Jerusalem terrorism conference Jul 1979 war on terror born

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

How Israel Created the Fiend for the War on Terror
May 29, 2016
http://www.bollyn.com/how-israel-creates-the-fiend-in-the-war-on-terro r/

In reality, the War on Terror is an Israeli propaganda construct designed to deceive the West into destroying Israel’s enemies on behalf of the Zionist state.

The War on Terror is essentially an Israeli war strategy. It was first promoted on the world stage by Benjamin Netanyahu and Menachem Begin (of the terrorist Likud party) at the Jerusalem Conference hosted by the Netanyahu Institute in July 1979.

Former C.I.A. director George H.W. Bush spoke at the final session of the Jerusalem conference in support of waging war on terrorists.

According to the War on Terror doctrine advocated by Netanyahu, "Islamic terrorists" attack Israel because it is a Western state with Western values. The West, Netanyahu says, is the real target so the U.S. must lead the West in waging a global War on Terror to destroy Islamic terrorists and the regimes that support them. This is exactly what the United States has done since 9/11, at incredible expense to its own population, leaving a trail of devastated nations in its wake.

The Israeli construct was designed to get the U.S. to destroy the enemies of the Zionist state. The Israelis developed the War on Terror construct and then created the Islamic opponent, al Qaida, to serve as the antithesis – the virulent enemy of the West. The real purpose of al Qaida, and its subsequent iterations like ISIS, is to be a moving target used to destabilize and destroy sovereign countries, like Syria, while sustaining the illusion of an Islamic antithesis, posing a mortal threat to the security of the West. The Zionist-controlled media is the essential element in selling the fraudulent War on Terror to the public.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 gave Israeli military intelligence the perfect opportunity to create a cadre of anti-Western Islamic “terrorists”, which would become the "enemy" in the War on Terror.

From the early 1980s, the C.I.A. began a covert effort to support Afghan mujahideen in their ‘holy struggle’ or jihad, to remove the Red Army from Afghanistan. The allies who worked with the C.I.A. to arm the mujahideen were Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.

Charlie Wilson, an extremely pro-Israel Congressman from Texas, acted as an Israeli weapons dealer in brokering an arrangement with Pakistani leader Mohammed Zia ul-Haq and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar to provide Israeli weapons (captured from the P.L.O. in Lebanon) and Israeli training to the Hezb-i-Islami mujahideen.

Charlie Wilson’s Israeli handler was Zvi Rafiah, Mossad station chief in Washington, who had known Wilson since 1973 and who used his congressional office as if it were his own: “Rafiah had always acted as if he owned Wilson’s office. One of the staffers kept a list of people he needed to lobby. He would use the phones, give projects to the staff, and call on Charlie to intervene whenever he needed him.”
Source - George Crile, Charlie Wilson’s War (2003)

Charlie Wilson got the notoriously anti-Western Hekmatyar to accept weapons and training from the Israelis. Why would the C.I.A. and the Israelis choose to arm the most radical and virulently anti-Western group of mujahideen, the Hezb-i-Islami Gulbuddin? Why would it not choose to arm a pro-Western Afghan militia that was more successful in combat, like that headed by Abdul Haq?


The lion’s share of weaponry went to the anti-Western Hezb-i-Islami run by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. "By the most conservative estimates, $600 million" in American aid went to Hekmatyar's party, which "had the dubious distinction of never winning a significant battle during the war, training a variety of militant Islamists from around the world, killing significant numbers of mujahideen from other parties, and taking a virulently anti-Western line."
Source - Peter Bergen, Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden, Free Press (2001)


While Israeli military intelligence agents trained his group, by 1984 Gulbuddin had developed close ties with bin Laden, while receiving assistance from the C.I.A. and ISI.


Israeli military intelligence provided Gulbuddin’s Hezb-i-Islami with weapons and trained at least 4,000 men in the anti-Western militia. Thousands of non-Afghan fighters join Gulbuddin’s Hezb-i-Islami, including thousands of Arabs, known as Afghan Arabs. Osama bin Laden is the most famous of the Afghan Arabs. Having trained a cadre of 4,000 anti-Western Islamic fighters, Israeli military intelligence and C.I.A. had a database of names to populate the Islamic anti-Western antithesis needed for the War on Terror construct. This database was known as al Qaida.


Having lost Saudi support when it supported Saddam Hussein, and Pakistani support after 1994, "the remainder of Hezb-i-Islami merged into al-Qaeda and the Taliban."
Source - The Columbia World Dictionary of Islamism


A Hebrew-speaking double-agent of Egyptian origin, Ali Mohamed, was involved in the training of the Afghan mujahideen. Mohamed trained Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the terrorists responsible for the bombings of the two U.S. embassies in Africa. Mohamed is said to have been bin Laden’s “first trainer”. But, where and how did Mohamed learn Hebrew? And how did this Hebrew-speaking agent, involved in all the major terror attacks of the 1990s and sentenced to life in prison, disappear from the U.S. judicial system?


The Hebrew-speaking Ali Mohamed runs like a red thread connecting all al Qaeda terrorist activities during the 1990s. “In 1992, I conducted military and basic explosives training for al Qaeda in Afghanistan... I also conducted intelligence training for al Qaeda. I taught my trainees how to create cell structures that could be used for operations.” Ali Mohamed seems to have been the mastermind behind the terrorist attacks attibuted to al Qaeda. For example, while bin Laden and Ali Mohamed reportedly worked closely to create cells in Tanzania and Kenya to help prepare for the bombings of the embassies, Ali went to Nairobi to set up the terrorist cell.
Source - "United States of America v. Ali Mohamed"


Ehud Barak was head of Israel's Military Intelligence Directorate (AMAN) when Israeli military intelligence agents began arming and training Gulbuddin’s Hezb-i-Islami. If the Hebrew-speaking Ali Mohamed was training Osama bin Laden, was Mohamed working for Ehud Barak's AMAN?


On 9/11, Ehud Barak appeared on BBC World television and blamed Osama bin Laden and al Qaida before the towers had even been destroyed. Saying that the world would never be the same, Barak ended by saying that it was now time for the U.S. to start an "operational, concrete war against terror." Barak's early analysis became the accepted version and conventional wisdom after 9/11.


Using its al Qaida database, the Israelis engineered the false-flag terrorist attacks of 9/11 to be blamed on Osama bin Laden and al Qaida in order to kick-start their long-planned War on Terrorism. Barak's authoritative statement on BBC World was meant to provide a plausible explanation while the American population was in a vulnerable state of "shock and awe."


On September 11, 2001, reading from a Zionist script, President George W. Bush began by saying that, "our way of life" and "our very freedom" was under attack. "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world," Bush told the shocked nation.


Twenty-two years after it was born at Netanyahu’s Jerusalem Conference in 1979, the War on Terror moved into its operational phase with the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001.


By continuously morphing the identity, moving the players, and carrying out acts of false-flag terrorism, the targets set for destruction by the U.S. military have moved with the virulent anti-Western Islamic “enemy” – all according to a screenplay choreographed by Israeli military intelligence - from the beginning.


Support Christopher Bollyn's efforts to expose the deception of our time.
Donate here or by PayPal to bollyn@bollynbooks.com

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Born in Jerusalem, 1979: A Revealing Glimpse at the “War on Terror”

by Ilisha on December 25, 2013 in Loon Media, Loon People, Loon Politics
Islam and the Magic Mushroom Cloud

by Ilisha

Contrary to popular opinion, the War on Terror was not conceived in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks of 2001. The War on Terror was born more than three decades ago in Jerusalem, and a glimpse into that historical narrative is quite enlightening.

The Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism was convened by the Jonathan Institute in July of 1979. The Jonathan Institute was founded by Benjamin Netanyahu, in memory of his brother, Jonathan Netanyahu, a commando in the Israeli army killed during Operation Entebbe in Uganda.

Many of the themes back then were shockingly similar to the themes of today. Despite the fact more than three decades have passed, the cast of characters was also largely the same.

The similarities are striking. But what’s even more striking is that one major theme is not the same at all. The War on Terror is an old script with a new twist, as we shall see.

First, the similarities. In Netanyahu’s own words, the purpose of the conference seems familiar enough:

To focus public attention on the grave threat that international terrorism poses to all democratic societies, to study the real nature of today’s terrorism, and to propose measures for combating and defeating the international terror movements.’ – International Terrorism, foreword by Benjamin Netanyahu

Attendees included Senator Henry M. Jackson, who gave a talk entitled Terrorism as a Weapon in International Politics. Today we still have the Henry Jackson Society, actively spreading the neoconservative message under the auspices of front groups and well orchestrated propaganda campaigns.

Also in attendance was Professor Richard Pipes, a consultant to Senator Henry Jackson and close associate of the notorious “Prince of Darkness,” Richard Perle. Pipes and Pearl both served on the fear mongering Committee on the Present Danger and the Council on Foreign relations. The neoconservative torch was later picked up by Richard Pipes’ son, well-known anti-Muslim propagandist, Daniel Pipes.

Other familiar neoconservative luminaries in attendance included Midge Decter and Norman Podhoretz, along with several notable figures from Israel, Europe, and Japan. Representing the US were Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist George Will and a number of key political and military figures, including Jack Kemp, Major General George Keegan, Jr., Secretary of State George P. Shultz and Senators Alan Cranston, Paul Laxalt, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

The man who would later become the 41st president of the United States, George H.W. Bush, was also in attendance. As president, Bush waged war on Iraq, one of Israel’s key rivals in the region. His son, George W. Bush, who followed in his footsteps, also become president of the United States. Under the tutelage of prominent neoconservatives, Bush Jr. continued the systematic destruction and disintegration of Iraq, following 12 years of deadly economic sanctions, with a second military invasion in 2003.

The destruction of Iraq was a dream come true for the neoconservatives, who expounded clearly on their ambitions in a report written in 2000 entitled, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. Authors included many of the usual suspects. Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser explained in concert that, with Iraq effectively neutralized, Israel would be free to pursue its regional ambitions:

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria’s regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq.

The guiding philosophy that would eventually justify the invasion of one Muslim-majority country after another was established at the Jerusalem conference, held over the course of three days. Though the context was different, the topics covered are hauntingly familiar: (1) The Face of Terrorism, (2) State Support for International Terrorism, (3) The Threat Posed by Terrorism to Democratic Societies, (4) Terrorism and the Media, (6) Proposed Countermeasures for the Democratic World, (Closing) The Challenge to Free Men.

In Netanyahu’s subsequent book, ”Terrorism: How the West Can Win,” he further elaborated on the root cause of this global menace. From a book review published in the New York Times:

On one thing virtually all the contributors seem agreed. Over and above any local and immediate aims, terrorism is directed, by its very nature, against democracy; it seeks to demoralize democratic regimes and ultimately bring them down. And whatever ends individual terrorists may suppose or contend they are serving, their basic assumptions remain irredeemably totalitarian. Indeed, as Senator Moynihan puts it, ”The totalitarian state is terrorism come to power.”

Sound familiar? Today we hear about state-sponsored terrorism, especially with regard to whichever country is currently in the cross hairs.

Except, shockingly, the “irredeemably totalitarian” ideology Netanyahu referred to was NOT Islam. In fact, Islam emerged virtually unscathed. From the same book review in the New York Times:

In a discussion entitled ”Islamic Terrorism?,” the scholar Bernard Lewis emphasizes that there is nothing in Islam as a religion that is especially conducive to terrorism. Like the other great religions, it condemns the maltreatment of the innocent; from early on it laid down rules for the humane treatment of noncombatants during a war. And though it has always had a more explicitly political character than other religions, Islamic terrorism [sic] as practiced today is essentially an importation from the West.

In two companion pieces, the writers Elie Kedourie and P. J. Vatikiotis both concur about the Western roots of Islamic [sic] terrorism, while analyzing some of the ways it has subsequently flowered on its own account…

What a shocking deviation from the current script! How can those jaw-dropping statements possibly be explained in the present context?

Yesterday the same propagandists recognized Islam was not “especially conducive to terrorism” and that “terrorism as practiced today is essentially an importation from the West.” Today we are constantly bombarded with the notion that Islam, cleverly cloaked in terms such as “Islamism” and “Political Islam,” is the Evil Mastermind of global terrorism.

The key to understanding this dramatic reversal is historical perspective. At that time, the alleged evil ravaging the Free World was not “Islamism,” but Communism. In The Pope and the Axis of Terror, BBC blogger Adam Curtis explains the neoconservative “Red Scare” narrative:

It had a dramatic thesis.

It said that there was a “Global Terror Network” underneath the surface of most Western societies and the Middle East.

That all of them – the Red Brigades, Baader-Meinhof gang, Provisional IRA, South Moluccans, Japanese Red Army, Iranian terrorists, Turkish People’s Liberation Army, Spain’s ETA, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Fatah, the military arm of the Palestine Liberation Organization were all part of a grand Soviet scheme.

Communism was the shadowy evil force that justified runaway military spending, repression at home, and permanent war abroad. The dramatic narrative was also expounded upon by the Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA), with a particular focus on the Palestinians, following the conference in 1979:

Behind the Headlines USSR Training Palestinian Terrorists
July 24, 1979

The Soviet Union is training “hundreds of Palestinians” in terrorist schools near Moscow and along the Black Sea, and there are similar training camps in Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia, a British newspaper reported.

Details of the connection between the Soviet Union and the Palestinians were given in the Daily Telegraph by Journalist Robert Moss, a specialist on subversion who two weeks ago attended the Jerusalem conference on terrorism. Moss said that because of the Soviet support for Palestinian terrorism, as well as its toll of innocent lives, it is a “tragic error” for any Western government to confer legality on the Palestine Liberation Organization.

He named the Military Academy at Simferopol in the Crimea as “a primary reception center for PLO men selected for sabotage and terrorist training in the Soviet Union.” Courses, said to include river crossings and all types of sabotage, are attended by mixed groups of 50 to 60 PLO trainees, drawn from different guerrilla organizations according to a quota system.

A “typical” course at Simferopol included recruits from Yasir Arafat’s El Fatah, the Syrian backed Al Saiqa, the Palestine Liberation Front and George Habash’s Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Moss claims that Palestinians of above-average aptitude are sometimes transferred to special courses in KGB or GRU (Soviet military intelligence) schools, which also receive a steady intake of intelligence officers from Libya, Syria, Iraq and South Yemen.

PLO SEEN AS USEFUL ASSET

In the Soviet view, Moss added, the PLO is a “tremendously useful asset.” It can supply shock troops, like the members of Idi Amin’s bodyguard in Uganda; subversive agents in the Persian Gulf sheikhdoms and Saudi Arabia “that can now hold a knife to the throats of pro-Western monarchs”; and “all-purpose terrorists,” he wrote. The PLO “can also serve as the middleman in supplying arms to the national liberation movements,” as well as carrying out missions of specifically Soviet rather than Palestinian interest.

“One such case was the PLO plot to blow up fuel depots in West Berlin…. Another was the attempt by a Palestinian hit team in Holland in 1975 to hijack a train carrying Jewish refugees from the Soviet Union,” Moss stated.

Rolling the Palestinian nationalist struggle into the Red Scare narrative was an ingenious plot. Despite initial skepticism, the “War on Terror” with the Soviet Union playing the role of Evil Terrorist Mastermind was the centerpiece of neoconservative propaganda for the next decade.

Then the Soviet Union collapsed.

The inevitable end to the Cold War hysteria that had prevailed for decades was a disaster for the neoconservative enterprise. Hawkish disciples, including Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, were devastated. When asked in 1990 why he had stopped writing, Podhoretz said he had lost his compass. He no longer knew what to think, noting with irony that Kristol had moved all the way to Washington, D.C, just as the “the spirit blew out of the Beltway.” 1

But the neoconservatives are a resourceful and patient lot. Yes, the Soviet menace had disappeared from the world stage, but fortunately, new villains quickly emerged. The Green Menace of “Islamism” replaced the Red Menace of Communism, and the neoconservatives were off and running again.

The neoconservatives were quick and nimble, retooling their propaganda in the wake of the Soviet collapse. The precious narrative could be saved, but sadly for the propagandists, progress would be slow. Whipping up mass hysteria is not always an easy task.

The neoconservatives openly expressed their dreams of a catalyzing event that would galvanize the public behind their militaristic agenda. Fortunately for them, the event came in the fall of 2001.

The New Pearl Harbor they’d longed for came in the form of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, delivering the neoconservative dream on a silver platter. They openly recognized the attacks as a blessing, and soon the entire chorus began evangelizing with renewed passion. The script is eerily familiar, but this time around, the Mean Green Menace has taken center stage.

Propaganda is always calibrated to an audience swimming in a particular historical moment. Even people who have bought into the propaganda of the day hook, line, and sinker can often easily recognize the absurdity of the propaganda campaigns of an earlier era.

The trick is being able to recognize the carefully engineered propaganda campaigns that resonate in the current climate. Sometimes all it takes to see what’s in front of your nose is a brief glimpse into the historical archive.

1. Gary J. Dorrien, Imperial Designs: Neoconservatism and the New Pax Americana (New York: Routledge, 2004), p. 14.↩
to
View all posts by Ilisha →
Subsc

[TonyGosling]

Advice we should have taken before 9/11...and still ought to
By Jill Malter on January 2, 2005
Format: Mass Market Paperback
I know that this edition was published on April Fool's Day, but terrorism is no joke. Terrorism is indeed, as Netanyahu says, "the deliberate and systematic murder, maiming, or menacing of the innocent to inspire fear for political ends."

Those who support terrorism tend to reply that actually, those who fight terrorism are the terrorists. And that the real question to ask is "what drives such good people to commit acts Netanyahu calls 'terrorism?'" And the most famous line, that one Man's terrorist is another Man's freedom fighter. Um, right. And one Woman's cat is another Woman's dog, I suppose! A better analogy might be that one person's policeman is another person's robber. Well, there is a difference between terrorists and those who oppose them. And it is counterproductive to give in to terrorist demands. That is what this book is about.

There are over three dozen contributors. George Shultz focuses on the need for better intelligence. I agree: that would have helped avert 9/11. Benzion Netanyhau points out that the PLO can't be freedom fighters, given that they fight for oppression rather than against it. Paul Johnson says we must have courage to deny hiding places to terrorists. Daniel Moynahan explains that there is a justification to go after terrorists internationally, given that terrorism opposes both freedom and human rights. Alain Bescancon shows how Russian terrorists in the 1870s obtained public support. Leszek Kowalski says that state-supported terror is simply war and ought to be treated as such. Jeane Kirkpatrick argues that terrorist victories lead to the establishment of totalitarian states.

There is a section on Islamic terrorism. Bernard Lewis tells us about the Assassins. It's worth remembering that their goals were arbitrary and are long forgotten. After that, we see the connection between domestic terror and international terrorism. Then there is a section on international terrorism. Jillian Becker tells us about how Europeans could come to Lebanon as guests of the PLO, be given rifles, shoot some civilians with impunity just for fun, and go home without any fear of reprisals.

Perhaps the most important section is on terrorism and the media. Charles Krauthammer explains how the terrorists have made those in the media "partners in crime." And he advises that the media at least avoid romancing terror. John O'Sullivan wants to deny publicity to terrorists. And Lord Chalfont reminds those in the media that when the terrorists win, the first freedom that will be taken away will be that of the press. A short panel discussion of terror and the media is at the end of the book.

The following section deals with the legality of fighting terror, including rights of "hot pursuit." Meir Shamgar recommends an international convention against terrorism. After that, there are articles about domestic terrorism and global terrorism. Alan Cranston discusses the threat of nuclear terrorist states. Yitzhak Rabin recommends starting a U.S.-led international agency against terrorism. Midge Decter warns us that if we lose the battle to the terrorists, those in the future will not say of us that we were too noble and good to fight. They'll say we were too morally lazy to keep freedom alive for them. Jack Kemp reminds us not to draw a false symmetry between us and those who terrorize us. Benjamin Netanyahu has an important point to make: the more scared we are of civilian casualties, the more terrorists will attack civilians and use civilians as shields. And the net result may well be even more civilian casualties.

This is an excellent book and I highly recommend it.