Israel Tried to Use Manchester as Propaganda – It Blew Up in Their Face

Right, so it always seems to happen on cue, doesn’t it? Just when Israel is drowning in headlines about Gaza, when its bombs have erased another forty-five lives in a single night, suddenly the world is handed a different story: terror at a synagogue in Manchester. The timing could not be more convenient if Mossad’s own screenwriters had storyboarded it. The attacker’s name? Jihad al-Shamie — which, to an English tabloid ear, might as well read “Villain McStageprop.” His weapon of choice? Apparently a fake suicide vest, fit for theatrics certainly, but not detonation. But within minutes the story was locked: antisemitic bloodlust on Yom Kippur, Jews under siege, Israel’s case vindicated. But peel back the mainstream headlines, and the whole production starts to fall apart. This was tragedy, yes. Of course it was, two people were killed, let not lose sight of that. But was it also theatre? And if so, who wrote the lines, and who stood to gain?
Right, so yesterday was Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, and a tragedy unfolded in Manchester. At the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation, a man rammed a car into worshippers before stepping out and stabbing those in his path. Two people were killed, three more were injured, and the attacker himself was shot by police at the scene.
It was declared a terrorist incident, and immediate condemnations ensued. Politicians rushed to assure Jewish communities of protection; major news outlets framed it as a hate crime; leaders called for unity. But to accept that framing without rigorous scrutiny is to surrender the narrative to those who benefit from it, because the timing was awfully convenient and speculation that this was a false flag event are not without merit.
Let us begin with the attacker. His name was apparently Jihad al-Shamie. Thirty-five years old, a British citizen of Syrian descent, naturalised almost two decades ago. Now to Arabic speakers, the name is not particularly outlandish: Jihad means struggle, and it is a common given name; al-Shami simply means from the Levant, or from Syria. But to an English-speaking public already conditioned by two decades of “War on Terror” rhetoric, it could not be more perfect: his name was Jihad the Syrian. It’s almost cartoonish, the kind of name a lazy Hollywood screenwriter would give to such a villain, or even a Mossad scriptwriter dare I say. It is either the coincidence of the century — or theatre. And when the symbols line up that neatly, especially given past events which proved to be anything but legitimate, shouldn’t we at least pause before taking them at face value?
And here comes the first question. In a Britain where the Prevent programme has surveilled schoolchildren for drawing Palestinian flags, where Muslims have been referred to counter-terrorism boards for reading the wrong books or attending the wrong protests, how does a man literally named Jihad end up gaining citizenship, settling, and remaining apparently off the radar until he kills? Are we to believe the same security state that can monitor an imam’s sermon down to the syllable somehow overlooked a man carrying what to English ears sounds like the most loaded name imaginable? Is this incompetence, or is it something more troubling — an example of the system allowing through precisely the kind of character whose later actions could be used for maximum political effect?
The performance did not end with his name though. He wore what appeared to be a suicide vest, later revealed to be non-viable. Again, think about the symbolism: the vest that signals martyrdom, terror, apocalypse. It did not explode because it could not explode. But its purpose was never to explode. Its purpose was to create an image — to terrify, to resonate, to cement the narrative that this was a suicide attack, an act of ultimate fanaticism. Except it was not. Theatrics on the part of the perpetrator, not lethality, was the point.
And it is at this point that its worth remembering the words of a former Mossad agent, spoken on CBS’s 60 Minutes: “We create a pretend world. We are a global production company. We write the screenplay. We’re the directors. We’re the producers. We’re the actors. The world is our stage.” He was not boasting about Manchester. He was describing the philosophy of covert operations, the way Israeli intelligence services understand their own work. They deal in theatre, illusion, perception. That is the propaganda, that is their hasbara. They understand that the public responds not to raw facts, but to symbols, to names, to staged realities. When you see an attack with such perfectly crafted imagery, you are entitled to ask: are we watching reality, or are we watching theatre? And that’s the part nobody has explained — why this story looks so scripted.
And this is not tin foil hat stuff, this is not conspiracy theorism, this is not paranoia. It is history. Israel has form. The Lavon Affair of 1954, when Israeli military intelligence planted bombs in Egypt in the hope of blaming local dissidents and undermining Egypt’s relations with the West, was admitted decades later. The Hindawi affair in London in 1986 — a bomb found on an El Al flight, with allegations that Mossad manipulated the case to implicate Syria — remains murky, with contradictions never fully resolved. The 1994 Israeli embassy bombing in London saw two Palestinians convicted, yet Amnesty International, legal experts, and even former intelligence officials raised doubts, pointing to evidence withheld by MI5. And more recently, Mossad’s use of forged European passports to assassinate Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai in 2010 showed the agency’s willingness to use deception on foreign soil, even at the cost of embarrassing allies. These are not conspiracies whispered on internet forums; they are documented cases in the historical record.
So when people raise the possibility that Manchester may not be all it seems, they do so on the basis of precedent. Israel and its intelligence services have used deception before. They will use it again. And even if they did not orchestrate this specific event, the very fact of their history means that suspicion is legitimate.
But we must also ask: who benefits? Because even if the attack was not a false flag, its political utility is still undeniable. For Israel, the timing could not be more useful. On the same day, forty-five Palestinians were killed in Gaza by Israeli airstrikes. Two more were killed in Lebanon. These deaths, far greater in number than the synagogue fatalities, barely registered in Western headlines. The Manchester attack drowned them out. It re-centred Jewish victimhood in the global narrative, something Israel conflates with its own right to exist, at precisely the moment when Israel was coming under increasing condemnation for its actions in Gaza.
And of course Benjamin Netanyahu wasted no time in exploiting the moment. Speaking to reporters, he suggested that the Manchester attack was the result of “weakness on terrorism” — a barely veiled jab at Western leaders beginning to show hesitation in their unconditional support for Israel, particularly since the UK recognised a Palestinian state. Think about the inversion: as Israeli bombs incinerated civilians in Gaza that same day, Netanyahu dared to claim the real problem was softness on terror in Britain. The brazenness of it shattered any illusion of sincerity. The deaths in Manchester were not just mourned; they were weaponised, turned into talking points to justify further massacres abroad. That grotesque overreach is the cause hook, and it blows up in their face the moment you look closely.
In Britain, Keir Starmer leapt at the chance to declare his government’s solidarity though. He promised that synagogues across the country would receive police protection. He described the attack as Jews being targeted “because they are Jews.” The words were carefully chosen to echo the antisemitism framing that has dominated British politics for the past decade, that he and especially his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney have been architects of. Yet where was this urgency when mosques were attacked during the Southport riots? Where were the blanket pledges of protection when Muslim families were driven from their homes, when far-right thugs threatened worshippers at prayer? There were no such pledges. No saturation headlines. No political pretence of solidarity. That hierarchy of racism once again could not be clearer: some lives are instantly deemed worthy of national mobilisation, others left to fend for themselves. Racism is racism, unless you’re Keir Starmer’s Labour.
This selective protection exposes the real priorities of the state. Jewish safety, framed through Zionist politics, is treated as sacrosanct. Muslim safety, framed through suspicion and securitisation, is treated as optional. The moral principle is not universal protection; it is political protection. Starmer’s hierarchy of racism is laid bare: synagogues receive round-the-clock security, mosques were left vulnerable.
Then there is the question of the synagogue itself. Mainstream reports painted Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation as a neutral house of worship, innocent, apolitical, attacked simply for its faith. But as 5Pillars revealed, the synagogue has openly expressed support for Israel and the IDF. Its website praised the “heroic IDF” in the middle of Israel’s assault on Gaza. It is associated with Chabad Lubavitch, a fiercely Zionist organisation with over 5,000 branches worldwide that fundraises and mobilises for Israel. Its rabbi has supported the United Jewish Israel Appeal, the UK’s leading Zionist fundraising body. These are facts, not allegations. They do not justify violence, of course they don’t, but they do demolish any pretence of neutrality. When the media erases these affiliations, it sanitises reality. It shields Zionist institutions from scrutiny.
And here lies another dangerous conflation. We are told that to criticise Israel, or Zionism, risks conflating Jews with Israel, and that this fuels antisemitism. But who is doing the conflating? When synagogues publicly praise the IDF, when they align themselves with the politics of Zionism, when they fundraise for a state carrying out mass killings, they themselves collapse the boundary. Critics pointing this out are not conflating Judaism with Zionism; the institutions are. Yet the press reverses the logic, accusing the critics of antisemitism while absolving the institutions of their political choices.
This inversion becomes a weapon against dissent. Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu, who dared to suggest that Israel might bear responsibility for the attack, was instantly torn apart in the press. Headlines described her comments as an “appalling rant.” She was caricatured as hysterical, beyond the pale, irresponsible. Her words were not engaged with; they were delegitimised by tone. This is how narrative control works. Critics are not refuted; they are discredited. The boundaries of acceptable speech are policed not by evidence, but by ridicule. And so what becomes the lived reality is that if you question the official line, you will be silenced.
But the silencing does not stop at the press. The attack itself is being used to justify further restrictions on protest and expression. Ammar Kazmi, a commentator who pointed out the synagogue’s Zionist affiliations, warned that the establishment would use this event as a pretext to criminalise non-violent anti-Zionist activism. He is right. Already, politicians speak of cracking down on “incitement,” on “dangerous speech,” on those who “give cover” to terrorism. The definition of incitement is elastic, and it stretches conveniently to encompass Palestinian solidarity, boycott campaigns, even critical journalism. The violence of one man is weaponised to suppress the voices of thousands.
Meanwhile, the broader context of terror is erased. Omar Baddar, another commentator, put it bluntly: there were three terrorist attacks that day. The first was in Manchester, where two worshippers were killed. The second was in Gaza, where Israel killed forty-five Palestinians. The third was in Lebanon, where Israel killed two more. Only the first was described as terror. Only the first was neutralised. The others remain at large, not hiding in alleyways but in government offices, directing armies, shaking hands with Western leaders. If terrorism means violence against civilians to achieve political ends, then Israel is the most prolific terrorist in the story. But the word is reserved for lone attackers with Muslim names, never for states with F-35s.
This selective use of the word terror reveals the true hierarchy of outrage as well as of racism. Two lives lost in Manchester generate global headlines. Forty-five lives lost in Gaza on the same day barely register. The scale of suffering is inverted. Western media amplifies Jewish death and minimises Palestinian death. It is not about the sanctity of life at all in which case; it is about the politics of which lives are deemed visible. The hypocrisy is damning when placed side by side.
And so we come back to our core point. Whether or not Manchester was orchestrated, it has been scripted. The imagery — the name, the vest, the synagogue — was ready-made for headlines. The response — Netanyahu’s sermon, Starmer’s pledges, the press’s hysteria — was choreographed to perfection. The silencing of critics, the erasure of context, the hierarchy of protection, the hierarchy of outrage, the hierarchy of racism: all of it fits together as if written in advance.
And perhaps that is what matters most. Even if Jihad al-Shamie acted alone, even if that really is his name, his violence is now part of a wider production. A Mossad agent once said they are a production company, that the world is their stage. We are watching the play unfold. Some actors are expendable; others are indispensable. The victims on the ground are still real. But the narrative is constructed.
So what do we need here? First, transparency. Release the CCTV, the forensics, the communications of the attacker. Show us the evidence. If the story is as clear as claimed, then no harm comes from openness does it? If there is more beneath the surface, then the public deserves to know. Second, honesty. Acknowledge that synagogues like Heaton Park are not apolitical. Say it out loud: they have supported the IDF, they have praised Zionism. That does not justify violence, but it changes the context. Third, equality. If synagogues are to receive police protection, then so too must mosques. If Jewish communities deserve safety, so too do Muslim communities under attack from the far right. No more hierarchies of racism. Fourth, accountability. If individuals who support violence can be prosecuted, then so too should institutions that materially fundraise for a state committing war crimes.
Until these demands are met, suspicion will remain. Until the hierarchy of outrage is dismantled, until state terror is called terror, until dissent is allowed, the narrative will always be incomplete and that will always leave doubt in people’s minds.
Nobody should be killed at prayer. But nobody should be massacred in their homes in Gaza either. Nobody should be silenced for asking questions. Nobody should be tricked into mistaking theatrics for the truth. The Manchester synagogue attack was tragedy, but it also looked like performance. It was reality and script, grief and manipulation, intertwined.
And so I end with the same questions I began with. Who scripts terror? Who edits history? Who polices dissent? Who lives, who dies, and who is allowed to speak afterward? If we do not ask these questions, if we do not demand answers, then the play will continue, act after act, until we are all end up being cast as silent extras in someone else’s production.
Frankly its little wonder many Muslim states are turning away from traditional western allies towards looking after themselves as they clearly find themselves secondary to the whims and needs of Israel, so much so that a Muslim version of NATO may be in the offing. Get all the details of that story in this video recommendation here as your suggested next watch.
Please do also hit like, share and subscribe if you haven’t done so already so as to ensure you don’t miss out on all new daily content as well as spreading the word and helping to support the channel at the same time which is very much appreciated, holding power to account for ordinary working class people and I will hopefully catch you on the next vid. Cheers folks.