One of the reasons Ukraine has such impressive air defences is because of the technologies developed by Israel. Israel spent billions on Iron Dome and other radar intercept defensive technologies. What’s interesting is how it came about. Israel was facing international condemnation for retaliating whenever rockets were launched from Gaza.
The military response would often be an air strike, usually using precision guided munitions, but even they can cause big explosions which were splashed all over the front of the Guardian and Independent. The other means of retaliation was GPS guided artillery. Again, not the best optics.
This led to the usual barrage of criticism of Israel with the subtext that they were simply meant to suck it up and scurry for the air raid shelters every time Jihadis popped off a rocket. The rule, according to the left wing media, was that Israelis was not allowed to retaliate or win. It was routinely described as “tit-for-tat” as though Israelis just lobbed ruinously expensive munitions into Gaza for the fun of it.
This is a big part of why Israel sealed off Gaza - to prevent materials being smuggled in that could be used to manufacture rockets. That is also a big part of the reason the tunnel and bunker system under Gaza exists. Hamas, among others, were absolutely determined to prosecute their terror war - with the knowing assistance of UNRWA.
I remember wondering at the time why Israel allowed itself to be sucked into these propaganda games when the technology to intercept DIY rockets already existed. C-RAM and Patriot technology has been around for a fairly long time. The obvious answer was to never let one of these rockets land.
This is a point I put to several British columnists, some of whom trotted out the classic rebuttals that it was too expensive and wouldn’t work. The one journalist who could have helped influence this debate was Melanie Phillips who sadly chose to repeat the Israeli defence ministry mantras, thus delaying Iron Dome by a matter of years.
Eventually, though, the penny dropped, and Israel did indeed deploy a sophisticated air defence shield which became more effective with every attack. This wasn’t the only technology either. There was a network of sensors on the border with the Gaza Strip combined with satellite surveillance to detect tunnel incursions in Israel. It included seismic/vibration sensors and ground-penetrating radar.
All of this tech was designed not only to shield Israel, but also to remove the necessity for retaliation. This is partly why 7/10 happened. Terrorists were increasingly denied the means to effectively terrorise Israeli civilians - so looked to other tactics instead. Israel got complacent.
This system did not completely prevent rocket attacks because Hamas upped the intensity of rocket production with a view to saturating Israeli defences, in the hope that some would reach their targets, but mostly with the intent of causing the interception system to become ever more expensive. Hamas has been waging an economic war as much as a shooting war.
That was even more of a problem with the outbreak of war in Ukraine since Israel was then in competition for interception rounds and radars. As such, it was already pointing to the need for a comprehensive and definitive military solution to destroy the tunnels and Hamas along with it.
But of course, there was very little appetite for an expansive war, which would carry its own domestic and international political costs. There was certainly no domestic appetite for a ground incursion, especially after what happened in Lebanon in 2006.
7/10 changed all that. It removed any objection to a definitive operation to destroy the enemy and his means of waging war. What we have seen since is not merely a military retaliation for 7/10. It is the reply to two decades of terrorist harassment with a view to putting a final stop to it.
That necessarily requires the destruction of every tunnel and bunker, the decapitation of Hamas and the killing of terrorists. It is slow, meticulous work, but absolutely necessary and absolutely must be seen through to completion because there can be no going back.
That it has come at such a grave cost in civilian life is neither here not there. The technology to conduct such an operation without civilian loss of life does not exist, especially when the enemy is so deeply entrenched in civilian life. It is unfortunate - but war is grim. That’s why Hamas shouldn’t have started it.
This is why I have so little patience for militarily and historically illiterate leftists and far-rightists. There’s a curious phenomenon in modern political discourse where brain-deads will always support the side which incurs the most civilian casualties. By that measure they’d have supported both Nazi Germany and the Japanese in WWII. But then given how they support Palestinians, they most likely would have supported Nazi Germany anyway. It’s more or less the same ideology at work.
Israel’s critics are correct when they say this did not start on 7/10. Gaza had essentially become the world’s largest military bunker complex over decades, and the threat was never going to be contained economically or effectively without a comprehensive demolition offensive. Mourn the civilian loss of life if you will, but it was Hamas who made it necessary.
A trustworthy compass must point North.
(Pete) North has a highly accurate moral compass.
(I may have to regularly recycle this comment if Pete North keeps up his moral clarity blogposts).
The Left believes in one-sided violence. Life is a football match between players in red shirts and players in blue shirts, where the players in red shirts are allowed to kick and punch the opposition, but the referee must instantly send off any blue player who retaliates. This mentality goes all the way to the top; to politicians, judges and police officers imposing two-tier justice on Britain.
This is combined with the catastrophic mistake of believing that islamists are on their side.