Wikileaks ‘Embassy cables’ are now breaking…

Israel/Palestine
on 88 Comments

The Wikileaks dump of “US Embassy cables” that include Israel Palestine has apparently started dropping. At the Guardian site.

Here’s a juicy one. Stuart Levey, under secretary of the Treasury in the Bush Administration, goes to Israel two weeks after the presidential election in ’08, and promises that the Obama administration will keep up the pressure to stop Iran from getting nukes:

In a visit to Israel on 16-17 November, Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, Stuart A. Levey, reassured GOI officials that no momentum would be lost in USG efforts to combat terrorist financing or to pressure Iran during the transition to a new US administration in January…

[Israeli] National Security Council (NCS) Chairman, Dani Arditi, in a November 16 meeting with U/S Stuart Levey, asked whether Levey thought his efforts would continue into the next U.S. administration. Even though he said he planned to resign as required in January, Levey told Arditi that he believed the Obama team would be committed to continuing the ambitious program against terrorism finance that he has shepherded over the last several years.

Levey didn’t resign by the way. He’s still around. Guess he knew something.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

88 Responses

  1. Seham
    November 28, 2010, 2:36 pm

    Yes, breaking “news” that Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the U.S. are all on the same side when it comes to Iran.

    • Kathleen
      November 28, 2010, 7:44 pm

      oh yeah we have heard that horseshit before. All other nations supported the invasion of Iraq. Is the source of that from Judy “I was fucking right ”
      Miller? Sounds like it

    • Sumud
      November 28, 2010, 11:35 pm

      Qatar isn’t though.

      Of the 220 or so of the 250,000 cables released the most interesting I’ve read so far are 2 from the US embassy in Doha in Feb 2010 relating conversations John Kerry had with:

      1. Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani (link)
      2. Qatar’s PM Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani (link)

      Points:

      • criticality of resolving I/P, starting with Golan Heights & Syria.
      • Hamas will accept Israel on 67 borders
      • reunification of Palestinians essential, any agreement Abbas signs currently will not have a mandate on account of Hamas/Fateh split. Bush instructed Abbas not to reconcile w/ Hamas.
      • harsh criticism of Egypt – in it for the process (and US patronage) not the outcome of peace. Egypt opposed to Qatar because of Al Jazeera.
      • Qatar doesn’t trust Iran but is entirely uninterested in conflict [with Iran].

      As per a previous cable I quoted no great surprises but the conversations between the Qataris & Kerry are refreshing open and to the point.

      • Seham
        November 29, 2010, 2:27 pm

        Yeah… Qatar is soooooo unlike the rest of them. What their invisible U.S. military bases and such ;)

  2. MRW
    November 28, 2010, 4:18 pm

    I’ll wait until I see something that’s revelatory. Not impressed so far; reads like the rough notes for justifying war with Iran. Why wasn’t any of this in the 2007 NIE? Because our 16 intel agencies are so dumb?

  3. Jeffrey Blankfort
    November 28, 2010, 4:23 pm

    Levey is one of the most important Israeli agents in the US government, which that cable makes clear. It is too bad that we don’t have a transcript. He makes no secret about his loyalties, being confident that most of Israel’s critics on the Left who are not only out-manned, and more important, out-thought, will continue to ignore him as they pursue their favorite malfactor on the I-P issue, US imperialism.

    But there is a transcript that tells us all we need to know about Levey. It is his speech to the AIPAC Policy Conference in 2005, the transcript of which was issued by the Treasury Dept:

    FROM THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

    May 23, 2005
    js-2466

    Address of Under Secretary Stuart Levey
    The American Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Conference 2005

    “It is a real pleasure to be speaking with you today. I have been an admirer of the great work this organization does since my days on the one-year program at Hebrew University in 1983 and 1984. I want to commend you for the important work that you are doing to promote strong ties between Israel and the United States and to advocate for a lasting peace in the Middle East….”

    “Those of us here today have long been well aware of this [terrorist] threat, mindful that there were groups out there whose murderous attacks were limited only by means and opportunity. We all remember the Munich Olympics and Leon Klinghoffer and Pan Am 103 and Entebbe and Maalot and so many more…”

    (to read the rest):

    file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Owner/My%20Documents/Jews%20in%20government%20Levey%20Stuart%20AIPAC%202005.htm

    • eee
      November 28, 2010, 5:00 pm

      Levey is following US government policy. He has stated this policy openly and publicly. Why do you accuse him of being an Israeli agent? Let’s not argue what exactly the US interests are, but it is clear, especially with the Wikileaks cables, that both the Obama and Bush administration viewed effective sanctions on Iran as an important American interest. You might as well accuse Obama and Bush of being Israeli agents.

      • radii
        November 28, 2010, 6:09 pm

        Bush and Obama israeli agents?

        well, de facto agents, yes

      • Avi
        November 28, 2010, 6:31 pm

        but it is clear, especially with the Wikileaks cables, that both the Obama and Bush administration viewed effective sanctions on Iran as an important American interest. You might as well accuse Obama and Bush of being Israeli agents.

        Nonsense as usual.

        The recommendation of the Iraq Study Group were that the US desperately needed Iran’s help in curbing violence in Iraq and in resolving the post-invasion conundrum.

        The US went against its own interests and shot itself in the foot thanks to the Israel lobby.

      • Kathleen
        November 28, 2010, 7:46 pm

        Because he is an Israeli agent. He is certainly not working for the best interest of the U.S. which would be to negotiate and use diplomacy with Iran.

      • Sumud
        November 29, 2010, 12:01 am

        Let’s not argue what exactly the US interests are, but it is clear, especially with the Wikileaks cables, that both the Obama and Bush administration viewed effective sanctions on Iran as an important American interest.

        Based on which cables are you making that pronouncement?

        A 2007 cable from US ambassador to Israel Richard H. Jones pointedly refers to “Israel’s five-pillar strategy” without referring to US interests or strategy. Meir Dagan articulates the strategy:

        11. (S) Dagan described how the Israeli strategy consists of
        five pillars:

        A) Political Approach: Dagan praised efforts to bring Iran
        before the UNSC, and signaled his agreement with the pursuit
        of a third sanctions resolution. He acknowledged that
        pressure on Iran is building up, but said this approach alone
        will not resolve the crisis. He stressed that the timetable
        for political action is different than the nuclear project’s
        timetable.

        B) Covert Measures: Dagan and the Under Secretary agreed not
        to discuss this approach in the larger group setting.

        C) Counterproliferation: Dagan underscored the need to
        prevent know-how and technology from making their way to
        Iran, and said that more can be done in this area.

        D) Sanctions: Dagan said that the biggest successes had so
        far been in this area. Three Iranian banks are on the verge
        of collapse. The financial sanctions are having a nationwide
        impact. Iran’s regime can no longer just deal with the
        bankers themselves.

        E) Force Regime Change: Dagan said that more should be done
        to foment regime change in Iran, possibly with the support of
        student democracy movements, and ethnic groups (e.g., Azeris,
        Kurds, Baluchs) opposed to the ruling regime.

        In one of John Kerry’s cables from Qatar in Feb 2010 he expressed a strong desire for closer US / Iran ties (section 30-33), saying the current collision course was “crazy”. Reading through the few cables that so far have been released, nearly every one from Tel Aviv is Israel pushing the US to spill American blood on Israel’s behalf. It’s good to have all this confirmed now, before any US/Israeli attack on Iran occurs.

      • annie
        November 29, 2010, 1:56 pm

        Levey is following US government policy.

        and you know this how? have you read any of the links in The US is Israel’s greatest enabler? i didn’t read them all but the ones i did read sound like the person writing them is just repeating what netanyahu said, or whichever israeli they were listening to. (for all i know he could have been handed an outline prior to the meeting to get his facts straight and just copied them in the memo) do you think it is just a coincidence we’ve adopted these policies because we’ve decided it’s the best thing to do? did we miraculously come to the same decisions on our own time after time after time?

        don’t be an idiot. obviously if we agree w/israel all the time there would be no need for an israel lobby, at all. how do you know the opposite of your conclusion is not true. maybe government policy is following israel.

    • yonira
      November 28, 2010, 5:57 pm

      Jeffrey,

      I don’t have access to your home computer, sorry.

      • MRW
        November 29, 2010, 1:03 am

        Yonira,

        And it’s too bad you don’t have his first-hand experience, or his memory.

      • MRW
        November 29, 2010, 5:59 am

        Ahh, I apologize for the jab, yonira. Jeffrey, your link references the file on your home computer, not the web. There’s no http://

      • annie
        November 29, 2010, 2:01 pm

        yonira, one would think you’d know about this little copy/paste trick by now. check this out

    • Jeffrey Blankfort
      November 29, 2010, 1:08 pm

      Sorry, the correct URL for this article is:
      link to ustreas.gov

      If you don’t have a link, all you need to do is copy and paste a quote of half a dozen or so words and Google it which I did.

  4. jewishgoyim
    November 28, 2010, 4:23 pm

    I’m a little tired by Wikileaks. Am I the only one to think that their leaks are quite lame? In “Le Monde”, they say that the NYT had the lead and discussed with the Department of State on whether a cable should be disclosed. From the phrasing, it sounds like if the NYT decided against publishing a cable, “Le Monde” would oblige.

    I mean what can we expect from leaks vetted by the state department and editorialized by the NYT? Whatever the leaks, the angle of Sanger and Broad (the new Miller/Gordon) is that Iran is of the gravest concern. Give me a break… Assange looks more and more like a fraud to me.

    • Seham
      November 28, 2010, 5:39 pm

      jewishgoyim,

      I hear what you are saying but…

      They’re accusing Assange of rape and he’s hiding in Jordan. And also, for the victims of all those American crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan: they deserve the post mortem publicity.

      • Potsherd2
        November 28, 2010, 6:52 pm

        Congress is now agitating to have Wikileaks declared a terrorist organization.

      • MRW
        November 29, 2010, 6:13 am

        Potsherd2, (any relation to the 1st?)

        First Wikileaks is declared a terrorist organization, then governments must censor the web. Cass Sunstein must be clicking his heels, and rubbing his hands in joy.

        The term “conspiracy theory” was created by Mark Fabiani, sitting in a back room at the White House Counsel’s office in 1995, to counter just what The Guardian is doing today: printing stuff from those cables that the American press is not printing. Fabiani’s opus came out in a 332-page paper called Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce.

        Although it might be hard of conceive of now, but in the summer of 1995 the Internet was suspected of being the beehive of uncontrolled ideas HORRIBLE CONSPIRACIES ALL masquerading as news. Twitter would have been reviled if introduced then.

      • MRW
        November 29, 2010, 1:09 am

        Seham,

        The Clairol couch they’ve put Assange on — Is He or Isn’t He? — could be all part of the set design.

      • Seham
        November 29, 2010, 2:30 pm

        Maybe MRW, I guess I get tired of hearing the Assange conspiracy theories. I have a co-worker from New Orleans who doesn’t trust him cuz he grew up in a cult.

    • Egbert
      November 28, 2010, 6:29 pm

      Try the Guardian – lots of interesting stuff.

      link to guardian.co.uk

      A cable dated Jan 2007 … refers to the struggle of Peretz and Sneh ” to bring recalcitrant elements in the IDF to heel” (the Israeli government could not control its military? Just who has control of Israel’s nukes?)

      link to guardian.co.uk

      A cable dated July 2007 …. in which Mossad man Dagan states that Qatar is a real problem and “I think you should remove your bases from there…seriously,” … (hmmm home of Al Jazeera with its excellent ME coverage and how Israel might then solve that problem with the US out of the way?)

      link to guardian.co.uk

      A cable from Aug 2007 … Dagan again … the US should not provide Arab countries with weapons as “They do not use the weapons effectively.” (those backwards Ayrabs?) … a one of the 5 pillars for dealing with Iran was to “force regime change” (gee, I thought that was illegal, but hey, we’re all gangstas now) … Dagan also stated “Three Iranian banks are on the verge of collapse.” … (unlike American banks of course) … and “the U.S. should also coordinate with Azerbaijan and countries to the north of Iran, to put pressure on Iran. Russia, he said, would be annoyed, but it would be fitting, as Russia appears bent on showing the U.S. that it cannot act globally without considering Russia” ( so Israel is stirring antangonism between Russia and the US by tweaking the US ego. But of course, Israel would benefit)

      Interesting details, but as you say nothing new, Israel comes first yadda, yadda.

      • MRW
        November 29, 2010, 1:12 am

        None of this is news , Egbert. None of it. Haaretz covered most of it.

    • Kathleen
      November 28, 2010, 7:49 pm

      Was amazed that Julian Assange and team even included the bloody New York Times in their choices of media outlets that they decided to release this critical material to

      • edwin
        November 28, 2010, 8:20 pm

        Interestingly enough, I don’t think they did.

      • Seham
        November 29, 2010, 2:33 pm

        I was watching CNN yesterday, can’t remember the name of the broadcaster who proudly proclaimed that they were offered the data by Wikileaks and that they refused it because they didn’t want to sign any confidentiality disclaimers. “Great” news agency…. I guess Anderson Cooper wasn’t around to keep keeping them real.

      • lysias
        November 29, 2010, 2:54 pm

        I think “BCN”, the fictitious news network in the movie This Revolution (which I just got from Amazon and watched), and which is revealed to be following government orders, is meant to be the fictional stand-in for CNN.

    • Sumud
      November 29, 2010, 12:10 am

      I mean what can we expect from leaks vetted by the state department and editorialized by the NYT?

      I don’t think you understand the wikileaks process.

      In the last three major dumps (Afghan-, Iraq-war logs and now the Embassy cables) several news organistations – not including the NYT in this case – were given prior access to the cables and they chose what to cover, and agreed with Wikileaks on a date to go public with the story. The NYT liased with the State Department on what it would and wouldn’t cover. On the chosen date the news organisations published their stories and Wikileaks simultaneously uploads the data in it’s entirety. So it really doesn’t matter what the NYT does and doesn’t publish, because all data is available directly from the Wikileaks site. The only exception is material redacted by Wikileaks (eg informants names) likely to endanger lives.

      • jewishgoyim
        November 29, 2010, 7:52 am

        Ok. It is never explicitly said to what extent the “restraint” of the NYT (induced by the government goes back to wikileaks). Who knows what happens during these days before the launch? You believe what you want to believe. Why would I, in this world, believe everything Wikileaks says about its process. Why would you?

        I’m sure I would prefer that wikileaks did its thing without this backdoor communication channel between the US gov and wikileaks.

      • Sumud
        November 29, 2010, 9:21 am

        I’m sure I would prefer that wikileaks did its thing without this backdoor communication channel between the US gov and wikileaks.

        What backdoor communication? I get your scepticism jewishgoyim but it still sounds like you’re confused. At the risk of adding to that I’ll quote from Wikileaks FAQ they have posted on the Cablegate site, about their contact w/ the US gov.:

        [Q.] Did you contact the US Department of State ahead of the release?

        [A.] As part of the review process, we requested the US State Department, which has claimed to have conducted an extensive review of the material of its own over the last few months, to provide the titles of the cables which we should look at with extra care.

        The State Department refused to provide that information, or negotiate any other arrangement, suggesting that its desire to cover up at all costs eclipses its bona fide desire to minimise potential harm.

        The State Department gave its side of the correspondence to the New York Times and elsewhere at the same time.
        link to cablegate.wikileaks.org

    • annie
      November 29, 2010, 2:07 pm

      I’m a little tired by Wikileaks. ….etc etc.

      you know what amazes me is how so many people who are tired of wikileaks are commenting about being tired of wikileaks. when i’m tired of reading about something i just skip it over.

      i’m noticing a trend of pro israel people saying it’s boring and meaningless etc. wonder what that’s about.

      • Philip Weiss
        November 29, 2010, 2:09 pm

        funny/wise re skipping over

  5. janisary
    November 28, 2010, 5:50 pm

    More juicy details:

    “MFA Deputy Director General for the Middle
    East Yacov Hadas provided PolCouns March 16 with an overview
    of Israel’s relations with several of the Gulf states. Hadas
    described Israel’s relations with the Gulf as a function of
    the Gulf Arabs’ fear of Iran, but also as due to the Arabs’
    belief in Israeli influence in Washington.”

    “Netanyahu pointed to the example of Jordanian King
    Hussein, whom he termed Israel’s best Arab ally and a man
    deeply committed to peace. Yet when Saddam Hussein took
    Kuwait, King Hussein got on board with the Iraqis. In the
    event of a nuclear Iran, “all the Arabs will become Qatar.” ”

    “Dual Citizenship Issues
    ———————–

    Ҧ9. (S) The GOI raised the issue of dual citizenship within
    the context of access to sensitive technology. U.S.
    participants acknowledged Israeli concerns, noting that the
    issue is being worked at the highest levels of the USG to
    reach consensus on how to proceed. The GOI recommended
    obtaining a waiver similar to the relationship from which
    Canada or Australia benefit. ”

    “S) Gilad addressed Israel’s immediate neighbors within
    the context of the Goldstone Report. He said Israel has
    checked “all the details” of the report, and have concluded
    that the report’s accusations are “baseless.” Buchris said
    the report sets a bad precedent for countries trying to
    protect its citizens from terrorists; he noted 300,000 phone
    calls from the IDF to houses in Gaza ahead of strikes in the
    effort to prevent civilian casualties — “no other country
    has taken such steps,” Buchris argued. A/S Shapiro
    highlighted strong U.S. opposition to the report’s referral
    to the UN Security Council, noting the report’s biased
    mandate.

    (S) Gilad said Israel only entered Gaza after Hamas
    violated the ceasefire or “tahdiya,” which many Israelis felt
    was “humiliating” and left Defense Minister Barak open to
    criticism. Gilad characterized Operation Cast Lead as a
    success that accounted for humanitarian issues; the IDF
    showed restraint in the operation because Israel did not want
    to re-occupy Gaza. DASD Kahl advocated sharing perspectives
    and lessons learned on strategic communication to more
    effectively confront terrorists in civilian-populated areas.
    NSC Director for Israel and Palestinian Affairs Prem Kumar
    noted continued UNSC interest in the Goldstone Report, and
    asked Israel to inform the United States on any additional
    efforts or investigations the GOI was taking to help deflect
    any further damage from the report. “

    • jewishgoyim
      November 28, 2010, 10:43 pm

      Still not convinced… Where is the meat!!!!!!
      I’m amazed that almost no one suggests that Wikileaks may be a fraud. Not “antiwar.com”, not Glenn Greenwald. Everybody thinks wikileaks is the real deal and that they are willing to bring down governments anytime. Give me a break. With the financial crisis and American neocolonialism with a privatized army they can’t leak anything of substance that is really threatening to the powers that be?

      They are not hurtful at all to the power structure.

      Plus if all comes from Manning, how come it tooks months to publish the stuff?

      I know for one thing that if I had some earth shattering state secrets, I would not send it to wikileaks. I don’t trust these people to be all that they claim to be.

      What did they leak that was really hurtful to the Empire? How about those censored Abu Ghraib pics that have been shown in Congress and everywhere? Can’t they get their hands on that? Now that would be hurtful to US interests in earnest. Bring it on!

      • Sumud
        November 29, 2010, 12:17 am

        With the financial crisis and American neocolonialism with a privatized army they can’t leak anything of substance that is really threatening to the powers that be?

        How about those censored Abu Ghraib pics that have been shown in Congress and everywhere? Can’t they get their hands on that?

        Well they aren’t generating content, just passing on what is leaked to them. If incriminating evidence isn’t leaked to them they can’t publish it. Obama gets this which is why he’s prosecuted more people for whistleblowing than all other US Presidents combined, and why Bradley Manning is being held so tightly (and will eventually be sentenced very harshly I predict): a deterrent.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 29, 2010, 1:55 am

        This comment with JewishGoyim (who I don’t recall seeing here before) takes it place with the rest of those intellectually challenged (or worse) souls who are deprecating the value of the Wikileaks leaks without having taken the time to actually read what is in them;it does take a little more than 24 hours.

        And yes, both Bush Jr. and Obama have effectively become agents of Israeli policy as was Bill Clinton whose devotion to Israel won him the nod over Bush Sr. who had more of the traditional view of US imperial interests and was not about to let the PM of Israel, at that time Shamir, dictate US Middle East policies.

        That required him going directly to the American people on 9/12/91 when he realized that AIPAC had secured sufficient votes in both houses of Congress to override his veto of Israel’s demand for $10 billion in loan guarantees, one of the most important moments in the history of US-Israel relations. Bush, determined to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict with a conference in Madrid in 1991, was not about to let the greed of the Israelis and the subservience of Congress deter him and he postponed a decision on the loan guarantees for four months, a delay to which Shamir had Congress had objected,

        When AIPAC and its bootlickers in Congress saw that 85% of the American people supported Bush, they withdrew to the shadows, determined to make Bush pay for such insolence. Their anger grew out of control when four months later, he still refused to grant the loan guarantees and the only support he got on the floor of Congress was from the late Sen. Robert Byrd.

        That led AIPAC and its friends in the media, including Israel First Repubs like the late Bill Safire to start attacking Bush for his handling of the economy and even though Bush finally granted the guarantees, after Rabin replaced Shamir, it was too late. Having received close to 35% of the Jewish vote in 1988, he got only 11% in 1992 and some observers day his principled position on the loan guarantees cosy him that election.

        One of the first things that Clinton did on entering the White House was to clean out what were derisively called “Arabists,” that is, experienced Middle East analysts, and replace them with warm Zionists, and from that moment on, the White House has been Israeli Occupied Territory.
        In Sept, 1994, the phenomena was described by an article in the Israeli paper, Ma’ariv, entitled “The Jews Who Run Clinton’s Court.”
        link to iahushua.com

        I am not trying to make a hero out of GHW Bush other than to point out that he had the guts to stand up to Israel and AIPAC that no one has since. His invasion of Panama was a war crime. His “liberating” Kuwait from Israeli occupation was something he tried to avoid by making a serious effort to get Saddam to withdraw and for his delaying in “getting the job done” he was being called a wimp by the very same chickenhawk neocons who got us into war in Iraq 12 years later.

        When he finally launched the war and left Saddam in power, the same neocons were furious and that decision, coupled with his refusal to grant their beloved Israel, the $10 billion in the loan guarantees, were to make sure he would be a one term president.

        I’m not sure howthe foregoing will sit with those of my critics who tend to filter everything through “class analysis.” I suspect they think Wikileaks is no big deal either.

      • MRW
        November 29, 2010, 4:53 am

        Actually, Jeffrey, jewishgoyim has been around for a while.

      • jewishgoyim
        November 29, 2010, 8:25 am

        Hi Jeffrey,

        It’s the intellectually challenged jewishgoyim. I’ve been around for a while indeed even if I write very little.

        I agree that my reaction to the latest dump was a little quick. Yet, if we come to Mondoweiss and other sites, it is because we think the mainstream news outlets are clearly lacking. Questioning why wikileaks choses to partner with the latter is legitimate. Questioning the real impact of previous wikileaks dump is also legitimate.

        Why on Earth should we “believe in” wikileaks? Is that a new religion? So far, they haven’t produced anything damaging enough to make me certain that they are this white knight who’s gonna straighten out all the bad guys of the planet. Maybe this latest dump will do the trick.

        Let’s say the CIA identifies in 2005 (or before) that the internet will be a leak factory. How far fetched is it to imagine them planting someone as a white knight and propping him up to stardom thanks to their contacts in the media making a big fuss each time this guy releases half-assed revelations that are not really threatening? The beauty of it is that leakers come directly to them (like Manning who has gone to jail even before the release of the docs!)

        I have the same suspicion in the economic sphere about the site “zerohedge”.

        Also how hard would it have been to shut down wikileaks years ago if they had identified a real threat. Even yesterday before the dump? Poor little US gvt defenseless and scared.

        Anyway not saying this is the truth. Just wondering why not more people are wondering. Let’s keep an open mind and not declare once and for all any organisation to be the symbol of integrity.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 29, 2010, 1:21 pm

        It’s this comment of JewishGoyim that puts him in my “intellectually challenged category.” “Let’s say,” he writes,”the CIA identifies in 2005 (or before) that the internet will be a leak factory. How far fetched is it to imagine them planting someone as a white knight and propping him up to stardom thanks to their contacts in the media making a big fuss each time this guy releases half-assed revelations that are not really threatening? ”

        The answer is VERY far-fetched and only someone who has little historical background and even less curiosity could come up with it, given what the fact of the diplomatic documents exposed has been more of a problem than the intellectually challenged can imagine.

        What the CIA and /or FBI does do, as have other governments, is set up their own opposition groups, often, in our case, of the far Left, while infiltrating others. They will set up potential zealots by challenging their commitment to the “revolution” or to “Allah” as well as their manhood and then provide them with the weapons or explosives to carry out a “terrorist” action and then bust them before they do it, or in the case of the first WTC, in 93, right after. But to create Wikileaks, to accomplish exactly what?
        Whatever you’re smoking, change your brand.

      • annie
        November 29, 2010, 2:15 pm

        Why on Earth should we “believe in” wikileaks?

        because thus far no one in the US gov has claimed any of the leaks were fabricated by wikileaks.

      • jewishgoyim
        November 29, 2010, 6:04 pm

        ” But to create Wikileaks, to accomplish exactly what?”

        The benefit of controlling wikileaks for the power structure seems quite obvious to me. “They” can organize leaks that ultimately serve the power structure. The “climate-gate” comes to mind. “They” can intercept whistleblowers foolish enough to send them info. They can prevent or edit the final leaks to serve their interest (as in: “It’s all about Iran and there is a consensus against them eventhough ayrabs won’t tell it to you in public”)

        If “they” create fake opposition movements as a matter of course, why do you think it’s far-fetched that they could create media venues like wikileaks?

        And once again, you can call me name and everything but I just don’t understand why one would be so dismissive and angry about this idea.

        Can you explain what in the latest leaks (or previous ones), would be a smoking gun making clear that wikileaks has released info that no government in its right mind could have leaked in order to control the main “leak” website in the world? Bring it on. I’m not a specialist as you are, I can easily be convinced and I have no dog in the game.

        Now being polite does not hurt in any case.

      • jewishgoyim
        November 29, 2010, 6:16 pm

        I did not say any of the cables weren’t true either. I’m not saying wikileaks is leaking false documents (eventhough I’m not implying the contrary either as you are – how could you possibly know? You need the US govt to help you form an opinion? What if they forged one or two documents? Would the pentagon say: “these two documents are fake” implying therefore that all the others are genuine? I think not.)

        I’m just saying they can organize these leaks to get them control without really endangering them.

        I want to see the US gov’s nose really bloodied by wikileaks before I really trust them. In retrospect, I can’t think of anything that makes me comfortable with the idea.

        Then the only problem is not whether some part of the US gov (or other) has taken part in creating wikileaks, you can also wonder to what extent they’ll be able to resist infiltration and government influence in the future. The idea that one should be forever trusting wikileaks does not make sense to me on its face.

        Isn’t all I am saying just disinformation 101???

      • Sumud
        November 29, 2010, 7:06 pm

        It’s not inconceivable that what you’re saying might be true jewishgoyim, but I just don’t see evidence to back it up. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with speculating about it though.

        Their archive is currently offline but wikileaks have a rich if brief history (founded 2007), much more than their four big leaks of 2010. Read about some of their previous leaks @ the wikileaks wikipedia entry. For your theory to make sense all that prior activity would have to be setup for a massive sting operation.. It seems OTT to me.

      • jewishgoyim
        November 29, 2010, 10:07 pm

        Agreed. Obviously Jeffrey Blankfort is of the opinion that Wikileaks has established a credibility without question. To the point that me doubting it is putting me in the “intellectually challenged” category. He probably has a point. Besides calling me idiot, he has not yet provided the smoking gun that would convince me that wikileaks is most certainly sincere about hurting the US gov.

        And then again, I’m ready to be convinced. If they had shown the still undisclosed Abu Ghraib photos for instance, I would tend to believe that cost/benefit analysis would plead against wikileaks being a government friendly operation…

      • yonira
        November 30, 2010, 12:29 am

        Jeffrey/Avi,

        why are you unable to debate anything without the token ad-hominem at the beginning?

      • annie
        November 29, 2010, 2:09 pm

        I’m amazed that almost no one suggests that Wikileaks may be a fraud.

        go find antidote, that’s her line from yesterday.

      • Antidote
        November 29, 2010, 3:13 pm

        Here I am, annie. Yes, I suggested that as an interesting idea yesterday. Does that make it “my line”? It was Duff/Seaton’s line, and I explained already yesterday that I didn’t mean to say they are spot on, but merely that the ‘cui bono’ is a worthwhile consideration, and that high expectations about this new disclosure exposing the dark dealings of Israel and her selfish grip on US foreign policy and domestic politics are not necessarily justified and, at any rate, premature.

        Haven’t changed my mind yet, actually. Looks like the US and Obama administration has more reason to worry than Israel. Netanyahu’s reaction is the same as what he said about 9/11: Good for Israel. Looks like the Israelis are dancing. And indeed, they saw it all coming for years, this mega-leak of diplomatic cables, and have long adjusted their diplomatic communications accordingly. No, I don’t think the cables are a fraud. But close to a million US government employees have had access to those files, and we do not know who leaked them to Wikileaks, much less why.Oh, and it’s still time to bomb Iran without too much collateral damage. From today’s Haaretz:

        Netanyahu: WikiLeaks cables prove Israel is right on Iran
        Leaks show how the entire Middle East fears a nuclear Iran, prime minister says.

        ….. Revelations that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton questioned the mental health of Argentina’s president and that America asked its diplomats to snoop on the United Nations may prove awkward for Washington.

        But for Israel, the outcome is positive, Netanyahu said.

        “Israel has not been damaged at all by the WikiLeaks publications,” the prime minster told a group of editors in Tel Aviv. “The documents show many sources backing Israel’s assessments, particularly of Iran.”

        One result of the Wikileaks cables was to expose Arab fears of growing Iranian power, and it emerged that Saudi Arabia had asked the U.S. to launch a military strike to prevent the Iranians from gaining a nuclear bomb.

        Israel has for years warned of the danger from the Iranian nuclear program – which Iran claims is for peaceful purposes – to the entire region. These warnings had been vindicated, Netanyahu said.

        “Our region has been hostage to a narrative that is the result of 60 years of propaganda, which paints Israel as the greatest threat,” Netanyahu said.

        “In reality leaders understand that that view is bankrupt. For the first time in history there is agreement that Iran is the threat,” he said.

        “If leaders start saying openly what they have long been saying behind closed doors, we can make a real breakthrough on the road to peace.”

        A 2009 American government cable released Sunday by WikiLeaks quotes Defense Minister Ehud Barak as telling visiting American officials that a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities was viable until the end of 2010, but after that “any military solution would result in unacceptable collateral damage”.

        Leaked documents also show America in agreement with Israel’s assessment of Turkish premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan as an unreliable “fundamentalist” whose policies are governed by an irrational hatred of Israel.

        Netanyahu added that Israel had been prepared for the eventuality of leaks and had worked in advance to limit any damage.

        “Every Israeli leader has known for years that that dispatches are likely to leak out, so we adapted ourselves to the reality of leaks, he said. “That has a bearing on who I invite to meetings. No classified Israeli material was exposed by WikiLeaks.”

        link to haaretz.com

      • annie
        November 29, 2010, 4:04 pm

        oh great. now antidote and witty are feeding us the same hasbara (read my 2nd post right under it too). and what’s this?

        Netanyahu added that Israel had been prepared for the eventuality of leaks and had worked in advance to limit any damage.

        “Every Israeli leader has known for years that that dispatches are likely to leak out, so we adapted ourselves to the reality of leaks, he said. “That has a bearing on who I invite to meetings. No classified Israeli material was exposed by WikiLeaks.”

        gee, you don’t say? do you mean their message might be adapted bith when they speak to the state department AND the press? do you mean they might be on message? in fact, so on message that when their talking pts get leaked they then claim it confirms their talking pts?

        i’m shocked. speaking of not hurting israel do you think anyone will notice everything israel advises us to do ends up being a main theme in all the papers? in our foreign policy? do you think it might lead people to get the impression we’re acting like israel’s lap dog? do you think that’s good for israel too?

      • Sumud
        November 29, 2010, 7:27 pm

        speaking of not hurting israel do you think anyone will notice everything israel advises us to do ends up being a main theme in all the papers? in our foreign policy? do you think it might lead people to get the impression we’re acting like israel’s lap dog? do you think that’s good for israel too?

        My thoughts also annie, especially on reading in one of the cables about “Israel’s five-pillar strategy” for weakening Iran which I linked to here.

        Aside, it’s nice to read Israel explicitly endorsing one plank of the BDS Movement (sanctions) as a tactic. This will be valuable when anti-apartheid sentiment has grown to the point when governments/the UN are proposing sanctions be placed on Israel..

      • Antidote
        November 29, 2010, 8:20 pm

        I don’t understand what your objection is to the point I made, or thought I made.

      • annie
        November 30, 2010, 12:16 am

        exactly sumud and i had a similar reaction to yours directly after. notice eee responded to neither of us.

      • annie
        November 30, 2010, 12:21 am

        I don’t understand what your objection is to the point I made, or thought I made.

        try answering some of the questions i asked then.

      • annie
        November 30, 2010, 12:36 am

        antidote, i suggest you read this very recent revealing post translated from hebrew @ coteret: Israeli media provides a glimpse of how spin drives Israeli diplomacy

        note remez’s editorializing (“One spin creates problem A, which a second spin attempts to solve, creating problem B. If short-term image issues, compounded by media amateurism, guides management of the ’strategic relationship’. We can only hope that’s not the case when decisions are made on if and when to go to war.)

        note maariv:

        International diplomacy is built on lies and half truths and in the delicate relationship between Israel and the US this week, there was no reason to give the Americans another reason to get annoyed at us. But every time that it seems to us that we’ve reached the bottom of the barrel, something happens and proves that we’ve still a long way to go before we get there. This something was the decision yesterday to send Arad to the studio. Perhaps because there was nobody else left to send.

        it occurs to me perhaps you actually believe lots of the lies spewed by netanyahu’s government? maybe you are unfamiliar w/institutions like Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies or groups of it’;s ilk. these people just sit around all day and formulate spin to get the job done, the job being to get the US to bomb iran w/our own blood and treasure while they expand.

      • Antidote
        November 30, 2010, 2:51 am

        “do you mean their message might be adapted bith when they speak to the state department AND the press? do you mean they might be on message? in fact, so on message that when their talking pts get leaked they then claim it confirms their talking pts?”

        yes, annie, that’s exactly what I meant, as confirmed by Netanyahu’s admission, which I quoted above, that Israeli leaders saw this coming, and have long adjusted their communications accordingly.

        “speaking of not hurting israel do you think anyone will notice everything israel advises us to do ends up being a main theme in all the papers? in our foreign policy?”

        We’ll see. I did not seriously expect anybody in US diplomatic circles writing cables that betray any affinity to the W&M, Finkelstein, Chomsky or Helen Thomas-school of thought on the I/P conflict and the special relationship. Did you?

      • Antidote
        November 30, 2010, 12:16 pm

        “it occurs to me perhaps you actually believe lots of the lies spewed by netanyahu’s government?”

        no, I don’t. Unlike you, I am aware of the fact that people who spread lies often actually believe them to be truths. To accuse them or their followers of being liars and idiots is not going to get either them or you anywhere

        Don’t disagree with anything in the article you linked either. But, seriously, I’m getting a bit tired of your straw-accusations against me. Find something else to do, I’ll ignore them from now on

      • annie
        November 30, 2010, 1:26 pm

        asking questions is not the same as accusing someone antidote. i just find the duff/seaton conclusion a tad absurd under the circumstances. i’m sorry if i offended your sensibilities with my reaction. i didn’t post the coteret article because i thought you would disagree w/them but because i thought you would agree. i think it is some main premises we simply disagree.

        I am aware of the fact that people who spread lies often actually believe them to be truths.

        fair enough, i definitely carry a more cynical approach towards people who spread propaganda. actually wilkerson warns about that very thing in the video right now on the front page.

        “the information being reported back to Washington isn’t necessarily the truth,” but is “designed to obfuscate, and to lie, and to twist, and to turn–anything but the complete truth….and if they are the truth as seen by the observers, the observers are often fooled.”

        i’m not suggesting everyone passing along this info is a liar but ‘willing tools’ wouldn’t be off the mark.. not sure what your point was publishing “WikiLeaks cables prove Israel is right on Iran
        Leaks show how the entire Middle East fears a nuclear Iran”. what i do think is clear is israel saying virtually everything proves their point, all the time. i think that is because it is a calculated game to convince us they are right, a form of psychological manipulation.

    • Shingo
      November 29, 2010, 3:55 am

      “Gilad said Israel only entered Gaza after Hamas
      violated the ceasefire or “tahdiya,” which many Israelis felt
      was “humiliating” and left Defense Minister Barak open to
      criticism.”‘

      Obviously there are many false items among the documents. This false statement by Gilad surely proves it.

      • annie
        November 29, 2010, 2:24 pm

        Obviously there are many false items among the documents. This false statement by Gilad surely proves it.

        saying the content is false is different than claiming wikileaks is releasing any thing other than state department leaks. the israeli governments statements (according to the st department) just sound exactly like hasbara talking pts, and why wouldn’t they. they all stay on message, it doesn’t mean they are telling the truth.

  6. Richard Witty
    November 28, 2010, 6:00 pm

    link to haaretz.com

    WikiLeaks exposé: Israel tried to coordinate Gaza war with Abbas

    link to haaretz.com

    WikiLeaks exposé: Barak warned strike on Iran was viable until end of 2010

    link to haaretz.com

    WikiLeaks exposé: Iran used ambulances to run arms into Lebanon during 2006 war

    • Richard Witty
      November 28, 2010, 6:01 pm

      link to haaretz.com

      Iran rejects WikiLeaks disclosures as ‘diabolical’

      • Shingo
        November 29, 2010, 3:52 am

        “Iran rejects WikiLeaks disclosures as ‘diabolical’”

        The Wikileaks disclocusre was ras US intelligence, which in itself is proof of nothing.

    • Shingo
      November 29, 2010, 3:50 am

      “WikiLeaks exposé: Iran used ambulances to run arms into Lebanon during 2006 war”

      And Britain allowed it’s airports to be used to run arms to Israel. during that war too.

      Your point?

    • Shingo
      November 29, 2010, 3:53 am

      “WikiLeaks exposé: Israel tried to coordinate Gaza war with Abbas”

      Which goes to prove that Abbas is nothing more than a vile Israeli stooge. This should spell his end and the end of the PA.

    • annie
      November 29, 2010, 2:31 pm

      i can’t believe you fall for this crap witty, from your ‘Iran used ambulances’ link:

      “The only true Iranian Red Crescent officers dispatched to Lebanon were the doctors and drivers. Shipments of medical supplies served also to facilitate weapons shipments,” the Guardian quotes the source as saying.

      The IRC source added that medical staff in Iran had seen missiles on a plane destined for Lebanon while delivering medical supplies to the airport, and that the “plane was allegedly ‘half full’ prior to the arrival of any medical supplies.”

      and the (unidentified) IRC source’ just happens to be a member of mek maybe? or some propaganda spewing agents? and chabali saw WMD’s in iraq too?

      just because the state department memo says some unidentified’source’ tells it something it wants to hear doesn’t make it so, it just means the state department is engaging in rumors. doesn’t mean it is true.

    • annie
      November 29, 2010, 2:52 pm

      woa, haaretz did a real job of the guardian article. tsk tsk. let’s see if anyone notices the difference:

      WikiLeaks exposé: Iran used ambulances to run arms into Lebanon during 2006 war

      Top Iranian source told U.S. officials that medical staff loading Lebanon-bound planes in Iran noticed that the aircraft were ‘already half full.’

      Iran used the neutrality of the Iranian Red Crescent to smuggle agents and weapons into Lebanon during Israel’s 2006 with Hezbollah, U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks revealed on Sunday.

      now lets hear what the guardian reports:

      Iranian spies ‘used Red Crescent to enter war zones’

      US embassy cables reveal claims that intelligence agents and weapons were smuggled into Lebanon and Iraq

      notice the subtle difference?

      The cables accuse Iran’s Revolutionary Guard of using the aid organisation to move spies and weapons into war zones.

      one ‘revealed’, the other ‘accused’. revealed implies it is truth. accused implies it was an accusation, which it was.

      Iran abused the strict neutrality of the Iranian Red Crescent (IRC) society to smuggle intelligence agents and weapons into other countries, including Lebanon during the 2006 war with Israel, according to claims in a leaked US embassy cable.

      notice how the guardian links directly to the leaked copy? notice “1. (U) This is an action request. Please see paragraph 18.” and pragraph 18 is redacted? notice how the ‘source’ is most likely a spy working for the agency? who probably doesn’t have iran’s best interest at heart?

      iow, this doesn’t represent the truth, it just represents the truth according to our guy in iran according to his source. (oh, and nothing here confirms haaretz’s allegation this was a ‘top source’.

  7. kalithea
    November 28, 2010, 6:14 pm

    Here are some excerpts from Ynet and the Guardian on the leaked cables:

    “Secret US embassy cables leaked by the controversial Web entity WikiLeaks say Mossad chief Meir Dagan suggested the US make use of local fringe groups to try and topple the Iranian regime.

    According to a memo from August 2007, Dagan described to Under-Secretary of State Nicholas Burns the five pillars of Israel’s Iran policy, among them THE DESIRE TO SPARK A REVOLUTION.

    The memo says Dagan wanted to enlist the student unions supporting democratic views in order to undermine the government’s rule, the British Guardian reported Sunday.

    The Mossad chief also wanted to enlist local ethnic minorities to the task, including the Kurds and Balochis. These groups – especially the Balochis – have carried out terror attacks in Tehran for which the Islamic Republic has consistently blamed Israel.” “

    “With regard to their nuclear program, Dagan said the Iranians are attempting to convey a “false presentation” that they have mastered the uranium enrichment process. The reality is that they are not there yet, said Dagan, and they are paying a heavy political price (sanctions) for something they have yet to achieve.”

    In other words Israel had its hand in the election uprising in Tehran since it was planning to manipulate Iranian opposition groups as early as 2007, and Mossad admits Iran hasn’t mastered enrichment to make a weapon, which translates this way: We are consistently being had by the media spin and Israeli hasbara that fuels it.

  8. Avi
    November 28, 2010, 6:32 pm

    This leak ranks as ‘extremely lukewarm’ in my dictionary. If this is the quality of the leaks, then I don’t expect any earth shattering information to be revealed.

    • edwin
      November 28, 2010, 8:24 pm

      Given that we are currently 220/251,287 on the cable viewer site I think that you are a bit premature.

      There is going to be a whole lot of trash in a leak of this size. I am guessing that the goal is to spoon feed interesting things to keep the leaks in the papers for the next couple of months. I suspect that the idea is to make it as hard as possible for the media to bury it after 3 days.

  9. edmoloney
    November 28, 2010, 6:46 pm

    another juicy one – look at point six in this link: link to guardian.co.uk which reads:
    “He (Barak) explained that the GOI had consulted with Egypt and Fatah prior to Operation Cast Lead, asking if they were willing to assume control of Gaza once Israel defeated Hamas. Not surprisingly, Barak said, the GOI received negative answers from both.” and one could presumably add, but neither did egypt or fatah object to the proposed military operation or try to stop it!

  10. janisary
    November 28, 2010, 6:47 pm

    Mossad Chief Dagan talking to US Undersecretary Burns in 2007 about Iran:

    “E) Force Regime Change: Dagan said that more should be done
    to foment regime change in Iran, possibly with the support of
    student democracy movements, and ethnic groups (e.g., Azeris,
    Kurds, Baluchs) opposed to the ruling regime.”

    So much for the Green Movement…

  11. Jim Haygood
    November 28, 2010, 7:03 pm

    The NYT reports on Levey’s deputy, Daniel Glaser [is the Treasury's anti-terrorism office a Jewish mafia, or is this just coincidence?]:

    The man chosen to begin wiping out the confusion [about Obama's intentions toward Iran] was Daniel Glaser, a little-known official with a title that took two breaths to enunciate in full: acting assistant secretary of the Treasury for terrorist financing and financial crimes.

    The first big rollout of his message appears to have come in Brussels on March 2 and 3, 2009, during what the cables called “an unprecedented classified briefing” to more than 70 Middle East experts from European governments.

    Mr. Glaser got right to the point. Yes, engagement was part of the administration’s overall strategy. “However, ‘engagement’ alone is unlikely to succeed,” Mr. Glaser said. And to those concerned that the offer of reconciliation was open-ended, one cable said, he replied curtly that “time was not on our side.”

    The relief among countries supporting sanctions was palpable enough to pierce the cables’ smooth diplomatese. “Iran needs to fear the stick and feel a light ‘tap’ now,” said Robert Cooper, a senior European Union official.

    “Glaser agreed, noting the stick could escalate beyond financial measures under a worst case scenario,” a cable said.

    link to nytimes.com

    The Times’ spin implies that the US was just taking the lead in response to a global loathing of Iran. Funny how the US stance exactly mirrors the aggressive posture AIPAC was advocating in its near-contemporaneous annual convention.

    Call me skeptical. I suspect the NYT article is preëmptive spin to camouflage the extent to which the US was and is merely carrying water for Israel. It will take time for a more considered judgement to emerge, based on the full corpus of the cables (which I certainly don’t have time to read).

  12. VR
    November 28, 2010, 7:19 pm

    I see some are still looking for the “silver bullet” to prove your delusions regarding lobby control of everything, and the poor USA being dragged along helplessly…lol Why don’t you check out Jewbonics site and see another description of what is really taking place, other interests in the last post –

    THE FUTURE OF FAYYADISM

    Which is another route of interest in the “global community,” which shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Israel is being rewarded for what it is doing to the Palestinians by many nations and groups of interest. Than again, some never look at anything having to do with reality, wanting only Israel to be in control of everything. Whistle a tune for Wilson for me.

    • kalithea
      November 28, 2010, 9:04 pm

      “I see some are still looking for the “silver bullet” to prove your delusions regarding lobby control of everything, and the poor USA being dragged along helplessly…lol.”

      Most idiotic comment of the day belongs to you.

      Everyone knows that that israel is recruiting thousands of advocates to work with its embassies around the world to push Israeli policy on the unsuspecting and the gullible! This is merely another stage in the Zionist state’s effort to control-control-control everyone and everything in its path with proxy lobbies and hasbara recruits!

      link to guardian.co.uk

      Zionism on the prowl worldwide. Ugh, sickening.

      • VR
        November 28, 2010, 11:34 pm

        The saddest part about this reply is that you believe that this is all that we have to watch out for, it is a testimony to this sites truncated participants. “Zionism on the prowl worldwide,” yes, “Ugh, sickening,” but because you choose to close your own eyes to a confluence of interests – I would say that the view is almost dangerous not only because I specifically said “delusions regarding lobby control of everything,” which you apparently believe. Do you actually the US is struggling tooth and nail against Zionists in the USA (or has been taken over in full by Zionists), and is being forced to do things it would rather not do?

    • Jeffrey Blankfort
      November 29, 2010, 2:10 am

      VR (Vared), your obsession with protecting Israel and the Israel Lobby from the scorn and attention they deserve is probably considered touching in some quarters but on a site dedicated to finding justice for the Palestinians and not hiding the truth while doing so, it becomes almost obligatory to question your agenda.

      It is also somewhat self-serving for you to promote Jewbonics, a site whose host is only slightly less obsessed than you are with the same subject, where Mearsheimer, Walt, Freeman, and yours truly, are regularly trashed, that has very few visitors and you seem to be the only one making comments.

      • VR
        November 29, 2010, 9:43 am

        I do not know what you are talking about Mr. Blankfort, there is no attempt from me to protect the Israel Lobby or Israel, and your repeated untruth (which is always you worn frayed card) does not make what you are saying correct – others have used the repeated lie process, I do not think I have apprise you of who has and is presently using this tactic. What I am doing is putting both Israel and the Israel lobby in perspective of their environment, and what they are doing and being allowed to do is no different than what has gone on for years (since this country’s inception) in this country.

        It might be hard for you to believe, but I appreciate a number of the exposes you have delivered – I just do not believe that this is the warp and woof of all that is wrong with this country or global policy. The Palestinians will never find justice by truncated and highly overemphasized aspects of one element in a whole sea of confluence. Therefore I invite people to see what I consider a more inclusive view of what is transpiring, and rather than “trashing” you or the others you mention Jewbonics merely attempts to criticize (rightfully) views which leave total reality out of the picture. “Few visitors” is no indication of being incorrect, in fact it is the starting point of all endeavors on the web and elsewhere – you mistake your penchant for trashing with clear critical analysis, not uncommon.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 29, 2010, 1:39 pm

        What is the untruth, VR/Vared? What other conclusion can be drawn from your lengthy attacks (as well as those of host Max) on me and other critics of the Israel Lobby than you are engaged in damage control. And you don’t do it by countering facts that I and others have presented by stating that “what they are doing and being allowed to do is no different than what has gone on for years (since this country’s inception) in this country.” That’s simply unadulterated bullshit.

        Tell me VR/Vared, setting aside the crimes committed as this country went from its ethnically cleansing settler colonial origins to becoming a worldwide empire, what other group of American citizens has ever been allowed to organize and work for the benefit of a foreign country and do so openly?”

        Second, do you believe that the US unconditional support for Israel enhances it’s global interests and if so, how?

        Third, do you believe that an attack on Iran would serve US corporate interests and if so, how?

        Fourth, is there any other section of American society that is agitating for an attack on Iran besides the Zionist establishment and its Christian allies?

        If you can answer those questions simply and directly I think it will be of interest to a number of MW readers.

      • VR
        November 29, 2010, 10:06 pm

        That is an interesting screed you have above Mr. Blankfort, there is no damage control taking place, just an expose of the same systemic nonsense that has been going on in this country since its inception. To be frank, it does not matter if the interest of the elites are for this country or another, it is that they are for their interests alone – not the peoples.

        You don’t want to talk about the system unless you are uncomfortable, and what makes you uncomfortable is apparent. As long as the American people can feed like vampires upon whatever victim, that is your concern – you’re motto is, as long as it is not broken in book don’t fix it. The empire can do what it likes as long as it shares the ill gotten booty with the American public. I get your thrust and it is morally bankrupt.

        If Israel did not serve the interests of the empire in some form it would not be supported. However, the interests of the empire are the interests of the few, not the people – the people both foreign and domestic are the victims. All of the think-tanks are abuzz with the attack of Iraq, whether it is Israelis, Zionists or not – the “moderate” allies in the ME want to attack Iran. The fact remains it does not matter what is in the US interest, because the only interest that matters is that of the moneyed few – and it has always been that way. Can you name an attack that has ever been in the interest of the American people?

        If you noticed I do not follow your demands, that is because I do not allow you nor anyone to dictate to me what the parameters of a discussion or argument are going to be. The fact of the matter is I will not allow you to frame anything, and that is because your positions are full of holes. So do not talk to me about the amorphous word “interest,” nor who serves who for what purpose. All your position does is make you a shill for greater damage, it will perpetuate what put us here in the first place, and I will not join you nor anyone else is feasting on the carrion of humanity. You got that?

  13. Les
    November 28, 2010, 7:24 pm

    Here’s the link to IS leaks. There may be other Israel related documents elsewhere.

    link to cablegate.wikileaks.org

  14. Les
    November 28, 2010, 7:28 pm

    As early as April 2007, Gary Ackerman was apparently taking orders from Netanyahu even when he was still in opposition.

    link to cablegate.wikileaks.org

  15. Les
    November 28, 2010, 7:33 pm

    Even Netanyahu supports divestment!

    “Netanyahu advised Congress to expedite the legislative effort for divestment.”

    link to cablegate.wikileaks.org

  16. CTuttle
    November 28, 2010, 7:50 pm

    This is a disturbing quote from a 13 May, 2009 cable: SUBJECT: Rep. Wexler Discusses Iran With IDF Intelligence…

    Rep Wexler stated that he expected Israel would be pleasantly surprised by the President’s acceptance of all possible options in regards to Iran.

  17. Sumud
    November 29, 2010, 12:40 am

    Meanwhile the Australian Attorney General is threatening to take legal action against Assange, though he doesn’t specify what the charges would be:

    ‘WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange could face legal action, says Attorney-General’
    link to theaustralian.com.au

  18. Jeffrey Blankfort
    November 29, 2010, 2:12 am

    There has been speculation in the Jewish press that Wexler will be appointed to replace tired old George Mitchell as the US point man on the “peace process” because he is “respected by all sides.”

  19. Richard Witty
    November 29, 2010, 1:27 pm

    link to haaretz.com

    U.S. tightens information security in wake of WikiLeaks report

Leave a Reply