After telling the story and including an "unquestionable" source, then he says "it’s worth bearing in mind that no one with any knowledge of how air forces operate thinks it’s remotely likely". This is an example of why I read the similar NYR but did not renew the LRB for a second year...

I really don't understand this article's high tendency to slip in tangents that have little to do - long sentences enclosed by brackets, or worse, hyphens which made side stories hard to distinguish from main story. Those things have so little to do with the actual subject of review and serve little purpose. Perhaps they're there to show off the author's knowledge on the subject matter?

Perhaps I'm too used to engineering style writing which just cuts to the chase. Is it common for book reviews to include those bloats?

If you get physical copies it's truely alarming how fast they stack up. I like reading them but feel shame at the height of the pile yet to tackle.

My protocol to deal with it is as follows:

A. After the letters, I only read front-to-back, so I don't waste time skipping back and forth. (Exceptions made for authors I really like.)

B. I skip a lot, and I'm willing to stop reading any article at point, even several pages in.

C. I pass them on to my neighbor, which helps me not feel guilty for B.

Makes for an interesting question. It would certainly be unusual to use a brand-new untested weapon sent on a combat mission so soon. On the other hand, the IAF has been known for sometimes doing bold, risky, and unusual things, and hitting the Syrians with brand-new F-35s would have a lot of value in reminding the Assad regime not to mess with them.

On the other hand, how many people can tell the difference between a F-35 and a F-16 streaking by at 500mph, dropping a bunch of bombs with no warning whatsoever? It also wouldn't be too surprising to see some unfortunate Syrian soldiers tell their superiors that they were hit by F-35s when they actually have no idea what hit them. Makes them look less bad that they failed to stop an attack by a super-high-tech jet, and probably good for surviving it. It would even fit for the Israelis to subtly encourage any such rumors, if they could.

Israel plans on conducting (and is actively conducting) a flight test program with their F-35s. This program is just beginning! They are eager to use their new aircraft, but does anyone really believe that the first part of that flight test program was an actual combat mission? I highly doubt it.

LRB is not a credible source of journalism. Remember the Craig Wright fiasco?

What about it? The only coverage I can find is sceptical.