I support this... well, not.

Submitted by Michael S. (United States), Aug 19, 2014 at 17:29

I see the article was posted on Arutz7, the "Wild-West-Bank" Orthodox site (israelnationalnews.com) that my former rabbi called the "Settler Channel".

Like Daniel, I endorse this idea -- but with some major caveats. I am interested in the technology involved. I have been waiting for the day, when Israel's tracking ability, cross-linked with satellite data, allows her to correct for wind speed, etc. and trace the exact trajectory of incoming projectiles. Once that is accomplished, the return fire can be to the very school, hospital or parking lot the missile was fired from. I suggest a live camera on the return-fire missile, so the evidence of the site before destruction can be logged. This will also give the Israelis some control over the return projectile.

The Pallies can quickly come up with countermeasures to this system. First and foremost, they can be sure to fire their rockets far away from meaningful targets such as command facilities and munitions storage facilities. That way, the return Israeli fire would accomplish little physically, other than likely civilian casualties. This, of course, would do Israel more harm politically than it would do good. Also, the charge on the Israeli projectile would have to be small, to minimize loss of life. That would further decrease its physical effectiveness.

An obvious way around the above, would be to send return fire not to the place of firing, but to pre-determined major assets of the assumed enemy (Who fired the rocket? Was it Hamas? Islamic Jihad? Fatah? a rogue?). The problem here is that even though the target might be obvious and pre-discovered, the enemy (say, Hamas) will be able to exactly time the time of the Israeli response by the launch time of the initial missile. That would allow it to quickly change headquarters into hospitals and munitions dumps into baby food factories, and even to have the international press on hand to witness the "horror" of the Israeli response.

Yes, I support this with caveats -- so many caveats, in fact, that I don't support it at all.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".