Israeli Police Commander To TV News Director: ‘We Know Where You Live, Will Lie In Wait For You’
VIDEO - BBC's Channel 4 absolves Urban Moving Systems, Dancing Israelis and Mossad's involvement in the 9/11 staged media terror event
Tel Aviv wants US to release Israel spy
L'AIPAC lave son linge sale au tribunal contre son ex-employé Rosen
MASS SPYING ALLEGED IN ISRAEL LOBBY
Ex-AIPAC official threatens to uncover mass spying at Israel lobby
COMMITTED AIPAC ACTIVISTS EXPOSED
IRS Asked to Revoke AIPAC's Tax Exemption
AIPAC Spying, Why Is The FBI Looking The Other Way
EU Spying Scandal Of 2003 Points To Mossad
FALSE FLAGS: Template for Terror, by Michael Collins Piper
CHAPTER NINETEEN
Immediately after the 9-11 attacks, CBS anchor Dan Rather appeared on David Letterman’s late night program and declared, in a voice dripping with outrage and disgust, that, even as the tragic events of 9-11 were unfolding, a “cell” of America-hating Arabs had been spotted on the roof of a building across the river from Manhattan in New Jersey, videotaping the World Trade Center tragedy and celebrating as the trade towers collapsed.
However, good newsman that he is, Rather was nonetheless dead wrong about the identity of those celebrating the tragedy.
In fact, as American Free Press (AFP) pointed out in a front-page story in its Oct. 1, 2001 issue (which went to press on Sept. 20), those “Arabs” seen dancing merrily, giving each other “high fives” and clearly celebrating the collapse of the trade towers were Israelis—Jewish Israelis—citizens of the nation said to be America’s best ally. And AFP said, flat out, that there was evidence to believe that these Israelis were, in fact, assets of Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad.
For daring to point out these facts, AFP was accused of “peddling anti-Israel conspiracy theories.”
But the story that unfolded in the wake of AFP’s report—which, by the way, constituted the first serious national recitation of the facts surrounding this affair—proved to be even more broad-ranging and more disturbing and pointed to Mossad foreknowledge of—and involvement in—the 9-11 attacks.
Scattered media reports mentioned that five “Middle Eastern” men had been seen “celebrating” the WTC attack, naturally leaving people with the impression that the men were Arabs or Muslims.
However what is interesting is that, in the early days following 9-11, when the story of that particular group of Israelis did leak into the media and the media did, in fact,mention that the men were Israelis, the media turned the tables in Talmudic fashion and cited the story as evidence that theArabs and the Muslims and assorted anti-Semites and critics of Israel were generating disinformation to discredit Israel.
For example, the Sept. 28-30, 2001 issue of USA Today cited the story of the five Israelis (calling them “Jews” and not identifying their nationality) and attempted to suggest that the story was a myth.
USA Today—which calls itself “America’s newspaper”—described the story as one of the “unsubstantiated rumors that implicate Israel” in the 9-11 attacks and one of which “many in the Muslim world are endlessly chewing over and recycling.
CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE
The Dancing Israelis
Who Celebrated on 9-11
Who Celebrated on 9-11
Immediately after the 9-11 attacks, CBS anchor Dan Rather appeared on David Letterman’s late night program and declared, in a voice dripping with outrage and disgust, that, even as the tragic events of 9-11 were unfolding, a “cell” of America-hating Arabs had been spotted on the roof of a building across the river from Manhattan in New Jersey, videotaping the World Trade Center tragedy and celebrating as the trade towers collapsed.
However, good newsman that he is, Rather was nonetheless dead wrong about the identity of those celebrating the tragedy.
In fact, as American Free Press (AFP) pointed out in a front-page story in its Oct. 1, 2001 issue (which went to press on Sept. 20), those “Arabs” seen dancing merrily, giving each other “high fives” and clearly celebrating the collapse of the trade towers were Israelis—Jewish Israelis—citizens of the nation said to be America’s best ally. And AFP said, flat out, that there was evidence to believe that these Israelis were, in fact, assets of Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad.
For daring to point out these facts, AFP was accused of “peddling anti-Israel conspiracy theories.”
But the story that unfolded in the wake of AFP’s report—which, by the way, constituted the first serious national recitation of the facts surrounding this affair—proved to be even more broad-ranging and more disturbing and pointed to Mossad foreknowledge of—and involvement in—the 9-11 attacks.
Scattered media reports mentioned that five “Middle Eastern” men had been seen “celebrating” the WTC attack, naturally leaving people with the impression that the men were Arabs or Muslims.
However what is interesting is that, in the early days following 9-11, when the story of that particular group of Israelis did leak into the media and the media did, in fact,mention that the men were Israelis, the media turned the tables in Talmudic fashion and cited the story as evidence that theArabs and the Muslims and assorted anti-Semites and critics of Israel were generating disinformation to discredit Israel.
For example, the Sept. 28-30, 2001 issue of USA Today cited the story of the five Israelis (calling them “Jews” and not identifying their nationality) and attempted to suggest that the story was a myth.
USA Today—which calls itself “America’s newspaper”—described the story as one of the “unsubstantiated rumors that implicate Israel” in the 9-11 attacks and one of which “many in the Muslim world are endlessly chewing over and recycling.
But as those who have bothered to follow the story know well, the so-called “rumor” was hardly a rumor, but, in fact, the cornerstone of a much bigger story than initially might have been imagined.
It took some six months before America’s oldest and most respected Jewish community newspaper—the New York-based Forward—finally confirmed for the record—in its March 15,2002 issue—that these Israeli Jews (those same ones described as an Arab “cell” by Dan Rather) were connected to the Mossad.
Forward published information that elaborated upon details first entered into the worldwide news record by AFP and which were subsequently picked up and given widespread distribution on the Internet.
Later we’ll discuss, in more detail, what Forward had to say.
However, in the meantime, here’s what AFP reported—some six months before—on Oct. 1, 2001, citing reports appearing at the time in local newspapers in New Jersey and New York and elements from its own inquiries. The essentials of the AFP story were as follows:
It took some six months before America’s oldest and most respected Jewish community newspaper—the New York-based Forward—finally confirmed for the record—in its March 15,2002 issue—that these Israeli Jews (those same ones described as an Arab “cell” by Dan Rather) were connected to the Mossad.
Forward published information that elaborated upon details first entered into the worldwide news record by AFP and which were subsequently picked up and given widespread distribution on the Internet.
Later we’ll discuss, in more detail, what Forward had to say.
However, in the meantime, here’s what AFP reported—some six months before—on Oct. 1, 2001, citing reports appearing at the time in local newspapers in New Jersey and New York and elements from its own inquiries. The essentials of the AFP story were as follows:
At least three different groups of Israelis were taken into custody after eyewitnesses reported seeing them celebrating the 9-11 attacks in three different locations across the river from Manhattan in New Jersey.
All three of these locations had clear views of the World Trade Center and were ideal places from which to document the tragedy.
In at least two of the cases, the men were, in fact, videotaping and some witnesses seemed to believe that the Israelis had already set up their recording devices even before the first attack on the first trade tower hit on 9-11 (and thus had advance knowledge of the attacks).
One group was in Liberty State Park in Jersey City, another in Liberty Park in Union City, New Jersey and a third group was in Weehawken, New Jersey on the roof of an Israeli-owned moving company, Urban Moving Systems.
In each of these three instances the Israelis questioned by the police were connected to Israeli-owned moving companies operating out of NewYork and New Jersey.
In fact, the five Israelis seen in Jersey City—taken into custody by police in East Rutherford,New Jersey—were driving a van belonging to the same Urban Moving Systems upon whose roof the other group of five Israelis were also seen celebrating (and videotaping) the events at the World Trade Center.
Naturally, as any honest observer would have to conclude, it was highly unlikely (to say the least) that all of this—three different groups of Israelis connected to the same network of moving companies all acting in the same fashion in three different locations—could hardly be—as defenders of Israel claimed—“just a coincidence.”
In fact, the five Israelis seen in Jersey City—taken into custody by police in East Rutherford,New Jersey—were driving a van belonging to the same Urban Moving Systems upon whose roof the other group of five Israelis were also seen celebrating (and videotaping) the events at the World Trade Center.
Naturally, as any honest observer would have to conclude, it was highly unlikely (to say the least) that all of this—three different groups of Israelis connected to the same network of moving companies all acting in the same fashion in three different locations—could hardly be—as defenders of Israel claimed—“just a coincidence.”
In fact, further details emerging from the saga of those who became known as “the dancing Israelis” pointed in quite sinister directions that are, by any estimation, hard to explain.
• AFP noted in reporting on the arrest of the Israelis captured in the Urban Moving Systems van in East Rutherford, The Bergen [New Jersey] Record revealed on Sept. 12, 2001 that “sources close to the investigation said they found other evidence linking the men to the bombing plot.” The source told the Record that:
• AFP noted in reporting on the arrest of the Israelis captured in the Urban Moving Systems van in East Rutherford, The Bergen [New Jersey] Record revealed on Sept. 12, 2001 that “sources close to the investigation said they found other evidence linking the men to the bombing plot.” The source told the Record that:
There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted. It looked like they’re hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park.
The Record also reported that “sources also said that bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives.”
According to an Israel National News report on Oct. 26, 2001, these Israel detainees were suspected of “plotting to blow up” a New York bridge, although this allegation never reached most Americans who were being told of “Muslim plots” against Americans.
Initially—and this is interesting—other news sources suggested that explosives had been found in the van.
When, in fact, the “official” story from the U.S. government came out—denying the existence of any such explosives —this gave supporters of Israel the opportunity to say that it was a “myth” that these detained Israelis were in the possession of explosives.
Thus, they said, the entire story of the “dancing Israelis” was just based on reckless and inaccurate news reports that were later retracted and upon—of course—plain old hostility to dear little Israel. Anti-Semites and evil Muslims were collaborating to blame Israel for 9-11, or so they said.
But the fact that there were (presumably) no explosives in the van does not, however, preclude the possibility, as the Bergen Record’s source had contended that the Israelis were “hooked in” with what happened on September 11, considering all of the suspicious activity by three different groups of Israelis all connected to the same network of Israeli moving companies.
And contrary to stories put out by supporters of Israel, the Bergen Record did not retract its original story, for the fact is that the Record never claimed that there were explosives in the van.
So the Record had nothing to retract. Claims that the Record story was wrong are, in short,wrong.
Initially—and this is interesting—other news sources suggested that explosives had been found in the van.
When, in fact, the “official” story from the U.S. government came out—denying the existence of any such explosives —this gave supporters of Israel the opportunity to say that it was a “myth” that these detained Israelis were in the possession of explosives.
Thus, they said, the entire story of the “dancing Israelis” was just based on reckless and inaccurate news reports that were later retracted and upon—of course—plain old hostility to dear little Israel. Anti-Semites and evil Muslims were collaborating to blame Israel for 9-11, or so they said.
But the fact that there were (presumably) no explosives in the van does not, however, preclude the possibility, as the Bergen Record’s source had contended that the Israelis were “hooked in” with what happened on September 11, considering all of the suspicious activity by three different groups of Israelis all connected to the same network of Israeli moving companies.
And contrary to stories put out by supporters of Israel, the Bergen Record did not retract its original story, for the fact is that the Record never claimed that there were explosives in the van.
So the Record had nothing to retract. Claims that the Record story was wrong are, in short,wrong.
In the meantime, however, these Israelis were never charged with any crime relating to the events of 9-11. Instead, they were turned over to the Immigration and Naturalization Service and quickly deported.
This recalls,of course, the deportation, ten days after the Oklahoma City bombing, of the “right wing” Israeli terrorist, Sharon Toval, a virtual look-alike for accused Okahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh.
The names of these suspects were never released to the public—or at least their names were never published or broadcast in the media.
However, it was not only in the New York-New Jersey area that Israelis working for Israeli-owned moving companies were taken into custody and suspected of involvement in terrorist-related activities.
Israeli-connected moving companies seemed to proliferate in the events surrounding 9-11. For example, on Dec. 24, 2001 AFP reported that:
This recalls,of course, the deportation, ten days after the Oklahoma City bombing, of the “right wing” Israeli terrorist, Sharon Toval, a virtual look-alike for accused Okahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh.
The names of these suspects were never released to the public—or at least their names were never published or broadcast in the media.
However, it was not only in the New York-New Jersey area that Israelis working for Israeli-owned moving companies were taken into custody and suspected of involvement in terrorist-related activities.
Israeli-connected moving companies seemed to proliferate in the events surrounding 9-11. For example, on Dec. 24, 2001 AFP reported that:
On Oct. 17, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Pottstown (Pa.) Mercury reported that “two men whom police described as Middle Eastern”were detained in the Pottstown area (which is just northwest of Philadelphia) after being found with“detailed video footage of the Sears Tower in Chicago”—the tallest building in the world,widely mentioned as a possible terrorist target.The Mercury did not identify the men’s nationality, but their names were Moshe Elmakias and Ron Katar.“Moshe” is a Hebrew name which is not likely to have been bestowed on a Muslim or an Arab.A woman named Ayelet Reisler, in their company, was also detained. She had a German passport in her name and medication in a different name.The two men worked for a company known as “Moving Systems Incorporated.”
Again, supporters of Israel protested that it was “just a coincidence” that several different suspiciously-acting groups of Israelis would be working for moving companies and have detailed videos of the WTC disaster and the Sears Tower, another perceived potential terrorist target.
It was subsequently learned that there was a connecting network of Israeli-owned moving companies alongside Urban Moving Systems and Moving Systems, Inc. that operated under such names as Advance Moving System, AAA Van Lines, State to State Van Lines, America’s Best Movers and Quality Moving Storage—not to mention Moshe’s, which maintained a huge brick 15 story warehouse—employing hundreds of young Israelis—just outside the Holland Tunnel in Jersey City.
But, in the end, it was the five Israelis arrested on the roof of Urban Moving Systems (UMS) inWeehawken who received the most attention from the media and from independent investigators. They were brothers Paul and Sivan Kurzberg, Omer Marmari,Yaon Shmuel and Oded Ellner, all Israelis and all employees of UMS.
On Oct. 8, 2001, The New York Times finally reported on the five Israelis treating it as some sad quirk of fate for five innocent men.The Times did not report—as did AFP—that there may have been more than one Israeli-connected moving company involved and that there were actually other Israeli nationals taken into custody after the bombing.
And in Israel the plight of these lads also got some attention.The mother of one of the detainees told the Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, that the FBI had questioned her son as to whether he was an agent of Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad.
However,why the FBI might suspect that Mossad agents—assets of our valued ally Israel—may have been involved in the so-called “Arab terrorist” attack is a question that was carefully ignored by the mainstream media in America.
But these five young Israelis became very controversial,by anyone’s estimation and they had some high-level support.
On Nov. 23, 2001, Forward, the respected New York-based Jewish newspaper, reported that “top-ranking Israeli diplomats”had intervened with Attorney General John Ashcroft on behalf of the aforementioned Paul Kurzberg, his brother, and the three other young Israelis.
In its issue dated Dec. 17, 2001—which went to press on Dec. 7—AFP pointed out that Attorney General Ashcroft had released one of those Israelis—Paul Kurzberg—despite the fact that, according to a Nov. 21 report buried deep inside The NewYork Times, Kurzberg “had trouble” with a seven-hour polygraph test administered by the FBI.
Although Kurzberg had reportedly done“better on a second try,”the Israeli suspect still flunked both times. In fact, the Times had reported, Kurzberg “refused on principle to divulge much about his role in the Israeli army or subsequently working for people who may have had ties to Israeli intelligence.”
Yet, Ashcroft sent Kurzer and his four associates home to Israel, the suspicions surrounding them notwithstanding.
It was upon returning to the fabled land of milk and honey that one of the young Israelis,Oded Ellner,made remarks that today are a part of the lore surrounding suspicion of Israeli involvement in 9-11.
We refer to the often-heard claim that Ellner actually admitted in an interview on Israeli television that he and his colleagues had foreknowledge of the impending attack on the World Trade Center and that, he said, the reason why he and his friends were videotaping was that “our purpose was to document the event.”
It was subsequently learned that there was a connecting network of Israeli-owned moving companies alongside Urban Moving Systems and Moving Systems, Inc. that operated under such names as Advance Moving System, AAA Van Lines, State to State Van Lines, America’s Best Movers and Quality Moving Storage—not to mention Moshe’s, which maintained a huge brick 15 story warehouse—employing hundreds of young Israelis—just outside the Holland Tunnel in Jersey City.
But, in the end, it was the five Israelis arrested on the roof of Urban Moving Systems (UMS) inWeehawken who received the most attention from the media and from independent investigators. They were brothers Paul and Sivan Kurzberg, Omer Marmari,Yaon Shmuel and Oded Ellner, all Israelis and all employees of UMS.
On Oct. 8, 2001, The New York Times finally reported on the five Israelis treating it as some sad quirk of fate for five innocent men.The Times did not report—as did AFP—that there may have been more than one Israeli-connected moving company involved and that there were actually other Israeli nationals taken into custody after the bombing.
And in Israel the plight of these lads also got some attention.The mother of one of the detainees told the Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, that the FBI had questioned her son as to whether he was an agent of Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad.
However,why the FBI might suspect that Mossad agents—assets of our valued ally Israel—may have been involved in the so-called “Arab terrorist” attack is a question that was carefully ignored by the mainstream media in America.
But these five young Israelis became very controversial,by anyone’s estimation and they had some high-level support.
On Nov. 23, 2001, Forward, the respected New York-based Jewish newspaper, reported that “top-ranking Israeli diplomats”had intervened with Attorney General John Ashcroft on behalf of the aforementioned Paul Kurzberg, his brother, and the three other young Israelis.
In its issue dated Dec. 17, 2001—which went to press on Dec. 7—AFP pointed out that Attorney General Ashcroft had released one of those Israelis—Paul Kurzberg—despite the fact that, according to a Nov. 21 report buried deep inside The NewYork Times, Kurzberg “had trouble” with a seven-hour polygraph test administered by the FBI.
Although Kurzberg had reportedly done“better on a second try,”the Israeli suspect still flunked both times. In fact, the Times had reported, Kurzberg “refused on principle to divulge much about his role in the Israeli army or subsequently working for people who may have had ties to Israeli intelligence.”
Yet, Ashcroft sent Kurzer and his four associates home to Israel, the suspicions surrounding them notwithstanding.
It was upon returning to the fabled land of milk and honey that one of the young Israelis,Oded Ellner,made remarks that today are a part of the lore surrounding suspicion of Israeli involvement in 9-11.
We refer to the often-heard claim that Ellner actually admitted in an interview on Israeli television that he and his colleagues had foreknowledge of the impending attack on the World Trade Center and that, he said, the reason why he and his friends were videotaping was that “our purpose was to document the event.”
This is a story that has captured the imagination of many sincere folks who do believe—as I do—that Israel not only had foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks but actually orchestrated them.
Some quickly jumped upon this as some sort of “confession” and circulated the word on the Internet that Ellner had admitted—on television—that he and his associates had advance knowledge of the attack on the trade center and were, therefore, already set up and prepared to videotape the tragedy.
However, the story surrounding Ellner’s televised remarks is actually a distraction and—I am here to tell you without hesitation—is not “proof” of anything, no matter how much people want to believe it is.
While it is absolutely true that, while being interviewed on Israeli television, Ellner admitted he and his friends were videotaping the event,what Ellner said was hardly a confession to anything.
What he was saying, in answer to a question as to why they were videotaping, was essentially: “The reason why we had a video camera there was to film what was happening.”
So, today, while many 9-11 skeptics are often heard telling friends and family—“I’ve seen the video of Ellner saying those words and admitting he and his buddies knew the attack was going to happen and that’s why they were filming it”—the truth is that what those people have seen (circulated on the Internet) is a brief excerpt from the Israeli television interview (conducted in Hebrew) with an English-language voice-over translating Ellner’s comment into an awkward and stilted declarative sentence that has now been immortalized thusly: “Our purpose was to document the event.”
Now this is not to say that Ellner and the “dancing Israelis” did not have foreknowledge of the impending attacks. As we shall see later, there was much more about Ellner and his friends to be unveiled. But this particular comment has clearly been taken out of context.
While these young men—and the other Israelis seen videotaping the world trade center from at least one other location—almost assuredly did know in advance of the attacks and had, accordingly, set up their video equipment to “document the event,” the bottom line question is this: How likely is it that they would have confessed—even by accident—in a television interview conducted before a live audience?
A few folks—who are so determined to believe that Ellner’s words are indeed some sort of confession—will insist forever that Ellner’s“confession” is proof of Israeli foreknowledge and involvement in 9-11. But it isn’t. It’s another one of those stories that “sound good” but one which open-minded and objective folks interested in alternative views relating to 9-11 can not—and will not—find convincing.
Some quickly jumped upon this as some sort of “confession” and circulated the word on the Internet that Ellner had admitted—on television—that he and his associates had advance knowledge of the attack on the trade center and were, therefore, already set up and prepared to videotape the tragedy.
However, the story surrounding Ellner’s televised remarks is actually a distraction and—I am here to tell you without hesitation—is not “proof” of anything, no matter how much people want to believe it is.
While it is absolutely true that, while being interviewed on Israeli television, Ellner admitted he and his friends were videotaping the event,what Ellner said was hardly a confession to anything.
What he was saying, in answer to a question as to why they were videotaping, was essentially: “The reason why we had a video camera there was to film what was happening.”
So, today, while many 9-11 skeptics are often heard telling friends and family—“I’ve seen the video of Ellner saying those words and admitting he and his buddies knew the attack was going to happen and that’s why they were filming it”—the truth is that what those people have seen (circulated on the Internet) is a brief excerpt from the Israeli television interview (conducted in Hebrew) with an English-language voice-over translating Ellner’s comment into an awkward and stilted declarative sentence that has now been immortalized thusly: “Our purpose was to document the event.”
Now this is not to say that Ellner and the “dancing Israelis” did not have foreknowledge of the impending attacks. As we shall see later, there was much more about Ellner and his friends to be unveiled. But this particular comment has clearly been taken out of context.
While these young men—and the other Israelis seen videotaping the world trade center from at least one other location—almost assuredly did know in advance of the attacks and had, accordingly, set up their video equipment to “document the event,” the bottom line question is this: How likely is it that they would have confessed—even by accident—in a television interview conducted before a live audience?
A few folks—who are so determined to believe that Ellner’s words are indeed some sort of confession—will insist forever that Ellner’s“confession” is proof of Israeli foreknowledge and involvement in 9-11. But it isn’t. It’s another one of those stories that “sound good” but one which open-minded and objective folks interested in alternative views relating to 9-11 can not—and will not—find convincing.
So, with that brief digression into one of the more prominent legends surrounding 9-11,we will set aside the discussion of our Dancing Israeli friends from Urban Moving Systems for the moment.
However, there is much, much more to their story, and we’ll come back to them later.
In fact, as it was discovered, there were quite a few more other Israelis operating on American soil and they, too, were taken into custody following 9-11 and at least some of them were suspected by the FBI of possible involvement in the 9-11 tragedy.
In fact—as American Free Press reported on Dec. 17—The Washington Post had admitted on November 23 that among a total of some 60 young Israeli Jews picked up by the FBI in the wake of the terrorist attacks, there were a handful actually being held on suspicion of involvement in the terrorist acts of 9-11.
And remember—this admission came from a leading voice of the “mainstream” media, although, certainly, it was not given wide play in the pages of the Post or elsewhere in the media. So the truth is that while most of the Israelis arrested and detained since Sept.11 were held on immigration charges, not suspected of involvement in terrorism, there were exceptions.According to Post staff writer John Mintz:
However, there is much, much more to their story, and we’ll come back to them later.
In fact, as it was discovered, there were quite a few more other Israelis operating on American soil and they, too, were taken into custody following 9-11 and at least some of them were suspected by the FBI of possible involvement in the 9-11 tragedy.
In fact—as American Free Press reported on Dec. 17—The Washington Post had admitted on November 23 that among a total of some 60 young Israeli Jews picked up by the FBI in the wake of the terrorist attacks, there were a handful actually being held on suspicion of involvement in the terrorist acts of 9-11.
And remember—this admission came from a leading voice of the “mainstream” media, although, certainly, it was not given wide play in the pages of the Post or elsewhere in the media. So the truth is that while most of the Israelis arrested and detained since Sept.11 were held on immigration charges, not suspected of involvement in terrorism, there were exceptions.According to Post staff writer John Mintz:
In several cases, such as those in Cleveland and St. Louis, INS officials testified in court hearings that they were “of special interest to the government,” a term that federal agents have used in many of the hundreds of cases involving mostly Muslim Arab men who have been detained around the country since the terrorist attacks.
An INS official who requested anonymity said the agency will not comment on the Israelis. He said the use of the term “special interest” means the case in question is “related to the investigation of Sept. 11.”
All of the 60 Israeli detainees, according to the Post, were supposedly “observing a time-honored tradition in their country—touring the world after their mandatory service in the Israeli military.”The Post said “a number of them had served in counter-terrorist units in Israel.”
Although referring to Israel as a “close U.S. ally in the fight against terrorism,” the Post pointed out that one Israeli detainee, Liron Diamant, said that while he and his friends had first been mistaken as Arabs, the FBI still nonetheless conducted an “hours-long” interrogation after their Israeli identity had been determined and that they were “questioned in detail about their Israeli military service.”
Although referring to Israel as a “close U.S. ally in the fight against terrorism,” the Post pointed out that one Israeli detainee, Liron Diamant, said that while he and his friends had first been mistaken as Arabs, the FBI still nonetheless conducted an “hours-long” interrogation after their Israeli identity had been determined and that they were “questioned in detail about their Israeli military service.”
Clearly, the fact the young men were Israelis did not preclude the suspicion,on the part of at least some good people in the FBI, that these Israelis might have had a hand in the terrorist attacks, a point that might confound those who believe all American law enforcement and intelligence officials are found firmly in Israel’s camp and devoted to the principle that Israel is a valuable ally that would do America no harm.
But the whole Israeli connection to 9-11 went even further.
On Dec. 12, the “Special Report With Brit Hume” on Fox News featured reporter Carl Cameron who unveiled a staggering report on a wide-ranging Israeli espionage ring on U.S. soil.
Cameron’s report on Fox was so immediately controversial primarily because he asserted flat out there was evidence these Israelis were surveilling the reputed 9-11 terrorists prior to the Sept. 11 tragedy. On Dec. 24, AFP summarized Cameron’s report in which he stated in part:
On Dec. 12, the “Special Report With Brit Hume” on Fox News featured reporter Carl Cameron who unveiled a staggering report on a wide-ranging Israeli espionage ring on U.S. soil.
Cameron’s report on Fox was so immediately controversial primarily because he asserted flat out there was evidence these Israelis were surveilling the reputed 9-11 terrorists prior to the Sept. 11 tragedy. On Dec. 24, AFP summarized Cameron’s report in which he stated in part:
There is no indication the Israelis were involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, but investigators suspect that they may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance and not shared it.
A highly-placed investigator told Fox News there are “tie-ins,” but when asked for details flatly refused to describe them. [The investigator said:]
“Evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It is classified information.”
During the segment, host Brit Hume asked Cameron:“What about this question of advance knowledge of what was going to happen on 9-11? How clear are investigators that some Israeli agents may have known something?”Cameron responded:
It’s very explosive information, obviously, and there’s a great deal of evidence that they say they have collected. None of it necessarily conclusive.
It’s more when they put it all together. A bigger question, they say, is “How could they not have known?” [That is] almost a direct quote [from the investigators].
The Fox report indicated that prior to Sept. 11 as many as 140 other Israelis had been detained or arrested in what was described by Cameron as “a secretive and sprawling investigation into suspected Israeli espionage.”
According to Cameron:
Investigators are focusing part of their efforts on Israelis who said they are art students from the University of Jerusalem or Bezalel Academy and repeatedly made contact with U.S. government personnel by saying they wanted to sell cheap art or handiwork.
Documents say they “targeted” and penetrated military bases, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, dozens of government facilities and even secret offices and unlisted private homes of law enforcement and intelligence personnel.
After the Fox report, there was an angry response from the Israeli lobby in America. The Dec. 21 issue of the Jewish weekly, Forward, reported Fox and Cameron were “under fire” from supporters of Israel for having dared to bring the matter to public attention. However, Forward also gloated that “the rest of the American media” had “barely noted” the Fox reports.
Whatever the case, Fox News pulled the transcriptions of Cameron’s broadcast reports off its Internet web site under pressure from such groups as the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, but Cameron told Forward he continued to stand behind his story.
Meanwhile, the famed British intelligence and military analysis publication, Jane’s Information Group, noted the peculiar absence of reporting in the American media on this matter and commented:
Whatever the case, Fox News pulled the transcriptions of Cameron’s broadcast reports off its Internet web site under pressure from such groups as the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, but Cameron told Forward he continued to stand behind his story.
Meanwhile, the famed British intelligence and military analysis publication, Jane’s Information Group, noted the peculiar absence of reporting in the American media on this matter and commented:
It is rather strange that the U.S. media . . . seem to be ignoring what may well prove to be the most explosive story since the Sept. 11 attack, the alleged breakup of a major Israeli espionage operation in the United States which aimed to infiltrate both the Justice and Defense departments and which may also have been tracking Al-Qaeda terrorists before the aircraft hijackings took place.
So at the very least, there was strong evidence that, at the very least, Israeli intelligence operatives on American soil almost certainly had specific advance knowledge of the impending terrorist attacks on the United States but America’s “ally,” Israel, did not report this information to American authorities.
And that alone is an aspect of 9-11 that—for the most part—remains unknown to the broad swath of the American people.
And that alone is an aspect of 9-11 that—for the most part—remains unknown to the broad swath of the American people.
On March 4, 2002, the story on the Israeli “art student” espionage ring popped back up when the French daily, Le Monde, carried an update, relying largely on reporting arising from an independent investigation by the Paris-based internet newsletter, Intelligence Online (IO), which, in turn, had been directed by the sources made available to Fox.
Citing the work by Fox, Le Monde pointed out how Fox refused to cooperate with Le Monde, saying it was “a problem,” but that Fox refused to be specific. Le Monde noted that IO had received a copy of a report prepared by an officer of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and others from the Immigration and Naturalization Service. A spokesman for the DEA, Will Glaspy, confirmed to Le Monde that the DEA “holds a copy” of that report.
The DEA document revealed many of the Israelis had addresses in South Florida very close to the homes of Arabs allegedly involved in the 9-11 attacks. For example, the alleged hijacking ringleader, Mohammad Atta, lived at 3389 Sheridan St. in Hollywood, Fla.,while a group of the Israelis resided only a few blocks away, at 4220 Sheridan.
On March 5, Reuters reported Le Monde’s article (even including the allegation of Israeli foreknowledge of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks).
Reuters, however, cited an un-named FBI spokesman who called it a “bogus story,” saying—despite all the evidence to the contrary—that “there wasn’t a spy ring.”
On March 6, the Associated Press reported the story but did not mention, however, that the Israelis were believed to have had intimate knowledge relating to the 9-11 terrorists.
On March 6, Washington Post staff writers John Mintz and Dan Eggen reported that Attorney General Ashcroft’s spokeswoman at the Justice Department, Susan Dryden, dismissed the story as “an urban myth that has been circulating for months.” She added: “The department has no information at this time to substantiate these widespread reports about Israeli art students involved in espionage.”
So it was that, again and again, the specter of Israeli foreknowledge and involvement in the events of 9-11 reared its ugly head. And even the major media was being forced to acknowledge it. But the story of the Dancing Israelis was not about to go away either.
In any event, at long last—as we mentioned at the outset of this chapter—the Jewish newspaper Forward finally acknowledged on March 15, 2002 that there was indeed a Mossad connection to the strange circumstances surrounding the multiple groups of Israelis (with links to a network of Israeli-controlled moving companies) who were observed acting suspiciously (and then taken into custody) on 9-11. The young Israelis were, in fact, assets of Israel’s Mossad.
Citing the work by Fox, Le Monde pointed out how Fox refused to cooperate with Le Monde, saying it was “a problem,” but that Fox refused to be specific. Le Monde noted that IO had received a copy of a report prepared by an officer of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and others from the Immigration and Naturalization Service. A spokesman for the DEA, Will Glaspy, confirmed to Le Monde that the DEA “holds a copy” of that report.
The DEA document revealed many of the Israelis had addresses in South Florida very close to the homes of Arabs allegedly involved in the 9-11 attacks. For example, the alleged hijacking ringleader, Mohammad Atta, lived at 3389 Sheridan St. in Hollywood, Fla.,while a group of the Israelis resided only a few blocks away, at 4220 Sheridan.
On March 5, Reuters reported Le Monde’s article (even including the allegation of Israeli foreknowledge of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks).
Reuters, however, cited an un-named FBI spokesman who called it a “bogus story,” saying—despite all the evidence to the contrary—that “there wasn’t a spy ring.”
On March 6, the Associated Press reported the story but did not mention, however, that the Israelis were believed to have had intimate knowledge relating to the 9-11 terrorists.
On March 6, Washington Post staff writers John Mintz and Dan Eggen reported that Attorney General Ashcroft’s spokeswoman at the Justice Department, Susan Dryden, dismissed the story as “an urban myth that has been circulating for months.” She added: “The department has no information at this time to substantiate these widespread reports about Israeli art students involved in espionage.”
So it was that, again and again, the specter of Israeli foreknowledge and involvement in the events of 9-11 reared its ugly head. And even the major media was being forced to acknowledge it. But the story of the Dancing Israelis was not about to go away either.
In any event, at long last—as we mentioned at the outset of this chapter—the Jewish newspaper Forward finally acknowledged on March 15, 2002 that there was indeed a Mossad connection to the strange circumstances surrounding the multiple groups of Israelis (with links to a network of Israeli-controlled moving companies) who were observed acting suspiciously (and then taken into custody) on 9-11. The young Israelis were, in fact, assets of Israel’s Mossad.
As a consequence of the new admissions by Forward, we learned much more about at least that one specific group of five Israelis connected who were picked up in New Jersey after famously “high fiving” and celebrating the collapse of the World Trade Center as they videotaped the event from the roof of the Israeli-controlled Urban Moving Systems (UMS) company inWeehawken, New Jersey.
The Israelis in question were brothers Paul and Sivan Kurzberg, as well as Omer Marmari, Yaon Shmuel and Oded Ellner, the last of whom made the famous remarks on Israeli television—described earlier—about the intent of Ellner and his colleagues to “document the event.”
According to Forward, UMS was “a moving company with few discernable assets” that closed up immediately after the federal authorities began investigating its activities. The owner of UMS, Dominic Otto Suter “fled to Israel” after being questioned by the FBI.
Forward said one of its sources admitted that UMS was a Mossad-connected operation:
The Israelis in question were brothers Paul and Sivan Kurzberg, as well as Omer Marmari, Yaon Shmuel and Oded Ellner, the last of whom made the famous remarks on Israeli television—described earlier—about the intent of Ellner and his colleagues to “document the event.”
According to Forward, UMS was “a moving company with few discernable assets” that closed up immediately after the federal authorities began investigating its activities. The owner of UMS, Dominic Otto Suter “fled to Israel” after being questioned by the FBI.
Forward said one of its sources admitted that UMS was a Mossad-connected operation:
According to one former high-ranking American intelligence official,who asked not to be named, the FBI came to the conclusion at the end of its investigation that the five Israelis arrested in New Jersey last September were conducting a Mossad surveillance mission and that their employer, Urban Moving Systems ofWeehawken,N.J., served as a front.
After their arrest, the men were held in detention for two-and-a-half months and were deported at the end of November, officially for visa violations.
However, a counterintelligence investigation by the FBI concluded that at least two of them were Mossad operatives, according to the former American official,who said he was regularly briefed on the investigation by two separate law enforcement officials.
“The assessment was that Urban Moving Systems was a front for the Mossad and operatives employed by it,” he said.
“The conclusion of the FBI was that they were spying on local Arabs but that they could leave because they did not know anything about 9/11.”
However, he added, the bureau was “very irritated because it was a case of so-called unilateral espionage,meaning they didn’t know about it.”
Forward said the FBI, the Justice Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service refused to discuss the case.
Forward reported that its source said that after the United States confronted the Israeli government, Israel privately admitted that UMS was a Mossad front. Citing its U.S. intelligence source, Forward said:
The nature of the investigation changed after the names of two of the five Israelis showed up on a CIA-FBI database of foreign intelligence operatives, he said.At that point, he said, the bureau took control of the investigation and launched a Foreign Counterintelligence Investigation, or FCI.
FBI investigations into possible links to the Sept. 11 attacks are usually carried by the bureau’s counterterrorism division, not its counterintelligence division.“An FCI means not only that it was serious but also that it was handled at a very high level and very tightly,” the former official said.That view was echoed by several former FBI officials interviewed.
In fact, it seems, the two specific Mossad assets were the Kurzberg brothers, Paul and Sivan, although, needless to say, the other Israelis were obviously in their sphere of influence and on the payroll of a Mossad front operation.The bottom line is that American Free Press had been on the mark from the very beginning. There was indeed a Mossad connection to 9-11, although the article in Forward, in many respects, read very much like an attempted cover-up.
The Forward recounting of the saga of the five Israelis was woven into a larger story describing controversy surrounding the separate reports of espionage by the so-called Israeli “art students.”And although (as noted earlier) a spokesman for Attorney General John Ashcroft had dismissed the “art student” affair as an “urban myth,” Forward effectively exposed Ashcroft’s prevarication, admitting that:
The Forward recounting of the saga of the five Israelis was woven into a larger story describing controversy surrounding the separate reports of espionage by the so-called Israeli “art students.”And although (as noted earlier) a spokesman for Attorney General John Ashcroft had dismissed the “art student” affair as an “urban myth,” Forward effectively exposed Ashcroft’s prevarication, admitting that:
In March 2001, the federal National Counterintelligence Executive issued a warning urging employees to report all contact
with people describing themselves as Israeli art students. It said some had gone to private residences of senior U.S. officials under the guise of selling art.
“These individuals have been described as aggressive,” the warning said.“They attempt to engage employees in conversation rather than giving a sales pitch.”However, the warning added that there may be two groups involved, one with an “apparently legitimate money-making goal while the second, perhaps a non-Israeli group, may have ties to a Middle Eastern Islamic fundamentalist group.”
Naturally, Forward defended Israel, proclaiming: “Far from pointing to Israeli spying against U.S. government and military facilities . . . the incidents in question appear to represent a case of Israelis in the United States spying on a common enemy, radical Islamic networks suspected of links to Middle East terrorism.” Forward contended that tensions between the U.S. and Israel arose not because the United States believed the Israelis were spying on Americans but because the Israelis had failed to advise the United States that they were engaged in spying against the Arab terrorists on American soil.
Forward’s suggestion that two such groups were operating (and that one may have been a “non-Israeli group” posing as Israelis) was interesting, for it raises the logical counter-question: Was there also group of Israelis operating in the United States posing as Arabs—a possibility that, in fact, had first been broached by AFP as far back as Dec. 24, 2001 (a point to be examined in greater detail later in these pages.)
On June 21, 2002, ABC’s weekly newsmagazine,“20/20”—featuring hostess Barbara Walters—was forced to acknowledge growing public belief that Israeli intelligence had foreknowledge of—or was perhaps involved in—the 9-11 terrorist attacks, a belief stimulated from awareness of the story of the Dancing Israelis.
In a segment entitled “TheWhite Van,”ABC tackled the problematic fact that these several groups of Israeli nationals in the New York-New Jersey area had been taken into custody on suspicion of having been involved in some way with the terrorist attacks.
ABC—of course—never mentioned American Free Press (AFP) but it’s clear that AFP’s considerable outreach stimulated discussion of the story in the first place. However, it is no surprise ABC went into a damage-control mode on Israel’s behalf.Those at the highest levels of ABC are, to put it simply, known for their sympathies toward Israel.
ABC’s admissions were grudging at best. ABC would not admit flat out, that the Israelis were Mossad operatives.All ABC would say was that was that there were those in official circles in the United States who said the Israelis were Mossad.They said others don’t think so.
But if they were Mossad agents, ABC assured the audience, they weren’t doing anything against the the United States.At most they were simply monitoring Arab and Muslim groups in the NewYork-New Jersey area.That was a good thing,ABC explained.
Thus, ABC’s presentation sought to refute the evidence and defuse the belief that the Israelis had any involvement in—or even foreknowledge of—the terrorist attack. Barbara Walters summarized the story by lisping smugly,“I hope we’ve put all these wumors to rest.”
Not hardly, Barbara.
Forward’s suggestion that two such groups were operating (and that one may have been a “non-Israeli group” posing as Israelis) was interesting, for it raises the logical counter-question: Was there also group of Israelis operating in the United States posing as Arabs—a possibility that, in fact, had first been broached by AFP as far back as Dec. 24, 2001 (a point to be examined in greater detail later in these pages.)
On June 21, 2002, ABC’s weekly newsmagazine,“20/20”—featuring hostess Barbara Walters—was forced to acknowledge growing public belief that Israeli intelligence had foreknowledge of—or was perhaps involved in—the 9-11 terrorist attacks, a belief stimulated from awareness of the story of the Dancing Israelis.
In a segment entitled “TheWhite Van,”ABC tackled the problematic fact that these several groups of Israeli nationals in the New York-New Jersey area had been taken into custody on suspicion of having been involved in some way with the terrorist attacks.
ABC—of course—never mentioned American Free Press (AFP) but it’s clear that AFP’s considerable outreach stimulated discussion of the story in the first place. However, it is no surprise ABC went into a damage-control mode on Israel’s behalf.Those at the highest levels of ABC are, to put it simply, known for their sympathies toward Israel.
ABC’s admissions were grudging at best. ABC would not admit flat out, that the Israelis were Mossad operatives.All ABC would say was that was that there were those in official circles in the United States who said the Israelis were Mossad.They said others don’t think so.
But if they were Mossad agents, ABC assured the audience, they weren’t doing anything against the the United States.At most they were simply monitoring Arab and Muslim groups in the NewYork-New Jersey area.That was a good thing,ABC explained.
Thus, ABC’s presentation sought to refute the evidence and defuse the belief that the Israelis had any involvement in—or even foreknowledge of—the terrorist attack. Barbara Walters summarized the story by lisping smugly,“I hope we’ve put all these wumors to rest.”
Not hardly, Barbara.
CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE
Pondering the Unthinkable:
Were Those Hijackers Really Arabs
or Were They Really Israeli “Mista’Arvim”?
On Dec. 24, 2001,writing in American Free Press, I put forth an alternative theory relating to 9-11 that—in the end—resulted in some international political reverberations.
Right up front, in my article for AFP, I asked these provocative questions:
Were those hijackers really Arabs? Would Israeli agents carry out a suicide mission that could cost American Jewish lives? My article challenged readers of AFP to consider some little-known facts:
In 1986 the New York-based leader of the terrorist Jewish Defense League, Victor Vancier, gave a prophetic hint of what may have been finally played out on Sept. 11, 2001:
Right up front, in my article for AFP, I asked these provocative questions:
Were those hijackers really Arabs? Would Israeli agents carry out a suicide mission that could cost American Jewish lives? My article challenged readers of AFP to consider some little-known facts:
In 1986 the New York-based leader of the terrorist Jewish Defense League, Victor Vancier, gave a prophetic hint of what may have been finally played out on Sept. 11, 2001:
If you think the Shiites in Lebanon are capable of fantastic acts of suicidal terrorism, the Jewish underground will strike targets that will make Americans gasp: “How could Jews do such things?”
According to Vancier—quoted by Robert I. Friedman in The Village Voice on May 6, 1986—his allies were “desperate people” who “don’t care if they live or die.”
Considering this warning it is entirely conceivable the “Middle Eastern” men purportedly described by the ill-fated passengers on the 9-11 airliners were not Arabs at all.
In fact, these hijackers could well have been Israeli-sponsored fundamentalist Jewish fanatics (posing as“bin Laden Arabs”) hoping to instigate an all-out war U.S.war against the Arab world.
“Jewish suicide bombers? Impossible!” the critics cried.
However, the fact is that there has been a “suicide tradition” that is much-revered part of Jewish history—going back to the famous mass suicide at Masada (however apocryphal) by Jewish zealots.
But in modern times, Israeli suicide missions have indeed been undertaken by officers of Israeli intelligence.
In The Other Side of Deception former Mossad officer Victor Ostrovsky described one 1989 venture: the participants were “all volunteers” advised that there was effectively “no possibility of rescue should they be caught.”And that is a suicide mission, by any definition.
What about the Arabic language heard on one airplane’s black box?
Some naive critics of my thesis immediately pointed out that the hijackers spoke Arabic., proving they were Arabs, not nice Jewish boys on a highly-unlikely suicide mission on behalf of Israel’s survival.
However, those critics failed to consider a formerly secret CIA assessment, Israel: Foreign Intelligence and Security Services, dated March 1979,which reported that it had been a long-standing policy for Israeli intelligence to disguise Jews as Arabs:
Considering this warning it is entirely conceivable the “Middle Eastern” men purportedly described by the ill-fated passengers on the 9-11 airliners were not Arabs at all.
In fact, these hijackers could well have been Israeli-sponsored fundamentalist Jewish fanatics (posing as“bin Laden Arabs”) hoping to instigate an all-out war U.S.war against the Arab world.
“Jewish suicide bombers? Impossible!” the critics cried.
However, the fact is that there has been a “suicide tradition” that is much-revered part of Jewish history—going back to the famous mass suicide at Masada (however apocryphal) by Jewish zealots.
But in modern times, Israeli suicide missions have indeed been undertaken by officers of Israeli intelligence.
In The Other Side of Deception former Mossad officer Victor Ostrovsky described one 1989 venture: the participants were “all volunteers” advised that there was effectively “no possibility of rescue should they be caught.”And that is a suicide mission, by any definition.
What about the Arabic language heard on one airplane’s black box?
Some naive critics of my thesis immediately pointed out that the hijackers spoke Arabic., proving they were Arabs, not nice Jewish boys on a highly-unlikely suicide mission on behalf of Israel’s survival.
However, those critics failed to consider a formerly secret CIA assessment, Israel: Foreign Intelligence and Security Services, dated March 1979,which reported that it had been a long-standing policy for Israeli intelligence to disguise Jews as Arabs:
One of the established goals of the intelligence and security services is that each officer be fluent in Arabic.
A nine-month, intensive Arabic language course is given annually . . . to students . . .
As further training, these Mossad officers work in the [Israeli-controlledArab lands] for two years to sharpen their language skills. . . .
Many Israelis have come from Arab countries where they were born and educated and appear more Arab than Israeli . . .
By forging passports and identity documents of Arab and western countries and providing sound background legends and cover, Mossad has successfully sent into Egypt and other Arab countries Israelis disguised and documented as Arabs or citizens of European countries. . . .
These persons are also useful for their ability to pass completely for a citizen of the nation in question.
The Israeli talent for counterfeiting or forging foreign passports and documents ably supports the agent’s authenticity.
Famed
Pulitzer Prize-winner Jack Anderson—a vocal supporter of Israel and by
no means an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist—wrote in his syndicated
column on Sept. 17, 1972 that:
Israeli agents—immigrants whose families had lived in Arab lands for generations—have a perfect knowledge of Arab dialects and customs.They have been able to infiltrate Arab governments with ease.
Or
consider this revelation from Israeli journalist, Yossi Melman,
writing—on Sept. 29, 1998 in Israel’s Ha’aretz—of the intrigues of
Israel’s domestic intelligence service, the Shin Bet:
Shin Bet agents,who worked undercover in the Israeli-Arab sector in the 1950s,went as far as to marry Muslim women and have children with them, in an attempt to continue their mission without raising suspicion.
Melman and his co-author, Dan Raviv, writing in their book, Spies Against Armageddon: Inside Israel’s Secret Wars, described this Shin Bet mission in detail:
In 1952, Shin Bet formed a highly secret unit of young Jews who were trained to behave asArabs and live in Arab towns and neighborhoods in Israel.
They were given fake identities and planted in such places as Nazareth and Jaffa to be the eyes and ears of the Shin Bet.
Their bosses called them“mista’arvim,”coining a new word by combining mistavim (Hebrew for “masqueraders”) and Aravim (the word for “Arabs”).
One of the main goals was to have trusted Israelis on the inside, in case a war were to break out and Israeli Arabs were to join the enemy.
Shmuel “Sami”Moriah, a senior Shin Bet officer who came to Israel from Iraq and had plenty of experience smuggling Jews out of his native country, led the unit. He recruited 10 other Iraqi-born men for this highly demanding mission.
With detailed cover stories about returning to Palestine after fleeing abroad in the 1948 war, they were sent into Arab villages and cities.Their genuine parents, siblings, and friends in Israel were kept in the dark about their whereabouts and activities.
These Shin Bet agents became so integrated in community life that it was fully expected by neighbors and village elders that they would get married—and most of them did.
Moriah said that he left the decision to each man, but “it seemed suspicious that young vigorous men would stay alone, without a spouse.When we sent them on the mission we didn’t order them to marry,but it was clear to both sides that there is such an expectation, and that it would help the job they were doing.”
The elders introduced them to eligible youngArab women.
They had the brief courtship typical in conservative Arab societies.
And most of the 10 men married, not ever telling their wives that they were Jewish Israelis.
As time passed, the intelligence from this daring deception proved to be almost worthless. Shin Bet wanted to call off the mission. But now Shin Bet had a tough problem.
“The double life they were living cost them a lot, emotionally,” said [Shin Bet Director Amos] Manor, who created this project but then backed away after seven years.“I saw that the price is not worth it and decided to put an end to it.”
The unit was disbanded by 1959, but the ramifications haunted Shin bet for years. The Muslim wives were informed that their husbands were actually Jewish—and, perhaps even worse, government agents—and then the women were given a choice of being sent to an Arab country, to avoid any local retaliation, or being resettled with their husbands in Jewish communities in Israel.
Almost all chose to stay with their husbands, even in the very changed circumstances. Some of the wives needed and got psychological counseling.
So the idea that latter-day Israeli “mista’arvim” (also sometimes rendered as “mista-aravim”)
may have been utilized in the 9-11 hijackings and the related intrigues
surrounding the 9-11 tragedy has some very real foundation, no matter
what the critics might otherwise contend.
In fact, serious questions have been raised about the identities of the Sept. 11 “Arab hijackers.”
While the media reported the ringleader’s passport conveniently landed atop rubble eight blocks from “Ground Zero,” The Orlando Sentinel also reported that at least four men identified as hijackers were not dead and had nothing to do with the attacks—that others unknown had stolen the identities of those individuals and used those identities during the 9-11 attacks.
And the fact remains that, to this day, there is really no firm evidence of precisely who the individuals were who were aboard (or purported to be aboard) the 9-11 airliners that day. We really don’t know if they were Arabs or even if they were the specific Arabs that they were said to be. Nor can it be discounted, as we’ve suggested, that at least some of them could have been Jewish assets of the Mossad, posing as Arabs. But it gets even murkier. In The NewYorker on Oct. 8, 2001 Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh pointed out:
In fact, serious questions have been raised about the identities of the Sept. 11 “Arab hijackers.”
While the media reported the ringleader’s passport conveniently landed atop rubble eight blocks from “Ground Zero,” The Orlando Sentinel also reported that at least four men identified as hijackers were not dead and had nothing to do with the attacks—that others unknown had stolen the identities of those individuals and used those identities during the 9-11 attacks.
And the fact remains that, to this day, there is really no firm evidence of precisely who the individuals were who were aboard (or purported to be aboard) the 9-11 airliners that day. We really don’t know if they were Arabs or even if they were the specific Arabs that they were said to be. Nor can it be discounted, as we’ve suggested, that at least some of them could have been Jewish assets of the Mossad, posing as Arabs. But it gets even murkier. In The NewYorker on Oct. 8, 2001 Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh pointed out:
Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues about the terrorists’ identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, “Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the FBI to chase.”
Why Arabs would plant evidence implicating their own is an interesting point the mainstream media chose not to address.
Nor has the media ever identified to a grateful nation the unnamed citizen who tipped off the FBI where the hijackers’ car (conveniently filled with“evidence”) was parked,having had a chance encounter with the hijackers at an airport parking lot. That story—much-ballyhooed by the media on Sept. 11—was quickly dispatched to the Memory Hole.
Hersh also raised questions about whether or not bin Laden’s network was capable of carrying out the terrorist attack alone.Hersh noted that a senior military officer had suggested to him that, in Hersh’s words, “a major foreign intelligence service might also have been involved.”
And while Hersh did not point any fingers anywhere, a reader familiar with Hersh’s past history of pinpointing intrigue by Israel’s Mossad could perhaps read between the lines and guess at which foreign nation Hersh’s source might, however obliquely, be alluding.
And for those who doubted that Israel would endanger American Jews via terrorism, consider this:hard-line Israelis are willing to kill Jews if it means assuring Israel’s survival.
The late Rabbi Meir Kahane—founder of the the Jewish Defense League, and a spiritual mentor of hard-line fundamentalists in Israel—exemplified those willing to sacrifice other Jews to guarantee Israel’s future.Kahane called for killing “Hellenist [i.e.Western-oriented] spiritually sick [Jews] who threaten the existence of Judaism.”And needless to say, that would include those Jews working in slick offices in the World Trade Center, living on Long Island, rather than kibbutzing in Israel.
Israeli journalistYair Kotler reported in his book, Heil Kahane, that Kahane wrote that “the adoption of foreign, gentilized [i.e. non-Jewish] concepts by a Jewish state . . . opens the door to a national tragedy.”
In his own book, Time to Go Home, Kahane called for all Jews to “go home” to Israel—the only safe place for Jews.Those who refused to “go home” were not safe and expendable. The CIA’s 1979 report on Israeli intelligence said this widely-held view mirrors “the aggressively ideological nature of Zionism.”
In fact, this Jewish attitude toward the West (exactly what the media says is the Islamic attitude) has support at the Mossad’s top levels.
In The False Prophet, his biography of Rabbi Kahane, the late Robert I.Friedman revealed that“high-ranking members of Mossad”were directing Kahane and that the “central player” was former Mossad operations chief (and later prime minister) Yitzhak Shamir, an often hateful critic of the United States America.
When Kahane said America would become “the major enemy of Israel,” due to “economic disintegration which no administration can stem,” he enunciated a popular Israeli view, one which is not widely known, particularly to American Christian supporters of Israel.
Nor has the media ever identified to a grateful nation the unnamed citizen who tipped off the FBI where the hijackers’ car (conveniently filled with“evidence”) was parked,having had a chance encounter with the hijackers at an airport parking lot. That story—much-ballyhooed by the media on Sept. 11—was quickly dispatched to the Memory Hole.
Hersh also raised questions about whether or not bin Laden’s network was capable of carrying out the terrorist attack alone.Hersh noted that a senior military officer had suggested to him that, in Hersh’s words, “a major foreign intelligence service might also have been involved.”
And while Hersh did not point any fingers anywhere, a reader familiar with Hersh’s past history of pinpointing intrigue by Israel’s Mossad could perhaps read between the lines and guess at which foreign nation Hersh’s source might, however obliquely, be alluding.
And for those who doubted that Israel would endanger American Jews via terrorism, consider this:hard-line Israelis are willing to kill Jews if it means assuring Israel’s survival.
The late Rabbi Meir Kahane—founder of the the Jewish Defense League, and a spiritual mentor of hard-line fundamentalists in Israel—exemplified those willing to sacrifice other Jews to guarantee Israel’s future.Kahane called for killing “Hellenist [i.e.Western-oriented] spiritually sick [Jews] who threaten the existence of Judaism.”And needless to say, that would include those Jews working in slick offices in the World Trade Center, living on Long Island, rather than kibbutzing in Israel.
Israeli journalistYair Kotler reported in his book, Heil Kahane, that Kahane wrote that “the adoption of foreign, gentilized [i.e. non-Jewish] concepts by a Jewish state . . . opens the door to a national tragedy.”
In his own book, Time to Go Home, Kahane called for all Jews to “go home” to Israel—the only safe place for Jews.Those who refused to “go home” were not safe and expendable. The CIA’s 1979 report on Israeli intelligence said this widely-held view mirrors “the aggressively ideological nature of Zionism.”
In fact, this Jewish attitude toward the West (exactly what the media says is the Islamic attitude) has support at the Mossad’s top levels.
In The False Prophet, his biography of Rabbi Kahane, the late Robert I.Friedman revealed that“high-ranking members of Mossad”were directing Kahane and that the “central player” was former Mossad operations chief (and later prime minister) Yitzhak Shamir, an often hateful critic of the United States America.
When Kahane said America would become “the major enemy of Israel,” due to “economic disintegration which no administration can stem,” he enunciated a popular Israeli view, one which is not widely known, particularly to American Christian supporters of Israel.
In
his Kahane biography, Friedman noted that Kahane’s views “have taken
root and have become ‘respectable,’” and that right-wing Israeli leader
Ariel Sharon was one of the “most potent supporters” of such extremism.
In the Oct. 15, 2001 issue of the stridently pro-Israel New Republic,
Israeli writer Yossi Klein Halevi echoed this view:
The destruction of the World Trade Center has partially rehabilitated, if only by default, the Zionist promise of safe refuge for the Jewish people.
In the last year, it had become a much-noted irony that Israel was the country where a Jew was most likely to be killed for being a Jew.
For many, the United States had beckoned as the real Jewish refuge; in a poll taken just before the bin Laden attacks, 37 percent of Israelis said their friends or relatives were discussing emigration.That probably changed on Sept. 11.
I was among the thousands of Israelis who crowded Kennedy Airport on the weekend after the attack, desperate to find a flight to Tel Aviv. “At least we’re going back where it’s safe,” people joked.
Everyone seemed to have a story about an Israeli living in NewYork who just barely escaped the devastation. If this could happen in Manhattan, the reasoning went, you might as well take your chances at home.
What
Halevi described reflects the widespread ideology known as
“catastrophic Zionism” which rejects America, saying Israel is the only
safe Jewish refuge.
In The Ascendance of Israel’s Radical Right, Israeli scholar Ehud Sprinzak asserted that these views are“a major school”of modern Israeli thought. Sprinzak described the Israeli movement, Sikarikin,which honors ancient Jews who “conducted a systematic terror campaign against Jewish moderates who were ready to come to terms with the Romans on questions of religious purity.” Israelis consider these terrorists “the symbolic defenders of religious and nationalist purity.”
In The Ascendance of Israel’s Radical Right, Israeli scholar Ehud Sprinzak asserted that these views are“a major school”of modern Israeli thought. Sprinzak described the Israeli movement, Sikarikin,which honors ancient Jews who “conducted a systematic terror campaign against Jewish moderates who were ready to come to terms with the Romans on questions of religious purity.” Israelis consider these terrorists “the symbolic defenders of religious and nationalist purity.”
Another
popular rabbi, Israel Ariel,would risk massive loss of Jewish lives to
achieve the “elimination” of the Arab countries to guarantee Israel’s
survival.The hawkish rabbi once proclaimed:
There is a ruling that a war is permitted as long as no more than one-sixth of the nation be killed. And this was stated in relation to an ordinary war, a fight between neighbors.
A war for Eretz Israel does not depend on the number of casualties. The command is “Ase!” (“Do it!”), and you may be sure that the number of casualties will thus be minimal.
As
far as non-Jews, Sprinzak cited Rabbi David Bar-Haim who declared that
the concept that Jews and non-Jews are equals “stands in total contrast
to the Torah of Moses, and is derived from a total ignorance and an
assimilation of alien Western values.”
Ben-Haim cited ten religious authorities who “repeatedly proposed that Gentiles are more beast than human,”whereas,“only two authorities recognize non-Jews as full human beings created in the image of God.”
Bear in mind: these comments from supposed “allies” represent widespread opinion in Israel’s military and intelligence services.
And should anyone still doubt the concept of right-wing Israeli “suicide bombers” (posing as Arabs) orchestrating the events of Sept. 11, consider Israel’s own effective contingency plan for national suicide.
Most Americans have no idea that the possibility of a full-fledged nuclear “suicide bombing”by the state of Israel itself is a cornerstone of Israel’s national security policy.This policy is better known by what the aforementioned Seymour Hersh referred to, in his book by the same name, as “the Samson Option.”
As Hersh documented—and which Israeli historian Avner Cohen has confirmed in even more in-depth detail in his own book, Israel and the Bomb—Israel’s entire national defense policy (from its inception) was framed around the development of a nuclear bomb.As Hersh made clear, the Israelis are essentially willing, if necessary, to “blow up the world”—including themselves—if they have to do so in order to defeat their Arab foes if they perceive that Israel’s survival is actually in danger.
The so-called “Samson Option” for Israel is based on the story of Samson in the Bible who—after being captured by the Philistines—brought down Dagon’sTemple in Gaza and killed himself along with his enemies.This is what Hersh notes Israeli nuclear planners considered "the Samson Option"—that, as Samson of the Bible, after being captured by the Philistines,brought down Dagon'sTemple in Gaza and killed himself along with his enemies. As Hersh put it: "For Israel's nuclear advocates, the Samson Option became another way of saying 'Never again."
In his book Open Secrets—a study of Israel’s strategic foreign policy—Israeli writer Israel Shahak wrote that, contrary to general perception, Israel does not seek peace. It is a myth,he said, that there is any real difference between the supposedly “conflicting”policies being pursued by the “opposing” Likud and Labor blocs whose rivalries, played out on the global stage, have overflowed into the American political process.
Ben-Haim cited ten religious authorities who “repeatedly proposed that Gentiles are more beast than human,”whereas,“only two authorities recognize non-Jews as full human beings created in the image of God.”
Bear in mind: these comments from supposed “allies” represent widespread opinion in Israel’s military and intelligence services.
And should anyone still doubt the concept of right-wing Israeli “suicide bombers” (posing as Arabs) orchestrating the events of Sept. 11, consider Israel’s own effective contingency plan for national suicide.
Most Americans have no idea that the possibility of a full-fledged nuclear “suicide bombing”by the state of Israel itself is a cornerstone of Israel’s national security policy.This policy is better known by what the aforementioned Seymour Hersh referred to, in his book by the same name, as “the Samson Option.”
As Hersh documented—and which Israeli historian Avner Cohen has confirmed in even more in-depth detail in his own book, Israel and the Bomb—Israel’s entire national defense policy (from its inception) was framed around the development of a nuclear bomb.As Hersh made clear, the Israelis are essentially willing, if necessary, to “blow up the world”—including themselves—if they have to do so in order to defeat their Arab foes if they perceive that Israel’s survival is actually in danger.
The so-called “Samson Option” for Israel is based on the story of Samson in the Bible who—after being captured by the Philistines—brought down Dagon’sTemple in Gaza and killed himself along with his enemies.This is what Hersh notes Israeli nuclear planners considered "the Samson Option"—that, as Samson of the Bible, after being captured by the Philistines,brought down Dagon'sTemple in Gaza and killed himself along with his enemies. As Hersh put it: "For Israel's nuclear advocates, the Samson Option became another way of saying 'Never again."
In his book Open Secrets—a study of Israel’s strategic foreign policy—Israeli writer Israel Shahak wrote that, contrary to general perception, Israel does not seek peace. It is a myth,he said, that there is any real difference between the supposedly “conflicting”policies being pursued by the “opposing” Likud and Labor blocs whose rivalries, played out on the global stage, have overflowed into the American political process.
Shahak
contended that the Israeli lobby in the United States—with all its
often-seemingly diverse factions—is ultimately propping up Israel’s
policy of expansionism with the final aim of consolidating “Eretz
Israel”—an imperial state in control of practically the entire Middle
East.
Based almost entirely on public pronouncements in the Hebrew language press in Israel, Shahak’s provocative volume points out that what the Israeli government tells its own people about its policies is entirely inconsistent with Israel’s insistence to the West and the world at large that Israel “wants peace.” In Shahak’s informed judgment:
One cannot understand Israel until one understands Israel is essentially a militarist state and an un-democratic one at that, evidenced by the second-class status accorded its Arab inhabitants and those Christian and Muslim Palestinians in occupied territories.The nation’s very foundation rests upon its military and defense policies, which, as Shahak makes clear, ultimately stem from the fanatic religious tendencies dictating the thinking of its military and intelligence leaders who are the prime movers behind the engine of state.
Although Israel is quite capable of forging temporary (and often covert) alliances and strategic arrangements even with Arab or Muslim states—even to the point of dealing with the hated Saddam Hussein when it was in Israel’s immediate interest and even, at one point, with the Islamic Republic of Iran—the bottom line is, quite simply, that—as Shahak demonstrates quite chillingly—Israel will say and do anything to pursue its determined goal of winning total domination at all costs. If it fails, Israel is perfectly willing to choose “the Samson Option.”
Thus, it seems, when Winston Churchill said that the Jews suffered from a strong impulse of self-destruction, he was not far off the mark.
So the idea that Israeli Jews under the discipline of Israeli intelligence may indeed have postured as Arabs on Sept. 11, leading the illfated 9-11 airliners to their destruction, is not quite so easily discounted.
Therefore, my report on the possibility that “mista’arvim” Jews, working for the Mossad, had actually been the “real” 9-11 hijackers—or, at the very least, manipulating geuine “bin Laden Muslims” in some aspect of the 9-11 conspiracy—had some very real and very solid historical and geopolitical foundation.
Based almost entirely on public pronouncements in the Hebrew language press in Israel, Shahak’s provocative volume points out that what the Israeli government tells its own people about its policies is entirely inconsistent with Israel’s insistence to the West and the world at large that Israel “wants peace.” In Shahak’s informed judgment:
One cannot understand Israel until one understands Israel is essentially a militarist state and an un-democratic one at that, evidenced by the second-class status accorded its Arab inhabitants and those Christian and Muslim Palestinians in occupied territories.The nation’s very foundation rests upon its military and defense policies, which, as Shahak makes clear, ultimately stem from the fanatic religious tendencies dictating the thinking of its military and intelligence leaders who are the prime movers behind the engine of state.
Although Israel is quite capable of forging temporary (and often covert) alliances and strategic arrangements even with Arab or Muslim states—even to the point of dealing with the hated Saddam Hussein when it was in Israel’s immediate interest and even, at one point, with the Islamic Republic of Iran—the bottom line is, quite simply, that—as Shahak demonstrates quite chillingly—Israel will say and do anything to pursue its determined goal of winning total domination at all costs. If it fails, Israel is perfectly willing to choose “the Samson Option.”
Thus, it seems, when Winston Churchill said that the Jews suffered from a strong impulse of self-destruction, he was not far off the mark.
So the idea that Israeli Jews under the discipline of Israeli intelligence may indeed have postured as Arabs on Sept. 11, leading the illfated 9-11 airliners to their destruction, is not quite so easily discounted.
Therefore, my report on the possibility that “mista’arvim” Jews, working for the Mossad, had actually been the “real” 9-11 hijackers—or, at the very least, manipulating geuine “bin Laden Muslims” in some aspect of the 9-11 conspiracy—had some very real and very solid historical and geopolitical foundation.
Despite
this, even a lot of folks who suspected Israeli involvement in 9-11
seemed to avoid mentioning this possibility. It seems that many of them
preferred more exotic, less simple, explanations.
The
truth is that so many 9-11 truth seekers preferred to dabble in endless
debates about forensic matters relating to 9-11 that are, in most
respects, far beyond the understanding of the average person and which
thus have very little impact in awakening Americans to 9-11 truth.
And,
in fact, one can find genuine “experts” who take completely opposite
positions on these issues, with both (or, as the case may be, multiple)
contrary arguments all seeming to put forth logical and
scientifically-based explanations for the “truth” they have uncovered.
The bottom-line consequence of all of this is that 9-11 truthers find themselves in a bind, arguing among themselves over such matters as “what actually brought down the trade towers” and getting distracted from the real question at hand: WHO did it?
In fact, my speculation relating to the possibility that Israeli Jews were posing as “Arabs” on 9-11—first published in American Free Press, on Dec. 24, 2001—was actually picked up and—on Dec. 31, 2001—republished in its entirety by Arab News, an influential English-language newspaper of the Saudi Arabian government.And the story was subsequently picked up by Arab-language newspapers elsewhere.
That the the publication of my article by the Saudi government-sponsored journal set in motion a little-publicized (but politically significant) international controversy is, in itself (I think) quite telling indeed. After Arab News published the article, the U.S.government made an official demand that the Saudis repudiate any suggestion the hijackers were anything other than Arabs. My article apparently hit too close to the mark (and to this day, I think it may very well have been a bulls-eye).
But while many American critics would, naturally, say it was no surprise that an Arab media voice might take heart in the thesis that Israeli agents (posing as Arabs) might put themselves forward as suicide bombers, the thought of a Jewish Israeli suicide bomber is not something considered beyond the pale by the average Israeli.
In fact, the concept of a devoutly-religious Israeli suicide bomber was the talk of Israel for several years in the wake of the release of a blockbuster Israeli-made motion picture, Time of Favor. The Hebrew language film was not only a major hit, but it also captured six prizes in the Israeli Academy Awards, including best picture, best screenplay, best actor and best actress—quite an accomplishment indeed.
What is interesting is that Time of Favor was scheduled for release in NewYork theaters in September of 2001, but in the wake of the Sept. 11 “suicide bombing” tragedy that rocked the Big Apple and the world, the premiere was shelved. And according to the New York-based Forward, the respected Jewish newspaper, the film had even been played on flights of Israel’s El Al airlines.
The drama told the story of a brilliant Orthodox rabbinical student who—when rebuffed in romance—launched a plan to stage a suicide bombing under Israel’s Temple Mount, the site which has been a longstanding point of contention between Israel and the Muslim world.
The bottom-line consequence of all of this is that 9-11 truthers find themselves in a bind, arguing among themselves over such matters as “what actually brought down the trade towers” and getting distracted from the real question at hand: WHO did it?
In fact, my speculation relating to the possibility that Israeli Jews were posing as “Arabs” on 9-11—first published in American Free Press, on Dec. 24, 2001—was actually picked up and—on Dec. 31, 2001—republished in its entirety by Arab News, an influential English-language newspaper of the Saudi Arabian government.And the story was subsequently picked up by Arab-language newspapers elsewhere.
That the the publication of my article by the Saudi government-sponsored journal set in motion a little-publicized (but politically significant) international controversy is, in itself (I think) quite telling indeed. After Arab News published the article, the U.S.government made an official demand that the Saudis repudiate any suggestion the hijackers were anything other than Arabs. My article apparently hit too close to the mark (and to this day, I think it may very well have been a bulls-eye).
But while many American critics would, naturally, say it was no surprise that an Arab media voice might take heart in the thesis that Israeli agents (posing as Arabs) might put themselves forward as suicide bombers, the thought of a Jewish Israeli suicide bomber is not something considered beyond the pale by the average Israeli.
In fact, the concept of a devoutly-religious Israeli suicide bomber was the talk of Israel for several years in the wake of the release of a blockbuster Israeli-made motion picture, Time of Favor. The Hebrew language film was not only a major hit, but it also captured six prizes in the Israeli Academy Awards, including best picture, best screenplay, best actor and best actress—quite an accomplishment indeed.
What is interesting is that Time of Favor was scheduled for release in NewYork theaters in September of 2001, but in the wake of the Sept. 11 “suicide bombing” tragedy that rocked the Big Apple and the world, the premiere was shelved. And according to the New York-based Forward, the respected Jewish newspaper, the film had even been played on flights of Israel’s El Al airlines.
The drama told the story of a brilliant Orthodox rabbinical student who—when rebuffed in romance—launched a plan to stage a suicide bombing under Israel’s Temple Mount, the site which has been a longstanding point of contention between Israel and the Muslim world.
Forward noted,
intriguingly, that “central to the drama” is a character, an Orthodox
rabbi, “for whom the Orthodox Zionist soldiers are disciples as well as
students.”
The balance of the film told of the effort to stop the fanatic from carrying out his scheme which, if successful, could have sparked a major war,ushering in the Armageddon that Christian fundamentalists pray for.
Joseph Cedar, the film’s director, admitted to Forward that American audiences might find the film unsettling. “It’s about putting the Jews on the terrorist side, which is a reality, but it’s not a thing that American Jews, for example, are used to hearing. It’s about suspecting Jews of belonging to a terrorist group.”
What Forward did not mention was that most Americans—including those who lost friends and family in the 9-11 attacks—will probably never see the film which played largely in small “art” houses and in theaters catering to “Jewish-interest” audiences. And therefore, of course, they will never realize that Jewish boys can be suicide bombers, too.
Nor likewise will most Americans probably ever know one of the biggest secrets of the 20th Century—one carefully buried by the most influential media voices of our times: The fact that on Oct. 18, 1983 a Jewish Israeli suicide bomber, strapped with explosives,was captured in the spectators’ gallery of the U.S. House of Representatives in the U.S. Capitol in Washington. When it happened, it barely made the news.
Until I personally first unveiled this story to a national audience in the September 30, 2002 issue of American Free Press, anyone using the popular “Google” search engine on the Internet would have not found even a single mention of this little-known event.
Since that time, however, word of the story has begun to spread, thanks to people who read my report in American Free Press (or a later reference to it in my book, The Confessions of an Anti-Semite) and who subsequently distributed the information via the Internet.
However, despite the fact that Americans know all about “Muslim suicide bombers”—particularly in the wake of the 9-11 tragedy—the little-known story of an Israeli suicide bomber inside the United States Capitol building remains largely unknown.
Even The Washington Post—the newspaper of record in the nation’s capital—buried the story in its Oct. 19, 1983“Metro” section on page C13—across from the obituaries and next to a story about local political candidates in Fairfax County, Virginia. Evidently an attempt to bomb the U.S. Capitol—by an Israeli, anyway—wasn’t front page news.
The Post story about the Israeli attempt to bomb the Capitol was headlined “Man Arrested in U.S. Capitol After Alleged Bomb Threat”—note that it was “only” an “alleged” threat—and reported as follows:
The balance of the film told of the effort to stop the fanatic from carrying out his scheme which, if successful, could have sparked a major war,ushering in the Armageddon that Christian fundamentalists pray for.
Joseph Cedar, the film’s director, admitted to Forward that American audiences might find the film unsettling. “It’s about putting the Jews on the terrorist side, which is a reality, but it’s not a thing that American Jews, for example, are used to hearing. It’s about suspecting Jews of belonging to a terrorist group.”
What Forward did not mention was that most Americans—including those who lost friends and family in the 9-11 attacks—will probably never see the film which played largely in small “art” houses and in theaters catering to “Jewish-interest” audiences. And therefore, of course, they will never realize that Jewish boys can be suicide bombers, too.
Nor likewise will most Americans probably ever know one of the biggest secrets of the 20th Century—one carefully buried by the most influential media voices of our times: The fact that on Oct. 18, 1983 a Jewish Israeli suicide bomber, strapped with explosives,was captured in the spectators’ gallery of the U.S. House of Representatives in the U.S. Capitol in Washington. When it happened, it barely made the news.
Until I personally first unveiled this story to a national audience in the September 30, 2002 issue of American Free Press, anyone using the popular “Google” search engine on the Internet would have not found even a single mention of this little-known event.
Since that time, however, word of the story has begun to spread, thanks to people who read my report in American Free Press (or a later reference to it in my book, The Confessions of an Anti-Semite) and who subsequently distributed the information via the Internet.
However, despite the fact that Americans know all about “Muslim suicide bombers”—particularly in the wake of the 9-11 tragedy—the little-known story of an Israeli suicide bomber inside the United States Capitol building remains largely unknown.
Even The Washington Post—the newspaper of record in the nation’s capital—buried the story in its Oct. 19, 1983“Metro” section on page C13—across from the obituaries and next to a story about local political candidates in Fairfax County, Virginia. Evidently an attempt to bomb the U.S. Capitol—by an Israeli, anyway—wasn’t front page news.
The Post story about the Israeli attempt to bomb the Capitol was headlined “Man Arrested in U.S. Capitol After Alleged Bomb Threat”—note that it was “only” an “alleged” threat—and reported as follows:
A 22-year-old man was arrested in the public gallery of the House of Representatives during a roll-call vote yesterday after he allegedly threatened to blow up the building, U.S. Capitol police said.
The man, whom police said carried an Israeli passport indicating he had arrived in this country two weeks ago, was removed from the gallery without incident and taken downstairs to be questioned.
There, police said, they found the man had two soft-drink bottles filled with a powdered substance attached to his belt and wired to an apparently operative detonating cap.
Police said they charged Israel Rubinowits with threatening to kidnap a person or cause bodily harm in the incident, pending arraignment today in D.C. Superior Court.
The incident occurred about 1:30 pm as House members were in the chamber voting on a measure that would allow the U.S.Treasury to strike and sell a medal commemorating Vietnam veterans.The measure passed 410-0.
The man was sitting in House Gallery 10, an area of about 75 seats located in the far left corner of the chamber from the speaker’s platform, among a public tour group of about 50 persons when detectives noticed he was acting suspiciously and mumbling to himself, officials said.As the officers approached the man, officials said, he allegedly threatened to blow up the building.
Officials said the bottles and suspected detonator were turned over to demolition experts for examination, but it was unclear late last night whether they could have caused an explosion.
Rubinowits was being held last night in the central cell block at police headquarters. Officials said they [had] no additional information about his background.
On Nov. 2—nearly two weeks after the attempted suicide bombing—America’s most prestigious newspaper, The NewYork Times, finally deemed it appropriate to report on the story—buried on page A-22, hardly the front page of the distinguished daily.
And weirdly (or perhaps not so weirdly) a check of The New York Times online will find that the story (as indexed by the Times) is titled “Bomb Carrier Found in U.S. Home Prompts Tightened Security.” So according to the headline in the Times, the story was about a bomb found in a “home”—not the U.S. House of Representatives!
And weirdly (or perhaps not so weirdly) a check of The New York Times online will find that the story (as indexed by the Times) is titled “Bomb Carrier Found in U.S. Home Prompts Tightened Security.” So according to the headline in the Times, the story was about a bomb found in a “home”—not the U.S. House of Representatives!
But
the story did, in fact, tell of the Israeli suicide bomber in the
House, raising the question as to why the word“home”—rather than the
word “House”—somehow managed to be used “mistakenly” in a newspaper not
generally perceived to be rife with typographical atrocities.
Wayne Todd, editor of the National Legislative Service & Security Association,noted in the Nov.1983 issue of his newsletter that the story of the Israeli suicide bomber’s attempt to detonate his weapon of terrorism inside the Capitol was “virtually ignored by the media.”
In any event, on Nov. 9—less than a month afterward—a bomb did explode near the Senate Chamber inside the U.S. Capitol, blowing the doors off a room leading to the offices of then-Senate Minority Leader Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.).The explosion took place just seven to nine minutes after a caller phoned Byrd’s office and warned a bomb was about to explode. Media reports said a group calling itself the “Armed Resistance Unit” claimed credit, saying its motive was to protest the U.S. invasion of Grenada and the presence of U.S.Marines in Lebanon.
Why Byrd—not known as a major advocate of U.S. intervention abroad—was the target was never explained. However, considering the fact Byrd was one of the few members of Congress in recent times to challenge Israel’s “war lobby” in Washington, there is always the possibility the bombing (apparently aimed at Byrd) was an Israeli “false flag” to shift the focus of blame elsewhere and hide Israel’s culpability.
In 1998 even the Legislative Resource Center (LRC) of the House of Representatives had “no further information” on what happened to the would-be Israeli suicide bomber after he was charged with, in the LRC’s words,“making threats.”However, The Titusville (Pennsylvania) Herald, reported on Jan.9,1986—long after the 1983 incident—that Rubinowits had been deported to Israel,much like the Dancing Israelis of 9-11. But even the Herald’ contained the report about the Israeli bomber amidst a longer story focusing on Arab terrorism!
Although I am not prepared to suggest that the young Israeli captured in the U.S. Capitol was acting as an asset of Israel when he engaged in his failed suicide mission—obviously I have no proof that he was—the possibility should not be ruled out.
However, these are the points that need to be emphasized: 1) There is a long-standing “suicide tradition” in Jewish history; 2) Modern-day Jewish zealots have talked about suicide missions; 3) There is evidence of Israeli utilization of Jews, posing as Arabs, in covert missions; and 4) Israel—as a state—is ideologically prepared to sacrifice other Jews to achieve the ultimate end of securing Israel’s survival.
Understanding these critical points is central to understanding Israel’s ultimate role in orchestrating the 9-11 terrorist tragedy.
Wayne Todd, editor of the National Legislative Service & Security Association,noted in the Nov.1983 issue of his newsletter that the story of the Israeli suicide bomber’s attempt to detonate his weapon of terrorism inside the Capitol was “virtually ignored by the media.”
In any event, on Nov. 9—less than a month afterward—a bomb did explode near the Senate Chamber inside the U.S. Capitol, blowing the doors off a room leading to the offices of then-Senate Minority Leader Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.).The explosion took place just seven to nine minutes after a caller phoned Byrd’s office and warned a bomb was about to explode. Media reports said a group calling itself the “Armed Resistance Unit” claimed credit, saying its motive was to protest the U.S. invasion of Grenada and the presence of U.S.Marines in Lebanon.
Why Byrd—not known as a major advocate of U.S. intervention abroad—was the target was never explained. However, considering the fact Byrd was one of the few members of Congress in recent times to challenge Israel’s “war lobby” in Washington, there is always the possibility the bombing (apparently aimed at Byrd) was an Israeli “false flag” to shift the focus of blame elsewhere and hide Israel’s culpability.
In 1998 even the Legislative Resource Center (LRC) of the House of Representatives had “no further information” on what happened to the would-be Israeli suicide bomber after he was charged with, in the LRC’s words,“making threats.”However, The Titusville (Pennsylvania) Herald, reported on Jan.9,1986—long after the 1983 incident—that Rubinowits had been deported to Israel,much like the Dancing Israelis of 9-11. But even the Herald’ contained the report about the Israeli bomber amidst a longer story focusing on Arab terrorism!
Although I am not prepared to suggest that the young Israeli captured in the U.S. Capitol was acting as an asset of Israel when he engaged in his failed suicide mission—obviously I have no proof that he was—the possibility should not be ruled out.
However, these are the points that need to be emphasized: 1) There is a long-standing “suicide tradition” in Jewish history; 2) Modern-day Jewish zealots have talked about suicide missions; 3) There is evidence of Israeli utilization of Jews, posing as Arabs, in covert missions; and 4) Israel—as a state—is ideologically prepared to sacrifice other Jews to achieve the ultimate end of securing Israel’s survival.
Understanding these critical points is central to understanding Israel’s ultimate role in orchestrating the 9-11 terrorist tragedy.
CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE
Israel’s Agents Inside Al-Qaeda:
A Critical Element of the Mossad’s
Template for Terror in the 9-11 Conspiracy
A Critical Element of the Mossad’s
Template for Terror in the 9-11 Conspiracy
After seven months of non-stop declarations by U.S. government spokesmen in the wake of 9-11 that there existed solid proof tying 19 Muslim men to plotting the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, FBI Director Robert Mueller actually admitted quite the opposite in a speech that he delivered to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on April 19, 2002.
In its May 20,2002 issue, American Free Press reported this remarkable revelation which was based on a largely little-noticed report, originating with The Los Angeles Times, that was reprinted in The Washington Post on April 30.
In his speech in San Francisco, Mueller said that the purported hijackers, in his words,“left no paper trial.” The FBI director stated flatly:
In our investigation,we have not uncovered a single piece of paper—either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere—that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot.
In describing Mueller’s evidence fiasco, Los Angeles Times reporters Erich Lichtblau and Josh Meyer, noted that:
Law enforcement officials say that while they have been able to reconstruct the movements of the hijackers before the attacks—all legal except for a few speeding tickets—they have found no evidence of their actual plotting.
The
Times reporters acknowledged that Mueller’s comments “offer the FBI’s
most comprehensive and detailed assessment to date of its investigation,
remarkable as much for what investigators have not found as for what
they have.”
The FBI director explained away the absence of evidence by making the disingenuous assertion that the hijackers used“meticulous planning, extraordinary secrecy and extensive knowledge of how America works” to conceal their scheme.
Mueller made this claim despite the fact that in the immediate wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, a variety of U.S. officials and media sources announced, almost instantaneously, that there was firm evidence not only that these 19 Muslim men were agents of Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda “network” but that they were indeed the individuals who hijacked the doomed flights on Sept. 11.
Mueller seemed to forget that early government and media reports loudly hyped “discoveries”—letters and other documents—in the luggage and personal belongings of the presumed hijackers which “proved” that they were on a “mission for Allah,” etc etc. Now Mueller’s comments contradicted everything that had been said, everything that most Americans now assumed was “a fact.”
Government spokesmen defended the cited lack of evidence as somehow proving how professional the hijackers were, even in the face of the publicly-acknowledged scandal surrounding the fact that two of the hijackers purportedly got into the United States even though they were on a CIA terrorist “watch list.”
Skeptics rightly asked: If the 19 Muslims weren’t the hijackers, then who were? That 19 Muslim men who had apparently disappeared were named as the hijackers was not in doubt.What was in doubt is whether those 19 men were actually plotting anything, either individually or together.The amazing possibility remained that others carried out the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, using the identities of the 19 Muslims who were assigned guilt in the tragedy.
In fact, there was the possibility that someone was pretending, prior to Sept. 11, to be Muhammad Atta.This would recall the strange appearances of multiple “Lee Harvey Oswalds” in various places doing suspicious things prior to the JFK assassination.
For example, although The Washington Post reported on May 1, 2002 that longstanding claims that Atta met in Prague with a purported Iraqi intelligence officer turned out not to be true, some sort of meeting did take place, except that, according to the Post, “they were no longer certain that Atta was the person” in question. The Post cited a Bush administration official as saying that the person believed to be Atta “may be different from Atta.” So, although there was someone later identified as Atta in Prague, according to the Post,“there was no evidence Atta left or returned to the U.S.” at the time he was supposedly in Prague.
So it was that when the official 9-11 report, issued by the much-touted “blue ribbon” commission charged with the responsibility of telling the American people how and why the 9-11 attacks were able to happen, finally hit the presses—emerging as a veritable “best seller”—the truth is that it proved to be mostly a lot of fiction, based on lies and prevarications by some pretty suspect characters (as we shall see).
And that’s not to mention the additional “spin” added by a host of “bipartisan”ghost writers, representing a bevy of special interest groups that had a keen desire to have the story of “what really happened”on 9-11 told the way they want it. (Earlier, in Chapter Twenty-One we examined how the Israeli lobby pushed a potential roadblock to its agenda out of a key post in the congressional inquiry into 9-11.)
The FBI director explained away the absence of evidence by making the disingenuous assertion that the hijackers used“meticulous planning, extraordinary secrecy and extensive knowledge of how America works” to conceal their scheme.
Mueller made this claim despite the fact that in the immediate wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, a variety of U.S. officials and media sources announced, almost instantaneously, that there was firm evidence not only that these 19 Muslim men were agents of Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda “network” but that they were indeed the individuals who hijacked the doomed flights on Sept. 11.
Mueller seemed to forget that early government and media reports loudly hyped “discoveries”—letters and other documents—in the luggage and personal belongings of the presumed hijackers which “proved” that they were on a “mission for Allah,” etc etc. Now Mueller’s comments contradicted everything that had been said, everything that most Americans now assumed was “a fact.”
Government spokesmen defended the cited lack of evidence as somehow proving how professional the hijackers were, even in the face of the publicly-acknowledged scandal surrounding the fact that two of the hijackers purportedly got into the United States even though they were on a CIA terrorist “watch list.”
Skeptics rightly asked: If the 19 Muslims weren’t the hijackers, then who were? That 19 Muslim men who had apparently disappeared were named as the hijackers was not in doubt.What was in doubt is whether those 19 men were actually plotting anything, either individually or together.The amazing possibility remained that others carried out the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, using the identities of the 19 Muslims who were assigned guilt in the tragedy.
In fact, there was the possibility that someone was pretending, prior to Sept. 11, to be Muhammad Atta.This would recall the strange appearances of multiple “Lee Harvey Oswalds” in various places doing suspicious things prior to the JFK assassination.
For example, although The Washington Post reported on May 1, 2002 that longstanding claims that Atta met in Prague with a purported Iraqi intelligence officer turned out not to be true, some sort of meeting did take place, except that, according to the Post, “they were no longer certain that Atta was the person” in question. The Post cited a Bush administration official as saying that the person believed to be Atta “may be different from Atta.” So, although there was someone later identified as Atta in Prague, according to the Post,“there was no evidence Atta left or returned to the U.S.” at the time he was supposedly in Prague.
So it was that when the official 9-11 report, issued by the much-touted “blue ribbon” commission charged with the responsibility of telling the American people how and why the 9-11 attacks were able to happen, finally hit the presses—emerging as a veritable “best seller”—the truth is that it proved to be mostly a lot of fiction, based on lies and prevarications by some pretty suspect characters (as we shall see).
And that’s not to mention the additional “spin” added by a host of “bipartisan”ghost writers, representing a bevy of special interest groups that had a keen desire to have the story of “what really happened”on 9-11 told the way they want it. (Earlier, in Chapter Twenty-One we examined how the Israeli lobby pushed a potential roadblock to its agenda out of a key post in the congressional inquiry into 9-11.)
Although
Americans beat a path to bookstores to grab up copies of the 9-11
report, what few realized is that even top-notch U.S. intelligence
investigators and others had raised questions—from the beginning—about
how reliable the report’s primary sources really were.
For example, although the report was written in an almost grandiloquent and certainly omniscient tone, the fact is that the panoramic
overview of Osama bin Laden’s vaunted Al-Qaeda “network”was based largely on accounts provided by just two sources: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh.
While both were said to be key leaders in the 9-11 plot—with Mohammed often described as Al-Qaeda’s “operations chief”—or variations thereof—that’s about all that can be firmly said about either individual and the stories that they’ve told.
The truth is that—as even The New York Times pointed out in a quite circumspect yet still revealing story on June 17 2004: “Their accounts have stirred an unresolved debate about their credibility,” and “much of the information cited in the reports as fact is actually uncorroborated or nearly impossible to confirm.”
So even though the Times itself and every other major newspaper and magazine in America—not to mention hundreds of small town dailies—earnestly reprinted excerpts from the 9-11 report, along with extensive stories rehashing what appeared in the report, the Times’ candid characterizations went largely unnoticed.
In fact, as far as American Free Press could determine at that time, AFP was the only publication thus far to have referenced these remarkable revelations, with the exception of several Internet sources that republished the original Times story.
The truth is that there were multiple concerns regarding the reliability of the sources. First of all, the Times noted, questions have been raised as to whether Mohammed or al-Shibh was tortured or threatened with torture prior to or during their questioning.
But that actually proves to be only a minor consideration in the minds of many upper echelon intelligence analysts who have doubts about the 9-11 report. The Times pointed out:
For example, although the report was written in an almost grandiloquent and certainly omniscient tone, the fact is that the panoramic
overview of Osama bin Laden’s vaunted Al-Qaeda “network”was based largely on accounts provided by just two sources: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh.
While both were said to be key leaders in the 9-11 plot—with Mohammed often described as Al-Qaeda’s “operations chief”—or variations thereof—that’s about all that can be firmly said about either individual and the stories that they’ve told.
The truth is that—as even The New York Times pointed out in a quite circumspect yet still revealing story on June 17 2004: “Their accounts have stirred an unresolved debate about their credibility,” and “much of the information cited in the reports as fact is actually uncorroborated or nearly impossible to confirm.”
So even though the Times itself and every other major newspaper and magazine in America—not to mention hundreds of small town dailies—earnestly reprinted excerpts from the 9-11 report, along with extensive stories rehashing what appeared in the report, the Times’ candid characterizations went largely unnoticed.
In fact, as far as American Free Press could determine at that time, AFP was the only publication thus far to have referenced these remarkable revelations, with the exception of several Internet sources that republished the original Times story.
The truth is that there were multiple concerns regarding the reliability of the sources. First of all, the Times noted, questions have been raised as to whether Mohammed or al-Shibh was tortured or threatened with torture prior to or during their questioning.
But that actually proves to be only a minor consideration in the minds of many upper echelon intelligence analysts who have doubts about the 9-11 report. The Times pointed out:
Not all counterterrorism officials believe, for example, that Osama bin Laden exercised the kind of command over the Sept. 11 operation that is described in the report.
. . . In part, the officials said, they suspect that the captured Qaeda figures have a strong desire to play down their own roles and have been willing to make it appear that Mr. bin Laden was the dominant figure in an effort to enhance his stature.
Investigators conducted a vast analysis of communications, including cellphone, Internet and courier traffic between the Sept. 11 plotters and their confederates, like Mr. Mohammed, the officials said.
That analysis failed to show a close link between them in the months before the attacks and virtually no communication with Mr. bin Laden, a finding that contradicts [the 9-11 report].
And
the truth is that, despite all of the media hoopla about bin Laden’s
wide-ranging Al-Qaeda network, as far back as Nov. 5, 2001 The
Washington Post itself reported that European investigators believed
that the group alleged to have carried off the Sept. 11 attacks was
“tightly insulated” and “had little if any contact with other Al-Qaeda
terror cells in Europe.” According to the Post, investigators found that
hijackers were “elite, insulated,” and that the question remained,
according to one French terrorism expert, Roland Jacquard, as to who was
in control:
“Who gives the order?” asked Jacquard.
Suggesting that Muhammad Atta was the ringleader, Jacquard said Atta “probably” gave the order. However, Jacquard noted,“But Atta also received instructions.And there is someone betweenAtta and the mountain” [in Afghanistan where bin Laden was said to have made his lair].”
The Post didn’t make the suggestion that perhaps this “elite, insulated” group—which didn’t seem to have any contact with the rest of the Al-Qaeda network—may have been under the actual and direct control of agents of Israel’s Mossad.
These kinds of details raised serious questions about the reliability of the official 9-11 report in and of itself.
In fact, after the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed—who became the primary “source” for the 9-11 commission report—the major media was rife with continuing scare stories surrounding “new revelations” about a variety of “terrorist plots.” The primary source of these stories ostensibly came from official U.S. interrogations of Mohammed.
At one point, Mohammed is reported to have claimed the Sears Tower in Chicago and the Library Tower in Los Angeles were also targets but the attacks on those structures—allegedly planned as an immediate follow-up to the terrorism of 9-11—were sidetracked because of George W. Bush’s thorough and immediate response to the 9-11 attacks.
“Who gives the order?” asked Jacquard.
Suggesting that Muhammad Atta was the ringleader, Jacquard said Atta “probably” gave the order. However, Jacquard noted,“But Atta also received instructions.And there is someone betweenAtta and the mountain” [in Afghanistan where bin Laden was said to have made his lair].”
The Post didn’t make the suggestion that perhaps this “elite, insulated” group—which didn’t seem to have any contact with the rest of the Al-Qaeda network—may have been under the actual and direct control of agents of Israel’s Mossad.
These kinds of details raised serious questions about the reliability of the official 9-11 report in and of itself.
In fact, after the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed—who became the primary “source” for the 9-11 commission report—the major media was rife with continuing scare stories surrounding “new revelations” about a variety of “terrorist plots.” The primary source of these stories ostensibly came from official U.S. interrogations of Mohammed.
At one point, Mohammed is reported to have claimed the Sears Tower in Chicago and the Library Tower in Los Angeles were also targets but the attacks on those structures—allegedly planned as an immediate follow-up to the terrorism of 9-11—were sidetracked because of George W. Bush’s thorough and immediate response to the 9-11 attacks.
While
some might suggest that this kind of story actually plays into the Bush
administration’s bid to portray itself as a forceful leader in the “war
against terrorism,” Mohammed’s claim also has the perhaps unintended
effect of providing fuel to the fire of belief that Israeli operatives
were indeed involved in—or had foreknowledge of—the 9-11 attacks and of
the impending attack on the Sears Tower.
Although the story was brushed under the rug in the wake of the 9-11 tragedies, American Free Press readers will recall that as early as Dec. 24, 2001 AFP reported that:
On Oct. 17, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Pottstown (Pennsylvania) Mercury published a story noting that “two men whom police described as Middle Eastern” were detained in in the Pottstown area (which is just northwest of Philadelphia) after being found with “detailed video footage of the Sears Tower in Chicago”—the tallest building in the world,widely mentioned as a possible terrorist target.
The Mercury did not identify the men’s nationality, but their names were Moshe Elmakias and Ron Katar. “Moshe” is a Hebrew name which is not likely to have been bestowed on a Muslim or an Arab. A woman named Ayelet Reisler, in their company, was also detained. She had a German passport in her name and medication in a different name.
The two men worked for a company known as “Moving Systems Incorporated.”And, as we’ve seen, Israeli-connected moving companies seemed to proliferate in the events surround the 9-11 tragedies, although most of the published accounts of the strange activities of the Israeli-owned moving companies focused on events surrounding the FBI’s seizure of what appears to be several groups of Israeli operatives in the New York-New Jersey area, one of which just happened to be videotaping theWTC towers as they collapsed.
Supporters of Israel protested that it was “just a coincidence” that several different suspiciously-acting groups of Israelis would be working for moving companies and have detailed videos of theWTC disaster and the Sears Tower, another potential terrorist target.
However, now that the purported Al-Qaeda chief of operations, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, had claimed that the Sears Tower was supposedly one of Al-Qaeda’s targets, the bizarre incident involving Israeli “moving company” workers in Pennsylvania with tapes of the Sears Tower in Chicago had new meaning.
The evidence, taken together, does indeed suggest that Israeli intelligence did indeed have “hands on” knowledge—at the very least—of the intentions of the terrorists who struck on American soil.
Although most “independent” 9-11 researchers fell back on the theory that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s claims about 9-11 were the consequence of having been tortured and made to say what he was reported to have said or, as some have contended, that the Mohammed in custody wasn’t, in fact, “the real” Mohammed, these theories very much pale behind the little-noticed and much bigger picture that so many 9-11 conspiracy theorists—the 9-11“truthers”—have missed (or otherwise deliberately ignored).
The fact is that an assembly of very real evidence suggests that Mohammed was a longtime covert Israeli intelligence asset operating inside Al-Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalist circles and that the stories he provided (ostensibly “under torture”) to the 9-11 commission were carefully-crafted“black propaganda”designed to paint Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as the official “false flag” in the 9-11 attacks.
All of this suspicion surrounding Mohammed goes back even to the first attack on theWorld Trade Center in 1993.
Do not forget—and this is critical to recall:
It was Mohammed’s nephew (and longtime collaborator) Ramzi Yousef who was alleged to be the “brains” behind that terror bombing, and whom pro-Israel propagandists have also since claimed was “linked” to the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.
We first met Yousef in Chapter Eighteen where we noted that when a young Palestinian named Ahmad Ajaj was arrested at Kennedy Airport in NewYork in 1992 (on passport charges) and then later indicted and convicted (after the first World Trade Center attack) with having been a conspirator in that crime,Yousef was Ajaj’s traveling companion at the time of his arrest.
But the significance of this, of course, is the fact that—as we have seen—the late investigative journalist Robert I. Friedman reported that Yousef’s associate AJaj, appeared to have been recruited as a Mossad asset and deployed as an infiltrator in Islamic fundamentalist circles.
In addition, as we have seen, there were other telling Israeli “links” to the strange circumstances surrounding both the instigation (and cover-up) of the first trade center bombing.
The bottom line is that, looking more closely at Yousef and his uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed—the ostensible “mastermind” of 9-11, purportedly working on behalf of Osama bin Laden—we cannot help but conclude that these two key figures in this seeming “first family of terrorism”are the key to understanding that Israel’s Mossad did have a behind-the-scenes role in manipulating what we know as Al-Qaeda and what part (or parts) some of its lower-level operatives played in 9-11.
Going back to the first attack on theWorldTrade Center, there were, in fact, already suspicions among many Islamic elements that there was much more to Ramzi Yousef than would meet the eye.
Although the story was brushed under the rug in the wake of the 9-11 tragedies, American Free Press readers will recall that as early as Dec. 24, 2001 AFP reported that:
On Oct. 17, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Pottstown (Pennsylvania) Mercury published a story noting that “two men whom police described as Middle Eastern” were detained in in the Pottstown area (which is just northwest of Philadelphia) after being found with “detailed video footage of the Sears Tower in Chicago”—the tallest building in the world,widely mentioned as a possible terrorist target.
The Mercury did not identify the men’s nationality, but their names were Moshe Elmakias and Ron Katar. “Moshe” is a Hebrew name which is not likely to have been bestowed on a Muslim or an Arab. A woman named Ayelet Reisler, in their company, was also detained. She had a German passport in her name and medication in a different name.
The two men worked for a company known as “Moving Systems Incorporated.”And, as we’ve seen, Israeli-connected moving companies seemed to proliferate in the events surround the 9-11 tragedies, although most of the published accounts of the strange activities of the Israeli-owned moving companies focused on events surrounding the FBI’s seizure of what appears to be several groups of Israeli operatives in the New York-New Jersey area, one of which just happened to be videotaping theWTC towers as they collapsed.
Supporters of Israel protested that it was “just a coincidence” that several different suspiciously-acting groups of Israelis would be working for moving companies and have detailed videos of theWTC disaster and the Sears Tower, another potential terrorist target.
However, now that the purported Al-Qaeda chief of operations, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, had claimed that the Sears Tower was supposedly one of Al-Qaeda’s targets, the bizarre incident involving Israeli “moving company” workers in Pennsylvania with tapes of the Sears Tower in Chicago had new meaning.
The evidence, taken together, does indeed suggest that Israeli intelligence did indeed have “hands on” knowledge—at the very least—of the intentions of the terrorists who struck on American soil.
Although most “independent” 9-11 researchers fell back on the theory that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s claims about 9-11 were the consequence of having been tortured and made to say what he was reported to have said or, as some have contended, that the Mohammed in custody wasn’t, in fact, “the real” Mohammed, these theories very much pale behind the little-noticed and much bigger picture that so many 9-11 conspiracy theorists—the 9-11“truthers”—have missed (or otherwise deliberately ignored).
The fact is that an assembly of very real evidence suggests that Mohammed was a longtime covert Israeli intelligence asset operating inside Al-Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalist circles and that the stories he provided (ostensibly “under torture”) to the 9-11 commission were carefully-crafted“black propaganda”designed to paint Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as the official “false flag” in the 9-11 attacks.
All of this suspicion surrounding Mohammed goes back even to the first attack on theWorld Trade Center in 1993.
Do not forget—and this is critical to recall:
It was Mohammed’s nephew (and longtime collaborator) Ramzi Yousef who was alleged to be the “brains” behind that terror bombing, and whom pro-Israel propagandists have also since claimed was “linked” to the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.
We first met Yousef in Chapter Eighteen where we noted that when a young Palestinian named Ahmad Ajaj was arrested at Kennedy Airport in NewYork in 1992 (on passport charges) and then later indicted and convicted (after the first World Trade Center attack) with having been a conspirator in that crime,Yousef was Ajaj’s traveling companion at the time of his arrest.
But the significance of this, of course, is the fact that—as we have seen—the late investigative journalist Robert I. Friedman reported that Yousef’s associate AJaj, appeared to have been recruited as a Mossad asset and deployed as an infiltrator in Islamic fundamentalist circles.
In addition, as we have seen, there were other telling Israeli “links” to the strange circumstances surrounding both the instigation (and cover-up) of the first trade center bombing.
The bottom line is that, looking more closely at Yousef and his uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed—the ostensible “mastermind” of 9-11, purportedly working on behalf of Osama bin Laden—we cannot help but conclude that these two key figures in this seeming “first family of terrorism”are the key to understanding that Israel’s Mossad did have a behind-the-scenes role in manipulating what we know as Al-Qaeda and what part (or parts) some of its lower-level operatives played in 9-11.
Going back to the first attack on theWorldTrade Center, there were, in fact, already suspicions among many Islamic elements that there was much more to Ramzi Yousef than would meet the eye.
First
of all, for years, there have been questions as to RamziYousef’s actual
ethnic or cultural background, not to mention his very identity.
He has variously been described (or otherwise described himself) as an “Iraqi” or as a Kuwaiti national or as a Baluchi, from Pakistan.
At the time Yousef was claiming to be an Iraqi, during his period operating in NewYork,prior to the first World Trade Center attack, there were many individuals of Arabic heritage who doubted it.
However, for those who were eager to link Saddam Hussein and Iraq to both attacks on theWorld Trade Center and, as some continue to do today, to the Oklahoma City bombing,Yousef’s claim of Iraqi heritage has been quite convenient indeed, no matter what the truth.
Even John Miller and Michael Stone and Chris Mitchell,writing in a semi-official 9-11 account, entitled The Cell: Inside the 9/11 Plot, and Why the FBI and CIA Failed to Stop It, described Yousef as “a shadowy figure whose background is still veiled in myth and controversy.”
In the end, according to an investigative report by Emily Fancher, of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism: “Yousef’s identity was never settled in court.” So the truth is that not even the United States government has actually—at least officially—determined if Yousef really is even an Arab or a Muslim.
What makes this little-reported anomaly so interesting is that, as we noted in some detail in Chapter Twenty-Three, there is a long history of Israel utilizing“mista’arvim”—Jews posing as Arabs—as part of its intelligence operations. So a very real question remains: Are the individuals known as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef really who they say they are and are they really Arabs or Muslims at all?
And if the uncle-and-nephew team really are Arabs and/or Muslims, the fact the nephew,Yousef,was working closely with a reported Israeli intelligence asset in the first WTC attack is still noteworthy indeed, particularly since the Israeli asset in question was himself an Arab.
And it’s probably no coincidence, considering everything, that when Ramzi Yousef was finally taken into custody for his reported role in the first trade center attack, according to US Secret Service agent Brian Parr, “[Yousef] was friendly, he seemed relaxed and he actually seemed eager to talk to us.”
That’s precisely what one might expect from an Israeli agent, doing his job, spreading the Al-Qaeda legend for the benefit of his Israeli sponsors.
It also likewise reflects the seemingly quite forthcoming nature of the “revelations” that are reported to have emerged fromYousef’s uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, in laying out, for the 9-11 commission, the Israeli “false flag” implicating Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as the driving force behind the events of September 11, 2001.
He has variously been described (or otherwise described himself) as an “Iraqi” or as a Kuwaiti national or as a Baluchi, from Pakistan.
At the time Yousef was claiming to be an Iraqi, during his period operating in NewYork,prior to the first World Trade Center attack, there were many individuals of Arabic heritage who doubted it.
However, for those who were eager to link Saddam Hussein and Iraq to both attacks on theWorld Trade Center and, as some continue to do today, to the Oklahoma City bombing,Yousef’s claim of Iraqi heritage has been quite convenient indeed, no matter what the truth.
Even John Miller and Michael Stone and Chris Mitchell,writing in a semi-official 9-11 account, entitled The Cell: Inside the 9/11 Plot, and Why the FBI and CIA Failed to Stop It, described Yousef as “a shadowy figure whose background is still veiled in myth and controversy.”
In the end, according to an investigative report by Emily Fancher, of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism: “Yousef’s identity was never settled in court.” So the truth is that not even the United States government has actually—at least officially—determined if Yousef really is even an Arab or a Muslim.
What makes this little-reported anomaly so interesting is that, as we noted in some detail in Chapter Twenty-Three, there is a long history of Israel utilizing“mista’arvim”—Jews posing as Arabs—as part of its intelligence operations. So a very real question remains: Are the individuals known as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef really who they say they are and are they really Arabs or Muslims at all?
And if the uncle-and-nephew team really are Arabs and/or Muslims, the fact the nephew,Yousef,was working closely with a reported Israeli intelligence asset in the first WTC attack is still noteworthy indeed, particularly since the Israeli asset in question was himself an Arab.
And it’s probably no coincidence, considering everything, that when Ramzi Yousef was finally taken into custody for his reported role in the first trade center attack, according to US Secret Service agent Brian Parr, “[Yousef] was friendly, he seemed relaxed and he actually seemed eager to talk to us.”
That’s precisely what one might expect from an Israeli agent, doing his job, spreading the Al-Qaeda legend for the benefit of his Israeli sponsors.
It also likewise reflects the seemingly quite forthcoming nature of the “revelations” that are reported to have emerged fromYousef’s uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, in laying out, for the 9-11 commission, the Israeli “false flag” implicating Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as the driving force behind the events of September 11, 2001.
Of
the actual trial of the conspirators in the first trade center bombing,
the aforementioned Emily Fancher of Columbia University reported that
Robert Precht, one of the defense lawyers, said that “We felt that there
were unseen actors behind this. Neither defense lawyers or government
knew who it was”—certainly a cryptic suggestion that there was indeed
much more to the story above and beyond the concept that the trade
center attack was simply the product of an Islamic fundamentalist
terrorist conspiracy.
And it’s probably worth noting that, during that trial, the law firm that represented the Palestinian, Ahmad Ajaj—the reputed Mossad asset inside the bombing conspiracy—on a pro bono (that is, for free) basis was Willkie, Farr & Gallagher, the “blue ribbon” Wall Street firm which included among its partners no less than Kenneth Bialkin, a longtime national chairman of the Anti-Defamation League, the American propaganda and intelligence conduit for Israel’s Mossad.
Of that trial, R. T. Naylor—a professor of economics at McGill University in Montreal, an authority and consultant on financial fraud and author of Satanic Purses: Money, Myth, and Misinformation in the War on Terror—noted that:
And it’s probably worth noting that, during that trial, the law firm that represented the Palestinian, Ahmad Ajaj—the reputed Mossad asset inside the bombing conspiracy—on a pro bono (that is, for free) basis was Willkie, Farr & Gallagher, the “blue ribbon” Wall Street firm which included among its partners no less than Kenneth Bialkin, a longtime national chairman of the Anti-Defamation League, the American propaganda and intelligence conduit for Israel’s Mossad.
Of that trial, R. T. Naylor—a professor of economics at McGill University in Montreal, an authority and consultant on financial fraud and author of Satanic Purses: Money, Myth, and Misinformation in the War on Terror—noted that:
The FBI labwork implicating the defendants was revealed to be faked, and the case against the man who rented the truck was so full of inconsistencies that it might well have failed—but for two things.The prosecution successfully played on the sentiments of the jury, and the defense tried to rely on contradictions in the prosecution case rather than presenting a proper rebuttal.
And it’s worth recalling—as noted in Chapter Eighteen—that
an Israeli woman (whom federal authorities refused to confirm or deny
had ties to Israeli intelligence) was deeply involved with the
individual who had rented the truck used in the trade center bombing in
1993.
Of Ramzi Yousef, the aforementioned Miller, Stone & Mitchell have noted some of the mystery surrounding how Yousef came to become involved with the Islamic fundamentalist group in New York that ultimately came to be implicated in the first trade center attack, saying that “There may always be a debate aboutYousef’s intended purpose,but the more pressing question is: Who sent him?” [Emphasis added.]
These authors also noted thatYousef’s involvement in the first trade center attack had some significant consequences for what they referred to as the “ragtag battalion.”Whoever bore responsibility, they said, for Yousef’s coming to the United States, Yousef’s effect was “indisputable.” According to the authors:
Of Ramzi Yousef, the aforementioned Miller, Stone & Mitchell have noted some of the mystery surrounding how Yousef came to become involved with the Islamic fundamentalist group in New York that ultimately came to be implicated in the first trade center attack, saying that “There may always be a debate aboutYousef’s intended purpose,but the more pressing question is: Who sent him?” [Emphasis added.]
These authors also noted thatYousef’s involvement in the first trade center attack had some significant consequences for what they referred to as the “ragtag battalion.”Whoever bore responsibility, they said, for Yousef’s coming to the United States, Yousef’s effect was “indisputable.” According to the authors:
For one thing, [Yousef] helped professionalize the largely inept, undisciplined soldiers. For another, he radically changed the scale of their mission. Before Yousef’s arrival, even the Twelve Jewish Locations plot was based on classic terrorist strategy; a series of small, local explosions whose primary objective was to terrify, not kill or maim.
Yousef had much bigger plans—to build a bomb powerful enough to topple the World Trade Towers, one into the other, with a potential death toll in the tens of thousands—many levels of magnitude beyond anything the others had previously imagined.
In
fact, to the extent that this previously“ragtag” group did have
terrorist plans, they had evidently decided to focus on twelve key
Jewish targets in the New York City area.
Yousef—you see—changed that and shifted the focus away from specifically Jewish targets to a much more broad-ranging target: the World Trade Center.And this, it should be noted, is akin to the way famed “Arab terrorist” Abu Nidal—another mysterious figure—focused on other Arab targets but seldom, if ever, aimed at Jewish or Israel targets.
As far as the role of Yousef’s uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, in the 9-11 attacks, Miller, Stone & Mitchell say Mohammed “seems to have been responsible at least for arranging the operation’s secret funding, though some investigators have come to believe that Mohammed masterminded the attacks himself.”
In short, that while Mohammed did have some role in facilitating the attacks—specifically in the realm of raising funds—it is otherwise not absolutely certain that he was the ultimate mastermind as “some investigators” had concluded.
Meanwhile, the aforementioned R.T. Naylor of McGill University—reflecting on what precise relationship Mohammed, in fact, had with Osama bin Laden, public perception to the contrary—referred to Mohammed’s alleged role in another purported terror operation (never carried out) known as “the Bojinka Plot,”which is said to have involved the crashing of airliners. Assessing one account of Bojinka, Naylor wrote:
Yousef—you see—changed that and shifted the focus away from specifically Jewish targets to a much more broad-ranging target: the World Trade Center.And this, it should be noted, is akin to the way famed “Arab terrorist” Abu Nidal—another mysterious figure—focused on other Arab targets but seldom, if ever, aimed at Jewish or Israel targets.
As far as the role of Yousef’s uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, in the 9-11 attacks, Miller, Stone & Mitchell say Mohammed “seems to have been responsible at least for arranging the operation’s secret funding, though some investigators have come to believe that Mohammed masterminded the attacks himself.”
In short, that while Mohammed did have some role in facilitating the attacks—specifically in the realm of raising funds—it is otherwise not absolutely certain that he was the ultimate mastermind as “some investigators” had concluded.
Meanwhile, the aforementioned R.T. Naylor of McGill University—reflecting on what precise relationship Mohammed, in fact, had with Osama bin Laden, public perception to the contrary—referred to Mohammed’s alleged role in another purported terror operation (never carried out) known as “the Bojinka Plot,”which is said to have involved the crashing of airliners. Assessing one account of Bojinka, Naylor wrote:
[Bojinka] became an Al-Qaeda operation in retrospect not because it was planned by bin Laden but because the man into whose bank account some money allegedly for the plot had been placed was a brother-in-law of Osama’s brother-in-law.
More
pointedly, in reference to Mohammed’s purported role in orchestrating
9-11 (presumably on bin Laden’s behalf), Naylor noted a March 2,2003
profile of Mohammed that appeared in The Observer and commented:
Assuming the events portrayed are roughly accurate,what emerges is that [Mohammed] ran his own operations and occasionally crossed paths with bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri but that there was no “merger” of their terror capacities into a corporate whole to justify the management hierarchy notion.
In
other words, Mohammed was neither the direct underling—or under the
supervision or even necessarily working at the behest—of Osama bin
Laden.What role Mohammed played in 9-11 was solely of his own making and
the perception that bin Laden was ultimately behind Mohammed’s ventures
was simply just that: a perception. But it was a perception that the
9-11 commission (and the mass media) were eager to portray to the
American people and the world.
However, neither the 9-11 commission nor the mass media were ever eager to explore the multiple connections, strange circumstances and anomalous bits of evidence linking Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef to the operations of Israel's Mossad over a very long period of time.
The truth is that there is much more to the Al-Qaeda network than meets the eye, and considering the power of the Israeli lobby in official Washington, it is no wonder that even the highest-ranking U.S. law enforcement officials would be loathe to pry too deeply into the covert Israeli connections of the Al-Qaeda figures who seem to be ubiquitous players in the various acts of terrorism that have rocked America in recent years. But these details are here for the historical record.
In a special report in the Oct/Nov. 1997 issue of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Richard H. Curtiss, a respected former U.S. diplomatic officer, pointed out that, in a number of notable cases of what appeared to be “Arab terrorism,” the individuals involved seemed to have covert ties to Israeli intelligence.
Curtiss cited former Mossad operative Victor Ostrovsky who noted that, in fact, Israeli intelligence did indeed have a hand in manipulating Arab terrorist cells, and that “usuallyArabs who were carrying out Israeli plans had no idea where the plans really originated.”
And as far as terrorist operations against Americans by Israelis—disguised as “Arab” plots—Ostrovsky commented, “The point of all these Israeli operations is to convinceAmericans that they’re in the same boat as Israel [fighting Arab terrorism].”
However, neither the 9-11 commission nor the mass media were ever eager to explore the multiple connections, strange circumstances and anomalous bits of evidence linking Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef to the operations of Israel's Mossad over a very long period of time.
The truth is that there is much more to the Al-Qaeda network than meets the eye, and considering the power of the Israeli lobby in official Washington, it is no wonder that even the highest-ranking U.S. law enforcement officials would be loathe to pry too deeply into the covert Israeli connections of the Al-Qaeda figures who seem to be ubiquitous players in the various acts of terrorism that have rocked America in recent years. But these details are here for the historical record.
In a special report in the Oct/Nov. 1997 issue of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Richard H. Curtiss, a respected former U.S. diplomatic officer, pointed out that, in a number of notable cases of what appeared to be “Arab terrorism,” the individuals involved seemed to have covert ties to Israeli intelligence.
Curtiss cited former Mossad operative Victor Ostrovsky who noted that, in fact, Israeli intelligence did indeed have a hand in manipulating Arab terrorist cells, and that “usuallyArabs who were carrying out Israeli plans had no idea where the plans really originated.”
And as far as terrorist operations against Americans by Israelis—disguised as “Arab” plots—Ostrovsky commented, “The point of all these Israeli operations is to convinceAmericans that they’re in the same boat as Israel [fighting Arab terrorism].”
However,
the Mohammed-Yousef affair isn’t the end of it. It seems that “family
connections” to 9-11 (and to Israel’s role therein) just won’t go away
when it comes to the possibility that Arabs—working for Israel’s
Mossad—might have played a role in that tragedy.
Buried in a New York Times story on Feb. 19, 2009 was the eye-opening revelation that a Lebanese Muslim Arab who had been taken into custody by Lebanon—which accused him of being a spy for some 25 years for Israeli intelligence—just happened to be a cousin of one of the Muslims alleged to have been one of the 9-11 hijackers.
Although Ali al-Jarrah was—publicly—an outspoken proponent of the Palestinian cause, it turned out that he was actually working as a paid asset of the Mossad for more than two decades, betraying his own nation and conducting spying operations against Palestinian groups and the pro-Palestinian party Hezbollah. Reporting on the al-Jarrah affair, The NewYork Times revealed this:
Buried in a New York Times story on Feb. 19, 2009 was the eye-opening revelation that a Lebanese Muslim Arab who had been taken into custody by Lebanon—which accused him of being a spy for some 25 years for Israeli intelligence—just happened to be a cousin of one of the Muslims alleged to have been one of the 9-11 hijackers.
Although Ali al-Jarrah was—publicly—an outspoken proponent of the Palestinian cause, it turned out that he was actually working as a paid asset of the Mossad for more than two decades, betraying his own nation and conducting spying operations against Palestinian groups and the pro-Palestinian party Hezbollah. Reporting on the al-Jarrah affair, The NewYork Times revealed this:
It is not the family’s first brush with notoriety. One of Mr. Jarrah’s cousins,Ziad al-Jarrah,was among the 19 hijackers who carried out the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The Times added that the men were 20 years apart in age and “do not appear to have known each other well.
However, the gratuitous Times suggestion that the two cousins “do not appear to have known each other well” is intriguing, inasmuch as it is an admission that they did, in fact, know one another.
And that could be very telling, for there are those who have suggested that the older cousin may indeed have recruited his younger cousin (alleged to have been one of the 9-11 hijackers) as an asset (even an unknowing one) for Israeli intelligence.
The circumspect stance taken by the Times is no surprise, considering the fact that the Times was quite aware that there have been many sources which have alleged that the 9-11 conspiracy was infiltrated, if not controlled outright, by Israeli intelligence from the beginning.
If the younger al-Jarrah was an Israeli asset inside the 9-11 conspiracy, this would not be (as we have seen) the first time a Muslim Arab was involved, acting as a Mossad agent, in an attack on theWorld Trade Center. And the truth is that if—out of the archives of many different intelligence agencies—we could glean more about the purported participants in the 9-11 conspiracy,we would find,most assuredly, that the strange tale of the al-Jarrah family and that of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef are really only just the tip of the iceberg relating to the Mossad’s tentacles inside Islamic fundamentalist circles linked to 9-11.
While
some 9-11 “truthers” seem to be convinced that there were absolutely no
Muslim fundamentalists involved (even at least indirectly) in
orchestrating the 9-11 attacks—that it was all plotted by the Illuminati
or the Bush family and the military-industrial complex and then carried
out by the CIA or some combine of other government agencies—this is, of
course, sheer fantasy.However, the gratuitous Times suggestion that the two cousins “do not appear to have known each other well” is intriguing, inasmuch as it is an admission that they did, in fact, know one another.
And that could be very telling, for there are those who have suggested that the older cousin may indeed have recruited his younger cousin (alleged to have been one of the 9-11 hijackers) as an asset (even an unknowing one) for Israeli intelligence.
The circumspect stance taken by the Times is no surprise, considering the fact that the Times was quite aware that there have been many sources which have alleged that the 9-11 conspiracy was infiltrated, if not controlled outright, by Israeli intelligence from the beginning.
If the younger al-Jarrah was an Israeli asset inside the 9-11 conspiracy, this would not be (as we have seen) the first time a Muslim Arab was involved, acting as a Mossad agent, in an attack on theWorld Trade Center. And the truth is that if—out of the archives of many different intelligence agencies—we could glean more about the purported participants in the 9-11 conspiracy,we would find,most assuredly, that the strange tale of the al-Jarrah family and that of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef are really only just the tip of the iceberg relating to the Mossad’s tentacles inside Islamic fundamentalist circles linked to 9-11.
And it flies in the face of what we do know about the manner in which Israel has not only manipulated very real (call them “sincere’) Islamic hard-liners, but also of what we know of Israel’s deployment of Jews (masquerading as Arabs or Muslims) into Muslim and Arab organizations (terrorist and otherwise) and utilizing genuine Arabs—who’ve turned traitor—as assets inside those networks.
And that having been said, it appears—based on all that we have examined here, thus far, in these pages—Israel’s Mossad did indeed engage in some behind-the-scenes trickery used to manipulate Islamic fundamentalist elements—before and on 9-11—in order to achieve what it hoped to accomplish on 9-11 and did:
The 9-11 tragedy pushed America and its people onto a new path, in direct confrontation with the entire Islamic world. Once again, it was “Onward Christian Soldiers.” American men and women in uniform were deployed in what was really and simply and only but another war for Israel’s survival, this one cleverly dubbed “the War on Terror.”
The New American National Enemy—really an enemy of the entire world if truth be told—was never so vague as the old Communist bogeyman.
(What was Communism anyway?)
This time the New American National Enemy’s image and motivation was unquestionably clear. He had a face: the hook-nosed Arab wrapped in desert garb. An agenda: world conquest. A holy book: the Koran. And a prophet named Muhammed who followed a mysterious God named Allah, said to be “different” from the “good” God worshiped by Christians and their Jewish brethren alike.
This enemy hated Americans and God’s Chosen People and anything decent,determined to wipe Christianity and Israel and democracy and all nice things off the map and set up a worldwide Islamic dictatorship where good Christian girls would be sex slaves.
But Israel’s successful path to 9-11—by way of deception, if you will—was made possible because of the fact Israel (as we have seen) had a long and proven-quite-successful history of utilizing false flags (even on American soil) to achieve its ends.
In the chapter which follows, we’ll demonstrate how Arab false flags were utilized in Israel’s historic template for terror that had already been tested in the JFK assassination and the Oklahoma City bombing.
Source: The Judas Goats - pdf
Chapter Thirty-Three
The FBI-ADL-Mossad Nexus
In the First Attack on the World Trade Center:
The Little-Known (and Chilling) Story
The FBI-ADL-Mossad Nexus
In the First Attack on the World Trade Center:
The Little-Known (and Chilling) Story
It is probably no coincidence that an ex-FBI official who helped cover up the Mossad connection to the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993—as well as FBI foreknowledge of the planning of the crime—was later appointed for a brief period to serve as chief of the infamous “fact finding” (spy) division of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith.
Neil Herman, a 27-year FBI veteran, succeeded Gail Gans who was appointed to the post upon the death of longtime ADL spymaster Irwin Suall.The former head of the FBI’s Joint Terrorist Task Force, Herman was not only a key player in the World Trade Center “investigation” but he also oversaw the equally suspicious FBI inquiry into the downing of TWA Flight 800 off Long Island on July 16, 1997.
That a veteran FBI official would take a key post with the ADL is an ominous signal that the long-standing covert relationship between the FBI and the ADL—forged in the years prior to World War II—was now “going public” with a vengeance.
As the ADL’s chief spymaster, Herman was able to provide the ADL far more wide-ranging contacts within the FBI and the intelligence community than ever before, but, strangely, he evidently did not remain in the post for long.
In fact, shortly after his appointment was announced in the New York press, Herman seemed to have dropped off the radar screen and—even today—very little can be found on the Internet about him. He was succeeded as chief of spying operations by one Mark Pitcavage.
It is, of course, possible to speculate as to why he departed so quickly from the ADL realm—if indeed he did—but the fact is that Herman, positioned as he was in the investigation of the first attack on the World Trade Center, was clearly part of a cover-up of the little-known, seldom-commented-upon Israeli connection to the first attempt to bring down the twin towers that finally fell on September 11, 2001.
Here are the facts about the Mossad connection to the tragedy first revealed by investigative reporter Robert I. Friedman in the August 3, 1993 article in The Village Voice, an independent left-wing New York weekly that has occasionally dared to criticize Israel.
Friedman reported that Ahmad Ajaj, a 27-year-old West Bank Palestinian held in federal custody for conspiring to bomb the World Trade Center, may have been a Mossad mole, according to Friedman’s own Israeli intelligence sources.
Ajaj was arrested at Kennedy Airport on September 1, 1992, after he arrived on a Pakistani International flight from Peshawar carrying a forged Swedish passport and bomb-makng manuals. He was taken into custody, and subsequently pleaded guilty to entering the country illegally.Ajaj’s traveling companion was Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, an Iraqi who law enforcement sources say is a “key player” in the World Trade Center bombing.’
Although the FBI identified Ajaj as a senior intifada terrorist, with links to Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist organization, Kol Ha’ir, a respected Hebrew-language weekly published in Jerusalem, said Ajaj was never involved in intifada activities or with Hamas or even the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Instead, according to Kol Ha’ir, Ajaj was actually a petty crook arrested in 1988 for counterfeiting U.S. dollars out of a base in East Jerusalem. Ajaj was convicted of the counterfeiting charges and then sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison.
According to Friedman, writing in The Village Voice:“It was during his prison stay that Mossad, Israel’s CIA, apparently recruited him, say Israeli intelligence sources. By the time he was released after having served just one year, he had seemingly undergone a radical transformation.” Friedman reported that Ajaj had suddenly become a devout Muslim and an outspoken hard-line nationalist. Then, Ajaj was arrested for smuggling weapons into the West Bank, supposedly for El Fatah, a faction of the PLO.
But Friedman says this was actually a sham. Friedman’s sources in Israeli inteligence say that the arrest and Ajaj’s subsequent deportation were “staged by Mossad to establish his credentials as an intifada activist. Mossad allegedly ‘tasked’ Ajaj to infiltrate radical Palestinian groups operating outside Israel and to report back to Tel Aviv. Israeli intelligence sources say that it is not unusual for Mossad ro recruit from the ranks of common criminals.”
After Ajaj’s “deportation” from Israel, he showed up in Pakistan, where he turned up in the company of the anti-Soviet Mujihideen rebels in Afghanistan.
This, in itself, could point further evidence that Ajaj was working for the Mossad, for—according to Covert Action Information Bulletin (September 1987)—the funding and supply lines for the Mujahideen were not only the “the second largest covert operation” in the CIA’s history, but they were also, according to former Mossad operative Victor Ostrovsky (writing in The Other Side of Deception) under the direct supervision of the Mossad.
According to Ostrovsky:“It was a complex pipeline, since a large portion of the Mujahideen’s weapons were American-made and were supplied to the Muslim Brotherhood directly from Israel, using as carriers the Bedouin nomads who roamed the demilitarized zones in the Sinai.”
After Ajaj’s ventures with the Mujahideen, he popped up in New York and purported to befriend members of a small so-called “radical” clique surrounding Sheikh Abdel-Rahman who was accused of being the mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing.
On February 26, 1993, the actual day of the World Trade Center bombing,Ajaj was “safe” in federal prison serving a six-month sentence for entering the country on a forged passport. Later, he was indicted for conspiracy in the WTC bombing.
According to Robert Friedman, “If Ajaj was recruited by Mossad [Freidman’s emphasis], it is not known whether he continued to work for the Israeli spy agency after he was deported. One possibility, of course, is that upon leaving Israel and meeting radical Muslims close to the blind Egyptian sheikh, his loyalties shifted.”
However, Friedman also reported another frightening possibility: “Another scenario is that he had advance knowledge of the World Trade Center bombing, which he shared with Mossad, and that Mossad, for whatever reason, kept the secret to itself. If true, U.S. intelligence sources speculate that Mossad might have decided to keep the information closely guarded so as not to compromise its undercover agent.”
Friedman broke amazing ground with these revelations that were ignored by the mainstream press.
What Friedman did not mention—and which only came out later—was that the copy of the infamous “Al Qaeda Terrorist Training Manual” that received widespread publicity following the second attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 had been uncovered . . . in the possession of Ahmad Ajaj, the Mossad undercover informant in the first WTC attack. And that point speaks volumes, far more than we can address in these pages.
However, there’s much more to the story of the first WTC attack: It also turns out that the FBI itself had its own undercover informant inside the “Arab bomb plot” and did nothing—repeat nothing—to prevent the tragedy from happening.
The facts indicate that the FBI had an informant inside the so-called “Arab terrorist cell” that may have fronted for Israel’s Mossad in the World Trade Center bombing.Although Americans have been told that a blind Arab sheik, Omar Abdel-Rahman, was the mastermind of the bombing, what they don’t know is that one of the sheik’s security guards, Emad A. Salem, was an FBI informant who had filled in the FBI, in advance, of the specifics of the bomb plot.
The FBI officially severed its contacts with Salem seven months before the bombing. However, in the aftermath of the tragedy, the FBI opened up relations with Salem once again. At that time, however, Salem—unbeknown to the FBI—began recording his exchanges with his FBI handler.
Salem’s recorded conversations confirmed that the FBI, in fact, had extensive prior knowledge of the plot to bomb the World Trade Center. The recordings indicate that Salem had told the FBI that he would sabotage the plot by replacing the explosive components of the bomb with an inert powder, after which time the FBI could come in and capture those involved in the conspiracy.
In his book, The Medusa File, investigator Craig Roberts, a well-regarded 26-year veteran police officer and U.S. Marine Vietnam veteran, outlined the parameters of this outrageous scandal that has been effectively buried by the mainstream media. According to Roberts:
Neil Herman, a 27-year FBI veteran, succeeded Gail Gans who was appointed to the post upon the death of longtime ADL spymaster Irwin Suall.The former head of the FBI’s Joint Terrorist Task Force, Herman was not only a key player in the World Trade Center “investigation” but he also oversaw the equally suspicious FBI inquiry into the downing of TWA Flight 800 off Long Island on July 16, 1997.
That a veteran FBI official would take a key post with the ADL is an ominous signal that the long-standing covert relationship between the FBI and the ADL—forged in the years prior to World War II—was now “going public” with a vengeance.
As the ADL’s chief spymaster, Herman was able to provide the ADL far more wide-ranging contacts within the FBI and the intelligence community than ever before, but, strangely, he evidently did not remain in the post for long.
In fact, shortly after his appointment was announced in the New York press, Herman seemed to have dropped off the radar screen and—even today—very little can be found on the Internet about him. He was succeeded as chief of spying operations by one Mark Pitcavage.
It is, of course, possible to speculate as to why he departed so quickly from the ADL realm—if indeed he did—but the fact is that Herman, positioned as he was in the investigation of the first attack on the World Trade Center, was clearly part of a cover-up of the little-known, seldom-commented-upon Israeli connection to the first attempt to bring down the twin towers that finally fell on September 11, 2001.
Here are the facts about the Mossad connection to the tragedy first revealed by investigative reporter Robert I. Friedman in the August 3, 1993 article in The Village Voice, an independent left-wing New York weekly that has occasionally dared to criticize Israel.
Friedman reported that Ahmad Ajaj, a 27-year-old West Bank Palestinian held in federal custody for conspiring to bomb the World Trade Center, may have been a Mossad mole, according to Friedman’s own Israeli intelligence sources.
Ajaj was arrested at Kennedy Airport on September 1, 1992, after he arrived on a Pakistani International flight from Peshawar carrying a forged Swedish passport and bomb-makng manuals. He was taken into custody, and subsequently pleaded guilty to entering the country illegally.Ajaj’s traveling companion was Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, an Iraqi who law enforcement sources say is a “key player” in the World Trade Center bombing.’
Although the FBI identified Ajaj as a senior intifada terrorist, with links to Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist organization, Kol Ha’ir, a respected Hebrew-language weekly published in Jerusalem, said Ajaj was never involved in intifada activities or with Hamas or even the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Instead, according to Kol Ha’ir, Ajaj was actually a petty crook arrested in 1988 for counterfeiting U.S. dollars out of a base in East Jerusalem. Ajaj was convicted of the counterfeiting charges and then sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison.
According to Friedman, writing in The Village Voice:“It was during his prison stay that Mossad, Israel’s CIA, apparently recruited him, say Israeli intelligence sources. By the time he was released after having served just one year, he had seemingly undergone a radical transformation.” Friedman reported that Ajaj had suddenly become a devout Muslim and an outspoken hard-line nationalist. Then, Ajaj was arrested for smuggling weapons into the West Bank, supposedly for El Fatah, a faction of the PLO.
But Friedman says this was actually a sham. Friedman’s sources in Israeli inteligence say that the arrest and Ajaj’s subsequent deportation were “staged by Mossad to establish his credentials as an intifada activist. Mossad allegedly ‘tasked’ Ajaj to infiltrate radical Palestinian groups operating outside Israel and to report back to Tel Aviv. Israeli intelligence sources say that it is not unusual for Mossad ro recruit from the ranks of common criminals.”
After Ajaj’s “deportation” from Israel, he showed up in Pakistan, where he turned up in the company of the anti-Soviet Mujihideen rebels in Afghanistan.
This, in itself, could point further evidence that Ajaj was working for the Mossad, for—according to Covert Action Information Bulletin (September 1987)—the funding and supply lines for the Mujahideen were not only the “the second largest covert operation” in the CIA’s history, but they were also, according to former Mossad operative Victor Ostrovsky (writing in The Other Side of Deception) under the direct supervision of the Mossad.
According to Ostrovsky:“It was a complex pipeline, since a large portion of the Mujahideen’s weapons were American-made and were supplied to the Muslim Brotherhood directly from Israel, using as carriers the Bedouin nomads who roamed the demilitarized zones in the Sinai.”
After Ajaj’s ventures with the Mujahideen, he popped up in New York and purported to befriend members of a small so-called “radical” clique surrounding Sheikh Abdel-Rahman who was accused of being the mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing.
On February 26, 1993, the actual day of the World Trade Center bombing,Ajaj was “safe” in federal prison serving a six-month sentence for entering the country on a forged passport. Later, he was indicted for conspiracy in the WTC bombing.
According to Robert Friedman, “If Ajaj was recruited by Mossad [Freidman’s emphasis], it is not known whether he continued to work for the Israeli spy agency after he was deported. One possibility, of course, is that upon leaving Israel and meeting radical Muslims close to the blind Egyptian sheikh, his loyalties shifted.”
However, Friedman also reported another frightening possibility: “Another scenario is that he had advance knowledge of the World Trade Center bombing, which he shared with Mossad, and that Mossad, for whatever reason, kept the secret to itself. If true, U.S. intelligence sources speculate that Mossad might have decided to keep the information closely guarded so as not to compromise its undercover agent.”
Friedman broke amazing ground with these revelations that were ignored by the mainstream press.
What Friedman did not mention—and which only came out later—was that the copy of the infamous “Al Qaeda Terrorist Training Manual” that received widespread publicity following the second attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 had been uncovered . . . in the possession of Ahmad Ajaj, the Mossad undercover informant in the first WTC attack. And that point speaks volumes, far more than we can address in these pages.
However, there’s much more to the story of the first WTC attack: It also turns out that the FBI itself had its own undercover informant inside the “Arab bomb plot” and did nothing—repeat nothing—to prevent the tragedy from happening.
The facts indicate that the FBI had an informant inside the so-called “Arab terrorist cell” that may have fronted for Israel’s Mossad in the World Trade Center bombing.Although Americans have been told that a blind Arab sheik, Omar Abdel-Rahman, was the mastermind of the bombing, what they don’t know is that one of the sheik’s security guards, Emad A. Salem, was an FBI informant who had filled in the FBI, in advance, of the specifics of the bomb plot.
The FBI officially severed its contacts with Salem seven months before the bombing. However, in the aftermath of the tragedy, the FBI opened up relations with Salem once again. At that time, however, Salem—unbeknown to the FBI—began recording his exchanges with his FBI handler.
Salem’s recorded conversations confirmed that the FBI, in fact, had extensive prior knowledge of the plot to bomb the World Trade Center. The recordings indicate that Salem had told the FBI that he would sabotage the plot by replacing the explosive components of the bomb with an inert powder, after which time the FBI could come in and capture those involved in the conspiracy.
In his book, The Medusa File, investigator Craig Roberts, a well-regarded 26-year veteran police officer and U.S. Marine Vietnam veteran, outlined the parameters of this outrageous scandal that has been effectively buried by the mainstream media. According to Roberts:
It seems that the FBI actually had more than a simple “informant” inside Rahman’s terrorist cell.What they actually had was an Egyptian intelligence officer named Emad Salem, who reported directly to his FBI control agent, Special Agent John Anticev. Salem, it turns out, was hired to infiltrate the Rahman group long before the bombing took place, and consistently reported on the activities of the radicals—including their plans to conduct bombings in the New York City area.
What the FBI did not know was that Salem recorded his conversations with his control agents.The tapes tell a far different story than the official versions of the “investigation.” According to The New York Times, which managed to obtain secret transcripts of some of the conversations, the FBI knew in advance when the bomb was going to be planted, who was going to do it, the names of everyone in the terrorist cell, and where the truck was rented. But worse, one tape went even further. It seems that the FBI not only knew about the planning, they actually assisted the bombers in obtaining and constructing the bomb!
The original FBI plan was for the informant to provide a non-explosive substance that would be labeled “ammonium nitrate,” then use it to construct a “bomb” that would not go off.All the FBI needed to show in court was the elements of conspiracy and intent. It would be a classic “sting” operation and the FBI would come out in the media as heroes—a much-needed polishing of their tarnished image since the earlier debacle at Ruby Ridge, Idaho.
Instead of arresting the conspirators when they received inside information that the bombing was being planned, the FBI instead kept their source in place and continued to monitor the progress of the terrorists in planning and preparing for their goal. According to the transcripts, the plan was changed and the informant was directed to provide the terrorists with real explosive materials.The reasoning behind this may have been simply that showing “intent” might not be enough to make a terrorism case in court, and that if real explosives were discovered then the case would make itself. But whatever the reason, the plan moved into stage two: building the bomb.
According to reports and transcripts, Salem was instructed to not only provide the materials, but to give instruction and help in building the bomb itself . . . In [one] transcript [Salem] admitted [to his FBI handlers] that he used government funds to procure the materials and build the bomb for the Rahman group, as he was instructed to do.
These interesting details about the first World Trade Center tragedy paint a starkly different picture of what happened than what we have been told by both the FBI and their allies in the ADL. It is another ugly profile of the manner in which The Enemy Within has been operating on American soil, and one which—quite obviously—raises the question: “If the Israelis were responsible for the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993—using Arabs as “false flags”—did they come back in 2001 to finish the job?”
Don’t bet against it.
Don’t bet against it.
Sur ce blog:
Rappel: c'étaient pas des musulmans qui ont été arrêté juste après le 11 septembre, c'étaient une soixantaine d'Israéliens
Résumé des preuves liant le Mossad aux coupables du 11 septembre
Philip Zelikow et les mensonges de la Commission d'enquête du 11 septembre
Les 5 Israéliens dansants et le camion rempli d'explosifs du 11 septembre
Rappel: le général du renseignement pakistanais identifie les néocons sionistes comme étant les véritables responsables du 11 septembre
James Petras lève le voile sur les agents sionistes responsables de la guerre en Irak et du scandale d'espionnage à l'AIPAC
Le récent scandale d'espionnage par des compagnies de sécurité israéliennes en Pennsylvanie n'est que la pointe de l'iceberg...
Netanyahou confirme que l'espion israélien Jonathan Pollard était en mission officielle
À lire
Ahmed Rami de Radioislam.org: L'AIPAC---la mafia juive sioniste qui contrôle l'appareil de décision américain
L'attaque de la Flottille de la Liberté: un miroir du USS Liberty
Derrière Northwoods: Israël et "l'équipe B" (néocons)
VIDEO - Secrets du Mossad, par Victor Ostrovsky
