How Zionists Invented 'Terrorism'

Editor’s Note: This investigation was previously published by MintPress News, a crusading independent media outlet well worth your time, and consideration. It is now reproduced here, with kind permission.

Since the Zionist entity’s 21st century Holocaust in Gaza began, Israeli officials, pundits, journalists, and their Western opposite numbers have endlessly invoked the sinister spectre of “terrorism” to justify the industrial-scale slaughter of Palestinians. It is due to the purported threat of “terrorism”, twice-failed US Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton representatively wrote for The Atlantic in November 2023, “Hamas must be permanently erased.” Annihilated hospitals and schools, and civilians slaughtered en masse, are legitiate “collateral damage.” Such is the unparalleled evil of “terrorists.”

Yet, the relentless stream of heart-rending clips documenting the Israeli Occupation Force (IOF) Holocaust deluging social media feeds the world over, and the ever-ratcheting child death toll, has compelled countless citizens the world over to ask, “if Hamas are terrorists, then what are Zionists?”. Similar questions were posed during the Empire’s long-running “War on Terror”. Then, the purported global threat of “terrorism” was exploited throughout the West to savage civil liberties and demonise Muslims at home, while waging relentless, criminal “interventions” abroad. 

Mainstream usage of the term “terrorism” precipitously plummeted thereafter. It is only now regaining popular currency due to the Gaza genocide. This is no accident. Zionists - specifically Israel’s veteran leader Benjamin Netanyahu - were fundamental to concocting mainstream conceptions of “terrorism”, explicitly to delegitimize anti-imperial struggles, while validating Western state violence directed at oppressed peoples across the Global South. The impact of this informational assault can be felt in every corner of the world today - not least Gaza.

Usage of the term ‘terrorism’ 1960 - 2020, per Google

‘First Strike’

One might reasonably conclude the specific foundations of Nakba 2.0, which continues to unfold in grisly real-time right now, were laid decades ago, as a result of the connivances of Netanyahu, the international Zionist lobby, and US Central Intelligence Agency. What follows is the little-known history of how “terrorism” came to be. A majority of the world’s population - the Palestinian people in particular - live with the monstrous consequences of this subterfuge every day.

Our story starts in 1976, at the peak of détente between the US and Soviet Union. After nearly three decades of bitter enmity, the two superpowers finally resolved to peaceful coexistence. Moscow and Washington readily collaborated to systematically dismantle structures and doctrines that defined the immediate post-World War II era, such as Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.).

In May that year, the CIA produced its annual National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a comprehensive report combining data from various intelligence agencies, intended to be a basis for crafting US foreign policy. In keeping with the past five years, the NIE concluded the Soviets were in severe economic decline, favoured diplomacy over conflict, and desperately sought an end to the Cold War. Such findings motivated Washington’s push for détente, and Moscow’s eager acceptance of major disarmament and arms control treaties.

However, newly-appointed CIA director George H. W. Bush categorically rejected the NIE’s conclusions. He sought a second opinion, so constructed an independent intelligence cell to review the Estimate’s findings. Known as Team B, it was composed of hardcore Cold Warriors, defence industry-funded hawks, and rabid anti-Communists. Among them were several individuals who later became leading figures in the modern neoconservative movement, such as Paul Wolfowitz. Also present were infamous CIA and Pentagon dark arts specialists, professionally ostracised due to détente.

Team B duly rubbished each and every one of the NIE’s conclusions. Rather than dilapidated, impoverished and teetering on total collapse, the Soviet Union was, in fact, more deadly and dangerous than ever, having constructed a vast array of “first strike” capabilities right under the CIA’s nose. To reach these bombshell conclusions, Team B relied on a confounding hodgepodge of peculiar logical fallacy, paranoid theorising, crazed conspiratorial conjecture, unsupported value judgments, and amateurish circular reasoning.

An explainer on Team B authored by one of its members, in a Zionist rag

For example, Team B repeatedly assessed that a lack of evidence Moscow possessed weapons systems, military technology, or surveillance capabilities comparable or superior to Washington’s own was inverse proof the Soviets were in fact posessed of such capabilities. Moscow’s innovations were just so sophisticated and innovative, Team B rationalised, they couldn’t be detected or even comprehended by the West. Team B’s analysis was confirmed to be total fantasy after the USSR collapsed. Yet, its unorthodox methods informed all subsequent NIEs throughout the Cold War, and likely endure today.

Then, on June 27th 1976, mere weeks after Team B set to work reigniting the Cold War, Air France Flight 139, en route to Paris from Tel Aviv, was hijacked by members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Redirected to a Ugandan airport, the plane was greeted on the runway by Idi Amin’s military, who ushered the passengers - the majority being Jewish or Israeli - into the terminal, watched over by scores of soldiers, intended to prevent their escape or rescue.

The hijackers relayed a demand to the government of Israel. Unless a ransom of $5 million was paid to them and 53 Palestinian prisoners were released from Zionist entity dungeons, all hostages would be executed. In response, 100 elite IOF commandos launched an audacious action to free the hostages. Their mission – known as the Entebbe Raid – was a stunning success. All but four hostages were rescued alive, and the IOF lost just one commander - Yonatan (Jonathan) Netanyahu, the older brother of Israel’s current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Israeli commandos with a Mercedes Benz resembling the car owned by Idi Amin, used during the Entebbe Raid for deception purposes

For years by that point, Israeli officials had attempted to popularise the term “terrorism” to explain the motivations and actions of Palestinian freedom fighters. That way, righteous and legitimate Palestinian fury at Zionist repression could be reframed as a destructive ideology of violence for violence’s sake without rationale, and Western-supported settler colonial tyranny as warranted self-defence. This effort became turbocharged in September 1972, when the kidnapping of 11 Israeli athletes at that year’s Olympics in Munich by Palestinian militants ended with all hostages murdered.

This particularly public bloodshed centred world attention on Israel, leaving Western citizens wondering what could’ve possibly inspired such belligerence. Zionists had hitherto managed to largely conceal their systematic, state-enforced repression and displacement of Palestinians from the outside world. Journalists were kept well away from the scenes of major crimes. At the same time, Amnesty International’s Israeli branch was secretly financed and directed by Tel Aviv’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs to whitewash facts on the ground.

For the Netanyahu family, the Entebbe raid was a tragedy - but also an ideal opportunity to validate and internationalise the concept of “terrorism,” as espoused by Zionists. In 1979, Benjamin Netanyahu founded the Jonathan Institute, in honour of his slain brother. Its purpose, he said, was:

“To focus public attention on the grave threat that international terrorism poses to all democratic societies, to study the real nature of today’s terrorism, and to propose measures for combating and defeating the international terror movements.”

In July that year, the Institute convened the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism (JCIT) in Jerusalem’s Hilton Hotel. It gathered together a 700-strong mob of Israeli government officials, US lawmakers, intelligence operatives from across the ‘Five Eyes’ global spying network, and Western foreign policy apparatchiks. Perhaps unsurprisingly, many representatives of Team B were in attendance. Over four days and seven separate sessions, speaker after speaker painted a disturbing picture of the worldwide phenomenon of “terrorism.”

They unanimously declared that all “terrorists” constituted a single, organised political movement that was being secretly financed, armed, trained, and directed by the Soviet Union. This devilish nexus, it was claimed, posed a mortal threat to Western democracy, freedom, and security, requiring a coordinated response. Eerily, as academic Diana Ralph later observed, the JCIT’s collective prescription for tackling this purported menace was precisely what transpired just over two decades later during the War on Terror:

“[This included] pre-emptive attacks on states alleged to support ‘terrorists’; an elaborate intelligence system apparatus; slashed civil liberties, particularly for Palestinians targeted as potential terrorists, including detention without charge, and torture; and propaganda to dehumanize ‘terrorists’ in the eyes of the public.”

Israel’s then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin addressed the JCIT’s opening session. He set the tone by claiming Western state violence was ultimately “a fight for freedom or liberation” and, therefore, fundamentally opposed to “terrorism.” He concluded his remarks by imploring the assembled throng to go forth and promote the conference’s message once it was over. Which they did.

‘Insufficient Evidence’

Among JCIT’s attendees was American author and journalist Claire Sterling, who cut her teeth as a reporter decades earlier at the Overseas News Agency, an MI6 propaganda operation seeking to boost US public support for entering World War II. Following the conference, she frequently amplified the claims of JCIT speakers in articles for prominent newspapers, leading to an epic March 1981 front-page exposé in The New York Times - Terrorism: Tracing The International Network.

A book published later that year, The Terror Network, expanded significantly on Sterling’s oeuvre, firmly cementing the notion of Moscow as a grand spider sat in the middle of a vast, globe-spanning web of deadly political violence in the Western public mind. It caused a sensation upon release, receiving rave reviews from major news outlets, being translated into 22 languages, and becoming a bestseller in several countries.

The Terror Network had a particularly potent impact on newly-inaugurated President Ronald Reagan and his CIA chief William Casey. Committed anti-Communists, they entered office desperately seeking a pretext for brutally crushing left-wing, nationalist opposition to US imperialism in Latin America. Sterling’s work provided ample ammunition for achieving that bloodsoaked objective and was key to the White House decisively shattering détente, a process begun by Team B five years earlier.

Consequently, The Terror Network was circulated among US lawmakers and heavily promoted overseas on the Reagan administration’s dime. Casey furthermore tasked the CIA with verifying its thesis. They quickly assessed Sterling’s work to be irredeemable garbage, ironically enough, as it was heavily influenced by Agency black propaganda. Enraged, Casey demanded the evaluation be revised. An updated appraisal was less scathing, but nonetheless stressed the book was “uneven and the reliability of its sources varies widely,” while “significant portions” were “incorrect.”

Still dissatisfied, Casey asked a CIA “senior review panel” charged with scrutinising Langley’s formal estimates to write its own report on the subject. They concluded the Soviets did offer limited financial, material and practical assistance to a handful of anti-imperial Global South liberation movements, some of which Western powers labelled “terrorists”. But there was “insufficient evidence” of Muscovite culpability for the entire global phenomenon of “terrorism,” let alone funding and directing such activities and/or entities as dedicated policy.

Undeterred, when Casey personally delivered the report to Reagan, he allegedly said of its findings, “of course, Mr. President, you and I know better.” So it was CIA-backed death squads ran roughshod across Washington’s “backyard” throughout the 1980s, in the name of neutralising alleged Soviet influence in the region. Their actions were heavily informed by the Agency’s guerrilla warfare manual, which encouraged assassinations of government officials and civilian leaders and deadly attacks on “soft targets” such as schools and hospitals. “Terrorism”, in other words.

‘We Are All Palestinians’

Another example of Reagan’s “terrorism” was sponsoring Afghanistan’s Mujahideen resistance fighters in their battle with – ironically enough – the Soviet Red Army. This policy endured after the “Evil Empire” was vanquished. The same militants were transported by the CIA and MI6 to Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s, to aid and abet Yugoslavia’s painful, forced death.

When these covert actions produced “blowback” in the form of the 9/11 attacks, several individuals who attended the JCIT, and their acolytes, were elevated to the Bush administration due to their supposed “terrorism” expertise. Meanwhile, with public and state-level fears of “terrorism” ramping up significantly the world over, many Western countries turned to Israel for advice and guidance on how to tackle the issue. As Nentyahu bragged in 2008:

“We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq.”

This was not only because 9/11 “swung American public opinion in [Israel’s] favour.” In a blink, Zionist repression and slaughter were transformed from a source of international embarrassment and obloquy into a compelling sales pitch and unique selling point for Tel Aviv’s welter of “defence” and “security” firms. The Occupied Territories became laboratories, their inhabitants test subjects, upon whom new weaponry, surveillance methods, and pacification techniques could be trialled by the IOF, then marketed and sold overseas.

It is not for nothing that graphic videos showcasing IOF “surgical strikes” on Palestinians, their homes, schools, and hospitals are proudly displayed at international arms fairs, while private demonstrations of invasive surveillance tools such as Pegasus routinely wow repressive foreign security and intelligence agencies behind-closed-doors.

On top of a significant financial benefit, there is a diplomatic dividend too. Israel secures invaluable censure-stifling goodwill from customers, therefore permitting the Zionist project of permanently purging Palestine of its indigenous inhabitants to persist untrammelled. While the streets of almost every major Western city have regularly teemed with pro-Palestine fervour ever since the entity’s attack on Gaza began in October 2023, protesters’ elected representatives are at best silent, at worst actively complicit.

Impassioned chants of “We are all Palestinians!” have been a frequent fixture at these events. This rallying call is highly apposite, for in addition to expressing sympathy and solidarity with the Palestinian people, it is urgently incumbent upon us all to reflect upon how the very same techniques and technologies of control and oppression to which they have been so cruelly subjected daily for decades are now firmly trained on us as well, as a result of Israel’s invention of “terrorism.” It is no exaggeration to say Palestinians are canaries in the coalmine of humanity.