MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesMarch 21, 2002
ALAN KEYES, MSNBC HOST: Good evening. I'm Alan Keyes. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
We're going to take another look tonight at the growing violence in the Middle East, obviously a situation that continues on the boil. More and more lives being claimed. Today, another suicide bombing in Jerusalem killing three Israelis and wounding dozens.
As a result, obviously, of this intensification, the prospects for peace seem dimmer than ever. Sharon called off today's scheduled peace talks.
Still, hanging in the air the possibility that Vice President Cheney might meet with Yasser Arafat, again a deflection of the desire perhaps to be seen, to do something that might move the process along, but there's a lot of criticism now that's coming up as a result of the perception that maybe the administration, with its criticisms of Israel and so forth, is tilting in a direction that tends to reward the sustained violence from the Palestinian side.
William Bennett, for instance, recently wrote, “We pressure Israel and make no demands on our Arab allies to cease the dissemination of medieval terror-inspiring propaganda. Instead, the president appeased to Saudi Arabia by inviting Crown Prince Abdullah to meet him at his home in Texas, as if we owe the Saudis any favors, as if they don't owe us a great many explanations, and we are beginning to yet again bestow respectability on Arafat.”
Now, obviously, this is from somebody who acknowledges in his piece that this has been an administration strong in its support for Israel, the perception that American policy was moving in a direction that was going to require that there be a succession of violence. There have been strong statements to that effect, again coming from the administration, and in the course of the day, doubt has been cast again on the possibility of an Arafat-Cheney meeting.
But the question is left on the table: Are we moving policy — is U.S. policy moving in a direction that could be perceived as, in fact, rewarding the intensification of violence that has occurred over the course of the last several months, particularly from the Palestinian Arabs? Is there danger that we would be rewarding a tactic that actually aims at reigniting this violence whenever negotiations reach a point that one side isn't getting everything that it wants?
I think that there is a very real danger of this. It's one of the reasons I thought it was necessary to revisit this issue again tonight and go more deeply into the question because folks with good intentions can come forward in a situation. We want to end the violence, but if you're actually encouraging people to believe they can get something out of that violence, you might inadvertently, of course, and not intentionally be fueling the flames of death instead of helping to quell them.
Well, up front tonight to join us in this discussion, we have Hasan Rahman, the Palestinian Liberation Organization's representative to the United States, and Mark Regev, the spokesman for the Israeli Embassy here in the United States.
Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
HASAN RAHMAN, PALESTINIAN LIBERATION ORGANIZATION: Thank you.
MARK REGEV, ISRAELI EMBASSY SPOKESMAN: Thank you.
KEYES: Obviously, confronting a situation raises a lot of concerns and anxieties and passions on all sides.
Let me start with you, Hasan Rahman, and the question that I raised quite bluntly at the opening of the show. There are some — and Bill Bennett's column, obviously, an example — who think that if the vice president meets with Arafat, if other signs are given that there is some kind of a break in the administration's reluctance to deal until the violence has been brought under control that this would, in fact, be rewarding terrorism.
What is your response to that kind of an argument?
RAHMAN: I think the problem is that the United States has been appeasing violence against the Palestinians for a long period of time. The United States have tolerated Israeli systematic oppression of the Palestinians for 35 years and illegal military occupation, building Jewish settlements, stealing Palestinian land, robbing Palestinians of their dignity, humiliating them. That is appeasement of violence.
I wanted Mr. Bennett to have recognized that United States through its biased policy over the years have appeased the Israelis and made them feel that they can get away with murder. It has come back to haunt them. They occupied three generations of Palestinians, denying them their very basic human, political rights, and the Palestinians are saying, “Enough is enough. It is time for us to be free,” and that's our God-given right.
KEYES: Now, Mark Regev, obviously, this represents a kind of turning about of the argument, the view that Israel is, in fact, the perpetrator of the violence, that the onus for it falls on the Israeli unwillingness in some sense to cede to the demands of Palestinian national aspiration and to deal with the grievances on the Palestinian side.
Is Mr. Rahman correct? Has the United States over the course of these decades been accepting a pattern of violence from Israel?
REGEV: Not at all. And I think there's a fundamental fallacy in the argument. It's like saying where those churchgoers in Pakistan who were bombed by a suicide bomber — are they guilty? Were the people in New York guilty?
Terrorism is terrorism. And we have to speak in moral terms. We have to speak clearly as the president himself did today. Nothing justifies suicide bombing. Nothing justifies going into a pizza restaurant or today outside a toy shop and exploding yourself, trying to hurt innocent civilians.
And, unfortunately, I think we have a serious problem in Palestinian society and with Palestinian leadership. I understand that the Palestinians have political aspirations, and we've tried to meet those aspirations in the framework of the peace process. But we have today a Palestinian leadership that encourages this sort of violence.
The group that did the bombing today in Jerusalem was part of Arafat's Fatah organization, part of Al Aqsa. You have schools in the Palestinian territories run by Mr. Arafat which eulogize and turn suicide bombers into heroes. You have streets in refugee camps in Gaza that are named after suicide bombers. You have editorials in official Palestinian newspapers which praise suicide bombers.
They are encouraging this phenomena, and it says a lot about where Mr. Arafat is leading the Palestinians.
KEYES: Mr. Rahman, I mean, I look at this situation, and I am wondering — because I have done the reading, the research to go into this and try to figure out exactly what the culture is that underlies the kind of violence that we are seeing.
It does seem to me that, in addition to the specific groups and organizations, there seems to be a culture of violence, admittedly justified on the basis of the rhetoric of oppression, but that characterizes a lot of the rhetoric and presentations even in education on the Palestinian side.
How can we expect that violence will be brought to an end in the context of that kind of a culture? Doesn't it just seem as if there is a commitment on the Palestinian side to continue this violence?
RAHMAN: Mr. Keyes, you realize that this argument about cultural violence does not stand for the very simple reason what makes people violent. We have to look into that.
What makes a young Palestinian want to take his life and the life of others in the process? Only when he renders his life hopeless and helpless.
If he looked at what the Israelis have done in the last three weeks only, you have 20,000 Israeli soldiers invading the City of Ramallah, killing 300 Palestinians.
KEYES: But — I understand. Mr. Rahman, one word, please, because one of the things that bothers me, though, is that we've had a process that has gone on for some years, starting...
RAHMAN: But, Mr. Keyes...
KEYES: Let me finish, please. Let me finish this. Since 19...
RAHMAN: Well, you didn't let me finish what I was saying.
KEYES: ... 93, the Oslo accords — the Oslo accords — you talk as if there hasn't been any effort to put together a framework that actually turns power over to the Palestinians, but when Mr. Arafat had that internal control, the violence still continued.
RAHMAN: Mr. Keyes, you realize that you have bought the Israeli argument. Let me tell you our version of what happened in Camp David.
Yes, we had an offer from the Israelis, and we made an offer, and we continued the negotiations until it went to the 8th of September when no other than Sharon went with 2,000 Israeli armed men to the area of the Haram Al Sharif to provoke the Palestinians, and his action was condemned by the United States and by the Israeli government and by the international committee.
And when the Palestinians protested that, 69 of them was massacred by the Israeli army in cold blood. That what fueled the intifada. You have to listen to what the secretary general said yesterday about the Israelis, what the International Red Cross said about the Israelis.
KEYES: Mr. Rahman...
RAHMAN: What they have done is war crimes...
KEYES: We're getting to the end of...
RAHMAN: ... against the Palestinians.
KEYES: Mr. Rahman, we're getting to the end of our time. I want to give Mr. Regev a moment to respond. But I have not — as I said, the problem I have every time I listen to this is that there were continuing incidents of violence and the killing of Israeli civilians before that provocation...
RAHMAN: You know, occupation is the problem, Mr. Keyes.
KEYES: ... even under — even under the regime of Ehud Baruk.
Mr. Regev...
(CROSSTALK)
RAHMAN: ... the occupation is the problem.
KEYES: ... a word in response from you.
REGEV: I would say the problem is not political because we could solve the problem if we all sit around the table and negotiate. The problem is the Palestinian leadership has rejected any sort of fair compromise, and we saw that at the Camp David Summit that President Clinton led a few months ago.
I would say even stronger, as long as Arafat is cooperating with people like Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, groups that share the bin Laden extremist ideology, they don't want me to exist, they don't want my family to exist, these people want to kill Jews, they want to kill Americans, these people share the hatred ideology. As long as Arafat is cooperating with these people, I think we can ask ourselves: Is he really a partner in peace?
And the vice president said clearly this morning — he said Arafat gets no meeting with him or with any other senior American official until Arafat follows through on commitments he's made. He always promises that he's going to fight terror. He never follows through, and now it's his chance. Arafat has to shut up or put up. He can't keep promising to fight terrorism and do nothing.
RAHMAN: Well, can I say something, please?
KEYES: Yes, one last word from you, Mr. Rahman. You have 30 seconds.
RAHMAN: Yes. The problem is Israel's occupation.
REGEV: We were willing to...
RAHMAN: Israel's occupation...
REGEV: We were willing to pull out.
RAHMAN: ... illegal occupation of the Palestinians for 47 years. Get out of our territories.
REGEV: If you wanted...
RAHMAN: Let's leave — let — live in your own state, and lets live in our state, and there would not be a problem.
REGEV: But you want more than...
RAHMAN: Mr. Regev...
REGEV: You want...
RAHMAN: ... you know that this is the issue as long as you have settlements in the Palestinian land and you want to steal Palestinian territories...
REGEV: That's not true. It's not true.
RAHMAN: ... you are not going to have peace.
REGEV: Why are you operating...
RAHMAN: You have...
REGEV: We're not going to have peace because...
RAHMAN: You have to...
(CROSSTALK)
RAHMAN: ... the Palestinians, or you want to have peace.
REGEV: It's not true.
KEYES: Gentlemen — gentlemen, thank you.
REGEV: Thank you very much.
KEYES: I think it — I know the passions are intense. It also requires, I think, a certain degree of frankness to come forward and...
RAHMAN: Absolutely.
KEYES: . .. have this kind of an exchange.
REGEV: Absolutely.
RAHMAN: The question is...
KEYES: I — let me finish.
RAHMAN: ... illegal Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories.
KEYES: Thank you. I want to thank you for your help. Thank you both for being on this evening.
I have said to all of you I think this kind of illustrates, doesn't it, though, the difficulty that all of us are faced with as we try to think through how it would be possible to extricate the region from the morass of violence that results from the fact that with great weight on both sides, I think, there's a perception that the other side is, in fact, responsible for the killing and the violence and the death, and until both sides are willing to bear responsibility for the control of their own behavior, including the Palestinians, victims though they may see themselves as, I don't see an end in sight.
But, anyway, we will get to the heart of that matter when we address these questions on MAKING SENSE: Has U.S. pressure on Israel encouraged Palestinian use of violence or not; What is the real Palestinian agenda; and Would a meeting with the vice president legitimatize Arafat's position despite his failure to quell Palestinian violence?
Plus, of course, our open-line segment. You can call me at 1-866-KEYES-USA with whatever is on your mind.
But, first of all, do you think it makes sense — this campaign-finance reform bill has passed. Everybody's rejoicing. And there is President Bush declaring that, “Well, I see its flaws. It is constitutional flawed.”
And he saw those flaws during the campaign and understood that one shouldn't sacrifice constitutional rights for the sake of phony reform, and yet, in spite of the truth that is right there in front of him that he himself has admitted in his run up to the presidency, he says now that he is going to succumb and sign a bill that he knows is unconstitutional.
He took an oath to uphold the Constitution. How can he put his signature on something that he knows does not conform with it? Does this make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: As you U.S. troops continue to rout out terrorism around the world, some top military officials are telling Congress that America's armed forces are spread too thin. But is their problem really a question of resources, or is it a question of strategy? We're going to get into that in our next half-hour with some special guests from the Congress of the United States.
A reminder that the chat room is humming tonight. Debbie says, “Cheney should not reward the behavior of either party by meeting with them.” You can join in right now at chat.msnbc.com.
But before we get to all of that, we're talking about the turmoil in the Middle East. The deadly tragedy continues to claim many lives, yet a possibility is raised of a meeting between Vice President Dick Cheney and Yasser Arafat. Some have said, including Bill Bennett in a recent column, that that rewards the Palestinians and the tactics of violence and violence especially against civilians, the terror tactics that they have employed.
Joining us to get to the heart of this matter, Raymond Tanter, a Middle East expert with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and former senior member of President Reagan's National Security Council. Also with us, Charles Kupchan, an international relations professor at Georgetown University and former member of the National Security Council under President Clinton. And Jonathan Strum, a Middle East expert at Georgetown University Law Center.
I want to start tonight with Mr. Strum and ask the simple question that is posed by critics like Bill Bennett. If we're in the midst of a situation where violence and terror are being employed as kind of an extension of the negotiating table, force being used in order to achieve negotiating results, if we ignore all of that and engage in sort of high-level exchanges, aren't we legitimatizing that abuse of the negotiating process? Yes or no?
JONATHAN STRUM, MIDDLE EAST EXPERT: I would change the equation. I think that, given what's going on right now, I think that you have to take whatever effort you can in order to save lives. I would change the question to whether or not it — rewarding terrorism, which, in fact, it might be, to whether or not an Arafat-Cheney meeting could save a life, and if it can save a life, then I think it has to go forward.
KEYES: Let me ask a question then to follow up along those lines because one of the problems, I think, with well-intentioned efforts is that if you're actually encouraging people to get something — to believe they're going to get something further and more out of the violence, rewarding that pattern of behavior, aren't you, in fact, then going to lead to more deaths because they will continue to pursue that line?
STRUM: Well, that depends where — that depends where it leads. And remember, we've got a lot of interests in this area. I mean, one of the reasons for a Cheney-Arafat visit is to gather support in the Arab world for our policy on Iraq. It's to encourage the Saudis to present the peace — their peace plan at the Arab summit.
It made — the Arab peace — the Saudi peace plan may not be a perfect plan, but it's a lot better than what's been out there to date, certainly from the Saudis and from some of the other Arab nations who have refused to even contemplate recognizing Israel and normalizing relations with Israel.
So I think that when you look at these things, you have to look at things in a larger context. When you narrow the question down too much — is it rewarding terrorism? I mean, is it something that if — in the best of all possible worlds, it wouldn't happen? Of course. But if — is this something that we should do in the context of what our global interests are? I think it is at this point.
KEYES: Well, Raymond Tanter, are we in a position where we have no choice now than to meet with Yasser Arafat regardless of how some may feel about his use of violence in the negotiating process?
RAYMOND TANTER, WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY: Absolutely not, Alan. Rewarding Arafat at this point with a meeting with the vice president is something like giving a student visa to the ring leader of the hijackers after he crashed his aircraft into the World Trade Center. It would be like giving Timothy McVeigh a posthumous Ph.D. for his contribution to urban planning. Arafat is responsible for the violence. He can turn it off. September 28th, 2000, is the time in which Arafat gave the order for the Al Aqsa intifada to begin.
KEYES: Charles Kupchan, what do you think? Is it possible to talk to Yasser Arafat without seeming to suggest that a pattern of behavior that I don't think is just isolated to this recent period, but, in fact, has been repeated several times over the course of his career is, once again, succeeding at wresting concessions and advances from the situation? I mean, aren't we simply going to encourage further intractability?
CHARLES KUPCHAN, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: I'd probably split the difference between my two colleagues and certainly not offer Arafat a blank check, that is a meeting under any conditions. I would say he has to come out in the next few days, be resolute in the condemnation of terrorist attacks against Israel, do more to crack down on the sources of terrorism in the Palestinian community.
But I think that the U.S. does have a clear interest in making this meeting happen if Arafat will play ball, one, because the status quo is not tenable. It is a spiral downward of violence. Palestinians are growing angrier and angrier by the day. Israel is paralyzed essentially. People are afraid to go out on the street because of the bombing. So there needs to be somebody who steps forward and says, “Let's take a breather. Let's try to get this started.”
And, secondly, I'm not convinced that Sharon's strategy of trying to undermine Arafat and push him to the side is the way to go. Who would replace him? Arafat has some moral authority. He more than anyone else could try to push the political center in the Palestinian community towards some sort of negotiated settlement. Granted, he hasn't done it yet. He's in bed with Hezbollah and terrorists, but I don't see an alternative, and I would not try to push him out of the picture at this point.
STRUM: And I think — and I'd like to jump in. I mean, I think that's precisely one of the issues. I mean, I think we simply — he is the current leader of the Palestinians. He has to be negotiated with, I mean, if Israelis are meeting with people affiliated with Arafat and if it can move the process forward.
I think one of the things that Cheney could do on — in a meeting — and I would agree with my colleague that there has to be restrictions on this meeting, but we can find out what he's going to say at the Arab summit if he, in fact, is allowed to go.
TANTER: But, gentlemen...
STRUM: One...
TANTER: ... time out. Excuse me.
STRUM: Sure.
TANTER: If you create a condition under which you reward violence, then Jewish blood, if you will, becomes the currency of exchange.
Alan Keyes and I were in the Reagan administration together, and Oliver North made arms for hostages a deal that President Reagan accepted, and, all of a sudden, hostages became the currency of exchange. There were more hostages seized after the arms trade than before, and that's the same thing that's happening now. More violence.
KUPCHAN: I think it's inappropriate to portray it as rewarding violence. It would not be. It would be to say both sides are spiraling downward. It's out of control. We need to say to Arafat, “Show some strength. Show some leadership.” We would reward him not for the violence, but for trying to reign in the terror, and that's why you have to put those conditions on it.
KEYES: But, Charles — Charles, one of the problems I see with that is that it acts like we're dealing with this situation in a historical vacuum in which there is no background, no pattern of behavior, no point at which we had ever reached this kind of a juncture before.
Not only, I think, are we creating a currency, sadly, in blood and human life, but we're accepting the degraded currency of Yasser Arafat's word. Yasser Arafat gave his word in '93. He gave — he has given his word several times since.
The killing has continued whenever it seemed to serve the purposes of his negotiating strategy. Why is his word worth more now that it's been discredited once again by...
STRUM: I don't...
KUPCHAN: I don't disagree with you. I'm no fan of Arafat, but what's the alternative? The alternative is what we have today, which is bombs going off once or twice a day in the heart of Israel, which is more violence in the West Bank. So I don't — I think we have very awful alternatives across the board, but I think that the worst alternative is to simply back off and not try for some sort of breakthrough.
STRUM: But, Charles, I think — and I think that there's something very critical here, is that one of the things that we have here is we have — two absolute truths have come out of the last several months, certainly from the Israeli perspective.
The first is that Arafat cannot be trusted in any manner. It's something I would agree with. But I agree with Mr. Kupchan, is that they've still got to negotiate.
The other truth that comes out the of the events of the last several months is that Israel cannot maintain its presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip indefinitely. It's only going to stay that way.
And you — we — it — at some point, we have to step back and say, “Well, you did this first. You did this second. You did this. You responded. You responded.” At some point, we have to try to get the people to stop.
KEYES: Let me ask you a question, and — because every time I listen to these discussions, it seems to me we're dealing with two negotiating parties, and, yet, we're willing to accept an asymmetry that doesn't make sense to me. You all say, “There's Yasser Arafat, can't do anything about him.”
If there was a really bad interlocutor sitting as prime minister of Israel who was taking the whole situation to the dogs and everybody was agreed, including people who were on his side, that he wasn't of any real use and contribution to peace and so forth and so on, there's at least one possibility of what would happen to him. What is it?
TANTER: He would be defeated in election.
KEYES: He would be defeated in an election. He'd get voted out.
TANTER: Exactly.
KEYES: Now it seems to me that we are accepting a degree of incompetence from the Palestinian side that is inconsistent with the success of these negotiations. If these are folks who should be, in fact, determining their own future, why is it that they can't put together a mechanism to put better leaders in place to lead them toward that future?
TANTER: But, Alan, let's assume that the vice president goes to Cairo and meets with Arafat. I want that photo opportunity to be like Nixon with his finger in Kruschev's face in the kitchen where the vice president is telling Arafat, “Stop the violence now.”
KUPCHAN: Alan, what I don't understand is, yes, the Palestinian Authority is weak, it's fractured. We don't have a serious negotiating partner. We can't trust Arafat. I agree with all that, but that's what we have, right?
So what are you suggesting, that we just throw up our hands and walk away from it? Number one, the region spirals into a violence.
KEYES: Well, it seems to me...
KUPCHAN: And, number two, we're...
KEYES: No, no. Part...
KUPCHAN: ... trying to get some backing in the Arab world for the war against terrorism. That's not going to happen if things are sliding into the abyss.
KEYES: I understand, but why then don't we put an agenda item on the table that alludes to the fact that if you want to have decent negotiations, there is a responsibility on both sides to bring forward interlocutors who can contribute to that negotiation? The burden and responsibility for competent interlocutors who can be trusted to implement the peace in this situation — to do that on the Arab side — that responsibility is not ours. It's not the Israelis.
KUPCHAN: I agree with you.
KEYES: It's a responsibility the Arab-Palestinian responsibility that nobody ever talks about.
KUPCHAN: I agree with you, but — but — and if you can say to me, “Let's not talk to Arafat. Let's talk to Mr. X, Y, or Z,” I would say great. But the sad truth is there is no real alternative to Arafat. So it seems to me we don't have any choice but to try to deal with him and push him to...
TANTER: I fully disagree with this idea that we don't have a choice. Every time General Zinni goes over to the area, violence increases. This is his third trip. Eleven Israelis have been killed in this — since Zinni has been there in the third trip, and there's been — there have been five suicide bombing attacks since Zinni's been in the area. This is not good.
KUPCHAN: So you conclude from that that the more that America gets involved, the more violence there is?
TANTER: No, I'm just simply saying that the conflict may not be ripe for an interlocutor to intervene.
STRUM: But the — know, but the — but that argument's been made consistently all the time for why we can't intervene, and the fact is — as I think has been said before, is that the situation has gone from bad to worse.
I mean, I was in Jerusalem less than two months ago and was right by King George street and was not happy about being there because I was afraid.
But you're in a position now where something has to happen, and the parties — you know, the parties, when left to their own devices, don't seem to be able to push it. At least these people right now don't seem to be able to push it. Several years ago, we may have been able to do some things on our own.
They need the Americans, they need General Zinni to go in, and they need the United States to talk sharply to them. They can't — the United States shouldn't be going in and saying, you know, “Anything you want.” They need to be telling them, “We're not going to support you, you know, if you want”...
KEYES: Now, gentlemen...
STRUM: ... “a state, you need to reign in the terror.”
KEYES: ... we've come to the end of our time. I want to thank you again for, I think, a very interesting and insightful exchange that I think honestly admits some of the difficulties that we're faced with and illustrates them. I want to thank you all for joining us tonight.
And I have one final word because, once again, I've got to put it on the table here. We act as if there's nothing we can do about the incompetence on the Palestinian side.
The first thing we could do is to put that question not to Yasser Arafat but to the Palestinians and the Arab world: Don't you have a responsibility to put together a process that will allow Palestinians to choose more competent and effective and trustworthy leadership for this negotiating process?
I think that's a responsibility that everybody who claims to want peace ought to have to face up to.
Next, are U.S. troops spread too thin? I say that the problem that our military commanders have now talked about a little bit on Capitol Hill could go beyond resources and mere military considerations. Because the effective use of resources involves a strategy that harnesses those resources to clear aims and ends. And the question then becomes, is there such a strategy in front of us? I am going to talk about that with two members of the House Armed Services Committee who are a little bit at odds on this issue. It should be an interesting debate.
Later, we'll get to what's on your mind, on any topic. Call us at 1-866-KEYES USA. And finally, my “Outrage of the Day.” I'm going to talk about the pope's statement and the reaction that some people have that this was somehow inadequate. I'm going to deal with that. You are watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes. Are U.S. troops spread too thin right now around the world? We face all kinds of challenges — the war against terror, Afghanistan, the possibility of military action against Iraq, the need to go to various places to try to rout out and deal with potential terroristic layers in various parts of the world. Is it taxing our military too much?
Navy Admiral Dennis Blair, the commander-in-chief of the Pacific Command, said this to the House Armed Services Committee yesterday: “We do not have adequate forces to carry out our missions for the Pacific if the operations in Afghanistan continue at their recent, past and current pace.”
Air Force General Joseph W. Ralston, commander-in-chief of the European Command, was asked about shifting resources from sea to land-based air power to cover the Pacific. He replied: “I'm already at zero. With one less, I can't be any worse than at zero.”
Now, obviously it's budget time. Sometimes you have to discount these kinds of things when this time of year rolls around. But at the same time, given the challenges that we are faced with, we have to keep an eye on whether or not, one, there are adequate resources supporting the efforts we're demanding of our military, but also whether or not the strategy being followed is coherent enough to allow for a successful and efficient application of resources to objectives. It's the kind of discussion that necessarily takes place in the course of an ongoing war effort in order to make sure we are doing the best we can with what we've got.
Joining us now, two members of the House Armed Services Committee who were at yesterday's hearing. Republican Congressman Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, and Democratic Congressman Tom Allen of Maine. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
Let me start with you, Congressman Allen, in terms of your reaction to what you heard. Obviously, these are not alarmist-type folks. They're looking at a situation, trying to assess it objectively. What did you make of what the military leaders had to tell you yesterday? Tom Allen?
REP. TOM ALLEN (D), MAINE: There is no question that — there is no question that our military is challenged by what's going on in Afghanistan. That's a major operation. We have 5,600 troops in Afghanistan, others in surrounding areas. They have to be supplied. It really does put a strain on our ability to respond to something that might happen elsewhere in the world.
But on the other hand, this is what the military is for. And I think we need a full-blown debate over whether they're stretched too thin, but as you pointed out, it is budget time, and certainly there are always some additional needs that we're not meeting, and that's really what I took from what the general and the admiral had to say to us yesterday.
KEYES: Representative Weldon, is this something that raises a flag of concern in terms of what we need to be girding ourselves for in the months ahead, and how do you think that the Congress should respond?
REP. CURT WELDON (R), PENNSYLVANIA: Well, it absolutely is a concern, Alan. We have had for the past 10 years an expansionist foreign policy with an isolationist offense budget, and that mismatch has caused us great problems. We have had 38 major deployments in the last 10 years since 1991, compared to 10 deployments in the previous 40 years. At a time when our defense budget was going down, we had 585 ships just a few short years ago under Ronald Reagan. Today, we have 314 ships at sea, actually involved in many more commitments. Our resources are not adequate to meet the demands. The service chiefs testified over the past two months that even with the increase proposed by President Bush, we are $24.5 billion short just for the required amounts this year.
And that's why, Alan, I was the only Republican yesterday to vote against the president's budget. It's not intellectually honest. That $10 billion should have been included for additional modernization, and I told the president, a president that I campaigned for around the country, that it was a mistake, and I think we're going to see that mistake come to fruition during this summer as we see that $10 billion evaporate.
KEYES: Representative Allen, obviously some of what Curt Weldon has said would have by implication I think some words of reflection on the previous administration in terms of their calling on the military, maybe not committing to the resources that were needed, but we also have a diversity of challenges right now. We are basically having to occupy Afghanistan in order to maintain security, prevent the resurgence of the terrorists. We have efforts going on in places like Indonesia, to work with governments to prevent the establishment of successful terrorist bases and things of that kind where we can work with people to prevent that from happening.
Obviously, it is part of the anti-terror effort to do so. We have the possibility of the need for a more extensive military action against Iraq. Some people have been calling for some kind of U.S. role in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Do we, in fact, have what we need in the way of support for our military if we're going to call on them to do this diversity of tasks?
ALLEN: Well, diversity — the diversity of tasks, as you put it, is challenging. I don't disagree with that. I think we need a major increase in defense spending. But if you take the increase that came in the last few years of the Clinton administration, the increase of the first two years of the Bush administration, last year's enactment, this year's proposed, you have seen a major increase in defense spending, 27 percent in just the last two years.
And I think it's appropriate, given the challenges we face, but there are always going to be additional needs. And somehow, we have to find the right sort of balance. I think that, for example, an action in Iraq before we get established in Afghanistan and get the reconstruction process going there would probably stretch our forces much more than they are today. But it's a matter of balance. It's a matter of finding the right — you know, the right approach. But I certainly agree with Curt Weldon that a major increase this year in defense spending is called for.
KEYES: Now, Representative Weldon, we obviously have a diversity of demands that we could make on our military. We are told that we are in the midst of a very pressing war effort with the war on terrorism. Doesn't that suggest a natural rubric for prioritizing our strategic choices in that what is directly related to the conduct of that war on terrorism would take priority over other things, including possible diplomatic ventures that might be, at this point, not, you know, desirable, but not as critical as what we have to do with the war?
WELDON: Well, it does, Alan. And Our problem is that we have allowed ourselves to get involved in a number of situations over the past several years that are not easy to get out of. I was with President Bush on Air Force One just last week, and he said he has been trying to get us out of Bosnia. It still hasn't happened yet. We were told in Congress five years ago that America would not be in Bosnia beyond Christmas five years ago.
It's not a case of America being an isolationist country. It's a case of when we decide that we have to use the forces of our country, that our allies step up to the plate and share that burden. The debate in Congress over Bosnia was not whether or not the U.S. should be involved. The question was why was America putting 36,000 troops in Bosnia during the early months and years of that operation while the Germans right next door were only putting 4,000 troops in?
What amounts to the effort around the world is that the U.S. can't be asked to take it alone to handle these regional conflicts. Other nations have got to step up and they have got to either put money on the table or, more importantly, they have got to put troops there with us or America has got to really look at whether or not that commitment is something that we're willing to make because when something like that Afghanistan comes up where we have to go after terrorism, this requires, as you put it, all of our fullest priority, and that's what President Bush is doing. But because of all these other commitments, it's causing this terrible strain on our military. Right now, our Guard and Reserve...
KEYES: We have to go, Congressman. But I thank you both tonight.
WELDON: You are welcome.
KEYES: I hope that the agreement we saw here at one level is going to be a sign that we will be able to get the sort of bipartisan commitment we need to this sort of strategic priority, because I think obviously it's going to be very important to the security of the country that we give the right kind of support to the military when we're asking so much of them, rightly so, in our defense. Thank you both for joining us tonight.
WELDON: Thank you.
KEYES: Next, I want to hear what's on your mind. Call us at 1-866-KEYES-USA. And later, my “Outrage of the Day.” The Pope has issued a statement about the scandal that is spreading in the Catholic church in America and now elsewhere in the world. Some people say it's not enough. I think that it was right on track. More that in my “Outrage of the Day.” We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now let's see what's on your mind. We'll go first to John in New York. John, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
JOHN: Alan, it's a pleasure to be on your show.
KEYES: Thank you.
JOHN: Question: Don't you feel that one of the major problems in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is that Yasser Arafat says one thing in Arabic to his people and exactly 180 degrees opposite to the rest of the world?
KEYES: I think it is a problem. It's part of what I was referring to when I talk to do Mr. Rahman about the culture of violence, the fact that in education, in other ways it seems like there's a quiet encouragement of the violence rather than really a commitment to end it. Let's go to Nidal in Georgia. Nidal, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
NIDAL: Hello, Mr. Keyes.
KEYES: Hi.
NIDAL: How are you doing, sir?
KEYES: Pretty good.
NIDAL: I've been following your almost career from the beginning, and I really enjoyed listening to you and seeing you running for president.
KEYES: Now what's on your mind, quickly.
NIDAL: I would like to say that nobody is mentioning the Palestinian blood. Last month alone, 300 Palestinians were killed by the Israelis. The insurgence of — by tanks and military into the territories, this is not the first time.
KEYES: Well, see, I think — we only have a very brief time, but just a very brief word. I think that what is breaking hearts around the world is the deaths on both sides here, and that what is particularly dismaying is there seems no way to stop it. So I don't think people are at all discounting the Palestinian deaths. It is a deep grief to all of us to see this kind of carnage.
I think we're just at a loss as to how we can stop it if both sides don't back away from violence as an instrument here. Thanks for your feedback. Really appreciate it.
Next, my “Outrage Of The Day,” having to do with the pope's statement. The reaction that some have had to it, which I think is based on a misunderstanding entirely due to ignorance really, an inability to understand the language with which the pope communicates to the clergy.
I'm going to make an attempt at that when we get back. So stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now for my “Outrage Of The Day.” The pope has issued a statement, a paragraph that was included in a larger spot. Some people have taken offense that it was just a paragraph.
If you are really profound, then in a paragraph you can say more than most people would say in hundreds of pages. I think that's exactly what the pope has done. Others have criticized him for being not compassionate enough or too belligerent and other language of this kind. Quite the temporary. I think what he did was try objectively to present, understand the nature of the evil involved here and what the proper remedy has to be from the point of view from Christian and Catholic faith.
Let me go through these sentences with you and see if we can together understand them. He says, “at this profound time too as priests are personally and profoundly afflicted by the sins of some of our brothers who have betrayed the grace of ordination in succumbing even to the most grievous forms of the mysterium iniquitatis at work in the world.” That's the first sentence. That is a very strong language.
He says that what is involved here is a betrayal of the grace of ordination. He invokes the language of Catholic belief in the power of the sacraments, the special favor of God that comes through sacramental grace. And he accuses the priest of breaking faith with that power. Those who are directly involved in the sin but also by implication, those who did not sufficiently understand that was involved wasn't just sexual sin. What was involved was a betrayal of that grace which comes through ordination, a betrayal of the sacrament itself which is at the heart of the clerical life.
That is a profoundly harsh statement in some ways. I don't mean that word “harsh” in a critical way. I mean it's tough. It's something that makes it clear is what is involved in an objective evil that strikes at the very heart of the clergy's life.
He continues, “grave scandal is caused,” he says. That was suggested in the previous sentence when he referred to the mysterium iniquitatis, another word for the occult work of Satan, the dark work of the power of evil wearing the mask of goodness and causing scandal, which is by the way among the worst of sins. As he says, the most profound form of evil. That which gives scandal, Christ says, you should have a millstone tied around your neck and be thrown into a river. He says “profound scandal is caused with the result that the dark shadow of suspicion is cast over all the other fine priests who perform their ministry with honesty and integrity and often with heroic self-sacrifice.”
A betrayal the grace, a betrayal of all other priests in the world. I think he has pointed a finger and basically made it clear. The objective evil involved in this is deep, it is theological, and it must be dealt with as such. And that is a word that goes not just to the priests involved, but to the hierarchy to the American and other hierarchies of the church around the world.
Finally, and it goes on, “as the church shows her concern for the victims and strives to respond in truth and justice to each of these painful situations, all of us conscious of human weakness but trusting in the healing power of divine grace are called to embrace the mysterium Crucis and to commit ourselves more fully to the search for holiness.”
Finally, he writes, “we must make God and his providence to prompt a whole-hearted reawakening of those ideas of total self-giving to Christ which are the very foundation of the priestly ministry.” In a word the pope says there will be no abandonment of faith, no abandonment of celibacy. That the answer does not lie in adopting the errors of the world, but rather in profoundly recommitting one's self to the truths of the Christian and Catholic faith. I think that means that the church in America is going to be challenged to look at human sexuality in God's way, not in the world's way.
That's my sense of it. Thank you for being with us. The News with Brian Williams is up next. I'll see you on Monday.
We're going to take another look tonight at the growing violence in the Middle East, obviously a situation that continues on the boil. More and more lives being claimed. Today, another suicide bombing in Jerusalem killing three Israelis and wounding dozens.
As a result, obviously, of this intensification, the prospects for peace seem dimmer than ever. Sharon called off today's scheduled peace talks.
Still, hanging in the air the possibility that Vice President Cheney might meet with Yasser Arafat, again a deflection of the desire perhaps to be seen, to do something that might move the process along, but there's a lot of criticism now that's coming up as a result of the perception that maybe the administration, with its criticisms of Israel and so forth, is tilting in a direction that tends to reward the sustained violence from the Palestinian side.
William Bennett, for instance, recently wrote, “We pressure Israel and make no demands on our Arab allies to cease the dissemination of medieval terror-inspiring propaganda. Instead, the president appeased to Saudi Arabia by inviting Crown Prince Abdullah to meet him at his home in Texas, as if we owe the Saudis any favors, as if they don't owe us a great many explanations, and we are beginning to yet again bestow respectability on Arafat.”
Now, obviously, this is from somebody who acknowledges in his piece that this has been an administration strong in its support for Israel, the perception that American policy was moving in a direction that was going to require that there be a succession of violence. There have been strong statements to that effect, again coming from the administration, and in the course of the day, doubt has been cast again on the possibility of an Arafat-Cheney meeting.
But the question is left on the table: Are we moving policy — is U.S. policy moving in a direction that could be perceived as, in fact, rewarding the intensification of violence that has occurred over the course of the last several months, particularly from the Palestinian Arabs? Is there danger that we would be rewarding a tactic that actually aims at reigniting this violence whenever negotiations reach a point that one side isn't getting everything that it wants?
I think that there is a very real danger of this. It's one of the reasons I thought it was necessary to revisit this issue again tonight and go more deeply into the question because folks with good intentions can come forward in a situation. We want to end the violence, but if you're actually encouraging people to believe they can get something out of that violence, you might inadvertently, of course, and not intentionally be fueling the flames of death instead of helping to quell them.
Well, up front tonight to join us in this discussion, we have Hasan Rahman, the Palestinian Liberation Organization's representative to the United States, and Mark Regev, the spokesman for the Israeli Embassy here in the United States.
Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
HASAN RAHMAN, PALESTINIAN LIBERATION ORGANIZATION: Thank you.
MARK REGEV, ISRAELI EMBASSY SPOKESMAN: Thank you.
KEYES: Obviously, confronting a situation raises a lot of concerns and anxieties and passions on all sides.
Let me start with you, Hasan Rahman, and the question that I raised quite bluntly at the opening of the show. There are some — and Bill Bennett's column, obviously, an example — who think that if the vice president meets with Arafat, if other signs are given that there is some kind of a break in the administration's reluctance to deal until the violence has been brought under control that this would, in fact, be rewarding terrorism.
What is your response to that kind of an argument?
RAHMAN: I think the problem is that the United States has been appeasing violence against the Palestinians for a long period of time. The United States have tolerated Israeli systematic oppression of the Palestinians for 35 years and illegal military occupation, building Jewish settlements, stealing Palestinian land, robbing Palestinians of their dignity, humiliating them. That is appeasement of violence.
I wanted Mr. Bennett to have recognized that United States through its biased policy over the years have appeased the Israelis and made them feel that they can get away with murder. It has come back to haunt them. They occupied three generations of Palestinians, denying them their very basic human, political rights, and the Palestinians are saying, “Enough is enough. It is time for us to be free,” and that's our God-given right.
KEYES: Now, Mark Regev, obviously, this represents a kind of turning about of the argument, the view that Israel is, in fact, the perpetrator of the violence, that the onus for it falls on the Israeli unwillingness in some sense to cede to the demands of Palestinian national aspiration and to deal with the grievances on the Palestinian side.
Is Mr. Rahman correct? Has the United States over the course of these decades been accepting a pattern of violence from Israel?
REGEV: Not at all. And I think there's a fundamental fallacy in the argument. It's like saying where those churchgoers in Pakistan who were bombed by a suicide bomber — are they guilty? Were the people in New York guilty?
Terrorism is terrorism. And we have to speak in moral terms. We have to speak clearly as the president himself did today. Nothing justifies suicide bombing. Nothing justifies going into a pizza restaurant or today outside a toy shop and exploding yourself, trying to hurt innocent civilians.
And, unfortunately, I think we have a serious problem in Palestinian society and with Palestinian leadership. I understand that the Palestinians have political aspirations, and we've tried to meet those aspirations in the framework of the peace process. But we have today a Palestinian leadership that encourages this sort of violence.
The group that did the bombing today in Jerusalem was part of Arafat's Fatah organization, part of Al Aqsa. You have schools in the Palestinian territories run by Mr. Arafat which eulogize and turn suicide bombers into heroes. You have streets in refugee camps in Gaza that are named after suicide bombers. You have editorials in official Palestinian newspapers which praise suicide bombers.
They are encouraging this phenomena, and it says a lot about where Mr. Arafat is leading the Palestinians.
KEYES: Mr. Rahman, I mean, I look at this situation, and I am wondering — because I have done the reading, the research to go into this and try to figure out exactly what the culture is that underlies the kind of violence that we are seeing.
It does seem to me that, in addition to the specific groups and organizations, there seems to be a culture of violence, admittedly justified on the basis of the rhetoric of oppression, but that characterizes a lot of the rhetoric and presentations even in education on the Palestinian side.
How can we expect that violence will be brought to an end in the context of that kind of a culture? Doesn't it just seem as if there is a commitment on the Palestinian side to continue this violence?
RAHMAN: Mr. Keyes, you realize that this argument about cultural violence does not stand for the very simple reason what makes people violent. We have to look into that.
What makes a young Palestinian want to take his life and the life of others in the process? Only when he renders his life hopeless and helpless.
If he looked at what the Israelis have done in the last three weeks only, you have 20,000 Israeli soldiers invading the City of Ramallah, killing 300 Palestinians.
KEYES: But — I understand. Mr. Rahman, one word, please, because one of the things that bothers me, though, is that we've had a process that has gone on for some years, starting...
RAHMAN: But, Mr. Keyes...
KEYES: Let me finish, please. Let me finish this. Since 19...
RAHMAN: Well, you didn't let me finish what I was saying.
KEYES: ... 93, the Oslo accords — the Oslo accords — you talk as if there hasn't been any effort to put together a framework that actually turns power over to the Palestinians, but when Mr. Arafat had that internal control, the violence still continued.
RAHMAN: Mr. Keyes, you realize that you have bought the Israeli argument. Let me tell you our version of what happened in Camp David.
Yes, we had an offer from the Israelis, and we made an offer, and we continued the negotiations until it went to the 8th of September when no other than Sharon went with 2,000 Israeli armed men to the area of the Haram Al Sharif to provoke the Palestinians, and his action was condemned by the United States and by the Israeli government and by the international committee.
And when the Palestinians protested that, 69 of them was massacred by the Israeli army in cold blood. That what fueled the intifada. You have to listen to what the secretary general said yesterday about the Israelis, what the International Red Cross said about the Israelis.
KEYES: Mr. Rahman...
RAHMAN: What they have done is war crimes...
KEYES: We're getting to the end of...
RAHMAN: ... against the Palestinians.
KEYES: Mr. Rahman, we're getting to the end of our time. I want to give Mr. Regev a moment to respond. But I have not — as I said, the problem I have every time I listen to this is that there were continuing incidents of violence and the killing of Israeli civilians before that provocation...
RAHMAN: You know, occupation is the problem, Mr. Keyes.
KEYES: ... even under — even under the regime of Ehud Baruk.
Mr. Regev...
(CROSSTALK)
RAHMAN: ... the occupation is the problem.
KEYES: ... a word in response from you.
REGEV: I would say the problem is not political because we could solve the problem if we all sit around the table and negotiate. The problem is the Palestinian leadership has rejected any sort of fair compromise, and we saw that at the Camp David Summit that President Clinton led a few months ago.
I would say even stronger, as long as Arafat is cooperating with people like Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, groups that share the bin Laden extremist ideology, they don't want me to exist, they don't want my family to exist, these people want to kill Jews, they want to kill Americans, these people share the hatred ideology. As long as Arafat is cooperating with these people, I think we can ask ourselves: Is he really a partner in peace?
And the vice president said clearly this morning — he said Arafat gets no meeting with him or with any other senior American official until Arafat follows through on commitments he's made. He always promises that he's going to fight terror. He never follows through, and now it's his chance. Arafat has to shut up or put up. He can't keep promising to fight terrorism and do nothing.
RAHMAN: Well, can I say something, please?
KEYES: Yes, one last word from you, Mr. Rahman. You have 30 seconds.
RAHMAN: Yes. The problem is Israel's occupation.
REGEV: We were willing to...
RAHMAN: Israel's occupation...
REGEV: We were willing to pull out.
RAHMAN: ... illegal occupation of the Palestinians for 47 years. Get out of our territories.
REGEV: If you wanted...
RAHMAN: Let's leave — let — live in your own state, and lets live in our state, and there would not be a problem.
REGEV: But you want more than...
RAHMAN: Mr. Regev...
REGEV: You want...
RAHMAN: ... you know that this is the issue as long as you have settlements in the Palestinian land and you want to steal Palestinian territories...
REGEV: That's not true. It's not true.
RAHMAN: ... you are not going to have peace.
REGEV: Why are you operating...
RAHMAN: You have...
REGEV: We're not going to have peace because...
RAHMAN: You have to...
(CROSSTALK)
RAHMAN: ... the Palestinians, or you want to have peace.
REGEV: It's not true.
KEYES: Gentlemen — gentlemen, thank you.
REGEV: Thank you very much.
KEYES: I think it — I know the passions are intense. It also requires, I think, a certain degree of frankness to come forward and...
RAHMAN: Absolutely.
KEYES: . .. have this kind of an exchange.
REGEV: Absolutely.
RAHMAN: The question is...
KEYES: I — let me finish.
RAHMAN: ... illegal Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories.
KEYES: Thank you. I want to thank you for your help. Thank you both for being on this evening.
I have said to all of you I think this kind of illustrates, doesn't it, though, the difficulty that all of us are faced with as we try to think through how it would be possible to extricate the region from the morass of violence that results from the fact that with great weight on both sides, I think, there's a perception that the other side is, in fact, responsible for the killing and the violence and the death, and until both sides are willing to bear responsibility for the control of their own behavior, including the Palestinians, victims though they may see themselves as, I don't see an end in sight.
But, anyway, we will get to the heart of that matter when we address these questions on MAKING SENSE: Has U.S. pressure on Israel encouraged Palestinian use of violence or not; What is the real Palestinian agenda; and Would a meeting with the vice president legitimatize Arafat's position despite his failure to quell Palestinian violence?
Plus, of course, our open-line segment. You can call me at 1-866-KEYES-USA with whatever is on your mind.
But, first of all, do you think it makes sense — this campaign-finance reform bill has passed. Everybody's rejoicing. And there is President Bush declaring that, “Well, I see its flaws. It is constitutional flawed.”
And he saw those flaws during the campaign and understood that one shouldn't sacrifice constitutional rights for the sake of phony reform, and yet, in spite of the truth that is right there in front of him that he himself has admitted in his run up to the presidency, he says now that he is going to succumb and sign a bill that he knows is unconstitutional.
He took an oath to uphold the Constitution. How can he put his signature on something that he knows does not conform with it? Does this make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: As you U.S. troops continue to rout out terrorism around the world, some top military officials are telling Congress that America's armed forces are spread too thin. But is their problem really a question of resources, or is it a question of strategy? We're going to get into that in our next half-hour with some special guests from the Congress of the United States.
A reminder that the chat room is humming tonight. Debbie says, “Cheney should not reward the behavior of either party by meeting with them.” You can join in right now at chat.msnbc.com.
But before we get to all of that, we're talking about the turmoil in the Middle East. The deadly tragedy continues to claim many lives, yet a possibility is raised of a meeting between Vice President Dick Cheney and Yasser Arafat. Some have said, including Bill Bennett in a recent column, that that rewards the Palestinians and the tactics of violence and violence especially against civilians, the terror tactics that they have employed.
Joining us to get to the heart of this matter, Raymond Tanter, a Middle East expert with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and former senior member of President Reagan's National Security Council. Also with us, Charles Kupchan, an international relations professor at Georgetown University and former member of the National Security Council under President Clinton. And Jonathan Strum, a Middle East expert at Georgetown University Law Center.
I want to start tonight with Mr. Strum and ask the simple question that is posed by critics like Bill Bennett. If we're in the midst of a situation where violence and terror are being employed as kind of an extension of the negotiating table, force being used in order to achieve negotiating results, if we ignore all of that and engage in sort of high-level exchanges, aren't we legitimatizing that abuse of the negotiating process? Yes or no?
JONATHAN STRUM, MIDDLE EAST EXPERT: I would change the equation. I think that, given what's going on right now, I think that you have to take whatever effort you can in order to save lives. I would change the question to whether or not it — rewarding terrorism, which, in fact, it might be, to whether or not an Arafat-Cheney meeting could save a life, and if it can save a life, then I think it has to go forward.
KEYES: Let me ask a question then to follow up along those lines because one of the problems, I think, with well-intentioned efforts is that if you're actually encouraging people to get something — to believe they're going to get something further and more out of the violence, rewarding that pattern of behavior, aren't you, in fact, then going to lead to more deaths because they will continue to pursue that line?
STRUM: Well, that depends where — that depends where it leads. And remember, we've got a lot of interests in this area. I mean, one of the reasons for a Cheney-Arafat visit is to gather support in the Arab world for our policy on Iraq. It's to encourage the Saudis to present the peace — their peace plan at the Arab summit.
It made — the Arab peace — the Saudi peace plan may not be a perfect plan, but it's a lot better than what's been out there to date, certainly from the Saudis and from some of the other Arab nations who have refused to even contemplate recognizing Israel and normalizing relations with Israel.
So I think that when you look at these things, you have to look at things in a larger context. When you narrow the question down too much — is it rewarding terrorism? I mean, is it something that if — in the best of all possible worlds, it wouldn't happen? Of course. But if — is this something that we should do in the context of what our global interests are? I think it is at this point.
KEYES: Well, Raymond Tanter, are we in a position where we have no choice now than to meet with Yasser Arafat regardless of how some may feel about his use of violence in the negotiating process?
RAYMOND TANTER, WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY: Absolutely not, Alan. Rewarding Arafat at this point with a meeting with the vice president is something like giving a student visa to the ring leader of the hijackers after he crashed his aircraft into the World Trade Center. It would be like giving Timothy McVeigh a posthumous Ph.D. for his contribution to urban planning. Arafat is responsible for the violence. He can turn it off. September 28th, 2000, is the time in which Arafat gave the order for the Al Aqsa intifada to begin.
KEYES: Charles Kupchan, what do you think? Is it possible to talk to Yasser Arafat without seeming to suggest that a pattern of behavior that I don't think is just isolated to this recent period, but, in fact, has been repeated several times over the course of his career is, once again, succeeding at wresting concessions and advances from the situation? I mean, aren't we simply going to encourage further intractability?
CHARLES KUPCHAN, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: I'd probably split the difference between my two colleagues and certainly not offer Arafat a blank check, that is a meeting under any conditions. I would say he has to come out in the next few days, be resolute in the condemnation of terrorist attacks against Israel, do more to crack down on the sources of terrorism in the Palestinian community.
But I think that the U.S. does have a clear interest in making this meeting happen if Arafat will play ball, one, because the status quo is not tenable. It is a spiral downward of violence. Palestinians are growing angrier and angrier by the day. Israel is paralyzed essentially. People are afraid to go out on the street because of the bombing. So there needs to be somebody who steps forward and says, “Let's take a breather. Let's try to get this started.”
And, secondly, I'm not convinced that Sharon's strategy of trying to undermine Arafat and push him to the side is the way to go. Who would replace him? Arafat has some moral authority. He more than anyone else could try to push the political center in the Palestinian community towards some sort of negotiated settlement. Granted, he hasn't done it yet. He's in bed with Hezbollah and terrorists, but I don't see an alternative, and I would not try to push him out of the picture at this point.
STRUM: And I think — and I'd like to jump in. I mean, I think that's precisely one of the issues. I mean, I think we simply — he is the current leader of the Palestinians. He has to be negotiated with, I mean, if Israelis are meeting with people affiliated with Arafat and if it can move the process forward.
I think one of the things that Cheney could do on — in a meeting — and I would agree with my colleague that there has to be restrictions on this meeting, but we can find out what he's going to say at the Arab summit if he, in fact, is allowed to go.
TANTER: But, gentlemen...
STRUM: One...
TANTER: ... time out. Excuse me.
STRUM: Sure.
TANTER: If you create a condition under which you reward violence, then Jewish blood, if you will, becomes the currency of exchange.
Alan Keyes and I were in the Reagan administration together, and Oliver North made arms for hostages a deal that President Reagan accepted, and, all of a sudden, hostages became the currency of exchange. There were more hostages seized after the arms trade than before, and that's the same thing that's happening now. More violence.
KUPCHAN: I think it's inappropriate to portray it as rewarding violence. It would not be. It would be to say both sides are spiraling downward. It's out of control. We need to say to Arafat, “Show some strength. Show some leadership.” We would reward him not for the violence, but for trying to reign in the terror, and that's why you have to put those conditions on it.
KEYES: But, Charles — Charles, one of the problems I see with that is that it acts like we're dealing with this situation in a historical vacuum in which there is no background, no pattern of behavior, no point at which we had ever reached this kind of a juncture before.
Not only, I think, are we creating a currency, sadly, in blood and human life, but we're accepting the degraded currency of Yasser Arafat's word. Yasser Arafat gave his word in '93. He gave — he has given his word several times since.
The killing has continued whenever it seemed to serve the purposes of his negotiating strategy. Why is his word worth more now that it's been discredited once again by...
STRUM: I don't...
KUPCHAN: I don't disagree with you. I'm no fan of Arafat, but what's the alternative? The alternative is what we have today, which is bombs going off once or twice a day in the heart of Israel, which is more violence in the West Bank. So I don't — I think we have very awful alternatives across the board, but I think that the worst alternative is to simply back off and not try for some sort of breakthrough.
STRUM: But, Charles, I think — and I think that there's something very critical here, is that one of the things that we have here is we have — two absolute truths have come out of the last several months, certainly from the Israeli perspective.
The first is that Arafat cannot be trusted in any manner. It's something I would agree with. But I agree with Mr. Kupchan, is that they've still got to negotiate.
The other truth that comes out the of the events of the last several months is that Israel cannot maintain its presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip indefinitely. It's only going to stay that way.
And you — we — it — at some point, we have to step back and say, “Well, you did this first. You did this second. You did this. You responded. You responded.” At some point, we have to try to get the people to stop.
KEYES: Let me ask you a question, and — because every time I listen to these discussions, it seems to me we're dealing with two negotiating parties, and, yet, we're willing to accept an asymmetry that doesn't make sense to me. You all say, “There's Yasser Arafat, can't do anything about him.”
If there was a really bad interlocutor sitting as prime minister of Israel who was taking the whole situation to the dogs and everybody was agreed, including people who were on his side, that he wasn't of any real use and contribution to peace and so forth and so on, there's at least one possibility of what would happen to him. What is it?
TANTER: He would be defeated in election.
KEYES: He would be defeated in an election. He'd get voted out.
TANTER: Exactly.
KEYES: Now it seems to me that we are accepting a degree of incompetence from the Palestinian side that is inconsistent with the success of these negotiations. If these are folks who should be, in fact, determining their own future, why is it that they can't put together a mechanism to put better leaders in place to lead them toward that future?
TANTER: But, Alan, let's assume that the vice president goes to Cairo and meets with Arafat. I want that photo opportunity to be like Nixon with his finger in Kruschev's face in the kitchen where the vice president is telling Arafat, “Stop the violence now.”
KUPCHAN: Alan, what I don't understand is, yes, the Palestinian Authority is weak, it's fractured. We don't have a serious negotiating partner. We can't trust Arafat. I agree with all that, but that's what we have, right?
So what are you suggesting, that we just throw up our hands and walk away from it? Number one, the region spirals into a violence.
KEYES: Well, it seems to me...
KUPCHAN: And, number two, we're...
KEYES: No, no. Part...
KUPCHAN: ... trying to get some backing in the Arab world for the war against terrorism. That's not going to happen if things are sliding into the abyss.
KEYES: I understand, but why then don't we put an agenda item on the table that alludes to the fact that if you want to have decent negotiations, there is a responsibility on both sides to bring forward interlocutors who can contribute to that negotiation? The burden and responsibility for competent interlocutors who can be trusted to implement the peace in this situation — to do that on the Arab side — that responsibility is not ours. It's not the Israelis.
KUPCHAN: I agree with you.
KEYES: It's a responsibility the Arab-Palestinian responsibility that nobody ever talks about.
KUPCHAN: I agree with you, but — but — and if you can say to me, “Let's not talk to Arafat. Let's talk to Mr. X, Y, or Z,” I would say great. But the sad truth is there is no real alternative to Arafat. So it seems to me we don't have any choice but to try to deal with him and push him to...
TANTER: I fully disagree with this idea that we don't have a choice. Every time General Zinni goes over to the area, violence increases. This is his third trip. Eleven Israelis have been killed in this — since Zinni has been there in the third trip, and there's been — there have been five suicide bombing attacks since Zinni's been in the area. This is not good.
KUPCHAN: So you conclude from that that the more that America gets involved, the more violence there is?
TANTER: No, I'm just simply saying that the conflict may not be ripe for an interlocutor to intervene.
STRUM: But the — know, but the — but that argument's been made consistently all the time for why we can't intervene, and the fact is — as I think has been said before, is that the situation has gone from bad to worse.
I mean, I was in Jerusalem less than two months ago and was right by King George street and was not happy about being there because I was afraid.
But you're in a position now where something has to happen, and the parties — you know, the parties, when left to their own devices, don't seem to be able to push it. At least these people right now don't seem to be able to push it. Several years ago, we may have been able to do some things on our own.
They need the Americans, they need General Zinni to go in, and they need the United States to talk sharply to them. They can't — the United States shouldn't be going in and saying, you know, “Anything you want.” They need to be telling them, “We're not going to support you, you know, if you want”...
KEYES: Now, gentlemen...
STRUM: ... “a state, you need to reign in the terror.”
KEYES: ... we've come to the end of our time. I want to thank you again for, I think, a very interesting and insightful exchange that I think honestly admits some of the difficulties that we're faced with and illustrates them. I want to thank you all for joining us tonight.
And I have one final word because, once again, I've got to put it on the table here. We act as if there's nothing we can do about the incompetence on the Palestinian side.
The first thing we could do is to put that question not to Yasser Arafat but to the Palestinians and the Arab world: Don't you have a responsibility to put together a process that will allow Palestinians to choose more competent and effective and trustworthy leadership for this negotiating process?
I think that's a responsibility that everybody who claims to want peace ought to have to face up to.
Next, are U.S. troops spread too thin? I say that the problem that our military commanders have now talked about a little bit on Capitol Hill could go beyond resources and mere military considerations. Because the effective use of resources involves a strategy that harnesses those resources to clear aims and ends. And the question then becomes, is there such a strategy in front of us? I am going to talk about that with two members of the House Armed Services Committee who are a little bit at odds on this issue. It should be an interesting debate.
Later, we'll get to what's on your mind, on any topic. Call us at 1-866-KEYES USA. And finally, my “Outrage of the Day.” I'm going to talk about the pope's statement and the reaction that some people have that this was somehow inadequate. I'm going to deal with that. You are watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes. Are U.S. troops spread too thin right now around the world? We face all kinds of challenges — the war against terror, Afghanistan, the possibility of military action against Iraq, the need to go to various places to try to rout out and deal with potential terroristic layers in various parts of the world. Is it taxing our military too much?
Navy Admiral Dennis Blair, the commander-in-chief of the Pacific Command, said this to the House Armed Services Committee yesterday: “We do not have adequate forces to carry out our missions for the Pacific if the operations in Afghanistan continue at their recent, past and current pace.”
Air Force General Joseph W. Ralston, commander-in-chief of the European Command, was asked about shifting resources from sea to land-based air power to cover the Pacific. He replied: “I'm already at zero. With one less, I can't be any worse than at zero.”
Now, obviously it's budget time. Sometimes you have to discount these kinds of things when this time of year rolls around. But at the same time, given the challenges that we are faced with, we have to keep an eye on whether or not, one, there are adequate resources supporting the efforts we're demanding of our military, but also whether or not the strategy being followed is coherent enough to allow for a successful and efficient application of resources to objectives. It's the kind of discussion that necessarily takes place in the course of an ongoing war effort in order to make sure we are doing the best we can with what we've got.
Joining us now, two members of the House Armed Services Committee who were at yesterday's hearing. Republican Congressman Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, and Democratic Congressman Tom Allen of Maine. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
Let me start with you, Congressman Allen, in terms of your reaction to what you heard. Obviously, these are not alarmist-type folks. They're looking at a situation, trying to assess it objectively. What did you make of what the military leaders had to tell you yesterday? Tom Allen?
REP. TOM ALLEN (D), MAINE: There is no question that — there is no question that our military is challenged by what's going on in Afghanistan. That's a major operation. We have 5,600 troops in Afghanistan, others in surrounding areas. They have to be supplied. It really does put a strain on our ability to respond to something that might happen elsewhere in the world.
But on the other hand, this is what the military is for. And I think we need a full-blown debate over whether they're stretched too thin, but as you pointed out, it is budget time, and certainly there are always some additional needs that we're not meeting, and that's really what I took from what the general and the admiral had to say to us yesterday.
KEYES: Representative Weldon, is this something that raises a flag of concern in terms of what we need to be girding ourselves for in the months ahead, and how do you think that the Congress should respond?
REP. CURT WELDON (R), PENNSYLVANIA: Well, it absolutely is a concern, Alan. We have had for the past 10 years an expansionist foreign policy with an isolationist offense budget, and that mismatch has caused us great problems. We have had 38 major deployments in the last 10 years since 1991, compared to 10 deployments in the previous 40 years. At a time when our defense budget was going down, we had 585 ships just a few short years ago under Ronald Reagan. Today, we have 314 ships at sea, actually involved in many more commitments. Our resources are not adequate to meet the demands. The service chiefs testified over the past two months that even with the increase proposed by President Bush, we are $24.5 billion short just for the required amounts this year.
And that's why, Alan, I was the only Republican yesterday to vote against the president's budget. It's not intellectually honest. That $10 billion should have been included for additional modernization, and I told the president, a president that I campaigned for around the country, that it was a mistake, and I think we're going to see that mistake come to fruition during this summer as we see that $10 billion evaporate.
KEYES: Representative Allen, obviously some of what Curt Weldon has said would have by implication I think some words of reflection on the previous administration in terms of their calling on the military, maybe not committing to the resources that were needed, but we also have a diversity of challenges right now. We are basically having to occupy Afghanistan in order to maintain security, prevent the resurgence of the terrorists. We have efforts going on in places like Indonesia, to work with governments to prevent the establishment of successful terrorist bases and things of that kind where we can work with people to prevent that from happening.
Obviously, it is part of the anti-terror effort to do so. We have the possibility of the need for a more extensive military action against Iraq. Some people have been calling for some kind of U.S. role in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Do we, in fact, have what we need in the way of support for our military if we're going to call on them to do this diversity of tasks?
ALLEN: Well, diversity — the diversity of tasks, as you put it, is challenging. I don't disagree with that. I think we need a major increase in defense spending. But if you take the increase that came in the last few years of the Clinton administration, the increase of the first two years of the Bush administration, last year's enactment, this year's proposed, you have seen a major increase in defense spending, 27 percent in just the last two years.
And I think it's appropriate, given the challenges we face, but there are always going to be additional needs. And somehow, we have to find the right sort of balance. I think that, for example, an action in Iraq before we get established in Afghanistan and get the reconstruction process going there would probably stretch our forces much more than they are today. But it's a matter of balance. It's a matter of finding the right — you know, the right approach. But I certainly agree with Curt Weldon that a major increase this year in defense spending is called for.
KEYES: Now, Representative Weldon, we obviously have a diversity of demands that we could make on our military. We are told that we are in the midst of a very pressing war effort with the war on terrorism. Doesn't that suggest a natural rubric for prioritizing our strategic choices in that what is directly related to the conduct of that war on terrorism would take priority over other things, including possible diplomatic ventures that might be, at this point, not, you know, desirable, but not as critical as what we have to do with the war?
WELDON: Well, it does, Alan. And Our problem is that we have allowed ourselves to get involved in a number of situations over the past several years that are not easy to get out of. I was with President Bush on Air Force One just last week, and he said he has been trying to get us out of Bosnia. It still hasn't happened yet. We were told in Congress five years ago that America would not be in Bosnia beyond Christmas five years ago.
It's not a case of America being an isolationist country. It's a case of when we decide that we have to use the forces of our country, that our allies step up to the plate and share that burden. The debate in Congress over Bosnia was not whether or not the U.S. should be involved. The question was why was America putting 36,000 troops in Bosnia during the early months and years of that operation while the Germans right next door were only putting 4,000 troops in?
What amounts to the effort around the world is that the U.S. can't be asked to take it alone to handle these regional conflicts. Other nations have got to step up and they have got to either put money on the table or, more importantly, they have got to put troops there with us or America has got to really look at whether or not that commitment is something that we're willing to make because when something like that Afghanistan comes up where we have to go after terrorism, this requires, as you put it, all of our fullest priority, and that's what President Bush is doing. But because of all these other commitments, it's causing this terrible strain on our military. Right now, our Guard and Reserve...
KEYES: We have to go, Congressman. But I thank you both tonight.
WELDON: You are welcome.
KEYES: I hope that the agreement we saw here at one level is going to be a sign that we will be able to get the sort of bipartisan commitment we need to this sort of strategic priority, because I think obviously it's going to be very important to the security of the country that we give the right kind of support to the military when we're asking so much of them, rightly so, in our defense. Thank you both for joining us tonight.
WELDON: Thank you.
KEYES: Next, I want to hear what's on your mind. Call us at 1-866-KEYES-USA. And later, my “Outrage of the Day.” The Pope has issued a statement about the scandal that is spreading in the Catholic church in America and now elsewhere in the world. Some people say it's not enough. I think that it was right on track. More that in my “Outrage of the Day.” We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now let's see what's on your mind. We'll go first to John in New York. John, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
JOHN: Alan, it's a pleasure to be on your show.
KEYES: Thank you.
JOHN: Question: Don't you feel that one of the major problems in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is that Yasser Arafat says one thing in Arabic to his people and exactly 180 degrees opposite to the rest of the world?
KEYES: I think it is a problem. It's part of what I was referring to when I talk to do Mr. Rahman about the culture of violence, the fact that in education, in other ways it seems like there's a quiet encouragement of the violence rather than really a commitment to end it. Let's go to Nidal in Georgia. Nidal, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
NIDAL: Hello, Mr. Keyes.
KEYES: Hi.
NIDAL: How are you doing, sir?
KEYES: Pretty good.
NIDAL: I've been following your almost career from the beginning, and I really enjoyed listening to you and seeing you running for president.
KEYES: Now what's on your mind, quickly.
NIDAL: I would like to say that nobody is mentioning the Palestinian blood. Last month alone, 300 Palestinians were killed by the Israelis. The insurgence of — by tanks and military into the territories, this is not the first time.
KEYES: Well, see, I think — we only have a very brief time, but just a very brief word. I think that what is breaking hearts around the world is the deaths on both sides here, and that what is particularly dismaying is there seems no way to stop it. So I don't think people are at all discounting the Palestinian deaths. It is a deep grief to all of us to see this kind of carnage.
I think we're just at a loss as to how we can stop it if both sides don't back away from violence as an instrument here. Thanks for your feedback. Really appreciate it.
Next, my “Outrage Of The Day,” having to do with the pope's statement. The reaction that some have had to it, which I think is based on a misunderstanding entirely due to ignorance really, an inability to understand the language with which the pope communicates to the clergy.
I'm going to make an attempt at that when we get back. So stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now for my “Outrage Of The Day.” The pope has issued a statement, a paragraph that was included in a larger spot. Some people have taken offense that it was just a paragraph.
If you are really profound, then in a paragraph you can say more than most people would say in hundreds of pages. I think that's exactly what the pope has done. Others have criticized him for being not compassionate enough or too belligerent and other language of this kind. Quite the temporary. I think what he did was try objectively to present, understand the nature of the evil involved here and what the proper remedy has to be from the point of view from Christian and Catholic faith.
Let me go through these sentences with you and see if we can together understand them. He says, “at this profound time too as priests are personally and profoundly afflicted by the sins of some of our brothers who have betrayed the grace of ordination in succumbing even to the most grievous forms of the mysterium iniquitatis at work in the world.” That's the first sentence. That is a very strong language.
He says that what is involved here is a betrayal of the grace of ordination. He invokes the language of Catholic belief in the power of the sacraments, the special favor of God that comes through sacramental grace. And he accuses the priest of breaking faith with that power. Those who are directly involved in the sin but also by implication, those who did not sufficiently understand that was involved wasn't just sexual sin. What was involved was a betrayal of that grace which comes through ordination, a betrayal of the sacrament itself which is at the heart of the clerical life.
That is a profoundly harsh statement in some ways. I don't mean that word “harsh” in a critical way. I mean it's tough. It's something that makes it clear is what is involved in an objective evil that strikes at the very heart of the clergy's life.
He continues, “grave scandal is caused,” he says. That was suggested in the previous sentence when he referred to the mysterium iniquitatis, another word for the occult work of Satan, the dark work of the power of evil wearing the mask of goodness and causing scandal, which is by the way among the worst of sins. As he says, the most profound form of evil. That which gives scandal, Christ says, you should have a millstone tied around your neck and be thrown into a river. He says “profound scandal is caused with the result that the dark shadow of suspicion is cast over all the other fine priests who perform their ministry with honesty and integrity and often with heroic self-sacrifice.”
A betrayal the grace, a betrayal of all other priests in the world. I think he has pointed a finger and basically made it clear. The objective evil involved in this is deep, it is theological, and it must be dealt with as such. And that is a word that goes not just to the priests involved, but to the hierarchy to the American and other hierarchies of the church around the world.
Finally, and it goes on, “as the church shows her concern for the victims and strives to respond in truth and justice to each of these painful situations, all of us conscious of human weakness but trusting in the healing power of divine grace are called to embrace the mysterium Crucis and to commit ourselves more fully to the search for holiness.”
Finally, he writes, “we must make God and his providence to prompt a whole-hearted reawakening of those ideas of total self-giving to Christ which are the very foundation of the priestly ministry.” In a word the pope says there will be no abandonment of faith, no abandonment of celibacy. That the answer does not lie in adopting the errors of the world, but rather in profoundly recommitting one's self to the truths of the Christian and Catholic faith. I think that means that the church in America is going to be challenged to look at human sexuality in God's way, not in the world's way.
That's my sense of it. Thank you for being with us. The News with Brian Williams is up next. I'll see you on Monday.