under False Flag
By George Pumphrey
The hoax perpetrated by Marie Leone, a French woman who claimed she was a victim of an 'anti-Semitic attack' on a suburban train RER made a profound impact in France. George Pumphrey followed the story and immediately after publication of the first reports, he wrote:
I would be very careful about jumping to conclusions about this incident. There are several things that make this entire story smack of a hoax.
In the article there is almost no information of WHAT happened. This reminds me of the lynching/pogrom atmosphere that is usually created. ANYONE asking for proof of the accused being the culprits immediately becomes an accomplice or - in the current vernacular - a "holocaust denier". Blind faith is being called for, and nothing less will be accepted.
There has been a campaign since some time to paint an image of France as being an "anti-Semitic" (which in the current misuse of the term means anti-Zionist) nation. Hence the image of 20 + French(wo)men who did not intervene during the attack, nor came forward as witnesses.
Now to the culprit(s): They are said to be Beurs, North Africans. How does one know? There are many who look like Beurs in France, including many Jews from North Africa. I saw an advertisement in Le Monde that was a veiled recruitment notice for Sepharadim to join the Mossad. I don't doubt that these recruitments are still taking place. So there is the possibility that IF the incident DID take place, that the culprits could have been Beurs but could also have been people made to look and act
The combination of Beurs and Swastikas don't go together in today's context. The Beurs - and others who criticize Israel - is not from the extreme right (Nazi) tradition, but from the Arab tradition and a sense of violation of Arab rights. And if they were fascists, they would not have made their swastikas with magic markers when they were armed with knives. If this were a hoax, the "young mother" could have come into the RER with the swastikas marked on her stomach and no one would have
Another example: I don't know how many of you remember the bomb that blew up in the early 80s in front of the synagogue on rue de Copernic. (Le Point 23 mars 1981 "Copernic: les tueurs étaient palestiniens") Also there the PCF and MRAP jumped out in front beating their chests calling for a big demonstration only later to learn that Zionist organizations had infiltrated the FANE. "On m'a demandé d'infiltrer la FANE" declared Jean-Yves Pellay (Matin 28.11,1980) a former légionnaire. Also there,
when the news broke that Zionists had sacrificed Jews - without having done anything to prevent the bomb from exploding or to avoid human casualties the chest-beating did not even lead to a self-critical "I'll be more careful next time."
Does the turning over of the stroller/baby carriage not bring to mind another anti- Arab hoax: Think of the incubator babies on the floor of the Kuwait City Hospital in 1991 which never took place. Was this meant to be the image transmitted?
Think of the target group. The line goes: because she lives in the XVIeme Arr. She is supposed to be Jewish, but she turns out not to be, so "just the fact that you are living in the XVIeme makes you a target of the Beurs. So you'd better do something about them before they get you." The MRAP calls for new laws (to repress the Beurs or the fight chauvinism against the Arabs?) In any case, not many people from the XVIeme will join the MRAP but they will support laws to repress, maybe even
suppress, the Beurs.
The article gives extremely little facts about the attack itself, and a helluvalot about all the notables who have decided to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel in her Zionist against the Arabs. So each of the politicians and political groups have to publicly come out and show that they are part of the newly found consensus. That consensus is not there when a gendarme summarily executes a young Beur on the sidewalk in Southern France, after he had been subdued. Not to be underestimated is
also the effect of the World Court's verdict on the wall.
The bombing in Tel Aviv and elsewhere should also be seen in this context. The headlines read today: "Sharon: We have the right to protect ourselves against terror". At a time when the Palestinians won an essential public victory, why would THEY spoil it with a suicide bombing, that can only strengthen the hand of Israel?
This leaves only 2 questions: With everyone defending the young woman, who is left to defend democracy and the Beurs, who are unjustly generalized as being anti-Jewish because they are anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian?
Case of Achille Lauro
Here is an example of a case of Zionist false flag terrorism. False Flag terrorism means that the terrorists believe that they are following orders "to help the cause" without realizing that their leadership has long since been taken over by their enemy and it is (s)he who is calling the shots, and they are all against the goals of "the cause".
A successful false flag terrorist attack that discredited the cause of the terrorists is the case of the Palestinian hijacking of the Italian cruse ship, "Achille Lauro" in
1985. This operation was ordered by the Israeli secret service and organized by their Palestinian agents inside Palestinian terrorist organizations. The details of the preparations are related by an insider to the upper echelons of the Israeli secret services, Ari Ben-Menashe, former special intelligence advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir -in his book, "Profits of War."
"Radi [a Jordanian military officer who was unaware that he, since some time had already been smuggling arms for the Israeli secret service] went
back to his drinking and womanizing and the money he made selling arms for Pearson all drained away. At that very vulnerable point, in 1978, Pearson stepped in again and offered Radi a £200,000 loan. This time, Pearson made it quite clear to him that the money was coming from an Israeli source. The desperate Radi accepted the loan and was recruited to work for an antiterrorist group in Israel run by Rafi Eitan. The group's methods were rather unconventional, one could say heinous, but it had operated successfully for years. An example is the case
of the "Palestinian" attack on the cruise ship Achille Lauro in 1985. That was in fact, an Israeli "black" propaganda operation to show what a deadly, cutthroat bunch the Palestinians were. The operation worked like this: Eitan passed instructions to Radi that it was time for the Palestinians to make an attack and do something cruel, though no specifics were laid out. Radi passed orders on to Abu'l Abbas, who, to follow such orders, was receiving millions from Israeli intelligence officers posing as Sicilian dons. Abbas then gathered a team to
attack the cruise ship. The team was told to make it bad, to show the world what lay in store for other unsuspecting citizens if Palestinian demands were not met. As the world knows, the group picked on an elderly American Jewish man [Leon Klinghoffer] in a wheelchair, killed him, and threw his body overboard. They made their point. But for Israel it was the best kind of anti-Palestinian propaganda."
Interesting in this account is that in order to "show what a deadly, cutthroat bunch the Palestinians were" Israelis activated
their agents among Palestinian terrorists to tell them to be particularly brutal to Jews, as Jews. What Ben-Menashe does not mention in this anecdote is the second objective sought by Israel: convince Jews of the merits of Zionism and Israel as their sole "protector" on the planet.
Ben-Menashe mentions the "success" that Eitan's methods were having. A major aspect lending to this success is Israel's credibility. One would not suspect that particularly the Israeli government would be so cold-blooded toward Jews. Have them murdered
to be able to point at their adversaries and cry "anti-Semitism". They feign indignation at the fate of Jews, who refuse to come live in Israel, where they are "protected."
The international crisis created by the hijacking was designed to capture headlines of the world's press for about a week. The hijackers finally agreed to surrender to Egyptian authorities. (Abu Abbas, who himself was not among the hijackers, helped negotiate their surrender.) The German Sueddeutsche Zeitung, recently furnished additional information of what
"The Egyptians wanted to send Abbas and the hijackers to the PLO headquarters in Tunis. The plane was intercepted in flight by US fighters and forced to land in Sicily, where the hijackers were put on trial.
The prosecution indicted the actual hijackers but Abu Abbas was called merely as a "witness" and permitted to flee the country. The US had made a demand for Abbas' extradition for murder of a US citizen.
An Italian court convicted Abbas in absentia to five life terms. The US withdrew its extradition demand. And Abbas remained free.
In 1998 Abu Abbas was given official permission of the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanjahu to visit the Gaza Strip. Israeli authorities justified the official permission with the fact that Abbas had in 1996 already been allowed to visit the Gaza Strip to participate in Palestinian parliamentary elections. He had also voted at that time for the resolution
legally eliminating the clause from the PLO Charter calling for the destruction of Israel. Israeli Supreme Court also protected Abbas by refusing the law suit calling for Abbas' expulsion from Israel and being turned over to the US brought by the Klinghoffer family."
The leader who had planned and organized the hijacking was sitting in safety and on the enemy payroll. Those who carried out the action believed they were "helping the cause". They had no idea that the murder of an innocent, invalid reduced their "cause" in the
public's eye from a struggle against occupation and ethnic cleansing to one against Jews per se, from a struggle for justice for the Palestinians to an unjust "anti-Jewish" struggle. It would take the Palestinian struggle a long time to overcome this setback.
The background of the Achille Lauro hijacking and the international immunity enjoyed by Abu Abbas provides useful insight into the workings of false flag terrorism. A close look at many of the "suicide bombings" taking place in Israel, would also raise doubts about many
official versions of the attacks.
* * *
Statistics of Anti-semitism
By George Pumphrey
After the hoax of Marie Leonie was completely disclosed, French Jewish politician Strauss-Kahn alleged that "'If this is a hoax, of course, it is to be criticized as such,' but if the case 'turns out later not to have happened as alleged, to be sure, there have been 20 others earlier that did take place.'"
One can imagine that referred to here are the following statistics:
"Earlier this month, the Interior Ministry reported 510 anti-Jewish acts or threats in the first six months of 2004 - nearly as many as in
all of last year, 593. Racist attacks also rose: There were 95 attacks and 161 threats through June, compared with a total 232 reported in 2003."
(France: Anti-Semitism is 'a reality that we must combat', Haaretz, July 26, 2004)
There is a problem with these statistics concerning attacks previously announced as having been of an "anti-Semitic" nature - they may not have taken into consideration that another motive was behind the attack. As Churchill once quipped, "the only statistics I have faith in, are the ones I, myself, falsified."
The question of "anti-Semitism" is political capital. Political forces have an interest in manipulating the perception
of what qualifies as, and the quantifying of anti-Semitism in a given society. Usually one goes on the assumption that the original suspicion of an anti-Semitic aggression or an anti-Semitic background to an aggression pans out to have been the case. Just as with the case of Marie-Leoné this can just as easily turn out to be false, with the difference being, that we learned about this hoax, even though ALL of the political forces were forcing this bogus case of anti-Semitism down our throats.
Once upon a time, to be anti-Semitic
meant harboring animosity toward Jews, BECAUSE they are Jews. Today "anti-Semitic" means - for the media and political "elite" (PCF and MRAP included) - anyone who can stand in to be counted as a "Jewish victim" (victim of anything, including a hoax.)
As soon as it was learned that Alexandre Moïse, president of the Zionist Federation of France, was arrested and convicted, after having sworn out warrants because of numerous threats, that he had sent himself, in order to appear a "Jewish victim," no one should have taken any of
the statistics seriously without knowing - case by case - how much of it is true.
If a Jewish person happens to be the random victim of a mentally disturbed assailant, (as in Epinay) it becomes a case of anti-Semitism for the statistics and an affair of state, even though the SEVEN other stabbing victims were non-Jewish.
It would be interesting to learn if the RER-D hoax still gets noted as an anti-Semitic attack in the statistics. In any case, in 3 months few will remember that it was a hoax, and any
reference to "the rise of anti-Semitism in France" people will include the memory also of this hoax.
When verbal or physical altercations take place over women, football, money, the Middle East or simply because one of the parties is obnoxious, one of the parties being Jewish, regardless on which side of the argument (s)he happens to be, can turn this argument into a new statistic of an "anti-Semitic" threat or aggression.
When Jewish schools, synagogues or tombstones are smeared with Nazi symbols - even though it
is not known WHO did it, it is recorded as an anti-Semitic act. As long as no GUILTY party is found, EVERYONE is a suspect and ALL suspects are considered INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. So until one learns who did it and why, it is premature to conclude that it is was NOT done by Zionists in order to provoke another "anti-Semitic" statistic.
What constitutes "a threat?" "I'll break your jaw" or simply a look as if to say, "why don't you get the hell outa my face?" Has anyone seen "threat" qualified or quantified? I haven't
"Go down Moses..."
One thing many media organs around the world overlook is the fact that more than a month ago the Jewish Agency announced its intentions to recruit "tens of thousands" of Jewish French(wo)men to emigrate to Israel. Sharon even declared recently (according to Le Monde 20.07.04) that he would like to see 1 million Jews immigrate to Israel within the next 10 years, and he is particularly counting on the French community.
In order to achieve this, a particular atmos"fear" has to be created. Check
out the history of how other immigrations to Israel were provoked, e.g. the emigration of Jewish Iraqis (The Jews of Iraq were "enticed" to flee to Israel through a Judeophobic terror campaign carried out by Mossad agents with help from Arab accomplices. Naeim Giladi was one of the Mossad agents at the time. He explains the methods used.
Israel seems to be in
the process of pulling off another "Iraq 1950". Agents of the Jewish Agency have been sent to France and the media becomes filled with horror stories about the victimization of Jews at the hands of North African Arabs. In order to be "effective" propaganda, North Africans have to be placed on a political/ideological continuum with the German (European) Judeophobes and the phobia (real or imagined) hyped up to correspond to that which culminated in Auschwitz. (That the Mossad and the Jewish Agency were helped by and cooperated with the Nazis, falls
through the threshing floor of today's propaganda mill. That Zionists and the Nazis share a common view: that Jews and non-Jews cannot live together in peace and therefore a common goal: a "Jew-free" Europe is also not mentioned.
Neither is mentioned the fact that extreme fanatical Muslim groups are infiltrated - and therefore manipulable - by the Mossad as are extreme-rightist organizations. This is documented fact.) This is all used to maintain the confusion between Jewish/Israeli/Zionist.
Of the list of
"anti-Semitic" aggressions and possible threats listed above, there is another reason why the statistics have grown so rapidly recently: There is a completely new category added, extending the definition of "anti-Semitism". Sharon clearly expressed this extension in his unwelcome suggestion to the Jewish French:
"In France today, about 10 percent of the population are Muslims ... that gets a different kind of anti-Semitism, based on anti-Israeli feelings and propaganda."
"Anti-Semitism" = anti-Israeli.
In the Conference sponsored by the OSCE and the German government on anti-Semitism, which took place in Berlin at the end of April 2004, 55 European and North American nations reached an accord to include criticism of Israel as a category of "anti-Semitism".
The UN reports on the conference: 'Agreement on the statement was reached after Russia dropped its objections to a clause outlining a link between anti-Israeli sentiment and anti-Semitism, a U.S. delegate to the
conference told Haaretz (Amiram Barkat, April 29). (...)
'It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies of the state of Israel, but the line is crossed when Israel or its leaders are demonized or vilified, for example, by the use of Nazi symbols and racist caricatures,'
Colin Powell said. "In June, the UN held a "seminar" on anti-Semitism. Kofi Annan in his opening speech claimed: "It is clear that we are witnessing an alarming resurgence of this phenomenon in new forms and
manifestations. (...) This time the world must not, cannot be silent."
In other words, what is supposed to be an alarming resurgence of (Judeophobic) anti-Semitism is permitted to be compared to the 3rd Reich. Le Monde wrote "Friday, in the RER-D, a young woman, who, in the ferocious view of 6 assailants, had become a Jew for 13 minutes, had been the victim of Nazi methods." ("Méthode de nazis" Le Monde 13.7.2004).
It is only not "allowed" to compare the current manipulation of the
media to Nazi methods to create this impression. The fact that I get hit by a car, is not a racist victimization, unless it can be proven that the fact that I am black, was the reason that the driver DELIBERATELY hit me with his car.
* * *
How many of those accusations have been proven just as fraudulent as this one, with the difference that this one was played up by the whole political lynch-mob to be shown up very soon afterwards as a hoax? There seem to have been many. Of the synagogues burned and Jewish schools attacked, is there proof of who stands behind these acts? Rumor has it that a large number of those synagogues in Marseilles, for example, were not among the "hard-line Zionist" supporters. (You know the term, "self-hating Jew"? Well that would go also
for these synagogues if they don't toe the Israeli line without question.) Zionist conspiracy, it could be as much as it could be a neo-Nazi or "Islamist" conspiracy.
The difference between "hard-line" and other Zionists is mainly one of development. They both share the same goal, the promotion of an ethnic nationalism based on "Jewishness", however any individual among them may want to define the term and the means to be employed in order to achieve their common goals. Would you know of anyone else who could profit from drawing
a line connecting Arabs to Nazis?
One gets the feeling from the press, that the media has mainly made a sigh of relief: "Thank God, it was not an anti-Semitic attack but a hoax." The general sentiment in "western European" countries is that such attacks are bad only as long as Jews happen to be the victims. When Arabs are the victims, the attitude is more "well, who knows, they could be guilty, if not of this one, then of another."
There are many who seem to agree with Strass-Kahn, the hoax is to be criticized
only for being a hoax sous-entendu is that the intention is good [because it serves the cause of Zionism].
The Egyptian writer Mohamed Sid-Ahmed once wrote:
If one makes the persecution of Jews an absolute sin, one would tend to defend Jews as Jews and not as persecuted. One would subordinate the notion of persecution to that of being Jewish and not the other way around. By ricochet, the persecution of Palestinians by Israelis is sidestepped. There is an absolute negation of the rights of Palestinians. Such a position
could carry a reversed racism.
This is a very apt description of the situation today. As soon as a Zionist sneezes all of political Europe feels it HAS to respond in chorus: "à tes souhaits!, Palestine? Iraque? Kurdestan? (...)?"
Does anyone ask, why it is the question of the headscarf that has become such a question of "laïcité" today, rather than that of the yarmulke long ago? This question has little to do with laïcité and much more to do with Arabophobia disguised as anti-Islamism.
France has a very big advantage over Germany. There
are many Jews in France that are raising their voices in opposition to what Israel presumptuously claims is done in the name of all Jews of the world. Germany is not yet so far. The groups here are small, and not very prominent. The central Jewish organization, more or less takes its orders from Israel and acts as if Jews are not also Germans.
I find that too few Goyim dare speak out against Zionist injustice, because of fear of the "anti-Semitism" bludgeon wielded by Zionists. This to me is, in itself, a variation of anti-Semitism.
Because we - the Goyim - agreed to give Jews the same rights WITHOUT the same responsibilities toward the rest of humanity as everyone else.
Because they accept the persecution of Palestinians . This indifference toward their suffering is not much different to the indifference displayed by the "good Germans" in the lead-up to the Second World War and the genocide that was to come.
But I guess the biggest problem is that there is little understanding of the term "anti-Semitism". I made an experiment a while back. I looked up the term "Semite" and got a list of languages, and peoples who are Semites. Then I looked up "anti-Semite" and lo and behold, it means only "anti-Jewish". (In newer dictionaries it has been even further deformed to also mean "anti-Israeli".) This is not only a display of a lack of logic, it is also a political transformation of the reality.
The "suicide" bombings carried out in Israel by the Israeli
government against Israeli civilians (to pin the blame on Palestinians) are just as anti-Semitic as the hoax in the RER-D. They carry even more wide-ranging consequences being both Judeophobic and Arabophobic. They usually furnish the excuse for further protracted ethnic cleansing - the killing of Palestinians, the destruction of homes, water supply, groves, - but also the immediate killing of Israeli citizens.
Search the media as you wish, you will not find the Israeli attacks against innocent Palestinians in the Occupied Territories labeled
"anti-Semitic" not even in the left media. Just as with this anti-Semitic hoax, the general attitude is, "it's ok as long as Jews were not the victims."
What is very dangerous in the media, is that after they have played up this hoax - and I still don't believe that this Marie-Léonie thought up this complicated (politically charged) story by herself - there are many voices like that of Straus-Kahn who are saying in other words "this hoax became known, but all the other stories were the truth. "Marianne" lists a few of the hoaxes and the most
telling one is that the official of LIKUD - France was caught making threats to HIMSELF!!!
Why should anyone believe any act of aggression against Jews in France, as long as one does not have the culprit and he says that it is BECAUSE the victim was Jewish, and (s)he does not like Jews. That is the only proof that an act was Judeophobic. Otherwise we don't know whether the act was done for example in order to create another hoax, an arson was laid in order to get the insurance, someone got punched in the nose because of jealousy, robbery, or as
in one case in France, schizophrenia (the aggressor had wounded several non-Jewish victims before he wounded a Jew which made it a "State's act" with Rafferin at the victim's bedside.