It’s not Wikileaks any more. It’s WikiTweets™
Far be it from me to defend Tony Blair. But when WikiLeaks — yes, WikiLeaks — starts throwing around claims about Blair’s institute being involved in a so-called “Trump Riviera” plan for Gaza without publishing a single document, something’s seriously wrong.
Earlier this week, the official WikiLeaks account posted a tweet claiming that leaked documents showed the Tony Blair Institute was involved in postwar Gaza reconstruction fantasies — complete with artificial islands, tax-free blockchain zones, an “Elon Musk Manufacturing Hub,” and the pièce de résistance: a Trump-branded coastal resort.
It sounds like a dystopian parody. But there was no document. No source. Just an image of a glossy investor pitch and a wall of buzzwords. And then — in a follow-up — they linked not to a leak, not to a raw cable, but to a paywalled Financial Times article.
Let that sink in.
This Isn’t Journalism. It’s Branding.
This isn’t the WikiLeaks that published Collateral Murder. It’s not the WikiLeaks that exposed the inner workings of empire through primary documents. This is something else entirely. This is what happens when a once-radical organisation gets gutted, co-opted, and turned into a ghost of itself.
- No documents.
- No verification.
- No transparency.
Just innuendo, headlines, and hype. The exact tactics WikiLeaks used to expose in others.
It’s heartbreaking. Because it’s not just WikiLeaks. This is the pattern. The Young Turks in the U.S. were taken over and neutered by a DNC “Kingmaker.” The Labour Party was gutted, repainted, and relaunched as a PR consultancy. Even Assange’s own defenders bent the knee to politicians who stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel while it starved Palestinians in Gaza — and jailed David McBride for telling the truth about their crimes.
Every force that was once anti-establishment eventually gets colonised by the establishment. And now it’s happened to WikiLeaks too.
When Clarity Gets You Misread
What’s worse? I pointed this out publicly — that the Tony Blair Institute was only shown promoting a two-state solution at a conference. Not involved in designing megaprojects or pushing Trump-branded hotels. And now people are in my mentions saying I support a two-state solution, that I’m defending Blair.
No. I’m defending the truth. I’m defending the idea that if you’re going to accuse someone of something — even someone like Blair — you better bring receipts. I mean, for Christ’s sake, this is Tony Blair we’re talking about. It shouldn’t be that hard.
The fact that saying this out loud now makes people suspicious of you tells you everything you need to know about the state of journalism, activism, and public discourse in 2025. We’ve traded transparency for tribalism. Receipts for retweets.
And just to make things crystal clear, I do not support a 2 state solution. I’m also not categorically ruling out the TBI having Orwellian plans for Gaza, or that any plans being drawn up by the BCG aren’t evil. They may well have and may well be. It’s just the evidence presented so far is not worthy of mention, at least not with the framing Tony Blair or his institute was behind the plans. That’s sensationalism — something Wikileaks used to oppose.
The Ghost of What Once Was
There was a time when WikiLeaks was feared because it let the public think for itself. It didn’t tell you what to believe — it showed you the documents and let the truth speak. That’s why governments wanted Assange dead or buried. That’s why it mattered.
Take the OPCW leaks, for example. In 2019, WikiLeaks published internal documents from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons — showing that investigators raised serious doubts about the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria. One leaked engineering report even suggested the gas cylinders had likely been manually placed, not dropped from the air, directly contradicting the official Western narrative.
And when did all of this happen? Just days before Julian Assange was dragged out of the Ecuadorian embassy by British police. First the truth comes out — then the man behind the truth gets locked away. Within months, the leaks stop. The document drops dry up. WikiLeaks, the publisher, goes silent.
That was the last time they acted like the organisation they once were. Everything since has been surface-level noise, vibes, and branding. A ghost of its former self.
This Twitter-era WikiLeaks isn’t feared by anyone. It’s not dangerous. It’s not disruptive. It’s just nostalgia merch — a blue-check account coasting on the credibility built by a man who spent 14 years rotting in detention of one kind or another.
And now they’re citing the Financial Times — a legacy media outlet — behind a paywall. No upload. No link to a leak. Just gated journalism filtered through corporate media. If Julian Assange were still in control of WikiLeaks, there is absolutely no way in hell he’d ever endorse linking to a Financial Times article hidden behind a paywall and calling it a leak.
It’s a betrayal of everything WikiLeaks once stood for: transparency, source material, radical truth-telling.
Take the recent report I made on the IAEA leak that proved Israel were in cahoots with the IAEA in directing Iran’s nuclear program — despite the fact that Israel isn’t even a party to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The leaked documents showed Israel feeding surveillance and strategic intelligence directly into IAEA decision-making processes about Iran. They were credible, timestamped, and clearly authentic — and yet WikiLeaks didn’t touch them.
Instead, they linked to a TASS article quoting an anonymous intelligence source. No documents. No archive. Just hearsay. Meanwhile, they had no issue amplifying a Financial Times paywalled piece about the Tony Blair Institute — again, without a single source document. That’s not just behind the curve. That’s a complete reversal of what WikiLeaks used to be: the place you went to see the evidence for yourself.
If you’re uncomfortable reading this, ask yourself the question: “Why are Wikileaks ignoring leaks of nuclear importance, while tweeting out tenuous links Tony Blair has to plans for Gaza?”
What the FT “Leak” Evidence Actually Shows
Let’s be clear about what’s real and what isn’t.
- Yes, staff from the Tony Blair Institute (TBI) attended meetings discussing postwar Gaza reconstruction.
- Yes, they submitted a paper focused on a two-state solution as part of those talks.
- No, they did not write or endorse the infamous investor “slide deck” that included references to a “Trump Riviera” or “Elon Musk Smart Manufacturing Zone.”
- No, they did not promote resettlement plans or branding schemes for Gaza.
That deck came from Israeli entrepreneurs and Boston Consulting Group (BCG), not the TBI. In fact, the TBI explicitly stated they had no role in producing the slides and did not support their content.
This was all covered — in detail — by the Financial Times, The Guardian, and even Middle East Eye. TBI’s only link was their presence at the conference and contribution of a policy paper about governance, not glitzy tourism zones or blockchain trade.
This isn’t defending Tony Blair. This is defending factual accuracy. If we want to hold power to account, we have to do it properly — with receipts, not vibes.
Sources (paywalled, archived, or screenshotted as needed):
- Financial Times – Tony Blair’s staff took part in ‘Gaza Riviera’ project with BCG
- The Guardian – Tony Blair thinktank worked with project developing ‘Trump Riviera’
- Middle East Eye – Tony Blair Institute linked to Gaza plan condemned as ethnic cleansing
WikiLeaks is dead.
It was replaced.
Proceed with caution.
Support the message? Share it.
One link. One friend. One moment.
