Question that I ask myself following the link given by Dedelco, which sheds a sharp light on "the underside" of the case. First of all, the introduction is rather encouraging:
mondialisation.ca on 14.12.2010 wrote:We obviously all have to support WikiLeaks and its founder and spokesperson Julian Assange who, in this dirty war waged around the world by states against transparency and frankness, has just been arrested in Great Britain.
But it spoils:
mondialisation.ca on 14.12.2010 wrote:But, in the world of politics, things are unfortunately never as innocent as they seem. According to new revelations, before the last "cable gate" Assange would have reached an agreement with Israel that could explain why, according to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the leaks "were good for Israel. "
Some commentators, particularly in Turkey and Russia, wonder why the hundreds of thousands of confidential documents leaked by the site last month contain nothing that would embarrass the Israeli government, like just about every other state to which the documents refer .
The answer seems to be a secret agreement, made between the "heart and soul" of Wikileaks, as humbly described by Assange himself (1), and Israeli officials, who assured that all of these documents would be "removed Before making the others public.
According to an Arab investigative journalism website (2), Al-Haqiqa (the truth), Assange received money from semi-official Israeli sources, and, during a secret arrangement recorded on video, promised not to publish any document which could harm the security or the diplomatic interests of Israel.
mondialisation.ca on 14.12.2010 wrote:1) www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/wikileaks-revolt/
(Unpublished notes on the war in Iraq sparked an internal revolt at Wikileaks)
2) www.syriatruth.info/content/view/977/36/
(According to Daniel Domscheit-Berg, Assange promised the Israelis not to publish their own documents)
3) www.taz.de/1/netz/netzpolitik/artikel/1 ... m-popstar /
(Originally, Wilileaks wanted to make as much information as possible available to the public; it has now become a very powerful censor)
4) www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0, ... 12,00.html
(Former Wikileaks activists launch new disclosure site)
5) www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0, ... 19,00.html
(Wikileaks spokesperson resigns: The only option for me, a calm start)
6) www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/neta ... l-1.327773
(According to Netanyahu, the revelations from Wikileaks were good for Israel ... Iran would threaten the world, as confirmed by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia ... contrary to what the 60 years of propaganda presenting Israel as the claim greatest threat ... Netanyahu added that Israel had taken the lead to limit damage from the leaks ...)
7) www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599, ... -2,00.html
8} www.syriatruth.info/content/view/986/36/
Original: WikiLeaks 'struck a deal with Israel' over diplomatic cables leaks, December 7, 2010.
Translation: Petrus Lombard
Therefore, what should we expect as "revelations" about the main stakeholder: the United States, once we know the close links of this state with Israel?
I post this thread mainly for some who were very skeptical in 2010, concerning the geopolitical issues of certain "cases" like 9/11, just to point out the first paragraph, which is written as a kind of denunciation of a situation "de facto" which everyone would like to get rid of. And obviously the two states cited are only for illustrative purposes.
Curiously, do we not find the same trend in high-end financial speculation ....?
So an ambitious “safeguard” strategy on the part of Julian Assange, “admissible limit to transparency” already reached, or deception? Nothing is simple, but for the moment difficult to exclude any hypothesis.
Happy New Year!