By Keith Maart
On the evening of September 11th, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the 9/11 attacks meant for relations between the US and Israel. Netanyahu initially replied, “It’s very good,” and then corrected himself, saying, “Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.” In April 2008, Netanyahu added, “We [Israel] are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and American struggles in Iraq…. [These events] swung American public opinion in our favor.” Israel was indeed a huge beneficiary of the anti-Muslim and anti-Arab feelings produced by 9/11, and Israel benefited from the planned and subsequently implemented Middle East wars and conflicts, which greatly improved their national security.
A May 2002 article in The New York Times confirmed the benefit to Israel, stating, “American sympathy for Israel has been on the rise, a trend that has been on display in Congress and in recent opinion polls. This month both houses of Congress expressed unqualified support for Israel in strongly worded resolutions, and Washington never seemed more firmly in Israel’s camp.” The Times also pointed out that CBS and Gallup polls in April 2002 showed sympathy for Israel at around 50 percent, about 10 points higher than in previous surveys over the last five years, while sympathy for the Palestinians dropped to 11 percent from 15 percent over the same time period. According to Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, “I don’t think we would have the same level of enthusiasm for Israel if Sept. 11 had not happened.”
Israeli intelligence was even a critical partner in the erroneous intelligence findings that supported the Iraq war. According to ex-Israeli general and senior Israeli military intelligence officer Shlomo Brom, “Israeli intelligence was a full partner with the U.S. and Britain in developing a false picture of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction capability.” Brom told the Associated Press in December 2003 that Israeli intelligence “badly overestimated the Iraq threat to Israel and reinforced the American and British belief that the weapons existed” (see Part 16). Brom noted that the Israeli assessment may have been influenced by politics. “Israel has no reason to regret the outcome of the war with Iraq, “noting that Saddam was an implacable enemy of Israel.
Without 9/11 there would not have been an Iraq war, a war that eliminated one of Israel’s most feared enemies, an enemy which fired an estimated 40 scud missiles at them during the 1991 Gulf War. With 9/11 as pretext, the U.S. could, and did, fight Israel’s Middle East wars, starting with Iraq. Coincidently, a large cadre of U.S. neoconservatives (“neocons”), many with very close ties to Israel and its most powerful and influential leaders, started planning and lobbying for various Middle East wars about a decade before 9/11, with Iraq being the first target (see Part 14). Other countries that the neocons and Israel regarded as security threats, and thus slated for attack and regime change, included Syria, Libya and Iran. Libya was subsequently attacked, Syria is under attack and Israel has continuously pressured the U.S. to attack Iran.
Cui bono is a Latin term that means “for whose benefit?” It’s a question often asked by law enforcement personnel based on the belief that the individuals or institutions guilty of committing a crime are most likely to be found among those who have the most to gain. In the 9/11 operation, two parties in particular stand out as the largest beneficiaries of the attacks: Israel and the U.S. national security apparatus (i.e., the military-industrial complex, intelligence and homeland security), both of which reaped huge economic and geopolitical benefits, and not by accident. Since 9/11, approximately $2 trillion has been spent on wars, accompanied by over $300 billion of annual spending increases to the combined military/intelligence/homeland security budgets, while attacking countries that posed little or no threat to the U.S. but were enemies of, and security threats to, Israel.
In a typical criminal investigation, the suspects are not usually associated with the investigators and prosecutors of the crime, as they were in the 9/11 investigations. Indeed, intelligence institutions like the CIA and FBI, which committed dozens of serious intelligence failures that led to the success of the attacks, basically investigated themselves. These complicit and untrustworthy institutions never looked into any evidence contrary to the Official 9/11 Story (itself a “conspiracy theory”), and the crime of the century was miraculously solved within days of the attacks. Coincidentally, the CIA and FBI investigations themselves, as well as the 9/11 Commission Report, all relied on circumstantial evidence, much of which has not been proven to this day.
Key Zionist investigators, prosecutors and judges were also in place on 9/11 to stymie investigations and court cases where the process of “discovery” could have led to evidence contrary to the Official 9/11 Story (see Parts 30 to 33). There was also little-to-no transparency or disclosure in any of the 9/11 related investigations and not one person has ever been held accountable for the numerous 9/11 intelligence failures. The 9/11 investigations ignored some of the most important principles of democracy and justness and was based on unreliable torture testimony.
In a criminal court case guilt has to be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” and in a civil case, guilt can be established based on a “preponderance of the evidence.” In both processes purely circumstantial evidence can be used to convict, but the evidence has to be more compelling in the former. Unfortunately, in the 9/11 investigations, almost all the evidence available from law enforcement personnel, particularly the FBI, CIA and NSA, has been shrouded in secrecy and never made public. As an example, an FOIA release of an FBI investigation into Israel’s possible foreknowledge of, and connections to, the 9/11 attacks resulted in about 600 heavily redacted pages being made available and nearly 1,300 pages being withheld (see Part 21, the “Dancing Israelis”).
In the absence of transparency and accountability in the 9/11 investigations, one has to weigh all the available evidence in determining guilt. The purpose of this series of articles is to provide the facts and evidence showing Israel’s primary involvement in the 9/11 attacks, a topic ignored by most of the 9/11 researchers in the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement (see Part 35). This multi-part series will provide the most comprehensive examination up to now of the evidence implicating Israel in the execution and cover-up of the 9/11 false flag operation, while also revealing Israel’s motives and means.
These articles are impeccably researched and referenced with primarily mainstream media (“MSM”) articles and government documents. Although much evidence is still kept secret by the USG the preponderance of available evidence shows a very high probability that Israel was a primary conspirator in the false flag operation. Among other important findings, the article series will show (note: also see the Table of Contents menu related to the article series):
- Israeli intelligence’s (mostly the Mossad’s) confirmed use of Arab and Israeli citizens as deep cover operatives for Israeli intelligence and the use of Jewish individuals (sayanim) and institutions throughout the world to aid and support Israel’s worldwide intelligence operations. (Parts 2, 5 and 6)
- Evidence that pilot hijackers Mohammed Atta and Ziad Jarrah were probably deep cover operatives working for Israeli intelligence (Parts 2, 3, and 20)
- A history of Israel’s many counterintelligence crimes, false flag attacks, and illegal covert operations against the U.S.A. (Parts 7 , 8, 9, and 10)
- Top-level Jewish neocons in the Bush White House on 9/11 who had close ties to Israel and/or the military industrial complex. (Parts 11, 15, 17, and 18)
- Top-level Jewish neocons in the Bush White House on 9/11 who were main proponents behind the Iraq War and/or who were previously investigated for spying for Israel. (Parts 12 and 16)
- The history of Israel’s and the neocons’ decade-long propaganda campaign for various Middle East wars, starting with Iraq. (Part 14)
- Israeli individuals (known as “the Dancing Israelis”) and an Israeli organization (namely, Zim Shipping) with demonstrable foreknowledge and likely involvement in the 9/11 false flag operation. (Parts 19 , 21, and 22)
- Other Israeli individuals and institutions involved in the 9/11 covert operation including the so-called Israeli Art Students and various Israeli communication companies in the U.S. on 9/11. (Parts 23 and 24)
- The Jewish-American sayanim who were likely involved in the World Trade Center demolition operation and its subsequent cover-up. (Parts 28)
- Jewish-American sayanim who were involved in other compartmentalized 9/11 operations, including the investigations and subsequent legal cover-up. (Parts 30, 31, 32, and 33)
- Incriminating timelines showing connections among various Israeli and U.S. sayanim individuals and groups and the alleged 9/11 hijackers. (Part 34)
- A comparison of the facts and evidence in this multi-part series with that provided by the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement, and the likely reason for that Movement’s ignoring Israel’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks. (Part 35)
The evidence provided in this series will show that Israeli intelligence and a number of Zionist/Jewish individuals (i.e., sayanim) in the U.S. with close ties to Israel, were involved in the 9/11 false flag operation and its cover-up. The absence of transparency and accountability in the 9/11 investigations should be a red flag that Americans are still being lied to and that the U.S. national security apparatus which investigated the crimes continues to hide material evidence and the truth. Unfortunately, as long as some of the individuals and institutions who helped commit the crimes remain the investigators and prosecutors of those crimes, America will never know what really happened on that fateful day in September 2001.
Introduction Endnotes and References:
 James Benet, “Spilled Blood is Seen as Bond that Draws 2 Nations Closer,” New York Times, 9/12/01. www.nytimes.com/2001/09/12/international/12ISRA.html
 “Report: Netanyahu Says 9/11 Terror Attacks Good for Israel,” Ha’artez (Israel), April 16, 2008. http://www.haaretz.com/news/report-netanyahu-says-9-11-terror-attacks-good-for-israel-1.244044
 Patrick E. Tyler, “Mideast Turmoil: Opinions: Shock of Sept. 11 Is Making Americans More Supportive of Israel, Polls Suggest,” The New York Times, May 13, 2002.http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/13/world/mideast-turmoil-opinions-shock-sept-11-making-americans-more-supportive-israel.html
 The Associated Press, “General: Israelis Exaggerated Iraq Threat,” December 4, 2003. As reprinted in December 4, 2003 USA Today: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-04-israeli-iraq-threat_x.htm
 Norman Friedman, “Desert Victory – The War for Iraq Kuwait,” Naval Institute Press, 1991. As partially reprinted by PBS Frontline at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/weapons/scud.html
 The military budget was approximately $335 billion in 2001 versus $717 billion in 2011, while the intelligence budget has increased from about $40 billion to $80 billion over the same time frame. The Department of Homeland Security did not even exist in 2001 and is now a $70 billion operation.
- Military Spending: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
- Intelligence Spending: http://fas.org/irp/budget/index.html
- Homeland Security: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2013/homeland-security-spending-since-911/