Michael C. Moynihan | December 14, 2010

Last week, I wrote that the widely-linked article positing that the
CIA was behind a Swedish woman’s accusation of rape against Julian
Assange was authored by a Russian-born, Swedish-domiciled, multi-
aliased anti-Semite and Holocaust denier currently writing under the
name “Israel Shamir,” a.k.a. Adam Ermash or Jöran Jermas. The broader
point had little to do with the efficacy or morality of WikiLeaks—
there are plenty of debates available on the narrower issue of
government transparency; this isn’t intended to be one of them—but was
concerned with how ideology and confirmation bias (WikiLeaks is a good
thing, therefore Assange must be defended, and the CIA has done bad
stuff in the past so—cui bono?—Assange’s accuser must be a Langley
asset) can lead mainstream media figures into the fever swamps of
Internet conspiracy theory.

It is worrying enough when journalists, either by accident or design,
consort with vulgar figures like Shamir. But it has now been revealed
that Israel Shamir, when he is not accusing Assange’s accusers of
setting CIA honey traps, works with WikiLeaks in an official capacity.

According to reports in the Swedish and Russian media, the broad
strokes of which have been confirmed by a WikiLeaks spokesman, Shamir
serves as the group’s content aggregator in Russia, the man who
“selects and distributes” the cables to Russian news organizations,
according to an investigation by Swedish public radio. In the
newspaper Expressen, Magnus Ljunggren, an emeritus professor of
Russian literature at Gothenburg University, outlined Shamir’s close
ties to WikiLeaks and his position “spreading the documents in
Russia.” (The article is illustrated with a picture of Assange and
Shamir in an unidentified office.)

During an appearance on Echo Moskvy radio, Yulia Latynina, a reporter
at the independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta, wondered “What does it
mean that Assange is allowing himself to be represented by an
extremist?” Latynina also found that the Kremlin-friendly paper
working with Shamir to promote the WikiLeaks material had already
published “outright lies” Shamir claimed were supported by leaks.
According to Latynina, Shamir faked a cable related to Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech to the United Nations, which
supposedly showed collusion amongst those who walked out of the talk
in protest. That he would invent such a cable is perhaps unsurprising,
considering Shamir has previously written an encomium to the “brave
and charismatic leader” of Iran.

So let us quickly recap the foulness of Shamir’s political views. As I
noted last week, he has called the Auschwitz concentration camp “an
internment facility, attended by the Red Cross (as opposed to the US
internment centre in Guantanamo),” not a place of extermination. He
told a Swedish journalist (and fellow Holocaust denier) that “it’s
every Muslim and Christian’s duty to deny the Holocaust.” The Jews, he
says, are a “virus in human form” and the Protocols of the Elders of
Zion is real.

But wait, there’s more!

The Swedish media has identified Shamir’s son, a disgraced journalist
named Johannes Wahlström, himself accused of anti-Semitism and
falsifying quotes, as a WikiLeaks spokesman in Sweden. Indeed,
Wahlström has authored stories based on the WikiLeaks material for the
newspaper Aftonbladet and is credited as a producer on a recent
Swedish public television documentary about the group.

But while being the son of a famous Holocaust denier is perhaps only
suggestive—Wahlström is surely not responsible for his father’s many
sins—his celebrations of his father’s work in print and his
contributions to Shamir’s website suggest ideological affinity.*
Indeed, in 2005 Wahlström wrote a story for the leftist magazine
Ordfront arguing that Swedish media, not known for being friendly to
the Jewish state, was in fact being manipulated by Jewish interests on
behalf of the Israeli government.

Three of the journalists interviewed for the story—Cecilia Uddén,
Lotta Schüllerqvist, and Peter Löfgren—claimed that Wahlström
falsified quotes, leading the magazine to withdraw the story and issue
an apology. Heléne Lööw, a historian of fascism and European neo-
Nazism, commented that the Wahlström story contained all the “elements
that one would find in a classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.”

A member of Ordfront’s editorial board, writing in the newspaper
Dagens Nyheter, lamented that the piece was ever published, citing
Wahlström’s “close working relationship with Israel Shamir,” without
pointing out just how close the two were.

Wahlström and Shamir, father and son, are the WikiLeaks
representatives for two rather large geographic areas. According to
Swedish Radio’s investigation, Wahlström is the gatekeeper of the
cables in Scandinavia, and “has the power to decide” which newspapers
are provided access and what leaks they are allowed to see. (At the
time of filing, Wahlström had yet to respond to an email request for
comment.)

In Russia, the magazine Russian Reporter says that it has “privileged
access” to the material through Shamir, who told a Moscow newspaper
that he was “accredited” to work on behalf of WikiLeaks in Russia. But
Shamir has a rather large credibility problem, so Swedish Radio put
the question directly to WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson.

Swedish Radio: Israel Shamir…Are you aware of him? Do you know him?

Kristinn Hrafnsson, Wikileaks spokesman: Yes. Yes, he is associated
with us.

SR: So what is his role?

Hrafnsson: Well, I mean, we have a lot of journalists that are working
with us all around the world. And they have different roles in working
on this project. I won’t go into specifics into what each and
everybody’s role is.

SR: Are you aware of how controversial Israel Shamir is in an
international context?

Hrafnsson: There are a lot of controversial people around the world
that are associated with us. I don’t really see the point of the
question.

SR: Are you aware of the allegations that he is an anti-Semite?

Hrafnsson: I have heard those allegations…yes, yes. [Pause] What is
the question really there?

SR: The question is, do you that that would [sic] be a problem?

Hrafnsson: No, I’m not going to comment on that.

Strip away the caginess and the obfuscation—remember, no one is
allowed secrets but WikiLeaks—and Hrafnsson, who took over spokesman
duties when Assange was jailed last week, confirms that WikiLeaks
chose Shamir to work with their Russian media partners. After its
investigation, the Swedish Radio program Medierna concluded flatly
that "Israel Shamir represents WikiLeaks in Russia."

The forthcoming splinter group, OpenLeaks, led by WikiLeaks veterans
tired of Assange's dictatorial style and obsession with being the
organization's public face, claims to not be motivated by a particular
set of political beliefs and promises to be transparent about its own
operations and finances, something which WikiLeaks has been
consistently—and credibly—attacked over. For those who think that
leaking is, generally speaking, a positive thing, they should welcome
an organization divorced from the ridiculous and amateur figure of
Assange.

It's necessary for an organization like WikiLeaks, which claims to be
creating new types of journalism (we do "scientific journalism,"
Assange declared triumphantly), to adhere to the basic principles of
journalism. When asked about Shamir, Hrafnsson ducks and weaves,
pretending that he is, like Assange, just a “controversial” figure,
not an anti-Semite and semi-literate Holocaust denier with ties to
both the extreme right and left and a well-documented penchant for
lying.

So let’s treat the WikiLeaks organization like the journalists they
insist they are, and ask the question put forward by Novaya Gazeta
reporter Yulia Latynina: Out of all the competent journalists who are
sympathetic to the WikiLeaks mission, why have Wahlström and Shamir—
one a disgraced journalist, the other an extreme racist—been trusted
with the largest intelligence leak in history?

* - Soon after this piece was published, Wahlström told Swedish public
radio that his "father is what I would call the Swedish equivalent to
Salman Rushdie," noting that he is a "very polemical" person, which
must contain both the most profane comparison and biggest
understatement of the year.

Michael C. Moynihan is a senior editor of Reason magazine.

[Complete article with all reference links]
http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/1...ange-employees