THE ATTACK CAME THE DAY AFTER King Hussein of Jordan and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had met in Washington to declare an end to war with a historic peace handshake. The immediate rhetoric was of Islamic terrorism, with vows not to let the ‘enemies of peace’ destroy the momentum, etc.:

There is no doubt that we face a wave of extreme Islamic radical terrorist movements in Arabic countries.

Tuesday, 26 July 1994, London, South Kensington  An eyewitness that day reported, ‘The blast appeared to come from the Israeli consulate but we were told to stay inside. Just by the sound, anybody in that building would not have had a chance.’ (Evening Standard, 26 July, Donald McCloud). It went off around noon, yet strangely no-one was killed, and the injuries reported were only light – although walls were blown out and a floor collapsed. There had it turned out been a prior warning: ‘Senior Israeli officials had warned the Foreign Office of their fears of a bomb attack in London eight days before the embassy explosion, it emerged last night’ (The Times, 28th July)

The BBC News reported on how, as well as destroying the front of the building in London, windows were blown out of the nearby Kensington Palace, and the blast was heard a mile away. Yet, no-one was really hurt: ‘The worst injury was a broken arm.’ Commented an eye-witness, ‘The whole street shook…. The first thing we noticed was a huge plume of smoke, coming out of the top of the building’. Kensington high street was cleared by police within minutes. A car bomb had been involved, and the car involved had been blown fifty yards by the blast, and only a charred shell remained. Access is strictly limited in this area of London, especially the back of the Israeli embassy where the car was parked, raising questions about how the car was able to get there. The street, Kensington Palace Green, known as ‘Millionaire’s Row’ was or should have been as highly security-protected as anywhere in London, and is continually patrolled by armed police. A woman of middle-eastern appearance was alleged to have parked the car, then just walked off, before it blew up. (BBC News video 26 July 1994)

Citizens were at once told about who had done it, with the BBC news for that day announcing: ‘Extremist Islamic resistance to the peace process led to the bombing of a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires, killing 96, on 18 July.’ How could the BBC decide so quickly to link the event to something on the other side of the world? A massacre had happened, ten days earlier. They might have been connected, but how? False-flag terror will always have the establishment media pointing to the guilty party, right away.

A car-bomb also went off outside Balfour House (the historic site, where Zionist dreams had been formulated) – but at midnight, when it was empty. ‘The security, a police presence, was taken off Balfour House an hour before the explosion.’ (‘Justice Denied’, 1999) That may not be very surprising, for a bomb going off after midnight (i.e., early on the 27th July). Normally some 90 people worked in that building, but at that time of night only security guards were present. It destroyed shop fronts around and cars were smashed up, but again – no-one was killed.

Blame

MANY conflicting theories were put forward in the wake of the July 1994 bombings. It didn’t take long for the police to disregard most and, sticking to the tired old racist stereotype, decide that the bombings must have been carried out by Palestinians. Never mind that the Palestinians were the one group not to benefit from the bombings, that there had been no similar Palestinian actions outside Israel for twenty years, or that the organisation allegedly claiming responsibility — the ‘Jaffa Unit’ or ‘Jaffa Team’ of the ‘Palestinian Resistance’ — had never been heard of before, or since.

Soon, two Lebanese citizens were jailed for twenty years, for a crime ‘they did not, could not and would not have commited.’  They were not around there at the time, and no-one suggested that they had made the bomb, but the extreme vagueness of the ‘conspiracy’ charge meant that they could not escape. Quite simply, the Government needed a couple of patsies to put in jail so it could close the case. Were it not for a certain Mr David Shayler, that would have been the end of the story …

 SAMAR Alami and Jawad Botmeh were convicted in December 1996 on the basis of circumstantial evidence, most of which related to their activities in support of Palestinians in the occupied territories. None of the evidence connected either of them with any involvement in the Israeli Embassy or Balfour House bombings. There was clearly a bigger picture: the sophisticated way in which the bombings were carried out in the middle of London without leaving a single trace indicated the work of a professional organisation or government. But, the prosecution refused to accept this; instead they alleged that Samar and Jawad — well-known and popular Palestinian student activists — had acted alone with a small British-based amateur group with no connections to any large terrorist organisations.

AS PALESTINIANS, Samar and Jawad matched all the racist stereotypes the authorities needed. One might possibly want to recall here that, Jesus Christ was a Palestinian.

In November 1996, the authorities protected themselves with a ‘PII’ order (‘Public Interest Immunity’) regarding information obtained by Israelis and British investigators on explosive traces at the bomb sites – i.e., it all had to stay secret. The prosecution’s continuing use of secret (PII) hearings to suppress vital evidence means that we are still very much in the dark about the true story behind the bombings. But at a Court of Appeal, at the end of October 2000, the prosecution were forced to admit that the prosecuting authorities at almost every level – from the Crown Prosecution Service to MI5, MI6 and Special Branch, and all the way up to the Home Office — have been covering-up vital evidence. This evidence points to the fact that a known terrorist organisation with no connections to Samar or Jawad was probably responsible for the bombings.

Quite how far the cover up goes can only be speculated upon. Leading defence counsel Michael Mansfield, QC, put it like this, in the Court of Appeal:

It is an astonishing and incredible failure in the duty of disclosure by those who are responsible.…a catalogue of disasters, errors and failures by at least eight different individuals, at seven different stages, beginning with the domestic security service and going all the way up to the Home Office …. Had it not been for David Shayler, the CPS would still be saying to us that there is nothing further to be revealed.

Some expert commentators, such as Robert Fisk, thought it highly unusual that such meticulously and professionally planned bombings in the middle of London had not led to any fatalities at all. They wondered if this might indicate some Israeli involvement, perhaps as part of an attempt to persuade the British to increase security provisions. The British government had ordered the closing of the Mossad station in Britain back in 1987; pinning bombings such as these on the Palestinians would enable the Israelis to perpetuate their ‘victim’ image, whilst simultaneously playing on the popular racist stereotype of the Palestinians as violent enemies of peace. And then there were theories that the bombings were related to those shortly beforehand in Argentina and Panama, that they were somehow connected to enmity between Israel and Iran.

Samar and Jawad were convicted, because evidence of their political activities in support of Palestinians was portrayed as evidence of involvement in terrorism. None of the evidence showed that either of them had any involvement whatsoever in either of the London bombings, merely that they had had the misfortune to come across someone who certainly was. None of the prosecution evidence against Samar and Jawad has ever connected them with either of the London bombings, or indeed any bombings anywhere,

THE PROSECUTION accepted that Samar and Jawad had no links to any large terrorist organisations. To get around this obstacle, the prosecution decided that the bombings were carried out by a small, previously unheard-of, amateur group of disgruntled British-based Palestinians, including Samar and Jawad, with no connections to any larger organisations in Britain or abroad.

The Israelis confirmed that they received an early warning of a bomb. The Israeli Embassy is protected around the clock. Security cameras and armed police guards are constantly on patrol. Yet somehow the Audi carrying the bomb was driven up the heavily-guarded road and parked outside, and the driver walked off, without any problem at all. The Israelis claim that the security cameras on the embassy building were not working – thus conveniently thwarting any attempts to actually see who carried out the bombing. This is the very signature of false-flag terror.

Indeed, the identity of the bombers remains a mystery. Both explosions were so expertly carried out, and with such high-performance explosives, that not a trace was left behind, leaving no clue as to what kind of explosive was used. Israeli teams came and took away samples from the bomb crater, but no one will reveal who they were, what they took, or what the results of their tests were. The role that Israeli government agents played in examining the scene of the blast at the Israeli Embassy is still unknown. As Michael Mansfield explained to the court: “Somebody undoubtedly did come from Israel. For some reason, nobody knows who they were, what they took away from the scene or what conclusions they came to.”

Bomb crater? We could do with hearing a bit more about that! Normal cars-bombs do not make craters in the road. The Bali bomb of 2002 did, but that was hardly a normal explosive. There public has never been given any information about what explosive was used.

The Hero Steps Forward

AT the end of 1997, a year after Samar and Jawad were convicted, the ex-MI5 officer David Shayler blew the whistle. He revealed that before the bombings the security service MI5 had received specific warning from a reliable source of an impending attack on the Israeli Embassy, but had buried the information and failed to pass it on to anyone. Shayler also said that a senior MI5 manager believed that the Israelis had been involved, but that this evidence had also been held back. Shayler’s revelations blew a hole through the prosecution case and went a long way to confirming that Samar and Jawad were innocent. Throughout the trial the defence had been told that no such intelligence information from before the bombings existed. If the security services had been warned about the bombings, they might have an idea about who had really carried them out.

There had clearly not been an intelligence vacuum, and a known terrorist organisation was suddenly and verifiably in the frame. As for Shayler’s other revelation that a senior MI5 manager believed the Israelis were involved, that might explain the many mysterious circumstances surrounding the bombings and subsequent successful get-away of those who carried them out, whoever they might have been.

What Shayler referred to seemed to be just the kind of evidence Samar and Jawad needed to prove their innocence. But at this point, the British government intervened to suppress the information. In May 1998, Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, signed a public interest (PII) certificate to authorise the withholding of the evidence in question on national security grounds. The withholding of the Shayler-identified material was subsequently confirmed by a secret sitting of the Court of Appeal – with only the prosecution in attendance – in May 1999.

At trial, the defence was unable to investigate a car involved in a “dry-run” of the bombing some weeks earlier (according to the testimony of a guard working at the gates of the road to the embassy)*, because police had conveniently lost the logs of the entrance to the road to the embassy. Uh-huh.

The Shayler evidence had two components to it, shattering the main prosecution case: In November 1997, he revealed to the media that MI5/MI6 had received a clear warning from a reliable source that the Israeli Embassy in London would be attacked in July 1994. This warning was crucial new evidence in the case, implying the July 1994 bombings could not have been carried out by Samar and Jawad. Further, in August 1998, investigative journalist Paul Foot established from Mr Shayler that there was another hidden piece of information. This is a report written in September-October 1994 by a senior MI6 officer involved in the investigation, in which he concluded that Israeli intelligence could have been involved in the attacks.

Both pieces of evidence were withheld from court at the time of the trial. They completely contradict the main premise of the prosecution, namely that an “intelligence vacuum” surrounded the bombings, which were carried out by a few London-based Palestinians. They are in accordance with the fact that the highly professional and precise attacks must have been carried out by well-trained, experienced, group or international terrorist organisation. As a reminder, the trial judge accepted that neither Samar nor Jawad belonged to a terrorist organisation’ (www.freesaj.org.uk/, cover-up confirmed.) Shayler gave his story to the Mail on Sunday in November 1997.

A Midnight Blast

Why would a terrorist, planning to attack a historic Jewish building (Balfour House), choose a time, 1am, when it would be empty? Did they want to avoid hurting anybody? Yes, I suggest that that was the aim. It was vital that no real deaths take place, because otherwise subsequent court hearings would have been a far more weighty matter. They could not then have gotten away with a mockery of justice whereby two persons not even present were jailed and the case closed – with no real attempt to seek for who had done it. (1) Also, it would not have been credible if the second blast had taken place in the daytime, again with nobody killed. But, both events had to be taken seriously, because of the preceding and similar events in Argentina, which did have lots of real deaths.

In February 2000, a petition concerning the innocence of these two, with over 200,000 signatures, was presented to the Prime minister at 10, Downing Street. November 2002. The House of Lords then rejected an appeal by Samar and Jawad. The two were released as of June, 2009.

Private Eye expressed a view in August 1998: ‘”Soon after the bombing a senior MI5 manager wrote a note expressing his view that the Israelis had carried out the bombing on their own to embarrass the British government into providing more security for Israeli buildings and personnel..” ‘Did the Israelis bomb their own London embassy in 1994?’ asked Paul Foot, The Guardian, 1.12.98

General Comments and summary:

  1. the street CCTV not working for the car-recognition on the day and data missing for a previous ‘dry run’ – has notable similarities to the 7/7 case, as well as 9/11 and the Madrid bombings.
  2. Two patsies are chosen, who have no credible means of creating the powerful explosion which took place – all false-flag terror events have this character.
  3. No details are given of the explosives used, or where the bombs were assembled: this remains totally vague. Here there is a deep similarity with the 7/7 case, and also with the Bali bomb of 2002, where the experts continually changed their minds about what it had been. It had to be a high-powered military explosive, which reduced the car to a charred remain: ‘with such high performance explosives, that not a trace was left behind, leaving no clue as to what kind of explosive was used’ – one could say the same for whatever blew up the three train coaches on 7/7.
  4. The patsies have nothing to gain from the event, and everything they have worked for by way of educational aid to Palestine is terminated.
  5. The building is strangely empty when it goes bang, again reminiscent of certain false-flag terror events: When the Pentagon was struck on 9/11, the plane or missile chose that specific part of the building empty of military personell – only civilian staff got hit. When the bomb went off in Istanbul in 2003 in the British embassy (synchronising with Bush and Blair meeting in London) it was empty of personell, except for one ambassador who was supposed to have left by then.
  6. Mossad foreknowledge: both 9/11 and 7/7 had this characteristic; Benjamin Netenyahu received an advance warning prior to 7/7, and there was debate about whether Scotland Yard or Mossad had been the source of this. Other analysts claimed that Mossad had had a couple of days foreknowledge. For 9/11 the Israeli Odigo text messaging firm adjacent to the Twin Towers had knowledge an couple of hours before, its parent company back in Israel being located close to the Mossad headquarters.
  7. continual witholding of centrally-relevant evidence: here we could compare for example the immediate concealment of the exploded tube carriages after 7/7, so that no journalist, member of the public or court hearing could have access to them; and their secret destruction a year later.
  8. Unheard-of group alleged to claim responsibility: in this case it was the ‘Jaffa Unit’ or ‘Jaffa Team’ of the ‘Palestinian Resistance,’ never heard of before or since; perhaps comparable to ‘Al-Qaeda in Europe’ which allegedly claimed credit for 7/7, posted on a server having connections with the Bush family – never heard of since.

High-Level Complicity

‘Another area of particular concern are the certain – albeit unseen – Israeli role, interests, and pressures. The individual who manned the camera at the embassy the day of the bombing was not interviewed by police and was removed to Israel. An unspecified number of people removed samples and material from the crater left by the car bomb, but no one knows how many they were, what they took, or what results they obtained. The ambassador himself congratulated police after the initial wave of arrests in 1995 even before the trial. Anything pertaining to their role in the investigation or their findings has been invariably excluded from mention or disclosure, as well as the warning that the embassy itself received at the time. Further, the report written by a senior MI5 officer pointing to the possible involvement of Israeli agents in the bombings themselves was not disclosed. Thus, there are genuine fears that justice is being blocked by extremely high level political considerations.’

In false-flag terror, the state itself is complicit in the crime, that is the terrible aspect which ordinary, decent citizens can never believe. The larger purpose of the crime is to justify war, in this case to confer a hurt, self-righteousness upon Israel. That will only work, provided that the Metropolitan police conspires to conceal vitally-relevant evidence which we, the bewildered public, have a right to expect. Why would they want to do that? What is so interesting about this case, is that the UK ‘peace movement’ has greatly supported the two innocent Lebanese citizens – whereas it will normally not go anywhere near the ‘false-flag terror’ concept. It will never endorse anything like the statement, which I heard David Shayler make, about how ‘Israel blew up its own embassy,’ in 1994. But, that is the logical implication of the innocence of the two Lebanese, and the tremendous conspiracy we have witnessed, at the highest levels of the British Judicial system, to prevent the truth from coming out.

The ‘evil empire’ of communism had collapsed in 1991, and the US/UK military were facing a difficult period without an enemy in sight. Good God, some people were expecting peace! The system required that a new enemy come into existence. There is an important difference between what my book calls phantom terror and false-flag terror. Real terror is needed for construction of the demonised enemy image. That is to say, real blood has to be shed. The Israeli embassy bombing of 1992 in Beunos Aires had killed a lot of people, and then there was another worse such event there in 1994. The 1992 event had key features in common with London two years later: it was alleged that a car had driven up to the embassy and then blown up, whereas scores of witnesses testified that no car had been seen and that the blast came from inside the embassy. (These witnesses were dismissed as ‘anti-semitic’) The syntax of the London bombing is commensurate with that on the other side of the world two years earlier: why was it so enormously important for the British government to jail two obviously innocent patsies for twelve years, and allow concealment of most of the relevant evidence? Answer: the acceptance of this event as described by Israel, implied an acceptance of a grammar of terrorism, that linked it to the events in Buenos Aires. In other words, a new, worldwide Enemy was being gestated. Allowing this event to be exposed for what it was – by allowing the evidence unfold – would have scuppered this newly-emerging ‘Phantom menace.’ That was out of the question.

The 1992 Argentina event involved the complete demolition of the Israeli embassy. Who could be wicked enough to do such a thing? That had to have implications for the UK Government’s interpretation of the Kensington embassy bombing. Or, if that shocks you too much, let’s put it another way: now that the two Lebanese patsies are out of jail – the case is over. There is nobody around who wants to ‘solve’ the crime. The last thing any UK civil rights or anti-war movement wants is to go down that road! As I see it, there was only one person in the UK who ever really understood this case, and he’s now said to be wearing woman’s clothing …

Comparing the two London false-flag terror bombings 11 years apart, in 1994 and 2005, in both cases the Government behaved as if the evidence was some kind of state secret. Ordinary people could not be allowed access to it.

Let’s have one more newspaper quote about David Shayler’s key role:

SHAYLER WAS RIGHT OVER BOMB AT ISRAELI EMBASSY

The Crown Prosecution Service was forced by the Court of Appeal

yesterday to admit that the former MI5 officer, David Shayler, was

right in saying that the security services were warned before the 1994

car bombing of the Israeli embassy in London that the building was

being targeted by a terrorist organisation. The terrorist group was

unconnected with the two young Palestinians eventually convicted of

the bombing…[Shayler] also referred to suspicions that the Israeli

secret service, Mossad, carried out the bombing to provoke the UK

into tightening its security.

- The Independent, 27 October 2000

In all the time David Shayler was with us in London’s 9/11 ‘Truth’ movement, he never ever mentioned his key role in this case, as if there were something so dire he didn’t want to mention it. Other aspects of his life working with MI5 he would talk about quite freely. He has become a bit of a figure of fun since last year (I won’t go into details) but my guess is, he needed some change of identity to take himself out of the line of fire, real or imagined.

‘By way of deception shall you wage war’ – Mossad’s Motto

Sources: http://www.freesaj.org.uk/appeal_booklet/appeal_book.pdf  http://www.freesaj.org.uk/pdf/justice.pdf

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

  1. Likely suspect: The silver grey Audi 100 that exploded outside the Israeli Embassy carried the number of a genuine Audi: D201 BGU; its original number plate had been B49 GNU. This car was bought on 15th June 1994 at a car auction in Milton Keynes by a man giving the name ‘George’ who turned out to be Rida Mughrabi and he has never been traced. (NB, this Rida bought ‘explosives’ for one of those jailed, see above refs for this story)

8.3.2010

Share