China,the nation that launched a satellite-killer last year, is demanding that the U.S. release data from yesterday’s successful satellite kill.

China called on the US to release data on the shooting down of an ailing spy satellite, while the Communist Party’s newspaper blasted what it called Washington’s callous attitude toward the militarization of space.

China registered its objections well before the satellite’s destruction by a missile launched from a Navy cruiser on Wednesday, which likely accounted for the mild response Thursday from the Foreign Ministry.

“China is continuously following closely the possible harm caused by the US action to outer space security and relevant countries,” spokesman Liu Jianchao said at a regularly scheduled news conference.

“China requests the US … provide to the international community necessary information and relevant data in a timely and prompt way,” Liu said.

How do you say “Bite me” in Mandarin?

The U.S. Navy shot down the dying satellite. And they said it couldn’t be done!

Pentagon officials said they think a Navy missile scored a direct hit on the fuel tank of an errant spy satellite late Wednesday, eliminating a toxic threat to people on Earth.

“We have a high degree of confidence we got the tank,” Marine Gen. James Cartwright said at a Pentagon briefing Thursday morning.

A fireball and a vapor cloud seen after the strike appeared to indicate the toxic hydrazine fuel had been destroyed, he said. The missile that struck the satellite did not carry an explosive warhead.

Cartwright also said the satellite seemed to be reduced to small pieces.

“Thus far, we see nothing larger than a football,” he said.

Here’s the way-cool video.

Yet another Iranian official says once again that Israel will be destroyed. International reaction? Yawns.

Iranian Parliament Speaker Gholam Hadad has warned that the “countdown to Israel’s destruction has begun,” in an interview published Thursday in an Iranian newspaper.

[...] “With this anger, the certain death of the Zionist regime had been brought forward,” he said, according to the state-run IRNA news agency.

That’s a lot of death threats in one week.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday called Israel a “dirty microbe” and “savage animal”.

The current head of the Revolutionary Guards, Iran’s ideological army, Mohammad Ali Jafari, weighed in with a prediction that Hizbullah would destroy the Jewish state.

Israel complained to the United Nations. The result?

“It is unacceptable and undesirable for a head of state of a member state of the United Nations to use such kind of language against any other member state,” Mr. Ban told The New York Sun after meeting Mr. Gillerman today.

Ouch. Mommy, Mr. Ban yelled at me!

A search of the UN website produces exactly zero official statements by the Secretary-General regarding this matter. However, I can find two in the last week regarding Israel and the Palestinians.

The current situation in Gaza is unsustainable in humanitarian, human rights, security and political terms — for the Palestinians, Egypt, and Israel too. The ongoing crisis in Gaza also undermines the Annapolis process. I deplore the all-too-frequent breaches of international humanitarian law — including rocket attacks against civilians, excessive uses of force in civilian areas, and collective punishment of the civilian population. It is vital that Israel ceases actions of collective punishment, and allows all legitimate and necessary humanitarian and commercial supplies to reach the population.

Your tax dollars at work, America.

Irene Lancaster, a person and a blogger I respect very much, posted an article under a headline Has The Guardian made history? An article sympathetic to Israel on Comment is Free.

My comment to it (something happened with the comment during the posting) starts with a sentence “I would say, let’s not get overexcited“. Eternal pessimist, me.

But today even my trained pessimist receptors were overwhelmed by a unprecedented tsunami of mass celebration… of a kind, at least, in the above mentioned rag. At least six entries in the on-line edition:

1. Leader: Hidden words
2. How the word Israel was deleted
3. The FO’s case to the information tribunal
4. Israel’s weapons - a diplomatic no-go area
5. The Foreign Office is extraordinarily sensitive about Israel
6. Iraq dossier secrets

Judging by the sheer quantity of pieces on the same subject, one could have surmised that something really awful has happened. Like a terrorist bomb killing a hundred people in Afghanistan. Or another thousand victims expired from strife and hunger in Darfur. Or a tyrant retired from his office. Or a French securities trader stealing a few billions for his bank. Or a fuel tank of a spy satellite falling in the backyard of The Guardian, exterminating a busload of best and finest in British press (oops, this couldn’t have happened).

No and no to all of these awful possibilities. What happened is, to extract the essence from the avalanche of crapola, the following:

During preparation of the (in) famous Iraq dossier on Saddam’s WMDs, some FO mandarin put a word “Israel” in the margins of the draft document.

It referred to a sentence which said of Saddam’s Iraq: “No other country has flouted the UN’s authority so brazenly in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.”

Whether the learned mandarin was right or wrong* in his (assumed) logic is immaterial. What is material that the discovery of The Word, omitted (or, rather, not entered at all) in the final version of the dossier, caused this unbelievable deluge of orgiastic frenzy. If you read the leader, the pompous wording will make you think that indeed, omission of that lonely fart by a bored mandarin is the sole cause of Iraq war (well, most of the Guardian regulars don’t need another proof of Israel being the sole reason anyhow).

Wow… what can I say? Just a remark or two:

• Dear Guardianistas and the regulars: do you really need such a flimsy excuse for more Israel-bashing?
• Dear Guardianistas: why have you wasted so much ammo in a single day? Is there something left for tomorrow (well, I guess, we’ll see…)?
• Dear Guardianistas: that other mandarin that defended the FO’s decision to exclude the mention of Israel knows precisely why: you see, there is a remotely operated nuke under 10 Downing Street. And guess in whose pocket the remote control resides - between all these summons to police investigations and bounced checks? Yes, you are right.
• Dear Guardianistas: remain calm - there is nothing under the Guardian offices. No reason.
• Dear Guardianistas: I really don’t blame you. It is all because of Irene Lancaster (start reading this post again now).

(*) He was wrong, by the way - the history of the (alleged) development of nuclear weaponry by Israel has a very different background and very different interaction with UN, but this is really not that important.

Cross-posted on SimplyJews.

Unlike the fanciful account in the Times of London, AP has an interesting view of what it would have taken to kill Imad Mughniyeh, provided by an ex-Mossad agent who saw the results of Mughniyeh’s work first hand.Although Israel and the U.S. perhaps top the list of suspects in Mughniyeh’s assassination, Tsafrir said, France, Germany, and Saudi Arabia are also among countries that had “unsettled accounts” with him. And he likely had internal opponents.

“A person like this makes a lot of enemies,” Tsafrir said.An operation like the one that killed Mughniyeh last week would have been extremely complex, requiring years of intelligence work and dozens of people, he said. “It’s not a matter of just pressing the button,” he said.

“An operation like this would take tremendous amounts of intelligence _ human intelligence, not electronic intelligence,” he said. “You need the ability to find people, to check the location, to install the device, and to escape” _ no simple task in the middle of a hostile capital.

“The agents could be recruited, or infiltrated into the organization, or both. But there would be dozens involved, and everything would be compartmentalized: People wouldn’t know what the others were doing, and would only know what they needed to know,” Tsafrir said.

Clearly, if Israel carried out the hit, it would suggest that it is acting with a surprising amount of freedom in Syria.

But Tsafrir points out that Mughniyeh wasn’t disliked only by the Israelis. Nor were his enemies only non-Muslims.

It’s been reported Kuwaiti parliamentarians are initiating legal proceedings against other Kuwaiti lawmakers for their eulogy of Mughniyeh.

The opposition Popular Action Bloc yesterday expelled its members Adnan Abdulsamad and Ahmad Lari over their participation in a mourning rally for top Hezbollah commander Imad Mughniyah who was killed last week. The surprising decision came as pressure mounted on the two lawmakers, with some MPs either urging the government to take legal action against them and others already preparing for lifting their immunity to allow their prosecution.The Popular Action Bloc, headed by veteran MP Ahmad Al-Saadoun, strongly condemned in a statement that the participation of the two MPs in “the rally to mourn terrorist Imad Mughniyah who brutally killed two Kuwaitis during the hijacking of the Jabriya plane” in 1988. It added that the rally was held on Kuwaiti territory after 20 years of the hijacking “which has hurt the feelings of Kuwaitis”. The expulsion came following a lengthy meeting of the group and after consultations with all members, the statement said. Besides Abdulsamad and Lari, the group comprises of five MPs.

Though Israelly Cool points out that the Kuwaitis who deplored the eulogy weren’t much interest in Israelis killed, it does point to a Shi’ite/Sunni rift that may have some significance.

Barry Rubin noticed

Yet, wait a minute; it reveals a major shift from what has been true for the last 60 years or more.Jafari, and other Iranians, don’t want to say that Iran itself is going to do the wiping out. After all, such hints in the past strengthened international resolve against Iran getting the nuclear weapons that it might use to destroy Israel. Such a posture also justifies an Israeli attack on Iran, since that country is openly threatening genocide against it.

In effect, though, Jafari is erasing all the historical actors in the conflict: Arab states, Arab nationalist groups, Sunni Muslims, and–most remarkably of all–the Palestinians.

The battle is being waged by the heroes of today and the victors of tomorrow–Shia Muslims, and Lebanese ones at that. It is not even a Muslim-Jewish battle (which is in general the Islamist line), because the great majority of Muslims are also not included.

So perhaps that’s why the Kuwaiti lawmakers are reacting so strongly. What’s going on is a Shi’ite/Iranian war for hegemony in the Middle East. The Kuwaitis scared to challenge Iran directly (Kuwait has been swallowed up once already) so they focus their rage on its proxy instead.

(This Iranian war might also explain why PM Olmert and DM Barak have refused to budge. A motivation other than, or in addition to, arrogance, may be a sense that with the Iranian threat, continuity is important. h/t judeopundit)

As I’ve mentioned before there seems to be a lot hidden from view right now. I suspect that we’ll see a lot more action in the coming months on the Israeli/Iranian front that seems disconnected but would really be part of this ongoing conflict.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

This is the funeral of Shadi Zghayer and Mohammed Herbawi the two terrorists who launched an attack in Dimona two weeks ago. Israel returned their bodies to their families in Hebron for burial. (Despite my suspicions at the time, they did not come from Gaza.)

Note the green flags being displayed. Those are the flags of Hamas and this is Hebron where, supposedly, Fatah holds sway. This suggests that Fatah either can’t or won’t prevent Hamas from operating openly.

Either way, not a good sign.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

A number of bloggers have noted that Iran’s President Ahmadinejad’s latest rhetorical attacks on Israel.Steven Peter Rosen wonders if the change in terminology is a harbinger of something more sinister. (via memeorandum)

Some streams of discourse are chronically laden with dehumanizing rhetoric. Detecting meaningful shifts requires close study of the discourse of interest over time, and I have not done this with regard to Iran and Israel. Casual observation suggests that references to Israel as a “cancer” are old, but that the reference to Israel as a “black and dirty microbe” is new.On the basis of my historical research, my recommendation was that a significant shift in discourse of this character be used as a indicator that we should focus intelligence collection assets on a target that is now suspected of being willing to engage in mass killing by unconventional means, and to issue specific deterrent threats of retaliation.

The Belmont Club counters that the likelihood of Iran using biological weapons against Israel is more related to its ability to protect its own population.

The critical nature of these variables implies that any enemy country or terrorist organization contemplating a strike must game things out beforehand. This would probably take the form of a deniable test attack to see how Israel or the US respond. Or perhaps an unrelated Western country could be chosen as the guinea pig to see how an equivalent society would fare in the face of a similar threat. Without a test run to gauge the effects of their weapons an enemy force would run too great a risk that the strike would fail, exposing them to a devastating response. Second, even primitive enemies would probably take steps to protect their core assets from a riposte by investing in low-tech precautions like creating redoubts in distant areas to which key personnel could retreat. Again, the key to early warning is to detect enemy defensive or planning operations first.

But what if Rosen and the Belmont club are being too specific in their approach? Maybe the change in terminology isn’t indicative of a non-conventional attack but of a conventional one.

The other day David Hazony wondered if Israel and Hezbollah were headed to war again. He concluded that, despite the escalating tensions, neither side was anxious to fight right now.

Of course another possibility is that Hezbollah (and its sponsors Syria and Iran) is less likely to fight now that Imad Mughniyeh is dead. Assuming that Israel killed Mughniyeh, maybe they did it to avert an attack or even war in the near future that he was involved in planning.

There is a lot going on now, much of it underneath the radar. Maybe Israeli is fighting Lebanon III but doing it a lot more quietly and effectively than Lebanon II.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

I wrote yesterday about the importance in many situations of killing a terrorist who might still present a threat. It reminded me of an incident in the Old City of Jerusalem a few months ago. The New York Times reported then.

According to the police and witnesses, two armed security guards who work at a nearby yeshiva were walking near the Jaffa Gate on Christian Quarter Street when the young man attacked one guard and took his gun. He shot the guard in the upper chest and ran toward the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, chased by the second guard, the witnesses said.There was an exchange of fire and bystanders were wounded, mostly by ricochets. The gunman was badly wounded, witnesses said, slumping against a wall, and was told to drop his gun. He died in a narrow street lined by shops. Ahmed Tibi, an Israeli Arab member of Parliament, said that the man was killed when he was already down, but the police said that they could not verify the charge.

One witness told Israel Radio: “I saw the wounded man on the ground wasn’t moving at all. I didn’t see anything in his hands. I saw two security guards continuing to shoot at the man.”

By quoting the witness and referring to the account of the killing as a “charge,” the reporter Steven Erlanger implicitly accuses the guards of over-reacting.

Only later in the article do we learn:

Two other security guards who have lived in the Old City for 20 years were nearby, both armed. They refused to give their names, but one said: “We work according to rules, and one of the very clear orders we have is that when we see a terrorist who is armed, we are instructed to shoot back at him until we kill him. This way we will prevent a bigger incident.”

I know that the witness says that he/she didn’t see anything in the attackers hands, but that doesn’t mean that there was no weapon nearby either.

Given that the attacker had shot a number of people before he was killed, he hardly deserves the benefit of the doubt. At the time the guards were bound to “….prevent the bigger incident.”

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.