45 thoughts on “Wikileaks: Shabak Told U.S. Hamas Wouldn’t Take Over Gaza – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. We don’t really know whether Assange and WikiLeaks are independently objective or not. There have been too many stories going around saying that they were compromised by the U.S. on the one hand, or Israel on the other. The fact is, most of the material that has been released so far is already known to any close reader of events, and there is nothing rally new in these disclosures. And, of course, the stuff that has been released has been closely edited by the MSM, which has every interest in skewing the info to the benefit of the U.S. and Israeli policy makers. So, for this reader, the WikiLeaks uproar is merely a sideshow. Interesting but unimportant. What is important are articles like the following: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27097.htm

    1. Gene: so why is the US so keen to supress the wikileaks leaks if it’s all supervised and under their and Israel’s control, and nothing new?

      I think you’re a bit paranoid about the long arm of Israel ans the US reaching everywhere and anywhere.

      1. Shmuel: It has nothing to do with paranoia. No one really knows who’s behind the WikiLeaks exposures. They could be for real, or Assange could have been set up.

        The long arms of Israel and the U.S. do reach everywhere, from Georgia, to South Africa, to Afganinstan and Pakistan, to Korea and Iran. If you haven’t noticed that you probably need a course in anatomy.

        1. I wouldn’t necessarily pit it on Americans that there’s a certain lobby controlling the foreign policy aspects (and nowadays, domestic policies too thanks to 9/11) in relation to the greater Muslim world.


          AIPAC’s manipulation of the Federal Government is not protected under the Constitution. Indeed, the DOJ requested in 1962 that they reclassify as a foreign agent of the Israeli government instead of a domestic lobby but they were strongarmed: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-department-of-justice-asked-to-regulate-aipac-as-a-foreign-agent-of-the-israeli-government-88190712.html

          As Richard pointed out, AIPAC’s own former head also threw AIPAC under the bus recently in publicly available court documents: https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2010/11/16/aipacs-linen-very-dirty-and-very-public/

      2. Hold on a second. Have you ever heard of the Zionist Lobby, Shmuel? And I’m not talking about the Zionist+ Lobby, consisting of people like Richard and Cyrus the Great, I’m talking about the Zionist- Lobby, consisting of the sheeple who support the illegal occupation, illegal blockade, illegal flotilla massacre, illegal use of depleted uranium, illegal settlement building, illegal US aid in the form of 3 billion per year, illegal undue manipulation of our “free press”, illegal lobbying agenda, acting as an agent of a foreign government in the United States rather than one like every other lobby, etc.

        Zionist+ versus Zionist-. Let’s be more specific and pay attention to detail. Does Israel’s “long arm” reach everywhere? No. It has cohorts of lobbies and plenty of mice in their million hordes to do horrible things like prevent reconciliation between Iran and the US, squashing hopes of freedom in Iran for as long as possible (so it can treat Iran as a hostile entity). It removes the story that Israel went out into international sea and with a 1000 man navy executed an American citizen, a 19 year old, and in doing so shot him far too excessively at point blank range as if he were a piece of meat and nothing more.

        And in the end, it won’t be the Zionist+ lobby correcting the course of the Zionist- lobby. You have to read your own books to figure out why.

        1. If you apply Occam’s razor that’s certainly what you come up with, Andy, but why bother to apply Occam’s razor when it’s so much more entertaining to see who can come up with the most complicated, convoluted conspiracy theory?

        1. Very unfair of you, Richard. Gene is in thrall of nothing of the sort, merely suspicious of unconfirmed accusations. You seem to have your mind made up.

          1. You’re both heroes in your own right in my book.

            …soon to be on bookshelves for $29.95! Order now!


        2. I think Gene’s statement was correct, should one read between the lines and discover his intent rather than the expression that he hit the submit comment button on, “here have been too many stories going around saying that they were compromised by the U.S. on the one hand, or Israel on the other.” We did him some injustice by all latching on to that one sentence and foregoing the rest of his message and the context of thereof. He is right when he says that the MSM has had a hand in steering the course and message of the leaks. Indeed, the State Department, worried about the 99% of the leaks that still remain, would be at a complete loss if it didn’t at least try to spin some of the stories. And, of course, we all know the Lobby has an undue influence on the press (otherwise, Richard Silverstein would be a star reporter for the Old Gray Lady, whose editor has a son in the IDF) and many button-men and spokesmen in the government. These aren’t startling revelations to anyone here.

          One only needs to look to Netanyahu, who I am convinced is actually unintelligent, to see the transparency in this – no Assange required. When the first batch came out revealing that the State Department doesn’t listen to Netanyahu and treats him like a NuttinYahoo, someone full of tall tales about Iran, what did Bibi do? He brown-nosed Assange and tried to become the poster-child for the truth.

          Some others agree with Gene as well. One of them being journalist, Sharmine Narwani, who is one of the more reputable commentators on all things Middle East and really knows what she is talking about: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharmine-narwani/wikileaks-mideast-cables-_b_790483.html

          Assange agrees, too. Check out this video from the Today Show: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharmine-narwani/wikileaks-mideast-cables-_b_790483.html

          Watch how Assange cuts Lauer off and doesn’t let him dilute or sensationalize the agenda. Lauer should not be blamed personally. His job was likely on the line.

    2. I think that anytime the US government documents discussions with an IDF official, like Amos Yadlin, that mention “treating” Hamas and Gaza “as a hostile STATE”, it might have legal consequences when those same two parties subsequently claim that recognition of Palestinian statehood is “premature”. The Restatement (Third) of The Foreign Relations Law of the United States §201.(h) says “Determination of Statehood: Whether or not an entity satisfies the requirement for statehood is determined by other states when they decide whether to treat that entity as a state.” The US said there was no reason to question the unilateral declaration of Kosovo’s statehood because it had become irreversible when it was recognized by forty-eight other countries http://www.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2008-10-08-voa45.html

      Whether Yadlin’s views represent a government consensus or not, the Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that a continuous situation of “international armed conflict” has existed between it and Palestinian militants ever since the first intifada. See Section 5.A. “International Armed Conflict” http://elyon1.court.gov.il/Files_ENG/02/690/007/a34/02007690.a34.HTM

      According to the Washington Post and may other sources the government of Israel maintains that it was clearly within its rights to stop the aid flotilla, saying “any state has the right to blockade ANOTHER STATE in the midst of an armed conflict.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/01/AR2010060102934.html

      Israel may have “painted itself into a corner” on the subject of its own recognition of Palestinian statehood by saying that. In the Washington Post article, Professor Anthony D’Amato commented that Israel was quoting the provisions of the laws of war that are only in force in situations “between states”. Other legal scholars have reached the same conclusion and have devoted entire articles to the subject. In “Why is Israel’s blockade of Gaza Legal?”, Kevin Jon Heller notes that Israel’s defense of its blockade creates a serious legal dilemma for it. See http://opiniojuris.org/2010/06/02/why-is-israels-blockade-of-gaza-legal/ and the European Journal of International Law article http://www.ejiltalk.org/legal-issues-raised-by-israels-blockade-of-gaza/

      In 1987 Prof L.C. Green noted that the impending declaration of Palestinian statehood and recognition by other states might force Israel to treat Palestinian groups as uniformed militias if the Palestinian National Council decided to become a party to the Geneva Conventions. http://books.google.com/books?id=5okNqth8I9wC&lpg=PA135&ots=ARGGNDm7G-&dq=t&pg=PA135#v=onepage&q&f=false More than 100 other countries have subsequently recognized the State of Palestine. Even JCPA Fellow, Prof Ruth Lapidot noted that “Recognition of statehood is a political act, and every state has the right to decide for itself whether to recognize another state.” http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=160381 The problem for Israel is that Palestine has accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC and many of the other contracting states have recognized the State of Palestine. It doesn’t help Israel’s case when its own officials implicitly or explicitly admit that they do too.

      1. A case can be made that Israel manipulates the law to suit its goal whether it be for the purpose of aggression or to sabotage Palestinian efforts to free themselves from occupation even if one interpretation of the law completely contradicts the other.

        This is what Zionism is about.

        1. Israel cannot logically defend the legality of its blockade by telling the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor’s Office that it is based upon laws of war that only apply to international armed conflicts between states, while claiming that Palestine is not a state that can accept the jurisdiction of the Court under the terms of Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute. Israel is enforcing a blockade in the territorial waters of Gaza, while claiming that it is no longer an occupying power in that territory.

          The expired Oslo agreements only permitted Israel military authorities to exercise criminal jurisdiction over Israeli nationals “in accordance with international law”. See “Article V Jurisdiction” http://www.knesset.gov.il/process/docs/cairo_agreement_eng.htm

          In the 2004 Wall Case, the summary legal position of the government of Israel stated that “Despite having ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel has not incorporated it into its domestic legislation. Nor does it agree that the Convention is applicable to the occupied Palestinian territory, citing the lack of recognition of the territory as sovereign prior to its annexation by Jordan and Egypt and, therefore, not a territory of a High Contracting Party as required by the Convention.” See Annex I http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/A5A017029C05606B85256DEC00626057

          That legal position was rejected by the Court, the primary political organs of the UN, the reconvened conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions, and the Palestinian Authorities. They each declared that the government of Israel has illegally facilitated the establishment of settlements in the occupied territories. The Sasson report contained similar findings of criminality on the part of government officials and parastatal agencies that violated the Hague Convention regulations. The failure of the Israeli government to honor its obligation to search for and bring before its courts persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, grave breaches of international humanitarian law violates the terms of the Oslo agreements.

          The ICC was created to hold accountable and bring to justice individuals responsible for crimes when the countries with territorial or personal jurisdiction cannot, or will not, prosecute the crimes themselves. Israel has claimed that it cannot be held internationally responsible for observing human rights covenants in Gaza or the West Bank because those areas are not part of Israel’s sovereign territory and jurisdiction. It claimed that “The fact that the Palestinian Council does not represent a State, does not, in itself, preclude its responsibility in the sphere of human rights protection. In fact, this is also evident under Article XIX of the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, according to which the Palestinians have taken it upon themselves to exercise their powers and responsibilities “with due regard to internationally accepted norms and principles of human rights and the rule of law”. See CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2, para 8 ( http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/44CF316E24ACCD8B85256C4F00502FD3) or E/1990/6/Add.32, para 6-7 ( http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/718AA6E95901651C85256C5500630447 ) A number of the members of the ICC Assembly of States recognize the State of Palestine, with jurisdiction inside the 1967 boundaries.

    3. most of the material that has been released so far is already known to any close reader of events, and there is nothing rally new in these disclosures

      Not at all true. And if you can say that you haven’t been reading the posts I’ve written about the Israel-related cables, which are eye opening. Less than 1% of what Wikileaks has has been published. How do you know what is yet to come? Glad you feel capable of making such judgments, but you’re WAY premature. You’re repeating stuff you’ve read elsewhere instead of doing yr own research.

      1. I don’t know what is yet to come. That is exactly my point, and neither do you. Your posts are no less speculative than my own reading of what is already out there. And my judgments are is valid as yours. Do you have some privileged information that others of us don’t. Richard, I think your judgment is colored by your prejudices in favor of Zionism.

        1. Are you two quarreling or agreeing? It’s like watching a Korean talk to a German, both in their native tongue. 🙂 Sounds like fighting, but probably just an invite for beer lol

          1. Hopefulness is a good thing, but the reality is there are 500,000 West Bank settlers who disagree with your vision of Israel and perhaps millions more who voted for Likud, Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu who would like nothing better than to shut this site down. How do you break down this wall?

            It’s time to fight fire with fire and follow Falk’s advice and I’m borrowing the quote from the link that Schulman posted above:

            “Is it not better at this time to rely on the growing Palestine Solidarity Movement, peace from below, and the related success being experienced in waging the Legitimacy War against Israel, what Israel itself nervously calls “the de-legitimacy project” that is viewed by its leaders and think tanks as a far greater threat to its illicit ambitions than armed resistance?”

            In fact, you’re already in the Legitimacy War against Israel. We are for the most part on the same side, and we are disagreeing about nothing.

            But let me make a point to support the “cable conspiracy theory” as you refer to it. Certain Arab states were starting to make diplomatic overtures towards Iran in the past months and encouraging others in the Arab League to do the same. I believe these cables represent psy-ops meant to destabilize those attempts on the one hand and sow mistrust and division and especially where Iran is concerned to sow more paranoia within the Iranian regime. In the case of the Palestinians, I made my points below, in summary the goal of these leaks is to de-legitimize attempts to declare Palestinian statehood unilaterally and further legitimacy of the status quo. Maybe some leaks were the product of Bradley Manning and maybe others came from some other source. Is this such a stretch?

          2. Oh, one more advantage for Israel in these cables. Some pretty nasty stuff surfaced about Erdogan, and at first, the opposition in Turkey was all over it like white on rice.

            Nice try to get at Erdogan’s popularity; but thankfully, Erdogan survived.

          3. The thing I think people should be more concerned with is not whose intention it was, but the content itself. It is one thing if you believe the cables to be forgery, but otherwise – you should pay close attention to them, especially if you consider them “nasty”.

            I wish I could just comfortably disregard cables that weren’t to my liking by assuming my enemies conspired their release. Honestly for me it’s an all or nothing case. At this point I see no reason to doubt the cables’ authenticity, and Assange’s intentions are of less interest to me than the cables themselves. There is pure, untouched, unedited (for the most part) information there. Erdogan comes off pretty nasty? Well perhaps he is.

          4. Well, that’s a new one. You’ve always implied that you are a Zionist, and if I felt like wasting the time surfing your archives, I’m sure I could find statements supporting this.

            But PA is right. This is a silly quarrel and we do agree on most things. So, please forgive the niggling.

            Do check out Avnery: http://counterpunch.org/avnery12222010.html

          5. Of course I am a Zionist. And yes, I’ve said so many times. But I am not a Zionist in any sense that you recognize or most conventional Zionists would recognize since the far left tends to demonize anyone calling themselves Zionist and the conventional Zionists haven’t clue what Buber, Ahad HaAm or I were & are talking about in our conception of the matter.

          6. Gene –
            Being in favor of Israel IS what Zionism is about. It’s about supporting Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people in (geographical) Israel. I’m pretty sure Richard’s “not in favor of Zionism” comment refers to the different Zionist movements that go beyond his view of what Israel should be (Greater Israel, etc.)

            Correct me if I’m wrong, Richard.

          7. I’m opposed to a Zionism that says Israel is the homeland ONLY of the Jewish people and of no other people. I’m opposed to a Zionism which posits Jews as having superior rights in Israel & others having less rights.

          8. Shai,

            First of all, I disagree with you completely on Erdogan. Secondly, as to this comment: “Being in favor of Israel IS what Zionism is about. It’s about supporting Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people in (geographical) Israel.”

            Wrong again.

          9. Can we altogether agree to remove labels? No one has to belong to one team or the other. We are all global citizens and stinky humans at that.

            The labels prevent us from having fruitful discussions and prejudices based on those labels lead to undue assumptions.

            In my humble opinion, Richard should be entitled to nuance his stance a little bit and not fit under the broader category of Zionism. I have chosen to call this Zionism+. The same way Gene should not be placed under the “Leftish” corner. As I commented earlier, Gene’s one sentence was latched on to and he suddenly became an undue target for hasbarists and the like.

            Let’s remember that we’re the good guys! 🙂

          10. Richard may believe there is another Zionism, a good Zionism, but I believe there is no such thing. The problem is that Zionism, no matter how good the intentions are, has an inherent flaw that will never lead to anything good, and we are witnessing living proof of it.

            Richard’s view of a “just” Zionism is shared by a tiny minority, so what’s the point of dreaming about something that will never, ever materialize? And I don’t even believe that what he believes is in fact Zionism. Diversity is totally contrary to Zionism. Zionism is a fear-based, protectionist “ideology”. When you allow equal rights for all, Jews become the minority and Zionism ceases to exist.

            Let’s be real here.

    4. Gene, I don’t know what you are talking about. The stuff I’ve heard from Wikileaks hardly looks skewed to the benefit of the U.S. and Israel. Quite the contrary, in fact,s.it makes the U.S. in particular look pretty bad on all kinds of levels in numerous context

      1. The U.S. yes, but Israel not so much. It wouldn’t be the first time that something that is bad for the U.S. is actually beneficial for Israel.

  2. The problem with the way this whole wikileaks-stuff has been published so far, is that the originals werde selected, edited and therefore pre-valued by the publishers. The lack of context and the missing of a timeline to frame each “event” is evident. So one has to be very carefully to build his own opinion about all this stuff. Possibilities for spooks to intervene do exist, no question about that!
    We have seen about a half percent of the total volume of the files so far…

  3. With due respect to Richard’s creativity, I think the word “wouldn’t” should be changed to “couldn’t” in this blog entry. It portrays an optimism by Israel rather than the true meddling manipulation that was going on, which we find out herein once you read the entries.

    I don’t think WikiLeaks is colluding with Israel. Rather, I think you are seeing the Israel lobby’s hand at manipulating the articles that interpret the WikiLeaks. For instance, in the New York Times.

    People rely far too much on “journalists” to tell them about the 255,000 cables and spare no time to look themselves. There are few independent journalists with integrity, like Richard, who put no spin on the matter, but add to the commentary.

    This cable makes it clear that Abbas toes the agenda line with Israel. This is why I classify Hamas as progressive (they actually build schools and sustain whatever life there can be in Gaza, despite the stuff you read in PRINTED PRESS). It’s no revelation that Israel creates bogeymen to create wars. Again, WikiLeaks should be renamed WikiConfirmingtheF’ingObvious — although, I shouldn’t say that because there are many sheeple out there… BAAAA


    1. Great blogspot, PA, only the image on the TV screen should be updated to show Obama. And color the sheep black? BAAAA, indeed.

        1. Oh and Gene, there is no difference between the suggested man on TV and the one in the picture.

          George HW = King George I
          W Jr. = King George II
          Obama = King George III

          We all know who King George III was, don’t we?

      1. Allow prosperity amongst the Gazans and see how many will let the government oppress them for any religion, including Islam. It is true that they seem to have that stance, but the fact is that they enjoy the support of the people and by Democratic vote. The people really don’t have any other choice, Richard. The best they can do is lob aluminum spigots through the air and hope they land on a military target. They have no air force or navy, no real army – just a paramilitary. If Hamas didn’t exist, they would be at the whim of the Israelis who want to keep their numbers down for the demographic game, whether that’s yearly massacre sprees inside the impoverished strip, leaving behind uranium, or starving them of the proper nutrition.

        Without Hamas, they would not have the chance they do today. If it is not clearer now than ever, it should be: Abu Mazen was a stooge, is a stooge, and always will be a stooge.

        1. Yes, Abbas both intentionally and unintentionally betrayed his people. Intentionally by accepting U.S. bribes to maintain a semblance of leadership with the promise that it might lead to a Palestinian state, when in essence it was just payment for taking the responsibility for Palestinians welfare away from Israel. Abbas has allowed himself to be tempted, maybe duped by funding to boost the PA, presuming he was creating a strong government for a future state, but the price was looking the other way as tens of thousands of settlers flocked to the West Bank and settlements sprang up everywhere.

          However, now that he realizes he practically gave away the farm, he’s trying to salvage his legacy and the future for his children and grandchildren by making a last-ditch attempt to perform a miracle and reverse the damage that’s been done under his watch by soliciting official state recognition for Palestinians when the reality is that there is practically no state left to recognize, cause he gave it away to Israel. Marwan Barghouti would never have betrayed his people this way. That’s the real reason he sits in an Israeli prison.

  4. Gaza…ranked fourth in his hierarchy of threats, behind Iran, Syria, and Hizballah.

    Syria?! Seriously? The state with the very westernized first couple? The state whose very westernized President has reached out repeatedly to Israel, the United States, and Europe and been consistently rebuffed? The state that responded to brazen military attacks by the United States and Israel by seeking diplomatic resolution, and that, when those efforts failed let the matter drop? THIS is one of the top three threats to Israel’s security.


  5. Please bear with me, as I link this statement with what I believe you’re not seeing in these cables. “What is curiously missing from discussions described in these cables is any mention of the planned coup fomented by State Department staffers David Welch and Eliott Abrams during meetings with Mahmoud Abbas.”

    Why would this be missing from the cables? Isn’t this the kind of information that can really be used in the de-legitimization campaign against Israel? Isn’t proof that Israel, instead of working to unite Palestinians in order to foment stability which could lead to a strong foundation for a Palestinian state, works in the opposite direction to instigate a chaotic situation that will lead Palestinians nowhere, the best justification for declaring Palestinian statehood, as this would be considered proof of Israel’s bad faith and therefore harmful to Israel’s goal? So why should it be included in the leaked information?

    This conclusion is especially supported by this leak:

    “Diskin lamented that the current situation suggests that nobody can now assume leadership of Fatah. Dahlan, he said, can only lead in the Gaza Strip — if that — and Marwan Barghouti can lead in the West Bank, but not the Gaza Strip. “It is something in their blood,” he said, “the leaders of the West Bank cannot rule the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and vice versa.”

    Here we have an Israeli official PRETENDING to lament the fact that there is no viable leader for a Palestinian state ergo, how can Palestinians be trusted with statehood? Even diminishing and dismissing Barghouti’s charismatic power and ability to unite Palestinians.

    This leak plays so perfectly as justification for Israel’s need to sustain this status quo and goal to undermine the Palestinians unilateral efforts towards statehood. It’s like a subliminal propaganda tool supporting their hidden agenda.

    Notice how Diskin and Yadlin both deliver ‘contradicting’ statements on Fatah and Hamas. Praising Fatah then disparaging it, admitting Hamas has superior capabilities “it can win every fight with Fatah, but Fatah can do it harm in its “chaotic” way of fighting”. So what valuable information are they delivering to Israel’s “detractors” which might be damaging to Israel? Nothing, they neither affirm nor negate.

    Of course it’s true that this statement evokes what is unspoken here: “They understand that Israel’s security is central to their survival in the struggle with Hamas in the West Bank” which is that Israel encouraged and supported a coup against Hamas, BUT Diskin makes it appear as if Fatah sought Israel’s help, just like Sunni Arab states wanted the U.S. or Israel to bomb Iran. You see, how favorable this is to Israel? He’s actually implying that Fatah sought Israel’s help against Hamas – same pattern as the leaks regarding Arab states and Iran. In both sets of leaks there’s that intent to divide by exposing the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” even if that “friend” is the Zionist state. I’ll bet Israelis are laughing at how good this is.

    Richard, Israel knows everyone realizes Hamas is not Israel’s main problem. Of course Hamas is fourth on the list. They don’t have the weapons Iran, Syria and Hezbollah have to make them the priority. Yes, Hamas is important to Israel maintaining a propaganda tool to justify the status quo, BUT, the demonization of Hamas has been very effectively achieved and is practically irreversible, and thus this admission is toothless and Israeli officials are confident it would never come back to bite them.

    Something else you should know. There is a French cable :


    “MFA Middle East Director (Assistant
    Secretary-equivalent) Patrice Paoli informed POL Minister Counselor June 18 that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told French officials in Paris June 15 that the Israelis have a “secret accord” with the USG to continue the “natural growth” of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.”

    Israelis have been shouting this from the rooftops to anyone who will listen for years now.

    Check out this 2008 WAPO article:


    In fact, it’s true. George Bush provided Sharon with a letter in which he gave tacit approval for settlement expansion to give Sharon political clout with West Bank settlers for removal of Gaza settlements.

    This is important because it helps Israel deflect the blame for settlement expansion towards the U.S. (ie see, the U.S. is with us on this!) Embarrassing to the U.S., maybe, bad for Israel, heck no!

    The cable goes on to state: “Paoli and Pouille both expressed disappointment with the reservations contained in Netanyahu’s June 14 speech, but noted that it nonetheless reflected significant movement in the Likud position regarding a Palestinian state.” [giving credit to Netanyahu and sympathizing with him politically as follows:] “It’s not easy to reverse a campaign promise two months after the campaign,”

    Of course the cable also contains this passage that might be interpreted as talking down to Netanyahu: Paoli explained that President Sarkozy will have three messages to convey to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu when they meet in Paris on June 24: — “You think you’ve got time, but you don’t.”
    — “You think you have an alternative solution, but you
    — “You think you’re stronger than the Palestinians, but
    you’re not.”

    BUT, it could also be interpreted as a friend warning Israel of an imminent threat against its “legitimacy” and what is not stated is the word “Apartheid” which Israelis consider offensive, but which none of these politicians will admit is already happening, so in essence this part was the mild price to pay for getting out the rest of the message.

    To conclude, all this is FAVORABLE to Israel, in my opinion, and furthers the cause of Israel’s legitimacy and the necessity to maintain the sham peace process, while diminishing the Palestinians’ UNILATERAL attempt at statehood.

    I still believe Assange is a stooge. Again, if Israel is capable of Stuxnet, Israel is capable of ensuring that the “right” cables find their way to Assange.

    The hypothetical jury’s still deliberating whether these cables are ULTIMATELY favorable to Israel, but I believe they are. This is one of those times when I must disagree with you. I just find too many “convenient” slips, especially pitting Israel’s enemies one against the other. Arabs against Iran and Fatah against Hamas, one side looking to Israel to save them….it’s just way too convenient.

    Back to: “What is curiously MISSING…” Yes, sometimes the truth actually lies with what is “curiously missing”. What is missing is what we can ALL agree on: the smoking gun.

    And while we know it exists, and it’s really bad, it’s not anywhere in these cables, on the contrary, they’re a total letdown and a propaganda bonanza for Israel.

    On another note: you know that remote explosion Israel caused to its spying devices in Lebanon and the spy rings discovered in Lebanon and Egypt’s telecoms? Now these incidents I consider incriminating.

    These cables, not so much. Israelis are laughing at the spin and how certain parties are embarrassed by them, except them.

Leave a Reply

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

Share via
Copy link