For years I have kept clear of this subject.

My book Terror on the Tube about the London bombings gave a minimal role to Israeli agents, by way of manipulating the surveillance and security companies (ICTS, Verint Systems, etc), operating on the London Underground, that were clearly Israeli-owned.

It described Netenyahu’s apparent foreknowledge of the event, but drew no conclusions from it.

Mossad agent Admits

However things have now changed with a former Mossad agent more or less admitting, in a slip of the tongue, that they did it: while discussing an explosive maybe used in the London bombings, Juval Aviv says: “its easy to put a truck bomb as we did… as happened in London.” All comments below that video accepted that he had made an admission, of Mossad perpetrating the London Bombings.

Mr Aviv was the Mossad counter-terror agent described by George Jonas in his novel, Vengeance: The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist Team (1984) and the central character in the Spielberg film about this. He has a book, Staying Safe.

 Andrew MacGregor’s view

The Australian ex-policeman Andrew MacGregor had a clear intuition on these matters – but until now I’ve always refused to go along with his view. “You can’t prove It,” I would say. (I’ve posted up articles of his, here and here) This is what he wrote:

I would like to quote from Efraim Halevi, a former head of Mossad in an article that was printed in the Jerusalem Post on the 7th July 2005.  This article was headed, ‘Rules of conflict for a world war:’

“The multiple, simultaneous explosions that took place yesterday on the London transportation system were the work of perpetrators who had an operational capacity of considerable scope. They have come a long way since the two attacks of the year 1998 against the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar-Es-Salaam, and the aircraft actions of September 11, 2001.”

Like the rabbit that hops out of the top hat before the magician is ready for his stunt, the truth has been exposed.  This article was written prior to the actual bombing that took place in London, and thus, Efraim Halevi had to have been one of the planners for this ‘Terrorist’ event.

The Jerusalem Post describes Efraim Halevi as: “The writer, who heads the Center for Strategic and Policy Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, is a former head of the Mossad. (© 1995-2005, The Jerusalem Post 07/07/05)”

In simple words, The London bombing was a ‘planned’ terrorist attack by a group of people including Efraim Halevi, of the ‘Centre for Strategic and Policy Studies’ at the ‘Hebrew University’ in Jerusalem.

Halevi’s article went up at 4 pm onto the Jerusalem Post website which is 2 pm in London. Strangely entitled, ‘Rules of Conflict for a World War’ it is a deeply meditated piece, and it knows far too much, eg that the explosions were simultaneous – a fact which only became evident some days later (Scotland Yard initially averred that the explosions had been 45 minutes apart). For some years I wrestled with the question, does that precognition of the event imply that ‘Israel did it’? Yes, I now believe there is no avoiding the logic.

Halevi’s article surely has to have been written well before July 7th. His phrase ‘… that took place yesterday’ shows it was written with the expectation of being put into a newspaper for the next day – that could not happen if it were being written to go up onto a website at once, no way! (Some web-versions of this very influential article have removed the word ‘yesterday.’)

And who are ‘they’, who Halevi says have ‘come a long way’? ‘They’ have to be the Mossad team (as Andrew MacGregor observes) – those two 1998 operations were the ones that successfully created the new demonised enemy image of Islam:

These two attacks were blamed on Osama bin Laden, who had previously been used by both the Americans and the British to wage war against the Russians in Afghanistan.  It was from these two attacks that Americans became to know Osama bin Laden as ‘public enemy No. 1.

That newly-demonised enemy image was then used successfully for the 9/11 event, so, Halevi saw these 1998 events as a beginning. He alluded admiringly to the ‘perpetrators who had an operational capacity of considerable scope’ – as if congratulating the Mossad team responsible. But how could he know that the event showed “careful planning, intelligence gathering, and a sophisticated choice of timing as well as near-perfect execution”? Monitoring the terror-event that morning, he would have seen the delayed trains Luton to King’s Cross causing the patsies to turn up too late at King’s cross which nearly wrecked the whole plan – how could they take the blame if they weren’t there?  His phrase ‘near-perfect’ implies that he knew what the plan was.

Halevi had recently joined the Advisory Board of the UK company Quest, described as ‘The professional Intelligence company’ and a “risk mitigation” organization. It specialised in ‘Technical surveillance operations, mobile, foot and static surveillance, close reconnaissance and covert and overt photography.’

Ephraim Halevi and Peter Power are two UK citizens who need to be questioned on oath over the crime of 7/7. Peter Power made some comment about his customer that day being an Israeli firm, and it may have been these clients who selected the three stations Power was using for his terror-drill – which so mysteriously synchronized with the actual events. Peter Power said on the afternoon of July 7th ‘We planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don’t want to reveal their name’ and then later on in this context he alluded to ‘Jewish businessmen.’

Those conducting this war, Halevi explained, had to be able to “carry the combat into whatever territory the perpetrators and their temporal and spiritual leaders are inhabiting” i.e. they have to be able to sneak into other countries, which the Mossad is able to do.

Netenyahu’s warning

For both 9/11 and 7/7, only Israeli intelligence appears as knowing when the event was going to happen.1 The CIA and FBI knew in a general sort of way that something was going to happen. US politicans had been warned to stay clear of the London Underground some months earlier,2 just as they had been warned to stay clear of American Airlines for a week or two prior to 9/11. Did British Intelligence know when the 7/7 event was going to happen? If so, there is absolutely no sign of it.

Although he later denied it, Benjamin Netenyahu made clear that he had had prior warning, while he was in his hotel in Russell Square, before proceeding on to the TASE conference at Liverpool Street where he was due to give a keynote speech. He wanted to draw attention to himself, as an egoistic character, and that announcement of foreknowledge achieved that, but at a cost of rather letting the cat out of the bag as regards who was planning the event.t100poll_netanyahu_benjamin

‘Within hours of the explosions, Israeli Army Radio was reporting that “Scotland Yard had intelligence warnings of the attacks a short time before they occurred.” This report, repeated by, added that “The Israeli Embassy in London was notified in advance, resulting in the foreign minister Binyamin Netenyahu remaining in his hotel room…’ (Webster Tarpley, Synthetic Terror, Made in USA, p.461) Tarpley takes the mistaken view that Israel was a mere passive spectator. It was a damage limitation exercise, to account for Netenyahu’s foreknowledge – immediate Israeli news statements tried to pin ‘blame’ on Scotland Yard for telling Netenyahu in advance – which it absolutely denied – but why would it want to do that? It makes no sense. The
Israelis had foreknowledge.

Terror Planning in Israel

Quoting MacGregor again,

With Halevi we have ‘the Center for Strategic and Policy Studies at the Hebrew University’.  So what else comes from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem?  We get this!

In 2005, the Nobel Prize in Economic Science was awarded to Israeli mathematician and game theory specialist Robert J. Aumann, co-founder of the Center for Rationality at Hebrew University. This site explains the situation as such: ‘Israeli strategists rely on game theory models to ensure the intended response to staged provocations and manipulated crises. The waging of war “by way of deception” is now a mathematical discipline.’ This site also explains how Israel uses this developed strategy as:  Such “probabilistic” war planning enables Tel Aviv to deploy serial provocations and well-timed crises as a force multiplier to project Israeli influence worldwide.3

What we should consider here is if there is any possible link between Halevi’s “The Centre for Strategic and Policy Studies” at the Hebrew University” and Robert J. Aumann’s “Center for Rationality at Hebrew University”.  Efraim Halevi’s statement of, “There was careful planning, intelligence gathering, and a sophisticated choice of timing as well as near-perfect execution” certainly suggests there is a connection between these two bodies and the series of ‘Terrorist’ attacks from 1998 up to the 7th July 2005, and most probably after.

So what we actually have from Efraim Halevi is a statement that demonstrates the actual hierarchy of the planners of such ‘terrorist’ attacks as 911.  The highest tiers of these players are the Zionists who control their various fields, such as media, military, government bureaucracies, and of course the politicians.  The second tier consists of the various politicians and other ‘leaders’ who have accepted their bribes and must now dance to the Zionists tune.  The third tier consists of the various bureaucratic and military chiefs who are embedded within these plots

These two Hebrew University departments, the Centre for Strategic and Policy Studies (Halevi) and the Centre for Rationality (Aumann) co-plot the terror events.

Game Theory

I believe that there should be consideration of Aumann’s theories being used in 911 at the Hebrew University: along with Halevi, that would have provided a good planning group for that event.  It was Halevi’s comments about the ‘planners’ coming a long way from the earlier bombings that gives us that clue, and I think that Aumann’s involvement would have been vital for those events, which is why he was given the ‘Nobel Prize’.

Let’s quote from an article in the prestigious US Foreign Policy journal by Jeff Gates clearly explaining how game theory has been developed and used in Aumann’s Centre of Rationality (where ‘the mark’ signifies the target of the attack):

With a well-modeled provocation, the anticipated reaction can even become a powerful weapon in the Israeli arsenal.

For instance, a skilled game theorist could foresee that, in response to a 9/11-type mass murder, “the mark” (the U.S.) would deploy its military to avenge that attack. With phony intelligence fixed around a preset goal, a game theory algorithm could anticipate that those forces might well be redirected to invade Iraq—not to avenge 9/11 but to pursue the expansionist goals of Greater Israel…To displace facts with credible fiction requires a period of “preparing the minds” so that the mark will believe a pre-staged storyline.

Israeli game theorists operate not from the Center for Morality or the Center for Justice but from the Center for Rationality. As modeled by Zionist war planners, game theory is devoid of all values except one: the ability to anticipate—within an acceptable range of probabilities—how “the mark” will react when provoked.

Brilliant stuff – worth Robert Aumann’s Nobel Prize, indeed.


  1. for a detailed account of how Israel had a major hand in planning, arranging and perpetrating the 9/11 event, see my ‘9/11 and Zion: What was Israel’s Role’
  2. Since about November 2004, the US FBI, but not other US agencies, has been refusing to use the London Underground’ – Webster Tarpley, Synthetic Terror Made in the USA, p.462. I.e. the FBI had little or no idea when it was going to happen.
  3. See Andrew MacGregor’s discussion of an article reviewing the London bombings written by Aumann:

Nafeez Ahmed’s The London Bombings (2006) argues that the Israeli government warned London of the attacks ‘a couple of days’ previous, as stated by the US intel company Stratfor, and that ‘multiple Israeli sources have independently corroborated reports that Scotland Yard gave the first warning to Mossad minutes before the attacks.’ (p.134-5) I’m here reversing his argument, as Scotland Yard denied having had any such foreknowledge. The sources for the forenowledge story appear Israeli.