• Analysis After Bibi Freed Sheikh Yassin: What Does it Mean to Have Yassir and Yassin Walk Hand in Hand by David S. Bedein
• Diana's Death: An Assassination? by John Andrew Quinn

Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu's decision to free the Hamas leader, Sheikh Achmed Yassin has immediate ramifications for the Oslo process, and also for the future of Israel's bilateral negotiations with the Palestine Authority, Jordan, Egpyt, Syria and the United States.

From Netanyahu's point of view, a key factor in Yassin's release is that Yassir Arafat and the Palestine Authority can never again deny their connection with Yassin or the Hamas.

Until Sheikh Yassin's triumphal return to Gaza, almost every action of Arafat and the PA were overshadowed by a sympathetic press that usually negated any connection that Arafat or the PA ever had with incitement, fanaticism and terror of the Hamas.

Arafat's well-oiled public relations system that has served him well for so many years contrasts with Hamas, which makes no pretensions that it is in the business of building an Islamic entity at war with Zionism and the state of Israel. Arafat speaks in two languages. Sheikh Yassin speaks in one.

Well, the "good-cop/bad-cop" game of the Oslo process is over.

From hereon in, Yassir Arafat and Sheikh Yassin will sit shoulder to shoulder and together run the Palestine Authority.

From Netanyahu's perspective, it serves Israel very well to have a Palestine Authority that openly conducts a relations with the Hamas rather than a PA which maintains those connections with violent Islamic groups and later denies them.

Netanyahu is the most media conscious Israeli prime minister since Israel's first PM, David Ben Gurion. Bibi recognizes that Israel's battle is also one of image. Having the world media conjure up the image of a Yassin rather than a Yassir at the head of the PA fosters a new image in the public domain of the world media and in Israeli public opinion.

Perhaps that is why a senior official of Israeli security confirmed to the foreign press only a few days after Yassin's release that the Israeli intelligence services had already decided to send the Sheikh back to Gaza.

Benyamin Netanyahu was harshly criticized from all sides of the political spectrum for the way in which he has been handling security affairs.

However, Netanyahu is playing for the long run. Israel now has a presidential form of government, with few checks and balances. No longer does the Israeli prime minister have to worry about constant votes of confidence that could topple a government whose popular support seems to be waning. Bibi is not worried about what people say about his security moves in the short run.

Return to Contents

To Whom This May Concern:

I work as a journalist. It took me bout a week or so after the tragic car crash which took the lives of Princess Diana, companion Dodi Al Fayed and driver Henri Paul to piece together that we, the public, and apparently the press, were being completely manipulated and lied to about the so-called accident. I'm really only scratching the surface of this truly shocking story, as I don't have extensive financial resources to devote to investigating this story in any serious depth, which it absolutely demands. There are a tremendous number of very troubling inconsistencies and major peculiarities about this event which were never pursued, at least at first, by authorities or by the major news media.

Last Sunday's London Times (Sept. 21) ran a crucial story which has turned things around substantially; it reports that a highly credible witness, a British attorney, clearly saw another vehicle leaving the crash scene at very high speed in an obvious getaway. This dovetails with mounting material evidence from the crash site proving another vehicle (not paparazzi!) impacted the Mercedes in the tunnel and clearly instigated the disaster -- at least in part. Officials also said pointedly that they want to know why "bodyguard" Trevor Rees-Jones fastened his seatbelt not long before the crash. The implication is that he knew something was about to happen -- something potentially life-threatening. Professional bodyguards almost never wear seatbelts as they must be ready for any eventuality at any time. The man's background is British military intelligence.

The mass media really need to realize they have been played by some real masters of the art regarding what was definitely an intentional, meticulously planned and executed murder. The press urgently needs to start asking the great number of questions regarding this mysterious fatal car accident.

Please take a few minutes to read the item I'm sending you. It is a certainty beyond any doubt that the crash that ostensibly killed Princess Diana was an intentional murder and the reporting of the events preceding, during and after the tragedy has been thoroughly manipulated by intelligence agencies.

Incredibly, after major news at the beginning of last week (see first paragraph of report) of physical evidence and eyewitness testimony which had caused investigators to completely reevaluate the case, all mention of the latest turn of events seems to have disappeared from the news. Why haven't the royal Secret Service, British Intelligence, Interpol, Scotland Yard, etc. shown apparently the slightest interest in investigating what is less and less likely to have been an "accident"? Even the merest indication that it might not have been an accident should have triggered massive investigation by those agencies. The fact that there was none is just unbelievable, especially in light of the latest news I mentioned. It might not be stretching things too far to speculate that itself strongly suggests conspiracy and coverup at rather high levels.

There are far too many holes in the official story. The coverup is relying on the unprecedented and quite unbelievable lack of media scrutiny of the events.

It's just totally outrageous that this wretched murder could be contorted, spin--doctored and finessed into an being accepted as an "accident" by the whole world. That is almost more disturbing than the assassination itself!

No matter what, we can honor Diana's memory by standing strong against the forces that in all likelihood viciously took Diana's life. Diana Spencer consciously set out to use her position of great influence to counteract many of the negative and bitter results of such international policies implemented globally by just such forces, and it seems because of that, in addition to several other "reasons", she was assassinated.

Part 2

Part of the police case against the paparazzi is that once they arrived at the scene of the accident, they (the paparazzi) failed to assist an injured person. Yet nearly all the photographers are claiming they were several hundred yards behind the Mercedes and that they arrived after the first doctor was already on the scene, an off-duty doctor who had been driving by named Frederic Mailliez.

An email communique sent to an Internet discussion group by someone claiming to be of the photographers who was following the Mercedes the night of August 31 says that he has not only fled the crash site but also the country, apparently because after he took several pictures of the wreckage and the victims, a very alive Diana spoke some extremely chilling words to him. Using an acknowledged alias and routing his letter through an intermediary for his protection, Mr. Merceilles declares (mistakes uncorrected), "I am one of photographer who followed Diana and her companion Dodi Al-fayed until their death in a car-crash. (Paris tunnel -- 31 august 1997) I was lucky at that time, while the accident took place, I am 60 metres from the spot. When I heard a very loud sound came from the tunnel, I jumped from one of my friend's bike (who is now detained) to inspect the scene. I could see a hand of someone waving at us to seek some help. With a terrible shock, I found that was the hand of princess.

I could not see her face clearly, as a warm blood streaming all over her face. She still alive and crying painfully. With "discourage feeling", I forced myself to take some picture of her -- (the pictures and negative are with me now and I am not intend to sell it for profit). From the distance, I could see people already gathering to see what was happening there. I do not understand the world, for accusing us (photographers) for Diana and Dodi death. As a matter of fact, It looks like all people of the world pointing at us as we are the greatest criminal of a crime that we did not responsible. I still remember the words came from Diana's throat before she died. "Help ... someone outside plan to kill us".

A spokesperson for the Fayeds and the Ritz said that although Dodi had been "examined" by a pathologist in Britain before he was buried, this had not been a full postmortem examination, and that no blood samples were taken.

Lawyers for the photographers have questioned such procedures. "The behavior of passengers in the investigation of a car accident is very important," said one. Another said he would very much like to know how much, if anything, Dodi had drunk that evening and whether he would have been lucid.

Of course absolutely no postmortem of any kind, which could precisely indicate the direct cause of death, was done on the body of Princess Diana.

Paris police have said that after the accident occurred the ambulance took nearly half an hour to get to the scene. Also the police have confirmed that they were escorting the ambulance back to the hospital but then became separated. The ambulance arrived at the hospital much later and the drivers claimed to have lost their way! This was reported on many European radio channels. Why aren't the identities and records of these so-called ambulance drivers being released?

Witness accounts recorded by TV crews directly after the tragedy stated that there was an initial impact or explosion, then the sound of metal scraping followed by the sound of a very loud crash when the vehicle hit the tunnel structure. These descriptions were edited out of subsequent broadcasts and have not been heard since. What was the initial sound caused by? If a massive crash could somehow be instigated, the time, location, and condition of the armor-plated limousine would assuredly create some delays in any occupants not killed receiving medical attention, which itself could be of a terminal sort administered by specially assigned agents who, while returning to the hospital in the ambulance, inconceivably lose their way!

Has the scenario being presented -- of all those photographers riding motorcycles and trying to take pictures of the inside of a car with tinted windows travelling at 120 MPH, at night, in a dim narrow tunnel -- been seriously called into question, as it seems it should? Does anyone really believe that one or more of these paparazzi on motorcycles actually attempted to cut off a large automobile at such speeds? (Nonetheless it's now certain that at least one other vehicle did intentionally impact the Mercedes in the tunnel.) Does it seem the least bit likely that Diana, Dodi and their bodyguard would drive off in a vehicle with a man supposedly so completely inebriated? Why has it been claimed that Mr. Paul sped rapidly away from The Ritz to evade the paparazzi when there was no antagonism or ill will demonstrated before the Mercedes left The Ritz and video footage shows the car leaving at a reasonable speed?

Although earlier reports had the Mercedes going 120 miles per hour, more recent bulletins from Paris say experts estimated the car's speed at about 75 miles per hour. Why would anyone drive at such a dangerous speed just to get away from photographers? Photographs can't cause bodily harm. If indeed the vehicle was travelling even the lower speed, it would seem likely Paul and the other occupants of the Mercedes were trying to get away from something considerably more sinister than photographers. With all the initial hue and cry about the paparazzi being a factor in causing the accident, nearly all still photographs and videos shot before, during or after the tragedy have been seized.

In addition to the inexplicable delay in the arrival of the ambulance and emergency personnel, there were reportedly serious difficulties in removing Diana and the other victims from the specially reinforced body of the limousine, which led to an additional delay of nearly an hour. Also, again inexplicably, during this time Diana was left to wait on the roadside while all the other victims were extricated from the wreckage before she was put into an ambulance. How could anyone not question why Diana was not immediately airlifted out on an emergency medical helicopter but was instead unconscionably made to wait and was then driven at a bizarrely slow pace by an ambulance crew who supposedly couldn't find their way back to the hospital?! And this in a major modern city like Paris? Not bloody likely! (The ambulance however did manage to conveniently ditch their police escort). Diana was very much alive after the crash, and was in fact sitting up, gesticulating and at one point telling the medics to leave her alone; yet we are told that all the most technologically advanced medical resources that our present-day world and her wealth could command were not able to save her. The public should be told precisely how she died, of what specific medical condition and exactly where and at what time her death occurred, as well as who was present. If she in fact died of heart failure, and there was little or no initial emphasis on head wounds in her case, why was the supposed existence of massive head wounds used as the reason Diana did not have an open casket funeral? Also questionable was the fact that instead of being hooked up to state of the art life support equipment at Salpetriere Hospital, Diana was cut open and her heart massaged directly by a physician.

Despite strenuous contortions and permutations of certain investigators attempting to make unwanted facts disappear or to create the desired facts out of thin air in order to promulgate a bogus and fanciful theory regarding the cause of the crash, apparently some members of the Paris police have decided to actually look at the evidence and listen to the witnesses.

An AP bulletin from Paris dated September 17 does indeed indicate that Paris police now believe a second vehicle was in fact involved in the crash, and possibly even a third. It states, French television reported Tuesday that investigators are considering the possibility that another car was involved in the crash. The report on France 2 said red shards of glass, apparently from brake lights, were found at the crash scene - but that the Mercedes' brake lights were still intact. Perhaps the Paris police force is reluctant to play along in covering up the awful truth about this miserable and sickening political assassination.

Another item datelined Paris, September 17, reads in part as follows (emphasis added): Authorities investigating the crash that killed Princess Diana are examining parts of a second car that were found at the scene of the accident, a police source said today.

Pieces of a tail light and traces of paint that are not used on the Mercedes car that carried Diana were found at the scene and are being tested in a police laboratory, the source said on condition of anonymity Similar traces were also found on the rear-view mirror of the Mercedes, the source said. An AP news item from later the same day stated that Paris police, based upon new evidence, are considering the possibility that even a third vehicle may have been involved.

The London Times report mentioned at the beginning dated Sept. 21 says that there is a highly credible witness who had provided significant and invaluable testimony on this aspect of the events to the Al Fayed lawyers several weeks ago. This testimony was passed on to authorities but was apparently intentionally buried. Thankfully it has now resurfaced. The newspaper quoted Gary Hunter, a British lawyer who was in Paris on Aug. 31 celebrating his wife's birthday, as saying he saw a small black car fleeing at high speed from the crash that killed Princess Diana. He saw the car from the window of his third-floor hotel room. Witnesses had initially said they saw a small, black hatchback, possibly a Fiat Uno, near the smashed Mercedes. Hunter said he was watching television when he heard an "almighty crash" at 12:25 a.m. From his window he saw people running toward the tunnel and then saw a car turning from the area by the tunnel exit and roaring down the Rue Jean Goujon, the street below. "I heard the screeching of tires. I saw a small dark car turning the corner at the top of the road. I would say it was racing at 60-70 mph," Hunter stated. "My own feeling is that these were people in a hurry not to be there. I am confident that the car was getting off the scene. ... It looked quite sinister." (emphasis added.) Hunter said the car could have been a Fiat Uno or a Renault. The Times article also said the lawyers passed the testimony on to investigators, who, incredibly enough, apparently ignored it,.

Certain witnesses interviewed right after the tragedy on CNN said that immediately after the event some people were around the car and that one man in a three piece suit screamed at them in French; that there was 'liquid on the ground'. Understandably, the witnesses were afraid of another explosion, and so backed away as instructed. Of course, if there was someone in the tunnel just moments after the crash, clearing away witnesses, he would almost certainly be part of any assassination operation. It is now clear that early reports of the crash suggested Diana was injured, but that her life wasn't threatened, according to the French doctor who treated her for some time at the scene before the ambulance took her to the hospital.

The doctor, who happened by and stopped to help, said she was "moaning, "gesturing in every direction". Unconscious people do not moan and gesture in every direction. Early interviews with Dr. Frederic Mailliez also have him saying that he saw the Princess thrashing about, and that her condition did not seem desperate.

The presence of this doctor who just happened to be at the crash site when the tragedy occurred could be viewed as questionable; certainly it could have been a coincidence but it may not have been, and we have only his word as to what actions he took which affected Diana's physical condition. His location gave him an incalculable ability to drastically impact the course of events -- especially Diana's physical wellbeing.

In addition, the Fayed camp claims that at the hospital Diana was able to give a last message to an unknown person in England, so obviously she was fairly conscious for quite some time after the crash. The crash occurred at just past midnight, but Diana was not declared dead until 4 AM. Also, what was this message and who was it to? Did it implicate someone perhaps?

Part 3

Something is terribly wrong about the death of Princess Diana. The factual evidence presented herein makes it fairly clear that her death was no accident. Diana was killed intentionally.

Diana Spencer was a human being of course, with some of the failings and weaknesses which that connotes. However, by most accounts she was a kind, decent person, who demonstrated genuine empathy with the underprivileged, the infirm, the oppressed and the ignored; those traditionally considered to be of lower social standing than she; also, for what it may be worth Diana was a true blueblood royal of England's House of Stewart. Diana's constant and wholehearted support for numerous charitable endeavors worldwide, and her extraordinary enthusiasm, energy and more recently direct political activism in so many causes which sought to improve the lives and circumstances of great numbers of humanity was thoroughly commendable, and clearly came from the heart. These definitely were not things she had to do. Diana seemed determined to use her position for the greater good. The tremendous worldwide outpouring of sadness and grief on the part of the general populace also came from the heart and was unprecedented, except perhaps for that following the Kennedy assassination. The response was certainly an indication of Diana's formidable and widespread popularity. Perhaps Princess Diana's potential independent financial power by way of her boyfriend, a wealthy movie producer, was becoming a serious political threat to the status quo. The senior Mr. Fayed had been quite influential in bringing about the downfall of the Conservative government which held power for so long in England This fact would have hardly endeared him (or his son) to certain major British power brokers; in fact they detest Mr. Fayed and many liked Diana hardly a little more.. Diana herself was becoming more and more overtly political in her campaign against the use of land mines and in her visits to promote peace efforts in Bosnia, etc. This was a threat to the stated New World Order objective of a destabilized Russia and a wary, edgy Western bloc (Europe, the U.S. and allies). The Royal Family is a major player in the high-stakes game of position within the New World Order, and international arms sales including land mines provide a substantial portion of their necessary operating capital. Some objectives of the removal of Diana as a significant influence in our world could be: to keep Diana from interfering with the further development and education of her two boys, Princes William and Harry; to derail Diana's ever-more-effective international peace efforts (Great Britain is a major exporter of land mines); to send a message to and set an example for other members of Royalty, other world political figures and the entire human population; and to prevent a marriage to a member of the Saudi royal family.

The fact that her companion Mr. Al Fayed was "colored" or Semitic in race is probably a one of the lesser reasons. The fact that Diana was of the House of Stewart, Britain's true and rightful royal family, and not of the House of Windsor, the German (Hessian) royal family which usurped the British throne centuries ago and still holds power, could be somewhat of a factor, as is the issue of who would exert the most influence over the further upbringing of her two children, heirs to the British throne. As well, the Royal Family is rid of someone they unquestionably saw as a troublemaker and a source of significant embarrassment; a thorn in their side and a monkeywrench in the(ir) works. In addition, the mainly Conservative power structure in Britain despised her and her humanitarian and peacemaking agenda and resented having to pay for her security. They and other governments may have had concerns about her increasingly political activities in light of her great popularity, perhaps also concerns about her knowledge of (and willingness to make public) certain information which could prove troublesome to the New (One) World Order, or things of that nature. Dodi Al Fayed had in fact purchased an engagement present for Diana the very day of their deaths, and a public announcement of an engagement would undoubtedly have been imminent. It has been suggested by a U.K. correspondent that this provided a powerful incentive in terms of time for British intelligence to remove Diana immediately. Once the news of her engagement to Dodi was made public, any such accident would certainly be considered much more suspicious. This jewelry was in fact initially reported missing from the wreckage (along with approximately 30,000 francs). It reportedly later turned up and was given to the Spencer family. It may well have been intentionally removed by operatives on the scene, and later replaced when it was realized that the existence of the gift was already too widely known. Even a brief but thorough study into the forces which have a measurable and significant impact upon the course of international policy and the political and social conditions in which the human race exists, will disclose the continued importance of royalty as one of such forces and prompt realization that its ability to influence the course of these events is (still) quite substantial. As a general example of such influence, all contemporary national banks in existence today such as The U.S. Federal Reserve Bank are modeled upon the Bank of England, founded by Britain's King William III as a private, for-profit institution which loans money at interest to the national government to pay government's operating costs, thus discreetly enforcing tremendous economic control (at least!) over entire human populations.

The Royal Family is a unquestionably a key element of the George Bush's so-called New World Order, with a considerable network of supporters firmly entrenched in the United States political system. Certainly both Ronald Reagan and George Bush were unabashedly pro-Monarchy in great number of major foreign policy decisions implemented during their terms.

Most assuredly another ardent supporter is Bill Clinton, who was a Rhodes scholar, meaning that he was hand-picked, then groomed and educated at the expense of The Council of Rhodes to one day take his place as a world leader dedicated to bringing about the fundamental objective of the Council -- a one-world government. Mr. Clinton, indeed, seemed peculiarly upbeat when making his public statement about Princess Diana's death; some reports had him smirking during his brief comments. Clinton also didn't even bother to offered any valid reason at all for his refusal to attend Diana's funeral. Given that Princess Diana had recently focused considerable energy and attention on the continuing unjustifiable use of land mines and was campaigning vigorously for their global abolishment, the Clinton administration's current vehement opposition to the recent land mines treaty overwhelmingly approved by 89 nations and widely supported internationally is certainly noteworthy and surprising, even if nothing more than coincidence and bad timing politically for Clinton. Great Britain is one the world's leading exporters of land mines, Bill! Their production and sale most definitely fill coffers of some of the British Royal Family's more ardent political supporters.

Following are the four news stories mentioned above regarding the medical condition of bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones. I have emphasized the most important sections and have edited the items slightly for the sake of brevity. In and of themselves these four items indicate deliberate distortion and manipulation of information. This can only be an attempt to suppress the truth, and realistically, that truth could only be that Diana's death was not a tragic accident but a deliberately and methodically planned and executed political murder. A host of other inconsistencies and highly troubling questions have been raised which the protective and investigative agencies of both countries as well as the mainstream media have almost totally sidestepped. This very fact in itself seems quite suspicious. It should be, indeed it is imperative that the events and circumstances of the tragedy be thoroughly and completely investigated and examined for the slightest indication that it may have been more than a shocking and virtually inexplicable accident! A great number of such indications have just been cited, many of which have been known from the very beginning of the terrible events.

When all is said and done, we have all lost someone special, and it appears clear that once again it was no accident, but a deliberate act intended to deprive the human race of one of it's brighter luminaries and finer leaders. The late Princess of Wales, Lady Diana Spencer, will be long and deeply missed.

John A. Quinn
all rights reserved

P.O. Box 106
Laytonville, California 95454
(707) 984-7178

News item 1

081204 September, 1997
by Maxine Frith, PA News, in Paris
The bodyguard who was the only survivor of the crash which killed Diana, Princess of Wales, is beginning to recover from his serious injuries, it emerged today.

His mother and step-father, who have been visiting Trevor Rees-Jones daily since the crash, told a French journalist at the hospital this morning that their son was "deeply upset" about the tragedy. He apparently told his mother: "I feel guilty about the crash but there was absolutely nothing I could have done." Mr. Rees-Jones, 29, suffered severe head and facial injuries in the crash and is still drifting in and out of consciousness, according to hospital sources. A spokeswoman for the Pitie Salpetriere hospital in Paris said: "He is heavily sedated and is not yet fully conscious, but his condition improves." The spokeswoman said that, contrary to speculation in the press, Mr. Rees-Jones had not suffered brain damage and had not lost his tongue in the accident.

News Item 2

The Associated Press
London (Sept. 12) - The bodyguard who survived the crash that killed Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed and their driver doesn't yet know they are dead, according to a published report today.

The Mirror newspaper quoted doctors treating Trevor Rees-Jones at a hospital in Paris as saying he is still too ill to be told and may not be informed for a few more weeks.

Rees-Jones, 29, who was Fayed's bodyguard, was the sole survivor of the Aug. 31 crash in a Paris tunnel.

He suffered severe chest injuries and is still recovering from 10 hours of surgery a week ago to reconstruct his face.

The Mirror quoted his mother, Jill Rees-Jones, as saying: "He's unconscious most of the time. His jaw is wired and he can't really speak. He is not fit enough to be told about Diana and Dodi but the good news is he's recovering well."

News Item 3

The Associated Press
London (Sept. 12) - The bodyguard who survived the crash that killed Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed and their driver doesn't yet know they are dead, according to a published report today.

The Mirror quoted doctors treating Trevor Rees-Jones at a hospital in Paris as saying he is still too ill to be told, and may not be informed for a few more weeks.

Rees-Jones, 29, who was Fayed's bodyguard, was the sole survivor of the Aug. 31 crash in a Paris tunnel.

He suffered severe chest injuries and is still recovering from 10 hours of surgery a week ago to reconstruct his face.

In Paris, the Le Figaro daily quoted an unidentified source close to the investigation as saying Rees-Jones may not even be able to remember the crash.

Rees-Jones had received heavy doses of anesthesia, which could have caused partial amnesia that wiped out his memory of the crash and the hours immediately beforehand, the source said.

Investigators hope that Rees-Jones will be able to describe what happened that night - in particular, shed some light on the actions of pursuing paparazzi and of driver Henri Paul.

News Item 4

By Nicolas Marmie
The Associated Press

Paris (Sept. 19) - Bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones, the sole survivor of the accident that killed Princess Diana, does not remember the circumstances of the crash, a judicial source said today.

The source spoke to The Associated Press after the judge investigating the case had his first meeting with Rees-Jones in the Paris hospital where he is recuperating.

The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, had seen the written report of Judge Herve Stephan's meeting with Rees-Jones.

No further details from the meeting were immediately available.

Doctors had said all along that the large doses of anesthesia given to Rees-Jones during surgery, along with the trauma of the accident, might affect his memory.

The following is a partial reprint from the U.K. website at -- http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/dmd.ham/diMI6.htm.

This is not original material, but is owned and copyrighted by its authors.
14th September 1997

Diana: Loose Cannon Terminated by MI6 - The 9th Release

While she had started out as a constitutional liability, Diana was now actively attacking the constitutional elite. She was threatening to destroy the British constitutional system which had done her so much harm and treated her as merely a slab of meat, an incubator of heirs, a stooge of the House of Windsor.

But not only was Diana now seen to be attacking the Public State, she was now doing something far, far more dangerous - she was attacking the most evil sector of the Private State - the Arms industry. Diana was speaking out against land-mines and calling for a total worldwide ban on their manufacture and sale. This was at a time when the Private state was doing a pretty good job of smothering centrist and left-of-centre calls within the New Labour party for a ban. Here was Diana, stirring it all up, jet-setting around the world, mingling with more ethical world-leaders, getting very good support.

World-wide Diana was quietly making many enemies. Her actions were particularly upsetting to the Arms Barons in Britain, where lower-tech weaponry such as landmines is a big industrial deal. And of course, Arms Exporters are monitored and aided by secret security services, occasionally in 'legitimate intelligence gathering', most often in the protection of Western puppet-dictatorships, which provide markets for killing machines and provide an excuse for Western Armed Forces to stay tooled-up. Diana had been the target of intelligence attacks before at the hands of Britain's bumbling MI5, now she was to be targeted on a much higher level - she was to cross the path of the world-wide secret government where intelligence agencies, big corporations, Royal Houses, powerful individuals, neo-Chivalraic Orders, and powerful secret societies merge into a blur. The British wing was to act on both worldwide and domestic concerns through the infamous MI6. With Diana's death, Charles and his mother would be set to gain complete control over the Princes, the increasing popularity of Diana over Charles could be curtailed, the British Arms Industry could lance an irritating boil.

Yet Diana was not alone in getting up the nose of the British system. Another individual was up to the same thing - Muhammad Al-Fayed, who was quite instrumental in bringing to an end the Conservative Party's long-standing hold on power in England. This was an Egyptian citizen who had power to destroy a British Government. The once ally of the British establishment was now it's victorious enemy.

Al-Fayed, in his former days as establishment darling, had struck up an association with Diana. This was very much renewed after Labour won the election and Diana and her sons took a holiday with Al-fayed on his substantial yacht. This was really rubbing the establishment's nose in it! It was saying, "I've undermined you, now I've taken your country's most prized woman. The heir to your throne sees me as an Uncle". Al-Fayed encouraged his playboy son, Dodi, to strike up relations with the Princess and soon there was a much publicised romance.

It had now gone too far for the establishment. Diana had undermined the British constitutional system and was threatening a key industry, and, to top it all, this Johnny Foreigner had made them look like fools. Not only this, a possible Al-Fayed half-brother to the Heir would have been just too unsettling for the Establishment. Diana had to be terminated. If they could get Al-Fayed too, so much the better.

And so all MI6 needed to do was pick it's moment. Diana's Merc may well have been tampered with in some way to ensure she is killed (stunt teams alter the structure of cars all the time). The paparazzi are fairly amiable, not an evil horde as they're being portrayed on the news at the moment (this is almost certainly now a cover-story). Diana smiles at the cameras, she's sparkling. Diana and Dodi sit in the back of the car. Dodi's 'Security Man' drives. A front seat passenger who may be British intelligence also rides, possibly in some sort of shielding to protect him from the forthcoming impact. The car speeds away along on it's way to a private house. The paparazzi follow on hair-dryer motorcycles but do nothing to adversely interfere with the car. The Merc enters tunnel with little or no traffic. There are few possible witnesses about - the dark tunnel provides good cover. The Motorcycles follow behind, not causing too much trouble.

Possibly, a 'British Agent' (either Rees-Jones or an external obstructor) forces crash, car crumples, as it may have been set-up to. The concrete tunnel is an ideal place to smash up a car. Britain's Queen of Hearts is injured, later to die. Al-Fayed's son is dead on scene. Driver is dead. Paparazzi on bike are rounded up by French Police. Ambulance is somewhat late. Only a few witnesses. Information implicating paparazzi is disseminated by British intelligence through the BBC. Paparazzi are possible witnesses to some of the the actual events. Their film-roles are taken from them.

MI6, I believe, accomplish mission ...

Very early reports quoted witnesses as seeing/hearing an explosion, rather like a terrorist attack. Several witnesses that were in the proximity of the tunnel just before the crash said they heard two distinct explosions, the first being louder than the second. An American email respondent, echoing many others, spoke of an American woman who was unable but to repeat the word 'explosion' almost as if searching for a different word, trying to say 'crashing' but aware of the dishonesty in saying so. In frustration, she again said 'explosions'. Many people saw this America Couple on CNN, and it was reported the day-after the crash on ITV's Teletext Service but this testimony was not heard again - ever.

Whatever the real source of the following material, I believe that the historical background provided and some of the questions raised to be interesting, thought-provoking and worth some consideration. Date: Friday, September 5, 1997 10:28:38 PM
From: voltron@voy.net (Jon Locke)
"Ru Mills"
Whoever Controls Princess Diana Rules the World

Princess Diana and her soon-to-be husband, Dodi Fayed, were fatally injured in the Pont de l'Alma tunnel. The site is ancient, dating back to the time of the Merovingian kings (ca. 500 - 751 A.D.), and before. In pre-Christian times, the Pont de l'Alma was a pagan sacrificial site. Note that in the pagan connotation, at least, sacrifice is not to be confused with murder: the sacrificial victim had to be a willing participant.

In the time of the Merovingian kings, the Pont de l'Alma was an underground chamber. Founder of the Merovingian dynasty was Merovaeus. Merovaeus followed the pagan cult of Diana. In Middle English, "soul" (Alma) has as etymology "descended from the sea." "Pont," has as a Latin root "pontifex," meaning a Roman high priest. (See also pons, pontis -- bridge; passage.) "Alma" comes from the Latin "almus," meaning nourishing. One translation of Pont de l'Alma would be "bridge of the soul." Another would be "passage of nourishment." All true European royalty is descended from the Merovingians, which are believed to be descendants of Jesus Christ. During the Merovingian era, if two kings had a dispute over property, it was settled in combat at Pont de l'Alma. According to legend, anyone killed there goes straight to Heaven and sits at the right hand of God, watching over all his foe was to do. The person killed in combat was actually considered to be the "winner," since he became God's eyes on earth and even could manipulate events.

The current British royal family are imposters. The House of Windsor is a fraud. But the lineage of Lady Diana Spencer goes back to Charles II of the House of Stewart. The House of Stewart is of true royal blood. Diana's sons, William and Harry, have 3-quarters true nobility in their blood. Princess Diana was in a powerful position. Two main factions vied for control over her: (1) the New World Order faction, founded on an alliance between King William III (Bank of England, modern system of finance, and "national debt" all beginning during his reign) and later, the Rothschilds, and (2) the true nobility of Europe.

Dodi Fayed, beloved of Lady Diana, is a cousin of Adnan Khashoggi, a CIA asset involved in sales of arms to Iran -- he and Oliver North. Adnan Khashoggi is part of the Saudi royal family. Through marrying Dodi Fayed, Diana would have been marrying into the Saudi royal family. She might have had to convert to Islam.

British intelligence (MI-6) arranged the deaths of Lady Diana and Dodi Fayed. It was imperative that the Saudi royal family not have control over Diana. The driver of the ill-fated Mercedes was a "Manchurian candidate" (brainwashed tool), with connections to the French military. How did so much alcohol get into his system? Amounts suggested in mass media reports are truly staggering -- so much alcohol that the driver would have had to been carried to the car.

Return to Contents

Two events haunt Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu from the anti-Oslo protests: the "Rabin in Gestapo Uniform" poster in Zion Square and the "Rabin Coffin" at Raanana Junction. And while both are frequently raised by Netanyahu's opponents, there is a critical difference between the two incidents.

In the case of the posters - really legal sized photocopies of a photomontage - unless Netanyahu is Superman in disguise, there is no way on this God's earth he could have seen it from his position on the balcony. And when one considers GSS agent provocateur Avishai Raviv's role in the Zion Square story it takes on the stench of a "dirty trick" to discredit the nationalist camp.

This is not the case with the "Rabin Coffin" story. There's no question that then candidate Netanyahu came to Raanana Junction and there's also no question that a full size mock coffin was paraded around Raanana Junction while he was there. Not only that, the coffin was not intoduced to the scene by some mysterious unknown group. Similar coffins were used as props by the group demonstrating at Raanana Junction for many weeks.

But here's where coverage of the story goes awry. And it all starts with the label which has been given to that coffin - "Rabin Coffin". Because it wasn't Rabin's coffin. Period.

Take a look at the pictures from Raanana Junction and you'll see for yourself. There were two slogans on the coffin. One side read "Rabin is burying Zionism" and the other side declared "Rabin is killing Zionism."

That's right - the coffin wasn't Rabin's coffin - it was Zionism's coffin!

Please recall, the slogans were not in some obscure foreign tongue - they were in Hebrew. And the lettering was large enough to be clearly read in the photographs which have been published of the "Rabin Coffin" in various newspaper articles.

Whether or not Rabin's policies would ultimately spell the end of Zionism is of course subject to debate. But it certainly was a legitimate position.

Yes, the message of the protest focused on Prime Minister Rabin rather than his administration, but that's nothing unusual. The papers today are full of political advertising attacking the man Netanyahu - including a new ad sponsored by Yuval Rabin's own Dor Shalom group.

Was the use of a coffin as a protest prop at Raanana Junction something radically new to Israel? Far from it. Just a few examples:

Back on December 20th 1992, Israel Military Industries workers blocked Kaplan Street in a huge protest of the planned firing of 2,500 IMI workers. A few demonstrators carried a coffin, which they said symbolized the government's recovery plan for the industry - and they burned it!

On January 20, 1993 over 1,000 Jews and Arabs marched in Jerusalem with a black coffin representing peace at the head of the procession.

Coffins continue to be used as props in demonstrations after the Rabin murder.

On May 16, 1996 Tel Aviv University students carried a coffin representing higher education in protest against a proposed tuition hike.

I don't expect Leah Rabin and her children to be able to discern this simple truth when they peer at the photographs from Raanana Junction through their veil of anguish and hatred. But there's no excuse for the likes of Ehud Barak and others from the opposition.

There are enough legitimate sources of strife within Israeli society today. The time has come to bury the "Rabin Coffin" myth.

Dr. Aaron Lerner,
Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
P.O.BOX 982 Kfar Sava
Tel: (+972-9) 760-4719
Fax: (+972-9) 741-1645
imra@netvision.net.il

Return to Contents

First two quick comments about the operation in Jordan: When President Clinton commented that its illegal for the U.S. to send agents to knock off people there was an implied air of moral superiority.

Let's think back to 1989. The U.S. wanted to put the leader of Panama, Gen. Manuel Noriega, out of business. So instead of sending a hit team to kill one man, the United States invaded Panama. The cost in Panamanian lives has been estimated at over two thousand, with 10,000 wounded and property damage in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The operation also cost the lives of more than 20 American soldiers.

It's far from clear to me that America took the morally superior route.

Did all the talk from the Left against covert hit operations convince the Israeli public? Far from it. Last Monday Shvakim Panorama did a special survey of adult Israeli Jews for Israel Radio on the Jordan incident. They found that only 35% would oppose sending a hit team to Washington D.C. if a Hamas leader lived there.

I'm an optimist at heart and when Secretary of State Madeleine Albright issued a statement on the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations something encouraging struck my eye: Albright mentions "further redeployments in accordance with Secretary Christopher's letter of January 17, 1997 and the U.S. Note for the Record."

Now in case you've forgotten, the Note for the Record was written by Dennis Ross to seal the redeployment from Hebron. It was considered the crowning achievement of the Netanyahu Administration because, Netanyahu claimed, for the first time there was clear and indisputable linkage between Israeli and Palestinian compliance.

RECIPROCITY.

Israel was going to carry out the redeployment from Hebron and the Palestinians were going to immediately - the word "immediate" is in the text - set about to take care of a whole laundry list of problems including amending their Charter, cutting their so-called police force down to size, seizing illegal weapons etc.

But the Note doesn't talk about the second redeployment. So when Albright mentioned the Note, I thought that that must mean that she wanted to reiterate the fact that the redeployments are linked to Arafat taking care of his side of the Ross note.

I checked with David Bar-Illan, Director of Netanyahu's Policy Planning & Communications Office and he agreed that the interpretation made sense because otherwise it made no sense to mention the Note.

I asked Bar-Illan if Israel would carry out a further redeployment without first getting Palestinian compliance and he reminded me that there is a cabinet decision not to move an inch until the PA cracked down on the terrorist infrastructure. He went on to explain that the illegal arms, number of police and extraditions are all part and parcel of the requirement to crack down on terror. So I felt pretty good. That is, until I heard the PM office's response today to concerns raised about further redeployments and a settlement freeze. Netanyahu's Office said that these concerns were baseless. That's comforting. But then they went on to claim that Netanyahu never hurt the settlements in the last year. Now I am nervous again.

Because Netanyahu did hurt the settlements in the last year. The redeployment from Hebron was a botched job and the first redeployment also was not necessary. Netanyahu also pushed through approval of the first further redeployment. And each time he did this he turned his back his holy principle of reciprocity. Now its one thing to make mistakes. But its hard to correct them if you refuse to admit that you made the mistakes in the first place. If Netanyahu claims now that he didn't do it when he buckled to pressure in the past and forfeited Israel's legal and moral right to insist on reciprocity I have no way of knowing if he won't pull the same stunt in the future.

The last couple of days Hamas leader Sheikh Yassin has been talking about Israel having to end the occupation if it wants peace. But it seems that most reporters don't want to ask the obvious question: what does he mean by "the occupation"?

I don't speak Arabic, so I didn't talk with him. But Abdel Aziz Rantisi, who heads Hamas in Gaza and is his confidant, speaks a terrific English. He told me, and I quote, that when Sheikh Yassin says "the occupation" this means the occupation of all of Palestine.

By the way, I asked him what he thinks should happen to all the Jews who moved to Israel from Europe, the Arab countries, Russia, etc. Now this is his reply. Word for word:

Rantisi: I will tell you something. I feel that it is justice for us to do with Jews as they did with us ... In the same way that they dispossessed our people. They killed thousands of Palestinians in tens of massacres and they destroyed homes. So I think it is just to do with them as they did with us.

Sometimes there are obvious questions with obvious answers. But the questions should still be asked.

Here is an example:

This Monday I was talking with Dr. al-Za'bout, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council associated with Hamas, and he told me that he is convinced that Hamas would be realistic and would have to rethink its position if there was a Palestinian state - even one limited to the West Bank and Gaza.

Well, what if the situation changes - I asked him. What if the balance of power turned against Israel's favor?

I know the answer is obvious. But sometimes its seems some of us forget. So here it is: "Believe me, all the time the policy depends on the strength of the countries. So I don't know what the future holds. Right now if the Palestinians can establish a state in part of Palestine and achieve their rights then I think that Hamas will accept it. But as for the future - we don't know what will happen."

Dr. Aaron Lerner,
Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
P.O.BOX 982 Kfar Sava
Tel: (+972-9) 760-4719
Fax: (+972-9) 741-1645
imra@netvision.net.il

Return to Contents

The Israel Resource Review is brought to you by the Israel Resource, a media firm based at the Bet Agron Press Center in Jerusalem, and the Gaza Media Center under the juristdiction of the Palestine Authority.
You can contact us on media@actcom.co.il.

Back to the home page

Back to the home page