On Arafat's passing

The media has been full of reports of Arafat's illness and numerous articles on his role as leader of the Palestinians. What else is there to add? Some important matters are being noted, but others are left unsaid.

Note the contrast when the media refers to Yasser Arafat and to Ariel Sharon. Arafat is almost always identified as the 'Palestinian President' or 'leader of the Palestinian Authority', a neutral and respectful mention of his title. He is never referred to as the prime terrorist that he is. However, in Sharon's case the pejorative adjectives of 'hard line' and 'right wing' are frequently applied. Evidently the simple title of 'Israeli Prime Minister' requires additional qualifications. Is this a tip off to entrenched media bias?

At this time we should at least recall that Arafat is the father of modern terrorism who pioneered the hijacking of airliners in the 1960's. Even before the 1967 Six—Day War, and at least three years before there were any so—called 'occupied territories,' Arafat had already established the PLO with its covenant declaring that the existence of Israel was null and void. At the time Gaza was 'occupied' by Egypt, and the West Bank was 'occupied' by Jordan, and no one complained or demanded a Palestinian state. So Arafat's original terror campaign against Israel could not have been over the 'occupied territories' or their claimed need for a Palestinian state.

Let us not forget the multiple wars instigated by Arafat. He tried to conquer Jordan in 1970 and thousands were killed during 'Black September.' He began the bloody 'civil war' inside Lebanon in the 1970's and over 100,000 Lebanese were slaughtered in his urban warfare, using civilians as human shields. He violated the Oslo Accords of 1993 requiring that all disputes be resolved by negotiation. Following a far—reaching peace offer by Israel in 2000 he responded by launching his murderous intifada war with use of brainwashed Arab youths as human homicide bombers.

Arafat's wars caused the deaths of many innocent Jews, Moslems, Christians and American citizens. There seem to be insufficient reminders of all the deaths and widespread suffering that this one man has inflicted. Are we seeing here collective amnesia and selective memory by the major media?

Arafat is often called by the democratic—sounding title of 'President.' When was the last time that he actually ran for office in a real election or behaved as other than a ruthless dictator? And when does his term as 'President' expire? (Among Arab leaders their terms usually expire when they expire.)

Do we recall how Arafat allegedly revised the hateful PLO Covenant calling for Israel's destruction? At a Gaza meeting, with Bill Clinton present (to provide the illusion of legitimacy?) the convened PLO leadership was only asked if they wanted to revise the Covenant. Many raised their hands for a moment with no roll call. Clinton promptly pronounced the Covenant to be effectively revised and Arafat was given credit for his statesmanship. But that staged momentary show of hands did not actually result in any action and that evil Covenant still remains valid and operational.

As long as we're giving 'credit' to Arafat, why is he not also receiving 'credit' for indoctrinating young children with the desire to become shaheeds, suicide/homicide bombers, and to die gloriously for Islam and enter paradise while bombing innocent Jewish men, women and especially children?

President Bush is given credit for never inviting Arafat to the White House, in contrast to the dozen or so times he was a guest of President Clinton. But despite that snub, President Bush doubled Arafat's annual aid package from $100 million to $200 million of our taxpayer dollars. He also issued a stern warning to Israel to not harm the mass murderer while we simultaneously sought Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden dead or alive. Our clever State Department denied that they practice a double standard.

Arafat ordered the 1973 kidnapping and subsequent murder of America Diplomats Cleo Noel and George Curtis Moore, who were assigned to our embassy in Sudan. That crime was covered up by the State Department , although it re—surfaced recently with the FBI getting involved. It was evidently more important to prop up Arafat as an Arab leader with whom we thought we could work. In the late 1970's President Jimmy Carter was even writing speeches for Arafat, where he would read words promising peace and recognition of Israel, as if Israel required 'recognition' from this terrorist and mass murderer. And, in return, Israel was pressured to offer tangible concessions for just the vague promise of  peace without a viable cease fire.

It seemed that Arafat could get away with anything. All during the time he was spreading terror and destruction he continued to receive generous funding from America and the European Union. When President Clinton sought Congressional approval to fund Arafat, our Congress had some questions. Representative Benjamin Gillman was then chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and held hearings on this request for aid. Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, an expert on terrorist funding, testified that Arafat already had billions stashed away in European investments. When the Gillman committee asked our State Department for confirmation they flat out refused to divulge any information. Today we learn that Arafat had diverted and stolen billions that were intended to aid his own Palestinians. Arafat got rich, The State Department stonewalled, the Palestinians suffered deprivation, and Israel got blamed. Our State Department is yet again exposed as, in effect, being soft on terrorism and undermining American interests.

Arafat was every bit as evil as Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. And yet America and the West had a big role in funding, supporting and protecting this master terrorist and mass murderer regardless of the degree of his criminality. The nagging question is why so much support for Arafat in contrast with our attitude towards Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden? (We did support both early on but finally woke up and reversed policy.) They were all evil murderers and anti American. Arafat, along with Saddam, also killed many Arabs as well.

So why has the State Department protected him all these years? The answer is not pleasant to contemplate.

The media has been full of reports of Arafat's illness and numerous articles on his role as leader of the Palestinians. What else is there to add? Some important matters are being noted, but others are left unsaid.

Note the contrast when the media refers to Yasser Arafat and to Ariel Sharon. Arafat is almost always identified as the 'Palestinian President' or 'leader of the Palestinian Authority', a neutral and respectful mention of his title. He is never referred to as the prime terrorist that he is. However, in Sharon's case the pejorative adjectives of 'hard line' and 'right wing' are frequently applied. Evidently the simple title of 'Israeli Prime Minister' requires additional qualifications. Is this a tip off to entrenched media bias?

At this time we should at least recall that Arafat is the father of modern terrorism who pioneered the hijacking of airliners in the 1960's. Even before the 1967 Six—Day War, and at least three years before there were any so—called 'occupied territories,' Arafat had already established the PLO with its covenant declaring that the existence of Israel was null and void. At the time Gaza was 'occupied' by Egypt, and the West Bank was 'occupied' by Jordan, and no one complained or demanded a Palestinian state. So Arafat's original terror campaign against Israel could not have been over the 'occupied territories' or their claimed need for a Palestinian state.

Let us not forget the multiple wars instigated by Arafat. He tried to conquer Jordan in 1970 and thousands were killed during 'Black September.' He began the bloody 'civil war' inside Lebanon in the 1970's and over 100,000 Lebanese were slaughtered in his urban warfare, using civilians as human shields. He violated the Oslo Accords of 1993 requiring that all disputes be resolved by negotiation. Following a far—reaching peace offer by Israel in 2000 he responded by launching his murderous intifada war with use of brainwashed Arab youths as human homicide bombers.

Arafat's wars caused the deaths of many innocent Jews, Moslems, Christians and American citizens. There seem to be insufficient reminders of all the deaths and widespread suffering that this one man has inflicted. Are we seeing here collective amnesia and selective memory by the major media?

Arafat is often called by the democratic—sounding title of 'President.' When was the last time that he actually ran for office in a real election or behaved as other than a ruthless dictator? And when does his term as 'President' expire? (Among Arab leaders their terms usually expire when they expire.)

Do we recall how Arafat allegedly revised the hateful PLO Covenant calling for Israel's destruction? At a Gaza meeting, with Bill Clinton present (to provide the illusion of legitimacy?) the convened PLO leadership was only asked if they wanted to revise the Covenant. Many raised their hands for a moment with no roll call. Clinton promptly pronounced the Covenant to be effectively revised and Arafat was given credit for his statesmanship. But that staged momentary show of hands did not actually result in any action and that evil Covenant still remains valid and operational.

As long as we're giving 'credit' to Arafat, why is he not also receiving 'credit' for indoctrinating young children with the desire to become shaheeds, suicide/homicide bombers, and to die gloriously for Islam and enter paradise while bombing innocent Jewish men, women and especially children?

President Bush is given credit for never inviting Arafat to the White House, in contrast to the dozen or so times he was a guest of President Clinton. But despite that snub, President Bush doubled Arafat's annual aid package from $100 million to $200 million of our taxpayer dollars. He also issued a stern warning to Israel to not harm the mass murderer while we simultaneously sought Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden dead or alive. Our clever State Department denied that they practice a double standard.

Arafat ordered the 1973 kidnapping and subsequent murder of America Diplomats Cleo Noel and George Curtis Moore, who were assigned to our embassy in Sudan. That crime was covered up by the State Department , although it re—surfaced recently with the FBI getting involved. It was evidently more important to prop up Arafat as an Arab leader with whom we thought we could work. In the late 1970's President Jimmy Carter was even writing speeches for Arafat, where he would read words promising peace and recognition of Israel, as if Israel required 'recognition' from this terrorist and mass murderer. And, in return, Israel was pressured to offer tangible concessions for just the vague promise of  peace without a viable cease fire.

It seemed that Arafat could get away with anything. All during the time he was spreading terror and destruction he continued to receive generous funding from America and the European Union. When President Clinton sought Congressional approval to fund Arafat, our Congress had some questions. Representative Benjamin Gillman was then chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and held hearings on this request for aid. Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, an expert on terrorist funding, testified that Arafat already had billions stashed away in European investments. When the Gillman committee asked our State Department for confirmation they flat out refused to divulge any information. Today we learn that Arafat had diverted and stolen billions that were intended to aid his own Palestinians. Arafat got rich, The State Department stonewalled, the Palestinians suffered deprivation, and Israel got blamed. Our State Department is yet again exposed as, in effect, being soft on terrorism and undermining American interests.

Arafat was every bit as evil as Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. And yet America and the West had a big role in funding, supporting and protecting this master terrorist and mass murderer regardless of the degree of his criminality. The nagging question is why so much support for Arafat in contrast with our attitude towards Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden? (We did support both early on but finally woke up and reversed policy.) They were all evil murderers and anti American. Arafat, along with Saddam, also killed many Arabs as well.

So why has the State Department protected him all these years? The answer is not pleasant to contemplate.