Monday, March 12, 2012

401 Obama can rejuvenate the economy by war with Iran - Jewish journalist David Broder

Obama can rejuvenate the economy by war with Iran - Jewish journalist David Broder

There's something about the Yemen air cargo bombs that does not make sense.

If they were designed to bring planes down, why address the parcels to Jewish synagogues? That gives the game away. Some non-Jewish address would be much less suspicious.

The timing - just before a US election - might not just be fortuitious. Reports that Israeli intelligence was behind the Entebbe hijacking (items 8 to 11) might be relevant.

That event occurred some years ago, but I do not recall seeing these reports until recently.

(1) Suspicious package to U.S. not from Yemen: Yemenia Air Cargo Director
(2) UAE rejects US claims on Flight 201
(3) Obama can rejuvenate the economy by war with Iran - Jewish journalist David Broder
(4) Senators Lieberman and Berman urge Obama to attack Iran
(5) Israel Lobby targeting Democrats for Election Day Defeat
(6) Castro: sanctions on Iran & interdiction of ships are aimed at suffocating its economy
(7) Obama's three closest advisers, all Jewish, are leaving - Eric Walberg
(8)  Israeli intelligence may have participated in Entebbe hijacking, before rescue of hostages
(9) UK government file says Israel was behind Entebbe hijacking.
(10) British document: Israel initiated Entebbe hijack - Ynet  news
(11) Claims of Entebbe conspiracy lack credibility

(1) Suspicious package to U.S. not from Yemen: Yemenia Air Cargo Director
From: CLG_News <> Date: 01.11.2010 03:48 AM

01 Nov 2010

29 Oct 2010

Mohammed al-Shaibah, Air Cargo Director for Yemenia Airways said to Yemen Post, "No UPS cargo plane left Yemeni lands over the land 48 hours. These accusations are false and baseless." He added, "No UPS or DHL cargo packages heading to Chicago through Yemen took place in the last 48 hours as well." "All packages are checked very carefully in Yemen, and there is no evidence to prove that this package came through Yemen."

(2) UAE rejects US claims on Flight 201

From: CLG_News <> Date: 01.11.2010 03:48 AM

30 Oct 2010

The United Arab Emirates' Civil Aviation Authority has rejected claims that a US-bound Emirates' flight from Dubai contained "suspicious" parcels from Yemen. Fighter jets were scrambled on Friday to accompany an Emirates plane into New York's JFK airport after a security alert, US media reported. Emirati authorities, however, said flight 201 carried no 'suspicious' cargo from Yemen as claimed by US-Canadian military agency NORAD. UAE officials rejected the claim and said the plane was not a source of threat.

(3) Obama can rejuvenate the economy by war with Iran - Jewish journalist David Broder

Joy to the world, David Broder says Obama can rejuvenate the economy by going to war with Iran


"The war recovery?" by David Broder in the Washington Post. Is this a Zionist trojan horse?

Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.

I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected. But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history. ==

The war recovery?

David S. Broder

Sunday, October 31, 2010

When the midterm election cycle began, the prevailing opinion was that Barack Obama was cleverer and more inspirational than anyone else on the scene. As it ends, nothing appears to have changed.

OH, YES, I know that Democrats have fallen into a peck of trouble and may lose control of Congress. But even if they do, Obama can still storm back to win a second term in 2012. He is that much better than the competition.

In what respects is he enduringly superior? Let's start with the basics. He is much smarter than his challengers in either party, better able to read the evidence and come to the right conclusions.

Over time, his conclusions are likely to stand scrutiny better than those of other politicians.

The crucial case in point is his analysis of economic forces. No one would pretend that this is anything but a daunting situation. The nation is suffering simultaneously from high and persistent unemployment, lagging investment, massive public and private debt, and a highly inefficient tax system.

The steps that have been ordered so far in Washington have done nothing more than put the brakes on the runaway decline. They have not spurred new growth.

But if Obama cannot spur that growth by 2012, he is unlikely to be reelected. The lingering effects of the recession that accompanied him to the White House will probably doom him.

Can Obama harness the forces that might spur new growth? This is the key question for the next two years.

What are those forces? Essentially, there are two. One is the power of the business cycle, the tidal force that throughout history has dictated when the economy expands and when it contracts.

Economists struggle to analyze this, but they almost inevitably conclude that it cannot be rushed and almost resists political command. As the saying goes, the market will go where it is going to go.

In this regard, Obama has no advantage over any other pol. Even in analyzing the tidal force correctly, he cannot control it.

What else might affect the economy? The answer is obvious, but its implications are frightening. War and peace influence the economy.

Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.

Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.

I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected. But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history. ==

David S. Broder

David Salzer Broder (born September 11, 1929) is a Jewish American Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, author, television talk show pundit, and university lecturer. ...

This page was last modified on 2 November 2010 at 01:40.

(4) Senators Lieberman and Berman urge Obama to attack Iran
From: IHR News <> Date: 08.10.2010 03:01 PM

Obama pressed to weigh Iran strike

Senator Joe Lieberman, Congressman Howard Berman say US must put time limit on sanctions

Yitzhak Benhorin

YNet News (Israel) Published: 09.30.10, 19:54 /,7340,L-3962291,00.html

WASHINGTON – US President Barack Obama is under pressure to consider a military strike on Iran, according to the Financial Times.

Both Senator Joe Lieberman and Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, have urged the president to consider setting a time limit of just a few months on the effectiveness of the most recent sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic for its nuclear advances.

 "Our goal here is to convince Iran to stop its nuclear weapons development program by economic and diplomatic means if we can but (to make clear) that we are prepared to use military means if we must," Lieberman told the Financial Times.

 The senator added that the Obama Administration must reevaluate its policy at the end of the year and adopt a tougher stance if necessary. He called the sanctions "biting", but said he doubted they would cause Iran to negotiate its nuclear program with the West.

Howard Berman told the publication that the administration had "months, not years" to make sanctions work and that a military operation was preferable to a nuclear Iran.

But the Obama Administration is still basking in the afterglow of its victory with Tupraz, a Turkish energy company that ceased refined oil sales to Iran due to sanctions. Next week a US delegation will visit China in an effort to convince Beijing not to fill the newly created void.

And on Thursday the US placed the Swiss-based Naftiran Intertrade Company, a subsidiary of Iran's national oil company, on a financial blacklist and claimed success in persuading several European energy firms to divest from the country.

(5) Israel Lobby targeting Democrats for Election Day Defeat

From: Denver Media Service <> Date: 24.10.2010 11:03 PM

The Israel Lobby: Targeting Democrats for Election Day Defeat

By MJ Rosenberg

October 22, 2010 Huffington Post

 The fury of the "pro-Israel" lobby lately has truly been something to behold.

It has abandoned bipartisanship by setting up front organizations like the so-called Emergency Committee for Israel, which is running ads across the country calling on voters to defeat Democratic members of the House and Senate for signing a letter urging President Obama to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

With all the problems average Americans are facing, the lobby is so out-of-touch that it thinks that hard-hit Pennsylvanian voters (the ads runs most often in the Keystone State) will actually cast their votes based on the lobby's litmus test of who is and who isn't hawkish enough on Israel.

Then there is the American Jewish Committee, which has now issued an unusual second political poll this year. The first, issued in March, was its traditional annual poll of American Jewish opinion on matters foreign and domestic.

This second poll, issued just before the congressional elections, is more limited and clearly is designed to demonstrate that Jewish voters are deserting President Obama because of his efforts to bring Israelis and Palestinians to the peace table. (The AJC press release carries the title: "AJC Poll Shows Jewish Disapproval of President Obama Rising.")

Actually, the poll's intent is to create the shift it claims to portray, a shift that is, in fact, not happening because, as Republican Whip Eric Cantor said on October 2, American Jews are voting Democratic, as they always have, because "Jews are prone to want to help the underdog."

But not the American Jewish Committee, the most established and establishment of lobby organizations which, under its current leadership, is a bastion of neoconservative war-mongeringand has put its once-respected polls to the service of the GOP.

The good news is that Eric Cantor is right: American Jews (not him) are liberals and Democrats. But the "pro-Israel" establishment just follows lockstep behind Prime Minister Netanyahu who wants Republicans to win in November (he has a history of supporting the GOP) and President Obama gone in 2012.

One, they are tired of even Obama's timid pressure on settlements and (2) they want a President who will give Israel permission to bomb Iran. George W. Bush said "no" to that scheme as has Obama. But President Palin or Huckabee? They know that they would say "bombs away" in a heartbeat.

That is why they are running these ads. That is why the American Jewish Committee has become a Republican cutout. It's all about the Middle East: preventing Israel from achieving peace with its neighbors and preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons, not through diplomacy but war.

And check out this ad the "Emergency Committee for Israel" is running against a Democratic Congressman in Connecticut. (They are using the same ad against a host of Democrats). Happily, it won't work. But it does demonstrate what this game is all about. And it's not jobs, jobs, jobs.

MJ Rosenberg, Senior Foreign Policy Fellow, Media Matters Action Network

(6) Castro: sanctions on Iran & interdiction of ships are aimed at suffocating its economy

From: Sandhya Jain <> Date: 29.09.2010 09:42 PM
Subject: The Strategic Counteroffensive-Fidel Castro Ruz-27 September 2010

The Strategic Counteroffensive

Fidel Castro Ruz

27 September 2010

We Are Living Through an Exceptional Moment in Human History. The deadlines established by the United Nations Security Council for Iran to yield to the demands imposed by the United States regarding nuclear research and uranium enrichment for medical purposes and to generate electricity will be expiring in these days [October].

This is the only nuclear use that has been documented in Iran. The fear that Iran is looking forward to producing nuclear weapons is only based on an assumption.

With regard to this delicate issue, the United States and its western allies, among them two of the five nuclear powers with veto power - France and the United Kingdom - supported by the richest and most developed capitalist powers of the world, have promoted an increasing number of sanctions against Iran, a rich, oil-producing Muslim country. Today, the measures adopted include the inspection of Iran's merchant vessels and severe economic sanctions aimed at suffocating its economy. ...

The journalist Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic magazine, already known by our people, has been publishing some excerpts of the long interview he made with me. He has been discussing some interesting aspects of it before he finally writes a future and long article.

"There were many odd things about my recent Havana stopover, [...]", he wrote, but one of the most unusual was Fidel Castro's level of self-reflection [...] but it seemed truly striking that Castro was willing to admit that he misplayed his hand at a crucial moment in the Cuban Missile Crisis [...] that he regrets asking Khrushchev to nuke the US." It is true that he addressed the topic and he asked me that question. Literally, as he wrote in the first part of his report, his words were the following: "I asked him: At a certain point it seemed logical for you to recommend that the Soviets bomb the US. Does what you recommended still seem logical now?" He answered: "After I've seen what I've seen, and knowing what I know now, it wasn't worth it all."

I had thoroughly explained to him - and there is written evidence of that - the content of that message: "...if the United States invades Cuba, a country with Russian nuclear weapons, under such circumstances Russia should not allow to be dealt the first strike, as the one dealt against the USSR on June 22, 1941, when the German army and all European forces attacked the USSR."

As can be observed from that brief reference to the issue, from the second part of his report to the audience on that news, readers could not realize that "if the United States invaded Cuba, a country with Russian nuclear weapons", under such circumstances, my recommendation was to prevent the enemy from launching the first strike; nor the profound irony embedded in my response - "...and knowing what I know now...", which was an obvious reference to the betrayal by one Russian President who saturated himself with some ethylic substance and revealed to the United States the most important military secrets of that country.

{a reference to Boris Yeltsin - Peter M}

Further on Goldberg wrote about another moment of our conversation: "I asked him if he believed the Cuban model was still something worth exporting." Obviously, that question implicitly suggested the theory that Cuba exported the Revolution. So I responded: "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore". I said this to him without any bitterness or concern. And now I laugh at the way he literally interpreted what I said and how, according to him, he consulted it with Julia Sweig, a CFR analyst who accompanied him and worked out the theory he described. But the truth is that the meaning of my response was exactly the opposite of the interpretation made by both American journalists of the Cuban model.

My idea, as everybody knows, is that the capitalist system does not work anymore either for the United States or the world, which jumps from one crisis into the next, and these are ever more serious, global and frequent and there is no way the world could escape from them. How could such a system work for a socialist country like Cuba?

Many Arab friends worried when they knew I had met with Goldberg, and sent some messages describing him as "the staunchest advocate of Zionism."

From all of these we can infer the big confusion that exists in the world. Therefore I hope that what I am telling you about my thoughts could be useful. The ideas I expressed are contained in 333 Reflections - see what a coincidence. The last 26 refer exclusively to the problems affecting the environment and the imminent danger of a nuclear war.

And now I should very briefly add something. I have always condemned the Holocaust. In my Reflections entitled "Obama's Speech in Cairo", "A Swipe Waiting to Happen", and "The Opinion of an Expert" I expressed this very clearly. I have never been an enemy of the Jewish people, which I admire for having resisted dispersion and persecution during two thousand years. Many of the most brilliant talents, such as Karl Marx and Albert Einstein, were Jews, because that was a nation where the most intelligent managed to survive by virtue of a natural law. In our country and in the whole world they were persecuted and slandered. But this is just pat of the ideas I defend.

They were not the only one who were persecuted and slandered for their beliefs. Muslims were attacked and persecuted for their beliefs by the European Christians for much more than 12 centuries, just as the first Christians were in ancient Rome before Christianity became an official religion of that empire. History should be accepted and remembered just the way it happened, with all its tragic realities and its fierce wars. I have spoken about that and that is why I have all the more reason to explain the dangers jeopardizing humankind today, when wars have become the biggest suicide risk for our fragile species.

If we add to this a war against Iran, even if it were of a conventional nature, the United States would rather turn off the light and say goodbye. How could the US put up with a war against 1.5 billion Muslims? ...

(7) Obama's three closest advisers, all Jewish, are leaving - Eric Walberg

From: efgh1951 <> Date: 06.10.2010 03:50 AM

Israel in America: Obama's dance of death

What are we to make of the latest changes in Obama's entourage, ponders Eric Walberg

Obama has just lost his close friend and chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who is making the unusual transition from national to municipal politics. He is also losing his closest adviser David Axelrod (pragmatist Emanuel described their difference as prose versus poetry) and his mentor and director of the National Economic Council Larry Summers.

Why are Obama's three closest advisers -- all Jewish -- leaving? There is no pat answer. Axelrod is no friend of Summers, having suggested in an email the latter would be more comfortable in the "cafeteria at Goldman Sachs". He claims he is homesick. Obama's Keynesianism probably finally got to Summers, who prefers tax cuts. Emanuel, a former congressman, a talented ballet dancer, son of an Irgun terrorist, and an Israeli soldier during the first Gulf war against Iraq, leads us to the real answer.

As a very, very strong Zionist (dual citizen? sayan?), he is Israel's canary in the White House. Israel boycotted Obama's UN speech at the Millennium Goals Summit in September, and has subjected Obama to dose after dose of humiliating treatment, the latest when Netanyahu asked for the pardon of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard (serving a life sentence) in exchange for a temporary halt in settlement expansion. Netanyahu defiantly visited Pollard in jail in 2002 and he is celebrated as a hero in yearly commemorations in Israel. There seems to be an eerie replay of 1991, the last time the White House seriously tried to stop the settlements. The Israel lobby abandoned Bush then and destroyed him in the 1992 elections.

The writing is on the wall: Obama is a one-term president. That is if he is even allowed to finish his first term. Obama was never popular in Israel. When he tried to add Israeli critic Chas Freeman to his team as chair of the National Intelligence Council in 2009 AIPAC blew a fuse. Now there are even threats against his life as a result of his stance on settlements and his reluctance to attack Iran. Loud protests in front of Netanyahu's residence witness crowds burning effigies of Obama "the new Pharaoh", "the descendant of slaves" who must be put in his place.

Obama, son of a Kenyan Muslim and American expat radical, is facing equally vicious bigotry by non-Jews. He is attacked at home by Americans of more traditional backgrounds who call him a communist and are incensed by his unusual origins and his unrepresentative entourage. Apocalyptic movements and rightwing "patriotic" militias, which grew under Clinton but abated under Bush junior, are increasing rapidly under Obama, and more staid but equally frustrated Americans conduct political "tea parties", confused and desperate for both stability and real change.

For despite the radically different appearance of Obama's "change" administration (including the colourful Emanuel), his policies have provided neither stability nor any real change. They are remarkably like those of his predecessor. The unwieldy and disappointing healthcare reform aside, the bankers and generals have been given just about whatever they ask for, Guantanamo stays open and torture continues. US troops stay in Iraq and Afghanistan. The economic morass Obama inherited from Bush merely deepens.

And what is Emanuel's legacy? According to critics, he was responsible for scuttling the real public healthcare option, leaving it in the hands of private insurers. He was courted by a litany of Wall Street officials and business leaders from day one. Emanuel's White House calendar was filled with the likes of Comcast VP David Cohen (who just happened to have mergers pending), Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan, JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon, and New York Daily News owner Mortimer Zuckerman, who showed up three times in two months.

With the Republicans poised to take control of one or both houses in November, Rahmbo, as he is affectionately known for his ruthless strong-arm tactics in the political ring, can safely jump ship just before it sinks. He is clearly betting that his friendship with Chicago's darling, America's first black president, will see him to victory in safely Democratic Chicago.

But, why the municipal ring? Yes, his "friend" Obama is toast. But is it possible Emanuel's sudden interest in local politics is because he realises presidents, senators and the like have very little real power to make decisions anyway? That a mayor can at least leave a visible legacy -- bike paths, community centres, parks? Or is he just bored, looking for a challenge where he can flex his muscles anew, flit gracefully across the political stage yet again as prince charming seducing the sleeping Miss America?

Whatever his motives, Rahmbo epitomises the shallowness, the effeteness of American politics today. The president of the most powerful nation on earth is powerless. A stuffed shirt. A photo op. A cultured Afro-American presiding over the most brutal empire the world has every known. Emanuel "made him" and has decided to leave him to his fate, to yet again play games with the US media and political circles, like a virtual performer orchestrating a grand reality game.

Pundits are mixed in assessing his chances. His strongest supporters are Chicago's white moneyed class and the business community, who favour Emanuel's run because of his history as a Washington power broker, says political analyst Charles Dunn. "His pockets are overflowing with IOUs" and he will be able to call in past favours, giving him a huge advantage over his many competitors.

But he has little appeal to the 35 per cent of Chicagoans who are black and the 28 per cent who are Hispanic. His challengers are predominantly minority candidates, including James Meeks, a state senator and Baptist minister, and Chicago City Clerk Miguel del Valle. Many minority leaders, including several aldermen, have already made statements saying they will not support Emanuel's candidacy. The field is very much open. In fact the call among those unhappy with machine politics in the Chicago is "Abre" -- "Anyone but Rahm Emanuel", which translates into Spanish as "Open".

As a Jew, Emanuel is very much a supporter of minority rights, but these real minorities understand that Jewish support for them from the likes of Rahmbo is only skin deep, so to speak. CNN's Hispanic host Rick Sanchez shocked Americans last week for saying as much on air. Sanchez is constantly ridiculed by Jewish TV satirist Jon Stewart, and finally fought back, calling Stewart a "bigot" with "a white liberal establishment point-of-view", saying CNN and the media are largely run by Jews and elitists. Of course, he was immediately fired, but no one can dispute the truth behind his outburst. Says analyst Peter Myers, "Other minorities are accorded status only on condition that the Jewish minority remains number one."

Compounding Emanuel's difficulties is the expected candidacy of Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, who is white (but not Jewish), and well-liked among black and Latino voters because of his highly publicised refusal to evict renters of foreclosed buildings and his prosecution of the owners of a historic black cemetery who illegally exhumed 300 bodies for profit.

Is any of this of importance to the world at large? Do the departures of Emanuel, Axelrod and Summers portend a more even-handed policy on the Middle East -- a defiance of Israel in the remaining two years of his one-term presidency? Will he suddenly cut Israel's massive aid budget and insist it withdraw from occupied lands? Will (largely Jewish) bankers and other elite miscreants be subpoenaed and jailed for their many crimes, as happened to an earlier Chicagoan, Moses Annenberg, who was jailed for tax evasion in the 1930s under president Roosevelt?

The answer is of course "no". I mention Annenberg, because he was a Jewish Chicago media magnate and underworld figure brought down by a president who still wielded some power. His son Walter Annenberg continued in his father's less-than-pristine footsteps, but covered them with the Annenberg Foundation, lavishing money on "good causes". He rightly realised he could use a liberal facade and his newspapers to make or break politicians, rather than be broken by them.

Like Obama and Emanuel, Annenberg's story is the stuff of legend. His publishing empire grew and grew, he was Nixon's ambassador to the UK and so charmed the Queen that she made him an honourary knight (Americans disdain such unseemly titles). All the time he was "conservative" Ronald Reagan's "best friend" according to Nancy Reagan.

The "liberal" Barack Obama first gained political prominence as an activist with the Annenberg Foundation's Education Challenge. Annenberg, who died in 2002, would be delighted to know his charitable works in Chicago helped elect the first black president, whose "Israel first!" chief of staff would go on to become the city's first Jewish mayor, putting the real minorities in their place. Will Emanuel sail to victory on a pro-Israeli whirlwind, or can a plucky Dart prick the Zionist balloon and bring the circus to a halt? ***

Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly You can reach him at

Comment (Peter M.):

In times of economic depression, Governments fall as the people, in desperation, try one party after another. Obama should assume that he WILL NOT be re-elected. In that case, he has nothing to lose by sticking to his principles - bringing Israel to heel, reining in Wall Street, and getting rid of tax havens.

(8)  Israeli intelligence may have participated in Entebbe hijacking, before rescue of hostages
Israeli agents 'helped Entebbe hijackers'

By Peter Day
Published: 12:01AM BST 01 Jun 2007

An extraordinary claim that Israeli intelligence may have had a hand in an airline hijacking before sending in commandos to rescue the hostages at Entebbe was made to the Foreign Office.

It came via David Colvin, the first secretary at the British embassy in Paris, according to a newly released National Archives file.

He heard it from a contact in the Euro-Arab Parliamentary Association three days after the Air France flight from Tel Aviv to Paris was seized in mid-air by Palestinians and German terrorists on June 27, 1976.

Mr Colvin told his superiors that his source suggested that the attack was carried out by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine with help from the Israeli Security Service, the Shin Bet.

It was designed to torpedo the rival Palestine Liberation Organisation's standing in France and to prevent what they saw as a growing rapprochement between the PLO and the Americans.

"My contact said that the PFLP had attracted all sorts of wild elements, some of whom had been planted by the Israelis," Mr Colvin added. The message was received without comment by the Foreign Office but later officials recorded that a journalist from the Liverpool Post, Leo Murray, had also told them that a splinter group of PFLP was planning a series of spectacular incidents to disrupt contacts between the PLO leader Yasser Arafat and the US.

An official noted: 'If, as Mr Murray's sources allege, the aim of the Entebbe hijacking was to prevent the development of relations between Arafat and the West, and Arafat knew this, it would provide another motive for Arafat's recent approach to the French in Cairo warning us of further attacks."

Most of the file is taken up with Foreign Office attempts to distance itself from the Israeli raid while privately admitting that the Israelis were probably justified in sending their troops into President Idi Amin's Uganda.

Frank Wheeler, the first secretary, reported that there was abundant evidence of Ugandan collaboration with the hijackers. Palestinians had been brought from Mogadishu in President Amin's private jet to join the hijackers, according to the file.

(9) UK government file says Israel was behind Entebbe hijacking.

Israel hijack role 'was queried'

By Dan Parkinson

BBC News

Last Updated: Wednesday, 6 June 2007, 11:16 GMT 12:16 UK

It has been seen as a daring raid by crack Israeli troops to rescue dozens of their countrymen held at the mercy of hijackers.

But newly released documents contain a claim that the 1976 rescue of hostages, kidnapped on an Air France flight and held in Entebbe in Uganda, was not all it seemed.

A UK government file on the crisis, released from the National Archives, contains a claim that Israel itself was behind the hijacking.

An unnamed contact from the Euro-Arab Parliamentary Association told a British diplomat in Paris that the Israeli Secret Service, the Shin Bet, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) collaborated to seize the plane.

The flight was seized shortly after it took off from Athens and was flown to Entebbe, where 98 people were held hostage, many of them Israeli citizens.

Ugandans killed

Israeli commandos brought the crisis to an end, storming the airport and overpowering the seven hijackers and about 80 Ugandan soldiers in a 36-minute battle.

Two Israeli civilian hostages died in the shooting, and a third died later in a Nairobi hospital. One officer commanding the raiders was killed by shooting from the airport tower.

Ugandan President Idi Amin claimed the troops killed 20 Ugandan servicemen as well as all the hijackers.

The hijackers demands included a list of countries that should release Palestinians or others fighting for the Palestinian cause.

In the document, written on 30 June 1976 when the crisis was still unresolved, DH Colvin of the Paris Embassy writes of his Euro-Arab Parliamentary Association source: "According to his information, the hijack was the work of the PFLP, with help from the Israeli Secret Service, the Shin Beit.

"The operation was designed to torpedo the PLO's standing in France and to prevent what they see as a growing rapprochement between the PLO and the Americans."

He adds: "My contact said the PFLP had attracted all sorts of wild elements, some of whom had been planted by the Israelis."

The documents also reveal that the British government debated whether or not to praise the Israeli raid after its completion.

It was decided in the days after the raid that it was not clear whether the Israeli offensive was justified under international law.

One document in the file reads: "The Israelis have been critical of the fact that the prime minister did not send a personal message of congratulations to Mr Rabin and that our public statement fell short of endorsement of the Israeli action at Entebbe."

The file also contains correspondence from UK citizens to the government expressing concern that the government had not expressed support for the Israelis.


One letter reads: "I am writing to find out our policy towards terrorism. I find it deplorable that there was not a statement made congratulating Israel on the successful rescue."

But in a document dated 9 July an official cautions against such a statement because there is likely to be "no internationally agreed view about the legality of the Israeli action".

The document says the legality of it would depend on whether or not the Ugandans had helped the kidnappers.

In a draft document included in the file an official says it appears Idi Amin did collude with the hijackers.

It reads: "On balance it seems that there was a culpable degree of collusion between President Amin and the hijackers, and that the president's attitude made it much easier for the hijackers to persist in their demands."

The file does not make it clear how seriously the government took the claim that Israel also may have aided the hijackers.

(10) British document: Israel initiated Entebbe hijack - Ynet  news

From: Josef Schwanzer <> Date: 09.10.2010 01:04 AM

British document: Israel initiated Entebbe hijack

Official government file quotes unnamed source as claiming Shin Bet cooperated with Air France flight's hijackers, PFLP group, in instigating crisis in bid to weaken PLO

Published: 06.01.07, 09:45 / Israel News


The state of Israel was behind the hijacking of an Air France plane to Entebbe in 1976, and cooperated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine in staging the affair, a UK government file compiled at the time of the occurrences and published by the BBC Friday revealed.

 According to the file released by the National Archives, an unnamed contact told a British diplomat in Paris that the Shin Bet and the PFLP collaborated to seize the plane, which was hijacked in Athens and flown to Entebbe in Uganda, where 98, most of hem Israelis, were held hostage.

 The crisis was brought to an end after Israeli commandos stormed the airport. Three Israeli hostages and one Israeli commander, Yonatan Netanyahu, were killed during the raid.

In the document, written on 30 June 1976 when the crisis was still unresolved, DH Colvin of the Paris Embassy wrote that according to his source, "the hijack was the work of the PFLP, with help from the Israeli Secret Service, the Shin Bet.

"The operation was designed to torpedo the PLO's standing in France and to prevent what they see as a growing rapprochement between the PLO and the Americans."

He added: "My contact said the PFLP had attracted all sorts of wild elements, some of whom had been planted by the Israelis."

(11) Claims of Entebbe conspiracy lack credibility


A subscriber to the MidEastWeb news service asks for clarification of two British articles publicizing a claim that Israel helped a radical Palestinian group hijack an Air France airbus to Entebbe, Uganda, in 1976.

"I had trouble accurately interpreting the ... article on the Israel hijack role," the subscriber writes. "Did it indicate the previous article ... was not true?"

The question refers to articles distributed June 1 by BBC News and by the Telegraph. The BBC reported that a document found in British government archives contended "that Israel itself was behind the hijacking." The Telegraph, treating the archived material with greater accuracy, described the allegation as an "extraordinary claim that Israeli intelligence may have had a hand in an airline hijacking before sending in commandos to rescue the hostages at Entebbe." The rescue took place July 4, 1976.

The articles in question do not provide a basis for believing the conspiracy claim. Nor does the archived document reveal any evidence for the allegation. This leaves the credibility of the allegation dependent on faith in its source.

The BBC gave an incomplete description of the source. The BBC article, by Dan Parkinson, characterized the source only as an "unnamed contact" of a British diplomat in Paris.

Peter Day of The Telegraph reported that the British diplomat's source was "a contact in the Euro-Arab Parliamentary Association." This information was available to the BBC, which did not include it in its story.

The BBC's omission of information about the source made its story look less than convincing. The Telegraph article provided enough description for a reader to understand that the allegation of a conspiracy appeared to come from an Arab source hostile to Israel.

Neither the BCC nor the Telegraph reported how the British diplomat, David Colvin, first secretary of the embassy in Paris, came to know about the allegation. According to Colvin's own report June 30, 1967, the source telephoned him. Colvin wrote:

"A contact in the Euro-Arab Parliamentary Association rang me on 29 June to say that according to his information, the hijacking was the work of the PFLP, with help from the Israeli secret service, the Shin Beit (sic)."

Colvin also reported: "My contact said that the PFLP had attracted all sorts of wild elements, some of whom had been planted by the Israelis."

This was the conspiracy allegation in its entirety.

In reporting this allegation, Colvin did not offer it as factual or comment on its credibility. He mentioned it in the body of a dispatch which begins: "It might be useful to record some of the theories which are circulating here about the hijack."

The context of the conspiracy allegation is a claim by Colvin's source that the real target of the hijacking was not Israel or France but rather the Palestine Liberation Organization. According to Colvin, the source described the hijacking as "designed to torpedo the PLO's standing in France and to prevent what they [the PFLP] see as a growing rapprochement between the PLO and the Americans."

Colvin did not provide a transcript of this conversation. In his summary, the allegation linking Israel and the PFLP is devoid of names, dates, places or other specifics of the purported conspiracy. The absence of these standard reporting elements suggests that Colvin's source did not provide supporting details and may have been peddling a piece of deliberate disinformation.

Nowhere in his report did Colvin address the apparent inconsistency of the claim that the Shin Bet was involved in a foreign operation. The Shin Bet, known in Israel as the Shabak, was and is an internal-security agency. The Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations, popularly known as the Mossad, was responsible for actions outside Israel. Neither the BBC nor the Telegraph noted any of this in their recent articles.

Also missing from the current press accounts was any description of the political context in which Colvin's Euro-Arab parliamentary source delivered the allegation. In 1976, no Arab nation had diplomatic relations with Israel, and PLO policy called for armed struggle to destroy the Jewish state. The Marxist-Leninist PFLP, the second-largest faction in the PLO after Yasser Arafat's Fatah, pushed for greater militancy.

At the time, a Euro-Arab parliamentary secretariat existed in Paris. This was a result of the 1974 creation in Damascus of the Arab Interparliamentary Union with nine Arab countries and the PLO as founding members. Euro-Arab Parliamentary Dialogues took place twice a year, rotating each time to a different European or Arab city.

The source of the conspiracy allegation may have been someone from the secretariat, or an Arab parliamentarian or PLO representative who attended a Euro-Arab Parliamentary Dialogue which took place in Paris in May 1976, the month before the hijacking.

Later in the first week of June 2007, the BBC amended the online version of its article, transforming the unnamed source into an "unnamed contact from the Euro-Arab Parliamentary Association." This revision, last updated June 6, was unannounced and it brought the BBC story into line with what others had already quoted from the archives.

A text of the original BBC article appears in message #38464 of MidEastWeb news service for June 1, 2007.

-- Joseph M. Hochstein, Tel Aviv

No comments:

Post a Comment