Well, in any case, there is definitely some sort of cover up going on. There are only a couple of possibilities. 1) The French doctors and pathologists are so rediculously stupid that they can't positively identify something as simple as AIDS, or poisoning, etc. 2) They are just covering up the facts. Again, same with his own personal physician, who claimed that he was not taking care of Arafat in last weaks (that seems kind of ironic since he's been his personal physician for decades). Either, he's so icredibly stupid that he actually believes that other common sense people, let alone other physicians, will actually trust his professionalism when he makes the claim that traces of AIDS were placed in his blood to mask up the fact that he was poisoned. Where did he get his medical degree from? The same place where the French doctors got theirs? "I've been bribed to talk out of my as* University." So, whether it was AIDS or something else, the fact that it's not clear in the medical reports proves that there is a cover-up going on.
-OC

Both the New York Times and Ha'aretz refer to the bizarreness of the French medical report ignoring the possibility of AIDS. According to Ha'aretz:
"Prof. Gil Lugassi, president of the Israeli Society of Hematology, who read the French medical report, says that the fact that this possibility was ignored is 'simply inconceivable and very bizarre.' 'I can only assume," he says, "that if there had been an AIDS test with negative results, there would have been no problem saying so in the report.'"

According to the New York Times:

"The records make no mention of an AIDS test, an omission the experts found bizarre."

The omissions suggest some sort of cover-up.

Neither the NYT nor Ha'aretz articles described in any detail what material they made available to the medical experts.

We do not know, for example, whether the newspapers provided to the experts crucial background information such as Arafat's longstanding and continuing history of homosexual activity. If neither newspaper passed along such information this would produce a huge asymmetry of knowledge since Arafat's sexual history was widely known within Israel, yet hardly known to physicians in the United States.

We also do not know whether either newspaper briefed the medical experts on the custody of the documents. The documents were provided to the Palestinian Authority by Arafat's nephew, PA official Nasser al-Kidwa, after a long delay that provided much opportunity for tampering. The Ha'aretz team obtained information that suggested tampering, most notably the assertion by Arafat's personal physician Ashraf al-Kurdi that there had been a positive AIDS test in France, yet none remained in the chart that was released. Ha'aretz revealed that all Arafat's lab tests were sent under false names, making tampering even easier.

We also do not know whether there were gaps in the medical record provided to the newspapers. Both papers described surprise among experts that no AIDS test was described. Neither paper discussed the presence or absence of testing for cryptosporidiosis, a parasitic infection commonly seen in AIDS patients that produces diarrhea such as described in Arafat. Neither discussed AIDS dementia, produced by the HIV virus itself and often difficult to treat, but the Ha'aretz article described the severe mental deterioration well before the 12 October date of gastrointestinal deterioration that has served as the focus of the poisoning hypothesis.

Ha'aretz is like a doctor who took the time to obtain a history beyond the physical examination. The NYT is like a doctor who did not do so. It is not surprising that they reached different conclusions.