MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesMarch 26, 2002
ALAN KEYES, MSNBC HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes. The death toll continued to mount today in the Middle East. A car bomb explosion claimed lives: two foreign observers, one Turkish man and a Swiss woman were shot to death on the West Bank. Meanwhile, the heads of government and the diplomats went on with their dance.
Sharon appeared on television today to address the issue of whether Yasser Arafat was going or not going, and what the terms and conditions would be for his attendance at the Arab summit. Yasser Arafat finally decides that he's not going in the wake of Hosni Mubarak, the president of Egypt saying that he's not going. This seemed to be a day in the Middle East when people were dying, but when otherwise we focused on things that were not happening in order to make sure that something was being done to bring that dying to an end.
We're going to be focusing today on questions that arise out of that and that actually, I'll be honest with you, reflect my sense of frustration. And I think that a of a lot of people as we watch the developments in the Middle East. It's almost as if there's a dance, a ritual of point and counterpoint that goes on in that region, against a deadly backdrop of violence and death that intensifies with each day. And meanwhile, a lot of things are happening that may or may not be focused on the real issues yet that must be dealt with in order to bring that killing to an end. So, tonight on the show, we're going to be looking at three questions. And, I know, may upset some people, but I like to be blunt.
First question, why do we keep treating Yasser Arafat as if he matters? Second question, why do we keep treating the Saudi proposal as if it matters, given the fact that it is based on an idea that's quite patently outside the realm of possibility for Israel, a return to the pre-1967 borders. And, finally, if Hosni Mubarak didn't think it was worth his time, why do we keep treating the Arab summit as if it matters?
All of this time, all of this attention, newspaper headlines, everybody's acting like this is so terribly important. Tonight we're going to take a look at whether or not there is, in fact, real substance to a lot of the stage play that is taking up so much time, but yet seems to be accomplishing so little right now on the Middle East front.
Up front with us tonight, James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute and Mark Gregev, spokesman for the Israeli embassy to the United States. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE. And I hope you all didn't mind the frustration that's clear in my formulation here, because it's one that I think is felt by a lot of people as they watch this situation.
You spend a day on which we are mainly focused on what's not happening and meanwhile what is happening is death and mayhem. James Zogby, quite frankly, is Yasser Arafat and the question of whether he does or whether he doesn't worth all the attention that it's been getting over the course of the last several days?
JAMES ZOGBY, ARAB AMERICAN INSTITUTE: Well, of course it does, Alan, and we wouldn't be focusing on it actually if it didn't matter quite a bit to the Palestinian people, to the Arab people in general. And ultimately to the people of Israel and those who want to see a peace settlement. Arafat is the leader, the representative of the Palestinian people, whether Alan Keyes thinks it's worth it or not. Ariel Sharon tried to say he was irrelevant a while back, but not unlike Newt Gingrich said Bill Clinton wasn't relevant, he came roaring back and became quite relevant, regardless of what you though of him. So the fact is, is that Arafat's signature ultimately is the critical factor that will make the difference between peace or no peace, which is why all the time is spent on him.
I believe that Yasser Arafat wants peace. I believe that the Palestinian and Israeli people want peace, and that's why it matters. It matters to deal with him. It matters to deal with the Saudi initiative, which is a very important gesture from the Arab world that says they're ready, they're ready if Israel is ready and, yes, they've made it a complete full withdrawal for full normalization. But, you know, everyone knows it is going to will take some negotiating from there. But the fact is that when you get the entire Arab consensus on board with a statement that says we're ready for peace, I would expect Israel to be quite pleased with that. It's something they've looked forward to a long time, and if their leadership is the only thing standing in the way of getting there, well, then maybe they'll be ready to have a debate in Israel about it. I know they're already debating it in Israel, and I think that is a very healthy thing.
I think we're at the verge of some very important breakthroughs right now and the fact is that, yes, there's bloodshed, but there's also some promise, some promise of a new tomorrow if only we get some very disciplined leadership from...
KEYES: Mark —
ZOGBY: ... the United States to make it happen.
KEYES: Mark Regev. Mark Regev, Jim Zogby has just told us, well, Ariel Sharon wanted to treat Yasser Arafat as if he was relevant, he's come roaring back. How has he come roaring back, except on a tide of bloodshed and violence? There are those in the United States, and I have to frankly count myself among them, who look at the response to this, and say what we've really done here is proved the currency of violence and terrorism. Why does the Israeli government insist on treating Yasser Arafat as if he matters when it seems like the only currency he's spending is the currency of Israeli blood?
MARK REGEV, SPOKESMAN FOR ISRAEL EMBASSY TO U.S.: Well, I think you're right, Alan. I think a lot of Israelis are very skeptical about Mr. Arafat and if he wants peace, and if he's even ready seriously for a cease-fire. And I think we're skeptical not because we don't like the man, but because unfortunately we've seen the way he's acted over the last two years. First of all, unfortunately, he didn't pick up a political option when he was given one by President Clinton and former former Prime Minister Barak.
And today we have had unfortunately continuous examples of Arafat throwing away chances for a cease-fire, and we saw that again this week. prime minister — sorry, Vice President Cheney and Prime Minister Sharon agreed on a mechanism whereby we would have a cease-fire. Arafat would take some specific steps, steps that he himself committed to doing in the past. Not something that I asked him to do or the Americans, but steps he said he would do. And he wouldn't even make those minor steps that Vice President Cheney asked him to do. And we are very, very cynical and cautious about Arafat. But I'll tell you what the Israeli strategy is. We look at him maybe the same way that Truman looked at Stalin. We have no illusions this man is a dictator, this man is an extremist.
He's the leader of his people today, we'll hold our breath and wait for another lead to come along. And in the meantime, we want deals that are transparent, we want deals that are based on some sort of understanding that we don't trust. We have to have a framework in which he has to follow through on his commitments and we take his word —
KEYES: Wait.
ZOGBY: Oh, shame, shame. Listen —
KEYES: One question. Wait before you come back. Mr. Zogby, I'll give you the floor, wait one second. I have one follow-up question I'd like to ask, Mark, because it seems to me that you were just talking about the need to deal with Yasser Arafat. But James Zogby was basically saying that if Ariel Sharon and the current leadership doesn't want to deal with the opportunity in front, then the Israeli people would need to have a discussion with the implication that there could be some change in that leadership.
Doesn't it bother you there is no symmetry here between Israel and the Palestinians? You are forced to deal with Yasser Arafat regardless, and yet Jim Zogby can imply that if something is wrong with Sharon, the Israeli government should change him. Why is it that there is no focus on the fact that if something is wrong with Yasser Arafat we have no way of knowing, in fact, whether or not the Palestinian people in free and open representative fashion would continue to support his leadership? That doesn't bother you, Mark?
REGEV: Of course it bothers me. It bothers me the fact that you have an Arab League summit today and tomorrow in Beirut, and you have 20 leaders and not a single one is a democratically elected leader. And it's easy for these leaders to point fingers at the United States and Israel, but who do they represent?
And are we not only looking at the part of the world where everyone gets together and there's not a single democratic leader? It used to be true of South America. Today in south America, you have lots of Democratic leaders. The same in eastern Asia, the same in eastern Europe. Even in Africa you have democratic regimes today. Why is it that the Arab world, and the Palestinians are included in this, as the only part of the globe which is somehow immune to democracy, to freedom, to openness? And I think that's a legitimate question.
As Arafat, I mean, I wish we had a more pragmatic, a more statesman type —
ZOGBY: You know, I — I really have to say that it's difficult and there's a bit of — there ought to be a little bit of shame in this conversation that one can talk about Arafat and violence when Ariel Sharon is doing what he's doing on the West Bank. I hope, I hope that the Israeli people never, in this century, have to endure what the Palestinian people are enduring right now.
I hope that no Israeli leader is ever treated with the indignity, the humiliation, and the sheer brutality that Arafat is forced to deal with. The fact is that there ought to be a degree of shame. A people are being treated as if they are not human beings in the West Bank and Gaza. They have been deprived not only of their freedom, but they have been deprived of all hope. They've been deprived even of the basic necessities of life. And, yes, they've turned to violence and I condemn that violence. It is not a solution. But I also condemn those who have sucked the very life out of that people today, and those who have sucked the hope out of that people today.
You simply cannot treat people like less than human beings and then come on national television and complain about their violence. It's a little bit of chutzpah to use that kind of language, and frankly, it's disgusting. These people are dying and they're dying because of F-16s and Apache helicopter gunships and tanks and their towns are surrounded and they can't get out to even buy the basic necessities of life. And when they are giving birth to children, they die giving birth to children in their cars because they can't get through your inhuman checkpoints.
And so, for God's sake, understand that what's going on here is a people are fighting for their very survival and their dignity as human beings. And what is going on in the face of all that is these Arab leaders that you may not respect, but they are meeting in Beirut and they are saying in spite of that, we are holding open the promise of a normal peace. You may not like them. You may not like the countries they come from or how they got there. But they're holding open to you the promise of a normal peace if only you end the brutal occupation and let people breathe free.
If you don't want to do that, then the cycle of violence will continue. And it will continue until the...
REGEV: No. No.
ZOGBY: ... bloodshed takes the lives of all people on all sides for a long time to come.
KEYES: Wait a second. I want to give Mark Regev a chance to respond before I hold forth. Mark, do you have anything to say?
REGEV: Well, first of all, I mean, I have got a list here of some 70 terrorist events that happened before 1967, and to say that terrorism happens because of what happens on the West Bank, I think, is a gross simplification. I'd even say more.
You have a situation today where you have streets being named in Gaza after suicide bombers, where children going to school are taught that this is a good thing, to be a martyr for the cause, where editorials in Palestinian official newspapers encourage suicide bombers. It's in school books. It's in editorials. It's not — this isn't happening in a vacuum.
Palestinians could have had a political solution had they wanted one. They have got a corrupt leadership, like the Iraqi leadership. They suffer like the Iraqi people suffer because they have got a leadership that is more interested in a radical political agenda instead of worrying about the people themselves.
ZOGBY: Mark, you don't want peace. That's it. You don't want peace.
REGEV: If there weren't terrorists, we wouldn't have to have roadblocks. And you have roadblocks because there are suicide bombers from Hamas, from Hezbollah, from Islamic Jihad, who want to kill Israelis.
ZOGBY: You don't want peace. That's the sad thing.
REGEV: Are we all supposed to let them all come in? I don't understand what you're saying, Jim. Are we supposed to let every terrorist come into Israel to kill Israelis?
ZOGBY: No. No, you're not. But the fact is is that if you wanted to treat them with dignity, if you applied the very principles that your own people — I read the Israeli press and I hear what the Israeli press is saying and they are calling for a much more humane approach to deal with the Palestinian people and they have been for many years before this.
The fact is is that through all those years of the peace process, Mark, and I followed it very closely, I was there in Israel. I was there on the West Bank and Gaza. I was there at the checkpoints when everyone was singing peace. Somebody forgot to tell the soldiers at the checkpoints about it. Palestinians went and...
REGEV: Because someone forgot to tell you there was Hamas and there was Hezbollah and there was Islamic Jihad all the time. All the time.
ZOGBY: The first time that Israel instituted a closure of the West Bank was after Baruk Goldstein massacred people in Hamas. That was the first time you used a closure. And let's not go back to '67 because we can always play that historical game and go back to '48 and '39 and '36 and ’27.
The fact is, we're stuck in the mud now. How do we get out of the mud? And if you think there's a military solution to that, you're wrong, just as those in Hamas who think there is a military solution are wrong. There is no military solution.
KEYES: Jim, we're going to give you both an opportunity to continue. We've come up to the time in this segment. We'll be back.
When we get back, I'm going to hold forth for a minute or two with a couple of questions that I have for both of our guests. We'll also be joined by the senior diplomatic correspondent for Al Hayat, a Pan-Arab daily newspaper.
Later, we'll be discussing Billy Graham's controversial comments about Jews. You are watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP, FEBRUARY 1, 1972)
BILLY GRAHAM: This stranglehold has got to be broken or this country is going to go down the drain.
RICHARD NIXON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Do you believe that?
GRAHAM: Yes, sir.
NIXON: I can't ever say it, but I believe it.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
KEYES: Those were comments made by the Reverend Billy Graham to President Nixon about what Nixon perceived as a so-called Jewish domination in the media. The remarks were made 30 years ago, but they're coming back to haunt Billy Graham today. The Reverend Graham has since apologized to the Jewish community, but many in that community say it's not enough. Coming up in our next half hour, we'll debate that.
A reminder, too, that the chat room is humming right along tonight. Shawn says, “Arafat has value, just not for those who want peace. He has lots of value in the Fatah movement and Islamic Jihad.” And you can join in with your opinion right now at chat.msnbc.com.
First, though, back to the crisis in the Middle East. Joining us now is Raghida Dergham senior diplomatic correspondent for the Al Hayat, the Pan-Arab daily newspaper. And still with us, James Zogby of the Arab American Institute and Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israeli embassy to the United States. Welcome to MAKING SENSE everyone.
Before we get on with the discussion, I have one question I have got to get back to before we move ahead. Mark Regev, I would really just like kind of a straight — I'm sorry. Jim Zogby, I'd like a straight answer, not the rhetoric and the this and that.
I judge representative leaders based on the processes that produce them. Parts of the world where people stay in power year after year after year without structures to consult the consent of the people and in free and open choice without violence, coercion and intimidation, are able to ratify their leadership. After a while, I start to wonder about all this rhetoric about who represents whom in the absence of that process.
Now, Yasser Arafat is not subject to such a process and it seems to me that that then creates an asymmetry between the Palestinians and Israel in terms of the representative nature of the leadership involved. Isn't that a problem for the Palestinian movement?
ZOGBY: Now you want an answer?
KEYES: Yes.
ZOGBY: OK. The rhetoric went with the question, and now comes the answer. I'll give you a straight one, Alan. The fact is Yasser Arafat was elected. He was elected according to the rules of the Oslo process and was elected by a large number of the Palestinian people. They have wanted to have a second election, but the rest of the Oslo process was never implemented. I was there as part of the international observer force with the United States government that was commissioned to observe the elections and the Israelis did everything they could to make the elections not work. It was unfortunate.
The Carter Commission that I was a part of reported that they were fair and open elections. We would like to see new elections, but Palestinians still don't control their own territory. They don't control their own state. And so there cannot be a new election and so, in fact, misleadership has become entrenched, but not because of its own design. It has become entrenched precisely because the occupation never ended and, therefore, civil society never had a chance to flourish.
I do not want to see a Palestinian state that is not a free state. But the fact is, is that there's not a Palestinian state. There is no freedom. The occupation is there. And, therefore, there's no such thing as the ability to have elections because there's nothing to be elected to at this point other than the position Arafat was elected to, which wasn't even called president because the Israelis wouldn't agree to let him use the term president. He called Raiz (ph) in Arabic, but the U.S. government, for example, still calls him chairman because we don't recognize that title yet.
So, until there's an end to that occupation, there can't be a free election. I just want to make a point though before we get off this...
KEYES: No, no, just a second. Raghida Dergham, welcome to the show.
RAGHIDA DERGHAM, AL-HAYAT NEWSPAPER: Thank you.
KEYES: I appreciate your taking the time to join us. We're talking today about this situation. I mean, we've all been obsessed with the fact that Arafat is not going to the summit. I have a problem with that obsession in that it makes an assumption about the critical nature of both the summit and Yasser Arafat's leadership, that it seems to me are seriously in doubt at this stage. Why are we called upon to treat these things with such seriousness when it seems that they have so little to do with the intense violence that's taking place on the ground?
DERGHAM: It has everything to do with it, Alan, because the violence that's taking place, in effect it has taken place because the political situation has not lent itself to a solution. Now, the message that came from Mr. Sharon's stand on not allowing Mr. Arafat to go to the Beirut summit actually it's a message that's directed to more than Mr. Arafat.
Of course, to the Palestinians, it's saying, you know what? I shall always go on controlling what you do and what you don't, because I have power. To the Arab summit it said you know, you're going to put out the vision for peace and you're going to put out an endorsement of Prince Abdullah's vision for a peaceful settlement and co-existence with Israel, well, I'm not ready to match it. And to the administration the message is, lay off, I am not going to do what you want, no matter what.
Although, as you know, Mr. Cheney, the vice president, and Mr. Powell, secretary of state, and even the president himself tried to make it quite clear to Mr. Sharon that it's essential and important that Mr. Arafat, participates in that summit because of the message of that summit.
And finally, I think also a very disturbing message from Mr. Sharon's stand is that to the camp opposed to the peaceful settlement and I'm speaking about the camp that exists amongst the Arabs and amongst the Arab public opinion, that is to say, let me involve you further, because here I am saying no to the peace vision and the peace proposal, so you can go out and say you see, we told you that the Israelis are not serious about it.
And that's why you had seen demonstrations in many parts of Arab world today. I understand there was a demonstration in Yemen. I had heard an American network put it at 100,000 people out on the streets. I read in one of the Arabic papers it was a million. Somewhere in between, anyway. But some people are calling for arms struggle rather than a peaceful settlement.
KEYES: Two things. First, isn't it the case, though, that Vice President Cheney, the Bush Administration, they seem to put pressure this way and that, but at the end of the day, the vice president did not meet with Yasser Arafat because he has not taken the kind of steps to contain and curb and curtail the violence that they think are required. Isn't that true?
DERGHAM: That is true. Vice president did not meet with Mr. Arafat. He had demanded more from Mr. Arafat. In effect, Alan, if you look between the lines, it was very important. I think the administration was banking on Mr. Sharon delivering on not blocking Mr. Arafat from going to the summit.
I think the administration lent a great amount of importance to the summit and rightly so. By the way, the summit is not against Israel or it's not against Israel's interest. It's not against Israel's existence and the administration is not departing from its support to Israel. This summit is about the peaceful proposal, a peaceful settlement.
KEYES: On that note, I want to go back to Mark (UNINTELLIGIBLE) for a minute, with something that I confess, again, leaves me kind of impatient and frustrated. At a level of serious consideration, given the reality that the pre-1967 borders are, I think, universally regarded in Israel as indefensible, is a proposal that offers Israel a peace based on those borders actually a viable starting point for negotiations?
Because the Arab summit is being played up, this is what we put on the table, that would mean viable peace for Israel. Is it or is it not a proposal that can be taken seriously by Israel?
MARK REGEV, ISRAELI EMBASSY SPOKESMAN: I think you're right. There's a problem. I think there's a good piece by Henry Kissinger in this week's “Newsweek” where he talks about that very issue. The peace process has always been based on 242 — security counsel resolution — and 338, and by talking about 4th of June borders, and everyone knows it's really a nonstarter, and it's really a way of torpedoing the process before it starts.
I would also stress that if you look at what's on the table in Beirut, you see a lot of stuff that's very, negative indeed. First of all, they have watered down the original Abdullah proposal. He talked about peace and normalization. They're now using language which unfortunately much —talking about a colder piece. They're talking about it's a pity. You'd like to think they'd come out with something like we're against suicide bombers.
Of course, they won't say anything about that. They talked about occupied Lebanon. Not even the United Nations today talks about occupied Lebanon because we pulled out of Lebanon. And this is unfortunately what happens. The Arab summit is a consensus politics of all the Arab countries. As a result, it goes on the lowest common denominator, and you have the Syrians, unfortunately, pulling the tune — calling the tune, I should say, and that's why you have the watering down of these proposals.
DERGHAM: Alan? Could I say...
REGEV: That's why President Mubarak chose to stay away and I understand also that King Abdullah of Jordan is limiting his stay there. The moderate Arabs are staying away from the summit because the summit unfortunately looks like it won't do anything positive about peace.
DERGHAM: Can I come in on this?
KEYES: Go right ahead.
DERGHAM: I'm so sorry that there is a conclusion of what the summit has done when it has not even begun yet.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.
DERGHAM: That's very surprising. I don't think this is a really responsible way to say things. There isn't something out of the summit. It has not begun yet. Secondly, I also want to put it — I know I appreciate there is a certain point of view, put by Mr. Regev, but I am glad to report that I don't find it amongst all Israelis.
I do not find a similar position by Jews in New York, for example. In fact, the 1967 borders are the solution, if you want peaceful co-existence. If you have another option, that is to say Democratic state, one man, one vote, fine, let's go for it, because the third option is to go on killing each other and this is not a winnable war.
And in effect, you know, there was a debate a little earlier about who's elected and who's not. It's a sad statement, if I may say, that the Israeli constituency elected a man, Mr. Sharon, who has brought more losses to Israel, both during his reign as prime minister and when he was in government before and there has been more Israelis dead during Mr. Sharon's reign.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And Mr. Arafat is a choir boy.
DERGHAM: And the point is that at least this is a democracy in Israel that elected such a man. The Arabs don't have democracies and let's blame, you know, blame them for the dictatorships. But how do you explain a democracy like Israel bringing a man like Mr. Sharon to power and not doing anything to stop them when he's really failing Israel and failing everything that you want.
REGEV: Could I remind you that Prime Minister Sharon is the only Israeli leader who destroyed settlements for peace, that he played an instrumental role in getting the peace treaty with Egypt, that he played an instrumental role in making peace with Jordan.
(CROSSTALK)
ZOGBY: Mark, Ariel Sharon is also the prime minister...
(CROSSTALK)
ZOGBY: Is also the prime minister that built the settlements...
REGEV: But you know the Sinai is not the West Bank. In the mind of Ariel Sharon it remains Judean, Sumerian. He is not yet willing to accept this concept of it being Palestinian land.
REGEV: Jim, at the White House last week — not last week, last month, he spoke clearly about he wants a Palestinian state, that he agrees to a Palestinian state.
ZOGBY: But the concept, Mark, don't play games, Mark. Because you know that the Palestinian state that Ariel Sharon refers to is nothing more than what an Indian reservation looks like here in America.
REGEV: I don't think that's true at all. That's not true at all. He has thought about a contiguous Palestinian state.
ZOGBY: That has no external borders to the outside world.
REGEV: He is willing to talk about hard and difficult compromises.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: We're coming down to the wire.
ZOGBY: Can I say something before we leave? I want to make one point, Alan, and that is what...
KEYES: Last word. Go ahead.
ZOGBY: When you do your next segment on Billy Graham, I hope you'll do a segment not on a statement said 30 years ago, but something that was done just very recently with Pat Robertson and Billy Graham Jr. and John Ashcroft making some pretty horrendous comments about Islam. Let's not have to wait 30 years for people to apologize for insulting people's religion and people's faith.
KEYES: That is precisely the sort of question we will be debating in the next segment — very quickly, Raghida.
DERGHAM: I just want to say it was really not fair also to say that the king of Jordan as a moderate is away from the...
REGEV: He's delaying, I said he is delaying.
DERGHAM: I'm sorry, can I just say why? Because he was hoping still that he would be able to pick up Mr. Arafat and take him to Beirut. Let's put it in perspective. It was not fair.
KEYES: Thank you. I want to thank all three of you for a very lively discussion. And I'll send you away with a thought I always leave with folks because I think as I listen to these discussions, we mentioned earlier, I think it was Mr. Zogby talked about the history and the background.
Well, it's good to remember some history about the partition of old Palestine because I keep wondering whether a Palestinian state without Jordan is ever going to be anything but an Indian reservation. It wasn't intended to be that way. We'll be right back after these remarks to talk about Billy Graham's controversial comments about Jews during a conversation with President Richard Nixon in the Oval Office.
We are going to come back to you right after this break and the news update from Lester Holt.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWSBREAK)
KEYES: Reverend Billy Graham's controversial comments recorded on tape by President Richard Nixon in the Oval Office in February of 1972 has caused quite a stir. There's been some harsh reaction. He has also first issued what was kind of an explanation that he denied he'd remember saying that. Then he issued a clear apology. Let's hear some of what was said.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP, FEBRUARY 1, 1972)
NIXON: “Newsweek” is totally — it's all run by Jews and dominated by them in their editorial pages. The “New York Times, the “Washington Post”, totally Jewish too.
GRAHAM: And they're the ones putting out the pornographic stuff. But this stranglehold has got to be broken or this country is going to go down the drain.
NIXON: Do you believe that?
GRAHAM: Yes, sir.
NIXON: I can't ever say it, but I believe it.
GRAHAM: But if you get elected a second time, we might be able to do something.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
KEYES: And there's more from Reverend Graham. He says, “I go and I keep friends with Mr. A.M. Rosenthal at the “New York Times” and people of that sort, you know. And all — I mean, not all the Jews, but a lot of Jews are great friends of mine. They swarm around me and are friendly to me because they know that I'm friendly with Israel. But they don't know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country and I have no power, no way to handle them. But I would stand up, if under proper circumstances.” Hmm.
Joining us now to discuss these remarks and the controversy surrounding them, Lewis Drummond, the Billy Graham professor of evangelism and church growth at Samford University, a Southern Baptist institution in Birmingham, Alabama. He is also the author of the book, “The Evangelist”, a biography of Billy Graham. With us too, James Warren, deputy managing editor for the “Chicago Tribune”, who broke the story of the Nixon-Graham exchange. Jim is also an analyst for MSNBC. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
First, I'm going to ask a question that may or may not seem, I think, obvious, but I'd like both of you to take a quick crack at telling me why these remarks were so offensive? Why don't I start with Jim Warren.
JAMES WARREN, “CHICAGO TRIBUNE”: Well, I think, first and foremost, because Billy Graham was one of the most — is one of the most famous preachers in this country. And I think his position can be likened to most major public figures and particularly for someone who was not only, Alan, a chaplain for several presidents, an emissary in a way for those presidents, but also someone who's daily public life sought to uphold universal values and hold people's feet to the fire when it came to those values.
I think we have to ask for a pretty distinct correlation between his public and his private life. If you're going to stick it to Bill Clinton for actions in his private life, if you're going to stick it to the likes of Reverend Jesse Jackson, remember, for the famous all clearly off the record Himetown remarks and do it because we see them as public figures, upholding certain values, then I think the same is absolutely true for Billy Graham and I think the best thing one can say here, the best one can say having listen to an hour and 34-minute tape is that he was outrageously pandering to a president, a bigoted president, with whom, for a bunch of reasons, back in 1972 he was seeking to curry favor.
KEYES: Now, let's go to Lewis Drummond. What is your thought on that?
LEWIS DRUMMOND, SAMFORD UNIVERSITY: Well, it's true that Billy Graham is a very well known personality and has a very fine reputation for being, as he says, a real man of God. And when something like this does occur, of course, that obviously raises questions. But there's a lot of dynamics that in this general context of these statements that really need to be understood.
But here's a world figure and he has made some statements that are very questionable. But I think there is a real rationale and a reason back of them and I think that it can be surely justified, in the sense of the word, that he's made a sincere, honest, genuine apology, in every sense of the word. That's all the man can do. But there was a context of that that's really worth looking into and considering what precipitated these statements.
KEYES: Well, see, I want to talk about that for a minute. First, let met take issue with a thought here. I would at least say, James Warren, that speaking to the president of the United States, you're not in a private context. I think that that is a misnomer. The president is called Mr. President 24-hours-a-day because he represents the executive power of this country 24-hours-a-day. When you go into the Oval Office, you sit and have a talk with the president, you are always talking to a public person.
And I think that the Reverend Graham, particularly as a Christian person, had a biblical obligation, I'll be clear about this, because the Bible says you are to speak truth to power. And that means when you're sitting with the president of the United States, that's an incumbent obligation with respect to your Christian duty, vis-a-vis, the power, the public power that that person represents.
Now, that's not exactly contradicting anything you said. It's just that I think we have to see here a sense of the responsibility that Billy Graham had as a public leader, speaking to the most powerful public personage in the United States. And the remarks have to be taken that way, not as private comments.
WARREN: Alan, a couple of things. First of all, having listened to way too many hours of Richard Nixon tapes, it is absolutely not news that Richard Nixon is heard making bigoted comments. And for those who don't know, the Nixon apologists, like folks at the Nixon Library in California, tend to point to the fact that more often than not, the other people in the room are John Ehrlichmann or (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and his two key advisers. And the notion is Nixon is trying to be macho and they're egging him on, blah blah blah.
More often than not, also when there is another person is in there, I've listened to bigoted remarks in which Donald Rumsfeld was in the room, people like Rumsfeld, then a 39-year-old aide to Nixon, are pretty passive. This is a rare exception when someone is actively engaging him in those very same remarks. And for that reason, I think it's most unfortunate. Another thing, I think it's rather surprising a man of God doesn't stop the president and say, wait a second, those remarks are absolutely wrong. Is it too much to ask someone in the Oval Office to do that? I am not necessarily sure. And, finally, I am not sure what the overall context in which the professor is talking about. OK, it's 1972, the Vietnam War is not going well. Graham and Nixon are both bound by chagrin over what they see as a radical turn in American society and clearly that is something that leads him to make those remarks having to do with pornography.
But the overall context of those big bigoted remarks are not Billy Graham's chagrin over pornography or the Vietnam War, not at all. If one listens to the entire tape, Aan and professor, one sees throughout it remarks that I think just simply can not be rationalized.
KEYES: Now, Professor Drummond, what do you think is the context that has to be taken account of, and do you think that the actual context in the oval office was, in fact, a public challenge to a moral leader speaking to a powerful public figure?
DRUMMOND: I think it is important to see that in the apology that Mr. Graham made that he actually said I made a mistake. It was just wrong that I did not stop President Nixon from making those mistakes and telling him that he was wrong. But when I refer to the context of the statement, let's remember two or three things. First of all, what the issue was pornography, extreme pressure from extreme left-wing political views, etc. And Billy Graham, I think if you will read the context carefully, really did not say that he was against Jewish people per se. He was against the pornography, against the extreme left-wing political views of some, that he disagreed with, of course.
But the setting was that they happened to be Jewish people. And he would have said the same thing, I believe, if he had been talking about German people or Irish people or what have you. If there's ever been a man who has had a real sense of attempting to bring people together, different ethnic groups, his record in race relations in the 1950's and 1960's is exemplary, and I just can not believe that he was speaking against the Jewish people as Jewish people.
KEYES: Well, can I raise one question?
WARREN: Professor, I'll be glad —
KEYES: One second, please. I —
(CROSSTALK)
WARREN: I'll be glad to pass along...
KEYES: One second, please.
WARREN: ... the transcript.
KEYES: One second, please. I want to ask a follow-up question of Professor Drummond, though. Because let us take for a minute at face value what you just said. I want to raise one further difficulty, because part of what I see here as a problem is that if the Reverend Graham — if I, for instance, have certain feelings about the way people are behaving and so forth, isn't it incumbent on me to express those views honestly to them and to make clear that I have these misgivings?
One can be friends with people and still disagree with them. I disagree with many Jewish folks on abortion, and I've gone to many events and talked to them about that as I gave speeches in support of Israel. Isn't it possible to do that? And isn't part of the problem that Reverend Graham wasn't clear in his understanding of what the problem was, sitting down with an Abe Rosenthal, saying here's where I think you're going wrong. Wouldn't that have been the right approach?
DRUMMOND: Well, he truly speaks against whatever he sees as immoral, unethical, that he considers to be wrong. If it happens to be Jewish, well, yes, speak to the Jewish people. But it was not a statement against Jewish people as such that was the real issue here, it was against that which he considered to be wrong. And to say that it was a racist statement, that is where I think the error really comes in. He loves the Jewish people. He's been honored by the Jewish people. The Jewish people by and large highly respect him and understand that.
It wasn't a racial issue, as been so much in the allegations against Mr. Graham, it was his statements that happened to be in the Jewish context as it were. But he's really against that which he considers to be wrong. And he spoke out against that, and I think that is where the real thing comes. And, as I say again, his background, his record in how he's tried to bring ethnic groups of various — and various sorts together, is really exemplary and that just cannot be laid aside.
KEYES: Now we are going to come, we're at the end.
WARREN: Well, professor —
KEYES: Wait a minute. We are at the end of the segment. We are going to come back with both these guests. When we get back, Louis Drummond, I'll be handing the floor to you so you can respond to what Professor Drummond has said — I'm sorry, James Warren — you can respond to what Professor Drummond has said.
After we get done with this discussion, I'll share with you my outrage of the day, related in fact to the Middle East, but this time the role of Saddam Hussein.
First of all, does this make sense? There's an English immersion program where Spanish-speaking students who don't speak English are immersed in an English program. Because it was thought they would learn English more quickly, be more proficient. It has been so successful that 30 percent of the students scored above average in reading tests compared with 18 percent before the immersion program went into effect. Now get this, bilingual educators now, some of the sort of Spanish language chauvinists have come forward, and they've taken it to court to sue, saying this discriminates against the Spanish-speaking students. Now, let me get this straight; a program that improves their performance, gets them much better performance and therefore prepares them better to deal with this society is discriminating against them? It's before the ninth circuit court. But I'll tell you something, that judge really needs to scratch his head and ask whether these people are making sense. Do you think so?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: We're back. We're taking about the Reverend Billy Graham's controversial comments about Jews 30 years ago in a meeting that he had with President Richard Nixon that was caught on some of Nixon's infamous tapes of what went on in the Oval Office. We have with us Graham biographer Lewis Drummond and James Warren of the “Chicago Tribune.”
I want to go back to James Warren and ask you, James, what your reaction is to Professor Drummond's argument about the mitigating context of the remarks that Reverend Graham made?
WARREN: Just flat wrong. I would ask him to listen to the whole hour and 34. I would be happy to send him a transcript and you'll see. It's simply not explained away by anxiety over increased pornography and a belief that somehow Jews were mostly behind that.
I'd also note a couple of things. Clearly, there's a history in this country among conservative pentecostals and evangelicals to be able to distinguish, at least in their minds, between support, even strong support, for Israel and a lack of support for American Jews. There are Christian strains to anti-Semitism, which they show.
Secondly, the anti-Jewish comments that he makes can't just be seen in the context, again, of his anxiety about pornography. And more importantly to me, if you listen to the tape, Alan, he continually eggs Nixon on to the point where Nixon himself is taken aback and at one point says, “well, you know, you have got to make sure they don't know what you really think.” This is Richard Nixon saying, whoa, those comments, I may agree with them, but they're beyond the pail, particularly for public consumption.
And finally, as far as his track record, I will concede he has led a very admirable life, Billy Graham has. And ultimately, one probably has to forgive, if not forget. But the track record is not so pure. In fact, in the 1940s, even another biographer, William Martin of Rice University, concedes he was supportive of a certain soft form of racial segregation.
KEYES: One second...
WARREN: In 1960, if I might add, because of anti-Catholic views, he supported Nixon against JFK.
KEYES: I would like to give Professor Drummond the chance to respond. Very quickly now, we're up against it.
DRUMMOND: Well, first of all, Billy Graham made as a humble an apology for all of these statements that he could possibly, possibly make, because that's the kind of a man he is. He's a man of genuine integrity.
Secondly, I'm convinced that it was against that which he disagreed with, not the Jewish people, per se. He has reached out to Jewish people as he's reached out to Afro-Americans, to Hispanics, et cetera, et cetera. His record there is impeccable. Actually, how could he be, in a sense, prejudiced against Jewish people? He follows a Jew. He's a follower of the lord Jesus Christ, who was a Jew.
KEYES: Professor Drummond...
DRUMMOND: And I think it is very significant to see all those things in the broad sense.
KEYES: Professor Drummond, I'd like to thank you and I'd like to thank James Warren for joining us today and sharing your frank thoughts with us about this difficult subject.
One last word I would like to say. I think, obviously, you have got to judge an individual in light of the balance of action and words and deeds in their whole life. Picking out one episode and saying that's it, I think is a grave error, especially with somebody who has done so much good as Billy Graham. I think as well, though, that we need to remember this simple rule: speak truth to power.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: And now my “Outrage of The Day.” Did you know that Saddam Hussein has given $10 million to the families of suicide bombers, Palestinian suicide bombers? And recently even upped the ante, had been gave $10,000. He gave $25,000 to families and it's been $10 million in the 18 months since the intifada began.
Here's a guy who's been complaining that our sanctions have been causing starvation and deprivation for his people. He seems much more interested in killing Israelis than he does in saving the lives of his own people. That's pretty clear from the way he's spending what money he does have. That's my sense of it.
Thanks for being with me. “THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS” is up next. I'll see you tomorrow.
Sharon appeared on television today to address the issue of whether Yasser Arafat was going or not going, and what the terms and conditions would be for his attendance at the Arab summit. Yasser Arafat finally decides that he's not going in the wake of Hosni Mubarak, the president of Egypt saying that he's not going. This seemed to be a day in the Middle East when people were dying, but when otherwise we focused on things that were not happening in order to make sure that something was being done to bring that dying to an end.
We're going to be focusing today on questions that arise out of that and that actually, I'll be honest with you, reflect my sense of frustration. And I think that a of a lot of people as we watch the developments in the Middle East. It's almost as if there's a dance, a ritual of point and counterpoint that goes on in that region, against a deadly backdrop of violence and death that intensifies with each day. And meanwhile, a lot of things are happening that may or may not be focused on the real issues yet that must be dealt with in order to bring that killing to an end. So, tonight on the show, we're going to be looking at three questions. And, I know, may upset some people, but I like to be blunt.
First question, why do we keep treating Yasser Arafat as if he matters? Second question, why do we keep treating the Saudi proposal as if it matters, given the fact that it is based on an idea that's quite patently outside the realm of possibility for Israel, a return to the pre-1967 borders. And, finally, if Hosni Mubarak didn't think it was worth his time, why do we keep treating the Arab summit as if it matters?
All of this time, all of this attention, newspaper headlines, everybody's acting like this is so terribly important. Tonight we're going to take a look at whether or not there is, in fact, real substance to a lot of the stage play that is taking up so much time, but yet seems to be accomplishing so little right now on the Middle East front.
Up front with us tonight, James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute and Mark Gregev, spokesman for the Israeli embassy to the United States. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE. And I hope you all didn't mind the frustration that's clear in my formulation here, because it's one that I think is felt by a lot of people as they watch this situation.
You spend a day on which we are mainly focused on what's not happening and meanwhile what is happening is death and mayhem. James Zogby, quite frankly, is Yasser Arafat and the question of whether he does or whether he doesn't worth all the attention that it's been getting over the course of the last several days?
JAMES ZOGBY, ARAB AMERICAN INSTITUTE: Well, of course it does, Alan, and we wouldn't be focusing on it actually if it didn't matter quite a bit to the Palestinian people, to the Arab people in general. And ultimately to the people of Israel and those who want to see a peace settlement. Arafat is the leader, the representative of the Palestinian people, whether Alan Keyes thinks it's worth it or not. Ariel Sharon tried to say he was irrelevant a while back, but not unlike Newt Gingrich said Bill Clinton wasn't relevant, he came roaring back and became quite relevant, regardless of what you though of him. So the fact is, is that Arafat's signature ultimately is the critical factor that will make the difference between peace or no peace, which is why all the time is spent on him.
I believe that Yasser Arafat wants peace. I believe that the Palestinian and Israeli people want peace, and that's why it matters. It matters to deal with him. It matters to deal with the Saudi initiative, which is a very important gesture from the Arab world that says they're ready, they're ready if Israel is ready and, yes, they've made it a complete full withdrawal for full normalization. But, you know, everyone knows it is going to will take some negotiating from there. But the fact is that when you get the entire Arab consensus on board with a statement that says we're ready for peace, I would expect Israel to be quite pleased with that. It's something they've looked forward to a long time, and if their leadership is the only thing standing in the way of getting there, well, then maybe they'll be ready to have a debate in Israel about it. I know they're already debating it in Israel, and I think that is a very healthy thing.
I think we're at the verge of some very important breakthroughs right now and the fact is that, yes, there's bloodshed, but there's also some promise, some promise of a new tomorrow if only we get some very disciplined leadership from...
KEYES: Mark —
ZOGBY: ... the United States to make it happen.
KEYES: Mark Regev. Mark Regev, Jim Zogby has just told us, well, Ariel Sharon wanted to treat Yasser Arafat as if he was relevant, he's come roaring back. How has he come roaring back, except on a tide of bloodshed and violence? There are those in the United States, and I have to frankly count myself among them, who look at the response to this, and say what we've really done here is proved the currency of violence and terrorism. Why does the Israeli government insist on treating Yasser Arafat as if he matters when it seems like the only currency he's spending is the currency of Israeli blood?
MARK REGEV, SPOKESMAN FOR ISRAEL EMBASSY TO U.S.: Well, I think you're right, Alan. I think a lot of Israelis are very skeptical about Mr. Arafat and if he wants peace, and if he's even ready seriously for a cease-fire. And I think we're skeptical not because we don't like the man, but because unfortunately we've seen the way he's acted over the last two years. First of all, unfortunately, he didn't pick up a political option when he was given one by President Clinton and former former Prime Minister Barak.
And today we have had unfortunately continuous examples of Arafat throwing away chances for a cease-fire, and we saw that again this week. prime minister — sorry, Vice President Cheney and Prime Minister Sharon agreed on a mechanism whereby we would have a cease-fire. Arafat would take some specific steps, steps that he himself committed to doing in the past. Not something that I asked him to do or the Americans, but steps he said he would do. And he wouldn't even make those minor steps that Vice President Cheney asked him to do. And we are very, very cynical and cautious about Arafat. But I'll tell you what the Israeli strategy is. We look at him maybe the same way that Truman looked at Stalin. We have no illusions this man is a dictator, this man is an extremist.
He's the leader of his people today, we'll hold our breath and wait for another lead to come along. And in the meantime, we want deals that are transparent, we want deals that are based on some sort of understanding that we don't trust. We have to have a framework in which he has to follow through on his commitments and we take his word —
KEYES: Wait.
ZOGBY: Oh, shame, shame. Listen —
KEYES: One question. Wait before you come back. Mr. Zogby, I'll give you the floor, wait one second. I have one follow-up question I'd like to ask, Mark, because it seems to me that you were just talking about the need to deal with Yasser Arafat. But James Zogby was basically saying that if Ariel Sharon and the current leadership doesn't want to deal with the opportunity in front, then the Israeli people would need to have a discussion with the implication that there could be some change in that leadership.
Doesn't it bother you there is no symmetry here between Israel and the Palestinians? You are forced to deal with Yasser Arafat regardless, and yet Jim Zogby can imply that if something is wrong with Sharon, the Israeli government should change him. Why is it that there is no focus on the fact that if something is wrong with Yasser Arafat we have no way of knowing, in fact, whether or not the Palestinian people in free and open representative fashion would continue to support his leadership? That doesn't bother you, Mark?
REGEV: Of course it bothers me. It bothers me the fact that you have an Arab League summit today and tomorrow in Beirut, and you have 20 leaders and not a single one is a democratically elected leader. And it's easy for these leaders to point fingers at the United States and Israel, but who do they represent?
And are we not only looking at the part of the world where everyone gets together and there's not a single democratic leader? It used to be true of South America. Today in south America, you have lots of Democratic leaders. The same in eastern Asia, the same in eastern Europe. Even in Africa you have democratic regimes today. Why is it that the Arab world, and the Palestinians are included in this, as the only part of the globe which is somehow immune to democracy, to freedom, to openness? And I think that's a legitimate question.
As Arafat, I mean, I wish we had a more pragmatic, a more statesman type —
ZOGBY: You know, I — I really have to say that it's difficult and there's a bit of — there ought to be a little bit of shame in this conversation that one can talk about Arafat and violence when Ariel Sharon is doing what he's doing on the West Bank. I hope, I hope that the Israeli people never, in this century, have to endure what the Palestinian people are enduring right now.
I hope that no Israeli leader is ever treated with the indignity, the humiliation, and the sheer brutality that Arafat is forced to deal with. The fact is that there ought to be a degree of shame. A people are being treated as if they are not human beings in the West Bank and Gaza. They have been deprived not only of their freedom, but they have been deprived of all hope. They've been deprived even of the basic necessities of life. And, yes, they've turned to violence and I condemn that violence. It is not a solution. But I also condemn those who have sucked the very life out of that people today, and those who have sucked the hope out of that people today.
You simply cannot treat people like less than human beings and then come on national television and complain about their violence. It's a little bit of chutzpah to use that kind of language, and frankly, it's disgusting. These people are dying and they're dying because of F-16s and Apache helicopter gunships and tanks and their towns are surrounded and they can't get out to even buy the basic necessities of life. And when they are giving birth to children, they die giving birth to children in their cars because they can't get through your inhuman checkpoints.
And so, for God's sake, understand that what's going on here is a people are fighting for their very survival and their dignity as human beings. And what is going on in the face of all that is these Arab leaders that you may not respect, but they are meeting in Beirut and they are saying in spite of that, we are holding open the promise of a normal peace. You may not like them. You may not like the countries they come from or how they got there. But they're holding open to you the promise of a normal peace if only you end the brutal occupation and let people breathe free.
If you don't want to do that, then the cycle of violence will continue. And it will continue until the...
REGEV: No. No.
ZOGBY: ... bloodshed takes the lives of all people on all sides for a long time to come.
KEYES: Wait a second. I want to give Mark Regev a chance to respond before I hold forth. Mark, do you have anything to say?
REGEV: Well, first of all, I mean, I have got a list here of some 70 terrorist events that happened before 1967, and to say that terrorism happens because of what happens on the West Bank, I think, is a gross simplification. I'd even say more.
You have a situation today where you have streets being named in Gaza after suicide bombers, where children going to school are taught that this is a good thing, to be a martyr for the cause, where editorials in Palestinian official newspapers encourage suicide bombers. It's in school books. It's in editorials. It's not — this isn't happening in a vacuum.
Palestinians could have had a political solution had they wanted one. They have got a corrupt leadership, like the Iraqi leadership. They suffer like the Iraqi people suffer because they have got a leadership that is more interested in a radical political agenda instead of worrying about the people themselves.
ZOGBY: Mark, you don't want peace. That's it. You don't want peace.
REGEV: If there weren't terrorists, we wouldn't have to have roadblocks. And you have roadblocks because there are suicide bombers from Hamas, from Hezbollah, from Islamic Jihad, who want to kill Israelis.
ZOGBY: You don't want peace. That's the sad thing.
REGEV: Are we all supposed to let them all come in? I don't understand what you're saying, Jim. Are we supposed to let every terrorist come into Israel to kill Israelis?
ZOGBY: No. No, you're not. But the fact is is that if you wanted to treat them with dignity, if you applied the very principles that your own people — I read the Israeli press and I hear what the Israeli press is saying and they are calling for a much more humane approach to deal with the Palestinian people and they have been for many years before this.
The fact is is that through all those years of the peace process, Mark, and I followed it very closely, I was there in Israel. I was there on the West Bank and Gaza. I was there at the checkpoints when everyone was singing peace. Somebody forgot to tell the soldiers at the checkpoints about it. Palestinians went and...
REGEV: Because someone forgot to tell you there was Hamas and there was Hezbollah and there was Islamic Jihad all the time. All the time.
ZOGBY: The first time that Israel instituted a closure of the West Bank was after Baruk Goldstein massacred people in Hamas. That was the first time you used a closure. And let's not go back to '67 because we can always play that historical game and go back to '48 and '39 and '36 and ’27.
The fact is, we're stuck in the mud now. How do we get out of the mud? And if you think there's a military solution to that, you're wrong, just as those in Hamas who think there is a military solution are wrong. There is no military solution.
KEYES: Jim, we're going to give you both an opportunity to continue. We've come up to the time in this segment. We'll be back.
When we get back, I'm going to hold forth for a minute or two with a couple of questions that I have for both of our guests. We'll also be joined by the senior diplomatic correspondent for Al Hayat, a Pan-Arab daily newspaper.
Later, we'll be discussing Billy Graham's controversial comments about Jews. You are watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP, FEBRUARY 1, 1972)
BILLY GRAHAM: This stranglehold has got to be broken or this country is going to go down the drain.
RICHARD NIXON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Do you believe that?
GRAHAM: Yes, sir.
NIXON: I can't ever say it, but I believe it.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
KEYES: Those were comments made by the Reverend Billy Graham to President Nixon about what Nixon perceived as a so-called Jewish domination in the media. The remarks were made 30 years ago, but they're coming back to haunt Billy Graham today. The Reverend Graham has since apologized to the Jewish community, but many in that community say it's not enough. Coming up in our next half hour, we'll debate that.
A reminder, too, that the chat room is humming right along tonight. Shawn says, “Arafat has value, just not for those who want peace. He has lots of value in the Fatah movement and Islamic Jihad.” And you can join in with your opinion right now at chat.msnbc.com.
First, though, back to the crisis in the Middle East. Joining us now is Raghida Dergham senior diplomatic correspondent for the Al Hayat, the Pan-Arab daily newspaper. And still with us, James Zogby of the Arab American Institute and Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israeli embassy to the United States. Welcome to MAKING SENSE everyone.
Before we get on with the discussion, I have one question I have got to get back to before we move ahead. Mark Regev, I would really just like kind of a straight — I'm sorry. Jim Zogby, I'd like a straight answer, not the rhetoric and the this and that.
I judge representative leaders based on the processes that produce them. Parts of the world where people stay in power year after year after year without structures to consult the consent of the people and in free and open choice without violence, coercion and intimidation, are able to ratify their leadership. After a while, I start to wonder about all this rhetoric about who represents whom in the absence of that process.
Now, Yasser Arafat is not subject to such a process and it seems to me that that then creates an asymmetry between the Palestinians and Israel in terms of the representative nature of the leadership involved. Isn't that a problem for the Palestinian movement?
ZOGBY: Now you want an answer?
KEYES: Yes.
ZOGBY: OK. The rhetoric went with the question, and now comes the answer. I'll give you a straight one, Alan. The fact is Yasser Arafat was elected. He was elected according to the rules of the Oslo process and was elected by a large number of the Palestinian people. They have wanted to have a second election, but the rest of the Oslo process was never implemented. I was there as part of the international observer force with the United States government that was commissioned to observe the elections and the Israelis did everything they could to make the elections not work. It was unfortunate.
The Carter Commission that I was a part of reported that they were fair and open elections. We would like to see new elections, but Palestinians still don't control their own territory. They don't control their own state. And so there cannot be a new election and so, in fact, misleadership has become entrenched, but not because of its own design. It has become entrenched precisely because the occupation never ended and, therefore, civil society never had a chance to flourish.
I do not want to see a Palestinian state that is not a free state. But the fact is, is that there's not a Palestinian state. There is no freedom. The occupation is there. And, therefore, there's no such thing as the ability to have elections because there's nothing to be elected to at this point other than the position Arafat was elected to, which wasn't even called president because the Israelis wouldn't agree to let him use the term president. He called Raiz (ph) in Arabic, but the U.S. government, for example, still calls him chairman because we don't recognize that title yet.
So, until there's an end to that occupation, there can't be a free election. I just want to make a point though before we get off this...
KEYES: No, no, just a second. Raghida Dergham, welcome to the show.
RAGHIDA DERGHAM, AL-HAYAT NEWSPAPER: Thank you.
KEYES: I appreciate your taking the time to join us. We're talking today about this situation. I mean, we've all been obsessed with the fact that Arafat is not going to the summit. I have a problem with that obsession in that it makes an assumption about the critical nature of both the summit and Yasser Arafat's leadership, that it seems to me are seriously in doubt at this stage. Why are we called upon to treat these things with such seriousness when it seems that they have so little to do with the intense violence that's taking place on the ground?
DERGHAM: It has everything to do with it, Alan, because the violence that's taking place, in effect it has taken place because the political situation has not lent itself to a solution. Now, the message that came from Mr. Sharon's stand on not allowing Mr. Arafat to go to the Beirut summit actually it's a message that's directed to more than Mr. Arafat.
Of course, to the Palestinians, it's saying, you know what? I shall always go on controlling what you do and what you don't, because I have power. To the Arab summit it said you know, you're going to put out the vision for peace and you're going to put out an endorsement of Prince Abdullah's vision for a peaceful settlement and co-existence with Israel, well, I'm not ready to match it. And to the administration the message is, lay off, I am not going to do what you want, no matter what.
Although, as you know, Mr. Cheney, the vice president, and Mr. Powell, secretary of state, and even the president himself tried to make it quite clear to Mr. Sharon that it's essential and important that Mr. Arafat, participates in that summit because of the message of that summit.
And finally, I think also a very disturbing message from Mr. Sharon's stand is that to the camp opposed to the peaceful settlement and I'm speaking about the camp that exists amongst the Arabs and amongst the Arab public opinion, that is to say, let me involve you further, because here I am saying no to the peace vision and the peace proposal, so you can go out and say you see, we told you that the Israelis are not serious about it.
And that's why you had seen demonstrations in many parts of Arab world today. I understand there was a demonstration in Yemen. I had heard an American network put it at 100,000 people out on the streets. I read in one of the Arabic papers it was a million. Somewhere in between, anyway. But some people are calling for arms struggle rather than a peaceful settlement.
KEYES: Two things. First, isn't it the case, though, that Vice President Cheney, the Bush Administration, they seem to put pressure this way and that, but at the end of the day, the vice president did not meet with Yasser Arafat because he has not taken the kind of steps to contain and curb and curtail the violence that they think are required. Isn't that true?
DERGHAM: That is true. Vice president did not meet with Mr. Arafat. He had demanded more from Mr. Arafat. In effect, Alan, if you look between the lines, it was very important. I think the administration was banking on Mr. Sharon delivering on not blocking Mr. Arafat from going to the summit.
I think the administration lent a great amount of importance to the summit and rightly so. By the way, the summit is not against Israel or it's not against Israel's interest. It's not against Israel's existence and the administration is not departing from its support to Israel. This summit is about the peaceful proposal, a peaceful settlement.
KEYES: On that note, I want to go back to Mark (UNINTELLIGIBLE) for a minute, with something that I confess, again, leaves me kind of impatient and frustrated. At a level of serious consideration, given the reality that the pre-1967 borders are, I think, universally regarded in Israel as indefensible, is a proposal that offers Israel a peace based on those borders actually a viable starting point for negotiations?
Because the Arab summit is being played up, this is what we put on the table, that would mean viable peace for Israel. Is it or is it not a proposal that can be taken seriously by Israel?
MARK REGEV, ISRAELI EMBASSY SPOKESMAN: I think you're right. There's a problem. I think there's a good piece by Henry Kissinger in this week's “Newsweek” where he talks about that very issue. The peace process has always been based on 242 — security counsel resolution — and 338, and by talking about 4th of June borders, and everyone knows it's really a nonstarter, and it's really a way of torpedoing the process before it starts.
I would also stress that if you look at what's on the table in Beirut, you see a lot of stuff that's very, negative indeed. First of all, they have watered down the original Abdullah proposal. He talked about peace and normalization. They're now using language which unfortunately much —talking about a colder piece. They're talking about it's a pity. You'd like to think they'd come out with something like we're against suicide bombers.
Of course, they won't say anything about that. They talked about occupied Lebanon. Not even the United Nations today talks about occupied Lebanon because we pulled out of Lebanon. And this is unfortunately what happens. The Arab summit is a consensus politics of all the Arab countries. As a result, it goes on the lowest common denominator, and you have the Syrians, unfortunately, pulling the tune — calling the tune, I should say, and that's why you have the watering down of these proposals.
DERGHAM: Alan? Could I say...
REGEV: That's why President Mubarak chose to stay away and I understand also that King Abdullah of Jordan is limiting his stay there. The moderate Arabs are staying away from the summit because the summit unfortunately looks like it won't do anything positive about peace.
DERGHAM: Can I come in on this?
KEYES: Go right ahead.
DERGHAM: I'm so sorry that there is a conclusion of what the summit has done when it has not even begun yet.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.
DERGHAM: That's very surprising. I don't think this is a really responsible way to say things. There isn't something out of the summit. It has not begun yet. Secondly, I also want to put it — I know I appreciate there is a certain point of view, put by Mr. Regev, but I am glad to report that I don't find it amongst all Israelis.
I do not find a similar position by Jews in New York, for example. In fact, the 1967 borders are the solution, if you want peaceful co-existence. If you have another option, that is to say Democratic state, one man, one vote, fine, let's go for it, because the third option is to go on killing each other and this is not a winnable war.
And in effect, you know, there was a debate a little earlier about who's elected and who's not. It's a sad statement, if I may say, that the Israeli constituency elected a man, Mr. Sharon, who has brought more losses to Israel, both during his reign as prime minister and when he was in government before and there has been more Israelis dead during Mr. Sharon's reign.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And Mr. Arafat is a choir boy.
DERGHAM: And the point is that at least this is a democracy in Israel that elected such a man. The Arabs don't have democracies and let's blame, you know, blame them for the dictatorships. But how do you explain a democracy like Israel bringing a man like Mr. Sharon to power and not doing anything to stop them when he's really failing Israel and failing everything that you want.
REGEV: Could I remind you that Prime Minister Sharon is the only Israeli leader who destroyed settlements for peace, that he played an instrumental role in getting the peace treaty with Egypt, that he played an instrumental role in making peace with Jordan.
(CROSSTALK)
ZOGBY: Mark, Ariel Sharon is also the prime minister...
(CROSSTALK)
ZOGBY: Is also the prime minister that built the settlements...
REGEV: But you know the Sinai is not the West Bank. In the mind of Ariel Sharon it remains Judean, Sumerian. He is not yet willing to accept this concept of it being Palestinian land.
REGEV: Jim, at the White House last week — not last week, last month, he spoke clearly about he wants a Palestinian state, that he agrees to a Palestinian state.
ZOGBY: But the concept, Mark, don't play games, Mark. Because you know that the Palestinian state that Ariel Sharon refers to is nothing more than what an Indian reservation looks like here in America.
REGEV: I don't think that's true at all. That's not true at all. He has thought about a contiguous Palestinian state.
ZOGBY: That has no external borders to the outside world.
REGEV: He is willing to talk about hard and difficult compromises.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: We're coming down to the wire.
ZOGBY: Can I say something before we leave? I want to make one point, Alan, and that is what...
KEYES: Last word. Go ahead.
ZOGBY: When you do your next segment on Billy Graham, I hope you'll do a segment not on a statement said 30 years ago, but something that was done just very recently with Pat Robertson and Billy Graham Jr. and John Ashcroft making some pretty horrendous comments about Islam. Let's not have to wait 30 years for people to apologize for insulting people's religion and people's faith.
KEYES: That is precisely the sort of question we will be debating in the next segment — very quickly, Raghida.
DERGHAM: I just want to say it was really not fair also to say that the king of Jordan as a moderate is away from the...
REGEV: He's delaying, I said he is delaying.
DERGHAM: I'm sorry, can I just say why? Because he was hoping still that he would be able to pick up Mr. Arafat and take him to Beirut. Let's put it in perspective. It was not fair.
KEYES: Thank you. I want to thank all three of you for a very lively discussion. And I'll send you away with a thought I always leave with folks because I think as I listen to these discussions, we mentioned earlier, I think it was Mr. Zogby talked about the history and the background.
Well, it's good to remember some history about the partition of old Palestine because I keep wondering whether a Palestinian state without Jordan is ever going to be anything but an Indian reservation. It wasn't intended to be that way. We'll be right back after these remarks to talk about Billy Graham's controversial comments about Jews during a conversation with President Richard Nixon in the Oval Office.
We are going to come back to you right after this break and the news update from Lester Holt.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWSBREAK)
KEYES: Reverend Billy Graham's controversial comments recorded on tape by President Richard Nixon in the Oval Office in February of 1972 has caused quite a stir. There's been some harsh reaction. He has also first issued what was kind of an explanation that he denied he'd remember saying that. Then he issued a clear apology. Let's hear some of what was said.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP, FEBRUARY 1, 1972)
NIXON: “Newsweek” is totally — it's all run by Jews and dominated by them in their editorial pages. The “New York Times, the “Washington Post”, totally Jewish too.
GRAHAM: And they're the ones putting out the pornographic stuff. But this stranglehold has got to be broken or this country is going to go down the drain.
NIXON: Do you believe that?
GRAHAM: Yes, sir.
NIXON: I can't ever say it, but I believe it.
GRAHAM: But if you get elected a second time, we might be able to do something.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
KEYES: And there's more from Reverend Graham. He says, “I go and I keep friends with Mr. A.M. Rosenthal at the “New York Times” and people of that sort, you know. And all — I mean, not all the Jews, but a lot of Jews are great friends of mine. They swarm around me and are friendly to me because they know that I'm friendly with Israel. But they don't know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country and I have no power, no way to handle them. But I would stand up, if under proper circumstances.” Hmm.
Joining us now to discuss these remarks and the controversy surrounding them, Lewis Drummond, the Billy Graham professor of evangelism and church growth at Samford University, a Southern Baptist institution in Birmingham, Alabama. He is also the author of the book, “The Evangelist”, a biography of Billy Graham. With us too, James Warren, deputy managing editor for the “Chicago Tribune”, who broke the story of the Nixon-Graham exchange. Jim is also an analyst for MSNBC. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
First, I'm going to ask a question that may or may not seem, I think, obvious, but I'd like both of you to take a quick crack at telling me why these remarks were so offensive? Why don't I start with Jim Warren.
JAMES WARREN, “CHICAGO TRIBUNE”: Well, I think, first and foremost, because Billy Graham was one of the most — is one of the most famous preachers in this country. And I think his position can be likened to most major public figures and particularly for someone who was not only, Alan, a chaplain for several presidents, an emissary in a way for those presidents, but also someone who's daily public life sought to uphold universal values and hold people's feet to the fire when it came to those values.
I think we have to ask for a pretty distinct correlation between his public and his private life. If you're going to stick it to Bill Clinton for actions in his private life, if you're going to stick it to the likes of Reverend Jesse Jackson, remember, for the famous all clearly off the record Himetown remarks and do it because we see them as public figures, upholding certain values, then I think the same is absolutely true for Billy Graham and I think the best thing one can say here, the best one can say having listen to an hour and 34-minute tape is that he was outrageously pandering to a president, a bigoted president, with whom, for a bunch of reasons, back in 1972 he was seeking to curry favor.
KEYES: Now, let's go to Lewis Drummond. What is your thought on that?
LEWIS DRUMMOND, SAMFORD UNIVERSITY: Well, it's true that Billy Graham is a very well known personality and has a very fine reputation for being, as he says, a real man of God. And when something like this does occur, of course, that obviously raises questions. But there's a lot of dynamics that in this general context of these statements that really need to be understood.
But here's a world figure and he has made some statements that are very questionable. But I think there is a real rationale and a reason back of them and I think that it can be surely justified, in the sense of the word, that he's made a sincere, honest, genuine apology, in every sense of the word. That's all the man can do. But there was a context of that that's really worth looking into and considering what precipitated these statements.
KEYES: Well, see, I want to talk about that for a minute. First, let met take issue with a thought here. I would at least say, James Warren, that speaking to the president of the United States, you're not in a private context. I think that that is a misnomer. The president is called Mr. President 24-hours-a-day because he represents the executive power of this country 24-hours-a-day. When you go into the Oval Office, you sit and have a talk with the president, you are always talking to a public person.
And I think that the Reverend Graham, particularly as a Christian person, had a biblical obligation, I'll be clear about this, because the Bible says you are to speak truth to power. And that means when you're sitting with the president of the United States, that's an incumbent obligation with respect to your Christian duty, vis-a-vis, the power, the public power that that person represents.
Now, that's not exactly contradicting anything you said. It's just that I think we have to see here a sense of the responsibility that Billy Graham had as a public leader, speaking to the most powerful public personage in the United States. And the remarks have to be taken that way, not as private comments.
WARREN: Alan, a couple of things. First of all, having listened to way too many hours of Richard Nixon tapes, it is absolutely not news that Richard Nixon is heard making bigoted comments. And for those who don't know, the Nixon apologists, like folks at the Nixon Library in California, tend to point to the fact that more often than not, the other people in the room are John Ehrlichmann or (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and his two key advisers. And the notion is Nixon is trying to be macho and they're egging him on, blah blah blah.
More often than not, also when there is another person is in there, I've listened to bigoted remarks in which Donald Rumsfeld was in the room, people like Rumsfeld, then a 39-year-old aide to Nixon, are pretty passive. This is a rare exception when someone is actively engaging him in those very same remarks. And for that reason, I think it's most unfortunate. Another thing, I think it's rather surprising a man of God doesn't stop the president and say, wait a second, those remarks are absolutely wrong. Is it too much to ask someone in the Oval Office to do that? I am not necessarily sure. And, finally, I am not sure what the overall context in which the professor is talking about. OK, it's 1972, the Vietnam War is not going well. Graham and Nixon are both bound by chagrin over what they see as a radical turn in American society and clearly that is something that leads him to make those remarks having to do with pornography.
But the overall context of those big bigoted remarks are not Billy Graham's chagrin over pornography or the Vietnam War, not at all. If one listens to the entire tape, Aan and professor, one sees throughout it remarks that I think just simply can not be rationalized.
KEYES: Now, Professor Drummond, what do you think is the context that has to be taken account of, and do you think that the actual context in the oval office was, in fact, a public challenge to a moral leader speaking to a powerful public figure?
DRUMMOND: I think it is important to see that in the apology that Mr. Graham made that he actually said I made a mistake. It was just wrong that I did not stop President Nixon from making those mistakes and telling him that he was wrong. But when I refer to the context of the statement, let's remember two or three things. First of all, what the issue was pornography, extreme pressure from extreme left-wing political views, etc. And Billy Graham, I think if you will read the context carefully, really did not say that he was against Jewish people per se. He was against the pornography, against the extreme left-wing political views of some, that he disagreed with, of course.
But the setting was that they happened to be Jewish people. And he would have said the same thing, I believe, if he had been talking about German people or Irish people or what have you. If there's ever been a man who has had a real sense of attempting to bring people together, different ethnic groups, his record in race relations in the 1950's and 1960's is exemplary, and I just can not believe that he was speaking against the Jewish people as Jewish people.
KEYES: Well, can I raise one question?
WARREN: Professor, I'll be glad —
KEYES: One second, please. I —
(CROSSTALK)
WARREN: I'll be glad to pass along...
KEYES: One second, please.
WARREN: ... the transcript.
KEYES: One second, please. I want to ask a follow-up question of Professor Drummond, though. Because let us take for a minute at face value what you just said. I want to raise one further difficulty, because part of what I see here as a problem is that if the Reverend Graham — if I, for instance, have certain feelings about the way people are behaving and so forth, isn't it incumbent on me to express those views honestly to them and to make clear that I have these misgivings?
One can be friends with people and still disagree with them. I disagree with many Jewish folks on abortion, and I've gone to many events and talked to them about that as I gave speeches in support of Israel. Isn't it possible to do that? And isn't part of the problem that Reverend Graham wasn't clear in his understanding of what the problem was, sitting down with an Abe Rosenthal, saying here's where I think you're going wrong. Wouldn't that have been the right approach?
DRUMMOND: Well, he truly speaks against whatever he sees as immoral, unethical, that he considers to be wrong. If it happens to be Jewish, well, yes, speak to the Jewish people. But it was not a statement against Jewish people as such that was the real issue here, it was against that which he considered to be wrong. And to say that it was a racist statement, that is where I think the error really comes in. He loves the Jewish people. He's been honored by the Jewish people. The Jewish people by and large highly respect him and understand that.
It wasn't a racial issue, as been so much in the allegations against Mr. Graham, it was his statements that happened to be in the Jewish context as it were. But he's really against that which he considers to be wrong. And he spoke out against that, and I think that is where the real thing comes. And, as I say again, his background, his record in how he's tried to bring ethnic groups of various — and various sorts together, is really exemplary and that just cannot be laid aside.
KEYES: Now we are going to come, we're at the end.
WARREN: Well, professor —
KEYES: Wait a minute. We are at the end of the segment. We are going to come back with both these guests. When we get back, Louis Drummond, I'll be handing the floor to you so you can respond to what Professor Drummond has said — I'm sorry, James Warren — you can respond to what Professor Drummond has said.
After we get done with this discussion, I'll share with you my outrage of the day, related in fact to the Middle East, but this time the role of Saddam Hussein.
First of all, does this make sense? There's an English immersion program where Spanish-speaking students who don't speak English are immersed in an English program. Because it was thought they would learn English more quickly, be more proficient. It has been so successful that 30 percent of the students scored above average in reading tests compared with 18 percent before the immersion program went into effect. Now get this, bilingual educators now, some of the sort of Spanish language chauvinists have come forward, and they've taken it to court to sue, saying this discriminates against the Spanish-speaking students. Now, let me get this straight; a program that improves their performance, gets them much better performance and therefore prepares them better to deal with this society is discriminating against them? It's before the ninth circuit court. But I'll tell you something, that judge really needs to scratch his head and ask whether these people are making sense. Do you think so?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: We're back. We're taking about the Reverend Billy Graham's controversial comments about Jews 30 years ago in a meeting that he had with President Richard Nixon that was caught on some of Nixon's infamous tapes of what went on in the Oval Office. We have with us Graham biographer Lewis Drummond and James Warren of the “Chicago Tribune.”
I want to go back to James Warren and ask you, James, what your reaction is to Professor Drummond's argument about the mitigating context of the remarks that Reverend Graham made?
WARREN: Just flat wrong. I would ask him to listen to the whole hour and 34. I would be happy to send him a transcript and you'll see. It's simply not explained away by anxiety over increased pornography and a belief that somehow Jews were mostly behind that.
I'd also note a couple of things. Clearly, there's a history in this country among conservative pentecostals and evangelicals to be able to distinguish, at least in their minds, between support, even strong support, for Israel and a lack of support for American Jews. There are Christian strains to anti-Semitism, which they show.
Secondly, the anti-Jewish comments that he makes can't just be seen in the context, again, of his anxiety about pornography. And more importantly to me, if you listen to the tape, Alan, he continually eggs Nixon on to the point where Nixon himself is taken aback and at one point says, “well, you know, you have got to make sure they don't know what you really think.” This is Richard Nixon saying, whoa, those comments, I may agree with them, but they're beyond the pail, particularly for public consumption.
And finally, as far as his track record, I will concede he has led a very admirable life, Billy Graham has. And ultimately, one probably has to forgive, if not forget. But the track record is not so pure. In fact, in the 1940s, even another biographer, William Martin of Rice University, concedes he was supportive of a certain soft form of racial segregation.
KEYES: One second...
WARREN: In 1960, if I might add, because of anti-Catholic views, he supported Nixon against JFK.
KEYES: I would like to give Professor Drummond the chance to respond. Very quickly now, we're up against it.
DRUMMOND: Well, first of all, Billy Graham made as a humble an apology for all of these statements that he could possibly, possibly make, because that's the kind of a man he is. He's a man of genuine integrity.
Secondly, I'm convinced that it was against that which he disagreed with, not the Jewish people, per se. He has reached out to Jewish people as he's reached out to Afro-Americans, to Hispanics, et cetera, et cetera. His record there is impeccable. Actually, how could he be, in a sense, prejudiced against Jewish people? He follows a Jew. He's a follower of the lord Jesus Christ, who was a Jew.
KEYES: Professor Drummond...
DRUMMOND: And I think it is very significant to see all those things in the broad sense.
KEYES: Professor Drummond, I'd like to thank you and I'd like to thank James Warren for joining us today and sharing your frank thoughts with us about this difficult subject.
One last word I would like to say. I think, obviously, you have got to judge an individual in light of the balance of action and words and deeds in their whole life. Picking out one episode and saying that's it, I think is a grave error, especially with somebody who has done so much good as Billy Graham. I think as well, though, that we need to remember this simple rule: speak truth to power.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: And now my “Outrage of The Day.” Did you know that Saddam Hussein has given $10 million to the families of suicide bombers, Palestinian suicide bombers? And recently even upped the ante, had been gave $10,000. He gave $25,000 to families and it's been $10 million in the 18 months since the intifada began.
Here's a guy who's been complaining that our sanctions have been causing starvation and deprivation for his people. He seems much more interested in killing Israelis than he does in saving the lives of his own people. That's pretty clear from the way he's spending what money he does have. That's my sense of it.
Thanks for being with me. “THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS” is up next. I'll see you tomorrow.