WikiLeaks: What, really, is the problem?
Some commentators, bloggers and other writers, were quick to jump to the conclusion that the avalanche of documents being released by WikiLeaks is part and parcel of an Israeli/Mossad deception strategy. One implication being that WikiLeaks’ founder, Julian Assange is, knowingly or not, manipulated by Zionism.
On the basis of the first two or three days of the Wikileaked revelations as reported by the mainstream media, in America especially, there most definitely was a case for saying that the agenda best served by the leaked diplomatic cables was that of the Zionist state of Israel, its lobby in America and its many stooges in Congress. The essence of the case was in the message that Iran is the biggest single threat to the peace of the region and the world not only because the Israelis say so but also because Arab leaders agree with them.
In my last post I quoted Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security Advisor, as saying he thought it was possible that Wikileaks was being fed and manipulated by intelligence services. And I stated my own belief of the moment that the question of whether or not this is so was worthy of investigation.
But as the flow of leaked cables increases, and with time for reflection, I no longer believe that such an investigation is necessary.
The problem is not the manipulation of WikiLeaks by any foreign intelligence service but, in effect, the manipulation by key players in the mainstream media, in America especially, of the material WikiLeaks is providing.
And here’s just one example to make the point.
When it learned from Wikileaked diplomatic cables that Arab leaders were at one with Israeli leaders in wanting the U.S. to attack Iran, journalism with integrity would have asked something like the following question. “Is Iran really the threat to the region and the world it is alleged to be by Israeli and Arab leaders?”
If that question had been asked, the honest answer would have been “No, of course it isn’t!”
As I and others have pointed out a number of times, even a nuclear-armed Iran would not pose a threat to Israel’s existence or that of the states of the impotent and repressive Arab regimes which are more or less content to do the bidding of America-and-Zionism. To really believe otherwise (as opposed to not really believing but saying so for propaganda purposes) is to assume that a nuclear-armed Iran would at some point launch a first strike. That would never happen because Iran would be inviting its own complete destruction.
If Iran does end up with a nuclear bomb or several, it will be for the purpose of deterrence only. (As I said in my last post, if I was an Iranian, even one who hated the regime of the mullahs, I would feel more secure in the face of Israeli and American threats if my country did possess a nuclear bomb for deterrence).
Though much of it was confirmatory for informed journalists and politicians, the Wikileaked information is new but the real problem is not. It is (generally speaking) the mainstream media’s lack of integrity, in America especially; a lack of integrity which, in its reporting of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel, manifests itself in one of two ways – in some cases by knowingly peddling Zionist propaganda, in other cases by self-censoring the truth about Israel’s crimes out of fear of offending Zionism too much or at all.
In my view Assange has damaged his own cause by releasing details of facilities around the world which U.S. authorities regard as being vital to America’s national security. By doing so he has given his enemies in governments everywhere what they did not previously have – a fig leaf of justification for their efforts to silence him.
If they succeed, the threat to what passes for democracy in the Western world, in America especially, will be even greater than it currently is.
Germán:
December 7th, 2010 at 9:14 am
The fact that media manipulated the information leaked does not discard in any way the possibility that some of them could have been forgery.
Nothing in this analysis answers the question as to why was Wikileaks permitted to release in such scheduled manner information which was supposedly threatening US national security and which everybody knew was doing so.
When someone is threatening national security of the US, they are simply censored before going on air. Just ask Middle Eastern media outlets censored by the US Congress at the beginning of this year.
Cllr David Durant:
December 7th, 2010 at 9:36 am
As ever its a question of interpretation. The WikiLeaks showing Arab support for an attack on Iran, is cited by the neocons as proof that an attack on Iran is justified.
But equally its proof that an attack on Iran is unnecessary, because it confirms what Iran already knows, that no one in the region wants them to get WMDs.
And that’s why they have said they have no plans to get them and that it is against their muslim faith to do so, because they know getting them would weaken their security, alarm their neighbours and invite an attack.
However ironically by citing Arab support for an attack on Iran, the neocons have exposed the zionist claim that ‘all the muslims’ (Israel’s neighbours) are united against Israel, when in fact there are many inter-arab, inter- muslim and inter-ethnic disputes in the middle-east.
Regarding WikiLeaks. Everyone should know in abundance that war and politics is a dirty business. That’s why the WikiLeaks are mostly embarrassing rather than damaging – although open to manipulation from the media and intelligence agencies.
The best way to ensure transparency is by building democratic systems that allow elected politicians to speak publicly on the record in Parliament.
Yani:
December 7th, 2010 at 10:57 am
There is the direct impact of the documents but perhaps more importantly the indirect impact.
1. The Australian Federal Government has proved they are more interested in pandering to the US than in standing up for a citizen and this will have major impacts in Australian politics.
2. It has proved beyond measure that as world citizens we need to ensure that the internet is not corrupted. The ‘it’s ok Jack’ is now a gloves off battle to ensure internet freedom or it will become that battle in the coming months.
Start with those two points and you can build out from there in the coming months. Forget the content for a moment and consider the flow chart of response and counter response.
Jack Lomax:
December 8th, 2010 at 7:30 am
Some of these leaked cables are startling indeed. One has Kevin Rudd at that time Prime Minister of Australia telling Hilary Clinton that he thought as a primary strategy China should be encouraged to become as one with the west. But if that failed force should then be used. This is the (then) Prime Minster of a country whose trade largely depends on China telling America that starting the Third World War would be a good idea in certain circumstances with the US bringing China (and maybe Russia) into line with a battery of nuclear weapons which he obviously thought those weapons would be more effective than the nuclear weapons launched by China and Russia in return. Albert Einstein said he was unsure just what deadly weapons the the third world war would be fought with but was certain that the fourth world war would have to be fought with sticks and stones.We are surely governed by madmen and psychopaths.
Laurent:
December 8th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
When I search for it I only find it in a dictionary and nowhere else: DEMOCRACY.
Lana Nasser:
January 15th, 2011 at 10:04 am
Thank you for the above article, Alan, and I’m sorry that my post is not related it, but I wanted to take this opportunity to ask if you could please offer us your insights on/analysis of the Hezbollah – UN Tribunal affair that is behind the current crisis in Lebanon. Many of us need an honest and unbiased analysis of the situation as there are so many contradictory theories about what is actually going on circulating everywhere (in Arab and Western media). Thank you!