Bomber’s autopsy doesn’t fit official version of the event
On July 23, 2012, Associated Press reported the results of the Burgas bomber autopsy; not for the first time in this affair, the findings didn’t fit the initial official declarations.
Five days before, a suicide bomber attacked a bus transporting Israeli tourists at the Burgas Airport in Bulgaria. The bus driver and five Israelis were killed; over thirty people were injured. Initial descriptions of the bomber claimed that the man had short dark hair and were accompanied by an unclear security camera’s image.
Burgas Airport Bombing
Dr. Galina Mleva, a forensic expert who took part in autopsies on the victims and the attacker, told Bulgarian National TV that the bomber “had a white face, light eyes, and very thick brown hair.” Trying to find a way out of the embarrassment, the discrepancy is now explained by assuming the existence of an accomplice.
Yet, Israel doesn’t care about the facts; Netanyahu is about to attack.
Within hours of the violent event, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had blamed Iran and Hezbollah, justifying his brilliant conclusion on the fact that it had occurred on the anniversary of the 1994 AMIA bombing in Argentina, which was blamed by Netanyahu’s predecessors on Iran and Hezbollah.
Now, we see that not only Netanyahu deductive powers are defective, but also that the evidence doesn’t follow the Israeli narrative. Supporting this, Bulgarian Foreign Minister said “We’re not pointing the finger in any direction until we know what happened and complete our investigation.”
Obsessive in his attempts to incriminate Iran, Netanyahu has triggered a different event. In fact, recent declarations of Israeli officials can be considered as an Israeli declaration of war on Iran.
Odd as it may seem, Iran and Israel are technically at peace. Between 1948 and 1979, the two countries had close relations. Israeli Defense Minister General Ezer Weizmann and Iranian Vice-Minister of War General Hasan Toufanian discussed the co-production of Israel’s Jericho-2 missile, hinting that current Iranian developments may have a close relation to Israeli parallel weapons.
After the Islamic Revolution, Israel supported Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, providing military help of up to $500 million annually. There are many testimonies of ongoing economic relations between the countries, “Treacherous Alliance – The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States,” by Dr. Trita Parsi provides good descriptions of how these complex deals work.
Last year, Israeli company Ofer Brothers Group was subject to U.S. sanctions after it sold ships to Iran via a third party. Thus, despite the verbal animosity, it seems that businesses between the adversaries are good.
Burgas Bombing | Israeli False Flag?
Notwithstanding the almost open commercial links between the countries, the political links couldn’t be worse. In May 2006, Israeli Vice-Premier Shimon Peres said Reuters “the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map.” This is a very disturbing statement coming from a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Israel wants economic relations with Iran, while keeping it militarily weak.
Even without further development of their military strength, both countries could cause massive damage to each other in a blitzkrieg missile war. The declarations by Peres and other Israeli politicians and generals were always phrased in such a way that couldn’t be seen as a direct threat. Yet, following the Burgas bombing, Netanyahu crossed a red line.
Just after the event, Netanyahu blamed Iran, basing his delusional conclusion on the fact that it was the anniversary to the bombing of the AMIA Jewish Center in Buenos Aires, in 1994. Iran has never been properly proven as having perpetrated the first event; on the contrary, in 2005, a corrupt Argentinean government impeached Federal Judge Juan José Galeano—who was in charge of the case—due to serious irregularities in his investigation.
Unluckily for Netanyahu, this type of logic doesn’t hold; many other events took place on this day, even more took place in other days. It means nothing. If anything, it hints at a false flag event trying to incriminate Iran. After this first fiasco, Netanyahu kept blaming Iran.
On Sunday, he told Fox News that Iran and Hezbollah are behind the terror attack in Burgas. “This is based on rock solid intelligence and on its resemblance to other recent attempted attacks across the world, included one in Cyprus last week. It’s the same modus operandi,” he said. “It’s them and we know it,” he emphasized.
This “rock solid” evidence is true only if the rocks are as solid as flimsy rubber. Again, if anything, we see here an attempt to incriminate Iran. Butchers all over the world use the same “modus operandi” when they cut meat, despite not knowing each other. If Netanyahu is serious in his claims, then he is completely illogical. The only fact is that Netanyahu didn’t provide any of his rock-solid proofs.
Even before his shallow, soft statements, Netanyahu committed a more serious error. During the press conference that he gave after the attack, he said “Israel would demand a heavy price from those who dispatched the terrorists. Israel would not be defeated.” “We’ll fight Iranian terror, we’ll fight it with great force,” he added.
In order to make clear the position was shared by the government, Foreign Affairs Minister Avigdor Liberman said that Iran is the world’s biggest state sponsor of terror and that Israel would respond “with force and precision against those who plan and execute such attacks.” “We have no intention to forgive and forget,” he said and included Hezbollah on the threat by adding: “Hezbollah knows that we don’t make empty threats.”
There are several ways of declaring a war, a topic that is regulated by the Hague Convention (III) of 1907 on the Opening of Hostilities. The most obvious one is by a speech or the issuing of a formal document. However, that seldom happens; most ongoing wars have never been formally declared.
A well-known example is the German invasion of Belgium, which violated the abovementioned convention since it states that hostilities must not commence without explicit warning. This case is relevant here because what Netanyahu did in his speech was to deliver such a war warning justifying it on unproven claims.
He had put Iran in a position to legitimately claim that Israel declared war on it and thus enabled it to take defensive measures. Self-defense from an external attack is a type of war allowed by the UN Charter. Mr. Netanyahu, this is the only “rock-solid” evidence in this case.
Tov Roy, email@example.com