Palestinian Leader Yasser Arafat Was Assasinated With Radioactove Polonium, Tests Show

Tyler Durden's picture

And so another conspiracy theory, that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was poisoned with Polonium, becomes non-conspiracy fact. From Reuters:

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was poisoned to death in 2004 with radioactive polonium, his widow Suha said on Wednesday after receiving the results of Swiss forensic tests on her husband's corpse.

 

"We are revealing a real crime, a political assassination," she told Reuters in Paris.

 

A team of experts, including from Lausanne University Hospital's Institute of Radiation Physics, opened Arafat's grave in the West Bank city of Ramallah last November, and took samples from his body to seek evidence of alleged poisoning. "This has confirmed all our doubts," said Suha Arafat, who met members of the Swiss forensic team in Geneva on Tuesday. "It is scientifically proved that he didn't die a natural death and we have scientific proof that this man was killed."

 

She did not accuse any country or person, and acknowledged that the historic leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization had many enemies. Arafat signed the 1993 Oslo interim peace accords with Israel and led a subsequent uprising after the failure of talks in 2000 on a comprehensive agreement.

 

Allegations of foul play surfaced immediately. Arafat had foes among his own people, but many Palestinians pointed the finger at Israel, which had besieged him in his Ramallah headquarters for the final two and a half years of his life.

 

The Israeli government has denied any role in his death, noting that he was 75 years old and had an unhealthy lifestyle.

 

An investigation by the Qatar-based Al Jazeera television news channel first reported last year that traces of polonium-210 were found on personal effects of Arafat given to his widow by the French military hospital where he died.

 

That led French prosecutors to open an investigation for suspected murder in August 2012 at the request of Suha Arafat. Forensic experts from Switzerland, Russia and France all took samples from his corpse for testing after the Palestinian Authority agreed to open his mausoleum.

 

"SMOKING GUN"

 

The head of the Russian forensics institute, Vladimir Uiba, was quoted by the Interfax news agency last month as saying no trace of polonium had been found on the body specimens examined in Moscow, but his Federal Medico-Biological Agency later denied he had made any official comment on its findings.

 

The French pathologists have not reported their conclusions publicly, nor have their findings been shared with Suha Arafat's legal team. A spokeswoman for the French prosecutor's office said the investigating magistrats had received no expert reports so far.

 

One of her lawyers said the Swiss institute's report, commissioned by Al Jazeera, would be translated from English into French and handed over to the three magistrates in the Paris suburb of Nanterre who are investigating the case.

...

 

The Al Jazeera investigation was spearheaded by investigative journalist Clayton Swisher, a former U.S. Secret Service bodyguard who became friendly with Arafat and was suspicious of the manner of his death.

 

Hani al-Hassan, a former aide, said in 2003 that he had witnessed 13 assassination attempts on Arafat's life, dating back to his years on the run as PLO leader. Arafat claimed to have survived 40 attempts on his life.

Now... whoever may have wanted the leader of the Palestinians dead?

He escaped another attempt on his life when Israeli warplanes came close to killing him during the invasion of Beirut when they hit one of the buildings they suspected he was using as his headquarters but he was not there. In December 2001, Arafat was rushed to safety just before Israeli helicopters bombarded his compound in Ramallah with rockets.

Oh wait...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Cookie's picture

I blame ZH for giving me a glimpse of the truth and severe depression for the past 4 years.

Carry on Tyler, I can take it.

Pladizow's picture

I was reading about this in “Who Gives A Fuck – Magazine”.

uncle.bigs's picture

Is that also known as The Zion Times?

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

I am confused.

Polonium is a chemical weapon. 

Obama says the use of chemical weapons is evil and necessitates regime change.

However, for the record, Israel uses the chemical weapon, White Phosphorus, on children, so polonium is probably ok, too?

This
girl was killed by the IDF when they used white phosphorous munitions
during their bombing of Gaza. It ate through her skull and brain.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Look. The Israelis have their own things to answer for. That said, I for one would also like to see some pictures of the boys Arafat couldn't rape any more because he was dead. But in fairness those probably aren't published anywhere.

Anusocracy's picture

I'm having a slight problem with your equivalence here.

And, by the way, nice misdirection.

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

Americans are fucking idiots.  After listening to the first 3 minutes of this  interview, most Americans still will not even think to question why 12 years later we are involved in the longest war in American history, having invaded Afghanistan because a bunch of Saudi Arabians allegedly flew jets into two NY office buildings (recently double insured) owned by a Jew, and three of the buildings were destroyed.*

 

"I arrested the joyful dancing Israelis."

 


 

“The Israelis were reportedly held in custody for 71 days before being
quietly released after they were suspected of being Mossad agents.”
Another quote from the same report, “Citing two former CIA operatives,
the Forward weekly then reported that at least two of the detained Israelis were found to be members of a Mossad surveillance team”

*Hint: We did not invade a soverign nation, Afghanistan, and are still occupying it after more than 12 years, because a now deceased Saudi Arabian
was hiding there.  Did we invade Pakistan when this very same Saudi
Arabian was allegedly hiding out there?  No.  That wouldn't make sense,
would it?  Allegedly, we sent a SEAL team into the sovereign nation of
Pakistan to kill Osama, not capture him, eventhough he was unarmed and
out numbered, then we immediately dumped his body into the ocean instead
of questioning this terrorist mastermind about future terrorist
attacks.

Popo's picture

This whole polonium thing may well be true. 

But if there's one person in the world I don't trust, it's Arafat's biliionaire wife who refused to live in Gaza -- and never lived with her husband.   Arafat by the way, was gay.  Look it up.  Loads of documentation there.  There's reasonably good evidence that he was also HIV positive.   So the billionaire wife of one of Forbes Magazine's "wealthiest world leaders",  who never lived with her husband and lived in the wealthiest arrondisment of Paris,  claims years later that her gay, HIV positive husband did not in fact die of AIDS, but died of an assassination for which there was no previous evidence.

It **IS** possible.  And in fact, it might even be probable.  

But this bitch has zero credibility.

Anusocracy's picture

Another misdirection ploy.

Anybody in and around government has zero credibility.

gallistic's picture

Rumours that Arafat had HIV are linked to an interview on Al Jazeera with Dr Ashraf Al Kurdi, a former Jordanian health ministry official and one-time personal doctor to Arafat in a broadcast made on August 4, 2007.

In it, Dr Kurdi claimed to have received an email from French medical doctors who treated Arafat, claiming to have discovered “the AIDS microbe” in Arafat’s blood.

Dr Kurdi died and the email has never been seen.

More to the point, medical records and blood tests taken by both Arab and French doctors confirm that Arafat did not have HIV or AIDS. Tunisian doctors who visited Arafat in Ramallah shortly before his death did two HIV tests, both of which were negative.

French medical records of Yasser Arafat, released by Al Jazeera, also confirm Arafat did not have AIDS or HIV.

Dr Toufik Shabba, one of the Tunisian doctors involved, told Al Jazeera in What Killed Arafat?: “HIV is my specialty. There is absolutely no way there is HIV.”

The rumour that Arafat had AIDS also fed another conspiracy theory, that Yasser Arafat was a closet homosexual. Indeed, numerous interviews with those closest to him confirmed this was false.

The AIDS/homosexual allegations originated from a former Romanian intelligence officer linked to right-wing, neoconservative groups.

Want the scoop?

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/815515/expert-fo...

Enjoy

SafelyGraze's picture

"unhealthy lifestyle"

e.g., drinking polonium juice

that would be wrong, and we don't do it.

hugs,
blythe's dietitian

eat your vegetables! 

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Hedgeless: have you considered the possibility that the Muslim religion is legitimately evil, AND that Americans were manipulated and lied to, to support the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to promote a completely non-religious agenda (oil, gas, poppy fields, or just making your friends in the MIC rich)?

They don't have to be mutually exclusive ideas. In fact, they work GREAT together.

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

...have you considered the possibility that...support the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to promote a completely non-religious agenda...

Yes.

 

...the Muslim religion is legitimately evil...

 

If you are a Christian or Jew, then consider that your God created Islam with the birth and banishment of Ishmael as described in the Book of Genesis. 

Have you considered that we are being subjected to divide and rule?

 

One more thing, in today's world where all sides try to dehumanize
the enemy
, we should understand that Jews, Christians, and Muslims pray
to the same God.  Read the book Abraham: A Journey to the Heart of Three Faiths, P.S. Edition, by Bruce Feiler.

 

The Christian/Muslim false paradigm is just as dangerous as the Red Team/Blue Team.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-21/guest-post-get-ready-death-petr...

john39's picture

the fake version of islam, wahhabism, is evil....  but so is christian zionism...  these are constructs created by zionists and used to manipulate masses of people to accomplish evil ends.  follow the puppet strings to see who is behind it all.

FEDbuster's picture

"It's all bullshit, folks, and it's bad for ya.", George Carlin

Almost Solvent's picture

Exactly!

God(s) is/are the greatest control mechanism ever invented eons ago to keep the masses in line.

 

Free your mind and live a good life without God(s) make believe bullshit.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

"...then consider that your God created Islam with the birth and banishment of Ishmael as described in the Book of Genesis."

Sorry, that doesn't fly. God didn't create Islam, man did.

john39's picture

you can easily make that statement about any religion. 

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

God didn't create Islam, man did.

 What about Christianity and Judaism? 

Are you an atheist? 

Have you considered that we are being subjected to divide and rule?

drdolittle's picture

Face it, man created all religions. Even if you believe in the Judeo christian god we were supposedly ordained with free will. The book can't be written by the hand of man with free will and be the direct word of god. Unless those writers didn't have free will. ie, they are not responsible for their ultimate destiny. And, which book is the direct word of god? The original greek texts? The pro king "king james" version, new international version? Which one wasn't created by the hand of men with free will.

I do believe in some sort of god, more agnostic than atheist. After all, why would there be existence matter,antimatter at all? It's all a leap of faith.

Divide and conquer is good stuff.

And, hedgless, I've totally got a man crush on you. Self sufficient farmer of your own meat and thought provoking poster. I wanna be like you.

SoilMyselfRotten's picture

And who exactly created Catholicism??

walküre's picture

Consider the time line .. when Islam began, long after Christianity was established as a political tool. Then Christian mercenaries went after hordes of Islamists.

All that originated from the Jews who made up the entire bullshit to divide and conquer.

Good to see that you're on the right track. I have much respect for what you do. No surprise, you're a farmer too.

JLee2027's picture

Then Christian mercenaries went after hordes of Islamists.

After the Islamists created their empire and caused Christians to vacate the Holy Land and Damascus, formerly entirely Christian.

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

...to vacate the Holy Land and Damascus, formerly entirely Christian.

...and even more formerly pagan Roman, after being Jewish, after being a mix of polytheistic pagan tribes.

JLee2027's picture

And before that the location of the Garden of Eden and Adam's burial site, the first man.

DaveyJones's picture

Have you considered the possibility that more than one organized religion is "legitimately" evil? Does the Catholic Church hide pedophiles out of their love of God? How many are illegitimately evil? 

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Are you fucking kidding me.

First. The Catholic Church is a human institution, and humans are sinners. So we can't be surprised that the Church, being composed of humans, has problems, like any other human institution.

Second. If you knew anything about the Catholic Church, you would know that it has been infiltrated by Marxist-Homosexualists over the past 80 years. The Marxist part is called "liberation theology". The homosexual part-- well, I don't have to explain that. Let me just point out that there is a reason why 99.99% of all the pedophile problems in the church involve homosexual priests and boys. Virtually no cases of problems with girls.

Third. Examine the Koran, and compare it to the New Testament. The Koran justifies murder, rape, and child molestation. IT IS WRITTEN DOWN IN BLACK AND WHITE. Try to find anything even remotely similar in the New Testament. In fact, you will find the exact opposite message.

Anusocracy's picture

New Testament, what about the Old Testament?

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

He wants everyone to forget about certain parts of The Holy Bible and the Torah.  Here are just a couple:

In Numbers 31:7-18, the Israelites kill all the Midianites except for the virgins, whom they are allowed to rape as spoils of war.

In 2 Kings 2:23-24, some kids tease the prophet Elisha, and God sends bears to dismember them.  "He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

Can't you tell the difference between the evil Muslim and the good jew?

It's the hats!

DaveyJones's picture

Oh Hedgeless, how dare you suggest the "approved" religion did something bad

DFCtomm's picture

So approved that it's the most persecuted religion in the world. Are you guys frozen in 1996 amber?

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-persecuted-religions-in-the-world-20...

Rick64's picture

Hedgeless Horseman

Thanks for standing up to the hypocrisy of the religious. Good comments.

JLee2027's picture

Rick,

When you understand the Bible, there is no "hypocrisy". Everything must be put into context of the times. Of course, if you want to glance at something (like scanning a headline), you think you know the story w/o reading it. A classic mistake of logic.

 

JLee2027's picture

No, rape was not implied.

Context is everything here. You think in modern terms of the 21st century. 3500 years ago, women were the PROPERTY of men after a battle. You cannot rape your own property. You own it. It's yours. The modern day feminists would also have you believe you can rape your own wife (who has given lifelong consent to you for sex - GOD will accept it even if man does not). Again, this is the nonsense of men looking back and redefining things. The rape of Dinah (100 years previous), as told in Genesis 34 is a rape. This was not a rape.

DFCtomm's picture

The Old Testament is a history of the Jews. The death of Jesus brought the new law, the New Testament. Christians can rip out the Old Testament and throw it away. It no longer applies, and is only a history lesson. If you have a problem with the Old Testament then you have a problem with the Jews, and I'm shocked that someone on ZH has a problem with the Joooos. /s

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

Christians can rip out the Old Testament and throw it away. It no longer applies, and is only a history lesson.

Clearly, Jesus Christ felt differently than you do about the Old Testament.

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

Matthew 5: 17-19


akak's picture

And hence why every Christian today keeps strictly kosher, worships at a synagogue, would never think of putting graven images (much less of a crucified man, or of Isis and the infant Horus, er, I mean the Madonna and baby Jesus) in their temples, and routinely stones to death adulterers, prostitutes, homosexuals and backtalking children.  As prescribed by that same Law, of course.

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

Well, Jesus did say...

"But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

 

Matthew 7:14

JLee2027's picture

New Covenant for Gentiles akak. tsk, tsk You guys don't even pass Bible 101.

I guess it's hate GOD night. All the morons come out and start lying about the Bible. All those "laws" have to placed into the proper context. The Jewish authorities passed them, not GOD. Are they part of the Ten Commandments? Of course not. Once again, confusion reigns supreme.

 

salman's picture

"Koran justifies murder, rape, and child molestation. IT IS WRITTEN DOWN IN BLACK AND WHITE."

WHERE???

DFCtomm's picture

What good would it do to tell you? The information is widely available, but, hey, if you never see it then you can continue to say "WHERE".

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 


flag as weak (1) 

You have the entire internet available to you and that is the best you can manage? 

Try the boards at Yahoo.

DFCtomm's picture

Nice edit, but still doesn't make a lot of sense. Why didn't you just use google, or maybe a radioactive cannon like Kirk.

 

RADIOACTIVE CANNON BITCHZ!

salman's picture

"  What good would it do to tell you? The information is widely available.."

True, that is my point also...then why sooo much ignorance about something that can be verified with a touch of a button.

"hey, if you never see it then you can continue to say "WHERE"."

hey you missed the /sarc here also just like the context of the whole material.

GuyJeans's picture

It is ok to murder un-believers in 5:33 and ok to rape women taken in battle 4:24

5:33 Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,

4:24
And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess.

salman's picture

    "5:33 Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment."

Since you have clearly missed the context of these Ayaat's, let me help you and others to see the WHOLE context here:

"5:27-5:30 And rehearse thou unto them with truth the tale of the two sons of Adam, when the twain offered an offering, and it was accepted from one of them, and was not accepted from the other; he said: surely I will slay thee. Said the other: Allah accepteth only from the God- fearing. (27) If thou stretchest forth thine hand against me to slay me, I shall not be stretching forth my hand against thee to slay thee, verily I fear Allah, the Lord of the worlds. (28) Verily would that thou bear my sin and thine own sin, and then thou become of the fellows of the Fire; that is the meed of the wrong-doers. (29) Then his soul made the slaying of his brother agreeable to him, so he slew him, and he became of the losers.(30)"

"5:32 Because of that We Prescribed unto the Children of Israil: whosoever slayeth a person, except for a person, or for corruption in the land, it shall be as through he had slain all mankind, and whosoever bringeth life to one it shall be as though he had brought life to all mankind. And assuredly there came unto them Our apostles with evidences, yet even thereafter many of them are acting on the earth extravagantly. (32)"

Can you see the difference now???

  "and ok to rape women taken in battle 4:24"

"4:19-4:23 O ye who believe! ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower ye have given them,? except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them, it may be that ye dislike a thing and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good. (19) But if ye decide to take one wife in place of another, even if ye had given the latter a whole treasure for dower take not the least bit of it back: would ye take it by slander and a manifest wrong? (20) And how could ye take it when ye have gone in unto each other, and they have taken from you a solemn covenant? (21) And marry not women whom your fathers married,? except what is past: it was shameful and odious,? an abominable custom indeed. (22) Prohibited to you (for marriage) are:? your mothers, daughters, sisters, father's sisters, mother's sisters; brother's daughters, sister's daughters, foster-mothers (who gave you suck) foster-sisters; your wives' mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone in,?no prohibition if ye have not gone in,? (those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (23)"

"4:24 Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess. thus hath Allah ordained (prohibitions) against you: except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,? desiring chastity, not lust. Seeing that ye derive benefit from them give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, ye agree mutually (to vary it) there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-Knowing All-Wise. (24)"

GuyJeans's picture

5:32 is a command to the Jews and does not apply to muslims; it was taken from Rabbinical commentary and Mohd mistook it for scripture.

The next verse 5:33 that I showed IS a command to muslims. 

Lets go to muslim sources and commentary, Tasfir Ibn Kathir says that "Wage war' mentioned here (in 5:33) means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways."

So according to muslim sources any disbelief and opposition to islam shall be dealt by killing and/or maiming. 

Lets take a look at further muslim authority Tasfir Ibn Kathir on 4:24 :

The Ayah means, you are prohibited from marrying women who are already married,
(except those whom your right hands possess) except those whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, "We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed, (Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess). Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.

Mo said it was ok to rape women taken in war.  Are you going to contradict him?