Slashdot Mirror


Israelis Sue Government For Laser Cannons

An anonymous reader writes "Residents of a southern Israeli town want a real-life laser cannon to protect them against Palestinian rocket attacks. And they're suing the national government, for failing to provide the ray gun defense. The U.S.-Israeli Tactical High Energy Laser project was widely considered to be the most successful energy weapon ever built. But the toxic chemicals needed to generate THEL's megawatts of power made the thing a logistical nightmare. It was scrapped. Now, the residents of Sderot want it back. And they're taking Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to court to make it happen."

20 of 736 comments (clear)

  1. I'll burn the karma by StonedYoda47 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Did they sue for the sharks, tanks, and related expenses too? How else can they operate the lasers effectively? Lazer cats?

  2. "scraped"? by plover · · Score: 5, Funny

    It was scraped. Now, the residents of Sderot want it back.

    "Oy, for you, only the best lasers will do. You don't want this one, it's scraped. Let me get you one with a fresh paint job, good as new, I'll have my brother Manny bring it around Tuesday."

    --
    John
  3. Please stay on topic by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can we all please make an effort to keep the comments on track, and not diverge into a "Israelis/Jews are evil" fest?

    The residents of Sderot have every right to expect their government to protect them and if the government is refusing to take any preventative action, while over 7,000 rockets have fallen on the town, then suing the government seems a very reasonable action.

    Please note that they're not strapping bombs to themselves and running into cafes or government buildings - they're taking a legal action in a desperate request for help.

    To pre-empt the comments that will follow, it's not relevant to point out Israeli action in Gaza and get into a debate over whether it's justified or not - this topic is about residents of Sderot taking completely non-violent, legal action, over repeated aggressive and violent attacks from a neighbouring region.

    If only everyone in the region sought such a solution, instead of violence meets violence.

    1. Re:Please stay on topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Please stay on topic Hi! Welcome to Slashdot. I see you're new here...
    2. Re:Please stay on topic by jmv · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can we all please make an effort to keep the comments on track, and not diverge into a "Israelis/Jews are evil" fest?

      Instead, we should stick to the track of "Palestinians/Muslims are evil", right?

      over 7,000 rockets have fallen on the town, then suing the government seems a very reasonable action.

      So New York citizens should also sue over the WTC attacks?

      Sderot taking completely non-violent, legal action, over repeated aggressive and violent attacks from a neighbouring region.

      should probably read "over repeated aggressive and violent attacks from a neighbouring region, over repeated aggressive and violent attacks from its nation, over repeated aggressive and violent attacks from a neighbouring region, over ...".

      If only everyone in the region sought such a solution, instead of violence meets violence.

      Agreed. It's a circle of violence that is not restricted to one side, and the only way to break it is for one side to just stop. Unfortunately, the Palestinian side is probably too disorganised to commonly decide on anything. That means the only hope is for Israel to stop it, but I'm not too hopeful that will happen.

    3. Re:Please stay on topic by New+Here · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, I'm New Here

    4. Re:Please stay on topic by MrSteveSD · · Score: 5, Informative
      I should imagine that the fact that a larger town like Ashkelon has also been hit by rockets might result in this Laser project being revived. It should be noted that up until 1948 Ashkelon used to be called al-Majdal and was home to some 10,000 Arabs. Their homes were taken and they were ethnically cleansed and moved to Gaza. A few years later the name al-Majdal was also erased and it was renamed Ashkelon. Don't expect the news reports to tell you any of this stuff though.

      To pre-empt the comments that will follow, it's not relevant to point out Israeli action in Gaza and get into a debate over whether it's justified or not - this topic is about residents of Sderot taking completely non-violent, legal action, over repeated aggressive and violent attacks from a neighbouring region.

      Plenty of Palestinians think that non-violent methods such as protests are the best way forward as well. The problem is they often get beaten up or shot either with real or plastic bullets. In the recent crisis the IDF shot dead an unarmed 13 year old boy at a protest. A while back I watched a video of the IDF spokeswoman trying to explain why they had fired tank shells at unarmed protesters. She said they were just firing near to them to "warn them". Tanks shells for crowd control?

      It's good that the people of Sderot can use legal action. If they were Palestinians they would have far less options and that anger would find other more bloody ways of expressing itself. Indeed, if you go back to the 40s in Israel, you will find exactly that situation.
    5. Re:Please stay on topic by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...if the government is refusing to take any preventative action, while over 7,000 rockets have fallen on the town, then suing the government seems a very reasonable action


      Ok, so let me start by saying that I think suicide bombings and random rocket attacks on civilians are wrong, immoral, and inexcusable.

      Now that I've gotten the obligatory "I'm not a terrorist apologist" crap out of the way, let me say this:

      They should be suing to force their dumbshit government to start a serious peace process with the Palestinians and develop a working 2-state solution which provides security and prosperity for both peoples. The Israel's government's actions against the Palestinians - the harsh, collective punishment and indiscriminate killings - need to stop, and the Hamas government needs to be taken seriously and negotiated with.

      And before anybody comments that Hamas has pledged to destroy Israel and how you negotiate with someone that believes that, I say, big fucking deal. The Soviets pledged to bury the US, and spent the better part of 50 years pointing enough nuclear weaponry at the other half of the earth to wipe out humanity several times over. Still, there were talks, and attempts to reduce the hostility and bring peace about. You can and must deal with your enemies.

      Terrorism is a bad thing. But terrorism is just a tactic, and one that's used when the warfare situation is asymmetrical. The Israelis have a very modern, well equipped and well trained army, and they make extensive use of it in what they see as a battle to ensure their survival. The Palestinians have no military to speak of, and so it makes sense to them to resort to terrorist attacks in what they see as a battle to gain the right to self determination and freedom the control of Israel.
    6. Re:Please stay on topic by oceaniv · · Score: 5, Insightful

      THIS COULD WORK "For any Israeli killed by a rocket fired from Gaza they should annex 1 hectare (or some other suitable amount) of Gaza into Israel proper." and "For any Palestinian killed by a rocket fired from Israel they should annex 1 hectare (or some other suitable amount) of Israel into Gaza proper." In the past week Palestinians have scored 120 hectares, and the Israeli's 5. I am guessing if this law was implemented 10 years ago Israel would be a small small fraction of what it is right now. I guess your idea might make them think a little. They probably wouldn't go for it though! sorry! :(

    7. Re:Please stay on topic by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Palestinians have never wanted peace with Israel as evidenced by Arafat's rejection of Ehud Barak's offer of land for Palestinian statehood in 2000 and then no Palestinian counteroffer. There were two main reasons Arafat rejected Barak's offer in 2000 - it did not include the right of return of palestinians to their original land or at least a 1-to-1 swap for equivalent land and it divided the so-called "palestinian state" into 4 discontiguous islands, surrounded by, and thus controlled by israel. This is basic current events Zuke, why don't you know it?

      As for a counter-offer? The counter-offer was on the table and already agreed to by israel over a decade earlier - UN resolutions 242 and 338 which both israel and palestine accepted in 1991 and reaffirmed at Oslo in 1993.

      To say that palestinians have "never wanted peace" when they had agreed to a plan a decade earlier is completely facetious. Now, a right-winger will respond that the palestinians didn't agree to oslo in good faith. A left-winger will respond that israel didn't agree to oslo in good faith either. My opinion is that each side let themselves be over-come by their own radical elements - bombers on the palestinian side and militant settlers on the israeli side.

      Clearly there is plenty of opportunity for peace. But as long as opinions like yours are prevalent, they become a self-fullfilling prophecy.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    8. Re:Please stay on topic by Zemran · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ehud Barak's offer of land for Palestinian statehood in 2000

      The land offer was a very clever con trick. There was no way that it could have been accepted because it was so stupid. The trouble is that the general public do not read it, they just want sound bites. They read that 95% of the land was offered back to the Muslims and that sounds good but the 5% was the settlements and the roads to those settlements. The roads being the main problem as that means that even though you can see your neighbours house or the local shop, it may be across the road and if you step on to that road you are liable to be shot. So you have to travel many miles up to the settlement, go around the settlement and travel back down the other side of the road just to visit your neighbour or shop. The problem of the settlements is not just the land they are on, it is also the roads that the Muslims are not allowed to step on. Give the Muslims the roads?

      Arafat did counteroffer, he wanted the settlements to go but that was not on offer, therefore the roads were still no go areas.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
  4. Re:If a country needs this much defense. . . by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Heh, yeah, and who exactly is going to make them leave? They are a viable country if for no other reason that no one can get rid of them. Maybe it was a mistake to create Israel, but that was a long time ago: get over it. (It was just as long ago that Cuba unfairly confiscated US property, and it is just as stupid that the US STILL has a trade embargo against Cuba). As for who the land 'rightly' belongs to, that is an argument going back thousands of years, and is frankly irrelevant with Israel and their big weapons sitting right there; they are not going anywhere. If you want to be respected in a conversation about foreign affairs, you're going to have to deal with that fact.

    A few points:
    • There are Arabs living happily in Israel. The Druze are happy Israeli citizens, and the Bedouin are generally friendly with Israelis.
    • Even the Arabs living in Israel who AREN'T happy with Israel would rather live in Israel than in Palastine (West Bank/Gaza).
    • The Palastinian refugees living in Arab countries (like Lebanon) are treated much worse by the Arabs than those in Palastine are by the Jews.
    It's true perhaps that Israel goes a little overboard in their responses to people attacking them, however, they do have at least one neighbor who has sworn explicitly to destroy them, so it is kind of understandable.
    --
    Qxe4
  5. I worked on this project by karoberts · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For about a year on the mobile version that was supposed to go on a series of containers on trucks. The cost was going into the hundreds of millions of dollars, and so the army cut the program. One reason was that insurgents in iraq weren't using mortars very often anymore, so there wasn't much use for such a system.

    A few months later, hezbollah in Lebanon started firing katyushas again, oh well.

    It was the most awesome project I've worked on so far. I actually got to see it take out mortars in flight on monitors while sitting in command and control 5 km away. (The system in new mexico doesn't have very good output scrubbers, so to avoid NF3 poisoning, humans have to be 5km away while it is firing.)

    There's also more problems with it than just chemicals. For instance, the glass window in the front that the beam exits from costs 1 million dollars and takes a year to make (got to withstand a vacuum and a very powerful laser).

    And the biggest problem is, they overwhelm it by sending lots of rockets, and then send several directly at the device itself. One rocket gets through, and there goes years of work and millions of dollars.

    Anyway, thought the slashdot crowd might find some of that interesting.

  6. Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you have a problem with that?

    The part where "terrorist" is defined as "whoever we killed"?

  7. Re:Sweet! by oceaniv · · Score: 5, Informative

    "The Palestinians try and kill as many babies, women, children and non-combatant civilians as possible. When it happens, they celebrate, just as they did on 9/11 and just as they did last week." I'll just pretend you sound completely rational and not like a bigoted racist who is trying to dehumanize another severely oppressed group... say what? they're intentionally killing "babies"... wont' somebody save the children? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_al-Hams Iman Darweesh Al Hams was a 13-year-old Palestinian schoolgirl killed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops in a "no man's" zone near the Philadelphi Route on 5 October 2004 in Rafah in the Gaza Strip. Hit by more than a dozen bullets, her death was one of series of incidents cited by human rights groups as illustrative of a "culture of impunity" among the Israel Defense Forces.[2] It is also one of the few instances, among the hundreds of cases in which Palestinian children and teenagers have been killed by army fire, in which the army actually launched an investigation.[3] Ultimately however, no one was held responsible for her death. There was no explanation from the officer or the court as to how al-Hams came to have 17 bullet wounds to her arms, legs, torso and face.

  8. Re:Sweet! by Zemran · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are a lot of people in the world who believe that unarmed Israeli civilians somehow deserve to be shelled.


    And there are just as many idiots that believe that unarmed Palestinians deserve to be shelled. A Jewish soldier shoots and kills a few Muslims boys playing football so a Muslim soldier (we call them terrorists because we don't like Muslims) fires a rocket at a Jewish village so the Jewish army send in a helicopter to blow up a Muslim market and the Muslims go and blow up a Jewish market...

    and the plebs take sides. Why can't people see that until we stop killing each other there will never be peace. The people in power, both Jewish and Muslim, do not want peace. They are not stupid. They make their money from the fighting. All the shouts of "He started it" just sound like 10 year old boys fighting in the playground. They are both killing each others children and the fighting will not stop until those in power give peace a chance.

    --
    I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
  9. Re:Sweet! by ChameleonDave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All the shouts of "He started it" just sound like 10 year old boys fighting in the playground. They are both killing each others children and the fighting will not stop until those in power give peace a chance.

    Do you take the same attitude to WWII?

    When people's countries are occupied by others who believe they have some ancient right to lebensraum, you can't expect to be able to scold both sides and tell them to play nicely. This is life, not the playground.

  10. Re:Sweet! by lewko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Okay, I'll bite. You've provided one example. Let's say the story is entirely as you tell it. Can you now refer me to the video of Israelis dancing in the streets, handing out sweets? Or perhaps the Israeli streets named after the shooter?

    No, I didn't think so.

    If Palestinian children are being hit by gunfire, perhaps Palestinian gunmen shouldn't be firing from near children.

    It happens all the time in Israel and abroad. Islamists know dead children and crying mothers are good shields when alive and good propaganda when dead.

    http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/05/22/lebanon-battles-070522.html
    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2006/06/index.html
    http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2007/03/iraqi_jihadists.php

    --
    Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
  11. Re:Sweet! by Omestes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I really hate this topic. But I feel obligated to respond to it every time.

    Nobody, for some reason, can admit that BOTH are wrong, and probably share equal blame in the matter. The Israelis invades already occupied land and expects them to hold the Israelis sovereign because some ancient book says so, of course the Palestinians fought back. In this Israel is wrong. The Palestinians purposely targetting civilians is ALSO wrong. The Israelis near genocidal clamp down on said Palestinians is ALSO wrong. And so it goes.

    My problem with this is when someone has the balls to criticize Israel they get branded either pro-Palestinian, or worse, anti-Semitic. To entertain a probable straw-man, don't say that EVERYONE does this, you rarely hear of the Israeli terrorists, or the Palestinian freedom fighters, these terms are just as valid this way, as the way they are commonly used thanks to the brutal tactics on BOTH sides. And yes, both sides can be looked on with sypathetic rhetoric, the Israelis are fighting for their existence, and the Palestinians are fighting against tyranny. Fine... To me this is an indicator that siding with one faction is impossible, since both are semi-justified, and semi-evil.

    Neither side wants compromise, so bloodshed they shall get, and probably deserve.

    The only point of policy I can come down on is that the U.S. has no right to assist either side. Either way we are left morally tainted and bloodied. This is especially true today when our support of Israel is a major contributing factor to the hatred of the West. I'd support which ever side decided to deal with things in accord with international law, and humanistic values, and for the time being it looks like neither even want to come close to this.

    The only fair (albeit now dated) version of this conflict I've seen way David K. Shipler's Arab And Jew. Both sides are indoctrinating each other towards pure hatred and violence, there will never be a valid conversation on this until that stops.

    --
    A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  12. Re:Sweet! by tsm_sf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How people can have more sympathy for people randomly shelling unarmed non-combatants than for their victims is something I really don't want to understand.

    Wait, are you talking about the Israelis or the Palestinians there? Both?

    --
    Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.