From: Berhane Habtemariam (Berhane.Habtemariam@gmx.de)
Date: Mon Aug 03 2009 - 07:15:39 EDT
The Real Tragedy: Who Killed Arafat and Why?
July 25, 2009
by Ramzy Baroud
yasser-arafat
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/07/25/the-real-tragedy-who-killed-a
rafat-and-why/
Who killed Yasser Arafat? When the Palestinian leader was declared dead in a
French hospital on Nov. 11, 2004, there was no way of knowing how questions
related to his death should be phrased. Was he killed or did he die from old
age? If he was killed, then who killed him and why?
The "mysterious" nature of his symptoms gave birth to a theory that he was
poisoned over a period of time, provided enough evidence that foul play was
involved, even accusing some of those closest to him. Although the man's
story has been recorded in the ever-growing chronicle of the Palestinian
struggle and Palestinians have somehow moved on, recent breaking news has
blown his story wide open once again, breeding new controversy and stories
of conspiracy.
Nearly five years have passed since Arafat died. During those years, a
number of high-ranking Palestinian leaders, especially from the Hamas
movement, have been assassinated by Israel in various and consistently gory
methods. Among Palestinians, Arafat is referred to like all those killed by
Israel, as a "martyr", an indication of the widespread belief that his death
was hardly the result of natural causes.
If Arafat was indeed killed and since his death was not caused by an Israeli
airstrike or an assassin's bullet, a key question has been lingering, giving
rise to all sorts of answers - who killed Arafat and how?
Israelis made little secret of their desire to see Arafat dead. Former
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon expressed regret in a newspaper
interview on Feb. 1, 2002 that he hadn't killed Arafat decades earlier when
he had had the chance. Sharon told Israeli newspaper Maariv that he should
have "eliminated" Arafat during the invasion of Lebanon in 1982. "Do you
regret it (not killing Arafat)?" he was asked. "Certainly, yes," he replied.
On the day of Arafat's death, BBC news carried comments by then Israeli
opposition leader Shimon Peres, saying it is "good that the world is rid of
him.. The sun is shining in the Middle East." Held hostage in his
bullet-riddled West Bank office for years, Arafat represented an
international embarrassment for Israel. He was not "moderate" enough to
concede all Palestinian rights, but 'moderate' enough to maintain an aura of
international attention and support among Arab, Muslim, European and other
nations.
Still, in the minds of some, Arafat was determined, and often declared to
represent an "obstacle". The PA's truly "moderate" camp disliked him for his
tireless compromises aimed at preventing factional infighting, thus blocking
their attempts at dominating Palestinian society. Israel despised him for
numerous reasons, not least his refusal to "concede" issues of paramount
importance, such as refugees and Jerusalem. The Bush administration took
every opportunity to discredit, discount and insult him, constantly propping
up an "alternative" leadership, namely, Mahmoud Abbas, Mohammed Dahlan and
others.
Strangely enough, even Abbas and other high-ranking PA officials refer to
Arafat as a "martyr," especially whenever they need to capitalize on his
legacy among low-ranking Fatah members and ordinary Palestinians. But the
story was meant to end here, with Abbas and Dahlan, carrying the torch of
Arafat the "martyr" as they continue with their rhetoric-based "revolution"
to liberate Palestine.
That was the case until the second highest-ranking Fatah member and one of
the PLO's most visible leaders, Farouk Qaddoumi, went public with a document
that contained some unanticipated surprises: that Abbas and Dahlan, along
with Sharon, US Undersecretary of State William Burns, and others jointly
plotted the assassination of Arafat. Qaddoumi's document contained the
minutes of that meeting, in 2004.
Qaddoumi broke the news in a press conference in Amman, Jordan on July 12,
2009, asserting that Arafat had entrusted him with the minutes of that
secret meeting involving top Israeli, Palestinian and American leaders and
officials. The plot, according to Qaddoumi, included the assassination of
other Palestinian leaders; some of them have indeed since been assassinated,
while others are still alive, thanks to the failure of Israeli missiles and
car bombs.
Expectedly, the Ramallah-based Fatah leaders launched fierce verbal attacks
against Qaddoumi, questioning his objectives, timing and even his sanity.
Abbas accused Qaddoumi of wanting to torpedo the Fatah faction's
long-delayed congress, scheduled to convene in Bethlehem on Aug. 4. "He
(Qaddoumi) knows full well that this information is false; he has released
it to undermine the convention but we are continuing with the preparations,"
Abbas said. Qaddoumi had in fact criticized the convention of a supposedly
"revolutionary" movement held with Israeli consent, if not support.
The fact is, we may never know the authenticity of Qaddoumi's report without
an independent investigation or irrefutable evidence. However, just as with
Arafat's death, conclusive evidence is not always required for the public to
formulate an opinion. Considering Israel's threats to Arafat, Palestinians
have no reason to believe that Israel did not kill him. Similarly, ordinary
Palestinians, especially those in Gaza, have little reason to trust that
corrupt Palestinians were not involved in Arafat's death. A clique of the
Palestinian elite have made it clear that their personal interests surpass
those of the Palestinian people; Dahlan openly advocated the toppling of an
elected government in Gaza as the Ramallah-based "revolutionary" movement,
was dispatching US-armed and trained Palestinian fighters to crack down on
Israel's enemies in various West Bank towns.
As bizarre as all of this may sound, it is at least enough to explain why
Palestinians are willing to believe the recent statements made by Qaddoumi,
a respected figure among all Palestinian factions. True, Qaddoumi's
accusations have yet to be authenticated by an independent investigation,
but they are made in a fractious, if not peculiar political context that
makes them most plausible and, in a sense, that is the real tragedy.
