The Guardian Omits Key Facts on Arafat’s Death
The Guardian devoted five separate articles (here, here, here, here, and here) on November 6 to a recently released report by Swiss scientists on their autopsy of Yasser Arafat’s remains, which was originally obtained by Al-Jazeera.
Though, in fairness, the Guardian’s reporting on the Swiss findings (which reportedly showed unexpectedly high levels of radioactive polonium-210) was relatively restrained – mostly noting that the substance found on Arafat only indicate that he could have been poisoned. But the stories do significantly downplay or ignore evidence indicating that poison likely was not the cause of death.
Here are a few facts:
- After Arafat’s death, in November of 2004, the Palestinian Authority refused to release medical records that would have shed light into the cause of death.
- Even more curious (especially in the context of the immediate accusations of murder directed towards Israel), neither the Palestinian Authority, nor Arafat’s widow Suha, allowed an autopsy to be performed on his body.
- A report in 2005 by The New York Times (based on an examination of Arafat’s medical records, which the paper had obtained) concluded that he died of “a stroke that resulted from a bleeding disorder caused by an unknown infection,” and that Arafat did not suffer the extensive kidney and liver damage they would expect if he was exposed to a lethal toxic substance – findings, they noted, which “argued strongly against poisoning“.
- Arafat’s remains have been examined by two additional forensic teams other than the Swiss team (French and Russian), but those results have not yet been made public.
- The original ‘exclusive’ Al Jazeera report on the Swiss findings noted that, in the event Arafat was poisoned, his Palestinian rivals at the time of his death would have to be considered main suspects – a possibility not even mentioned in the more than 3,200 words the Guardian devoted to the story.
- Al Jazeera reported that though the evidence suggests poisoning, “no evidence has emerged that implicates [Israel],” while the Guardian framed the findings as merely ‘not definitively proving that Israel murdered the Palestinian leader’.
Whilst we may never know with certainty the exact cause of Arafat’s death, we do know quite a bit about the lives he extinguished during his long reign of terror, a resume that includes launching and directing a four-year campaign of violence directed at innocent civilians known as the Second Intifada, and his leadership role in dozens of deadly attacks against Israelis, which date back to the 1960s.
As we Tweeted last year after questions emerged about the possible poisoning of Arafat, we humbly wish those concerned with whether there was foul play in his death would show as much concern for the surviving families and loved ones of those he murdered.
Adam Levick is the managing editor of CiF Watch, an affiliate of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA).