MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesMarch 5, 2002
ALAN KEYES, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, I'm Alan Keyes. Welcome to making sense.
Tonight, we're going to continue to take a look at the terrible mess that's developing in the Middle East, getting closer and closer, unhappily, to all-out war.
We'll also be visiting an issue on the war on terrorism, brought up by the Pilots Association. Should pilots be armed to defend their aircraft?
But first, let's take a look at the Middle East situation.
It's gotten so bad there that it's hard to distinguish one act of violence from the next. Here is what the last 24 hours have looked like.
2:00 AM, a Palestinian gunman kills three Israelis in a Tel Aviv restaurant. Daybreak, a suicide bomber kills one Israeli on a bus. At 3:00 PM, an Israeli plane bombed a Palestinian police station. No casualties were reported.
And the violence continued into the night. Two Palestinians were killed when their car was destroyed in an Israeli missile attack.
In total, the numbers are staggering. 61 Palestinians, 31 Israelis have now died in one of the deadliest weeks since fighting broke out in September 2000.
The latest violence was issue number one between President Bush and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who agrees with a vision of peace, presented by Saudi Arabia.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOSNI MUBARAK, EGYPTIAN PRESIDENT: Peace will only be achieved through ending the Israeli occupation of all territories occupied since June 1967. Implementing the relevant U.N. resolutions, the establishing of a viable Palestinian state and the guaranteeing of the security of all parties a peaceful coexistence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Obviously, a lot of the world's leaders would like to see some kind of hope opened up in this situation.
Unfortunately, for the United States, complicating the situation is the partisan dust-up that began last week when White House press secretary Air Fleischer implied criticism of the Clinton years, saying that — quote — “If you back to when the violence began, you can make the case that in an attempt to shoot the moon and get nothing, more violence resulted.”
In response to a follow-up question, he said — quote — “The violence really began at the end of 2000 and accelerated through 2001, implying that it was the fault of the Clinton administration.
That same day, in response to criticism, Fleischer retracted his remarks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: No United States president is to blame for violence in the Middle East. The only people to blame are the terrorists who carry out the violence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Unhappily, of course, we are left, still, with a confused sense not only of what we ourselves can accomplish in the Middle East situation, but what the track record has been, what hope it offers or does not offer. Yes, it was a partisan dust-up, but there are serious issues underlying it.
Here are some of the key questions we're going to address tonight on MAKING SENSE in the search for peace in the Middle East.
First of all, did Clinton achieve anything during his tenure? Is the criticism that was implied by Ari Fleischer justified or not?
Should the Bush administration be more engaged? You know, there have been those who suggest that our failure to engage in a more positive way is partly contributing to the on-going violence.
And, finally, is the Saudi proposal, now seconded apparently by Hosni Mubarak, is it realistic? Does it, in fact, provide a basis for getting out of the present violent morass?
All of this, of course, in the context of reports that an even more intense offensive is now planned by the Israelis to try to deal with the situation.
Well, up front tonight, we're joined by Robert Mally (ph), a former special assistant to President Clinton. He was a senior negotiator during the Camp David peace talks in 2000.
Also with us, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy. He was also an assistant secretary of defense for international security policy in the Reagan administration.
Welcome, gentlemen, to MAKING SENSE.
I'd like first to go to Robert Mally (ph).
Mr. Mally, you were involved in the Camp David Accords. Obviously, they were an attempt to try to move the situation to some conclusion. Do you think that it's justified for folks to suggest that Clinton reached for too much in that context and therefore somehow set the situation up for failure and the kind of morass we see now?
ROBERT MALLY, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT CLINTON: Absolutely not. I mean, as you noted yourself, Ari Fleischer had to retract what he said.
I think, first of all, there's just a basic misperception of the history here, which I would like to set straight. President Clinton is not the one who pushed this beyond the desires of the parties. The parties were asking him to put down a proposal for final status agreement. Prime Minister Barak was pushing the president. The president had to slow him down and after Camp David, it was Chairman Arafat who also asked the president to put down his proposal.
So that whole concept is just false. Beyond, that, I think that the key point to remember is that by the time we got to Camp David, we knew and the Israelis knew and everyone knew that the frustration among the Palestinians was such, because they had waited eight years since the signing of the Oslo Accords and their conditions had not improved, that we knew that violence was about to explode.
We knew it, every intelligence report was indicating it, and President Clinton's attempt was an attempt to solve the conflict before it was too late. We didn't succeed, but I don't think that anyone should criticize him for trying.
KEYES: Frank Gaffney, do you think that Ari Fleischer should have stuck to his guns? How do you look at the kind of efforts that were made during the Clinton years in the context of what we see going on now?
FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: Alan, I think that there are a number of different areas around the world that you can look at the Clinton legacy and say that the president did make matters worse.
I personally believe that much of the troubles that we are facing today with international terrorism is a product of the fecklessness with which he responded to previous acts of terror against us.
And in the case of the Middle East, I think it is certainly true that Prime Minister Barak was anxious to get a deal, but certainly no more so than was president Clinton and I think there was unmistakably, in the minds of Yasser Arafat, and I think the Arabs more generally, a perception that President Clinton would squeeze the Israelis to get terms that were as favorable to them as possible.
In the end, it wasn't all that Yasser Arafat wanted and, if I may say, Alan, I'd just would like to go to a visual aid. I think it is very, very relevant here to show people what the Palestinian Authority itself says, on its Web site, is the vision of Palestine that they have.
And it is, of course, not only the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but it is all of pre-1967 Israel. There is, in short, no Israel on this map.
And that's the problem with this so-called peace process. It's not just an absence of an interlocutor or the failure of the United States to be adequately engaged, it is that the objectives of the Palestinian leadership, not just Hamas and Hezbollah and the Islamic Jihad, but Yasser Arafat himself, are clearly leading to and directed at the destruction of the state of Israel, piecemeal, if not in one fell swoop.
KEYES: Robert Mally, one of the thing that continually comes to my mind, as I listen to folks exchange views about this subject, I look at Yasser Arafat, and two questions arise.
First of all, the one that I think Fank Gaffney is pointing toward. Does he have, in fact, a true will to make and conclude a peace that actually allows for the continued existence of Israel, or is it all just a tactic, setting up a new day to put new pressure until the final result of Israel's destruction achieved? Is the will for peace really there?
And second, the issue that I think is on the table in front of us right now, even if he has the will, can he actually control the forces of violence on the Arab side in such a way as to actually deliver a cessation of hostilities?
Do you think that maybe President Clinton overestimated the extend to which Yasser Arafat is willing and capable of actually making and keeping the peace?
MALLY: Well, certainly, at the time that President Clinton was making his efforts, the situation on the ground was very different than the one it is today and I think that Chairman Arafat then certainly could have, if it was a peace that he felt he could sell to his people, I'm quite sure that he would have been able to make it stick.
As to the broader question about what Arafat's intentions are, what he would like to do, I just think rather than try to speculate about and looking at maps that Mr. Gaffney just put on, the record of the Camp David negotiations and the negotiations (UNINTELLIGIBLE) are very clear what the Palestinians wanted.
It was more than what the Israelis were prepared to agree to, because it was basically a withdrawal to the lines of 1967, with land swaps to allow for some settlements to remain under Israeli sovereignty.
But it never was and it hasn't been now for some time the desire to destroy Israel. And I don't think it does any good or justice to anyone to peddle that notion.
I think the main point is, we were not able to reach an agreement then because the demands the Palestinians had and the demands the Israelis had did not meet. We were not that far, in fact, certainly between Camp David and the end of the Clinton administration, we got extremely close.
And I think what's tragic is that today, both side are going to the extremes and the situation getting polarized and the ones that are paying the price are the Israeli people and the Palestinian people.
GAFFNEY: Alan, could I just rejoinder that?
KEYES: Yes, please.
GAFFNEY: Because the key point here is what has just been said by Mr. Mally is very consistent, of course, with what Yasser Arafat says in English for Western consumption.
Unfortunately, what he says in Arabic for the consumption of his people and that of the other Arab, I'm afraid, is very different.
And that's where this map comes in. This is not something I'm making up. This is what the Palestinians are saying to their own people. It's everywhere. It's in the maps in their offices. It's the maps in their textbooks with which they teach their children.
This is communicating in very clear terms that what is going on here is just as Arafat has said since 1974, a phased plan for the destruction of the state of Israel.
Get — phase one — whatever territory we can, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, a Palestinian state.
And phase two, use that land to drive the Jews into the sea.
And this isn't ancient history, these are words that are continuously being said in Arabic, again, to the Palestinian people and they get it. That's the objective. That's why there's no peace.
KEYES: Robert Mally?
Mally: If I can just — if that had been Yasser Arafat's plan, he should have accepted Camp David, which gave him some 90 percent of the West Bank.
GAFFNEY: He should have.
MALLY: And then he would have continued with his phase plan.
This notion...
GAFFNEY: It's surprising he didn't.
MALLY: Well, maybe it's because your theory is just false. He has a plan — he has an objective, which, as I said, is more than what the Israeli government at the time, and the same one we have today, is prepared to accept.
But it is an objective, which is to get the land that they believe was lost in 1967, in Gaza and the West Bank, and that's been the objective now for the last two decades.
It's not been one that's been achieved, and at this point, it doesn't seem like it will be achieved tomorrow.
KEYES: Robert Mally, I guess one problem I have is that we look at what has been a continual series of these kinds of dances, breaking down at the end of the day in the kind of violence that we see now, usually the result of some kind of frustration on the part of the Palestinians.
We're always willing to accept the notion that somehow the process is to blame and that we shouldn't ascribe this to some kind of malice of forethought or strategy or lack of control.
But at some point, doesn't one have to begin to look at what seems to be slapping us in the face here? That Arafat, as an interlocutor, simply does not demonstrate the will, and certainly in the case of the recent months, hasn't demonstrated the control that is necessarily, so that even if the Israelis give him what he wants, does he have the will, does he have the ability to deliver the peace? Or will elements on the Arab side simply start the war in a new form in order to re-open the discussion, which seems to be the pattern?
One last word from you, Robert Mally. I really would like to hear someone address that question, because I think the answers are not satisfactory.
MALLY: Well, would say — I would put it this way. At this point, given where we are, the intentions of Yasser Arafat, the intentions of Ariel Sharon, should not be something that should stop us.
I think what the United States should do is have its notion of what a fair settlement is and it should attempt to put it to the parties and not be constrained by what Arafat's intentions may be or Sharon's intentions may be.
We haven't spoken about those tonight, either.
I think the leadership right now is not where we're going to get the solution. The solution is going to have to come from the outside. It has to come from the United States, because it is the only party with the will and the capacity to have a solution.
KEYES: Gentlemen, thank you very much - Robert Mally, Frank Gaffney.
As always, we appreciate the light that you shed on this subject. Differing views are strong, obviously, with arguments on both side.
I guess I still suffer from the problem that, how can we impose a solution that the parties themselves are either unwilling or incapable of actually carrying out?
That may have been, in fact, been the miscalculation at Camp David.
Anyway, we will continue this discussion.
Next, we get to the heart of the matter with a panel of folks who promise a very lively discussion. You want to stay tuned for this one.
Plus, our open phone line segment. Call me at 1-866-KEYES-USA with whatever is on your mind.
But first, does this make sense? You've heard of the controversy that has swirled around Daschle's criticism of the administration's war on terror. He raised issues about not being informed about the shadow government.
Well, it turns out that key staff on Capital Hill, who report to Senator Daschle, were, in fact, briefed on September 22. They signed a special access program non disclosure document and it was signed by the sergeant at arms, the senate secretary, people who report to Tom Daschle.
So, two things are true. The senator should have known if his own people were reporting to him. And if they didn't report to him, he shouldn't blame the White House, he should blame them.
Doesn't that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: A reminder, the chatroom is humming tonight.
A lot of folks are talking about the proposal to arm airline pilots as part of our effort to defend the aircraft against potential terrorists and you can join in right now at CHAT.MSNBC.COM.
Coming up in our next half hour, we'll look at this very question with a couple of folks who are involved, either as pilots or as folks who are associated with the victimization that has been involved in some of these hijacks. You want to stay tuned. A very interesting discussion.
But first, we're in the midst of talking more about the situation in the Middle East.
And joining us to get to the heart of the matter, Marc Ginsberg, former U.S. ambassador to Morocco during the Clinton administration, who was also a senior adviser to Jimmy Carter for Middle East policy.
Also, Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum and a correspondent with the “New York Post.” Also, an erstwhile colleague of mine at one time on the policy planning staff at the State Department.
And Hussein Ibish, who is with the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
Welcome to MAKING SENSE, gentlemen.
I would like to start first of all with you, Dan Pipes, looking at the situation, overall, and the context of the Clinton years, the Bush years, the argument that takes place about what should or should not happen.
Do you think there was any truth in Ari Fleischer's remarks? Should he have stuck to his guns? Is it simply without point, to point the finger at the Clinton years, or is there something to it?
DANIEL PIPES, MIDDLE EAST FORUM: There's a lot to it, Alan.
Ari Fleischer got it right. He said that President Clinton pushed too hard and the result of that, he actually was one of the reasons why there's the violence today.
If you shoot for the moon, as Mr. Fleischer put it, and you fail, there are consequences. And I think that's something that Americans, including American diplomats and politicians, haven't really thought through. That if you try one of these peace proposals - there's another one on the table right now —and it fails, you might be actually well worse off than you would have been had you not tried it.
KEYES: Well, what do you think of the actual logic of that, though?
I mean, I think there's another step that folks often don't get to, explaining why such a failure would actually contribute to a confrontational situation. What is that logic?
PIPES: The logic is that the Israelis offered a lot, and they then offered more and more, and instead of leading to an agreement, this led to a sense on the Palestinian and Arab side that Israel is weak, and the result has been exhilaration and ambition and violence that we've seen in the last year and a half.
Had the Israelis done what they had used to do, which was to be tough and show they're not vulnerable, then the chances of this violence — then this violence wouldn't have happened.
So, in other words, to go back to the debate you had in the preceding segment, it's very clear, despite Mr. Mally's ideas, the Arabs have not accepted Israel and we're seeing it very much these days. That's still the issue.
KEYES: You wouldn't be saying, to put it simply, that they offered much and gave the impression that maybe more of the strategy could be satisfied so the Palestinians just kept moving.
Marc Ginsberg, do you think that's an accurate understanding?
MARC GINSBERG, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO MOROCCO: No. I mean, this is partisan revisionism on the part of some very right-wing Republicans who are out to always go after President Clinton.
Look, Alan, from 1973, from for 1973 war, successive presidents, Republican and Democrat, have done everything possible to bring about a negotiated settlement.
To argue that the violence is attributable to the efforts by President Clinton is absurd.
The fact remains, is that up until Camp David, there was an effort by the Palestinians and Israelis t implement the Oslo Accord. The frustration levels by the Palestinians is due in part to policies that the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves had to face and deal with as part of the final status negotiations. That includes issues such as settlements and the right of return and refugees.
But the fact remains is that I am of the belief that one of the reasons why you have this violence, is because Mr. Arafat refused to acclimate his people to accept less than what he had claimed he was going to deliver to the Palestinians in the first place.
And that, I'm afraid, is one of the real problems here.
Mr. Barak, who was the prime minister at the time, realized how important it was, ultimately tried to resolve all of the issues, not incrementally, but to go for the Hail Mary pass. It didn't work.
But Mr. Arafat then turned around and resorted to violence to try to extract through violence what he couldn't at the negotiate table. This is not because of Mr. Clinton.
KEYES: Hussein Ibish, here again, it seems that we have somebody pointing the finger at Arafat, his lack of control, his lack of responsiveness. Do you think that's fair?
HUSSEIN IBISH, AMERICAN-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE: Of course it's not fair. Because the whole point of that is to shift the subject away from the occupation, which is the sole and only cause of this conflict. In spite of Frank and his map, which he carries around like a security blanket everywhere he goes.
Look, we need to break through the mystification that has been going on in this discussion and get to fundamental realities.
The fact of the matter is, this is about Israel maintaining tens of thousands of heavily armed troops and hundreds of thousands of settlers outside of its country, in somebody else's land, for the sole purpose of taking that land away from them and keeping 3 million people captive.
That is exactly what is going on.
The Palestinians recognized Israel in its internationally recognized borders, the same borders the United States recognizes, in 1993. They stuck with it. Israel has refused consistently to remove its troops back into Israel. It wants to maintain its troops inside somebody else's land.
The Saudi peace plan put it right on the table. If Israel removes its troops and settlers back to Israel, where they belong, where international law says they have to go, not only the Palestinians, but all the Arabs will recognize Israel and have peace with it.
The Israelis rejected it out rightly over the weekend because they want the land. It's as simple as that.
KEYES: Now, wait a minute. Daniel Pipes (ph), as I listen to Hussein Ibish, I can't help but think that he is ignoring a certain amount of history here, including the kind of history that led...
IBISH: Well, I'm not.
KEYES: Let me finish. That led to the 1967 war.
IBISH: Started by Israel...
KEYES: And he gives the idea — hold on.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Daniel Pipes, I'm addressing this question to you in particular, because I'm wondering whether or not, in the face of the reality of that history, it is fair to put the entire burden of this situation on the Israeli occupation.
PIPES: Well, as you're pointing out, Alan, the Israelis didn't occupy any of the lands which Mr. Ibish is upset about them being in now, before 1967. And they had to fight wars in 1948 and 1956 and 1967.
There's a clear history to show that the Arabs, from 1948 until the present day, have not accepted Israel.
The Israelis deluded themselves in the mid-90's to think that they had won that acceptance and the point then was to close down the conflict by figuring out what to do with Jerusalem and refugees and water and borders and the like.
But, in fact, as recent events have made very clear, that acceptance was never there.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Marc Ginsberg, go ahead.
GINSBERG: Alan, the fact remains is that the Palestinians have, indeed, suffered greatly under the Israeli occupation. There's no doubt that the frustration levels felt by the Palestinians is acute.
But the Palestinians also, in the handshake on the White House lawn between Mr. Arafat and Prime Minister Rabin, the Palestinians foreswore to use violence as a means to negotiate a final settlement with Israel.
(CROSSTALK)
GINSBERG: Let me finish here. I'm going to finish.
And the fact remains, for Mr. Pipes, that there were peace treaties negotiated between Arabs and Israelis. There is a peace treaty and normalization and recognition by Jordan and with Egypt.
So, it's not fair to say that Arabs have not been willing to enter into a fair, negotiated settlement with Israel and to draw an across the board — there is fault on either sides here, gentleman.
The fact remains is, we have to deal with the reality on the ground.
IBISH: Look, the Israeli occupation is what drives this and it's not a concession of Israel to remove its troops.
It is true and it's simply a fact that the Palestinians recognize Israel and it's true and it's simply a fact that Israel will not remove its troops back into Israel.
And I don't see how it is, frankly, that, you know - and, Alan, this involves you, too — that you seem to think that violence, designed to enforce the occupation by Israel is somehow legitimate and could be described as self-defense, whereas armed resistance by Palestinians, when directed against Israeli forces is somehow...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: wait, wait, wait. I have a word to speak here. Hold on. I have a word to speak. Hold on.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: I have — let me finish. I have a word to speak here.
The simple fact of the matter is, that I think the people on both sides have to be responsible for the violence that they do.
And that means that the folks on the Arab side have to take responsibility for that violence.
It may be in response to Israel. But the question is — let me finish.
Can they stop it? And the truth of the matter is, that up to this point, I don't think Mr. Arafat has demonstrated at any point a consistent control over those forces of violence, and that means if the Israelis withdrawal into their own country, they're simply leaving a staging area for violence which would become harder to handle.
(CROSSTALK)
IBISH: No, that's put to me. So, I must answer it. I must answer this.
What the Israelis said, in south Lebanon for 18 years, that they couldn't withdraw from south Lebanon because of the resistance. Finally, two years ago, they withdrew, the border has been quiet, and this is all a lie. The Israelis, simply...
GINSBERG: Alan?
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Marc Ginsberg, very quickly. Go ahead. Mark Ginsberg, quickly go ahead.
GINSBERG: I want to say the fact remains that despite what Mr. Ibish says, there is violence that is being perpetrated against civilians and it is terror.
IBISH: Yes, I agree.
(CROSSTALK)
Ginsberg: And Mr. Arafat is responsible for this.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Last word from Daniel Pipes. Dan?
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Last word from Dan Pipes. Anything?
PIPES: Thank you, Alan. Yes, indeed.
I would just want to note that the border between Lebanon and Israel has been anything but quiet.
IBISH: Oh, what a lie.
PIPES: Mr. Ibish, could you please be quiet?
IBISH: If you tell the truth.
PIPES: Mr. Ibish, could you please shut up?
KEYES: Now, Hussein, he listens to your comment.
Dan, finish your remark. Quickly.
PIPES: Where it has not been quiet over the last year and a half and we're about to see, as the Hezbollah, the Lebanese terrorist group, has acquired what they say is 7,000 (UNINTELLIGIBLE) rockets, we're about to see how much less quiet it's going to be.
KEYES: Well, I have to say, gentlemen, that I promised folks out there a lively discussion, and we certainly got it.
I appreciate all of you for coming on this evening. I hope to see you again. We'll obviously be getting further and more deeply into this as the crisis continues.
A reminder, tomorrow night, our special guest will be former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Next, would you feel safer if airline pilots carried guns?
We're going to entertain that debate, and later, we'll hear what's on your mind, on any topic. You can call us at 1-866-KEYES-USA.
You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
One of the things I've tried to stress on this program when we talked about the efforts we would make in the war on terrorism is the fact that we actually have in our country a tradition of self defense. People act as if the danger on the home front is something America's never faced before. That's nonsense. We were a frontier country. We've been facing danger on the home front since the country was founded.
And one of the responses to that danger was that citizens themselves stepped up to the plate. Well, it appears that the pilots who are flying our planes are in line with that tradition of self-help. And they would like to be able to have the wherewithal to defend their aircraft against terrorist attacks as the last line of defense against what terrorists might wish to do. They have come forward and some of them are asking that we seriously consider letting the pilots on these aircraft carry arms.
Now, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge is against the idea of armed pilots. When “USA Today” pressed him about it, he replied, “where do you stop? If pilots carry guns,” he said, “railroads engineers and bus drivers could ask to do the same.” Well, of course, that doesn't mean you have to say yes, Mr. Ridge. But it also doesn't mean that it's necessarily a bad idea. After all, we're a country that has a tradition of responsible citizen self defense. Shouldn't we be reviving and applying that idea in the present context?
Well, joining us now to debate the issue, Gail Doneham, president of the National Air Disaster Alliance Foundation, a nonprofit organization which represents victims and survivors of aviation disasters. Gail is against the idea of arming pilots.
Also with us is Linda Pauwels, an active pilot and a member of the Allied Pilots Association. Linda is in favor of the idea of arming pilots in the cockpit. Welcome to MAKING SENSE, ladies and I appreciate your taking the time to be with us tonight.
Let me start with Captain Pauwels. You all have come forward, some of you, with the idea that this would be an added element of security in the war against terrorism. There are others who've come forward and object on the grounds that arming the pilots would lead to possibly greater and increased dangers. What do you say to those who would be concerned about that kind of a consequence?
LINDA PAUWELS, ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION: Well, first of all, good evening, Alan, Gail. Thank you for having me on your show. As you so eloquently stated in your introduction, there is a tradition of self defense and we firmly believe that this is a necessary step in the multilayered system of protection that is required.
There are inherent risks in flying in general. We have seen some of those risks magnified on September 11. We feel that firearms in the cockpit as the last line of defense are something that we will seriously have to consider.
KEYES: Now, don't you think that it would be possible for hijackers, potential hijackers to turn that against you, get arms away from the pilots, things like that? Those are the sort of scenarios that have been raised.
PAUWELS: Well, there are many scenarios that can be discussed. But the cockpit doors are going to be reinforced. The pilots should be armed with lethal weapons inside the cockpit to be able to defend the cockpit from lethal intent. There should be a barrier between the cockpit and the cabin that should be breached first.
KEYES: Hmm. Gail Dunham.
Yes.
KEYES: From the point of view of the dangers that are faced here, we do have a cadre of folks who are already trained to deal with all kinds of emergency situations, to face danger and even death with equanimity as they try to salvage the situation. If we're not willing to trust the kind of folks who become pilots in the airlines with weapons that might help in their self defense, does that mean we've altogether given up on the idea that responsible people should play a role in their own defense? Wouldn't this actually add to security on the aircraft?
GAIL DUNHAM, NATIONAL AIR DISASTER ALLIANCE FOUNDATION: Well, if pilots are going to carry loaded weapons, then all cockpit crew members need to be trained in the use of deadly force, when to shoot and when not to shoot. And also, all the cockpit crew members would need to be deputized as federal law enforcement agents to protect themselves, to give themselves some immunity. Once you have one loaded gun in the cockpit, everyone in the cockpit is impacted and it is controversial.
PAUWELS: I don't agree with Gail. I don't agree with that statement. I think that it should be absolutely voluntary because it is an increased responsibility. But everything else that Gail has said is absolutely correct and it is part of the plan that we are proposing. Federal pilot officers deputized to use weapons, training implemented by the FBI, a special training program, screening procedures, background checks, recurrent qualifications under voluntary basis.
DUNHAM: However, you know, you're asking the FAA to approve the use of pilots being able to carry loaded weapons and you want the FAA to be able to grant the immunity in the event that a mistake is made and the FAA doesn't have that authority. This would really be congressional legislation and...
PAUWELS: Absolutely.
DUNHAM: ... I'm not so sure that you're asking Congress to grant legislation for an entire group of pilots, 70,000; 100,000, anyone who flies in and out of the United States, the right to carry a loaded weapon on the job without regard to age, without regard to country or citizenship, without background checks, and you want them granted immunity.
KEYES: Well, now, wait a minute. Gail. Wait a minute. Go ahead, because I think, as I understand it, Linda, the proposal that's being made actually takes account of the need for people to go through this kind of training and screening. Yes or no?
PAUWELS: Absolutely. One of the proposed plans is the FBI Cockpit Protection Plan that begins with screening, background checks, academic training, on the range training, training as to the use of lethal force. All of these things are included in the FBI turnkey program. And let's not forget that the FBI is one of the premiere law enforcement agencies in the world.
DUNHAM: The other problem is these are federal law enforcement training programs and, right now, they're extremely busy. They're trying to train as many sky marshals as they the can. They're hiring and training additional FBI agents. So right now, the training is very limited.
KEYES: Well, Gail, let me ask you a question, though, because is the objection that you have to this an objection that's based on the difficulty of implementation or an objection that's based on the concept of arming the pilots because there's something in that that we should distrust? Because I think a lot of the practical objections might be dealt with in various ways in the pace of implementation and how you structure the program. But the concept itself, do you find that objectionable?
DUNHAM: No, but you have to look at the consequences and this is a very serious move.
PAUWELS: I'm very glad to hear that, Gail. I think that is a very valid point that you're not opposed to the concept. That is very heartening.
DUNHAM: But to just — what pilots have been pushing, to be able to carry weapons in the cockpit for about five months now. But these other issues haven't been worked out.
One of the areas, that I'm sure we both agree, the primary job for the pilot is to fly the plane. And....
PAUWELS: I would like to speak to that —
DUNHAM: ... we support the hardened cockpit door. Another possibility for better law enforcement, perhaps, or better passenger protection for everyone on the plane, is what 5,000 furloughed pilots. They could make excellent sky marshals...
KEYES: Captain — Captain Pauwels —
DUNHAM: ... and possibly be used that way.
KEYES: One second. One last words from Captain Pauwels about this question of whether or not this responsibility wouldn't distract from the main duty of the pilot, obviously, to safely pilot the craft.
PAUWELS: Well, absolutely not. Because, and let me tell you this by experience. I have been involved in emergencies. One pilot flies the airplane, the other pilot handles the emergency. That would be no different than the utilization of a firearm to prevent someone from getting into the cockpit who has lethal intent.
And let me answer what Gail has said about the pilots pushing for five months to be armed. Pilots have considered this a viable option for more than 40 years, when the first series of hijackings happened. And if you recall 1970, September 6, Black September, we have been thinking about this for a very long time. And it is high time that it is considered as the last line of defense.
KEYES: I want to thank both of you for joining us this evening and presenting, I think, some of the real issues that are going to have to be considered here. One of the questionings, though, that we're going to have to ask; are the responsible officials going to consider it? Both Norman Mineta and Tom Ridge, have simply come out in ways that seemed to have shut the door in the face of this possibility. I would want them to take a careful look at the tradition of real American citizen responsibility, to stop talking as if we are children at the behest of a professional government that can substitute for our own capacities.
That's an un-Republican way to think, and as a Republican administration, I think they ought to be showing a little bit more confidence in the people of this country and thinking about the ways in which we can actually build on the responsibility and capacity of individuals in our society. Starting, perhaps, with folks like pilots who have the predisposition, the mentality, the training to deal with emergencies, if they had the additional training to deal with the weapons that might help to deal with those emergencies. Instead of shutting the door on it, why don't you take a careful look at how it might be implemented? Could go a long way toward increasing the security, and reducing the cost of getting that added security. Something that I think we need to consider across the board.
Well, we're going to hear from you next to see what's on your mind. You can call us at 1-866-KEYES-USA. 1-866-KEYES-USA. And later, my outrage of the day. I have to step forward again, Clarence Thomas' freedom of speech is being assaulted by a group of black liberals one more time.
But first, does this make sense? In Philadelphia, apparently they had a housing program, spent $19 million building 82 houses. They were supposed to be going to lower-income folks. That's a cost per house of $231,000. The selling price is going to be $40,000 to $50,000 for a net loss of possibly $15.3 million. Now you realize, of course, they could have probably accomplished a lot more good by taking the $231,000 and handing it to the people. You can buy a pretty dandy house, even in the Washington area, where costs are sky high for that kind of money. I don't think it makes sense to spend $19 million to get this kind of results. Do you?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. Now I get to learn what's on your mind. We're going to go first to Ernest in Florida. Ernest, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
CALLER: Thank you. Thank you for taking my call, Alan.
KEYES: Sure.
CALLER: Yes, I am fully in agreement with pilots being armed. They should have the right to defend themselves, and as long as people know that if they're making forced entry into the cockpit that they have the potential of being shot, then let them carry guns.
KEYES: Well, I happen to agree this is something that needs to be seriously considered. I think maybe you ought to write a letter of encouragement to Tom Ridge to take a serious look at this. Who knows?
Let's go to John in California. John, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
CALLER: Yes, Mr. Keyes. It's a real honor to speak with you.
KEYES: Thank you.
CALLER: My question is in regard to the Palestinian-Israeli issue. And my question is, why is it that the Palestinians or, excuse me, the Jordanians, Egyptians, Syrians or the Lebanese don't offer any of their land? Why is it always that Israel is the one that has to offer their land for the peace process?
KEYES: Well, obviously, I think in some ways, Israel has become the convenient scapegoat that allows some of the Arab states to forestall any sense that they have a responsibility to the process. I have often said that I think that's particularly true of Jordan, which obviously sits on the bulk of the land that was left to the Arab Palestinians after the division of the old British mandate for Palestine. And they have completely opted out of the process now, and act as if they should have no role in it, which I think is absurd and that we shouldn't accept it. But there it is.
Let's go to Liz in Connecticut. Liz, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
CALLER: Hi, Alan. Thank you for taking my call.
KEYES: Glad to do it.
CALLER: I think that you usually have a very good program, and I do enjoy the way you question everything. But I think you're missing the boat on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. I think that having two people in addition to yourself who are pro-Israeli, and one person ganging, up on him like that, and not letting him articulate the other side of the equation is really pretty unfair.
KEYES: Well, I have to tell you, first of all, I don't think anybody who watched this program would say that Mr. Ibish didn't have a chance to express his view.
But the panel wasn't put together in this case tonight to be an Arab-Israeli panel. It was put together, in fact, to look at the question of Clinton verses Bush and we though it important to have a Palestinian perspective on that, even though we didn't include, by the way, a strictly Israeli perspective. And so it was really because we thought Mr. Ibish would bring a certain special point of view to the consideration of the question of Clinton verses the Bush approach that we had him on the panel and I think he did a very good job.
Let's go to Felicia in New York. Felicia, welcome to...
CALLER: Yes, Mr. Keyes, thank you for taking my call and I'd like to say that was an excellent point you made on the British mandate in Jordan opting out. But I also wanted to express the viewpoint that why is it the world doesn't realize if the Israelis were to pull back to the 1967 borders, that they have a terrorist state within their midst, within less than five, 10 miles from any major city, and that the Palestinians do, indeed, teach their children from the time they're in kindergarten to hate Jews and they have a government that cannot control their own people?
If Israelis, what happened in Jerusalem, with the bombing of the school today, when the Israelis catch those perpetrators, they will jail them, unlike Yasser Arafat.
KEYES: Well, see, I think one of the problems here, and that's why I keep bringing up the question of whether Mr. Arafat can actually deliver on a cessation of hostilities, because if the Israelis make concessions, go back to 1967 borders, they'd be in a situation where if violence continued they'd be much less positioned, much worse positioned, rather, to deal with that violence.
To ask them to take that step without the assurance that on the other side there's somebody who actually has the will and ability to deliver an end to the violence is, I think, a delusion. It's something that we wouldn't accept if we were in that situation. Why should they?
I want to thank everyone for calling in tonight. Thank you for your feedback. Next, my outrage of the day as we see, once again, a gang of black left wingers whose seem to think that a Supreme Court Justice of the United States shouldn't have the right to speak on our campuses.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Tomorrow on MAKING SENSE, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. On Thursday, Bernard Goldberg, former CBS News correspondent and author of the best-selling book “Bias, How the Media Distort the News.”
Now, it's time for my “Outrage of the Day.” It turns out that Clarence Thomas has been invited, the Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, to speak at the University of North Carolina.
But five professors there at Capitol Hill say they will boycott his speech because they claim he is trying to turn back the clock on racial progress. Now, they say that they don't want their colleagues to imitate them. But if so, why did they send a letter to everyone publicizing what they're doing?
It look like just another attempt to enforce what appears to be the free speech doctrine of the left, free speech for us, but not for you, and certainly not for anybody who disagrees with our view? You know the sad thing, Clarence Thomas would be the first person to sit on that Supreme Court and defend the basis of their academic freedom.
He believes strongly in those principles and yet the very freedom he would sit there helping to guarantee for them, they want to take away from him. It seems to me that that is one of the sad truths that makes it outrageous that folks like this stand before the country claiming they represent progress, when, in fact, the very freedom that folks fought for in the civil rights movement is the freedom they want to take away from a Supreme Court justice of the United States.
That's my sense of it. Thank you for joining us today. Lester Holt is up next. I'll see you tomorrow.
Tonight, we're going to continue to take a look at the terrible mess that's developing in the Middle East, getting closer and closer, unhappily, to all-out war.
We'll also be visiting an issue on the war on terrorism, brought up by the Pilots Association. Should pilots be armed to defend their aircraft?
But first, let's take a look at the Middle East situation.
It's gotten so bad there that it's hard to distinguish one act of violence from the next. Here is what the last 24 hours have looked like.
2:00 AM, a Palestinian gunman kills three Israelis in a Tel Aviv restaurant. Daybreak, a suicide bomber kills one Israeli on a bus. At 3:00 PM, an Israeli plane bombed a Palestinian police station. No casualties were reported.
And the violence continued into the night. Two Palestinians were killed when their car was destroyed in an Israeli missile attack.
In total, the numbers are staggering. 61 Palestinians, 31 Israelis have now died in one of the deadliest weeks since fighting broke out in September 2000.
The latest violence was issue number one between President Bush and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who agrees with a vision of peace, presented by Saudi Arabia.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOSNI MUBARAK, EGYPTIAN PRESIDENT: Peace will only be achieved through ending the Israeli occupation of all territories occupied since June 1967. Implementing the relevant U.N. resolutions, the establishing of a viable Palestinian state and the guaranteeing of the security of all parties a peaceful coexistence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Obviously, a lot of the world's leaders would like to see some kind of hope opened up in this situation.
Unfortunately, for the United States, complicating the situation is the partisan dust-up that began last week when White House press secretary Air Fleischer implied criticism of the Clinton years, saying that — quote — “If you back to when the violence began, you can make the case that in an attempt to shoot the moon and get nothing, more violence resulted.”
In response to a follow-up question, he said — quote — “The violence really began at the end of 2000 and accelerated through 2001, implying that it was the fault of the Clinton administration.
That same day, in response to criticism, Fleischer retracted his remarks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: No United States president is to blame for violence in the Middle East. The only people to blame are the terrorists who carry out the violence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Unhappily, of course, we are left, still, with a confused sense not only of what we ourselves can accomplish in the Middle East situation, but what the track record has been, what hope it offers or does not offer. Yes, it was a partisan dust-up, but there are serious issues underlying it.
Here are some of the key questions we're going to address tonight on MAKING SENSE in the search for peace in the Middle East.
First of all, did Clinton achieve anything during his tenure? Is the criticism that was implied by Ari Fleischer justified or not?
Should the Bush administration be more engaged? You know, there have been those who suggest that our failure to engage in a more positive way is partly contributing to the on-going violence.
And, finally, is the Saudi proposal, now seconded apparently by Hosni Mubarak, is it realistic? Does it, in fact, provide a basis for getting out of the present violent morass?
All of this, of course, in the context of reports that an even more intense offensive is now planned by the Israelis to try to deal with the situation.
Well, up front tonight, we're joined by Robert Mally (ph), a former special assistant to President Clinton. He was a senior negotiator during the Camp David peace talks in 2000.
Also with us, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy. He was also an assistant secretary of defense for international security policy in the Reagan administration.
Welcome, gentlemen, to MAKING SENSE.
I'd like first to go to Robert Mally (ph).
Mr. Mally, you were involved in the Camp David Accords. Obviously, they were an attempt to try to move the situation to some conclusion. Do you think that it's justified for folks to suggest that Clinton reached for too much in that context and therefore somehow set the situation up for failure and the kind of morass we see now?
ROBERT MALLY, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT CLINTON: Absolutely not. I mean, as you noted yourself, Ari Fleischer had to retract what he said.
I think, first of all, there's just a basic misperception of the history here, which I would like to set straight. President Clinton is not the one who pushed this beyond the desires of the parties. The parties were asking him to put down a proposal for final status agreement. Prime Minister Barak was pushing the president. The president had to slow him down and after Camp David, it was Chairman Arafat who also asked the president to put down his proposal.
So that whole concept is just false. Beyond, that, I think that the key point to remember is that by the time we got to Camp David, we knew and the Israelis knew and everyone knew that the frustration among the Palestinians was such, because they had waited eight years since the signing of the Oslo Accords and their conditions had not improved, that we knew that violence was about to explode.
We knew it, every intelligence report was indicating it, and President Clinton's attempt was an attempt to solve the conflict before it was too late. We didn't succeed, but I don't think that anyone should criticize him for trying.
KEYES: Frank Gaffney, do you think that Ari Fleischer should have stuck to his guns? How do you look at the kind of efforts that were made during the Clinton years in the context of what we see going on now?
FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: Alan, I think that there are a number of different areas around the world that you can look at the Clinton legacy and say that the president did make matters worse.
I personally believe that much of the troubles that we are facing today with international terrorism is a product of the fecklessness with which he responded to previous acts of terror against us.
And in the case of the Middle East, I think it is certainly true that Prime Minister Barak was anxious to get a deal, but certainly no more so than was president Clinton and I think there was unmistakably, in the minds of Yasser Arafat, and I think the Arabs more generally, a perception that President Clinton would squeeze the Israelis to get terms that were as favorable to them as possible.
In the end, it wasn't all that Yasser Arafat wanted and, if I may say, Alan, I'd just would like to go to a visual aid. I think it is very, very relevant here to show people what the Palestinian Authority itself says, on its Web site, is the vision of Palestine that they have.
And it is, of course, not only the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but it is all of pre-1967 Israel. There is, in short, no Israel on this map.
And that's the problem with this so-called peace process. It's not just an absence of an interlocutor or the failure of the United States to be adequately engaged, it is that the objectives of the Palestinian leadership, not just Hamas and Hezbollah and the Islamic Jihad, but Yasser Arafat himself, are clearly leading to and directed at the destruction of the state of Israel, piecemeal, if not in one fell swoop.
KEYES: Robert Mally, one of the thing that continually comes to my mind, as I listen to folks exchange views about this subject, I look at Yasser Arafat, and two questions arise.
First of all, the one that I think Fank Gaffney is pointing toward. Does he have, in fact, a true will to make and conclude a peace that actually allows for the continued existence of Israel, or is it all just a tactic, setting up a new day to put new pressure until the final result of Israel's destruction achieved? Is the will for peace really there?
And second, the issue that I think is on the table in front of us right now, even if he has the will, can he actually control the forces of violence on the Arab side in such a way as to actually deliver a cessation of hostilities?
Do you think that maybe President Clinton overestimated the extend to which Yasser Arafat is willing and capable of actually making and keeping the peace?
MALLY: Well, certainly, at the time that President Clinton was making his efforts, the situation on the ground was very different than the one it is today and I think that Chairman Arafat then certainly could have, if it was a peace that he felt he could sell to his people, I'm quite sure that he would have been able to make it stick.
As to the broader question about what Arafat's intentions are, what he would like to do, I just think rather than try to speculate about and looking at maps that Mr. Gaffney just put on, the record of the Camp David negotiations and the negotiations (UNINTELLIGIBLE) are very clear what the Palestinians wanted.
It was more than what the Israelis were prepared to agree to, because it was basically a withdrawal to the lines of 1967, with land swaps to allow for some settlements to remain under Israeli sovereignty.
But it never was and it hasn't been now for some time the desire to destroy Israel. And I don't think it does any good or justice to anyone to peddle that notion.
I think the main point is, we were not able to reach an agreement then because the demands the Palestinians had and the demands the Israelis had did not meet. We were not that far, in fact, certainly between Camp David and the end of the Clinton administration, we got extremely close.
And I think what's tragic is that today, both side are going to the extremes and the situation getting polarized and the ones that are paying the price are the Israeli people and the Palestinian people.
GAFFNEY: Alan, could I just rejoinder that?
KEYES: Yes, please.
GAFFNEY: Because the key point here is what has just been said by Mr. Mally is very consistent, of course, with what Yasser Arafat says in English for Western consumption.
Unfortunately, what he says in Arabic for the consumption of his people and that of the other Arab, I'm afraid, is very different.
And that's where this map comes in. This is not something I'm making up. This is what the Palestinians are saying to their own people. It's everywhere. It's in the maps in their offices. It's the maps in their textbooks with which they teach their children.
This is communicating in very clear terms that what is going on here is just as Arafat has said since 1974, a phased plan for the destruction of the state of Israel.
Get — phase one — whatever territory we can, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, a Palestinian state.
And phase two, use that land to drive the Jews into the sea.
And this isn't ancient history, these are words that are continuously being said in Arabic, again, to the Palestinian people and they get it. That's the objective. That's why there's no peace.
KEYES: Robert Mally?
Mally: If I can just — if that had been Yasser Arafat's plan, he should have accepted Camp David, which gave him some 90 percent of the West Bank.
GAFFNEY: He should have.
MALLY: And then he would have continued with his phase plan.
This notion...
GAFFNEY: It's surprising he didn't.
MALLY: Well, maybe it's because your theory is just false. He has a plan — he has an objective, which, as I said, is more than what the Israeli government at the time, and the same one we have today, is prepared to accept.
But it is an objective, which is to get the land that they believe was lost in 1967, in Gaza and the West Bank, and that's been the objective now for the last two decades.
It's not been one that's been achieved, and at this point, it doesn't seem like it will be achieved tomorrow.
KEYES: Robert Mally, I guess one problem I have is that we look at what has been a continual series of these kinds of dances, breaking down at the end of the day in the kind of violence that we see now, usually the result of some kind of frustration on the part of the Palestinians.
We're always willing to accept the notion that somehow the process is to blame and that we shouldn't ascribe this to some kind of malice of forethought or strategy or lack of control.
But at some point, doesn't one have to begin to look at what seems to be slapping us in the face here? That Arafat, as an interlocutor, simply does not demonstrate the will, and certainly in the case of the recent months, hasn't demonstrated the control that is necessarily, so that even if the Israelis give him what he wants, does he have the will, does he have the ability to deliver the peace? Or will elements on the Arab side simply start the war in a new form in order to re-open the discussion, which seems to be the pattern?
One last word from you, Robert Mally. I really would like to hear someone address that question, because I think the answers are not satisfactory.
MALLY: Well, would say — I would put it this way. At this point, given where we are, the intentions of Yasser Arafat, the intentions of Ariel Sharon, should not be something that should stop us.
I think what the United States should do is have its notion of what a fair settlement is and it should attempt to put it to the parties and not be constrained by what Arafat's intentions may be or Sharon's intentions may be.
We haven't spoken about those tonight, either.
I think the leadership right now is not where we're going to get the solution. The solution is going to have to come from the outside. It has to come from the United States, because it is the only party with the will and the capacity to have a solution.
KEYES: Gentlemen, thank you very much - Robert Mally, Frank Gaffney.
As always, we appreciate the light that you shed on this subject. Differing views are strong, obviously, with arguments on both side.
I guess I still suffer from the problem that, how can we impose a solution that the parties themselves are either unwilling or incapable of actually carrying out?
That may have been, in fact, been the miscalculation at Camp David.
Anyway, we will continue this discussion.
Next, we get to the heart of the matter with a panel of folks who promise a very lively discussion. You want to stay tuned for this one.
Plus, our open phone line segment. Call me at 1-866-KEYES-USA with whatever is on your mind.
But first, does this make sense? You've heard of the controversy that has swirled around Daschle's criticism of the administration's war on terror. He raised issues about not being informed about the shadow government.
Well, it turns out that key staff on Capital Hill, who report to Senator Daschle, were, in fact, briefed on September 22. They signed a special access program non disclosure document and it was signed by the sergeant at arms, the senate secretary, people who report to Tom Daschle.
So, two things are true. The senator should have known if his own people were reporting to him. And if they didn't report to him, he shouldn't blame the White House, he should blame them.
Doesn't that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: A reminder, the chatroom is humming tonight.
A lot of folks are talking about the proposal to arm airline pilots as part of our effort to defend the aircraft against potential terrorists and you can join in right now at CHAT.MSNBC.COM.
Coming up in our next half hour, we'll look at this very question with a couple of folks who are involved, either as pilots or as folks who are associated with the victimization that has been involved in some of these hijacks. You want to stay tuned. A very interesting discussion.
But first, we're in the midst of talking more about the situation in the Middle East.
And joining us to get to the heart of the matter, Marc Ginsberg, former U.S. ambassador to Morocco during the Clinton administration, who was also a senior adviser to Jimmy Carter for Middle East policy.
Also, Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum and a correspondent with the “New York Post.” Also, an erstwhile colleague of mine at one time on the policy planning staff at the State Department.
And Hussein Ibish, who is with the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
Welcome to MAKING SENSE, gentlemen.
I would like to start first of all with you, Dan Pipes, looking at the situation, overall, and the context of the Clinton years, the Bush years, the argument that takes place about what should or should not happen.
Do you think there was any truth in Ari Fleischer's remarks? Should he have stuck to his guns? Is it simply without point, to point the finger at the Clinton years, or is there something to it?
DANIEL PIPES, MIDDLE EAST FORUM: There's a lot to it, Alan.
Ari Fleischer got it right. He said that President Clinton pushed too hard and the result of that, he actually was one of the reasons why there's the violence today.
If you shoot for the moon, as Mr. Fleischer put it, and you fail, there are consequences. And I think that's something that Americans, including American diplomats and politicians, haven't really thought through. That if you try one of these peace proposals - there's another one on the table right now —and it fails, you might be actually well worse off than you would have been had you not tried it.
KEYES: Well, what do you think of the actual logic of that, though?
I mean, I think there's another step that folks often don't get to, explaining why such a failure would actually contribute to a confrontational situation. What is that logic?
PIPES: The logic is that the Israelis offered a lot, and they then offered more and more, and instead of leading to an agreement, this led to a sense on the Palestinian and Arab side that Israel is weak, and the result has been exhilaration and ambition and violence that we've seen in the last year and a half.
Had the Israelis done what they had used to do, which was to be tough and show they're not vulnerable, then the chances of this violence — then this violence wouldn't have happened.
So, in other words, to go back to the debate you had in the preceding segment, it's very clear, despite Mr. Mally's ideas, the Arabs have not accepted Israel and we're seeing it very much these days. That's still the issue.
KEYES: You wouldn't be saying, to put it simply, that they offered much and gave the impression that maybe more of the strategy could be satisfied so the Palestinians just kept moving.
Marc Ginsberg, do you think that's an accurate understanding?
MARC GINSBERG, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO MOROCCO: No. I mean, this is partisan revisionism on the part of some very right-wing Republicans who are out to always go after President Clinton.
Look, Alan, from 1973, from for 1973 war, successive presidents, Republican and Democrat, have done everything possible to bring about a negotiated settlement.
To argue that the violence is attributable to the efforts by President Clinton is absurd.
The fact remains, is that up until Camp David, there was an effort by the Palestinians and Israelis t implement the Oslo Accord. The frustration levels by the Palestinians is due in part to policies that the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves had to face and deal with as part of the final status negotiations. That includes issues such as settlements and the right of return and refugees.
But the fact remains is that I am of the belief that one of the reasons why you have this violence, is because Mr. Arafat refused to acclimate his people to accept less than what he had claimed he was going to deliver to the Palestinians in the first place.
And that, I'm afraid, is one of the real problems here.
Mr. Barak, who was the prime minister at the time, realized how important it was, ultimately tried to resolve all of the issues, not incrementally, but to go for the Hail Mary pass. It didn't work.
But Mr. Arafat then turned around and resorted to violence to try to extract through violence what he couldn't at the negotiate table. This is not because of Mr. Clinton.
KEYES: Hussein Ibish, here again, it seems that we have somebody pointing the finger at Arafat, his lack of control, his lack of responsiveness. Do you think that's fair?
HUSSEIN IBISH, AMERICAN-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE: Of course it's not fair. Because the whole point of that is to shift the subject away from the occupation, which is the sole and only cause of this conflict. In spite of Frank and his map, which he carries around like a security blanket everywhere he goes.
Look, we need to break through the mystification that has been going on in this discussion and get to fundamental realities.
The fact of the matter is, this is about Israel maintaining tens of thousands of heavily armed troops and hundreds of thousands of settlers outside of its country, in somebody else's land, for the sole purpose of taking that land away from them and keeping 3 million people captive.
That is exactly what is going on.
The Palestinians recognized Israel in its internationally recognized borders, the same borders the United States recognizes, in 1993. They stuck with it. Israel has refused consistently to remove its troops back into Israel. It wants to maintain its troops inside somebody else's land.
The Saudi peace plan put it right on the table. If Israel removes its troops and settlers back to Israel, where they belong, where international law says they have to go, not only the Palestinians, but all the Arabs will recognize Israel and have peace with it.
The Israelis rejected it out rightly over the weekend because they want the land. It's as simple as that.
KEYES: Now, wait a minute. Daniel Pipes (ph), as I listen to Hussein Ibish, I can't help but think that he is ignoring a certain amount of history here, including the kind of history that led...
IBISH: Well, I'm not.
KEYES: Let me finish. That led to the 1967 war.
IBISH: Started by Israel...
KEYES: And he gives the idea — hold on.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Daniel Pipes, I'm addressing this question to you in particular, because I'm wondering whether or not, in the face of the reality of that history, it is fair to put the entire burden of this situation on the Israeli occupation.
PIPES: Well, as you're pointing out, Alan, the Israelis didn't occupy any of the lands which Mr. Ibish is upset about them being in now, before 1967. And they had to fight wars in 1948 and 1956 and 1967.
There's a clear history to show that the Arabs, from 1948 until the present day, have not accepted Israel.
The Israelis deluded themselves in the mid-90's to think that they had won that acceptance and the point then was to close down the conflict by figuring out what to do with Jerusalem and refugees and water and borders and the like.
But, in fact, as recent events have made very clear, that acceptance was never there.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Marc Ginsberg, go ahead.
GINSBERG: Alan, the fact remains is that the Palestinians have, indeed, suffered greatly under the Israeli occupation. There's no doubt that the frustration levels felt by the Palestinians is acute.
But the Palestinians also, in the handshake on the White House lawn between Mr. Arafat and Prime Minister Rabin, the Palestinians foreswore to use violence as a means to negotiate a final settlement with Israel.
(CROSSTALK)
GINSBERG: Let me finish here. I'm going to finish.
And the fact remains, for Mr. Pipes, that there were peace treaties negotiated between Arabs and Israelis. There is a peace treaty and normalization and recognition by Jordan and with Egypt.
So, it's not fair to say that Arabs have not been willing to enter into a fair, negotiated settlement with Israel and to draw an across the board — there is fault on either sides here, gentleman.
The fact remains is, we have to deal with the reality on the ground.
IBISH: Look, the Israeli occupation is what drives this and it's not a concession of Israel to remove its troops.
It is true and it's simply a fact that the Palestinians recognize Israel and it's true and it's simply a fact that Israel will not remove its troops back into Israel.
And I don't see how it is, frankly, that, you know - and, Alan, this involves you, too — that you seem to think that violence, designed to enforce the occupation by Israel is somehow legitimate and could be described as self-defense, whereas armed resistance by Palestinians, when directed against Israeli forces is somehow...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: wait, wait, wait. I have a word to speak here. Hold on. I have a word to speak. Hold on.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: I have — let me finish. I have a word to speak here.
The simple fact of the matter is, that I think the people on both sides have to be responsible for the violence that they do.
And that means that the folks on the Arab side have to take responsibility for that violence.
It may be in response to Israel. But the question is — let me finish.
Can they stop it? And the truth of the matter is, that up to this point, I don't think Mr. Arafat has demonstrated at any point a consistent control over those forces of violence, and that means if the Israelis withdrawal into their own country, they're simply leaving a staging area for violence which would become harder to handle.
(CROSSTALK)
IBISH: No, that's put to me. So, I must answer it. I must answer this.
What the Israelis said, in south Lebanon for 18 years, that they couldn't withdraw from south Lebanon because of the resistance. Finally, two years ago, they withdrew, the border has been quiet, and this is all a lie. The Israelis, simply...
GINSBERG: Alan?
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Marc Ginsberg, very quickly. Go ahead. Mark Ginsberg, quickly go ahead.
GINSBERG: I want to say the fact remains that despite what Mr. Ibish says, there is violence that is being perpetrated against civilians and it is terror.
IBISH: Yes, I agree.
(CROSSTALK)
Ginsberg: And Mr. Arafat is responsible for this.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Last word from Daniel Pipes. Dan?
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Last word from Dan Pipes. Anything?
PIPES: Thank you, Alan. Yes, indeed.
I would just want to note that the border between Lebanon and Israel has been anything but quiet.
IBISH: Oh, what a lie.
PIPES: Mr. Ibish, could you please be quiet?
IBISH: If you tell the truth.
PIPES: Mr. Ibish, could you please shut up?
KEYES: Now, Hussein, he listens to your comment.
Dan, finish your remark. Quickly.
PIPES: Where it has not been quiet over the last year and a half and we're about to see, as the Hezbollah, the Lebanese terrorist group, has acquired what they say is 7,000 (UNINTELLIGIBLE) rockets, we're about to see how much less quiet it's going to be.
KEYES: Well, I have to say, gentlemen, that I promised folks out there a lively discussion, and we certainly got it.
I appreciate all of you for coming on this evening. I hope to see you again. We'll obviously be getting further and more deeply into this as the crisis continues.
A reminder, tomorrow night, our special guest will be former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Next, would you feel safer if airline pilots carried guns?
We're going to entertain that debate, and later, we'll hear what's on your mind, on any topic. You can call us at 1-866-KEYES-USA.
You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
One of the things I've tried to stress on this program when we talked about the efforts we would make in the war on terrorism is the fact that we actually have in our country a tradition of self defense. People act as if the danger on the home front is something America's never faced before. That's nonsense. We were a frontier country. We've been facing danger on the home front since the country was founded.
And one of the responses to that danger was that citizens themselves stepped up to the plate. Well, it appears that the pilots who are flying our planes are in line with that tradition of self-help. And they would like to be able to have the wherewithal to defend their aircraft against terrorist attacks as the last line of defense against what terrorists might wish to do. They have come forward and some of them are asking that we seriously consider letting the pilots on these aircraft carry arms.
Now, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge is against the idea of armed pilots. When “USA Today” pressed him about it, he replied, “where do you stop? If pilots carry guns,” he said, “railroads engineers and bus drivers could ask to do the same.” Well, of course, that doesn't mean you have to say yes, Mr. Ridge. But it also doesn't mean that it's necessarily a bad idea. After all, we're a country that has a tradition of responsible citizen self defense. Shouldn't we be reviving and applying that idea in the present context?
Well, joining us now to debate the issue, Gail Doneham, president of the National Air Disaster Alliance Foundation, a nonprofit organization which represents victims and survivors of aviation disasters. Gail is against the idea of arming pilots.
Also with us is Linda Pauwels, an active pilot and a member of the Allied Pilots Association. Linda is in favor of the idea of arming pilots in the cockpit. Welcome to MAKING SENSE, ladies and I appreciate your taking the time to be with us tonight.
Let me start with Captain Pauwels. You all have come forward, some of you, with the idea that this would be an added element of security in the war against terrorism. There are others who've come forward and object on the grounds that arming the pilots would lead to possibly greater and increased dangers. What do you say to those who would be concerned about that kind of a consequence?
LINDA PAUWELS, ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION: Well, first of all, good evening, Alan, Gail. Thank you for having me on your show. As you so eloquently stated in your introduction, there is a tradition of self defense and we firmly believe that this is a necessary step in the multilayered system of protection that is required.
There are inherent risks in flying in general. We have seen some of those risks magnified on September 11. We feel that firearms in the cockpit as the last line of defense are something that we will seriously have to consider.
KEYES: Now, don't you think that it would be possible for hijackers, potential hijackers to turn that against you, get arms away from the pilots, things like that? Those are the sort of scenarios that have been raised.
PAUWELS: Well, there are many scenarios that can be discussed. But the cockpit doors are going to be reinforced. The pilots should be armed with lethal weapons inside the cockpit to be able to defend the cockpit from lethal intent. There should be a barrier between the cockpit and the cabin that should be breached first.
KEYES: Hmm. Gail Dunham.
Yes.
KEYES: From the point of view of the dangers that are faced here, we do have a cadre of folks who are already trained to deal with all kinds of emergency situations, to face danger and even death with equanimity as they try to salvage the situation. If we're not willing to trust the kind of folks who become pilots in the airlines with weapons that might help in their self defense, does that mean we've altogether given up on the idea that responsible people should play a role in their own defense? Wouldn't this actually add to security on the aircraft?
GAIL DUNHAM, NATIONAL AIR DISASTER ALLIANCE FOUNDATION: Well, if pilots are going to carry loaded weapons, then all cockpit crew members need to be trained in the use of deadly force, when to shoot and when not to shoot. And also, all the cockpit crew members would need to be deputized as federal law enforcement agents to protect themselves, to give themselves some immunity. Once you have one loaded gun in the cockpit, everyone in the cockpit is impacted and it is controversial.
PAUWELS: I don't agree with Gail. I don't agree with that statement. I think that it should be absolutely voluntary because it is an increased responsibility. But everything else that Gail has said is absolutely correct and it is part of the plan that we are proposing. Federal pilot officers deputized to use weapons, training implemented by the FBI, a special training program, screening procedures, background checks, recurrent qualifications under voluntary basis.
DUNHAM: However, you know, you're asking the FAA to approve the use of pilots being able to carry loaded weapons and you want the FAA to be able to grant the immunity in the event that a mistake is made and the FAA doesn't have that authority. This would really be congressional legislation and...
PAUWELS: Absolutely.
DUNHAM: ... I'm not so sure that you're asking Congress to grant legislation for an entire group of pilots, 70,000; 100,000, anyone who flies in and out of the United States, the right to carry a loaded weapon on the job without regard to age, without regard to country or citizenship, without background checks, and you want them granted immunity.
KEYES: Well, now, wait a minute. Gail. Wait a minute. Go ahead, because I think, as I understand it, Linda, the proposal that's being made actually takes account of the need for people to go through this kind of training and screening. Yes or no?
PAUWELS: Absolutely. One of the proposed plans is the FBI Cockpit Protection Plan that begins with screening, background checks, academic training, on the range training, training as to the use of lethal force. All of these things are included in the FBI turnkey program. And let's not forget that the FBI is one of the premiere law enforcement agencies in the world.
DUNHAM: The other problem is these are federal law enforcement training programs and, right now, they're extremely busy. They're trying to train as many sky marshals as they the can. They're hiring and training additional FBI agents. So right now, the training is very limited.
KEYES: Well, Gail, let me ask you a question, though, because is the objection that you have to this an objection that's based on the difficulty of implementation or an objection that's based on the concept of arming the pilots because there's something in that that we should distrust? Because I think a lot of the practical objections might be dealt with in various ways in the pace of implementation and how you structure the program. But the concept itself, do you find that objectionable?
DUNHAM: No, but you have to look at the consequences and this is a very serious move.
PAUWELS: I'm very glad to hear that, Gail. I think that is a very valid point that you're not opposed to the concept. That is very heartening.
DUNHAM: But to just — what pilots have been pushing, to be able to carry weapons in the cockpit for about five months now. But these other issues haven't been worked out.
One of the areas, that I'm sure we both agree, the primary job for the pilot is to fly the plane. And....
PAUWELS: I would like to speak to that —
DUNHAM: ... we support the hardened cockpit door. Another possibility for better law enforcement, perhaps, or better passenger protection for everyone on the plane, is what 5,000 furloughed pilots. They could make excellent sky marshals...
KEYES: Captain — Captain Pauwels —
DUNHAM: ... and possibly be used that way.
KEYES: One second. One last words from Captain Pauwels about this question of whether or not this responsibility wouldn't distract from the main duty of the pilot, obviously, to safely pilot the craft.
PAUWELS: Well, absolutely not. Because, and let me tell you this by experience. I have been involved in emergencies. One pilot flies the airplane, the other pilot handles the emergency. That would be no different than the utilization of a firearm to prevent someone from getting into the cockpit who has lethal intent.
And let me answer what Gail has said about the pilots pushing for five months to be armed. Pilots have considered this a viable option for more than 40 years, when the first series of hijackings happened. And if you recall 1970, September 6, Black September, we have been thinking about this for a very long time. And it is high time that it is considered as the last line of defense.
KEYES: I want to thank both of you for joining us this evening and presenting, I think, some of the real issues that are going to have to be considered here. One of the questionings, though, that we're going to have to ask; are the responsible officials going to consider it? Both Norman Mineta and Tom Ridge, have simply come out in ways that seemed to have shut the door in the face of this possibility. I would want them to take a careful look at the tradition of real American citizen responsibility, to stop talking as if we are children at the behest of a professional government that can substitute for our own capacities.
That's an un-Republican way to think, and as a Republican administration, I think they ought to be showing a little bit more confidence in the people of this country and thinking about the ways in which we can actually build on the responsibility and capacity of individuals in our society. Starting, perhaps, with folks like pilots who have the predisposition, the mentality, the training to deal with emergencies, if they had the additional training to deal with the weapons that might help to deal with those emergencies. Instead of shutting the door on it, why don't you take a careful look at how it might be implemented? Could go a long way toward increasing the security, and reducing the cost of getting that added security. Something that I think we need to consider across the board.
Well, we're going to hear from you next to see what's on your mind. You can call us at 1-866-KEYES-USA. 1-866-KEYES-USA. And later, my outrage of the day. I have to step forward again, Clarence Thomas' freedom of speech is being assaulted by a group of black liberals one more time.
But first, does this make sense? In Philadelphia, apparently they had a housing program, spent $19 million building 82 houses. They were supposed to be going to lower-income folks. That's a cost per house of $231,000. The selling price is going to be $40,000 to $50,000 for a net loss of possibly $15.3 million. Now you realize, of course, they could have probably accomplished a lot more good by taking the $231,000 and handing it to the people. You can buy a pretty dandy house, even in the Washington area, where costs are sky high for that kind of money. I don't think it makes sense to spend $19 million to get this kind of results. Do you?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. Now I get to learn what's on your mind. We're going to go first to Ernest in Florida. Ernest, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
CALLER: Thank you. Thank you for taking my call, Alan.
KEYES: Sure.
CALLER: Yes, I am fully in agreement with pilots being armed. They should have the right to defend themselves, and as long as people know that if they're making forced entry into the cockpit that they have the potential of being shot, then let them carry guns.
KEYES: Well, I happen to agree this is something that needs to be seriously considered. I think maybe you ought to write a letter of encouragement to Tom Ridge to take a serious look at this. Who knows?
Let's go to John in California. John, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
CALLER: Yes, Mr. Keyes. It's a real honor to speak with you.
KEYES: Thank you.
CALLER: My question is in regard to the Palestinian-Israeli issue. And my question is, why is it that the Palestinians or, excuse me, the Jordanians, Egyptians, Syrians or the Lebanese don't offer any of their land? Why is it always that Israel is the one that has to offer their land for the peace process?
KEYES: Well, obviously, I think in some ways, Israel has become the convenient scapegoat that allows some of the Arab states to forestall any sense that they have a responsibility to the process. I have often said that I think that's particularly true of Jordan, which obviously sits on the bulk of the land that was left to the Arab Palestinians after the division of the old British mandate for Palestine. And they have completely opted out of the process now, and act as if they should have no role in it, which I think is absurd and that we shouldn't accept it. But there it is.
Let's go to Liz in Connecticut. Liz, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
CALLER: Hi, Alan. Thank you for taking my call.
KEYES: Glad to do it.
CALLER: I think that you usually have a very good program, and I do enjoy the way you question everything. But I think you're missing the boat on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. I think that having two people in addition to yourself who are pro-Israeli, and one person ganging, up on him like that, and not letting him articulate the other side of the equation is really pretty unfair.
KEYES: Well, I have to tell you, first of all, I don't think anybody who watched this program would say that Mr. Ibish didn't have a chance to express his view.
But the panel wasn't put together in this case tonight to be an Arab-Israeli panel. It was put together, in fact, to look at the question of Clinton verses Bush and we though it important to have a Palestinian perspective on that, even though we didn't include, by the way, a strictly Israeli perspective. And so it was really because we thought Mr. Ibish would bring a certain special point of view to the consideration of the question of Clinton verses the Bush approach that we had him on the panel and I think he did a very good job.
Let's go to Felicia in New York. Felicia, welcome to...
CALLER: Yes, Mr. Keyes, thank you for taking my call and I'd like to say that was an excellent point you made on the British mandate in Jordan opting out. But I also wanted to express the viewpoint that why is it the world doesn't realize if the Israelis were to pull back to the 1967 borders, that they have a terrorist state within their midst, within less than five, 10 miles from any major city, and that the Palestinians do, indeed, teach their children from the time they're in kindergarten to hate Jews and they have a government that cannot control their own people?
If Israelis, what happened in Jerusalem, with the bombing of the school today, when the Israelis catch those perpetrators, they will jail them, unlike Yasser Arafat.
KEYES: Well, see, I think one of the problems here, and that's why I keep bringing up the question of whether Mr. Arafat can actually deliver on a cessation of hostilities, because if the Israelis make concessions, go back to 1967 borders, they'd be in a situation where if violence continued they'd be much less positioned, much worse positioned, rather, to deal with that violence.
To ask them to take that step without the assurance that on the other side there's somebody who actually has the will and ability to deliver an end to the violence is, I think, a delusion. It's something that we wouldn't accept if we were in that situation. Why should they?
I want to thank everyone for calling in tonight. Thank you for your feedback. Next, my outrage of the day as we see, once again, a gang of black left wingers whose seem to think that a Supreme Court Justice of the United States shouldn't have the right to speak on our campuses.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Tomorrow on MAKING SENSE, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. On Thursday, Bernard Goldberg, former CBS News correspondent and author of the best-selling book “Bias, How the Media Distort the News.”
Now, it's time for my “Outrage of the Day.” It turns out that Clarence Thomas has been invited, the Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, to speak at the University of North Carolina.
But five professors there at Capitol Hill say they will boycott his speech because they claim he is trying to turn back the clock on racial progress. Now, they say that they don't want their colleagues to imitate them. But if so, why did they send a letter to everyone publicizing what they're doing?
It look like just another attempt to enforce what appears to be the free speech doctrine of the left, free speech for us, but not for you, and certainly not for anybody who disagrees with our view? You know the sad thing, Clarence Thomas would be the first person to sit on that Supreme Court and defend the basis of their academic freedom.
He believes strongly in those principles and yet the very freedom he would sit there helping to guarantee for them, they want to take away from him. It seems to me that that is one of the sad truths that makes it outrageous that folks like this stand before the country claiming they represent progress, when, in fact, the very freedom that folks fought for in the civil rights movement is the freedom they want to take away from a Supreme Court justice of the United States.
That's my sense of it. Thank you for joining us today. Lester Holt is up next. I'll see you tomorrow.