Why Didn't Vice President Cheney Meet With Arafat on Trip to Middle East?
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT.  THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: The big question this morning: Why didn't the vice president, Dick Cheney, meet with Yasser Arafat on his trip to the Middle East? He met twice with the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, while visiting the region, but he declined a meeting with the Palestinian leader. In a joint news conference this morning, with Mr. Sharon, the vice president promised the United States will stay actively engaged in the peace process.</s>DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: President Bush has laid out a vision of peace for this region in which two states, Israel and Palestine, would live alongside each other within secure and recognized boundaries. That vision can be achieved. It is our hope that the current violence and terrorism will be replaced by reconciliation and the rebuilding of mutual trust.</s>CAFFERTY: But sadly, there was more violence in the region this morning, only hours after Israel had withdrawn tanks and troops from Bethlehem and other Palestinian territories. There were reports that some Israeli forces had reentered northern Gaza. Security talks continued. And American Envoy Anthony Zinni's efforts of shuttle diplomacy have shown some promise. But can they yield a meaningful truce? Joining us now to talk about all of these issues from Jerusalem is Tom Rose. He is the publisher of the "Jerusalem Post" -- Tom, good morning -- thanks for joining us on AMERICAN MORNING. Let me begin with the strategy on the part of the vice president of not meeting with Yasser Arafat. What kind of signals does that decision send? And how does that strategy go over in the region?</s>TOM ROSE, PUBLISHER, "JERUSALEM POST": Well, I think the vice president's message here was pretty clear for all those who were paying attention. And that is while the United States remains steadfast and rock solid in its support for the state of Israel, the Bush administration's patience with the current Israeli government is running a little thin. For eight months I think this administration -- the American administration, at least the perspective here has given this government pretty much free reign to try and deal with the violence and terror in a manner that the Israeli government saw fit. After eight months, I think the vice president realizes and the administration realizes that this government -- the Israeli government doesn't really have a plan, so that their re-engagement of Yasser Arafat becomes really the only American option since we here in Israel haven't given the Americans or even the Palestinians an alternative.</s>CAFFERTY: So what is the point -- if what you say is true, then why would he ignore Mr. Arafat on this trip? Why wouldn't he make some overture or some -- at least give some indication that the plans were to include him in this?</s>ROSE: Well, I think, frankly, he did. I think before he left here early this afternoon, he basically hung out a carrot, again enticing Yasser Arafat to rein in his militant organizations and the terrorist organizations that he controls by offering him a meeting -- a high profile meeting, presumably in Washington if, in fact, the Tenent cease-fire plan could be implemented. Now, as your report indicated prior to this segment, it hasn't happened yet. As a matter of fact, in the background, I hear a lot of helicopters -- Israelis army helicopters. So it hasn't taken root yet, but I do think that the administration did offer a carrot to Arafat after frankly having given up the Israeli government in trying to come up with any solution of this problem.</s>CAFFERTY: As we told our audience here a couple of minutes ago, Israeli forces have begun withdrawing from Bethlehem and other West Bank territories they had occupied in recent days. What's the feeling? Is that a symbolic gesture, or is that the meaningful start of something bigger?</s>ROSE: Well, I think frankly it's both. The symbolism there is pretty powerful. It is an inducement to Arafat to try and reassert sovereignty, reassert control over areas that frankly he had not done anything, let alone enough, to stop terrorist activity originating from. And secondly, I also think that the local perspective, anyway, is that it is yet another opportunity for the Palestinians to demonstrate some responsibility and for Israel to give this opportunity yet one more chance in an endless -- in an endless sea of chances. If it works or not, that's the open question, although this may have a better chance than most.</s>CAFFERTY: All right, Tom, I want to get your reaction to a piece of tape. Former Secretary of Defense Cohen was a guest on "LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE" here on CNN last night. And he and Dobbs were talking about the long and perhaps torturous road that lies ahead if any sort of lasting peace is to be achieved -- let's listen and we'll get your reaction to it.</s>WILLIAM COHEN, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: The Israelis want to adopt what is known as a unilateral approach, namely we're going to talk about security first. And then sequentially, we'll talk about the political aspects. The Palestinians want something called parallelism. They want to go forward on both tracks. So that's going to be a hard negotiation coming forward after the cease-fire, but we don't have the cease-fire yet.</s>CAFFERTY: Obviously there is no negotiation at this point. The cease-fire is not in place, but if and when these things are undertaken, it looks like there are very wide divisions. How do you see the process playing out if they can get a cease-fire in place that will hold and get to the table to start talking?</s>ROSE: Well, ultimately, I think that's where we run into the end of the road. I think once we get back to the table with these current actors, both with Ariel Sharon as prime minister of Israel and Yasser Arafat as unelected leader of the Palestinians, you are going to run into a dead end situation. Arafat basically turned down an offer of everything that he claimed to have wanted in August of 2000, Palestinian independence on about 96 percent of the West Bank and Gaza, choosing instead the option of violence and terror. The Israeli government frankly, with the election of Ariel Sharon a year ago, has responded with fits and starts of a varying array of different kinds of strategies and processes, and I heard somebody here comment recently that Sharon is the worst of all worlds from an Israeli perspective, because what he has done is he had combined the rhetoric of Slobodan Milosevic with the actions of Jimmy Carter, and that's led nowhere. And the question is can it? Then the future will tell the answer.</s>CAFFERTY: But if it's not Arafat and Sharon, who is it?</s>ROSE: Well, that's a good question. I don't know that we know the answer to that. Here in Israel, obviously this is a democracy, and this government, if it can survive. His term expires in the latter part of next year. So we will have parliamentary and national elections before the end of next year. Sharon at this point would be ousted in his own Likud party by former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who was offering a much tougher vision -- a much tougher carrot-and-stick approach to the Palestinians, basically advocating regime change, overthrowing Arafat and trying to identify and support a more moderate Palestinian opposition. On the Palestinian side, of course, it's not a democracy. Arafat doesn't have to go back to his people. The question is at what point he'll move on from the scene or how long Israelis will continue to try to -- and Americans for that matter, will try to engage him.</s>CAFFERTY: All right, Tom, we've got to leave it there. I appreciate your input -- thanks for your time here on AMERICAN MORNING this morning. Tom Rose, the publisher, CEO of the "Jerusalem Post" joining us from Jerusalem -- thanks very 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. to Middle East?>