7 thoughts on “Embarrassing Wikileaks Revelations Concerning U.S.-Israel Relations – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. So what I get from this is that the US government is a gang of incompetent Scheisskopfs and the Israeils lie like a Persian rug (when they aren’t pushing for war with any number of states or groups like Hezbollah.) It’s a match made in Hell.

  2. “How ending Israeli disruption of Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank would disrupt Israel’s relations with Jordan is a mystery beyond me. The fact that a senior Israeli general would pose this nonsense in a meeting with high level American officials shows both Israel’s delusions and its disrespect for the intelligence of their U.S. interlocutors.”

    It’s a small point amongst the many above, but the theory is that Jordan has often expressed concern about a stong Palestinian state next to Jordan, as it is worried about its 70% Palestinian population consequently overthrowing the Hashemite Bedouin based Kingdom. The theory also claims that that is the reason that Jordan so readily gave up claims to sovereignty over the West Bank after 1967 as it preferred to “disengage” from its large indiginous Palestinian population there that posed a threat to its minority rule.

    I have no idea if the theory is factually correct, but it is certainly a claim made by many Israeli leaders who have had talks with Jordanian leaders, and is thus not “a mystery” or “nonsense” but a logical scenerio that is worth considering by the Americans (and by you). After all, why was Jordan so quick to sell out to the Palestinians\Israelis and give up on their title to the West Bank, including sovereighty over the Temple Mount (al-Aqsa)?

  3. This whole wikileaks issue turned out to be such a boring anticlimax.

    Americans spying on Israel, Israelies worried because of Iranian nuclear bombs…

    Boring, boring.

  4. The end of days reference may be to do with the cult of the hidden Iman, which is something believed in by very few Iranians and Shias indeed. Unfortunately, very few includes the supreme leader.

    If this sort of thing were better understood in the West, including by me, let alone Bibi, I am pretty sure that we’d have no trouble separating the Iranian leadership from the people and getting an Iran that even the king of Saudi Arabia would be able to live with, without dropping any bombs or shutting down factories all over China by accident when attempting to disrupt an Iranian enrichment plant.

    1. Let’s take the analysis a little further.

      Israel has nuclear weapons and has had them for quite a while.
      Iran may be well on its way to acquiring this technology and/or weaponry at some stage in the future.

      Why has Israel got nuclear weapons? Why is Iran developing an infrastructure that can produce these same weapons?
      The answer is fear and uncertainty. Fear of attack, fear of annihilation, uncertainty about what ‘the other side’ might do if the current ultimate sanction, that of nuclear armageddon, is not available and deliverable.

      Now scale it down.

      Israel has an army, the IDF, one of the most powerful in the world; a force to be reckoned with.
      Israel’s neighbours also have armies, most of them kitted out by Western powers and quite capable of doing an enormous amount of damage. Which, were it not for a US stake in the matter, might very well have taken place at any time after the last big set-to.

      Why all theses armies? They’re damn expensive things to equip, maintain and operate. So, why have them?
      The answer if fear and uncertainty. Fear of attack, fear of annihilation, uncertainty about what the other side/sides can and might do if they are not present.

      Scale it down even further.

      There is a soldier manning an isolated outpost somewhere along a desert road. He has a rifle and a quantity of ammunition.
      There is another soldier not far away. He has a different uniform but he’s doing exactly the same thing; being there, ready for whatever the other soldier might do.

      Why are these two soldiers engaged in this activity?
      The answer is fear and uncertainty. Fear of attack, fear of annihilation, uncertainty about what the other side might do if no one is there to monitor and respond to any significant change in the situation.

      And all these soldiers, armies and weaponry have one primary purpose. To sow just enough fear and uncertainty in the minds of those on the other side and, by doing so, allay to some small extent the fears and uncertainties both sides harbour in their own hearts.

      What a crazy, inefficient way of coping with the twin problems of fear and uncertainty. But this has been the common practise throughout human history. Get a stronger stick, a longer sword, a faster arrow, a more powerful gun, a bigger bomb.

      Now scale it way back to where we are now.

      Well, to date, we have the biggest bomb that, realistically, can be deployed. So, what happens next? Is there any advantage in exceeding the nuclear option or it that it; have we reached the end of this particular road? Or, is there still some further way to go?

      It takes just one small step for mankind and then we find ourselves in the next and, perhaps, final phase, that of the ultimate weapon. Beyond the conventional, beyond the nuclear.
      This is full of the same old fears and uncertainties but now there is an additional factor to consider. This weapon is not pointed towards the enemy. Instead, we have programmed it to target… ourselves. Once activated, all our own fears and uncertainties are then confirmed, will be visited upon us and in increasing numbers. The perfect deterrent in every way; one we are even less disposed to use. Because, unlike nuclear warfare, we will all still be around afterwards to mourn our loss and looking to kick in the head of whosoever it was that triggered the device. I suppose there will be some small satisfaction in that.

      We, it seems, contain within ourselves the capacity to become our own ultimate weapon. The irony is that we could have had this at our disposal long ago. And we still can. All we have to do is get our act together and realise that the greatest of all deterrents relies not on what is the worst thing we can do to our enemies.

      Rather surprisingly, that turns out to be is the very best we can do for them.

  5. A different cable from April 28, 2009 describes Netanyahu’s Palestinian “state” in slightly more detail:

    “The only limits on Palestinian sovereignty would be elements that affect Israel’s security. A Palestinian state must be demilitarized, without control over its air space and electro-magnetic field, and without the power to enter into treaties or control its borders. Netanyahu concluded that he and opposition leader Tzipi Livni “only disagree about the name,” i.e. the two-state solution.”

    Pull it apart and Netanyahu’s proposed Palestinian state resembles, more than anything else, the current conditions imposed on Gaza. While Israel’s control of the West Bank’s borders is (currently) relatively open, at any moment in Netanyahu’s state Israel could impose Gaza-like closure and siege if they controls borders.

    For some time I’ve considered Gaza as the first implementation of Sharon’s bantustans, these cables confirm it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link