The KGB's Man By ION MIHAI PACEPA 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 in the late 1930s 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 Arab-Israeli 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, General 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. 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. http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB106419296113226300-H9jeoNjlaZ2nJ2oZnyIaaeBm4,00.html
Wow....that is pretty weighty stuff. Good find, Buck. I think everyone can agree here (regardless of your opinions on the Israel/"Palestine" situation) that Arafat is a hinderance to peace and to remove him (be it through exile to either Hell or Europe, no great difference there ) would at least increase the chance of peace.
No question, and I believe the same applies to Sharon. Sharon and Arafat are like two old-west gunfighters...the only thing they know how to do is take twenty paces, turn and fire. No progress on the Israel/Palestine situation will be made until both of them are out of power.
Comparing Arafat to Sharon is like comparing Hitler to Patton. Sure, he's hawkish and old and cynical and bitter, and tough...he's just the sort of guy an electorate runs to when it's back is against the wall, and efforts to encourage peace are used against you to blow up your civillians. Sharon invented Unit 101 (a now famous special forces unit). Arafat invented the suicide bomber. In fairness, I can say that no one in Sharon's military career expected him to be PM. Sharon's a hard man to like. Ben-Gurion, who liked him, thought he had too much of a mean streak and saw Moshe Dayan and Shimon Peres as more suitable heirs apparent. But then, no one thought Oslo and the so-called "Road Map" would lead to the ESCALATION of hostilities and suicide bombings. In fact, If it weren't for Arafat's orchestrations, Labor would probably still hold on to its majority. The way I see it, Yassir Arafat put Likud into power. As for the article, thanks Buck! But for anyone that has followed Arafat's career, they shouldn't be shocked by any of this. Arafat's hands are so dirty with blood, all the washing in the world won't make them clean enough for anyone to trust him. -Deji
Originally posted by Deji Comparing Arafat to Sharon is like comparing Hitler to Patton. Sure, he's hawkish and old and cynical and bitter, and tough...he's just the sort of guy an electorate runs to when it's back is against the wall, and efforts to encourage peace are used against you to blow up your civillians. Sharon invented Unit 101 (a now famous special forces unit). Arafat invented the suicide bomber. Sharon is far from squeeky clean. ...But then, no one thought Oslo and the so-called "Road Map" would lead to the ESCALATION of hostilities and suicide bombings. ... The more imminent the 'threat' of peace, the more the violence will escalate on both sides by those who do not want it...or what it means. The question is whether the doves will ever be able to make it through the hurdles that will be erected by the hawks.
I think Arafat is a hell of a lot worse than Sharon. However, they are both bad for the peace process. Thanks for posting this article, though. It is very revealing. After reading all of this, it is actually a travesty that this guy ever won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Cohen, don't you think that the Oslo accords really strengthened the idea among Palestinians that they could destroy Israel? It seems to me that Arafat used that time to build up a terrorist infrastructure (or at least let it grow) which was unleashed with the latest Intifada. The Palestinians feel right now they can destroy Israel, so a military respone is necessary before a "road map" can be succesful.
I think that's the point. How does a old chauvanistic right-wing ex-general get elevated to the status of patriarch by the same electorate that voted in Barak and the implementation of oslo just a few years before? Sharon is the one guy that makes them feel safe, and right now, to the Israeli voter, security is the number 1 priority. How does the cliche go? Americans vote their wallets, but Israelis vote their lives? He has his funding scandals, and his Lebanon scandals, but in the gravity of the situation, only the most stalward of lefties gives a damn. It seemed pretty imminent in '94, and it suddenly became very unpopular to be against peace in Israel, textbooks changed in schools, israelis abroad flew in to vote in record numbers to support Barak, and everyone really believed that peace was at hand. You would be in error if you think that the majority of Israelis are not for peace. Most even support a Palestenian state. Hell, Ariel Sharon does. The one success of Oslo, is that it really changed the outlook regarding the Territories and the Israeli people's willingness to give them up. Poll numbers will defend that. On the other side of the Green Line, its a different story. Zogby claimed more than 3/4 of the Palestenians want all or nothing. They want all of the land. None of this has changed, and that is why peace is rejected. Israel turned over land and soldiers left most of the main cities in the West Bank so the PA could take over. Part of the peace agreement was that Israeli had to supply arms for the new Palestenian police, which they complied with. Gee, I wonder where those arms are now.... Sure, there was an escalation of violence: an escalation of terror attacks. All the numbers spiked since the mid 90's. Israel has never had it worse. And neither have the Palestenians. The Intifada has destroyed the economy of the West Bank: Israelis can no longer come over and spend money, and Palestenians can no longer work in Israel...resulting in Israel importing workers from Eastern Europe and the Far East. Any Palestenian that dares to speak out and offer a solution other than martyrdom and armed struggle is considered a colaborator and has their lifespan shortened. Peace is for the cameras and the international press, but it isn't even close to being taken seriously in Ramallah. When I hear someone say "cycle of violence" I hear someone who does not understand the situation. The only thing the anti-Israel camp has are the settlements. My take on it is that most of them are ultra-religious, and largely populated by dogmatic Americans. They are not a part of Israeli mainstream life, political or otherwise, and they seem to be resented by most Israelis I know. But enough of the right are attacted to them because most are built on religious sites, like burial sites of biblical patriarchs and such. The reality is, if all it took to make peace was to turn over Ariel and Hebron and the like, the army would be forcing those settlers out tomorrow (no one hates those people more than the army that has to protect them). But the Israeli brass also knows those places have strategic value and become even more important in light of terror attacks and infiltrations. As long as buses keep exploding, no one is going to budge, and its pretty damn tragic. If you are waiting for the Roadmap to work all this out, don't hold your breath. -Deji
Arafat is a terrorist. Not at the same level as Osama Bin Forgotten, but a terrorist nonetheless. Sharon is not a hero either. One side kills innocent people and the other retaliates by killing innocent people and calling them "collateral damage" . The cycle will never stop until both of them are removed from leadership positions.
Deji, excellent post! I feel hopeless sometimes when I hear someone repeating the misconceptions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I get even more depressed when I realize that these people were at the highest level of the Clinton administration negotiating with Arafat.
Deji, that may be the most even-handed, well thought out post on the conflict I've read here. Thanks. You should post more.
There was this documentary style movie on cable last nite called "The Inner Tour" about the situation from the Palestinian perspective (as of year 2000). The director was an Israeli Jew as were most of the crew filming the movie. Anyways, listening to these old Palestinians in the movie, most of whom were there pre-1948, it was very clear that they indeed would settle for nothing less than getting all of their land back. There were even mentions that they would die first before settling for anything less.
He's gotta go, but how can it be done without setting off the ticking time bomb that is the middle east?
Sharon and Arafat? Both of these guys and their people need to just finish each other off, then I won't have to hear about it anymore. I'm sure the Palestinians are looking at the Stern Gang and the Haganah and saw how terrorism got the Israeli's a country, and are trying to do the same. My problem is that i'm not paying for suicide bombers, but my tax dollars are paying for Israeli attacks and they are flying US F-16's and Apache helicopters to blow away buildings. The Israeli economy is in shambles. Less than ten million people, and they have over 200 nuclear weapons and one of the best equipped armies in the world. Because we're paying for it of course. Their economy is being subsidized and sustained by US handouts and we have to foot the bill for their inability to settle. If we cut off the funds to Israel, they would settle the problem in a year. They would give back the occupied territories and make that a Palestinian state and not try to keep the settlements because it costs them so much to defend them. Then sit on the border and sniper any palestinian that gets within 100 feet of Israel. Done. Of course US dollars allow Israel to pay the huge costs to defend the settlements. Cut off funding to Israel, Jordan, Egypt and these other nations and let them figure it out without our intervention. I'm surprised that so many people that I see as conservatives (like myself) throw all of that out of the window to support Israel. We talk about limited government and spending yet we loop ourselves in a situation which has caused a sustained weakness in our economy since our alliance with Israel. We placed international embargo's against Libya/Iran because of our Israeli support which limited the free flow of oil thereby hurting our economy. Our allegience to Israel has alienated much of the second largest religion in the world causing boycotts and danger to our companies and their employees. What do we get out of this relationship?? And don't start talking about allies because if you give any country thousands of dollars a year PER CITIZEN, I am 100% sure they'll be your allies and not send spies over here like Israel has. I have never seen the US so caught up in defending another nation as to the detriment of our own financial goals.
I know its hard to fathom Buck, But why is there a US-Arab/Middle East Conflict?? Could it be that the fire started when we made Israel the most powerful military in the region and given them over a hundred billion dollars in money and weapons?? BTW, I don't blame Israel just like I don't blame those on welfare. If you have a system that allows HANDOUTS, there will always be someone there to take them. If we're willing to fund Israel and they're settlements then we'd better not complain when we have a significant amount of the world mad at us. The friend of my enemy is my enemy?
I think that it is interesting that you guys accept this ex communist intelligence guys version of the facts as true without more confirmation. Oh well most of you accepted all the disinfo about Iraq and wmd from dubious defector types, too.
