Angry journalists, who initially boycotted the session, describe subcommittee's claims to be part of a 'witch hunt,' and slam Israel's 'authoritarian' efforts to clamp down on the media.14:27 09.02.16 | 2 comments
If Iron Dome had been designed to protect Sderot, it would never have been given it's expensive vehicular base. Iron Dome was intended to protect mobile IDF units while they moved. Sderot was just an excuse. How 'good' does it have to be? Consider the qassam, which has far less than a 50% chance of hitting anywhere near it's aim point. If the target is of small consequence, it is likely to be destroyed, and unlikely to cause damage, then whacking even 50% of them is good, 90% is great. The BIG question is whether spending lots of money to prevent the landing of say 4-5% of very cheap missiles is a strategic victory or a strategic catastrophe. For the political gain of 'defending' those foolish enough to live in Sderot, all Israelis may pay a huge cost in Iron Dome munitions. Thus a tactical weapons system justified by a essentially fraudulent strategic objective might become a strategic disaster. But, if the IDF ever engages in a major war against a major rocket armed army, then Iron Dome will be worth the cost.