Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

Middle East Crisis Becomes a Puzzle for Washington

Aired April 13, 2002 - 08:26   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.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Bill Schneider's up, in the house, so to speak. Crisis in the Middle East has become a political puzzle for Washington. It's a puzzle in general for all of to us try to decipher. There's no obvious solutions here, of course.

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Well, but Bill Schneider puts all the pieces together for us. Isn't that right, Bill? Good morning.

O'BRIEN: Perhaps we should send him as an emissary there, yeah.

PHILLIPS: Many e-mails to get to, Bill, but why don't we start out sort of generally speaking about U.S. credibility here. At stake? Yes, no?

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, absolutely. And the problem is it doesn't look good right now, because, look, here's the president of the United States saying in no uncertain terms Israel must withdraw and must begin to withdraw immediately without delay, and nothing keeps happening. The government of Israel appears to be openly defiant of the president.

The president says that the Palestinian Authority must condemn terrorism. We were waiting for Yasser Arafat to make a statement condemning the atrocity in Jerusalem yesterday, and nothing is heard. That doesn't make the president and the United States government look either good or influential.

O'BRIEN: All right. Let's go back to one of our correspondents from earlier. D. Young in Knoxville had a couple of good ones this morning. "The only benefit of not meeting with Arafat -- that is to say the Powell meeting -- is to appease Israel. Listen to Pat Buchanan on this one. We must talk to both sides." Of course, Bill Schneider, you always listen to Pat Buchanan, right?

SCHNEIDER: Well, we have many times in the past. The problem is, you know, it's a problem if you do, it's a problem if you don. If you meet with Arafat, then critics will say that you're appeasing terrorism after this tragedy in Jerusalem, which was directly connected to Arafat because the responsibility for it is claimed by the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which is linked to his political organization, Fatah. Then it looks like you are essentially trying to negotiate with terrorists, or someone who sponsors terrorism and who has not condemned those atrocities. If you don't meet with Arafat, then what's the point of Powell's visit? What is he going to come out with? Who is the leader of the other side? When Christiane Amanpour interviewed King Abdullah of Jordan, he declared Arafat a hero. Not just to Palestinians, he said, but to all Arabs. There is no apparent alternative to Arafat as the leader of the Palestinians. So what do you do?

PHILLIPS: This question from Bobby Carr in Atlanta, Bill. "Will the United States be willing to enter into a NATO-like agreement with Israel as an assurance to Israel's security, considering an attack on Israel an attack on the USA?"

SCHNEIDER: That's been discussed many times in the past. And I think a formal agreement would be difficult. The United States has agreed to protect Israel's security. But the notion of a formal commitment that any attack on Israel would create an immediate American response, I'm not sure we're willing to spell it out in exactly those terms.

But I think the message to Israel is clear. The message to the Arabs is clear. We are committed to Israel's security. We are actually committed to two things. We are committed to Israel's security and to we are committed to peace in the region, to doing something -- to becoming an honest broker who can make a deal with both sides. The problem is sometimes those two roles look incompatible. How can you do both? That's the problem.

O'BRIEN: All right. Bill, this is a good question, because I heard you talking this past week about how Mr. Netanyahu was sort of using Bush's own words against him, in a way. Here's the point from this e-mail: "Arafat is a terrorist. Why are we even bothering to send Powell over there to talk to him? This goes against the Bush doctrine on terror to go after terrorists wherever they are. Arafat supports terrorists, so why are we taking a different approach with Israel? You can't talk to this man, he has no intentions of denouncing the suicide bombers." That's from Alan Lee Wilson.

Post 9-11, the Bush administration doesn't have quite as much wiggle room, does it?

SCHNEIDER: No, it does not. There's something here, a problem called reality. And the reality is that Arafat is the only acknowledged leader of the Palestinian people, elected by not the people but the Palestinian Council. His stature has grown enormously since he became a victim. The Israelis isolated him, and that made him a hero. He became -- he was defiant.

So the question is, if you want to make peace, if you want to even talk about a cease-fire, which is about all we can realistically talk about, who do you talk to? There is no one else to talk to. He may be, as Israelis describe him, as the viewer described him, as a lot of Americans describe him, a terrorist, an enemy of the United States. But what do you do? If there's going to be some kind of a cease-fire in the region, you have to deal with the person who's the leader of the other side, even if we claim we'll never deal with terrorists, the only way of dealing with them is to eliminate them, to wipe them out. Israel insists that Arafat not killed, but must be put in exile, separated from his people.

The question is, is there anyone else to deal with? The Israelis hope we can find someone, but so far nobody has even made a suggestion.

O'BRIEN: All right. Chip from Columbia, South Carolina has perhaps the most provocative e-mail of the morning -- speaking of bringing new players into the picture. "Take Powell out and bring Reverend Jesse Jackson in. He's a far better diplomat than Colin Powell will ever be. Powell never wanted the job, so now it's time for a real peace maker." Jesse Jackson in the Middle East, Bill?

SCHNEIDER: I'm sure he would go.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHNEIDER: And he has done some very useful things in the past. I mean, don't make fun of Jesse Jackson. He has done some very helpful things. But in this case, I don't think he would be very helpful.

You have to have, first of all, someone who has the authority of the United States government behind him. Look, the player in the Middle East is the United States of America. And the basic point is: The Israelis and the Palestinians are unlikely, I think, ever to make peace with each other. But they could very well make peace with the United States. They could make a deal with the United States.

I can't even imagine the scene of Mr. Sharon and Mr. Arafat meeting with each other, shaking hands, making any kind of deal. Remember, Arafat, as well as Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, shared a Nobel Prize some years back. That seems long ago.

O'BRIEN: Sure does.

SCHNEIDER: I can't imagine Sharon and Arafat even meeting. The representative there has to be someone who has the authority, the power, the clout of the United States of America. That's not Jesse Jackson.

PHILLIPS: CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider, will you come back and visit us again next hour?

SCHNEIDER: I will.

PHILLIPS: All right. Great. Thanks so much.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com