The idea that a viable defense is morally wrong is absurd. By this same logic, troops wearing body armor or using tanks is morally reprehensible because it encourages the enemy to shoot at you!
The author's outrage is misdirected at a wonderful and important technology, when it ought to be directed at weak-willed leadership alone. The false dichotomy established in the article -- Iron Dome or killing the enemy -- is a dangerous and liberal analysis. The correct solution is Iron Dome and an effective response to the enemy.
Blaming technology for the decisions and behaviors of people is the real insanity.
The author is saying it is morally wrong because it allows Hamas to continue to exist. Yes, Israel launches some airstrikes and destroys some Hamas headquarters and kills a few Hamas leaders. But once the inevitable “cease fire” agreement comes, Hamas is still basically undamaged. They rest and regroup and then it starts all over again,,,and again,,,and again.
I guess I read it differently than you did.
I think his rage was directed at TRUSTING Iron Dome EXCLUSIVELY, and at Iron Dome as an EXCUSE not to do what must be done.
The “Iron Dome Sucks” tone was a little bit tongue-in-cheek.