TRANSCRIPT - CNBC Hardball w/ Chris Mathews
	(March 6, 2002)


	MATTHEWS: I also asked Michael Tarazi, a legal advisor to
	the Palestinian negotiating team, what he made of Sharon's
	plans to step up military action.

	Mr. MICHAEL TARAZI (Legal Advisor, Palestinian Liberation
	Organization Negotiating Team): Well, this is very typical
	of Sharon's history and his modus operandi to basically use
	force when negotiations are needed.

	MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you: At what point do you think
	the Palestinians will give up and say, 'Enough of this. We
	can't take any more punishment from--from Sharon'?

	Mr. TARAZI: Well, I think it's very clear that the
	Palestinians will never give up until the occupation ends.
	This has been the fundamental mythology prevailing in
	Israeli society now for over 35 years of occupation, that
	it's possible to have peace and occupati! on at the same time,
	that it's possible to oppress another people to the point
	where they simply give in. And I think they are learning now
	that it's not possible.

	MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you: Why do you think the Israeli
	middle--you know the politics of Israel, there's a lot of
	centrists there and a lot of liberals and peace now people.
	Why have they rallied more or less to Sharon? Is that smart
	politics by the Palestinians, to drive the Israelis' center
	to the right?

	Mr. TARAZI: Well, I think that the--originally when Sharon
	first came to power, Israelis really didn't understand why
	the uprising broke out. They didn't under the Palestinian
	position. They didn't realize that the Palestinians were
	simply calling for an end to the occupation, a recognition
	of the two-state solution, that they were not out to--to
	destroy Israel, as often claimed by Sharon, and turning it
	into an existentialist question.

	I think! now, over the last six months, many Israelis have
	learned that the situation is--doesn't need to be as violent
	as it is, the Palestinians are not asking for anything more
	than an end to occupation and a fair resolution to the
	situation, to the question of the refugees who have not been
	allowed to return to their homes for over five decades now
	because they're the wrong religion. I think that Israelis
	are coming around to realize that Sharon's analysis of the
	situation is not going to be an analysis that brings about a
	fair and lasting peace.

	MATTHEWS: Well, we're watching from over here, as you
	know...

	Mr. TARAZI: And you'd think...
	
	MATTHEWS: ...Mr. Tarazi, from the United States, what we're
	seeing are suicide people going into crowded sections of
	Jerusalem, into pizzerias or in bus stops...

	Mr. TARAZI: Mm-hmm.

	MATTHEWS: ...among women and children, blowing themselves up
	or shooting everybody in sight, ! assuming they're also going
	to be shot. When is Mr. Arafat going to condemn that in a
	real sense? In other words, use his power and control over
	the newspapers of the Palestinian lands to stop praising and
	glorifying the suicides?

	Mr. TARAZI: Well, I--you raised two points there. One is
	when is the president going to condemn these attacks, and he
	has condemned these attacks routinely and after every single
	one of these attacks. He...

	MATTHEWS: Does anyone believe that? Does anyone believe he's
	not rooting for these suicides?

	Mr. TARAZI: He has condemned.

	MATTHEWS: Everyone in Palestine, I assume, is rooting for
	these suicides.

	Mr. TARAZI: Well, I firmly believe that--not at all. I think
	that there are many Palestinians who are aware that these
	kind of suicide attacks against civilians inside Israel are
	very damaging to our position. There is, however, a
	difference between that and attacks with inside--in! occupied
	Palestinian territory. For example, you started by
	mentioning that the head of the Al Aqsa Bri--Brigade has
	called for attacks on soldiers at checkpoints. You failed to
	mention those checkpoints are illegal under international
	law and are in occupied territory. There is a difference
	between legitimate resistance to occupation and terrorism.
	And I think that's a distinction that needs to me made
	in--in America.

	MATTHEWS: Well, do you support the attack on the soldiers at
	the checkpoints?
	
	Mr. TARAZI: I personally don't believe that that's going to
	be the way forward, no, and nor does the PLO. However, I
	think it's very important to keep in mind that for most
	Palestinians, that distinction is a--is very easy to make,
	that there is an occupying terror here, there is a right to
	resist.

	MATTHEWS: OK. We're talking here--we're talking here--we're
	talking here calmly, but the newspapers of--of the
	Palestini! an lands are incredibly dramatic in their support
	for the--for the suicides. Why doesn't Arafat call out the
	dogs and say, 'Stop praising these people. They're hurting
	our cause'?

	Mr. TARAZI: Well, we're trying to develop a democracy here
	while living under occupation. And in a democracy you try to
	promote freedom of the--freedom of speech and freedom of the
	press. It is not Arafat's role to start calling up and
	restricting freedom of the press in order to appease
	Americans...

	MATTHEWS: OK.

	Mr. TARAZI: ...who don't really understand the situation.
	
	MATTHEWS: So it's your position that the--your position is
	the Palestinian press is not influenced and controlled by
	the PA?

	Mr. TARAZI: Absolutely not.

	MATTHEWS: OK.

	Mr. TARAZI: That's not our role. The Palestinian press is
	free to print whatever it likes to print.

	MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you very much for joining us tonight,
	Michael Tarazi.
	Mr. TARAZI: (Unintelligible) Thank you. Thank you.

	MATTHEWS: Up next, the HARDBALL DEBATE. Can sanctions and
	weapons inspections work in Iraq? Or is the US military
	action inevitable? And plus, could the military's commitment
	to leave no man behind actually cost more lives than it
	saves? We'll hear from a veteran of the "Black Hawk Down"
	incident in Somalia. You're watching HARDBALL.


=====


	TRANSCRIPT - CNBC Hardball w/ Chris Mathews
	(March 14, 2002)

	CHRIS MATTHEWS, host:

	The big story tonight, mounting international pressure on
	Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. After waging the
	largest offensive in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 35
	years, today Sharon agreed to withdraw his forces from
	Ramallah, but not in time to escape criticism from the UN,
	from President Bush and even his own defense minister.
	Today, The New York Times argued, quote, "Israel's prime
	minister needs to realize that while! Washington remains
	fully committed to Israeli security, it cannot accept a
	policy that relies increasingly on military force alone and
	seems indifferent to American efforts to help negotiate an
	early cease-fire as a first step toward an eventual fair and
	lasting peace."

	The Wall Street Journal countered, quote, "Until such times
	that the Arab world is ready to seek solutions by civilized
	means, the US has no moral alternative to standing firmly
	behind Prime Minister Sharon's war against such terror."

	Michael Tarazi's a legal advisor to the Palestinian
	negotiating team. Mr. Tarazi, the world is turning against
	Ariel Sharon, but in all fairness, any time the Palestinian
	side wanted to end this violence, your side could have
	stopped the suicide raids and the--and then Israelis would
	have had to meet their commitment to end their actions on
	the West Bank.

	Mr. MICHAEL TARAZI (Legal Advisor, PLO Negotiating Team):
	We! ll that's actually an unfair criticism. You have to
	understand that the Palestinians live on the Middle Eastern
	equivalent of Native American Indian reservations. We have
	13 different that are non-contiguous. Our security forces
	can't get from one area to another. It's a bit like telling
	the Boston Police Department, you can't leave Boston, but
	you're responsible for anything that happens in
	Philadelphia. There are undue limitations on our ability to
	crack down on violence. And Israel, of course, has
	undermined our efforts at every step of the way by bombing
	our security forces that are actually trying to bring the
	situation to...
	
	MATTHEWS: So...

	TARAZI: ...to a halt, to...
	
	MATTHEWS: ...let me just get this straight.

	TARAZI: ...a calmer situation.

	MATTHEWS: You believe that Arafat is morally clean here
	because you believe that Arafat and the PA, the Palestinian
	Authority, are vigorously and seriously try! ing to end the
	violence?

	TARAZI: Absolutely.

	MATTHEWS: Every day, they try to get up and stop the suicide
	bombings?

	TARAZI: Absolutely. But you don't have to take my word for
	it. We have repeatedly asked for international observers,
	international monitors, to come in on the ground and see
	exactly what it is that we're doing. Israel has constantly
	refused. Why? Because Israel doesn't want the world to see
	what the Palestinians are doing, because if there's a third
	party involved that can actually say, yes, the Palestinians
	have complied, then Israel will be forced to comply with its
	obligations and that, Ariel Sharon does not want to do.

	MATTHEWS: Well let's talk about a first party here, your
	party, which is the Palestinians. The Palestini/Al-Aqsa
	brigades...

	TARAZI: Mm-hmm.

	MATTHEWS: ...who are loyal to Arafat, have been carrying out
	a lot of this violence. I haven't seen Arafat pull them
	back! .

	TARAZI: Well they've taken responsibility for many of the
	attacks against the occupation forces.

	MATTHEWS: Right.

	TARAZI: But we have to be very--we have to be very clear
	that simply because they claim to be a splinter group from
	the main political organization that the president he--heads
	does not mean that he's responsible for them. It's a bit
	like saying President Bush, because he's a Republican, is
	responsible for the act of every Republican everywhere in
	the United States, and that's simply unfair.

	MATTHEWS: But he is responsible for the activities in our
	country of the Republican National Committee. And in this
	case, you've got the Al-Aqsa brigade who are part of Fatah.
	They're part of the whole political structure of the Arafat	
	movement, aren't they?

	TARAZI: N--no, no, they're not. They're actually a splinter
	group from the original political faction that Arafat
	founded in 1965, I believe.
	MATTHEWS: OK. So he has no control over anybody. He has no
	control over Hamas, Hezbollah or even his own splinter
	groups, as you called them. What power does he hold to bring
	peace?

	TARAZI: Well he has the moral power. He has the moral power
	with respect to the Palestinian population. If he can show
	them that, yes, the peace process is moving forward, he will
	gain the trust of the population which he's lost over the
	last year and a half. The problem is--is that you can't
	expect the Palestinians to simply roll over and die and
	surrender for Israeli security when Palestinians themselves
	don't have security, as we've been able to witness over the
	last few days. I just escaped from Ramallah this morning. I
	spent the last two days under siege. We had journalists
	being shot at by Israelis. We had Palestinians being shot
	at. This is not the kind of environment that allows
	President Arafat to say, 'Yes, Palestinians, peace is on t! he
	way, just a matter of giving Israel all its security
	concerns even though we don't have any security.'

	MATTHEWS: OK, let's make this clear. L--l--in other words,
	there's nothing that you can do on your side to stop the
	violence. It's all in the hands of Sharon, as you said. It's
	entirely up to him. He's the only guilty partner here.

	TARAZI: Well let's--let's see--well he's certainly by far
	the guiltiest partner here. Don't forget, this guy is facing
	war crimes charges for the massacre of Palestinian refugees
	in Beirut in 1982. That's not to say that we are not willing
	or have not taken measures, but we have very limited
	measures. The real question comes in, who's going to be the
	judge of what actions we've taken? Sharon? We know, then,
	that we're never going to be getting a fair trial. If we
	allow third parties to come in, witness what we're doing,
	how we're trying to crack down...

	MATTHEWS: OK, let me get this ! straight. By the way, you took
	a little shot there at...

	TARAZI: Yeah.

	MATTHEWS: ...at--at Sharon for 20 years ago in Sabra and
	Shatilla, but let me tell you, the charges lay against him.
	He has never been convicted and he had a civil case in the
	United States in which he won.

	TARAZI: That's correct.
	
	MATTHEWS: And let me ask you this question, do you believe
	that Yasser Arafat has never apprused--approved a terrorist
	operation in his life, has never approved the terrorist
	killing?
	
	TARAZI: Absolutely.

	MATTHEWS: He's never approved one.

	TARAZI: A--absolutely. Anyone--anyone who claims that...

	MATTHEWS: OK, that's all we need for your credibility...

	TARAZI: ...is simply--there's been no evidence.