Ariel Sharon, Bush, and the Assassination of Yasser Arafat

The escalation we are witnessing now in Palestine is partly the legacy of Ariel Sharon. In a recent book of interviews published in France, his confident Uri Dan reveals that Sharon told him that he was behind the assassination of Yasser Arafat and that Sharon consulted with Bush on the matter.

''To those knowledgeable about Israel’s history since it became a state in 1948 and earlier, this revelation, if true, should come as no surprise. All Israeli governments have a long and disturbing record of conducting targeted assassinations in Israel and abroad as it suited them against all persons thought to be a threat to the Jewish state. From his earliest days in 1969 as Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Chairman and President, Arafat went from enemy to ally and back to enemy again under various Israeli governments depending on his willingness to deny his people their rights in service and pledging fealty to Israeli authority as he did in agreeing to the Oslo Accords, or Declaration of Principles (DOP), signed at a White House ceremony in September, 1993.''

There is mention of the book by Paris-Match however without any mention of the assassination confidence. The book seems to be hard to find. It is in an Amazon search but not available. It is listed in a podcast search and it is mentioned on the official site of the Israeli embassy in France, without this revelation. Uri Dan, the book's author, a Sharon supporter and admirer, who was Fox's News Jerusalem bureau chief and New York Post Correspondent in Jerusalem, died recently.

Also, there are many articles on Uri Dan in this December page of Isranet News.
''To the end, Uri remained tireless. Diagnosed with lung cancer, he covered last summer's war in Lebanon from his hospital bed while undergoing intensive chemotherapy. He traveled to Washington last month with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and was thrilled beyond words when White House Press Secretary Tony Snow agreed to place a copy of Uri's new book on President Bush's Oval Office desk. ''


Anonymous said...

GOD bless ISRAEL!!!!!

Behemoth101 said...

I was once told by a visiting senior (Israeli) Middle East espionage expert that

"Yasser Arafat died of AIDS because of his fondness for Romanian prostitute-boys"

Now, as for the veracity of this claim... I can't be sure, except the curious intrigue over his medical records and his wife in Paris... in any case, if this quote is true, you can probably guess who made sure the boy(s) had AIDS.

Sophia said...

If it was AIDS, it should have been diagnosed and it should have showed before. You are also (or may be it is your ME espionage expert) the first source to mention Arafat's fondness for boys.
Arafat was suddenly ill. It seems that Arafat was poisoned. Anyway, I find it strange that nobody is interested in finding out what killed him...

Behemoth101 said...

If the Palestinian elites aren't interested, you can be sure it was an illness that he brought on himself. Arafat had the money and the means to have anything he wanted. He probably lived a lavish lifestyle to his own detriment.

The AIDS thing could just be Israel trying to defame him at any cost. It might have been a less glamorous illness like Hepatitis C.

Then again, there are other theories involving and not involving AIDS. Wikipedia has a theory that HIV virus was administered to Arafat to "cover up" attempts to poison him.

At this point, who's to really say?

What we do know is: His death led to a domino-series of events in which Israel had near-total control over the outcomes (excluding the ill-fated War of Israeli Aggression of course). Outcome-based reasoning is usually flawed, but this case shows it clearly benefited Israel that Arafat died when he did, and things have only gotten worse for Palestinians since (not that they were that great with Arafat around either).

Sophia said...


I think Arafat was a very bad leader for his people and this is an understatement. He and the Tunisians should never have been endowed with the destiny of their people. They weren't too samrt and commiitted people. After all, the first Intifada was successful, palestinians didn't need Arafat.

However, what they have now is even worse...There is no bad luck in all this, good palestinian leaders were assassinated by israel back in the seventies. In Lebanon, there was a joke back then about Arafat not being assassinated because Israel badly wanted him as a leader for his people.

I think the worst tyranny ever is the tyranny exerted on the people by their own...

Behemoth101 said...

You've hit the nail on the head once again, Sophia!

Arafat was a total stooge for USrael... the perfect madman who generated the perfect pretenses to justify all the neo-colonialism the two-headed beast could muster.

Arafat was like Jafar in Aladin, so DELICIOUSLY evil and uncompromising in the best possible ways!

Secular on the one hand, a painted "jihadist" on the other, he also simultaneously "controlled" the Fatah party while handing Hamas and other Hamas-niks like Black September countless dollars for their own recreational use to justify Fatah's own Pharisaic political posturing! (Not to mention the astoundingly malignant embezzling!)

Oh, Arafat, Olmert must sing your praises. You were God's gift to Zionism.

Dr Victorino de la Vega said...

Uri Dan…

I’m not sure the man qualifies as a “fair and balanced” journalist: I mean Fox News and The New York Post! Why not Der Angriff for good measure??

Abu ‘Ammar was a pathetic Stalinist third-world clown.
Without Ho Chi Minh’s intellectual brilliance.
Without Fidel Castro’s charm.
Without Che Guevara’s courage.

The man was a looser.

He hurt the strategic interests of all those who tried to help him: Saddam’s Iraq, Gaullist France, Brezhnev’s Russia, and he suppressed the most active/most anti-Israeli elements amongst the Palestinian resistance: Christian Socialist intellectuals such as George Habash, Wadie Haddad and Nayef Hawatmeh...

Sophia said...


Who said that Fox News and the New York Post were balanced and measured ? I found this information interesting because it is never mentioned in the media from which background thier journalists come. I am sure that there are more bloggers on the blogosphere preoccupied by wuestions of integrity and balance than there are journalists doing their job as they should in mainstream media...

Since March 29th 2006