Skip to main content

Kenapa Angkatan Udara Israel Tidak Menang Melawan Hamas

Despite thousands of air strikes, Israel can’t destroy Hamas

The Israeli air force has shown the world what it’s capable of during the past two weeks.
But everyone is also getting a look at the limitations of Israeli air power, which will ensure that Israel will come out of this war only securing limited objectives. Worse, the high civilian death toll and the inability to fully destroy Hamas’s rockets will mean this war will likely resume in the future.
First, here’s a startling number.
Since Israel launched a ground invasion of Gaza on July 17, it’s struck more than 2,400 ground targets. Israel has only paused its bombing for a 12-hour ceasefire as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry scrambles to secure a longer pause in the fighting. Israeli ground troops are up to a kilometer inside Gaza on the hunt for tunnel networks leading from the territory into Israel.
That’s a lot of air power in two weeks. Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighter-bombers are in action, along with AH-64 attack helicopters. These are likewise supported by orbiting Heron 1 drones and Beech Bonanza spotter planes, which assist ground troops and feed data back to strike planes.
Israeli F-16. Israeli air force photo
Israel relies heavily on air power for several reasons. It’s often said Israeli society is more sensitive to casualties than other states due to the country’s small population. Bombing from the air carries risks, but it’s nowhere near as dangerous as even a limited ground war.
To put it in perspective, in more than one week of ground fighting, Hamas has killed at least 35 Israeli troops as of July 25—more than double the toll during Operation Cast Lead in 2008 and 2009. That’s nowhere near the more than 940 Palestinians killed, but it’s a large number for casualty-averse Israel, and Hamas knows it.
Israel also lacks strategic depth, which air power is a means to theoretically overcome.
Strategic depth is a military term referring to the territorial space between the front lines of a conflict and the center of a nation’s population and economy. By firing rockets into Israel—by threatening lives, property and international air traffic—Hamas is able to carry its war, with limited degrees of effectiveness, into Israel’s population centers.
Israel’s response isn’t new. Decades of Israeli doctrine call for rapid and deep strikes into enemy territory to remove and deter perceived threats owing to the lack of strategic depth. Air strikes aimed at Hamas, its rocket stockpiles and launching sites, are in line with this strategy of carrying the war quickly into enemy territory.
But Hamas is still able to fire rockets well into the war—including towards Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion airport. The extremist group was firing rockets into Israel just before the ceasefire. The group buries its arsenals underground, hides them inside civilian infrastructure and makes them as difficult—and as costly—to target as possible.
Air strikes and high-explosive bombs in densely-populated Gaza have also lead to heavy civilian losses. An Israeli attack knocked out the main power plant in the Strip, creating a humanitarian crisis at Gaza’s overcrowded Shifa Hospital.
Whether Israel is justified or not in attacking Hamas, the choice the Israeli military to rely heavily on air power to achieve its objectives has resulted in disproportionate civilian losses compared to the threat Hamas poses.
But Israel doesn’t have many other options. “With nuclear weapons and carpet-bombing off the table, Israel needs to go in on the ground to achieve its objectives,” Daniel Byman wrote at Foreign Policy. “But ground operations can lead to Israeli casualties that actually undermine its deterrence.”
The result is that either way, Hamas will probably come out of the fight with enough Israeli dead on its hands to claim some kind of victory. Hamas will likely be hurting badly. But Israel’s reliance on air power to destroy Hamas’s rockets will also likely fall short. Without a political solution, the conflict will almost certainly resume again.


Referensi:

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Difference Between LEGO MINDSTORMS EV3 Home Edition (#31313) and LEGO MINDSTORMS Education EV3 (#45544)

http://robotsquare.com/2013/11/25/difference-between-ev3-home-edition-and-education-ev3/ This article covers the difference between the LEGO MINDSTORMS EV3 Home Edition and LEGO MINDSTORMS Education EV3 products. Other articles in the ‘difference between’ series: * The difference and compatibility between EV3 and NXT ( link ) * The difference between NXT Home Edition and NXT Education products ( link ) One robotics platform, two targets The LEGO MINDSTORMS EV3 robotics platform has been developed for two different target audiences. We have home users (children and hobbyists) and educational users (students and teachers). LEGO has designed a base set for each group, as well as several add on sets. There isn’t a clear line between home users and educational users, though. It’s fine to use the Education set at home, and it’s fine to use the Home Edition set at school. This article aims to clarify the differences between the two product lines so you can decide which

Let’s ban PowerPoint in lectures – it makes students more stupid and professors more boring

https://theconversation.com/lets-ban-powerpoint-in-lectures-it-makes-students-more-stupid-and-professors-more-boring-36183 Reading bullet points off a screen doesn't teach anyone anything. Author Bent Meier Sørensen Professor in Philosophy and Business at Copenhagen Business School Disclosure Statement Bent Meier Sørensen does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. The Conversation is funded by CSIRO, Melbourne, Monash, RMIT, UTS, UWA, ACU, ANU, ASB, Baker IDI, Canberra, CDU, Curtin, Deakin, ECU, Flinders, Griffith, the Harry Perkins Institute, JCU, La Trobe, Massey, Murdoch, Newcastle, UQ, QUT, SAHMRI, Swinburne, Sydney, UNDA, UNE, UniSA, UNSW, USC, USQ, UTAS, UWS, VU and Wollongong.

Logic Analyzer with STM32 Boards

https://sysprogs.com/w/how-we-turned-8-popular-stm32-boards-into-powerful-logic-analyzers/ How We Turned 8 Popular STM32 Boards into Powerful Logic Analyzers March 23, 2017 Ivan Shcherbakov The idea of making a “soft logic analyzer” that will run on top of popular prototyping boards has been crossing my mind since we first got acquainted with the STM32 Discovery and Nucleo boards. The STM32 GPIO is blazingly fast and the built-in DMA controller looks powerful enough to handle high bandwidths. So having that in mind, we spent several months perfecting both software and firmware side and here is what we got in the end. Capturing the signals The main challenge when using a microcontroller like STM32 as a core of a logic analyzer is dealing with sampling irregularities. Unlike FPGA-based analyzers, the microcontroller has to share the same resources to load instructions from memory, read/write the program state and capture the external inputs from the G