MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesFebruary 7, 2002
ALAN KEYES, MSNBC HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I am Alan Keyes.
Today, the head of the Israeli government, Ariel Sharon, has visited with President Bush, obviously intensifying interest and focus on the ongoing difficulties in the Middle East. It's an area where, during the years of President Clinton's presidency, agreements were reached and some understandings came into being that gave some folks the hope that we were going to see a path opening up to a stable peace in the region in which the two sides that have been at conflict for so long would reach an accommodation that would let them take steps in a direction that would lead to permanent peace.
Unfortunately, the events of the last few months have belied all of those hopes, culminating in suicide bombings that have been ongoing, taking the lives of Israelis, Israeli retribution, tanks in the streets taking the lives of Palestinians.
And it leads obviously to the question that has to be on the minds of everyone who watches the region who cares about all of the people who are there, a question of whether that killing can ever be stopped. Well, that's a question that we are going to be addressing this evening.
Now I know, and as we talked about and prepared this program, we were very mindful of the fact that this is a very complex area. A lot of folks feel almost at sea finding it hard to understand, and there's a lot of history, a lot of who shot John, tit for tats, a lot of very complicated issues and powerful passions and emotions that are involved, inextricably, in this region.
We also of course have a complex set of American interests at stake and American responsibilities. And we're going to be asking some questions that we hope will help to clarify that situation tonight, questions that have to do with the responsibility. Who is responsible for the killing? Now, when you see a situation like this, and you've got to ask yourself, why year after year, time after time, it seems that cycle of violence is so difficult to stop? And who is responsible in the end for bringing peace to the region? Who are the key interlocutors who could sit down at the table and possibly bring that killing to an end.
And finally, of course, a question that I think has to reflect the realities in the region itself. Is it possible to satisfy the national aspirations of the Palestinian people, to bring into existence a Palestinian state without undermining Israel's security, without destroy the state of Israel.
Well, as we mentioned, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon met with President Bush at the White House this very evening. Here is what they had to say about the future of the region.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I assured the prime minister that we will continue to keep pressure on Mr. Arafat, to convince him that he must take serious, concrete, real steps to reduce terrorist activities in the Middle East.
ARIEL SHARON, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: I believe that one day, we'll be reaching a peace. Israel is committed to peace. And at the end of the process, I believe that a Palestinian state will be — we will see a Palestinian state.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: The issue of security, the issues of Palestinian national aspiration. These seem to be the fundamental questions that have to be addressed if peace is ever to be brought to this region.
Now, all of these questions occur against a backdrop of history that has to be kept in mind, even though it is sometimes convoluted and complicated. As we always do with these topics, we are going to try to take a quick look at some of the facts that are involved against that background of events, so that we can understand some of the things that are going on now in light of the history and the facts that have contributed to them.
We are joined by David Makovsky, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a contributing editor to “U.S. News and World Report” magazine — welcome, David, to the show, and thank you for being with us this evening.
DAVID MAKOVSKY, MIDDLE EAST EXPERT: Glad to be with you, Alan.
KEYES: I think the question that immediately occurs to a lot of folks, as they are watching this situation, is why are these folks killing each other? I mean, from the point of view of ordinary folks going on with their lives, they see these reports of continuing conflict, of suicide bombings, and et cetera. And they really have to wonder about the roots of this conflict. Where does it come from in your view? What are the contributing factors to this conflict in the Middle East now?
MAKOVSKY: In the Middle East, you have too much history and too little geography. Now, we are talking about a very narrow area between — 50 miles really between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The two people disputed this land. And I think we are at a point — and you saw Prime Minister Sharon, he is now saying — and there will be Palestinian state. A growing sense that they are really — the two-state solution is probably the only way to go.
If you want to get to the history of this, you know, the Zionist movement, the movement for a Jewish homeland began by Theodore Herzl, 1897, in Basel, Switzerland. There had been a lot of anti-Semitism in Europe, and he kind of fired people's imaginations — the 19th century was a time of general nationalism in Europe — that there would be this Jewish homeland. He went to the Turkish sultan and he said, “No go.”
But in World War I, the Ottoman Turks were defeated by the British, and an allied coalition and the British were given the mandate, so to speak, for this area.
KEYES: Now, the area that you are talking about is an area that includes what modern entities? What...
(CROSSTALK)
MAKOVSKY: Right. Well, today — what would be today Israel, the West Bank and the state of Jordan.
KEYES: Now, who is living there at the time when the British mandate was formed?
MAKOVSKY: OK. Right. In 1917, the British wrote what is known as the Balfour Declaration. The British foreign secretary, Arthur Balfour, wrote a letter to Lord Rothschild of the Jewish community in Britain and said that His Majesty's government finds with favor the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. And that was something that was going to — it wasn't defined geographically. Only 1920, the San Remo Conference of the allies was this kind of codified, followed by a vote at the League of Nations.
KEYES: Well, beyond the sense that the British brought to it though, in the mandate that they governed and that they continued to govern until we get to the post-second World War period. Who were the people who were actually there at the time?
MAKOVSKY: OK.
KEYES: I mean, there were Jewish and Arab-Palestinians...
MAKOVSKY: Right.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... living in that area, weren't there?
MAKOVSKY: Exactly. There were Jews and Arab-Palestinians there in the area. There had been also some Jewish immigration. There had been pogrom riots in Russia that had attracted also — that caused a lot of Jews to flee the area and to come to Palestine. But there had always been an indigenous Jewish presence for, say, 2,000 years. They had been an heir presence certainly.
KEYES: Let me ask you a question then, because...
(CROSSTALK)
MAKOVSKY: Sure.
KEYES: ... coming out of the period of the Second World War, when the state of Israel came into existence. We look at other parts of the world, and we see the collapse of colonial controls of various kinds, the partition of different areas. You talked about the emergence of this idea of the two-state solution. Well, to put it simply in historical terms, why didn't a two-state solution emerge at the time the British mandate for Palestine ended? Why wasn't it divided between Jewish-Palestinians and Arab-Palestinians with each one having a state of their own?
MAKOVSKY: I am very glad you asked that, because that's exactly what the British recommended with the Peal Commission in 1937, and in 1947, the U.N. partitioned this into two homelands, one Jewish and one Arab. The Arabs, you know, were very (UNINTELLIGIBLE) against partition, November 29, 1947. They said there is no legitimate Jewish state. And they rejected partition, and the date that the British pulled down the flag of the mandate, May 15, 1948, and the State of Israel was established, long before you had occupation of the West Bank area, it was attacked by different Arab countries, including Palestinian nationalists.
KEYES: So they rejected the existence of Israel? It actually led to several wars...
MAKOVSKY: Right.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... and punctuated the history between then and now.
MAKOVSKY: Right.
KEYES: One question still is on my mind, though. If the idea was to divide the area between Arab-Palestinians and Jewish-Palestinians, yes, Arab-Palestinians objected to Israel. What happened, however, to the area that was designated as the Arab-Palestinian homeland? What happened to that?
MAKOVSKY: OK. Well, first of all, even as far back as 1922, when Winston Churchill served a key function in Britain, the state of Trans- Jordan, which became the State of Jordan, was siphoned off of the mandate. So we are talking about what is now Israel and the West Bank. In 19...
KEYES: But when you say that the State of Jordan was siphoned off, I mean, basically that means what? Because I am not entirely clear. Why is it the case that, as we confront this present situation, the old British mandate for Palestine, which has been divided, I guess — you have Jordan, you have the West Bank, you have Israel. There was a thought that the Arabs were supposed to have a homeland of their own. Why didn't this ever emerge? Or did it, in fact, emerge?
MAKOVSKY: Well, basically when the State of Israel was established on May 15, 1948, and the Arab states and the Palestinians, you know, rejected it and thought they could — in a war, they thought this Jewish homeland could be easily wiped off the map. What they found was that not only did Israel was able to maintain those partition borders, it even went beyond them a bit. And the Jordanians that, as I said, had taken the eastern part of the Jordan, what was once Trans-Jordan, they ended up occupying what we would call today the West Bank.
KEYES: Now, under that occupation of the West Bank...
MAKOVSKY: For 19 years...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... there was a period of time when the kings of Jordan both took responsibility for and presented themselves as representatives of Palestinian aspirations in the region, right?
MAKOVSKY: Right. And to complicate...
KEYES: Why did they back away?
MAKOVSKY: And to complicate matters further, in 1948, you had a refugee exodus. This is a hotly disputed issue in that it was very key at what the last round — towards the very end of the Clinton administration on who was responsible for that.
KEYES: Answer me a question though. Why did the Jordanians, who in effect geographically Jordan sits on a very significant portion of that old British mandate for Palestine, at what point did they withdraw, as it were, from discussions involving Palestinian national aspirations? It's something I have quite understood.
MAKOVSKY: All right. Well, they withdrew on two occasions really. In 1974 — I mean, just to bring the viewers up to date, in '67, the '67 War kind of spearheaded by Nasser of Egypt, who was the leading Arab nationalist at the time. And he convinced King Hussein of Jordan to join him, and in the end, Jordan lost the West Bank. The Israeli government, when the '67 War was over, said it would give it up, all the areas if it got peace, the Arab League in Khartoum in '67 said, no to peace, no to recognition, no to negotiations, the famous three nos.
But the assumption was that Jordan spoke on behalf of the West Bank Palestinians, because they represented them, and to this very day 60 percent of Jordanians are of Palestinian descent. From this refugee period, which we'll get into later if you'd like, but by 1974, basically, there was a Rabat Conference...
KEYES: David?
MAKOVSKY: ... that the Arab League...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: I'm going to have to stop you there, and thank you for the insights that you have shared with us thus far. We have run out of time for the segment.
As folks can see, this is an issue, where this is our first cut. We'll be looking at this a number of times, without any doubt, over the course of the weeks ahead. And it's going to require some time. It's going to require a patient effort to understand some of the ins and outs that have led us to the present situation.
But I want to thank you for joining us today, David — really appreciate it.
We're going to continue the show, as we sit down and look at some of these facts, add a little bit to the picture in our next segment, “People Just Like You.” And later, on a personal note, I will be making a comment about Dick Armey's reaction to the Bush administration's desire to push the Clinton idea of government-sponsored volunteerism.
But first, think about this. On September 11, we had the terrible events that brought down the World Trade Center. Within a day or so, we knew that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Let's see, that's one, two, three, four, five months ago about? But guess what? The Saudi Arabian government just announced and acknowledged that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian. It only took them five months to notice this? Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome to “People Just Like You.” Now, coming up after this segment, I'll be exchanging views with the managing director of the Arab- American Institute, but right now, I have brought together, as we often do on the program, just some folks, regular people. We have William Schreiner, an insurance attorney, Kathleen Murray, a full-time mother, and Mike Stafford, a law student at Duke University. And I am going to be chatting with them a little bit about this situation in the Middle East.
First though, I want to share a thought with you, because we obviously put some thought into these programs every day and try to bring you the best show we can. And in thinking about this one, I had to consider whether or not this panel should be composed of a lot of experts on the Middle East, or whether it still made sense to bring regular folks together and talk a little bit about the situation. I concluded that it was still best to bring regular folks together. Why? Because at the end of the day, you all, we can't sustain a policy in the Middle East, if folks out there don't understand what's going on, if you have very little comprehension or are continually confused.
It costs a lot of blood and treasure, and Osama bin Laden and his ilk have even tried to convince us that the terrible blow struck against us in New York was somehow involved with the Middle East. This is a matter that concerns and involves us, in some ways, whether we like it or not. And that's the question.
This first question I wanted to put to all of you in terms of your own perspective, the lives you lead, do you think that what goes on in the Middle East is of any importance to you? Why should it matter? Does it matter? William?
WILLIAM SCHREINER, INSURANCE LAWYER: Well, clearly from September 11, we were reminded that it does matter, for reasons that are very complicated, and that we are starting to discuss tonight. There are people in the Middle East, who are so angry with the United States, that they will take it out against us in terrorism. And it has mattered, and I think occasionally the American people are reminded that it matters. It's easy to ignore the Middle East because it's so far away and really doesn't have a direct effect on us. But then occasionally we have to remember, there are people there who hate us enough they want to kill us, and that's a cause of concern, I think.
KEYES: Kathleen?
KATHLEEN MURRAY, FULL-TIME MOTHER: I just find the world growing smaller and smaller, and we are getting closer and closer. And I feel that we have a moral obligation, when there are innocent people dying. And the United States is involved directly or indirectly, however one may look at it, that yes, we do have a reason to be involved in this and interested. And we should know what's going on.
KEYES: Michael?
MICHAEL STAFFORD, DUKE UNIVERSITY STUDENT: I think if there is one lesson that September 11 teaches, it's that we no longer have the luxury of retreating behind the Atlantic Ocean and adopting a policy of isolationism. The problems of the globe are our problems. Now, whether we can intervene everywhere where killing is occurring, well, that's a whole another topic. But in the Middle East, geo-strategically the globe has been shrunk, and those problems are right at our doorstep, and we're going to have to deal with them.
KEYES: Let me ask a follow-up question though, because here I sat talking to the expert we had at the opening of the program, and in the time we had available, we could barely scratch the surface of the Middle East. Most people in this country are involved every day. They are trying to raise families, do a job of work and so forth and so on. How much can the ordinary person really understand about what is going on in that region? Do you feel, any of you, that you have grasped enough that the opinions or views you might have should matter to anybody? Kathleen?
MURRAY: I feel I have some grounding and some knowledge on it, probably more than a little — I have just taken a very big interest in it. I just — it just breaks my heart, quite frankly, what's going on there. I read quite a bit the newspapers, but unfortunately, I do feel the news accounts can be slightly skewed. And I do not feel there is a full reporting going on.
KEYES: And when you say skewed, skewed in — could you identify that bias?
MURRAY: I feel there is a bias towards the Israelis.
KEYES: See, and I know very many folks who feel that it's just the opposite, that there's a distinct bias in the media that has, over the years, been completely unfavorable to Israel, and so that I think is another symptom of the strong feelings that exist on both sides, and that therefore color the situation. William, do you think you have enough of a grasp of for this to say anything anybody would want to hear?
SCHREINER: Certainly not as much as your first guest did. I mean, I know what I read in the papers, and I know what I read in the magazines. I haven't studied it intensely. And I know some understanding of the history, but I don't think I know enough to conclusively solve the problem, and frankly, I don't think Americans can solve the problem in the Middle East. You know, both sides have to really want peace. We can facilitate it, and we can try to bring it about, but frankly the solution has to start there. So I know as much as I can get from “The Washington Post,” basically.
KEYES: Well, but...
SCHREINER: I don't know if that's enough. I don't know...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: But one of the things we do know is that you look at these terrible scenes of violence and destruction, I mean, I think our hearts know that most ordinary people don't want their children killed on the street, don't want their schools blown up, don't want to see the cafes torn limb from limb, don't want tykes (ph) sitting outside on their doorstep. Isn't there a level at which we can understand the deep human emotions that are involved in this situation?
STAFFORD: I think there is. And one of the beauties about the Middle East conflict is that it's extensively reported. Any American can go out and buy Bernard Lewis or Robert D. Kaplan and learn in the course of a week a great deal about the history of the region and the conflict. And as to the Middle East violence, it is certainly troubling, but — and I think the media, this reflects part of the media's bias against Israel, the sheer extensiveness of the coverage.
There is more violence occurring in a whole host of places we have never heard of, and as terrible as the deaths in Israel are, they pale by comparison to conflicts the average Americans never heard of, like the civil war in Tajikistan, conflicts in Indonesia. So the scope of the media's focus and coverage on Israel and Israel's actions, I think shows a bit of a bias on their part against it.
KEYES: Well, in terms — well, go ahead.
SCHREINER: Well, I mean, we have been involved. We have been a close ally and friend of Israel for a long time. We have had interests in the Middle East for a longer time. So I think if there is a media bias, it's possibly a properly reflected one in that we report on that area more, because it has more to do with the United States, and they have set interests there.
KEYES: And, of course, over the years, we have developed a pretty big stake. I mean, we have invested, as it were, billions of dollars of American tax dollars in the effort, for instance, to sustain the Egypt, the peace with Egypt and so forth. And it seems like whether we like it or not, both our allies and our own interests, whether it's Middle Eastern oil or other things, tend to be involved in a situation that's very volatile. And this then becomes one of those things that can interfere with our ability to relate to other countries in the region, if we are not playing a role that is perceived as responsible.
But in the midst of all that coverage, let me ask you a question. Who is — at the start of the show, I said we had to be interested in who is responsible for the killing in that region. Who is responsible? As you all have watched it from the perspective of people who read the newspaper and so forth, where would you fix the responsibility for all of the killing that's going on there? Kathleen?
MURRAY: I would just say human — religion and love for their own particular gods and both religions.
KEYES: So you think it's a religious conflict about them. How about the territorial dispute though? I mean, because there has been...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's about dreams.
KEYES: ... a residue of strong Arab resentment, because of the refugee situation and so forth, and they claim to...
MURRAY: Well, that's the holy sights though. We are talking about holy sites. And that's the bottom line is the holy sites of Jerusalem. (UNINTELLIGIBLE), as I say, wall the city around, make it an international place.
KEYES: Well, Jerusalem is not the only issue.
MURRAY: Well, but there is other places.
KEYES: Now, the issues that have been most prominent include things like the refugee situation, of course the whole sense that Israel...
MURRAY: Which refugee situation?
KEYES: ... itself — the refugees, so-called, that came as a result of the establishment of Israel. The folks who have been in so-called refugee camps...
MURRAY: For the settlers?
KEYES: ... for decades...
MURRAY: Right.
KEYES: ... in that part of the world. So there seems to be a territorial element as well, and then obviously the to-ing and fro-ing with killing has resulted in a memory of what people perceive as the atrocities done on both sides.
STAFFORD: I think to characterize this as a religious problem is to misstate the point. This is a problem that we are very familiar with. It's a problem of divergent nationalisms competing for the same territory. The problem in the Middle East is both of these people's dreams of statehood exist in the same space.
MURRAY: The same space, yes.
STAFFORD: They both want a state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, and they are both going to have to accept something less than that to make peace.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Well, let me ask you a question. Now, this is — well, go ahead.
SCHREINER: Well, I mean...
(CROSSTALK)
MURRAY: Well, I agree with that, absolutely.
SCHREINER: ... to carry your point a little bit further, until both sides accept that they both have to learn to coexist in that fairly narrow place, neither nation can just pack its bags.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: OK, but here is the problem. You just referred to either nation and so forth. But isn't the fact of the matter that we are confronted by a historical result in which one side has a state that has been recognized and has established its viability with great struggle and effort and moral commitment. And the other side has been left, despite what our interlocutory, David, indicated a minute ago was the original intention. There was supposed to be a Jewish homeland and an Arab homeland. I keep asking, what happened to the Arab homeland? Where is it?
MURRAY: I'd like to know too.
KEYES: Where is it? I mean, because in...
STAFFORD: I think the mistake was that Arabs attacked Israel. If the '67 War doesn't happen, the West Bank is still in Jordanian hands, the Gaza Strip still being ruled by Egypt.
KEYES: Why does it matter that the West Bank is still in Jordanian hands? What difference would that make?
SCHREINER: They would at least be under Arab rule.
KEYES: They would be under Arab rule, and they would be working out their national aspirations in the context of that relationship with Jordan. Isn't that so?
STAFFORD: If Jordan would want that. I don't think —
KEYES: Why is that? See, because one of the things, at a common sense level, if you go back, you turn the clock back, there wasn't a Jordan and there wasn't an Israel. And then you move up a few years, and there's a Jordan and an Israel, and folks are acting as if somehow or another, the question of the Arab homeland is still on the table. And then we see the complex role of Jordan later on in the West Bank and so forth, and we act like that isn't part of the issue of Palestinian national aspiration.
Throughout my time looking at this question, I have always asked this question. Why do we accept this paradigm? Why isn't Jordan somehow still on the table as an element in our effort to address the issue of Palestinian national aspiration? Why did it drop off the table?
SCHREINER: Well, I think to follow up on what Mike said, to flip the issue a little bit, this partitioning was trying to push people into places that they may not have wanted to be. And that creates the tension, and that builds from there.
KEYES: See, but...
SCHREINER: And the issue of the Arab homeland was never fully taken off the table. It was talked around.
KEYES: That's right.
SCHREINER: And the British talked around it.
KEYES: Yes, it's one of the sad things about this show that this discussion has to come to an end, because I really enjoy it. And we have come to the end of our time, but one of the great problems is that partitions always result in terrible (UNINTELLIGIBLE). India and Pakistan, for instance, we often forget, there was terrible killing that went on, when that partition took place. But one of the reasons that the situation relatively stabilized was that when the smoke cleared, folks had state entities that they could identify with, work with, try to develop their aspirations in the context of. Something has interfered with that process in the case of the partition of the old British mandate for Palestine.
And I think just a question on the table that people never seem to want to ask is just what was it that did so? And is there any way that we can try to remedy what appears to be that defect of the history?
I have to stop here and thank you all. I really appreciate your coming in tonight. I know it's a challenge to try to address a complex subject like this. For all of us, it's a challenge, but I think we mustn't forget that no matter how complex the issue, we are still required by our responsibility as citizens to apply our common sense and to try to make a judgment that will help us be a constructive part of what our nation has to do in this situation.
Coming up next, I am going to be joined by the managing director of the Arab-American Institute, and we'll get to the bottom line. Later we'll be taking a look at what's on your mind.
But first, a 5-year-old, Kayla Brodis (ph), in a school in upstate New York, before she could say grace, a judge had to intervene, because her school district's current policy calls upon teachers to monitor student conversations in order to quash anything religious. Now, when I was coming along, they monitored you for curse words. Now, they apparently monitor you for prayers? Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Tonight on MAKING SENSE we've been taking our first steps toward trying to make sense of one of the most complex regions on the face of the planet and one of the most challenging of the problems that are faced by nations anywhere in the world.
We're going to be joined right now by the Jean AbiNadir, the managing director of the Arab American Institute, to talk further about, one, the prospects for peace in the region, who is in fact responsible for the terrible killing and violence, and whether or not there is a hope that this conflict can be brought to an end on a basis that satisfies the national aspirations of the Palestinian people at the same time that it produces security for Israel.
That seems to be the balanced approach that everyone claims is what they're aiming for, and we want to see if that's true.
Welcome to the show, Jean. I really appreciate your taking the time to be with us tonight.
First question I want to lay on the table in front of you: we heard out of the meeting between Ariel Sharon and Pres. Bush tonight things that again address the issue, both of security and the satisfaction of Palestinian national aspirations, a Palestinian state.
As you look at the present situation and you hear Ariel Sharon say yes, we will see a Palestinian state, what do you think are the prospects for that coming out of the present situation?
JEAN ABINADIR, DIRECTOR, AAIF: I think it's going to be very difficult for Ariel Sharon or Yasser Arafat to take the kinds of steps necessary to get them back to the negotiating table without a very strong push by the United States.
I mean, most people don't even recognize the fact that Israel has yet to accept the Mitchell Commission recommendations, because it would mean that they would have to halt their settlement activities.
And Arafat, of course, as you know, is virtually a prisoner in the West Bank and Gaza. He has no long-term vision of how he's going to bring the Palestinians back to the negotiating table.
And so I think we have a very tough condition that the United States is going to be much more active, if they're going to have any resolution to it.
KEYES: But aren't we faced with a very tough situation right now? I have said over the course of many years that one of the problems I saw as I looked at that region was that when you sit down to negotiate with Yasser Arafat, leave aside the question for the moment, which I think is a vexed issue for a lot of Israelis and people who are sympathetic with Israel, the vexed issue of whether Arafat wants peace, or whether he's playing some kind of double game to continue the war. But leave that aside in terms of his will.
I think there's a serious question which has been punctuated by events in the course of the last several months. Can he keep the peace on his own side? Can he actually restrain folks who want to do violence against Israel in the context of any agreement?
Because if you can't keep the peace, then the fact that you make peace may not mean anything.
ABINADIR: Well, I think there is a reality that some people will agree to, that when the second Intifada started over a year ago, Arafat made initially some missteps in terms of allowing Hamas and Islamic Jihad and others to take almost a full role in terms of continuing the opposition to the Israeli occupation.
However, the reality is that Arafat is the elected leader of the Palestinian people. And until the Palestinian people change their minds, it's not up to us or to Israel to start saying let's find another person to negotiate with.
I think instead if we have a strategy that said if you do this you're going to get this, in other words a quid pro quo, then we might be able to strengthen Arafat's hand, but at this point he doesn't have anything to work for.
KEYES: But, Jean, it may be the case that he doesn't have anything to work with is what I'm raising.
In other words, if I sit down with an interlocutor, I've signed on the bottom line, and I say I'm going to give you this for that, I'm assuming that the person on the other side can deliver, and I think one of the problems that we're faced with, leave aside the question of his volition, can Yasser Arafat, given the range of groups, armed groups, dangerous people, other influences in the region the Arab side, can he in fact control the violence that is brought to bear against Israel?
Can he stand up, sign a piece of paper and then bring it to an end? Is he capable of doing this?
ABINADIR: I think there are three pieces to that answer, Alan. I think it's a very good question.
One is, I think you're going to have to have some kind of international and U.S. intervention to separate the parties so that the violence can really be toned down in a way that will bring people back down to the negotiations.
Secondly, we've got to be very clear with Arafat and the Palestinian people what they're going to get if they stop the violence and they stop these suicide bombs and the other activities that are going on, because right now they're not being offered anything.
Their lands are being destroyed. They're being reoccupied. Their leadership has been humiliated, and those are not things that encourage people to carry out agreements.
And the third thing is, we've got to help the Israeli people understand that this is not only an issue of their security. It's an issue of peace not only between Palestinians and Israelis, but peace and prosperity for that whole region.
That's going to take a much broader set of commitments than what we have now on the table from either side.
KEYES: But let me ask a question in light of — and I tried to introduce it and will continue as we discuss this over the course of the weeks ahead. If you look back at the whole history, there is an important piece that has up to now been part of this equation, but that in recent years has been neglected.
What is the proper role of the Jordanian state, which includes a very large proportion of Palestinians, in achieving what you just said, a broad foundation for peace in the region?
Can Jordan just sit on the sidelines and act as if it has no responsibility for constituting or meeting the aspirations of the Palestinian people?
ABINADIR: Jordan isn't sitting on the sidelines.
I think, Alan, if you look at the last six months, in particular, particularly since September 11th, you'll see that King Abdullah has worked tirelessly, both with Israelis and the Palestinians, to try to bring down the cycle of violence that has been coming out of the Intifada.
I think King Abdullah has a tremendously important role to play, but it's primarily as a facilitator. He's not going to stand in for Arafat. The Jordanian king does not represent the Palestinian people. The Palestinian Authority does, so therefore Yasser Arafat.
KEYES: Well, let me ask you a question, though, because you say the Jordanian king doesn't represent the Palestinian people. But surely, given the fact that over half his population consists of Palestinian people, he has an obligation to Palestinian national aspirations. How is he going to fulfill that obligation?
And I don't mean this just in territories — in a constitutional sense, how does he fulfill his obligation to that portion of his people who have ties of heart and national aspiration with the other Palestinians in the region?
ABINADIR: I think he has said very clearly that his responsibility is to support the establishment of a Palestinian state that would then become a neighbor with Jordan and probably in some way affiliated economically and in other ways with Jordan, that would bring to fulfillment the aspirations both of the Palestinian people in Jordan and the Palestinians themselves.
But Jordan is not a place-marker for the Palestinian nationalism. Jordan is Jordans and the Palestinians are Palestine. And every Arab leader, not just King Abdullah, has a responsibility to help the Palestinians get to a level of confidence and sense of security where they can take the risks necessary to achieve a lasting and viable peace with Israel.
KEYES: We will obviously have to continue the conversation that we've begun here this evening. I want to make one final note, however.
ABINADIR: You know where to find me.
KEYES: I certainly do. I want to make one final note, however, because I think that, obviously, the Jordanians, sitting as they do, on one of the important geographical chunks of the old British mandate for Palestine, have a special responsibility that is not the same as that of Arab leaders who are not occupying that kind of territory, or sitting on top of such a significant chunk of the Palestinian population.
Just an observation, but it seems to me it's one that we have been loath to face in its full implications, we being the U.S. government.
Thank you so much. Really appreciate your joining us, Jean, and trying to contribute here to a discussion where the aim hasn't just been to outline the conflicts. So many discussions in America now have become an extension of the Middle East conflict.
When we handle this question on this show, I want it to be more than an extension of conflict, but a contribution to better understanding. Laying some ideas on the table that maybe haven't been thought about but need to be examined, trying to listen as hard as we can, because this is an issue that I think if you really understand it has got to break your heart in terms of the suffering and the hope and the ambition and the decency on both sides, and we Americans hopefully can play a role that will bring out and build on what's positive in this region.
Later, I'm going to share with you a personal note, but first I want to hear what's on your mind.
You're watching MSNBC. The best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
Now we'll get to your phone calls.
We're going to start with Andy in Florida. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
ANDY: Yes, good evening.
As a Jew and as an Israeli, we must be realistic. How can we have any confidence in the Palestinian Authority or Arafat that they truly want peace when in their own declaration of statehood it has not been repealed, the mandate for the destruction of the state of Israel?
KEYES: I think that's a very good question. It's why so much of an emphasis has been placed on that, because obviously, as w've been saying in the show, one of the things that you've got to get is you've got to get a guarantee of Israel's survival.
If you're going to purchase the satisfaction of the Palestinian aspirations by the destruction of Israel, then the conflict is oviously going to continue, because the Israelis will rightly defend themselves.
ANDY: They surely don't want peace with us.
KEYES: Let's go to Don in Florida. Don, you're on MAKING SENSE.
DON: Alan, you know, you come as close as anyone I've heard in a long time to getting to the heart of the matter. The real truth of this is that in 1948 there was a partition, and it was clear, there was an Israeli state and a Palestinian state established. However, in 1967, a coalition of Arab states decided they wanted to rid the world of the Jewish state, which didn't succeed. However, in the process, the Jews occupied the Palestinian land. You don't see the coalition of Arab states at war with the Jews today, only the Palestinians. If the Jews would give them back their land, there wouldn't be the conflict we have today.
KEYES: Well, see, I think that — part of what you say, I certainly agree with. I have always felt that it was a botched partition, however, a botched partition in which the Arab homeland was not clear and in which the role of the majority of people in the egion, the Palestinian majority, in the government of the Arab homeland, was not clear, and as a result we've had down through the years this sense that this is a stateless people.
Obviously, there's also a dispute over particular elements of territory, but that has happened in every partition, even India, Pakistan, wherever you want to look. If you have viable state entities to negotiate with each other and even over the years spar with each other about that, you can actually make more progress than, I think, the botched partition in the Middle East has allowed for.
Let's go to Bill in Texas.
BILL: Dr. Keyes, you know, Palestinian leadership does not teach a reverence, even a respect, for life.
If this were done, there would be peace in the Middle East. They're all Semitics, they're all brothers and sisters over there. If they would accept these values like responsibility, respect, restraint, love, decency and honor, truth and faith, we'd have peace in the Middle East.
KEYES: Well, I have to agree with you, but I think one of the problems with a lot of these conflicts is that the wounds and the passions that become involved in these violent conflicts can often blind folks, and then you have people who want to stay in power, taking advantage of that to produce new generations of hate, and sadly that has happened, I think, among the Palestinians in the refugee camps and elsewhere, that has fueled this conflict.
That's one of the reasons why I think we have a role, because when you're not blinded by that passion, maybe you can move the situation in a direction that takes it out of the hands of those who are.
Let's go to Michael in New Jersey — Michael.
MICHAEL: Hey, Alan. I'm just curious to know, how can the United States or Pres. Bush be seen as an honest broker in this conflict when in fact he refuses to have a dialogue with Yasser Arafat or the Palestinian Authority and has so far since he's been in office meat with Ariel Sharon four times?
KEYES: Well, I think one of the problems is that in the environment in which the Bush administration has been dealing with this situation, there has been a serious question about Yasser Arafat's both responsibility and status, on account of the continuing violence in violation of the understanding that was supposed to exist that Israel has suffered. And so I think there's been a posture taken by the U.S. administration aimed at putting serious pressure on Arafat to bring this violence to an end.
The question I raise tonight, however, which I think has to be looked at realistically, is whether Yasser Arafat is in fact in a position to do that. Can he in fact deliver an end to the violence? And if he can't, is he in fact an interlocutor worth talking to? Because if you can't keep the peace, you can't make peace. Thanks for your calls. Really appreciate it.
I'll be up next with a personal note about something a good friend of mine, Dick Armey, had to say about government-sponsored volunteerism, whether it's a good idea.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back.
I was reading “The Washington Times,” one of my favorite newspapers, the other day, and I ran across an article in which Dick Armey, the House Majority Leader, was taking on the Bush administration's willingness to continue unabated the funding for AmeriCorp and other elements of government-sponsored volunteerism. And he pretty much pledged himself to do everything he could to bring it to a halt.
It was one of those times I'm sitting there in the morning trying to drink my coffee and read the newspaper, I felt like standing up and cheering him on, yes, go for it.
Now you say, am I against volunteerism? Of course I'm not. I don't think Dick Armey is either.
I think we do have a sense that volunteerism needs to be based on the private choices and associations of people in this country, better to leave money in the hands of our people in the first place than to funnel it through government and back into their pockets and call it volunteerism. Better to put them in a position where they can support their churches and civic associations and youth groups and other elements that we put together for ourselves to address the problems of our community and society, than to put government in the driver's seat and then pretend that we're doing something for volunteerism.
The real spirit of volunteerism arises from the people, not from the government. And I think that's something that if we can begin to restore a good understanding of it, is going to produce far better results and at probably much less cost to the taxpayer than all the government-sponsored volunteerism, so-called, in the world.
That's my sense of it. Thanks for joining us.
Lester Holt is up next. He's live from Salt Lake City.
And I'll see you here again on Monday. Be with us then.
Today, the head of the Israeli government, Ariel Sharon, has visited with President Bush, obviously intensifying interest and focus on the ongoing difficulties in the Middle East. It's an area where, during the years of President Clinton's presidency, agreements were reached and some understandings came into being that gave some folks the hope that we were going to see a path opening up to a stable peace in the region in which the two sides that have been at conflict for so long would reach an accommodation that would let them take steps in a direction that would lead to permanent peace.
Unfortunately, the events of the last few months have belied all of those hopes, culminating in suicide bombings that have been ongoing, taking the lives of Israelis, Israeli retribution, tanks in the streets taking the lives of Palestinians.
And it leads obviously to the question that has to be on the minds of everyone who watches the region who cares about all of the people who are there, a question of whether that killing can ever be stopped. Well, that's a question that we are going to be addressing this evening.
Now I know, and as we talked about and prepared this program, we were very mindful of the fact that this is a very complex area. A lot of folks feel almost at sea finding it hard to understand, and there's a lot of history, a lot of who shot John, tit for tats, a lot of very complicated issues and powerful passions and emotions that are involved, inextricably, in this region.
We also of course have a complex set of American interests at stake and American responsibilities. And we're going to be asking some questions that we hope will help to clarify that situation tonight, questions that have to do with the responsibility. Who is responsible for the killing? Now, when you see a situation like this, and you've got to ask yourself, why year after year, time after time, it seems that cycle of violence is so difficult to stop? And who is responsible in the end for bringing peace to the region? Who are the key interlocutors who could sit down at the table and possibly bring that killing to an end.
And finally, of course, a question that I think has to reflect the realities in the region itself. Is it possible to satisfy the national aspirations of the Palestinian people, to bring into existence a Palestinian state without undermining Israel's security, without destroy the state of Israel.
Well, as we mentioned, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon met with President Bush at the White House this very evening. Here is what they had to say about the future of the region.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I assured the prime minister that we will continue to keep pressure on Mr. Arafat, to convince him that he must take serious, concrete, real steps to reduce terrorist activities in the Middle East.
ARIEL SHARON, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: I believe that one day, we'll be reaching a peace. Israel is committed to peace. And at the end of the process, I believe that a Palestinian state will be — we will see a Palestinian state.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: The issue of security, the issues of Palestinian national aspiration. These seem to be the fundamental questions that have to be addressed if peace is ever to be brought to this region.
Now, all of these questions occur against a backdrop of history that has to be kept in mind, even though it is sometimes convoluted and complicated. As we always do with these topics, we are going to try to take a quick look at some of the facts that are involved against that background of events, so that we can understand some of the things that are going on now in light of the history and the facts that have contributed to them.
We are joined by David Makovsky, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a contributing editor to “U.S. News and World Report” magazine — welcome, David, to the show, and thank you for being with us this evening.
DAVID MAKOVSKY, MIDDLE EAST EXPERT: Glad to be with you, Alan.
KEYES: I think the question that immediately occurs to a lot of folks, as they are watching this situation, is why are these folks killing each other? I mean, from the point of view of ordinary folks going on with their lives, they see these reports of continuing conflict, of suicide bombings, and et cetera. And they really have to wonder about the roots of this conflict. Where does it come from in your view? What are the contributing factors to this conflict in the Middle East now?
MAKOVSKY: In the Middle East, you have too much history and too little geography. Now, we are talking about a very narrow area between — 50 miles really between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The two people disputed this land. And I think we are at a point — and you saw Prime Minister Sharon, he is now saying — and there will be Palestinian state. A growing sense that they are really — the two-state solution is probably the only way to go.
If you want to get to the history of this, you know, the Zionist movement, the movement for a Jewish homeland began by Theodore Herzl, 1897, in Basel, Switzerland. There had been a lot of anti-Semitism in Europe, and he kind of fired people's imaginations — the 19th century was a time of general nationalism in Europe — that there would be this Jewish homeland. He went to the Turkish sultan and he said, “No go.”
But in World War I, the Ottoman Turks were defeated by the British, and an allied coalition and the British were given the mandate, so to speak, for this area.
KEYES: Now, the area that you are talking about is an area that includes what modern entities? What...
(CROSSTALK)
MAKOVSKY: Right. Well, today — what would be today Israel, the West Bank and the state of Jordan.
KEYES: Now, who is living there at the time when the British mandate was formed?
MAKOVSKY: OK. Right. In 1917, the British wrote what is known as the Balfour Declaration. The British foreign secretary, Arthur Balfour, wrote a letter to Lord Rothschild of the Jewish community in Britain and said that His Majesty's government finds with favor the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. And that was something that was going to — it wasn't defined geographically. Only 1920, the San Remo Conference of the allies was this kind of codified, followed by a vote at the League of Nations.
KEYES: Well, beyond the sense that the British brought to it though, in the mandate that they governed and that they continued to govern until we get to the post-second World War period. Who were the people who were actually there at the time?
MAKOVSKY: OK.
KEYES: I mean, there were Jewish and Arab-Palestinians...
MAKOVSKY: Right.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... living in that area, weren't there?
MAKOVSKY: Exactly. There were Jews and Arab-Palestinians there in the area. There had been also some Jewish immigration. There had been pogrom riots in Russia that had attracted also — that caused a lot of Jews to flee the area and to come to Palestine. But there had always been an indigenous Jewish presence for, say, 2,000 years. They had been an heir presence certainly.
KEYES: Let me ask you a question then, because...
(CROSSTALK)
MAKOVSKY: Sure.
KEYES: ... coming out of the period of the Second World War, when the state of Israel came into existence. We look at other parts of the world, and we see the collapse of colonial controls of various kinds, the partition of different areas. You talked about the emergence of this idea of the two-state solution. Well, to put it simply in historical terms, why didn't a two-state solution emerge at the time the British mandate for Palestine ended? Why wasn't it divided between Jewish-Palestinians and Arab-Palestinians with each one having a state of their own?
MAKOVSKY: I am very glad you asked that, because that's exactly what the British recommended with the Peal Commission in 1937, and in 1947, the U.N. partitioned this into two homelands, one Jewish and one Arab. The Arabs, you know, were very (UNINTELLIGIBLE) against partition, November 29, 1947. They said there is no legitimate Jewish state. And they rejected partition, and the date that the British pulled down the flag of the mandate, May 15, 1948, and the State of Israel was established, long before you had occupation of the West Bank area, it was attacked by different Arab countries, including Palestinian nationalists.
KEYES: So they rejected the existence of Israel? It actually led to several wars...
MAKOVSKY: Right.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... and punctuated the history between then and now.
MAKOVSKY: Right.
KEYES: One question still is on my mind, though. If the idea was to divide the area between Arab-Palestinians and Jewish-Palestinians, yes, Arab-Palestinians objected to Israel. What happened, however, to the area that was designated as the Arab-Palestinian homeland? What happened to that?
MAKOVSKY: OK. Well, first of all, even as far back as 1922, when Winston Churchill served a key function in Britain, the state of Trans- Jordan, which became the State of Jordan, was siphoned off of the mandate. So we are talking about what is now Israel and the West Bank. In 19...
KEYES: But when you say that the State of Jordan was siphoned off, I mean, basically that means what? Because I am not entirely clear. Why is it the case that, as we confront this present situation, the old British mandate for Palestine, which has been divided, I guess — you have Jordan, you have the West Bank, you have Israel. There was a thought that the Arabs were supposed to have a homeland of their own. Why didn't this ever emerge? Or did it, in fact, emerge?
MAKOVSKY: Well, basically when the State of Israel was established on May 15, 1948, and the Arab states and the Palestinians, you know, rejected it and thought they could — in a war, they thought this Jewish homeland could be easily wiped off the map. What they found was that not only did Israel was able to maintain those partition borders, it even went beyond them a bit. And the Jordanians that, as I said, had taken the eastern part of the Jordan, what was once Trans-Jordan, they ended up occupying what we would call today the West Bank.
KEYES: Now, under that occupation of the West Bank...
MAKOVSKY: For 19 years...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... there was a period of time when the kings of Jordan both took responsibility for and presented themselves as representatives of Palestinian aspirations in the region, right?
MAKOVSKY: Right. And to complicate...
KEYES: Why did they back away?
MAKOVSKY: And to complicate matters further, in 1948, you had a refugee exodus. This is a hotly disputed issue in that it was very key at what the last round — towards the very end of the Clinton administration on who was responsible for that.
KEYES: Answer me a question though. Why did the Jordanians, who in effect geographically Jordan sits on a very significant portion of that old British mandate for Palestine, at what point did they withdraw, as it were, from discussions involving Palestinian national aspirations? It's something I have quite understood.
MAKOVSKY: All right. Well, they withdrew on two occasions really. In 1974 — I mean, just to bring the viewers up to date, in '67, the '67 War kind of spearheaded by Nasser of Egypt, who was the leading Arab nationalist at the time. And he convinced King Hussein of Jordan to join him, and in the end, Jordan lost the West Bank. The Israeli government, when the '67 War was over, said it would give it up, all the areas if it got peace, the Arab League in Khartoum in '67 said, no to peace, no to recognition, no to negotiations, the famous three nos.
But the assumption was that Jordan spoke on behalf of the West Bank Palestinians, because they represented them, and to this very day 60 percent of Jordanians are of Palestinian descent. From this refugee period, which we'll get into later if you'd like, but by 1974, basically, there was a Rabat Conference...
KEYES: David?
MAKOVSKY: ... that the Arab League...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: I'm going to have to stop you there, and thank you for the insights that you have shared with us thus far. We have run out of time for the segment.
As folks can see, this is an issue, where this is our first cut. We'll be looking at this a number of times, without any doubt, over the course of the weeks ahead. And it's going to require some time. It's going to require a patient effort to understand some of the ins and outs that have led us to the present situation.
But I want to thank you for joining us today, David — really appreciate it.
We're going to continue the show, as we sit down and look at some of these facts, add a little bit to the picture in our next segment, “People Just Like You.” And later, on a personal note, I will be making a comment about Dick Armey's reaction to the Bush administration's desire to push the Clinton idea of government-sponsored volunteerism.
But first, think about this. On September 11, we had the terrible events that brought down the World Trade Center. Within a day or so, we knew that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Let's see, that's one, two, three, four, five months ago about? But guess what? The Saudi Arabian government just announced and acknowledged that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian. It only took them five months to notice this? Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome to “People Just Like You.” Now, coming up after this segment, I'll be exchanging views with the managing director of the Arab- American Institute, but right now, I have brought together, as we often do on the program, just some folks, regular people. We have William Schreiner, an insurance attorney, Kathleen Murray, a full-time mother, and Mike Stafford, a law student at Duke University. And I am going to be chatting with them a little bit about this situation in the Middle East.
First though, I want to share a thought with you, because we obviously put some thought into these programs every day and try to bring you the best show we can. And in thinking about this one, I had to consider whether or not this panel should be composed of a lot of experts on the Middle East, or whether it still made sense to bring regular folks together and talk a little bit about the situation. I concluded that it was still best to bring regular folks together. Why? Because at the end of the day, you all, we can't sustain a policy in the Middle East, if folks out there don't understand what's going on, if you have very little comprehension or are continually confused.
It costs a lot of blood and treasure, and Osama bin Laden and his ilk have even tried to convince us that the terrible blow struck against us in New York was somehow involved with the Middle East. This is a matter that concerns and involves us, in some ways, whether we like it or not. And that's the question.
This first question I wanted to put to all of you in terms of your own perspective, the lives you lead, do you think that what goes on in the Middle East is of any importance to you? Why should it matter? Does it matter? William?
WILLIAM SCHREINER, INSURANCE LAWYER: Well, clearly from September 11, we were reminded that it does matter, for reasons that are very complicated, and that we are starting to discuss tonight. There are people in the Middle East, who are so angry with the United States, that they will take it out against us in terrorism. And it has mattered, and I think occasionally the American people are reminded that it matters. It's easy to ignore the Middle East because it's so far away and really doesn't have a direct effect on us. But then occasionally we have to remember, there are people there who hate us enough they want to kill us, and that's a cause of concern, I think.
KEYES: Kathleen?
KATHLEEN MURRAY, FULL-TIME MOTHER: I just find the world growing smaller and smaller, and we are getting closer and closer. And I feel that we have a moral obligation, when there are innocent people dying. And the United States is involved directly or indirectly, however one may look at it, that yes, we do have a reason to be involved in this and interested. And we should know what's going on.
KEYES: Michael?
MICHAEL STAFFORD, DUKE UNIVERSITY STUDENT: I think if there is one lesson that September 11 teaches, it's that we no longer have the luxury of retreating behind the Atlantic Ocean and adopting a policy of isolationism. The problems of the globe are our problems. Now, whether we can intervene everywhere where killing is occurring, well, that's a whole another topic. But in the Middle East, geo-strategically the globe has been shrunk, and those problems are right at our doorstep, and we're going to have to deal with them.
KEYES: Let me ask a follow-up question though, because here I sat talking to the expert we had at the opening of the program, and in the time we had available, we could barely scratch the surface of the Middle East. Most people in this country are involved every day. They are trying to raise families, do a job of work and so forth and so on. How much can the ordinary person really understand about what is going on in that region? Do you feel, any of you, that you have grasped enough that the opinions or views you might have should matter to anybody? Kathleen?
MURRAY: I feel I have some grounding and some knowledge on it, probably more than a little — I have just taken a very big interest in it. I just — it just breaks my heart, quite frankly, what's going on there. I read quite a bit the newspapers, but unfortunately, I do feel the news accounts can be slightly skewed. And I do not feel there is a full reporting going on.
KEYES: And when you say skewed, skewed in — could you identify that bias?
MURRAY: I feel there is a bias towards the Israelis.
KEYES: See, and I know very many folks who feel that it's just the opposite, that there's a distinct bias in the media that has, over the years, been completely unfavorable to Israel, and so that I think is another symptom of the strong feelings that exist on both sides, and that therefore color the situation. William, do you think you have enough of a grasp of for this to say anything anybody would want to hear?
SCHREINER: Certainly not as much as your first guest did. I mean, I know what I read in the papers, and I know what I read in the magazines. I haven't studied it intensely. And I know some understanding of the history, but I don't think I know enough to conclusively solve the problem, and frankly, I don't think Americans can solve the problem in the Middle East. You know, both sides have to really want peace. We can facilitate it, and we can try to bring it about, but frankly the solution has to start there. So I know as much as I can get from “The Washington Post,” basically.
KEYES: Well, but...
SCHREINER: I don't know if that's enough. I don't know...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: But one of the things we do know is that you look at these terrible scenes of violence and destruction, I mean, I think our hearts know that most ordinary people don't want their children killed on the street, don't want their schools blown up, don't want to see the cafes torn limb from limb, don't want tykes (ph) sitting outside on their doorstep. Isn't there a level at which we can understand the deep human emotions that are involved in this situation?
STAFFORD: I think there is. And one of the beauties about the Middle East conflict is that it's extensively reported. Any American can go out and buy Bernard Lewis or Robert D. Kaplan and learn in the course of a week a great deal about the history of the region and the conflict. And as to the Middle East violence, it is certainly troubling, but — and I think the media, this reflects part of the media's bias against Israel, the sheer extensiveness of the coverage.
There is more violence occurring in a whole host of places we have never heard of, and as terrible as the deaths in Israel are, they pale by comparison to conflicts the average Americans never heard of, like the civil war in Tajikistan, conflicts in Indonesia. So the scope of the media's focus and coverage on Israel and Israel's actions, I think shows a bit of a bias on their part against it.
KEYES: Well, in terms — well, go ahead.
SCHREINER: Well, I mean, we have been involved. We have been a close ally and friend of Israel for a long time. We have had interests in the Middle East for a longer time. So I think if there is a media bias, it's possibly a properly reflected one in that we report on that area more, because it has more to do with the United States, and they have set interests there.
KEYES: And, of course, over the years, we have developed a pretty big stake. I mean, we have invested, as it were, billions of dollars of American tax dollars in the effort, for instance, to sustain the Egypt, the peace with Egypt and so forth. And it seems like whether we like it or not, both our allies and our own interests, whether it's Middle Eastern oil or other things, tend to be involved in a situation that's very volatile. And this then becomes one of those things that can interfere with our ability to relate to other countries in the region, if we are not playing a role that is perceived as responsible.
But in the midst of all that coverage, let me ask you a question. Who is — at the start of the show, I said we had to be interested in who is responsible for the killing in that region. Who is responsible? As you all have watched it from the perspective of people who read the newspaper and so forth, where would you fix the responsibility for all of the killing that's going on there? Kathleen?
MURRAY: I would just say human — religion and love for their own particular gods and both religions.
KEYES: So you think it's a religious conflict about them. How about the territorial dispute though? I mean, because there has been...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's about dreams.
KEYES: ... a residue of strong Arab resentment, because of the refugee situation and so forth, and they claim to...
MURRAY: Well, that's the holy sights though. We are talking about holy sites. And that's the bottom line is the holy sites of Jerusalem. (UNINTELLIGIBLE), as I say, wall the city around, make it an international place.
KEYES: Well, Jerusalem is not the only issue.
MURRAY: Well, but there is other places.
KEYES: Now, the issues that have been most prominent include things like the refugee situation, of course the whole sense that Israel...
MURRAY: Which refugee situation?
KEYES: ... itself — the refugees, so-called, that came as a result of the establishment of Israel. The folks who have been in so-called refugee camps...
MURRAY: For the settlers?
KEYES: ... for decades...
MURRAY: Right.
KEYES: ... in that part of the world. So there seems to be a territorial element as well, and then obviously the to-ing and fro-ing with killing has resulted in a memory of what people perceive as the atrocities done on both sides.
STAFFORD: I think to characterize this as a religious problem is to misstate the point. This is a problem that we are very familiar with. It's a problem of divergent nationalisms competing for the same territory. The problem in the Middle East is both of these people's dreams of statehood exist in the same space.
MURRAY: The same space, yes.
STAFFORD: They both want a state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, and they are both going to have to accept something less than that to make peace.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Well, let me ask you a question. Now, this is — well, go ahead.
SCHREINER: Well, I mean...
(CROSSTALK)
MURRAY: Well, I agree with that, absolutely.
SCHREINER: ... to carry your point a little bit further, until both sides accept that they both have to learn to coexist in that fairly narrow place, neither nation can just pack its bags.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: OK, but here is the problem. You just referred to either nation and so forth. But isn't the fact of the matter that we are confronted by a historical result in which one side has a state that has been recognized and has established its viability with great struggle and effort and moral commitment. And the other side has been left, despite what our interlocutory, David, indicated a minute ago was the original intention. There was supposed to be a Jewish homeland and an Arab homeland. I keep asking, what happened to the Arab homeland? Where is it?
MURRAY: I'd like to know too.
KEYES: Where is it? I mean, because in...
STAFFORD: I think the mistake was that Arabs attacked Israel. If the '67 War doesn't happen, the West Bank is still in Jordanian hands, the Gaza Strip still being ruled by Egypt.
KEYES: Why does it matter that the West Bank is still in Jordanian hands? What difference would that make?
SCHREINER: They would at least be under Arab rule.
KEYES: They would be under Arab rule, and they would be working out their national aspirations in the context of that relationship with Jordan. Isn't that so?
STAFFORD: If Jordan would want that. I don't think —
KEYES: Why is that? See, because one of the things, at a common sense level, if you go back, you turn the clock back, there wasn't a Jordan and there wasn't an Israel. And then you move up a few years, and there's a Jordan and an Israel, and folks are acting as if somehow or another, the question of the Arab homeland is still on the table. And then we see the complex role of Jordan later on in the West Bank and so forth, and we act like that isn't part of the issue of Palestinian national aspiration.
Throughout my time looking at this question, I have always asked this question. Why do we accept this paradigm? Why isn't Jordan somehow still on the table as an element in our effort to address the issue of Palestinian national aspiration? Why did it drop off the table?
SCHREINER: Well, I think to follow up on what Mike said, to flip the issue a little bit, this partitioning was trying to push people into places that they may not have wanted to be. And that creates the tension, and that builds from there.
KEYES: See, but...
SCHREINER: And the issue of the Arab homeland was never fully taken off the table. It was talked around.
KEYES: That's right.
SCHREINER: And the British talked around it.
KEYES: Yes, it's one of the sad things about this show that this discussion has to come to an end, because I really enjoy it. And we have come to the end of our time, but one of the great problems is that partitions always result in terrible (UNINTELLIGIBLE). India and Pakistan, for instance, we often forget, there was terrible killing that went on, when that partition took place. But one of the reasons that the situation relatively stabilized was that when the smoke cleared, folks had state entities that they could identify with, work with, try to develop their aspirations in the context of. Something has interfered with that process in the case of the partition of the old British mandate for Palestine.
And I think just a question on the table that people never seem to want to ask is just what was it that did so? And is there any way that we can try to remedy what appears to be that defect of the history?
I have to stop here and thank you all. I really appreciate your coming in tonight. I know it's a challenge to try to address a complex subject like this. For all of us, it's a challenge, but I think we mustn't forget that no matter how complex the issue, we are still required by our responsibility as citizens to apply our common sense and to try to make a judgment that will help us be a constructive part of what our nation has to do in this situation.
Coming up next, I am going to be joined by the managing director of the Arab-American Institute, and we'll get to the bottom line. Later we'll be taking a look at what's on your mind.
But first, a 5-year-old, Kayla Brodis (ph), in a school in upstate New York, before she could say grace, a judge had to intervene, because her school district's current policy calls upon teachers to monitor student conversations in order to quash anything religious. Now, when I was coming along, they monitored you for curse words. Now, they apparently monitor you for prayers? Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Tonight on MAKING SENSE we've been taking our first steps toward trying to make sense of one of the most complex regions on the face of the planet and one of the most challenging of the problems that are faced by nations anywhere in the world.
We're going to be joined right now by the Jean AbiNadir, the managing director of the Arab American Institute, to talk further about, one, the prospects for peace in the region, who is in fact responsible for the terrible killing and violence, and whether or not there is a hope that this conflict can be brought to an end on a basis that satisfies the national aspirations of the Palestinian people at the same time that it produces security for Israel.
That seems to be the balanced approach that everyone claims is what they're aiming for, and we want to see if that's true.
Welcome to the show, Jean. I really appreciate your taking the time to be with us tonight.
First question I want to lay on the table in front of you: we heard out of the meeting between Ariel Sharon and Pres. Bush tonight things that again address the issue, both of security and the satisfaction of Palestinian national aspirations, a Palestinian state.
As you look at the present situation and you hear Ariel Sharon say yes, we will see a Palestinian state, what do you think are the prospects for that coming out of the present situation?
JEAN ABINADIR, DIRECTOR, AAIF: I think it's going to be very difficult for Ariel Sharon or Yasser Arafat to take the kinds of steps necessary to get them back to the negotiating table without a very strong push by the United States.
I mean, most people don't even recognize the fact that Israel has yet to accept the Mitchell Commission recommendations, because it would mean that they would have to halt their settlement activities.
And Arafat, of course, as you know, is virtually a prisoner in the West Bank and Gaza. He has no long-term vision of how he's going to bring the Palestinians back to the negotiating table.
And so I think we have a very tough condition that the United States is going to be much more active, if they're going to have any resolution to it.
KEYES: But aren't we faced with a very tough situation right now? I have said over the course of many years that one of the problems I saw as I looked at that region was that when you sit down to negotiate with Yasser Arafat, leave aside the question for the moment, which I think is a vexed issue for a lot of Israelis and people who are sympathetic with Israel, the vexed issue of whether Arafat wants peace, or whether he's playing some kind of double game to continue the war. But leave that aside in terms of his will.
I think there's a serious question which has been punctuated by events in the course of the last several months. Can he keep the peace on his own side? Can he actually restrain folks who want to do violence against Israel in the context of any agreement?
Because if you can't keep the peace, then the fact that you make peace may not mean anything.
ABINADIR: Well, I think there is a reality that some people will agree to, that when the second Intifada started over a year ago, Arafat made initially some missteps in terms of allowing Hamas and Islamic Jihad and others to take almost a full role in terms of continuing the opposition to the Israeli occupation.
However, the reality is that Arafat is the elected leader of the Palestinian people. And until the Palestinian people change their minds, it's not up to us or to Israel to start saying let's find another person to negotiate with.
I think instead if we have a strategy that said if you do this you're going to get this, in other words a quid pro quo, then we might be able to strengthen Arafat's hand, but at this point he doesn't have anything to work for.
KEYES: But, Jean, it may be the case that he doesn't have anything to work with is what I'm raising.
In other words, if I sit down with an interlocutor, I've signed on the bottom line, and I say I'm going to give you this for that, I'm assuming that the person on the other side can deliver, and I think one of the problems that we're faced with, leave aside the question of his volition, can Yasser Arafat, given the range of groups, armed groups, dangerous people, other influences in the region the Arab side, can he in fact control the violence that is brought to bear against Israel?
Can he stand up, sign a piece of paper and then bring it to an end? Is he capable of doing this?
ABINADIR: I think there are three pieces to that answer, Alan. I think it's a very good question.
One is, I think you're going to have to have some kind of international and U.S. intervention to separate the parties so that the violence can really be toned down in a way that will bring people back down to the negotiations.
Secondly, we've got to be very clear with Arafat and the Palestinian people what they're going to get if they stop the violence and they stop these suicide bombs and the other activities that are going on, because right now they're not being offered anything.
Their lands are being destroyed. They're being reoccupied. Their leadership has been humiliated, and those are not things that encourage people to carry out agreements.
And the third thing is, we've got to help the Israeli people understand that this is not only an issue of their security. It's an issue of peace not only between Palestinians and Israelis, but peace and prosperity for that whole region.
That's going to take a much broader set of commitments than what we have now on the table from either side.
KEYES: But let me ask a question in light of — and I tried to introduce it and will continue as we discuss this over the course of the weeks ahead. If you look back at the whole history, there is an important piece that has up to now been part of this equation, but that in recent years has been neglected.
What is the proper role of the Jordanian state, which includes a very large proportion of Palestinians, in achieving what you just said, a broad foundation for peace in the region?
Can Jordan just sit on the sidelines and act as if it has no responsibility for constituting or meeting the aspirations of the Palestinian people?
ABINADIR: Jordan isn't sitting on the sidelines.
I think, Alan, if you look at the last six months, in particular, particularly since September 11th, you'll see that King Abdullah has worked tirelessly, both with Israelis and the Palestinians, to try to bring down the cycle of violence that has been coming out of the Intifada.
I think King Abdullah has a tremendously important role to play, but it's primarily as a facilitator. He's not going to stand in for Arafat. The Jordanian king does not represent the Palestinian people. The Palestinian Authority does, so therefore Yasser Arafat.
KEYES: Well, let me ask you a question, though, because you say the Jordanian king doesn't represent the Palestinian people. But surely, given the fact that over half his population consists of Palestinian people, he has an obligation to Palestinian national aspirations. How is he going to fulfill that obligation?
And I don't mean this just in territories — in a constitutional sense, how does he fulfill his obligation to that portion of his people who have ties of heart and national aspiration with the other Palestinians in the region?
ABINADIR: I think he has said very clearly that his responsibility is to support the establishment of a Palestinian state that would then become a neighbor with Jordan and probably in some way affiliated economically and in other ways with Jordan, that would bring to fulfillment the aspirations both of the Palestinian people in Jordan and the Palestinians themselves.
But Jordan is not a place-marker for the Palestinian nationalism. Jordan is Jordans and the Palestinians are Palestine. And every Arab leader, not just King Abdullah, has a responsibility to help the Palestinians get to a level of confidence and sense of security where they can take the risks necessary to achieve a lasting and viable peace with Israel.
KEYES: We will obviously have to continue the conversation that we've begun here this evening. I want to make one final note, however.
ABINADIR: You know where to find me.
KEYES: I certainly do. I want to make one final note, however, because I think that, obviously, the Jordanians, sitting as they do, on one of the important geographical chunks of the old British mandate for Palestine, have a special responsibility that is not the same as that of Arab leaders who are not occupying that kind of territory, or sitting on top of such a significant chunk of the Palestinian population.
Just an observation, but it seems to me it's one that we have been loath to face in its full implications, we being the U.S. government.
Thank you so much. Really appreciate your joining us, Jean, and trying to contribute here to a discussion where the aim hasn't just been to outline the conflicts. So many discussions in America now have become an extension of the Middle East conflict.
When we handle this question on this show, I want it to be more than an extension of conflict, but a contribution to better understanding. Laying some ideas on the table that maybe haven't been thought about but need to be examined, trying to listen as hard as we can, because this is an issue that I think if you really understand it has got to break your heart in terms of the suffering and the hope and the ambition and the decency on both sides, and we Americans hopefully can play a role that will bring out and build on what's positive in this region.
Later, I'm going to share with you a personal note, but first I want to hear what's on your mind.
You're watching MSNBC. The best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
Now we'll get to your phone calls.
We're going to start with Andy in Florida. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
ANDY: Yes, good evening.
As a Jew and as an Israeli, we must be realistic. How can we have any confidence in the Palestinian Authority or Arafat that they truly want peace when in their own declaration of statehood it has not been repealed, the mandate for the destruction of the state of Israel?
KEYES: I think that's a very good question. It's why so much of an emphasis has been placed on that, because obviously, as w've been saying in the show, one of the things that you've got to get is you've got to get a guarantee of Israel's survival.
If you're going to purchase the satisfaction of the Palestinian aspirations by the destruction of Israel, then the conflict is oviously going to continue, because the Israelis will rightly defend themselves.
ANDY: They surely don't want peace with us.
KEYES: Let's go to Don in Florida. Don, you're on MAKING SENSE.
DON: Alan, you know, you come as close as anyone I've heard in a long time to getting to the heart of the matter. The real truth of this is that in 1948 there was a partition, and it was clear, there was an Israeli state and a Palestinian state established. However, in 1967, a coalition of Arab states decided they wanted to rid the world of the Jewish state, which didn't succeed. However, in the process, the Jews occupied the Palestinian land. You don't see the coalition of Arab states at war with the Jews today, only the Palestinians. If the Jews would give them back their land, there wouldn't be the conflict we have today.
KEYES: Well, see, I think that — part of what you say, I certainly agree with. I have always felt that it was a botched partition, however, a botched partition in which the Arab homeland was not clear and in which the role of the majority of people in the egion, the Palestinian majority, in the government of the Arab homeland, was not clear, and as a result we've had down through the years this sense that this is a stateless people.
Obviously, there's also a dispute over particular elements of territory, but that has happened in every partition, even India, Pakistan, wherever you want to look. If you have viable state entities to negotiate with each other and even over the years spar with each other about that, you can actually make more progress than, I think, the botched partition in the Middle East has allowed for.
Let's go to Bill in Texas.
BILL: Dr. Keyes, you know, Palestinian leadership does not teach a reverence, even a respect, for life.
If this were done, there would be peace in the Middle East. They're all Semitics, they're all brothers and sisters over there. If they would accept these values like responsibility, respect, restraint, love, decency and honor, truth and faith, we'd have peace in the Middle East.
KEYES: Well, I have to agree with you, but I think one of the problems with a lot of these conflicts is that the wounds and the passions that become involved in these violent conflicts can often blind folks, and then you have people who want to stay in power, taking advantage of that to produce new generations of hate, and sadly that has happened, I think, among the Palestinians in the refugee camps and elsewhere, that has fueled this conflict.
That's one of the reasons why I think we have a role, because when you're not blinded by that passion, maybe you can move the situation in a direction that takes it out of the hands of those who are.
Let's go to Michael in New Jersey — Michael.
MICHAEL: Hey, Alan. I'm just curious to know, how can the United States or Pres. Bush be seen as an honest broker in this conflict when in fact he refuses to have a dialogue with Yasser Arafat or the Palestinian Authority and has so far since he's been in office meat with Ariel Sharon four times?
KEYES: Well, I think one of the problems is that in the environment in which the Bush administration has been dealing with this situation, there has been a serious question about Yasser Arafat's both responsibility and status, on account of the continuing violence in violation of the understanding that was supposed to exist that Israel has suffered. And so I think there's been a posture taken by the U.S. administration aimed at putting serious pressure on Arafat to bring this violence to an end.
The question I raise tonight, however, which I think has to be looked at realistically, is whether Yasser Arafat is in fact in a position to do that. Can he in fact deliver an end to the violence? And if he can't, is he in fact an interlocutor worth talking to? Because if you can't keep the peace, you can't make peace. Thanks for your calls. Really appreciate it.
I'll be up next with a personal note about something a good friend of mine, Dick Armey, had to say about government-sponsored volunteerism, whether it's a good idea.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back.
I was reading “The Washington Times,” one of my favorite newspapers, the other day, and I ran across an article in which Dick Armey, the House Majority Leader, was taking on the Bush administration's willingness to continue unabated the funding for AmeriCorp and other elements of government-sponsored volunteerism. And he pretty much pledged himself to do everything he could to bring it to a halt.
It was one of those times I'm sitting there in the morning trying to drink my coffee and read the newspaper, I felt like standing up and cheering him on, yes, go for it.
Now you say, am I against volunteerism? Of course I'm not. I don't think Dick Armey is either.
I think we do have a sense that volunteerism needs to be based on the private choices and associations of people in this country, better to leave money in the hands of our people in the first place than to funnel it through government and back into their pockets and call it volunteerism. Better to put them in a position where they can support their churches and civic associations and youth groups and other elements that we put together for ourselves to address the problems of our community and society, than to put government in the driver's seat and then pretend that we're doing something for volunteerism.
The real spirit of volunteerism arises from the people, not from the government. And I think that's something that if we can begin to restore a good understanding of it, is going to produce far better results and at probably much less cost to the taxpayer than all the government-sponsored volunteerism, so-called, in the world.
That's my sense of it. Thanks for joining us.
Lester Holt is up next. He's live from Salt Lake City.
And I'll see you here again on Monday. Be with us then.