Those dripping leaks

There is no doubt in my mind that, well, at least up to the time of this writing, that the Wikileaks “drip, drip, drip” has been a blessing for Israel.
First, we find out, as Evelyn Gordon published that Tzipi Livni entertained the notion in January 2007, as she told two US senators, that she didn’t believe a final-status agreement could be reached with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.  When confronted, she insisted that a deal wasn’t achievable in 2007, but now it is doable.  Evelyn notes succinctly:
"She didn’t explain this about-face, for the very good reason that no convincing explanation exists: Abbas is no more willing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, agree to defensible borders, or cede the “right of return” than he ever was."
Another great catch has to do with Iran.  Despite what the Israeli public has been told and virtually forced spoon-fed, that without yielding to the Palestinian Authority’s (and America’s) demands to dismantle Jewish communities in Yehudah V''Shomrom (Yesha), expel the Jewish populace from those areas and give in further, Israel will be left to its own devices in the face of an existential threat of nuclear weaponry.   The cables indicate, with one or two exceptions, that all major Arab rulers have been virtually begging the US to get on with Iran without tying any links to Israel.
As one pundit noted:- 
"The latest batch of leaks suggest that the main source of the delusion is sitting in the Oval Office…We are shocked - shocked - to discover that the Arab Gulf states favor an invasion of Iran;...The initial reports suggest that the US State Department has massive evidence that Obama''s approach - "engaging" Iran and coddling Pakistan - has failed catastrophically. Not one Muslim government official so much as mentioned the issues that have occupied the bulk of Washington''s attention during the past year, for example, Israeli settlements."
We also discovered the Kerry Scandal, that the Senator told the leader of Qatar leaders that the Golan Heights should be returned to Syria, and that a Palestinian capital should be established in East Jerusalem. As for the  Temple Mount, that would  have to be transferred to Palestinian Authority control.  The so-called “Palestinian refugees”, it appears, will end up in Israel to a great extent.
Here’s the text:
C O N F I D E N T I A L DOHA 000070
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/13/2020
Classified By: Ambassador Joseph E. LeBaron
…Senator Joh [sic] Kerry (D-MA), the Chairman of the Senate Foreig [sic] Relations Committee (SFRC), joined by Ambassador, P/E Chief, and SFRC staff member Dr. Jonah Blank met February 14 with the Amir of Qatar, Hamad bn Khalifa Al Thani. The meeting took place at Waba Palace, the residence of the Amir...
...Chairman Kerry told the Amir he is convinced that we can see great progress in the coming year by moving swiftly from proximity talks, to direct talks between the parties and ending with final status discussions…continued Senator Kerry, we must begin by agreeing at the outset the amount of land each side (Israelis and Palestinians) will obtain in the end and use that understanding to draw the borders. If both sides make good compromises, we can address the settlement issues in the context of giving something up so that the borders, when drawn, contain the agreed-upon amounts of land for both sides…Senator Kerry noted that one of the biggest problems for Israel is the potential return of 5-6 million Palestinian refugees. The parties broached the return issue in discussions at Taba and agreed that the right of Palestinian return would be subject to later negotiation, pointed out the Chairman. If we can proceed from that point on the right of return, the Senator believes there is an "artful way" to frame the negotiations on borders, land swaps, and Jerusalem as a shared capital.
15. (C) Any negotiation has its limits, added Senator Kerry, and we know for the Palestinians that control of Al-Aqsa mosque and the establishment of some kind of capital for the Palestinians in East Jerusalem are not negotiable. For the Israelis, the Senator continued, Israel''s character as a Jewish state is not open for negotiation. The non-militarization of an eventual Palestinian state and its borders can nonetheless be resolved through negotiation.
So, refugees are a negotiable issue. Non-militarization is a negotiable issue. The Jewish character of is a non-negotiable issue but the Temple Mount must go to the Palestinians.
That seems a bit of diplomatic subversion from the Senator.
To be fair and balanced, we learn from this cable that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said he was prepared for "arrangements" with the Palestinians that would entail some limits on their sovereignty such as no Palestinian army, and Israeli control over borders, airspace, and the electromagnetic spectrum and that he:
“Asserted that seventy to eighty percent of Israelis are ready to make concessions for peace." 
That, I would suggest, is way too high a figure and if that is what is convincing him to be vacillating and flexible, there is no basis for that percentage figure.  He has the people with him for retention in more ways than one.
Netanyahu also said that he wants to:
"Work with the U.S. on the basis of the understandings reached with the Bush Administration, i.e. that Israel will not build new settlements or seize more land, but if families grow, they will still have the right to build within existing settlement boundaries. Now Israel is hearing that the U.S. wants no construction at all. Israelis consider this position to be unfair, he said. The question is whether the U.S. is seeking a geographic or a demographic restriction on settlements."
Netanyahu commented further that:
"He understood there should be no land seizures, but he could not tell settlers not to have children."
I guess we revenants have be thankful for anything we can get.
And last but not least, do you remember the name Anat Kamm? The pilferer of government information who then leaked the classified Israel Defense Forces (IDF) documents to the media?
Does that, on the backdrop of Wikileaks, sound familiar?
Well, Anat, meet Julian:
"Federal authorities are investigating whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange violated criminal laws in the group''s release of government documents, including possible charges under the Espionage Act, sources familiar with the inquiry said Monday...Former prosecutors cautioned that prosecutions involving leaked classified information are difficult because the Espionage Act is a 1917 statute that preceded Supreme Court cases that expanded First Amendment protections. The government also would have to persuade another country to turn over Assange, who is outside the United States.
Anat is in no worse trouble and Israel is no less a democracy for pursuing this line against those who disregard the penal code. In fact, there was an earlier parallel case. Anat''s human rights are no worse off.
There may be surprises but I''m waiting.