MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesMarch 13, 2002
ALAN KEYES, MSNBC HOST: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Tonight, we are going to be talking once again about the region that continues to attract the interest of the world because of the inflamed situation, the intensifying violence, the toll of life that is being lost in the Middle East.
Last night, yesterday, the U.N. passed a resolution with respect to the Middle East. I, obviously, have an interest in that because I used to be part of that representation of the United States at the United Nations. The aim of the resolution: to try to position the U.N. in a way that would call on both parties to do something that would bring the region closer to some kind of resolution.
Tonight, we're going to be devoting the whole program to this question. I'll start out at the top of the hour talking to the spokesman for Yasser Arafat, Marwan Kanafani. He'll be coming to us from Gaza. We've already taped that interview.
Also, I'll be talking in the third segment of the program to Ehud Barak, former prime minister of Israel. You need to know that both of these were pre-taped interviews because of the time difference and all of that. And Mr. Kanafani was able to hear what Ehud Barak had to say.
All of this arising because of the U.N. resolution. But, first, I want to make sure you understand, this is an exciting show. We have got interviews that I think really help to understand the positions that these parties are in. Take a look at this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
We will be ready to negotiate the regime, but based on only one pre-condition , zero tolerance for terror.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARWAN KANAFANI, SPOKESMAN FOR YASSER ARAFAT: The state of Palestine is a god-given right to the Palestinians. It is not a gift or donation from Mr. Barak or you or any other prime minister of Israel.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Now, obviously these folks were not either pulling punches or holding back in terms of their sense of what's required to bring some kind of resolution to this critical region. But also, if you listen carefully to these interviews, you'll understand why there's going to be some tough flogging ahead because I think both sides represent viewpoints that, if you look at them and really try to draw out their real position, which I try to do in these interviews, I don't think that they are, in fact, very close. They are talking past each other still. And we'll see that this evening.
Anyway, the U.N. addressed some of the parameters that might be required to end this situation. But it's a question whether we're dealing here with something that actually had substance or is just a gesture. In any case, the U.S. role was significant. We sponsored the resolution. It was the first time we went on record with the first point of the resolution, which is that the resolution has to include in the region a recognition of a Palestinian state. Also, it calls for an end to violence by both sides and the return by both sides to the negotiating table.
At one level, these may seem like obvious points. At another level, obviously, the fact that you got the whole Security Council, 14 out of 15 members of the Security Council members voted for it. Syria abstained. They supported this as a way I think of sending a signal to both sides that it's time to bring the death toll and the violence to an end.
Of course, there was more violence in the region, punctuating the reality that it's going to be harder than just some words on paper or U.N. resolution to bring this situation off the boil that has been claiming so many lives. The U.N. resolution sponsored and drafted by the United States and representing I think an effort on our part to smooth the way a little bit for Mr. Cheney and try to get a better hearing in the Middle East, whether that worked or not, will be part of what we'll be talking about in the course of the evening. We will see.
As the violence continued in that region, as the death toll mounted, it's not clear that this U.N. resolution is going to play much of a role beyond perhaps representing a clear signal that the United States intends to return to a posture of engagement. But it is still not clear engagement on what basis.
In any case, I want you now to take a look at the interview that we were able to do today with Mr. Kanafani. Obviously, I talked to former Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu earlier in the week. We are going to talk to Ehud Barak. And we are going to try in the course of this program to get a better understanding at least of what these two sides represent.
Despite all of these things, there was still another day of violence in the region. Tonight, there are reports that dozens of Israeli tanks may be pulling out of Ramallah in the West Bank after a two-day operation and sporadic gunfights with Palestinians.
This has been Israel's largest offensive in the West Bank and Gaza since it captured the areas in the 1967 Mid-East war. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, he fights a furious political battle, overruling even his own defense minister, who wanted to pull the troops out. Sharon took heat today as well from President Bush, who strongly criticized Israel.
As mentioned earlier this evening, I talked with Arafat's spokesman and also with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.
First up is Mr. Kanafani. Listen carefully to what he has to say. I think he sheds a lot of light this evening on both the heart of the Palestinian position and some of the difficulties that it may, in fact, pose to peace. First up, I asked him what he believes is going to be required to end the violence that has been claiming so many lives in recent weeks.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KANAFANI: Let me say first that we are pleased with the resolution of the United Nations Security Council. We believe that such support by the international community to the Palestinian people at this critical time is extremely appreciated.
The other question is, yes. The answer is yes. Of course, we could stop the violence. We could get to an area of quietness if there is a decision to stop the violence and stop the shooting from both sides.
If Mr. Sharon wants Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian people to stop shooting, defending themselves against the destruction and maiming that is taking place against them, then this is not a cease-fire or cooling down situation. This is what we call surrendering.
This is not on the mind of the Palestinian people. We're not going to do that ever. If Mr. Sharon reached the point that there is another course, a course of peace, negotiations, and cooperation, then we could stop the violence. If he sends more troops, more tanks, more airplanes, I don't think anybody could stop the violence in this area.
KEYES: Well, does that mean that if it were possible to sit both sides down and agree that, at a certain hour on a certain date, both parties will be committed to downing arms for a period and ending the violence? You think that would be agreeable to the Palestinian side?
KANAFANI: Well, I think this is the part — this is an item of a more comprehensive deal in that respect. Let me say first that the Israelis should stop killing our people, should stop the Army movement against our cities and villages. Let me say that the Israelis should withdraw and stop their aggression and should talk about the issues that caused this problem.
You know, the issue was not — that started the whole problem was not the security or the violence. The issue was the political problem we're having with Israel. The political problem needed a solution that has been negotiated and renegotiated, ratified, witnessed, signed. But the Israelis did not respect it.
KEYES: Well, but Mr. Kanafani...
KANAFANI: Mr. Barak talk about...
KEYES: ... the great problem is, though, I think...
KANAFANI: ... Mr. Barak talked about missed opportunities. I can't hear you.
KEYES: Well, I'm saying that the great problem is on the Israeli side, it seems as if this violence was, in fact, just an instrument aimed at trying to up the ante so that Mr. Arafat and the Palestinian side could get something more politically. Are you saying that that's acceptable, that there will be negotiations, but that anytime that it's to the advantage of the Palestinian side, violence can be renewed?
I'm saying that the Israelis escalated the aggression against our people that has been taking place since 1995. What happened after the collapse of the talks in Camp David, the Israeli Army started attacking the Palestinian cities and the areas. It wasn't the other way around.
That was a part of the policy of Mr. Barak at that time, that they're going to force a political solution on the Palestinians by breaking the backbone of the Palestinian people. Mr. Barak talked about missed opportunities in Camp David. But Mr. Barak, and before him Mr. Netanyahu, and before him Mr. Peres, missed the point. The point is not 10 percent more or less of the land. The point is not 10 settlements less or 15 settlements less. The point is the Palestinian people want to be free and finished with the Israeli occupation.
KEYES: The problem I see is that your description of the problem...
KANAFANI: The problem was...
KEYES: ... let me finish.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Your description of those events certainly does not tally with the Israeli perception, which was, in fact, that a certain power of governance was turned over to Mr. Arafat and that he refused to discipline the forces of violence on his side and they continued to attack Israeli civilians. Now, unless you can get assurances from both sides that that kind of violence will not be renewed for political purposes, how can we expect negotiations to go forward?
KANAFANI: I agree with you. I think that if the Israelis stop their aggression and they promise seriously that they're going to negotiate in good faith and give the Palestinians back the land that has been occupied in 1967, stop the occupation against the Palestinian people, then there should be a common ground that we both could talk about cooperation in the future and coexistence.
But as long as the Israelis are occupying our land, our cities, our villages, killing our people, destroying our homes, maiming our children, nobody's going to listen to their logic that says give the Israelis a chance, let them kill more Palestinians, and then let them by the end give you 82 percent of the land like Mr. Sharon promised.
KEYES: Mr. Kanafani...
KANAFANI: This will never be accepted by the Palestinian people, not now, not ever.
KEYES: ... Mr. Kanafani, if we put in front of the Israelis a proposal like the Saudi proposal to return to the pre-1967 borders, I think most Israelis agree that's a tremendous security risk because here is only a 10-mile waist in that original Israel, that in light of the attacks against Israel and so forth proved insufficient for Israel's security. If there is that perception that to return to those borders is a danger to security, isn't greater reassurance required that that situation would not be exploited by a Palestinian side that aims to use violence to achieve its political purposes?
KANAFANI: Alan, this argument has been exhausted by the Israelis. And nobody, nobody on Earth, now believes such a logic. The fact is that the peace prevails when the people on both sides of the fence are content and happy.
KEYES: The problem I see, though, is that the U.N. resolution that was just passed recognizes that a Palestinian state has to be part of a solution. What you are describing seems not to recognize that a Jewish Israel must also be part of the solution and that that exercise of a right of return would mean that you're asking that the Israelis should give up the Jewish character of Israel. Isn't that the implication of what you're saying?
KANAFANI: Not exactly. I'm saying that once there will be a Palestinian state, there will be a peace between us and Israel. Israel will be recognized, not only by the Palestinians but by the Arabs as the crowned prince of Saudi Arabia introduces in his initiative.
So, when we have that problem, when we have that solution, then why should we deny anybody to go and live in his home? Even the Iraqi and Moroccan Jews who wants to go live back in Morocco and Iraq should have the right to go and do that.
KEYES: Don't we have to remove these excuses for violence if we are to see peace that will last?
KANAFANI: Alan, the state of Palestine might be a bad idea for you. You know, after I heard what you have said to Mr. Barak and the interview with Mr. Barak, you made Mr. Barak look like an angel. You have been on his left such an extremist with your ideas about the Palestinians and the Israelis.
Let me tell you here something. The state of Palestine is a god-given right to the Palestinians. It is not a gift or a donation from Mr. Barak or you or any other prime minister of Israel. This is our god-given right to live free and to get rid of the Israeli occupation.
How are we going to do that? We prefer to do that through negotiations. And we have done that for eight years. None of the agreements that have been reached with Mr. Barak, with Mr. Netanyahu, with Mr. Peres, was implemented by the Israelis, none of them after years and years of negotiations.
Then the Palestinian people showed their dismay after the Israeli Army started another aggression to break the backbone of the Palestinian people and force an agreement on them. Mr. Barak thought that he was going to hit Mr. Arafat with 90 percent of the land, the president is going to accept. The fact is, we want 100 percent. Read my lips, 100 percent of the land, 100 percent of the land settlement free because this is our right, and because it's about time that the Palestinian people live free like any other nation throughout this world.
KEYES: Mr. Kanafani, I appreciate your coming with us tonight. Sadly, I have to tell you myself that as I listen to you, it seems to me that underneath the rhetoric that implies that negotiation could lead somewhere, there is a sense that you're going to insist on several points that imply an end to the pre-1967 Israel.
And I don't see how you can expect the Israelis to accept that result. I believe there has to be a Palestinian state. But there also has to be a Jewish state.
KANAFANI: I don't want to be pessimistic about it. I think we should have a chance to sit down and talk to the Israelis on equal footing without tanks around our cities, without airplanes over our heads. When we do that and there is seriousness on the part of the Israelis, I'm sure that we're going to get to a deal.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEYES: That was Marwan Kanafani, Yasser Arafat's spokesman.
Next, we'll get to the heart of the matter with my special guests. In our next half hour, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak will be my guest. We're going to ask the questions about whether or not the Security Council resolution makes a difference and whether it's an empty gesture, whether Sharon and Arafat are the right leaders to end the violence, and whether it's going to soften or harden the position that we've seen on both sides. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. A reminder that the chat room is humming tonight. Anna May 1865 says: “No president can solve the Middle East mess, not one.” You can join in right now at chat.msnbc.com.
And coming up in our next half hour, don't forget my discussion with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Now, joining us to get to the heart of the matter, my special guest Clovis Maksoud, former Arab League ambassador to the United States and United Nations. Also with us, Hussein Ibish, director of communications for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, and Allan Gerson, the former counsel to the U.S. delegation to the United Nations during the Reagan administration. Alan is also the author of “The Price of Terror: Lessons of Lockerbie for a World on the Brink.” Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE
HUSSEIN IBISH, AMERICAN-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE: Thanks, Alan. Great to be back.
KEYES: Now, we had an opportunity to both look at the terms of the most recent U.N. Security Council resolution, hear from Mr. Kanafani. Alan Gerson, looking at the U.N. action, listening to the exchange that I had with Mr. Kanafani, what is your sense of whether or not this U.N. resolution can really make a difference? Are we seeing the possibility that a door could open to an end to this violence?
ALLAN GERSON: Well, Alan, the exchange is clearly not very encouraging. The elements for a deal are really not there. I mean, the elements for any successful deal encompass a serious commitment to really look at what the other side wants.
The Palestinian position does not offer the Israelis what they want. The Israelis do not offer the Palestinians what they want. So, in that vacuum, you have the U.S.-sponsored U.N. Security Council resolution, which signals a greater commitment on the part of the United States to try to break the logjam. And I think that's a positive development.
KEYES: I think it could be. But the question is whether or not the ingredients exist now for that to translate into some constructive result. Clovis Maksoud, you have a lot of experience in the U.N. You obviously have a lot of knowledge and understanding of the region, of the position of the Palestinians.
I have to confess as I listened to Mr. Kanafani it seemed to me that there's a pretty wide gulf between what he is expecting and what seems to me possible, given a lot of the concerns about security, a lot of the suspicion and distrust of Mr. Arafat that exists on the Israeli side. What are the real possibilities here that one could make forward progress?
CLOVIS MAKSOUD, FORMER ARAB LEAGUE AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: First of all, it is paradoxical that Israel is worried about its own security. Why the Palestinians have been suffering continues in sustained insecurity, especially in the last year-and-a-half, but also under occupation for the last 35 years. This is the longest period of occupation by any country over another territory.
The second observation in this respect is that while the resolution yesterday is a step forward, it is definitely inadequate and insufficient, albeit that there is in the operative part of the resolution a welcoming of the initiative that has taken place by Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. I think there is because there is a clarification of the outcome that any negotiation resumed should try to realize, namely, two independent states, sovereign independent states all over the occupied Palestinian territories since 1967.
It is worth noticing that Israel since 1967 has never acknowledged that it is an occupying power in the occupied territories. It has therefore proliferated settlements, distorted the demographic character of the Palestinian patrimony, and therefore preempted any kind of a viable, coherent, and contiguous state of Palestine. It is therefore necessary to realize that this Saudi initiative has the ingredients of becoming an Arab consensus. It says in one statement full withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories for full diplomatic and peaceful relations.
KEYES: But, Mr. Ambassador, one of the problems that I sensed as I was listening to Mr. Kanafani that I have unfortunately seen as other leaders in the Arab world have commented on this proposal, they allude to the right of return. That is Palestinians returning to what, as I put it to Mr. Kanafani, are the borders of pre-1967 Israel.
That kind of an influx could very well mean that Jewish folks would no longer be a majority within the boundaries of pre-1967 Israel, and the Jewish character of Israel would be lost. Are we saying that Arabs will recognize Israel so long as it gives up its Jewish character? I think that's obviously not going to be acceptable.
MAKSOUD: Well, first of all, I mean, the right of return is a basic human right for everybody. The people who have been ethnically cleansed from their own country had established the right of return. The most obvious example is for the Albanians, who have been restored to their Kosovo place and patrimony.
Now, it doesn't mean that all the Palestinian refugees would go back. This becomes a negotiated problem. I think what is the right of return for the Palestinians who have been expelled forcibly from their homeland and from their homes have a right of return to their homes.
Now, it can be adjusted. It can be managed. It is unfair to say that every Jew throughout the world, upon application and landing on Israel, becomes an Israeli citizen...
KEYES: Mr. Ambassador...
MAKSOUD: ... and every non-Jew does not have the right — does not have the right to become an Israeli citizen.
KEYES: ... Mr. Ambassador, I think the abstract points may or may not have validity. I happen to believe that if we introduce that kind of reasoning into the situation, a settlement is going to be impossible.
Hussein Ibish, in point of fact, Hussein Ibish, the question that I think confronts us all here, it seems as if we have had negotiated settlements. We have had, though some people want to deny it, a period when Israel was trying to let Yasser Arafat run things in the West Bank and Gaza.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Let me finish, please. They found that they were under attack. They responded to those attacks. This is their view.
Now things are being pushed in a direction where the proposal that was supposedly going to be the basis of future discussion includes at its heart now this right of return, which would become a platform for pushing against the remainder of Israel. Doesn't that suggest that the Israelis who fear that this is all about simply moving by stages to the destruction of Israel are, in fact, correct?
IBISH: Of course not, because none of that is true. That is a rationalization for continuing the occupation. It's just a set of excuses.
Look, first of all, what happened in the 1990s was that there was supposed to be a phased stage of withdrawals by Israel to end the occupation. And, in fact, the Israelis did not do that. Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority is a very small organization with limited authority in very small amounts of areas.
And really the Israelis had never been willing to discuss seriously ending their occupation. And that became very clear in Camp David. And this resulted in Palestinian protests, which the Mitchell commission agrees were spontaneous. And this is certainly not something cooked up by the Palestinian Authority. And every investigation into it has found that.
And the Israeli response was to shoot Palestinian demonstrators. And 60 or 70 Palestinian demonstrators were killed in the opening of the Intifada before any Israeli got hurt.
So, this is all a fantasy. This is a fairy tale. What lies behind it is the fact that Israel does not want to end its occupation. It wants to maintain tens of thousands of troops and hundreds of thousands of settlers outside its own country, in somebody else's country, for the purpose of taking land away from them and keeping them captive.
KEYES: Allan...
IBISH: ... No, let me...
KEYES: No, Allan...
IBISH: ... let me address this question. No, come on.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: One question. We have a limited time, Hussein. And I'm going to split that time up in a way that allows everybody to have a say...
IBISH: All right.
KEYES: ... because it seems to me that what was just presented, and I want to present this to Allan Gerson, what was just presented in terms of that history suggests that all the grievances lie on one side, that there are no dead Israeli...
IBISH: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
KEYES: ... let me finish, Hussein — that there are no dead Israelis, that somehow or another the West Bank came into Israeli hands because they went on a war of conquest...
IBISH: They did.
KEYES: ... instead of as a result of an Arab-initiated war in 1967.
IBISH: No. The Israelis started the war in 1967, and you know it.
KEYES: Allan Gerson, Allan, Allan Gerson...
IBISH: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
KEYES: ... Allan Gerson, excuse me, Allan Gerson, the question that I think is in front of us, I'm listening to these two sides. And you have U.N. resolutions saying return to the negotiating table. What would be the basis for negotiations? These are folks who can't even look at that history and be honest about what's in it.
GERSON: Well, Clovis and I go back for a very long time. We used to debate each other when I was at the United Nations in the early '80s and he was there. And the sad part of this is the arguments seem to be the same.
The use of the word aggression, if I may say so, is silly. And I use that word advisedly. It's silly because it's completely unproductive. It almost gets us into a stage of frivolousness. We're calling each other names. We know very clearly why the United States has vetoed any resolution in the past. And at this latest go-around, it refused to enjoing in any resolution which actually used the word illegality about occupation because it knows that the circumstances that prompted the Israeli entry in 1967 were circumstances in which a war came about not because of Israel's choosing. So, at the very least...
IBISH: They attacked...
GERSON: ... if I may just finish...
IBISH: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
KEYES: Let him finish, please. Let him finish.
IBISH: ... at the very least, at the very least, there are questions. So, to start talking in terms...
KEYES: Allan, Allan, we are running up against the clock. I wanted to make sure that you had a chance...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... no, we are up against the clock.
GERSON: The point I want to make is that...
KEYES: We're running up against the clock. I need to thank all of you for coming. We obviously just scratched the surface, though I think in doing so we do illustrate right here on this program that that U.N. resolution I think is taking a look at the situation, talking about it to a degree and platitude. The hard truth is that before you can make the kind of progress that's needed, we're going to have to get some understanding of the real situation, get people to listen to one another in a way that takes account of what's really being said and what real objectives may be there and that honestly deal with that.
Next, we're going to get the Israeli take on the U.N. developments from former Prime Minister Ehud Barak. And later, I'll take a look at what's on your mind on any topic. You can call us at 1-866-KEYES-USA, 1-866-KEYES-USA.
You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Earlier today, as I told you, I spoke to Ehud Barak, the former prime minister of Israel. I asked him how Israel can contemplate continuing negotiations with Yasser Arafat when it seems as if Arafat has repeatedly demonstrated, or at least they say he has repeatedly demonstrated, his willingness to use violence as a political tactic. When he reaches an impasse in negotiations, he just turns up the heat once again to see what he can get.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
EHUD BARAK, FORMER ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: Alan, it is not up to us to choose their leaders. I should admit that Arafat is not exactly elected leader the way that Governor Pataki here is elected or Mayor Bloomberg. No one else had the real chance to challenge his leadership. But basically he's their leader. It's up to them.
I personally am not very hopeful about his transformation to a peacemaking leader. But as long as he's there, we will be ready to negotiate with him. But based on only one precondition, zero tolerance for terror and we will never yield to terror and we will never be ready to reward terror.
KEYES: The other side of the resolution, obviously it was aimed at offering the prospects of a Palestinian state, which as you have pointed out, is something that has already been entertained by Israel in the past. We've seen Saudi proposals come forward in the course of the last several weeks that some folks say should be taken seriously, but they are based on the idea of returning to the pre-1967 borders. Do you think that that Saudi proposal is a viable basis for discussion?
BARAK: I believe that the moment that the Saudis and the whole Arab world will tell loud and clear in simple Arabic that they are ready to recognize Israel, not just as a matter of fact, but as a Jewish state in the Middle East, I believe that this is a major step forward.
But when we look at the details of this proposal, I found that we should follow not the borders of '67. We cannot go back to '67 border, but we have to agree to 242, which means a recognized and secure borders for Israel. Beyond this, I would insist on the fact that the Saudis will say loud and clear, we are ready to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, not just as a...
KEYES: But, Mr. Prime Minister, one of the things that has come out, though, is that these same Arab leaders will then turn around and say that the solution would have to include what they call the allusion to the right of return. Doesn't that reference to the right of return imply an end to the Jewish character of Israel?
BARAK: No Israeli prime minister and no Israeli leadership will ever accept right of return of Palestinians into Israel, period. At Camp David and in many other occasion, we said loud and clear, we are ready to see right of return of Palestinians into the Palestinian state, the same way that we absorbed, under the same — in the same years that the refugee problem was created. We absolved into Israel 600,000 Jews from all around the Arab world. They couldn't live there anymore after the war of independence and we never called them refugees. We called them brothers. We hugged them. We absorbed them. And now they, together with their offsprings are a majority of the Jewish population in Israel.
KEYES: But aren't we then engaging a little bit in wishful thinking? As I listen to what you are saying and as I have watched what Arab leaders have said and so forth, it seems that on the one hand, we say that it's possible to have this talk and discussion, but the basis for the discussion, the return to the pre-1967 borders seems like a delusion. The Arab leaders talk about the right of return, which seems like a delusion.
Are we moving ahead on a realistic basis, if we're talking past each other on these key points?
BARAK: I don't know. We learned in the Middle East that it is not very clever to make prophecies, especially in regard to the future. So, I would suggest that we will never close the door over these opportunities to try to negotiate. It's better than to exchange violence.
But at the same time, I would say that we were ready already, not 20 years ago, but just 20 months ago. We sat down at Camp David. There was an offer on the table, on the table. What was in the world understanding of how it should be solved, very close to the Palestinians' position. They refused.
KEYES: But they did refuse.
BARAK: They should never be...
KEYES: But, Mr. Prime Minister, but it seems to me they did refuse. Violence was unleashed.
BARAK: Yes. OK...
KEYES: One second, please. They have moved forward now. The U.S. has made explicit its support for a Palestinian state. And if you take Yasser Arafat back to the negotiating table under these conditions, aren't you, in fact, rewarding the terrorism he has been practicing?
BARAK: No. The opposite. If we insist that the return to the negotiating table will be based exactly on the principles of Camp David, namely he will be — he will be forced to go back to the negotiating table, exactly to the same point when he left it and went and turned to terror, this will be the right signal for him and for other possible dictators.
KEYES: Mr. Prime Minister, this is what...
(CROSSTALK)
BARAK: Namely, you cannot gain anything by turning to violence.
KEYES: But Mr. Prime Minister, this is what I don't understand. We have been here time and time and time again with Mr. Arafat, and each time that it has seemed he was serious about getting away from violence, he has unleashed it when it was to his advantage tactically. How on earth can an Israeli government sit down and trust somebody with that pattern of behavior? I don't understand why this is realistic.
BARAK: You know, I would be much happier if I would find the same attitude that emerges from your question, a worldly kind of accepted and including in this country. But I should tell you that we will stand firm against terror. We will never yield to terror. And then on the other hand, we will never close the door over a failed negotiation that could lead to a failed agreement based on the principles of Camp David.
If he will be brought to the same point where he left in order to gain something through terror without gaining anything, this will be a healthy starting point. If he wants, if maybe is the case, we should launch a program or plan within two or three years to put an end to this intermingling with the Palestinians, being the same kind of community, bleeding into each other like in Bosnia or Belfast, and put a fence, a security fence between ourselves and the Palestinians that will include 80 percent of the settlers, some security zone along the Jordan River, and be ready to stand there and disengage ourselves from the Palestinians. We're living here, and they will live there. We should be able to do it without annexing formally these settlement blocks in order not to (UNINTELLIGIBLE), and at the same time, making it clear that we are determined to put an end to our reign over another people and concentrate on secure democratic Jewish Israel.
KEYES: One last question. We have seen very tough action from the Sharon government, but at the same time it seems as if Prime Minister Sharon has retreated from his insistence that there be an end to Mr. Arafat's violence before he would allow him sort of free roam of the territory. Given the kind of approach that the Sharon government has taken, do you think that it's going to be possible for them to bring the present situation to closure and get back to the negotiating table? Is the Sharon government going to survive long enough to see that happen?
BARAK: I don't know. I believe that it will survive longer than most people believe, maybe until several months before the nominal time of election late next year. And I believe that they deserve the backing of Israelis and others in the world in regard to this standing firm against terror.
At the same time, I would say that we should launch a disengagement security fence to put an end to suicide attacks in our streets and leave the door open for resumption of negotiation. It is only by these three elements together that we keep the normative and wide approach to the struggle against terror, but at the same time, keep the moral high ground vis-a-vis our own people and vis-a-vis the international community.
KEYES: Mr. Prime Minister, thank you very much for taking the time to share your ideas and thoughts with us. Our prayers are with you and with everyone in the region in our hope that violence will come to an end and that there will be an opening that allows for a prospect of negotiation and settlement before too many more lives are lost. Thank you for being with us this evening.
BARAK: Thank you, Alan.
KEYES: That was my talk with Ehud Barak earlier this evening. I think overall this discussion illustrates that there are some tough flogging ahead, given the positions that both sides are taking. One thing I would observe for you, though, there are alternatives of leadership in the Israeli case. Is there such an alternative of leadership on the Palestinian side? I think it's going to prove to be a critical question.
Next, I want to hear what's on your mind. Call us at 1-866-KEYES-USA. And later, my outrage of the day. A new school rule in one school district that allows unpatriotic behavior by students, while keeping their parents in the dark.
But first, does this make sense? Cheney visited with Jordan's King Abdullah today, and the king of Jordan was quick to tell the United States that military action against Iraq would undermine stability in the region. You do recall that Jordan was on the wrong side of the Persian Gulf War. In addition to that, he thought that the United States needed to step up to the plate and heed its responsibility for the Arab-Israeli negotiations and for peace in the Middle East.
Now, here's a guy who's king of the country that occupies most of what was the all-British mandate for Palestine. He sits on top of a large chunk of the Palestinian population, and he's telling us that this is our responsibility? Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. Now, let's hear what's on your mind. We'll go first to Bill from Florida. Bill, are you making sense?
BILL: I'm trying.
KEYES: Welcome to the show.
BILL: Hello?
KEYES: Welcome to the show. What's on your mind?
BILL: Yes, my question — my point comes in a couple of points. First of all, there seems to be a lot of mention made about the Palestinian extremists, but what about the Israeli extremists? And I'll give you a couple of examples. First, as I recollect, it was the Israelis, Jewish extremists that killed Rabin, who was the primary negotiator, if you will, on the Israeli side for a true peace plan during the Oslo accord. And he was killed by a Jewish extremists. There's no mention made of that.
The second point I'd like to make is that there seems to be a lot of mention of Israel wanting some Arabs or some Palestinians to make some type of mention, that, hey, Israel has the right to exist. I'd like to go to the Israeli Knesset and ask them how many from your side would like to recognize Palestinians as a state. I'm sure that the great majority would not agree with that.
KEYES: Bill, I think one of the things they have, in fact, accepted that idea. I think a lot of the Israelis, for the longest time, though, looked at the partition and thought, well, what about Jordan? They try to talk as if it doesn't even exist. I also think that extremists have not been used by the Israelis as part of the negotiating process. That's what they think Arafat has sometimes done.
Let's go to Michelle from D.C. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
CALLER: Hi, thank you for taking my call. I wanted to make a few points. First, I want to say that Israel deserves their security, just as the Palestinians deserve their freedom. So, how can Israel expect security when they impose a brutal occupation, robbing Palestinians of the basic human rights that is they deserve?
KEYES: Michelle, the problem...
CALLER: Because I don't think...
KEYES: Michelle, Michelle, the problem is that that characterization of the situation is one-sided. First of all, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip came into Israel's possession as a result of Israel's efforts to maintain its security against an Arab war. That's number one.
Second, they haven't been able to get security from terrorists operating from within those territories and that is one of the prerequisites for their willingness to allow a complete Palestinian control of those territories.
So, security is part of the effort to address freedom and I don't think it's going to happen for the Palestinians unless security can be addressed. That's the problem.
I want to thank you for your feedback tonight. Next, my outrage of the day about, believe it or not, a school's unwillingness to let parents in on what's going on with their children. A lot of that going around these days. And if you want to make even more sense, sign up for our free daily news letter at our Web site, keyes.MSNBC.com. Each day in your mailbox you'll get show topics, my weekly column and links to my favorite articles of the day. We'll be right back with my outrage of the day. You stay right there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now for my “Outrage Of The Day,” we come out of the Middle East, closer to home; Los Alamos, New Mexico where the school board has a policy that requires parents actually write a letter to get students out of the Pledge of Allegiance on conscience objection grounds or religious grounds, and they will now let students do so on their own. No comment is allowed from the teachers. But most importantly of all, parents will not be notified of this behavior.
Has the Los Alamos school board decided that the patriotism of our young kids is no longer the concern or business of parents? I think that goes down a road that's altogether too common in this country today, the belief that schools can usurp the position of parents, not share with them information that might be central to the proper moral up bringing of the students and with what results in a time when we're under the threat from terrorism abroad, when we need more than ever the unity and character of the American people, stretching into the future, we're going to say that parents will not be given the information that might be needed to sit down and talk to their children about the importance of this country, and understanding our allegiance to it.
It makes no sense at all. It's outrageous you that you would expect parents to fulfill their responsibility and not give them the information they need to do it. That's my sense of it.
Thank you for being with us today. Lester Holt is up next. I'll see you tomorrow.
Tonight, we are going to be talking once again about the region that continues to attract the interest of the world because of the inflamed situation, the intensifying violence, the toll of life that is being lost in the Middle East.
Last night, yesterday, the U.N. passed a resolution with respect to the Middle East. I, obviously, have an interest in that because I used to be part of that representation of the United States at the United Nations. The aim of the resolution: to try to position the U.N. in a way that would call on both parties to do something that would bring the region closer to some kind of resolution.
Tonight, we're going to be devoting the whole program to this question. I'll start out at the top of the hour talking to the spokesman for Yasser Arafat, Marwan Kanafani. He'll be coming to us from Gaza. We've already taped that interview.
Also, I'll be talking in the third segment of the program to Ehud Barak, former prime minister of Israel. You need to know that both of these were pre-taped interviews because of the time difference and all of that. And Mr. Kanafani was able to hear what Ehud Barak had to say.
All of this arising because of the U.N. resolution. But, first, I want to make sure you understand, this is an exciting show. We have got interviews that I think really help to understand the positions that these parties are in. Take a look at this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
We will be ready to negotiate the regime, but based on only one pre-condition , zero tolerance for terror.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARWAN KANAFANI, SPOKESMAN FOR YASSER ARAFAT: The state of Palestine is a god-given right to the Palestinians. It is not a gift or donation from Mr. Barak or you or any other prime minister of Israel.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Now, obviously these folks were not either pulling punches or holding back in terms of their sense of what's required to bring some kind of resolution to this critical region. But also, if you listen carefully to these interviews, you'll understand why there's going to be some tough flogging ahead because I think both sides represent viewpoints that, if you look at them and really try to draw out their real position, which I try to do in these interviews, I don't think that they are, in fact, very close. They are talking past each other still. And we'll see that this evening.
Anyway, the U.N. addressed some of the parameters that might be required to end this situation. But it's a question whether we're dealing here with something that actually had substance or is just a gesture. In any case, the U.S. role was significant. We sponsored the resolution. It was the first time we went on record with the first point of the resolution, which is that the resolution has to include in the region a recognition of a Palestinian state. Also, it calls for an end to violence by both sides and the return by both sides to the negotiating table.
At one level, these may seem like obvious points. At another level, obviously, the fact that you got the whole Security Council, 14 out of 15 members of the Security Council members voted for it. Syria abstained. They supported this as a way I think of sending a signal to both sides that it's time to bring the death toll and the violence to an end.
Of course, there was more violence in the region, punctuating the reality that it's going to be harder than just some words on paper or U.N. resolution to bring this situation off the boil that has been claiming so many lives. The U.N. resolution sponsored and drafted by the United States and representing I think an effort on our part to smooth the way a little bit for Mr. Cheney and try to get a better hearing in the Middle East, whether that worked or not, will be part of what we'll be talking about in the course of the evening. We will see.
As the violence continued in that region, as the death toll mounted, it's not clear that this U.N. resolution is going to play much of a role beyond perhaps representing a clear signal that the United States intends to return to a posture of engagement. But it is still not clear engagement on what basis.
In any case, I want you now to take a look at the interview that we were able to do today with Mr. Kanafani. Obviously, I talked to former Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu earlier in the week. We are going to talk to Ehud Barak. And we are going to try in the course of this program to get a better understanding at least of what these two sides represent.
Despite all of these things, there was still another day of violence in the region. Tonight, there are reports that dozens of Israeli tanks may be pulling out of Ramallah in the West Bank after a two-day operation and sporadic gunfights with Palestinians.
This has been Israel's largest offensive in the West Bank and Gaza since it captured the areas in the 1967 Mid-East war. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, he fights a furious political battle, overruling even his own defense minister, who wanted to pull the troops out. Sharon took heat today as well from President Bush, who strongly criticized Israel.
As mentioned earlier this evening, I talked with Arafat's spokesman and also with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.
First up is Mr. Kanafani. Listen carefully to what he has to say. I think he sheds a lot of light this evening on both the heart of the Palestinian position and some of the difficulties that it may, in fact, pose to peace. First up, I asked him what he believes is going to be required to end the violence that has been claiming so many lives in recent weeks.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KANAFANI: Let me say first that we are pleased with the resolution of the United Nations Security Council. We believe that such support by the international community to the Palestinian people at this critical time is extremely appreciated.
The other question is, yes. The answer is yes. Of course, we could stop the violence. We could get to an area of quietness if there is a decision to stop the violence and stop the shooting from both sides.
If Mr. Sharon wants Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian people to stop shooting, defending themselves against the destruction and maiming that is taking place against them, then this is not a cease-fire or cooling down situation. This is what we call surrendering.
This is not on the mind of the Palestinian people. We're not going to do that ever. If Mr. Sharon reached the point that there is another course, a course of peace, negotiations, and cooperation, then we could stop the violence. If he sends more troops, more tanks, more airplanes, I don't think anybody could stop the violence in this area.
KEYES: Well, does that mean that if it were possible to sit both sides down and agree that, at a certain hour on a certain date, both parties will be committed to downing arms for a period and ending the violence? You think that would be agreeable to the Palestinian side?
KANAFANI: Well, I think this is the part — this is an item of a more comprehensive deal in that respect. Let me say first that the Israelis should stop killing our people, should stop the Army movement against our cities and villages. Let me say that the Israelis should withdraw and stop their aggression and should talk about the issues that caused this problem.
You know, the issue was not — that started the whole problem was not the security or the violence. The issue was the political problem we're having with Israel. The political problem needed a solution that has been negotiated and renegotiated, ratified, witnessed, signed. But the Israelis did not respect it.
KEYES: Well, but Mr. Kanafani...
KANAFANI: Mr. Barak talk about...
KEYES: ... the great problem is, though, I think...
KANAFANI: ... Mr. Barak talked about missed opportunities. I can't hear you.
KEYES: Well, I'm saying that the great problem is on the Israeli side, it seems as if this violence was, in fact, just an instrument aimed at trying to up the ante so that Mr. Arafat and the Palestinian side could get something more politically. Are you saying that that's acceptable, that there will be negotiations, but that anytime that it's to the advantage of the Palestinian side, violence can be renewed?
I'm saying that the Israelis escalated the aggression against our people that has been taking place since 1995. What happened after the collapse of the talks in Camp David, the Israeli Army started attacking the Palestinian cities and the areas. It wasn't the other way around.
That was a part of the policy of Mr. Barak at that time, that they're going to force a political solution on the Palestinians by breaking the backbone of the Palestinian people. Mr. Barak talked about missed opportunities in Camp David. But Mr. Barak, and before him Mr. Netanyahu, and before him Mr. Peres, missed the point. The point is not 10 percent more or less of the land. The point is not 10 settlements less or 15 settlements less. The point is the Palestinian people want to be free and finished with the Israeli occupation.
KEYES: The problem I see is that your description of the problem...
KANAFANI: The problem was...
KEYES: ... let me finish.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Your description of those events certainly does not tally with the Israeli perception, which was, in fact, that a certain power of governance was turned over to Mr. Arafat and that he refused to discipline the forces of violence on his side and they continued to attack Israeli civilians. Now, unless you can get assurances from both sides that that kind of violence will not be renewed for political purposes, how can we expect negotiations to go forward?
KANAFANI: I agree with you. I think that if the Israelis stop their aggression and they promise seriously that they're going to negotiate in good faith and give the Palestinians back the land that has been occupied in 1967, stop the occupation against the Palestinian people, then there should be a common ground that we both could talk about cooperation in the future and coexistence.
But as long as the Israelis are occupying our land, our cities, our villages, killing our people, destroying our homes, maiming our children, nobody's going to listen to their logic that says give the Israelis a chance, let them kill more Palestinians, and then let them by the end give you 82 percent of the land like Mr. Sharon promised.
KEYES: Mr. Kanafani...
KANAFANI: This will never be accepted by the Palestinian people, not now, not ever.
KEYES: ... Mr. Kanafani, if we put in front of the Israelis a proposal like the Saudi proposal to return to the pre-1967 borders, I think most Israelis agree that's a tremendous security risk because here is only a 10-mile waist in that original Israel, that in light of the attacks against Israel and so forth proved insufficient for Israel's security. If there is that perception that to return to those borders is a danger to security, isn't greater reassurance required that that situation would not be exploited by a Palestinian side that aims to use violence to achieve its political purposes?
KANAFANI: Alan, this argument has been exhausted by the Israelis. And nobody, nobody on Earth, now believes such a logic. The fact is that the peace prevails when the people on both sides of the fence are content and happy.
KEYES: The problem I see, though, is that the U.N. resolution that was just passed recognizes that a Palestinian state has to be part of a solution. What you are describing seems not to recognize that a Jewish Israel must also be part of the solution and that that exercise of a right of return would mean that you're asking that the Israelis should give up the Jewish character of Israel. Isn't that the implication of what you're saying?
KANAFANI: Not exactly. I'm saying that once there will be a Palestinian state, there will be a peace between us and Israel. Israel will be recognized, not only by the Palestinians but by the Arabs as the crowned prince of Saudi Arabia introduces in his initiative.
So, when we have that problem, when we have that solution, then why should we deny anybody to go and live in his home? Even the Iraqi and Moroccan Jews who wants to go live back in Morocco and Iraq should have the right to go and do that.
KEYES: Don't we have to remove these excuses for violence if we are to see peace that will last?
KANAFANI: Alan, the state of Palestine might be a bad idea for you. You know, after I heard what you have said to Mr. Barak and the interview with Mr. Barak, you made Mr. Barak look like an angel. You have been on his left such an extremist with your ideas about the Palestinians and the Israelis.
Let me tell you here something. The state of Palestine is a god-given right to the Palestinians. It is not a gift or a donation from Mr. Barak or you or any other prime minister of Israel. This is our god-given right to live free and to get rid of the Israeli occupation.
How are we going to do that? We prefer to do that through negotiations. And we have done that for eight years. None of the agreements that have been reached with Mr. Barak, with Mr. Netanyahu, with Mr. Peres, was implemented by the Israelis, none of them after years and years of negotiations.
Then the Palestinian people showed their dismay after the Israeli Army started another aggression to break the backbone of the Palestinian people and force an agreement on them. Mr. Barak thought that he was going to hit Mr. Arafat with 90 percent of the land, the president is going to accept. The fact is, we want 100 percent. Read my lips, 100 percent of the land, 100 percent of the land settlement free because this is our right, and because it's about time that the Palestinian people live free like any other nation throughout this world.
KEYES: Mr. Kanafani, I appreciate your coming with us tonight. Sadly, I have to tell you myself that as I listen to you, it seems to me that underneath the rhetoric that implies that negotiation could lead somewhere, there is a sense that you're going to insist on several points that imply an end to the pre-1967 Israel.
And I don't see how you can expect the Israelis to accept that result. I believe there has to be a Palestinian state. But there also has to be a Jewish state.
KANAFANI: I don't want to be pessimistic about it. I think we should have a chance to sit down and talk to the Israelis on equal footing without tanks around our cities, without airplanes over our heads. When we do that and there is seriousness on the part of the Israelis, I'm sure that we're going to get to a deal.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEYES: That was Marwan Kanafani, Yasser Arafat's spokesman.
Next, we'll get to the heart of the matter with my special guests. In our next half hour, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak will be my guest. We're going to ask the questions about whether or not the Security Council resolution makes a difference and whether it's an empty gesture, whether Sharon and Arafat are the right leaders to end the violence, and whether it's going to soften or harden the position that we've seen on both sides. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. A reminder that the chat room is humming tonight. Anna May 1865 says: “No president can solve the Middle East mess, not one.” You can join in right now at chat.msnbc.com.
And coming up in our next half hour, don't forget my discussion with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Now, joining us to get to the heart of the matter, my special guest Clovis Maksoud, former Arab League ambassador to the United States and United Nations. Also with us, Hussein Ibish, director of communications for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, and Allan Gerson, the former counsel to the U.S. delegation to the United Nations during the Reagan administration. Alan is also the author of “The Price of Terror: Lessons of Lockerbie for a World on the Brink.” Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE
HUSSEIN IBISH, AMERICAN-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE: Thanks, Alan. Great to be back.
KEYES: Now, we had an opportunity to both look at the terms of the most recent U.N. Security Council resolution, hear from Mr. Kanafani. Alan Gerson, looking at the U.N. action, listening to the exchange that I had with Mr. Kanafani, what is your sense of whether or not this U.N. resolution can really make a difference? Are we seeing the possibility that a door could open to an end to this violence?
ALLAN GERSON: Well, Alan, the exchange is clearly not very encouraging. The elements for a deal are really not there. I mean, the elements for any successful deal encompass a serious commitment to really look at what the other side wants.
The Palestinian position does not offer the Israelis what they want. The Israelis do not offer the Palestinians what they want. So, in that vacuum, you have the U.S.-sponsored U.N. Security Council resolution, which signals a greater commitment on the part of the United States to try to break the logjam. And I think that's a positive development.
KEYES: I think it could be. But the question is whether or not the ingredients exist now for that to translate into some constructive result. Clovis Maksoud, you have a lot of experience in the U.N. You obviously have a lot of knowledge and understanding of the region, of the position of the Palestinians.
I have to confess as I listened to Mr. Kanafani it seemed to me that there's a pretty wide gulf between what he is expecting and what seems to me possible, given a lot of the concerns about security, a lot of the suspicion and distrust of Mr. Arafat that exists on the Israeli side. What are the real possibilities here that one could make forward progress?
CLOVIS MAKSOUD, FORMER ARAB LEAGUE AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: First of all, it is paradoxical that Israel is worried about its own security. Why the Palestinians have been suffering continues in sustained insecurity, especially in the last year-and-a-half, but also under occupation for the last 35 years. This is the longest period of occupation by any country over another territory.
The second observation in this respect is that while the resolution yesterday is a step forward, it is definitely inadequate and insufficient, albeit that there is in the operative part of the resolution a welcoming of the initiative that has taken place by Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. I think there is because there is a clarification of the outcome that any negotiation resumed should try to realize, namely, two independent states, sovereign independent states all over the occupied Palestinian territories since 1967.
It is worth noticing that Israel since 1967 has never acknowledged that it is an occupying power in the occupied territories. It has therefore proliferated settlements, distorted the demographic character of the Palestinian patrimony, and therefore preempted any kind of a viable, coherent, and contiguous state of Palestine. It is therefore necessary to realize that this Saudi initiative has the ingredients of becoming an Arab consensus. It says in one statement full withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories for full diplomatic and peaceful relations.
KEYES: But, Mr. Ambassador, one of the problems that I sensed as I was listening to Mr. Kanafani that I have unfortunately seen as other leaders in the Arab world have commented on this proposal, they allude to the right of return. That is Palestinians returning to what, as I put it to Mr. Kanafani, are the borders of pre-1967 Israel.
That kind of an influx could very well mean that Jewish folks would no longer be a majority within the boundaries of pre-1967 Israel, and the Jewish character of Israel would be lost. Are we saying that Arabs will recognize Israel so long as it gives up its Jewish character? I think that's obviously not going to be acceptable.
MAKSOUD: Well, first of all, I mean, the right of return is a basic human right for everybody. The people who have been ethnically cleansed from their own country had established the right of return. The most obvious example is for the Albanians, who have been restored to their Kosovo place and patrimony.
Now, it doesn't mean that all the Palestinian refugees would go back. This becomes a negotiated problem. I think what is the right of return for the Palestinians who have been expelled forcibly from their homeland and from their homes have a right of return to their homes.
Now, it can be adjusted. It can be managed. It is unfair to say that every Jew throughout the world, upon application and landing on Israel, becomes an Israeli citizen...
KEYES: Mr. Ambassador...
MAKSOUD: ... and every non-Jew does not have the right — does not have the right to become an Israeli citizen.
KEYES: ... Mr. Ambassador, I think the abstract points may or may not have validity. I happen to believe that if we introduce that kind of reasoning into the situation, a settlement is going to be impossible.
Hussein Ibish, in point of fact, Hussein Ibish, the question that I think confronts us all here, it seems as if we have had negotiated settlements. We have had, though some people want to deny it, a period when Israel was trying to let Yasser Arafat run things in the West Bank and Gaza.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Let me finish, please. They found that they were under attack. They responded to those attacks. This is their view.
Now things are being pushed in a direction where the proposal that was supposedly going to be the basis of future discussion includes at its heart now this right of return, which would become a platform for pushing against the remainder of Israel. Doesn't that suggest that the Israelis who fear that this is all about simply moving by stages to the destruction of Israel are, in fact, correct?
IBISH: Of course not, because none of that is true. That is a rationalization for continuing the occupation. It's just a set of excuses.
Look, first of all, what happened in the 1990s was that there was supposed to be a phased stage of withdrawals by Israel to end the occupation. And, in fact, the Israelis did not do that. Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority is a very small organization with limited authority in very small amounts of areas.
And really the Israelis had never been willing to discuss seriously ending their occupation. And that became very clear in Camp David. And this resulted in Palestinian protests, which the Mitchell commission agrees were spontaneous. And this is certainly not something cooked up by the Palestinian Authority. And every investigation into it has found that.
And the Israeli response was to shoot Palestinian demonstrators. And 60 or 70 Palestinian demonstrators were killed in the opening of the Intifada before any Israeli got hurt.
So, this is all a fantasy. This is a fairy tale. What lies behind it is the fact that Israel does not want to end its occupation. It wants to maintain tens of thousands of troops and hundreds of thousands of settlers outside its own country, in somebody else's country, for the purpose of taking land away from them and keeping them captive.
KEYES: Allan...
IBISH: ... No, let me...
KEYES: No, Allan...
IBISH: ... let me address this question. No, come on.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: One question. We have a limited time, Hussein. And I'm going to split that time up in a way that allows everybody to have a say...
IBISH: All right.
KEYES: ... because it seems to me that what was just presented, and I want to present this to Allan Gerson, what was just presented in terms of that history suggests that all the grievances lie on one side, that there are no dead Israeli...
IBISH: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
KEYES: ... let me finish, Hussein — that there are no dead Israelis, that somehow or another the West Bank came into Israeli hands because they went on a war of conquest...
IBISH: They did.
KEYES: ... instead of as a result of an Arab-initiated war in 1967.
IBISH: No. The Israelis started the war in 1967, and you know it.
KEYES: Allan Gerson, Allan, Allan Gerson...
IBISH: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
KEYES: ... Allan Gerson, excuse me, Allan Gerson, the question that I think is in front of us, I'm listening to these two sides. And you have U.N. resolutions saying return to the negotiating table. What would be the basis for negotiations? These are folks who can't even look at that history and be honest about what's in it.
GERSON: Well, Clovis and I go back for a very long time. We used to debate each other when I was at the United Nations in the early '80s and he was there. And the sad part of this is the arguments seem to be the same.
The use of the word aggression, if I may say so, is silly. And I use that word advisedly. It's silly because it's completely unproductive. It almost gets us into a stage of frivolousness. We're calling each other names. We know very clearly why the United States has vetoed any resolution in the past. And at this latest go-around, it refused to enjoing in any resolution which actually used the word illegality about occupation because it knows that the circumstances that prompted the Israeli entry in 1967 were circumstances in which a war came about not because of Israel's choosing. So, at the very least...
IBISH: They attacked...
GERSON: ... if I may just finish...
IBISH: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
KEYES: Let him finish, please. Let him finish.
IBISH: ... at the very least, at the very least, there are questions. So, to start talking in terms...
KEYES: Allan, Allan, we are running up against the clock. I wanted to make sure that you had a chance...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... no, we are up against the clock.
GERSON: The point I want to make is that...
KEYES: We're running up against the clock. I need to thank all of you for coming. We obviously just scratched the surface, though I think in doing so we do illustrate right here on this program that that U.N. resolution I think is taking a look at the situation, talking about it to a degree and platitude. The hard truth is that before you can make the kind of progress that's needed, we're going to have to get some understanding of the real situation, get people to listen to one another in a way that takes account of what's really being said and what real objectives may be there and that honestly deal with that.
Next, we're going to get the Israeli take on the U.N. developments from former Prime Minister Ehud Barak. And later, I'll take a look at what's on your mind on any topic. You can call us at 1-866-KEYES-USA, 1-866-KEYES-USA.
You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Earlier today, as I told you, I spoke to Ehud Barak, the former prime minister of Israel. I asked him how Israel can contemplate continuing negotiations with Yasser Arafat when it seems as if Arafat has repeatedly demonstrated, or at least they say he has repeatedly demonstrated, his willingness to use violence as a political tactic. When he reaches an impasse in negotiations, he just turns up the heat once again to see what he can get.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
EHUD BARAK, FORMER ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: Alan, it is not up to us to choose their leaders. I should admit that Arafat is not exactly elected leader the way that Governor Pataki here is elected or Mayor Bloomberg. No one else had the real chance to challenge his leadership. But basically he's their leader. It's up to them.
I personally am not very hopeful about his transformation to a peacemaking leader. But as long as he's there, we will be ready to negotiate with him. But based on only one precondition, zero tolerance for terror and we will never yield to terror and we will never be ready to reward terror.
KEYES: The other side of the resolution, obviously it was aimed at offering the prospects of a Palestinian state, which as you have pointed out, is something that has already been entertained by Israel in the past. We've seen Saudi proposals come forward in the course of the last several weeks that some folks say should be taken seriously, but they are based on the idea of returning to the pre-1967 borders. Do you think that that Saudi proposal is a viable basis for discussion?
BARAK: I believe that the moment that the Saudis and the whole Arab world will tell loud and clear in simple Arabic that they are ready to recognize Israel, not just as a matter of fact, but as a Jewish state in the Middle East, I believe that this is a major step forward.
But when we look at the details of this proposal, I found that we should follow not the borders of '67. We cannot go back to '67 border, but we have to agree to 242, which means a recognized and secure borders for Israel. Beyond this, I would insist on the fact that the Saudis will say loud and clear, we are ready to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, not just as a...
KEYES: But, Mr. Prime Minister, one of the things that has come out, though, is that these same Arab leaders will then turn around and say that the solution would have to include what they call the allusion to the right of return. Doesn't that reference to the right of return imply an end to the Jewish character of Israel?
BARAK: No Israeli prime minister and no Israeli leadership will ever accept right of return of Palestinians into Israel, period. At Camp David and in many other occasion, we said loud and clear, we are ready to see right of return of Palestinians into the Palestinian state, the same way that we absorbed, under the same — in the same years that the refugee problem was created. We absolved into Israel 600,000 Jews from all around the Arab world. They couldn't live there anymore after the war of independence and we never called them refugees. We called them brothers. We hugged them. We absorbed them. And now they, together with their offsprings are a majority of the Jewish population in Israel.
KEYES: But aren't we then engaging a little bit in wishful thinking? As I listen to what you are saying and as I have watched what Arab leaders have said and so forth, it seems that on the one hand, we say that it's possible to have this talk and discussion, but the basis for the discussion, the return to the pre-1967 borders seems like a delusion. The Arab leaders talk about the right of return, which seems like a delusion.
Are we moving ahead on a realistic basis, if we're talking past each other on these key points?
BARAK: I don't know. We learned in the Middle East that it is not very clever to make prophecies, especially in regard to the future. So, I would suggest that we will never close the door over these opportunities to try to negotiate. It's better than to exchange violence.
But at the same time, I would say that we were ready already, not 20 years ago, but just 20 months ago. We sat down at Camp David. There was an offer on the table, on the table. What was in the world understanding of how it should be solved, very close to the Palestinians' position. They refused.
KEYES: But they did refuse.
BARAK: They should never be...
KEYES: But, Mr. Prime Minister, but it seems to me they did refuse. Violence was unleashed.
BARAK: Yes. OK...
KEYES: One second, please. They have moved forward now. The U.S. has made explicit its support for a Palestinian state. And if you take Yasser Arafat back to the negotiating table under these conditions, aren't you, in fact, rewarding the terrorism he has been practicing?
BARAK: No. The opposite. If we insist that the return to the negotiating table will be based exactly on the principles of Camp David, namely he will be — he will be forced to go back to the negotiating table, exactly to the same point when he left it and went and turned to terror, this will be the right signal for him and for other possible dictators.
KEYES: Mr. Prime Minister, this is what...
(CROSSTALK)
BARAK: Namely, you cannot gain anything by turning to violence.
KEYES: But Mr. Prime Minister, this is what I don't understand. We have been here time and time and time again with Mr. Arafat, and each time that it has seemed he was serious about getting away from violence, he has unleashed it when it was to his advantage tactically. How on earth can an Israeli government sit down and trust somebody with that pattern of behavior? I don't understand why this is realistic.
BARAK: You know, I would be much happier if I would find the same attitude that emerges from your question, a worldly kind of accepted and including in this country. But I should tell you that we will stand firm against terror. We will never yield to terror. And then on the other hand, we will never close the door over a failed negotiation that could lead to a failed agreement based on the principles of Camp David.
If he will be brought to the same point where he left in order to gain something through terror without gaining anything, this will be a healthy starting point. If he wants, if maybe is the case, we should launch a program or plan within two or three years to put an end to this intermingling with the Palestinians, being the same kind of community, bleeding into each other like in Bosnia or Belfast, and put a fence, a security fence between ourselves and the Palestinians that will include 80 percent of the settlers, some security zone along the Jordan River, and be ready to stand there and disengage ourselves from the Palestinians. We're living here, and they will live there. We should be able to do it without annexing formally these settlement blocks in order not to (UNINTELLIGIBLE), and at the same time, making it clear that we are determined to put an end to our reign over another people and concentrate on secure democratic Jewish Israel.
KEYES: One last question. We have seen very tough action from the Sharon government, but at the same time it seems as if Prime Minister Sharon has retreated from his insistence that there be an end to Mr. Arafat's violence before he would allow him sort of free roam of the territory. Given the kind of approach that the Sharon government has taken, do you think that it's going to be possible for them to bring the present situation to closure and get back to the negotiating table? Is the Sharon government going to survive long enough to see that happen?
BARAK: I don't know. I believe that it will survive longer than most people believe, maybe until several months before the nominal time of election late next year. And I believe that they deserve the backing of Israelis and others in the world in regard to this standing firm against terror.
At the same time, I would say that we should launch a disengagement security fence to put an end to suicide attacks in our streets and leave the door open for resumption of negotiation. It is only by these three elements together that we keep the normative and wide approach to the struggle against terror, but at the same time, keep the moral high ground vis-a-vis our own people and vis-a-vis the international community.
KEYES: Mr. Prime Minister, thank you very much for taking the time to share your ideas and thoughts with us. Our prayers are with you and with everyone in the region in our hope that violence will come to an end and that there will be an opening that allows for a prospect of negotiation and settlement before too many more lives are lost. Thank you for being with us this evening.
BARAK: Thank you, Alan.
KEYES: That was my talk with Ehud Barak earlier this evening. I think overall this discussion illustrates that there are some tough flogging ahead, given the positions that both sides are taking. One thing I would observe for you, though, there are alternatives of leadership in the Israeli case. Is there such an alternative of leadership on the Palestinian side? I think it's going to prove to be a critical question.
Next, I want to hear what's on your mind. Call us at 1-866-KEYES-USA. And later, my outrage of the day. A new school rule in one school district that allows unpatriotic behavior by students, while keeping their parents in the dark.
But first, does this make sense? Cheney visited with Jordan's King Abdullah today, and the king of Jordan was quick to tell the United States that military action against Iraq would undermine stability in the region. You do recall that Jordan was on the wrong side of the Persian Gulf War. In addition to that, he thought that the United States needed to step up to the plate and heed its responsibility for the Arab-Israeli negotiations and for peace in the Middle East.
Now, here's a guy who's king of the country that occupies most of what was the all-British mandate for Palestine. He sits on top of a large chunk of the Palestinian population, and he's telling us that this is our responsibility? Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. Now, let's hear what's on your mind. We'll go first to Bill from Florida. Bill, are you making sense?
BILL: I'm trying.
KEYES: Welcome to the show.
BILL: Hello?
KEYES: Welcome to the show. What's on your mind?
BILL: Yes, my question — my point comes in a couple of points. First of all, there seems to be a lot of mention made about the Palestinian extremists, but what about the Israeli extremists? And I'll give you a couple of examples. First, as I recollect, it was the Israelis, Jewish extremists that killed Rabin, who was the primary negotiator, if you will, on the Israeli side for a true peace plan during the Oslo accord. And he was killed by a Jewish extremists. There's no mention made of that.
The second point I'd like to make is that there seems to be a lot of mention of Israel wanting some Arabs or some Palestinians to make some type of mention, that, hey, Israel has the right to exist. I'd like to go to the Israeli Knesset and ask them how many from your side would like to recognize Palestinians as a state. I'm sure that the great majority would not agree with that.
KEYES: Bill, I think one of the things they have, in fact, accepted that idea. I think a lot of the Israelis, for the longest time, though, looked at the partition and thought, well, what about Jordan? They try to talk as if it doesn't even exist. I also think that extremists have not been used by the Israelis as part of the negotiating process. That's what they think Arafat has sometimes done.
Let's go to Michelle from D.C. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
CALLER: Hi, thank you for taking my call. I wanted to make a few points. First, I want to say that Israel deserves their security, just as the Palestinians deserve their freedom. So, how can Israel expect security when they impose a brutal occupation, robbing Palestinians of the basic human rights that is they deserve?
KEYES: Michelle, the problem...
CALLER: Because I don't think...
KEYES: Michelle, Michelle, the problem is that that characterization of the situation is one-sided. First of all, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip came into Israel's possession as a result of Israel's efforts to maintain its security against an Arab war. That's number one.
Second, they haven't been able to get security from terrorists operating from within those territories and that is one of the prerequisites for their willingness to allow a complete Palestinian control of those territories.
So, security is part of the effort to address freedom and I don't think it's going to happen for the Palestinians unless security can be addressed. That's the problem.
I want to thank you for your feedback tonight. Next, my outrage of the day about, believe it or not, a school's unwillingness to let parents in on what's going on with their children. A lot of that going around these days. And if you want to make even more sense, sign up for our free daily news letter at our Web site, keyes.MSNBC.com. Each day in your mailbox you'll get show topics, my weekly column and links to my favorite articles of the day. We'll be right back with my outrage of the day. You stay right there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now for my “Outrage Of The Day,” we come out of the Middle East, closer to home; Los Alamos, New Mexico where the school board has a policy that requires parents actually write a letter to get students out of the Pledge of Allegiance on conscience objection grounds or religious grounds, and they will now let students do so on their own. No comment is allowed from the teachers. But most importantly of all, parents will not be notified of this behavior.
Has the Los Alamos school board decided that the patriotism of our young kids is no longer the concern or business of parents? I think that goes down a road that's altogether too common in this country today, the belief that schools can usurp the position of parents, not share with them information that might be central to the proper moral up bringing of the students and with what results in a time when we're under the threat from terrorism abroad, when we need more than ever the unity and character of the American people, stretching into the future, we're going to say that parents will not be given the information that might be needed to sit down and talk to their children about the importance of this country, and understanding our allegiance to it.
It makes no sense at all. It's outrageous you that you would expect parents to fulfill their responsibility and not give them the information they need to do it. That's my sense of it.
Thank you for being with us today. Lester Holt is up next. I'll see you tomorrow.