Progressive Democrats Succeed in Removing $1 Billion Iron Dome Funding From Bill

[George II]

Source: Haaretz

An internal dispute within the ranks of the Democratic Party led on Tuesday to the removal of a provision granting $1 billion for Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system from a key funding bill. The removal came after behind-the-scenes pressure from several progressive Democratic lawmakers.

The development led to sensational headlines about Democrats rejecting U.S. support for the Iron Dome, but in practice, Israel will still very likely receive the promised $1 billion emergency aid it requested earlier this year. That money, according to Democratic sources on Capitol Hill, will now be attached to a different piece of legislation, the 2022 Defense Appropriations bill.

The decision on Tuesday means more for Democratic politics surrounding Israel than the Iron Dome funding itself. It came about after lawmakers including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley and Pramila Jayapal threatened to vote against the funding bill, sources familiar with the matter tell Haaretz.

If that were to happen, given the razor-thin Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, it would have led to a government shutdown or debt default on September 30.

Read more: https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-progressive-democrats-pressure-biden-to-cut-1-billion-iron-dome-funding-from-bill-1.10229636

---

"Iron Dome" saved countless lives when thousands of rockets were launched into Israel during the Spring.

This is funding that Democratic President Biden promised to Israel. I can't understand why any Americans, much less Democrats, would object to this funding.

[hibbing]

1. It will probably be in DOD Black Budget

I mean what's a billion dollars to them.

Peace

[manicdem]

2. I don't understand either

Iron dome is a defensive system which protects Israeli from attack. Also just as important, Israel doesn't have to conduct as many bombings and assaults in Gaza to remove the rocket launchers if the Iron Dome can defend against them.

[WHITT]

4. As I Recently Posted In The Earlier Thread

It's a failing system that there's no point in continuing to subsidize.

[empedocles]

7. Link?

[WHITT]

8. Take Less Time To Quote Myself

The IDF over-hypes the success rate of the 'Iron Dome', just as the U.S. military over-hypes the success rate of the Patriot system.

And it's getting worse and worse as both Hamas and Hezbollah have developed a technique that swamps and strategically overwhelms the Israeli system.

Back in May, the IDF claimed their system had only intercepted approximately 1,000 out of 2,300 rockets launched, and they have a long track record of lying their asses off.

No point in further subsidizing a failing system.

[sarisataka]

24. Please refresh me

How many Israelis were killed and injured by rockets that made it through this failing system?

[WHITT]

25. Got Me By The Weenie

Of course, that wasn't the issue at hand in my post, now was it?

Construct many Straw Men?

[sarisataka]

28. I am looking for an objective fact

To verify the claim it is a failing system. If the statement is true there should be evidence other than self repeated assertions.

That the Iron Dome is no longer effective is the issue of your post, correct?

[WHITT]

31. OK

I assume you own a calculator, yes? What is the percentage of intercepting 1000 of 2300 launched? And it keeps getting worse. There's your 'objective fact'.

[sarisataka]

33. I don't need a calculator to estimate 43%.

If I were to design a system which blocks arrows and to test it you shoot 100 arrows at me. Of those 100 ten are on target to hit me but my system blocks all 10. My system did not block 90% of the arrows but is it a failure?

[Slammer]

37. facts are facts

I think you're confusing the issue by interjecting facts of determining military effectiveness into his discussion....

[sarisataka]

42. It is a common mistake

To confuse effectiveness with statistical totals.

In hockey they don't calculate a goalie's save percentage using shots that were off target

[WHITT]

38. Non Sequitur

They're claiming 43%, and that's puffed-up, and it keeps getting worse.

It's a boondoggle joke.

[sarisataka]

40. Analogy

43% but no casualties...

"and it keeps getting worse." How so?

[WHITT]

65. Because

the percentage was previously higher (but nowhere near the ridiculously claimed 90%), but Hamas and Hezbollah keep ramping-up and concentrating their strategic technique, which keeps lowering the percentage of interceptions.

And "no casualties" is historical revisionism.

[sarisataka]

66. So maybe we are looking at it from the wrong direction

If the 4300 or so rockets fired, how many made it through Israeli defenses and how many casualties did they inflict?

[WHITT]

68. Is That Goal Post

you keep moving around getting heavy?

[sarisataka]

69. Haven't moved anything

I am just trying to determine how many casualties Israel suffered with the Iron Dome in place. Without that data it is impossible to determine if the system is effective or failing.

You seem to be avoiding addressing any facts related to that information.

[WHITT]

71. Because It's A Non Sequitur

Plus I know damn well it wasn't zero.

[sarisataka]

72. .

Since you don't want to give any number, I looked it up. Israel had 126 civilian casualties. If we assume all of them were from the 4300 rockets, that is 1 1:34 ratio.

Israel says at least 60 rockets made it through. Let's up that to 200 to allow for the as yet unsubstantiated claim that the effectiveness is overstated.

Using your number of 1000 intercepts, that would mean at least five times as many rockets would land on Israeli cities.

Can we agree so far?

[WHITT]

79. Nope

1000 out of 2300 is the latest reference, and what is the possible relevance of citing "civilian casualties"?

[sarisataka]

94. I find it strange

You adhere to the 2300 number vs 1000 intercepts. If it was 4300 the rate would fall to 23% but for the sake of progress we can use the 2300 number.

The relevance of civilian casualties is to judge the effectiveness of the attacks. The rockets are aimed at civilians, ID is trying to protect civilians. Civilian casualties is a measure of how effective ID is/is not doing its job.

Can we say that with ID 60+ rockets hit Israeli cities causing approximately 126 casualties?

[WHITT]

109. Unguided Rockets

cannot possibly be "aimed at civilians".

[sarisataka]

112. If I aim a rocket so it will land in a city,

A simple calculation to hit a target that size, what do I expect to hit?

[WHITT]

114. Apparently

you misunderstood the definition of 'unguided'.

[sarisataka]

120. Apparently you do not understand

Ballistics.

People have used unguided weapons for over a 2000 years to great effect. The margin of error may mean you cannot hit a specific building with a weapon but you can definitely hit something in in the area.

[WHITT]

124. Or Not

And I'm well enough apprised with 'Ballistics' to know that home-made rockets lack consistently balanced aeronautic surfaces, not to mention a little item called wind. Unguided rockets cannot be aimed.

[sarisataka]

128. Do you believe Palestinians are stupid

Or incompetent? That they are unable to manufacture a series of devices capable of reasonable consistent performance?

'Ballistics' has been known and used practically since the first time a human picked up a rock and threw it to hit some critter back in pre-history. It has been considered formalized into a mathematical based science since a clever fellow named Issac Newton published the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1687. He built on principles developed by another clever guy called Galileo to develop formulae to accurately calculate trajectory.

To claim that unguided rocket cannot be aimed is a surprise to many modern militaries, including the US, who regularly use such weapons.

You may also wish to read about Qassam rockets, produced and used by Hamas. The Human Rights watch describes them as "indiscriminate when used against targets in population centers" and that their main purpose is for "harming civilians".

[WHITT]

140. Yet Another Non Sequitur Dodge

[sarisataka]

147. That word again.

Well, they say a picture is worth a thousand and at this point I can only believe it is deliberate

[Beastly Boy]

134. Position the home-made Qasam rocket launcher in the general direction of Israel.

There, you aimed it.

Israel is a pretty big target, and apparently Hamas is not that concerned about the accuracy of their aim. They have every reason to believe that wind is not going to divert their rockets in the general direction of Egypt.

[WHITT]

139. Yikes

By your standard, pointing a rocket in the general direction of a country could not possibly considered the targeting if civilians.

Thankyou.

[Beastly Boy]

144. Care to elaborate on how yo arrived at this brilliant conclusion?

My previous post implies the exact opposite. You must have failed to make a distinction between aiming and targeting. Let me type it very slowly for you: when you aim over 4000 rockets in the general direction of Israel, you by definition target its civilians.

[OrangeJoe]

45. Palestinian deaths

And how many Palestinians were killed by the IDF as they tried to shoot down the bottle rockets shot at them?

[sarisataka]

50. I believe there were zero Palestinian deaths

From the Iron Dome system.

I think a system that causes no Palestinian deaths while protecting Israeli civilians from indiscriminate attacks on population centers is exactly the weapon system we should support. Wouldn't you agree?

[George II]

105. They weren't "bottle rockets", and how many Palestinian civilians will be killed if Israel can't....

....intercept them in the air? Their next best option is to destroy the sites from where they're launched. And we know that Hamas builds them and hides out in civilian neighborhoods for two reasons:

1. They hope Israel won't attack them in civilian neighborhoods
2. If Israel DOES attack them in civilian neighborhoods and civilians get killed, it's a public relations win for Hamas

[WHITT]

111. Except

there's zero evidence that "Hamas builds them and hides out in civilian neighborhoods".

The propaganda spewed by the fascist Likud, which included a purported photo of an RPG launcher in a civilian neighborhood, but it was actually a photo from Syria from years ago.

The fascist Likud lies never end.

[EX500rider]

103. Iron Dome does not try and intercept all missiles fired, just those that will land..

..in a town or base, if it is headed to empty desert they ignore it.

[WHITT]

113. So What?

That doesn't prevent their system from being overwhelmed.

[George II]

118. So what? Perhaps then $2B should be allocated to make it even better.

[WHITT]

121. Can't "Make It Even Better"

You can't un-overwhelm an overwhelmed system, once it's reached its capacity, and the system capacity cannot be expanded.

Boondoggle.

[George II]

122. In other words, increase it's capacity. Either that or get Hamas to stop.....

....raining thousands of rockets into Israel.

Easy peasey.

[WHITT]

125. Can't Increase Capacity

[Beastly Boy]

123. Ummm... you seem to be certain that improvements to the system

have not already been made. Furthermore, you are assuming they will never be made. And you seem to be under the impression that Iron Dome has already been overwhelmed. That's bizarre.

And let's just keep in mind what you mean by Iron Dome being overwhelmed. It has to do with the terrorist Hamas shooting tens of thousands of rockets at civilian targets rather than mere thousands.

[WHITT]

126. Well

Their admission of the ever-declining success rates is evidence that "improvements" "have not already been made".

They will "never be made" because the capacity cannot be expanded.

Of course it "has already been overwhelmed".

According to the 'Geneva Declaration on Terrorism', which the U.S. is a signatory to, fighting back against Illegal Military Occupation is specifically NOT terrorism.

[Beastly Boy]

129. What "admission" are you referring to?

Is it by any chance an admission that Iron Dome was 90% effective? That "admission" was made months ago, and it certainly does NOT give you grounds to claim that no improvements have been made since then.

Since Hamas did nothing other than increase the quantity of rockets fired into Israel, the capacity of Iron Dome can be easily expanded with a corresponding increase in the number of intercepting units. No other modification required, which is not to say additional modifications are not forthcoming.

And since you refuse to cite your sources, accurately quote from them, or even examine them to inform yourself, here is the link to the "Geneva Declaration on Terrorism:
https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/A/42/307 It's a frigging ANNEX, submitted by a Libyan representative, and it has NO signatories. It has no legal significance whatsoever. It was submitted on behalf of International Progress Organization, which claims the status of a consultant to the UN, but is not part of it.

Ignorance is embarrassing, isn't it?

[WHITT]

142. More Ass Backwardness

Is it by any chance an admission that Iron Dome was 90% effective?

Of course not, that was the lie.

On May 15, "[Israel] said the system had intercepted approximately 1,000 out of 2,300 rockets launched", which is the admission the earlier lie was a BIG LIE.

Since Hamas did nothing other than increase the quantity of rockets fired into Israel

False.

Clearly you have no comprehension of the strategic tactic.

here is the link to the "Geneva Declaration on Terrorism:

OOF. Wrong doc, bud. It was adopted by the UN, with the U.S. and others as signitories.

Additionally, Article 51 of the UN Charter details the right of people, individually or collectively, to self-defense when they come under military aggression.

Also, the UN Security Council previously called upon Israel to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Ignorance is embarrassing, isn't it?

Sure is.

[Beastly Boy]

146. You keep making stuff up and declaring it to be true.

Do your sources exist anywhere outside your imagination? If they do, cite them, and if you don't, you can't expect to be taken seriously. Plainly, you keep proving the latter to be the case. Example: you failed to cite the document you referred to by name, and when I spoon fed it to you, and even included the exact copy of the annex titled exactly as you typed it, which is a letter that has the legal authority of a grocery shopping list, you are telling me that the document you clearly referred to and I found is the wrong document, without as much as hinting at the existence of the imaginary "right" document that someone supposedly adopted and signed??? Seriously, how lame can your excuses get? And, since you are such a glutton for punishment, here is the link to Article 51 of the UN Charter: https://legal.un.org/repertory/art51.shtml Find me the part that defines "military agression". Again, I am not interested in your definition, it is Article 51 you are referring to, so get to work or be laughed at... Oh wait, I know, wrong document, right? Pathetic! Ok, I've got another one for you: do your own research, right? Now, that's much better. Downright laughable!

And just for laughs and giggles, could you please impress me with YOUR comprehension of a strategic tactic that involves repeating the same old strategic tactic, only on a larger scale? I am especially interested in how a strategic deterrent that matches the increase in scale of same old strategic tactic raises in you suspicions of ineffectiveness.

I can't wait for your reply! Hopefully it will not involve references to oof... wrong strategic tactic! That would be too funny!

[WHITT]

148. "You keep making stuff up"

Yes you do.

Already warned you: I don't do hoops.

If I jump through a hoop, you and other pro-fascist Likud supporters will simply not accept it. So what's the point?

Waste of time.

[Beastly Boy]

149. I back every claim I make with citations from informed sources. You don't.

Yo just keep pulling stuff out of your rather limited imagination, totally oblivious to matters of fact or matters of record. And, unsurprisingly, your response, based entirely on what is, in technical terms, referred to as “jack shit”, is “no i dont, you do!” How clever!


And just to rob you of one of your more persistent meaningless rubber stamp tropes: I support neither fascists nor Likud, and neither do the vast majority of DUers you respond to with similar petty insults. Contrary to your apparent conviction, facts and citations have nothing to do with either Likud or fascism.
But it appears your rather limited vocabulary prevents you from stepping outside the safety zone of tired overused childish taunts.

[WHITT]

150. ...

[EX500rider]

131. Basically all defensive systems can be overwhelmed

That doesn't mean they're worthless
Every missile they take out is less possible casualties and dead civilians

[PoliticAverse]

11. Much of the defense budget is disguised corporate welfare. n/t

[IcyPeas]

106. AOC mentioned this today

AOC: There’s a point brought up that this could potentially threaten our readiness and I would counter that it is not the readiness that cutting the defense budget threatens, it is the profit margins of defense contractors

Link to tweet

[Beastly Boy]

13. Intercepting 90% of the 4300 missiles fired from Gaza in 11 days is a failure?

There is no point in continuing to subsidize a defense system that spared the lives of literally thousands of civilians under Iron Dome's umbrella just a few months ago?

Sorry, I am not entirely convinced.

[WHITT]

14. But The 90% Claim Is Bullshit

As the IDF claims they only intercepted approximately 1,000 out of 2,300 rockets launched in May, and that's clearly puffed-up.

[Beastly Boy]

19. Are you telling me that the Palestinian press agency is full of shit?

Hamas fired a total of 4,360 rockets at Israel from Gaza over eleven days. Some 680 projectiles landed inside the Strip, having misfired or fallen short. Israel claims that its Iron Dome anti-missile defence system intercepted some 90 per cent of those that reached its airspace.

https://en.safa.news/post/2150/International-Crisis-Group-USMEP-publish-a-report-to-help-resolve-Israeli-Palestinian-conflict

They quote Israeli claims as a legitimate source.

I am torn: who is more accurate, the Palestinian press agency or you?

[Marius25]

20. People who hate Israel will always make things up

to justify attacking it. The Iron Dome saves lives. That's an undeniable fact.

No country on Earth gets more criticism than Israel.

[OrangeJoe]

46. No country on earth

Since the fall of the racist regime in South Africa no country on earth has enforced apartheid restrictions on its residents.

[George II]

55. People are misusing the word "apartheid". What's going on there is NOT apartheid.

[TiberiusB]

73. Apparently not every Israeli shares that opinion

https://www.btselem.org/publications/fulltext/202101_this_is_apartheid

https://www.btselem.org/

[George II]

99. Not every American thinks that Biden won. Does that mean he didn't?

[TiberiusB]

132. Holy crap, please tell me you can do better than that

I linked to an establish Israeli group that carefully outlined their position. No one is required to agree. You clearly didn't read it, though I never expected it to change YOUR mind. I'm not that naive.

[George II]

138. That group is far from being objective and unbiased. To quote you:

"please tell me you can do better than that"

[Beastly Boy]

135. Apparently not every Israeli favors Israel's existence either.

Last edited Thu Sep 23, 2021, 05:40 PM - Edit history (1)

https://5pillarsuk.com/2020/05/28/neturei-karta-the-orthodox-jews-who-oppose-the-existence-of-israel/

Israelis are famous (or notorious, depending on your view) for diversity of their opinions. Surely Israelis are as entitled to ignore certain dictionary entries as much as members of US Congress are! However, their choice doesn't change the content of dictionaries, does it?

Just to be sure: we are in agreement that the word "apartheid" carries a specific meaning that has to do with race-based segregation, aren't we?

[Beastly Boy]

56. I don't think apartheid means what you think it means

By definition, apartheid is RACE-based segregation. Palestinians and Israelis are virtually identical racially, ethnically and genetically. Whatever the relation between Israelis and Palestinians is, it is a gross abuse of the English language to call it apartheid.

Furthermore, there are two groups of Palestinian arabs who fall under the administrative control of Israel: West Bank Palestinians and Palestinians who are Israeli citizens. Unless you argue that West Bank (and, by extension of international law, Gaza) are not occupied territories, Israel is mandated by the Fourth Geneva Convention to effectively segregate populations in occupied territories and the occupying populations. The occupied people enjoy special protections under this Convention, which includes prohibitions on compulsory integration with the occupiers. This prohibition is the reason why Israeli settlements in the West Bank are considered illegal.

[The Mouth]

97. Dead Jews Good to anti-Semites

even those who are ostensibly progressives.

Even a system that prevents Jewish deaths at a cost of no terrorists killed is a Bad Thing to those who wish to see Israel vanish.

[WHITT]

26. As You Posted

they're quoting Israeli sources, which have a long track record of lying their asses off.

[Beastly Boy]

35. Your opinion notwithstanding, the Palestinian press agency

considers Israel to be a reliable source of information. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary on your part (and remember, quoting yourself is a lameass poor excuse for evidence), I am forced to go with Israel's numbers, as reported by Palestinian press agency, as well as BBC, AP, LA Times, and other perfectly reputable news sources.

Nothing personal. I have no particular affinity to any of the above mentioned sources.

[WHITT]

36. Wasn't Expressing An "Opinion"

[Beastly Boy]

39. Then you should have no problem backing whatever you were expressing with facts.

Other than quoting yourself - we have already covered that. If you have a problem with facts, you are expressing opinions.

[WHITT]

70. Sure

Here's one to get you started, then you're on your own, I'm not jumpin' through hoops:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/06/03/israels-iron-dome-wont-last-forever/

Keep in mind, however, the source for the numbers has a long history of puffing-up and lying.

[Beastly Boy]

96. You are supposed to cite sources that support your point, not debunk it.

The source says, in part: "The message after the war is Israel’s air defenses may one day not be enough to hinder volumes of rockets. Israel won’t admit this, but there is a strategic peak for this technology."

Pay attention to "may", "one day" and "strategic peak".

The author counters your opinion that "It's a failing system that there's no point in continuing to subsidize" with a description of resounding success of the system. Not a single mention that the system had failed in any respect. He proposes that Iron Dome has reached the limit of its effectiveness and suggests that one day it may not be enough. Bit that's the case with any military technology, at any time, in any context

He also confirms the number of rockets fired by Hamas to be over 4300, as well as the 90% rate of success.

And if you suspect your source of lying, why use it in the first place? You are shooting yourself in the foot even before you begin to defend your opinions.

I am not impressed in the least bit.

[WHITT]

115. I've Already Established

that the IDF and the Israeli RightWing LIED about the 90% success rate, as they subsequently admitted.

[Beastly Boy]

119. No you did not.

The only source you cited in defense of your idle musings was a source that you immediately accused of lying (without any support for your accusation, of course). The aforementioned source CONFIRMED, not denied, the 90% success rate. This is the direct opposite of establishing the accuracy of your presumption. It is called debunking your own presumption in a very embarrassing way. Synonymous to "self owning".

[WHITT]

127. Sorry

That's all completely ass backwards.

[Beastly Boy]

130. You ought to be sorry.

Once again, you have nothing to offer in your defense.

[WHITT]

141. Defense Against Drivel?

[Beastly Boy]

143. Defense OF drivel

[LanternWaste]

107. Are you averse to supporting your own arguments with objective sources and data?

You seem to avoid supporting any of assertions you've been making with peer-reviewed sources or objective data (editorials don't count... but I'm sure you already know that). Is that avoidance because you can't, or is there a valid reason you consistently refuse to do as such?

Assertions lacking evidence should be rejected without evidence.

(remember... if you make an assertion, it's your obligation to support it with evidence. That's not jumping through hoops, it's just the inconvenience of critical thought)

[WHITT]

116. YAWN

[TiberiusB]

74. That isn't what happened

The Iron Dome isn't engineered to intercept every missile. Since the Qassam rockets are completely unguided and highly inaccurate with fairly weak warheads, the system relies on predictive targeting to only aim for those rockets that are likely to strike populated or important targets. That is likely where the "90%" and "86%" claims come from as the targeted missiles are only a small fraction of the total fired. Haaretz has an article on this:

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israel-gaza-cease-hostilities-netanyahu-campaign-not-over-1.7208366

In the article, they discuss the launch of 690 missiles, but only 240 were intercepted. That's a kill rate of 35%. However, if the system only actively targeted 261 missiles, then the "success rate" can be seen as 90%.

Also, 4 people were killed by that attack. If we assume the 261 number is correct, then 21 missiles got through, translating to approximately one civilian death for every 5 missiles launched. We know some 600+ missiles crashed or went off course, so that leaves roughly 3700, and assuming the Iron Dome failed completely, then the potential casualty count would have been around 740 civilians. That's literally not thousands. The majority of the missiles were not targeted, however, as they were not deemed a sufficient threat. If we go by the 35% targeting rate from the Haaretz article, that means that the total number of dangerous missiles was closer to 1300. This may be where the IDF number came from. That would also mean that the potential maximum civilian casualty count would have been closer to 260 or less.

[Beastly Boy]

81. The article you cited is from 2019, not 2021

I am basing my numbers on multiple reports from 2021, and the overwhelming consensus is that 4300 rockets were fired, with 90% of the rockets that made it across the Gaza border were destroyed. The rockets that never made it to Israel's territory and exploded inside Gaza, thus inflicting casualtes on the population of Gaza, are not part of the 90% calculation.

[TiberiusB]

98. Here's an article from 2021

https://www.esquiremag.ph/politics/news/israel-iron-dome-a00293-20210512

This article lists the total number of missiles shot down since 2011 as 2,400. I still think my math holds up. The system would be easily overwhelmed if it targeted every missile fired at Israel. There's really no need, since the missiles lack any guidance system, they follow a very predictable arc. The actual number targeted is certainly much lower and the warheads are so poor that missiles need to land almost directly on a civilian to result in a casualty. In many ways, the barrages seem designed to force Israel to pour money into the system, as each missile in the Iron Dome costs in the neighborhood of $100,000.

[Beastly Boy]

101. The ceasefire took effect on 5/14. The article you cited reports on rockets fired as of 5/11

Last edited Wed Sep 22, 2021, 04:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Obviously, the number of rockets fired cannot possibly account for at least four out of eleven days of conflict, and, since the Israeli army does not provide real time reports, the account is likely to omit the numbers prior to 5/11.

Try harder.

[Marius25]

17. It's not a failing system.

It worked quite well in May at stopping a lot of Hamas rockets.

[WHITT]

27. Apparently Not

That's the entire point.

[Calista241]

58. The 43% number may be accurate but also misleading.

Projectile Impact Point Prediction radars have been around since the 70’s and 80’s. And they are excellent at detecting artillery (and rocket) bombardments, and predicting both the launch sites and impact sites.

Armies will use them for counter battery bombardment, but the IDF uses them both to destroy rocket launch sites, and to determine which projectiles pose a threat to civilian areas. Rockets that pose a threat are ranked, and then the iron dome defense batteries are instructed to intercept threatening rockets.

The unreliability and unguided nature of the Hamas rockets should color any analysis of interception rates of the iron dome weapon system. I’m a little surprised that the Hamas rockets were that effective in the first place, and the fact that 40%+ of them needed to be intercepted is something to take note of.

[WHITT]

67. That's Just It

the technique being utilized allows them to strategically overwhelm the Israeli system, lowering the interception rate.

[PerceptionManagement]

3. I'm glad they didn't mention apartheid

Maybe the US should stop giving Nuclear Apartheid billions of free taxpayer money, weapons and intel until they stop their forever war. I bet that would have a tendency to focus the mind.

[PoliticAverse]

5. If it "saved countless lives" why won't Israel pay for it? Is there some reason Isreal can't

or won't pay for their own defense?

[sdfernando]

9. my thought too /nt

[Marius25]

18. Israel can't afford to fund it themselves

and it's a joint US operation. US Defense contractors helped build it, and supply the interception missiles.

[PoliticAverse]

22. Their defense budget is $ 17.8 billion. They really couldn't afford a 5.6% increase

to cover the cost?

> US Defense contractors helped build it, and supply the interception missiles.

And thus we pay for it as a form of corporate welfare.

[Sapient Donkey]

62. Why can't they afford it themselves?

I bet without the billion US taxpayer dollars coming in they will be able to find that billion dollars somewhere.

If some solid evidence that supports the claim that they cannot afford it is put forth, then that will change my view on this. But I find it hard to believe they cannot raise some taxes or make some cuts to make up for that billion dollar difference.

[Happy Hoosier]

153. But they CAN afford healthcare for all their citizens.

Seems to me that we are making it possible for them to fund healthcare by paying for some of their defense costs. I'd rather see that money spent here.

I do not oppose some assistance to Israel, but it is a myth they can't afford it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Israel

[NH Ethylene]

30. Good question. Why is it our responsibility to fund this?

Israel is not a poor country. But if they can talk us into paying for it, why kick out the money themselves?

[Beastly Boy]

43. It is not our responsibility. It is in our strategic interest.

Hezbollah and Hamas are not only terrorist organizations, they are also Iran's vassals. Stopping Iran's expansion in the Middle East is not only in the interest of the US, but also Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, etc, etc.

[Sapient Donkey]

63. Can you elaborate on how Israel paying for this themselves will help Iran expand

I'm not trying to be a dick or anything, but I am having a hard time seeing how get from here to there. We're specifically discussing how Israel having to raise some taxes or make a few cuts to pay for the iron dome will lead to Iran gaining more regional influence.

[Beastly Boy]

64. Fair question.

Israel is a country of about 9 million people, whose population is far more heavily taxed already than, for instance, US. Israel, no matter how much they raise taxes any further, is not by itself capable of matching the resources that Iran, a country of 83 million people and rich in natural resources, can raise at will. Iran can outspend Israel under any scenario.The foreign aid Iran provides to Hamas and Hezbollah is very substantial, and is already contributing to an economic crisis in Lebanon. So it is logical to conclude that Iran's money can potentially lead to the destabilization of the heavily taxed Israel. A stable Israel is the only military power in the Middle East that can oppose Iran. If Israel becomes unstable for any reason, whether militarily weakened by Hamas and Hezbollah or economically weakened by Iran's influx of resources into the region, Iran will become the regional power with no opposition.

Iran's ambitions extend far beyond neutralizing Israel. Being a Muslim Shiah nation, it is currently engaged in the struggle for dominance with the neighboring Sunny arab nations. Iran poses a deadly military threat to countries such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Syria and Jordan, among others, most of them US allies. Should Israel weaken militarily or economically, the US will have to pay tenfold to prop up all these countries in the face of Iran's expansion. As a matter of foreign policy, it is far more efficient for the US to aid Israel in sustaining its capacity to oppose Iran and Iran's vassals in the region than to provide separate military aid to six or seven Sunni states, none of whom currently pose a serious military threat to Iran.

[Sapient Donkey]

76. Thank you for your response

I understand what you're getting at, but I am still not 100% buying the idea that this billion dollars cannot come from Israel. I fully understand why Israel has this and why they should continue to fund it. I'm not arguing against the existence of the Iron Dome. It's just that if my math is correct, they could increase their military budget by 0.3% of their GDP (in 2019 it was 5.2% of their GDP to military spending) to get that billion dollars. Their total expenditure is lower now than it ever has been in the past. In 2008 they were spending nearly 6.5% of their GDP on military. Whether that's because their economy has grown or because they are spending less (or a mix), that tells me that they're fully capable of spending a fraction of percent more without having their economy collapse.

[Beastly Boy]

83. The considerations for military aid to Israel go beyond pure number crunching.

As I mentioned, not funding Iron Dome poses the risk of destabilizing Israel, with dire consequences to the entire region. The alternative to cutting this funding is to risk the necessity to throw far more money at a whole bunch of vulnerable Sunni states in order to resist Iran's expansion of its sphere of influence. Furthermore, the calculus you are proposing is based on today's situation. Iran is capable of making it irrelevant in a matter of days. Should Iran escalate, Israel will not be able to keep up by taxing its citizens or increasing their military budget by 0.3% of GDP

Also, there are benefits to the US in maintaining this funding. It gives the US addition leverage in influencing Israel's political decisions in ways that benefit US interests, not just Israel's. Iron Dome is currently deployed in a bunch of US military bases abroad, with Israel supplying its own research and development to maintain and improve those systems. It is likely a money saver for the US defense budget. And, as I mentioned before, Iron Dome is an effective deterrent to Iran's attempts to expand its influence in the region, which benefits the US and its arab allies.

Iron Dome is a fairly small piece of a complicated Middle East puzzle, and arguing whether Israel can afford to fund Iron Dome all by itself overlooks the bigger picture. Consider the funding of Iron Dome an insurance policy that the US is paying to maintain the political stability of the region and keeping the region within its sphere of influence.

[lagomorph777]

60. Yes - they are spending their money on illegal settlements.

And we are enabling them.

[Beastly Boy]

6. Apparently, it means jack shit to Israel, but it's really bad optics for Progressives.

It's as if they wanted to leave Israeli civilians defenseless against cross-border terrorist attacks. Of all the military spending to object to...

[sarisataka]

23. Best be careful

Some things are not supposed to be spoken out loud

[TiberiusB]

77. Like unsupported suppositions about Democratic lawmakers?

Last edited Wed Sep 22, 2021, 06:45 AM - Edit history (1)

This was almost certainly an effort to force more open debate about military aid to Israel, a discussion which is inevitably greeted with hollow claims of anti-semitism or insinuations of evil progressive animus toward Israel. They knew the funding would get restored and nothing would actually change. Predictably, though, the usual suspects line up behind the GOP and attack anyone who dares balk at the blank check policy toward Israel.

[sarisataka]

92. If we wish to discuss military aid

To Israel vis a vis the treatment of Palestinians (a very discuss-able topic) would it not make sense to demand removal of funding of offensive weapons?

Iron Dome is defensive and causes no harm to Palestinians. Is there a political or military purpose to removing funding which may result in literally thousands of rockets to rain on population centers?

[Beastly Boy]

93. For someone objecting to unsupported supposition, your post is suspiciously full of

Last edited Wed Sep 22, 2021, 11:17 AM - Edit history (1)

unsupported suppositions.

"[A]lmost certainly an effort to force more open debate about military aid to Israel"? A "discussion which is inevitably greeted with hollow claims of anti-semitism"? "Insinuations of evil progressive animus toward Israel"? "[T]he usual suspects line up behind the GOP"? "[A]ttack anyone who dares balk at the blank check policy"? How many unsupported suppositions can one fit into three sentences?

Regardless of intentions and outcomes, tell me that derailing the funding for the most effective defensive system to ptotect civilian population against massive terrorist assault is not bad optics for progressives!

[TiberiusB]

100. It didn't derail it, that's the point

It's already being worked into another bill. It's obviously going to get passed. I don't think it's a smart diversion from more pressing issues like voting rights or the reconciliation bill.

As for the rest, here are some choice quotes from this thread:

"People who hate Israel will always make things up to justify attacking it."

"Dead Jews Good to anti-Semites even those who are ostensibly progressives. Even a system that prevents Jewish deaths at a cost of no terrorists killed is a Bad Thing to those who wish to see Israel vanish."

Here's one you may recognize...

"It's as if they wanted to leave Israeli civilians defenseless against cross-border terrorist attacks."

followed by...

"Best be careful. Some things are not supposed to be spoken out loud."

AOC and the other progressives members of the House have been very clear that their opposition to military funding for Israel is tied entirely to it's policies in Gaza and the West Bank. Google it. It's absurdly easy to find. Here's an example:

https://www.newsweek.com/aoc-israel-palestine-aid-annexation-1515118

I hardly plucked that out of thin air. As for the anti-semitism claims, again, it takes no effort to find examples of such accusations either on the Web or here on DU. I'm not just referring to this thread. It's the standard GOP line of attack and disregards any concerns over Israel's actions. DU has a contingent that regularly spring into action at every opportunity to attack the progressive wing of the Democratic party. This same group can be counted upon to exclaim that it's DU policy not to speak ill of Democrats when it's some other member of the House or Senate, but if it's a progressive, and especially Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, they rush to try and tear her down without much of any attempt to understand her positions.

[Beastly Boy]

102. Let me rephrase:

Regardless of intentions and outcomes, tell me that threatening to vote against funding for the most effective defensive system to protect civilian population against massive terrorist assault is not bad optics for progressives!

Again, regardless of intentions and outcomes.

You do not deny that the progressives forced the removal of funding, do you? And I fail to see the relevance of an article written over a year ago to the action taken this week. Especially when this action amounts to nothing more than meaningless posturing.

As for the rest, I quoted directly from your post. Do you not hold yourself to the same standards you demand of others?

Give me a minute to double-check the definition of "hypocrisy"... Yep, just as I thought!

[Tetrachloride]

10. There are alternatives moneys that Israel can use. And there are alternative news sources

[WHITT]

15. Yep

As somebody said, Russia is basically a fuel station with a military, well Israel is basically operating an outdoor prison system with a military, both subsidized by American taxpayers.

[Beastly Boy]

21. Or perhaps it alloows them to develop an internationally acclaimed

health response to COVID 19 that is one of world's best, no?

[OrangeJoe]

47. Housing

Dollars are fungible. For decades Israel has used US aid to build housing for settlers on confiscated Palestinian land.

[Politicub]

29. I object to the funding because this should be a matter of the people in Israel taxing themselves

to pay for their own defense.

Should the US protect them forever? The progressive dems are correct.

[Beastly Boy]

41. Do you also object to Iran funding Hezbollah and Hamas?

Until you insist that Hezbollah and Hamas whould start taxing their own people to fund their military expenditures, forgive me for finding your argument a bit disingenuous.

[OrangeJoe]

48. Funding Hezbollah

I also object to funding Hezbollah or Hamas, so the only disingenuous one here is you.

[Beastly Boy]

52. Very commendable. A man of principle.

Forgive me for being a bit offensive, but it is fairly rare that I find someone who comments out of principle rather than prejudice. In fact, I find it so rare that my first reaction has become to assume the latter. Now that you answered my question in the affirmative, I no longer have reason to suspect disingenuity on your part. Cheers.

[Politicub]

51. What are you going on about?

Has trying to shame people into shutting up worked for you in the past? Your sanctimony is as tiresome as it is predictable.

And don’t ever put words in my mouth.

[Beastly Boy]

53. Temper, temper!

To answer your question, yes, shaming people out of their misguided assumptions usually works, although I wouldn't bet on it in your case. And the goal here is by no means to shut you up, but to put you in a position where you realize you have no good answer to the question posed; where you get defensive and personal without addressing the issue you yourself raised. What I did is called an analogy, and it has nothing to do with putting words in anyone's mouth.The words coming out of your mouth are yours alone. And your fiery response is very telling.

[Politicub]

54. Glad you've found that shaming is effective for you.

I have to agree with your self-awareness. As a matter of fact, I think you should dial up your tone by a few more decibels. That way, your delivery will be even more powerful. After I recovered from my hysteria, I realized that I am awestruck. Truly.

[Beastly Boy]

57. I appreciate the invitation, but permit me to decline it.

As much as I would like to accommodate you in raising my tone to the level you find comfortable, I don't think I can endure all the drama.

[Devil Child]

86. +1 Polticlub

Israel is quite capable of budgeting their defense needs. Especially for a system of such vital strategic importance, to rely on foreign funding from the US seems very short-sighted.

[NH Ethylene]

32. They may get that money from us through other routes, but the statement has been made.

I applaud those Democrats who put their foot down on this issue.

[Jose Garcia]

49. Sounds like a recipe for more dead Palestinians

[lagomorph777]

59. Glad to hear it. Let Israel take it out of their "settlements" budget.

There's no excuse for us to fund their theft of land and property.

[Sapient Donkey]

61. I would like to know why Israel can't fund it for itself.

Israel isn't exactly a poor nation.

[NurseJackie]

84. ...the country with the highest rates of poverty ...

A report issued by the OECD in 2016 ranks Israel as the country with the highest rates of poverty among its members. Approximately 21 percent of Israelis were found to be living under the poverty line – more than in countries such as Mexico, Turkey, and Chile. The OECD average is a poverty rate of 11 percent.


If you lived in Israel instead of the United States, you would...

-- make 39.1% less money

United States has a GDP per capita of $59,800 as of 2017, while in Israel, the GDP per capita is $36,400 as of 2017.

-- be 45.7% more likely to be live below the poverty line

In United States, 15.1% live below the poverty line as of 2010. In Israel, however, that number is 22.0% as of 2014.

-- pay a 26.3% higher top tax rate

United States has a top tax rate of 39.6% as of 2016. In Israel, the top tax rate is 50.0% as of 2016.

[empedocles]

89. Incisive. TY

[JI7]

75. very corbynesque of them

[Behind the Aegis]

78. yup! best comment!

[Devil Child]

80. Big thank you to Reps. AOC, Omar, Tlaib, Pressley, and Jayapal!

[Historic NY]

82. So Israel can't afford it?

Really.

[George II]

90. Last year we gave $1.5B each to Jordan and Egypt. Might we see that removed too?

[Devil Child]

91. Absolutley!

Reducing foreign military aid while increasing domestic spending sounds like a dream come true to me.

[Elessar Zappa]

85. Meh.

[Devil Child]

87. I'll kick in a Bah to your Meh.

[LanternWaste]

108. I'll add a dog-walk in the Brambles too. It's fun to advertise dismissiveness...

Though unintentionally ironic as well. 'You shine out like a shaft of gold when all around it is dark.'

[Devil Child]

110. I think you have fun replying to me

I'm ok with that. Keep on keepin on mi amigo!



Any thoughts on continuing US funding of the Iron Dome system?

[empedocles]

88. The Speaker does not need this stuff to deal with. All the parties know what it is

really going on and what will happen.

[Steelrolled]

95. I don't mind funding it if we get some of the technology

Israel has done leading edge work on machine vision and learning.

The irony, IMHO, if that the "iron dome" is doing the most good for the people of Gaza. If a lot of rockets got through and killed many people, Israel would drop the hammer on Gaza.

[former9thward]

104. These are a couple pictures I was allowed to take on my last trip to Israel.

This is an Iron Dome battery of rockets.



I was a few miles from Gaza when one attack occurred and this was one of the rockets being intercepted.



It can also intercept mortar rounds which is much harder than ordinary rockets. And yes, the U.S. benefits from the technology.

[JohnSJ]

145. Why anyone would vote against defensive equipment to protect civilians from incoming rockets is

beyond me

[ripcord]

117. I guess they feel they have to level the playing field

The Palestinians need more kills because that will help.

[Action_Patrol]

133. It will be passed on it's own.

It’s own supplemental bill.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

136. The House overwhelmingly passes the #IronDome bill

Link to tweet

[George II]

137. Yes, and two Congressmen inexplicably voted "Present"....

Although the bill passed, I'm sure Saikat Chakrabarti and Waleed Shahid are happy this afternoon.

Final vote: 420 Yea, 9 Nay, 2 Present

No votes:

Omar
Carson
Tlaib
Newman
Pressley
Grijalva
Garcia (IL)
Bush
Massie

Present:

Johnson
Ocasio-Cortez

[agincourt]

151. I think it's already funded until 2026 or something

If it's already funded that far out, it made no sense to vote on it even.

[George II]

152. As far as I could see, funding was only through 2020, this appears to be to replenish the missiles:

WASHINGTON — The House passed legislation overwhelmingly to provide $1 billion to Israel to restock its Iron Dome short-range missile defense system...

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said ahead of the vote that it would continue support under the U.S.-Israeli aid deal signed in 2016, which calls for $500 million in annual missile defense funding.

The largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II, Israel had received $1.65 billion for Iron Dome through 2020, according to a Congressional Research Service report last year.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2021/09/23/house-passes-1-billion-for-israels-iron-dome-system-in-blowout-vote/