Like 9/11, WikiLeaks has been singularly good for Israel.
Asked on the night of September 11, 2001 what the terrorist attacks meant for U.S.-Israel relations, Benjamin Netanyahu, the then former prime minister, tactlessly but accurately replied, “It’s very good.” And on the day after WikiLeaks’ publication of U.S. diplomatic cables, Netanyahu “strode” into a press conference at the Israeli Journalists Association, looking “undoubtedly delighted” with the group’s latest embarrassment of U.S. President Barack Obama.
“Thanks to WikiLeaks,” Aluf Benn wrote in Haaretz, “there is now no fear Washington will exert heavy pressure on Israel to freeze settlement construction or to accelerate negotiations on a withdrawal from the territories.” Instead, also courtesy of WikiLeaks, the world’s attention had been shifted exactly where a “vindicated” Netanyahu wanted it – toward Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program.
“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 told the assembled journalists. “In reality leaders understand that that view is bankrupt. For the first time in history there is agreement that Iran is the threat.” While there is considerable dispute about the extent to which Arab leaders share Netanyahu’s understanding of “the Iranian threat,” the Arab public overwhelmingly considers Israel to be a far greater threat.
Nevertheless, according to Haaretz columnist Ari Shavit, Julian Assange “has shattered the accepted dogma on the understanding in the Middle East in the 21st century.” WikiLeaks, crowed Shavit, “proved” that the Israeli occupation and colonization of Palestine was not the main cause of instability in the Middle East. Instead, the secret cables “revealed” that “the entire Arab world” is concerned about “one problem only — Iran, Iran, Iran.” Thus, Shavit concluded, the only way to bring peace to the region was to deal with “Iran first.”
Strangely, the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange seems to accept the Israeli vision of “war is peace” in the Middle East. In an interview with Time magazine, Assange singled out Netanyahu as an example of a world leader who believed the publication of Arab leaders’ provocative privately expressed comments “will lead to some kind of increase in the peace process in the Middle East and particularly in relation to Iran.”
Even more puzzling, Assange had an op-ed piece in Rupert Murdoch’s The Australian, in which he quoted something the media mogul had written in 1958: “In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win.” In choosing another pro-Israel apologist as a model of transparency, is it possible that Assange is ignorant of the key role played by Murdoch’s media empire in propagating the lies that led the New York Times to dub the war in Iraq “Mr. Murdoch’s War”?
Assange seems equally oblivious to the significant contribution made by the New York Times itself to the war whose conduct he now claims to oppose. On September 8, 2002, the paper of record led with a front-page story by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon, which falsely claimed that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy aluminum tubes as part of its “worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb.” As Michael Massing later wrote, “In the following months, the tubes would become a key prop in the administration’s case for war, and the Times played a critical part in legitimizing it.” Chosen by Assange to publish its leaked documents because it is one of “the best newspapers in the world for investigative research,” the pro-Israel Times is now busily spinning the leaks to push America into an equally unnecessary but even more disastrous war with Iran.
Given that the WikiLeaks revelations have been such an unexpected “diplomatic coup” for Israel, its American lobby appears to be strangely divided over the issue. On one side, there are those like David Frum, Jeffrey Goldberg and Michael Ledeen who delight in being able henceforth to cloak their incessant Iran warmongering behind a specious Arab cover. “Those who suggest that it’s some ‘Israel lobby’ or Jewish cabal that is driving the confrontation with Iran” should be embarrassed by the leaks, writes Frum. “WikiLeaks confirms that the region’s Arab governments express even more anxiety than Israel about the Iranian nuclear weapons program.”
Meanwhile, the most virulent attacks on WikiLeaks have come from some of Israel’s staunchest supporters. William Kristol, editor of Rupert Murdoch’s Weekly Standard, wants Congress to enable Obama to “Whack WikiLeaks.” Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, appear only too willing to oblige. Both senators have called for the prosecution of Assange under the 1917 Espionage Act. Feinstein is also working with Senator Charles Schumer on media legislation that would allow the prosecution of organizations like WikiLeaks.
How do we reconcile the Israel lobby’s apparently schizophrenic reaction to WikiLeaks? Could it be that Julian Assange has killed two birds for Israel with one document dump?
Thanks to WikiLeaks, the well-publicized remarks of a few Arab leaders provide much-needed cover for pro-Israelis as they relentlessly press America to whack Iran. At the same time, the disclosure of U.S. diplomatic secrets has given the likes of Joe Lieberman another excuse to “kill the internet” — to prevent Americans from ever finding out how they got into such a mess in the Middle East.
But just like 9/11, no matter how much WikiLeaks has benefited Israel, most observers still seem loath to consider the Tel Aviv connection.
Any informed person who gives at least a damn for anti-authoritarian/anti-imperialist struggles would have to be positively flabbergasted by this wholly misguided piece of “analysis.”
WikiLeaks has “benefited” Israel??? This is absolutely ridiculous. So what O Cathail is saying here is that when Netanyahu comes out and says the published cables somehow vindicate his hard-on to bomb Iran, everyone should take him seriously. Far be it from me to disagree with Benjamin Netanyahu, but I must disagree with the Israeli leader and so should anyone else who cares for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, such as the readers of this site.
You see, there’s this thing called “context.” Boys and girls, today’s lesson is that various heads of criminal states–such as, oh, let’s say the heads of the Israeli and various Arab governments–very frequently pluck facts OUT of context in order to frame a narrative that (in their diseased, power-tripping minds, anyway) support their pre-selected self-serving agendas. That is what they do with EVERYTHING, with ALL information that becomes readily accessible to the public–no exceptions.
Here’s an important piece of context: Arab regimes are corrupt as hell. They’re despotic states that, like Israel, are largely financed by US taxpayers so that they’ll keep dancing to Uncle Sam’s tune. So when Netanyahu comes out and says that these newly disclosed documents show that Arab dictators want Iran bombed, too, we should not be saying, “Well gosh, he does have a point.” No, the correct response is to LAUGH IN HIS STUPID FACE. Just ‘cuz the criminals of the Arab states might wanna have Iranian men, women and children slaughtered, that don’t make it a jolly fine idea.
But even if you do have some good reason to believe that what Arab gov’t officials say privately about Iran should have any kind of relevance, maybe you should at least put Netanyahu’s claims to the BS test. Is what he’s saying actually true? Are the officials of Arab states really desirious of a US/Israli attack on Iran? Remember our lesson for today: Politicians and gov’t officials are frequently prone to spin facts out of context in order to suit their own power-tripping goals. Knowing this, perhaps we should seek to verify whether Netanyahu’s characterization of those cables is completely accurate. Ah, researching a politician’s claim to verify whether there is any truth to it–a novel idea, isn’t it? I do hope it catches on at least with the alternative press, since we’ve already known for some decades now that the mainstream press has absolutely no interest in doing any such thing.
Well, lookee what we got here! A piece by Gareth Porter and Jim Lobe:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/12/cables-belie-gulf-states-backing-for-strikes-on-iran/
Porter and Lobe put the cables in question in a far clearer context, one that doesn’t exactly support Netanyahu’s thesis. I’m more prone to believe them over Netanyahu.
As for Julian Assange, quoting Rupert Murdoch circa 1958 doesn’t call into question his motives or allegiances, but demonstrates what I imagine is a well developed taste for irony. The bloviating bobbleheads of Fox News have been among the most shrill and severe of Assange’ critics. Is there any more poetic way to slap them in their smug, arrogant little faces than with their own boss’s words of a half century ago–words spoken or written perhaps before he sold his feeble little soul to Establishment power?
And the fact that Joe Lieberman will ALWAYS find any reason he can to act like a Nazi and propose Naziesque policies is hardly the fault of WikiLeaks. It’s in Lieberman’s DNA. BTW, some more context: They’ll never shut down the internet, even if they could–they’d shut down all US commerce as a result, and there’s no way in hell they’ll do that. Further, the more than 1,000 volunteer mirror sites set up for WikiLeaks all over the world demonstrate once and for all that any powerful institution’s attempts to censor the flow of information on the Internet are completely and totally impotent.
Julian Assange and the many, many unsung volunteers of WikiLeaks have done more to weaken the strangulating grip of centralized power than anyone else I can think of during my 42-year lifetime. That’s why the powers that be have gone so apeshit crazy to nail him. It also explains their schizoid reactions: One minute it’s “Oh, ho-hum, it’s no big deal,” a minute later it’s “KILL HIM!!!!” Having their crimes revealed to the whole world is literally driving them insane.
Assange and co. are revealing the stark naked Emperor, warts and all. For anyone to suggest, or try to prove by quoting, of all people–God give me the strength as I type his name one more time–Benjamin fringgin’ Netanyahu–that WikiLeaks somehow serves the interests of the status quo is so idiotic, so incredibly stupid, it boggles the mind.
I also highly recommend reading the Porter and Lobe piece, as well as Porter’s other articles on the Wikileaks releases. The original at IPS:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=53790
Wikileaks are self serving reports prepared for superiors. They reflect the ideology, eduction, beliefs and prejudices of the preparers. I’ve prepared many. While they contain truth, they are not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Since May 2010 Bradley Manning has been in solitary confinement accused of giving secrets to Wikileaks.
I stand with Bradley.
His mother is forbidden access to him.
He faces 50+ years in prison.
Send him mail.
Let him know he has a friend.
http://standwithbrad.org/
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=174899742523541¬if_t=event_wallwall_posts
You have provided no evidence for you assertion. All you done is claim prematurely (since not all the cables have been revealed yet) is that Israel has not been exposed by the leak. Of course, this may simply because there’s nothing to leak or perhaps Israel has better security.
The revelations that Arab gov’ts fear a nuclear Iran is a non-story. This was well known before. It’s just a tricky balancing act for these gov’ts to admit that a country other than the Jewish State is greater threat.
You haven’t proven anything.
We are in agreement, Ephraim.
Tom Baxter, thanks for the reminder re: Bradley Manning.
Further, it shows O Cathail’s conclusions to be all the more flawed. To imply that the US gov’t would lock up Manning for 23-hour-a-day solitary confinement for leaking cables that supposedly support Israel/USA’s case for attacking Iran simply defies all logic.