325 Whistleblower who leaked video of US helicopter shooting civilians in Iraq, arrested

(1) Whistleblower who leaked video of US helicopter shooting civilians in Iraq, arrested
(2) Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites
(3) Saudi Arabia: We will not give Israel air corridor for Iran strike
(4) Saudi Arabia denies flight deal against Iran
(5) Biden backed Israel on Flotilla raid, has taken lots of AIPAC donations - JEFFREY BLANKFORT
(6) The Lobby's blend of paranoia and belligerence - Australian journalist

(1) Whistleblower who leaked video of US helicopter shooting civilians in Iraq, arrested
From: Max <Max@mailstar.net> Date: 12.06.2010 11:05 AM

http://www.smh.com.au/world/suspect-said-to-have-leaked-thousands-of-secret- cables-20100608-xtn1.html

Suspect said to have leaked thousands of secret cables

SIMON MANN HERALD CORRESPONDENT

June 9, 2010

WASHINGTON: An American soldier who reportedly passed secret video of a US Army helicopter gunning down civilians in Iraq to the whistleblower website WikiLeaks may also have leaked reams of top-secret cables.

The Pentagon has confirmed it is holding Army Specialist Bradley Manning, 22, in Kuwait, although it did not say if he had been charged.

The military did not refer to the video. It said only that it "takes the management of classified information very seriously" because of the threat to national security and soldier's lives.

WikiLeaks.org, a three-year-old website founded by an Australian, Julian Assange, that publishes sensitive material, posted video this year of the controversial 2007 attack in Baghdad in which more than a dozen civilians, including a Reuters photo-journalist and his driver, were killed. Accompanying audio records the crew apparently revelling in the killings.

An internal army investigation, which concluded that the soldiers involved acted appropriately, noted that weapons allegedly carried by some of the Iraqis were found at the scene.

The website of Wired magazine first reported the detention of Specialist Manning, who had been stationed at Forward Operating Base Hammer in Iraq.

His arrest, nearly two weeks ago, came after he allegedly boasted to a former hacker that he had leaked the video along with other top-secret footage and as many as 260,000 classified US diplomatic cables which he said exposed "almost criminal political back dealings" involving the US State Department.

Adrian Lamo, a former hacker turned journalist and security consultant, said he dobbed the soldier in to authorities after he started discussing classified information.

A spokesman for WikiLeaks said he believed the person behind the leak "whoever it is, is protected by law".

In messages via Twitter, the group elaborated: "We never collect personal information on our sources, so we are are unable as yet to confirm the Manning story." However, "if Brad Manning is the . whistleblower then, without doubt, he's a national hero".

WikiLeaks said reports it had received 260,000 documents "are, as far as we can tell, incorrect".

Relatives of the civilians killed in the gunship attack in Iraq criticised the soldier's detention. "Justice was what this US soldier did by uncovering this crime against humanity," said Nabil Noor-Eldeen, whose brother, Namir, was one of the Reuters employees killed in the strike.

Mr Lamo said Specialist Manning had contacted him in late May after reading about him in Wired.com, saying he had come across documents that contained "incredible things, awful things . that belonged in the public domain".

Mr Lamo said the soldier felt mistreated by the military and wanted it to see "the futility" of its computer-security measures. He allegedly told how he once walked out of a classified document room with data he had copied onto a CD labelled as Lady Gaga music.

(2) Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites

From: Sami Joseph <sajoseph2005@yahoo.com> Date: 12.06.2010 02:45 AM

Hugh Tomlinson

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7148555.ece

Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities, The Times can reveal.

In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran.

To ensure the Israeli bombers pass unmolested, Riyadh has carried out tests to make certain its own jets are not scrambled and missile defence systems not activated. Once the Israelis are through, the kingdom’s air defences will return to full alert.

“The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way,” said a US defence source in the area.

“They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [US] State Department.”

Sources in Saudi Arabia say it is common knowledge within defence circles in the kingdom that an arrangement is in place if Israel decides to launch the raid. Despite the tension between the two governments, they share a mutual loathing of the regime in Tehran and a common fear of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “We all know this. We will let them [the Israelis] through and see nothing,” said one.

The four main targets for any raid on Iran would be the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Qom, the gas storage development at Isfahan and the heavy-water reactor at Arak. Secondary targets include the lightwater reactor at Bushehr, which could produce weapons-grade plutonium when complete.

The targets lie as far as 1,400 miles (2,250km) from Israel; the outer limits of their bombers’ range, even with aerial refuelling. An open corridor across northern Saudi Arabia would significantly shorten the distance. An airstrike would involve multiple waves of bombers, possibly crossing Jordan, northern Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Aircraft attacking Bushehr, on the Gulf coast, could swing beneath Kuwait to strike from the southwest.

Passing over Iraq would require at least tacit agreement to the raid from Washington. So far, the Obama Administration has refused to give its approval as it pursues a diplomatic solution to curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Military analysts say Israel has held back only because of this failure to secure consensus from America and Arab states. Military analysts doubt that an airstrike alone would be sufficient to knock out the key nuclear facilities, which are heavily fortified and deep underground or within mountains. However, if the latest sanctions prove ineffective the pressure from the Israelis on Washington to approve military action will intensify. Iran vowed to continue enriching uranium after the UN Security Council imposed its toughest sanctions yet in an effort to halt the Islamic Republic’s nuclear programme, which Tehran claims is intended for civil energy purposes only. President Ahmadinejad has described the UN resolution as “a used handkerchief, which should be thrown in the dustbin”.

Israeli officials refused to comment yesterday on details for a raid on Iran, which the Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has refused to rule out. Questioned on the option of a Saudi flight path for Israeli bombers, Aharaon Zeevi Farkash, who headed military intelligence until 2006 and has been involved in war games simulating a strike on Iran, said: “I know that Saudi Arabia is even more afraid than Israel of an Iranian nuclear capacity.”

In 2007 Israel was reported to have used Turkish air space to attack a suspected nuclear reactor being built by Iran’s main regional ally, Syria. Although Turkey publicly protested against the “violation” of its air space, it is thought to have turned a blind eye in what many saw as a dry run for a strike on Iran’s far more substantial — and better-defended — nuclear sites.

Israeli intelligence experts say that Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are at least as worried as themselves and the West about an Iranian nuclear arsenal.Israel has sent missile-class warships and at least one submarine capable of launching a nuclear warhead through the Suez Canal for deployment in the Red Sea within the past year, as both a warning to Iran and in anticipation of a possible strike. Israeli newspapers reported last year that high-ranking officials, including the former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, have met their Saudi Arabian counterparts to discuss the Iranian issue. It was also reported that Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, met Saudi intelligence officials last year to gain assurances that Riyadh would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets violating Saudi airspace during the bombing run. Both governments have denied the reports.

(3) Saudi Arabia: We will not give Israel air corridor for Iran strike

From: Kristoffer Larsson <kristoffer.larsson@sobernet.nu> Date: 13.06.2010 08:42 AM

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/saudi-arabia-we-will-not-give-israel-air-corridor-for-iran-strike-1.295672

June 6, 2010

Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf refutes Times of London report saying Saudi Arabia practiced standing down its anti-aircraft systems to allow an Israeli bomb run.

By Haaretz Service

Saudi Arabia would not allow Israeli bombers to pass through its airspace en route to a possible strike of Iran's nuclear facilities, a member of the Saudi royal family said Saturday, denying an earlier Times of London report.

Earlier Saturday, the Times reported that Saudi Arabia has practiced standing down its anti-aircraft systems to allow Israeli warplanes passage on their way to attack Iran's nuclear installations, adding that the Saudis have allocated a narrow corridor of airspace in the north of the country.

Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf, the Saudi envoy to the U.K. speaking to the London-based Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, denied that report, saying such a move "would be against the policy adopted and followed by the Kingdom."

According to Asharq al-Awsat report, bin Nawaf reiterated the Saudi Arabia's rejection of any violation of its territories or airspace, adding that it would be "illogical to allow the Israeli occupying force, with whom Saudi Arabia has no relations whatsoever, to use its land and airspace."

Earlier, the Times quoted an unnamed U.S. defense source as saying that "the Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way.

"They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [U.S.] State Department."

Once the Israelis had passed, the kingdom’s air defenses would return to full alert, the Times said.

Despite tensions between them, Israel and Saudi Arabia share a mutual hostility to Iran.

"We all know this. We will let them [the Israelis] through and see nothing,” the Times quoted a Saudi government source as saying.

According to the report, the four main targets for an Israeli raid on Iran would be uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Qom, a gas storage development at Isfahan and a heavy-water reactor at Arak.

Secondary targets may include a Russian-built light water reactor at Bushehr, which could produce weapons-grade plutonium when complete.

Even with midair refueling, the targets would be as the far edge of Israeli bombers' range at a distance of some 2,250km. An attack would likely involve several waves of aircraft, possibly crossing Jordan, northern Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

Aircraft attacking Bushehr, on the Gulf coast, could swing beneath Kuwait to strike from the southwest, the Times said.

Passing over Iraq would require at least tacit consent to the raid from the United States, whose troops are occupying the country. So far, the Obama Administration has refused this.

On Wednesday the United Nations passed a fourth round of sanctions against Iran in an attempt to force it to stop enriching uranium. But immediately after the UN vote, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed the nuclear program would continue.

Israel hailed the vote – but said sanctions were not enough and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has refused to rule out a raid.

Netanyahu's predecessor, Ehud Olmert, is believed to have held secret meetings with high-ranking Saudi officials over Iran.

(4) Saudi Arabia denies flight deal against Iran
http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi-arabia/saudi-arabia-denies-flight-deal-against-iran-1.640398

Riyadh dismisses as slanderous a report that Israel will be allowed to use its airspace to attack Iran

By Duraid Al Baik, Associate Editor

Published: 23:54 June 12, 2010

Dubai: Gulf states will not support any military action against Iran despite being wary about its nuclear programme, analysts said on Saturday.

"Saudi Arabia will not cooperate with Israel or any other country to attack Iran. We have always advocated a peaceful solution to the Iran crisis," Dr Abdul Aziz Hamad of King Saud University told Gulf News.

Saudi and US defence officials were quoted in a report in The Times as saying that Riyadh will allow Israeli jets to use its airspace if Tel Aviv decides to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.

"The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way," the London-based newspaper said, quoting a US defence source.

No support

"They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren't scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [US] State Department," the report said, quoting an unnamed Saudi official.

However, experts said although Gulf states continue to be concerned about Iran's designs, they would not support any military action against the Islamic republic.

Riad Kahwaji, General Director of the Dubai-based Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis, said the "[Times] report, in my opinion, is part of the psychological warfare between Iran and the US, because there is no need for Saudi-Israeli cooperation to allow the Jewish state to attack Iran."

He said Israel has the capability to attack the four main nuclear targets. "Israel's Dolphin submarines are equipped with cruise missiles capable of hitting the nuclear facilities.

"Three Israeli submarines, which most probably will be used in any military confrontation, are now in the Gulf waters," Kahwaji said.

"In addition to its submarines, Israel has facilities to evade radars and it has refuelling capabilities to fly over the Red Sea," he added.

Dr Mohammad Al Naqbi, Head of the Gulf Negotiation Centre in Abu Dhabi, said there is no doubt that the situation in the Gulf is quite critical and Israel might take advantage of it. But this does not mean the GCC would support the attack or cooperate with Israel, he said.

"In addition to its sub-marines, Israel has facilities to evade radars and it has refuelling capabilities to fly over the Red Sea," he added

(5) Biden backed Israel on Flotilla raid, has taken lots of AIPAC donations - JEFFREY BLANKFORT

From: Kristoffer Larsson <kristoffer.larsson@sobernet.nu> Date: 12.06.2010 07:03 PM

http://www.counterpunch.org/blankfort06112010.html

Weekend Edition
June 11 - 13, 2010

Poster Boy for "Dual Loyalties"

Joe Biden: In Israel's Service

By JEFFREY BLANKFORT

Israel appears to be in more serious trouble diplomatically than at any time in its history following the botched attack by an "elite" commando squad on the Mavi Marmara in the early morning hours of June 1 that left at least nine dead and scores wounded. Thanks to Al-Jazeera and Iran's PressTV, whose reporters were aboard the ship, much of the world was able to watch the attack unfold on its TV and computer screens and the result has been an avalanche of outrage and ongoing protests against the Jewish state. Within Israel this has led to finger-pointing and calls for resignations while its hasbara machinery has gone rapidly into damage-control and disinformation mode.

Lest we forget, the first U.S. official to give Israel's bloody assault a thumbs up sign was Vice President Joe Biden. The former Delaware senator has been a key part of Israel's hasbara branch, American section, since entering the Senate in 1973 and on the Wednesday following the Israeli attack, he appeared on the Charlie Rose Show where he showed no hesitation in defending Israel's handling of the raid, something that President Obama had been reluctant to do.

On the following morning, Jerusalem Post Editor David Horvitz speaking for 45 minutes to Congressional staffers and AIPAC members on a conference call praised Biden's performance. "It is not entirely clear in Israel where America stands," he said, but "Israel was very pleased with what Joe Biden had to say."

But isn't that why Joe was picked for the job? Was it not to get the vote and the money from those Jews who were afraid that Barack Obama --who they suspected of being a closet Muslim—was no true friend of Israel?

Obama picked Biden "who is about as close to the pro-Israel community as any member of either house," observed MJ Rosenberg, a former AIPAC staffer, on TPM Café, just after Biden's selection. "Biden is rated 100 per cent by AIPAC … When he goes to the synagogues in Florida, he goes not as a visitor but as 'mishpocha' [family]. The Jews simply love the guy."

"Bottom line," concluded Rosenberg, "the Biden choice pretty much eliminated Obama's 'Jewish problem.'" That was then and now it doesn't seem to matter what position Obama takes, Biden seems to answer to his real boss. And it ain't Barack.

Appearing on the Charlie Rose show was but the latest assignment for Biden in his long career of serving Israel, the first 35 years of which he was drawing salary and gaining political clout as a US Senator for a state whose population is only slightly larger than that of San Francisco (783,600 to 776,733).

"Look," Biden told Rose in a rambling monologue in which he confused Ehud Barak with Ariel Sharon, "you can argue whether Israel should have dropped people onto that ship or not ... but the truth of the matter is, Israel has a right to know — they're at war with Hamas — has a right to know whether or not arms are being smuggled in. And up to now, Charlie, what's happened? They've said, 'Here you go. You're in the Mediterranean. This ship — if you divert slightly north you can unload it and we'll get the stuff into Gaza.' So what's the big deal here? What's the big deal of insisting it go straight to Gaza? Well, it's legitimate for Israel to say, 'I don't know what's on that ship. These guys are dropping eight — 3,000 rockets on my people.' "

No big deal, Joe, at least nine dead, or four less than the number of Israelis killed since the first Palestinian rocket was fired from Gaza. And notice how easily he says "my" and pretends that rockets are still being fired from Gaza.

That "my" was not a Freudian slip. Like scores of other US politicians who have traded their political souls for access to the seemingly bottomless checking accounts of Israel's American supporters, Biden has become a poster boy for "dual loyalty." Given that he has done this as a member of Congress and continues to do so while now a heartbeat from the White House should probably qualify him for a treason trial and a cell next to Jonathan Pollard.

Back in 2007, on one of his many visits to Israel, he told a Shalom TV interviewer that the Jewish state was "the single greatest strength America has in the Middle East." Going beyond the standard AIPAC scripted boilerplate, Biden stated, "When I was a young senator, I used to say, 'If I were a Jew I'd be a Zionist.' I am a Zionist," he said. "You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist."

Asked about his prospective cell neighbor, sentenced to life-imprisonment in 1985 for turning over mounds of top secret information to Israel, Biden spoke of leniency for Pollard but not a pardon.

"There's a rationale, in my view, why Pollard should be given leniency, "said Biden. But there is not a rationale to say, 'What happened did not happen and should be pardoned.'" In other words, should Biden become president, it is likely that Pollard would be freed.

Looking at Biden's track record, it would seem that he has not just been a key cheerleader for Israel; he has aspired to be a member of its coaching staff.

Speaking to an AIPAC meeting in 1992, he was quoted by the organization's Near East Report as saying that it was time to "tell the American people straight out that it's in our naked self-interest to see to it that the moral commitment and political commitment is kept with regard to Israel and that Israel is not the cause of our problem, but the essence of the solution." This was in response to President George H.W. Bush's second refusal to support Israel's demand for $10 billion in loan guarantees. Which of America's problems Israel was able to solve Biden didn't mention.

In December, 1995, two years after Oslo, he spoke at an AIPAC meeting in San Francisco and told a lunchtime audience that included most of the Bay Area's public officials that they needed to spend more time educating new members of Congress about the wonders of Israel and its strategic value to the US:

"Be prepared to both convert and be prepared to deal with those who are not converted....

"Israel is taking more chances on her security today than any time in her history....Arabs make peace with Israel only when they realize that they can't drive a wedge between the US and Israel. We cannot afford to publicly criticize Israel." This past March, back in Israel on a "fence-mending" assignment, just before he was blindsided by the announcement of Israel's plan to build 1600 new Jewish housing units in East Jerusalem, Biden had modified his "can't drive a wedge" to read "there is no space between."

At that time Biden gave his San Francisco speech, he had taken in over $100,000 from pro-Israel PACs which was small change compared to what he had received in individual donations. By far the largest of these came in 1988, when he made his first bid for the presidency. It was a $1.5 million gift from San Francisco financial real estate magnate Walter Shorenstein, who was, by no coincidence, AIPAC's main man in California as well a major player in the state's Democratic Party. It turned out to be a poor investment since that was the year that Biden was caught plagiarizing a speech by British Labor leader Neil Kinnock and had to withdraw from the race.

In 2007, true to form, Biden took the lead in the Senate in rejecting the Iraq Study Group's conclusion that the United States would not be able to achieve its goals in Iraq unless it "deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict," a view taken more recently by Gen. David Petraeus.

"I do not accept the notion of linkage between Iraq and the Arab-Israeli conflict," Biden said during his opening remarks at a January 17, 2007, Senate hearing. "Arab-Israeli peace is worth pursuing vigorously on its own merits, but even if a peace treaty were signed tomorrow, it would not end the civil war in Iraq." It was not that the study group said that it would but it was convenient straw man for Biden.

It was not his first comment on Iraq. It may be recalled that on May 1, 2006, Biden had co-authored an op-ed piece for the NY Times with his guru, Leslie Gelb, a former Times columnist and president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, that called for Iraq to be divided into three confessional states. It was starkly similar to what had been written in a policy paper back in 1982 by Oded Yinon, a senior Israeli foreign affairs official, in which he wrote that, "To dissolve Iraq is even more important for us than dissolving Syria. In the short term, it's Iraqi power that constitutes the greatest threat to Israel." Gelb had first raised the issue in an op-ed in the Times in November, 2003.

During the 2008 election campaign Biden was outraged to find his loyalty to Israel being questioned by what he reportedly thought was AIPAC but which turned out to be the Republican Jewish Coalition. The RJC had accused him of not towing the AIPAC line on one or two occasions which caused Biden to defend his willingness to oppose AIPAC on some pieces of legislation.

In a 20-minute conference call with members of the Jewish media that September, Biden said it was up to the Israelis to make decisions about war and peace, including whether to launch a strike aimed at disrupting Iran's nuclear program.

"This is not a question for us to tell the Israelis what they can and cannot do," said the Democratic vice presidential candidate. ""Israel has the right to defend itself and it doesn't have to ask, just as any other free and independent country. I have faith in the democracy of Israel. They will arrive at the right decision that they view as being in their own interests." That as vice-president his job would be to protect US interests and not Israel's and that an attack on Iran might jeopardize American interests either had not occurred to him or was of no concern.

In the interview, Biden tried to position himself as being even more pro-Israel than AIPAC, vigorously defending his record of occasionally breaking ranks with the pro-Israel lobby. "AIPAC does not speak for the entire American Jewish community," he said. "There's other organizations as strong and as consequential."

Moreover, Biden insisted, "I will take a back seat to no one, and again, no one in AIPAC or any other organization, in terms of questioning my support of the State of Israel."

"Insiders at the lobby were more bemused than offended by the outburst" wrote the Jewish Telegraphic Agency's Ron Kampeas, "saying they regarded Biden as essentially pro-Israel. Sources familiar with the situation said the Obama camp's explanation was that Biden had mistakenly thought it was AIPAC who had criticized him, as opposed to the RJC."

Upset at the RJC's questioning of Biden's pro-Israel credentials The New Republic's Marty Peretz, entered the lists in his behalf. Wrote Peretz in TNR and the Jerusalem Post in September,2008:

"If ever there was a true friend of Israel in the United States Senate it is Joe Biden. Oh yes, there were also Owen Brewster, Republican from Maine, and Guy Gillette, Democrat from Iowa. But that goes back to the very founding of the state.

"This is not hyperbole about Biden. It is true. And it is so not just on a philosophical basis but in deeds, too. Biden is a true friend on both a higher and a deeper level, and he has been that for three and a half decades. It is reckless for Jews to trifle with such allies. We have, as I've said, many friends. But what we do not have is many such allies - formidable, expert, truly passionate."

Following the election and now, as vice-president, Biden continued to merit Peretz's confidence. Speaking at AIPAC's 2009 policy conference in Washington, he began by describing how he had been warmly welcomed on a visit to Israel in 1973 as a freshman senator by Prime Minister Golda Meir and befriended by Yitzhak Rabin. Then, to loud rounds of applause, he told his audience:

"[W]e have to pursue every opportunity for progress while standing up for one core principle: First, Israel's security is non-negotiable. Period. Period. [sic]Our commitment is unshakeable. We will continue to provide Israel with the assistance that it needs. We will continue to defend Israel's right to defend itself and make its own judgments about what it needs to do to defend itself."

Toward the end of his speech, Biden timorously advanced a position that has long been official US policy. "You're not going to like my saying this," he said, but [do]not build more settlements, dismantle existing outposts, and allow the Palestinians freedom of movement." There was no applause.

In 1994, Biden was a key player in one of the ugliest episodes in American political history and one that characterizes the subservience of Washington to Israel in its way much as did the cover-up of Israel 's attack on the USS Liberty 53 years ago on June 8th.

It featured a star chamber recantation before a confirmation hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Biden, of Strobe Talbott, former Soviet affairs analyst for Time, of an article he had written, following his nomination as Deputy Secretary of State by Bill Clinton. Talbott was facing the inquisition as a result of a major article he had written for the magazine in 1981, "What to do about Israel" (9/7/81). In it, Talbott had advocated a new policy towards Israel-US relations that would "rescue that relationship… starting with the delusion that Israel is, or ever has been, primarily a strategic ally."

While expressing the obligatory degree of affection for Israel, Talbott had not been equivocal. Referring to problems that had been created for the Reagan administration by Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Talbott wrote in words, especially pertinent today, "His country does need the US for its survival, but the sad fact is that Israel is well on its way to becoming not just a dubious asset but an outright liability to American security interests, both in the Middle East and worldwide."

Talbott was referring to Israel's destruction of the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak and a deadly bombing raid over Beirut that killed over 100 people and wounded 600 more, most of them civilians. Talbott had advised that, "If Israel continues to take international law into its own hands as violently—and as embarrassingly to the US—as it did in Baghdad and Beirut, then the next display of US displeasure ought to be more sustained and less symbolic. It might include severe cutbacks in American military aid, which is $1.2 billion for fiscal '81 alone.[It is now officially $3 billion].

Pressed to recant, Talbott uttered the required response. As reported by the New York Times' Steven Greenhouse,

"'I do want to set the record straight on the question of my view of Israel as a strategic asset,' he said, sounding chastened and contrite. 'On that I have simply changed my opinion.'

"On the other hand, straining to reassure supporters of Israel, Mr. Talbott said, 'I have always believed that the US-Israeli relationship is unshakable. Second, I have always believed that a strong Israel is in America's interest because it serves the cause of peace and stability in the region…'

"During his 21 years at Time, Mr. Talbott often criticized Israel. Today he took a markedly different tone, portraying himself as a friend of Israel."

In the article Talbott, had written that "Begin recognized that American Jews wield influence far beyond their numbers, but he also knew that there is considerable pent-up irritation in the US with the power of the pro-Israel lobby (which includes, of course, many non-Jews)." It was clearly his own opinion, as well.

Biden, according to the NY Times, jumped on that statement, calling it, "totally inappropriate," to which Talbott, "asserting that no sight was intended," noted that this "was simply a statement of fact," and turned to Sen. Bernard Metzenbaum from his home state of Ohio for confirmation. Metzenbaum said that he was "satisfied" with Talbott's remarks, but, "Maybe, in retrospect, he might have changed some phrases or some paragraphs."

Mind you, Talbott had questioned Israel's strategic value to the US in 1981, in the heart of the Cold War when he was considered one of the main stream media's ranking Soviet experts. Before going before the Senate, he had become a senior advisor on the former Soviet Union to the Clinton White House. By 1994, with the Soviet bloc no longer in the picture, it was generally agreed, even in Tel Aviv, that Israel's value to the US had been severely diminished.

Biden went on, citing the same article, noted that Talbott also had written: "Israel has been a credit to itself and its American backers."

Playing the role of Torquemada, he asked Talbott, "Do you believe that?"

"Yes, senator, I do," he obediently replied.

His "conversion" process having been completed, Talbott received the senator's and subsequently the Senate's approval.

The reader should not be left with the impression that Joe Biden's prime passions are limited to the love of Israel.

While in the Senate, he was a key supporter of the credit card industry, much of which is based in Delaware thanks to its cozy industry friendly tax laws and he was a key beneficiary of its campaign contributions. In return, he became a leading supporter of the "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005" which, despite its title, made it harder for consumers to get protection under bankruptcy.

Biden was one of the first Democratic supporters of the bill and voted for it four times until it finally passed in March, 2005. Twisting the truth, a spokesman for Sen. Obama told the NY Times, "Senator Biden took on entrenched interests and succeeded in improving the bill for low-income workers, women and children."

But even the Times wasn't buying that. Biden, the paper noted, was one of only five Democrats who voted against a proposal that would require credit card companies to provide more effective warnings to consumers about the consequences of paying only the minimum amount due each month. Obama had voted for it.

Biden differed with Obama again when he helped to defeat amendments which would have strengthened protections for people forced into bankruptcy who have large medical debts or are in the military. He was also one of four Democrats who sided with Republicans to defeat an effort, supported by Obama, to shift responsibility in certain cases from debtors to the predatory lenders who helped push them into bankruptcy.

So why did Obama pick Biden for his running mate? We already know the answer.

Jeffrey Blankfort can be contacted at jblankfort@earthlink.net

(6) The Lobby's blend of paranoia and belligerence - Australian journalist
From: Josef Schwanzer <donauschwob@optusnet.com.au> Date: 13.06.2010 02:21 AM

Funny, they remember their epithets but not their manners

Mike Carlton

Sydney Morning Herald

June 12, 2010

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/funny-they-remember-their-epithets-but-not-their-manners-20100611-y3ft.html

It is a ferocious beast, the Jewish lobby. Write just one sentence even mildly critical of Israel and it lunges from its lair, fangs bared. "I rejoice every time a f---ing Palestinian dies, f--- them!!!! Israel should flatten Gaza with a nuclear strike and be done with it," said one of hundreds of Jewish emailers this week. "How dare you insult Israel you over priviledged [sic] racist white moron, f--- you and your stupid article. I wish I could smash your dumb face in."

The stupid article was last week's column, which suggested that Israel's attack on the Gaza flotilla was lethal idiocy and that the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was an unprincipled thug addicted to the use of military force.

Few of the emails were as brisk as that one. Many, though, were nakedly racist, such as this from a man named Schwarz. "Do Jews do drive-by shootings every other day like in Sydney's south-west? Do Jews or Arabs make up a large proportion of the Australian jail population? Do Jews gang rape young girls in Sydney?" he mused.

Others like to threaten. A travel agent from Double Bay drafted an apoplectic denunciation and circulated it to his friends. "The more of us write with a copy [sic] to The Sydney Morning Herald, the more chance we may have that the Herald will change its one-eyed view of the situation and give us a more balanced reporting and maybe even sack Mike Carlton," he said hopefully. One of his chaverim mistakenly forwarded it to me.

It's standard operating procedure for the lobby to hurl accusations of anti-Semitism with that peculiar Israeli blend of paranoia and belligerence. "That you are happy to indulge in hate-mongering makes you quite the sadist," wrote a man from Melbourne. "Your article gives you away as an anti-Semite and as much as you may hide behind the guise of a pro-Palestinian humanitarian, your Holocaust revisionism in comparing the conflict of the modern era to the systematic extermination of the Jews shows your true colours."

That is just plain dumb. My Jewish friends would confirm that I am not a sadistic, anti-Semitic, hate-mongering Holocaust denier. But I did enjoy the sneers about my manifold failings as a journalist. "You are a cheap hack making money out of lies," was typical. "Journalists are generally recruited if they have an IQ larger that their shoe size," was another. Yuk yuk, guffaw.

None of this is accidental. The Israel lobby, worldwide, is orchestrated in Jerusalem by a department in the Prime Minister's office with the rather Orwellian name of the Ministry for Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs. Less than 24 hours after the attack on the Mavi Marmara, the ministry hit the internet with "important talking points" for Jews around the world, the first of which was - surprisingly - that "the Palestinian people are not under blockade".

"Write letters to your local newspapers, comment on blogs and news websites, call in to radio programs and post links to social networking sites to help spread the real version of events," urged the deliciously named Mr Ronen Plot, the Ministry Director-General.

This is all free speech, of course. I just wish they could be more polite.