Arafat’s widow: He planned the second intifada after Camp David
Photo: REUTERS
Yasser Arafat’s widow Suha admitted that the late Palestinian leader premeditated the Second Intifada, in an interview with Dubai TV earlier this month, according to a translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute.
“Immediately after the failure of the Camp David [negotiations], I met him in Paris upon his return. … Camp David had failed, and he said to me: ‘You should remain in Paris.’ I asked him why, and he said: ‘Because I am going to start an Intifada. They want me to betray the Palestinian cause. They want me to give up on our principles, and I will not do so,’” the research institute translated Suha as saying…
Arafat’s comments run contrary to claims that former prime minister Ariel Sharon’s infamous visit to the Temple Mount was the trigger to the Intifada, which was launched in September 2000.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
The principle of saying one thing and doing the opposite. Lying. Like liberals.
Paul-Cincy on December 29, 2012 at 1:53 PM
Didn’t they unearth him, again? What did he die of?
Schadenfreude on December 29, 2012 at 1:59 PM
Yeah, a culture of death. Great heritage there, scumbag.
rbj on December 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM
Well … duh!
Only the truly brain dead would have considered the timing coincidental. Only the long dead would have thought that the PLO wasn’t running the primitives in the territories with an iron fist.
But, I guess it’s nice that Arafat’s beard says it directly enough for even the leftists to have to acknowledge. ANother notch in Clinton’s cap as a great peacemaker, I guess. Or just the original mistranslation of
RESETOVERCHARGED!!Doesn’t matter. Clintons and leftists don’t care about details or truth. Those things just get in the way of their nihilistic drive into the abyss.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 29, 2012 at 2:08 PM
What, like he needed a reason? When have any of them needed that?
Eren on December 29, 2012 at 2:12 PM
They had that big infusion of cash from Syria, once Hafez Assad died, and the nations who were containing Syria were found to merely be containing Hafez.Never mind that the same clowns were running the show as before in Syria, and Bashar Assad was Hafez’s frickin’ SON, a new day dawned when Hafez Assad died, and nobody wanted to continue sanctions on Syria.
Now, with Saddam Hussein getting up there in years in Iraq, there being even more oil on the table in Iraq, and a number of American “allies” known to be on the take from Iran in the Oil-for-Food program, tell me again why we went to war in Iraq?
Sekhmet on December 29, 2012 at 2:31 PM
The only “reason” Camp David gave for attacks was that it took away absolutely every possible reason to attack.
…And, of course, Islamicists saw that as yet another reason to attack.
logis on December 29, 2012 at 2:45 PM
And, lest we forget, arafat was the NUMBER ONE visitor to the Clinton White House. NUMBER ONE. By miles.
Leftists love their barbaric, muslim terrorists and Indonesian dog-eating imbeciles. They just can’t get enough of them.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 29, 2012 at 2:49 PM
We can all be proud that Suha is living extremely high off the hog from all the ‘aid’ money the west gave to the Paleostinians.
Yassir really believed in spreading that wealth around…into his various personal bank accounts.
One of many examples of your tax dollars in foreign aid at work.
CorporatePiggy on December 29, 2012 at 3:13 PM
And these “recent revelations” have nothing to do with anything. All it requires are simple reasoning skills.
There are, and were, only two possibilities. Either:
A) Yasser Arafat was controlling the terrorists, or
B) Yasser Arafat wasn’t controlling the terrorists.
No matter which possibility was true, there was no rational reason to try and “negotiate” with the man.
logis on December 29, 2012 at 3:23 PM