Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
Of cabbages—and kings—
And why the sea is boiling hot—
And whether pigs have wings.—The Walrus and the Carpenter
Correction: Thanks to those readers who noted my error in originally attributing this verse to Jabberwocky
The journalists which Israeli military-intelligence circles are employing to cover their sins involving the Eilat terror attack and its aftermath are certainly not kings (though they might be cabbages). And it does seem that when their sources tell them that pigs have wings, they dutifully regurgitate it to their readers without regard for credibility. They are sycophants and stenographers.
What is especially interesting though, is how the very Israeli official sources which claimed the assault was the doing of the Popular Resistance Committee and Hamas are trying to walk the horse back into the barn with new versions which ignore the worst sins of the original claims, while adding new lies, attempting to patch up the flaws of the original.
A case in point is Eli Lake’s report in today’s Washington Times which uses unnamed U.S. and Israeli intelligence sources in painting a picture that is almost totally devoid of truth or honesty. It seems that certain circles of Israeli and U.S. intelligence here in this country have done an excellent job of coordinating their stories. The Americans, despite the fact that there is little truth in the claims, seem to be parroting Israeli views quite diligently.
In his story, Al Qaeda Linked to Eilat Bus Ambush, note how the crime Bibi Netanyahu associated solely with Gaza and the Popular Resistance Committee slowly morphes into a crime linked to Al Qaeda:
A U.S. government assessment of the incident Thursday concludes that either the Palestinian group Popular Resistance Committees or the Gaza-based Army of Islam (or Jaish al Islam), a Palestinian group sympathetic to al Qaeda, carried out the commando assault and bombing raid that emanated from the increasingly lawless Sinai Peninsula.
The “report” of course offers absolutely no proof that any Gaza entities were involved. Nor does it mention (the truth) that no Gazans appear to have been killed in the incident. It doesn’t mention that Israel, normally eager to release identifying information about apprehended or killed terrorists, has done neither. But it does bring up a new group Israel hadn’t previously blamed, Army of Islam. The fact that it has been linked to Al Qaeda allows Lake’s sources to move attention from the Gaza angle to the Al Qaeda angle. Note how the story continues morphing in front of our very eyes:
One intelligence official who focuses on al Qaeda said an initial assessment identified a new group, al Qaeda in the Sinai Peninsula, as a key perpetrator of the attack.
This is the first time in the entire piece that Lake has written something likely truthful. But notice in doing so, he’s prefaced it with enough information pointing fingers back at Gaza, that Israel’s fraudulent claims regarding Hamas and the PRC don’t trouble the reader’s mind.
Lake then uses hasbara mouthpiece Dore Gold to clinch the alleged Gaza-Sinai connection with even more lies:
Mr. Gold added, “These organizations [Hamas , PRC, Army of Islam, Al Qaeda] all work together, and Sinai is a place where they all meet.”
First, while Hamas and PRC do cooperate, Hamas is at war with Army of Islam and has liquidated its members whenever it could find them. There is no evidence Hamas has cooperated with any Al Qaeda elements anywhere including the Sinai. But what Gold has done is to link Hamas and the PRC, wrong accused by Bibi Netanyahu of responsibility for the crime, with Sinai Islamist forces which likely did commit it. All in the service of obfuscating Israel’s earlier claim which it used to assault Gaza and kill 14 there who had nothing whatsoever to do with what happened in Eilat.
In the following sentence Lake belatedly adds information which provides him a suitable “out” should the lies he’s been fed be exposed by anyone authoritatively:
U.S. officials told The Washington Times there is no confirmation identifying the attacker conclusively.
He follows this with a theory which some American intelligence source passes off as authoritative, containing, at least, more truth than the earlier suppositions the journalist put forward:
One intelligence official who focuses on al Qaeda said the majority of all source intelligence points to al Qaeda.
And note here that there isn’t any mention of Hamas or the PRC or Gaza. Again, a small element of truth. But what this claim neglects is that native Egyptian elements were deeply implicated in the terror attack. And those who carried out the assault may or may not have been influenced or allied with Al Qaeda. But the origin of the attack was Egypt and not Gaza, and not even Al Qaeda (except insofar as Al Qaeda may be operating in the Sinai together with Egyptian Islamists).
In the following passage, Lake becomes hopelessly embroiled in the thicket of Islamist terror groups, appearing to confuse the Gazan Army of God with Sinai-based terror groups:
Over the weekend, however, as more information was gathered about the attack near Eilat, some Israeli official sources also began to acknowledge that a group known as Jaish al Islam, an extremist Muslim organization, also played a role in the attack.
If confirmed, the involvement of a new Sinai-based al Qaeda group would be yet another extremist group aligned with the goals of the terrorist group behind the Sept. 11, 2001…
Note that no Israeli source has previously blamed Army of Islam for the Eilat incident and that neither Lake nor his source offer any specific evidence to support the claim. This is the first we hear of Army of Islam in connection to the incident. The reason it’s been advanced is that there have been claims made over the past year or two that Army of Islam has made alliance with Sinai-based Islamists. By introducing the red herring of Army of Islam, Israel walks the horse back to the barn. We’re still blaming someone in Gaza for the attacks, but now we’re at least blaming a group that has some connections to the real probable perpetrators, Sinai militants.
Israeli intelligence continues trying to walk the horse that Bibi let escape from the barn back into it, by reducing the role the PRC played in the attack. Now instead of being the authors, they are merely the scouts. As such, Israel’s assassination of three of the PRC’s leaders can still be justified:
The intelligence official who said there are signs of a new Sinai-based group said initial assessments indicated the Popular Resistance Committees‘ role was limited to providing advance scouting of locations for the attack.
“PRC was clearly involved, [but] they were not the brains or the brawn of the operation. They were the scouts,” the official said. “Because the PRC squawked after the operation, they became an immediate target. It is not an unjustifiable reaction.”
There is one major problem with this claim. The PRC is Gaza based. It doesn’t operate outside Gaza. How and why would it have provided “scouting” expertise to Sinai based terrorists seeking to assault an Israeli city 100 miles from Gaza? Wouldn’t you think the Sinai-based Egyptians planning the attack could’ve done a better job of scouting Egyptian border posts and Israeli security presence in the region where the attack took place? How could the PRC have helped in any credible way? No, the explanation is lame. What it does do though, is offer Bibi a fig leaf to justify his mendacious claim of PRC authorship of the attack, which he used to justify the killings (which also killed a 2 year old boy).
Now let’s pass on to a new report from Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz’s Palestine affairs correspondent, which also adds elements of truth to the mix in the form of information that may actually be truthful but was previously withheld. Nonetheless, the information is presented solely from the IDF perspective and its purpose is solely to exonerate the IDF of blame for the terror incident and the failure to prevent it.
Issacharoff begins with the Al Masry Al Youm report that Egypt has identified three of the terrorists as Egyptian. What Haaretz doesn’t say, and the IDF knows, is that almost certainly ALL the attackers were Egyptian. That is why the IDF has not released any information about them, contrary to all previous military practice after terror incidents.
His report rather nonchalantly reveals the potentially incendiary information I reported yesterday, that an IDF force entered Egyptian territory in hot pursuit of the attackers, and that the IDF engaged and killed real Egyptian military who were trying to apprehend or kill the actual terrorists.
In this passage, the Haaretz reporter actually mischaracterizes the Al Masry report:
An Egyptian security vehicle making its way to the area of the incident was also attacked, but it remains unclear who was responsible.
The Egyptian newspaper clearly indicates, as I reported yesterday, that the Israeli helicopter and the terrorists fired on the security vehicle. At any rate, I’m certain the IDF’s helicopter proved a serious obstacle to apprehending the bad guys.
In this passage, the IDF is doing more of the walking the horse back to the barn which I described in Eli Lake’s report:
Egyptian intelligence is also aware of cooperation between members of the Popular Resistance Committees in the Gaza Strip with Islamist activists operating in the Sinai desert.
Actually, I’d never heard of such cooperation (perhaps they’re confusing Army of Islam with the PRC) and this would appear to be IDF spin made up out of whole cloth meant to justify the murder of the three top PRC leaders which Bibi crowed about within minutes of the conclusion of the Eilat attack. In fact, an Israeli who knew the PRC’s leader wrote it was unlikely he was able to mastermind such a complicated operation. The source told me his relatives and friends could not believe this attack was something the PRC was capable of. Probably because it wasn’t!
Another purpose of Issacharoff’s stenographic report on the IDF’s behalf, is to answer the Shabak’s angry outburst just after the attack, in which it claimed it offered the IDF a specific terror threat indicating the time and place of the attack. In Anshel Pfeffer’s earlier report Shabak said it told the IDF the attack would come during the day but that IDF rejected the notion that terrorists would attack by day. Note how the IDF appears to lie about the Shabak’s warning & parries the intelligence agency’s attack:
The [Shabak] intelligence warning had been an old one, and even though it was still pending, it had not become any stronger during the days before the attack.
The IDF decided, however, to step up preparedness in certain border areas, including the area where the attack took place.
The Shin Bet security service in its assessments thought any attack would come at night…
Here the IDF seems to contradict itself:
One scenario posed an attack during the day, but the target was expected to be the hundreds of workers building the border fence, and not civilian vehicles.
This is possibly the most self-serving, but truthful of all the content of this article:
The attack ultimately proved contrary to the most likely scenarios.
Why doesn’t Issacharoff simply admit the IDF was wrong and failed, which is the truth? Instead of saying that it was the terrorists’ fault the attack wasn’t foiled because they didn’t adopt the “most likely scenarios.” Why can’t the IDF include within its operational scope the “unlikely scenarios,” such as the one the attackers ultimately used, which fooled the Israelis so badly? I suppose it’s hard for a country so proud of its military to admit that a bunch of terrorists appear to have run rings around it.
From the IDF portrayal offered by Issacharoff, it appears the Israeli army believed (and perhaps still believes) that actual Egyptian security forces participated in the terror attack, (another incendiary claim). This account is truly bizarre and hard to credit, and certainly raises lots of questions:
The incident involving the Egyptians occurred later in the afternoon, while the chief of staff and the defense minister held a press conference north of Eilat. An IDF force rushed to an area where there had been more shooting. Egyptian soldiers were seen holding three men at gunpoint.
When the Israeli officers asked for the captives to be handed over, an Egyptian officer claimed that they were Egyptian soldiers. At some point the troops came under fire, and a sniper killed the anti-terrorist police officer Pascal Avrahami.
IDF and Egyptian soldiers were facing each other along the border and they came under fire from one of the groups of terrorists. They were neutralized by the soldiers. The incident ended about 6 P.M.
Were they real Egyptian soldiers? Or was the Egyptian force fooled by the uniforms into believing they were? Whose troops came under fire? I presume the Israelis. Who fired at them? The Egyptian military? Why?
The notion that the IDF and Egyptian soldiers were in the midst of a standoff arguing about who would take the three prisoners, and came under fire in the midst of all this indicates a complete level of dysfunction.
Imagine you’re an IDF officer inside Egypt. You have the chutzpah to demand custody of terrorists from Egyptian troops on their own soil? The only reason the Egyptian government isn’t screaming bloody murder over this is that they’re embarrassed they allowed Sinai terrorists to attack Eilat. Everybody has egg on their faces: Bibi lied and murdered 14 Gazans for no reason; Egypt failed to police its own territory and allowed terrorists to attack Israel. No wonder neither government is eager to ferret out the truth and reveal it publicly. Which is why blogs like this exist.
Sorry to be so self serving, but if you support that statement above and believe it’s important to support the crusading work and research presented here, won’t you follow the Paypal link in the sidebar and make a donation? Anyone wishing to make a mail donation may contact me directly.
The following thinly sourced analysis from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs is worthy of note because the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations sends the Jerusalem Center’s “Daily Alert” to interested members of its constituent Jewish organizations.
For many American Jews, then, this will be seen as an authoritative report:
http://jerusalemcenter.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/the-terrorist-attack-on-southern-israel-under-the-authority-of-hamas-using-the-tactics-of-al-qaeda/
The Daily Alert linked to the Eli Lake piece, as well as a dispatch from the IDF linking the PRC to Hamas: “The Popular Resistance Committees is an independent terrorist organization in the Gaza Strip that is supported, subsidized and trained by the Hamas terrorist organization.”
“Which is why blogs like this exist.”
Richard, you’ve got a lot of chutzpah patting yourself on the back over this. You were the first one to jump on the bandwagon and blame Hamas for the attack on Eilat. Those of us who criticized you and asked to wait for clarification of actually happened were raked over the coals in condemnation and insulted for having challenged your version. I would suggest that before being so “self serving” you might consider apologizing to those who had the audacity to challenge your first version of the events.
P.S. I still think it was a false flag operation gone wrong. Now everyone, including you, are trying to put the blame on al Quaida which probably no longer even exists.
I don’t think it was an operation by Israel. A former Mossad director revealed that Israel considered killing Mordechai Vanunu but did not because “Jews don’t kill Jews”.
http://www.imemc.org/article/13517
(Kidnapping and 19 years in solitary, is OK apparently.)
I do believe that they live by this ‘moral’ code and so I do not think they would stage an attack on their own soldiers. If course it is obnoxious and shocking to me as a non-Jew to read such things, as I – but especially the equally non-Jewish Palestinians – clearly do not deserve such considerate treatment. (Just think of the percentage of children and bystanders killed in the “targeted assasinations”.)
But as I said, shocking as it may be in that it is reserved only for some of humankind, I do think it would be a step too far for them.
I think the suggestion is unlikely. Richard on the other hand is offended by the idea. Could it be that for him there is just more at stake, as his dedication to this blog clearly shows?
Elizabeth
A former Mossad director revealed that Israel considered killing Mordechai Vanunu but did not because “Jews don’t kill Jews”.
Yigal Amir killed Rabin.
Look up what “Rodef” means.
Was Yigal Amir a member of Mossad?
Don’t you refer me to some Talmud whateversomething. Explain what you mean or please don’t comment at all.
I do believe that in the minds of these spooks there is still something, not inspired by Jewish scripture maybe, but more by a “let’s stick together after the Holocaust” sentiment that would not easily make them organize an attack on Israeli soldiers.
Elizabeth,
that is religous sanction to kill your own when they are a threat, but if you say you meant that the “spooks” have a code of honour not to kill their own disregarding scripture, that is so, (actually amongst all spooks) then it’s not relevant here
No Yigal wasn’t Mossad,
but more by a “let’s stick together after the Holocaust” sentiment that would not easily make them organize an attack on Israeli soldiers.
but Victor Ostrovsky was Mossad. After he wrote his books “By way of deception” and others, he had to go into hiding, he’s in Canada, saying there is a death sentence from Mossad, he is in hiding from.
By the way, Mordechai Vananu converted to Christianity.
or please don’t comment at all.
???
If something is disregarding scripture “then it’s not relevant here”?! Yeah, whatever.
You are true to form Chayma, as tiresome as ever.
Please look up “Besserwisser” and “Naseweis”.
Elizabeth,
You are true to form Chayma, as tiresome as ever.
Please look up “Besserwisser” and “Naseweis”.
I did, and they didn’t explain how Victor Ostrovsky is in hiding from Mossad,
I find you equally tiresome, and don’t tell me what to post and what not to post
You do not contribute anything of worth. You just nag, nag nag, about anyone’s posts and don’t know when to stop. For someone who knows-it-all, please learn how to spell my name right for once, when you start nagging me again.
You do not contribute anything of worth. You just nag, nag nag, about anyone’s posts and don’t know when to stop
I don’t find your posts particulary intelligent, but I don’t complain.
You’re the one who is nagging, for pointing out the faults in your arguments.
As for not knowing when to stop, I don’t publish private details onine, I do it by email. I don’t put up my travel itenery for the whole board to get bored with.
It’s clear who doesn’t know when to stop.
Gene, it’s clear from your posts that you understand little of the Middle East.
We don’t need conspiracy mongers,
and your Alison Weir links have what to do with the attack in Eilat? Al Qaeda is the general term for the differing groups there, who share different but “similar” idealogies.
stick to the facts please,
This is simply incredible.
I do agree 100% with Gene. I’m in fact so annoyed by this that this will be my last comment here.
When people speculate in a direction that is not yours (not only in this case), it’s ‘offensive’. When you speculate, it’s just fine. When Gene has the courage to tell you that your speculation is just as much speculation as anyone else, his remark is “offensive nonsense” that he should post elsewhere, and now you try to take credit and talk about ‘crusading work and research’.
And you’re always right, also when you change your mind. Right before and after changing it.
Well, this is just the last straw that broke the camel’s back.
Ciao….
@Deir Yassin. No, no, do not go away. We need voices like yours to help keep people honest. And perhaps, eventually, some of them will see the light. Richard is not hopelessly gone, he just has a persecution complex. He too can be saved. It’s worth trying.
I too hope Deir Yassin will not go away; her insightful posts are one major reason I read every comment on this blog. I also took Richard to task for blaming Palestinians in his headline before there was any evidence to support such an accusation. And I too would be really glad to have Richard to issue a mea culpa in this instance. We all jump to conclusions sometimes, and I’m sure Richard has learned from this rush to judgment on his part. It’s pretty difficult to stay mad at somebody who says “I’m sorry,” so I’m hoping at least an acknowledgment of the mistake will be forthcoming so we can move on.
To everything turn, turn turn and a time to every purpose under heaven. A time to come and a time to leave. I simply have no patience for this. God speed. Sorry to see you go, but I bend for no one on this matter. You were the only reason I didn’t moderate Gene. Now that you’ve announced yr intention to leave I no longer feel bound to be patient for his nonsense. He is moderated and can go or stay as he wishes as well.
Don’t worry Richard,
Your pet poster will return under another identity.
Don’t quit this blog’s comments, DY, this would be a real shame.
Richard, like most of us, is far from perfect. I often rub my eyes in disbelief seeing how someone who’s so consistently critical of so many wrongs can be so consistently touchy to criticisms of himself (be the criticisms justified, partly so or not at all).
Having been once severely rebuked for pointing out his unreasonable response to another commenter, I decided not to get into arguments with him (“Know what, you’re right. I won’t argue with you again” is no compliment, especially among Jews).
All the same, Richard is our host here, shouldering — literaly day and night — the mental and practical burdens of running this worthy blog-cum-comments. Imperfections included, he deserves quite some credit.
Your well-thought comments, DY, are part of the this blog’s worthiness. Please don’t let some imperfections and personal slights put you off commenting here.
I do not ever claim perfection & you are right to point that out. Nor do I make a claim to being warm & cuddly when it comes to political discourse about the conflict.
I’ll accept yr comments, both the good & bad in the reasonable, but critical spirit in which they were offered.
You suggested Israel was behind the terror attack on its own citizens, which I found & find beyond offensive. So before you take me to task look in the mirror. When I hear an apology fr. you about yr noxiousness then I’ll consider doing the same.
Gene, I’m beyond exasperated by you I have to say & really at the pt. where I’m feeling bound to moderate yr comments. I feel torn though since others value yr participation. YOu’re walking a very thin line & I’ve lost patience. You are sometimes deeply obnoxious. Your friends & family may have patience for it, but I no longer do. Consider this a warning. And I apologize to those here who defend & value Gene. But I’ve moderated other commenters for a lot less.
When you provide the kind of support both moral & financial to this blog that deserves considering yr editorial suggestions, then I’ll take you more seriously. Short of that, you can put yr suggestions where they belong (where the sun don’t shine).
I’m sorry if I misunderstand, but are you seriously telling Gene you will take him more seriously once he has given you money??
I have given Richard financial support in the past. Not much, but at the time I thought he was worth it. No longer.
I wouldn’t accept a plug nickel from you.
I had a very good chance of getting academically employed recently but it didn’t happen. One of the things I looked forward to was finally being able to give financial support to Tikun Olam. Just consider the time and effort Richard is putting into this (and time really also IS money). As Jankel commented: He is shoudering this burden day and night. I think you have the right to be a bit sensitive when you put so much into something.
Could you at least follow the thread & its context before you reveal you’re at sea? Gene wrote a comment replying to my appeal for financial support which attacked me & implicitly asked why anyone would bother supporting my work since I’m a hypocrite, et al. My response above was meant in reply to that. Now, if you would follow the comments more carefully & their context you wouldn’t need to write comments which appear so snarky & ill informed.
Gene:
If you think it was a false-flag operation gone wrong, who do you imagine was the perp, and what do you think went wrong? (Of course, assuming it was not an operation carried out BY the Egyptian service whose uniforms were used, it was, to that extent, a FFO on its face. Disguises seem to have been used.)
Do you mean you suspect (or claim to believe more strongly than belief) that it was an Israeli operation conducted to look like an Egyptian operation which was somehow to be later understood actually to be a Gazan operation. Lotta falsity there. Interesting idea. More devious than 9/11 may have been.
My conclusion is that I don’t know what to think other than that [1] it could — like any terrorist attack at all — be an Israeli provocation, Arabs paid by Israeli “intelligence” or “security forces” to attack inside Israel, perhaps using an Israeli plan; no way to know. Israel has done almost as bad in the past. [2] the clear Israeli crime was murdering Gazans after the Eilat business [3] it now and then too looks/looked like an Egyptian (Sinai terrorist) operation, minimally false-flag by use of disguises [4] it didn’t go far wrong, because as a terrorist operation it was largely successful, killing Israelis and making IDF look bad.
“[1] it could — like any terrorist attack at all — be an Israeli provocation, Arabs paid by Israeli “intelligence” or “security forces” to attack inside Israel, perhaps using an Israeli plan; no way to know. Israel has done almost as bad in the past.”
When did Israeli intelligence paid Arabs to attack Israeli citizens?
“Mr. Gold added, ‘These organizations [Hamas , PRC, Army of Islam, Al Qaeda] all work together, and Sinai is a place where they all meet.'”
Gold conjures up the image of a lonely outpost in Sinai where the world’s terrorists come for a cold beer and to swap notes. But if the Sinai were teeming with jihadists, one would think the Israelis would be all over it. And the fact that they were caught with their pants down shows that Gold’s quote is just more hasbara bull.
Richard, perhaps you, and some of your readers who seem to be unaware of what the historical background to all this is, might appreciate this link. It could help you to understand why it so easy for some of us to postulate a false flag operation for the Eilat attack.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/08/23/israeli-video-games-in-gaza/
A clearer, better link to “If Only Americans Knew”:
“http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/08/23/israeli-video-games-in-gaza/print
A clearer, better link to “If Only Americans Knew”:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/08/23/israeli-video-games-in-gaza/print
I will read them Gene. And please don’t you and Deir Yassin go away. (BTW I will be in Chernex next summer for two weeks. Shall we meet in Geneva?)
Please conduct your personal meetings by email.
We do not need to know your travel itinery.
It’s “itinerary” dear, not “itinery”. Not such a know-it-all, after all then?
Elizabeth
I dint claym to be a now all. I get mai point akross, and epxect the reeder to unnerstand vot I meen,
dense az u r , you understood vot I meen there I hope?
please learn to say “I” instead of we, you don’t represent anyone else except you, and I find you equally boring & tiresome as elisabeth for the record, so you can add me on your ever expanding spanklist since it became your main reason to post here.
totoro, don’t flatter yourself, we’ve never crossed paths before, in fact i’ve never seen you here, (H’mmm, newly made up ID?)
I don’t have time for this…nor am I interested in your spanking fetish, sorry. I have enough enemies online without making more.
Don’t bother me,
Tortoro has published here before and for quite some time though not often.
You’ve now taken on 3 diff. commenters tonight. Can we take a break…please?
This is way outa line. Perhaps I’m a bit at fault here for my intemperance toward Gene, but I hope that cooler heads can prevail. If you dislike someone please keep the personal dislike to yrself & stick to substance. I don’t mind if people argue over facts & ideas. But insults & demeaning statements like this don’t belong here. And if it continues I’m going to start deleting comments that violate this protocol. People, calm down, take a deep breath. Is the moon full tonight or something?
Richard, I also interjected on a previous thread suggesting that the most likely perpetrators were Salafi affiliated cells that are known to operate in the Sinai. Some refer to them as al Qaeda, but that’s a tenuous connection politically since not all fundamentalist Islamic sects work together or even believe in the same version of strict Islam. Religious purity aside, different Islamic groups are certainly not working under common political banner. The beef Osama had was with the US and he added Israel for convenience – as a selling tool. He branded his movement as sitting in opposition to American imperial interests associated with controlling the oil flow, and of course, its price, through Saudi Arabia.
Not much is known about the salafis as a political force. What is known, though it is not often discussed is that they have been used by Israeli intelligence interests as an asset that could be used to fan the flames wherever they need fanning. That refugee camp in Lebanon which was, in the end destroyed by Lebanese military, was a classic case of salafi manipulation gone wrong. It was evidently meant to ensnare hezbollah throwing up a storm between them and the palestinian refugee representatives. But hezbollah didn’t bite (I have somewhere all kinds of good links telling that story and the way in which the funding and logistics behind the salafis in lebanon led back into the depths of israel’s master minds).
I have seen indications that a similar scenario unfolded here. There was – and is – material support provided to elements in the salafi movement whose responsibility then is to co-ordinate the attacks with whoever the locals are. A big part of that support comes from elements in the israeli military (more likely than from the Mossad). The attacks were highly organized and were laid out more like a military action than a guerilla style attack. Someone is out there organizing things. Could be rogue bedouin tribes concerned about potential loss of lucrative smuggling routes, could be someone else.
Among the things you did not mention in this post is the reported call from Jordan – warning of the attack. I drew a line from that to the murder of Arrigone in Gaza which involved a Jordanian based salafi operator who infiltrated gaza. Somewhere out there in Jordan money is exchanging hands, weapons are bought, smugglings are planned, and who knows what else. That is where the finger is pointing from the Israeli end, however it is done. I find it interesting that no one in the sources you cite is mentioning this call any longer. Someone must have said – oops! – let’s not go there. Too warm.
That is one reason I tend to fall on the side of the “Let it just happen” scenario. Since not all eschelons of israeli intelligence are in the know of all strands going in all directions, it makes sense that elements of the IDF and Shabak would find themselves at odds. Clearly, the operation went a bit beyond the expected parameters, that much is clear. That is not the same as a pure “false flag” case, but it does include the possibility that there are israeli elements who think in terms of tactics and strategies, rather than lives. There’s really nothing particularly shocking here, given that miltary-think is all-pervasive in Israel. Or is it mafia-think?
Richard, I greatly value the information you bring here from the israeli end, and you are right in pointing out the stenography masquerading as journalism. I am also not unaware of the need to avoid painting everything as a conspiracy theory as that would indeed tarnish journalistic credentials. But I have no claims to being a journalist and have no credentials to defend. I am also a good profiler and painter of patterns. And I do see a pattern here – so please bear with me. I realize no one is going to willingly supply any of us with facts to either bolster or refute the theory, but it can – and should be – entertained.
Egypt mulls response to Israel’s rejection of joint investigation
Wed, 24/08/2011
http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/489523
Israel’s most widely-circulated newspaper Yediot Aharonot on Wednesday said that three Egyptians took part in the Eilat attack, and that the Israeli army did its best to avoid antagonizing its Egyptian counterpart.
The paper also said that the autopsy of their corpses showed that one of the Egyptians was a member of an extremist group who had escaped with other Islamists from prison during the revolution.
The paper also said that Israeli chief investigator Amir Eshel flew to Cairo earlier this week to brief the Egyptian officials of the preliminary results of the investigation. According to Eshel, he showed them a video of Israeli military aircraft deliberately avoiding Egyptian targets, but targeting a sniper who was hiding in a spot close to the border.
Israel’s “nice little war.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/08/25/israels-nice-little-war/print
What I don’t get though, is why the telecommunications blackout (cutting off all internet, mobile phones and international landlines for hours) was needed in order to concoct the ‘credible provocation’.
Dunno. Same question Barouzi, himself, asks. Perhaps to sow confusion and screen the operation.
Isn’t the most likely explanation for the extensively synchronized [false] stories appearing in US and Israeli press the probability that both are working from the same ‘crib sheets’ supplied by Israeli military InformationOPs?
Previously one heard of Israeli journalists being subject to military censorship ~ but if they only regurgitate whatever text is supplied by the army, this arduous task becomes redundant.
Pre-emptive Censorstrikes?
How could Yanki presstitutes *not* love that?