At Least One Wikileak is just a Bold Faced Lie – And Its a Significant One

by Scott Creighton

What we are talking about is nothing short of an attempt to rewrite the history of the Dec. 2008 attack on Gaza for the benefit of Israel.

In a recent discussion with Amy Goodman in which she once again reported as fact that the leader of Saudi Arabia wants to “cut the head off the snake”, Noam Chomsky was careful as usual to point out to Amy that one can’t necessarily accept these “leaks” as given fact. He points out that they are some email from some state department flunkie (my words) and that they are in no way proof of anything, much less the wishes of the vast majority of the Arab people.

Chomsky says, “Latest polls show] Arab opinion holds that the major threat in the region is Israel, that’s 80 percent; the second threat is the United States, that’s 77 percent. Iran is listed as a threat by 10 percent,” Chomsky says. “This may not be reported in the newspapers, but it’s certainly familiar to the Israeli and U.S. governments and the ambassadors. What this reveals is the profound hatred for democracy on the part of our political leadership.”

When they talk about Arabs, they are talking about the Arab dictators, not the Arab population, which is overwhelmingly opposed to the conclusions the analysts here, Clinton and the media have drawn. That’s the major problem. The minor problem is that we don’t know what the Arab leaders think and say. We know what was SELECTED from the cables, so there is a FILTERING process which has been distorted.” Noam Chomsky, Democracy NOW!

But then he goes on to make his point clearer…

“Uh, one of the most interesting cables was a cable from the U.S. ambassador in Israel to Hillary Clinton which described the uh attack on Gaza which we should call a U.S./Israeli attack, Dec. 2008. It states, uh, correctly that there had been a truce, uh, it does not add that during the truce, which was really not observed by Israel, that during the truce Hamas scrupulously observed it according to the Israeli government. Not a single rocket was fired – that’s an OMISSION (in the Wikileak memo) but then comes a straight lie – it says that in Dec. 2008 Hamas renewed rocket firing and therefore Israel had to attack and defend itself. Now the ambassador surely is aware, there must be somebody in the Israeli embassy who reads the Israeli press, in which case the embassy is surely aware it’s exactly the opposite. Hamas was calling for a renewal of the cease-fire, Israel considered the offer and rejected it, preferring to bomb rather than have security. Also it is omitted that while Israel never observed the cease-fire it maintained the blockade, in violation of the truce agreement. On Nov. 4th the Israeli army entered Gaza and killed half a dozen Hamas militants… What the embassy reported (what Wikileaks passed off as a glimpse into “the truth”) is a GROSS FALSIFICATION and a very significant one since it has to do with the justification of this murderous attack. Which means the embassy doesn’t have a clue as to what is going on, or THEY ARE LYING OUTRIGHT” Noam Chomsky

I tried to go to the Wikileaks website to find this memo for the article, but the site doesn’t load.

What it all boils down to is this: either the state department are idiots or they are simply lying. They were either lying then or the cable itself is a lie. And either way, Wikileaks should have certainly caught it before they published it and by not doing so, they face the same scrutiny; they are either idiots or they are lying through their leaks. They don’t seem like idiots.

In an interesting side note, Bradley Manning’s family tried to visit him today on surprise trip from overseas, but apparently they were denied.

Bradley Manning stated that he always wanted to be a “double agent” and my guess is, he got what he wanted. His parents could not visit him, because quite frankly, he isn’t there.  He isn’t there because he was doing exactly what the state department wanted him to do when he contacted that obvious CIA shill Lamo.

So Manning is probably running around leading his “double agent” life while Hillary Clinton is actively publishing one lie after the next via the Wikileaks memos. And the “progressives” are swallowing it, hook line and sinker.

11 Responses

  1. EXCUSE ME,,, Hasen’t it already been alledged that WIKILEAKS is in fact a CIA operation intended to leak DISINFORMATION as factual, for the purpose of subversion (my defination)?

  2. Well, it has been here and on a few other sites. In my opinion, this furthers that claim. Without a doubt, the state department knows that its bullshit, that Hamas did not provoke the Dec. 2008 Operation Cast Lead. I would also assume that Wikileaks is also well aware of this fact. So why did they include such an obviously flawed memo in their publication? For that matter, even the one that claims the Saudi King wants to “cut the head off the snake” (Iran) wasn’t published for everyone to read by the New York Times, for some reason…

    … and now the Wikileaks site, the place where all of these claims can be authenticated, is mysteriously taken down? By a “patriotic” hacker? Where does that hacker work? NSA? State?

  3. When mentioning the CIA, it should be mentioned as CIA/Mossad because there is no decernable difference. It’s a joint venture.

  4. Where is this information that “no rockets were fired from gaza during the truce”? Chomski? hamas? it is a fact that the many splinter groups that exist in gaza are used by hamas to further its goals while at the same time allowing hamas to claim that it is abiding by truces.

  5. Actually izzy, B’TSelem, the foremost Israeli authority on fatalities, attacks, and casualties in Palestine/Israel since the second Intifada has shown that Hamas did in fact adhere to the terms of the cease-fire completely. The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz also reported that when it was also acknowledged by the Israeli government. That’s what Chomsky means when he says that its obvious and well known, in Israel. Just not reported here, which is why you ask.

  6. Izzy, it’s never as simple as Willy wants you to believe. Below, I’ve cut and pasted the Wikipedia timeline of events. The reason why it appears simple to many is they only believe one side religiously. So, for example, did Israel break the truce to destroy a tunnel or did Hamas break the truce by creating a tunnel. Willy probably believes the tunnel never existed, others fully believe that a Hamas tunnel did exist for military reasons. Also remember, rockets and mortars never stopped during the supposed truce anyway just as Gaza borders never fully eased.

    Also, you’ll see a lot of posturing back and forth as the deadline approaches. To your point, look at this quote from Dec 23, “Despite the temporary ceasefire declared by the armed Palestinian factions, eight Qassam rockets and eight mortar shells hit Israeli Negev on that day.” I’m not saying it’s all the fault of Hamas…it’s just not clear cut.

    Here’s the whole thing:
    The truce started slowly, with the UN recording seven IDF violations of the ceasefire between June 20 and June 26, and three violations by Palestinian groups not affiliated with Hamas between June 23 and 26.[70] Several mortars and Qassam rockets were fired at Israel in late June, with no casualties.[71][72][72][73][74]
    Israel and Hamas accused each other of bad faith and of violations of the Egyptian-mediated truce, pointing respectively that rockets from Gaza never stopped entirely and that weapons smuggling was not halted while major renewal of goods’ flow into Gaza was never allowed and Israel conducted raids in Gaza killing Hamas fighters.[65][75][76]
    [edit]Conflict escalates

    [edit]November 4 incident
    On November 4, 2008, Israel launched a military strike on Hamas to destroy what Israel said was a tunnel on the Gaza-Israel border dug by militants to infiltrate into Israel and abduct soldiers. According to Israel, the raid was not a violation of the ceasefire, but a legitimate step to remove an immediate threat. Israeli infantry, tanks, and bulldozers entered 250m into the Gaza Strip, the first major incursion since the June truce. A gunfight broke out, in which one Hamas fighter was killed. Hamas responded with a barrage of mortar fire at Israeli troops. An Israeli airstrike on Hamas mortar positions then killed five Hamas fighters.[77] Three Israeli soldiers were also wounded during the operation. Hamas said it would take revenge for what it perceived as an act of Israeli aggression that had violated the truce.[77][78] Hamas launched 35 rockets into southern Israel in what was described by Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum as a “response to Israel’s massive breach of the truce, stating that “The Israelis began this tension and they must pay an expensive price. They cannot leave us drowning in blood while they sleep soundly in their beds”.[79][80]
    Intensity of rocket attacks targeted at Israeli cities near Gaza sharply increased during November 2008, approaching pre-truce levels.[81] In the period between November 4 incident and mid-December, more than 200 Qassam rockets and mortar shells landed in the western Negev region. Israel has frequently shut down the crossings in response to rocket attacks on its towns.[82]
    On December 13, Israel announced that it was in favor of extending the cease-fire, provided Hamas adhered to the conditions.[82] On December 14, a Hamas delegation in Cairo proposed that Hamas was prepared to stop all rocket attacks against Israel if the Israelis would open up and not be allowed to close or reduce commercial traffic through the Gaza border crossings and pledge not to launch attacks in Gaza.[83] On the same day, Hamas officials told that earlier reports, quoting Khaled Meshaal as saying there would be no renewal of the truce, were inaccurate. A Hamas spokesman said that the lull would not be renewed, “as long as there is no real Israeli commitment to all of its conditions”.[84] Spokesman for the Israeli prime minister replied that Israel was committed to the truce but “it’s clear there can’t be a one-sided ceasefire, … where rockets are everyday coming from the Gaza Strip targeting Israeli civilians”.[84]
    On December 18, a day before the truce officially expired, Hamas declared the end of the cease-fire.[85] More than 20 rockets were launched from Gaza into southern Israel on that day.[86]
    On December 19, Hamas refused to enter talks to renew the six-month truce and Hamas spokesman announced that it would not extend the cease-fire.[87][88] Palestinian sources said that Hamas wanted to renew the truce, but only on improved terms – a complete opening of the border crossings with Israel, the opening of the Rafah border crossing with Egypt, a complete ban on Israeli military activity in Gaza and an extension of the truce to the West Bank as well. Israel was not ready to accept these terms.[88] This was confirmed by Yuval Diskin, head of Israel’s internal security agency, at an Israeli cabinet meeting on December 21. Diskin said he thought Hamas was “interested in continuing the truce, but wants to improve its terms…it wants us to lift the siege of Gaza, stop attacks, and extend the truce to include the West Bank”.[75] Three Qassam rockets fired from the northern Gaza Strip landed in Israel.[89]
    On December 22, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that his country will not accept the ongoing rocket fire from the Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who supported the truce until recently, suggested to take active military actions against the Hamas government in Gaza.[90]
    On December 23, senior Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar said that Hamas was willing to renew the cease-fire under the original terms, demanding an Israeli commitment to refrain from any military operation in the Strip and to keep the border crossings open. Speaking with Egyptian newspaper al-Ahram, al-Zahar said that the movement would reassess the situation in Gaza once the 24 hours during which Hamas vowed to halt rocket fire had come to an end.[91] Despite the temporary ceasefire declared by the armed Palestinian factions, eight Qassam rockets and eight mortar shells hit Israeli Negev on that day.[92][93] Meanwhile, the Israeli military killed three Palestinian militants caught placing explosives on the border.
    On December 24, an Israeli airstrike hit a group of militants in Gaza Strip. An Israeli military spokesman said that the militants had fired mortars at Israel. Palestinian medics said that one Hamas militant was killed in the strike and two other Palestinians were wounded, including a cameraman from Hamas’s television station.[94] On that day, Hamas military wing issued a statement saying that it commenced an operation code-named “Operation Oil Stain”. 87 Palestinian mortar shells, Katyusha and Qassam rockets hit the Negev.[95][96]
    On December 25, after Israel had “wrapped up preparations for a broad offensive,” Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert delivered a final warning in an interview with the Arabic language satellite channel al-Arabiya. He said “I am telling them now, it may be the last minute, I’m telling them stop it. We are stronger.”[97] Another 6 Qassams landed in southern Israel.[98]

  7. Have you considered the thoughts expressed in this article which seem to somehow echo your sentiments on this article –

  8. It’s not surprising that officials convince themselves of the official line. Remember the Pentagon Papers. They were full of statements about the Vietnamese resistance being directed by Moscow and “Peiping”. When someone actually tried to investigate the issue and seek out evidence of this, they came up empty, and concluded not that the Vietnamese were resisting occupation because they didn’t like the occupation, but that the lack of evidence meant that the Vietnamese were so trusted by their handlers in Moscow and “Peiping” that they were granted an unusual degree of independence.

  9. “To Izzy”:

    Do not cut and paste full sections again. People don’t like to have to scroll through multiple paragraphs to get past it. Post a small quote or two and a link. thanks.

    Now, to your argument. That’s Wikipedia first of all. It is an EDITABLE reference which I personally have seen at least one video of a conference given by AIPAC teaching Israel supporters how to edit with the “right” info.

    So, Wiki is BS for the most part. and is looked at as such by most people who do scholarly research. Do yourself a favor as far as credibility is concerned… if you find something you like on Wiki, take the time to follow the references given and use them as a source.

    Now, lets address your mistakes…

    ““Despite the temporary ceasefire declared by the armed Palestinian factions, eight Qassam rockets and eight mortar shells hit Israeli Negev on that day.” “that day” being Dec. 23rd, 2008

    As I have already stated, Israel never adhered to the terms of the cease-fire as they did not lift the siege of Gaza AND as I have clearly stated, it was NOV 4TH 2008 that Israel broke the cease-fire by attacking and killing Hamas militants in Gaza.

    What happened on Dec 23rd was a RETALIATION for that violation of the cease fire.

    In short, I am not going to go through all of this again. That fact is, the Israeli Defense Force spokesperson and the Israeli Prime Minister BOTH are on record ADMITTING that Hamas adhered to the terms of the cease-fire up until the Nov 4th IDF attack.

    If you disagree with me, you disagree with them. This is not up for debate. They had been planning Operation Cast Lead for MONTHS prior to the Israeli attack and the US actually upped shipments of arms to Israel right before the attack specifically for the use during the attack.

    If you wish to continue with the discussion, that’s great. Post a link or two and short quotes, but do NOT post long drawn out multi page quotes again.

    thank you.

  10. willyloman is quite correct to caution about anything published on Wikipedia. Wikipediia has very strong policies on the citing of references and it is important to only ever appraise information on that website after thoroughly checking the sources provided. There is a clear caveat upon the Wikipedia resource. Of course information should not be in a Wikipedia article if it is not correctly attributed to a source. If something in an article lacks a legitimate cited source it is most likely opinionated, possible highly subjective and often inaccurate. Information such as this should either be removed or a suitable source provided. Providing the information and maintaining the integrity of the content is a difficult task tackled by many focused and dedicated Wikipedia editors. Sometimes though the flood of rubbish that turns up is hard to eliminate in a timely manner. It must also be understood that some inaccurate or rubbish content escapes the net of scrutiny, sometimes for an extended time.
    In the case of contentious content a considerable debate may ensure between Wikipedia editors often for an extended time in an attempt to provide accurate and subjective content. With some issues it is very difficult to entirely eliminate bias, agenda or just plain silliness. On occasions the outcome is less than desirable. It must also be understood that the cited source in an article may also be of highly questionable integrity and any cited source should also should be examined very critically. Wikipedia editors will normally strive to eliminate questionable content and sources however sometimes it is difficult to eliminate some misinformation if it has been published by a credible source. One way Wikipedia strives to achieve ‘authority’ is to seek primary sources for content. For example, the citation of a scientific report rather than a story on the findings of that report by a science writer. When it comes to contemporary political affairs it is a minefield of misinformation, propaganda and bias. Due to the strong reliance on citation of sources it is possible to deliberately ‘seed’ an article with sufficient information, correctly cited to legitimate published sources that may skew the emphasis of an article sufficiently to completely mislead the reader of a Wikipedia article. If there are not sufficient ‘active’, balanced, informed and highly objective editors available to ‘correct’ or re-balance the ‘objectivity of such an article then the content may remain misleading whilst still providing a facade of legitimacy. The provision of sufficient referenced sources suitable to promote a desired agenda and skew the perception and understanding of the subject concerned is not uncommon in some Wikipedia articles. There is however a solid and enduring commitment by a large number of Wikipedia editors to overcome that sort of outcome but the task is sometimes more than considerable and the outcomes are at times less than desirable.
    Wikipedia is a great resource and a wonderful quick reference tool but all users should always remain skeptical and questioning of the content and the motives to which the information is placed in an article. I am a very active Wikipedia editor myself and I willingly and very strongly caution that the information contained in many Wikipedia articles either should not be there or is lacking in sufficient balance and objectivity. Indeed the greater amount of my time editing the Wikipedia resource is spent removing complete nonsense and rubbish from many of the articles. Sometimes the information is clearly misleading by intent, sometimes the existing information content is ‘vandalised’ and sometimes it is just inaccurate due to inept but well intentioned mistakes or misunderstanding by contributors. It should most certainly never be cited as a source of reliable information. Think of it only a quick reference recourse that may provide an appraisal of a subject and some leads to more suitable information. Examining the articles content sources and then rigorously checking their authority on the subject whilst also critically appraising their appropriateness and validity is a much more suitable approach to using the information available on Wikipedia. It is not that I wish to condemn Wikipedia, far from it. I have invested a phenomenal amount of my own time and energy into it in an attempt to make it more useful. Rather I am suggesting to people that they should use it in an informed and sensible manner understanding that it is a useful yet fallible resource.

  11. “in an attempt to provide accurate and subjective content” (should of course read as objective content..not “subjective”) whoops

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: