The Arafat Blood Libel: Now, with extra media bias!

Who killed Arafat? Barry Rubin has the answer.

Suddenly, I received all of these phone calls from journalists asking me to talk about who murdered the late Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat. The news peg is that he’s being dug up to see if someone poisoned him. Guess who?

I tell them that in a sense Arafat was murdered. Excited, they ask who did it. And I respond: Fatah, the PLO, and the Palestinian Authority, all organizations that Arafat headed. I don’t mean literally that they set out to kill Arafat but they were the ones really responsible for his death.

Of course, the standard answer is going to be: The Jews Israelis.

If you don’t read Barry’s columns, he should be on your regular reading list. His take on Israel is one of the most well-informed in the world, and of course, as a result, is ignored by the MSM. Can’t break the narrative. They want people to think that Israel murdered Arafat even on such an obviously made-up charge.

The current Arafat-was-murdered meme began when very large amounts of radioactive material were “discovered” on his clothing. This substance is scientifically known to break down on a very regular schedule. For such a quantity to be found there would have meant there would have been a gigantic amount—was he hosed down with radioactive poison?—when he died eight years ago. In other words, the stuff had been planted only hours at most before it was found, no doubt by the same people who put it there. In short, the accusation makes no sense but it is being treated seriously. Such is the way Israel is dealt with on many things by respectable people in the West. The accusation is made by anti-Israel propagandists who spew out the most vicious antisemitic hatred and lies yet are given a large measure of credibility. Such is the way Israel is dealt with on many things by otherwise respectable people in the West nowadays.

Don’t worry, the AP has already set up the narrative that there’s no way to prove conclusively that he wasn’t poisoned.

Palestinians have claimed for years that Israel poisoned Arafat, who died in a French hospital. Israel has denied the charges.

The exhumation marked the end of months of procedural wrangling but only the beginning of the testing. Palestinian officials said it would take at least three months to get results, and even then, they might not be conclusive.

Got it? They’re going to say that the tests proved that polonium wasn’t a factor, but that the tests weren’t conclusive, thus adding to the belief that Arafat was poisoned. Look how they’re already setting the narrative:

The three teams will separately analyze the samples for possible poison, including polonium-210, a lethal radioactive substance first detected in elevated amounts on some of Arafat’s clothing this summer.

Polonium disintegrates rapidly, and experts have cautioned that too much time may have passed since Arafat’s death to reach a conclusive result.

Polonium was used in the 2006 killing of Alexander Litvinenko, a former KGB officer turned Russian government critic. Litvinenko blamed the Kremlin for poisoning him.

Israel has denied killing Arafat, but many Palestinians believe Israel’s then-prime minister, Arafat nemesis Ariel Sharon, had means, motive and opportunity.

See how they throw in the blame on Israel even while pretending to write an objective rebuttal? Also note that they don’t include the half-life of polonium is 138 days. An Israeli expert asks the questions that the AP is not asking.

“Because of the half-life of the substance, the conclusion is that the polonium is much more fresh,” he added.

Karmon added that the Al Jazeera report raised additional unanswered questions. Referring to the fact that Arafat’s widow, Suha, provided the researchers with Arafat’s belongings, Karmon asked: “If Suha Arafat safeguarded these contaminated materials, why, after seven years, was she not poisoned too? She touched these things and Arafat in hospital.”

The media narrative is already set. Take a look.

No questions about the half-life of polonium and the impossibility of Arafat’s being poisoned by it are being asked in the WaPo’s rewriting of the AP article.

Euronews can’t bother with scientific accuracy.

The Christian Science Monitor waits until four paragraphs from the end of the story to point out that Arafat suffered no hair loss or other signs of radiation poisoning.

Slate gladly uses Arafat’s photo and exhumation as an “Explainer” article, pointing out that Alexander Litvinenko “remains the only high-profile known case of deliberate polonium poisoning.” It remains one of the only cases of deliberate polonium poisoning. Go ahead, try to find more. I couldn’t.

The New York Times goes with the Palestinian narrative. But of course.

CNN surprises with a balanced story throughout. Good for you, CNN.

But don’t worry. The world will blame Israel no matter what. Arafat was 75, in terrible health, and didn’t take care of himself–but it’s Israel’s fault he died. Right.

This entry was posted in Israel Derangement Syndrome, Media Bias, Terrorism, United Nations. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Arafat Blood Libel: Now, with extra media bias!

  1. anon says:

    If Arafat was murdered it would have to have been done by Israel.

    After all, not a single Palestinian would have benefited by his passing.

    Hamas certainly wasn’t able to put its greedy hands on Billions of dollars that previously would have been strained through Arafats grasping fingers.

    Oh no … they are pure! Abbas and his cronies in the P.A. wouldn’t dream of diverting any of the Billions that taxpayers from the USA and Europe give to ‘relieve suffering’. The PA is considered by the entire world to be the most honest and cleanest government in history…. NOT!!

    Why on earth would Israel have wanted Arafat dead? He was way more corrupt and incompetant than the current crop of Palestinian ‘leaders’. Why force a change if the dofus opposing you is such a schmuck?

  2. Stretch says:

    Any chance they’ll test for HIV?
    Didn’t think so.

  3. Barry Rubin says it’s unlikely he had AIDS. Read his column.

Comments are closed.