it does not, by itself, have a huge bearing on solving this conflict. As there is no diplomatic solution waiting around the corner, developing and deploying such measures does not strike me as an unreasonable move. It isn't even a perfect operational solution, but it is the best existing so far, and as referring back to the OP, it is a component of a defence concept, rather than a stand alone overall solution,

Your PS - other than being OT, is also a nice bit of demagougy (note the rather obvious other writing in the pic). As for Izz ad-Din al-Qassam being a Palestinian - born and lived most his life in Syria, family originated from Iraq.

[Steely Dan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-20498971

For many Israelis, the recent fighting in Gaza provoked mixed feelings of both fear and a certain euphoria.

Fear because, for the first time, longer-range missiles from Hamas and other Palestinian groups reached the outskirts of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem; and euphoria because of the remarkable success of Israel's Iron Dome defensive system.

After airport security reduced one avenue for terrorists Israel's defensive wall reduced the number of suicide bombers, now the missile threat looks to be heading the same way. I wonder what the forces of evil will try next? My bet is economic warfare.

I very much doubt that Hamas/Hizbollah etc will be putting their missiles away quite yet. Iron Dome's success was based on the fact that, according to IDF data no less, the anti-missile batteries opened up 573 times, knocking down 421 out of 1,506 missiles fired from Gaza (a 73% kill to launch ratio). Not bothering to engage some 62% of launched missiles, or rockets to be more precise, reflects more on the home built nature/inaccuracy of Qassams than the efficacy of ID. Even the IDF cannot justify launching a $50,000 missile to knock out an $800 Qassam heading for the Negev, there is a limit to US generosity. Sadly it is unlikely that Qassams will be around much longer and enhanced Grads/Fajr 5s will become the norm. Quite how good ID is against multiple real missiles rather than souped up fireworks is yet to be seen.

Some interesting stats re launch numbers here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk.../world-20473672

Terrorism does not need a 100% strike rate, it's rather like cold calling, 1-2% pays the bills and anything more is just "cream".

The bottom line is that one can get all Top Gear and geeky about kill ratios etc but none of this actually addresses the real issues that might bring long term peace to a part of the world that deserves it almost as much as the DRC.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the IDF runs a cost analysis before deciding which missiles to try and shoot down. There is of course an actuarial value set on a human life, which varies from Country to Country. This explains why in the UK you can't do a 'U'-Turn on a motorway as money has been spent on a few yards of tarmac to make flyovers. The death stats from not doing so can probably be estimated and such calculations determine what gets done. But I digress, Israel has always gone that extra mile to protect it's citizens, over and above economic cost, the prisoner swap for Gillad Shalit being a case in point. As for U.S generosity in funding the likes of Iron Dome, it has never been a one way street and the U.S benefits from Israel having to test new technology in real life situations.

Your assertion that this does nothing to solve the underlying problem is heading off topic, but I will opine that nothing Israel can do will change an ideology that has not budged in 1400 years and until it does Israel will need to continue to develop new defensive measures. At least the civilized world gets to benefit from such advances just as we all did from the space program.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Steely Dan

[folium]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-20498971

For many Israelis, the recent fighting in Gaza provoked mixed feelings of both fear and a certain euphoria.

Fear because, for the first time, longer-range missiles from Hamas and other Palestinian groups reached the outskirts of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem; and euphoria because of the remarkable success of Israel's Iron Dome defensive system.

After airport security reduced one avenue for terrorists Israel's defensive wall reduced the number of suicide bombers, now the missile threat looks to be heading the same way. I wonder what the forces of evil will try next? My bet is economic warfare.

I very much doubt that Hamas/Hizbollah etc will be putting their missiles away quite yet. Iron Dome's success was based on the fact that, according to IDF data no less, the anti-missile batteries opened up 573 times, knocking down 421 out of 1,506 missiles fired from Gaza (a 73% kill to launch ratio). Not bothering to engage some 62% of launched missiles, or rockets to be more precise, reflects more on the home built nature/inaccuracy of Qassams than the efficacy of ID. Even the IDF cannot justify launching a $50,000 missile to knock out an $800 Qassam heading for the Negev, there is a limit to US generosity. Sadly it is unlikely that Qassams will be around much longer and enhanced Grads/Fajr 5s will become the norm. Quite how good ID is against multiple real missiles rather than souped up fireworks is yet to be seen.

Some interesting stats re launch numbers here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk.../world-20473672

Terrorism does not need a 100% strike rate, it's rather like cold calling, 1-2% pays the bills and anything more is just "cream".

The bottom line is that one can get all Top Gear and geeky about kill ratios etc but none of this actually addresses the real issues that might bring long term peace to a part of the world that deserves it almost as much as the DRC.

PS. al-Qassam was a Palestinian extremist killed in a shoot out by British-led Palestinian police in 1935. Though of course Palestine has never existed....see below

http://en.wikipedia....an_passport.jpg

From the Hamas's (and other outfits) there is no reason to let go of rockets. Rockets are generally not an effective means to inflict casualties on the other side (doesn't hold in regard to advanced/modern rockets, perhaps). They are very useful at disrupting and terrorizing relatively large areas at a low cost.

The BBC report seems odd as the IAF website doesn't specify interception success rates. The "anti-missile batteries opened up 573 times" bit isn't there as well - instead, the data states 421 Iron Dome Interceptions and 152 Failed launching attempts. Since Iron Dome does not attempt to intercept each and every launch, there's no special reason to assume it specifically did so with regard to failed launches (http://www.iaf.org.i...969-en/IAF.aspx).

Also, don't quite understand the assertion that " Not bothering to engage some 62% of launched missiles, or rockets to be more precise, reflects more on the home built nature/inaccuracy of Qassams than the efficacy of ID" - as far as I understand , the system still identifies and tracks any launch it detects. In some ways dealing with "standardized" launches should be easier than figuring out launches gone wrong.

50k missile cost is again a tossed around figure, and more of an upper range one at that. If I'm not much mistaken estimates ranged between 35k and 50k. Granted, not a fundamental difference as far as the cost effectiveness argument goes, but still a few bob.

But "Even the IDF cannot justify launching a $50,000 missile to knock out an $800 Qassam heading for the Negev"? The whole point is that they don't try to intercept missiles which aren't identified as threats. If we accept the 50K price tag and estimated number of interceptor missiles used - adds up to about 3$ million per day. Sounds unreasonable? Certain reports estimate that one day of fighting cost Israel circa 40$ million or more (much of this due to using precision weapons, btw, carpet bombing and indiscriminate shooting are way cheaper). Waging war is expensive.

Missile per missile, of course it makes no economic sense, but that's rather a simplification of factors included when making the decision to deploy such a system. Would costs is damages be higher? Would not having Iron Dome entail even more intense air attacks? A ground invasion? Would these alternative cost less (both in human lives and financial terms)?

At some point during the recent confrontation it was said that Iron Dome uses a single interceptor missile per launch, compared with two missiles used earlier. This might reflect some of the differences in figures of costs and interception success rates.

Yes, the Iron Dome presence will most likely lead to an arms race of sorts as far as rocket capability goes. Then again, those longer range rockets were already around (both in Lebanon and Gaza), so not exactly a new threat as such. Apparently dealing with them is within the current system's capabilities, more a question of coverage (ie, number of batteries deployed). On the other side of the fence, the logistics involved in transporting, storage and launching more advanced rockets aren't negligible - in some ways they make for easier targets. Probably costs a wee bit more.

Iron Dome and the like aren't a replacement for a political solution to the conflict. One may claim it allows Israel to further ignore the route of diplomacy as the military threat decreases, another may claim that it gives Israel greater freedom for diplomay as threats are toned down some. For me those claims just point out to the obvious - Iron Dome is a tool, with a certain level of effect on conditions - it does not, by itself, have a huge bearing on solving this conflict. As there is no diplomatic solution waiting around the corner, developing and deploying such measures does not strike me as an unreasonable move. It isn't even a perfect operational solution, but it is the best existing so far, and as referring back to the OP, it is a component of a defence concept, rather than a stand alone overall solution,

Your PS - other than being OT, is also a nice bit of demagougy (note the rather obvious other writing in the pic). As for Izz ad-Din al-Qassam being a Palestinian - born and lived most his life in Syria, family originated from Iraq.

Excellent, informative response. Thank you.

IMHO there has always been a diplomatic solution around the corner, it's more an issue of getting all the concerned parties to go around that dam_n corner!

BTW, just to counter the last point you made with another example. Chaim Weizmann was born in Russia, became a British citizen and lived much of his life in the UK (one of his sons died fighting in the RAF), and set up the Palestine Land Development Company (amongst many other achievements), but I am sure you know where he ended up and that he would very much be regarded as an Israeli....

[Ulysses G.]

Though of course Palestine has never existed....

There was never an independent Arab country called Palestine. The region at that time was called The British Mandate of Palestine, because the League of Nations had mandated the British to rule and organize it into one or more nations.

It was part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire for 400 years before the Empire's fall in WWI. It was not called Palestine during that time. It had no national identity under the Ottomans. Between the Roman Empire and the Ottomans, the region called Palestine was never self-ruling, but passed back and forth between Christian and Muslim rulers. "Palestine" was the name given to the geographical territory when it was the British Mandate and the legal residents of the British mandate - Jews, Arabs, Turks, Circassians , Armenians and the other 130 ethnic groups who lived on the territory of the British Mandate. - had a passport.

.

MANDATE FOR PALESTINE

The Council of the League of Nations:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[folium]

Though of course Palestine has never existed....

There was never an independent Arab country called Palestine. The region at that time was called The British Mandate of Palestine, because the League of Nations had mandated the British to rule and organize it into one or more nations.

It was part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire for 400 years before the Empire's fall in WWI. It was not called Palestine during that time. It had no national identity under the Ottomans. Between the Roman Empire and the Ottomans, the region called Palestine was never self-ruling, but passed back and forth between Christian and Muslim rulers. "Palestine" was the name given to the geographical territory when it was the British Mandate and the legal residents of the British mandate - Jews, Arabs, Turks, Circassians , Armenians and the other 130 ethnic groups who lived on the territory of the British Mandate. - had a passport.

.

MANDATE FOR PALESTINE

The Council of the League of Nations:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

And as clearly stated in the Balfour Declaration of 1917....

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

The dilemma continues today of trying to shoe horn two different groups of people into a small scrap of land, with both believing it is their territory either by birth, divine right or both. Hence all the Iron Dome's, Magic Wand's etc

[Publicus]

If Israel is going to attack Iran's nuclear facilities it needs to eliminate or minimize the missle attack capabilities of Hamas in Gaza and to do the same to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Israel will need to degrade the military capability of each and to degrade them significantly, if not absolutely. And it needs to have a highly effective Iron Dome system as its necessary last line of defense. Each of the three is a protective prerequisite to hitting Iran's central nuclear facilities given that Iran will strike back at Israel by strong military means. Hamas and Hezbollah would be the integral part of any such response by Iran.

The missle attacks between Hamas and Israel have subsided. Military experts regard these occasional outbreaks of missle exchanges between Israel and Hamas as Israel's "cutting the grass" by temporarily minimizing Hamas' missle capabilities. Israel did mobilize some 70,000 ground forces reservists to beef up its regular army, threatening to make a land incursion into Gaza - not to cut the grass this time but to burn it, i.e., completely destroy Hamas' missle capability. However, Israel did not send ground forces into the Palestine territory and has accepted a truce, at least for the time being. So things seem to have quieted down, on Israel's part especially.

If things there stay quiet, meaning Israel doesn't make any such moves against Hamas or Hezbollah, then we might consider that Israel isn't going to take military action against Iran's nuclear program. If things heat up again however we should expect the worst, especially if Israel moves on the land against both Hamas and Hezbollah. Such moves would telegraph to the world that Israel is going to hit Iran's nuclear capabilities in a significant way, meaning all hell is going to break loose.

So far, so good. But we'll have to see how Iran responds to continuing and further peaceful and diplomatic coersions.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Publicus

[Gary A]

There is a cease fire now because Hamas ran out of rockets. As soon as they replenish their supply of rockets, Israel will have more chances of perfecting their anti rocket system.

[jpinx]

........

And as clearly stated in the Balfour Declaration of 1917....

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

The dilemma continues today of trying to shoe horn two different groups of people into a small scrap of land, with both believing it is their territory either by birth, divine right or both. Hence all the Iron Dome's, Magic Wand's etc

The same government in other times had no qualms about forcing the co-existence of diametrically opposed factions in Ireland. Just as well they never got their hands on anything capable of being launched at London/Dublin...

Edited November 28, 2012 by jpinx

[maidu]

Too bad such a large % of revenue and resources get put in to armnaments and defense measures. So little, comparatively, gets put to alternative energy, education, art/food programs for kids, etc. Our species, in this age, are like house builders who spend 80% of their resources on perimeter walls and security gizmos, and have little left over for building the actual house. If remnants of our species last another 300 years, they will look back at this period and think, "what a primitive bunch, devoting nearly all their resources to offense and defensive.'