Stephen J. Sniegoski on the anomalies of September 11 -- second update and afterword

September 11 and the origins of the "War on Terrorism":
A revisionist account

by Stephen J. Sniegoski — second update

Table of contents

Reprint rights


September 11 and the war in Palestine



More evidence has emerged to bolster my theory that the "war on terrorism" was planned prior to September 11 and that the horrific event only provided the rationale for its implementation. In a piece published December 19, 2001, Israeli writer Tanya Reinhart deploys extensive citations from her country's press to show that the Israeli government was planning to remove the Palestinian Authority and return the West Bank to military occupation not just before 9/11 but before the current round of Palestinian terrorism began in 2000. In fact, preparations to smash the Authority had been made before Ariel Sharon became prime minister. Reinhart writes:

In mainstream political discourse, Israel's recent atrocities are described as "retaliatory acts" — answering the last wave of terror attacks on Israeli civilians. But in fact this "retaliation" had been carefully prepared long before. Already in October 2000, at the outset of the Palestinian uprising, military circles were ready with detailed operative plans to topple Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. This was before the Palestinian terror attacks started. (The first attack on Israeli civilians was on November 3, 2000, in a market in Jerusalem). A document prepared by the security services, at the request of then [Prime Minister Ehud] Barak, stated on October 15, 2000, that "Arafat, the person, is a severe threat to the security of the state [of Israel], and the damage which will result from his disappearance is less than the damage caused by his existence." (Details of the document were published in Ma'ariv, July 6, 2001.) [1] [Parenthesis in original.]

After deciding to eliminate the Palestinian Authority, the Israeli government began a propaganda offensive to prepare public opinion by depicting Arafat as the architect of Palestinian terrorism. Key to that effort was the government's release, on November 20, 2000, of a so-called white book[2] on the Palestinian Authority's non-compliance, which portrays Arafat as "orchestrating the Intifada," that is, as being responsible for the actions of all the terrorist groups from Hamas to Hezbollah. [3] Coincidentally, that very theme of Arafat's responsibility for all Palestinian terrorism now looms large in the official American media.

With Sharon's accession to power in February 2001, the effort to remove the Palestinian Authority became more pronounced. The "Foreign Report" for July 12, 2001, published by the influential Jane's Information Group, revealed an Israeli plan for a military assault to remove Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. In order for the action to appear justified, it was scheduled to follow the next major suicide attack. Brigadier General Shaul Mofaz, chief of staff, presented the plan to the Israeli cabinet on July 8, 2001. It was titled, "The destruction of the Palestinian Authority and disarmament of all armed forces." [4]

Reinhart says the Israeli government deliberately provoked the Palestinians into launching suicide attacks by assassinating Hamas leader Mahmoud Abu Hanoud in November 2001. Moreover, she points out that the Israelis would have had to wait for "international conditions to 'ripen' for the more 'advanced' steps of the plan." As a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the concomitant U.S. "war on terrorism," conditions did ripen. Reinhart writes:

In the power-drunk political atmosphere in the U.S., anything goes. If at first it seemed that the U.S. [would] try to keep the Arab world on its side by some tokens of persuasion, as it did during the Gulf War, it is now clear that they couldn't care less. U.S. policy is no longer based on building coalitions or investing in persuasion, but on sheer force. The smashing "victory" in Afghanistan has sent a clear message to the Third World that nothing can stop the U.S. from targeting any nation for annihilation. [5]

In short, Reinhart says that in the context of the American "war on terrorism," "Sharon got his green light in Washington" to smash the Palestinians.

Obviously, the evidence assembled by Reinhart supports the thesis that plans for what became the "war on terrorism" were formed before September 11. Furthermore, if the Sharon government wanted an auspicious climate in which to unleash its military assault, as she contends, then it might look favorably on acts of Islamic terrorism against the United States that would arouse American wrath. And if Sharon provoked the suicide attacks in Palestine in order to secure the proper climate for his military assault, then he might have taken similar actions to bring about 9/11. It is in that light that one should examine the significance of the Israeli spy operation in the United States.


Let's recapitulate here and connect the dots. In July 2001, Sharon was planning to launch a major military assault in the near future to destroy the Palestinian Authority. He needed favorable international conditions, especially in the United States, in which to launch such a bold move. Now, Israel had a major spy ring in the United States, part of which was keeping tabs on the actual Islamic terrorists who would carry out 9/11 — some of the Israeli agents even lived a few blocks away from the alleged terrorist ringleader, Mohammed Atta. If Americans could be driven into a white heat of rage against Islamic terrorists, the ideal condition would be established for Sharon's attack on the alleged chief of terrorists, Yasser Arafat.

Therefore, it seems reasonable to propose that if the Israeli spies in the United States did know of the impending 9/11 attack, they certainly would not have done anything to try to prevent it. Indeed, it is conceivable that they might have sought to facilitate such an ideal condition, if such assistance became necessary. Such an explanation would account for the presence of the Israeli explosive experts in the United States, who, as I mentioned in the previous article, might have been posted here for backup if the Islamic terrorists were unable to bring off a serious terrorist act. (It is not necessary to insist that the Israeli demolition men contributed anything directly to the actual 9/11 attack.)

From Sharon's perspective, everything worked out for the best. Was it all just serendipitous?

I understand that many people, especially "respectable," "educated" people, reject any possibility of conspiracies outright — except, of course, when those conspiracies involve Nazis, Saddam Hussein, Richard Nixon, and other unspeakably evil folk. But let's look at the whole issue from a hypothetical perspective. That should give any congenital anti-conspiratorialists who have made it this far nothing to fret about. Let us ask: If Israel were somehow involved in the events of 9/11, could she get away with it?

Now, the major media did catch Nixon; but would anyone else have caught him had the media not pursued him as Ahab, obsessed and relentless, pursued the White Whale? Even respectable, properly educated folk may concede that the media treated Nixon far differently from the way they treat Israel. The established American media shelter Israel in cases where clear-cut evidence — even documentary evidence — demonstrates Israeli culpability.

For example, to this day the media shrink from delving into the murderous Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967. To this day the media represent the "Barak Plan" as a generous offer of land to the Palestinians, though all it really offered them was a waterless Bantustan cut up by Israeli settlements and bypass roads. And to this day, the American media continue to grind out the old Zionist propaganda that the Palestinians "abandoned" their homes during the 1948 war, instead of being driven out by the Israeli army. Remarkably enough, Israeli archives document the forcible expulsion of the Palestinians, and an admission of that act has even found its way into Israeli schoolbooks. But perhaps those sources are inaccessible from New York and Los Angeles.

Given the kid-gloves treatment the major American media afford Israel, there seems to be virtually no chance that their reporters might plumb the depths of a murky conspiracy to implicate the Israelis in 9/11. Thus far the established media have managed to ignore the whole Israeli spy issue — especially the question, which cries out for an answer, of what all those spies were doing on these shores. The likelihood that the U.S. government wanted a terrorist incident to provide the rationale for military intervention would provide additional reason, if one were required, why no Israeli involvement in the vast crimes of 9/11 would ever be uncovered.


Continuing our procession through the hypothetical, we must now ask: Would Israel do anything that might harm the United States or American citizens if she thought such an action was important for Israeli security? Israel was certainly willing to take American lives when she attacked the U.S.S. Liberty. The government of Yitzhak Shamir is reported to have sold the Soviet Union valuable U.S. documents stolen by Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard — information which, once in Soviet hands, led to the death of American agents. Moreover, in recent years Israel has resold to China sophisticated American weaponry that could easily be turned against the United States. Finally, according to a study released last year by the Army's School of Advanced Military Studies (which I cited in my original article), the Israeli Mossad was sufficiently ruthless to target American forces and place the blame on Arab terrorists. [6]

If the resulting change in climate would predictably benefit Israel, if she had the resources necessary to undertake it, if she could escape media scrutiny in doing so, and if in the past she had not shied away from taking actions that harmed the United States, just what would have kept her from becoming involved in 9/11?

The question is especially irresistible given the presence in power of Israeli strongman Ariel Sharon. Sharon is about the boldest and most ruthless Israeli politician ever to hold office. He is an ex-soldier who in the early 1950s commanded an elite Israeli military unit that fought Arab terrorism by raiding Jordanian villages and murdering Arab civilians. As Menachem Begin's agriculture minister, Sharon built the West Bank settlements, in defiance of the United Nations and in violation of international law, so that Israel could maintain sovereignty over much of the occupied territories. As defense minister in 1982, he facilitated the mass murders in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps carried out by Christian militiamen. Sharon's fateful visit to the Temple Mount sparked the current Palestinian uprising. Sharon's order to the Israeli military to smash Jenin and his open defiance of President Bush show that he has not mellowed in his old age. Considering Sharon's record, I find nothing implausible about hypothesizing that he and the nation he rules were involved in the 9/11 event.

Intelligent hypotheses can help us read the map of reality — can help us figure out, at least, where stumbling blocks and hurdles probably don't exist. It may be useful to keep this article's hypothesis in mind when walking through the actual evidence of Israeli involvement in the crimes of September 11.

April 23, 2002

To Dr. Sniegoski's
third update of May 20.

© 2002 by WTM Enterprises. All rights reserved.

If you found this article to be interesting, please donate to our cause. You should make your check or m.o. payable in U.S. dollars to WTM Enterprises and send it to:

WTM Enterprises
P.O. Box 224
Roanoke, IN 46783

Thanks for helping to assure a future for TLD!

Notice to visitors who came straight to this document from off site: You are deep in The Last Ditch. You should check out our home page and table of contents.