web analytics

YASSER! ARAFAT’S BACK

By David Vance On July 5th, 2012

Much loved by the BBC Despotic Palestinian terrorist godfather Yasser Arafat is making a comeback. Just when all civilised people were relaxing secure in the knowledge that this vile monster was securely six foot underground, he’s back!

The discovery of traces of a radioactive agent on clothing reportedly worn by Yasser Arafat in his final days reignited a cauldron of conspiracy theories Wednesday about the mysterious death of the longtime Palestinian leader. Arafat’s widow, who ordered the tests by a Swiss lab, called for her husband’s body to be exhumed, and Arafat’s successor gave tentative approval for an autopsy. But experts warned that even after the detection of polonium-210, getting answers on the cause of death will be tough. Arafat was 75 when he died Nov. 11, 2004, in a French military hospital. He had been airlifted to the facility just weeks earlier with a mysterious illness, after being confined by Israel for three years to his West Bank headquarters..

As you know, Arafat died of AIDS. Well, that’s what HIS doctor said. Alas getting this disease was the price old Yasser paid for being a notorious homosexual paedophile.  Or so his biographer Thomas Kiernan said. 

I’m sure the salons of the left well be busy speculating how those evil Jews killed the great man and tried to pass it off as AIDS. I’m just hoping that the BBC’s Barbara Plett won’t be there when Yasser comes back. You DO remember her, don’t you?

53 Responses to “YASSER! ARAFAT’S BACK”

  1. From her report..

    “There was his triumphant return to the Gaza Strip in 1994, when the Oslo Peace Accords appeared to open the window to a Palestinian state. Tens of thousands of people cheered his arrival; they were even hanging from the trees!

    Begs the question,
    “HOW were they hanging from the trees?”

    John Laffin in his book Holy War quotes Yasser Arafat as saying in Khartoum 1985,

    “The Arab revolution is alive in the Arab conscience in spite of Imperialist and Zionist conspiracies. Reagan has decided to assassinate the PLO leadership in the belief that by doing so the revolution would come to an end.
    This is not so. The holy war and the armed struggle will escalate…
    I tell Reagan and his agents in our Arab world that the will of the Arab nation is from the will of Allah. Therefore the Arab nations will be victorious.

    Arafat’s use of the holy war concept and reference to the “will of Allah” was a tacit admission of the Ismalisation of the PLO, a process which had been taking place for some years..”
    The book was written in 1988, almost 25 years ago. You won’t hear much about Laffin’s books now (he wrote extensively on the Middle East), but Yasser Arafat’s words have been vindicated since then.

  2. He died of AIDS?

    wow.

    I didn’t know that.

  3. LU,
    Depending on who you listen to (which I suppose also depends on your politics) It’s not proven that he died of Aids.

  4. His doctor it seems has confirmed, as per the link.

    I honestly didn’t know anything about that.

  5. //His doctor it seems has confirmed, as per the link.//

    Not in the link that appears on my screen. Funny that.

    Also, I doubt if David would quote Thomas Kiernan as an authority on anything if he had read anything TK wrote, especially his views on the origins of European Jews, views that are also often aired on this site.

    Arafat always had a soft spot for the Jews and indeed Zionists, used to attend Synagogue when he was young and admitted to understanding the needs of Zionism. As is often the case, that kind of sympathy turns into emphatic hostility when you and your people are rejected as “Untermenschen” by the folks you admire (Irish history provides enough examples). He was nevertheless always ready to accept a deal once he got the recognition he craved. Although the Israelis are tricky and ruthless, and with the US behind them it was easy for them to get their way, it still isn’t hard to imagine how the Palestinians would be in a better position if they had a less compliant and more dedicated leader.

  6. “(Irish history provides enough examples)”
    Hold the front page!!

    Noel finally confesses that according to some he is an untermensch!

    “Although the Israelis are tricky and ruthless, and with the US behind them it was easy for them to get their way, ”

    If they were that tricky and ruthless, they would have taken over the whole area by now.
    Have you seen the overcrowding in Tel Aviv??
    Scarcely room to place a bathtowel on the beach… 🙂

  7. noel,

    didn’t he say it, albeit through a translator?
    I also just watched Sky news, (I know) say the same thing.

  8. “As you know, Arafat died of AIDS. Well, that’s what HIS doctor said”

    Except for the fact that his doctor didn’t actually say that. He stated that French doctors told him that Yasser Arafat had traces of HIV in his blood stream but that he didn’t die of it he died of the poison in his bloodstream.

  9. Whatever he died of the world is a better place without him.

  10. Really Mahons? I never to you for a Hamas supporter.

  11. *Took.

  12. If the monster did croak from AIDS, would his movement ever admit it? In a million years?

  13. //Noel finally confesses that according to some he is an untermensch!//

    Can’t you guys read/think? Being treated like an Untermensch isn’t the same as being one. Tell you what, ask some of your older Jewish friends if you still can’t understand the difference.

    //If they were that tricky and ruthless, they would have taken over the whole area by now.//

    As I said, they depend on the US.

    //didn’t he say it, albeit through a translator?//

    No, he said, through a translator, that the French doctors said it, probably through another translator.

  14. […] more here: A Tangled Web » Blog Archive » YASSER! ARAFAT'S BACK This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged arab, belief, has-decided, imperialist, plo, […]

  15. Paul – Aren’t there enough Hamas supporters here already?

  16. Whatever the reason, the world is a better place without the evil bastard. More intriguing is what the French were up to at the time.

    On 11 November, a French Army Honor Guard held a brief ceremony for Arafat, with his coffin draped in a Palestinian flag. A military band played the French and Palestinian national anthems, and a Chopin funeral march. French President Jacques Chirac stood alone beside Arafat’s coffin for about ten minutes in a last show of respect for Arafat, whom he hailed as “a man of courage”. The next day, Arafat’s body was flown from Paris aboard a French Air Force transport plane to Cairo, Egypt for a brief military funeral there, attended by several heads of states, prime ministers and foreign ministers.

    That’s a lot of faffing about just to thumb your noses at the Americans, if that was the reason. Maybe there was an election on and Chiraq was chasing the Arab vote. Whatever the reason, it was an odd one.

  17. //That’s a lot of faffing about just to thumb your noses at the Americans,//

    Yes, sir-ee, even mourning Arafat is now thumbing your nose at the Americans.

    http://clinton1.nara.gov/White_House/Family/images/raw/bill-arafat-rabin-treaty.gif

    BTW, there’s a cute line in that Zionist Conspiracy trash linked 3 comments above:

    “Israel occupies two nations: America and Palestine” 🙂

  18. Pete – France has been aggresively pro-Arab as a way to assert influence in the region since the 60’s. DeGualle started it and it was a pure caluclation as to numbers, oil and trade. Chirac of course took it to a new level. By the time of Arafat’s funeral it allowed him what he (and generations of French leaders before and since) wanted – to be front and center on the world stage.

  19. Pat Buchanan’s line was Congress is Israeli-Occupied territory.

    Arafat was the head of the Palestinains so he had to be included in peace negotiations, there wasn’t a way around him. However, that didn’t mean he was a good guy.

  20. //Arafat was the head of the Palestinains so he had to be included in peace negotiations//

    True.
    My point was that he was feted on the White House lawn but then later, when the call goes out, you aren’t even to commemorate him when he dies.

    Those Israeli settlements causing mischief again.

    As for France, the country could appear “aggresively pro-Arab” really only from an American perspective. Amongst other things, when the crucial vote for Palestinian statehood came up before the Security Council, France withheld and denied the Pallies the one vote they needed for a majority.

  21. = France abstained

  22. Noel Cunningham –

    The photo you link to is realpolitick in action.

    France/Chiraq did not mourn an Egyptian terrorist called Arafat. He was flown from Ramallah by the French government, treated in a French military hospital and then sent off as if he was receiving a State funeral.

    This is more than being polite or trying to ingratiate yourselves with Arabs. Arafat was honoured as if he was a French national hero.

  23. Arafat was important to Palestinians and other Arabs.

    The treatment that he received was from a French state wanting to be seen as being respectful of an ” Arab hero “, for reasons of diplomacy in the Arab and Muslim world.

    It’s not the worst thing anyone ever did.

  24. Noel – Oh no no no, come on. France has been very heavy-handed in courting the Arabs, not merely from an American perspective. And I am not talking merely on the Arab-Israeli divide but on other issues.

  25. Syria, Lebanon, Algeria and Morocco are of course former French territories. The French very much want to retain as much political and cultural influence as they can, especially in these former colonies.

  26. Phantom –

    Washington wants as much influence as it can exert everywhere, but I don’t see foreign terrorists having a State send off from the White House lawn. Look again at what happened:

    “On 11 November, a French Army Honor Guard held a brief ceremony for Arafat, with his coffin draped in a Palestinian flag. A military band played the French and Palestinian national anthems, and a Chopin funeral march. French President Jacques Chirac stood alone beside Arafat’s coffin for about ten minutes in a last show of respect for Arafat …”

    For Arafat?!

    Yasser Arafat? Why not George Habash and Abu Nidal too?

    Napoleon wouldn’t get much more than that.

  27. So is Louisiana, and they didn’t have a state funeral for Huey Long.

  28. //For Arafat?! //

    More or less for the same reasons as your Queen recently shook hands with the former Chief of Staff of the IRA.

  29. Noel – Hold on there. Shaking hands out of political necessity is one thing. Flying Arafat to France (and his entourage) at taxpayer expense, giving him a funeral that mimics a state funeral (complete with Chirac’s tears), eulogizing him favorably, that is a horse of a different color.

  30. //that is a horse of a different color//

    But is flying out and giving medical treatment for an Arabian nag any worse than doing the same for a Persian hag?

    Again, those Israeli settlements seem to be making inroads into people’s heads over there. The Shah was a good friend of Israel, after all.
    If Arafat had made peace with American ME policy the fanfares would have been out for him in Washington to put the French to shame, just as there were in my picture link.

    There is as little “political necessity” for QUII to shake McGuinness’s hand as there was for the Yanks to invite Adams to that famous WH lawn as there was for the French to give Arafat the honours. It’s all political calculation, not political necessity. The tut-tutting comes out when the calcualation serves some other country and not your own.

  31. = QEII

  32. I know this is completely off-topic, but I didn’t know where else to post this, and this seems to be the busiest thread. So – this is what some of our wonderfully up to date politicians have given loads of money for:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18728703

  33. Noel – Hosting Arafat in the hope of achieving peace (which would have been good for the Palestianins mind you, not just Israel) and acting as if he were some great noble statesman are two different things. I understand that in real foreign diplomacy one does have to embrace some folks who one would prefer not to all things being equal. But there is no question the French took the embrace of Arafat to the extreme, and it is a pattern of French policy, not an isolated incident.

    Served them ill when they hosted Khomenini and he turned around and gave them terrorist attacks on their homeland.

  34. That’s just precious, Seimi!

    It’s always nice to see another reminder that Ulster is Irish after all 🙂

    The Caleb foundation is the organisation behind the Finn McCreator theory, also known as the Caleban apparently.

    http://www.calebfoundation.org/

  35. Seimi – Nice – I may have to mention that one.

  36. Arafat was an anti-colonial hero. Signing the Oslo Accords was a grave error. Israel was never interested in peace or Palestinian autonomy; the iconic mass murderer great man of peace Shimon Peres made that very clear in this memoir.

  37. Is it possible for pro-Palestinian supporters to support full rights for Palestinians AND to acknowledge that Arafat was in fact a terrorist who ran a terrorist organization?

  38. Is it possible for embarrassingly predictable American liberals to acknowledge that the Israelis are the colonisers and the Palestinians are the colonised?

  39. //to acknowledge that Arafat was in fact a terrorist who ran a terrorist organization?//

    Mahons, terrorism is a sin, but in the context of the occupation of your country and the banishment of your people it’s only a venial, compared to the mortal sin of the occupation that gives rise to it.
    Very much like the minor sin of bombing civilian targets in a just war.

  40. = relatively minor sin, I meant of course.

  41. Petr – you’d have to ask one. For myself I have pointed to Israeli politicians and others who were bad guys, as recently as comments on Yitzak Shamir.

    Noel – No, his sins were not venial or minor. And I suppose the answer to my question is “No, it is not possible for a pro-Palestinian supporter to acknowledge Arafat was a bad man.”

  42. “Mahons, terrorism is a sin, but in the context of the occupation of your country ..”

    The theory goes that any alien coloniser who pops out of an islamic brood mare in Britain is British. It’s absurd of course. Yet the Cairo-born Arafat is never regarded as Egyptian.

    If Arafat is Palestinian then millions of islamic colonisers are not British.

  43. Pete, if someone is born in Britain, is brought up in British culture and considers themselves to be British then, in my opinion, the are British. Similarly if Yasser Arafat was born in Egypt (which he was), was brought up in Egyptian culture (which he wasn’t as he spent large sections of his childhood in Palestine) and considered himself to be Egyptian (which he obviously didn’t) then he would have been Egyptian.

  44. //No, his sins were not venial or minor//

    Mahons, compared to the huge number of deaths and never-ending suffering and constant wars caused by the banishmnet of practically an entire population for the sake of land grabbing, his sins were minor indeed.

    // And I suppose the answer to my question is “No, it //

    LOL. You’re in such a hurry to answer your own question it’s obvious you didn’t mean it as one in the first place.
    For my opinion on Arafat, look at my comments above (btw “nag” in Irish usage, whether in relation to horse or man, is not a compliment)

    //If Arafat is Palestinian then millions of islamic colonisers are not British.//

    Yep, and neither is George Orwell or JRR Tolkein, or Prince Philip, or Kipling, or Wellington, or Montgomery, …… yawn..

    What was that you were saying somewhere about red herrings?

  45. Noel – His sins were not minor by any account, and unjustified.

    As for answering the question, you and Peter did it for me. The effort to exculpate Arafat in your case, and to even praise him (is Tarasov a French name?) in Petr’s case is crystal clear.

  46. The question is Mahons were is actions any worse than the actions of virtually every Israeli leader since the creation of the State of Israel? Look at the huge amount of destruction caused by them. The thousands dead by their hand. Yet there is never the same level of criticism offered.

  47. Seamus- Go ahead, try to be critical of Arafat without reference to anyone else in an effort of exculpation. Wouldn’t your keyboard melt?

  48. It wouldn’t. He wasn’t a particularly nice man and some of the things he did throughout the course of his life were atrocious. But the fact remains that he wasn’t on his own and the majority of the leaders on both sides of that conflict weren’t and aren’t nice people and did some very atrocious things.

  49. Almost there. But in the end couldn’t type the one sentence.

  50. “His sins were not minor by any account, and unjustified.”

    As I said (or did I?), when there is occupation and such a vicious treatment of the locals, they are always entitled to fight back as they choose. I would say the same thing (only louder) if my country had the absolute arrogance and wickedness to occupy some other country and drive its people from the land by law and the gun.

    Terrorism in defence of your people’s existence is as wrong as the allied bombing of German civilian targets in WW2, no more, but also no less. It is unjustified by understandable, deplorable but forgiveable.

    Much more deplorable and less forgiveable is giving political, military or moral backing to the bastards that are doing the colonisation and ethnic cleansing in the first place.

    (by the way, I dont think you – mahons – really differ from my pov in this very much. If the US were colonised by some new arrivals, who didn’t let you use the roads and where you and your family were driven from your home into some refugee camp, I reckon your attitude to “terrorism” might experience a sudden change. The difference is I also apply this more or less universal principle to Palestine, you don’t.)

  51. Mahons, can you do the same thing about Bibi? Or Ariel Sharon? Or Peres? Or Ben-Gurion? Can you attack them for their evil actions without once mentioning the context of when and why they did it?

  52. “Look at the huge amount of destruction caused by them. ”

    Look at the huge amount of damage caused by Muslims to Muslims in Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Libya and now Syria. That’s how they seem to do things. Not a great argument when used to blame Israel for their actions..

  53. What about your Christian friends in Lebanon, Agi, who, with the backing of your Israeli friends, were responsible for massacre, rape and destruction on an epic scale.