Newsstand - Israel Air Force Nearly Shoots Down Suspicious Newark Flight

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1121591020070411

How many apology miles do you get for being shot down?






... c'mon, we were all thinking it...

Nowhere in that article did it ever say that the Israeli AF ever even considered shooting at the plane. Just that it was intercepted and escorted.

"nearly" is a bit too strong to include in the title. There was no indication that they were about to fire on the jet.

I think the title of this thread is very misleading. There is absolutely nothing in the article about the IAF nearly shooting down a flight -- only about fighter jets being scrambled.

This has happened more than once. The procedure has been for the fighter jets to ask for identification from the commercial flight and, if the IAF is not satisfied with the answer and/or the reason why no identification was given, for the plane to be diverted to an Air Force base in the Negev Desert.

If the plane has no radio communication for any reason, the jet fighters will visually signal it to follow them.

In all but one case (including an Iranian Airlines flight) , commercial pilots have followed the instructions and landed safely at the base.

The one exception was when a Libyan Air pilot did not respond to radio communications and refused to follow the jet fighters but continued to head straight to Tel Aviv. Fearing that he would crash the plane into the city, the IAF finally shot it down.

There was world-wide condemnation and outrage. The idea that a commercial jet would crash into a city was denounced as ridiculous and unthinkable.

Of course, that was pre-9/11.

I agree. The thread title is misleading, if not inaccurate.
Escorted? Yes. Threatened with being shot down? Likely not..as they seemed to comply with their escorts. Did Israel do the right thing? ABSOLUTELY...no matter what side of the mid-east conflict one falls on.

The Israeli air force was doing its job of defending its country against the risk presented by a yet-unidentified aircraft. As dov said, this kind of thing has happened before, and has been handled VERY well by the Israeli air force. It's no secret that they take their airspace seriously..as they should. Personally, you gotta' hand it to the Isrealis for taking such a strong, pro-active stance on defending themselves...kudos to them.

Perhaps the OP works for a news organization and feels the need to sensationalize.

It is not the OP that is misleading, it is Arutz Sheva: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/122082

Israel Air Force Nearly Shoots Down Suspicious Newark Flight

It is not the OP that is misleading, it is Arutz Sheva: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/122082

Israel Air Force Nearly Shoots Down Suspicious Newark Flight

If you look at the original post, that is not the article the OP was referring to.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1121591020070411

The article the OP was referring to did not mention anything about the possibility of a plane being shot down. So the OP was sensationalizing the title based on the article provided.

If you look at the original post, that is not the article the OP was referring to.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1121591020070411

The article the OP was referring to did not mention anything about the possibility of a plane being shot down. So the OP was sensationalizing the title based on the article provided.

So you're saying the OP just happened to put in the same exact title as the Israeli News Service? I think what happened is that the OP saw the headline somewhere, copied it into the title, and then picked the wrong story for the text. news.google.com makes it easy to make this mistake.

This is the lead paragraph from The Jerusalem Post:
The Israeli Air Force came the closest ever in its history Wednesday afternoon to intercepting and destroying a civilian airliner which had failed to make contact with Air Traffic Control and comply with international regulations as it approached the country's airspace.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152772518&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

A key phrase from that article:

the IAF dispatched the fighter jets to inspect the aircraft and ensure that it had not been taken over by terrorists.

Just because it's a Continental aircraft doesn't mean a continental employee is at the wheel. At five miles from Tel Aviv, Israel did the right thing.

So you're saying the OP just happened to put in the same exact title as the Israeli News Service? I think what happened is that the OP saw the headline somewhere, copied it into the title, and then picked the wrong story for the text. news.google.com makes it easy to make this mistake.

I would certainly hope nobody uses Arutzsheva for sources here. It is, on the Israeli side, about as impartial as some of the links LLM likes to use on the Arab side.

Arutzsheva is the voice of the Israeli settlers movement's extreme right wing.

I would certainly hope nobody uses Arutzsheva for sources here. It is, on the Israeli side, about as impartial as some of the links LLM likes to use on the Arab side.

Arutzsheva is the voice of the Israeli settlers movement's extreme right wing.

Good to know.

I would have thought an actual "shot down" was "closer" in history to intercepting and destroying a civilian airliner than this incident. An actual "shot down" is not "the closest"? :eek:

The idea that a commercial jet would crash into a city was denounced as ridiculous and unthinkable.

Of course, that was pre-9/11.

That idea of crashing commercial jets into civilian buildings was around for many years (try decades too) pre-9/11 -- including something that had crossed intel desks far to the west of Israel more than once over the years.

I would have thought an actual "shot down" was "closer" in history to intercepting and destroying a civilian airliner than this incident. An actual "shot down" is not "the closest"? :eek:


I was wondering if somebody would notice the contradiction. Anyway, I needed some time to look up the answer. Apparently Israel didn't admit to shooting down the Libyan civilian airliner. They admitted only errors in judgment. So I guess that's why the Jerusalem Post said a shoot down would have been the first time. Unless they just made an innocent mistake. It's not clear.

I was wondering if somebody would notice the contradiction. Anyway, I needed some time to look up the answer. Apparently Israel didn't admit to shooting down the Libyan civilian airliner. They admitted only errors in judgment. So I guess that's why the Jerusalem Post said a shoot down would have been the first time. Unless they just made an innocent mistake. It's not clear.

From the same article:
However, the IAF shot down a Libyan civilian airliner over Sinai in February, 1973 when it entered Israeli airspace, killing 108 out of the 113 people on board, after it failed to heed attempts at communication.

The J. Post was quoting "a senior Air Force officer" who was seemingly ignorant of the shootdown. Either the IAF does not require its senior officers to know Israel's recent history (that would be bad), or it took a page from the NRA. "We didn't shoot down the aircraft; the missles did."