FOX NEWS EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Sharon Says No Peace While Arafat Is Around!

Fox News Channel: Fair, Balanced and Unafraid! ^ | April 10, 2002 | John Moody

[Wphile]

Ya got me. That's what I would have thought too! BUT NOOOOO....they, the Jordanians don't want the "Palestinians" either even though the Queen is "Palestinian." Go figure.

[jimbo807]

Could you explain the statement "how Israel goes, so goes America"? Just curious on the logic behind that.

J

[E Rocc]

"There probably can't be peace with Sharon around either. The best thing that could happen would be for both of them to step down. "

That has got to be one of the most ludicrous statements I have seen in quite awhile. Following that logic, I guess Churchill should have stepped down during the Blitz, and Bush should have stepped down right after our terror attacks.

Neither Churchill or Bush were even suspected of having the type of visceral hatred for their adversaries that Sharon almost certainly has for his. Neither had anyone on their cabinet who advocated evicting all their adversaries from their homes. Perhaps most tellingly, neither was accused by their own government of being complicit in a mass murder of civilians.

When a group of people have a grievance, you can do one of four things. Subdue them, convince them they're wrong,find a way to work out a deal which will satisfy them to some degree, or kill them off.

One, two, and three pretty much can't happen with Sharon in place. The Palestinians are as likely to forget Sabra and Chatilla as we are likely to forget the September 11th attacks.

-Eric

[rintense]

Well my suggestion is to attack Iraq first, then give the Palestinians a fair chunk of it- as long as it is near Jordan.

[Bobby777]

funny how the PLO never mention September 1970 when they are throwing around all the rhetoric ... nor do they mention Kuwait kicking out Palestinians ... wasn't it something like 300,000 Palestinians kicked out of Kuwait?

[bybybill]

Excuse me, who do you think has always supported Israel. We have given them trillions of $$ plus the most modern armed force in the Mid East.Just once it would be nice to hear the say thanks, America, without you, we would not exist.

[E Rocc]

In case you haven't noticed, Sharon is an elected leader. So if he does something the Israeli people don't like, then they get to vote him out of office. Given that Sharon is enjoying more popularity now than he ever has, in effect what you are saying is that there can't be peace with the Israeli people as long as they keep voting Sharon into office. Is that really what you mean?

Clinton was an "elected leader" as well. While he was lying under oath and launching missiles at aspirin factories to distract attention from his ex-sponge's testimony, he had very high approval ratings. Did this make him a non-Scumbag? Of course not.

As we came to our senses, hopefully so will the Israeli people.

-Eric

[PietroA]

You are wrong

Damascus will no longer be a city

[Dog Gone]

First of all, Powell HAS to meet with Arafat. Failure to do so would be viewed as a diplomatic failure by every other country in the world. It would mean siding with Israel right now and launching the Middle East War to Clean Up Terrorists and Axis of Evil People right now.

We're not ready to do that, and it's not the way we'd prefer to fight it. The bombs aren't manufactured yet, and the troops aren't in place.

Ideally, Saddam would be taken out using friendly or neutral bases in the Gulf, Iran could be toppled with a revolution or a coup, and Syria could be persuaded to do a General Musharraf routine.

We simply aren't ready for all hell to break loose, and meeting with Arafat postpones it, at least for a little while.

How much longer, I'm not sure. And your point about Iraq launching against Israel is well-taken. That presents a real problem for the US if that can't be prevented.

[KC_Conspirator]

Then I talked to Cheney and said, if the shelling from Hezbollah continues, Israel will have to take extremely severe action against Syria and Lebanon.

Just as Krauthammer said - watch what happens in Lebanon because this might blow right open.

[vbmoneyspender]

Earth Eric, Sharon is killing terrorists. How could you possibly take issue with that, unless that is you applaud what the terrorists have been doing to Israel.

[iopscusa]

So who will replace these 2?

[LS]

First, Powell says exactly what he has been told to say. If you say Powell is an "embarassment," then you are indicting Bush. Either that, you are implying Bush can't control his own SecState. I don't believe that for a minute.

Second, to the broader question here: I really don't get it. Israel CONTROLS Arafat. They have him in virtual captivity. If anyone is to do anything about him, WHY DON'T THEY?

[pgkdan]

"Then I talked to Cheney and said, if the shelling from Hezbollah continues, Israel will have to take extremely severe action against Syria and Lebanon. Cheney called Bashar Assad on Tuesday and relayed the message, but so far I haven’t seen anything change.

"I told Cheney exactly what we are going to do. The message was very clear."

Sounds very ominous for Syria. Sharon is all but saying here that he's ready to move against that rabid little monster in Damascus. As he said...the message is very clear.

If Israel's legitimate self defense is making Bush's plans for dealing with Saddam more difficult than we should re-think our strategy. I'd rather have Israel on my side than all the Arab states and all of Europe. Israel will cooperate with us when we move against Saddam, let's accomodate them now.

[pgkdan]

As soon as we attack Iraq all bets are off, since Israel will immediately be forced into a war with Iraq. Why even bother playing out this charade? Let's just attack Iraq WITH Israel from the outset.

Absolutely right. As I said before, I'd rather fight with Israel as my ally than all of Europe and all of the Arab states. Period.

[pgkdan]

We have given them trillions of $$ plus the most modern armed force in the Mid East.Just once it would be nice to hear the say thanks, America, without you, we would not exist.

And what the hell did you think they were saying when Saddam launched scuds at them and they sat on their hands because President Bush didin't want an Israeli retaliationm to upset his 'coalition'? And we didn't give them their Armed Forces, we give them several billions a year and then REQUIRE that they spend a very large portion of that money here in the US buying weapons.

[The Great Satan]

Of course he will. That's why I don't understand Bush's "strategy" of getting Israel to back-off now so we can get Arab support for attacking Iraq. As soon as we attack Iraq all bets are off, since Israel will immediately be forced into a war with Iraq. Why even bother playing out this charade? Let's just attack Iraq WITH Israel from the outset.

Cool your jets. Time is of the essence here. We need to buy more time. Check out Tony Blair's statements today, over on Drudge.