Today on Blogcritics
Home » What they won’t mention at Arafat’s funeral

What they won’t mention at Arafat’s funeral

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

This letter is one of many collected by Israeli intelligence officials showing Yasser Arafat’s involvement in bankrolling terrorist activity. Just days after the 9-11 attacks, the PLO cut this deal with Arafat:

The Palestinian Liberation Organization
The Palestinian National Authority
The President’s Bureau

To the Fighting President
Brother Abu Amar, may the Lord protect you,
Greetings,

I hereby request you to allocate financial aid in the sum of $2500 for the following brethren:
1. Ra’ed el Karmi (note: former commander of a group in the Fatah/Tanzim Tulkarm that masterminded the attack on the Bat-Mitzvah party in Hadera).
2. Amar Qadan (note: a senior activist of Presidential Security/Force 17 in Ramallah, involved in the activities of its operational cell).

Thank you,

Your son, Hussein al Sheikh
(note: senior Fatah activist in the West Bank)

(Note: in Yasser Arafat’s handwriting:)

Treasury/Ramallah
Asslocate $600 to each of them.
Yasser Arafat (signature)
(19/9/2001)

This is the same man French President Jacques Chirac called a “man of courage and conviction who, for 40 years, has incarnated the Palestinians’ combat for recognition of their national rights.”

If those aren’t words spoken from a true apologist for terror, I don’t know what are.

This post first appeared on Reporterette.com

Powered by

About Reporterette

  • Eric Olsen

    agreed Reporterette, thanks!

  • http://www.thebmrant.com Matt

    Its amazing how pandering Chirac is to all of Palestine.

    Did I hear correctly that Arafat is widely considered the masterming behind the Munich Massacre at the Olympic Games in ’72? Is that just conjecture, or is there tangible proof of that?

  • http://www.thebmrant.com Matt

    uh…that’s mastermind, not masterming.

  • http://swingbatterbatter.blogspot.com Greg Smyth

    I fully agree that Arafat was sponsoring terrorism on some level – I don’t think there’s many that would dispute that. I also agree that the statements of various world leaders glossed over the less tasteful facts (although Dubya’s reaction left a lot to be desired too: “Good” – he could barely stop himself from smiling).

    However, believing everything Israeli intel says about Palestine is perhaps inadvisable. Terrorism is terrorism, whether it’s kitted out in combat fatigues (a la Arafat’s goons) or the state-sanctioned kind dressed in a suit (a la Sharon).

  • http://www.thebmrant.com Matt

    agreed Greg. I take all of it with a grain of salt.

  • Eric Olsen

    is it fair to equate Arafat and Sharon?

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Well, the fever-swampers want us to believe that Sharon was personally responsible for the slaughter of 3000 Arabs in Lebanon. Of course, it was actually Christian Lebanese who did the killing.

    A sorta-famous semi-joke is: A buncha Christians kill a buncha Muslims, and they all blame a Jew.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    I was flipping channels last night and heard on cBS – Arafat…terrorist and Nobel Peace Prize winner…what a concept!

  • Eric Olsen

    I think Arafat’s final legacy is that when he had the real chance to leave terrorism and self-aggrandizement behind, he didn’t make that decision. For this he should be eternally vilified

  • JR

    Arafat…terrorist and Nobel Peace Prize winner…what a concept!

    Nothing new there. See: Begin, Menachem.

    (Although, to be fair, Begin did a far better job of going legit.)

  • http://swingbatterbatter.blogspot.com Greg Smyth

    I’m no Arafat apologist but Israel’s conduct has been far from impeccable. I believe (obviously) that Israel has the right to defend and protect itself from terrorists but bulldozing settlements, building a contentious security wall and firing rockets into residential areas are not the actions of democrats IMHO.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    I think the wall is a great effort at peace.

    If the lunatics can’t get to you, they can’t kill you. And if they can’t kill you, there is no need to relatiate. No retaliation = no escalation of the violence.

    Sounds good to me…

  • http://swingbatterbatter.blogspot.com Greg Smyth

    Looking at it that way RJ I’d agree but it could also be seen as an oportunistic landgrabbing exercise.

  • SFC Ski

    You have an enemy sworn to kill you, what do you do?

    “Israel has the right to defend and protect itself from terrorists but…”
    not if they actually try to protect themselves? While the Israelis are not simon-pure in all matters, imagine if you can a similar border problem inside the US, where you have indigenous elements who have vowed to destroy us as a nation, and are supported by other countries equally hostile to you. Now, me may not be able to fully appreciate this, the US is incredibly vast in comparison to a country about the size of New Jersy, approximately 50 miles wide and 100 miles long (I stress the term approximately.)

    “bulldozing settlements”, the basements of these buildings were being used to conceal tunnels used to smuggle weapons into Palestinian areas. For 2 reason,
    the Palestinian Authority cannot stop this smuggling; they are not physically able to because Palestinians do not recognize their authority, or the PA does not wish to stop it. The honest men within the PA have to constantly walk a line between enforcing order and being killed as sympathizers or collaborators, or by other Palestinian organizations who do not want to negotiate with Israel.

    “building a contentious security wall”
    how else would you keep infiltrators from crossing into your land and killing your citizens? IIRC, the Israeli judiciary recently called for the lines to be withdrawn to take less PA land, but take a good look at Israel, it is not a very large place, and certain areas can only be made so small to avoid being cut off.

    “firing rockets into residential areas”
    This may come as a surprise to you, but the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Syrians have been doing this for years, which is one of the reasons that Israel does not wish to make itself any smaller and allow its enemies closer, for the simple reason that the closer they are, the more likely they are to hit something important, like more Israelis. In the past, Israel did in fact bomb Palistinian camps in retaliation, but more recently they have resorted to more surgical strikes, which are unfortunately not always precise enough. THe terrrorist planners hide themselves in the shelter of the civilians around them.

    Israeli settlements are a huge point of contention, and many of the settlers belive they are fulfilling a covenant by settling there, but the Israeli government is removing many of them. Protecting them is a large problem and causes many of the casualties we read of every day. Even if they were all removed, though, there would still be a group of people that would want every Israeli removed from that land.

    So what do you suggest?

  • http://swingbatterbatter.blogspot.com Greg Smyth

    *Realises he’s hit a nerve and backs the hell up*

    All I was saying is that Israel hasn’t behaved well in some respects (and, obviously Palestinian terrorist groups aren’t martyrs in any way – just terrorists). I’m jaundiced for neither side and would like to see a peaceful two-state resolution.

    It’s good to hear Bush and Blair have this in mind (assuming it ever gets implemented) but I don’t think Bush’s recent wait and see if Arafat dies approach to the Middle East wasn’t very productive (granted he did, but anyway).

  • SFC Ski

    IN case Imy point wasn’t clear, I will try to explain it better; until the Palestinians agree that killing themselves in order to kill Israelis is not going to bring about peace, it does not matter what Bush, Blair, Sharon, or anyone else does. IN the past ten years at least Arafat was living off the reverence his position brought him, and that position would only bring him power if he was seen to be fighting the Israelis. Why did the Palestinians never in over 50 years build anything lasting, they have received UNRWA aid and private aid for over 50 years. To be sure, the wars and Intifada did make progress hard, but not impossible. The Palestinians are neither lazy nor stupid, but Arafat was not willing to remove himself from the picture in order to bring peace for his people. Again, he chose to maintain his status at the expense of his people.

  • Eric Olsen

    100% agreement Ski

  • boomcrashbaby

    until the Palestinians agree that killing themselves in order to kill Israelis is not going to bring about peace, it does not matter what Bush, Blair, Sharon, or anyone else does.

    Their religion, their belief requires and/or rewards them to sacrifice their lives and to take the lives of those they consider infidels. So how can they stop? They would have to abandon their faith. It looks like in one way or another we all just have to live under the religious ideologies of strangers.

  • SFC Ski

    “Their religion, their belief requires and/or rewards them to sacrifice their lives and to take the lives of those they consider infidels. So how can they stop? ” It is not that simple BCB, if it were the case then the Israelis could simply kill every Palestinian as they made themselves into suicide bombers moving en masse towards Israeli land. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict was not initially a religious conflict, but given the nature and history of both sides, religion does play a role.
    The Palestinian problem is in large part that the only Palestinians who get recognition and support from the community as a whole are the extremists. Moderates who are vocal enough are usually branded as collaborators, not infidels, and killed, or are smart enough to get out of the area or shut up when the death threats start. Arafat was quick to exploit this phenomena, often denouncing or jailing political opponents in this manner in order to maintain control.
    Ironically, as Arafat appeaered to soften towards Israel in his later years, his own PLO further gave the impression of splintering into more radical groups, making him appear the more moderate of the two, the lesser of 2 evils as well as the devil the Israelis knew, if you will. This also allowed him to take control of the Palestinian Authority (PA) which did strike at rival factions outside the PLO (if you’ve ever seen the Life of Brian, with the myriad factions running into each other and shouting variations on the same name, you’ll see the parallels) it was to give the impression that he was doing something. Then came Intifada part II, where he appeared to have less influnce over the ourside factions, and no willingness to control what he did have, this led to the Ramallah and Bethlehem strikes a few years back.
    Arafat was a millstone around his people’s necks, a ruthless despot in many ways, who did his people no end of ill. Maybe now the Palestinians can get some leadership willing to adjust to reality and move forward.

  • boomcrashbaby

    Yes, I didn’t mean all Palestine adheres to that philosophy, but the ones who go on to become terrorists. They do so because of religious fanaticism, told that is the way to get into heaven, by people who don’t plan on getting into heaven that way themselves…. I know there are many Palestinians who do not support suicide bombing.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “Their religion, their belief requires and/or rewards them to sacrifice their lives and to take the lives of those they consider infidels. So how can they stop? They would have to abandon their faith. It looks like in one way or another we all just have to live under the religious ideologies of strangers.”

    Equating Radical Muslim Extremist Terrorists with conservative Christians is revolting.

  • boomcrashbaby

    Equating Radical Muslim Extremist Terrorists with conservative Christians is revolting.

    1) So you find me and/or my ideology revolting. What else is new?

    2) Terrorism (my definition of it anyway) does not always have to include bombs and suicide. I just remind myself that most people, like yourself, do not know all that one endures when they have to live under the religious ideology of another.

    Take for example the recent sodomy laws that were overturned by the SC. People on the right, perceived those laws as being nothing more than dirty old men being taken to jail for a few hours and having to pay a fine, like a john getting busted for soliciting. But those laws had a reach far beyond the bedroom—they defined gay men and lesbians as de facto criminals and were used to justify such actions as firing employees, busting up homes and taking children away from loving parents. Talk about terror.

    The religious right, by wanting corporations, government, civil organizations, etc. to adhere to THEIR religious ideology and spouting anti-gay rhetoric, the vast majority of which is false, creates a hostile atmosphere which leads to violence, murder, hatred and terrorizes a group of people. Hence terrorism. I can remember many times in my life going to a gay event, having to be secretive for my own safety. I thought those days were gone. Gay blogs have shown me that violence is already increasing since the election though, so the intolerance of the 70’s and 80’s is already coming back. I don’t expect you to be able to relate. You live in the Christian ideology, not under it.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “I just remind myself that most people, like yourself, do not know all that one endures when they have to live under the religious ideology of another.”

    I’m not Christian. And the USA has no state religion.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “Take for example the recent sodomy laws that were overturned by the SC. People on the right, perceived those laws as being nothing more than dirty old men being taken to jail for a few hours and having to pay a fine, like a john getting busted for soliciting. But those laws had a reach far beyond the bedroom—they defined gay men and lesbians as de facto criminals and were used to justify such actions as firing employees, busting up homes and taking children away from loving parents. Talk about terror.”

    I would never support such a law. And laws like that are no longer on the books.

    So, what was your point about “hav[ing] to live under the religious ideologies of strangers”???

  • boomcrashbaby

    I’m not Christian.

    But you live within their ideology of what is acceptable, that is what I mean. I don’t and so I have to be punished, whether I am a Christian or not is irrelevant.

    And the USA has no state religion

    It would be futile to try to point out to you the numerous laws past and present which are biblically based. And not all of what I was talking about comes from the government. It comes from the Right via a myriad of ways, one of which is the government.

  • boomcrashbaby

    what was your point

    It is futile for anybody to try and make a point with you.