Key’s denial of the allegations made in the Fairfax story is pretty comprehensive:
Mr Key also moved to correct points raised in the media concerning the number of passports that were found with a man who died in the earthquake. Mr Key said his advice was that the man was found with only one passport, of European origin. Media reports that he was found with five are incorrect. The other three people who had been in the van took their own passports with them when they left the country, and handed over the deceased man’s Israeli passport to Israeli representatives before departing.
“None of the passports were New Zealand passports,” Mr Key said.
Mr Key said he has been assured by Police that there has been no unauthorised access to the Police computer system.
Mr Key also confirmed he spoke once with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the days following the earthquake. Many other leaders also called to express their condolences and to offer assistance to New Zealand. It took several attempts by Israeli representatives to set up the phone call, as is commonly the case with such calls in the circumstances of a major natural disaster.
“The investigations that have been undertaken have been thorough and have found no evidence of a link between the group and Israeli intelligence,” Mr Key said.
The opposition can call upon Key to stand by this statement in the house. Given the choice between believing the PM or an unnamed SIS source, I’m gonna believe Key every time.
So what happened? Well, maybe there were spies but nobody proved anything. But it’s also possible that an SIS officer – suspicious about Israelis in general after the previous incident of passport theft – pieced several rumours and incidents together and raised the alarm, various investigations were undertaken, nothing came to light and the investigation was closed, to the chagrin of the SIS officer who felt that Israeli intelligence had gotten away with something, so he took his theories to the media. However it happened, SIS appears to have created a diplomatic incident.
And the PM inflamed it – when first asked to comment he refused to on the grounds of ‘national security’, which was a de-facto admission that the story had substance. Presumably – as with recent SAS incidents in Afghanistan – he didn’t actually know anything about it, which is weird since it was a lead story in New Zealand for several hours before the media questioned Key in Los Angeles.
Interesting choice of tags, Danyl.
Comment by Stephen Judd — July 20, 2011 @ 6:51 pm
Indeed, not all Isrealis are Jews, and not all Jews are Isreali.
Comment by Mark Harris — July 20, 2011 @ 6:57 pm
That ‘Jews’ tag comes in handy when I’m blogging my suspicions about who/what digs up my vegetable garden at night.
Comment by danylmc — July 20, 2011 @ 7:01 pm
That will be the Nazi cats looking for your Jewish carrots.
Comment by will — July 20, 2011 @ 7:02 pm
#FAIL you trolled your own post!
Comment by Mark Harris — July 20, 2011 @ 7:03 pm
But three NZ premiers have been Jews.
Connect the global media-political zionist thought control conspiracy dots, people!
Comment by Gregor W — July 20, 2011 @ 7:07 pm
http://membres.multimania.fr/fredrichung/forum/nazi%20cat.jpg
Comment by will — July 20, 2011 @ 7:08 pm
I’d like to say “I told you so”. But that would be immature and graceless. So I won’t say “I told you so”, even though I did. Tell you, that is. That it was so.
Also, haven’t heard much about your garden recently, danyl. What happened to those cute photos of your carrots and potatoes that you used to post?
Comment by Andrew Geddis — July 20, 2011 @ 7:11 pm
Fact is stranger than piss taking, imagine that Andrew. http://www.curdnerds.com/files/jcarrot.png
Comment by will — July 20, 2011 @ 7:13 pm
Yeah, but the SIS have a history of incompetent investigations. Recall Zaoui.
I suspect Key has been given summary from a similarly inadequate investigation and the leak to Southland Times is by someone in the SIS pissed off with the inadequacy of the investigation who actually wants the SIS to do its job properly and be more accountable.
Comment by toad — July 20, 2011 @ 7:26 pm
Toad:
If I was going to do that, I’m sure The Southland Times is a perfectly lovely organ but it’s not exactly the Washington Post. Then again, The Washington Post isn’t exactly what it used to be…
Comment by Craig Ranapia — July 20, 2011 @ 7:31 pm
I do think Key’s sin was being overly friendly to those journalists – none of who had the sense not to take these bizarre allegations completely at face value. What is it about Jew + Conspiracy that transports so many people to Gullibility Land.
He only inflamed it for people who had already jumped to conclusions – conclusions that were never anywhere near justified by any of the information put foward which was all just rumour.
Comment by NeilM — July 20, 2011 @ 7:33 pm
I’ve got it! Mossad themselves planted the story themselves in order to put people off the scent of what they’re really up to… digging up Danyl’s garden. That’s just how devious they are.
Comment by Stephen — July 20, 2011 @ 7:38 pm
where were the journalists asking about what Tulett was up to, who his sources were, what his motives might be? Just standing back and asking how credible any of this was.
Apart from Russel Brown, but he’s just a blogger as we all know.
Comment by NeilM — July 20, 2011 @ 7:42 pm
Actually, Neil, to be fair, if nationality in question was France I think we would have seen almost as much pants-wetting wishing it to be true.
Which I guess could still come to pass IF Tulett et al can muster some convincing evidence.
Comment by Stephen — July 20, 2011 @ 8:00 pm
Indeed, not all Isrealis are Jews, and not all Jews are Isreali.
That’s considerably understating it. In fact, 58% of Jews live outside Israel. And in the biggest diaspora population, the US, the majority are well to the left in their attitudes to current Israeli policy (as of course are a substantial minority in Israel). So this sort of careless conflation, playing to stereotypes, is rather annoying, whether intended as comedy or not.
Comment by Stephen — July 20, 2011 @ 8:05 pm
I’m not sure it is playing to stereotypes unless the rental van was from Thrifty…
Comment by David C — July 20, 2011 @ 8:16 pm
I was thinking of the conspiracy, the coy mentions in the press that Israeli newspapers are reporting that Key’s mother is Jewish, that kind of thing. But thanks for your extremely funny riff on racist humour, I find it personally hilarious.
Comment by Stephen — July 20, 2011 @ 8:23 pm
I do think Key’s sin was being overly friendly to those journalists
Eh? he hid behind ‘national security’. That’s not friendly, that’s ‘shut the fuck up for the good of the country’. And then he turned around and gave a more complete answer after he was briefed. His sin was using the national security as deflection to hide his ignorance. That’s pretty crappy IMV, in that it means journos should no longer trust him when he plays that card. because a card is what he has made it.
I’ve yet to see any reason to suspect that Tulett was lying, or ‘up to’ anything, or that he has some sort of ‘motive’. If you, or others, have such reason, perhaps you should share.
The way I see it at the moment it comes down to the number of passports, and either:
1) The SIS, or a disgruntled member thereof, (amoung others), lied to Tulett convincingly enough for him to run the story.
2) The Govt is lying about it to us.
3) The SIS lied about it to the government.
None of those are particularly appealing prospects, but just brushing it away by hinting that Tulett is just a hick fantasist doesn’t account for the fact that people were telling him about multiple passports. A story he is standing by. Which is not to say it’s true, but I believe people told him that. And that is what needs to be accounted for, no?
Comment by Pascal's bookie — July 20, 2011 @ 8:31 pm
For the record, I suspect ’1′ is most likely.
Comment by Pascal's bookie — July 20, 2011 @ 8:35 pm
Breathlessly twisted interpretation of the ‘facts’ helpfully influenced by that closet Tory Mora and his guests today on RadioPravda Pascal?
Comment by will — July 20, 2011 @ 8:42 pm
1) The SIS, or a disgruntled member thereof
nowhere has Tulett said out-right his source has any connection to the SIS whatsoever let alone being a member.
Tulett has been rather coy about a number of things but adament he’s right about what he’s been saying about a dead person. I’d say he needs to show just a little bit more professional ethics than Murdoch.
Comment by NeilM — July 20, 2011 @ 8:46 pm
Will, if you’d actually listened to it you’d realise that “Tory Mora” is on leave until Friday.
L
Comment by Lew — July 20, 2011 @ 8:48 pm
I was taking the piss Lew, Pascal or Sanctuary (the interchangeable conspiracy nutters) have been mouthing off that Mora is a closet Tory along side his best bud Farrar.
Comment by will — July 20, 2011 @ 8:52 pm
Sorry, Will, can you repeat that — I missed everything after your equating Pascal’s Bookie (Rawlsian liberal) with Sanctuary (revolutionary socialist) due to uncontrollable paroxysms of hilarity.
L
Comment by Lew — July 20, 2011 @ 8:57 pm
Just for you Lew – they are both interchangeable angry little people, very similar to dizzy actually, who have conspiracy theory issues and an unhealthy focus on unsubstantiated media beat ups on Israelis backpackers. And they are commies.
Comment by will — July 20, 2011 @ 9:02 pm
Anyone fancy being paid to be a paranoid conspiracy theorist? http://www.seek.co.nz/JobSearch?DateRange=31&Keywords=GCSB&nation=3001&SearchFrom=quick
Comment by Philoff — July 20, 2011 @ 9:03 pm
Neil, Tulett says this about his sources:
Mr Tulett told Newstalk ZB the initial information given to him – including the fact that Ofer Mizrahi, who died in the quake when the van he was in was crushed by debris, was carrying extra passports – was checked with other sources, including an intelligence agency source.
I was assuming the intelligence agency was SIS. It could also be Police or military I guess, but that doesn’t change the fact that he claims to have an intelligence agency source. Are you suggesting he is lying about that? If you object to coyness, why not come pout say what it is you think Tulett is doing wrong?
He also said this:
The Southland Times claimed an unnamed SIS officer told the newspaper there were fears a group of Israelis had accessed the police national computer database, which holds records of convictions and other information collected by police.
The officer said the investigation failed to find any suspicious files indicating the computer system had been hacked in to but the file remained open.
So he has claimed an SIS source on related matters.
He is adamant that he has been told what he claims he has been told.
What exactly is your basis for questioning his ethics?
It looks to me like you think he is doing whatever it is you are accusing him of, (which is what exactly?) simply because he is contradicted by the Govt, and presumably the SIS.
I don’t know what to think about what happened. Not enough info. But I need a bit more info before I start thinking that a journo is lying about the existence of sources, or whatever it is that you are hinting that he is doing.
And will, what the fuck are you on about?
Comment by Pascal's bookie — July 20, 2011 @ 9:13 pm
Yet another theory – Fred Tulett has been off his tits on synthetic cannabis for a while now and believes that SIS agents are contacting him about vital national security issues.
Comment by gazzaj — July 20, 2011 @ 9:25 pm
Pascal’s bookie,
will specialises in one or two line sneers at people who have something to say. The sneer doesn’t need to have any basis in reality, it just makes him feel a bit better about his inadequacies.
Gosh, will – this actually works!
Comment by Grassed Up — July 20, 2011 @ 9:28 pm
I would like to be a communist, but only if I get to play Beria.
Comment by Sanctuary — July 20, 2011 @ 9:42 pm
The Jews are going to get you Sancy.
Comment by will — July 20, 2011 @ 9:45 pm
Will said: “And they are commies.”
commie just means someone you disagree with, doesn’t it?
Comment by kahikatea — July 20, 2011 @ 10:29 pm
no, it means a raving lefty who’s all het up about 27%
Comment by will — July 20, 2011 @ 10:31 pm
Tractor production is up 27%!
Comment by Sanctuary — July 20, 2011 @ 10:38 pm
that closet Tory Mora
“closet” is stretching it a bit…
will: angry little people
Try it without the “little”. That just makes you a jerk.
Comment by Progger — July 20, 2011 @ 10:41 pm
why not come pout say what it is you think Tulett is doing wrong?
no source. no evidence. zero credibility.
Comment by NeilM — July 20, 2011 @ 10:47 pm
If Tullett hasn’t done his job properly, I can’t imagine him having a job in a week. In the next few days we’ll find out.
At the moment there’s a hell of a lot of shooting the messenger, because he’s saying things people, including the PM, don’t like.
Comment by George D — July 20, 2011 @ 11:03 pm
but a significant proportion of the NZ media has chosen to run with bullshit. that’s scary and I think if it had been Muslims in the firing line then there would have been a bit more objection.
Comment by NeilM — July 20, 2011 @ 11:04 pm
no source. no evidence. zero credibility.
Because you say so? Let’s be quite clear. Are calling him a liar?
This is his reputation you are talking about. His job.
Unless you have some pretty solid evidence that he is inventing sources, then I *really* think you should get off the high horse Neil.
Comment by Pascal's bookie — July 20, 2011 @ 11:21 pm
Here’s what I see.
Tulett said there was an investigation: Key confirmed.
Tulett made no claims about the result: Key said the result was nothing wrong happened. Other people’s commentary, including the questions asked by reporters from elsewhere in the NZ media has leaped to conclusions about what must have happened and treated the conclusions as foregone.
Tulett said that NOTHING was found in relation to computer hacking; indeed no allegations were made, it appears to have been precautionary. That seems to have slipped off everyone’s radar and people like Paul Buchanan made huge play of it as though it had happened.
Tulett said that Mizrahi had five passports on him: Key denied. That is a crucial and potentially damning discrepancy either way; someone has lied outrageously no matter what the truth is. And if there were five passports, the questions of whether some were fakes or whether they were legit and who they were for is also important and unanswered. If they were legit, then what is supposed to have done wrong?
Based on what Tulett has written, we don’t actually know anything positive about wrong-doing by anyone, only about that there is an investigation whose findings and status are in dispute. Unless I’ve missed something today.
Tulett has made a lot of noise about things that may or may not be suspicious (and to his credit, he got comment from the Ambassador first). Tulett said he wasn’t able to contact any families in Israel, but hell, a Southlander with no Hebrew and no local contacts could find that quite difficult even if people wanted to talk to him so I’m not going to read anything into that.
We need more evidence to judge respective credibility of Key, Tulett and ultimately his sources, since obviously we don’t expect diplomats to tell the truth about anything.
Tulett has come up with enough to spark a huge fuss, but not with enough to show that a serious thing happened. Seems premature to me.
So yeah, I don’t trust Tulett who hasn’t come up with evidence, I don’t trust Key who is a Tory prime minister, I certainly don’t trust sources who claim to be SIS staff, and of course I don’t trust diplomats. I especially don’t trust breathless journos like Tracey Watkins and Guyon Espiner who have added precisely NO facts but have speculated at great length.
Comment by Stephen — July 20, 2011 @ 11:33 pm
Unless you have some pretty solid evidence …
I have no evidence, I’m asking for Tulett to provide some evidence. He’s the one making anti-semitic allegations about dead people.
Comment by NeilM — July 20, 2011 @ 11:34 pm
interesting dynamic. people can make serious allegations with no evidence and not get challenged. But ask for evidence and things heat up.
Comment by NeilM — July 20, 2011 @ 11:50 pm
“…Try it without the “little”. That just makes you a jerk…”
I resent being called little.
Anyway – right wingers like Will and Craig Ranapia betray their bleak Hobbesianism with the way they always equate passion with anger – a character flaw that also leads them to think their substition of cynicism for sophisication will make people like them more.
Comment by Sanctuary — July 20, 2011 @ 11:56 pm
This is bad for Phil Goff
Comment by Andrew R — July 20, 2011 @ 11:59 pm
On this story itself, it only got legs because Key was clearly unprepared and taken by surprise by the initial questioning he got over it.
Therefore he simply refused to comment until he could get someone who actually had read his briefing notes to tell him what the fuck was going on. Unfortunately, in the world of diplomacy, not commenting constitutes a comment in itself.
Remember, he was also surprised by the questions recently about the SAS in the Kabul hotel seige and he frequetly appears to be unaware of what is going on in his own government (who is the dude we are sending to Monaco again?).
Recently, Key’s oh-so goofy, intellectually lazy and lackadasical appraoch to is job has came back to bite him on the the arse.
Comment by Sanctuary — July 21, 2011 @ 12:06 am
Anyway – right wingers like Will and Craig Ranapia betray their bleak Hobbesianism with the way they always equate passion with anger
Tom: Not for the first time, could you please leave me out of your fantasy life? I respect passion a great deal; what I don’t respect are people who don’t know the difference between passion and petty, spiteful douchebaggery. Your habitual dishonesty isn’t endearing either.
Comment by Craig Ranapia — July 21, 2011 @ 12:25 am
> He’s the one making anti-semitic allegations about dead people…
Well, at least you didn’t refer to Hitler, Neil. Still, a lie down and a cup of tea will hopefully do wonders for you.
Comment by Ross — July 21, 2011 @ 1:05 am
I get it now, this is the DimPost whodunnit board game. Right, my turn – it was John Key in the bank vault of Jewish gold with the bullion trolley carrying the body of the backpacker to the SIS headquarters to upload their 8 seconds of conciousness into the global intelligence matrix because Key is a double agent working for Mossad BUT the murderer was really Tullet who while in a compromising position with R Brooks was hacking Phil Goffs voice mail and upon finding nothing of interest flew into a rage and stabbed a few backpackers killing one and then planted a body at the next earthquake that Ken Ring had predicted.
Comment by will — July 21, 2011 @ 7:34 am
@Neil
no source. no evidence. zero credibility.
For goodness sake, Neil. I have no doubt Tulett had a source. It ought to be obvious even to you, given that his story has brought to light what the Prime Minister now acknowledges was a multi-agency investigation, whose findings and status are, as Stephen notes, in dispute.
And we actually only know this because those nasty journalists wasted the poor Prime Minister’s Facebook time with their nasty questions about a newspaper report. Gawd, I’d hate to live in a country where the press ran according to your rules.
Comment by Russell Brown — July 21, 2011 @ 8:53 am
So Tulett’s just written his defence here:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5317568/Yes-but-I-still-back-sources-on-Israelis
I see he is rapidly walking back the passports thing. He is now reduced to “the Ambassador told me that the bag he was given had more than one passport in.”
We also have the obvious but telling statement “we are always suspicious of the Israelis.” Which could easily be “we started with a rumour and we’ve fit our observations to it.”
We have no new facts from Tulett, but other reporters have given us a whole lot of background here:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5317453/Israeli-man-had-nothing-to-do-with-nobody
As far as I can see, a rumour started, some SIS people have been confabulating random events into a story, and Tulett has run with it.
Where is the evidence of wrong doing? Nowhere. What is the result of the investigation? Nothing.
Comment by Stephen — July 21, 2011 @ 9:00 am
I see he is rapidly walking back the passports thing. He is now reduced to “the Ambassador told me that the bag he was given had more than one passport in.”
To be fair, it is a loose end that the Prime Minister’s second go at the story now contradicts the ambassador’s. And Tulett’s not citing the ambassador as his source for the original claim, just that he agreed with him.
Ad as I type, it seems that Radio NZ may have actually turned up something on this …
Comment by Russell Brown — July 21, 2011 @ 9:11 am
I quite like the PM is a Mossad double agent angle, I am pretty sure we could work that into a movie script. A demoralised government worker, mmade redundant by cut backs in the public sector stumbles over hears a sinister conversation whilst under his desk clearing out his stuff. Our unlikely hero (played by Jeff Goldblum) passes on this secret information to a feisty reporter (played by Gwyneth Paltrow, because I think she is sex on a stick) before being found mysteriously dead at the foot of the cliffs at Matauri Bay.
In an action packed thriller, Gwyneth, her guardian protector (a rogue SAS operative played by Willy Apiata) and a rag tag group of bloggers dedicated to deomcracy and the truth (led by David Farrar, playing himself wracked with Jewish angst) get to the bottom of an explosive scandal that will rock the NZ capital to it’s very core…
Comment by Sanctuary — July 21, 2011 @ 9:12 am
you *know* Key is a filthy Israeli double agent just by the way he is obsequiously cosying up to the Jewish media moguls in Hollywood.
Comment by will — July 21, 2011 @ 9:17 am
Maybe Ross was too subtle for you.
Israel Jews, and the related Jews Israel.
Comment by Greg — July 21, 2011 @ 9:37 am
I have no doubt Tulett had a source.
my question was what is that source? surely we have a right to know what his source is so we can judge for ourselves their credibility.
And I do expect jouranists to ask such basic questions. I don’t see that as “my rules”. If journalists are going to repeat allegations as fact, as they did in the interview with Key, then I would like to know their source.
Comment by NeilM — July 21, 2011 @ 9:39 am
And as Tulett cojtinues to go on about his “sources” he continues to change his story. Yesterday it was “at least” 5 passports now its “more than one”:
However, Mr Key’s latest version of the passports issue contradicts Israel’s ambassador to New Zealand, Shemi Tzur, who told me last week that when he was handed Mr Mizrahi’s effects in Christchurch the bag contained more than one passport.
I think we have a right to know who his souces are. Where is he getting this series of changin information?
Comment by NeilM — July 21, 2011 @ 9:46 am
RNZ have interviewed Gordon Thomas on Mossad being in Chch.. so I guess we’ll have another chapter of Mossad derring do added to “Gideons Spies, The Secret History Of The Mossad”.
JC
Comment by JC — July 21, 2011 @ 10:14 am
57.And as Tulett cojtinues to go on about his “sources” he continues to change his story. Yesterday it was “at least” 5 passports now its “more than one”:
He hasn’t changed his story neil. He is reporting what people have told him. An ‘;intelligence agency’ source told him at least 5. The ambassador told him ‘more than 1′. Worth noting that those statements are not in contradiction. If there were ‘two’, the ambassador could have said ‘two’, but he chose, when talking to a journalist to say ‘more than one’.
An example of someone changing their story would be someone who goes from ‘He has no sources’ to ‘I’m just asking who his sources are’
Comment by Pascal's bookie — July 21, 2011 @ 10:22 am
“you *know* Key is a filthy Israeli double agent …”
To be a double agent, you need to be an agent in the first place. So, unless Key is working for the SIS (as opposed to being their Minister), I’d say that Key is simply a filthy Israeli agent. Unless, of course, he’s pretending to be an Israeli agent, while really acting for the SIS. Then he’d be a filthy Kiwi double agent.
However, on any analysis, he’s filthy. Regarding that fact there can be no dispute by any person with a reasonable mind (so shut up, James (of any description)).
Comment by Andrew Geddis — July 21, 2011 @ 10:27 am
Neil you’re aware that the Prime Minister has stated that the intelligence services found the Israeli activity to be unusual and undertook an investigation? I agree that multiple journalists, “analysts”, bloggers etc have had great fun imagining possibilities but the investigation reported certainly happened.
Comment by garethw — July 21, 2011 @ 10:28 am
so Tulett gets to pick and choose between his sources. 5 passports. at least 5 passports. more than one passport. give that is one of the central planks of this conspiracy I think we are entitled to know just what his allegations are and who he’s getting his information from.
And I’m not changing my story. If he does not reveal his sources I’m quite entitled to claim he has none. Because what’s the difference – we can’t check credibility.
Comment by NeilM — July 21, 2011 @ 10:30 am
It is perfectly simple to put the pieces of this puzzle together.
Fact – The Southland Times has, in the past run stories originated by Al Jazeera
Fact – Al Jazeera was often first with Al Quaeda inside scoops
Ergo – The Southland Times is an organ of Al Quaeda
Ergo – the Editor of the Southland Times must be a sleeper Muslim Terrorist agent
Fact – Muslims wearing Burkhas got some bad press recently
Fact – John Key was not strongly supportive of Muslims wearing Burkhas
Ergo – This story is a strike back to take the news shine off John Key’s meeting with Obama in Washington and was co-ordinated by Al Quaeda.
EASY PEASY THIS SPY BUSINESS EH?
Comment by DavidW — July 21, 2011 @ 10:30 am
Neil you’re aware that the Prime Minister has stated that the intelligence..
yeah, I do accept that. I was for a period yesterday think that there might be a showdown between Key and elements of the SIS with one side not coming out very well. But that has not turned out to be the case but still Tulett is fueling speculation, now with speculation from Hager and I do think he needs to front up with something tangible.
Comment by NeilM — July 21, 2011 @ 10:34 am
NeilM:
To be fair, it is possible to run a story in good faith and still have to modify details as new information comes to light. Really. Can be done.
Comment by Craig Ranapia — July 21, 2011 @ 10:45 am
He isn’t ‘picking and choosing’ between sources neil, he is reporting what both sources said. And as noted, they are not in contradiction. His ‘allegatons’ are that an intelligence source said at least 5, and the ambassador said more than 1.
If he does not reveal his sources I’m quite entitled to claim he has none.
Failure to out a source doesn’t mean you can conclude a source is fictional. Ask Nixon.
Comment by Pascal's bookie — July 21, 2011 @ 10:49 am
It seems fairly clear now that an investigation was launched due to the pattern of their activity and either:
A. Nothing came of it as there was nothing there
B. Nothing came of it but they were wrong as there was something going on
C. Something DID come of it and it’s been diplomatically swept under the rug
Anything other than A seems like a wild assumption. But what I’ve read of Tullets stories, he’s never really claimed more than that there was suspicion and an investigation…
Comment by garethw — July 21, 2011 @ 10:50 am
Craig, I don’t think I ever suggested he was acting in bad faith but we don’t know on what basis he’s driving this story. He continues to drive this, now quoting speculation from Hager, despite Key giving a clear picture of events.
Comment by NeilM — July 21, 2011 @ 10:52 am
I’m quite taken with the idea of the SAS, Mossad and Al Qaeda playing tag in the Red Zone at midnight.. the only concern I have.. is who now has the Earthquake Generator?
JC
Comment by JC — July 21, 2011 @ 10:54 am
Neil,
It’s the PM who’s changed his story. He initially said that the deceased “backpacker” had mutliple passports, then later said he had only one.
The Israeli Ambassador has not answered questions regarding his role in taking three Israeili “backpackers” to the airport soon after the quake. In fact, in a communique dated February 25, he said that he was in Christchurch all day Thursday, two days after the quake. He said that the Israeli Consul – not the ambassador – went immediately to Christchurch after the quake. If the Israeli ambassador did go to Christchurch on the Tuesday, it’s curious that he made no mention of that in his communique. Certainly there was no mention in that communique that he had taken any Israeli tourists to the airport soon after the quake. I quote from the communique:
“I spent all of this past Thursday in Christchurch – it was a singularly distressing visit. While in the city, I met with the chief of police, army personnel, search-and-rescue teams, Israeli visitors and members of the Jewish community. I visited, as well, some of the city’s most badly damaged sites as well as the main hospital and relief centre. AT the same time, Teddy [Israeli Consul] and I updated local authorities on the latest information about previously unaccounted Israeli visitors.”
Comment by Ross — July 21, 2011 @ 10:56 am
“…who now has the Earthquake Generator..?”
It is in a crate in a Washington DC warehouse, right next to the Ark of the Covenant.
Comment by Sanctuary — July 21, 2011 @ 11:00 am
It’s the PM who’s changed his story.
yeah agreed, my theory was his mr nice guy routine got him into trouble but on the other side of the coin I saw journalists repeating allegations as fact and not going back to Tulett to see what the basis of all this was (that was yesterday, things might have changed). But I did say one of the few media people interested in that aspect was Russell Brown.
Comment by NeilM — July 21, 2011 @ 11:04 am
my question was what is that source? surely we have a right to know what his source is so we can judge for ourselves their credibility.
Here’s the thing about sources, Neil. They tend to speak in confidence — that’s the difference between a source and an interview subject.
Guarding that confidence is a solemn duty of journalism, one increasingly recognised by the courts. We would not have seen the News of the World called to account without the actions of multiple anonymous sources.
Not, I hasten to add, that I am comparing Fred Tulett to Nick Davies. I think Tulett’s actually made a pretty poor job of this story. It needed more work than it got, and certainly to be better-written and fact-checked. And Tulett should have been able to provide some non-identifying details about his source with respect to his/her interests and authority.
But, again, I wouldn’t want to live in a country where the press ran the way you appear to believe it should.
Comment by Russell Brown — July 21, 2011 @ 11:06 am
I wouldn’t want to live in a country where the press ran the way you appear to believe it should.
I think that’s unfair. Allegations are being made against members of a community who have been persecuted in the past via untrue allegations. I think that context is a valid concern.
Comment by NeilM — July 21, 2011 @ 11:12 am
There were a couple of other factors I’m not going to go into. But they led us to believe they were worthy at least of an investigation … There were a couple of other factors that just seemed odd. Just generally slightly odd behaviour: the anxiety, the speed with which they left …” (Key, yesterday)
When the Prime Minister says that to journalists, and all on the record, they get a gift-wrapped lead story.
And it’s the media’s fault for making it so? What are they supposed to do? Tell a blabbermouth to stop talking?
Comment by sammy — July 21, 2011 @ 11:40 am
GarethW #67
Also Option D Something DID come of it and the PM extracted something of high value to NZ from Israel that cannot be publicly discussed and the content and existence of the concession must remain buried deeper than the village of Pompei for a long time.
Comment by DavidW — July 21, 2011 @ 11:40 am
“I think that context is a valid concern.”
Of course, it also is valid context that Mossad has some form in New Zealand (as the parlance goes), so there’s multiple views on this point. Do you think sensitivities to historic wrongs against Jewish persons means that the SIS shouldn’t have investigated the issue in the first place? If the SIS should have investigated the issue, do you think sensitivities to historic wrongs against Jewish persons means Tullet shouldn’t have reported that investigation? If he should have reported that investigation, then the point really seems to come down to this “multiple passports” angle. Which I suspect was an urban legend that was told to Tullet on a second-hand basis, and he’s reported. Which is what reporters do.
(And I say all of this as someone who was highly skeptical of this story from the git-go.)
Comment by Andrew Geddis — July 21, 2011 @ 11:43 am
Do you think sensitivities to historic wrongs against Jewish persons means that the SIS shouldn’t have investigated the issue in the first place?
no, I have said that given the combination of circumstances the SIS had good reason to investigate. But someone, apparently within the SIS, is choosing to selectively leak information for some reason. Leak information about an investigation that turned up nothing.
I find that disturbing. I’d like to know who and why they have done this. Was this because they were Israelis?
Yesterday Stuff printed an allegation from one of Tulett’s sources saying that the SIS were directly involved in this. Now the defense people have denied this. If this allegation were true then we have a conspiracy between the govt, the military and the SIS. If it’s false then at least one of Telutt’s sources is a fabulist. I’d be interested to know which of those two possibilities is true.
Comment by NeilM — July 21, 2011 @ 11:58 am
just to emphasise, do we really want the SIS to leak information about investigations into other communities that turn up nothing? I’m not sure that’s in the public interest.
Comment by NeilM — July 21, 2011 @ 12:02 pm
sheesh, that should be
“Yesterday Stuff printed an allegation from one of Tulett’s sources saying that the SAS, were directly involved”
Comment by NeilM — July 21, 2011 @ 12:05 pm
But this wasn’t some sort of general SIS inquiry into Jews in New Zealand – it was an inquiry into the rather odd behaviour of a group of individuals from a country with a track record of espionage in friendly and allied countries in general and in New Zealand in particular.
If New Zealand had industriously set about forging Israeli passports, I’d expect strange behaviour by New Zealanders in Israel to attract attention as well.
Comment by Trouble Man — July 21, 2011 @ 12:05 pm
Guarding that confidence is a solemn duty of journalism, one increasingly recognised by the courts. We would not have seen the News of the World called to account without the actions of multiple anonymous sources.
Fair point, Russell. Then again, do you think Joseph and Valerie Wilson might have a less starry-eyed view of that “solemn duty”?
Comment by Craig Ranapia — July 21, 2011 @ 12:39 pm
I’d also note that you did more due diligence on the credibility of the major source of the extraordinarily serious allegations in the ‘Operation Leaf’ non-scandal than anyone at the Sunday Star Times. Would have been pretty hard to expose ‘A. Nonymous’ as a barely credible fantasist wouldn’t it?
Comment by Craig Ranapia — July 21, 2011 @ 12:46 pm
Craig, you’re not suggesting Russell was involved in uncovering the identity or credibility of a source are you?
In my swinging attack on the media’s lack of interest in what I find interesting I over-looked that Andrew had doubts as well.
Comment by NeilM — July 21, 2011 @ 1:17 pm
NeilM:
Not at all — but the useful thing about on the record, attributed sources is that folks like Russell can do forensic work that might just raise pertinent credibility issues or conflicts of interest. It’s all very well for journalists and editors to say “trust me”, and I don’t think anyone would say that it’s never justifiable to grant a source anonymity. I just think there are legitimate questions around whether they’re abused, or even over-used.
Comment by Craig Ranapia — July 21, 2011 @ 1:42 pm
“In my swinging attack on the media’s lack of interest in what I find interesting I over-looked that Andrew had doubts as well.”
Well, that IS because I run Mossad’s operations here in NZ, and so I’d have known if anyone of ours was in ChCh at the time.
I tell you this asking you please don’t spread it around, and on the assumption no-one important reads this blog … much less the comments.
Comment by Andrew Geddis — July 21, 2011 @ 1:47 pm
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5319766/Israelis-likely-an-official-covert-team
Comment by Ross — July 21, 2011 @ 1:55 pm
@87,
See, I told yous it was game on between the SAS, Al Qaeda and Mossad in the Red Zone.. mind you, I missed the donkey with the humongous dick.
JC
Comment by JC — July 21, 2011 @ 2:08 pm
More interesting snippets in a stuff story : http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5319766/Israelis-likely-an-official-covert-team
“Gordon Thomas is the author of Gideon’s Spires: The Secret History of the Mossad. Speaking today on Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report, he said four Israeli students who sparked an investigation by New Zealand’s Security Intelligence Service were likely to have been an official covert team.”
“Prime Minister John Key has denied reports Mizrahi was found with five passports on his body, saying investigations found the group were nothing other than backpackers. ”
“However, Thomas said he had information indicating the group was carrying eight passports.”
“Key also confirmed yesterday he had received four phone calls from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the day of the earthquake. Thomas was suspicious about the revelations”
A group of 4 carrying 8 passports is not suspicious. I think almost all Israeli’s travel with two passports.
But 4 phone calls from the Israeli Prime Minister – that is suspicious.
Comment by Brent — July 21, 2011 @ 2:16 pm
more than 1, at least 5, 8….
I wonder if this sequence converges
Comment by NeilM — July 21, 2011 @ 2:37 pm
but then would Cauchy imply Kosher?
Comment by NeilM — July 21, 2011 @ 2:45 pm
on the day of the biggest natural disaster in New Zealand’s recorded history, I expect the prime minister had more important things to do that answer 4 phone-calls from the leader of a small Middle-Eastern country
Comment by kahikatea — July 21, 2011 @ 3:32 pm
And the official story is that he only answered one.
Comment by Stephen Judd — July 21, 2011 @ 3:44 pm
It’s interesting how as with a lot of this something quite innocuous was presented in way to arrouse suspicion. 4 phones is presented as 4 conversations.
Probably Netanyahu’s office put through 4 calls that last of which got through to Key at which put they arranged for the transfer of the nuclear weapon to the SAS. That maybe true or it maybe just another bit of weirdness from the shingles medication.
Comment by NeilM — July 21, 2011 @ 3:53 pm
WHy would you believe key over someone from the SIS???? Keys a supporter of the Israeli terrorist state!
Comment by Kerry — July 21, 2011 @ 3:56 pm
Substitute 4 Israeli nationals with 4 Iranian nationals then see how keen the righties are to run interference
Comment by Michael — July 21, 2011 @ 4:23 pm
Michael,
I’m a “leftie” who thinks this whole thing is a load of cobblers … or, rather, a strong suspicion that has been blown out of proportion based (most likely) on a series of chinese whispers regarding something someone heard from a guy who knows what might have taken place. If you can have chinese whispers about Israeli nationals, that is … .
Comment by Andrew Geddis — July 21, 2011 @ 5:08 pm
I listened to the Mora programme segment on this issue.
“no evidence, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t spies”
“4 phone calls, so supicious”
all unchallenged.
it’s not necessarily representative of any large section of the public having a similar opinion but it’s evidence that this completely unsubstantiaed article has had a negative effect.
It doesn’t take much to bring out craziness when it comes to Israel and I’ve always thought that to preserve the credibility of accurate criticism it’s really important to counter the conspiracy theories.
I think that’s important enough to know just what the source of all this was.
Next time it could be Iran or maybe Somalia and then those communities might feel a little aggrieved.
Comment by NeilM — July 21, 2011 @ 6:39 pm
One fact missing from the story is that the Search and Rescue team were armed and behaved in a threatening manner towards officials in the red zone. They insisted on entering the zone and had to be forcibly removed. This behaviour would likely give the SIS a good reason to look into the issue. I’m pretty certain that my source for this information is not Tullet’s source but in this little country who hasn’t told their Mum or Dad something they really should’ve kept secret.
Comment by Lucy — July 21, 2011 @ 7:00 pm
NeilM,
Hope you aren’t conflating “Israeli” and “people of Jewish heritage”, Neil. Just ’cause we’re suspicious that Israel may be sending its operatives to (once again) conduct covert operations in NZ (as they do in lots of other places) means nothing for Jewish people here. Unless you mean it is the Israeli community that might feel a little aggrieved?
Comment by Grassed Up — July 21, 2011 @ 7:28 pm
Graassed Up,
when the grounds of the suspicion are shown to be false but the suspicion remains then I feel justified in a) pointing that out and b) saying it’s not a good look.
If this is ok then what happens if someone with a grudge against Iranains or Somalians decides to cook up a conspiracy. Would it be surprising if their communities here weren’t impressed?
There must have been other SIS investigations in NZ not involving Israelis. Someone has chosen to leak information about one in particular. I’d ke to know why and if it is from within the SIS then I’d like to know that leaking inaccurate and malicious information won’t happen again.
Comment by NeilM — July 21, 2011 @ 7:52 pm
The “suspicion” remains because New Zealanders are desperate to think they are important enough for others to care about us, the idea of spies running around Christchurch sounds cool, the PM did a crap job shutting the story down, and because there’s enough threads to the tale that as soon as one is cut there’s another to pick up.
There’s plenty of reason to explain why it’s still running short of alleging animus towads Jews on the part of someone in the SIS or the media or whatever.
Comment by Grassed Up — July 21, 2011 @ 8:21 pm
Neil. How do you know that the information was ‘inaccurate and malicious’?
I’m glad you’ve backed away from your earlier claims that the sources don’t exist, but as far as I can make out, the passport issue is still unclear.
The sources for that, which include someone from an ‘intelligence service’ claim at least 5. The Israeli ambassador said ‘more than one’.
Those claims do not contradict each other.
Further, the Ambassador could be assumed to have chosen his words carefully. He chose to say ‘more than one’ rather than ’2′ which would have put the thing to bed.
I certainly agree that any attention given to Jewish people because they are Jewish is abhorrent.
However, Israel (not ‘Jews’) has in fact got a world wide reputation for getting and using other nations passports. Including NZ’s, and Australia’s. If Israeli citizens don’t like the consequences of that, it is up to them to sort their nation’s actions out. Until they do, they can expect attention to be paid to weird passport issues. Trust, but verify.
If intelligence agents are bullshitting journos off the record, then I personally think they should lose the right to source protection. The story then becomes, as you say, some spook going rogue or whatever, and that is a whole ‘nother problem and the spook needs to get dealt with. But, and it’s a big but, the journo needs proof that the source is lying. Otherwise, all a govt needs to do is say that a source is lying. In which case no one will ever leak. Sources need to be extremely confident that they will not be outed, or we will never get whistle blowers. That needn’t be extended to liars, but lying must be demonstrated.
So demonstrate it.
Comment by Pascal's bookie — July 21, 2011 @ 8:29 pm
How do you know that the information was ‘inaccurate and malicious’?
you’re right, I don’t know for certain. But I’m certainly not going to accept what has been persented so far as proof of anything. I do think I have good grounds to believe that what has been presented has been presented in a manner designed to arrouse suspicion, and therefore sell media, rather than to elucidate fact.
the rest of your post i mostly agree with as well. first and only probably.
Comment by NeilM — July 21, 2011 @ 8:50 pm
The “suspicion” remains because New Zealanders are desperate…
if you know not what a witch is, how do you know you are not one?
Comment by NeilM — July 21, 2011 @ 10:09 pm
“One fact missing”
Was that a first hand account? At the risk of being overly skeptical, there’s not much I’ve heard so far that isn’t at urban legend level. Chch already has a shitload of rumours floating around on lots of topics, and not all of them have turned out to be true or accurate.
Comment by Stephen — July 21, 2011 @ 10:45 pm
Sorry, context — that was aimed at Lucy @99.
Comment by Stephen — July 21, 2011 @ 10:46 pm
And one reason I’m skeptical about the story of the Israeli S&R team being armed etc is that it would have been huge news at the time. In fact, it would be huge news now. It’s not as though the NZ press aren’t willing to publish speculation and 2nd hand accounts at the moment.
Of course if it turned up as a well-sourced story in the Southland Times tomorrow, that’d be interesting… maybe you should ring Fred Tulett, lucy.
Comment by Stephen — July 21, 2011 @ 11:07 pm
Tulett is alleging that the SAS were also invloved so the S&R team being armed would easily be explained by them having been flown here either by our own airforce or by that of a foreign power. That it hasn’t been reported is presumably because we live in a country where the press can’t ask those sorts of questions, apart from Tulett.
The conspiracy involves the govt, the military, the SIS – apart from a brave whistleblower – and the mainstream media apart from Tulett.
Doubting that runs the risk of being accused of wanting the media to nobble the truth.
Comment by NeilM — July 21, 2011 @ 11:22 pm
It has been reported that after the quake the 3 “backpackers” flew to Wellington on an airforce 757 and were questioned by police before returning to Israel. Did the Israeli ambassador know this? if he did, it might explain why he’s refused to answer questions.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5323420/Israeli-backpackers-questioned-in-Wellington
Comment by Ross — July 22, 2011 @ 9:01 am
IIRC the airforce planes were used to airlift many other non-mossad/Israeli/Jewish quake refugees out of CHCH to WGN so it’s hardly as if the three backpackers were bundled away by the SS at gun point in a military aircraft.
Comment by abel the amish — July 22, 2011 @ 9:40 am
I subconciously Godwinned myself, thats should read SAS, not SS.
Comment by abel the amish — July 22, 2011 @ 9:42 am
“…were bundled away by the SS at gun point in a military aircraft…”
That damned Skorzeny, we’ll make him pay one day!
Comment by Sanctuary — July 22, 2011 @ 9:55 am
All we are missing now is the “good oil” as confided in an in-depth interview with Harmeet Sooden.
unbelievable how long a no-story can be picked top absolute death by the media without any reality being identified.
To top it all, now Phil Goff is saying that he refuses to be briefed on the matter because that might inhibit his ability to ask public questions and harass the Government.
Think it though
If finding out the truth (ie – no story or something super secret) either way, means that there are wider considerations to consider, how responsible is it for him to continue trying to score cheap political points just because he doesn’t know.
I can picture Phil walking round with his fingers in his ears saying “nah nah nah … can’t hear you …”
Comment by DavidW — July 22, 2011 @ 10:12 am
Ross: http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/live-updates-christchurch-quake-day-three-4039493
See the entry for 5:38 am. It says “More tourists have flown from Christchurch to Wellington today. Five air force flights have transported evacuees.”
So it seems that there’s nothing odd about the air force flight aspect either.
Comment by Stephen Judd — July 22, 2011 @ 1:26 pm
As a side note that whinging apologist David Zwartz has popped his ugly mug above the parapet to berate NZs for being anti-Semites for questioning anything about Israel, or any act by any Israli anywhere….again.
He’s such a card.
Comment by Gregor W — July 22, 2011 @ 4:22 pm
@Stephen 106 – I am torn between wanting the truth to come out and protecting a friend. I’m not sure how many eyewitnesses to this story there were and so any details I give may lead to identification of my friend. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the account and heard this story the day after it happened. I am certain the search and rescue team were armed and would really like to know why. All of you here have no reason to believe me. I think perhaps the best thing to do is to contact Fred Tullett and get him to ask around. I think it unlikely that my friend would confirm this to the media but maybe someone will if the right questions are asked.
Comment by Lucy — July 22, 2011 @ 4:39 pm
Lucy, in cases like this very often a great number of facts never emerge. Sources never come forward, people protect others they know, others put forward somethings but not others. I’m not saying you’re doing the wrong thing – there are plenty of things I’ve known that I haven’t put into the public domain because the people involved are too important.
Perhaps you could approach this friend directly and ask them if they would be willing to put themselves in contact with a trusted intermediary? Tullet will be under intense scrutiny by the SIS and police right now.
Comment by George D — July 22, 2011 @ 8:43 pm
Stephen said “So it seems that there’s nothing odd about the air force flight aspect either.”
I didn’t suggest there was something odd about it. I suggested that the Israeli ambassador could provide helpful information about what happened. But he’s refusing to speak on the subject.
Comment by Ross — July 23, 2011 @ 1:23 pm
I really would have thought the leader of a centre-left party would be asking some pretty hard questions about why someone in the SIS (that’s a secret service organisation) has leaked information about an investigation that came to nothing (as in no evidence of anything) which focused on a community long persecuted by false rumour.
Isn’t that one of the centre-left’s primary roles? As there’s very few in the media asking these questions it’s a nit of askign truth from power sadly lacking.
But no, cheap attacks on Key are much more important.
Comment by NeilM — July 23, 2011 @ 7:27 pm
I see Maryan Street is actively trying to keep the rumours alive.
it’s a remarkable betrayal of liberal values.
Comment by NeilM — July 23, 2011 @ 7:47 pm
We should note that Southland Times is a Fairfax paper. Looking at all the Fairfax papers it would appear they are all laid out once in WEllington and then electronically deployed to their respective regions with suitable chnages to reflect their area.
With the SIS being housed in Wellington I find it odd that they would go all the way to Southland to plant the story rather than just contacting Fairfax in Wellington via the Dominion.
Finally I thought the modus operandi of any reporter is
If you dont know find out, if you cannot find out then leave out
Probably a biy too complicated for the reporter in question
Comment by Ron Wilson — July 23, 2011 @ 8:59 pm
I see Neil’s still trying to convince people that this story is a product of anti-Jewish prejudice
Comment by Kahikatea — July 23, 2011 @ 10:03 pm
Ron, I can assure you from firsthand knowledge it’s the other way around. Most stories are written at their respective newspapers and assembled into the main Stuff website. I also find it odd that the story broke in the Southland Times, but your theory is wrong.
Comment by Stephen — July 24, 2011 @ 10:16 pm
Lucy @ 117, does your friend know who burgled Captain Collins’ house or bombed Trades Hall? I’m not saying it was the same person, mind.
Comment by Clunking Fist — July 27, 2011 @ 7:16 pm