The kgb turned arafat into a terrorist?

HighlandWarrior

Mr Political Analyser
Joined
Feb 10, 2003
Messages
1,528
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004075


The KGB's Man
Moscow turned Arafat into a terrorist.

BY ION MIHAI PACEPA
Saturday, September 27, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

The Israeli government has vowed to expel Yasser Arafat, calling him an "obstacle" to peace. But the 72-year-old Palestinian leader is much more than that; he is a career terrorist, trained, armed and bankrolled by the Soviet Union and its satellites for decades.

Before I defected to America from Romania, leaving my post as chief of Romanian intelligence, I was responsible for giving Arafat about $200,000 in laundered cash every month throughout the 1970s. I also sent two cargo planes to Beirut a week, stuffed with uniforms and supplies. Other Soviet bloc states did much the same. Terrorism has been extremely profitable for Arafat. According to Forbes magazine, he is today the sixth wealthiest among the world's "kings, queens & despots," with more than $300 million stashed in Swiss bank accounts.

"I invented the hijackings [of passenger planes]," Arafat bragged when I first met him at his PLO headquarters in Beirut in the early 1970s. He gestured toward the little red flags pinned on a wall map of the world that labeled Israel as "Palestine." "There they all are!" he told me, proudly. The dubious honor of inventing hijacking actually goes to the KGB, which first hijacked a U.S. passenger plane in 1960 to Communist Cuba. Arafat's innovation was the suicide bomber, a terror concept that would come to full flower on 9/11.

In 1972, the Kremlin put Arafat and his terror networks high on all Soviet bloc intelligence services' priority list, including mine. Bucharest's role was to ingratiate him with the White House. We were the bloc experts at this. We'd already had great success in making Washington--as well as most of the fashionable left-leaning American academics of the day--believe that Nicolae Ceausescu was, like Josip Broz Tito, an "independent" Communist with a "moderate" streak.

KGB chairman Yuri Andropov in February 1972 laughed to me about the Yankee gullibility for celebrities. We'd outgrown Stalinist cults of personality, but those crazy Americans were still naïve enough to revere national leaders. We would make Arafat into just such a figurehead and gradually move the PLO closer to power and statehood. Andropov thought that Vietnam-weary Americans would snatch at the smallest sign of conciliation to promote Arafat from terrorist to statesman in their hopes for peace.





Right after that meeting, I was given the KGB's "personal file" on Arafat. He was an Egyptian bourgeois turned into a devoted Marxist by KGB foreign intelligence. The KGB had trained him at its Balashikha special-ops school east of Moscow and in the mid-1960s decided to groom him as the future PLO leader. First, the KGB destroyed the official records of Arafat's birth in Cairo, replacing them with fictitious documents saying that he had been born in Jerusalem and was therefore a Palestinian by birth.
The KGB's disinformation department then went to work on Arafat's four-page tract called Falastinuna ("Our Palestine"), turning it into a 48-page monthly magazine for the Palestinian terrorist organization al-Fatah. Arafat had headed al-Fatah since 1957. The KGB distributed it throughout the Arab world and in West Germany, which in those days played host to many Palestinian students. The KGB was adept at magazine publication and distribution; it had many similar periodicals in various languages for its front organizations in Western Europe, like the World Peace Council and the World Federation of Trade Unions.

Next, the KGB gave Arafat an ideology and an image, just as it did for loyal Communists in our international front organizations. High-minded idealism held no mass-appeal in the Arab world, so the KGB remolded Arafat as a rabid anti-Zionist. They also selected a "personal hero" for him--the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, the man who visited Auschwitz and reproached the Germans for not having killed even more Jews. In 1985 Arafat paid homage to the mufti, saying he was "proud no end" to be walking in his footsteps.

Arafat was an important undercover operative for the KGB. Right after the 1967 Six Day War, Moscow got him appointed to chairman of the PLO. Egyptian ruler Gamal Abdel Nasser, a Soviet puppet, proposed the appointment. In 1969 the KGB asked Arafat to declare war on American "imperial-Zionism" during the first summit of the Black Terrorist International, a neo-Fascist pro-Palestine organization financed by the KGB and Libya's Moammar Gadhafi. It appealed to him so much, Arafat later claimed to have invented the imperial-Zionist battle cry. But in fact, "imperial-Zionism" was a Moscow invention, a modern adaptation of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," and long a favorite tool of Russian intelligence to foment ethnic hatred. The KGB always regarded anti-Semitism plus anti-imperialism as a rich source of anti-Americanism.

The KGB file on Arafat also said that in the Arab world only people who were truly good at deception could achieve high status. We Romanians were directed to help Arafat improve "his extraordinary talent for deceiving." The KGB chief of foreign intelligence, Gen. Aleksandr Sakharovsky, ordered us to provide cover for Arafat's terror operations, while at the same time building up his international image. "Arafat is a brilliant stage manager," his letter concluded, "and we should put him to good use." In March 1978 I secretly brought Arafat to Bucharest for final instructions on how to behave in Washington. "You simply have to keep on pretending that you'll break with terrorism and that you'll recognize Israel--over, and over, and over," Ceausescu told him for the umpteenth time. Ceausescu was euphoric over the prospect that both Arafat and he might be able to snag a Nobel Peace Prize with their fake displays of the olive branch.





In April 1978 I accompanied Ceausescu to Washington, where he charmed President Carter. Arafat, he urged, would transform his brutal PLO into a law-abiding government-in-exile if only the U.S. would establish official relations. The meeting was a great success for us. Mr. Carter hailed Ceausescu, dictator of the most repressive police state in Eastern Europe, as a "great national and international leader" who had "taken on a role of leadership in the entire international community." Triumphant, Ceausescu brought home a joint communiqué in which the American president stated that his friendly relations with Ceausescu served "the cause of the world."
Three months later I was granted political asylum by the U.S. Ceausescu failed to get his Nobel Peace Prize. But in 1994 Arafat got his--all because he continued to play the role we had given him to perfection. He had transformed his terrorist PLO into a government-in-exile (the Palestinian Authority), always pretending to call a halt to Palestinian terrorism while letting it continue unabated. Two years after signing the Oslo Accords, the number of Israelis killed by Palestinian terrorists had risen by 73%.

On Oct. 23, 1998, President Clinton concluded his public remarks to Arafat by thanking him for "decades and decades and decades of tireless representation of the longing of the Palestinian people to be free, self-sufficient, and at home." The current administration sees through Arafat's charade but will not publicly support his expulsion. Meanwhile, the aging terrorist has consolidated his control over the Palestinian Authority and marshaled his young followers for more suicide attacks.

Mr. Pacepa was the highest ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc. The author of "Red Horizons" (Regnery, 1987), he is finishing a book on the origins of current anti-Americanism.

change anyones mind about arafat?
 
The KGB provided arms, training and financing to every subversive group in the world in the '70s.

We're talking The Provisional IRA, the Red Army Faction, The Baader-Mienhoff Group, Action Directe, the PLO, Shining Path, etc...

The Soviet Union considered the support of what it considered "progressive elements" to be an instrumental part of the eventual people's revolution. The KGB also was heavily involved in the support of "wars of national liberation" in the Third World. Together with satellite intelligence services, the KGB helped to organize military training and political indoctrination of leftist guerrillas, as well as providing arms and advisers. The manipulation of wars of national liberation enabled the Soviet Union to influence the political future of the countries in question and to make their new governments more responsive to Soviet objectives. The Soviet regime concentrated mainly on African countries until the late 1970s but then extended its support for "national liberation movements" to Central America, where it has regularly employed the services of Cuba.

I dont think that the fact that Arafat was/is a terrorist comes as any great surprise to anyone. He is the head of the PLO wich at one time was one of the largest terrorist groups in the world.

Does it erode his credibility for me? yes. However, the political reality is that the world must deal with him as a legitimate quasi-head of state for the Palestinian people no matter what his backgroud.
 
The problem with former intelligence officers is that they have made a carreer out of lies, deception and extortion. How can one be sure that once they have changed sides or found new employment that they are not in fact continueing along the same track?

Also according to the article Forbes puts him down as is the sixth wealthiest among 'kings, queens and despots'. Why was he even put in that category? He is democratically elected by the palestinians, at least that is my understanding.

Another weak point in the article is that is taking a very pro-Israeli stance. The chain of events as he describes them is hardly objective. Hence he does not wish to see Arafat gone because Arafat is bad for the Palestinians, but because, big surprise here, Arafat have a dislike for Israelis.

Also the fact that president Carter, the favorite whipping boy of US hawks and hardliners, is presented in such unfavourable light, without adressing the Fact that Nixon too tried to woe the Rumanian dictator moves the artilce into territory where it becomes so politicised that it severely subracts quality from the argument.

Hence it seems that the policy of the removal of Arafat becomes mired in ideology, personal feelings, and past digruntlement.

This actually subtracts from the very real argument, that no doubt Arafat is perhaps not the perfect leader for the Palestinians.
Also there is no explanation on how his forceful removal by an outside force is going to bring peace.

The authors main reason for the removal of Arafat seems to be that he was supported by the Soviets. So following that logic every political leader who can be claimed to in the past of having contact with the KGB would need to be removed. That would include Castro and Gaddafi. (Mandela is lucky that he is a pensioner now.) Are they to be forcefully removed from power too? And what about president Putin. He was after all a former KGB agent.
 
Ok. However you say 'CIA agent' (See for instance the story on the CIA agent who was exposed by the whitehouse, because her husband had been critical of Bush's plans for war) not 'CIA officer.'
Or did I get that one wrong?

The difference between a KGB officer and a CIA agent must be about the same as that between an astronaut and a kosmonaut, no?
 
The point is that within the CIA and KGB operatives are knowen as Officers not agents. The media incorrectly calls them agents.
 
The difference between agents and officers has nothing to do with nationality.

In the parlance of the industry an officer is a trained intelligence gatherer, be it an analyist or an operations specialist, of the security service itself. You could have been an officer for both the CIA or KGB. In fact, KGB officers were given ranks which were equivalent to military ranks. An officer's job is to recruit agents who have access to critical information and develop the agents into reliable sources. Examples would be the CIA station chiefs in each capital or the former KGB's "rezident" in foriegn nations.

An agent is a third party, be it a suborned foriegn national or internal informant, who provides the officer with intelligence. They could also be considered sources, and may work for money or other motivation, usually idealogical. These people are usually commonly referred to as spies. Examples would be Oleg Penovskiy, Aldritch Ames, Kim Philby, or John Anthoney Walker.
 
I agree with Doktor on this one. Anyone who believes a professional liar because he's telling you what you want to hear is a fool. Another thing suspicous about this is that it fits in much too neatly with the paternalistic world view of Europeans and Americans. Basically this guys claiming that the KGB created Arafat, as if the idea of a strong nationalist leader, with a disciplined, organised following, arising naturally in the Arab world is less plausible than one being created artificially to be a tool of a Western Power. Just like for example, so many Westerners are more willing to believe that the Pyramids were built by aliens from other worlds and not by the Egyptians themselves:rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Constantine
The point is that within the CIA and KGB operatives are knowen as Officers not agents. The media incorrectly calls them agents.

The KGB had both uniformed "officers" and agents who worked undercover. Last time I looked the CIA had no uniformed component at all. A subtle but important distinction.
 
The truth is always three sided: your side, my side, and what actually happened.

I take some of what he said with a grain of salt, but much of it is probably true considering the great lengths that both the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. would go through during the Cold War.

Today, the PC view of the world tends to castigate the U.S. for supporting rather evil dictators and brutal governments. But, when faced with two evils, sometimes it is merely a choice between the lesser of two evils, and historical perspective should be taken into account whenever a review of history is discussed.

I'm sure the former U.S.S.R. did support Arafat, because it only makes sense that Israel was such a strong ally of the U.S. during the Cold War. Its the enemy of my enemy is my friend logic. The details of the story are probably suspect, though, as someone mentioned the guy is a professional liar, so what can you believe?

Arafat is still a terrorist, regardless of truth and all that within the above story. Israel should have taken him out a long time ago, and maybe there would exist today a true roadmap to peace without his continuous roadblocks.
 
I highly doubt the KGB "turned" Arafat into a terrorist. Arafat would have been a terrorist either way. The KGB may have just made him more powerful.
 
Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
The problem with former intelligence officers is that they have made a carreer out of lies, deception and extortion. How can one be sure that once they have changed sides or found new employment that they are not in fact continueing along the same track?


what did he say that was a lie?

Also according to the article Forbes puts him down as is the sixth wealthiest among 'kings, queens and despots'. Why was he even put in that category? He is democratically elected by the palestinians, at least that is my understanding.

"democratically" elected, just like saddam was "democratically" elected? he ran against a 72 year old female social worker. If you still insist on calling him an elected official, they elected a despot who has not given them the vote in almost eight years.

Another weak point in the article is that is taking a very pro-Israeli stance. The chain of events as he describes them is hardly objective. Hence he does not wish to see Arafat gone because Arafat is bad for the Palestinians, but because, big surprise here, Arafat have a dislike for Israelis.

He wants arafat gone because he's a terrorist,

Also the fact that president Carter, the favorite whipping boy of US hawks and hardliners, is presented in such unfavourable light, without adressing the Fact that Nixon too tried to woe the Rumanian dictator moves the artilce into territory where it becomes so politicised that it severely subracts quality from the argument.

Hence it seems that the policy of the removal of Arafat becomes mired in ideology, personal feelings, and past digruntlement.

This actually subtracts from the very real argument, that no doubt Arafat is perhaps not the perfect leader for the Palestinians.
Also there is no explanation on how his forceful removal by an outside force is going to bring peace.

The authors main reason for the removal of Arafat seems to be that he was supported by the Soviets. So following that logic every political leader who can be claimed to in the past of having contact with the KGB would need to be removed. That would include Castro and Gaddafi. (Mandela is lucky that he is a pensioner now.) Are they to be forcefully removed from power too? And what about president Putin. He was after all a former KGB agent.

Is the article pro-israeli because he's speaking the truth about arafat being a terrorist? it sounds like you have the anti-israeli bias and are not reading the article objectively.

Did nixon ever say the romanian dictator was "great national and international leader" who had "taken on a role of leadership in the entire international community."

Tell me something carter did as President that Is favorable?

Removing castro and mahamad gadafi would be a bad thing? How much is lybia paying americans because his government blew up a plane over lockerbie scotland? Castro, his people risk their lives everyday to get off his Isle of paradise. If there was no castro i doubt we'd see old trucks on pontoons making their way to the florida.

Did putin run against a 72 year old female social worker he hand picked himself?
 
Originally posted by joycem10
The KGB provided arms, training and financing to every subversive group in the world in the '70s.

We're talking The Provisional IRA, the Red Army Faction, The Baader-Mienhoff Group, Action Directe, the PLO, Shining Path, etc...

The Soviet Union considered the support of what it considered "progressive elements" to be an instrumental part of the eventual people's revolution. The KGB also was heavily involved in the support of "wars of national liberation" in the Third World. Together with satellite intelligence services, the KGB helped to organize military training and political indoctrination of leftist guerrillas, as well as providing arms and advisers. The manipulation of wars of national liberation enabled the Soviet Union to influence the political future of the countries in question and to make their new governments more responsive to Soviet objectives. The Soviet regime concentrated mainly on African countries until the late 1970s but then extended its support for "national liberation movements" to Central America, where it has regularly employed the services of Cuba.

I dont think that the fact that Arafat was/is a terrorist comes as any great surprise to anyone. He is the head of the PLO wich at one time was one of the largest terrorist groups in the world.

Does it erode his credibility for me? yes. However, the political reality is that the world must deal with him as a legitimate quasi-head of state for the Palestinian people no matter what his backgroud.

arafat has been "president" of the PLO for over 30 years, what has he accomplished for his people? besides getting them killed? we don't deal with castro why should we deal with arafat?
 
We have a far greater need to deal with Arafat than we do with Castro. Castro rules an unimportant little island in the middle of the carribean. Other than its location, it has no value or impact on world politics.

Arafat, whether we like it or not, is the Palestinian leader (and trust me, I'd love to see him deposed). The Palestinians are arabs and that means our actions in relation to the Palestinians impact our relations with the remainder of the Arab world.

Any potential Palestinian state would be inextricably intertwined with Isreal, a strategic ally and a nation to whom many belive the US owes a neverending debt, another reason why the US must act in the conflict.

World attention is focused upon the middle-east, which means that the US must engage in an attempt to formulate a solution.

If you are arguing on a purely moralistic basis that we dont deal with Castro and should not deal with scum like Arafat, I agree. However, if we extend your logic, the US would be unable to deal with the majority of the nations on the earth.

The reality of the situation is that we must deal with scum, former terrorists, dictators, and religious extremists when our national interest is so strong that it overrides moral concerns.
 
Originally posted by joycem10
The reality of the situation is that we must deal with scum, former terrorists, dictators, and religious extremists when our national interest is so strong that it overrides moral concerns.

I would hardly phrase it like that; dealing with Arafat has nothing to do with the national interest competing with moral concerns - it's merely a recognition of political reality.

The point stands, though.
 
i disagree, i think finding some sort of solution to the Arab/Isreali conflict, or at least stepping down the level of violence, is in the national interest of the US.
 
Its a mistake to focus too much on individuals. If Arafat died tommorow (which isnt that unlikely, lately he looks like light breeze would knock him over) not much would change on the ground. Same thing with Sharon, he could drop dead tommorow because of his obesity and the same stalemate would continue to exist. There will never be a peacefull solution, no matter who is at the helm. Some would call this negativism, but to me its just being a realist.
 
Originally posted by joycem10
i disagree, i think finding some sort of solution to the Arab/Isreali conflict, or at least stepping down the level of violence, is in the national interest of the US.

But that's a bit misleading. All types of interaction with these sorts of people will be demanded, whatever you want to or not, whether it be particularly strongly based in the national interest or no.
 
hamlet, i think thats the point i was trying to make. interaction with these people is necessary at times, moral concerns aside.
 
Top Bottom