Ten Years Later the Truth Emerges
On Sunday, February 23, 1997 a gunman opened fire on the observation deck of the Empire State Building. Seven people were shot, one died, and for the last ten years Ali Abu Kamal's family denied there was any political motivation behind the shooting...that is, until now.
|
Ali Abu Kamal's relatives say they are tired of lying about why the Palestinian opened fire on the observation deck of Empire State Building, killing a tourist and injuring six other people before committing suicide. Kamal's widow insisted after the shooting spree that the attack was not politically motivated. She said that her husband had become suicidal after losing $300,000 in a business venture. But in a stunning admission, Kamal's 48-year-old daughter Linda told the Daily News that her dad wanted to punish the U.S. for supporting Israel - and revealed her mom's 1997 account was a cover story crafted by the Palestinian Authority. |
There are two possibilities as to why the family has changed their story. One, the obvious, that they had lied all these years and the attack was politically motivated, or two, it has become advantageous for the family to admit as much. The latter would signal a popular edge to supporting our enemies, which these days would not be surprising.
Look back at the Arab American Institute's Washington Watch article on the shooting, praising the media for not sensationalizing the story. Stating the New York Post was "exemplary in its treatment" because "no mention was made of Mr. Abu Kamal’s Palestinian or Arab nationality".
|
While all the major papers carried pieces on the victims, lax security, and gun laws, and extensive and sensitive pieces on Abu Kamal’s descent into madness and violence and the reaction of his family, only the New York Times reprinted, in full, the note left by Abu Kamal in which he described his anger and desire for revenge. Since the letter included references to Zionism and the loss of Palestinian rights, it could have been exploited and sensationalized. But the New York Times published it in full and in its accompanying article made clear that the letter described not a terrorist but a profoundly disturbed man who had descended into despair, and insane violence. |
So for ten years we managed to fool ourselves and pretend that this was just some crazy guy with no agenda, while sympathizers and apologists praised us for looking the other way.