INTL WIKILEAKS STRUCK A DEAL WITH ISRAEL OVER CABLE LEAKS
I don't believe it. What others may say about Israel is of no consequence AND Israel is too good at defending their own secret documents that they would not have been stolen and available for release.
This piece looks like another anti-Israel propaganda piece to demonize them.
This piece looks like another anti-Israel propaganda piece to demonize them.
mzkitty
I give up.
Really? Let's see that secret video-recorded agreement then.
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.”
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.”
Jeffrey Thomason
Veteran Member
I call bull... something like that would NEVER be video-recorded.. and if it WAS I expect it to be leaked sooner or later.
You're right about defending their secrets.
The above quote by Netanyahu is from Haaretz.com
http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...aks-revelations-were-good-for-israel-1.327773
You understand of course that this is not about Israel protecting & defending their documents, that were stolen from them and released. These are American documents concerning Israel, that Israel wants to keep out of public view.
Satan and his followers hate Israel....it makes it real easy to guess who the bad guys are...........
Wow, that remark has earned the ad hominem attack of the month ... so from your POV, if anyone questions Israel they are satan followers?? Where did you get that from ... the paid off and edited doc dump of wikileaks? Get a grip sonny.
I fully understand what this is supposed to be about. But since the world hates Israel and most of these kinds of articles are geared towards just trying make them Jews look more evil - I call foul on it and guess what?
No one can prove it as this is just a rumor and gossip.
What happened to the good ole days when we actually discussed verifiable facts and well researched articles instead of the rumor mill that once exposed, no one seems to bother discussing the revelation that the gossip was just that - gossip.
The internet has made rumor mills become 'news' and if there is any sniff of anything that could demonize Israel then lets drag it out and to heck with the facts.
Same things they do to Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Can't we rise above this and focus on the real problems instead of smears?
Do you ALWAYS take things out of context?
My statement was: defending their own secret documents
And as for you trying to insinuate more out of that article than what it said. Here is more from it. But does that not help your crusade?
Netanyahu: WikiLeaks revelations were good for Israel
For years he has warned of the dangers the Iranian nuclear program poses to the entire region. These warnings had been vindicated, Netanyahu said.
By Barak Ravid
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says newly leaked U.S. diplomatic memos about the Saudi king offer clear proof that the Arab world agrees with his country's assessment that Iran is the chief danger to the Middle East.
According to the documents released Sunday by online whistle-blower WikiLeaks, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia repeatedly urged the United States to attack Iran to destroy its nuclear program. The king is just one of many Arab voices in the documents calling for tough action against Iran - proof that Israel is not alone in its belief that Tehran is a growing menace to the region, Netanyahu said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am sorry you feel the way you do about Israel but I hope that you try to keep things in context in the future and deal in facts, not rumors.
Jeffrey Thomason
Veteran Member
A large number of people have a difficult time separating Israel the political entity, from the spiritual Israel and the Jews as a people. Its not worth fighting over IMHO.
First, it was not an ad hominem attack. He made a statement not directed at anyone specifically.
Second, the article in the OP didn't QUESTION Israel - it was written to demonize and malign Israel with no evidence of fact.
What was the question that you think the article in the OP was making?
Txkstew
Veteran Member
Ok, lets reduce it to a "Star Trek" analogy.
You are supporting the Klingon's and Romulan's, over the Federation.
How do you know how I feel about Israel just because I posted an article stating, in context, that Netanyahu said this release (see bold sentence):
That statement: Israel had worked in advance to limit any damage from leaks, is a sound implication that officials of Israel were in communication with Assange to arrange the removal of damaging Israel cables. Just my conjecture? Could be, since the statement was so vaguely proclaimed. However, the fact that so many cables were an embarrassment to US diplomats and nothing appeared that would be embarrassing to Israel diplomats is a red flag indication that a deal was struck between Assange and Israel. In MHO ... of course.
Yes, it was an ad hominem attack, directed at anyone who questions Israel is a satan worshiper or some such nonsense.
Jeffery:
I totally agree and understand the difference between national governments not representing their citizenry, that ideology is pervasive across the globe at the moment. Globalists have infiltrated the highest levels of governments.
There is a big difference between Zionist nation building agenda and Jewish religion. They are not the same. Just google Jews against Zionism
Implication is ALL that it was. There are hundreds of countries on the planet who also have not been mentioned - where is Canada?
What about Ireland, Iceland, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina?
This was a hit piece and pure rumor, innuendo, and IMPLICATION based on a bias, your bias and the writer of the article to demonize Israel.
Using your definition then your entire OP article is an Ad hominem attack against anything Israel does.
This has nothing to do with either the political or what is considered spiritual Israel.
This was an IMPLICATION to demonize Israel over circumstantial evidence and rumor.
It needed to be called out as such.
If I ever see unbiased evidence to support the hit piece's contentions, I will join in the discussion to discuss the merits of it. Otherwise, the OP article was only a hit piece.
Technomancer
Inactive
Um how is it demonizing Israel or such to say that they might have had a discussion with Wikileaks instead of ignoring the offer/request like the US did? If it's true, it sounds like they made a good decision.
I'm guessing you "everyones out to get the Jews" types must not actually have that high an opinion of Israel to be able to consider any mention of it to be negative.
Ome might consider it no different than the liberals who "support" blacks by attacking anyone that mentions blacks but would never actually tolerate living next to someone of a different color themselves. The ones crying "racist" tend to be the guilty ones themselves
I'm guessing you "everyones out to get the Jews" types must not actually have that high an opinion of Israel to be able to consider any mention of it to be negative.
Ome might consider it no different than the liberals who "support" blacks by attacking anyone that mentions blacks but would never actually tolerate living next to someone of a different color themselves. The ones crying "racist" tend to be the guilty ones themselves
Wrong again, the issue is Netanyahu: WikiLeaks revelations were good for Israel
In the statement: "Netanyahu added that Israel had worked in advance to limit any damage from leaks."
I've come to the conclusion that wikileaks is cointelpro, just MHO of course, we still have the right to free thought don't we, or correct me if I'm wrong that is no longer in place.
ETA: WL it might not have started out to be cointelpro, however, it has morphed into leaks edited for whatever compensation.
Just watch Glenn Beck today and his reveal of wikileaks interconnections.
Agree to disagree.
Last edited:
TECH32
Veteran Member
Assuming, for just a moment, that Israel did work in advance to reduce damage from the leaks. So what?
Assange MADE THE SAME OFFER TO OUR STATE DEPARTMENT AND THEY REFUSED! He offered to let them review the documents and redact them, and they turned him down.
How does this in any way shape or form make Israel a bad guy? They are somehow guilty because there AREN'T any damaging cables about them (that we know of YET)?
That's some pretty f**ked up logic if you ask me...
Assange MADE THE SAME OFFER TO OUR STATE DEPARTMENT AND THEY REFUSED! He offered to let them review the documents and redact them, and they turned him down.
How does this in any way shape or form make Israel a bad guy? They are somehow guilty because there AREN'T any damaging cables about them (that we know of YET)?
That's some pretty f**ked up logic if you ask me...
dragonslayer2001
Inactive
...........
what may be the probabilities that someone in Isreal owns or controls Wiki?
what may be the probabilities that someone in Isreal owns or controls Wiki?
This is new information to me, and yes US should have reviewed the docs if they were given the option for redaction before release. Just more diplomatic mismanagement and poor judgement.
With this many mixed signals appearing before the political stage something is going on behind the scenes. That's why people around the world have lost trust and faith in their governments.
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
Let's all read the entire quote so we know what he was saying. He was not saying he paid them off. He doesn't even say he talked to them in advance. He's saying they know in advance of the reality of leaks and act accordingly (unlike the US who apparently let anyone in the military have access to classified documents with cdrs and USB devices.) Since when is having proactive measures in place a bad thing?
From your Haaretz source:
Considering the entire quote, this post from you doesn't make sense to me:
Sound implication? That's not a sound implication at all when read in context. What's vague about him saying he is aware of the potential of a leak and is proactive in his meetings to make sure there can be none afterward? How does that lead to a 'sound implication' that he paid off Assange? That's a mighty big leap.
And, btw, what is all this talk that the US didn't try to contain damage from the leaks? They did work in advance to contain damage from the leaks - they had a massive phone/letter campaign the week before they were all released to all the heads of states to try to contain the damage. There were tons of articles about Hillary making phone calls, etc.
Netanyahu says he knows the reality of leaks and acts proactively to protect his country from them, which imho is a good thing and something the US should have been doing; and the US in its own way worked to mitigate the damages the week before they were released. Neither of those involved a pay off as far as the stories have been reported.
HD
Last edited:
TECH32
Veteran Member
What may be the probabilities that you have an agenda when it comes to fabricating ways to make Israel out to be a bad guy?
Significantly better than someone in Israel owning or controlling "Wiki" I'd say...
Kent
Inactive
Let's all read the entire quote so we know what he was saying. He was not saying he paid them off. He doesn't even say he talked to them in advance. He's saying they know in advance of the reality of leaks and act accordingly (unlike the US who apparently let anyone in the military have access to classified documents with cdrs and USB devices.) Since when is having proactive measures in place a bad thing?
From your Haaretz source:
Considering the entire quote, this post from you doesn't make sense to me:
Sound implication? That's not a sound implication at all when read in context. What's vague about him saying he is aware of the potential of a leak and is proactive in his meetings to make sure there can be none afterward? How does that lead to a 'sound implication' that he paid off Assange? That's a mighty big leap.And, btw, what is all this talk that the US didn't try to contain damage from the leaks? They did work in advance to contain damage from the leaks - they had a massive phone/letter campaign the week before they were all released to all the heads of states to try to contain the damage. There were tons of articles about Hillary making phone calls, etc.
Netanyahu says he knows the reality of leaks and acts proactively to protect his country from them, which imho is a good thing and something the US should have been doing; and the US in its own way worked to mitigate the damages the week before they were released. Neither of those involved a pay off as far as the stories have been reported.
HD
BINGO!
Also, look at the SOURCE of this story http://www.syriatruth.info/content/view/977/36/ a left-leaning Lebanese newspaper SYRIATRUTH and " number of commentators, particularly in Turkey and Russia".
Whoa - now you are making even more accusations that cannot be validated?
Where is the verifiable evidence that the US rejected an offer?
And what is this garbage about people you are labeling 'everyones (sic) out to get the Jews' type?
I will step and speak out against clear HIT PIECES on anyone when it is merely to try to demonize and is put out as 'fact' when it is nothing but propaganda.
And everyone who keeps defending and putting out propaganda as fact is only helping to further devolve our society as it just becomes one big mud slinging heap of humans ripping each other apart instead of a society based on truth and trust.
Let's aspire to be the latter rather than the former.
This isn't about Israel as much as it is about the quality of 'news' that hearts set on hate seem to be satisfied with. It drags everyone down.
oyster_777
Veteran Member
For some reason this whole wikileaks doesnt pass the smell test.
I get the impression this is some kind of smoke screen.
Oyster_777
I get the impression this is some kind of smoke screen.
Oyster_777
First:
You quote the Washington Post for the truth? The Obama propaganda rag?
(and for Joann's edification - that IS an adhominem attack.)
Second, I scanned the article and didn't see any 'evidence' for your claim.
Please show me where in that article you find that there is proof for the statement that the US was offered some dealt that supposedly Israel was offered.
Technomancer
Inactive
.... How does this demonize Israel? It sounds like they chose the right option in this case. So in your world it's a HIT PIECE to suggest Israel did something smart?
What kind of opinion do you hold of Israel's gov to believe that a report that they exercised good judgement is an insult to them? ("How dare you accuse Israel of doing something intelligent!"??)
And about the US and others being contacted about the leaks and offered the chance to edit or retract things before the release.... HAVE YOU BEEN LIVING UNDER A ROCK??? It's even been on TV mass media news stations that the US was contacted at several levels before the Afganistan/Iraq leaks even.
And TECH32 was kind enough to post a link to one of the THOUSANDS of articles confirming the attempts to contact before the release.
I am just getting tired of hearing liberals cry "RACIST!" every single day, especially in cases where it's completely nonsensical.
Jeffrey Thomason
Veteran Member
First:
You quote the Washington Post for the truth? The Obama propaganda rag?
(and for Joann's edification - that IS an adhominem attack.)
Second, I scanned the article and didn't see any 'evidence' for your claim.
Please show me where in that article you find that there is proof for the statement that the US was offered some dealt that supposedly Israel was offered.
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/wp...ador-from-Julian-Assange-26-November-2010.pdf
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AR1E420101128
That is not the slant this article was posted in and the person who posted it has never taken this defense so doesn't that tell you something? That you are one who sees it in a different light.
What world are you living in? This is not how stuff like this is taken and all who are intellectually honest know that.
I watch and listen to the news CONSTANTLY. I watch, listen, and read various sources from morning to night. However, I do NOT watch or listen to the left wing propaganda outlets or rags who love to take things out of context about Israel, Fox News, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and everyone else who disagrees with their opinion and waste time demonizing them.
I can show you dozens of 'lies' that have been spewed around about people and countries by plenty of left wing propaganda rags and sources without a shred of evidence. That still doesn't make it true.
Show me EVIDENCE - not just spin using someone's words who claims it is true so therefore it MUST be true.
1. That isn't proof - it is just more word shuffling.
2. So the government claims they had an opportunity to have saved lives and they rejected it? Seriously?
But they also admit that they are 'outraged' by this outing of documents as it is endangering lives and so they are going to take more of our freedoms away because that is the only way to protect national security.
Doesn't that just smell of something rotten somewhere all over the place?
Something is not right here and I don't trust these 'sources' when things don't make sense.
Technomancer
Inactive
Ok, I guess I didn't know that VeteransToday was some secret anti-Jew organization. But regardless of their "intent" in writing the article, I ignore the fluff.
You may consider it intellectually dishonest to ignore the fluff and packaging of an article, but whether its Glenn Beck or CNN, one should have the sense to divide the packaging from the actual event being discussed. You have to use your own sense when you read something, you can't take it as eternal truth just because it came from Fox, nor can you declare it all an absolute lie because it came from the AP. Most of any article written on any site, no matter the source, can be filtered out: the writers personal ideas that aren't related to the facts, the style of writing intended to leave you with a particular viewpoint, half-truths or rumors being stated as fact, and obvious lies by the sources used by the writer.
Since you say you do not listen to anyone who disagrees with the opinions of Fox News, heres a link at Fox News itself. I don't expect you'd call Fox News itself someone "who disagrees with their opinion" but I could be wrong. They report the same thing everyone else did, that the state department was contacted and offered a chance for input.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/28/wikileaks-release-endangers-countless-lives/
ETA: Heres a link to whats supposed to be the letter received as a reply from the state department. (warning:PDF file)http://www.webcitation.org/5uZqSSqr6
I'm not sure how you "watch, listen, and read various sources from morning to night" and never heard one mention of it from any of these various sources of yours that you "watch and listen to CONSTANTLY".
Now that you've made it clear that your personal reason that this is a hit piece against Israel is because of the fluff and packaging ("the slant this article was posted in"), not the event itself, theres nothing meaningful to discuss. That's not something that can be discussed in any meaningful manner without putting the writer on the stand and asking his personal opinions and beliefs, and to be frank, I don't really give a damn how the writer/publisher/editor/poster/etc feel about it. I'm not particularly interested in how some guy across the internet "feels" about something, and I'm even less interested in how another person across the internet "feels" about how that other person "feels".
Jeffrey Thomason
Veteran Member
Uh... you asked for proof that Wikileaks approached the US Government to see what sensitive information may harm sources.. did you not? Is this not proof?
Yes, the Government is an incompetent, corrupt organization.. I that that's what we've been saying for years, if not decades.