MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesMarch 11, 2002
ALAN KEYES, HOST: Earlier this evening, these twin towers of lights reached heavenward to symbolize the spirit in which America remembers September 11. Six months ago, the terrible blow was struck that has changed so much of our lives and focused our attention both on the evil that overshadows the world today, but also on the great challenge that lies before America of dealing with this evil even as we continue the great tradition in which we have lived.
We are continuing the cleanup work. And the workers at ground zero, I believe, symbolize not only the fact that we are making an effort to deal with the wound that was inflicted upon us, but that we are laying the groundwork for that future which must follow.
For even as we look to the past and we grieve respectfully for those whose lives were taken by this evil blow, yet we are Americans. And we look as well to the heavens, to the heavens which symbolize our unlimited aspirations, to the heavens which symbolize the truth that no evil will set boundaries to the American spirit.
We're going to be talking this evening about the tough decisions that we face with respect to these two truths of this moment, which we commemorate today. The truth that there is a blow to be grieved, that there are lives to be remembered, that there are loved ones whom we mourn, but the truth as well that we are a nation that has always lived with the understanding that the past, even the present, is but the platform from which we shape that future, which we will hand on to the world in future generations.
We have, of course, many things to say and think and feel on a day like this. And much of it has been gone through in the course of the day's commemorations, some of which I'm sure many of you have seen. The focus of MAKING SENSE tonight is going to be on this question of what happens in the future to the site that was created by the evil act of September 11.
I'm Alan Keyes. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
We're going to have with us this evening, to start out with, two folks who have been, in one way or another, deeply involved with the history of this site, folks who have seen it from both the perspective of the building of the great towers that soared to the heavens before the evil blow, and one who has dealt with the terrible aftermath that was created by that blow.
We will then be followed with a panel in which we'll be discussing the question of how we should deal with the site. What should be done with it? It's a question that I believe not only has to do with the physical nature of what we're going to do, what choices we'll make. And folks have talked about that.
No, I think it has to do as well with the fact that this was an event that marks an epic in American history. So what we do with this site is going to speak to the world today and to Americans and the world in the future about the state of the American heart and mind and spirit in this time.
What kind of people are we? How do we respond to those blows which aim to set limits to our aspirations?
And I think in the past, obviously, we've had a great tradition in America that nothing gets us down. It's one of those things that I think has been characteristic of the American people. Maybe it's why the skyscraper became the great and unique symbol of American civilization in the 20th century, leaping to the heavens the way our hopes leap into the future, acknowledging no boundaries except those that are imposed by our god-given abilities. That's what we're supposed to be as a people, and we'll bring to bear that spirit on the decision we have to make.
With us this evening, Kevin Kennon, the architect who designed the viewing platform at ground zero, and Bobby Gray, who has coordinated the recovery efforts at ground zero since day one. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
KEVIN KENNON, ARCHITECT: Hello.
BOBBY GRAY, WORLD TRADE CENTER RECOVERY EFFORT COORDINATOR: Good evening.
KEYES: Thank you for being with us this evening. First question I want to put in front of you, which I think has been part of what we've been doing in the whole of this day of observance and commemoration, the question of what is it that we are commemorating here on September 11. I mean, at one level obviously we don't commemorate the evil that was done. What is it that we are remembering on this day, Kevin Kennon?
KENNON: Well, clearly, Alan, what we're remembering is the many people who innocently gave up their lives during this tragedy. I think that's first and foremost what we see and what I think for many people who go and now have visited the viewing platform and seen the site have taken away with.
And it's actually been a very sad day for me. It's brought back many, many, many memories of those events. And — but at the same time, I think with the lighting of the tribute this evening, those lights soaring from the skyline, a magnificent gesture and incredible tribute to that very spirit that you spoke about. So, it is with somewhat mixed feelings that we approach today and as we look towards the future of how to solve this very, very difficult problem.
KEYES: Bobby Gray, why do you think twin towers of light are a fitting observance and commemoration of this day?
GRAY: Well, I think they represent something that once stood as we all know that on the 11th, things changed pretty much forever in this country. So, again, with the loss of the towers, it's just sort of a remembrance of all that was changed on the 11th.
KEYES: Well, this is the question I have for you, though, because I know I've heard many people say that much has changed in America and so forth and so on. I look at those lights soaring to the heavens, and I onder whether things have changed so much because after all, you can knock down the buildings and you can blow up the structures and so forth and so on.
But it seemed to me that in the aftermath and the reaction of New Yorkers and the nation, there was a suggestion that maybe what is really most important about America didn't change on September 11. Maybe the spirit of this country, the spirit of aspiration that opened up the frontier, that braved down the dangers, that developed in the course of the 20th century, that fought against the evils that would have subverted the way of life, of freedom and liberty in the world.
Maybe that spirit is still alive. Don't those twin towers of light symbolize that truth, which is still permanent in terms of what America's identity is about, Bobby Gray?
GRAY: Yes, Alan. I can tell you that on the 11th and since the 11th, I saw Americans coming down to ground zero and doing what Americans do. And I can honestly say I was just so proud to be a part of that.
I can't tell you if the lights of towers symbolize that. I think if you want to, you could say that it does. But I did see what Americans can do and will continue to do. And, again, we're just very proud to be part of that.
KEYES: Now, Kevin Kennon, it seems to be significant that we have twin towers of light, that we lost, as Bobby Gray had said, the twin towers that were there. In a sense, it seems to me that those twin towers of light suggest that though we have lost them in one sense, Americans are not yet ready to give up what the twin towers perhaps symbolized for this country. Do you think that's true?
KENNON: Well, yes, Alan. And I think that's — I came in this evening from New Jersey and saw the lights actually appear from nowhere. And I can't begin to tell you the effect that had on me because the twin towers were simply more than just buildings, as you said. They were landmarks. They really anchored the skyline. And we've had this missing hole in the skyline for these past six months.
And to have something that reminded us of that powerful presence again, I think that it clearly indicated to me that that's something that we need again and something we should be striving for as we look towards the future.
KEYES: Now, does that say anything about the thinking we need to do about what's going to be done with the twin towers site, Kevin? Do you think there's something in what you just said that needs to be sort of factored into our thinking about that?
KENNON: Well, in a way, yes it does, Alan, because one of the things that's interesting, if you think about the twin towers, even though they were identical, they were also divided. And it seems one of the things that came together after September 11, whether it was always there or whether there's something unique about this experience, is a coming together of many people from many different places all over the world. And it seems that that coming together could be symbolized by a single tower rising to the heavens and once again anchoring our skyline.
KEYES: Bobby Gray, what's your sense of the future of the World Trade Center site? What do you think we should be thinking about in terms of how we make use of that site?
GRAY: Well, Alan, I'm sure we'll see a memorial at some point on those 16 acres. But I would love to see another tower, if not two.
To me, the skyscraper is something that was American ingenuity. We've exported it throughout the world. And I couldn't think of a better memorial besides something on the plaza level, maybe. But to build another skyscraper there I think would be a fitting memorial as well.
KEYES: Well, gentlemen, I want to thank you for joining us tonight and sharing your hearts with us on this day in which all of us have been focused again not just I think on the terrible tragedy that we suffered, but also on the things that we have learned, many of them I think things that have helped us once again to plumb the depths of the American heart and our ability to respond to tragedies like this in a way that reveals what we are.
That's what we will be getting a little bit more into when we get to the “Heart of the Matter” in our next segment. We will be addressing some of the key questions that I think are at stake in the decision we will be making with respect to the World Trade Center site and its future.
How does September 11 challenge America's spirit? What's the best way to respond to the challenge that it represents? And in light of what we think about those questions, what's the future for ground zero? We'll be discussing those questions with a panel, including two very outspoken New Yorkers in our next segment when we get to the “Heart of the Matter”.
And later on in the program, I want to hear what you think is the best future for ground zero. Call us at 1-866-KEYES-USA. 1-866-KEYES-USA. When we return, dramatically different opinions from two New Yorkers about the fate of the World Trade Center site. So, stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: History will know that day not only as a day of tragedy, but as a day of decision, when the civilized world was stirred to anger and to action.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: That was President Bush on the commemoration of the six-month anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center. Tonight on MAKING SENSE, we are talking about that commemoration, but we're also doing so in a way that looks forward to the future.
We'll be commemorating the tragedy and terrible losses that we suffered that day with a thought to how we can best remember in the future, in the living future of this nation, what that day represented to us all. Obviously, there are also ongoing tragedies elsewhere in the world.
And because of the intensifying conflict in the Middle East, we also thought it would be a good idea to spend a little time looking at that. So, coming up in our next half hour, we will be talking to prime minister — former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the ongoing and intensifying conflict in the Middle East.
But first, what should be the future of ground zero? I'm joined now on the “Heart of the Matter” by three folks, two New Yorkers and one nationally syndicated talk show host, Curtis Sliwa, radio talk show host at New York's WABC, Bo Dietl, former New York City Police detective who now runs his own private security firm, and Janet Parshall, host of “Janet Parshall's America,” a nationally syndicated radio talk show.
Gentlemen, lady, I want to start out with the simple question. We are today commemorating the six-month anniversary. Obviously as we move into the future, we will be remembering and commemorating this terrible attack, this terrible tragedy, the losses we suffered, and what it represents about us. This is something that's now going to be a permanent aspect of American history.
With respect to the World Trade Center site, and in light of that epoch-making reality, what do you think should be done with the World Trade Center site? Let me start with Curtis.
CURTIS SLIWA, WABC RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Definitely a memorial. And you mentioned commemoration. That's the key. I wouldn't allow for any commercial building, whether it's retail, whether it's office space, or whether it has to do with housing, because New Yorkers before 9-11 were the least patriotic.
They kicked the Navy out of the city. They kicked the Coast Guard out. They didn't fly the American flag. They wouldn't do the pledge of allegiance. They, in fact, they wouldn't allow ROTC nor recruitment stations to take in young men and young women in the military, nor allowed them on high school or college campuses.
So, that's why we need to constantly remind not only our local folks here in New York that we must remain vigilant and must support a strong defense, but more importantly, for all America and all the world for centuries to come to have a place — a park, a museum, a tribute to all the heroes and the victims there — without having any of the commercial space filled up in the world's richest piece of real estate that would truly be a statement to our country and to the world that we will never forget and we must always remain on the defense and strong and vigilant.
KEYES: Bo Dietl, what do you think is the right approach?
BO DIETL, FORMER NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT DETECTIVE: Well, I go back a little further than Curtis. Back in 1969 and 1970, before I became a policeman and before I became a detective, I worked as an iron worker at the World Trade Center. The World Trade Center was a symbol of what Manhattan's skyline looked like. This is our image. The terrorists have taken it down.
But what I believe should happen is they should build the towers back and build them right and put a memorial bridge, like a bridge like they have in Malaysia, that crosses the two towers. But build them right.
When I say right, a lot of people don't understand why that structure went down. That structure went down because it was built without a base through the center. It had the thick steel around. When them planes hit and melt that steel, that's when the thickness of that steel went down and broke the concrete, the floors.
The floors were about five to six inches of concrete laying on this thin slab. And they had some small structure underneath it. What happened was that tremendous weight melted.
A lot of people don't realize back in 1947 when they built buildings like the Empire State Building, before 1947, 1947 a person named Herbert Lavigne (ph) came up with asbestos. They started spraying it. But then in 1971, we were 65 floors up in one of the World Trade Centers, and what happened is they banned asbestos.
SLIWA: Let me ask you a question.
KEYES: No, wait a minute.
SLIWA: No, it's very important one.
KEYES: Hold on both of you. First I want to get a sense, because before we get into the debate in full, I want to hear from Janet Parshall. I included you, Janet, on the panel for a very good reason because I think that we have to remember that this was a national tragedy that in a sense struck the whole country, to which the whole country has responded, and which, of course, in the course of American history is going to be something that represents and speaks to the spirit and reality of the whole country in this time and for the future.
So, I thought we had to have a voice that would look at it also from the national perspective. So, what do you think? What's your thought about this issue of what the future of the World Trade Center site ought to be?
JANET PARSHALL, SYNDICATED RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: You know, Alan, the words that come to my mind are words of delicate balance. I asked my listeners this very question today. And overwhelmingly, their sense was that somehow we have to remember that this was for all intents and purposes a cemetery. We have got close to 2,000 bodies still that will probably never be recovered from that site.
But by the same token, I look to the symbolism of the attacks, how there was an assault on commerce because free enterprise is the fuel that drives the engines of democracy. I think the terrorists knew exactly what they were thinking when they went after World Trade Centers, also when they went against the Pentagon, it was a hit against our military, and then also the third jet that we knew that was circling around the Capitol, hell bent for either the Capitol or for the White House, again, an assault against government.
So, my feeling is I don't want the terrorists to get the upper hand on this. I think that somehow we carefully, steadfastly plan a memorial for, as you say so well, Alan, for generations to come.
In fact, one of my callers today said something profoundly intriguing. They said, “Why not replicate that which we see in Washington at the Vietnam Memorial where we would have panels, perhaps big, black granite panels, with the names of every single person who lost their life inscribed on the panel so that this wouldn't be a distant experience nationally, but in fact there would be the personhood of the individual.”
John Donne said, “Every man's death diminishes me.” We need to feel the loss of every one of these individuals personally. But by the same token, we need to let the better angels of our nature rise above these ashes and let commerce go forward.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Wait, before we get into — because I encourage on this program and I deeply believe we can't just sort of go back and forth. This is not a game we're playing here.
DIETL: Alan...
KEYES: It is a serious effort, and one of the things I want to put on the table, we talk about remembrance and commemoration. But are we remembering the deaths or the lives? This is the question...
DIETL: ... Alan, Alan...
KEYES: ... Let me finish. The question, listen carefully. The question that's always asked when you are at a funeral for your relative — I went to my father's funeral and my mother's funeral. The first thing that is clear is that a good deal of the time is spent remembering their lives.
It is not their death that you are remembering. It is their lives. And so a memorial ought to be a memorial to the lives. And that's one of the things, Curtis, that I was thinking when I was listening to you talk, if you don't mind my addressing a question to you, because you spoke about what went on at the World Trade Center as if there was something wrong with it, as if the commerce was somehow not something that is vital and I think positive about America.
But if that's the spirit in which we remember the World Trade Center, aren't we, in fact, showing a certain amount of disrespect for the lives that were lost there? Those people were engaged in that activity. They believed it was important. Some of them had devoted their lives to building enterprises and so forth. Don't we remember them best by showing respect for the lives they led?
SLIWA: Oh, no question. But you mentioned commerce. And let's suggest that we followed up on Bo Dietl's idea of rebuilding the towers. Well, what corporate mega-national corporations are going to lease space there?
You're going to get Baer Stearns? You going to get Merrill Lynch? No. You won't get anyone from the private sectors. What you'll have is office space for a lot of the federal agencies that you, Alan, want to put out of business, like FEMA, the Department of Education.
DIETL: Curtis, Curtis...
SLIWA: It will not accomplish anything.
DIETL: ... if that fourth plane hit the Capitol of the United States and wiped it out and killed everybody there, we wouldn't build another Capitol? This is the World Trade Center. We should build it and build it right and put a memorial bridge in between and have the peoples' names there. And that bridge will be the memorial for them people.
But if you don't rebuild it, these terrorists now have won. They've changed our skyline. Would you rebuild the Capitol, Curtis?
SLIWA: There's only one way this is going to happen. If people like you, a very successful, owner-entrepreneur of a security firm — Chuck Schumer, who first advocated this, put his own offices on the 110th floor...
DIETL: I'll take...
(CROSSTALK)
SLIWA: ... You guys set the example and then everyone else can follow. But you won't.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Wait one second, gentlemen. Janet, Janet, I have a question.
PARSHALL: Yes.
KEYES: Because as I listen to this back and forth, I think Curtis is making a point that I've heard other people make, the suggestion that if you rebuilt a skyscraper, something that was in the tradition of this great and unique American contribution to civilization, that our people would no longer want to work in them. And when I hear somebody say that, I don't know what Curtis thinks he's saying, but what I hear him saying is that Americans no longer have the guts to be Americans, that we don't have the courage to go on...
DIETL: That's right.
KEYES: ... with our lives in the way that we have conceived of those lives in the course of our ingenuity. Janet, do you think that's true?
PARSHALL: No, Alan, I don't. And I don't think that the spirit of America is a spirit of fear. In fact, if anything, I think we've seen the antithesis of this since 9-11.
We really and truly have risen above this. Yes, we have moments where we think when will the next attack come? And we've each of us had to do a lot of soul searching.
You asked Kevin and Bobby in the last segment about what this says about the American spirit. It says a multiplicity of things, not the least of which is this fuzzy-headed thinking that says there is no such thing as absolute evil. We got a stark wake-up call six months ago today...
DIETL: Alan...
PARSHALL: ... And there's absolutely evil in the world. Ipso facto, I believe there's also absolute good. The choice for us as American citizens is to decide whether or not we're going to follow evil or good.
DIETL: Alan, Alan...
PARSHALL: But I sure wouldn't let terrorists get the upper hand.
KEYES: Go ahead, go ahead.
DIETL: ... Alan, I'm one of the owners of the Woolworth building along with Steve Whitcroft (ph). We've sold out all our top floors in the Whitcroft building. We've leased there. The FCC has moved into the Woolworth building, the tallest building down there now.
I would rent property, Steve Whitcroft, we'd redevelop it tomorrow. We'd put a memorial bridge across. You can't let the terrorist change the design of our lives. You would redesign...
SLIWA: Bo.
KEYES: Wait a second.
DIETL: ... the Capitol. If they blew it up, you'd rebuild it. You can't stop our lives.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Go ahead.
SLIWA: This is the same city that chased the Navy out of homeport, chased the Coast Guard off of Governor's Island, refused to show patriotic pride in flying the American flag...
DIETL: I think you're wrong on this one, Curtis.
SLIWA: ... and announced the pledge of allegiance...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Curtis, Curtis, Curtis...
SLIWA: ... And not one corporation has pledged to return to a brand new World Trade Center...
KEYES: Curtis, Curtis, Curtis...
SLIWA: ... Doesn't that say something?
KEYES: ... Curtis, Curtis, let me ask you a question because you're right, I think, in terms of the change that has occurred not only in New York, but I think all over the country. But one of thing that is intrigues me about the future, there was a time when this nation's security and its courage and things of that kind would be shown by our military folks, by our Navy, by our military strength.
I think if you, for instance, were to rebuild at the World Trade Center site in the spirit of the skyscrapers and so forth, the people who worked in that building would in fact be demonstrating the spirit and courage of the American people...
DIETL: Alan...
KEYES: ... every day when they went to work. Don't you think we would...
DIETL: ... Alan...
KEYES: ... Don't you think we would find people who would have that kind of courage, Alan?
DIETL: Alan, also let the federal government give them subsidies. People who couldn't move into a $70-square-foot building, let's get some subsidy from the federal government. Fill that building up with good Americans and show we're not going to turn (UNINTELLIGIBLE) these terrorists.
KEYES: See, I must confess, I think that Curtis is wrong. And I think it would be proper for the president and others to throw down the gauntlet to America's great corporations, including the one that were in the World Trade Center because the challenge is not just a challenge to individuals, it is a challenge to the whole nation, to demonstrate that we have a spirit that cannot be defeated.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: The question is, how do you demonstrate that spirit if not in the courage of the businesses and individuals to rebuild?
DIETL: To rebuild, rebuild strong, and put a monument across, a bridge across, with all them poor people that gave their lives. And that's how you beat the terrorists. You don't crawl into a corner.
(CROSSTALK)
SLIWA: I guarantee you'd have 110 stories of cold stone.
DIETL: Bologna. I would take it tomorrow.
SLIWA: For all the paperwork of corporations. You would never have offices...
KEYES: Janet, you're shaking your head, Janet. Why?
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Just a second, Curtis. Janet, why are you shaking your head?
PARSHALL: Well, I'm shaking my head because of what Curtis was saying. We're a wounded country...
DIETL: We're strong.
PARSHALL: ... but we have been changed. We've been changed. We've been changed dramatically. And, Curtis, with all due respect, you would not only have empty space, you'd have people standing in line to rent those spaces. I'll tell you why.
DIETL: Thank you.
PARSHALL: They'd be doing that...
DIETL: Can I tell you how New York hasn't changed?
PARSHALL: ... They would be doing that because they would want to send a message. You remember the president of the United States said that we're going to continue with life as much...
DIETL: Let's roll.
PARSHALL: ... as we possibly can. And just as people got the boldest, they reached down, dug into a dark place in their heart. They said...
DIETL: Can I tell you...
PARSHALL: ... “I might be afraid, but I'm going to get on a plane.” We're going to see people who would rent this space. And they'd be standing in line.
KEYES: Excuse me, excuse me, we have come to the time. I want to thank you all because I know that this is an issue that intensely engages heart and feeling. But I think it also need intentionally to engage our thought and our sense of responsibility for our future. Thank you all for joining me today.
That sense of responsibility for our future, for what we say about ourselves in what we do, is I think going to be the critical component of our wisdom as we look at what we do with the World Trade Center. I am going to talk about my own sense of that at the end of the program, what would usually be my final outrage.
But today, obviously, we're comet rating what is the outrage of the new century. And so I will be addressing that thought when the program ends.
Later, we'll want to know what's on your mind. What's the best future for ground zero? You can call us at 1-866-KEYES-USA.
Next up, however, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he'll be talking with us about one of the world's great hot spots and tragic spots where we also, in the spirit of this time, have to decide how we can play, as Americans, a constructive role.
You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: You're looking at the twin towers of light, commemorating the greatest outrage of the 20th century thus far. I will be talking a little bit, at the end of the program about what would usually be “My Outrage if the Day,” about what I think needs to be done with the World Trade Center site and especially about its significance.
Right now, however, we turn to another area where tragic violence is consuming human life. Mideast violence has been intensifying and coming up in this segment, we'll be talking to Benjamin Netanyahu, who I spoke with a little earlier today. But here's what the last three days have looked like in the Middle East. Saturday, Israel attacked and destroyed Yasser Arafat's Gaza headquarters. The PLO chief was, however, unharmed. One day later, two Palestinians attacked a promenade in Netanya, north of Tel Aviv, throwing a grenade into a hotel lobby and opening fire with automatic weapons, killing three and injuring 24.
Later, a Palestinian blew himself up at a popular cafe in Jerusalem, killing 11 and injuring 50. Tonight, 20 Israeli tanks entered northern Gaza and exchanged fire with Palestinian gunmen, killing at least 11 and injuring more than 50.
In addition, late this evening, Israeli naval units opened fire on a Palestinian navy headquarters in the central Gaza Strip. The numbers are tragically significant. According to the Associated Press, in more than 17 months of Mideast violence, more than 1,100 people have been killed on the Palestinian side and 340 people on the Israeli side.
Earlier tonight, I had the chance to speak with former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and ask him what he sees as the path that might eventually bring the violence we are now witnessing to a close.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, FMR. ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: Well, I think the only way that you end the violence is to remove the source of violence. And the source of the violence is the endemic incitement for hatred and for terrorism by Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority. In fact, Yasser Arafat, while speaking peace in English to the West, nightly speaks in Arabic to his people, calling for a million shahidim (ph), a million suicide bombers in Jerusalem, and many Palestinians comply, happily.
So, effectively, what we have is a regime that clings to the idea of the fantasy of destroying Israel, using what Arafat calls the armed struggle, what we would call, all of us, would call terrorism, to implement that goal of Israel's destruction. And as long as he's here, there will not be peace, there will not be an end to violence.
KEYES: One of the questions, though, that folks are always asking, and we get that question when we talk about the need to replace Saddam Hussein. Obviously, in order to move the situation forward, you have to deal with folks on the Palestinian side. If Yasser Arafat is not there, who does Israel deal with?
NETANYAHU: Well, first of all, I disagree with the premise. I don't think you have to deal with anyone. First, you win. When you had to defeat Nazi Germany, first you won. You defeated Hitler. You didn't say, oh well, let me first place a government in his place and so on. When you defeated imperial Japan, you defeated imperial Japan. When you defeated the Taliban, you first defeated the Taliban. Of course, a government has arisen in Afghanistan. You and I perhaps would wish it well, that it would be there in three to five years. But none of us would bet on it, Alan. But I would bet on this. I would bet that whoever governs Afghanistan, they will not allow a single terrorist act to be launched against the United States for many, many years because they, too, would be replaced. And that's the principle that we have to see with Arafat.
KEYES: But we have —
NETANYAHU: I think that whoever replaces him would know that if they launch terrorism against us, they won't be in power either.
KEYES: Well, we have had, of course, folks on the show who argue that in point of fact, it is the Israeli occupation that leads to the violence, that if Yasser Arafat were gone, the violence would still continue because of that occupation. And in that sense Israel has a tiger by the tail that won't be quiet, that won't be calmed until the occupation ends. What do you say to those arguments?
NETANYAHU: Well, first of all, let's be precise about words. Israel no longer occupies Palestinians. And not 99 percent, 100 percent of the Palestinians are governed by Arafat, for better or worse. Worse in many cases. But that's neither here nor there. Arafat governs the Palestinians, not Israel. The lands that are in dispute between us are lands empty, devoid of any Palestinian population, but replete with historical significance. They are a part of our historic homeland for thousands of years and equally they're important for protecting us, they're security buffers for an Israel that would otherwise be 10 miles wide in the face of much larger Arab armies.
So, I think that this is a legitimate dispute over disputed territories, but not occupied territories. Now...
KEYES: And —
NETANYAHU: ... the question — Yes.
KEYES: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
NETANYAHU: But that was a termanological exactitude, if I can call it that. Well, let me then, answer your question. It is not Israel's presence in the territories that has produced endless bouts of conflict, because Yasser Arafat and other Arabs attacked Israel, well before we were in those territories. This — our being there is a result, not a cause, of the Arab conflict against us. The real source of the conflict is the repeated and unchanging Palestinian and to my sorrow also a wider Arab desire to see Israel eliminated, regardless of any border.
KEYES: But if that —
NETANYAHU: You can see that that is true, Alan, because —
KEYES: If that's true — if that's true —
NETANYAHU: Barak offered Arafat all of the territories, and Arafat said no, it's Tel Aviv I want. All of Israel.
KEYES: If that's true, Mr. Prime Minister, how can folks look at something like the Saudi proposal, and I'll be frank with you about my own sense. I look at this proposal and I say it is a day late and many dollars short, or 25 years late and much well short.
But how can one take the proposal that has supposedly been put forward in some way by the Saudis as a serious basis for some kind of discussion? Wouldn't it require, in fact, that one return to an untenable security situation for Israel?
NETANYAHU: Yes. In fact, when we were in the pre-1967 borders, which made Israel 10 miles wide, these weren't the borders of peace. They were the border from which we were attacked time and again because Israel was such a tempting target. You just had to slice through it and that was the end of Israel.
So when the Saudis come back and say, oh, well, why don't you just go back there, compress yourself into these indefensible — this indefensible ribbon on the sea, give Arafat the high ground above your cities and the walls of Jerusalem, and close your eyes, you have a Saudi guarantee that everything would be all right, would you bet the life of the United States on that? Of course not.
But equally the Saudi, I think, motives are suspect because for years they have been bank rolling everyone, including the worst people, that is the Wahhabist Islamic militants and al Qaeda and Taliban. And now I think they know that they have to get on the good side of the U.S., so they're offering this plan, which is tantamount to the destruction of Israel. I don't think anybody's going to buy it.
KEYES: Well, with the vice president, obviously, moving about the region, I think originally the intention was to focus on Iraq. Obviously, a lot of questions are bound to come up given the intensification of the situation between the Palestinians and Israel. What would you say is, at this time, the appropriate and proper participation and role of the U.S. administration?
NETANYAHU: I think the U.S. has got it right. I think the Bush administration is right on target. They understand that the way to fight terror is to either deter or dismantle the terrorist regimes. They've done it with the Taliban regime. They're going after another regime that had practiced terrorism in the past and is now shooting for the ultimate terror, nuclear terror. And that is the regime of Saddam Hussein. I think they're well on their way to dismantle that regime.
Now I think they understand that eventually, we'll have to dismantle Arafat's regime if the Palestinians and we have a chance at all, as I believe we do, to develop a peaceful future for us, a future of co-existence.
KEYES: Does that mean that you actually think that the administration can, as I understand what you have said, you're basically saying something that I think unfortunately has been evident for a while, that Yasser Arafat is not the interlocker who can lead to peace, and his regime would have to be dismantled and replaced. Do you think that Colin Powell, the secretary of state, and others understand and accept that, because a lot of their public statements right now don't seem to indicate that understanding?
NETANYAHU: It may not be the view of the state department. It also is not the view of the United States, the official view. But if the United States wishes to be consistent, as I believe it does, with its view that there is no room for terror, that nothing justifies terror, and that there is no room for terrorist regimes, then of course it cannot — it cannot question Israel's decision if Israel reaches that decision, to dismantle terrorist regime 50 yards from our doorstep in the way that the United States is dismantling terrorist regimes that have attacked the United States thousands of miles from your doorstep.
So I think that at end of the day, the American people and this administration is a moral administration, a moral people. And they do not want to see a double standard. They understand that the only way to fight terrorism is to fight it uniformly, and that terrorism, whether Palestinian or Taliban or Iraqi or Iranian, is always evil and those regimes who practice it have to give way. I think that...
KEYES: Well...
NETANYAHU: ... many Palestinians understand it, but they don't dare speak because they would die, they would be killed by Arafat.
KEYES: One last question. The government of Prime Minister Sharon has taken a very tough approach that aims at trying to quell this violence and yet it does not seem that that is rallying political support. What do you think explains that fact? And do you think that the Sharon government is going to be able to survive long enough to see this through to the end?
NETANYAHU: I don't know if it will survive or not. I do know that the majority of the people seek not a softer action, but a tougher action. I've been advocating for a long time, since this intifada began, that the right way to do it — the right question really is not the application of more force or less force. It is the application of the force in the right place. And the right place, I think, is again — again, against the regime, Yasser Arafat's regime, rather than just an allied and occasionally broad front. I think it is much more effective, ultimately much more — will save a lot many more lives, Israeli and Palestinian lives, to come to a military decision instead of a war of attrition.
KEYES: In other words, you think that the present government should just be explicit or the Israeli government should be explicit, make it clear that the aim is to end Yasser Arafat's role and his regime and move forward with that, with the clear understanding that that is the foundation for trying to bring this violence to an end?
NETANYAHU: Yes. I would let Arafat leave. If he wants to leave, let him leave, but he won't come back. I will take all the action to dismantle and disarm fighting formations and collect the illegal weapons that are there. I would not stay in the territories. I would get out in the populated area, the Palestinian areas, but I would erect the necessary, physical barriers for the penetration of residual terrorists. I think this can stop the terrorism.
Terrorism can be stopped militarily. The Turks have stopped it militarily against Syria. You have stopped it from Libya. We stopped the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) terrorism from Egypt in the '50s and the Palestinian terrorism from Jordan in the 70s well before there was a peace process. The first thing, in order to have a peace process, is to stop the terrorism. We have it confused. Most people are now being told that the way to stop the terrorism is to have concessions, political concessions to the terrorists. That will only embolden them. In fact, it's the other way around. Remove the terrorist regimes, then peaceful Palestinians and Israel can begin a peace process that will produce a better future for both of us.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEYES: That was Benjamin Netanyahu. He joined us from Jerusalem earlier this evening.
We'll be back to talking about what's the best future for ground zero. I want to hear what's on your mind. You can call me with your opinion at 1-866-KEYES-USA; 1-866-KEYES-USA. I'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now to find out what's on your mind. I want to know what you think the fate of the World Trade Center site should be. Quickly, let's go to Michael from Ohio. Michael, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
CALLER: Good evening, Alan. I certainly believe that we as a country, if we're to take that 16 acres, which is really a small piece of land, and turn it into green space as a living memorial to those who lost their lives and also as a tribute to life and to remember the native American people who first owned that land, to set an example for the world...
KEYES: Michael, I'm sorry, we don't have a lot of time. I have one thought for you, OK. It is for the living — the living to remember the dead. And you said a living memorial. But the only living memorials I know of really are people. Let's go to Nairi from Alabama. Nairi, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
CALLER: Yes. I believe that it should be left up to the people that lost their loved ones and friends and family members. Everybody can have a different idea of what needs to go there, but I think that they would be the ones that would best come up with a suitable idea, since they are the ones that lost loved ones.
KEYES: Nairi? They're not the only ones that lost something that day, though, the whole country lost something.
CALLER: I understand that.
KEYES: John from New York. John, quickly.
CALLER: Good evening, Alan. I'm a chief in the Air Force and stationed out here at Nellis (ph), and as a native New Yorker, I think what we ought to do is build a better, more beautiful building than ever that's been there before and invite all the countries back in that were with us and maybe have a little park or something with a memorial plaque to all the people that gave their lives.
KEYES: Thank you. Appreciate your thoughts. I'm going to share with all of you my thoughts about this in the “Final Thought” that I give this evening. It's usually my “Outrage Of The Day.” But obviously we're addressing a far greater outrage this evening.
But I want to talk a little bit, when we get bang back from the break, about how I think we can best commemorate and remember the lives that we lost, but also the life that we hope for in America.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: It is for the living to remember the living. We think of commemorating those whose lives were lost that day at the World Trade Center. But I think what we want to commemorate is their lives, not the terrible and evil manner of their death. To commemorate their lives, we must live with respect for those lives and I think that means that we rebuild.
In our country today, we have had many heroes, people who have lost their lives, their remains are in the graveyards, but their memorials are in the homes and schools and businesses and the hope in the institutions that we have built as a people. That is the best memorial to America's heroism, America's future, not to turn the country into a commemorative graveyard, but to turn it rather toward a future in which we remember the best that is in us, by fulfilling the dream that all those people had.
I think that's what we need to rebuild in New York in the best way we know how. Thank you for being with me this evening. Lester Holt is up next.
We are continuing the cleanup work. And the workers at ground zero, I believe, symbolize not only the fact that we are making an effort to deal with the wound that was inflicted upon us, but that we are laying the groundwork for that future which must follow.
For even as we look to the past and we grieve respectfully for those whose lives were taken by this evil blow, yet we are Americans. And we look as well to the heavens, to the heavens which symbolize our unlimited aspirations, to the heavens which symbolize the truth that no evil will set boundaries to the American spirit.
We're going to be talking this evening about the tough decisions that we face with respect to these two truths of this moment, which we commemorate today. The truth that there is a blow to be grieved, that there are lives to be remembered, that there are loved ones whom we mourn, but the truth as well that we are a nation that has always lived with the understanding that the past, even the present, is but the platform from which we shape that future, which we will hand on to the world in future generations.
We have, of course, many things to say and think and feel on a day like this. And much of it has been gone through in the course of the day's commemorations, some of which I'm sure many of you have seen. The focus of MAKING SENSE tonight is going to be on this question of what happens in the future to the site that was created by the evil act of September 11.
I'm Alan Keyes. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
We're going to have with us this evening, to start out with, two folks who have been, in one way or another, deeply involved with the history of this site, folks who have seen it from both the perspective of the building of the great towers that soared to the heavens before the evil blow, and one who has dealt with the terrible aftermath that was created by that blow.
We will then be followed with a panel in which we'll be discussing the question of how we should deal with the site. What should be done with it? It's a question that I believe not only has to do with the physical nature of what we're going to do, what choices we'll make. And folks have talked about that.
No, I think it has to do as well with the fact that this was an event that marks an epic in American history. So what we do with this site is going to speak to the world today and to Americans and the world in the future about the state of the American heart and mind and spirit in this time.
What kind of people are we? How do we respond to those blows which aim to set limits to our aspirations?
And I think in the past, obviously, we've had a great tradition in America that nothing gets us down. It's one of those things that I think has been characteristic of the American people. Maybe it's why the skyscraper became the great and unique symbol of American civilization in the 20th century, leaping to the heavens the way our hopes leap into the future, acknowledging no boundaries except those that are imposed by our god-given abilities. That's what we're supposed to be as a people, and we'll bring to bear that spirit on the decision we have to make.
With us this evening, Kevin Kennon, the architect who designed the viewing platform at ground zero, and Bobby Gray, who has coordinated the recovery efforts at ground zero since day one. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
KEVIN KENNON, ARCHITECT: Hello.
BOBBY GRAY, WORLD TRADE CENTER RECOVERY EFFORT COORDINATOR: Good evening.
KEYES: Thank you for being with us this evening. First question I want to put in front of you, which I think has been part of what we've been doing in the whole of this day of observance and commemoration, the question of what is it that we are commemorating here on September 11. I mean, at one level obviously we don't commemorate the evil that was done. What is it that we are remembering on this day, Kevin Kennon?
KENNON: Well, clearly, Alan, what we're remembering is the many people who innocently gave up their lives during this tragedy. I think that's first and foremost what we see and what I think for many people who go and now have visited the viewing platform and seen the site have taken away with.
And it's actually been a very sad day for me. It's brought back many, many, many memories of those events. And — but at the same time, I think with the lighting of the tribute this evening, those lights soaring from the skyline, a magnificent gesture and incredible tribute to that very spirit that you spoke about. So, it is with somewhat mixed feelings that we approach today and as we look towards the future of how to solve this very, very difficult problem.
KEYES: Bobby Gray, why do you think twin towers of light are a fitting observance and commemoration of this day?
GRAY: Well, I think they represent something that once stood as we all know that on the 11th, things changed pretty much forever in this country. So, again, with the loss of the towers, it's just sort of a remembrance of all that was changed on the 11th.
KEYES: Well, this is the question I have for you, though, because I know I've heard many people say that much has changed in America and so forth and so on. I look at those lights soaring to the heavens, and I onder whether things have changed so much because after all, you can knock down the buildings and you can blow up the structures and so forth and so on.
But it seemed to me that in the aftermath and the reaction of New Yorkers and the nation, there was a suggestion that maybe what is really most important about America didn't change on September 11. Maybe the spirit of this country, the spirit of aspiration that opened up the frontier, that braved down the dangers, that developed in the course of the 20th century, that fought against the evils that would have subverted the way of life, of freedom and liberty in the world.
Maybe that spirit is still alive. Don't those twin towers of light symbolize that truth, which is still permanent in terms of what America's identity is about, Bobby Gray?
GRAY: Yes, Alan. I can tell you that on the 11th and since the 11th, I saw Americans coming down to ground zero and doing what Americans do. And I can honestly say I was just so proud to be a part of that.
I can't tell you if the lights of towers symbolize that. I think if you want to, you could say that it does. But I did see what Americans can do and will continue to do. And, again, we're just very proud to be part of that.
KEYES: Now, Kevin Kennon, it seems to be significant that we have twin towers of light, that we lost, as Bobby Gray had said, the twin towers that were there. In a sense, it seems to me that those twin towers of light suggest that though we have lost them in one sense, Americans are not yet ready to give up what the twin towers perhaps symbolized for this country. Do you think that's true?
KENNON: Well, yes, Alan. And I think that's — I came in this evening from New Jersey and saw the lights actually appear from nowhere. And I can't begin to tell you the effect that had on me because the twin towers were simply more than just buildings, as you said. They were landmarks. They really anchored the skyline. And we've had this missing hole in the skyline for these past six months.
And to have something that reminded us of that powerful presence again, I think that it clearly indicated to me that that's something that we need again and something we should be striving for as we look towards the future.
KEYES: Now, does that say anything about the thinking we need to do about what's going to be done with the twin towers site, Kevin? Do you think there's something in what you just said that needs to be sort of factored into our thinking about that?
KENNON: Well, in a way, yes it does, Alan, because one of the things that's interesting, if you think about the twin towers, even though they were identical, they were also divided. And it seems one of the things that came together after September 11, whether it was always there or whether there's something unique about this experience, is a coming together of many people from many different places all over the world. And it seems that that coming together could be symbolized by a single tower rising to the heavens and once again anchoring our skyline.
KEYES: Bobby Gray, what's your sense of the future of the World Trade Center site? What do you think we should be thinking about in terms of how we make use of that site?
GRAY: Well, Alan, I'm sure we'll see a memorial at some point on those 16 acres. But I would love to see another tower, if not two.
To me, the skyscraper is something that was American ingenuity. We've exported it throughout the world. And I couldn't think of a better memorial besides something on the plaza level, maybe. But to build another skyscraper there I think would be a fitting memorial as well.
KEYES: Well, gentlemen, I want to thank you for joining us tonight and sharing your hearts with us on this day in which all of us have been focused again not just I think on the terrible tragedy that we suffered, but also on the things that we have learned, many of them I think things that have helped us once again to plumb the depths of the American heart and our ability to respond to tragedies like this in a way that reveals what we are.
That's what we will be getting a little bit more into when we get to the “Heart of the Matter” in our next segment. We will be addressing some of the key questions that I think are at stake in the decision we will be making with respect to the World Trade Center site and its future.
How does September 11 challenge America's spirit? What's the best way to respond to the challenge that it represents? And in light of what we think about those questions, what's the future for ground zero? We'll be discussing those questions with a panel, including two very outspoken New Yorkers in our next segment when we get to the “Heart of the Matter”.
And later on in the program, I want to hear what you think is the best future for ground zero. Call us at 1-866-KEYES-USA. 1-866-KEYES-USA. When we return, dramatically different opinions from two New Yorkers about the fate of the World Trade Center site. So, stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: History will know that day not only as a day of tragedy, but as a day of decision, when the civilized world was stirred to anger and to action.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: That was President Bush on the commemoration of the six-month anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center. Tonight on MAKING SENSE, we are talking about that commemoration, but we're also doing so in a way that looks forward to the future.
We'll be commemorating the tragedy and terrible losses that we suffered that day with a thought to how we can best remember in the future, in the living future of this nation, what that day represented to us all. Obviously, there are also ongoing tragedies elsewhere in the world.
And because of the intensifying conflict in the Middle East, we also thought it would be a good idea to spend a little time looking at that. So, coming up in our next half hour, we will be talking to prime minister — former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the ongoing and intensifying conflict in the Middle East.
But first, what should be the future of ground zero? I'm joined now on the “Heart of the Matter” by three folks, two New Yorkers and one nationally syndicated talk show host, Curtis Sliwa, radio talk show host at New York's WABC, Bo Dietl, former New York City Police detective who now runs his own private security firm, and Janet Parshall, host of “Janet Parshall's America,” a nationally syndicated radio talk show.
Gentlemen, lady, I want to start out with the simple question. We are today commemorating the six-month anniversary. Obviously as we move into the future, we will be remembering and commemorating this terrible attack, this terrible tragedy, the losses we suffered, and what it represents about us. This is something that's now going to be a permanent aspect of American history.
With respect to the World Trade Center site, and in light of that epoch-making reality, what do you think should be done with the World Trade Center site? Let me start with Curtis.
CURTIS SLIWA, WABC RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Definitely a memorial. And you mentioned commemoration. That's the key. I wouldn't allow for any commercial building, whether it's retail, whether it's office space, or whether it has to do with housing, because New Yorkers before 9-11 were the least patriotic.
They kicked the Navy out of the city. They kicked the Coast Guard out. They didn't fly the American flag. They wouldn't do the pledge of allegiance. They, in fact, they wouldn't allow ROTC nor recruitment stations to take in young men and young women in the military, nor allowed them on high school or college campuses.
So, that's why we need to constantly remind not only our local folks here in New York that we must remain vigilant and must support a strong defense, but more importantly, for all America and all the world for centuries to come to have a place — a park, a museum, a tribute to all the heroes and the victims there — without having any of the commercial space filled up in the world's richest piece of real estate that would truly be a statement to our country and to the world that we will never forget and we must always remain on the defense and strong and vigilant.
KEYES: Bo Dietl, what do you think is the right approach?
BO DIETL, FORMER NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT DETECTIVE: Well, I go back a little further than Curtis. Back in 1969 and 1970, before I became a policeman and before I became a detective, I worked as an iron worker at the World Trade Center. The World Trade Center was a symbol of what Manhattan's skyline looked like. This is our image. The terrorists have taken it down.
But what I believe should happen is they should build the towers back and build them right and put a memorial bridge, like a bridge like they have in Malaysia, that crosses the two towers. But build them right.
When I say right, a lot of people don't understand why that structure went down. That structure went down because it was built without a base through the center. It had the thick steel around. When them planes hit and melt that steel, that's when the thickness of that steel went down and broke the concrete, the floors.
The floors were about five to six inches of concrete laying on this thin slab. And they had some small structure underneath it. What happened was that tremendous weight melted.
A lot of people don't realize back in 1947 when they built buildings like the Empire State Building, before 1947, 1947 a person named Herbert Lavigne (ph) came up with asbestos. They started spraying it. But then in 1971, we were 65 floors up in one of the World Trade Centers, and what happened is they banned asbestos.
SLIWA: Let me ask you a question.
KEYES: No, wait a minute.
SLIWA: No, it's very important one.
KEYES: Hold on both of you. First I want to get a sense, because before we get into the debate in full, I want to hear from Janet Parshall. I included you, Janet, on the panel for a very good reason because I think that we have to remember that this was a national tragedy that in a sense struck the whole country, to which the whole country has responded, and which, of course, in the course of American history is going to be something that represents and speaks to the spirit and reality of the whole country in this time and for the future.
So, I thought we had to have a voice that would look at it also from the national perspective. So, what do you think? What's your thought about this issue of what the future of the World Trade Center site ought to be?
JANET PARSHALL, SYNDICATED RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: You know, Alan, the words that come to my mind are words of delicate balance. I asked my listeners this very question today. And overwhelmingly, their sense was that somehow we have to remember that this was for all intents and purposes a cemetery. We have got close to 2,000 bodies still that will probably never be recovered from that site.
But by the same token, I look to the symbolism of the attacks, how there was an assault on commerce because free enterprise is the fuel that drives the engines of democracy. I think the terrorists knew exactly what they were thinking when they went after World Trade Centers, also when they went against the Pentagon, it was a hit against our military, and then also the third jet that we knew that was circling around the Capitol, hell bent for either the Capitol or for the White House, again, an assault against government.
So, my feeling is I don't want the terrorists to get the upper hand on this. I think that somehow we carefully, steadfastly plan a memorial for, as you say so well, Alan, for generations to come.
In fact, one of my callers today said something profoundly intriguing. They said, “Why not replicate that which we see in Washington at the Vietnam Memorial where we would have panels, perhaps big, black granite panels, with the names of every single person who lost their life inscribed on the panel so that this wouldn't be a distant experience nationally, but in fact there would be the personhood of the individual.”
John Donne said, “Every man's death diminishes me.” We need to feel the loss of every one of these individuals personally. But by the same token, we need to let the better angels of our nature rise above these ashes and let commerce go forward.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Wait, before we get into — because I encourage on this program and I deeply believe we can't just sort of go back and forth. This is not a game we're playing here.
DIETL: Alan...
KEYES: It is a serious effort, and one of the things I want to put on the table, we talk about remembrance and commemoration. But are we remembering the deaths or the lives? This is the question...
DIETL: ... Alan, Alan...
KEYES: ... Let me finish. The question, listen carefully. The question that's always asked when you are at a funeral for your relative — I went to my father's funeral and my mother's funeral. The first thing that is clear is that a good deal of the time is spent remembering their lives.
It is not their death that you are remembering. It is their lives. And so a memorial ought to be a memorial to the lives. And that's one of the things, Curtis, that I was thinking when I was listening to you talk, if you don't mind my addressing a question to you, because you spoke about what went on at the World Trade Center as if there was something wrong with it, as if the commerce was somehow not something that is vital and I think positive about America.
But if that's the spirit in which we remember the World Trade Center, aren't we, in fact, showing a certain amount of disrespect for the lives that were lost there? Those people were engaged in that activity. They believed it was important. Some of them had devoted their lives to building enterprises and so forth. Don't we remember them best by showing respect for the lives they led?
SLIWA: Oh, no question. But you mentioned commerce. And let's suggest that we followed up on Bo Dietl's idea of rebuilding the towers. Well, what corporate mega-national corporations are going to lease space there?
You're going to get Baer Stearns? You going to get Merrill Lynch? No. You won't get anyone from the private sectors. What you'll have is office space for a lot of the federal agencies that you, Alan, want to put out of business, like FEMA, the Department of Education.
DIETL: Curtis, Curtis...
SLIWA: It will not accomplish anything.
DIETL: ... if that fourth plane hit the Capitol of the United States and wiped it out and killed everybody there, we wouldn't build another Capitol? This is the World Trade Center. We should build it and build it right and put a memorial bridge in between and have the peoples' names there. And that bridge will be the memorial for them people.
But if you don't rebuild it, these terrorists now have won. They've changed our skyline. Would you rebuild the Capitol, Curtis?
SLIWA: There's only one way this is going to happen. If people like you, a very successful, owner-entrepreneur of a security firm — Chuck Schumer, who first advocated this, put his own offices on the 110th floor...
DIETL: I'll take...
(CROSSTALK)
SLIWA: ... You guys set the example and then everyone else can follow. But you won't.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Wait one second, gentlemen. Janet, Janet, I have a question.
PARSHALL: Yes.
KEYES: Because as I listen to this back and forth, I think Curtis is making a point that I've heard other people make, the suggestion that if you rebuilt a skyscraper, something that was in the tradition of this great and unique American contribution to civilization, that our people would no longer want to work in them. And when I hear somebody say that, I don't know what Curtis thinks he's saying, but what I hear him saying is that Americans no longer have the guts to be Americans, that we don't have the courage to go on...
DIETL: That's right.
KEYES: ... with our lives in the way that we have conceived of those lives in the course of our ingenuity. Janet, do you think that's true?
PARSHALL: No, Alan, I don't. And I don't think that the spirit of America is a spirit of fear. In fact, if anything, I think we've seen the antithesis of this since 9-11.
We really and truly have risen above this. Yes, we have moments where we think when will the next attack come? And we've each of us had to do a lot of soul searching.
You asked Kevin and Bobby in the last segment about what this says about the American spirit. It says a multiplicity of things, not the least of which is this fuzzy-headed thinking that says there is no such thing as absolute evil. We got a stark wake-up call six months ago today...
DIETL: Alan...
PARSHALL: ... And there's absolutely evil in the world. Ipso facto, I believe there's also absolute good. The choice for us as American citizens is to decide whether or not we're going to follow evil or good.
DIETL: Alan, Alan...
PARSHALL: But I sure wouldn't let terrorists get the upper hand.
KEYES: Go ahead, go ahead.
DIETL: ... Alan, I'm one of the owners of the Woolworth building along with Steve Whitcroft (ph). We've sold out all our top floors in the Whitcroft building. We've leased there. The FCC has moved into the Woolworth building, the tallest building down there now.
I would rent property, Steve Whitcroft, we'd redevelop it tomorrow. We'd put a memorial bridge across. You can't let the terrorist change the design of our lives. You would redesign...
SLIWA: Bo.
KEYES: Wait a second.
DIETL: ... the Capitol. If they blew it up, you'd rebuild it. You can't stop our lives.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Go ahead.
SLIWA: This is the same city that chased the Navy out of homeport, chased the Coast Guard off of Governor's Island, refused to show patriotic pride in flying the American flag...
DIETL: I think you're wrong on this one, Curtis.
SLIWA: ... and announced the pledge of allegiance...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Curtis, Curtis, Curtis...
SLIWA: ... And not one corporation has pledged to return to a brand new World Trade Center...
KEYES: Curtis, Curtis, Curtis...
SLIWA: ... Doesn't that say something?
KEYES: ... Curtis, Curtis, let me ask you a question because you're right, I think, in terms of the change that has occurred not only in New York, but I think all over the country. But one of thing that is intrigues me about the future, there was a time when this nation's security and its courage and things of that kind would be shown by our military folks, by our Navy, by our military strength.
I think if you, for instance, were to rebuild at the World Trade Center site in the spirit of the skyscrapers and so forth, the people who worked in that building would in fact be demonstrating the spirit and courage of the American people...
DIETL: Alan...
KEYES: ... every day when they went to work. Don't you think we would...
DIETL: ... Alan...
KEYES: ... Don't you think we would find people who would have that kind of courage, Alan?
DIETL: Alan, also let the federal government give them subsidies. People who couldn't move into a $70-square-foot building, let's get some subsidy from the federal government. Fill that building up with good Americans and show we're not going to turn (UNINTELLIGIBLE) these terrorists.
KEYES: See, I must confess, I think that Curtis is wrong. And I think it would be proper for the president and others to throw down the gauntlet to America's great corporations, including the one that were in the World Trade Center because the challenge is not just a challenge to individuals, it is a challenge to the whole nation, to demonstrate that we have a spirit that cannot be defeated.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: The question is, how do you demonstrate that spirit if not in the courage of the businesses and individuals to rebuild?
DIETL: To rebuild, rebuild strong, and put a monument across, a bridge across, with all them poor people that gave their lives. And that's how you beat the terrorists. You don't crawl into a corner.
(CROSSTALK)
SLIWA: I guarantee you'd have 110 stories of cold stone.
DIETL: Bologna. I would take it tomorrow.
SLIWA: For all the paperwork of corporations. You would never have offices...
KEYES: Janet, you're shaking your head, Janet. Why?
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Just a second, Curtis. Janet, why are you shaking your head?
PARSHALL: Well, I'm shaking my head because of what Curtis was saying. We're a wounded country...
DIETL: We're strong.
PARSHALL: ... but we have been changed. We've been changed. We've been changed dramatically. And, Curtis, with all due respect, you would not only have empty space, you'd have people standing in line to rent those spaces. I'll tell you why.
DIETL: Thank you.
PARSHALL: They'd be doing that...
DIETL: Can I tell you how New York hasn't changed?
PARSHALL: ... They would be doing that because they would want to send a message. You remember the president of the United States said that we're going to continue with life as much...
DIETL: Let's roll.
PARSHALL: ... as we possibly can. And just as people got the boldest, they reached down, dug into a dark place in their heart. They said...
DIETL: Can I tell you...
PARSHALL: ... “I might be afraid, but I'm going to get on a plane.” We're going to see people who would rent this space. And they'd be standing in line.
KEYES: Excuse me, excuse me, we have come to the time. I want to thank you all because I know that this is an issue that intensely engages heart and feeling. But I think it also need intentionally to engage our thought and our sense of responsibility for our future. Thank you all for joining me today.
That sense of responsibility for our future, for what we say about ourselves in what we do, is I think going to be the critical component of our wisdom as we look at what we do with the World Trade Center. I am going to talk about my own sense of that at the end of the program, what would usually be my final outrage.
But today, obviously, we're comet rating what is the outrage of the new century. And so I will be addressing that thought when the program ends.
Later, we'll want to know what's on your mind. What's the best future for ground zero? You can call us at 1-866-KEYES-USA.
Next up, however, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he'll be talking with us about one of the world's great hot spots and tragic spots where we also, in the spirit of this time, have to decide how we can play, as Americans, a constructive role.
You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: You're looking at the twin towers of light, commemorating the greatest outrage of the 20th century thus far. I will be talking a little bit, at the end of the program about what would usually be “My Outrage if the Day,” about what I think needs to be done with the World Trade Center site and especially about its significance.
Right now, however, we turn to another area where tragic violence is consuming human life. Mideast violence has been intensifying and coming up in this segment, we'll be talking to Benjamin Netanyahu, who I spoke with a little earlier today. But here's what the last three days have looked like in the Middle East. Saturday, Israel attacked and destroyed Yasser Arafat's Gaza headquarters. The PLO chief was, however, unharmed. One day later, two Palestinians attacked a promenade in Netanya, north of Tel Aviv, throwing a grenade into a hotel lobby and opening fire with automatic weapons, killing three and injuring 24.
Later, a Palestinian blew himself up at a popular cafe in Jerusalem, killing 11 and injuring 50. Tonight, 20 Israeli tanks entered northern Gaza and exchanged fire with Palestinian gunmen, killing at least 11 and injuring more than 50.
In addition, late this evening, Israeli naval units opened fire on a Palestinian navy headquarters in the central Gaza Strip. The numbers are tragically significant. According to the Associated Press, in more than 17 months of Mideast violence, more than 1,100 people have been killed on the Palestinian side and 340 people on the Israeli side.
Earlier tonight, I had the chance to speak with former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and ask him what he sees as the path that might eventually bring the violence we are now witnessing to a close.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, FMR. ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: Well, I think the only way that you end the violence is to remove the source of violence. And the source of the violence is the endemic incitement for hatred and for terrorism by Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority. In fact, Yasser Arafat, while speaking peace in English to the West, nightly speaks in Arabic to his people, calling for a million shahidim (ph), a million suicide bombers in Jerusalem, and many Palestinians comply, happily.
So, effectively, what we have is a regime that clings to the idea of the fantasy of destroying Israel, using what Arafat calls the armed struggle, what we would call, all of us, would call terrorism, to implement that goal of Israel's destruction. And as long as he's here, there will not be peace, there will not be an end to violence.
KEYES: One of the questions, though, that folks are always asking, and we get that question when we talk about the need to replace Saddam Hussein. Obviously, in order to move the situation forward, you have to deal with folks on the Palestinian side. If Yasser Arafat is not there, who does Israel deal with?
NETANYAHU: Well, first of all, I disagree with the premise. I don't think you have to deal with anyone. First, you win. When you had to defeat Nazi Germany, first you won. You defeated Hitler. You didn't say, oh well, let me first place a government in his place and so on. When you defeated imperial Japan, you defeated imperial Japan. When you defeated the Taliban, you first defeated the Taliban. Of course, a government has arisen in Afghanistan. You and I perhaps would wish it well, that it would be there in three to five years. But none of us would bet on it, Alan. But I would bet on this. I would bet that whoever governs Afghanistan, they will not allow a single terrorist act to be launched against the United States for many, many years because they, too, would be replaced. And that's the principle that we have to see with Arafat.
KEYES: But we have —
NETANYAHU: I think that whoever replaces him would know that if they launch terrorism against us, they won't be in power either.
KEYES: Well, we have had, of course, folks on the show who argue that in point of fact, it is the Israeli occupation that leads to the violence, that if Yasser Arafat were gone, the violence would still continue because of that occupation. And in that sense Israel has a tiger by the tail that won't be quiet, that won't be calmed until the occupation ends. What do you say to those arguments?
NETANYAHU: Well, first of all, let's be precise about words. Israel no longer occupies Palestinians. And not 99 percent, 100 percent of the Palestinians are governed by Arafat, for better or worse. Worse in many cases. But that's neither here nor there. Arafat governs the Palestinians, not Israel. The lands that are in dispute between us are lands empty, devoid of any Palestinian population, but replete with historical significance. They are a part of our historic homeland for thousands of years and equally they're important for protecting us, they're security buffers for an Israel that would otherwise be 10 miles wide in the face of much larger Arab armies.
So, I think that this is a legitimate dispute over disputed territories, but not occupied territories. Now...
KEYES: And —
NETANYAHU: ... the question — Yes.
KEYES: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
NETANYAHU: But that was a termanological exactitude, if I can call it that. Well, let me then, answer your question. It is not Israel's presence in the territories that has produced endless bouts of conflict, because Yasser Arafat and other Arabs attacked Israel, well before we were in those territories. This — our being there is a result, not a cause, of the Arab conflict against us. The real source of the conflict is the repeated and unchanging Palestinian and to my sorrow also a wider Arab desire to see Israel eliminated, regardless of any border.
KEYES: But if that —
NETANYAHU: You can see that that is true, Alan, because —
KEYES: If that's true — if that's true —
NETANYAHU: Barak offered Arafat all of the territories, and Arafat said no, it's Tel Aviv I want. All of Israel.
KEYES: If that's true, Mr. Prime Minister, how can folks look at something like the Saudi proposal, and I'll be frank with you about my own sense. I look at this proposal and I say it is a day late and many dollars short, or 25 years late and much well short.
But how can one take the proposal that has supposedly been put forward in some way by the Saudis as a serious basis for some kind of discussion? Wouldn't it require, in fact, that one return to an untenable security situation for Israel?
NETANYAHU: Yes. In fact, when we were in the pre-1967 borders, which made Israel 10 miles wide, these weren't the borders of peace. They were the border from which we were attacked time and again because Israel was such a tempting target. You just had to slice through it and that was the end of Israel.
So when the Saudis come back and say, oh, well, why don't you just go back there, compress yourself into these indefensible — this indefensible ribbon on the sea, give Arafat the high ground above your cities and the walls of Jerusalem, and close your eyes, you have a Saudi guarantee that everything would be all right, would you bet the life of the United States on that? Of course not.
But equally the Saudi, I think, motives are suspect because for years they have been bank rolling everyone, including the worst people, that is the Wahhabist Islamic militants and al Qaeda and Taliban. And now I think they know that they have to get on the good side of the U.S., so they're offering this plan, which is tantamount to the destruction of Israel. I don't think anybody's going to buy it.
KEYES: Well, with the vice president, obviously, moving about the region, I think originally the intention was to focus on Iraq. Obviously, a lot of questions are bound to come up given the intensification of the situation between the Palestinians and Israel. What would you say is, at this time, the appropriate and proper participation and role of the U.S. administration?
NETANYAHU: I think the U.S. has got it right. I think the Bush administration is right on target. They understand that the way to fight terror is to either deter or dismantle the terrorist regimes. They've done it with the Taliban regime. They're going after another regime that had practiced terrorism in the past and is now shooting for the ultimate terror, nuclear terror. And that is the regime of Saddam Hussein. I think they're well on their way to dismantle that regime.
Now I think they understand that eventually, we'll have to dismantle Arafat's regime if the Palestinians and we have a chance at all, as I believe we do, to develop a peaceful future for us, a future of co-existence.
KEYES: Does that mean that you actually think that the administration can, as I understand what you have said, you're basically saying something that I think unfortunately has been evident for a while, that Yasser Arafat is not the interlocker who can lead to peace, and his regime would have to be dismantled and replaced. Do you think that Colin Powell, the secretary of state, and others understand and accept that, because a lot of their public statements right now don't seem to indicate that understanding?
NETANYAHU: It may not be the view of the state department. It also is not the view of the United States, the official view. But if the United States wishes to be consistent, as I believe it does, with its view that there is no room for terror, that nothing justifies terror, and that there is no room for terrorist regimes, then of course it cannot — it cannot question Israel's decision if Israel reaches that decision, to dismantle terrorist regime 50 yards from our doorstep in the way that the United States is dismantling terrorist regimes that have attacked the United States thousands of miles from your doorstep.
So I think that at end of the day, the American people and this administration is a moral administration, a moral people. And they do not want to see a double standard. They understand that the only way to fight terrorism is to fight it uniformly, and that terrorism, whether Palestinian or Taliban or Iraqi or Iranian, is always evil and those regimes who practice it have to give way. I think that...
KEYES: Well...
NETANYAHU: ... many Palestinians understand it, but they don't dare speak because they would die, they would be killed by Arafat.
KEYES: One last question. The government of Prime Minister Sharon has taken a very tough approach that aims at trying to quell this violence and yet it does not seem that that is rallying political support. What do you think explains that fact? And do you think that the Sharon government is going to be able to survive long enough to see this through to the end?
NETANYAHU: I don't know if it will survive or not. I do know that the majority of the people seek not a softer action, but a tougher action. I've been advocating for a long time, since this intifada began, that the right way to do it — the right question really is not the application of more force or less force. It is the application of the force in the right place. And the right place, I think, is again — again, against the regime, Yasser Arafat's regime, rather than just an allied and occasionally broad front. I think it is much more effective, ultimately much more — will save a lot many more lives, Israeli and Palestinian lives, to come to a military decision instead of a war of attrition.
KEYES: In other words, you think that the present government should just be explicit or the Israeli government should be explicit, make it clear that the aim is to end Yasser Arafat's role and his regime and move forward with that, with the clear understanding that that is the foundation for trying to bring this violence to an end?
NETANYAHU: Yes. I would let Arafat leave. If he wants to leave, let him leave, but he won't come back. I will take all the action to dismantle and disarm fighting formations and collect the illegal weapons that are there. I would not stay in the territories. I would get out in the populated area, the Palestinian areas, but I would erect the necessary, physical barriers for the penetration of residual terrorists. I think this can stop the terrorism.
Terrorism can be stopped militarily. The Turks have stopped it militarily against Syria. You have stopped it from Libya. We stopped the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) terrorism from Egypt in the '50s and the Palestinian terrorism from Jordan in the 70s well before there was a peace process. The first thing, in order to have a peace process, is to stop the terrorism. We have it confused. Most people are now being told that the way to stop the terrorism is to have concessions, political concessions to the terrorists. That will only embolden them. In fact, it's the other way around. Remove the terrorist regimes, then peaceful Palestinians and Israel can begin a peace process that will produce a better future for both of us.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEYES: That was Benjamin Netanyahu. He joined us from Jerusalem earlier this evening.
We'll be back to talking about what's the best future for ground zero. I want to hear what's on your mind. You can call me with your opinion at 1-866-KEYES-USA; 1-866-KEYES-USA. I'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now to find out what's on your mind. I want to know what you think the fate of the World Trade Center site should be. Quickly, let's go to Michael from Ohio. Michael, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
CALLER: Good evening, Alan. I certainly believe that we as a country, if we're to take that 16 acres, which is really a small piece of land, and turn it into green space as a living memorial to those who lost their lives and also as a tribute to life and to remember the native American people who first owned that land, to set an example for the world...
KEYES: Michael, I'm sorry, we don't have a lot of time. I have one thought for you, OK. It is for the living — the living to remember the dead. And you said a living memorial. But the only living memorials I know of really are people. Let's go to Nairi from Alabama. Nairi, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
CALLER: Yes. I believe that it should be left up to the people that lost their loved ones and friends and family members. Everybody can have a different idea of what needs to go there, but I think that they would be the ones that would best come up with a suitable idea, since they are the ones that lost loved ones.
KEYES: Nairi? They're not the only ones that lost something that day, though, the whole country lost something.
CALLER: I understand that.
KEYES: John from New York. John, quickly.
CALLER: Good evening, Alan. I'm a chief in the Air Force and stationed out here at Nellis (ph), and as a native New Yorker, I think what we ought to do is build a better, more beautiful building than ever that's been there before and invite all the countries back in that were with us and maybe have a little park or something with a memorial plaque to all the people that gave their lives.
KEYES: Thank you. Appreciate your thoughts. I'm going to share with all of you my thoughts about this in the “Final Thought” that I give this evening. It's usually my “Outrage Of The Day.” But obviously we're addressing a far greater outrage this evening.
But I want to talk a little bit, when we get bang back from the break, about how I think we can best commemorate and remember the lives that we lost, but also the life that we hope for in America.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: It is for the living to remember the living. We think of commemorating those whose lives were lost that day at the World Trade Center. But I think what we want to commemorate is their lives, not the terrible and evil manner of their death. To commemorate their lives, we must live with respect for those lives and I think that means that we rebuild.
In our country today, we have had many heroes, people who have lost their lives, their remains are in the graveyards, but their memorials are in the homes and schools and businesses and the hope in the institutions that we have built as a people. That is the best memorial to America's heroism, America's future, not to turn the country into a commemorative graveyard, but to turn it rather toward a future in which we remember the best that is in us, by fulfilling the dream that all those people had.
I think that's what we need to rebuild in New York in the best way we know how. Thank you for being with me this evening. Lester Holt is up next.