Israel’s Secret Agenda: Funding Arab Terrorism
Why would Israel provide covert support for Islamic fundamentalist extremists? The answer to this provocative question points toward a dirty little secret that the major media in America is keeping under wraps.
Exclusive To American Free Press
By Michael Collins Piper
There is a solid record of evidence pointing toward a longtime—albeit little-known—role by Israel’s intelligence service, the Mossad, in providing financing and tactical support for the very “Muslim extremists” presumed to be Israel’s worst enemies. The truth is that Muslim extremists have proven useful (if often unwitting) tools in advancing Israel’s own geopolitical agenda.
Although many Americans are now aware that Osama bin Laden’s early efforts against the Soviets in Afghanistan were sponsored by the CIA, the media has been reticent to point out that this arms pipeline—described by Covert Action Information Bulletin (Sept ember 1987) as “the second largest covert operation” in the CIA’s history—was also, according to former Mossad operative Victor Ostrovsky (writing in The Other Side of Deception), under the direct supervision of the Mossad.
Ostrovsky noted: “It was a complex pipeline since a large portion of the mujahadeen’s weapons were American-made and were supplied to the Muslim Brotherhood directly from Israel, using as carriers the Bedouin nomads who roamed the demilitarized zones in the Sinai.”
Former ABC correspondent John K. Cooley, in Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, provides some confirmation for Ostrovsky’s allegations. He writes:
Discussion of the input of outsiders to training and operations in Afghanistan would be incomplete without mention of Iran and the State of Israel. Iran’s major role in training and in supply is a matter of historical record. As for Israel, the evidence is much sketchier. . . .
Whether or not units of Israel’s elite special forces trained the Muslim warriors, who would soon turn their guns against Israel in Muslim organizations like Hamas, is a well-guarded Israeli secret.
Several Americans and Britons who took part in the training program have assured the author that Israelis did indeed take part, though no one will own to having actually seen, or spoken with, Israeli instructors or intelligence operatives in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
What is certain is that of all the members of the anti-Soviet coalition, the Israelis have been the most successful in concealing the details and even the broad traces of a training role; much more than the Americans and British. . . .
In addition, it should be noted that Sami Masri, a former insider in the infamous—supposedly “Islamic”—Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) told journalists Jonathan Beaty and S. C. Gwynne (both of Time magazine) that BCCI “was financing Israeli arms going into Afghanistan. There were Israeli arms, Israeli planes, and CIA pilots. Arms were coming into Afghanistan and [BCCI was] facilitating it.”
However, there’s much more to the story of the Mossad’s ties to the so-called Islamic terror networks that are the stuff of American nightmares today.
In his follow-up book, The Other Side of Deception, ex-Mossad figure Victor Ostrovsky unveils the disturbing fact that the Mossad had a secret history of supporting radical Islamic groups for its own purposes.
Pointing out that Arab- and Muslim-hating hard-liners in Israel and its Mossad believe that Israel’s survival lies in its military strength and that “this strength arises from the need to answer the constant threat of war,” the Israeli hard-liners fear that any peace with any Arab state could weaken Israel and bring about its demise. In that vein, Ostrovsky writes:
Supporting the radical elements of Muslim fundamentalism sat well with the Mossad’s general plan for the region. An Arab world run by fundamentalists would not be a party to any negotiations with the West, thus leaving Israel again as the only democratic, rational country in the region.
Even columnist Jack Anderson, a devoted news conduit for the Israeli lobby, has bragged of Israel’s skill: He wrote as long ago as Sept. 17, 1972:
The Israelis are also skillful at exploiting Arab rivalries and turning Arab against Arab. The Kurdish tribes, for example, inhabit the mountains of northern Iraq. Every month, a secret Israeli envoy slips into the mountains from the Iranian side to deliver $50,000 to Kurdish leader Mulla Mustafa al Barzani. The subsidy insures Kurdish hostility against Iraq, whose government is militantly anti-Israel.
In an April 25, 1983, column Anderson pointed out that one secret State Department report speculated that if Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat were to be dislodged, “the Palestinian movement will probably disintegrate into radical splinter groups, which, in combination with other revolutionary forces in the region, would pose a grave threat to the moderate Arab governments.”
Then, according to Anderson’s account, the State Department reported:
Israel seems determined to vent this threat . . . and can be expected to greatly expand its covert cooperations with revolutionary movements.
Anderson added that “two well-placed intelligence sources” had explained that this meant that it was in Israel’s interests to “divide and conquer” by setting various Palestinian factions against one another. This would then help destabilize all of the Arab and Islamic regimes in the Middle East. Anderson then stated flat out that the sources said: “Israel had secretly provided funds to Abu Nidal’s group.”
British journalist Patrick Seale, an acknowledged authority on the Middle East, devoted an entire book, entitled Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire, outlining and documenting his thesis that Nidal was largely a surrogate for the Mossad all along.
Today Nidal (reportedly in retirement in Egypt) has been replaced by Osama bin Laden in media headlines as “the world’s most wanted terrorist.”
And, like Nidal’s efforts to divide the Arab world, particularly the Palestinian cause, bin Laden’s activities seem to have a congruence of interests with those of Israel, although this is something that the major media has not been ready to acknowledge.
While bin Laden has never attacked an Israeli or Jewish target, even The Washington Post pointed out on Sept. 30 that bin Laden’s primary goal is bolstering “a destabilizing brand of Islamic fundamentalism in a long list of existing Middle East and Central Asia regimes.”
That same Post article revealed that—contrary to the general public view that somehow bin Laden is in league with favorite Israeli targets such as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar Qadaffi—a former bin Laden associate testified that bin Laden was quite hostile to both the Iraqi leader and the Libyan leader. This again is quite in line with Israel’s attitude toward the two Arab icons.
And in light of recent questions about the real nationalities and identities of the purported hijackers who brought down the four planes that created havoc on American soil on Sept. 11, Anderson’s aforementioned Sept. 17, 1972, column pointed out something that should be noted:
Israeli agents—immigrants whose families had lived in Arab lands for generations—have a perfect knowledge of Arab dialects and customs. They have been able to infiltrate Arab governments with ease.
As American Free Press reported on Oct. 22, there are some doubts as to whether those who have been identified as the hijackers on Sept. 11 were the hijackers.
Writing in The New Yorker on Oct. 8, veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, pointed out that “many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues about the terrorists’ identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found.”
Hersh has also noted that a senior military officer had suggested to him that “a major foreign intelligence service might also have been involved.”
Hersh did not point any fingers anywhere, but a reader familiar with Hersh’s past history of pinpointing intrigue by Israel’s Mossad could perhaps read between the lines and guess as to which foreign nation Hersh’s source might, however obliquely, be alluding.