Shaphan

Searchlight on Bartholomew

Any weblog that treats religion seriously gets my vote and Bartholomew's notes on religion is one of the best.  But I was disappointed to read his treatment of the faithful Jewish sect Neturei Karta's appearance at Iran's International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust.  (If I were Jewish, I would ally myself with the Neturei Karta (NK), who believe that G-d's covenant with the Jewish people compels them to remain in Exile until the Messiah returns.  NK views the Israeli state as theologically illegitimate, which it is.)  Bart repeats Zionist propaganda by referring to the event as "Ahmadinejad’s recent Holocaust denial “conference”", which it wasn't:  Zionist ideologues, however, believe, and would have us all believe if we let them, that either you're with us or you're an anti-semitic Holocaust denier, as if there wasn't a whole world of opinion between those two extremes - I fall within them, as did the conference, as does Ahmadinejad.  Bartholomew, seemingly, is an extremist on this crucial issue.

He quotes approvingly, from an AP article, the denunciations of Neturei Karta by "other religious anti-Zionists".  The leader of 'Eida Haredit' is quoted, and his organization is described by AP as both "anti-Zionist" and "based in Israel", terms which would appear to contradict each other.  The group in fact describes itself as 'non-Zionist', whatever that means, and its leaders have received honours from the Zionist state.  Also quoted are the Satmars, a sui generis Jewish cult centred on the Teitelbaum family - although their revered rabbi Joel Teitelbaum preached against Zionism, his inheritors happily visit, live in, retire to and die in Israel, so, again, their anti-Zionist credentials are dubious.  Neither group really deserves the label ultra-Orthodox, unlike Neturei Karta. 

Bart goes on to imply, as the MSM does, that Ahmadinejad is a 'Holocaust denier', which is to do him and the truth a disservice.  Mahmoud's provocative questioning of what people, especially in the West, believe about the Holocaust and how that impacts upon global - especially Middle Eastern - affairs today, deeply discomforts the Zionist zealots, and they respond by demonizing the man.  And now that Neturei Karta's prophetic witness to the Jews is getting more publicity, due to its recent attendance in Tehran, it's NK's turn to be demonized.  And yet, from a religious and theological standpoint, which one might have hoped Bart would have presented, Neturei Karta is, on the big question, right and the Zionists are mistaken.

Bart really loses the plot by quoting the murky, spooky, to-be-avoided-at-all-costs 'anti-fascist' Searchlight magazine.  As Wikipedia reports: 

While Searchlight is, unsurprisingly, subject to great hostility from the far right, its relationship with some left-wing anti-fascists is also extremely poor.  Red Action accused them of secretly entering Anti-Fascist Action in order to "manipulate, destabilise and subvert" the group. [3] 

An anarchist magazine claimed that "[founding editor Gerry] Gable has been passing information to Special Branch, MI5, and foreign [i.e. Israeli, US] security services for 20 years;  acted as a conduit for misinformation and 'black' propaganda between MI5 and the media (aimed in at least one case in affecting the course of criminal proceedings against fellow journalists);  and concealed the existence and activities of at least one Special Branch or MI5 infiltrator inside left-wing groups." [4]

One has to go to unpleasant far-right websites (e.g., here; here) to discover some of Searchlight's, and Gerry Gable's, links to Israeli and Zionist agencies, but they exist deeply.  If Searchlight is now shining its beam on Neturei Karta, that's interesting - Israel is obviously spooked by NK's commitment to speaking theological truth to its secular power, understandably so.  But Searchlight would be the last place I'd go for illumination on anti-Zionist Jewish groups such as the NK.

Suggestion to Bartholomew:  more theology, less ideology. 

[See related entry: Holocaust is the wrong word (2005.01.28)]

Iranian president toppled by the Mossad - claim (by me)

I've no idea whether or not the rape allegations against Israeli president Moshe Katsav are true or not.  He alleges a conspiracy against him and few believe him.  But I can't help reflecting that having an Iranian-born president must have grated upon those within Israel and the US who have Iran firmly in their sights. 

President Katsav was born in Yazd, Iran, as Moseh Qassab [Link], his parents emigrated to Israel when he was five years old, whence his name became Hebraicized. 

According to Ha'Aretz:

The four women whom Katsav is accused of sexually assaulting include three past and present employees of the President's Residence and one who worked under Katsav during his tenure as tourism minister, in 1998-1999.  Mazuz also plans to charge the president with giving away items that belonged to the President's Residence at private events, as well as with obstruction of justice and harassing a witness, for trying to pressure one of the President's Residence employees to retract her complaint against him.

Should Katsav be convicted of all the charges in the draft indictment, he is likely to spend many years in jail...

Past and present employees of the President's Residence would have to be government employees with high-level security clearances.  Now, if they were told that the Iranian-born president had become a national security problem, they might well agree to accuse the man of rape, given that their identities would remain secret.  My guess is that this case will never get to a full hearing in court, but the man's reputation has been ruined nevertheless.  For being an Iranian head of state?

* The photograph is of Katsav and former Iranian president Khatami at John Paul II's funeral.  According to search.com, from where I copied the photo:

On April 8, 2005 Katsav sat near Iranian President Mohammad Khatami (also born in Yazd) during the funeral of Pope John Paul II, due to the fact that all world leaders present were arranged in alphabetical order by the name of their state.  President Katsav would later claim that he shook Khatami's hand and spoke to him in Persian.  He also greeted Bashar al-Assad during the funeral service's traditional "exchange of peace".  That was the first political contact between Iran and Israel since 1979.  Khatami, however, denied that such a meeting ever took place.

Sharon and On

Some months ago, when I thought Ariel Sharon was close to death, I wrote in praise of him.  It's typical of the man that he still stubbornly clings to life.  Now, his thoughts on the Iraq invasion have been revealed in the liberal American-Jewish magazine "Forward".

... Olmert’s predecessor, by contrast, was anything but an amateur in Israeli-American relations, and more broadly in dealing with America’s policies in the region.  When it came to Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq and to democratize the Arab Middle East from within, Ariel Sharon took a far more sophisticated position.

Publicly, Sharon played the silent ally; he neither criticized nor supported the Iraq adventure.  One reason for his relative silence was Washington’s explicit request that Israel refrain from openly backing its invasion of an Arab country or in any way intervening, lest its blessing damn the United States in Arab eyes.

But sometime prior to March 2003, Sharon told Bush privately in no uncertain terms what he thought about the Iraq plan.  Sharon’s words — revealed here for the first time — constituted a friendly but pointed warning to Bush.  Sharon acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was an “acute threat” to the Middle East and that he believed Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Yet according to one knowledgeable source, Sharon nevertheless advised Bush not to occupy Iraq.  According to another source — Danny Ayalon, who was Israel’s ambassador to the United States at the time of the Iraq invasion, and who sat in on the Bush-Sharon meetings — Sharon told Bush that Israel would not “push one way or another” regarding the Iraq scheme.

According to both sources, Sharon warned Bush that if he insisted on occupying Iraq, he should at least abandon his plan to implant democracy in this part of the world.  “In terms of culture and tradition, the Arab world is not built for democratization,” Ayalon recalls Sharon advising.

Be sure, Sharon added, not to go into Iraq without a viable exit strategy.  And ready a counter-insurgency strategy if you expect to rule Iraq, which will eventually have to be partitioned into its component parts.  Finally, Sharon told Bush, please remember that you will conquer, occupy and leave, but we have to remain in this part of the world.  Israel, he reminded the American president, does not wish to see its vital interests hurt by regional radicalization and the spillover of violence beyond Iraq’s borders... [Forward]

Given that, in Bushworld, you're either with them or against them, Arik Sharon was clearly an evil-doer.  Luckily for the Americans, in December '95 Sharon suffered a minor stroke and, unluckily for the then most important man in Israel, he was prescribed the wrong drugs, which caused him to have a massive brain haemorrhage in January '06, which put the more US-pliant Olmert in the PM's chair.  Poor Arik - he had been able to diagnose the weaknesses of US 'plans' for Iraq, but his own doctors were unable to diagnose that he, like many people of his age, suffered from cerebral amyloid angiopathy.  Some irony there, I think.

Arsenal FC's links to child abuse, destruction of Lebanon

[This is a follow-up to a previous post, Israel's Arsenal and Arsenal's Israel's, about Arsenal FC's sponsorship deals with Dubai's al-Maktoum crime syndicate family and with the Israeli Tourism Ministry, neither of which I, as an Arsenal supporter, could approve.]

On Wednesday, September 13th, Arsenal FC played Hamburg SV in the Champions' League in Hamburg, winning 1-2.  Because both clubs are sponsored by Emirates Airline, Arsenal's logo was, as a one-off, changed to read 'Dubai'.

The following day it was reported that:

Dubai's ruler has been accused of enslaving thousands of young children for camel races in a class-action lawsuit filed in the US.

The action claims Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, his brother Hamdam and 500 others are responsible for abducting and trafficking the children. (..)

The children were said to be from Bangladesh, Sudan and southern Asia.

Once in Dubai, it is claimed that the children - some of them as young as two - were kept in poor conditions, starved (so as to keep their weight down), abused and forced to take part in a dangerous sport.

It's only a lawsuit, which has yet to be tried in court;  on the other hand, it's the first stage towards a conviction.  UAE/Dubai bans political parties and voting, its mosques are state-controlled and the internet is censored.  If the Maktoums are also involved in child abduction, abuse and enslavement, I doubt whether the Arsenal board could care less (unless, of course, it led to bad publicity).

Meanwhile, Arsenal FC continues to be cagey about its dirty dealings with the Israeli Tourism Ministry (it's a topic never reported on its website).  The idea, as I understand it, was to send planeloads of Gooners to act as human shields for the Zionist regime.  Well, the Jerusalem Post reported on September 6th that,

The Tourism Ministry has delayed its advertising at Arsenal Football Club's new Emirates stadium fearing that a campaign promoting Israel might create negative sentiment in the UK after the war in Lebanon, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

"It was a mutual decision as we felt it wasn't the right time to start the campaign," Uzi Gafni, director of the Israeli government tourist office in the UK and Ireland told the Post. "Given how Israel was portrayed in the British media through the war, we felt it better to wait until the cease-fire agreement was secure, that Israel was out of the limelight for a while, before starting the promotions for fear of a negative reaction by the public here." (..)

For now, however, a visit to www.arsenal.com confirms that Israel remains absent from the football club's impressive list of sponsors.

Gafni said that Tourism Ministry representatives were scheduled to meet with Arsenal around mid-September and that the campaign should kick off at the club's home game on September 23 against Sheffield United.

He added that the government had received assurances that it would be compensated for the time lost on the deal.

The club said in response: "Arsenal is jointly evaluating with the Israel Tourist Board the position with regards to our relationship."

So, not only did Arsenal receive money from the Israeli Tourism Ministry, the club is also going to pay back money to the ITM as a result of the Israeli government's unjust assault on Lebanon and Hezbullah.  I can see what the Zionist regime gets from the deal - but, apart from a heap of trouble, I can't see what benefit Arsenal gets from it whatsoever (except for those who are called to be human shields, for they will get a discount).

PS  Note the JP report's choice of words, "the government had received assurances that ...", which makes explicit that this is a deal between Arsenal FC and the Israeli government.

Addendum:  A (rather shrill) 'Boycott Israel' website has a 'Boycott Arsenal' campaign too.  It adds this information to what I already knew.

The televised ads will reach audiences of up to 700 million in an estimated 198 countries.  The Israeli Tourism Ministry will also receive intellectual property rights, the use of the team logo and the right to use photos of the team and its players in ads.  For an additional fee, Arsenal players will also appear in the ads.[3]

The deal doesn't stop with promoting Israel but actually grants Israel a physical presence in the stadium.  The Israeli Tourism Ministry can use the stadium's banquet hall twice a year and can organize an exhibition at the end of the playing season.[3]  The stadium will also feature permanent sales tables for t-shirts.[4]

In praise of... Arik Sharon

Ariel Sharon's condition continues to worsen.  He may die today, next week, or next month.  For most anti-Zionists, Sharon has been a figure of hate.  For me, and despite his Zionist beliefs, he was Israel's greatest leader.  If only Sharon was still in charge today...  He would never have allowed Israel to be used by the US as a proxy against Iran - instead, he would have used America for Israel's purposes, as he always did.  He wouldn't have acted as Olmert has done against Lebanon, which has only strengthened Hezbullah and weakened Israel.  Basically, and unlike his successor, Sharon was a true leader and his own man, not America's.

I've written previously, speculatively, about the deaths of Yasser Arafat and Rakik Hariri, and how their passing appeared to help the Americans in their attempt to create a new Middle East.  In light of the above and of current events, Sharon's removal from power could also be seen as another fortuitous event for the White House.  Now, I'm not saying that the Americans took Arik out of the game but, given the consequences of his departure on US foreign policy, who could confidently say that they didn't?

Ariel Sharon's condition continues to worsen.  He may die today, next week, or next month.  For most anti-Zionists, Sharon has been a figure of hate.  For me, and despite his Zionist beliefs, he was Israel's greatest leader.  If only Sharon was still in charge today...  He would never have allowed Israel to be used by the US as a proxy against Iran - instead, he would have used America for Israel's purposes, as he always did.  He wouldn't have acted as Olmert has done against Lebanon, which has only strengthened Hezbullah and weakened Israel.  Basically, and unlike his successor, Sharon was a true leader and his own man, not America's.

I've written previously, speculatively, about the deaths of Yasser Arafat and Rakik Hariri, and how their passing appeared to help the Americans in their attempt to create a new Middle East.  In light of the above and of current events, Sharon's removal from power could also be seen as another fortuitous event for the White House.  Now, I'm not saying that the Americans took Arik out of the game but, given the consequences of his departure on US foreign policy, who could confidently say that they didn't?

G W Bush's and Ehud Olmert's Horoscopes

This is George W Bush's birthchart. [CLICK to enlarge.]

All of his planets fall within 120° of each other, from 20°Gemini to 19°Libra.  Astrologers call this pattern a Bundle. 

My favourite astrology book says this of the Bundle:  An individual with such a planetary pattern is motivated by a narrow, but highly focused, purpose.  Such a person is usually able to get whatever he wants, though most often without awareness (absence of oppositions) of the value or destructiveness of actions taken in the process of realizing his desires [Michael R Meyer]. 

The other point to note is GWB's Sun-Sirius conjunction.  Another astrology book, by Ebertin-Hoffman, says:  Sirius in conjunction with the Sun and well placed in the cosmogram will be found to be the case with numerous important and famous personalities.  Possibly, the rise in station is made possible by protection from people of influence.  (Others in my database with Sun-Sirius conj. are James I of Scotland, Liebnitz, Garibaldi, President Calvin Coolidge, Hesse, Cocteau, Frida Kahlo, the current Dalai Lama and Amelie Mauresmo.)  The star Sirius (alpha Canis Major) is sometimes called the Dog Star, and gives its name to the Dogs Days of Summer, which we're in now.

And this is Ehud Olmert's partial horoscope - partial, because I lack his birth time.  So the chart begins with 0° Aries, there are no houses, and the position of his Moon is not exact.

All of his planets fall within 112° of each other, from 17° Gemini to 10° Libra.  That's an even tighter Bundle than George's.  (See above)

Olmert was born nine months and five days before Bush - the two babies were born but a pregnancy apart.  Yet their charts are spookily similar.  They overlap each other.  Their main differences are that Bush's is stronger, in terms of the aspects between the planets, whereas Olmert's strength is in the extraordinary pile-up of planets between 5° and 9° Libra (Mercury, Neptune, Sun, Jupiter, Chiron, respectively).

Note, too, Olmert's Mars-Sirius conjunction.  Which means that that Olmert's Mars, and Bush's Sun, are conjunct each other in a dual chart.

Here are Bush's and Olmert's charts superimposed upon one another, with GWB's as the inner circle. 

See how they coincide.  See the conjunctions between them (EO-GWB):  Uranus-Uranus; Mars-Sun;  Pluto-Mercury;  Venus-Mars;  and Mer/Nep/Sun/Jup/Chi-Neptune.  Some transits will affect both men in related ways.

It's almost as if the two were one.  Two world leaders in deep and fateful consort.

I don't what any or all of this means, if anything at all.  But I found the Sirian Sun(self)-Mars(war) conjunctions interesting (although I hope that Sirius and Syria are not connected).  And as Bundles are the rarest form of astrological pattern, and both of these men, the current US president and Israeli PM, have Bundles in exactly the same area of the chart, I felt it an oddity worth reporting.. 

[Charts created with ZET]

(Not) Sporting Israel

Liverpool FC is playing Maccabi Haifa, in Haifa Tel Aviv, in the European Champions League in August.  Rafa's not happy, and it's likely to be re-located.  But the point is, why are Israeli teams playing in our Champions League?  Is Israel a European country?  No, it's in Asia, so why, to take another example, was Israel in the European zone (Group D) for the FIFA World Cup?  Why, in tennis's Davis Cup, does Israel play in the Europe-African zone, instead of being in the Asia/Oceania zone? 

Last century, the Zionists, from Europe and America, claimed by force, of their own volition, land in western Asia.  They chose to insert themselves in that site in Asia.  They chose their Asian neighbours.  They chose to displace the Semitic-speaking people who already lived there (at a time when they, the Zionists, still spoke Yiddish, a Germanic language of the Indo-European lineage).

One of the many causes for this current, disastrous war against Hezbullah was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's words about Israel.  The Zionists (in Israel, DC and London) hate Ahmadinejad for trying to speak some truth to their power.  They want to silence him, permanently.  He makes people think.  He rattles the cognitive cages of westerners.   If he's allowed to continue, Europeans might start calling for the Zionists to return home, back to Exile (which is where God's chosen people are supposed to remain until the Messiah comes.   And, given current events in the Middle East, maybe their long exile might soon be over).

The Zionist state might not now be facing its end, had it learned to play football with its neighbours.

Random thoughts on the crisis

Nations that arm themselves from their own resources have a right to be called sovereign.  Those that depend upon wealthier nations for their weapons have not yet achieved full sovereignty.   

How polarizing is this issue, how difficult to write about it without alienating half the readership (i.e. one person)? 

The UK begat the United States and Isra-l.  They are our misbegotten offspring.  We are the only nation on this tiny, fragile planet who could speak truth to their power and would be listened to.  Instead, our government passively supports the self-defeating carnage.  Our prime minister, having helped create this needless war, does not know what truth is, so he cannot speak it to power.  So he's going on holiday.   

Hezbullah is not the 'root cause' of the problem; it is the symptom.  We, the British, the Americans and the Isra-lis, are more the problem.  Others are the problem too, but we can't change others except by changing ourselves.

Our government's policy will lead to more terrorist attacks on we the British people.   Then the government will demand, and be given, more powers, leaving us with even fewer rights. 

If it needs be said, my sympathies in this conflict are almost entirely with the Lebanese people - including Hizbullah supporters - and the Palestinians - including Hamas supporters.  So I'm gobsmacked when people whom I respect take an opposite view.

Resolution 1559 should never have been passed.  Shame on us for having voted for it in the Security Council!  Shame on the French for colluding with the US in its creation!  Shame on Chirac and the Quai d'Orsay!  Respect to the US for its Machiavellian machination of world events!   

Israel's Arsenal and Arsenal's Israel's

For my sins and graces, I am a supporter of Arsenal FC, having lived within earshot of Highbury for 20 years.  I will continue to support Arsène Wenger, his staff and the players, but the Board has now lost my confidence.  First there was David Dein telling Patrick Vieira, in my view Arsenal's greatest-ever player, that the club was neutral about keeping him.  But that's about the playing side, and Dein is paid to make those decisions, so I could forgive that.

But then there was the decision to accept £100 million in sponsorship money from Emirates Airline.  Emirates Airline is owned by the Emirates Group, which is itself owned by the Dubai government (read, the al-Maktoum family), which founded the company in 1985.  The chairman is HH Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed al-Maktoum, who is also president of Dubai's civil aviation authority. In other words, Emirates Airline isn't an ordinary commercial company - it is the state airline of the UAE and an agency of the Maktoum 'royal' family of the Dubai emirate.  There is no voting nor voters in the UAE, and political parties are forbidden.  The state dictates who runs the Sunni mosques and what is preached in them at Friday prayers.  So the UAE manages to offend the sensibilities of democrats and Islamists alike.  But the Maktoum 'royal' family in Dubai has managed to seduce the West, first with its oil wealth and now in its diversification into tourism and commerce.  Arsenal FC should not be promoting the interests of the Maktoum family, which is an enemy of both secular and religious freedom.

And now the board of directors has gone and signed an agreement with Israel to promote Israel as 'Arsenal's' tourist destination of choice, both on the website and on banners around the new ground, the Emirates Stadium (see above).  Oddly, the news was not announced, and is not yet posted, on the Arsenal website.  But Israel's tourism minister commented: "(Through the deal with Arsenal) Israel will get a lot of coverage as a preferred tourist destination in the consciousness of millions of people, not only in England, but around Europe and the world." 

To Arsenal, it's worth £350,000 in the first season - peanuts compared to the UAE deal but the Israelis seem satisfied.  But we, ie Arsenal, shouldn't be accepting Israeli money, nor promoting its interests "in the consciousness of millions".  It's as morally reprehensible as the Emirates sponsorship, and arguably more so.  Israel has an arsenal of 120-plus nuclear weapons, unbound from any treaty agreements with the IAEA or the UN, which are pointing at Tehran, Qom and Damascus.  While Israel has an undeclared arsenal of nuclear weapons and other WMD, Arsenal FC shouldn't be taking Israel's money.  When Israel agrees with Syria that the Middle East should be WMD-free, then we should take their money (provided they've also returned Jerusalem and the West Bank to its people).

The Arsenal board of directors' seem willing to accept money from anyone, even if that leaves the fans more vulnerable to terrorist attack.  At the moment, the club accepts my money as a registered user of the website (although I haven't attended a match for years).  Unless Arsenal FC changes its decision, my moral imperative will be to withdraw my miniscule financial support from it.  I'll miss the video of match-highlights and player interviews, damn it.

Arafat's Murder (and French Realpolitik)

Syria's Bashar al-Assad has accused Israel of murdering Yasser Arafat.  I think he's right that Arafat was assassinated and that, as Assad says, the deed was executed "under the world's gaze and its silence".  And many in the Middle East do believe that Israel was the culprit, but I'm surprised and disappointed if Assad agrees - maybe Syrian intelligence isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Conspiratologists ask:  Cui bono?  Who gains by it?  In this case, not Israel.  Back in October  2004, Ariel Sharon was the Israeli government.  If Israeli agents had murdered Arafat, it would have been on Sharon's orders.  But, whatever the enmity Sharon felt for Arafat, he would have been more than content to have his old foe alive, imprisoned in the Mukata'a in Ramallah, for many years to come.

Sharon needed Arafat.  He had absolutely no wish to negotiate with the Palestinians, and a new, more moderate leadership would not have suited him.  He'd already decided on Israel's next course - exchange land for security by withdrawing from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, digging in elsewhere behind new borders and building walls to fence in the Palestinians.  Arafat's death was against Sharon's interests.  I'd even go so far as suggesting that Arafat's death was a personal blow to Sharon, it made his work more difficult, and maybe he'd still be PM today if Arafat hadn't been removed from the equation.

But if not Israel, then who?  A conspiracy, by definition, involves more than one party.  If a conspiracy-theory has at least two parties benefiting, each in their own way, from their supposed secret collaboration, it makes it slightly more plausible.  So here's what I think happened "under the world's gaze and its silence".

2003 had been a difficult year in Franco-US relations, for obvious reasons.  So France, ie Chirac, decided it was in the French national interest to mend the breach, whatever it took.  So Jacques asks George, frere, what can we do for you, to prove our undying friendship?  Dick responds - help us unblock the Middle East peace process, it might even help our re-election.  Help us get the Syrians out of Lebanon, and who will rid us of that troublesome PLO leader, whom Sharon insists he won't negotiate with?

So, sometime in 2004, the US and France started to co-operate behind the scenes.  The most visible evidence of this was their co-sponsorship of UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which ordered Syrian forces out of Lebanon.  Resolution 1559 was adopted by the Security Council on September 2, 2004.  Presumably, diplomats from both countries had spent some weeks, if not months, working together on the resolution.  1559 was quite an aggressive resolution, given that Syrian forces had brought a shaky peace to Lebanon, yet France had, on this issue, joined forces with the US.  Given their recent history, this Franco-US initiative was an unlikely one, but the media generally missed its significance.

Then, in late October '04, Yasser Arafat fell ill, and it was decided he must leave Ramallah to get proper medical attention.  "Allah be willing, I'll return soon".  Chirac, staunch friend of Arafat and the Palestinianian people, sends a military jet to Amman, Jordan, to where Arafat had been helicoptered.  Arafat is whisked to the Percy military hospital outside Paris, arriving on 29 October.  He's kept under the tightest security.  He's moved to a special unit.  Contradictory reports filter out to the crowd.  He was reportedly still alive when Bush and Cheney were re-elected on November 3rd, although he had slipped into a coma [Wiki.].  Another report had a different story:  "Arafat was said to have been well enough Wednesday [3/11/04] to welcome Bush's re-election and, according to one of his aides, said he hoped for a jumpstart to the moribund Middle East peace process."  Anyway, his death was finally announced on November 11th.  His wife Suha, who had been the only civilian allowed within the cordon sanitaire, reportedly refused to allow a post mortem to be performed, so the cause of death remains unknown.

Syria did not immediately comply with UNSC Resolution 1559.  It took another region-shaking assassination, that of Rafik Hariri in February '05, to generate sufficient pressure on Syria to force it out of Lebanon.  Jacques Chirac was known to be Hariri's good friend, and he was the first leader to offer his sympathies to the widow.  Jacques had now lost the two ME leaders with whom he was most publicly friendly, within 13 weeks of each other.  (To lose one may be regarded as misfortune...)  Surely France would be the last place to look for Hariri's killers?  Surely Jacques would not be so Machievellian as to have had his old friend murdered, even if it were in France's best national interest?  Surely not?

Rafik Hariri was murdered on February 14th, St Valentine's Day.  Was somebody maybe trying to win somebody else over, to show their undying friendship, by sending a Valentine's present?

p.s.  This conspiracy theory satisfies on at least two levels: the two main actors, France and the US, both benefited in their own way; and two apparently separate mysteries, the deaths of Arafat and Hariri, are explained by a single cause.