Rocket attacks provoke Israeli response

AP/NY Times:

Israel decided on Wednesday to resume pinpoint attacks against Palestinian rocket-launching cells in Gaza, seriously jeopardizing what is already a shaky, month-old truce with Gaza militants.

The decision came hours after a rocket seriously wounded two Israeli teenage boys in Sderot, a town in southern Israel close to the Gaza border. Shortly after, a rocket was fired from Gaza, the military reported, without providing further details.

Israel Radio said the projectile landed in an open field in the Sderot area, causing no injuries or damage. No militant group immediately claimed responsibility.

Although Israel declared it remained committed to the truce, the decision to strike against rocket launchers clearly raises the level of violence.

...
There is more to this convoluted logic. What is omitted is that within the last week one of the rockets caused serious damage and injury in Sderot. What is so illogical about this article is the suggestion that the response to provocation is jeopardizing a "truce." Isn't blazingly obvious to even the AP that the rocket attacks were a blatant violation of the "truce." In fact the rocket attacks are clear evidence that the Palestinians have nothing of value to offer Israel in a any agreement. That is because they either will not or cannot control Palestinians who want to stay at war with Israel despite any agreement. There will be no peace in this area until Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Hezballah are destroyed. Fatah is no prize either, but at least they occasionally pretend to want to abide by an agreement.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t...
Read more

Is the F-35 obsolete?

Headline USA: Pentagon Fires Back after Musk Calls Its Most Expensive Project ‘Obsolete’ 'Yeah, as I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Musk is, currently, a private citizen, I'm not going to make any comments about what a private citizen may have to say about the F-35....'   ... ... Drones appear to be replacing jets for many operations.  The Russia-Ukraine war is an example of that.  Drones are often hard to detect and can be used for intelligence operations as well as for attacking enemy targets.  It would not surprise me to see drones engaging other drones in combat.  They also cost much less than manned fighters.  
Read more