A deadly attack on a synagogue on the Holy Day of Yom Kippur. Carried out by someone named ‘Jihad’.
That’s the most basic summary of what happened in Manchester today.
Let’s get the obvious out of the way first. All violence is abhorrent. Attacks like this are unacceptable. And Jewish people being targeted for violence is reprehensible.
But as usual, let’s go beyond the surface-level reporting of this event. I have a number of observations (including on the ‘Blue Thunder’ helicopter, which I find especially curious).
We also need to revisit some previous synagogue attacks. And crucially what occurred in France in 2015: and the London Bridge attack from 2017.
But here’s an interesting note to start with.
On Wednesday, Germany’s federal prosecutor announced the arrest of three suspects in Berlin accused of belonging to Hamas. They are alleged to have attempted to obtain firearms and ammunition to prepare possible attacks on Israeli or Jewish targets inside the country.
Hamas denied that the men detained in Germany had any connection to them, essentially explaining that they have no foreign cells.
The next day, in the UK, a deadly attack on a synagogue in Manchester sees two people killed and several more injured after a terrorist incident.
The timing is interesting.
In the Germany case, it’s unlikely that Hamas has cells there – or really anywhere outside of the Palestinian territory: a point I made a while ago when the Israeli embassy in the UK put out that manipulative, dramatised video depicting a Hamas attack on London at Christmas time.
The fact that three other people have reportedly been arrested in relation to the Manchester attack leaves open the possibility that this could yet be framed as a Hamas-related cell (as in Germany).
But that remains to be seen.
Let’s look at the currently available details of the Manchester attack before continuing.
All of these details are taken from BBC News‘s reporting timeline of the event.
The perpetrator, who has now been named as ‘Jihad al Shamie‘ (of Syrian origin), was shot dead within seven minutes of the police being contacted.
He reportedly drove a vehicle into the gates of the synagogue and then tried to carry out a knife rampage.
Authorities said they knew the identity of the attacker more or less immediately.
Three other people were arrested in relation to the attack, though we don’t have any information about their identities.
A controlled explosion might’ve been carried out near the scene by police, presumably of a bomb intended for use in a further attack.
The attacker was reported to have been wearing an explosive device strapped to his waist – but this was later described as being ‘non viable‘.
Those are the key, basic facts at time of writing this.
So, let’s examine this. Firstly, yes, an attack on a Jewish target isn’t necessarily all that surprising given current tensions.
And yes, there is a lot of genuine anti-Semitism around (as opposed to the more manufactured and strategically weaponised anti-Semitism, of which there is also plenty).
We recently had two ostensibly anti Semitic attacks in the US too, though both were somewhat questionable in nature (covered here and here).
This Manchester attack occurred on Yom Kippur, a holy day in Judaism. I always find it odd when a common terrorist or lone-wolf attacker waits for a symbolically significant date to carry out an attack.
If this person was seething with anti Jewish rage or even outrage over Gaza, why wait patiently for the symbolic value of Yom Kippur? Why not just attack whenever?
That’s a minor point: but it’s not uncommon. The synagogue attack in San Diego several years ago occurred on the last day of Passover, regarded by some as the ‘Messiah’s Feast’. Again, a supposed raging anti Semite apparently waited for a specific holy day of maximum symbolic value to attack a synagogue.
We’ll come back to those US synagogue attacks from a few years ago shortly: because they’re arguably significant here.
It’s also curious that this Manchester attacker’s name is ‘Jihad‘. I mean, sure, I guess that’s really his name. But I’ve never heard ‘Jihad’ being used as an actual Arabic name before.
Was this attack exactly what it’s being reported as? It’s hard to know what’s what anymore.
But some more curious notes.
I want to note too that some of the key elements of this attack are remarkably similar to the London Bridge attack from 2017, which I examined at the time here.
Specifically, just like this Manchester synagogue incident, the main London Bridge attacker started with a vehicle ramming attack and then proceeded with a knife attack.
Likewise, he was shown wearing a suicide/explosive vest before being shot dead – but which was later announced to have been not a real bomb.
The only reason I can see for the fake suicide belt or vest is to make sure you’re shot dead by the armed officers.
Also in that London Bridge attack, as I noted at the time, a ‘Blue Thunder‘ helicopter was reported and filmed at the scene. But it’s presence and involvement was entirely ambiguous, relating to a ‘terror drill’.
As I wrote back then; ‘According to The Telegraph, ‘The elite SAS unit nicknamed ‘Blue Thunder’ is understood to have arrived after the attack had been ended by armed police, and sources said they played no role in confronting the three terrorists.’ It adds, ‘The Ministry of Defence declined to comment on special forces operations, but a Whitehall source confirmed the helicopters were carrying SAS troops.’…’
The Daily Mail, in a piece of confusing journalism, had said the ‘Blue Thunder’ squad had ‘joined in the hunt for three attackers’.
But as I noted at the time, ‘the reports are all that the Blue Thunder unit didn’t arrive until after the attack was over… and it is affirmed that the ‘Three jihadis were shot dead by armed police who arrived on the scene within eight minutes of attack…’
As I also noted at the time, the article also revealed that the ‘Special Forces unit had been rehearsing terror scenarios including how to take out rampaging jihadis…’
Why am I bringing that up here? Well, a ‘Blue Thunder’ helicopter was there today in the vicinity of the synagogue attack, carrying SAS soldiers. Here’s video of it landing nearby.
As I also explained back then, the ‘Blue Thunder’ could be a reference to a movie going by the same name: which is explained to be a movie about government conspiracies involving a helicopter unit.
I think the similarities to the London Bridge attack were worth mentioning here, because they’re clear.
Beyond those notes, let’s bear in mind that this attack occurs on the heels of Britain recognising a Palestinian state – an act that Netanyahu and the Israeli government has been outraged over, choosing to frame it as ‘rewarding’ terrorism and anti Semitism. Netanyahu in fact called it a betrayal: and accused Starmer of ‘siding with Hamas’
He has already blamed Starmer for the synagogue attack.
Therefore a perceived anti Semitic act of terror in the UK at this time puts Britain and Keir Starmer in an awkward position: which the Israeli extremists in Tel Aviv would presumably see as a kind of perverse poetic justice – and crucially as a valuable reinforcement of their own rhetoric.
It also comes on the day that great scrutiny was on the Israelis for the illegal seizure of the humanitarian flotilla, with activists including Greta Thunberg being detained. It spawned global condemnation.
All eyes in the UK now turn away from the flotilla controversy (which was about to become a major international incident) and are firmly focused on Manchester – and on the sense of a rampant anti-Semitism in Britain and an existential threat to Jews.
This widely reported atmosphere of a great threat to Jews everywhere is in fact a key part of the Netanyahu playbook. He has been playing it up big-time in interviews on American media, particularly since the Charlie Kirk killing, claiming that we have returned to the climate of the 1930s, and thus evoking the Holocaust.
The primary purpose of that narrative is to provide vital cover for the Israelis at a time when public opinion worldwide is heavily against them for what they’re doing in the Palestinian Territories.
Therefore any attack on Jewish people – real or staged – is inherently of great value to Netanyahu and the hardline Zionists, which I’ve noted previously. Because it is used strategically to reinforce the justifications for Israel – both as the necessary safe haven for Jews and as the global frontline in the manufactured clash of civilizations.
And really, to illuminate this point, we need to cast our mind back ten years to the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris.
In that terrorist incident, which included an attack on a Jewish Kosher store, two supposed Islamist attackers were blamed – though, as I examined at the time, it had all the hallmarks of a Mossad operation.
Immediately in the wake of those attacks, which deeply shook France, Netanyahu was begged by the French government to not get involved, to not come to France. But he came anyway, citing the threat to Jews abroad and explaining why all Jews needed to come live in Israel, the only place where they could be safe.
He then had the bodies of the French Jewish victims flown to Israel for burial – even though they weren’t Israeli.
I covered all of this here in 2015: and specifically how the Charlie Hebdo attack came after France had said it was going to recognise Palestinian statehood: and Netanyahu had immediately said that ‘terrorism’ would come to France in response. Is this starting to sound familiar?
The point being that the whole thing in 2015 was evidently a major propaganda exercise, not just to sustain the whole ‘War on Terror’ paradigm and Clash of Civilisations programme, but to further amplify the ‘threat to Jews’ and to frighten foreign Jews into identification with Israel.
That’s the same language that’s going to be used now: I don’t even need to check for what Netanyahu and other leading Israeli officials are currently saying, because it’s easy to guess.
Also, this coercing of Jews into identification with the State of Israel via fear and under the manipulation of anti-Semitism is something a number of British Jews have been complaining about for years. I covered it here in 2016, for example.
Now finally, I want to come back to those synagogue attacks in the Pittsburgh and San Diego a few years ago.
They were small incidents, but I covered them as part of this PDF document, both parts of which are still available on the site (titled ‘Jerusalem & the ‘Holy War’ Psy-Op, Part I: Christchurch, Sri Lanka, San Diego & the Coming Messiah‘).
In it, I noted how some covered the incidents. For example, influential Rabbi Elmer Berger was quoted as saying, in response to the San Diego incident: “This is clearly Hashem (God) telling the Jews to come home, to return to Jerusalem… And that is because the Messiah is about to make himself known. The sanctity of Israel can protect the Jews. The haters of Israel know this. They are taking their last chance to attack the Jews because soon they will not be able”…’
Again, you see how every attack against Jews abroad becomes a call for Jews to go ‘home’ to Israel, as Netanyahu also argues: because it’s the only way for Jews to be safe.
Watch for how much commentary you see in coming days abut Jews not being safe in the UK or abroad (or about the existential threat to the Jewish people).
I also noted in that document the oddness of a statement made by the Rabbi Pinchas Winston, described as an expert on classical Jewish sources pertaining to the end-of-days, when he said this: “For all we know, this shooting happened in San Diego because we didn’t take the synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh seriously enough…”
As I asked then: what does that mean? Who is ‘we’ and what does ‘seriously enough’ mean?
It was almost implying that the Pittsburgh shooting was designed to get more attention than it did: meaning a second synagogue attack was necessary, because the discussion or reaction from the first incident faded away too soon.
That’s really all I’m going to say at this time. I haven’t refuted the authorities’ account of this attack in Manchester. I’m just making notes and observations.
Nothing I’ve said here is to defend or justify terrorism, violence or murder. Obviously. It’s just context.
I have no trouble believing that unhinged people (with possible Islamist indoctrination) would violently attack a synagogue. But also consider that the Israeli state and its foreign assets have been going out of their way to maximise ill feeling towards Jews: for the already stated reasons.
These things don’t happen in a vacuum. Always look at timing. Always look at symbolic value. Always look at similarities to other events.
And always look at who it is that benefits most.
çiçek