Who Murdered
Arafat?
By Uri Avnery
13 September, 2005
Gush
Shalom
The day before yesterday the Haaretz headline
screamed: "Doctors: Arafat died of Aids or poisoning". Aids
appeared in first place.
For dozens of years,
the Israeli media has conducted, with government inspiration, a concentrated
campaign against the Palestinian leader (with the sole exception of
Haolam Hazeh, the news magazine I edited). Millions of words of hatred
and demonization were poured on him, more than on any other person of
his generation. If somebody thought that this would end after his death,
he was mistaken. This article, signed by Avi Isasharof and Amos Harel,
is a direct continuation of this smear campaign.
The key word is,
of course, "Aids". Throughout the long article there is no
trace of proof for this allegation. The reporters quote "sources
in the Israeli security establishment". They also quote Israeli
doctors "who heard from French doctors" - an original method
for medical diagnosis. A respected Israeli professor even found conclusive
proof: it was not published that Arafat had undergone an Aids test.
True, a Tunisian medical team did test him in Ramallah and the result
was negative, but who would believe Arabs?
Haaretz knows, of
course, how to protect itself. Somewhere in the article, far away from
the sensational headline, there appear the nine words: "The possibility
that Arafat had Aids is not high". So Haaretz is alright. In army
parlance, its ass is covered. By comparison, the New York Times, which
published a similar story on the same day, treated the Aids allegation
with contempt.
There is a very
simple proof for the spuriousness of the allegation: if it had even
the most tenuous basis in fact, the huge propaganda apparatus of the
Israeli government and the Jewish establishment throughout the world
would have trumpeted it from the rooftops, instead of waiting for 10
months. But, as matter of fact, there is no evidence whatsoever. More
than that, the writers themselves are compelled to admit that Arafat's
symptoms are completely incompatible with the picture of Aids.
So what did he die
of?
Since taking part
in his tumultuous funeral in Ramallah, I have abstained from giving
my opinion on the cause of his death. I am not a doctor, and my dozens
of years as editor of an investigative news magazine have taught me
not to voice allegations which I am unable to prove in court.
But, since now all
dikes have been breached, I am prepared to say what is on my mind: from
the first moment, I was sure that Arafat had been poisoned.
Most of the doctors
interviewed by Haaretz testified that the symptoms point towards poisoning,
and, in fact, are incompatible with any other cause. The report of the
French doctors, who treated Arafat during the last two weeks of his
life, states that no known cause for his death was discovered. True,
the tests did not find any traces of poison in his body - but the tests
were conducted only for the usual poisons. It is no secret that many
intelligence services in the world have developed poisons that cannot
be detected at all, or whose traces disappear in a very short time.
Some years ago,
Israeli agents poisoned the Hamas chief Khaled Mash'al with a slight
prick in a main street of Amman. His life was saved only because King
Hussein demanded that Israel immediately provide the antidote. (As a
further indemnity, Binyamin Netanyahu agreed to the release from prison
of another Hamas chief, Sheik Ahmed Yassin, who was assassinated several
years after his return to Gaza by more conventional means - an airborne
missile.)
In the absence of
symptoms of any known disease, and since clear indications of poisoning
were present, the highest probability is that Yasser Arafat was indeed
poisoned while having dinner four hours before the first symptoms appeared.
I can testify that
the security arrangements around the Ra'is were very lax. At each of
my dozens of meetings with him in different countries I was always amazed
at the ease with which a potential assassin could have done his job.
Protection was always casual, especially compared to the way Israeli
Prime Ministers are guarded. He often had his meals in the company of
strangers, he embraced his visitors. Associates report that he frequently
accepted sweets from strangers and also took medicines from visitors,
swallowing them on the spot. After surviving dozens of assassination
attempts, and even an airplane accident, he had come to adopt a fatalistic
attitude, "it's all in the hands of Allah". I think that in
his heart of hearts he really believed that Allah would preserve him
until the completion of his historic mission.
If he was poisoned
- by whom was he poisoned?
First suspicion
falls, of course, on the Israeli security establishment. Indeed, Ariel
Sharon declared on several occasions that he intended to kill him. The
subject came up in cabinet meetings. Twice during the last years my
friends and I were so convinced that this was imminent, that we went
to the Mukata'ah in Ramallah to serve as a "human shield"
for him. We were convinced that the murder of Arafat would cause much
harm to Israel. In one of his interviews, Sharon stated that our presence
there had prevented his liquidation.
Truth is that Sharon
abstained from killing Arafat mostly because the Americans forbade it.
They were afraid that the murder would arouse a huge storm in the Arab
world and exacerbate anti-American terrorism. But this interdiction
may have applied only to an overt act.
The Mash'al affair
proves that the Israeli intelligence services have the means to poison
people without leaving any trace. The poisoning was discovered only
because the perpetrators were caught in flagrante.
However, a probability,
high as it may be, is not proof. At the moment, there is no proof that
Arafat was indeed poisoned by the Israeli services.
But if not the Israelis,
who? The US intelligence services also have the necessary capabilities.
President Bush never hid his hatred for Arafat, an obstinate leader
who did not submit to his dictates. He was quick to embrace Mahmoud
Abbas. Even now, American emissaries who visit the Mukata'ah pointedly
abstain from putting wreaths on the grave of the Ra'is in the courtyard.
But American interests,
too, do not constitute proof. One can think of several other suspects,
even in the Arab world.
Did Arafat's death
benefit Sharon?
On the face of it,
no. As long as Arafat was alive, American support for Israel was unlimited.
But since his death, President Bush has been going out of his way to
support his successor. The dismal American debacle in Iraq compels Bush
to look for achievements elsewhere in the "Broader Middle East".
He presents Mahmoud Abbas as a symbol of the new winds blowing through
the Arab and Muslim world as a result of American policy. In order to
convince the Palestinian public to support Abbas, Bush is putting pressure
on Sharon of a new sort. Perhaps Sharon is secretly longing for the
good old days of Arafat, when life was simple and an enemy dressed the
part.
But a person who
wants - as Sharon surely does - to break the Palestinian people into
pieces and prevent at any cost the establishment of a viable State of
Palestine, can only be happy with the demise of Arafat, who united the
entire Palestinian people. He had the moral authority to impose order,
and he enforced it by empathy and force, human wisdom and tricks, threats
and seduction.
There are many people
in Israel who hoped that without him the Palestinian society would break
apart, that anarchy would destroy its very foundations, that armed factions
would kill each other and the national leadership. They are certainly
glad that Arafat is dead and pray for the failure of Mahmoud Abbas.
Arafat assured me
once that we would both see peace in our lifetime. He was prevented
from seeing the day. He who caused this - whoever he is - has sinned
not only against the Palestinian people, but also against peace, and
therefore against Israel.