My general impression before reading the article is the Iron Dome, while technically impressive, wouldn't help ease the systemic problems, because if rockets become ineffective enough, other means of enacting violence/getting the point across will be used.
Meanwhile, aggressive action gets cheaper for Israel from a human casualty perspective if they don't have to worry about further pissing people off who have rockets. Cynically speaking, lowering the cost of something makes it more likely to happen :(
If, however, Iron Dome gets to a point where Israel feels safe enough to delay/attenuate/cancel a ground invasion as a mitigating/retaliatory tactic, one possibility the article mentioned, then it could be a net benefit. Does require self-control, though. And I don't know how safe people will feel if rockets are being fired in their general direction, even if you get very good at shooting them down; I doubt it is something you get complacent about.
Comments
My general impression before reading the article is the Iron Dome, while technically impressive, wouldn't help ease the systemic problems, because if rockets become ineffective enough, other means of enacting violence/getting the point across will be used.
Meanwhile, aggressive action gets cheaper for Israel from a human casualty perspective if they don't have to worry about further pissing people off who have rockets. Cynically speaking, lowering the cost of something makes it more likely to happen :(
If, however, Iron Dome gets to a point where Israel feels safe enough to delay/attenuate/cancel a ground invasion as a mitigating/retaliatory tactic, one possibility the article mentioned, then it could be a net benefit. Does require self-control, though. And I don't know how safe people will feel if rockets are being fired in their general direction, even if you get very good at shooting them down; I doubt it is something you get complacent about.