Yassir Arafat died of AIDS!? (possible hoax)

Remove all ads!

Wow - this is pretty shocking, at least to me. Is this something I just wasn't aware of? [EDIT - this may be bogus, I don't know yet.]

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=13412

Implecations, ramifications, etc. Discuss.

EDIT - now that I read to the end of the article, I also had no idea that Arafat was a homosexual. I'd never heard that, though I admittedly never looked into his life terribly deeply. I guess the idea of a middle-eastern leader of such power being gay seems like such an alien concept, when one considers that this is a part of the region where gays are publicly stoned to death as a commonplace.

Anyway, discuss.

[ July 18, 2007, 17:00: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Credibility. I've mentioned that often on the boards. Until an unbiased source can confirm I'll remain skeptical.

 

You may be right. I've never heard of the source, so it didn't occur to me to question them. Like I said - first time I heard about this, and was surprised. The article does say that it's been confirmed by Palestinian sources though.

A quick google search just revealed that these people seem to be the only ones covering the story right now. So it may be crapola. I'll amend my title until we know more. Thanks, T.

 

Well, if it makes you feel any better DR, I was just as completely in the dark on this one as you were. I had no idea that Arafat died of AIDS, and also had no idea that he was homosexual - probably for the reasons that you listed. Granted, I never even considered Arafat's sexual preference - I imagine I'm like most people that unless you see or hear otherwise, you assume a person is straight - moreso regarding leaders of Middle Eastern countries.

OK, I get the part that the story comes from "Israel Today", but is there any reason beyond it being a Jewish publication that you are skeptical of the information? I mean, Palestians and Isralis have been killing each other routinely for oh, a few millenia now. Taking a cheap shot at a now dead leader's sexuality seems to be pretty small potatoes. You'd think if they were going to make something up about Arafat's sexuality, they'd say he was doing some barnyard animal - not into men.

 

Beastiality is far less believable - and therefore, less offensive - than homosexuality. It has a much better chance at sticking and is therefore a far more effective smear. I get the rationale, if it is indeed a smear. Which I'm not yet convinced that it is. I have my doubts now, though.

 

I've never heard of the publication in question -- that doesn't necessarily mean I think it's bogus, as there are a lot of papers out there. But to be honest, this sounds like something you'd read in "The Onion", or Letterman, or SNL, or something like that. I find it extremely difficult to believe Arafat, the leader of a group of Muslims, was a well known homosexual. I don't see most Islamicists accepting that behaviour in a leader.

 

Propaganda is a powerful tool. Accusations of homosexuality is quite provocative in most of the world. The accusation alone is enough for most people, if wrong any retraction will be ignored by the masses.

Arafat becomes a 'vile heathen who got his just reward' -- instead of being seen for his accomplishments. I believe the article is an attempt to discredit a former leader who is still held in high regard by his people (whether the article is true or not). Negate the man's accomplishments by destroying his image -- it's a very old tactic.

 

I agree with T2.

The thing has written 'smear job' all over it.

 

Wow, the man liked a bit of cock. Big deal. Did you see him? Probably got what he could.

 

I would say it's a fake. Have not heard about this anywhere else, therefore I'm disinclined to believe it.

 

At this point I'm inclined to believe the entire thing is bogus as well. If Reuters or the Associated Press have NOTHING about this, after a full day, then I can't imagine it's legit. That would go for the homosexual angle as well since again - this is the first I've heard of it, and I think Arafat's enemies would have used it before now were it true. Considering the source, I think T2's theory that this is Israeli smear is certainly a very reasonable one.

Although I will say that this:

...was easily worth my mistake. Ah, Barms.

 

Well, regardless of whether it is true or not, I wonder whether it newsworthy - it's hardly a 'critical groundbreaking article that will alter the geopolitical underpinnings of the world as we know it'; I may have to lower my estimation of this 'bastion of journalistic integrity to that of the National Enquirer.


Mind you; this sort of purient 'jouralism' isn't exactly new. Bill'n'Monica, for a fairly recent example. (the actual news story was PotUS lying, not really his infidelities - do we REALLY need annual updates on what Ms. Lewinsky is up to NOW?)

 

I see what you're saying, but given how homosexuality and general "sinful" activity are regarded by Muslims, particularly in that region, a revelation like this could have a devastating effect on the morale of Arafat's followers in Fatah, even post mortem (thus giving Hamas a distinct edge in the current conflict). With Bill n' Monica, infidelity is a very common occurrance in most of western society and was only really shocking because of the people involved. Homosexuals are (once outed) publicly beaten or murdered in much of the middle east. This is argueably the least tolerant and most homophobic region in the world.

So I wasn't bringing this up out of a desire for gossip mongering or anything. Something like this, if substantiated, would have serious ripple effects in the region. Hence, my initial shock at hearing it. But as I said, I'm inclined to believe at this point that Arafat's enemies had the same idea I did and are attempting to make a very effective smear stick.

 

Some thread necromancy: It now appears that Arafat didn't die of AIDS, but that he was instead poisoned, with the exotic and rare material of Polonium 210. At the time there was no cause of death, but doctors said they didn’t find any known poisons, but Polonium-210 isn't something they would have been looking for. The Litvinenko case happened two years later. The Brits also didn't find Polonium-210 at first and unlike the Palestinians they had superb lab equipment and specialists at their disposal.

An investigation showed Arafat’s personal items, released by his widow, contained several times the normal level of polonium that would normally be detected on such items. Arafat’s terminal symptoms were similar to those experienced by victims of Polonium-210 poisoning: the substance targets the gastrointestinal tract and the subject wastes away.

Polonium-210 isn’t something you can buy off the shelf at your local Walmart. About 100 grams are produced each year for specialized technical uses. The only entities with access to this sort of thing are state actors, or, at least, a private organization with very substantial resources at its disposal. Polonium-210 is often used as a neutron initiator in nuclear weapons. So someone with access to Polonium-210 supplied the material to whoever eventually killed him.

That makes Israel a prime candidate, especially in light of (a) them having a nuclear weapons program, (b) them having Arafat under siege at the time, (c) with Arafat evading the odd Israeli air strike while (d) Israel's Ariel Sharon declared that he no longer felt bound by his word to not assassinate Arafat, and (e) that the Izzies have a habit of making good on such utterances.

 

The original premise was much funnier.