Truth about AMIA bombing slowly coming to light

November 15, 2010 - 0:0

Although more than 16 years have passed since the Argentine Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) building was bombed on July 18, 1994, and despite the unproven allegations about Iran’s involvement in the attack, new documents are gradually coming to light about the incident.

But the truth can only be known if Argentine officials are brave enough to disclose the names of the real culprits.
The case of the AMIA attack has remained a mystery for 16 years, and no significant information has been provided by the Argentine government on the main cause of the incident and the real culprits.
The Argentine government only leveled false allegations against the Lebanese Hezbollah and Iran that it could never prove.
In 2004, when former Argentine interior minister Carlos Corach stood trial for not pursuing the case and misleading the investigation and the court asked him why he believed that Iran was responsible for the attack, he replied that he came to that conclusion because the CIA told him it was so.
And when asked if the CIA had provided him any documentation, Corach said that they did not and he just took their word for it.
In fact, the Argentine government devised and promulgated such falsehoods in order to deflect the attention of the families of the victims from the real story and to cover up the facts about the incident.
This plot continues to this day, even though the Argentine government has never produced a shred of evidence.
Last year, Buenos Aires Mayor Mauricio Macri, who was directly elected by the citizens, appointed Jorge Fino Palacios as the police chief of the city.
Palacios was a professional police officer who had received military training in Israel and was the intelligence chief of the city’s police at the time of the bombing.
However, it has recently been revealed that Palacios has received many citations and awards for his services to Israel.
The appointment of Palacios as the police chief drew a strong protest from the families of the victims and led to a dispute between those families and the mayor. Eventually, Palacios had to resign.
The victims’ families say that the documents available from the time of the attack show that in the first days after the AMIA bombing, Palacios did not allow a proper investigation of the case, and even when it was decided to search the house of one of the suspects, Palacios informed him a few hours before the police arrived so that he could remove or hide traces of the crime, if there were any.
Based on this argument, Palacios was prevented from taking office as federal police chief and a lawsuit was filed against him.
In addition, a few months ago, one of the Zionist residents of Buenos Aires filed another lawsuit against Palacios, claiming that Palacios had tapped his phone and had arrested him without due cause.
Moreover, after a preliminary investigation, the judge in the case charged him with concealing evidence relating to the crime and misleading the investigation. He is currently awaiting trial on these charges.
Macri, who felt he could lose his position as mayor of Buenos Aires if he did not appease the Jewish community of Argentina, paid several visits to Jewish and Israeli organizations, which had imposed themselves as the supporters of the victims’ families, and was compelled to reveal a secret about Palacios.
Macri expressed surprise that some members of the Jewish community protested against the appointment of Palacios and revealed that he had appointed Palacios as police chief on the suggestion of the U.S. and Israeli embassies and intelligence agencies. Macri also cited the fact that Israel had presented several citations and awards to Palacios.
The mayor of Buenos Aires repeated these statements several times and his remarks were published in the Argentine press.
Officials of the U.S. and Israeli embassies dismissed Macri’s remarks, saying that they had never met Palacios or had any relations with him and had not played a role in his appointment as the police chief.
However, on October 14, 2010, MPs representing Buenos Aires published several photos of Palacios laughing and talking with Rafael Eldad, the Israeli ambassador to Argentina, at Eldad’s office.
Eldad is also a military man and was in Buenos Aires when the bombing took place.
On October 19, 2010, the director of Israel’s public relations department addressed the Jewish community of the Americas and his remarks were published on some news websites.
He said that he asked the Israeli ambassador to Argentina if he knew the accused police officer, but added that Eldad swore that he had never met or seen Palacios.
Dismayed, he asked the ambassador why he denied knowing Palacios, even though photos of him with Palacios had been published and he had sent many confidential telexes about Palacios to Tel Aviv.
Macri’s background also shows that he has been in the service of the United States and Israel and will never utter a word against them, although he has criticized Iran and Venezuela on several occasions.
Everyone in Argentina is aware of Macri’s close relations with U.S. and Israeli officials and the fact that he will never say anything against them.
So, why did someone, who used to serve as the intelligence chief of the Buenos Aires police at the time of the bombing, received military training in Israel, and was honored by Israel several times for his services to the country, prevent a proper investigation of the case and even go so far as to mislead the investigation?
Who has benefited from Palacios’ actions? Certainly, they were not supposed to serve the interests of Iran because shortly after the attack, Palacios and other officials who were affiliated with Israel pointed the finger at Iran, even though they had not conducted a proper investigation.
So whose involvement in the crime was he attempting to cover up?
Macri’s remarks and the fact that Israel honored Palacios on several occasions brings to mind another man accused of misleading the investigation into the AMIA bombing who is none other than Carlos Menem, who was the president of Argentina at the time.
Shortly after the attack, Menem said that the Islamic Republic of Iran was responsible. However, the court later accused him of concealing evidence in the crime and misleading the investigation.
Menem later wrote an article, which was published in the La Coruna newspaper, admitting that he did all that to appease Israel and that he was rewarded for it. He is currently awaiting trial.
After the bombing, the influence of Israel and the Jews on the internal affairs of Argentina increased greatly and the South American nation now seems like an occupied country. This fuels suspicion that Israel had once again pursued the policy of shedding the blood of Jews in order to serve the political interests of Israel.
After the AMIA attack, any measure taken by the Argentine government without the approval of Israel was interpreted as an attempt to disrespect the blood of the victims. And thus, the permission of the U.S. and Israel was even required for the appointment of the capital’s police chief.
Immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States, Fernando de la Rua, who was the president of Argentina at the time, made a speech in which he said that when the United States identifies the real culprits of the 9/11 attacks, the perpetrators of the AMIA bombing will also be identified.
As new facts gradually come to light, it appears that perhaps there was a hint of sarcasm in his remarks.
Did de la Rua know something that he was not able to reveal?