PLEASE responses that are related to this topic.

I was watching the coverage of the attck on the compound and they had an interview with Arafat while the invasion was on. Arafat did not answer the questions logically but rather like he was ranting on and on. At one point he was saying something to the effect that th reporter "must treat General Arafat with respect" and at one point told her to shut up.

Now under the circumstances, I did not expect him to be calm, cool, and collective.

Could his age be a factor here? I mean he is 78(??). Is it time for the Palestinians to elect(??) a new leader?

Comments.

PS Please excuse any errors in spelling. Sorry.

Trancript of interview:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/03/29/arafat.cnna/

RAMALLAH, West Bank (CNN) -- Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat once again found himself in the middle of the Middle East crisis Friday, as Israeli tanks shelled and surrounded his Ramallah compound.

Arafat spoke by telephone with CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour about his situation and his reaction to the Israeli military action.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Can you tell me exactly what the conditions are like at your compound right now?

YASSER ARAFAT: Still, you are not following this aggression against the Palestinian people in all of the West Bank and Gaza.

They have divided Gaza into three parts, completely separated it. And (there is) also the aggression and the attack in Ramallah against my headquarters and against the Palestinian people ... all around.



At the same time, they are increasing their forces, their military activities to follow up their aggression against many other places, many other towns, many other cities, many other areas in our Palestinian liberated areas.

AMANPOUR: Can you tell me please, have the rooms that you are sitting in been attacked? Are you under direct physical threat right now?

ARAFAT: It seems that you are not following the TVs all over the world. They have destroyed completely seven of our buildings, completely, around my office and pounded my office with all their armaments. What do you expect?

They have to understand that it is the Palestinian people who are facing this challenge. And we are sure that our people will continue their (steadfastness) in the face of this terrorism.

(Israel) is the real terrorist of the occupation. And especially they are using now all the American weapons against us -- F-15s and F-16s and . . . rockets and bombers and artillery and everything.

AMANPOUR: Do you believe that they are trying to kill you? To harm you?

ARAFAT: What do you expect, by shelling us continuously in the last 24 hours? What do you think? Is it by chance? They're saying that the Americans said that Arafat will not be harmed?

It is a problem of Arafat or the problem of our people -- of our liberty, of our independent Palestinian state, of our peaceful agreement between me and my partner (former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak) Rabin, who has paid his life for the peace of the brave which we have signed.

And in spite of that, we are in now steadfast to continue with the peace of the brave that I have signed with my partner Rabin.

But we have to remember that my partner, Rabin, is now (buried) in Israel. We are continuing with the peace process, with the majority of the Israeli people.

AMANPOUR: Secretary of State Colin Powell has spoken to you, I understand. He has also spoken publicly. He called on you to rein in the violence. What do you make of that statement, and can you and will you rein in that violence?

ARAFAT: Are you asking me while I am under complete siege? You are a wonderful journalist. You have to respect your profession.

AMANPOUR: Mr. Arafat, I'm simply asking you a question. Are you able to rein in the violence?

ARAFAT: You have to be accurate when you are speaking with General Yasser Arafat. Be quiet! You are covering, with such questions, the terrorist activities of the Israeli occupation and the Israeli crimes. Be fair. Why do you make these certain mistakes?

Thank you. Bye, bye.

He IS a lunatic, but of the sane variety, I believe. He is just ultra-hateful terrorist that should be dealt with appropriately.

He threatened Chrity Amanpour, telling her to "be quiet" and to "not make a fatal mistake" on CNN earlier.

By the way, that link above isn't working for me.  

The guy sounds pretty rude if you ask me. Christiane Amanpour is one of CNN's best journalists in my eyes and i feel sorry she had to put up with that crap.

Noneed to worry N400QX. My first post is the phone call that was made.

Rude and arrogant, to say the least.

Bigo747-- thanks! I guess the link JUST decided to work after I posted...  

I actually listened to the phone call on CNN. He sounded pretty nervous if you ask me. He stuttered some time. Christiane just kept on nodding along. At the end of the arrogant interview, she didnt look mad.

Saw the interview as well. At one point, when he said be quiet, she clearly looked shocked and somewhat afraid.

Kind of reminds me of Charlies Angels.

You will respect the Arafat. Is it the Arafat?

He's insane for not asking Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt to send peacekeepers into the occupied territories. That might force Israel to sit back and think about this a little bit.

He's insane for not asking Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt to send peacekeepers into the occupied territories.

Peacekeepers from those countries?!?!?!?!? You gotta be kidding me, right???

LOL

Not at all. If I were Arafat, I would ask these countries, along with maybe Iraq and Iran as well, to send in their heavily armed special forces troops to maintain order in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and then put Israel on notice that if they attacked these troops, that would be considered an act of war and would be responded to accordingly. Arafat's either insane or stupid for not trying to play this card yet. Those countries wouldn't mind the opportunity to destroy Israel. I would have tried this long ago.

Israel is good at that strategy. If arafat did play that card, I would guess Israel is just crazy enough to play the nuke card.

And the US would idely stand by (ya right). You must be as crazy as Arafat. Do you want WAR? Thousands killed, I know let's call it the GAZA WAR. Pal, think before you type.

Jessman: But then Israel would be gambling on those countries not having weapons of mass destruction. Not a gamble I'd like to take.

B747ca: I am thinking before I type. Here are some of the facts I base this strategy on:
Israel is illegally occupying the West Bank and Gaza Strip
All of those countries would like to see Israel destroyed
Thousands of Palestinians have already died in the occupation
Israel has one of the worst human rights records in the world
Israel is a very small country, and wars in the Middle East tend to go quickly. By the time the US responded, Israel could very well no longer exist.
Sending a peacekeeping force doesn't neccesarily mean war. It would force the Israelis to either back off or be destroyed. If a war resulted, it would be because Israel fired the first shot, and would therefore be the aggressor.

I don't want to see a war any more than the next person, but the area is in a virtual war already. Israel is occupying land that they have no right to, and they are completely unreasonable in negotiations to withdraw. Diplomacy isn't working. This move would show Israel that the entire arab world means business, and that they they will no longer stand for Israeli aggression. That is the idea behind this action. Is this madness? Perhaps, but it is also the only way I see of breaking the current cycle of retaliatory action.

As I said before, peacekeeping by countries who know not what peace is will surley lead to war.

Thousands of People have been killed already, what is a few thousnad more, eh???

Come on man, is life so invaluable that you can say this?

Arafat is insane. I'm glad he finally showed his true colors to the media instead of the BS he usually puts out there.

Chris

I value human life just as much as you do. Thousands of people have died, and nothing has resulted from it. The reason those thousands had to die has not been addressed, so thousands more people will continue to die, and there is no end in sight. Also, the area is already in what can only be described as an unofficial war. Israel is terrorizing the Palestinian population, and they won't back off. In my opinion, a just war is better than an unjust peace, and if a war resulted from a peacekeeping mission such as this, then I'm absolutely convinced that a war is the only way to fix the situation. Also, do you really think the arab countries are so awful that they don't know peace? If they don't know peace, then not even the US knows peace.

BWIrwy4
Actually, if the other countries started moving troops into the West Bank or Gaza Strip the Israeli's would count it as an act of war, even before anyone fired a shot. Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in war. To the victors go the spoils. It is a part of war and is not illegal.
Also; Israel Won the 6 day war because it got information that its enemies were going to attack, so they hit hard, they hit fast, and even though Israel was outnumbered by a wide margin the enemy didn't have a chance. In their situation if a percieved enemy flinches in the wrong direction they will strike, like a threatened rattle-snake. They would hit with all they had, and I don't put it past them to nuke their neighbors.
The thing about the nuke card, play it right and you don't have to worry about the other side at all. It's called First Strike. It was the big thing during the cold war, both sides wanted "first strike" capability. The problem was that both the USA and the then USSR were so spread out it didn't matter who hit first, they would all die because both would just keep hitting until it was all over. at that point we had "Mutually Assured Destruction" That's what kept the cold war cold. Now, common consensus is that Israel has the bomb, possibly even the neutron bomb. Launching a few of those in key areas would most probably cause irreprable damage to their enemies before the enemies were prepared to take the offensive. Common consensus is that the other countries in that region do not.

According to the United Nations, the body that created Israel in the first place as well as being the authority on international law says that Israel's occupation of the territories is illegal. Furthermore, Israel doesn't have "first strike" capability. They don't have enough nukes to destroy the arab world. The other countries may not have nukes of their own, but Iraq at least has chemicals and germs, and they have shown a willingness to use them in the past, and those will kill Israelis just as thoroughly as a nuke would. Also, the technology barrier between Israel and the Arab states is not as large as it was in 1967. And how would the international community react to Israel if it conducted a pre-emptive nuclear strike? Outside the US, Israel isn't too popular to begin with. I'm hoping this doesn't come to this scenario, but if I were Arafat, I'd be seriously contemplating the possibility that there is no other way.

Yes Iraq does have those weapons, but they use them on their own people. How can someone asscociate themselves with such savages.

Listen, both sides are in the wrong here, and some outside (neutral) intervention is required.

This may be the beginning of the next great war (Ihope not)

I agree with you, B747ca. Neutral intervention is required to make this stop with a minimum of bloodshed. But neutral intervention is not happening. The US is talking to the Israelis, but refuses to talk to the Palestinians. Hardly neutral. Neutral intervention means that the rest of the world needs to step up to the plate, but that is not happening, and it is not going to happen. I can see that, and the next best option is to get a bigger friend to protect you, and hope that Israel is smart enough to back off at that point. I know both sides are equally wrong. I don't defend the Palestinians any more than I defend the Israelis. The fact remains that the Palestinian Authority does not have the power or legitimacy to bust every terrorist cell, while Israel does have the power to stop the military. So while both sides are equally wrong, I believe that it is going to have to be Israel that needs to back off first, simply because the Israelis can and the PA cannot. I don't want a war any more than you do. Enough people have died already, but this is the only way I can think of to prompt a development in the peace process at this stage.
If nothing changes, then thousands more people will die.
If this force comes in and Israel attacks, then thousands more people will die.
If this force comes in and Israel backs off, then thousands more people don't die, and the PA gains legitimacy and power to hopefully go after the terrorists.
I don't want a war. I hope the peace process, whatever form it takes, works.

Who's to say that this Arab peacekeeping force does not attck Isreal?

BTW I am neither pro-Isreal or pro-Palastine. Just having a civil discussion.

"He's insane for not asking Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt to send peacekeepers into the occupied territories."

Couldn't stop laughing for 5 minutes. Thanks, I needed that.  

1) Jordan + Egypt: Both countries have peace agreements with IL, and both are subsidized by the US, which would make them think twice of doing anything like that. Not to mention that they were more than happy to leave Israel to deal with the Palestinians when they each signed their peace deals. Egypt did not take the Gaza strip, and Jordan did not take the West Bank. In addition, Jordan has suffered severely from Palestinian extrimists within their borders over the years.

2) Lebanon: If only they had a real army... There are more Syrian personnel and Iranian and Syrian backed terrorists in their country.

3) Syria: I'm tired of going into historical details in these threads because my efforts are never rewarded (PA supporters have a surprisingly bad memory), so I'll give you a quick summary: The Syrians had their a** kicked by the Israelis more than anyone else. In 73' IDF forces had a highway leading to Damascus (Syria's capital), without any resistance what so ever. If it wasn't for the involvment of the super powers in the conflict, they would have probably taken the 10 mile ride and went all the way. The Syrians are the ones that "would think twice". (Let me know if you want more details). Oh, and how exactly are they going to get to PA territories, genius?

4) Iraq: Yeah, right. As if they give a damn about the Palestinians. And how are they going to get their weakened and poorly prepared forces to the scene?

5) Iran: Although having the military capabilities, they would not bother, and would face the same logistical problems as the rest.

LY744.

It seems Arafat doesn't give a crap about his people, just himself. It also seems to me in all the years he has been their leader he hasn't gained them much, except many many dead Palestinians. I would think there is a better method than having your people blow themselves up every day.

Chris

I loved the above comment about it being time for the Palestinians to ELECT a new leader !!

This was the funniest thing ever, most of the these middle eastern countries all dictatorships, therefore there is no electoral process at all.

I also find it amusing that people like the EU and UN call special meetings to get Israel out of Ramallah, yet, not once did they ever call a meeting to tell Arafat to stop blowing up bombs in Israel, week after week of suicide bombers and not one word of complaint from the EU or the UN, then Israel go into Ramallah to try and sort it out and they are all screaming for blood... sickening

The Palastinians claims that all this terrorism is because of the Israeli occupation in the west bank etc, should go back to the times before the 6 day war, when there was no Israeli occupation at all, yet there was endless terrorism by Arafat etc

The biggest laugh of it all, is that the common argument against Israel is that they shouldnt be there in occupied land.... WHO THE HELL do you guys think gave them this land ?

The land was given to the Israelies by the United Nations...thats the best part.

No human being, that is actually well read enough on this subject can be pro-Arafat in this situation.

And no, I am neither Israeli or American

Jer

Ps, I am happy to be attacked on this subject, but only by people that actually know what they are talking about, not by those who think that CNN always tells them the truth. Go back and look at the UN resolutions, and you will see, quite clearly, that it was the United Nations that allocated Israel that land and declared them the state of Israel...

The best part is that Arafat's organization (liberation of Palestine) was established about 3 years before the 6-day war, when IL did not have any presence in the WB and GS.

LY744.

Oh Man that BWIrwy4 is one nut!

If I were Arafat, I would ask these countries, along with maybe Iraq and Iran as well, to send in their heavily armed special forces troops to maintain order in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and then put Israel on notice that if they attacked these troops, that would be considered an act of war and would be responded to accordingly.

Your clueless! The West Bank and Gaza Strip are ISRAELI TERRITORIES, and any and all entrance into them is regulated by the the IDF. I'm not sure why you think the IDF would allow these "heavily armed special forces troops" to come in?? Why would they let them in?

Now, if you are proposing a hostile invasion of the territories, then yes, Israel would consider that an act of war and would probably obliterate the invading armies.

Now, Thats if this happens, whether it would is highly questionable! Why haven't these countries done it already if they care so much for the Palestinians?

They can't. They don't have the means to impose any of their will on the Israelis and they don't have the means to work together. Iran, a non-Sunni, non-Arab, non-Arabic country hates Iraq nearly as much as Israel. Lebanon is a weak country, that could fall into civil war at any type of destabilization and an attack on Israel's territories would topple the country in the hour. I'm not confident you have any idea about the Lebanese political situation.

Jordan wouldn't allow Iraq or Iran to cross its borders to reach Israel because quite frankly, Jordan doesn't want what you are describing, a regional war.

If Iraq made any serious threats to Israel, the US together with Israel would obliterate Saddam's military. The US is looking for the excuse anyway.

Your ideas are ridiculous! Why don't you explain in further detail how this "peacekeeping" mission would be acheieve, because I'm not confident you have any idea what you are talking about.

TNNH