[antiwar-van] Who killed Yasser Arafat?

[hanna]

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/716/re9.htm

        Who killed Yasser Arafat?
        The blame, writes Ghada Karmi*, is shared by many

------------------------------------------------------------------------

        No one knows what ails Yasser Arafat. Rumours are circulating that
Israel has poisoned him. The evidence is entirely circumstantial and
probably no more than fantasy though, when dealing with Israel, nothing can
ever be ruled out. In line with its notorious, longstanding policy to
assassinate Palestinian leaders, Israel has repeatedly threatened to kill
Arafat. The Financial Times of 6 November reported Palestinian officials had
suggested the possibility of poisoning, a view later reiterated by the
Palestinian prime minister, Ahmed Qurei. There were unconfirmed reports that
the cooks in Arafat's compound had been questioned. The lack of a diagnosis
by the French medical team treating President Arafat is a key factor in
fuelling such speculation. In cases like this, as my medical colleagues and
I know, a working hypothesis and some detail of symptoms and investigations
are usual. But brief, uninformative medical bulletins about his condition
since he arrived in Paris are all we have been offered. Why the mystery?

        The Jerusalem Post reported on 4 November that Uri Dan, a close
confidant of Ariel Sharon, has stated that the latter had "eliminated"
Yasser Arafat "through his cooks". On 2 November, when Arafat was said to be
ill, Israeli intelligence sources announced he had days or maybe weeks to
live. Did they know something that no one else did? Internet sources now
report that Arafat's French doctors sent samples of his blood for poison
testing -- to US laboratories, according to Al-Quds Al-Arabi of 8 November.
At the same time the Nicaraguan leader, Daniel Ortega, announced his belief
that Israel had poisoned President Arafat.

        No wonder, then, that Palestinians fear their leader has become the
latest Israeli assassination victim. If true it would be tragic to think he
might have been saved with the right antidote. The Hamas leader, Khaled
Mashaal, poisoned by Israel in Amman in 1997, was saved because Jordan
forced Netanyahu to provide the antidote. Medically speaking, we know that a
doctor would have to first suspect a case of poisoning before testing for it
and then administering the antidote. It is not a diagnosis that is obvious
and, if the French doctors never thought of it, or realised too late, they
would not test for it in time and hence be unable to treat it. The case of
Napoleon, when the British had him imprisoned on the island of St Helena,
comes to mind. He too died allegedly of a "stomach ailment", though
suspicions soon grew that he had been poisoned after becoming an encumbrance
to his British captors. Arafat, who obstinately refuses to disappear
physically or politically, had also become an obstacle to Sharon's plans for
Palestine. Bush and Sharon allegedly warned him he must accept Sharon's Gaza
plan by the end of October or else "he was finished".

        If Sharon did kill Yasser Arafat, either by poisoning or by holding
him in unhealthy conditions, then he would be no more than the instrument of
murder. The real murderers are the rest of us: those who joined in his
denigration; the chancers and opportunists, impatient to take his place;
those who willfully forgot or never understood his unique contribution to
the national struggle; the fickle, who deserted him as soon as they smelled
defeat; those who unwittingly bought into the US/Israeli agenda and all
those who stood by and watched his humiliation and did nothing. Ever since
Israel instigated its ferocious campaign of demonisation, seeking to make
Arafat simultaneously irrelevant and also responsible for Palestinian
"terrorism" and the failure of the peace process, his constant denigration
has had an effect, and not just in the West. His humiliating imprisonment,
suffered by no other democratically elected leader should have generated
relentless demands for his release. Instead it became acceptable, and his
colleagues acquiesced without protest in setting Arafat aside in favour of
an unelected Palestinian prime minister.

        The fiction that he is the real obstacle to peace and reform was
repeated in those Palestinian circles that now focus everyone's attention on
the internal Palestinian situation, rather than the pernicious effects of
military occupation -- exactly in line with Israeli/Western expectations.
Never before has an occupied people been required to "reform" itself while
the occupation continues. Now that Arafat's exit from the field of battle is
imminent, there is talk of a new opportunity for peace, as if he had been
the problem all along. In short, Arafat-bashing has become a fashion -- not
just amongst Palestine's traditional enemies but also amongst its supposed
friends. Arab rulers no longer feel obliged to extend the usual diplomatic
courtesies to the Palestinian leader. Numerous Palestinian critics hold him
responsible for a list of errors and failings, both his and everyone else's.
He is the whipping boy for all those with a grievance, no matter what the
real cause. The incompetent find relief in blaming him for their own
failures. If he goes they will miss him more than those who loved him.

        It is not that Yasser Arafat has no faults or that they should be
overlooked. A people should be critical of its leadership and demand reform.
But such considerations must not be allowed to overshadow Israel's
subversive role or rob Arafat of his unique and rightful place in
Palestinian history. He put the Palestinian cause on the world stage when it
had been relegated to history. He brought together a dispersed, fragmented
people, 60 per cent of them in exile, and imbued them with a sense of
belonging in the absence of a homeland. In today's desperate Palestinian
situation of military occupation, dwindling territory and fragmentation, he
alone symbolises unity and the negation of the Palestinian dissolution
Israel so vigorously pursues. Ironically enough, Sharon understands this
better than many of the "modernising" Palestinians, hence his desire to
demolish Arafat as a symbol of Palestinian peoplehood.

        Until now Israel's sleight of hand -- statehood without sovereign
territory -- has worked. The Palestinians under occupation really believe
they have a state in the making, while still under occupation. This mistake
has resulted in making the Palestinian Authority the scapegoat for Israel's
attacks and created the pernicious idea of equivalence between the PA and
Israel in power and responsibility. The spell broke when Arafat refused to
surrender Jerusalem and the right of return and Israel dubbed him an
"obstacle to peace", to be replaced with a more pliant leader.

        Whatever Arafat's faults this is no time to rehearse them or fight
over his succession. It is time to grieve the loss of a man who deserved a
more fitting end, and to pay homage to one of the last of the great world
leaders, a life-long patriot and fighter for the Palestinians, who gave them
status in the world and a stake in their own future.

        * The writer is a London-based Palestinian physician, academic and
political commentator.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/antiwar-van/attachments/20041115/00f0ffc5/attachment.html>