Has the Iron Dome reduced Israelis’ fear of war?
JVL Introduction
Israelis have become used to war (or self-defence as they may term it). As the perpetrators, for many decades Israelis have had limited experience of death and destruction – certainly compared to people in Palestine, Lebanon and Iran, to take just the obvious, current examples. Here the writer argues that the Iron Dome with its ability to – much more often than not – intercept missiles directed towards Israel before they land, has reduced the fear of war, which leaves the way open for permanent war. This is something Netanyahu and other Israeli political leaders have advocated for many years and many of us question their interest in, let alone a commitment to, peace.
Last June Israel noted that there was “only” one Israeli casualty for every 3 missiles aimed at Israel as though any deaths are acceptable. Of course, the number of Palestinian, Lebanese and Iranian dead do not count (and Israel would prefer they were not even counted).
Permanent war and permanent military occupation provides more opportunities to develop and sell weaponry. The Leadership recognise they are becoming more isolated internationally since carrying out a genocide in Gaza but this too can be survived as the society and economy is built more and more in a context of permanent war where the “home front” is just one part of the war economy. Indeed, “when Israel’s leadership is being pursued by the enforcers of international law, perpetual war carries implications beyond strategy. It influences incentives, binding political survival more tightly to the continuation of the crisis. ”
Now that more bombs are penetrating the Iron Dome, homes are being destroyed in Tel Aviv and reserve soldiers refusing to report again for duty, can we hope for greater awareness of the reality of war and changed perceptions in Israel?
LL
This article was originally published by +972 and Landline on Wed 25 Mar 2026. Read the original here.
The Iron Dome is intercepting our chances of a normal future
Israel’s missile defense systems have radically reduced the cost of going to war — and a society that does not fear war is doomed to live with it forever.
Loading article text…
Guevara Bader’s vision is timely. He offers an angle on Israeli belligerence which is, of course, the key in understanding how the Israelis just want to keep the war going. It knows that it cannot be touched in return. I would have given Bader ever higher marks if he had found space to consider not just the defence but also the savagery of Israel’s policy of targeting the most important characters and places with the latest technology – Lavender and Gospel AI sytems of identifying targets and following them to their place of work, meetings or family lunch – and the fact that without the backing of America, Germany and the UK in terms of intelligence and weaponry, it would not have been able to embark on its campaign of brutal, continuous and unforgivable violence against its neighbours in the region, totally shielded from any meaningful military response, as he describes so well. But now perhaps everything changes. Israel might not be as inviolable as we imagine. The World economy could yet dictate where Israel goes from here. For example, what would it do without its JP-8 military jet fuel currently supplied by America? America First, remember.
The logic laid out here is persuasive, but its premise — technology conferring impunity to attack — may not hold for much longer.
See this piece from the Quincy Institute:
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/iran-radars-airstrikes/
It’s almost as if George Orwell’s 1984 has come to fruition. A state of continual “war” contributing to the msintanence of an oppressive state, the “enemy” is dehumsnise and anonymous, the distortions of language add ideological cover – war becomes peace and peace is war. This continual war just goes on and on and the conditions of fear in which people live their lives is normalised. Defeats are turned into victories, lies become truth.
I’ve heard this argument made before and I disagree with every aspect of it: it’s premise, its assumed counterfactuals, it’s underlying framing, and its conclusions. A much more compelling case can, and has been, made for the exact opposite. And even if there was a degree of truth to the fundamental premise – that Israel’s sophisticated and highly effective air defenses make war more tolerable — I’ll take that 100 times out of 100 over the alternative. I am an Israeli, I have lived here since 1980, and I will never forget the feeling in the Iraq War when half the country was gripped by mass panic at the threat of missiles from a far off country which were child’s play compared to what we are facing now. In a larger sense, Israel’s massive qualitative strategic edge is all that keeps me, my family and country alive. So no.