There is no doubt that Arafat had lots of enemies who wanted him dead - Israel among them. However, based on this evidence, we will never know, unless more turns up, whether he was killed, and if so, killed by poisioning.
If this were a court case, the only possible verdict would be “not guilty” - based on the evidence as it is now.
We have motve and the means is alleged, and the theory is plausible - but what we cannot do, is link the evidence to the man’s death. This is a fundamental problem is with the evidence itself. Chain of custody is vital with evidence, and here the researchers are very careful to state they don’t have a secure chain of custody. The actual biological samples were too degraded to test and in the years following Arafat’s death, there is no guarantee that his stuff wasn’t tampered with.
I appreciate your concern but no one here will apologize to me. They would rather make jokes about a dead man or make dubious and specious excuses as to why he died (e.g. cigarette smoke, he had AIDS/HIV, etc etc). I’m convinced many of the posters here are, for lack of a better word or phrase, stupid as hell. When you have a peer-reviewed paper published on the issue and a 108 page report on the issue and the best excuse is that there “is no guarantee that his stuff wasn’t tampered with,” all you can do is walk away from the so-called debate, shaking one’s head.
It is a description of the issue with the evidence, not an “excuse”. The peer-reviewed paper was very careful to mention that qualification itself, along with others. The fact that the paper was 108 pages long strikes me as rather irrelevant. If you actually read that 108 page report, you will find that the investigators are in fact very careful to point out why their conclusions cannot, under the circumstances, be any more definitive than “moderately support the proposition”. I recommend carefully reading section VI.3 of the report, which lists the caveats in detail.
“Moderately support the proposition” is, as I’ve pointed out, not enough to convict someone of murder (never mind that there is, in fact, no suspect named). There are many levels of assumption between this report and the conclusion “Israel had him wacked”.
It’s a prominent flaw in the “Arafat was murdered by POLONIUM!” theory, but not the only one, and arguably not even the most glaring one.
My vote for best “excuse” is that Arafat’s reported medical signs and symptoms were quite nonspecific and fit more readily with other conditions, while two factors associated with serious radiation exposure that would have been difficult to argue against (hair falling out, bone marrow suppression) did not occur.
It is also puzzling how the latest report’s authors could venture into the land of probability calculations for Arafat’s demise without having reviewed his medical files.
Added note: it does not honor a dead man to conjure up plots and certainties about his demise when such have not been demonstrated.
How do you know there was no bone marrow suppression induced by radiation poisoning? I’m just curious because you say this with a sort of confidence that makes me feel like they tested for it.
Beyond that question…
I think this report should cause us to question the medical analysis at the time of his death. If they did not suspect polonium poisoning then they may have misinterpreted the cause of death, the cause of his symptoms, etc.
It’s difficult, imprecise and inconclusive to go back and re-analyze the medical data available in light of this new information because it is a reflection of its time. I admit I did not read the report and maybe they did do such an analysis.
Similarly they need to go through and re-analyze what happened with Arafat’s clothing and remains to work on answering legitimate questions about the chain of evidence.
Given the data, I think it is reasonable to at least take this idea of assassination seriously. The Russian and Swiss reports both suspect as much.
On the assumption that he was assassinated, then the culprit is most likely found among members of the Israeli government at that time. This is apparently a very difficult substance to get your hands on and among those opposed to Arafat, it is only the Israeli government that acquire such materials. Unless it can be shown that some group or groups opposed to Arafat had exceptionally tight ties with a country capable of believably acquiring the polonium, I think there is little reason to doubt anyone other than the Israeli government of that time.
So, since this is in GD now, is the debate whether it is official now that Arafat was poisoned (i.e. it’s a proven fact verse speculation), or is it if he were poisoned who is the most likely culprit? Because if it’s the former, I’d say that it’s not been proven by any means, though I concede it’s possible, just looking over the discussion and various cites that I can get into without spending money. If the latter, then that seems more IMHO territory…but it seems if he was poisoned in such an exotic way that Israel would be at the top of the suspect list.
That said, the whole thing seems far fetched to me. I mean, the dude was already dying from what I can tell, and even if he, like the guy turned into a newt got better, it was only a matter of time before he shuffled off in any case. In addition, this seems an awfully exotic way to do him in (this seems to be an extremely rare element that only a major nuclear nation state would have access too…and I presume it’s also fairly expensive as well) when there would be plenty of other ways to do it assuming you could get close enough to him to poison him in the manner you’d have to with polonium.
Also, and maybe this has been mentioned, but if he got a sufficient dose to kill him wouldn’t others around him have been affected? Or would it have been so invisible that no one would have detected it until years later?
The only people known to use Polonium for assassination are the Russians. The Russians have many allies in the ME, including the Syrians. Coincidentally or not, the Russian group investigating found no evidence of Polonium, and were allegedly told by the Russian government to keep their report “vague”.
So, if we are speculating, why not add the Russians as a possible source, perhaps helping out one of their allies in the ME (perhaps the Syrians) with a grudge against Arafat?
Facts in favour of this speculation:
Russia is known to use polonium for assassinations. As far as I know, they are the only ones with this MO. Israel ususally uses bombs or bullets.
The Russian government appears, according to Al Jazeera, to be attempting to interfere in the investigation - to downplay the evidence of polonium.
Russia is no friend to Israel and would be happy to see Israel tagged with assasination. They have no motive to cover up evidence to help out Israel.
Russia has plenty of allies in the ME who had grudges against Arafat, such as the Syrian dictatorship.
Russia is known to provide assistance to these allies.
The argument against this speculation is the same as against the Israeli hypothesis: Arafat was an isolated old dude who posed no particular threat any more - why assassinate him now? Why would Russia wish to risk the negative publicity if caught? (The counter-argument to that is that Russia could reasonably rely on Israel taking the blame unless the evidence against the Russians was overwhelming).
That is, of course, speculation, assuming that he did in fact die from assassination by polonium.
Bone marrow suppression/damage associated with significant radiation exposure could be expected to manifest in multiple ways, associated with multilineage blood cell depletion/aplasia. For instance, white blood cell counts would be abnormally low (possibly leading to infection), platelet counts depressed with bleeding as a consequence, severe anemia etc. All of these things show up in routine complete blood counts (which Arafat would have had as a matter of course during his final illness); if these tests show severe unexplained anemia, thrombocytopenia or low white blood cell counts physicians commonly order bone marrow biopsies to look for the cause.
While Arafat’s complete medical records are unavailable, I’ve never seen any published reports suggesting that his routine blood work or clinical picture was compatible with the sort of bone marrow suppression to be expected with a fatal radiation dose, or that he had a bone marrow biopsy.
It does remind me of a plot line in book I recently read in which one of the main characters, an Indian gangster, got recruited by the government to kill a Muslim leader while he was in England. It was a very clever approach he used to get around the security. He was then annoyed that the media all assumed that the Israelis had done it.
The Israelis had less motive at that point in time than many other players, several of whom could easily have gotten Russian suppport. If it was murder. Which it might even likely have been.
Thank-you. So with any luck the French investigation may shed some light on this data that we currently have never heard reported and would be good evidence to differentiate radiation sickness.
Malthus, pulykamell, DSeid, thank-you for offering up Russia, but I’ll take the Israeli government in the Second Intifada as the most likely, and I’ll take Russia/Syria as a close second because I feel charitable to complicated theories tonight.
The wonders of our perfect bomb are very strange to tell,
It doesn’t only change the guns, it changes hearts as well.
An instant of exposure to its penetrating ray,
Will turn a Yassar Arafat into a Danny Kay.
Or into a corpse; the technology’s still in its infancy.
