A fourth Israeli died that had been injured in the strike on the Kiryat Malachi apartment.
Posts Tagged ‘strike’
The Shabak (Israel’s General Secret Service) just announced that Ahmed Jabari, the second in command of the Hamas military, was killed today by the IDF in a surgical strike. He was traveling in his car when it exploded.
Al-Jabari has been credited for the Hamas takeover of Gaza as well as introducing the launching of Kassam rockets into Israel.
Jabari’s son, who was in the car was also killed in the attack.
Palestinians report that the IDF also attacked in Rafiach and Han Younis leaving 8 dead.
Much of the country has now been put on alert in case of retaliatory attacks by Hamas, who have now threatened to launch missiles on Tel Aviv tonight.
Schools around Gaza have announced that school will be canceled tomorrow.
The “Red Alert” missile siren has been going off in cities and towns around Gaza for the past half hour. Residents have reported hearing explosions.
Ten rockets have been launched at Israel so far, including at Ashkelon and Gan Yavneh. No one has been injured from the strikes.
Islamic Jihad has been taking credit for the launches.
Earlier this evening, Gazans launched an anti-tank missile at an Israeli jeep, prompting Israel to strike back.
David Buskilla, mayor of the beleaguered town of Sderot collapsed on Sunday. Buskilla has been holding a hunger strike opposite the Prime Minister’s office to protest the rocket attacks against his town, its failing economy as a result, and what he feels is the government’s ineffectual response to fix the situation.
The Israel Air Force killed two terrorists preparing to launch rockets against Israeli civilians from Gaza.
Sources in Gaza say five people were also injured on the strike which occurred on a Hamas training camp. At least three of the people were Hamas operatives.
The United States and Israel will conduct their largest-ever joint missile defense exercise this month, making a display of solidarity as the international rift over how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program grows.
This months’s three week exercise will simulate long and short-range missile attacks on Israel, and is meant not just to prepare Israel for possible warfare, but to show Iran and its allies that the US and Israel are prepared to work together against Iran.
The drill, which will include over 3,500 US personnel, has been in the planning stages for 2 years and will cost $60 million.
Patriot missile batteries, an AEGIS ballistic missile defense ship, and an Israeli multi-tiered missile defense system will be employed, though all but one of the missile launches will be simulations.
Iran has said it will retaliate against Israel and the US if attacked. The US has said it does not support an Israeli military strike on Iranian nuclear installations. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has urged the United States to set “red lines” of Iranian nuclear activity beyond which the US would support a military strike. The US has refused.
Former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently warned that, “The results of an American or Israeli military strike on Iran could, in my view, prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations in that part of the world.” During Thursday’s Vice Presidential debate the statement was read to Vice President Joe Biden and Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan at the start of segment on Iran.
What exactly Gates meant by “catastrophic” I’m not sure (Muslim/Middle East resentment towards the U.S.? Lack of access to oil? Increase in global terrorism?), but during the debate, both Biden and debate moderator Martha Raddatz seemed to argue that it meant going to war with Iran.
RADDATZ: Well, let me ask you what’s worse, war in the Middle East, another war in the Middle East, or a nuclear-armed Iran?
RYAN: I’ll tell you what’s worse. I’ll tell you what’s worse.
RYAN: A nuclear-armed Iran which triggers a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. This is the world’s largest sponsor of — of terrorism. They’ve dedicated themselves…
And here’s Biden:
BIDEN: When Governor Romney’s asked about it, he said, “We gotta keep these sanctions.” When he said, “Well, you’re talking about doing more,” what are you -you’re going to go to war? Is that what you want to do?
But who said anything about “going to war” – a term that implies landing U.S. troops in Iran? What everyone – Netanyahu, Mitt Romney, and even the Obama administration – is talking about is a military strike, and making it clear to the Iranians that the U.S. is prepared to conduct such a strike.
Biden himself said during the debate “we feel quite confident we could deal a serious blow to the Iranians.” By “dealing a serious blow” in the singular, Biden surely means some kind of air strike, not putting boots on the ground for continuous warfare.
The question is how seriously do the Iranians take that possibility. Romney and Ryan are arguing that the Iranians don’t take it seriously at all because so many voices from the administration are playing down the need for an attack, while playing up the negative possible consequences of an attack (e.g., saying it would be “catastrophic,” eschewing talk of “war”) and pressuring Israel not to attack. The evidence, which Ryan pointed to during the debate, is the fact that Iranians have, for the past four years, continued and even sped up their nuclear program.
But Biden isn’t actually talking about Iran. With the talk “war,” Biden is implying that Republicans – as evidenced the wars initiated by President George W. Bush – are generally war mongers and only Democrats can be trusted with office of the “commander in chief.”
But “Bush’s Wars” were not solely Bush’s or the Republican Party’s. Democrats, including Biden (despite his insinuation otherwise), voted overwhelmingly in favor of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those were wars made necessary by the failure of the U.S. to pay attention to threats abroad and nip them in the bud, just as Obama is failing to do with Iran.
And, if it is true that attacking Iran will definitely trigger a counter attack which will require a greater U.S. response, then that would indicate the irrationality of the Iranians: that as their economy crumbles they would be willing to engage the most powerful military known to history. If they would act so brazenly without nuclear weapons/nuclear weapons capability, imagine how much more likely war would be if they already had a weapon/capability.
Ryan should have answered Raddatz’s “what’s worse” question like so: “You know what’s worse, a nuclear Iran that starts a war, because that’s the future we’re looking at under Obama’s leadership.”