Israeli Says Its Air Force Thwarts Gaza Rocket Attack

[oberliner]

JERUSALEM — The Israeli military said the air force attacked a group of Palestinian militants in northern Gaza early Friday as they were about to fire rockets at Israel, a week after the Hamas rulers of Gaza announced that they had secured the agreement of other groups to halt rocket fire in order to prevent retaliatory attacks.

Palestinian medics said four militants were wounded in the air strike, but the Israeli military said one member of the squad, from a small Islamic extremist group influenced by Al Qaeda, was killed. Such groups are rivals of Hamas, but the military said it held Hamas responsible for maintaining calm.

Israeli strikes against militants have been rare since the end of last winter’s Gaza war. There has been a steep decline in rocket fire since Israel’s military offensive ended last January, but the sporadic attacks have continued. Several mortars have been launched in the last week.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/28/world/middleeast/28mideast.html

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. Reports such as these give credence to the Israeli claim of the need for open skies reconnaissance

in both Gaza and southern Lebanon

[Violet_Crumble]

3. The reports are contradictory, and both Israel and Hamas have lied in the past...

Not sure why yr willing to automatically swallow anything written in an article and attributed to 'Israel', especially when you were only recently in another thread bemoaning the quality of news articles...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. Indeed, which is why I said "give credence" vice "document as fact"

Israeli ISR platforms have been shown to be able to detect rocket launching preparation in the past and call in/self deploy ordinance against rocket sites.

The only real issue is whether or not those attacked were going to launch rockets. The IDF has in the past released video to back up their claims. Lets see what happens this time around.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. That article doesn't give credence to anything...

And you did swallow the Israeli govt claim in it without question. I find it disturbing that you don't question the word of the IDF even though they've been shown to be dishonest in the past and to claim videos are showing things that they aren't...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. Let me put it in small morsels and detail context just for you

Israel is continuing to do ISR missions (AKA recce or reconnaissance) over both southern Lebanon and Gaza. The IDF claims its required to protect Israel from rocket attacks, which though fewer, still occur. Those activities has upset UNIFIL and others.

When it gets reported in the major media like the NYT that the IDF was able to spot and strike a site before rockets were launched, it gives credence to the IDF claims of the necessity of the reconnaissance.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Yr still ignoring what I've said....

It's no good you sitting there and repeating what the IDF claims. I already know what they claim, and I'm commenting on yr eagerness to swallow what they say without question. So, no. Articles such as this one don't give credence to any IDF claim...

btw, knock off the clumsy attempt to be condescending. It doesn't work and just looks stupid..

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. That things must be explained at such a low a level to you shows your lack of understanding of

what is going on

1) The IDF claims they need open skies and persistent ISR
2) NYT has an article purporting to have information from both sides, that describe the IDF hitting a rocket site prior to launch.
3) The article has the effect of supporting Israel's claims that they need open skies. A claim being fought by UNIFIL and others.

I did not say the NYT article was right, correct, or true. I said it lends credence to the IDF claim.

Your attempts to pick that apart are an epic fail. Deal with what is there, not what you project or what to be there.

--

95% of the bureaucrats give the rest of them a bad name

[Violet_Crumble]

13. There's no need to get abusive...

You repeating the same crap over and over and ignoring what I said to you is incredibly lame and the lame attempts at insults are just immature. What's an epic fail is you trying to split hairs the way yr doing. Someone saying that a claim made by a group lends credence to their claims is an indication that there's an acceptance that the claim is correct...

Don't you worry. I don't judge all bureacrats based on the rather poor opinion I've developed of you :)

[timeforpeace]

2. Obviously there is no downside for Israel believing precisely the opposite of what Hamas says.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. If the article is to be taken at face value...

Both sides agree that militants were attacked (presumably with rockets at hand or nearby). The difference is the number of KIA.

As VC points out, I am often critical of media reports, particularly single source ones from either side. This would appear to have confirmation from both sides, assuming the reporter and the NYT got it right.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Just a bit of a correction...

As VC points out, I am often critical of media reports, particularly single source ones from either side.

That's not what I pointed out at all. I've yet to see you be critical of a single source article if that single source is an Israeli one....

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. Not even close to true

During OCL, I pointed out repeatedly when one claim or another was made by only one side.

[Violet_Crumble]

11. Then it'll be easy for you to supply a link to an example...

I've never seen you do that, but things were so busy back then I may have missed some, so that's why I'm asking for a link. Even if you have done it once, it's not the constant thing you do when it comes to single sourcs that are Palestinian..

[Violet_Crumble]

14. No link yet? I'll take that as meaning you've never done what you've claimed to have done...n/t