Caroline Glick writes:

[Quote from Jerusalem Post begins here]

To cultivate the myth of his innocence Arafat ordered his Fatah terror cells to operate under pseudonyms. In the early 1970’s he renamed several Fatah murder squads the Black September Organization while publicly claiming that they were “breakaway” units completely unrelated to Fatah or to himself.

In 2000, as he launched the current Palestinian jihad, he repeated the process by renaming Fatah terror cells the Aksa Martyr Brigades and then claiming that they were completely unrelated to Fatah or to himself. This fiction too, has been successful in spite of the fact that all Aksa Martyr Brigades terrorists are members of Fatah and most are members of Palestinian Authority official militias who receive their salaries, guns and marching orders from Fatah.

Last week, with the quiet release of a 33-year-old US State Department cable, a good chunk of the edifice of his great lie was destroyed.

ON MARCH 1, 1973, eight Fatah terrorists, operating under the Black September banner stormed the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Khartoum, Sudan during a farewell party for the US Embassy’s Charges d’Affaires George Curtis Moore. The terrorists took Moore, US ambassador Cleo Noel, Belgian Charges d’Affairs Guy Eid and two Arab diplomats hostage. They demanded that the US, Israel, Jordan and Germany release PLO and Baader-Meinhof Gang terrorists, including Robert F. Kennedy’s Palestinian assassin Sirhan Sirhan and Black September commander Muhammed Awadh (Abu Daud), from prison in exchange for the hostages’ release.

…for 33 years, under seven consecutive presidential administrations, the State Department denied any knowledge of involvement by Arafat or Fatah in the execution of its own people.

Until last week.

THE CABLE released by the State Department’s historian states, “The Khartoum operation was planned and carried out with the full knowledge and personal approval of Yasir Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, (PLO), and the head of Fatah. Fatah representatives based in Khartoum participated in the attack, using a Fatah vehicle to transport the terrorists to the Saudi Arabian Embassy.”[1]

[Quote from Jerusalem Post ends here]

Caroline Glick proceeds to ask some pointed questions and to make some equally pointed observations. For example, given that all of the major news networks and newspapers have completely ignored this scandal, Glick asks:

“[H]ow is it possible that the belated admission of a massive 33 year cover-up of the murder of senior American diplomats spanning the course of seven consecutive presidential administrations has been ignored by the US media?”

That is an excellent question. One to which HIR has already provided the answer in the following piece:

Then Glick says:

“On the face of it, the released cable, which calls into question the very foundation of US Middle East policy for the past generation is simply stunning.”

It is stunning, because it completely contradicts the official (and media) representation of US foreign policy in the Middle East. We constantly hear, everywhere, all the time, ad nauseam, that US foreign policy is supposedly pro-Israel. Clearly, however, this cable all by itself demonstrates that over “the course of seven consecutive presidential administrations” (Democrat and Republican), US policy has been so consistently and extremely pro-PLO that the US government has kept secret the known identities of those who murdered US diplomats in order to protect this antisemitic, genocidal, terrorist organization. The US government has not merely failed to prosecute the PLO murderers, which is bad enough. The US government -- in seven consecutive administrations -- has kept from US citizens the crucial information that it was the PLO who murdered their fellow nationals.

Diplomats are supposed to be sacrosanct in international law, so there is hardly a more serious crime than the murder of diplomats; but the complicity in their murders, by the government that employs these diplomats, is more serious: it is called ‘high treason’:

“High treason, broadly defined, is an action which is grossly disloyal to one's country... For the United States, the Constitution specifies the substantive and procedural requirements for treason in Article 3, Section 3: levying war against the United States or adhering to the enemies of the United States.”[1a]

Protecting the murderers of US diplomats certainly qualifies as “adhering to the enemies of the United States.”

Returning to Caroline Glick, she asks:

“The media’s abject refusal to cover the story raises an even more egregious aspect of the episode. Specifically, what does the fact that under seven consecutive administrations, the US government has covered up Arafat's direct responsibility for the murder of American diplomats while placing both Arafat and Fatah at the center of its Middle East policy, say about the basic rationale of US policy towards Israel and the Palestinians?”

Caroline Glick does not proffer the answer to her question but it is obvious: the US ruling elite has been attempting the destruction of the Jewish state. This is why, in 1991, George Bush Sr. exerted very heavy pressure -- including all sorts of threats that went on for a period of 8 months -- until it literally forced the Israelis to accept the PLO as the government over the West Bank and Gaza Arabs, to name just the single most important policy relevant to the security of the Jewish state in the entire second half of the 20th century.[2]

But is this US State Department cable really the smoking gun that Caroline Glick makes it out to be? It is not. We've had a whole arsenal of guns available, and all of them smoking profusely, for a good while. A mountain of evidence demonstrating that US foreign policy has been radically anti-Israel and pro-PLO has been publicly available for years, and HIR has conveniently organized this documentation in a hyperlinked chronological sequence spanning most of the 20th century, and into the 21st, in the following piece:

Then Glick states:

“Sadly, the release of the cable did not in any way signal a change in the US policy of whitewashing Fatah. In contravention of US law, for the past 13 years, the State Department has been denying that Fatah, the PLO and the Palestinian Authority are terrorist organizations, and has been actively funding them with US taxpayer dollars.”

This is perfectly consistent with the hypothesis that the US ruling elite means to destroy the Jewish state.

And in December 2005 HIR published a piece that used the above-mentioned US State Department document as one piece of evidence supporting a well-rounded analysis of US policy towards Israel, Iran, and the PLO in the 1970s:

The above piece will help you understand what the geopolitical strategy of the US ruling elite, with regard to these very same players, is today. You will see that it is identical to the policy in the 1970s.

In closing, I should mention an important fact that Caroline Glick fails to remark upon: Al Fatah, the terrorist organization that the US government has been protecting and sponsoring all these years, was created by Hajj Amin al Husseini's Arab Higher Committee. This organization, led by the same Husseini, was responsible before WWII for massive anti-Jewish terrorist riots in British Mandate 'Palestine.' In 1941 Husseini met with Adolf Hitler in Berlin and subsequently became the top co-architect -- with Adolf Eichmann -- of the German Nazi Final Solution. After the war, Husseini mentored Yasser Arafat and created Al Fatah with the goal of finishing the extermination of the Jewish people. That's what the PLO, a big favorite of the US government, is: a continuation of the German Nazi Final Solution. You may read about this history here:

"How did the 'Palestinian movement' emerge? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US"; from UNDERSTANDING THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT, An HIR series, in four parts; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm

_____________________________________________________

Footnotes and Further Reading
_____________________________________________________