* Hamas`s PLC member Jamal Skeik dies in Gaza. (Al Quds)
* Settlers continue assaulting West Bankers. Five family members injured in the Gaza strip by Israeli army`s fire. The army attacks “Beit Ummar” march and arrest Israeli solidarity activists. (Al-Quds)
* Almost 20 thousands protesters in central Tel Aviv calling on equality of military burden. (Al-Quds)
* The president stresses via the Israeli TV the necessity of halt of settlement. (Al-Quds)
* Factions, parties and embassies pay tribute to him. Funeral ceremony of Hani al-Hassan tomorrow; an official farewell bid at the Muqata before his burial in Ramallah cemetery. (Al-Quds)
* The Israeli foreign ministry: we will not bar the UNHRC`s members from Israel or the West Bank. (Al-Quds).
* The president receives the Dutch foreign minister. (Al-Ayyam)
* Ayalon: messages coming from Cairo are encouraging. (Al-Ayyam)
* William Burns in Cairo to deliver Obama`s message to Mursi. (Al-Ayyam)
* Mursi in Saudi Arabia next Wednesday in first visit abroad. (Al-Ayyam)
* Syria: Anan admits failure and total fatalities is over 17 thousands. (Al-Ayyam)
* Historic elections in Libya and limited boycott east of the country. (Al-Ayyam)
*UK attorneys: Israel`s law violate the Palestinian child`s rights. (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida)

Al-Quds: 1) Bethlehem- Prime Minister Salam Fayyad during the opening of celebration of the addition of Bethlehem city on the World Heritage List.
Al-Ayyam:  1) Residents carrying one of the injuries of Beit Yanoun clashes to a hospital; 2) Scene of the celebrations in Bethlehem marking its addition on the World Heritage List; 3) Libyan young woman casting the ballot in Tripoli yesterday.  
Al-Hayat Al-Jadida:  1) The president during meeting with the Dutch foreign minister in Paris yesterday; 2) Residents carrying a young man after he was wounded by the occupation forces and stabbed by settlers east of A`qrabah; 3) Fayyad delivering a speech during the ceremony; 4) members of the elections committee set to sort votes at a voting centre in Tripoli.

West Bank: President Mahmoud Abbas said in an interview yesterday to the Israeli Channel 2 that negotiations as a path to peace is the first and last option of the Palestinian leadership,  stressing there will be no return to negotiations without a complete halt of settlement actions and Israel`s acceptance of the two-state solution on 1967 borderline. Abbas added that the leadership will head to the UN for a statehood membership; however, without indicating a specific date for that.

A subservient government or an official Israeli policy?
Terrorist acts against Palestinian civilians committed by Israeli colonists clearly point to “a religious war”
By As’ad Abdul Rahman*, (http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/a-subservient-government-or-an-official-israeli-policy-1.1045406)

Under the watchful eyes of the Israeli military occupation, colonists in Palestine are conducting their criminal acts against Palestinian civilians with absolute impunity. The so-called “price taggers”, who usually leave their racist graffiti on the walls of burned mosques and vandalised Palestinian properties and farms, are exacting a price from Palestinian civilians “for staying put in the ‘land of Eretz’ or Israel.”
These make the most notorious Israeli gangs in Palestine. In fact, the “price taggers” are conducting their terrorist activities not only in Palestine — occupied in 1967 — but also against the Palestinians of 1948 who hold Israeli citizenship. Uprooting olive trees, destroying cars, preventing Palestinian farmers from reaching their farms and orchards and burning Islamic houses of worship have become routine sufferings in the lives of Palestinians of 1948 and the Palestinians of 1967.
Such terrorist acts against Palestinian civilians committed by Israeli colonists, educated and brainwashed in Jewish schools, clearly point to “a religious war” being conducted against Palestinian Muslims and Christians in the territories of historical Palestine under the auspices of the Israeli government who has turned a blind eye by completely ignoring these racist and criminal attacks aimed at forcing Palestinians to leave their homeland. However, these activities have led to an uproar in Israel with unprecedented criticism in the media, pointing to the government’s connivance with the colonists’ actions and calling for their indictment in Israeli courts of law.
Under the title ‘The Danger of A State within A State’, Israeli journalist Shai Golden, wrote in Haaretz that “the reasons behind the heinous activities of the [Jewish] fundamentalists in Israel, especially the [colonists], are the weakening of the institutions of the State that are responsible for enforcing the rule of law and are failing in their duty which would ultimately lead to the deterioration of the very legal structure of the State”. He asked the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, whether he would “strike with an iron hand against the criminal activities of the Israeli [colonist] gangs or whether he would only condemn these activities with words without enforcing accountability?”
He further asks: “Will the Prime Minister [Netanyahu] stop the proposed un-conscientious laws being tabled by right-wingers, which would tear apart the cohesiveness of the matrix of the state of Israel, or will he allow hoodlums to keep attacking civilians with impunity?” He finally warned that “Israel has become a state in which one law governs one half of the population and another law governs the other half” who he said “violates the law with impunity making the State subservient to its political lobby who has become the decision-maker in Israel”.
“Jewish hooligans in the West Bank have to be confronted”, wrote Nahum Barnea in a recent article in Yediot Ahronot.
He said: “The Israeli police and army have to be ready to protect themselves from these armed hoodlums who are much stronger than the Prime Minister of Israel. There must be one law applied to both, the Palestinians and the Israelis alike in a democratic country ruled by law”.
Commenting on the Israeli government’s support to colonists, he wrote that “the government claims in courts of law that its policy is to dismantle an illegal [colony], but in reality it supplies the [colony] with roads, electricity and water and assigns the army to protect it. The youth of these [colonies] are taught the rules of the game. They really do not know God and the [Israeli] government shows cowardice [in confronting them]”.
More criticism came from Israeli playwright, writer and theatre director Joshua Sobol who sarcastically wrote about, “Unknown entities in control of a state of unknowns”.
“These unknowns are being inspired by unknown Rabbis from unknown [colonies],” he wrote and, “when the results of their actions are attained, the unknowns gain official recognition. Most of their actions are directed against Palestinians. The unknowns burned mosques and the unknowns pulled out olive trees. The unknowns vandalised an Israeli army base and stoned a military vehicle with a very high ranking officer in it who said that he never saw so much hate in someone’s eyes as much as he saw that day in the eyes of the unknowns”.
Sobol went on to say that “when European countries demand with extreme insolence that the Israeli government must apprehend these unknowns who were sent by God and take them to court, the foreign ministry’s answer was: Do not interfere in our internal affairs and we will protect our unknowns till their fire reaches a point that consumes the entire world”!

*Professor As’ad Abdul Rahman is the Chairman of the Palestinian Encyclopaedia.


The Presbyterians debate Palestine
By Rami G. Khouri* (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Columnist/2012/Jul-07/179684-the-presbyterians-debate-palestine.ashx#axzz200tBTraO)

I have spent the last three days in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, participating in the Presbyterian Church-USA’s consideration of resolutions on Middle Eastern and peacemaking issues. Most notably, this includes a call for the church to divest its shares in three American companies – Caterpillar, Motorola and Hewlett-Packard – whose products are used for “non-peaceful pursuits” that aid the Israeli occupation of Palestinians.
The bottom line is that the church did not vote in favor of divestment, by a razor thin margin of 333 to 331 against with two abstentions. Instead it voted to invest “constructively” and “positively” in both Palestine and Israel, and engage both peoples in activities that could promote peacemaking and improve the lives of Palestinians living under occupation. It also voted overwhelmingly to boycott all products made in Israeli settlements, a major gain for those battling for justice, given that the Presbyterians are the largest Protestant denomination in the United States.
Behind this result, however, is a far deeper and more complex story of gains and losses, and strengths and weaknesses, for those who support divestment as a means of pressuring Israel into ending its cruel and criminal acts against Palestinians.
Based on my participation in the congress, and close observation of the debate by both sides, I would make a number of initial observations and draw several conclusions.
This process reminds us what happens when ordinary Americans seriously debate such a contentious issue, and identify the rights and wrongs on both sides.
Such debates rarely happen in public or political institutions in the United States, such as the U.S. Congress, most notably. The Presbyterian Church has studied, debated and grappled with this issue for nearly a decade, and the church committee (Mission Responsibility Through Investment, or MRTI) leading this process finally presented a report Monday recommending divestment.
The really intense deliberations occurred in the so-called Committee 15 Monday and Tuesday. The discussions covered divestment, boycotting products from Israeli companies working in the occupied territories, naming Israel’s occupation policies as a case of apartheid, U.S. policy toward Iran and Syria, and other topics.
That committee of 48 very typical Americans who are not Middle East experts heard detailed arguments for and against the MRTI committee report that called for divestment, and then voted affirmatively by a solid majority of 36 for, 11 against, and one abstention. Similarly, they voted by 37-6-2 to boycott products of Israeli companies in the occupied territories. When Americans have the facts, hear both sides, and vote their conscience, this is what happens.
These affirmative committee votes and the razor-thin loss by two votes on the divestment issue before the full congress came in the face of immense and sophisticated lobbying by pro-Israeli forces from within the church and by American Jewish groups. It is fair to assume that in the days between the committee votes and the full congress vote Thursday, more pressure was applied to achieve the 333-331 vote against divestment.
The two conclusions I draw from watching this process close up are that: First, the old pro-Israel arguments that draw on Holocaust reminders, anti-Semitism accusations, and endangering or delegitimizing Israel are steadily losing their impact among many Americans, who are both more aware of the realities in occupied Palestinian lands and also support Israel but object to its colonial and criminal policies in those occupied lands.
And second, the pro-Israeli lobbying forces in the United States continue to be very effective when they apply their full force to an issue, as happened here. Pro-Israeli groups in the U.S. have immensely more leverage than pro-Palestinian groups – but that advantage diminishes rapidly when Americans decide to hear both sides of an issue and act on the basis of their own ethical principles.
Most Presbyterians expressed their desire to help the Palestinians, end the occupation, and also show their strong support for Israel’s security and legitimacy. Most felt caught between two valid narratives they supported, and feared being seen as taking sides.
So they chose the path of “positive investment and engagement” with both sides that seemed to resolve their dilemma and express their support for Israelis and Palestinians alike. They are, after all, a church, not a political party; they wanted to behave on the basis of their ethical commitment to act as a peacemaker, not a judge.
When the Presbyterian Church continued its deliberations Friday morning, the full congress voted by a more than two-thirds margin (71 percent for, 28 percent against) to boycott all products from companies working in Israeli settlements in occupied Arab lands. When this motion was first discussed in Committee 15, it only targeted two Israeli companies. But the committee expanded it to cover all products from settlements, indicating how strongly the Presbyterians felt about opposing the criminal settlements endeavor. This struggle for justice is in its early days, and is making important steps forward, alongside a few sideways moves here and there.
In the larger picture of continuing efforts to focus worldwide attention on the criminal and inhuman dimensions of the Israeli occupation, and the frequent complicity in this of foreign companies and governments, a significant trajectory of political sentiments was revealed in Pittsburgh. It should offer some hope and consolation to Palestinians who fight for their rights and dignity, and concerns to Israelis and others who justify or merely ignore the criminality of the occupation.

*Rami G. Khouri is published twice weekly by THE DAILY STAR.

The strange death of Yasser Arafat  
The investigation into the alleged poisoning of the late Palestinian leader leaves many questions unanswered.
By: Georeg Galloway* (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/07/201277132124401527.html)

Bradford, United Kingdom - I was 23 years old when I first met Yasser Arafat and I was at the Percy military hospital when he died. I had been with him in the ruins of his various headquarters in Beirut, Tunis and Ramallah. I loved him as if he were my father, and have remained his loyal supporter all my life.
So the news, broken by Al Jazeera, that he may have been murdered using Polonium-210 - the weapon of choice used to kill Alexander Litvinenko after tea in a central London hotel with, we were told, a former colleague of his from the KGB, is of personal as well as political importance to me.
In the case of Litvinenko, we were assured by all news media that only a state actor with access to nuclear weapons could possibly have the means of carrying out this crime. The same media outlets are currently ignoring the inconvenient truth that one such state actor with both a long track record of murdering its opponents and access to the requisite nuclear material is Israel, which, shortly before the death of Arafat - from the mouths of both Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert - told the world that their earlier undertakings to the United States not to harm Arafat were null and void, with Shaton saying that the Palestinian leader had "no insurance policy" against Israeli action.
The Al Jazeera report drew heavily on the hitherto silent widow of the late Palestinian leader, Suha Arafat. She provided the program investigators with his underwear, socks, toothbrush, even his ubiquitous kaffeyah which were then tested by a leading Swiss laboratory.
All showed that the Palestinian icon was positively glowing with radioactive material. Those of us who were at the hospital when Arafat died were in no doubt whatsoever that he had been poisoned. The only conversation between us - his veteran comrades - was on the subject of by whom?
The spectacularly quick physical degeneration - he was like a bird in his death bed rather than the man we knew - so obviously pointed to assassination that the first question which arises from this programme is: why has this taken so long? The second is: how come the French didn't rumble this in their internationally famous hospital? The third is: why was there no post-mortem held on the demise of this crucially important Middle Eastern leader, who had died so suddenly and mysteriously? The fourth is: why did the French authorities destroy the specimen blood, urine, sweat and all other results of his tests - when under French custom and practice they should have been held for ten years?
But there are other questions, closer to Arafat's home. If Israel murdered Arafat - a reasonable working hypothesis in the circumstances - how did they get close enough to the president, holed up in the ruins of his Ramallah compound, in order to do so?
"Did they have ... accomplices at the Palestinian Authority court, and, if so, are these accomplices still there - and who are they? Why did the PA accept this extraordinarily suspicious death so tamely?"
Did they have friends and accomplices at the Palestinian Authority court, and, if so, are these accomplices still there - and who are they? Why did the PA accept this extraordinarily suspicious death so tamely?
And will they now agree - as leading Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat, and, crucially, Arafat's widow Suha have now demanded -  to exhume the president's body from his Ramallah tomb, so that it can be examined for the nuclear murder weapon?
Western countries have been conveniently fixated by the murder most foul of former Lebanese leader Rafiq al-Hariri - a crime they have variously tried to pin, first on Syria and then the Lebanese resistance movement, Hezbollah. Will they now show the same energy in seeking answers to the supposition that Israel made highly unconventional use of its vast, secret, entirely western-sponsored nuclear firepower to eliminate the Nobel Peace prize winner Yasser Arafat?

*George Galloway is a British politician, activist, author, journalist and broadcaster. He is the Respect member of parliament for Bradford West.

Let him rest in Peace…!
By: Akram Atallah (Al-Ayyam)

It would be naïve to think that a powerful state like France was not aware of the precise cause to the death of late Yasser Arafat since eight years. Could it be a natural thing that France discarded the late president`s blood samples without reaching the truth that has been absent to the entire Palestinian people and yet known well to France and the Palestinian leadership since eight years? Truth did not need “al-Jazeera” report in order to come to the surface, despite of rarely professionalism of this report that deserve respect but it only rediscovered what the French already knew before the leader`s body departed from the military “Percy” hospital.

A powerful state that has a nuclear reactor and capabilities to produce polonium, perhaps since the 1950s, would not have left such a huge event without detecting it precisely for two key reasons: firstly, the formidable bond that was between the two presidents, Arafat and Chirac, and secondly the reflection of this issue on the French national security.

This truth was available to me four years ago from the original French sources that have always been keen on emphasizing not to publish it. The issue will take long time according to the (French) laws until rich documents with interesting and sad events can be released to represent a condemnation of a powerful state like Israel which crime, terror and internationally prohibited poisons have become an integral part of it.

Away from details, there are general facts that their details will be uncovered on the circumstances of the death of the great leader and which were known since November 2004 to many world leaders. The primarily fact is that president Arafat was killed by poisoning radioactive substance and not by anything else. At that time, I suggested two assumptions: either through the camera of a journalist who was collaborating with Israel, or more likely that Israel spotted Arafat from his office window and sent the radioactive directly to his head after several high buildings started encircling the Muqata`a. This could totally contradict with what was implied at in “al-Jazeera” report when it compared Arafat`s case to that of the Russian agent who met the same fate after injecting poison in his food, thereby accusing Palestinian parties of involvement in the assassination of the symbol of the Palestinian people.

A second fact says that France informed the Palestinian leadership orally about that without a written indication in the death report as France sought avoiding an embarrassing state and the regional consequences of directly accusing Israel knowing that polonium could be produced only in nuclear reactors. It was aware of that Arafat represented the spiritual father of the Palestinian people and their top symbol and the emotional rampancy at that time could have led to total inflammation. Therefore, in order not to play the role of a match that sets a fire, France preferred to write “this kind of disease is unknown”.

The Palestinian leadership was relieved by this result knowing the heavy burden and responsibility that the great late president left to it, and that a condemnation of Israel will oblige it to revenge his killing at a time this leadership is too impotent to meet such an obligation.

This was also convenient to Israel that was certain about the capability of France to reveal the crime the moment it chose the most important military hospital. It thus activated all of its intelligence and diplomatic services to urge US mediation that could ensure covering the scandal. However, the most wearied thing was Israel’s limitless audacity in the official statement it released in response to “al-Jazeera” report in which it addresses shameful accusations to the Palestinian president after ensuring the concealment of its crime with international consent or more correctly with international collaboration.

This means there will be no need to dig into the grave of the historic leader or harass his remains in a scene that the Palestinian memory would rather skip, mainly after his last appearance as hero making the V-sign. The widow of martyr Arafat will be mistaken by exhuming the body because the truth is already known. Yet, the common version (of the story) obliges  one to raise many questions about the successor Palestinian leadership for not swiftly acting to follow up the issue at international courts and persecuting Israel.

A Palestinian-Arab-international committee should have been formed to persecute Israel. This was of high importance as the world would have discovered that this state killed its peace partner, the winner of Noble Peace Prize.

In the meantime, and until following up this issue at international court, let this pure body rest in peace while he is grabbing in his palms a handful of Jerusalemite dust. After filing a complaint at these courts and when the international investigators would need to convict Israel, Palestinians could then allow exhuming their leader`s body.

Note: I advice “Hamas” to avoid exaggeration in dealing with Arafat’s issue. People still remember what happened the day they wanted to mark the third anniversary of his death. Since that date, Gaza stopped considering marking this anniversary and the findings of the probe committee into the killings during that rally were never published even after five years of its formation.  


Poisoning Arafat
By: Uri Avnery* (http://www.amin.org/articles.php?t=ENews&id=3915)
      
FOR ME, there was no surprise. From the very first day, I was convinced that Yasser Arafat had been poisoned by Ariel Sharon. I even wrote about it several times.
It was a simple logical conclusion.
First, a thorough medical examination in the French military hospital where he died did not find any cause for his sudden collapse and death. No traces of any life-threatening disease were found.
The rumors distributed by the Israeli propaganda machine that Arafat had AIDS were blatant lies. They were a continuation of the rumors spread by the same machine that he was gay – all part of the relentless demonization of the Palestinian leader, which went on daily for decades.
When there is no obvious cause of death, there must be a less obvious one.
Second, we know by now that several secret services possess poisons that leave no routinely detectable trace. These include the CIA, the Russian FSB (successor of the KGB), and the Mossad.
Third, opportunities were plentiful. Arafat’s security arrangements were decidedly lax. He would embrace perfect strangers who presented themselves as sympathizers of the Palestinian cause and often seated them next to himself at meals.
Fourth, there were plenty of people who aimed at killing him and had the means to do so. The most obvious one was our prime minister, Ariel Sharon. He had even talked about Arafat having "no insurance policy" in 2004.
WHAT WAS previously a logical probability has now become a certainty.
An examination of his belongings commissioned by Aljazeera TV and conducted by a highly respected Swiss scientific institute has confirmed that Arafat was poisoned with Polonium, a deadly radioactive substance that avoids detection unless one specifically looks for it.
Two years after Arafat’s death, the Russian dissident and former KGB/FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko was murdered in London by Russian agents using this poison. The cause was discovered by his doctors by accident. It took him three weeks to die.
Closer to home, in Amman, Hamas leader Khaled Mash’al was almost killed in 1997 by the Mossad, on orders of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. The means was a poison that kills within days after coming into contact with the skin. The assassination was bungled and the victim’s life was saved when the Mossad was compelled, after an ultimatum from King Hussein, to provide an antidote in time.
If Arafat’s widow, Suha, succeeds in getting his body exhumed from the mausoleum in the Mukata’a in Ramallah, where it has become a national symbol, the poison will undoubtably be found in his body.
ARAFAT’S LACK of proper security arrangements always astonished me. Israeli Prime Ministers are tenfold better protected.
I remonstrated with him several times. He shrugged it off. In this respect, he was a fatalist. After his life was miraculously preserved when his airplane made a crash landing in the Libyan Desert and the people around him were killed, he was convinced that Allah was protecting him.
(Though the head of a secular movement with a clear secular program, he himself was an observant Sunni Muslim, praying at the proper times and abstaining from alcohol. He did not impose his piety on his assistants.)
Once he was interviewed in my presence in Ramallah. The journalists asked him if he expected to see the creation of the Palestinian state in his lifetime. His answer: “Both I and Uri Avnery will see it in our life.” He was quite sure of this.
ARIEL SHARON’S determination to kill Arafat was well known. Already during the siege of Beirut in Lebanon War I, it was no secret that agents were combing West Beirut for his whereabouts. To Sharon’s great frustration, they did not find him.
Even after Oslo, when Arafat came back to Palestine, Sharon did not let up. When he became Prime Minister, my fear for Arafat’s life became acute. When our army attacked Ramallah during “Operation Defensive Shield” they broke into Arafat’s compound (Mukata’a is Arabic for compound) and came within 10 meters of his rooms. I saw them with my own eyes.
Twice during the siege of many months my friends and I went to stay at the Mukata’a for several days to serve as a human shield. When Sharon was asked why he did not kill Arafat, he answered that the presence of Israelis there made it impossible.    
However, I believe that this was only a pretext. It was the US that forbade it. The Americans feared, quite rightly, that an open assassination would cause the whole Arab and Muslim world to explode in anti-American fury. I cannot prove it, but I am sure that Sharon was told by Washington: “On no condition are you allowed to kill him in a way that can be traced to you. If you can do it without leaving a trace, go ahead.”
(Just as the US Secretary of State told Sharon in 1982 that on no condition was he allowed to attack Lebanon, unless there was a clear and internationally recognized provocation. Which was promptly provided.)
In an eerie coincidence, Sharon himself was felled by a stroke soon after Arafat's death, and has lived in a coma ever since.)
THE DAY Aljazeera’s conclusions were published this week happened to be the 30th  anniversary of my first meeting with Arafat, which for him was the first meeting with an Israeli.
It was at the height of the battle of Beirut. To get to him, I had to cross the lines of four belligerents – the Israeli army, the Christian Lebanese Phalange militia, the Lebanese army and the PLO forces.
I spoke with Arafat for two hours. There, in the middle of a war, when he could expect to find his death at any moment, we talked about Israeli-Palestinian peace, and even a federation of Israel and Palestine, perhaps to be joined by Jordan.
The meeting, which was announced by Arafat’s office, caused a worldwide sensation. My account of the conversation was published in several leading newspapers.
On my way home, I heard on the radio that four cabinet ministers were demanding that I be put on trial for treason. The government of Menachem Begin instructed the Attorney General to open a criminal investigation. However, after several weeks, the AG determined that I had not broken any law. (The law was duly changed soon afterwards.)
IN THE many meetings I held with Arafat since then, I became totally convinced that he was an effective and trustworthy partner for peace.
I slowly began to understand how this father of the modern Palestinian liberation movement, considered an arch-terrorist by Israel and the US, became the leader of the Palestinian peace effort. Few people in history have been privileged to lead two successive revolutions in their lifetime.
When Arafat started his work, Palestine had disappeared from the map and from world consciousness. By using the “armed struggle” (alias “terrorism”)’ he succeeded in putting Palestine back on the world’s agenda.
His change of orientation occurred right after the 1973 war. That war, it will be remembered, started with stunning Arab successes and ended with a rout of the Egyptian and Syrian armies. Arafat, an engineer by profession, drew the logical conclusion: if the Arabs could not win an armed confrontation even in such ideal circumstances, other means had to be found
His decision to start peace negotiations with Israel went totally against the grain of the Palestinian National Movement, which considered Israel as a foreign invader. It took Arafat a full 15 years to convince his own people to accept his line, using all his wiles, tactical deftness and powers of persuasion. In the 1988 meeting of the Palestinian parliament-in-exile, the National Council, his concept was adopted: a Palestinian state side-by-side with Israel in part of the country. This state, with its capital in East Jerusalem and its borders based on the Green Line has been, since then, the fixed and unchangeable goal; the legacy of Arafat to his successors.
Not by accident, my contacts with Arafat, first indirectly through his assistants and then directly, started at the same time: 1974. I helped him to establish contact with the Israeli leadership, and especially with Yitzhak Rabin. This led to the 1993 Oslo agreement – which was killed by the assassination of Rabin.
When asked if he had an Israeli friend, Arafat named me. This was based on his belief that I had risked my life when I went to see him in Beirut. On my part, I was grateful for his trust in me when he met me there, at a time when hundreds of Sharon’s agents were looking for him.
But beyond personal considerations, Arafat was the man who was able to make peace with Israel, willing to do so, and – more important - to get his people, including the Islamists, to accept it. This would have put an end to the settlement enterprise.
That’s why he was poisoned.

* An Israeli columnist,a former member of the Israeli Knesset, and the head of the Israeli leftist peace bloc, “Gush Shalom”. - [email protected]