Tuesday, March 1, 2011 - 9:47 PM
As everyone knows, celebrity anti-Semitic rants come in threes. So it may come as no surprise that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is being accused of joining the ranks of Galliano and Sheen.
Ian Hislop, editor of the British magazine Private Eye, has published his recollection of a phone conversation with Assange, following his publication of a piece on WikiLeaks associate and Holocaust denier Israel Shamir:
On the afternoon of Wednesday 16 February I had a phone call from Julian Assange, He tole me that teh piece I had publishedin that week's issue ("Man in the Eye: Israel Shamir", 1282) was "crap". I asked him in what way it was crap but he could not tell me because, he said, "I haven't read it".
This was not a promising start. When I summarised the piece for his benefit -- it was about a Wikileaks associate in Russia with a record of anti-semitism -- he said that I and Private Eye should be ashamed of ourselves for joining in the international conspiracy to smear Wikileaks. The piece was an obvious attempt to deprive him and his organisation of Jewish support and donations, he said angrily, and he knew perfectly well who had written it. Hen then named a Fleet Street hack who had nothing to do with it. Wikileaks' omniscience is clearly not yet complete.
Unabashed by this error, he went on to say that we were part of a conspiracy led by the Guardian which included journalist David Leigh, editor Alan Rusbridger and John Kampfner from Index on Censorhip -- all of whom "are Jewish".
I pointed out that Rusbridger is not actually Jewish, but Assange insisted that he was "sort of Jewish" because he was related to David Leigh (they are brothers-in-law). When I doubted whether his Jewish conspiracy would stand up against the fact, Assange suddenly conceded the point. "Forget the Jewish thing."
According to the piece, Assange went on to comments bordering on sexism and homophobia, saying that Guardian journalists had "failed my masculinity test." (Check out Mother Jones' hilarious "Assange Masculinity Test".)
WikiLeaks has responded to the piece with a very extended tweet, noting that the organization has "some Jewish staff and enjoys wide spread Jewish support" and has itself been accused of working on behalf of the Mossad and George Soros. Here's Assange's reply to Hislop:
"Hislop has distorted, invented or misremembered almost every significant claim and phrase. In particular, 'Jewish conspiracy' is completely false, in spirit and in word. It is serious and upsetting. Rather than correct a smear, Mr. Hislop has attempted, perhaps not surprisingly, to justify one smear with another in the same direction. That he has a reputation for this, and is famed to have received more libel suits in the UK than any other journalist as a result, does not mean that it is right. WikiLeaks promotes the ideal of "scientific journalism" - where the underlaying evidence of all articles is available to the reader precisely inorder to avoid these type of distortions. We treasure our strong Jewish support and staff, just as we treasure the support from pan-Arab democracy activists and others who share our hope for a just world."
Of course, this is a case of one publicity-hungry media entity's word against another. Hislop doesn't help his credibility much by admitting that his article consists of "as much as I could remember of our conversation." If you're going to put someone's remarks between quotation marks to paint them as an anti-Semite, you'd better have a recording or at least have been taking copious notes. On the other hand, only one of these guys has tried to trademark his own name this week, so you can decide for yourself which one is more credible.
BEN STANSALL/AFP/Getty Images
... for the sake of argument, let's assume it's 'true' = Assange *is* in fact anti-semitic.
Is there anything about Wikileaks that has any particular anti-semitic intent or effect, then? Please connect the dots here.
Meaning - say the guy is a complete asshole (I sort of get the impression he is); does it really have any significant material bearing on the role of Wikileaks in a range of specific diplomatic issues? If you think the answer is yes, explain how and why.
I am speaking from the point of view of someone who found the entire 'deconstructionist', PC approach to academia in the 1990s to be entirely useless, uninteresting and uninformative; that questions about whether Faulkner was a racist (he used the N word a lot!), Abe Lincoln being possibly gay, and the frequency/severity of Miles Davis' abuse of women, ultimately said next to nothing about any of their actual work/role in history. It just seemed an exercise in scorecarding people based solely on our contemporary understanding of 'correct' racial/gender/class attitudes.
Im not saying people should overlook these aspects of people; just that there should be at least some acknowledgement of whether the details have much to do with the larger issue of the person's actual life's work. Celine, for instance, I think cannot be fully appreciated without knowing at least a bit about the man's biography and sordid legacy as an anti-semite and nazi collaborator; however, few, no matter how disgusted by the man, seem to question whether "Jouney to the End of the Night" is a very good novel.
My point is basically = Assange is a Jerk. OK. So what? Is it just FP's version of tabloid celebrity journalism then?
[That said, I will never tire of articles mocking Qaddafi... please, feel free to do an entire issue devoted to his Jheri-curl; for all I know you already have... that's why I love you guys]
I'd point out that Ian Hislop and Private Eye don't really take themselves very seriously. The publication sits somewhere between The Onion and Slate if that makes sense?
Hislop is perfectly well in his right to put as many disclaimers and caveats on his "conversation" with Assange because at the end of the day this isn't an expose on Assange it was just Hislop and Private Eye blatantly taking the piss out of him.
Well said Arvay. They have thrown everything at the man except the kitchen sink. So not only is he a rapist, spy, and a thief, but he hates jews too!
The propaganda and psy-ops isn't even good anymore, a 12 year old would see thru this garbage.
It will be interesting to see what the Swedish prosecution have to say. They might be withholding a few pieces in their case from the public, I'm waiting for a unexpected outcome in the following weeks. Speaking as a Swede..
Disgraceful Nonsense by Joshua Keating
First of all, why did you entitle this piece, "Wikileaks vs Private Eye on Anti-Semitic Rant"? What "anti-semitic rant" have you documented? None that I can see.
In the block quote you cite, Hilsop "remembers" two Assange references to Jews.
In the first, Assange allegedly claims that Hilsop's piece on Israel Shamir, a Jewish critic of Israel and Israeli national, was designed to alienate Jewish support of Wikileaks. Whether that assertion--if Hilsop's recounting is true--is correct or not can be debated, but how can it be interpreted as anti-semitic? That's just absurd.
Hilsop's second reference is even more insidious. Here is the passage:
Unabashed by this error, he went on to say that we were part of a conspiracy led by the Guardian which included journalist David Leigh, editor Alan Rusbridger and John Kampfner from Index on Censorhip -- all of whom "are Jewish".
Notice how the quotation marks are arranged. Only the phrase "are Jewish" falls inside the marks. The passage dishonestly suggests that Assange asserted a conspiracy of Jews at the Guardian. Let's the ACTUAL full quotation of what Assange (supposedly) said. What did he really say? Tactical use of quotation marks is the last refuge of a liar.
How, Joshua Keating, can you take such nonsense and then manufacture a headline that in no way reflects the substance of the actual citations, which, themselves, are open to question?
Disgraceful.
Let's Look at This Headline Again
Keating creates a headline designed to to one thing and one thing only: Link "Wikileaks" and "anti-semitic rant" in a very visible way. Private Eye is virtually unknown outside the UK and so, the eye runs quickly over it, and what the careless reader, who perhaps doesn't even read the article, takes away is "Wikileaks--anti-semitic rant."
Keating, I'm sure understands this. In fact, to protect himself, he issues various disclaimers in the final paragraph of the piece:
"Of course, this is a case of one publicity-hungry media entity's word against another. Hislop doesn't help his credibility much by admitting that his article consists of "as much as I could remember of our conversation". If you're going to put someone's remarks between quotation marks to paint them as an anti-Semite, you'd better have a recording or at least have been taking copious notes. On the other hand, only one of these guys has tried to trademark his own name this week, so you can decide for yourself which one is more credible."
So, Keating throws out some unsupported allegations with an inflammatory and disingenuous headline and lets you "decide for yourself."
This is journalism?
Anti this, anti that, anti you.
When Mr. Assange serves out his term for sexual crime(s) in Sweden, we won't care if he's pro or anti Talmud.
Ultimately, he's a self-inflated 'perv' with dwindling popularity in all media and that is a stake to the heart that even a Golem couldn't save.
On the high note, maybe Assange can avoid physical retribution by those angry Arabs whose lives have been upended by Wikileaks' injudicious discussion of status quo Arab politics if he's promoted as an anti-Semite. There's got to be a silver dreidel in there for you somewhere 'Juli.'
Let him translate Das Kapital into Hebrew while in prison and perhaps he'll be the better read paroled sex offender someday hence.
A "semite" is "a member of *any* of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs."
So who cares if he is against any of those ancient and modern peoples?
What does that have to do with anything?
I think that probably lots and lots of people are anti-semitic simply because they hate Arabs. They just believe otherwise because those semitic people are typically not Jewish.
WikiLeaks, Assange and "recollections"
"Published his recollection" really isn't very substantial in terms of evidence. A tape recording would be more convincing.
Assange is a guy whose name has an immediate polarizing effect and he has strong admirers and powerful enemies. For some people, he's a hero, and for others, an absolute villain. Almost everything alleged about him gets spun in one way or another. If someone said he squashed hamsters for amusement there would be those who expected nothing less, and others would be quick to believe that he's rescued any number of kittens stuck in trees.
In any event, nothing he's alleged to have done: "rape," sexual molestation, anti-Semitism, or squashing hamsters and rescuing kittens has anything to do with the WikiLeaks themselves. These stories are ad hominem diversions to direct attention away from the substance of the issue to ephemeral and unimportant irrelevancies. Be suspicious of anyone who practices this propaganda device.
WikiLeaked is FP’s blog dedicated to sorting through and making sense of the more than 250,000 State Department cables acquired by WikiLeaks.
Read More
(10)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE