WikiLeaks 'struck a deal with Israel' over diplomatic cables leaks
LikiWeaks | 08.12.2010 02:31 | Analysis | Other Press
We should obviously all support WikiLeaks and its founder and spokesperson, Julian Assange, who has just been arrested in Britain, in this dirty war by states around the globe against transparency and openness. But in the world of politics, sadly, things are never as innocent as they appear. According to new revelations, Assange had allegedly struck a deal with Israel before the recent 'cable gate', which may explain why the leaks “were good for Israel,” as the Israeli prime minister put it.
A number of commentators, particularly in Turkey and Russia, have been wondering why the hundreds of thousands of American classified documents leaked by the website last month did not contain anything that may embarrass the Israeli government, like just about every other state referred to in the documents. The answer appears to be a secret deal struck between the WikiLeaks “heart and soul”, as Assange humbly described himself once [1], with Israeli officials, which ensured that all such documents were 'removed' before the rest were made public.
According to an Arabic investigative journalism website [2], Assange had received money from semi-official Israeli sources and promised them, in a “secret, video-recorded agreement,” not to publish any document that may harm Israeli security or diplomatic interests.
The sources of the Al-Haqiqa report are said to be former WikiLeaks volunteers who have left the organisation in the last few months over Assange's “autocratic leadership” and “lack of transparency.”
In a recent interview with the German daily Die Tageszeitung, former WikiLeaks spokesperson Daniel Domscheit-Berg said he and other WikiLeaks dissidents are planning to launch their own whistleblowers' platform to fulfil WikiLeaks's original aim of “limitless file sharing.” [3]
Mr Domscheit-Berg, who is about to publish a book about his days 'Inside WikiLeaks', accuses Assange of acting as a “king” against the will of others in the organisation by “making deals” with media organisations that are meant to create an explosive effect, which others in WikiLeaks either know little or nothing about. [4]
Furthermore, Assange's eagerness for headline-grabbing scoops meant that WikiLeaks had not been able to 'restructure' itself to cope with this surge of interest, insiders add. This has meant that smaller leaks, which might be of interest to people at a local level, are now being overlooked for the sake of big stories. [5]
According to the Al-Haqiqa sources, Assange met with Israeli officials in Geneva earlier this year and struck the secret deal. The Israel government, it seems, had somehow found out or expected that the documents to be leaked contained a large number of documents about the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza in 2006 and 2008-9 respectively. These documents, which are said to have originated mainly from the Israeli embassies in Tel Aviv and Beirut, where removed and possibly destroyed by Assange, who is the only person who knows the password that can open these documents, the sources added.
Indeed, the published documents seem to have a 'gap' stretching over the period of July - September 2006, during which the 33-day Lebanon war took place. Is it possible that US diplomats and officials did not have any comments or information to exchange about this crucial event but spent their time 'gossiping' about every other 'trivial' Middle-Eastern matter?
Following the leak (and even before), Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a press conference that Israel had “worked in advance” to limit any damage from leaks, adding that “no classified Israeli material was exposed by WikiLeaks.” [6] In an interview with the Time magazine around the same time, Assange praised Netanyahu as a hero of transparency and openness! [7]
According to another report [8], a left-leaning Lebanese newspaper had met with Assange twice and tried to negotiate a deal with him, offering “a big amount of money”, in order to get hold of documents concerning the 2006 war, particularly the minutes of a meeting held at the American embassy in Beirut on 24th July 2006, which is widely considered as a 'war council' meeting between American, Israeli and Lebanese parties that played a role in the war again Hizbullah and its allies. The documents the Al-Akhbar editors received, however, all date to 2008 onwards and do not contain “anything of value,” the sources confirm. This only goes to support the Israel deal allegations.
Finally, it might be worth pointing out that Assange might have done what he is alleged to have done in order protect himself and ensure that the leaked documents are published so as to expose the American hypocrisy, which he is said to be obsessed with “at the expense of more fundamental aims.”
Notes:
[1]
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/wikileaks-revolt/
[2]
http://www.syriatruth.info/content/view/977/36/
[3]
http://www.taz.de/1/netz/netzpolitik/artikel/1/vom-hacker-zum-popstar/
[4]
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,732212,00.html
[5]
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,719619,00.html
[6]
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-wikileaks-revelations-were-good-for-israel-1.327773
[7]
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2034040-2,00.html
[8]
http://www.syriatruth.info/content/view/986/36/
According to an Arabic investigative journalism website [2], Assange had received money from semi-official Israeli sources and promised them, in a “secret, video-recorded agreement,” not to publish any document that may harm Israeli security or diplomatic interests.
The sources of the Al-Haqiqa report are said to be former WikiLeaks volunteers who have left the organisation in the last few months over Assange's “autocratic leadership” and “lack of transparency.”
In a recent interview with the German daily Die Tageszeitung, former WikiLeaks spokesperson Daniel Domscheit-Berg said he and other WikiLeaks dissidents are planning to launch their own whistleblowers' platform to fulfil WikiLeaks's original aim of “limitless file sharing.” [3]
Mr Domscheit-Berg, who is about to publish a book about his days 'Inside WikiLeaks', accuses Assange of acting as a “king” against the will of others in the organisation by “making deals” with media organisations that are meant to create an explosive effect, which others in WikiLeaks either know little or nothing about. [4]
Furthermore, Assange's eagerness for headline-grabbing scoops meant that WikiLeaks had not been able to 'restructure' itself to cope with this surge of interest, insiders add. This has meant that smaller leaks, which might be of interest to people at a local level, are now being overlooked for the sake of big stories. [5]
According to the Al-Haqiqa sources, Assange met with Israeli officials in Geneva earlier this year and struck the secret deal. The Israel government, it seems, had somehow found out or expected that the documents to be leaked contained a large number of documents about the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza in 2006 and 2008-9 respectively. These documents, which are said to have originated mainly from the Israeli embassies in Tel Aviv and Beirut, where removed and possibly destroyed by Assange, who is the only person who knows the password that can open these documents, the sources added.
Indeed, the published documents seem to have a 'gap' stretching over the period of July - September 2006, during which the 33-day Lebanon war took place. Is it possible that US diplomats and officials did not have any comments or information to exchange about this crucial event but spent their time 'gossiping' about every other 'trivial' Middle-Eastern matter?
Following the leak (and even before), Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a press conference that Israel had “worked in advance” to limit any damage from leaks, adding that “no classified Israeli material was exposed by WikiLeaks.” [6] In an interview with the Time magazine around the same time, Assange praised Netanyahu as a hero of transparency and openness! [7]
According to another report [8], a left-leaning Lebanese newspaper had met with Assange twice and tried to negotiate a deal with him, offering “a big amount of money”, in order to get hold of documents concerning the 2006 war, particularly the minutes of a meeting held at the American embassy in Beirut on 24th July 2006, which is widely considered as a 'war council' meeting between American, Israeli and Lebanese parties that played a role in the war again Hizbullah and its allies. The documents the Al-Akhbar editors received, however, all date to 2008 onwards and do not contain “anything of value,” the sources confirm. This only goes to support the Israel deal allegations.
Finally, it might be worth pointing out that Assange might have done what he is alleged to have done in order protect himself and ensure that the leaked documents are published so as to expose the American hypocrisy, which he is said to be obsessed with “at the expense of more fundamental aims.”
Notes:
[1]
![](/img/extlink.gif)
[2]
![](/img/extlink.gif)
[3]
![](/img/extlink.gif)
[4]
![](/img/extlink.gif)
[5]
![](/img/extlink.gif)
[6]
![](/img/extlink.gif)
[7]
![](/img/extlink.gif)
[8]
![](/img/extlink.gif)
LikiWeaks
Additions
Some Israel wikileaks
08.12.2010 05:06
But there are some examples of cables released by Wikileaks about Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/wikileaks-expose-israel-tried-to-coordinate-gaza-war-with-abbas-1.327487
![](/img/extlink.gif)
Viola Wilkins
e-mail:
violawil@bigpond.net.au
Homepage:
http://www.iww.org.au
This article was reposted from Indybay.org
29.12.2010 19:11
This article was cited by Raw Story[1] who stated:
"The story was picked up by a writer at IndyMedia UK, who, citing Al Haqiqa, said that Israel learned that the documents contained information about about the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza in 2006 and 2008. These documents were destroyed by Assange at the request of the Israelis, according to the anonymous writer."
In fact it is a repost of an article that was posted to Indybay.org the day before [2]
[1]
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/wikileaks-exploited-to-spread-conspiracy/?hl=en
[2]
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/12/07/18665978.php
"The story was picked up by a writer at IndyMedia UK, who, citing Al Haqiqa, said that Israel learned that the documents contained information about about the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza in 2006 and 2008. These documents were destroyed by Assange at the request of the Israelis, according to the anonymous writer."
In fact it is a repost of an article that was posted to Indybay.org the day before [2]
[1]
![](/img/extlink.gif)
[2]
![](/img/extlink.gif)
E&OE
Comments
Hide the following 10 comments
insurance file
08.12.2010 09:34
Krop
95% yet unreleased
08.12.2010 11:47
also the fact that israel says the same in private to US officials as in public to the press does not mean they are not lying to everyone.
x
Wrong again
08.12.2010 12:09
--
'Departing from official GOI policy, Dagan expressed his personal opinion that after more than a decade of trying to reach a final status agreement with the Palestinians, "nothing will be achieved."'
--
In fact there are already more cables up from Israel than there are from France or Spain (only about 15 each so far). And this is at a very early stage when only a tiny proportion have been released - nine days in, it's way too early to say that no documents will be published from the months mentioned.
So the whole basis of this piece seems to be rubbish. And it's yet another on Indymedia accusing Assange of pro-US or pro-Israeli bias. Can't decide whether to be amazed or amused that "alternative" media seems to be running a greater proportion of hit pieces on Assange than the mainstream media.
Norvello
perhaps
08.12.2010 14:13
Krop
WikiLeaks didn't write these cables
08.12.2010 15:49
John Young's criticism of WkiLeaks deserves to be treated seriously, false criticism like this article is nonsense at best.
dp
wikileaks tells the truth
08.12.2010 16:33
I suppose you'd only be happy if every cable mentioned a seret Zionist mastermind whose secret plan to control the world was worked out with the Edlers of Bilderbollox or some such rubbish. Grow up.
anon
Yet another Israel-related cable
08.12.2010 19:56
By YAAKOV KATZ
12/08/2010 11:51
In June, 2009 Hizbullah had completed plans for 3rd attack to avenge Mughniyeh; Gilad: Hizbullah stronger than Syrian military.
Hizbullah was involved in the January bombing attack on the convoy of Israel’s ambassador to Jordan, IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi told a top United Nations official, according to an American diplomatic cable published by Wikileaks on Wednesday.
This was the first cable which mentioned a meeting with Ashkenazi.
No one was injured in the attack which took place not far from the Allenby Bridge, which Israeli intelligence at the time assessed was likely the handiwork of Hizbullah which was still seeking at the time to avenge the 2008 assassination of its military commander Imad Mughniyeh in Damascus, which was attributed to the Mossad.
The cable summarized a meeting between UN envoy to Lebanon Michael Williams at the US embassy in Beirut during which he provided a brief on talks he had held recently in Israel.
Williams said that in his talk with Ashkenazi and other Israeli officials he heard “repeated worries” about the possibility that Hizbullah will obtain anti-aircraft missiles or act on its standing threat to retaliate for the assassination of Mughniyeh.
Williams expressed concern that if another rocket attack were to occur - whether by Palestinian terrorists or Hizbullah - Israel would respond forcefully and “everything we’ve worked for could go away in as little 12 hours.”
In a cable from half a year earlier in June, 2009, a top Israeli officials told Fred Hof, Special Advisor for Regional Affairs in the office of Special Envoy Mitchell, that Israel had already thwarted two attacks by Hizbullah to avenge Mughniyeh’s death and that it had obtained “sensitive intelligence” that it had completed operational planning for a third attack outside Israel.
According to Nimrod Barkan, Director of the Foreign Ministry’s Political Research Division at the time, Hizbullah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah had, at the time, not yet decided whether to give the order to carry it out, despite Iranian pressure to launch the attack.
Amos Gilad, head of the Defense Ministry’s Diplomatic-Security Bureau, told Hof that the Israeli defense establishment assessed Syria might be serious about detaching itself from Iran and withdrawing support for Hizbullah in exchange for reconciliation with the West, especially the US as well as the return of the Golan Heights.
“Gilad said, because Iran was a marriage of convenience for Syria. He believes Syria would much rather be close to their fellow Arabs and the rest of the international community, if given the chance,” the cable read.
Gilad warned however that even if it wanted to, Syria would find difficulty in extricating itself from its alliance with Iran and Hizbullah.
“Hizbullah is now an integral part of Syria’s defense concept, and is a more effective fighting force than the Syrian army,” Gilad was quoted as saying in the meeting.
Zionist death shark
Telegraph
09.12.2010 12:52
Jewdo
A more plausible explanation?
10.12.2010 11:39
"Wikileaks: Where are the Israel documents?
While we're on the subject of Wikileaks, I've been waiting eagerly for some interesting cables to emerge from the US embassy in Tel Aviv. After all, I seem to remember Hillary Clinton apologising to the Israelis in advance for any embarrassment that might ensue.
But it seems that all we're getting is incidental references to Israel in cables from the US embassies in other countries.
I've heard people voicing suspicions about this. Have the Israel cables been suppressed, they ask.
The answer, apparently, is no. There's little or nothing from Israel in the 250,000 or so documents – and the explanation, I'm told by someone who ought to know, is very simple.
Israel, in the eyes of the US diplomats, is not a normal country like any other and so it's not dealt with in the normal way. Sensitive documents from Israel go through different channels – to the White House rather than the State Department – and are therefore not among the batch leaked to Julian Assange"
Also, note that Daniel Domscheit-Berg recently stated in an interview (
So how likely is it that he knew about the Israeli 'deal'?
Vespa
un-referenced bs
31.12.2010 02:36
outnal