ASSANGE CLAIMS MEDIA BIAS

Julian Assange is now claiming that there is bias in the media that is publishing his leaks. He claims that the media have only published 1-2% of the files related to Israel, and that this is due to "sensitivities". As I understand it, Assange claimed this in an interview with Ahmed Mansour of al Jazeera on 23/12/2010, and the interview is available to watch at the end of this blog. However, the interviewer's questions are not asked in English and Assange's answers, though in English, are dubbed so that Assange's answers in English cannot be understood.

But in to published excerpts from the interview Assange claims that Israel did indeed use British passports for an assassination in Dubai. Assange also denies meeting with Israeli officials for payment.

Excerpts from the interview are now given from
http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/qatar/136564-wikileaks-to-release-israel-documents-in-six-months.html

An Arabic newspaper called Al Haqeeq conducted an interview with one of your former colleagues who said you have a deal with Israel not to publish these secret files.

This is not true. We have been accused as agents of Iran and CIA by this former colleague who was working for Germany in the past and was dismissed from his job after we published American military documents related to Germany.

We were the biggest institution receiving official funding from the US but after we released a video tape about killing people in cold blood in Iraq in 2007, the funding stopped and we had to depend on individuals for finance.

When will you publish the files related to Israel on your website?

We will publish 3700 files and the source is the American embassy in Tel Aviv. Prime Minister Netanyahu was traveling to Paris to talk to the US ambassador there. You will see more information about that in six months.

Do these Israeli files speak about the July 2006 Israeli war against Lebanon?

Yes there is some information about that and these files were classified as top secret.

Is there any relation with these files and the assassination of Hamas military leader Al Mabhoh in Dubai?

Yes there are some indication to this and may be some special reports published by newspapers. Mossad agents used Australian, British and European passports to travel to Dubai and there are diplomatic files about that.

Are there any security service companies providing information to international airports and monitoring passengers even in the Arab countries?

There are some files about American and Israeli security companies that tried to intervene in certain areas. For example, in Brazil, the American embassy put some Israeli security companies during the Olympic Games.

Are there any files about agencies providing intelligence information about famous personalities in the Arab world?

I am not sure about that but there are files about Hezbollah in Lebanon. In one of these files Lebanon government complained against cables passing near the French embassy. American are always very much worried about the telecommunications network.

Are there any files about Israeli agents in the Arab world including some Arab royal palaces.

Most of the files related to Mossad are classified as top secret but there may be some files related to the role of Mossad in killing Lebanese military leader in Damascus by sniper bullets.

There 2,500 files related to Mossad and I have read only 1000. So I don’t know about everythiong, I need more journalists including Arabs to read and analyse and put everything in the context for the benefit of the readers.

We have 17,000 files where the word Qatar has been mentioned, the source of 3,000 of these files is the American embassy in Doha.

What is the most interesting file about Qatar that was not published?

There is a lot to be read. The name of Waddah Khanfar has been mentioned in 504 files. Some of these files have been published by The Guardian.

How do the Americans view Al Jazeera in these files?

There were some meetings between people from Al Jazeera and the US embassy where the latter suggested coverage of certain things in a certain way.

There are files about a TV channel in Dubai which the Americans said can be used against Al Jazeera and when this channel tried to move in the American direction, people stopped watching it.

The Americans despite having a base here were angry about the presence of an Iranian bank in Qatar but Qatar said it would not close it but would not open new banks. Despite that this bank established many more branches in Doha. Qatar is trying to create a balance between the Arab world and the America.

The Americans appreciate having their largest base in Doha but Qatar does not agree with all American requirements and Al Jazeera is a good example for that.

But I thought Wikileaks was created to leak secret information, not for the Ziomedia to edit and publish what it wanted us to read?

Perhaps, or perhaps not, this explains why one of the latest cables is one in which Miss 9/11, Condoleeza Rice claims that Israel destroyed a suspected nuclear reactor in Syria in 2007.

And perhaps, or perhaps not, this explains why some cables have been published with such unwarranted alarmism, and I refer to the case of the alleged purchase of missiles by Iran from North Korea, or that the undead Osama bin Laden is alive and well and living it up in various nations hostile to Israel, such as Iran or Pakistan.

I have to admit that some of the leaks from Wikileaks have been of public interest. There is a useful article on this by Glen Greenwald entitled What WikiLeaks revealed to the world in 2010, but I also have to admit, and have been doing so, that I have been suspicious of a pro-Israel bias in the 'reporting' of the leaks.

But should this come as a surprise when Assange believes
1. 9/11 was run by a man requiring kidney dialysis hiding in a cave,
2. Nutternyahu is a good man,
3. when Nutternyahu said on 9/11 that 9/11 would be good for Israel and confirmed that it had been so a few years later

Perhaps, or perhaps not, this is what happens when you hand editorial control over to the Mockingbird Media.

Perhaps, or perhaps not, this explains why I cannot find a report in The Guardian about these latest comments by Assange.

And perhaps, or perhaps not, Assange is bona fide. Very naive for allowing the warmongering New York Times, the geoncidal Guardian and the Gladio Spiegel, all bona fide members of the Mockingbird Media, to edit the leaks for him, but bona fide nonetheless.

I guess the question could boil down to do you trust John Pilger?