The Minimum of Truth
A Manifesto Against Israeli Apartheid, the Post-9/11 World Order, and Unpunished War Crimes
Introduction
This writing is not a conspiracy theory, nor an act of accusation, but a logically and historically reasoned, morally grounded exposé. Our aim is to establish a minimum—one that every truth-seeker, humanist, and law-abiding person can commit to, regardless of political affiliation, religion, or nationality.
Its purpose is to separate manipulation from reality, hasbara from intellectual responsibility, and to declare: history does not repeat itself—rather, it is we who are unable to step out of the eternal cycle, the medieval mentality. For there will always be those who fear the truth, and there will always be those who find it more convenient to tolerate lies—at least until they themselves suffer harm because of them.
9/11: A Geopolitical Turning Point in a New Light
Looking Back from a New Perspective
The period following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks not only radically changed the course of U.S. foreign policy but also ushered in a new global era—one drifting toward fear, war rhetoric, and total control.
Now, more than two decades later, it is increasingly clear: the events were not merely simple consequences of the attacks, but deliberately prepared and orchestrated steps, driven by identifiable interest groups and geopolitical as well as ideological objectives.
According to the official narrative, the world quickly split into two camps: the “democratic civilization” and the “terrorists.” Yet behind this dichotomy lay a far more nuanced and dangerous force: a war policy built on strategic profit. The so-called “War on Terror” was not just about chasing Bin Laden or the Taliban—it was about executing long-planned regional projects of influence and domination.
Documents that have surfaced since then—such as the PNAC (Project for the New American Century) report of 1997 or the Clean Break doctrine—show that certain circles had calculated well before 2001 that a major catastrophe would be “necessary” to recalibrate society and politics. In this light, 9/11 was not an endpoint but a starting point for a new world order whose pillars became: permanent war, accelerated imperialism, and the radical curtailment of civil liberties on a mass scale.
The isolation of anti-war movements, the synchronization of mass media narratives, and domestic politics built on global fear all served the same goal: that public opinion should not question, but rather support every move claimed to “serve the security of Western existence.”
Today, with more facts uncovered and new evidence weighed, one looks back at those first days differently: not as surprising events, but as the logical unfolding of a pre-designed strategic sequence.
Consequences:
More than 3,000 dead across multiple American sites.
Hundreds of thousands killed indirectly in the wars and great-power violence that followed; millions displaced or pushed into hunger.
The global declaration of the “War on Terror,” which trampled the rights of thousands and sought to legitimize it.
The Manufacture of Consent—a term introduced by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman—reminds us that mass media does not simply inform but actively shapes public opinion in line with power interests.
The appearance of democracy can be maintained even when people “freely” agree with what power dictates—because the media selectively frames, omits, distorts, or sets the agenda. Thus society consents to its own deception without noticing it. This consent is not created by brute force, but through symbolic, psychological, and cultural manipulation—making it effective, dangerous, and insidious.
The U.S. invaded Afghanistan (2001)—only to later flee in disarray—and Iraq (2003), where great-power violence and military operations were made palatable to the public with lies and manipulative propaganda.
The Patriot Act, NSA surveillance programs, extraordinary renditions, and systematic erosions of rights.
Skyrocketing security expenditures and the swelling pockets of private security corporations.
Who Benefited from This Paradigm Shift?
Neoconservative Strategists in the U.S.
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), in its 1997 report, declared that the U.S. must dominate the Middle East, but acknowledged that this would require a “new Pearl Harbor.”
PNAC members included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle—all of whom later assumed key positions in the Bush administration.
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Perle were already shaping political and military strategies before September 11, 2001. Their statements, writings, and policy documents later raised suspicion among critical observers who argued U.S. foreign policy had long been steered toward intervention in the Middle East.
Frequently cited “revealing” examples include:
PNAC – Rebuilding America’s Defenses (2000):
Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Perle were contributors or supporters. The report included the iconic line:
“...the process of transformation... is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
Many interpret this as a signal that such an event was either anticipated or, at minimum, seen as desirable to generate political consensus for war.
Paul Wolfowitz – 1992 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG draft):
Drafted with Scooter Libby, it envisioned a unilateral U.S. global supremacy strategy: no rival (Iraq, Iran, China, Russia) should ever be allowed to challenge U.S. military dominance. The leak caused an outcry and is often cited as the blueprint of neoconservative hegemony.
Richard Perle – A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (1996):
Commissioned for Israel, with Perle as a lead author. It recommended pre-emptive war against Iraq, destabilization of Syria and Iran, and leveraging U.S. support to secure Israeli regional supremacy.
Donald Rumsfeld – Missile Defense and “unknown unknowns”:
By 1998, Rumsfeld was warning of surprise attacks and pushing for rapid-response wars. His later famous line—“There are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns”—epitomized the flexible definition of threats justifying endless war.
Dick Cheney – Energy Task Force (2001):
Months before 9/11, Cheney’s closed-door task force examined Iraqi oil fields and contracts. Evidence later showed that Iraq’s oil resources were being mapped and negotiated even before the attacks.
While no direct proof exists that these figures had foreknowledge of 9/11, multiple documented statements, strategies, and policy initiatives justify suspicion that a “catalyzing event” was instrumentalized to pursue long-prepared war aims.
Israel’s Strategic Interests
Iraq, Syria, Iran were Israel’s primary regional adversaries.
The 1996 Clean Break report explicitly argued that destabilizing these states was in Israel’s interest.
In 2001, Netanyahu said:
“We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq.”
Israel’s regional strategy—destabilization of Iraq, Syria, and Iran—was part of a broader neocolonial project. Here, Western imperial and Zionist interests intersected closely.
Clean Break functioned as a neo-colonial doctrine for the Middle East, recommending U.S.-backed Israeli action to fracture Arab integration and self-determination. It relied on exploiting ethnic, religious, tribal, and political divisions—the classic “divide and rule” strategy.
Netanyahu’s 2001 statement revealed that Israel viewed U.S. wars in the Middle East not as tragedies, but as tactical gains that dismantled Arab sovereignty and bolstered its own regional hegemony.
The War Industry and Oil Interests
Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon—hundreds of billions in profit.
Iraqi oil reserves and Afghan transit corridors were key prizes.
The wars of the 21st century were not random conflicts but components of a deliberate system—one that exposes the catastrophic moral collapse of humanity as a supposedly rational species. In this system, the military-industrial complex, energy interests, and Israel’s regional strategy acted as mutually reinforcing drivers.
Lockheed Martin: fighter jets and missile systems sold across the Middle East.
Raytheon: precision bombs, drone technology.
Halliburton: oil infrastructure, logistics, and reconstruction contracts in Iraq.
War itself became a dual business: destruction and “rebuilding” were equally profitable.
Iraq, one of the world’s largest oil-holders, was plundered after the U.S. invasion—reports describe tankers exporting oil virtually unaccounted for, under U.S. military protection.
Afghanistan was less about al-Qaeda than about its role as a strategic corridor for Central Asian energy flows. Documented civilian casualties, torture, and systemic abuses were not isolated incidents but structural features of the war.
The driving forces were economic (arms industry, energy markets, corporate contracts) and geopolitical (undermining sovereignty, controlling resource flows). National security and humanitarian pretexts were largely secondary narratives.
9/11 Technical Impossibilities: The Violation of the Engineering Minimum
Looking Back from a Structural and Physical Perspective
More than two decades have passed, yet the collapse of the World Trade Center towers—particularly Building 7—still presents engineering and physical anomalies that official investigations have failed to explain satisfactorily.
If we consider the laws of structural engineering, the behavior of steel frameworks, and the known mechanics of fire, the building collapses of September 11, 2001 remain unprecedented. This is not a coincidence or an isolated anomaly—it calls, from both scientific and architectural standpoints, for renewed investigation and inquiry.
The Near-Symmetrical, Almost Free-Fall Collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7
Never before had a steel-framed skyscraper collapsed solely due to fire.
WTC 7 was never struck by an airplane, yet it collapsed in near-perfect symmetry.
Eyewitnesses reported explosions; Barry Jennings, who testified about them, later died under mysterious circumstances.
The manner in which the Twin Towers and Building 7 fell resembled known characteristics of controlled demolition:
WTC 1 and 2 (North and South Towers) collapsed, according to the official version, due to aircraft impact and subsequent fires. Yet both buildings fell almost vertically, along their central axes, in mere seconds—with little visible resistance from the structures beneath.
WTC 7, despite not being struck by any plane, also collapsed symmetrically, at near free-fall speed—attributed only to office fires and localized heating.
This phenomenon is particularly unexplainable, since no steel-framed high-rise has ever collapsed purely from fire, either before or since, without significant partial structural failure first.
Multiple witnesses, including firefighters, reported hearing explosions prior to the collapses. Barry Jennings, of New York’s Office of Emergency Management, publicly testified to such experiences—before later dying under contested and mysterious circumstances.
The official explanation—fire and structural weakness alone—contradicts the symmetry, speed, explosion reports, and molten metal residues that point to mechanisms inconsistent with spontaneous collapse.
Critique of the NIST Investigation: Suppressed Questions
No adequate explanation for the symmetrical nature of the collapses.
Thousands of professionals with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth argue the official story is physically impossible.
The NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) reports concluded that the towers collapsed due to aircraft damage and ensuing fires, while WTC 7 supposedly failed because a single interior column (Column 79) triggered a cascading structural failure.
Yet this explanation contradicts physics, the known behavior of steel, and prior architectural experience:
WTC 7 experienced a free-fall phase lasting over 2 seconds—meaning the lower structure provided no resistance whatsoever, something only achievable in controlled demolition.
The reports excluded testimony of explosions, ignored evidence of melted steel, and did not address residues consistent with thermitic material.
Example reference: ResearchGate particle analysis image
Israeli Interest and Profit After 9/11: Strategic Gains at the Price of Blood?
Most mainstream media under Zionist influence: CNN, Fox, NYT—one-sided narratives.
Truth leaked out only through mobile phones, alternative platforms, and independent investigators.
Who Benefited from the Reordering?
After September 11, U.S. attention and military force shifted decisively to the Middle East. While al-Qaeda was officially blamed, the chosen theaters of war—Iraq, Syria, Iran—were no accident. These targets reflected Israel’s long-standing list of strategic enemies far more than America’s immediate security interests.
In this context, for the Israeli leadership, 9/11 represented a historic opportunity: to reshape the region with American resources and American political legitimacy.
The “Dancing Israelis” Incident: A Shadow Over the Celebration
One of the most controversial episodes of 9/11 was the arrest of five Israeli men in New Jersey. Eyewitnesses reported that they were celebrating, dancing, and photographing one another while watching the towers collapse.
The FBI interrogated them, but they were ultimately deported to Israel for visa violations. Later, one of them stated on Israeli television:
“Our purpose was to document the event.”
This raised disturbing questions: how did they know there would be “something to document”? Investigation details remain classified. Their direct involvement was never proven, but the case carried symbolic weight: the citizens of a supposed ally appearing in celebratory posture at the site of America’s greatest modern tragedy.
Perhaps it was a misunderstanding—but when seen in the “bigger picture,” many raised their eyebrows, especially recalling the USS Liberty incident.
Israel’s Geopolitical Advance: Neutralizing Strategic Enemies with Uncle Sam’s Help
It cannot be stressed enough: the post-9/11 “War on Terror” was not solely about combating terrorism. U.S. foreign policy shifted conspicuously to serve Israel’s strategic objectives.
The U.S. supported Israel militarily and financially in every major confrontation—Lebanon (2006), Gaza (2008, 2014, 2023). The merging of anti-Palestinian narratives with “fanatic terrorism” won global acceptance.
Iraq: Long seen as one of Israel’s greatest threats. The 2003 U.S. invasion destroyed Iraq’s state structure and triggered civil war.
Syria: From 2011 onward, the U.S. and its allies supported the anti-Assad rebellion—directly serving shared U.S.–Israeli goals.
Iran: Consistently cast as the “devil” by the “civilized” West, in line with American and Israeli rhetoric. For years, Israel—with U.S. backing—has pushed for military action against Iran.
Netanyahu himself admitted:
“We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq.”
This statement is revealing, for it speaks not of grief but of gain—of profit from a tragedy that claimed 3,000 American lives.
Media Domination and the Capture of the Narrative
Western media dominance in favor of Israeli interests is nothing new, but after 9/11 the information space became even more homogeneous, directed, and doctrinal. Major outlets—CNN, Fox News, The New York Times, BBC—broadcast virtually a single narrative, repeated across dozens of affiliates, exerting enormous pressure on public opinion:
“Muslim terrorism” became the central enemy image.
“Democratic Israel” was framed as America’s natural ally.
Palestinian resistance was equated with fanatic terrorism.
This framing suppressed voices speaking of systemic apartheid, land theft, or war crimes. Those who persisted—such as Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, and Ilan Pappé—faced marginalization, smear campaigns, or attempts at silencing.
Today, public opinion manipulation is no longer accidental distortion but deliberate strategic warfare. NATO now officially recognizes the cognitive domain as an operational theater—human thought, emotions, and behavior. The aim is not only to defeat the physical adversary but to dominate minds and narratives, using psychology, algorithms, and media.
This is a new level of modern neocolonialism: a war for consciousness itself.
Iran and the Deliberately Misinterpreted Threat
Iran has never officially stated that, if it were to obtain a nuclear weapon, it would drop it on Israel. Such ideas were manufactured by calculated deception, produced by the Western information machinery.
The source of the misunderstanding is President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s 2005 speech, in which he quoted Khomeini. In Western media it appeared in English as:
“Israel must be wiped off the map.”
But the original Persian text says:
باید این رژیم اشغالگر قدس از صفحه روزگار محو شود
Transliteration: bāyad īn rezhīm-e eshghālgar-e Qods az safhe-ye rūzgār maḥv shavad
Accurate translations:
“This regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” aka “The regime occupying Jerusalem must disappear from the stage of history.”
In this form, the statement referred to the end of an ideological system—Zionism—not to a nuclear threat, and not against the Jewish people.
The Moral Minimum: What Cannot Be Relativized
Moral Reflection and Legal Benchmarks
One of the greatest moral crises of the 21st century is revealed not only in the staggering death tolls of wars or in the scale of destruction, but also in the silence of the world as international law is trampled on, systematically and repeatedly. Seeking truth is not an ideology—it is a universal human duty. This chapter sets down the minimum moral foundation that every person of conscience should be able to uphold, regardless of political affiliation, religion, or cultural background.
One may point to October 7, but anyone who truly wants to understand must look back at least to 1948. That is when the dispossession of Palestinians began—their expulsion from their homes and the institutionalized oppression that has since repeatedly bred violence.
By “Palestinians” we mean not only Arab Muslims, but also the indigenous communities who lived under the British Mandate in Palestine: Christians, Armenians, Jews, Bedouins—all those displaced or subordinated by the Zionist project.
The narrative that “everything began on October 7” satisfies only those steeped in racist superiority and Israeli propaganda, who have never considered that the Palestinian people are not conquered subjects but a living community—with dignity and legitimate claims.
Apartheid Is Not a Matter of Opinion
The term apartheid is clearly defined in international law: the segregation and oppression of one group by another, based on ethnicity, religion, or race, for the purpose of maintaining dominance.
The system operated by Israel—separate legal frameworks, restrictions on movement, collective punishment, land theft, denial of citizenship rights—meets this definition according to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Israeli rights group B’Tselem.
This is not a political debate—it is a documented crime against humanity.
Israel has also produced official planning documents explicitly aiming to maintain a permanent Jewish demographic majority (e.g. 70% in Jerusalem) in order to secure ethnic and political dominance. Such deliberate demographic engineering, especially when coupled with dispossession and suppression of another people’s rights, fully aligns with the international definition of apartheid.
Collective Punishment Is a War Crime
The Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits collective punishment. To punish an entire population or ethnic group for the acts of a few is defined as a war crime. Yet in Gaza, millions of civilians are targeted—cut off from water, food, medicine, fuel, and electricity, blockaded and bombarded.
Over 70% of children show post-traumatic symptoms, while the world looks on under the label of “self-defense.”
Such mass collective retribution cannot be justified under any framework of international law.
The situation is worsened by the distorted combatant vs. civilian casualty ratio. Israeli military campaigns repeatedly kill more civilians—including women and children—than actual combatants.
This fact—documented by independent human rights organizations and UN bodies—shatters the myth of “precision warfare” and exposes Israel’s strategy as one that normalizes mass civilian killings.
Self-Determination Cannot Mean Oppression
Every people has the right to self-determination—but not by dispossessing or oppressing others. Israel invokes self-determination and biblical claims to justify the occupation and denial of Palestinian rights, while refusing the same right to Palestinians, who seek independence recognized by the international community.
The Right of an Occupied People to Resist
According to UN General Assembly Resolution 37/43, peoples under colonial or foreign domination have the right to struggle for self-determination by all available means—including armed resistance.
This does not justify violence against civilians.
But denying an occupied people the right to resist is a denial of the very principles of law.
Genocide Cannot Be Justified by “Security”
“Security” can never justify genocide, collective punishment, or apartheid. History’s darkest chapters show that “security” was always the excuse used by dictatorships to rationalize oppression.
True security is not achieved by subjugating others, but by sharing power, rights, freedom, and dignity.
Silencing Truth-Tellers Is Always Dangerous
Throughout history, every system that silenced those seeking truth eventually collapsed violently. Where dialogue is forbidden, cries turn into explosions in the night. Silencing truth-tellers does not create safety—it breeds decay.
“A riot is the language of the unheard.”
– Martin Luther King, Jr.
Historical Lessons
French Revolution (1789):
The monarchy and aristocracy ignored calls for reform from the Third Estate and philosophers.
Censorship and suppression of free speech heightened tensions.
Result: revolution, bloodshed, and the fall of the ancien régime.
Tsarist Russia – Bolshevik Revolution (1917):
Reform movements were crushed; opposition leaders jailed or exiled.
Hunger, war pressure, and inequality, compounded by suppression of free expression, fueled revolt.
Result: total regime change and civil war.
Apartheid South Africa:
Critical voices (Mandela, Tutu, Biko) were banned, imprisoned, or killed.
Peaceful protests met with violent repression.
Result: international pressure and domestic resistance exploded, leading to the system’s collapse.
Nazi Germany (1933–1945):
Opposition journalists, scholars, and writers (e.g. Brecht, Mann) were silenced or exiled.
Total suppression of truth enabled fascism to run rampant.
Result: genocide, world war, and total collapse.
Tiananmen Square (1989, China):
Students and intellectuals demanded democracy, transparency, free speech.
The regime responded with military force, killing thousands.
The system survived, but at the cost of fear, repression, and a permanent national wound.
Contemporary Parallels – Warnings for Today
The persecution of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden shows that silencing truth-tellers remains a global problem.
From Palestine to Black Lives Matter in the U.S., from Iran’s Mahsa Amini protests to countless others—when those seeking truth are silenced, criminalized, or demonized, society pays the price in instability and eventual upheaval.
Closing Words: Truth Does Not Ask – It Demands
This text was not written to convince everyone, but to hold up a mirror. A mirror in which we must see not only the face of power, but also that of the society complicit in its silence, fear, and comfort.
Truth does not depend on party, religion, nation, or the winds of identity politics. Truth carries no flag—but it is recognizable whenever justice is denied and lawlessness sets the stage.
The crises of our time—wars, genocides, mass deception, and information warfare—are not solely the crimes of dictators, warlords, and oligarchs.
They also belong to those who remain silent, look away, or turn their backs.
The oppressed do not ask for much—only that others not betray the basic principles of humanity. That they no longer have to justify their suffering, nor be treated as a “problem of interpretation.”
“History does not repeat itself—we repeat it, because we have not learned from it.”
Those who seek common ground with the oppressor today will sell their own freedom tomorrow at a discount. Those who fail to raise their voice today will tomorrow watch in silence as their own turn comes.
What Does Truth Demand?
That we call crimes by their name: apartheid, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, genocidal intent, collective punishment, total illegal blockade.
That we no longer think in the false logic of “two sides,” when one side stands with tanks and the other with stones on an asymmetric battlefield.
That we stop accepting the hasbara narrative: disinformation, guilt-tripping, deliberate obfuscation, and mental exhaustion.
That genocide committed under the guise of “self-defense” no longer be justified by any government, any press, or any religion.
This text is a manifesto—for a moral minimum.
A call to all who feel that something has rotted at the heart of the world.
And a support for those who have long searched for a way out of this era of manipulation, compromise, and collective blindness.
From now on, no one can say, “we didn’t know.”
📢 This is our responsibility.
📢 This is our moment.
📢 This is our cry for truth.
Do not fear to speak. Do not remain silent.
Because if you do not say it today—tomorrow there may be no one left to say it.
Hashtags
#Truth #HumanRights #DoNotBeComplicit #Solidarity #Integrity #DoNotLookAway #SpeakOut #FactsSpeak #GuiltySilence #DoNotSideWithOppressor #ApartheidIsrael #PalestineSolidarity #AntiZionism #FreePalestine #PalestinianRights #ZionistApartheid #NotInMyName #PalestineWillNotBeSilent #IsraelIsNotDefending #TyrantInDisguise #SystemFailure #WarCrimes #GeopoliticalLies #Post911 #RuledByLies #CognitiveWarfare #ImperialManipulation #WesternDoubleStandards #TerrorAgainstTerror #MinimumOfTruth