First, the good part:
Julian Assange is a dangerous criminal...because he has shattered the accepted dogma on the understanding in the Middle East in the 21st century.
This dogma stated the following: The main problem in the Middle East is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The main problem in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the occupation. The main problem in the occupation is the settlements. Therefore if we just stop the settlements, the occupation will begin to end, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be solved and the Middle East will be stable.
Then along came Assange and shattered the dogma. The secret documents that WikiLeaks published proved that the settlements, the occupation and even the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were not the main problem in the Middle East...Assange proved that there was no connection between the real Middle East and the Middle East they talk about in The Washington Post, Le Monde and The Guardian...is Iran...There is no doubt about it - Assange is a dangerous criminal...he revealed the Western intelligentsia's lack of intellectual integrity...he revealed to us all that the West's hegemonic discourse is superficial and mendacious...he proved that the West is contaminated by political correctness that cuts it off from the diplomatic reality...
And then the bad part:
But let's not confuse things. The settlements are indeed a disaster. The occupation is intolerable. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is dangerous...The confidential e-mails must be read and reread so they can be understood. There is no chance for the current diplomatic process, they say. There is no chance of signing an Israeli-Palestinian agreement as long as Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) is living under the menacing shadow of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There is no chance of regional peace as long as the Arab world is living under Tehran's incessant threat.
Cannot Shavit draw conclusions from his own writing?