Wikileaks: The Tel Aviv Connection

What is Tel Aviv to do now that it’s known Israelis and pro-Israelis ‘fixed’ the intelligence that induced the U.S. to war in Iraq?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Con me consistently for six decades and the relationship is over, as is Israel’s credibility as a legitimate nation state.

Tel Aviv knows this. But what can the Zionist state do about it? Answer: Wikileaks.

Why now? Misdirection. Shine the spotlight on Washington to take it off Tel Aviv. That’s good old-fashioned psy-ops.  And challenge the credibility of the U.S. That’s Wikileaks.

Any credible forensics would start by asking: to whose benefit? Then look to means, motive and opportunity plus the presence of stable nation-state intelligence inside the U.S.

Other than Israel, who else is a credible candidate? Notice how quickly Israel’s role in the peace process vanished from the news. Now it’s Iran, Iran, and more Iran. To whose benefit?

Tel Aviv knows that the phony intelligence on Iraq leads to those skilled at waging war “by way of deception” — the motto of the Israeli Mossad. Wikileaks are noteworthy for what’s missing: the absence of any material damaging to Israeli goals.

But still Tel Aviv faces an unprecedented peril: transparency. Americans know they were duped. And Israel rightly fears that Americans will soon realize by whom.

Tepid Support will not Suffice

Obama has behaved as anticipated by those who produced his presidency. Anyone surprised at the lack of change in U.S. policy in the Middle East fails to grasp the power of the Israel lobby.

Did he hesitate to support their latest Israeli strategy for scuttling peace negotiations? Absent peace, the U.S. will continue to be the target of those outraged at America’s unflinching support for Israel’s thuggish behavior in pursuit of its expansionist goals.

Confirming the lobby’s influence, Netanyahu announced he would not agree to halt settlements on Palestinian land until Obama was reduced to writing a $3 billion bribe.

In return for a proposed 90-day freeze, what form of bribe will America provide? Twenty F-35 jets at $150 million each plus parts, maintenance, training and armaments.

That’s $231 million per week or $1,373,626 per hour. What will the U.S. receive in return? A temporary partial freeze on settlements. How many more times can this ruse work?

Israel has evaded a peace agreement since it drove Palestinians from their land in 1948 and seized more land in 1967 to shape today’s geopolitics.

Should Israel reach an agreement with the Palestinians, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proposes a “comprehensive security agreement.” At what cost no one knows. The U.S. Congress has already budgeted $30 billion for Israel over 10 years. This latest $3 billion is on top of that.

That doesn’t include the cost to American credibility posed by an offer to veto U.N. recognition of Palestine as a state. And a pledge Never Again to pressure Israel on settlements. Plus the freeze omits East Jerusalem where Tel Aviv insists on moving ahead with new housing starts.

Timing Is Everything

By scheduling its latest incursion into Gaza between Christmas 2008 and the January 2009 Obama inaugural, Tel Aviv ensured only muted opposition during political down time in the U.S. Thus it came as no surprise to see an agent provocateur operation on Thanksgiving Day 2010 as Israel demolished a West Bank Mosque and a Palestinian village.

After seven hours of nonstop talks, Hillary Clinton praised Netanyahu as a “peacemaker.” In return, he agreed only to “continue the process.” Meanwhile, U.S. elections marked a major victory for Israel when incoming Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a Jewish Zionist, announced that the new majority would “serve as a check on the Obama administration.”

The Israel lobby has good reason to gloat. Confirming ongoing duplicity, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman proclaimed: “a permanent agreement is impossible.”

Wikileaks’ release of confidential diplomatic cables provides Israel an opportunity to undermine U.S. relations worldwide while also inflicting lasting damage on U.S. interests in the Middle East. After this, what nation would trust the U.S. to maintain a confidence?

In October, Turkey asked that the U.S. not share intelligence with Israel. Now who dares share intelligence with the U.S.?

This may signal the beginning of the end for the Obama presidency his domestic policy failures are eclipsed by his failures in foreign policy.

This may also signal pre-staging for the 2012 presidential primary with a weakened Obama forced to name Clinton as his running mate or stepping aside so she can lead the ballot.

Her 2008 presidential campaign promised recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state” and promised an “undivided Jerusalem as the capital.” Tel Aviv was elated. A second Clinton presidency would ensure another victory for Israel — and no peace.

Israeli psy-ops typically serve multiple purposes. Wikileaks is no exception.

Jeff Gates is author of Guilt By Association, Democracy at Risk, and The Ownership Solution. Read other articles by Jeff, or visit Jeff's website.

47 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Rehmat said on November 30th, 2010 at 7:24am #

    The Israeli propaganda front Wikipedia (founders Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger and senior editor David Miller, etc.) – had a preview of the new Wikileaks files on the US-Turkish relations before they were made public on Sunday.

    As expected – the new secret revelations have no new information than what we have already been told by the Zionist mainstream media. Benji Netanyahu admitted that his government was already aware of the contents of the leaks. On November 29, 2010 – Fox News boasted: “All in all, WikiLeaks did not succeed in penetrating the most sensitive channels of U.S.-Israel relations”.

    This proves once again that the new Wikileaks information, most probably stolen by the agents of the powerful Israel Lobby (AIPAC) – and like the previous one, is meant to isolate United States from the rest of the world and create further division among Israel’s neighboring countries – which will make it more easy for the Zionist regime to control every US move.

    The confidential memo leaked by Wikipedia – articulates that Turkey foreign policy (tilted towards its Islamic roots) has “Rolls Royce ambitions but Rover resources.” The authors like the Israeli leaders – are particularly paranoid of Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, for his personal religious leanings and for guiding Turkish foreign policy towards the Middle Eastern countries and Palestinian resistance – which the Zionist regime considers pro-Iranian and anti-Israel.

    “Major challenges with us in the coming months include the direction of Turkish-Israeli relations, the fate of the Protocols with Armenia, and the Turkish posture vis–vis Iran,” says the memo.

    The Wikileaks has claimed that Saudi Arabian King Abdullah had “repeatedly urged United States to attack Iran’s nuclear program” and China directed cyberattacks on the United States. It has also claimed that the Rahbar (Spiritual Leader) Ayatullah Ali Khamenei is suffering from cancer. The Zionazi dogs had similar prediction about Imam Khomeini in the 1980s, claiming that due to his advanced age he would not be able to stabilize the Islamic Revolution.

    Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, dismissed the documents as “worthless mischief” which would not affect Tehran’s relations with its Arab neighbours, exposed as having pressed for a US military strike against its nuclear sites.

    According to Wikileaks, though Turkey is armed by the US – the great majority of Turks have negative views of NATO. However, the authors suggest that Turkey needs to accept the US and NATO’s leadership (aka submission to Israel) to extinguish fires in its backyard (Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan).

    “Even AKP leaders know that much of their allure or “wasta” in the Middle East and elsewhere stems from their privileged position in key Western clubs,” says the document.

    The authors acknowledge the AKP’s impressive efforts to resolve Turkey’s old festering conflicts with Cyprus, Baghdad, Erbil and Syria. As result, Turkey has gained leverage to tackle regional problems from Lebanon to Iran. However, Turkey’s “rapprochement with Syria has not really produced any Syrian “flip” away from Iran“.

    Nathan Guttman wrote about the “Jewish Vengeance” in the oldest Jewish daily FORWARD (June 23, 2010):

    “The American Israel Public Affairs Committee distributed an e-mail promoting a video depicting Erdogan alongside Ahmadinejad and Syria’s Bashar Al-Assad as “The Three Terrors,” a takeoff on the famous Three Tenors — Domingo, Pavarotti and Carreras.

    But speaking stronger than parodies and damning reports was the cold shoulder that Jewish groups turned to Turkish officials who were trying to reach out. Representatives of most major Jewish organizations were invited to a June 16 meeting with members of a senior Turkish delegation visiting Washington. Only one group, the American Jewish Committee, showed up. AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs — all groups that in the past went to great lengths to push a pro-Turkish agenda on Capitol Hill — chose not to attend.”

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/wikileaks-turkey-iran-and-the-lies/

  2. MichaelKenny said on November 30th, 2010 at 8:47am #

    I always say that the US has no foreign policy. Israel has a foreign policy of which the US is the principal instrument. That requires an Israel-dominated America in an America-dominated world. That in its turn requires three subjugations and a double illusion. Subjugation, of course, of the US itself. That’s still fairly solid. Subjugation of Israel’s near abroad. That has largely failed. And subjugation of Europe, which has the misfortune to sit astride the most direct route from Israel to its American bully. That too has largely failed. The double illusion: that the US has full spectrum dominance and that it needs it. That too is wearing increasingly thin. The Wikileaks merely say out loud what the whole world, including the US elite, has being saying under their breath for some years now. Thus, if Israel indeed deliberately tried to weaken the US, it has shot itself in the foot (yet again!) because it could not survive five minutes without its American bully and, indeed, will not long survive the bully’s collapse. That even the bully knows that it is about to collapse is encouraging.

  3. radamanthys said on November 30th, 2010 at 9:48am #

    I had thought the same, actually………that the leaks had been ‘rinsed’ in order to fit the zionist narrative……

    However, a comment piece by Craig Murray, fomer UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, has the following to add to the debate:

    “Some web commenters have noted that the released diplomatic cables reflect the US’s political agenda, and there is even a wedge of the blogosphere suggesting that WikiLeaks is therefore a CIA front. This is nonsense. Of course the documents reflect the US view – they are official US government communications. What they show is something I witnessed personally, that diplomats as a class very seldom tell unpalatable truths to politicians, but rather report and reinforce what their masters want to hear, in the hope of receiving preferment.

    There is therefore a huge amount about Iran’s putative nuclear arsenal and an exaggeration of Iran’s warhead delivery capability. But there is nothing about Israel’s massive nuclear arsenal. That is not because WikiLeaks has censored criticism of Israel. It is because any US diplomat who made an honest and open assessment of Israeli crimes would very quickly be an unemployed ex-diplomat.”

    This does make very good sense……..and is even more alarming, in its way.

  4. shabnam said on November 30th, 2010 at 10:26am #

    Zbegnew Brezhensky in an interview at PBS last night indirectly revealed that MOSSAD is behind Wikileaks ‘leaks’. This important fact is ignored by all closet Zionists at Zmag, globalresearch, counterpunch even J. Cook who has recently become an Israeli citizen. The ‘leaks’ benefits no one except ISRAEL and their supporters, the Judeofascists.

    According to Jonathan Azaziah in “Wikileaks is not what it seems” who writes:

    {Where are the leaks on the 55 Zionist companies profiting from Iraqi blood being spilled (23)? Where are the leaks on Iraq’s artifacts being stolen by Zionist agents (24)? Where are the leaks on hundreds of Mossad agents operating in Mosul (25)? Where are the leaks on the Mossad bomb-making facility in Kirkuk (26)? Where are the leaks on the Mossad murderers stationed in several villages around the devastated area of Fallujah (27)? Where are the leaks on the depleted-uranium-tipped IEDs of Zionist-owned Zapata Engineering that have massacred thousands in Najaf, Karbala and Tal Afar, just to name a few (28)? Where are the leaks on the Israeli arms dealers supplying weapons to CIA-trained death squads (29)? Where are the leaks on Zionist war criminal Paul Wolfowitz importing Shin Bet torture experts to train the US military (30)? Where are the leaks on Mossad conducting interrogations and torture in Iraq jails, including Abu Ghraib (31)? Where are the leaks that will actually tie the illegal war, which was exclusively designed by Zionists, to Israel? They don’t exist because Wikileaks isn’t concerned with uncovering the truth regarding the real criminals; they’re concerned with leading the public away from the truth to keep them under control. It’s COINTELPRO all over again.}
    Many unbiased critics believe that WIKILEAKS IS MOSSAD. Have you seen any document be revealed which confirms Israel crimes against humanity where everyone knows by the Judeofascists’s puppet Assange? Never!!!!!!!

    {http://empirestrikesblack.com/2010/11/wikileaks-is-not-what-it-seems/}

  5. mary said on November 30th, 2010 at 10:38am #

    Shabnam – are you sure that Jonathan Cook has become an Israeli citizen?

  6. bozh said on November 30th, 2010 at 10:52am #

    some salient facts–usually omitted- show that ‘jews’ are not controlling nato and u.s to the degree that some people assert.
    the following few facts show that it is not so: pal’ns have not been driven to desert, israel had not conquered much or parts of syria, lebanon, or jordan; driven out their pop and annexed the conquests.
    of course, provided ‘jews’ really wanted to do that!??? no, we cannot prove that ‘jews’ and even nato-u.s don’t or want to to that.
    but we can firmly conclude that at least ‘jews’ want ALL IF IT, and not just a wretch of land they have now.
    what we do is review history and the hell what nato-u.s-israel says or doesn’t say!
    in add’n, it’s all in the family, la familia, cosa nostra with ‘jews’ just being best thieves; probably sharing it with other family members! tnx

  7. shabnam said on November 30th, 2010 at 10:56am #

    Mary:
    I read it at this site. Am I mistaken? I am not going through all the articles for the past two months. There was an article that he mentioned something about Israel citizenship.
    If I am wrong then I apologize.

    wait, I found the article:

    “My application for citizenship is due to be considered in the next few months, seven years after my marriage to a Palestinian citizen of Israel. The country’s 1.3 million Palestinians — usually referred to by officials as “Israeli Arabs” — are a fifth of the population. I, like a few others in my position, am likely to make such a pledge through gritted teeth and with my fingers crossed behind my back. Whatever I declare publicly to interior ministry officials will be a lie. Here are the reasons why.”

    {http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/10/my-oath-to-israel%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cjewish-democracy%E2%80%9D/}

  8. mary said on November 30th, 2010 at 11:15am #

    Thanks for that Shabnam. How sad. I knew that he was married to a Palestinian but always thought how brave he was speaking out when he was situated within the belly of the beast. Will that change I wonder.

    Here is Mr Chomsky still sitting on that spiky fence which must be so painful after all this time.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=5873

  9. Deadbeat said on November 30th, 2010 at 12:17pm #

    I’m rather suspicious of the WikiLeaks revelations and how it’s been played the past couple of days by Democracy Now. Amy Goodman plays this as fact. She offers no questioning or even healthy skepticism of the WikiLeaks information.

    However what she is playing up along with Noam Chomsky on today’s show is the Arabs’ desire to “attack” Iran. This “revelation” is being spun by her and Chomsky to shift the focus away from “Jews”, “Zionists” “Israel”. Which is there jobs and why they have planted themselves on the “Left”.

    I’m inclined to believe that WikiLeaks is a psy-op affair to aid the Zionist cause but I’ll have to reserve judgment as more information and analysis are forthcoming but for now I agree with Jeff Gates.

  10. Deadbeat said on November 30th, 2010 at 12:19pm #

    Shabnam writes …

    Zbegnew Brezhensky in an interview at PBS last night indirectly revealed that MOSSAD is behind Wikileaks ‘leaks’. This important fact is ignored by all closet Zionists at Zmag, globalresearch, counterpunch even J. Cook who has recently become an Israeli citizen. The ‘leaks’ benefits no one except ISRAEL and their supporters, the Judeofascists.

    Can you post a link to Brezhensky remarks. I’d like to know more about this. The psuedo-Left is in high gear selling the “U.S. Imperialism” line in order to deflect attention from Zionism.

  11. kalidas said on November 30th, 2010 at 1:14pm #

    When any one line of the Yehuda triangle (London, New York, Tel Aviv) is missing (Tel Aviv) in any discussion of war, war planning and war commencing, the old red flag pops up faster than you can say …

    there’s no such thing as sayanim
    there’s no such thing as sayanim
    there’s no such thing as sayanim..

  12. Deadbeat said on November 30th, 2010 at 2:01pm #

    Max Sheilds writes …

    Deadbeat how is it that either Chomsky (who you seem to despise regardless of what he actually says) or Amy Goodman in today’s show did anything by condemn the US and Israel? The only thing Chomsky stated was that there are Arab dictators that are lackeys to US and do NOT represent their people who do NOT see Iran as a threat, but rather Israel and US are what Arabs on the street believe are the biggest Middle East threat…and that is Chomsky saying that repeatedly.

    As I said Max, I am SKEPTICAL of the SPIN and I have a right to be. This is not an attack on Goodman or Chomsky. This is me conveying my own FEELINGS about the issue. Goodman & Chomksy played lead roles in the “War for Oil” canards and they have been using their positions to DEFLECT Zionism’s influence of U.S. policy for years. So based on my experience I am SKEPTICAL of their SPIN. They are taking WikiLeaks all on face value and have offered no discussion by and from any skeptics like Jerry Gates.
    These are from the same characters who tells us to follow the “corporate” dollars and never the foundation dollars.

    Thus Max I have no proof otherwise other than my own experience with the psuedo-Left whose information and spin should be QUESTIONED in the same vein as one would the government.

    Thus I tend to agree with Jerry Gates until I see information to dispell my skepticism. If you choose to believe it Max then make your case. I’m willing to listen.

  13. klaatu said on November 30th, 2010 at 2:16pm #

    Jeff’s assertion makes sense; it is clear that whatever is leaked to Wikileaks serves the purpose of diverting attention from the “game host” to the shells–which never contain the pea!! And “leaking” to the NYTimes, Guardian and Der Spiegel tend to confirm this connection. The information is damning in many cases, but serves much more importantly to divert attention away from the Zionist culpability. Thanks, Jeff. It does get complicated when the Zionists play such obtuse games.

  14. shabnam said on November 30th, 2010 at 2:33pm #

    deatbeat writes:
    {Can you post a link to Brezhensky remarks.}

    This is my interpretation of what ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI said on News hour. He did not say that mossad is behind wikileaks, but he said the following where I thought he indirectly is leading us toward mossad because he excluded CIA because he thought USA is a ‘victim’ of the ‘leaks’. He said the following:

    {It’s, rather, a question of whether WikiLeaks are being manipulated by interested parties that want to either complicate our relationship with other governments or want to undermine some governments, because some of these items that are being emphasized and have surfaced are very pointed.

    And I wonder whether, in fact, there aren’t some operations internationally, intelligence services, that are feeding stuff to WikiLeaks, because it is a unique opportunity to embarrass us, to embarrass our position, but also to undermine our relations with particular governments. }

    {http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/july-dec10/weakileaks2_11-29.html}

  15. Max Shields said on November 30th, 2010 at 2:35pm #

    DB what makes you think that they (Goodman/Chomsky) knew anymore about the interest in oil by US than you do? The Iraq invasion has many “fathers”, all nudging and conflating, and pushing and pulling. In the end, it is the Commander In Chief who decides to go or not.

    Look we can get into all kinds of tangled webs about when Israel has its fingerprints on this and that US foreign policy. We’ve had this running debate for months and will likely not conclude it.

    I think Wikileaks is just dumping information for consumption. Much of what is there we knew and these “documents” are merely confirming. 99.99999% of the public will never read even one “page” of these. It’s literally overwhelming. Since the only ones who will pour over these are the contributers to them, there seems to be much ado about nothing much.

    However I wouldn’t start looking at Brezhensky as an interpreter of degree to which the US is a empire. It is not in any sense like the British empire because it does not settle these colonial outposts but instead establishes bases from which to launch attacks and play all kinds of mischief. Deny it as some kind of “pseudo-leftist” contrivence…I suppose you think Chalmers Johnson was a “pseudo-leftist” attempting to cover up for Zionist/Israel? It all fills a lot of time and space….

  16. Max Shields said on November 30th, 2010 at 2:36pm #

    By the way, I don’t recall Chomsky making that much of a fuss regarding Wikileaks.

  17. shabnam said on November 30th, 2010 at 2:50pm #

    Deatbeat:

    You should watch Monday night Chrlierose program to see how the judeofascists were leading the public toward war against Iran. Jamie Rubin
    reduced wikileaks ‘documents’ to bomb Iran or not bomb Iran, this is the decision, he believes, Obama must take soon.

    {http://www.charlierose.com/}

  18. PatrickSMcNally said on November 30th, 2010 at 2:58pm #

    It’s not clear at this stage what the implications of this will really be. I know some people have pointed to the messages from Saudis allegedly advocating an attack on Iran as proof that Wikileaks is a Zionist front. But it could be read the other way. There is a species of worm whose natural habitat is Capitol Hill, with a strong proclivity to slither through the halls of Congress and Senate, which generally will not vote against war on Iran if the stark alternatives are either supporting Israel or voting against war on Iran. But many of these same slithering creatures will gladly use the Saudis as an out, casting a vote against war on Iran as a defiance of a sinister Saudi influence will go by much more easily for them than overtly defying the Israel lobby. That’s why this whole thing could serve as an excuse for such Congress critters to vote against war on Iran.

    Was that really the intent behind these leaks all along? I honestly don’t know. It’s clear that the Israel lobby is the only significant force in US domestic politics which has demanded action against Iran. Obama, as far as I can tell, has no desire to open up a conflict with Iran. Neither do Zbigniew Brzezinski or any of the other strategists traditionally linked with the CFR, Trilateral Commission or the Bilderberg Group. The push for war on Iran has come entirely from organizations such as JINSA, AIPAC, WINEP and other pro-Israel mouth-pieces. Obama has attempted to balance between his goals of concentrating on smoothing out Afghanistan & Pakistan, while avoiding a new conflict in Iran by appeasing the Israel lobby in a piecemeal fashion. That has been my impression so far.

    Will these “leaks” advance or hurt that agenda of Obama & Brzezinski, or will they facilitate the agenda of Netanyahu and the JINSA/PNAC crew? It’s too early to tell. Just keep your eyes pealed. That’s all that can be said right now.

  19. shabnam said on November 30th, 2010 at 3:21pm #

    The judeofascists in occupied land:

    {The morning after the first disclosures of WikiLeaks’ trove of diplomatic cables, buzz in Israel was somewhere between relief and vindication, and officials were being thankful by keeping quiet.

    Gradually, more official voices were heard. The revelations show what some of us knew, said President Shimon Peres — that the Arab countries know they have an enemy, “and it’s not Israel.”
    A headline in Haaretz was more direct: “Everybody hates Iran.”
    If WikiLeaks didn’t exist, Israel would have had to invent it, wrote Sever Plocker, noting the big leak backed Israel’s foreign and defense policy and revealed “the shame” that many agree with Israel but “won’t admit it openly.”
    Israel wasn’t embarrassed “one bit” by the fiasco, writes Aluf Benn. }

    {http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2010/11/zionist-leaders-now-say-arab-countries.html}

  20. bozh said on November 30th, 2010 at 3:39pm #

    ripples, like wikileaks, will not cause the ship even to yaw, let alone cause it to assume a new course or or go to a new destination. tnx

  21. Max Shields said on November 30th, 2010 at 3:39pm #

    shabnam “Gradually, more official voices were heard. The revelations show what some of us knew, said President Shimon Peres — that the Arab countries know they have an enemy, “and it’s not Israel.”

    This is called spin. Need more than Israeli spin to make WikiLeaks anything remotely tied to Israel.

  22. shabnam said on November 30th, 2010 at 3:52pm #

    Max

    You can think what you want, however, since no ‘document’ leaked to show the Judeofascists’ war crimes and terrorist activities, is a good sign that Zionists must have a role in ‘leaked documents’. We read about US support for PKK, where everyone with more than two brain cells knows, however, no document ‘leaked’ to show Israel’s role in terrorist activity in Kurdistan using her pawns, the Kurds.
    The judeofascists are pettier than that, they are hated not only in the region but all over the world. No one will be sorry if Judeofascists are WIPE OFF FROM OUR RIGION, believe me.

  23. Max Shields said on November 30th, 2010 at 4:30pm #

    How do you know. Have you read all these documents? Just asking what proof you have that Israel is unscathed by these leaks.

  24. Max Shields said on November 30th, 2010 at 4:39pm #

    There is enough, more than enough, information from these Wikileaks to be used by anyone to spin, condemn, etc. It appears unvarnished. It is not a story with a beginning, middle and end.

    My hunch, and it has much to support it, is that the tsunami in the making will make all this chatter pale if we don’t start to take action, and stop the warring and genocidal activities, and stop NOW. The consequences will be incontrovertable, enormous and will radically change human existence on this planet.

  25. Max Shields said on November 30th, 2010 at 4:44pm #

    Lastly (?) no amount of compartmentalizing the growing desaster on the horizon will make that desaster disappear. What is brewing, will not seem fair for those who have stuggled throughout the world…it will seem inconvenient…a “lie” created to destract from the demands by those oppressed to have a hearing in the world court…all of this will be brushed aside….IF…we don’t start paying attention to what is coming…it won’t care that you are wealthy or disadvantaged or Palestinian or Israeli, or Chinese or Latino.

  26. commoner3 said on November 30th, 2010 at 5:12pm #

    radamanthy wrote:
    “That is not because WikiLeaks has censored criticism of Israel. It is because any US diplomat who made an honest and open assessment of Israeli crimes would very quickly be an unemployed ex-diplomat.”
    ————————————————————————————-
    radamanthy,

    Your logic is faulty and wrong.
    If a diplomat spoke in PUBLIC against his country’s policy and expressed his honest opinion and assessment of the situation, then he will get fired, but if he cabled in PRIVATE, about what he saw and heard and his honest opinion and assessment of the situation, then he has nothing to worry about.

  27. lichen said on November 30th, 2010 at 5:48pm #

    Wikileaks are heroes for taking shots at the American empire and it’s monopoly on disinformation via the mainstream media. I highly commend them; and not the right wing antizionist conspiracy theorists and american nationalists who want to obscure the truth.

  28. Deadbeat said on November 30th, 2010 at 6:12pm #

    Max Shields writes …

    DB what makes you think that they (Goodman/Chomsky) knew anymore about the interest in oil by US than you do? The Iraq invasion has many “fathers”, all nudging and conflating, and pushing and pulling. In the end, it is the Commander In Chief who decides to go or not.

    We’ve been over the “War for Oil” canard many times during the past four years here. But for simplicity check James Petras who articles you can find here on DV. Petras has never been interviews on DN! over this issue — only Latin America. Clearly if Goodman wanted to know more she could have easily broached the subject with Petras when she was interviewing him.

    Also check Alexander Cockburn. Even he now says the War on Iraq was not about oil as the evidence doesn’t jibe.

    Also Max, I have my own experience with the pseudo-anti-war-Left to draw on as well. Thus I’ll still adhere to my skepticism until there is irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

  29. Max Shields said on November 30th, 2010 at 6:58pm #

    As I indicated, the Iraq invasion of 2003 had a variety of motives. For the most part this invasion was a continuation of the Desert Storm incursion which was done under the pretext of pushing Saddam out of the Kuwait over oil rights dispute. It’s fairly clear that the dominate reason for the initial Iraq war of 1990 and the continued air-raids and sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi, culminated in the GW Bush invasion of 2003 was about oil; but not exclusively. There are always a number of dynamics at play.

    I think Cockburn begins to pick up on this Petras notion that if the US faired poorly regarding oil rights, then oil could not have been the reason. That’s a very weak argument. The US hasn’t “won” a war since WWII (unless we consider Granada a war!). All those wars were blurred by domino theories and Soviet threats…sinking deeper and deeper into quagmires. It is a bit far fetched to, given the US batting average, expect any different results: invasion, escalation, civil war, occupier, insurgency all part and parcel of US military policy since end of WWII. Iraq is no different.

    The ME oil policy that can be traced back to FDR needs to be followed to see how oil plays its role. Dominance, control, hegemony are what world power is ALL ABOUT. Controlling oil (the prime energy source), who has it, who doesn’t is part of the game world dominance. Even that doesn’t mean, as I’ve said over those 4 years you note DB, that there are many fingerprints on all of this, some more important than others.

    As far as oil and it’s global role, check out Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet by Michael Klare. This is not about ideology; nor do I think his book which is oil centric is the sole source…but it illuminates the role of natural gas and oil in particular in terms of the Brezhensky’s strategic global chess board can appreciate.

  30. bozh said on November 30th, 2010 at 7:01pm #

    i said that in late ’02 that nato is not invading iraq for oil. oil was owned de facto by empires.
    any land that wld have shut or reduced arbitrarily flow of oil, wld have constitued a casus belli.

    it is an entirely different matter regarding who benefits more financially from iraqi oil. possibly americans and other mercenaries and of course, iraqi ‘nobles’. tnx

  31. PatrickSMcNally said on November 30th, 2010 at 7:19pm #

    > It’s fairly clear that the dominate reason for the initial Iraq war of 1990 and the continued air-raids and sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi, culminated in the GW Bush invasion of 2003 was about oil

    The dominant reason for that war was to shame Gorbachev and create a crisis in the USSR which would result in the collapse of 1991. The war could have been avoided if April Glaspie had simply conveyed to Saddam Hussein the message that the USA would not tolerate an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and Bush I made absolutely no attempt to gain possession of Iraqi oil fields (hence the reason why Saddam stayed in office 12 years after Bush I left the White House). Leftists who had adapted to the Cold War played up the “No War for Oil” charge then so as to downplay an appearance of seeming pro-Soviet, just as in 2003 they sought to downplay an appearance of being anti-Israel.

  32. 3bancan said on November 30th, 2010 at 9:47pm #

    Imho Wikileaks as a sort of blackmail have the goal to put the the blame on everyone and everything except on the zionazis (especially on those who have “Jewish roots”) and to divert the attention from Israel, ie they have the same function as the zionazi gang here with Max Shields & Co. (especially the hasbara “”historian”" PatrickSMcNally)…

  33. PatrickSMcNally said on November 30th, 2010 at 10:31pm #

    > especially the hasbara “”historian”” PatrickSMcNally

    What retarded idiots this board draws.

  34. hayate said on November 30th, 2010 at 10:53pm #

    3bancan said on November 30th, 2010 at 9:47pm

    You might have a point there. All the media outfits wikileaks has chosen to use are ziofascist fronts – guardian, nyt, der spiegel. They also have a “Russian” outlet, but this site relies upon cookies: IE it aint really Russian.

  35. hayate said on November 30th, 2010 at 10:55pm #

    PatrickSMcNally said on November 30th, 2010 at 10:31pm #

    “What retarded idiots this board draws.”

    Especially those who inadvertently employ irony without knowing they have done so.

    :D

  36. hayate said on November 30th, 2010 at 10:56pm #

    From the article:

    “as is Israel’s credibility as a legitimate nation state.”

    There you go.

  37. Deadbeat said on November 30th, 2010 at 11:31pm #

    Max Shields writes …

    The ME oil policy that can be traced back to FDR needs to be followed to see how oil plays its role. Dominance, control, hegemony are what world power is ALL ABOUT. Controlling oil (the prime energy source), who has it, who doesn’t is part of the game world dominance. Even that doesn’t mean, as I’ve said over those 4 years you note DB, that there are many fingerprints on all of this, some more important than others.

    Patrick S McNally provides a very good rejoinder to you Max. The point is that the “War for Oil” canard has been a consistent theme of Chomskyites and was use to falsely blame the oil companies and to shift focus from the UNDERLYING causes.

    I know for a fact that the oil companies were DEAD SET against Gulf War I and since I resided in Texas at the time and was very much “acquainted” with folks down there. Of course Max, there were yahoos down there that what wanted war but only for bravo reasons not for oil.

    My main point Max is that I expect from the Left honest analysis not diversions, deflections, misinformation, disinformation, and lies. After my experience with the Left during the anti-war movement of 2003 and the Nader candidacy of 2004 I’ve learned not to trust the “pseudo-Left” and to see them as an INTEGRAL part of the diversion. So once again Max a dose of health skepticism is my first order of priority on this issue.

  38. stuartbramhall said on November 30th, 2010 at 11:43pm #

    There is something quite troubling about the superficiality of the material in the Wikileaks release – it looks, feels and smells like “limited hang-out” to me. The American public is getting increasingly antsy about getting lied to about the war in Afghanistan. The official narrative makes no sense whatsoever. So they give them a tiny dose of “the truth” in the hope it will calm them down again. I blog about the “real reason” for the war in Pakistan and Afghanistan at http://stuartbramhall.aegauthorblogs.com/2010/11/28/afghanistan-and-the-road-runner/. In my view it relates primarily to US competition with our economic rival, China, over Middle East oil and natural gas resources.

  39. Deadbeat said on November 30th, 2010 at 11:45pm #

    hayate writes …

    You might have a point there. All the media outfits wikileaks has chosen to use are ziofascist fronts – guardian, nyt, der spiegel. They also have a “Russian” outlet, but this site relies upon cookies: IE it aint really Russian.

    This is one of the main reasons for my skepticism is that WikiLeaks chose to vet their information with media outlets that are dominated by Zionists. Why the New York Times of all outlets? The whole lot of them should be indicted and charged with crimes against humanity for the lead up to the Iraq War — especially Judith Miller who “stories” where just mimeographs of Dick Chaney and the Bush Administration’s zion-con spin.
    The New York Times is a thoroughly “yellow journalistic” RAG SHEET.

    If these are leaks then just leak it. Why is this information being “sanitized” by these mainstream outlets. As Shabnam noted the Z-Mag crew are not asking these question and yesterday Amy Goodman opened EXCITEDLY spinning that the Arabs want Iraq invaded — not Israel. She could barely contain herself and none of the participant in the discussion raised any questions or doubts.

    I had to go onto RT and Press TV to hear some rational questions being asked. The pseudo-Left media ALL accepted this information on-face-value. No questions needed to be asked; no skepticism whatsoever. That’s not journalism that stenography. In other words the pseudo-Left engaged in the very same behavior they accuse the mainstream of in the lead up to the war on Iraq.

  40. Deadbeat said on November 30th, 2010 at 11:49pm #

    My apologies to JEFF Gates. I mistakenly wrote “Jerry” in my previous postings.

  41. hayate said on November 30th, 2010 at 11:49pm #

    I agree about the zionist [cough] left, Deadbeat, but don’t let shabnam fool you, he supports the pkk, a zionist front outfit identical to their al ciada.

  42. Deadbeat said on November 30th, 2010 at 11:54pm #

    Thanks Shabnam for the leads.

  43. Deadbeat said on November 30th, 2010 at 11:56pm #

    hayate, I’m not deeply familiar with all the politics of the region so any links you have are helpful.

  44. radamanthys said on December 1st, 2010 at 12:59am #

    commoner3:

    the comments of Craig Murray, an ex and very dissident diplomat are, as I indicate, even more alarming if his judgement is valid, since it means that even private, frank communications are tied down by the zionist cabal…….we really are in trouble when even private thoughts can be stifled……….

  45. mary said on December 1st, 2010 at 4:06am #

    Kill. Kill.l Kill. Control. Control. Control….. The only words the neocons know.

    ….The comments came as an adviser to Stephen Harper, the Canadian prime minister, suggested a different solution to the international diplomatic crisis – assassinating Mr Assange.

    Prof Tom Flanagan said Barack Obama should “put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something” to rid the world of Mr Assange.

    As the anchor on the CBC news programme warned him that his comments were “pretty harsh stuff”, Prof Flanagan responded that he was “feeling very manly today”.

    He rounded off his interview by claiming the leak of the documents could “conceivably lead to war,” adding: “I wouldn’t feel unhappy if Assange disappeared.”

    Prof Flanagan was speaking on Tuesday evening, after the second day of WikiLeaks revelations from US State Department documents.

    /…..
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/8172916/WikiLeaks-Bradley-Manning-should-face-death-penalty.html

  46. shabnam said on December 1st, 2010 at 5:10am #

    Deadbeat and others:

    Hayate is a charlatan and illiterate person. He is suspicious to me. He accuses me of supporting PKK not knowing that Iranians are fighting against the Kurdish terrorists who are trained by Israel for a long time. He is so ignorant that when I was trying to explain to Max that Wikileaks gives selective information that every person with more two brain cells knows, example, US supports PKK, he think I support PKK.
    He is irresponsible and illiterate in history so much that uses ‘zionazi’ for everything and everyone who does not agree with. He has reduced the meaning of the word ‘zionazi’ TO NOTHING BUT GARBAGE WHICH FITS HIM THE BEST. Now, no one pays attention to him who abuses, zionazi like ADL abuses ‘Anti-semitic’ thus both has been reduced to nothing but TRASH.

    Please make a note of it.

  47. Max Shields said on December 1st, 2010 at 5:41am #

    Deadbeat says: “My main point Max is that I expect from the Left honest analysis not diversions, deflections, misinformation, disinformation, and lies. After my experience with the Left during the anti-war movement of 2003 and the Nader candidacy of 2004″

    First, “honest analysis” seems to be defined as “my way or the highway”. If you disagree you claim it is dishonest.

    You give no credence to the blood supply of oil as if it just isn’t important. We don’t have enough oil in the US to make the world go ’round as it’s currently organized. Control of it in ME and elsewhere is essential – there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 800 bases (you argree?). These bases are unsustainable but the rationale for why they exist is to keep all the supply chains moving, and to cause timely mischief as the world’s “policeman).

    Again, my original post here was in response to your introduction of Chomsky’s interview of DN. Your statement was so contrary to what I listened to that I felt you were distorting what he said.

    Since I’ve support Nadar for many years I don’t know what you’re point is. Is it Michael Moore you see as this American “left”?