Graham Cluley at Naked Security:

“Over the last few weeks we have been contacted by a number of members of the Sophos Facebook page, concerned by a message they saw on Facebook, warning them that their account protection was “very low”.

Your account protection status: Very low
Increase protection

With fake anti-virus (also known as scareware) attacks becoming an ever-growing problem (they attempt to trick you into believing your computer has a security problem when it doesn’t), some security-conscious Facebook users might worry that this is a similarly-styled assault, designed to scare you into taking perhaps unwise actions.

Certainly the warning message gives you the impression that there’s something seriously wrong with how you have defended your Facebook account. I must admit I was surprised to see the message appear on my own Facebook account as I have been quite fastidious in my security settings on the social network, following Sophos’s guidelines for better privacy on Facebook.

So, I was curious to find out just why Facebook believed that my account protection status was “very low”, and what they thought I should do to fix that.

If you do click on the link, the first thing you are asked to do is enter an additional email address. Facebook’s thinking is that if you lose control of the, say, Hotmail or Gmail account that you normally log into the site with, you’ll be able to regain access to your Facebook account by giving them an alternative email address. They could then use this, for instance, to communicate with you.

That’s reasonable enough, of course, if you feel comfortable giving Facebook another email address for yourself. And there is a genuine problem of users having the same password on their Facebook and email accounts – meaning that you could potentially lose control of both at the same time, making comandeering back control of your Facebook presence tricky.

But, there’s no indication of what else Facebook might do with this alternative email address of yours. Not only would you be right to be concerned about whether you are increasing the potential for data loss by sharing alternative email addresses with online companies, but is it possible that Facebook might also use this secondary email address to further interconnect you with possible contacts? There is, after all, no indication on the page that they are not going to use your secondary email address in any other way.”

Zahir Ebrahim:

“I don’t believe that the majority of the American public, which the outside world perceives as self-serving for their self-indulgent pursuits of the “American Dream”, are quite like that. I don’t believe that they are out to get the world, nor do I believe that they “knowingly” turn a blind eye to the machinations of their government, unlike how most of the world’s populations might perceive them.

“I believe that the American public is genuinely deceived, incredibly indoctrinated, and purposely and systematically kept ignorant. And that their condition of “ignorance” is the outcome of their institutional ruling elite finding this to be the most efficient way to conduct the “imperial” business of the state, because otherwise, “democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization”. These are the main assumptions in my book. I guess if you don’t agree with them, then you are only left with the first alternative, that the American public is indeed incredibly self-serving, and consequently morally guilty of war crimes against humanity for their role in knowingly aiding and abetting their government in this fictitious “war on terrorism”. Take your pick.

A “Samson” defense isn’t the prerogative of Israel alone. Especially when this self-defense can also completely destroy their arch enemies. With the oil fields “peaking”, as some fear mongers boldly allege even while Mobil and Chevron et. al. reap in record breaking profits each year, the long lines and 1929 can be brought back just as easily as the coming military draft – be it of economic servitude, skills of the professional, or the precious lives of the youth. Allies today can easily become arch nemesis tomorrow over a shrinking pie. We shall all be collectively punished when the dominoes fall, bystanders and silent spectators and all. The law of unintended consequences is still among the least understood laws of nature!

Self-interest alone dictates immediate atonement and restitution – before it is too late.”

— Zahir Ebrahim

“In certain societies, perhaps still today, judges would sometimes award the guilty a punishment of such a type, to go humbly serve the family of those whom they have injured, whose bread-winners they killed. When implemented properly, it helped heal both the victim, and most interestingly, also the victimizer. Not too profound when one thinks about it, is it?”

— Zahir Ebrahim

Facebook tops all searches, reports Huffington Post:

“According to data from Hitwise, which provides online competitive intelligence, Facebook “accounted for 8.93 percent of all U.S. visits between January and November 2010.”Google.com made up 7.19 percent of visits and Yahoo! Mail ranked third with 3.52 percent of visits. Yahoo! claimed 3.30 percent of visits, and YouTube 2.65 percent.

Facebook has soared in the rankings as its share of visits has more than doubled in the past year. In 2009, it was the third most-visited site, behind Google and Yahoo! Mail, with 4.26 percent of visits. In 2008 it ranked ninth on Hitwise’s list, trailing Google, MySpace, and eBay.

In an odd twist, Google is actually helping to fuel its competitor’s rise by sending search traffic to the social network’s site: For the second year in a row, “Facebook” was the top search term of 2010. In second place was “Facebook login,” with “Facebook.com” and “www.facebook.com” also cracking the list of top 10 most popular queries.

While visits to Facebook have overtaken hits to Google.com, Google-owned properties–which include web video giant YouTube–actually received a greater share of visits, accounting for 9.85 percent of all U.S. visits. TechCrunch observed that Comscore confirmed Hitwise’s findings: “Comscore also shows Facebook.com passing Google.com in visits in November but all Google sites as still having more.“

From Historical Boys’ Clothing:

“The NAZI domestic Lebensborn program was soon transformed into a much larger and more sinister effort of kidnapping large numbers of racially suitable children in occupied countries. This was valled “Eindeutschung” which I am unsure how to translate. The NAZI description of this is instructive, “Erhaltung und Förderung rassisch wertvollen germanischen Erbgutes”. This translates roughly as the “preservation and promotion of racially valuable Germanic hereditary property”. In other countries Lebensborn homes were established. The NAZI polices in this regard varied greatly from country to country. Probably more than 0.3 million children were kidnapped by the NAZIs. Few were ever to be reunited with their parents. A substantial number were murdered in concentration camps.

Czecheslovakia (1938-45)

Czecheslovakia was seized by the NAZIs in two stages in 1938. First the Sudetenland was handed over to the NAZIs as a result of the Munich Agreement and in March 1939, Hitler ordered the rest of the country seized in direct viloation of Agreement. We have no information on the extent to which the kidnapping of children occurred in Czecheslovakia as was the case in Poland. We do know that after SS Governor Heydrich was killed in 1942, a SS unit exterminated the entire male population of Lidice, a small village. Before doing so, the SS looked over the children and selected 91 as being worthy of “Germanization”. The others were sent to special children camps (i.e. Dzierzazna and Litzmannstadti) and later to extermination camps. Few of these children survived.

Poland (1939-44)

Germany invaded Poland in September 1939 and defeated the Polish Army in a few weeks, introducing the world to Blitzkrieg warfare. They divided Poland woth the Soviet Union which after the German success invaded from the east. The SS frustrated with the minimal births at Lebensborn homes in Germany decided on a more direct appraoch–“Eindeutschung”, the seizure and Germanization of racially suitable children in Poland. The SS kidnapped massive numbers if Polish children children who matched NAZIs racial criteria. A similar effort was made in other countries, but it was in Poland that the program was most extensive. The occupation of Poland was one of the most brutal in European history. Occupation aithorities, especially the SS, were under no legal or moral constraints as regards their conduct and the execultion of occupation policies. Poles had no recourse. The NAZI set out to eliminate the Polish intelgencia and reduce the rest of the country to a vast population of slave labor. It is estimated that a quarter of the populatopn of Poland perished during the occupation. I am not sure how these kidnappings took place and how organized they were and when and where they were carried out. Giving the numbers of children involved, there surely must have been a carefully organized effort by the SS. Some of the children were taken from orphanages. Others were taken from parents involved in the Resistance. I’m not sure to what extent children were seized off the street or from their homes. One source reports, “They kidnapped blond, naive children simply away from the road or removal them to parents, under false promises.” [R. Abe, “Lebensborn e.V.” Shoa.de website, retrieved May 3, 2002] There are reports of parents and siblings of kidnapped children were occasionally murdered or sent to concentration camps. Thousands of Polish children were transferred to special Lebensborn centers in order to be “Germanized”. Most sources estimate over 0.2 million Polish children were kidnapped. They were subjected to a “arische” racial classification using the Arier tables. The most important criterion was the distance between forehead and back of the head. The result determined the child’s fate. The children with highest classifications were adopted by SS families. Those with the lowest classifications were deported to concentration camps. The children at these centers were forced to reject and forget their birth parents. They were given a new German name and had to speak only German or be punished. Himler reasoned that the education process would be relatively easy because the German ideals “would reverberate in the sprit of the children who resemble is racially”. With the younger children, the education process was relatively easy. They were sent to Lebensborn homes. The SS nurses there reportedly persuade the children that their parents had abandoned them. The children 6-12 years of age were sent to boarding schools. The older children were more of a problem. The older children who rejected the NAZI education program were often beaten. These children were not returned home. When it was determined that they would not accept Germinization, they were usually transferred to concentration camps. Other children who upon closer examination were not sufficently Aryan were also sent to concentration camps. The children that proved more receptive were adopted by SS and other German families. The non-SS familes were often not aware of where the children had come from and the circustances under which they had been obtained. As with the German Lebensborn children, the SS normally falsified the child’s birth and other documents.

Denmark (1940-45)

We have no information on Denmark. We doubt if there were organized kidnappings because the occupation was less severe in Denmark. There may have been Lebensborn homes, but we have no information on this yet.

Norway (1940-45)

NAZI authorities considered Norway to be a rich source of Nordic breeding stock. There were no organized kidnappings that we know of, but some sources say that Norway was not imune to occasional NAZI kidnappings. More importantly, there were extensive liasons between German soldiers and Norwegian girls. More than 0.5 million German soldiers were stationed in Norway during the War. Virtually all the off-spring would be racially acceptable. Himmler regarded as direct descendants of the Wikinger, and therefore German soldiers were incouraged to have affairs with Norwegian womem. Lenensborn homes were established throughout Norway. One source suggests that there were nine homes set up, almost as many as in Germany. The homes were very attractive. The women got excellent care and good food. Conditions were very difficult during the occupation and the community would have been very hostile to women having the children of the German soldiers. Thus many Norwegian mothers made use of the homes and were treated as pampered recruits to the ranks of the NAZI master race. They had to agree to turning the baby over to the SS for repatriation to Germany. Records are incomplete, but estimates suggest up to 12,000 babies were born in these homes. [R. Abe, “Lebensborn e.V.” Shoa.de website, retrieved May 3, 2002] After the German surrender, these homes were evacuated and records destroyed. While the rest of the country rejoiced upon liberation, the Lebensorn children were thrust into Mightmare lives”. The mothers and other women who conorted with the Germans were despised and called “Deutschenhuren”. They were treated as criminals and arrested. About 14,000 women were arrested. The children were often left to fend for themseles. They were shunned, taunted or physically abused by bitter and vengeful neighbors, teachers or other members of their local communities. Government doctors, psychologists, church officials and bureaucrats branded the children as everything from mentally retarded to harboring dangerous genes because of their parentage. The director of the Oslo Mental Retardation Home, for example, wrote that the Norwegian women who consorted with the Germans were menntally defective. Thus the children cairred this stigma. One girl tells of being beaten and bullied at school. Then her mother married a former resistance fighter – “a Norwegian patriot who hated me”, she recalls. Then the beating and bullying was part of home life too. [Gerd Fleischer quoted in “Norway’s ‘lebensborn’,” BBC News December 5 , 2001, 16:21 GMT] Often the children were institutionalized. Many of these Norwegian Lebensborn “war children” (krigsbarn) tell of terrible treatment in these instituations. Some of the “war children” in 2001 brought suit against the Norwgian Government, demanding compensation the ill treatment they say they received by Norwegian sosiety and especially by state officials. The plaintiffs claim their lives were ruined and they`re still suffering for the deeds of their parents, because their fathers were viewed as the enmeny and their mothers as traitors.

The Netherlands (1940-45)

The SS had more difficuly setting up Lebensborn homes in the Netherlands than in Norway. As in Norway, the NAZIs saw the Dutch as potentially valuable genetic stock. Reich Commissioner Seyss Inquart was not favorably disposed toward the program. As a result there were no operational Lebensborn homes in the Nertherlands. Dutch women who wanted to participate in the program had to apply to enter the German facilities.

Belgium (1940-44)

The SS opened the Ardennen Lebensborn home iwas opened in March 1943 at Wegimont bei Lüttich. Pregnannt mothers with Germanic blood were accepted as well as children fathered by Fremdlaendi members.

France (1940-44)
There was no organized kidnapping of children in France for Eindeutschung ( Germanisation ) as was the case in Poland and several other countries. The Germans had, however, a large occupation force in France. The inevitable result was a substantial number of children fathered by German soldiers. One estimate suggests 50,000 through May 1943. Himmler thought that the children of a French woman with a German soldier could produce suitable children for “Eindeutschung”. Although not as entusiastic as with the children fathered by German soldiers in Norway, Himmler still saw the French children as “valuable German blood”. The SS opened a Lebenborn home near Chantilly called Westwald. There were disagreements amomg the French as to how to deal with these children. Many were hostile. The widow of French General Huntzinger argued that they should be integrated into the French society. Despite the stigma of having a German boy friend, the women involved reportedly avoided the Lebensborn at Westwald because the SS insisted that the babies be given up for adoption in Germany. Another source of children was the many french prisoners and slave laborers brought from France to work in Germany and Austria. Some French men fathered babies, but these would be cared for by the mother. It was not the same for the women workers. They were obliged to give it up to a German family for adoption.

Yugoslavia (1941-45)

Hitler was forced to invade Yugoslavia in April? 1941 to come to Italy’s aid in their aborted invasion of Greece. This delayed Barbarosa, the invasion of the Soviet Union, until June. Yugoslavia was divided. Some of the resulting states such as Crotia cooperated with the Germams. Other Yugoslav provinces resisted, especially Serbia. Part of Slovenia was actually incorporated into the Reich. I’m not sure to what extent the Lebensorn program was persued in Yugoslavia. There are light complectioned people in Yugoslavia and some of the children would have been of interest to the NAZIs.

Greece (1941-44)

We have no information on the Lensensborn program in Greece. As Greek children tend to be dark complectioned, the NAZIs may not have persued the program in Greece, but we have no information at this time.

The Soviet Union (1941-44)

The Germans could begin the Lebensborn program in October 1939 in Poland. The Soviet invasion did niot take place until June 1941 and by mid 1944 the Red Army had largely liberated the country. Thus the German control over Soviet territory was much shorter than their control over Poland and it was less through as active Polish resistance largely seized after the Government surrendeded. As a result, the conditins to execute the kidnapping of children were more difficult than in Poland. We do not know to what extent these kidnappings were conducted in the Soviet Union. There were, however, large numbers of racially acceptable children. One source estimates that about 50,000 Ukrainian children were kidnapped.

Baltic Republics (1941-44)

We also are unsure to what extent the Lebensnorm kidnappings occurred in the Baltic Republics (Lithianian, Latvia, and Estonia). We suspect that because the occupation was not as harsh in those countries where there was considerable sympathy for the NAZIs that the program was not vigorosly persued. But this may not have been the case. One source suggest that the NAZIs may have kidnapped 50,000 children were from the Baltic states.

Sources

R. Abe, “Lebensborn e.V.” Shoa.de website, (retrieved May 3, 2002).

Jörg Albrecht “Rohstoff für Übermenschen”, Artikel in Zeit-Punkte 3/2001 zum Thema Biomedizin, S. 16-18.

Bleuel, H. P., Das saubere Reich. Theorie und Praxis des sittlichen Lebens im Dritten Reich, Bern u.a. 1972, S. 192.

Catrine Clay, Michael Leapman “Herrenmenschen”, Das Lebensborn-Experiment der Nazis, Heyne-TB (1997, vergriffen)

Marc Hillel and Clarissa Henry, “Of Pure Blood” (1976).

Georg Lilienthal “Der Lebensborn e. V.”, Fischer Verlag (1993, vergriffen)

Dorothee Schmitz-Köster “Deutsche Mutter bist du bereit”, Alltag im Lebensborn, Aufbau-Verlag (1997, vergriffen)

Conspiracy Theories Linking Israel to WikiLeaks Circulate on the Internet Posted: December 23, 2010

As the story about WikiLeaks’s release of U.S. diplomatic cables gained media attention around the world, a number of Web sites across the ideological spectrum began to circulate conspiracy theories alleging that Israel was secretly involved in the publication of the cables.

Although the theory that Israel orchestrated the WikiLeaks’ affair is circulating on a relatively small number of Web sites, it has gained traction with those catering to the far right and the left, as well as on some Arab and Islamic sites, and others dedicated to spreading “anti-Zionist” messages like Islam Times and Hezbollah’s Al-Manar Web site.

To date, these sources have promoted two major claims regarding WikiLeaks’s relationship to Israel. One claim is that WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange “struck a deal” with Israel to withhold the cables that were “embarrassing” to Israel. This narrative about Israel negotiating with Assange may have first surfaced in Al Haqiqa, an online publication affiliated with a Syrian opposition group, which was cited as a source by other articles posted in Arabic and English, as well as select press agencies. Others furthered this claim by alleging that Israel’s “deal” with Assange either aimed to undermine the United States or sought to create an opening to attack Iran.

Another theory circulating online is that Assange actually works for Israel as a “spy,” with the alleged evidence being the scarcity of cables related to Israel in the materials that were leaked to the public and the press.

Many of the conspiracy theories about Israel and WikiLeaks are being promulgated by an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist named Gordon Duff on his Web site Veterans Today, which features anti-Israel and Holocaust denial materials. Duff has authored numerous articles and appeared in interviews advancing his allegations that Israel orchestrated WikiLeaks as a public relations campaign. In an undated interview with British-based IQRA TV, Duff even implicated India’s intelligence agency as being part of the conspiracy to bolster Israel’s image.

In another interview with the mainstream the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on December 17, 2010, Duff told the paper that, “WikiLeaks is obviously concocted by an intelligence agency. It’s a ham-handed action by Israel to do its public relations.”

Duff’s articles have also appeared on white supremacist sites, including Stormfront a popular forum for extremists, former Klan leader David Duke’s site, as well as Newsnet14, which re-posted a Duff column under another title: “Wikileaks: Is the Stench Coming from the Jews?”

Aside from Duff’s theories, other allegations against Israel had their origins in the left-leaning Web site Indybay, which furthered the claim that WikiLeaks collaborated with Israel to restrict the publication of cables that could appear damaging to Israel.

Some cartoons featured in mainstream Arab papers echoed this same theme. On December 20, 2010, a cartoon appeared in the Emirati newspaper Al-Ittihad which portrayed Wikileaks as only exposing issues that would embarrass the Arab world while concealing Israel’s alleged actions against peace.

Although they constitute a small minority, a few world leaders have used the WikiLeaks controversy to make anti-Israel statements, alleging that Israel is complicit in the affair or behind some of the cables. On December 1, 2010, Hüseyin Çelik, a deputy leader of AKP, Turkey’s ruling party, hinted that Israel could be responsible for WikiLeaks in comments during a press conference. Çelik reportedly marveled at the fact that Israeli officials seemed to know that the documents wouldn’t hurt the Israeli government: “Israel is very pleased [with the WikiLeaks controversy]. Israel has been making statements for days, even before the release of these documents.”

On December 21, 2010, the Palestinian Fatah party condemned particular WikiLeaks’ cables as “fabrications and lies” by Israel’s security services in order to deepen divisions among Palestinians. Fatah denied a WikiLeaks’ cable that revealed Fatah representatives had asked Israel to attack Hamas in 2007 and said the WikiLeaks revelation was “conspiracy” by the Shin Bet.

The following is a sampling of articles circulating the conspiracy theory that Israel is at the center of the WikiLeaks’ controversy:

• December 16, 2010: In an article on his Web site titled, “Wiki-Warning – Little Green Men Coming,” Gordon Duff charged that the Mossad, as well as “a Rothschild law firm, the pro-Israel gang at The New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel,” removed cables with “dirt” on Israel.

• December 15, 2010: Gordon Duff published an article on the anti-Semitic site Rense, where he plainly stated, “WikiLeaks is Israel.” Duff alleged that former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski seemed to have arrived at the same conclusion when he was said in an interview on PBS on December 2 that WikiLeaks is the front for an “intelligence agency” and that the material leaked was of a “pointed” nature.

• December 14, 2010: The Opinion Maker, a Pakistan-based conspiratorial site, published an article titled, “A Missing Leak: All Roads Lead to Tel Aviv,” by Ghayur Ayub. Ayub alleged that Israel is holding back a “missing leak” that would have proven Israel’s culpability in the affair. He wrote, “Here comes the million dollar question. Is there a ‘missing leak’ exposing Israel’s heinous motives despite the leaked documents stating that ‘there is no Israel lobby involvement to involuntarily force US in a war to serve Jewish interests’…?”[Original emphasis retained.

• December 13, 2010: In another article on Gordon Duff’s Web site, “Turning Our Enemy’s Inherent Decency into the Vehicle of Their Own Demise….Mossad,” he claimed that WikiLeaks was working with the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad to create a false war against Iran. He wrote, “Wikileaks has issued a virtual declaration of war against Iran, part of the Mossad’s ‘war by deception’ of which Wikileaks is a proven component.  Blog after blog followed suit, spreading the same ‘poison,’ Wikileaks again ‘leaks’ false information citing Iran for having a nuclear weapons program long proven not to exist.”

• December 13, 2010: In an article titled, “WikiLeaks ‘Struck a Deal’ to Keep Away Anything Damaging to Israel,” published on Al Manar, the Web site affiliated with the terrorist group Hezbollah, the author alleged: “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…The answer appears to be a secret deal struck between the WikiLeaks ‘heart and soul’, as Assange humbly described himself once, with Israeli officials, which ensured that all such documents were ‘removed’ before the rest were made public.”

• December 12, 2010: Islam Times, an online publication whose stated purpose is to produce media “that is not tainted by the Zionist control over the western media structure,” published an article titled, “Is Israel behind WikiLeaks to Crush US Credibility for Potential Talks with Iran?“ The author, Mnar Muhawesh, alleged that the leak of these documents was of obvious benefit to Israel and the “Israeli lobby,” because it refocused the world’s attention on Iran. Muhawesh cited another article by conspiracy theorist Jeff Gates who suggested that a “forensic analysis” would ultimately find Israel responsible for the WikiLeaks scandal, since Israel had motive to leak the cables. While Muhawesh never overtly states that Israel is responsible, she repeatedly insinuates as much.

• December 11, 2010: Zuhair Belqurshi (aka Zuhair Najjaah) wrote an article titled, “Wikileaks: in the Service of the Zionists’ Goals,” published in both the Arab Times (of Conroe, Texas) and the Arab Voice (of Paterson, New Jersey). Belqurshi alleged, “I will not discuss the conspiracy theory that has been confirmed in the leaked information, but I will pay close attention to the selectiveness of the published leaks, which serve the interests of the Zionists and the neoconservatives in America, the Zionist Republican Party, to Judaize occupied Palestine and thus Judaizing Jerusalem.”

• December 10, 2010: Zuhair Belqurshi (aka Zuhair Najjaah) wrote another article titled, “Wikileaks: Who’s Lying about It…Who’s Laughing at It…” published in the Arab Times (of Conroe, Texas) in which he questioned why none of the “known” crimes of Israel are mentioned in the Wikileaks’ cables. He wrote, “And what of Israel’s relationship with this report, which did not mention the genocide practiced by them, using all international banned weapons, contrary to the Geneva Conventions, nor the dirty war it waged on Lebanon, not even the disclosure of the assassinations carried out by the Mossad from Hariri…to Mabhouh assassinated in the UAE.”

• December 9, 2010: Ramzy Baroud, editor-in-chief of The Palestine Chronicle, published an article in his online publication questioning why Israel had been “spared much of the embarrassment” of the Wikileaks cables. He alleged that this is “particularly suspicious,” in light of the numerous and rather consistent leaks from many different parties who expressed the desire to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. Alluding to Israel, Baroud wrote, “It seems as if someone, or some entity, wants to enliven the conflict with Iran, and spread it throughout the Middle East.”

• December 8, 2010: In an article on Gordon Duff’s Web site titled, “Busted! Wiki Leaks Working for Israel,” he claimed, “Reports have come in today, tying Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, directly to Israeli intelligence and “Israel friendly” media outlets. We are told Assange, while at a Geneva meeting, agreed to allow Israel to select or censor all Wikileak output.”  Duff alleged that “Assange ‘the martyr’ now appears to be Assange ‘the Israeli spy.’” Duff also claimed that Assange has ties to Rupert Murdoch and the Fox Network and Newt Gingrich and described all three as “avid Zionists.”

• December 7, 2010: An anonymous individual named “LikiWeaks” published an article on Indybay.org titled, “WikiLeaks ‘Struck a Deal with Israel’ Over Diplomatic Cables Leaks” in which the author alleged that Israeli officials and WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange made a deal ensuring that documents that were embarrassing to the Israeli government were removed prior to the leak. The article cited the report from Al Haqiqa, a publication affiliated with a Syrian far-Left opposition group, claiming that Israel paid Assange not to release certain documents.

• December 6, 2010: The online Arabic-language publication Al Haqiqa, also known as “Syria Truth,” affiliated with a Syrian far-Left opposition group, published an article that claimed that WikiLeaks made an agreement with Israel to avoid publication of documents that “may harm Israeli security or diplomatic interests.” According to the article, a former WikiLeaks official alleged that Julien Assange, Wikileaks’ founder, met with representatives of an Israeli secret intelligence agency in Switzerland to carve out the deal. Al Haqiqa identifies the author of the article as Leah Abramowiz, referred to as an Israeli-born journalist and the daughter of Holocaust survivors.

• November 30, 2010: Conspiracy theorist and anti-Semite Jeff Gates published an article in The Palestine Chronicle, titled, “Wikileaks: The Tel Aviv Connection.” Gates alleged that Israel orchestrated the Wikileaks scandals in order to delegitimize the United States and remove itself from scrutiny. He writes, “Tel Aviv knows that the phony intelligence on Iraq leads to those skilled at waging war ‘by way of deception’—the motto of the Israeli Mossad. Wikileaks are noteworthy for what’s missing: the absence of any material damaging to Israeli goals.” The same article was also published by Veterans Today on December 2 under the title, “Wikileaks and Espionage – Israeli Style.”

• November 27, 2010: In an article on Gordon Duff’s Web site, “Wikileaks, a Touch of Assange and the Stench of AIPAC,” he alleged that Israel was using WikiLeaks to destabilize the United States. He wrote, “Wikileaks is an intelligence operation to weaken and undermine the American government, orchestrated from Tel Aviv, using dozens of operatives, dual citizens, some at the highest authority levels, spies for Israel. Through leaking carefully selected intelligence along with proven falsified documents, all fed to a controlled press, fully complicit, Wikileaks is, in fact, an act of war against the United States.” Duff also alleged that AIPAC, a Jewish lobbying group, is behind Wikileaks and its actions.

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.

Given what is appearing in the Scandinavian area with the involvement of Shamir and Wahlstrom I wouldn’t actually expect that to happen either. In any case, this latter statement is just my personal judgement.

I once received a test mail from a nizar.nayouf@syriatruth.net, and then a followup regarding OpenLeaks questions. A contact request to him after hearing of the allegations was not replied to.

In the last week or so I have been contacted by Israeli TV about this, as well as French Le Point today. Those are the only media outfits so far that seem to have taken interest. Other than that it seems to be mainly spreading via weird Russian and religious forums, at least from as much as I am aware of.

As I read somewhere that this alleged reporter I allegedly talked to works for Hareetz, I have asked the folks from Israeli TV if they could help find out who that is, and how to contact her. They replied that there doesn’t seem to be anyone by that name. So obviously, which was my gut feeling also, that person does not exist. Why that rumour is circulated, I dont know. I have my feelings about that and think we should give it some more time to uncover itself.

__________

Sample of many reports of the allegation:

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/308/209/WikiLeaks_Struck_a_Deal_to_Keep_Away_Anything_Damaging_to_Israel.html

AFP reports:

WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange said in an interview published Sunday he had signed deals for his autobiography worth more than one million pounds (1.2 million euros, 1.5 million dollars).

Assange told Britain’s Sunday Times newspaper that the money would help him defend himself against allegations of sexual assault made by two women in Sweden.

“I don’t want to write this book, but I have to,” he said. “I have already spent 200,000 pounds for legal costs and I need to defend myself and to keep WikiLeaks afloat.”

The Australian said he would receive 800,000 dollars (600,000 euros) from Alfred A. Knopf, his American publisher, and a British deal with Canongate is worth 325,000 pounds (380,000 euros, 500,000 dollars).

Money from other markets and serialisation is expected to raise the total to 1.1 million pounds, he said.”

Read the rest here.