Occam’s Razor says that when multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. Justin Raimondo prefers to employ a different principle in evaluating evidence.

In the wake of the London bombings Raimondo asks “What did Bibi know – and when did he know it?” He’s very excited about an early AP story that said:

British police told the Israeli Embassy in London minutes before Thursday’s explosions that they had received warnings of possible terror attacks in the city, a senior Israeli official said.

Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had planned to attend an economic conference in a hotel over the subway stop where one of the blasts occurred, and the warning prompted him to stay in his hotel room instead, government officials said.

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said he wasn’t aware of any Israeli casualties.

Just before the blasts, Scotland Yard called the security officer at the Israeli Embassy to say they had received warnings of possible attacks, the official said. He did not say whether British police made any link to the economic conference.

What I find fascinating here is not whether this early report is true but how Raimondo evaluates it. The story claims that (1) Netanyahu had prior knowledge of the attack (2) because he was notified minutes before the explosions (3) by Scotland Yard. If this were true the interesting part of the story would be about Scotland Yard. There is nothing in the story that implicates Netanyahu or Israel in any questionable behavior. Yet Raimondo makes the story about Netanyahu and Israel, which is very odd. I brought this to his attention in a comment thread on Catallarchy. In response Raimondo urged me to read his original piece, which of course I had already done. In it he simply dismisses out of hand that any warning could have come from Scotland Yard:

I don’t believe that Scotland Yard knew diddly-squat about the terror plot, either days or minutes before the bombs exploded, although what seems beyond dispute is that Netanyahu was warned beforehand.

Why is it beyond dispute that Netanyahu was warned beforehand if the original story is substantially false? The second piece of evidence Raimondo cites in his piece from Stratfor:

Contrary to original claims that Israel was warned “minutes before” the first attack, unconfirmed rumors in intelligence circles indicate that the Israeli government actually warned London of the attacks “a couple of days” previous. Israel has apparently given other warnings about possible attacks that turned out to be aborted operations. The British government did not want to disrupt the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, or call off visits by foreign dignitaries to London, hoping this would be another false alarm.

The British government sat on this information for days and failed to respond. Though the Israeli government is playing along publicly, it may not stay quiet for long. This is sure to apply pressure on Blair very soon for his failure to deter this major terrorist attack.

Curiouser and curiouser. Raimondo writes: “Although several news reports had Netanyahu on his way to the conference, Stratfor avers that he simply stayed put.” But the Stratfor piece he cites avers nothing of the sort. It cites a rumor which if true would call into question the need to notify Netanyahu moments beforehand. So Raimondo has already dismissed point (3) of the AP story out of hand and he cites this rumor to dismiss point (2). But points (2) and (3) were almost the entire substance of the AP story. This is not arguing for the credibility of the AP story.

Note further that the rumor in the Stratfor piece, like the AP story, does not implicate Netanyahu or Israel in any unsavory or even suspicious behavior. Again, the Stratfor rumor only implicates the British in questionable behavior, but for Raimondo the real story can only be about Israel.

In the Catallarchy thread Raimondo cites a third piece:

Terrorism expert Tommy Preston of Preston Global in Frankfort, Kentucky, said sources in the intelligence community reported that at least one person in London, England was warned of Thursday morning’s terrorist attacks moments before the initial blast. Preston, citing sources in the intelligence community, said former Israeli Prime Minister and current Finance Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was in London this morning for an economic forum. “Just before the first blast, Netanyahu got a call from the Israeli Embassy telling him to stay in his hotel room. The hotel is located next to the subway station where the first attack occurred and he did stay put and shortly after that, there was the explosion,” Preston said.

This report is consistent with the AP story though it omits any mention of Scotland Yard. And again, if this story is true then the rumor that Stratfor reports would appear to be false - there would be no need to to inform Netanyahu moments beforehand if the Stratfor rumor were true. So think a minute: What is it in the Stratfor rumor that supports Raimondo’s theory? And Raimondo said in his own piece that he doesn’t find credible that the idea that Netanyahu was warned minutes beforehand, so how does a report he was so warned support Raimondo’s theory?

I don’t know what the basis of the original AP story was. Occam’s Razor suggests to me that perhaps in the hectic hours after the London attack someone got confused about when Netanyahu was notified. That doesn’t mean this is what happened - it’s just the simplest explanation of events consistent with the reported facts and one we should not reject without good reason.

Raimondo has given no good reason. He applies a different methodology.

Raimondo’s Razor: When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the version which implicates Israel is preferred.

UPDATE: Raimondo responds here.

This entry was posted on Monday, July 11th, 2005 at Jul 11, 05 | 6:25 pm and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.