|
 |
POINT
Should Yasser Arafat Go?
Aired April 2, 2002 - 20:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: THE POINT with Anderson Cooper. Should Arafat go?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, FORMER ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: It's the most sensible thing to do, is to remove him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is the epitome of arrogance, of racism, of power politics.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: If so, where?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARIEL SHARON, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: It's going to be one-way ticket. He'll not be able to return.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Arafat was elected by the Palestinian people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: "Flashpoint": Arafat's fate.
The Georgetown, Colorado showdown.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Everybody for the mayor, say yea.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: The mayor is an ex-stripper. After today, she could be an ex-mayor. But either way, she's talking to us.
Living with HIV.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's almost 18 years of living with a terminal disease, certainly has an effect on a person.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Tonight an artist who has talked to others about the uncertain future he shares with them.
Plus -- a September 11 conspiracy theory you won't believe.
THE POINT. Now from New York, Anderson Cooper.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Good evening. Thanks for joining us tonight on THE POINT. Israel wants him to go. His defenders say no way would it really make a difference.
"Flashpoint": Arafat's fate. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon today suggested Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat can take a one-way ticket into exile anywhere he wants. Arafat wants to stay, even though he remains besieged in his headquarters in the West Bank city of Ramallah.
About 200 people emerged from the compound and surrendered today. Israel says it is going after the Palestinian terror infrastructure. Palestinians say Israel is practicing terror by occupying and attacking their land.
Should Arafat go? If he won't go willingly should he be forced to go, and does anyone have the right to make him leave?
Joining us from Philadelphia, tonight, Daniel Pipes, he's director of the Middle East Forum. And in Washington, James Zogby of the Arab-American Institute. Thank you very much for being with us, both of you. Tonight, there is basically two questions that I think we want to get to. Should Arafat be exiled and could he be? Would it be effective? Would it do more harm than good? Would it actually do any good at all?
Daniel, I want to start off with you, Colin Powell says Arafat is a player there, that the U.S. should not label him a terrorist and that removing him in effect wouldn't do any good. Colin Powell says it would -- that Arafat could -- quote -- "conduct the same kind of activities from a different place." Sound sensible?
DANIEL PIPES, THE MIDDLE EAST FORUM: Mr. Powell's statement today was actually very interesting. Because he said we will not designate Yasser Arafat a terrorist, implying all the while that we know he really is one, but we're not going to designate him as one, because we think he can still be politically useful. Well, I differ with that. I think that that's like saying that Saddam Hussein could be politically useful.
In fact, like Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat is someone who has shown his true colors time and time again. He's someone who is irredeemable, he is a terrorist, he is someone on the other side of our war on terrorism. And...
ANDERSON: Would exiling him have any effect? Couldn't he conduct the same activities elsewhere?
PIPES: Perhaps. I really don't have an opinion on that. My point of view would be, we have an ally in Israel. And we should let the Israelis deal with this terrorist as they see fit. And I'm not going to give tactical advice to the Israelis. They should figure that out. Personally, I don't particularly see a great advantage of having him outside rather than inside. But that's not...
ANDERSON: James...
PIPES: ... the key issue.
ANDERSON: James, let me bring you in. Israel says Arafat is a terrorist. They have security reasons for wanting him to go.
JAMES ZOGBY, ARAB-AMERICAN INSTITUTE: Well, I think Secretary Powell is right. And I don't think he meant what Daniel Pipes thought that he meant. The fact is that Arafat has been involved in the peace process, has been a partner for peace, was a partner of two previous Israeli prime minister and felt the process turned against him.
COOPER: Do you believe he did everything -- he has done everything he could to stem the tide of terror?
ZOGBY: I think the negotiations that went as far as Taba really made a significant difference. If you read "The New York Times" on Sunday, Yosi Ballin's (ph) article, really puts a lie to this entire narrative that said Arafat gave up the best deal and didn't go further. Arafat did go as far as he possibly could go. It was Ehud Barak that walked away, and finally lost an election in the middle of the first intifada.
The simple fact right now is that calling names as Mr. Pipes wants to do is not going to help the situation go away. Israel tried to deal with Arafat in the way they're dealing with him now in 1982. And you know what? Twenty years later, nothing changed, the simple fact is the that we need a negotiated settlement. We need an independent Palestinian state, Yasser Arafat is the representative of the Palestinian people. Israelis may not like Arafat, and you know what? Palestinians and Arabs don't like Ariel Sharon and think he's a terrorist. But at the end of the day these enemies have to make peace, and America as a bigger responsibility than just letting these guys fight it out.
We can't just say to Israel, you do what you want and we'll walk away from it. We have interests, we have allies, we have concerns in the region. We have to provide forceful leadership and make this thing, I think, a process that will work. I think we can do it.
COOPER: Daniel, if as you say, Arafat should leave, who fills the void? I mean, if he exits the stage, who is going to take his place?
PIPES: Well, I didn't say he should leave Israel. I just think he is a terrorist. And by the way...
ZOGBY: Daniel, he is not in Israel. He's in the West Bank, which is Palestine.
PIPES: Mr. Zogby referred to -- there is no Palestine, Mr. Zogby. You are in the illusion that is exists. It doesn't exist yet.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: Who would fill the void? Let's stick to the question. Who would fill the void?
PIPES: I don't know who is going to fill the void. I'm not an Israeli tactician. I don't know what they are up to. But let me put it this way. Mr. Zogby said I called Yasser Arafat names. Today it just came to light that he has been actually himself signing on the vouchers to pay for the implements for the suicide bombers, and he's been paying for -- he's actually been signing off on the vouchers to pay the families to reward them for the suicide. I mean, this man is...
ZOGBY: That's not true, Daniel.
PIPES: Well, it just came to light. You didn't catch it.
ZOGBY: I did. It came from Israeli intelligence sources...
PIPES: Let me finish.
ZOGBY: and frankly...
ANDERSON: James, James, let him finish and then we'll come to you.
ZOGBY: Your turn.
PIPES: Looking at Arafat, we should look at him like we did Mullah Omar in Afghanistan. This is someone who is an avowed enemy of ours, as well as Israel's. He's a terrorist and can not be someone who is acceptable to the United States government.
ZOGBY: Well, Mr. Pipes wants to say he is Saddam Hussein, he is Mullah Omar, he's the Taliban -- he's whatever. The simple fact is that he is the head of the Palestinian people. Their striving for national liberation is one that he has headed now for many years, many decades. And the fact is we have to recognize and respect as President Bush is apparently moving to respect is that that right of self-determination is one that is essential.
Violence isn't going to work, Palestinians have to know that. But neither is occupation going to work and Israel has to know that. Israel's not going to end the problem of terror by more occupation. Neither will Palestinians end the occupation with terror. We have to have a political solution and America has to provide, I think, courageous leadership that pulls these people apart and provides for, I think, protection and security for both.
But calling Arafat names or using Israeli intelligence sources to demonize and discredit, that simply isn't going to wash right now because it's the not the point. The point is how do we make peace between these enemies and create security and stability so American interests are protected. I think that is what Colin Powell is working toward now.
ANDERSON: And on that point, we are going to have to leave it. James Zogby, Daniel pipes, thanks very much for joining us tonight.
Our next stop, a Colorado town where some of the residents wouldn't mind exiling their mayor, but they'd settle for a recall. Mayor Colleen Brooks defends herself when THE POINT returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: And welcome back.
Time is running out for the voters of Georgetown, Colorado, and maybe for the mayor as well. In less than 30 minutes, the polls close in a recall election to decide whether Mayor Koleen Brooks will serve out the remaining year of her two-year term. That is her with the bunny ears.
It has been some year already. The former exotic dancer has been accused and denies ordering a hit on a police officer -- no charges were ever filed -- lying about being assaulted, and flashing her breasts while at a bar.
She joins us fully clothed but minus the bunny ears tonight from her beauty shop. Thanks very much for being with us tonight, Mayor Brooks. I can still call you Mayor Brooks for at least I know another 30 minutes, depending on what happens.
MAYOR KOLEEN BROOKS, GEORGETOWN, COLORADO: Oh, you definitely can. Thank you for having me.
COOPER: Thanks. There is a very good chance that you may be recalled, that voters may decide to end your term a year early, basically. Why are you so controversial in this town?
BROOKS: I guess it has to do with the awareness in the community that we want to bring to Georgetown. This is a change that we recognized last year when I was running and it's -- couldn't be more black and white on this election. This is a change for Georgetown to -- for Georgetown to grow and be more prosperous. We just got done with title 17, ordinance two. That's on the ballot, too. This is a victory any way that you look at it.
COOPER: There's a quote from the Associated Press. They quoted a resident of your town, Bill Price, who apparently is a school custodian. And he said, quote, "she just bucked the system and now everyone is down on her." Perhaps it's not the turn of phrase that I would have used, but do you think essentially that is what the issue is, that you were sort of going against the powers that be?
BROOKS: Well, that's what I stood on. This was -- it takes a very big person or a big entity of anything to go up for change. This town has been suppressed for the last 30 years. There has been a lot of -- well, there's been a lot of tax.
COOPER: What are some of the changes you want? I understand you wanted to bring in an Octoberfest, a motorcycle...
BROOKS: I would like to bring in anything. For one, the youth is the most important thing to me. There needs to be something to do for the children after they get out of school. They need to feel wanted and they need a place to go to express all their energy. We have not focused on the youth. There was nothing more to do when I was a child.
COOPER: There have been a number of allegations, as you know, we mentioned some of them, baring your breasts in public, charges -- someone charged, but no charges were ever filed that you were accused of trying -- or hired someone to kill a police officer?
(CROSSTALK)
BROOKS: But you have to realize that, you know, every one of these reports done, there has never been any report that says that I've been falsely accused or there haven't been any facts to any of these stories.
COOPER: But, there are now felony charges against you for tampering with evidence, in a sense, making up a story that you were attacked.
BROOKS: Exactly.
COOPER: Do you think there is some sort of conspiracy against you? I mean, why is there this multitude of charges, some of which have never borne any fruit?
BROOKS: Well, you tell me. I have a great attorney. I can't really talk about the case, Michael Andre (ph). There's a light at the end of the tunnel. That's all I -- this year hasn't been easy. People want to put, you know, point fingers and that's what politics are about. You have a thick skin. They want to point fingers at your personal side and, yes, this has been a conspiracy, I feel. But, you know, there's nothing you can do. You just have to -- it will all come out in the wash.
COOPER: Well, Hillary Clinton said there was a vast right-wing conspiracy against her husband. So, maybe you are in the same vast right-wing conspiracy.
BROOKS: I don't know if I'm in the same as Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. I wouldn't say that. But I would just like to say that, you know, we need to go to where our problems are and where they lie in this town and stop pointing fingers and making everybody come to the conclusion that I'm just a trouble maker instead of a problem solver.
COOPER: As you know, a lot of people have accused you, basically of seeking out publicity, of using this as a way to try and get as much publicity as you can. We saw some video of you earlier out campaigning in bunny ears. Perhaps not the most orthodox way of getting out the vote, I suppose.
BROOKS: Well, I have freedom of speech and I am who I am. I can't change who I am or else I have defeated the whole purpose.
COOPER: Is this a publicity stunt, though?
BROOKS: A publicity stunt? Do you think working this hard in front of all the cameras and making myself available to you is a publicity stunt? I think it's something this town has created. And I think that it has been a nightmare, basically. So, no, I don't see in what way.
COOPER: All right. Well, Mayor Koleen Brooks, I know the polls close, I think, in about 10 minutes from now. I want to wish you a lot of luck...
BROOKS: Thank you so much.
COOPER: ... and I hope things turn out the way you'd want them to. Thanks a lot.
BROOKS: Thank you.
COOPER: Next, people who have learned to live in the shadow of uncertainty. They have HIV, but their lives are far from over. THE POINT will return in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: And welcome back.
We all know there's no cure yet for AIDS. But people who have the virus, HIV, are living longer, more productive lives than ever before. That is certainly the case with our next guest.
Rob Anderson has had HIV for 23 years. He takes no medicine and has never developed AIDS. He's created a series of portraits of people like himself, long-term HIV survivors. Their stories and his are, to say the least, remarkable. The portraits and his interviews with the subjects have been put together in an exhibit called "Rattlesnake in a Moving Car."
Rob Anderson joins us now from San Francisco. Thank you very much for being with us, Rob. Why is living with HIV like having a rattlesnake in a moving car?
ROB ANDERSON, ARTIST: Well, the title actually stems from one of the steady participants, and asking him quite a number of questions. And this particular individual, Lans (ph), is very much into shamanism. And he likened living with HIV to being a rattlesnake, living with a rattlesnake in a moving car.
COOPER: Because you never know when it's going to strike, I guess?
ANDERSON: Well, the idea is that you want to keep this rattlesnake safely in the passenger seat. You can't stop the car. You can't throw the snake out. So, somehow, you have to work out a situation where you keep the snake very comfortably over there, and not under foot. So, as we were doing the interview with him, I really liked that metaphor, and I kept it...
COOPER: You are part of a very, very small group of people in the United States who have HIV, have had it for a very long period of time, 23 years in your case, have not taken medicine and have not developed full-blown AIDS. Do you or your doctors have any sense of why you are lucky enough to be in this group?
ANDERSON: Well, they've certainly studied my blood extensively. I don't think they've really come up with any conclusions. That was actually one of the reasons why I took on this project for myself, is an affirmation to find out, you know, why am I alive. And I thought, why am I still alive? And I thought by talking with a number of people in the study and getting their take on it, that it would give -- it might give me some sense of why I'm alive and perhaps give the public a similar view.
COOPER: The study you talk about is a study of people, long-term HIV survivors. Is there a commonality of attitude, a commonality of experience that you found among long-term HIV survivors?
ANDERSON: I went into this thinking that it was going to be much more like-minded. And I'd say our experiences are...
COOPER: By the way, we're showing some of the portraits that you drew. Go ahead.
ANDERSON: OK. I would say the -- when I did this, I thought that we'd be more like-minded. And as I started going through the interview process, and I've done, let's see, 13 of them now, I found that we were very divergent in our viewpoints about HIV and AIDS.
But I do feel that there's a common thread of a very strong sense of survival, a very positive attitude. Not that it hasn't wavered, but I do feel that from what I've come across with these people, that there's a real strong, you know, I'm going to make it.
COOPER: And is that, I mean, when you ask yourself that question, which you said motivated you to do this project, that question, why am I still alive, is that the answer you come up with for yourself?
ANDERSON: That's one of them. I think that's sort of the overriding feeling that I have. That's -- I think it particularly kept me alive in the beginning when there was so much hysteria and there was a lot of pressure to jump in on a lot of treatments. Now the people that are in this study that I've interviewed, quite a number of them actually are on medication now. And that was one of the things that I discovered. I thought, well, nobody would be on medications, but quite a few of them are. And as I've done this, I have come around to more of the feeling that one of the participants, Emilio Gonzalez (ph) -- I think his portrait would have been shown -- is that whatever makes you feel well and feel good about yourself and feel healthy, whether it be meditation, whether it be exercise, AZT treatments, you know, what works for you. And essentially, I find that with all of the people. They are very different in their views, but they are all doing what works for them.
COOPER: Well, Rob Anderson, we appreciate you very much, you taking the time to talk with us. I look forward to seeing the exhibition. Thanks very much, Rob.
ANDERSON: Sure. My pleasure.
COOPER: We have got a lot of response last night to last night's debate about Oregon's doctor-assisted suicide law and the justice department's effort to keep doctors from prescribing deadly drugs to terminally ill patients.
Michael writes: "I feel that it is against God's law to take life into our own hands. Our faith should be stronger when life challenges us."
Jason agrees: "Nobody has the right to suicide. We are not God, correct? So, why do we think we have the right to end life?"
Trish sides with the majority of those who e-mailed us. She says: "I agree that people who are terminally ill with no options left should have the right to end their suffering. I do believe that this must be regulated, not a decision to be made lightly and without the proper advice from medical professionals."
Finally, David has a suggestion: "The solution to the problem of doctors being unable to assist in suicides is to create a new job category: suicide assist technicians. This new group would not be asked to take the Hippocratic Oath. They would simply be asked to do what is right."
And tonight, time for a quick "Final Point." Shortly after September 11, a French newspaper ran a headline proclaiming "We Are All Americans." A very nice sentiment, what a difference a few months make.
A new book called "Shocking Deception" has been published in France. And you will not believe what it claims. According to the author, the hijacked aircraft that hit the Pentagon, that didn't happen. The explosion was a bomb, they say, set off by Pentagon officials in collaboration with Osama bin Laden. Oh, and President Bush, he is in on the cover-up, according to them.
Now, I know it's easy to make fun of the French. They love snails. They believe Jerry Lewis is a genius. And they certainly have mastered the art of surrender, haven't they? But it's hard not to take this book personally. The book's arguments aren't even worth refuting. The most shocking think about "Shocking Deception" is that the French are actually buying it, big time. It is on the best-seller list and the subject of heated discussion on the Internet. It is certainly nice to know who your friends are.
I'm Anderson Cooper in New York. Thanks very much for joining us on THE POINT. We'll be back tomorrow night. Thank you. Good night.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
|
|
|
|
