Palestine: Was There a Plot to Kill Yassir Arafat?

Last week, Farouk al-Kaddoumi (pictured), a senior Palestine Liberation Organization leader, told al-Jazeera that Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas played a role in Yassir Arafat’s death in 2004. He said that he had protocols from a 2004 meeting between Israeli, American and PA representatives that clearly indicated a plan to poison Arafat. He added that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Mohammed Dahlan, the former Palestinian security chief in Gaza, were involved in the plot.

The first reaction to the story came last Wednesday. Mahmoud Abbas suspended the operations of al-Jazeera in the West Bank. The Information Ministry stated that the station’s operations were halted until a court ruled on the case. Walid Al Omary, Al-Jazeera’s bureau chief in Jerusalem, said: “We are sorry about this decision, which we consider a violation of freedom of expression and freedom of the press in this country.”

On Thursday, Abbas rejected the accusations and said that "Kaddoumi claims to be in possession of five-year-old documents that prove (his allegations), so why did he not reveal them immediately?" Abbas added that the "lie" was aimed at torpedoing the sixth Fatah Party General Congress, scheduled to convene August 4. He continued, "He (Kaddoumi) knows full well that this information is false; he has released it to undermine the convention, but we are continuing with the preparations."

While the Palestinian Authority was having problems with the Qatar-based station, the political risks of Abbas's decision increased with the entry of Hamas into the discussion. Fawzi Barhoum, a Hamas spokesman, accused the West Bank government of trying to silence the media and “cover up what is going on in the West Bank". Thus, the Arafat conspiracy theory was converted into a current political manoeuvre: Hamas is the "democratic" party seeking truth while its rival engages in "tyranny".

Booom: U.S. Agrees to Israeli strike on Iran in return for a Palestinian state?

On Thursday, The Times reported that Western and Israeli diplomats are in talks concerning international support for an Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran, in return for concessions on a two-state solution.

The passage of two Sa'ar 5-class Israeli missile-class Navy ships through the Suez Canal on Tuesday was offered as the proof of seriousness of the Israeli position. The deployment of these two warships in the Red Sea followed the passage of a Dolphin-class submarine capable of launching a nuclear missile strike through the international waterway.

“This is preparation that should be taken seriously. Israel is investing time in preparing itself for the complexity of an attack on Iran. These manoeuvres are a message to Iran that Israel will follow up on its threats” an Israeli defense official said.



Ahmed Aboul Gheit, the Egyptian Foreign Minister, said that his government explicitly allowed passage of Israeli vessels, and an Israeli admiral said that the drills were “run regularly with the full co-operation of the Egyptians.” This, alongside the claim that Saudi Arabia would allow Israeli jets to use its air space in any strike against Iran, could be seen as another indication of the high possibility of an Israeli raid- one which would have the backing of pro-Israeli Arab states who oppose a nuclear-armed Iran.

A British diplomat has said that, if agreed, an Israeli strike would be possible “within a year.”

Tel Aviv may be using the “existential threat” of Tehran in order to gain extra time which could bring onboard more conciliatory Palestinian leaders, pushed by the Obama administration. Or it may be seriously focusing on a pre-emptive strike which could, again, give it extra time in the peace process, even if a war between Israel and Iran would cause turmoil in the entire region. However, in the second case, Israel would be losing 'the other', which would shatter geo-political, geo-cultural and geo-economical institutions and could cause an identity crisis.

For me, a Washington-led Western camp would go no further than imposing tougher sanctions against Tehran. As I mentioned above, the war would not be limited to two states and would change the dynamics of the entire region. Therefore, the first scenario sounds more logical: an Israeli bluff calling for the acceptance of Israeli demands from the Palestinian Authority. The Obama administration cannot leave Israel on its own. Pushing Palestinians toward the negotiating table along with extra tangible efforts to bring other Arab states, especially Syria, into a wider negotiation platform seems more logical.

On the other hand, news from the other side of the story comes in, and Hamas completes the last piece of the puzzle. Hamas is enjoying the new conjuncture being shaped by the State of Israel. The first Qassam rocket since June 13th was fired into the western Negev Thursday evening by militants in the Gaza Strip. Hamas wants to show that it should not be overlooked in the negotiation process.

Aphrodisiac Chewing Gum: Conspiracy Theory or Genocide?

Hamas officials have claimed that Israeli intelligence service were supplying chewing gum laced with an aphrodisiac in order to "corrupt the young" of Palestine.

Hamas police spokesman Islam Shahwan said: "We have discovered two types of stimulants that were introduced into the Gaza Strip from Israeli border crossings... The first type is presented in the form of chewing gum and the second in the form of drops."

Hamas officials claim that they detained several members of a gang involved in the gum's import over the past two years, who "admitted during the investigation they were linked to the Zionist intelligence services."

Israeli officials have not commented on the issue, though one army source describes it as "absurd."

Video: "An Iranian Atomic Bomb Can Wipe Israel off the Map in a Matter of Seconds"

Iran: Did Joe Biden Just “Green Light” an Israeli Air Strike?

On Thursday, speaking to Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic magazine, the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, claimed that an Iranian atomic bomb can “wipe Israel off the map in a matter of seconds.”



Oren did address the key immediate issue in US-Israeli relations: “The Israeli and American sides are working earnestly, ardently to try to find a compromise over the question of the degree to which construction can continue in settlements to accord what we call the normal life. And I am confident that we will find a solution for this.”

However, Oren just as quickly tried to shift attention to Iran, rather than Palestine, as the question that needed resolution: “I never said settlements are not an issue… but they're not the issue.” While the Netanyahu Government continues to hold out against any local concession, it will look for action against Tehran's "existential threat": "Everyone is waiting to see what will come out of this, but while we're waiting, while we're watching, the [nuclear] clock is ticking.”

To learn more about “the Iranian threat", one can read Oren’s own words from May 2009:

The principal sponsor of Hamas and Hezbollah, Iran is inextricably linked to the terrorist threat. But when the Islamic Republic achieves nuclear weapons-capability—as early as this year, according to Israeli intelligence estimates—the threat will amplify manifold.

A nuclear-armed Iran creates not one but several existential threats. The most manifest emanates from Iran’s routinely declared desire to “wipe Israel off the map,” and from the fact that cold war calculi of nuclear deterrence through mutually assured destruction may not apply to Islamist radicals eager for martyrdom. Some Israeli experts predict that the Iranian leadership would be willing to sacrifice 50 percent of their countrymen in order to eradicate Israel.

Beyond the perils of an Iranian first-strike attack against Israel, the possibility exists that Iran will transfer its nuclear capabilities to terrorist groups, which will then unleash them on Israel via the country’s porous ports and border crossings.

A nuclear Iran will also deny Israel the ability to respond to terrorist attacks: in response to an Israeli retaliation against Hezbollah, for example, Iran would go on nuclear alert, causing widespread panic in Israel and the collapse of its economy. Finally, and most menacing, many Middle Eastern states have declared their intention to develop nuclear capabilities of their own once Iran acquires the bomb.

Israel will swiftly find itself in a profoundly unstable nuclear neighborhood prone to violent revolutions and miscalculations leading to war. As former Labor Party minister Efraim Sneh says, under such circumstances, all Israelis who can leave the country will.

Audio on Hiding Gaza, Hiding Israel: The Jailing of Cynthia McKinney (and 20 Others)

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

(An audio interview with Huwaida Arraf of the Free Gaza Movement, one of two activists released, and with Mairead Corrigan Maguire, who is still in jail, follows the opening paragraphs of the story.)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkPvzSZRuDo[/youtube]

On Tuesday, the news broke on Twitter: a freighter, Spirit of Humanity, carrying three tons of medical supplies, cement, olive trees, and children's toys for Gaza, had been intercepted and boarded by Israeli naval personnel. Twenty-one passengers, including former US Congressman Cynthia McKinney, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire, and activists from Britain, Ireland, Bahrain, and Jamaica were detained. The Israeli Foreign Ministry said, "They will be released as soon as they are checked." However, McKinney, Maguire, and 17 others remain in custory because they refuse to sign a deportation order that says they were "trespassing" in Israeli territorial waters.

As of Friday morning, here is how many column inches The Washington Post has given to the story: 0

(The Post website has a short account on Tuesday from the Associated Press but that never made it into print.)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj5YLhMz_pI[/youtube]

And here is the attention span of The New York Times: 3 sentences, tucked away at the bottom of a story today on the Amnesty International report on "war crimes" in the Gaza War of December-January.

(The three sentences are from a longer story on the Times website, but that is not in "Today's Paper". It can only be found through a search of the "World" section on the site.)

I appreciate that the story broke at a busy time --- on Tuesday, we had one eye on Iran, another on Iraq, and if we could have borrowed someone else's eye, we would have turned that on Afghanistan-Pakistan. Others were riveted by the coup drama in Honduras. Still, you would have thought that 72 hours later, the leading US newspapers would have caught up with the drama of a freighter seized at sea and 21 international activists tossed into Israeli holding cells.

In part, the explanation may be that McKinney, stigmatised as an "extremist", a "radical", and a dangerous-to-know person during and after her time in Congress, is poison for some newspaper editors (conversely, it's probably far from incidental that Fox News, which has long targeted McKinney as a figure of derision, has been in the media lead on the story). Part of the reason might be that the drama was muted by the lack of photos and footage.

I suspect, however, there is a wider, more significant reason. Paying attention to the story also means paying attention to the cause: the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. And acknowledging the scale of the continuing economic deprivation and social destruction in that besieged territory, led by a Hamas Government that a lot of people do not want to recognise, is a step too far.

To be fair, from time to time, a Times or Post reporter will drop by the territory to file a story. It's far different, however, to link that coverage to the immediacy of political protest. So, as McKinney and others continue to refuse deportation, no doubt hoping that their jail stay will eventually be noticed, and as Israeli authorities just hope the incident will disappear, expect the Times and Post to ignore a story that is not fit to print.