Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
WikiLeaks 'struck a deal with Israel' over diplomatic cables leaks
by LikiWeaks
Tuesday Dec 7th, 2010 6:39 PM
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.”










Comments  (Hide Comments)

by Dave
Wednesday Dec 8th, 2010 1:49 AM
Your article is pure bullshit and such anti-Israeli propaganda. But that is what the whole world expects from u
by c
Wednesday Dec 8th, 2010 6:26 AM
yeah - several people have pointed out that Wikileaks has only released 1050 out of 250,000 cables so far. They have more of a media strategy this time of releasing them 100 at a time and allowing newspapers to cover them, unlike the Iraq data dump - which sort of fell off the radar after a few days, which wasn't enough time for investigative journalists to even start to read all the material.
by um
Wednesday Dec 8th, 2010 6:59 AM
I think Wikileaks gave the newspapers all of the documents and is only publishing them back on Wikileaks once the newspapers choose what to release and what to redact.
by Mike D
Wednesday Dec 8th, 2010 9:31 AM
Wikileaks is Mossad propaganda for the US to continue endless Wars for Israel, it all started nearly a decade ago under a false flag attack.
9/11 and Israel, here:
by izzy (mooshmoosh99 [at]
Wednesday Dec 8th, 2010 10:33 AM
are you serious? you expect me to believe that this is true because a SYRIAN website said so? and then they name an UNNAMED source as well? so when the us government tells us that they are not crooks by the same logic i should believe them. Besides maybe Wikileaks is a friend of libya also, as i have not seen ANY negative reports on them either. Or maybe also Darfur
by arlymc
Wednesday Dec 8th, 2010 12:34 PM
It could be these are the explosive cables being held back to ensure his safety, on the other hand it could be the Israelis have known all along that the American cable network wasn't safe.
by me
Wednesday Dec 8th, 2010 1:08 PM
first of all, izzy, do you have the same reaction when the new york times cites unnamed sources, or do you think it is Syrians and other non-Americans who have lies instead of a free press?

re: wikileaks... do leakers redact? no they dont.

do leakers wave leaks in your face prior to leaking? no.

do extortion artists wave leaks in your face prior to leaking? yes. yes they do.

do anti-authoritarian activists work with the new york times and the london guardian? no. no they don't.

do pro-transparanecy activists think nethanyahu is a good guy? no. no they don't.

do liberal idiots always give israel the benefit of the doubt? yes.

julian assange is a liberal idiot who thinks he is an anti-authoritarian activist, and who is being used for purposes that he is not aware of. alternatively, he is a scum agent who is doing this for profit.

fuck israel. fuck israel's shills. and FUCK wikileaks.
by Nankor Phelge
Wednesday Dec 8th, 2010 3:27 PM
by liki
Wednesday Dec 8th, 2010 4:34 PM
There are many reasons why journalists don't sometimes name their sources, for example to protect them! In this case, however, it's quite easy to work out the sources if you read the article properly, but maybe without your mainstream churnalism habits (impartiality and all that crap).
by Sanjari
Wednesday Dec 8th, 2010 5:11 PM
Wikifake is controlled oppposition. For me everything that is being hyped by the Main Steram Media is a mindfuck, to keep us away from the real issues. Even Assnges sexlife is being discussed. It is more like a soap. And tell me, what are the real secretive issues that are being exposed and nobody allready knew about?
by frank scott (frankscott [at]
Wednesday Dec 8th, 2010 5:54 PM
Weak Links

The Wikileaks story has been treated by the establishment as a dangerous expose of imperial mind management and led to suppression, damage control and vindictive retribution. Meanwhile much of what passes for an anti establishment has expressed cynical disregard for what seems like old news, or treated the entire episode as another of the products of an all controlling deity-like complex of near invisible forces. These involve theories of manipulative plots and conspiracies to plot conspiratorial manipulations, all of them unknown to any but a chosen sect who seem to understand everything but how to stop the evil conspirators. The most extreme members of this cult are dangerously close to believing sunrise, sunset and the seasons are the result of machinations by a group of Talmudic billionaire Mossad agents sitting in a room in Tel Aviv or New York. In often mentally disabling ways these sources almost make the dangers of global capitalism and Zionist dominance of the American government pale in importance or even existence beside the threat of seemingly invisible forces that conspire to arrange just about everything. But many establishment figures, among them some of the foremost jackals and hyenas of the foreign policy establishment, have joined in cynically asking “who is manipulating us here?” All but totally submerged in consciousness is the risk that has been run by the Wikileaks group and its sources, nor is there enough awareness of the panic among keepers of the public mind and their lashing out in ways as irrational as some of the critics, though far more threatening.

Along with near comical” illuminati” based theories of conspiracies, plots and counter plots, we have defamation of the character and intelligence of people taking heroic risk in making public what was once private. They are maligned as criminals, fools or enemy agents. A citizen of Australia is accused of being a traitor to America while Sweden charges him with a horrendous sex offense seemingly invented by otherwise sane Scandinavians: he refused to use a condom! It is almost bizarre enough to be funny but the potential tragedy is hardly humorous. The Wikileakers are subjected to death threats and demands for their execution by irrational voices in and out of government while small, shrill voices claim they are counter-counter-counter spies or dupes of dupes of dupes. Just what is going on here?

Instead of being grateful to people informing the public about matters normally kept secret from them, we have a variety of suspicions on the one hand, and the spinning of cables and messages by corporate media on the other. When major sources reveal only those parts of the information that fit the governing mind control operation and focus on Iran or China, it is not those media sources that are charged with misinforming but those bringing the information out of the darkness and into public light. Instead of often mindless speculation about what motivates Assange we would all do better to heed his warnings that the so-called journalistic process itself is nothing more than “ a craven sucking up to official sources”, as is clearly indicated in the editorial opinions rendered and major media reportage of this story. This giant step towards democracy and anti secrecy is reduced to the vicious charges being made by some of the most scurrilous and murderous individuals and institutional forces in the society. Indeed, what is going on here? Imperial business as usual, and what else is new?

Calls for the execution of Assange have been made by elected fanatics and their addiction rehab counterparts in media, with segments of the public whipped into a frenzy over his alleged treachery and nonsense that these leaks risk the lives of military personnel, despite not one shred of evidence to indicate anything of the sort. In fact and with rare exceptions, care has been taken by the Wiki leakers to omit what might indeed be dangerous to innocent employees of the empire. And the heroic military worker who turned the information over to Wikileaks is in a cell and facing a fifty-year prison sentence for the crime of actually serving his people and not their rulers. The murderous pretenders to democracy who send thousands to their death in foreign wars now shriek that Manning and Assange are endangering the lives of those who would be safe in their homes if not for these political employees of global capital and its Zionist affiliates who allegedly serve “public” interest with their bloody and racist militarism.

Bradley Manning, Julian Assange and their cohorts are definitely a threat to diplomacy that hides reality from the public when not totally distorting it, and to perverted government policies of war carried out in the public’s name and called dedication to peace. Establishment leaders and their stenographers in media treat this assault on logic, language and morality as patriotism. Meanwhile, efforts to bring information that should have reached us long ago if corporate media were not under control of the very forces it supposedly reports on, are seen as treason, disregarded as nothing new or treated as an adventure story. Maybe we’d be better off is all of this were just the sort of conspiracy from a supernatural realm that some suspect, but it is very real and demands the concern of all who wish for a different reality. Assange, Manning, and all their cohorts yet unknown in this drama need and demand the support of all who believe in peace, social justice and open democratic government to achieve those things. They have given the lie to the notion that there are, or should be, secrets in an open society or that there should be behind the scenes manipulation of nations, governments and media sources.

The Wikileaks group are sending a signal that we can know and should know everything that is done in our name and that in this electronic age there are no longer any secrets that can be kept from us, if we would simply demand completely open government and defend those who take great risk to bring it about. The first call ought to be to come to the aid of Assange, and especially Manning. If we allow either of them to be made scapegoats and suffer more than they already have for their acts on behalf of humanity, we may all suffer far more ourselves. And we will deserve it.

email: frankscott [at]

Frank Scott writes political commentary and satire which appears in print in The Independent Monitor and online at the blog Legalienate

by me
Wednesday Dec 8th, 2010 6:01 PM
Izzy, why do you hate arabs?

Are Arabs occupying the lands of others?

No, only Zionists are doing that.

"Impartial" is bullshit American journalism nonsense. Each and every news outlet has a point of view. It is up to the reader/viewer to discern that and to process accordingly.

So, no to "fuck arabs." and yes to "FUCK ISRAEL."

by O. Hungerford
Wednesday Dec 8th, 2010 6:10 PM
The world is about to take a devistating hit of reality. We have populations of godless greedy humans whoes egos and self worth is blown totally out of proporation. Suddenly we have humanity at war against itself, threating each-other to be the last inhabatant on the planet. Their is no one talking about compassion- compatability, or peaceful solutions to worlds population explosions and the unprecidented greedy globalists. No body is seeking to live in peaceful harmony with nature and the God of creation. Nobody is talking about barotherly Love and "peace on Earth". Mankind is on a one-way path of self-distruction with greedy, self confident globalists, blind with power and greed, taking control of the planet???. Everybody has gone insane with seeking to buiild the biggest and most deadly "A" bomb to inialate,and intimidate their fellow inhabitants. Powers all over the planet are all rushing to control the world with their weapons of mass distruction, weather controls, bugs, or starvation. Mankind has gone insane with power, greed, and he will send our planet back into the stone age. Their is only one solution. Bonding humanity together under one authority "Global Congress" with mutual rerspect and power to keep the peace , destroy weapons of mass distruction. destroy the incurable deseases, and stop the genocide of human life. a world order under Godly values that respect the human specie and give dignity and respect for all life on the planet.This is a tall order but not impossible to acheive. Ultimate goal is to have a sustainable society made of all races living in harmony and respect for Life on our planet. Destroy all weapons and means of destroying our planet and it's inhabatants. We can preserve our planet and it's inhabatants. we can prefect a perfect world where all life is preserved and respected. In God We Trust a human
by ThisWeekInTruth
Wednesday Dec 8th, 2010 7:49 PM
How can you say nothing bad is in the entire 250,000 cable body? Wikileaks has only released about 1,000 of them.
by shabooshooba
Wednesday Dec 8th, 2010 10:07 PM
There is no Israeli embassy in Beirut.
FACT CHECK RESULTS ON THE INDYBAY ARTICLE "Wikileaks Struck a Deal with Israel" - Note: no author for this article is listed –the article appears under a section entitled “Palestine”

Link to Indybay article:

Allegations [1] – [8] and Sources – and links

The first and most damaging allegation in the Indybay piece (Indybay is affiliated with Indymedia and has links to Indymedia on its web page bnner, but is not synonymous with that organization) is that Wikileaks struck a secret deal with Israeli authorities to insure that any documents that could damage Israel’s interests would be ‘removed’ before the rest of the documents became public. The source for that allegation, included as footnote [1] is a Wired Article, see link below. This article provides nothing to corroborate and verify this damaging allegation, rather the article focuses on disgruntled former Wikileaks employee Daniel Dorrsheit-Berg, why he left Wikileaks and internal politics within the Wikileaks organization.

The second and very damaging allegation is that Assange accepted money from ‘semi-official Israeli officials’ and that he specifically agreed in exchange in a secretly taped interview not to publish any documents that would hurt Israeli interests. This allegation links to an article in Syriatruth and it is printed in Arabic, and cited as footnote [2] in the article, with no reliable verbatim translation from Arabic to English provided.

Because the entire Syriatruth article is completely in Arabic it is impossible for non-Arabic readers or speakers to confirm whether the article in fact makes these allegations, let alone go any further with fact-checking on this issue, due to formidable language barriers that the authors of the Indybay article do nothing to assist readers concerned about the truth to surmount.

The third, fourth and fifth allegations footnoted [3], [4] and [5] link to articles in the German Press, as follows, NOTE the first link to taz is in German and thus non-German readers cannot check for veracity, let alone follow-up for further fact-checking.,1518,732212,00.html


The last two Der Spiegel articles linked directly above again relate to the saga of disgruntled former Wikileaks’ employee Daniel Dorrsheit-Berg, why he left Wikileaks, internal squabbles in the organization, and Dorrsheit-Berg’s opinions about Julian Assange’s leadership skills. The one article that includes quotes from an interview with Dorrsheit-Berg cited as [1] includes a section that relates to internal decisions about Wikileaks decision-making concerning information is the Wired Article, previously referenced, but nothing specific is said in that article about internal issues or decisions to corroborate the damaging allegations in the Indybay article, specifically that Assange made an agreement with Israel and accepted money from them in exchange for an agreement not to publish anything damaging to Israel’s interests. In fact the Wired piece quotes from Dorrsheit-Berg only serve to illustrate the sour grapes fired Dorrshiet-Berg had and due to Dorrsheit-Berg being at odds with Assange over decisions concerning organizational priorities that prevented what he felt was a much-needed reorganization. Nothing in any of these three articles in the German Press, therefore, as presented, substantiate the general damaging claims made in the Indybay article.

The sixth allegation in the article, accusing Assange of engaging in a secret meeting in Geneva with Israeli officials and agreeing to expung any leaked documents related to the Israeli attacks on Gaza and Lebanon, in 2006, and 2008-9, references as [6] a piece in Haaretz in which, not surprisingly, Israeli leaders said that Wikileaks helped them because the leaks underscored that Arabs themselves were calling on the US and Israel to take care of the problem with Iran. Though this information is sourced ostensibly to ‘Al-Haqiqa sources’ – no footnote is provided.

No one can control what any government leaders say about anything and naturally they will put whatever spin serves their purpose on any news and will extract from an information dump whatever serves their interests and emphasize it. This Haaretz article does not prove that Assange arrived at a prior agreement with Israel concerning leaks of documents, or that he took money from Israeli officials in exchange for that agreement or that he in fact expunged such documents.

Allegation seven concerns Assange “praising Netanyahu as a hero of transparency and openness.” [7] linking to an article in Time Magazine:,8599,2034040-2,00.html

Nowhere does this article quote Assange as saying that Mr. Netanyahu is a “hero of transparency and openness” as alleged so this article does not verify accusation #7. There ARE some areas of ambiguous language in the piece, however, that COULD be conflated to infer something. But what, is unknown from the actual language in the piece. In fact the interviewer,(I am not able to provide you his name because the link [7] is only to page 2 of 4 pages in the Time article.) was the one who suggested that the information in the leaks underscored Israel’s position with respect to Iran by revealing that certain Arab leaders wished to decapitate the Iranian government.

The last allegation in the article is that Assange met twice with a left-leaning Lebanese newspaper who offered him money to obtain documents related to a secret war meeting ostensibly held between the US, Israeli and Lebanese parties at the US embassy in Beirut in July 24, 2006. According to source [8] the documents received by Al-Akhbar Editors left a gap and only covered information from 2008-forward, according to the Indybay article, thereby “supporting the Israeli deal allegations.”

Unfortunately again, footnote [8] links to an article in a Syrian paper that is entirely written in Arabic so it is completely impossible for a non-Arabic speaker or reader to verify whether in fact this article actually corroborates the allegations in the Indybay article, let alone enable one in search of the truth to take their fact-checking any further.

This is the second link to Syria Truth here:


The Indybay article does not meet basic journalistic standards. Aside from being riddled with conditional adverbs like “appears” – it is basically a hack-job. The sources cited DO NOT corroborate the damaging allegations being made, i.e. that Julian Assange of Wikileaks arrived at an agreement with Israel to redact any damaging documents prior to release, let alone that he accepted secret payments from them or from the newspaper Al-Akhbar for special dispensation. Moreover, knowing full well that the readers who will read the Indybay article are English readers, the article links to non-English publications, two in Arabic and one in German, as legitimate sources for its “news” reporting, further obscuring the truth.

If I were the subject of this article I would sue the authors for defamation of character.

Something is really fishy about this story. In the US some believe because WIKI said nothing about Israel that WIKI is somehow a Mossad operation! Since only a few docs have been released, why would anyone assume there arent more documents about Israel and their illegal operations around the world. Perhaps this is Wiki's poison pen...I wait for more docs before assuming anything. Then there is Anonymous...they seem to have lots of docs too...are we too assume they made a deal with the zionists...come one critical thinking please.
by izzy (mooshmoosh99 [at]
Thursday Dec 9th, 2010 6:55 AM
first of all i do not hate arabs. and neither do i love israelis, however lets get something straight also, the so called occupation of arab lands is a total farce. The way i see it, the British had control of the land prior to 1948, they devised a plan which divides palestine some for the arabs and some for the jews, in a unified area or land called palestine.
The jews agreed and of course the arabs did not.
Then israeel declared their country ONLY in the areas that the british set aside for them. Of course the arabs were furious and attacked israel every few years, (to which israel won) until we get to 1967. then israel was ATTACKED AGAIN TO WHICH THE NOT ONLY REPELLED BACK THE INVADERS, but also took control of land it did not have prior to 1967. This can bbe compared to the russians saying we want alaska back, or to poland saying to germany we want some of the land back you took from us in WW1.
This can be compared to a multitude of countries. The usa is occupying the land of the indian, france is occupying the land of the greeks, england is occupying the land of the vikings and so on. The fact remains that in israel AND in the arab countries there are assholes and hatemongers. However unlike the arab countries arabs in israel do have rights, They can vote, they can even serve in public office, this cannot be said about jews living in arab nations.
People talk about heright of return for the paleestinian people, I say be fair to all. What about the right of return for jewish people to arab nations?

On a seperate note, maybe wikileaks has some real devastating stuff about israel. According to their own website they only released less than 2% of the files they have. All the anti israel people out there right away assume a conspiracy if every memo released doesnt have to do with israel.
by izzy (mooshmoosh99 [at]
Thursday Dec 9th, 2010 6:59 AM
imaprtial journalism nonsense??i bet you are a subscriber to the iranian press and the saudi daily news. At least if you read israeli papers like Haaretz, or YNET, they talk about how corrupt some israeli officials are and how good others are, Once freedom of the press is hindered, that is the start of being non democratic.
i dont know where you are but i promise you are not in an arab country, or EVEN IN GAZA. WHY? because they would have found you by now and arrested you.
by Xenophon
Thursday Dec 9th, 2010 8:30 AM
Of course, there is no deal with Israel. "The sources are said to be former Wikileaks members..." Oh, please. How ridiculous.

I think we have to contrast the obvious authenticity of Wikileaks with the mendacity and spin of the MSM who are covering the Wikileaks revelations. The NYT has concentrated almost exclusively on two things: Leaked messages that support--superficially at least--the anti-Iran, anti-China, anti-Russia inclinations of the USG AND anti-Assange hit pieces designed to discredit him personally.

It is the MSM's coverage that is giving the impression that there is a pro-Israel twist to the leaks. I would be interested to know who/what the author of this piece, the so-called "LikiWeaks" actually is and what interests he fronts for. When you find that out, then you'll be much closer to the pro-Israel plotting that aims to discredit Wikileaks and all criticism of the Israel-friendly New World Order.
by Invictus
Thursday Dec 9th, 2010 11:36 AM
Nor is there an Israeli embassy in Tel Aviv!

Clearly, it should have read, "US embassies".
by friendly fire
Thursday Dec 9th, 2010 2:50 PM
"Because the entire Syriatruth article is completely in Arabic it is impossible for non-Arabic readers or speakers to confirm whether the article in fact makes these allegations, let alone go any further with fact-checking on this issue, due to formidable language barriers that the authors of the Indybay article do nothing to assist readers concerned about the truth to surmount."

Interesting that "anonymous" also does nothing to assist readers in finding out the truth about the contents of the article.

Also interesting that he complains about lacking "basic journalistic standards" but is himself unable to copy and paste the name of Mr. Domscheit-Berg, repeatedly refering to him as "Dorrsheit-Berg".
by friendly fire
Thursday Dec 9th, 2010 3:07 PM
Here is an automated google translation of the syriatruth article. It's good enough to confirm that the article indeed claims what LikiWeaks said it does.
by Vespa
Friday Dec 10th, 2010 3:32 AM
Brian Whittaker, former Guardian middle east editor on a more plausible explanation as to why Israal does not feature in the cables.

"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 ( that "“I never knew about any diplomatic cables,” he adds. “You can’t imagine how happy I am to be out of this thing.” So how likely is it that he knew about the Israeli deal?
I wonder which rethuglican moron wrote this piece of garbage? I had no problem finding a whole bunch of cables dating back to the 1960s from the Tel Aviv. I smell a great big fascist rat, don't you?
by anonymous
Friday Dec 10th, 2010 9:12 PM
OH! THAT'S very helpful. There is no way this google translation can be used for verifying and fact[checking. What is needed is someone with expertise in Arabic to translate. Know anyone?
by raul camino (rw81346 [at]
Saturday Dec 11th, 2010 8:09 AM
Dear Izzi,

Like Izzi,
Like all Jews you can only see the world from your own side of your stomach.
Your article is so full of historical and political, and moral errors, intentionally placeed so as to make israel look like the Saint of the middle east, that it would take too much to untanglie your lies. But Jews keep telling the same lies hoping they will eventually stick to the wall. Actualy the opposite is true.
Why does a Jew never mention the holocost of the American Indian where jews made fortunes of money? why historicially doe jews get expelled or killed every where they lived for thousands of years? Maybe there is something wrong with Jewish manipulative values, like yours?
by Aaron Aarons (kpfa2010 [at]
Sunday Dec 12th, 2010 4:44 AM
'raul camino' says to Zionist Izzy: "Like all Jews you can only see the world from your own side of your stomach."

I'm not sure how anybody of any ethnicity can see the world from any side of their stomach, nor can I imagine that there's a side other than mine of my stomach, but maybe that's a bad translation of a saying from another language.

What's more important is that this 'raul camino character' makes a generalization about "all Jews", totally ignoring that a substantial minority of Jews -- however defined -- oppose Zionism and the Israeli state, and a far larger number oppose the actions of that state. And on other questions of history and politics, there is no consensus of opinion among Jews.

I'd be more than happy to engage in a discussion about the role of Jews in any of the crimes of capitalism, including the extermination of Native Americans and the enslavement of Africans, but (1) this page is not the place for it and (2) it wouldn't be useful to engage in such a discussion with somebody. like, 'raul camino', who makes bigoted generalizations.
I have written and posted a blog post entitled: "Open Interrogatories and Requests for Documentation to Daniel Domscheit-Berg of OpenLeaks Concerning Accusations of Zionist-Bribery Against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks."

It needs traction. Please share it and spread it, etc. We need to get to the bottom of this. Thank you.
by Arab (dancan2020 [at]
Monday Dec 20th, 2010 7:49 AM
Dear all, though I believe that there is a decent possibility that Assange did indeed cut a deal with the Israelis, or has hidden sympathies in general, leading him to hide Israel-critical documents, I must point out that Syria Truth is not an investigative website. Unfortunately, though I'd love proof of this belief of mine, Syria Truth is a disseminator of yellow journalism and believed to be close to the Syrian regime.
The second, more damning, issue is that the writer of the article and the interviewer, Lia Abramovitch seems to not only have not interviewed Domscheit Berg, but seems to not exist. If we simply google her name based on the Arabic spelling, nothing comes out. Even if we google with the English spelling provided under her e-mail address in her bio page on SyriaTruth (lia.abramovitch [at], she doesn't come up. She very well may be a fictional writer created by the page's editor to give the image of having Israeli sources. I would appreciate if someone can search her name in Hebrew so we can be certain. Either way, I highly doubt the veracity of that source. But that does not mean that the conclusions are debunked. There's still a lot to answer to concerning what happened to all this "Arabism" in the state department that pro-Israelis claim is the main source of any pro-Palestinian leanings within out government in the U.S... I know for a fact that many in the state department are sympathetic to the Palestinians. It is laughable if none of them criticize Israeli leaders at all, especially with the likes of Lieberman and Netenyahu in power, considering their shrewd dishonest ways that are readily visible for anyone prepared to do some research.
See here for Assange's statements about Netenyahu:,7340,L-3992959,00.html
by Bill
Tuesday Dec 21st, 2010 6:39 AM

"Daniel Domscheit-Berg writes [with permission to publish]:

21 December 2010

I have been notified about the general rumour a few weeks ago, and shortly after about the appearance of me as involved in those allegations. I have never spoken to anyone at syriatruth or that reporter that is making these claims, nor do I know anything about any deals JA has allegedly made with Israelis."
by laffing
Tuesday Dec 21st, 2010 8:21 PM
Are you kidding me?

"originated mainly from the Israeli embassies in Tel Aviv and Beirut"

Since when does any country opens an embassy in it's own country? Israel has an embassy in Tel Aviv? And they also have one in Lebanon?

I don't know whats worse, fast you published that nonsense, or people swallow it.
by IndyRadio
Monday Jul 20th, 2015 7:16 AM
Domscheit-Berg has been thoroughly discredited since this was published. He is likely the reason why we never did get to see the inner workings of Bank of Anerica - they had a lot tp hide - the trove was described as "dynamite" by Assange himself, but never released.

They spent alot of money to block that release - HBGary Federal and the other conspirators against Wikileaks accomplished little, and sustained incredible damage, but Domscheit-Berg was their ace in the hole, a complete and total whore.

Where is Domscheit-Berg now, and where is he now?

For those who have forgotten or never knew:
"WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's former right-hand man has irrevocably destroyed 3500 unpublished files leaked to the whistleblower site including the complete US no-fly list, five gigabytes of Bank of America documents and detailed information about 20 neo-Nazi groups."

We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!


donate now

$ 144.50 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.


Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network