Antiwar.com Blog

The willful blindness of Israel’s partisans is running smack up against a widely-circulated report in the mainstream media that Israel’s Finance Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was tipped off to the London terrorist attacks.

A news report from Associated Press reports:

“British police told the Israeli Embassy in London minutes before Thursday’s explosions that they had received warnings of possible terror attacks in the city, a senior Israeli official said.

“Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had planned to attend an economic conference in a hotel over the subway stop where one of the blasts occurred, and the warning prompted him to stay in his hotel room instead, government officials said. … Just before the blasts, Scotland Yard called the security officer at the Israeli Embassy to say they had received warnings of possible attacks, the official said. He did not say whether British police made any link to the economic conference.

“The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the nature of his position.”

The Brits deny giving the Israelis any warning, but Stratfor.com isn’t buying it:

“Contrary to original claims that Israel was warned “minutes before” the first attack, unconfirmed rumors in intelligence circles indicate that the Israeli government actually warned London of the attacks “a couple of days” previous. Israel has apparently given other warnings about possible attacks that turned out to be aborted operations. The British government did not want to disrupt the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, or call off visits by foreign dignitaries to London, hoping this would be another false alarm.

“The British government sat on this information for days and failed to respond. Though the Israeli government is playing along publicly, it may not stay quiet for long. This is sure to apply pressure on Blair very soon for his failure to deter this major terrorist attack.”

I have my own spin on this rather startling story, which I explain at length is this blog entry. and this subsequent column. The idea that the Israelis warned the Brits, who then ignored the tip-off because … well, just because, is not credible, but at least Stratfor doesn’t try to deny the veracity of the AP story — unlike the denialists over at a blog called “Balloon Juice,” which Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit links to. According to a Mr. John Cole, the proprietor of said website — which employs very tiny type, in an unconscious reflection of his own small-mindedness — this is all “refuted” by this link, which takes us to a story in the Jerusalem Post which states:

“The Foreign Ministry, and Israeli embassy officials at the highest levels, totally rejected the report.

Oh, wow — “at the highest levels,” yet! Well I guess that takes cares of that! Oh, but there’s more:

“What one source did note, however, was that Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu received a call from British police soon after the first explosion, but before the full extent of the attacks was known, because it had occurred by the site of a conference at which he was to speak and for which he was about to depart. After the call from the police to his security staff, Netanyahu stayed put.”

That’s what Netanyahu says, but why would a “senior Israeli official” who insisted on remaining anonymous “because of his position,” make up a story like this — and why would AP carry it? Oh, it’s all an “anti-Semitic” conspiracy, screeches Cole — the all-purpose smear that is supposed to put a halt to any further inquiry. Glenn Reynolds also links to something called “Protein Wisdom” — why do these right-wing blogs have such … icky names? — which doesn’t even bother to refer to the AP article, let alone try to debunk it, and seems totally unaware of the Stratfor piece.

Even more pathetic is Michelle “Concentration Camp” Malkin, who writes:

“You won’t be able to persuade the conspiracy nuts otherwise, but those early reports of Israel being warned in advance of the bombings were erroneous. See Power Line and The Corner for details.”

As an example of “early reports,” clever Michelle links, not to the Associated Press report, but to some obscure item from a website known as “Arutz Sheva,” which normally carries violently pro-Israel material: their story doesn’t cite the anonymous Israeli official, says the report comes from Israel radio (and is “unconfirmed”), and the piece bears no byline. The real “early reports” from Associated Press are not linked to or even mentioned by Malkin.

Malkin’s evidence that these “early reports” were “erroneous” goes to a brief story detailing the pro forma denial of the Israeli Foreign Minister. Very convincing….

Even less convincing is the Powerline link, which also ignores the AP report in favor of the same obscure “Arutz Sheva” story, and avers “I’m afraid we may have an urban legend in the making,” because, you see, “this report has now been corrected” — and the proof it has been “corrected” is proven by a link to the same official denial by the Israeli Foreign Minister linked to by Malkin. This is, quite literally, circular logic: Malkin links the Israeli Foreign Minister’s bland denials, and Powerline, while Powerline links to … the same meaningless denials. Both accounts totally ignore the AP piece, the provenance of the Netanyahu tip-off story. And as the piece-de-resistance of the Powerline non-“debunking,” we are given a link to this little tidbit from National Review‘s “The Corner” blog, a note from one John Rosenthal, who “used to work with Bibi”:

“I have just spoken to a source very close to Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu was scheduled to speak later today at an economic conference in a London hotel directly above the site of one of the subway explosions.

“‘The explosion happened just beneath the hotel at the same time the meeting with businessman interested in investing in Israel was expected to begin,’ said an aide to Netanyahu.

“There were published reports early this morning that Scotland Yard officials contacted the Israelis minutes before the attacks to warn them of imminent terrorist strikes.

“My sources in the Israeli Government are denying those reports. They say the Israeli Embassy and the Netanyahu security team received reports immediately AFTER the first explosion, warning Netanyahu not to go to the hotel.

“There was no early information about terrorist attacks,” said Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom on Israel Army Radio. “After the first explosion an order was given that no one move until things become clear.”

Shorter version: The Israelis deny it. What else do we need to know?

It’s amazing how the critical faculties of Reynolds, Malkin, et al, go on the blink whenever the Israelis come into the equation. It is reasonable, in light of the AP story and the Stratfor piece, to at least consider the possibility that Israel’s very efficient intelligence service had some inkling of the London events: but, oh nooooooooooooo. According to Israel’s Amen Corner, to even refer to the AP article is evidence of “anti-Semitism” — equivalent to citing “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” They obviously believe the Associated Press is run by neo-Nazis: a startling accusation, but hardly surprising to me: after all, these are the same people who think the “MSM” (blogger-talk for “mainstream media) is making up all those terribly unpatriotic stories about the disaster now unfolding in Iraq.

The reality is: these people could care less about the truth. For them, it’s all emotion. As John Cole of “Balloon Juice” puts it:

“I really hate these people.”

Hate is what Cole is all about, if you read his vitriolic blog. Hate, not only for me, but for objective reality, which has to be blanked out if it conflicts with his dogmatic insistence that Israel can do no wrong. (Although, to his credit, Cole at least acknowledges the existence of the AP report by linking to it — if only to dismiss it because, as we all know, the Israeli Foreign Minister wouldn’t lie, now would he?)

His Smugness, Professor Reynolds, doesn’t link to the Netanyahu tip-off story, either. After all, his whole purpose in life is to maintain that the “MSM” is not to be trusted, and that AP, in this case — and practically all cases — is probably lying. To get our news we must turn to the “blogosphere” — pretentious little neocon shits like “Balloon Juice” and “Protein Wisdom” (and, of course, Instapundit).

Ignore the reported facts, treat Israel’s denials as if they were holy writ, and, most of all, smear the messenger in hopes of obscuring the message: that about wraps up the Reynolds-Malkin-wingnut approach to the Netanyahu tip-off story and journalism in general. If it doesn’t toe the party line, it can’t be true.

What’s really pathetic about this sort of tunnel vision is that even the “evidence” they utilize to dismiss the questions raised by the AP story — the Jersusalem Post piece — shows why the story is credible:

“One [Israeli] official suggested that the ‘conspiracy theory’ about Israel’s prior warning lasted all day, despite immediate official denials, because a dispute still rages about whether Israeli officials tipped off British intelligence before the Israeli Embassy was bombed in 1994.”

The reason this “conspiracy theory” lasted all day — and will continue to haunt the Amen Corner for a long time to come– is because it is based on a news story by a reputable news agency, and not obscure “weblogs” with cute-sy names. Instead of citing self-interested Israeli government officials, and someone who once worked for the ultra-right-wing Netanyahu, it cites an Israeli government whistleblower who has nothing to gain from telling the truth, and everything to lose (including his job).

Our United Kingdom page has all the news and viewpoints as they cross the Antiwar.com news desk. Stay tuned.

As if you had any doubts about who wears the pants at Establishment Libertarianism, Inc., check out who’s been dominating the London narrative at their blog. At 1:15 pm Central, I count eight foreign-policy related posts – seven of which are by warmongers Charles Paul Freund, Michael Young (check out this incoherence), and Ronald Bailey, one by the antiwar Jesse Walker.

The problem I have noticed over the last few years is not a shortage of antiwar folks at Reason and other high-profile libertarian organizations, but a certain timidity. At Reason, for instance, in addition to Walker, the people who have made some declaration of opposition to the Iraq war or Bush foreign policy generally include Nick Gillespie, Tim Cavanaugh, Jeff Taylor, Julian Sanchez, and Brian Doherty. Yet only a couple of these ever talk about foreign policy as if it’s more important than, say, gay marriage or copyright law, and even then they include all sorts of “well, the neocons might be right” hedges. Meanwhile, Young, Freund, Bailey, et al., are out making the liberventionist case with admirable conviction and tenacity, spinning what should be major blows to their thesis into rhetorical victories. How do they get away with it?

This is exactly what I’d expect Anthony Charles Lynton Blair to say but it’s still disappointing.

“It is important that those engaged in terrorism realise that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire to impose extremism on the world.

“Whatever they do, it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and in other civilised nations throughout the world.”

Fine sentiments, perhaps, but it doesn’t demonstrate much understanding of what “those engaged in terrorism” are about.

Then, in self-referential remarks so typical of Blair, he notes: “It is particularly barbaric this has happened on a day when people are meeting to try to help the problems of poverty in Africa and the long term problems of climate change and the environment.”

Leftist London Mayor Ken Livingstone commented that: “This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at presidents or prime ministers. It was aimed at ordinary working class people.”

Yes and no. Yes, the bombers did not seek to attack the G8 meeting at the Gleneagles hotel in Scotland. That would not have succeeded because Tony Blair had surrounded himself with enough army and police to thwart such an attack. So in consequence they struck at vulnerable public spaces (streets and subways) in London. But, no, it was not aimed at working class people per se, just anyone—venture capitalists and shop assistants—who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Livingstone added: “They seek to turn Londoners against each other . . . London will not be divided by this.” I guess this is a reference to Moslem minorities in London but I doubt the bombers particularly sought to foment ethnic and religious strife in the capital.

Personally, I much prefer what the Queen had to say. She was “deeply shocked” and sent sympathy to those affected. Amen.

The Associated Press is reporting that Scotland Yard informed the Israeli Embassy in London moments before Terror Thursday dawned that attacks were imminent, according to a “senior Israeli official.” Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to show up at a conference slated to take place in a hotel directly above a subway station where one of the blasts went off. AP avers “The warning prompted him to stay in his hotel room instead, government officials said.”

The story is datelined Jersusalem, and so we are talking about Israeli officials in this instance, not Scotland Yard.

I am listening now to Brian Paddock of Scotland Yard saying that no one received any warnings: that the authorities – the London authorities, that is – had no intelligence that led them to believe terrorist attacks were coming. Less than an hour later, reporter Andrea Mitchell is saying that the warnings came “after the attacks,” which would seem rather inexplicable, but there you have it.

We report — you decide. However, one has to wonder why the AP is citing several unnamed Israeli government officials in support of this story. Why did Netanyahu stay in his hotel room instead of attending the conference? If Scotland Yard didn’t warn him, then who did?

This isn’t the first time that Israeli foreknowledge of a terrorist attack against the West has been raised by a reputable source. One has to wonder: why is it that these reports of Israeli foreknowledge come up with such metronomic regularity? With all that smoke, is there really no fire?

In spite of the denials coming in, the question is: is the Associated Press lying? And if the Israelis are disturbed by these rumors — and they may just be rumors — one has to wonder why Israeli government officials seem to be spreading them.

On December 11, 2001, Carl Cameron of Fox News — hardly the nexus of anti-Israeli sentiment in the U.S. — reported the following:

“There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that they Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are ‘tie-ins.’ But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, “evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.”

In The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection, I make the case that the Israelis knew something was afoot, and this alleged warning to Netanyahu — and I emphasize the word alleged quite deliberately — repeats that ominous pattern.

UPDATE: This report from Wales says that Netanyahu was going to attend the conference, “but the attacks occurred before he arrived.” Quite different from not showing up due to a warning. The report goes on to note that “Just before the blasts, Scotland Yard called the security officer at the Israeli Embassy and said warnings of possible attacks had been received, the [senior Israeli] official said.” Here is the first report on the Netanyahu warning, which is attributed to Agence France Presse.

UPDATE II: Stratfor.com, the respected national security-intelligence analysts, has published an account of the alleged Israeli warning that confirms, at least to some extent, the above: that the source of the warning wasn’t Scotland Yard, but rather came from the Israelis themselves. Unfortunately, this is part of their “premium” content, as is available only to subscribers [someone has already posted it on the internet, of course]. Here’s the money quote:

“Contrary to original claims that Israel was warned ‘minutes before’ the first attack, unconfirmed rumors in intelligence circles indicate that the Israeli government actually warned London of the attacks ‘a couple of days’ previous.”

More on this in my upcoming column.

As I write this, the casualty rate in the London terrorist attacks — 40 dead, over 300 wounded — is rising. This synchronized strike, several blasts at once, is being claimed by a group that calls itself “Secret Organization — al-Qaeda in Europe.” The attacks, according to this shadowy group, were made “in response to the massacres Britain committed in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

So much for the assertion, made often by President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, that the Anglo-American invasion of the Middle East has made the West safer. As Blair put it:

“Suppose the terrorists repeated September 11th or worse. Suppose they got hold of a chemical or biological or nuclear dirty bomb; and if they could, they would. What then? And if it is the threat of the 21st century, Britain should be in there helping confront it, not because we are America’s poodle, but because dealing with it will make Britain safer.”

Now Britain is paying price of poodle-ism.

The question is posed pointblank: are the people of the UK prepared to accept a war against their own territory on account of their support for America’s imperial ambitions? I would venture that the answer is a flat “No.”

This also puts the lie to the Bushian rhetoric of “We’re fighting them in the streets of Baghdad so we don’t have to fight them in the streets of [fill in name of a Western city].” The truth is that this war has made us less safe, it is bringing the war home to us. We are fighting them in Iraq — and on the streets of London. And if they are stalemating us in the former, and beating us in the latter — where is the “victory” in that?

Here is a city that has more surveillence cameras per city block than any city on earth — all to no avail. Right now I am watching Steve Emerson, the terrorism “expert,” say on MSNBC that those cameras will enable the London authorities to find out who the perpetrators are, but what exactly is the value of that? We know it was terrorist nut-balls, jihadis who care not one whit for human decency or honor, and do not hesitate to strike out at innocents in their global war on the West. The cameras were sold as a preventive measure — the Brits were supposedly selling the last remnants of their liberties for the promise of safety. But there is no safety in this new world that our leaders are building for us.

A brazen, horrific barbaric attack that took place during London’s rush hour — three explosions at once, perhaps one of them a suicide bomber — is turning the whole world into Tel Aviv. In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, New Republic editor declared that “We are all Israelis now.”

This is now indubitably true. The question is: is this what we want?

Some will say that we have no choice, but that is nonsense. The attack came in direct retaliation for what the terrorists’ claim of responsibility called the “massacres” in Iraq. The current war in Iraq is a war of choice, not of necessity, and we should be very clear: we have chosen this path, or our leaders have. Now the question arises: is it too late to turn back?

John McCain is the first American politician to do his Churchill imitation on MSNBC. Asked the meaning of all this, the lesson of Terror Thursday, he answers:

“It means that the struggle goes on, it’s a tough fight, and as sad as we are … we understand the nature of this cruel and despicable enemey. We have to fight and we have to win.”

“Solidarity,” “strength,” “commitment” — more mock-heroic blather from the Arizona Blusterer. But when asked what the U.S. and Britain can do to prevent these attacks, his answer is less Churchchillian: we must “do exactly what we are doing.”

Does it matter that “exactly what we are doing” isn’t working? Not to McCain, the most bloodthirsty of all the warmongers on either side of the Atlantic. We are willing to bet, however, that it matters to the Brits, who are described by McCain (again in Churchchillian terms) as “stoic.” However, online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes the philosophy of Stoicism as more than merely a penchant for heroics:

“The later Stoics of Roman Imperial times, Seneca and Epictetus, emphasise the doctrines (already central to the early Stoics’ teachings) that the sage is utterly immune to misfortune and that virtue is sufficient for happiness. Our phrase ‘stoic calm’ perhaps encapsulates the general drift of these claims. It does not, however, hint at the even more radical ethical views which the Stoics defended, e.g. that only the sage is free while all others are slaves or that all those who are morally vicious are equally so. Though it seems clear that some Stoics took a kind of perverse joy in advocating views which seem so at odds with common sense.”

McCain took the opportunity, I’ll note, to call for unspecified “sacrifice” on the part of the American people — and, carrying the Stoic parallel further, calling for the continuation of policies — the war in Iraq, the crackdown on civil liberties, the worldwide crusade to impose “democracy” on recalcitrant peoples — so at odds with common sense.