Alan Keyes
March 27, 2002

ALAN KEYES, HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.

We're going to be looking at two hot topics tonight. We'll be following up on the continuing violence and destruction and seeming, I must say, hopelessness in the Middle East situation. And in the second half hour, we'll be talking about the hot topic, an emotional issue of reparations. A suit filed today by folks who are looking for reparations for slavery. Does that make sense? We'll be asking that question.

But in the Mideast, once again, despite the high holy days in Israel, terrorists struck. The latest bombing claimed 19 lives. So far, over 120 wounded, with an extent of destruction that has not only taken those lives, but also run what hope there was of some kind of process leading to a truce or negotiation right off the rails, it seems like.

Meanwhile, though, the summit among the Arab leaders continue at a pace, though what its results might be still remain to be seen. The biggest stories were the things that didn't happen. Mubarak didn't come. The King of Jordan didn't come. And finally, Arafat didn't come. Not only that, but his address ended up not being presented to the folks who were assembled and some of the Palestinians in protest walked out of the conference and decided to spend the day on the beach.

That spectacle of confusion and seeming dithering and diplomatic morass against the backdrop of intensifying violence with dead on both sides continues to wrench at the hearts of people around the world as we watch the bloody spectacle of this conflict in the Middle East.

“Up Front” tonight, we are joined by Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy and a former assistant secretary of defense for international security policy under President Reagan. Also with us, Jean AbiNader, executive director of the Arab American Institute. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.

FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: Thank you, Alan.

KEYES: I have some tough questions for both of you tonight, because I've got to confess. I look at this spectacle and, as I indicated last night, but even more so in the wake of this terrible bombing, it seems to me that we're paying a pretty terrible price for the fact that people are continuing to play games in this region and to talk past each other and to basically present what I think is a lot of deceitful rhetoric about what the possibilities are.

Let me start with you tonight, Frank, and ask a pointed question. Here we have another evidence punctuating the violence in the region and yet people still acting as if Israel could accept the Saudi proposal, talk with Arafat, do all of these things. Isn't this just unrealistic? Doesn't this violence have to be dealt with, from an Israeli point of view, before they can do anything?

GAFFNEY: Alan, I think it is unrealistic and I think it's more than that, it's dangerous. My concern, and I believe it's a concern broadly shared now, certainly in Israel, is that they're not dealing with partners for peace. They're dealing with people who remain determined to destroy the state of Israel. And while the rhetoric, at least in some quarters of the summit at Beirut, made it sound as though if Israel simply gave back the land on the West Bank, in particular, that has been shown year after year, decade after decade, to be susceptible to use by Israel's enemies to destroy or to attempt to destroy Israel, if only they'll give it all back, the Arabs will make peace in the future.

And, unfortunately, as this terrible bombing, and I must tell you it looks to me as though there has now been the first use that I know of, at least, in this conflict of the high explosive C-4 to get that kind of destructive impact. This is an escalation and, unfortunately, it is almost certainly a reflection of the continuing encouragement, not just that Hamas and Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad are giving to people to destroy themselves as long as they kill Israelis, but that Arafat himself is giving to this same movement for the same reason. He does remain committed.

If you look at that photograph you showed earlier, there's a striking similarity between this oddly configured head dress of his and the map that he continues to use everywhere of a Palestine that is what Hitler would have called Jewdanrine (ph), that is destroyed, that is eliminated the state of Israel. That's the fundamental problem here and I don't see any getting around it until people are realistic about it.

KEYES: Jean AbiNader, I listen and look at too — and look at the proposal that's made at the Arab Summit. I know some folks are saying that it's some kind of a step forward. I frankly don't see it, especially since they included the right of return for refugees. And it strikes me that that's a confession of the real objective, because if that is followed through on, then the Jewishness of the state of Israel would be destroyed. Is that the real objective? Get away from the semantics, Israel could stay, but the Jewishness of Israel must go?

JEAN ABINADER, ARAB AMERICAN INSTITUTE: No, I don't think that's the issue at all. I think the issue is you got to have a starting point. And so far, we've failed in the past 17 months to bring the parties to the table because we haven't had anything to offer, anything that either side could pay attention to and feel trusted.

It's gotten to such a point now where the United States is the only one that has the credibility to step in there in a very aggressive kind of way and bring the two parties to some level in a reduction of violence from both sides that will get them talking again. But I think this situation really calls for a rethinking of what American foreign policy should be in the Middle East up until now.

KEYES: But, John, quite honestly, you say it is a starting point. I understand this. But when I put the whole picture together, a Saudi proposal that says return to the pre-'67 borders, that is to say borders virtually indefensible from a military and security point of view, acknowledge a right of return of refugees, which would very quickly mean a loss of the Jewish majority within those pre-1967 borders. Doesn't that opening bid define the real objective of the Palestinian movement?

ABINADER: No, I don't think so. I think you're putting words in the mouth of Crown Prince Abdullah's plan. The right of return did not say the right of return to Israel. It means the right of return possibly to Palestine and Gaza, to the West Bank and Gaza areas.

I think the reality is here that either Israel wants to have peace with the Palestinians and the Palestinians want to have a homeland of their own, or there's nothing on the table. They'll continue to fight for another 50 years. The point here is, where do we begin?

Now, we've been critical in the past, Frank especially and yourself, Alan, about what happened 18 months ago at Camp David. You've been very severe with Arafat with regard to walking away from the so-called deal that Barak really didn't offer. The reality is we have got to get down to a level of real politick here and understand what it is that the Palestinians want, not necessarily Arafat, but the Palestinian people. Can they sustain a modus operandi that will bring them to a relationship with Israel where they can get back to negotiations?

The only way that's going to happen is a trade-off, a political trade-off, primarily which is ending the settlements and reducing the violence on the Palestinian side. That has been the Mitchell plan, accepted by the Palestinians, not accepted by the Israelis.

GAFFNEY: Alan, this is, with all due respect, this is a lot of mumbo-jumbo. There is an underlying reality and that is that we've got people who are determined to destroy the state of Israel. And there are people who are associated with, they are working for, they are operating from Yasser Arafat's territory.

ABINADER: You know, Frank, these are the same arguments you made 25 years ago, vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. You were wrong then. You're wrong now.

GAFFNEY: I believe that I was absolutely right...

ABINADER: There are always extremists in every national group. There are always extremists.

GAFFNEY: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the Soviet Union, and I'm so delighted you bring that up because as a practical matter...

(CROSSTALK)

May I respond to that?

ABINADER: And we made the mistake of allowing Arafat to lose the majority support for the Palestinians.

KEYES: Gentlemen, one at a time.

(CROSSTALK)

Gentlemen, one at a time, please.

ABINADER: People are going to destroy each other.

KEYES: One at a time, please. Frank, finish your thought.

GAFFNEY: My though, before I was interrupted, and speaking to this question of the Soviet Union, you know, there's a lot of people who said at the time in the Cold War the Soviet Union is a fact of life. It will never change. You have to give up, United States, your military capabilities in order to effect detente and peace. Wrong. That was wrong.

And just as wrong, I believe, is the notion that the only thing Israel can do is surrender and make itself vulnerable to destruction by people who are currently disposed to try to destroy it. I believe by keeping Israel strong and having the United States stand beside it, we can dissuade people who try to destroy it, want to destroy it, but that option...

ABINADER: You can't have Israel...

KEYES: Go ahead, Jean. OK, Frank. Go ahead, Jean AbiNader.

ABINADER: You can't have Israel strong and an occupier. I don't think anybody argues with the fact that Israel has to be strong enough to protect its own security. But it can't go on occupying lands that they had already assigned to the Palestinians.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Wait a minute. Frank, Frank, let me have a word here when he gets done.

ABINADER: The issue here is are the Palestinians going to have a homeland? That is what the issue is. And the issue is we had a peace discussion before...

KEYES: Jean, we're looking at a day which has punctuated what the issue has to be from the point of view from the Israelis. I just find it hard to believe that you think folks in Israel have more confidence in the prospect of a Palestinian neighbor because every time Yasser Arafat and his buddies don't get what they want, they escalate the violence to an even more intense level.

ABINADER: Eighteen months ago, Alan, if you remember, 18 months ago, over 60 percent of both the Palestinian and Israeli populations wanted peace and they wanted peace very badly. It was the breakdown of that process and the uprising, the second intifada, which created the mess than we're in now.

We have got to step back from that brink and the only way to do that is to convince Arafat he's not going to make political capital from the intifada, get him to denounce these guys he's in allegiance with now. We have to break the back of Hamas and Hezbollah and help the majority of Palestinians who want peace and the majority of Israelis who want peace to take charge again. They have lost the center.

GAFFNEY: I can agree with all of that.

So you agree with the way that we're going to get there from here by rewarding terrorism, by making Israel, as I think you said earlier, imposing by forcefully, aggressively having the United States insert itself to make Israel make territorial concessions under these circumstances.

ABINADIR: Israel cannot win if it is going to be an occupying power.

KEYES: Wait. Wait. Before this gets — Frank. Frank. Before this gets lost, I want to ask John a question. You said something very interesting and which I believe is also true. But how does one structure a process, leave aside Israel for a minute, that will actually allow the Palestinians to get the kind of leadership you just talked about?

ABINADIR: No. 1, you have to remember, whether we like it or not, Arafat was elected twice by the Palestinian people. What we have to do is work with the moderate elements, which we know are perversive throughout the Palestinian society to help them retake control over what is their future. There's no vision for them right now. The vision that they see every day are Israeli tanks, they see the destruction of their homes and their agricultural lands. They see the breakdown of law and order. They see long lines in crossing areas. There's no hope right now. We have got to get...

KEYES: Frank, quickly. Jean, hold on. Frank, quickly. Frank, you have about 20 seconds.

GAFFNEY: They see Arafat in addition encouraging them to terror, calling for Jihad, rewarding the martyrs' families. These are signals, together with a map that says it's all of Israel that's occupied as well as the West Bank and Gaza Strip that is the heart of the problem.

ABINADIR: One of these days, Frank, you should go to the Lakus Party and look at their map that goes from the Mediterranean to Iraq.

KEYES: Thank you both. I actually think in the course of this discussion, I want to thank you both very much, I think we began to see if we could see it reflected in the process, what might be the basis for some progress here. Particularly in terms of getting the kind of leadership to come to the floor that would really repudiate the violence.

But my question is, can Arafat do this? In the next segment, we're going to try to get to the heart of the matter. We're going to tackle these questions that I think are on the table. Can Israel accept borders it can't defend? That part of the Saudi proposal seems to me to be just a delusion.

Can the Palestinians live with a state that will never be more than a Palestinian reservation? One of our guests the other night spoke with great contempt about that and I think that reflects the true heart of Palestinian aspirations.

Finally, doesn't the demand for a right of return mean an end to the Jewishness of Israel? And wouldn't that suggest that this idea of recognizing Israel is a disingenuous ploy? Later, we'll look at the lawsuit being conducted against companies that's seeking reparation for slavery. Does it make sense?

But first, there has been a decision taken by Tom Ridge, I understand, that the folks that is are going to guard our borders are not all of them going to be armed. He decided only about a third of the National Guardsmen posted along the borders are going to be armed. It seems to me in the midst of a war against terrorism where the bad guys have shown a great disposition to kill our people, doesn't it make sense we ought to be arming the people who are supposed to defend our borders?

More than half of the Senate send a letter to President Bush asking that all of the National Guardsmen be armed. And I think not just a third of them, all of them want to me armed. The decision not to arm came from Tom Ridge, and yet they are telling us he shouldn't go up to the hill and explain himself? Hmm. Does this make sense?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Coming up in our next half hour, we're going to take a look at the issue of reparations for slavery. A lawsuit file today against some companies claiming that they should have to pay money somehow in order to compensate for the terrible evils and injustices of slavery.

Think about this; 558,552 soldiers died during the Civil War, 2 percent of the population at the time. That's equivalent in today's population, of 5,734,000 odd Americans. That is a heavy price paid in blood to get rid of slavery. Wasn't blood enough? Anyway, we'll be getting into that issue in the next half hour. I know a lot of emotions stirred up by it. But we'll try to make some sense of it.

A reminder, too, that the chat room is humming along tonight. Dean Carr says it's time for Israel to pull out the big guns now. You can join him and express your opinion at chat.MSNBC.com. But first, we saw day one of the Arab summit, no Arafat, no Egyptian President Mubarak, no king of Jordan. What has actually been accomplished?

Well, we're told they agreed on a proposal that lays the basis for some kind of positive progress, but every time it looked like anything was possible, another deadly terrorist attack like today's against the Israelis, claiming 19 lives, over 120 people injured. What good can come of this cycle? palaver — violence, palaver — violence. People making proposals, some of which don't even look very realistic against the backdrop of very real death and mayhem.

Joining us to get to the heart of the matter, Ambassador Nancy Soderbergh. She was the U.S. representative to the United Nations Security Council from 1997 to 2001 and was the third ranking member of President Clinton's National Security Council from 1993 to 1997.

Also with us, Ambassador Mark Ginsburg. He was the U.S. ambassador to Morocco from 1993 to 1997 and a deputy senior adviser for Middle East policy to President Carter. Finally, Cliff May, the president of the foundation for the defense of democracies, an anti-terrorism group founded after 9/11 in response to the terrorist attacks.

I want to go first to Nancy Soderberg, because I know having a little U.N. experience myself that you're very used to dealing with the give and take of palaver over language. But in a context like the Middle East, does it really make sense to pretend that proposals that in point of fact don't have a shred of real credibility in terms of the actual interests of the parties are an effective starting point for discussion?

I think the Saudi proposal is a lot of bunk and that the people who are suggesting that it has credibility are deluding themselves and others without making a real contribution to the situation. Why should we take it seriously?

NANCY SODERBERG, FMR. U.S. REP. TO U.N. SEC. COUNCIL: Well, as I'm sure you experienced while you were at the U.N., there's no paucity of unrealistic proposals put forward in the U.N. context, which would fall into that description. But I think the Saudi proposal has the elements of something different.

And what it really is, is it's sort of old hat wrapped in new wrapping and then it provides an opportunity here for both sides, the Palestinians and the Israelis, and frankly the Americans as well, to say here's a new opportunity, a new thing. Let's build on it. It doesn't have all the right elements to it, but it could provide a basis.

And one of the reasons that Arafat didn't take president Clinton's deal in the waning months of his office was that he had no support from the Arabs. And here's a chance to get the Arabs behind Arafat and move it forward. The question in my mind will be, will the Bush Administration get off the phone and get out in the region and actually engage and give up their sort of anti-Clinton, we won't engage, and really try and make this work?

And I think that's where the focus needs to be. The Arabs still have a chance to endorse this proposal tomorrow and get away from the tit-for-tat over why Arafat didn't go and the fact that Mubarak and King Abdullah of Jordan didn't come, and say we're for peace and we're going to stand behind Arafat if he moves forward.

KEYES: Mark Ginsberg, I think one of the reasons that the so-called moderates didn't show up is because the whole thing that's going on at the Arab summit is transparent, and when you put the elements of it together, you do learn something from people when they put a proposal on the table that tells you what they really want.

Let's say that Israel were tomorrow to give the people at the Arab summit everything they asked for. Step number one, they'd return to the pre-1967 borders, leaving themselves militarily insecure and exposed, with Palestinians in control of territory that points like a dagger into the heart of the narrow waist band of Israel.

Second, they would cede the right of return of refugees, and for all the disingenuous chatter that has always meant in Arab language a right of return of those refugees sitting there in the so-called camps to get back to their original lands in Israel. If that happened, the Jewish majority would evaporate in a very short time, and I don't think it's an accident that spokesmen right here on this show have talked in terms of the South African model, and one man, one vote — suggests to me that that's just another building block toward the real objective, which is a state of Israel recognized, yes, but without a Jewish majority.

Aren't we seeing the truth if we really analyze the proposal that's been put forward at the Arab summit, and that truth doesn't have a Jewish state of Israel at the end of it?

MARK GINSBERG: Well, Alan, first of all, I want to tell you that just breaking away from the Passover seder, I was at the home of the former Israeli prime minister's son. This is Yitzhak Rabin's son here in Washington, and we were making sense tonight about this very issue, and let me share some of his thoughts. Nancy Soderberg had some very important and I think some very coherent points. She is clearly on the ball insofar as interpreting this.

But getting to the meat of the matter, let's deal with the reality. The reality is that the Saudi's proposal is not important in and of itself. What it does is give the Israeli public some reason to believe that there is a consensus that could develop in the Arab world beyond Egypt and Jordan that peace is possible.

Secondly, I understand where you're coming from, Alan, and you're right. There is reasons for great concern and fear that there are traps being set here against the Israelis. But the fact remains is that neither Prime Minister Sharon himself, nor Yasser Arafat, who, by the way, cannot be trusted because he is using violence and terrorism as a means of getting what he wants, couldn't achieve at the negotiate table, but the Israelis are caught in a straight jacket. They can't use enough violence to quell the violence that is being leveled against them, but they also have agreed that they want to see a Palestinian state.

The key here is to get beyond the rhetoric, not worry about the maximalist positions by each, and in effect, I agree with Nancy. The United States is going to have to go farther than Frank Gaffney ever dreamed of to, in effect, give Mr. Sharon the cover that he needs to make the political decision that he needs in order to withdraw from parts of the West Bank to give it contiguous territorial state to the Palestinians. That's what the majority of Israelis were willing to give, Alan, before. We shouldn't walk away from that.

KEYES: I have to say, and I want to go to Cliff May now with one question that comes out of all of that discussion. The idea that having looked at this proposal, yes, you can get the Arab leaders to agree on something. You can get them to agree on a proposal that imports the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel. Its Jewish character gone, its borders indefensible, exposed to whatever may be the outcome that the Arabs can put together.

That doesn't seem to me, Cliff, to be something that ought to give the Israeli public very much confidence, unless they themselves are able to get a handle on this violence. Isn't that the real key here? If it's done in an environment where the violence keeps going, doesn't this proposal tell us what the end is liable to be?

MAY: Precisely so, Alan, you're exactly right. Look, the average person in Israel is not worried right now about whether or not he has recognition from the House of Saud. What he's worried about is the possibility of his children being blown up on a school bus, the possibly of being shot down with an assault rifle walking through the streets.

If Arafat thought the Saudi proposal had any merit to it, he would say, you know what, I like this, I'm going to call a halt to the terrorism right now and let's see if we can work something out. After all, he was offered an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with its capital in Jerusalem, he turned it down and he initiated this wave of terror. He is in the West Bank right now because the Israelis put him there, as part of a land for peace process. He got authority over that land. He never gave the peace.

At this point, it is simply impossible to say, no, what has to happen is that the Israelis have to make one more concession. One more thing: From the U.S. point of view, Alan, it is vital that the Bush doctrine be coherent and be consistent, and that means terrorism is never rewarded, and that means those who sponsor terrorism, which Arafat is doing, they can never get anything out of that.

You know, Frank Gaffney and I disagreed a little while ago. I had written a couple of months ago something saying until the Bush doctrine was articulated, Arafat couldn't know that we meant business. Now that we do, we got to give him some time to get rid of the terrorism. Frank told me...

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Nancy Soderberg, what do you have to say to that?

SODERBERG: There is — I mean, part of the problem is there is no Bush doctrine in how to move this forward, other than we don't want to do what President Clinton did.

MAY: Let's understand, please, let's understand what the Bush doctrine is, the audience needs to understand. The Bush doctrine is that we as a society will no longer tolerate terrorism, the intentional killing of innocent noncombatants, no matter what the grievance, no matter what the complaint. You can't say terrorism is OK...

(CROSSTALK)

Nancy —

SODERBERG: ... platitudes like that do not substitute for a peace plan...

(CROSSTALK)

MAY: When is terrorism justified, Nancy?

KEYES: Hold on. Both of you. Hold on.

SODERBERG: Never.

KEYES: Hold on.

MAY: Never. That's the Bush doctrine.

KEYES: Cliff May, stop.

SODERBERG: That's not the doctrine...

KEYES: I would really like a brief response from both Nancy and Mark Ginsberg. Simple question here. Every time Arafat doesn't get what he wants, he sends folks out to kill innocents in larger and more intense numbers. How can we pretend that further concessions are not concessions to that terrorism?

GINSBERG: Alan, it's clear that Yasser Arafat is failing in any test of leadership for the Palestinian people. He is a failure as a leader. He's resorted to terrorism. One of the reasons why I support the Saudi initiative is it because it may very well provide the Arabs with an opportunity ultimately to help remove from him the ultimate decision-making authority over the future of the Palestinians. He no longer can be trusted, either by the Palestinians or by the Arabs, much less by the Israelis or the Americans.

KEYES: Now, wait, hold it right there. Nancy Soderberg, do you agree with that?

SODERBERG: Well, I think that George Mitchell got it right in that Arafat has to make 100 percent — 100 percent effort to stop the violence.

KEYES: Now, wait a minute, wait, Nancy, Nancy, that's not what Mark Ginsberg just said.

SODERBERG: Let me finish, though.

KEYES: I don't think anybody believes that. What he just said was, this could be a prelude to Arabs actually being in a position where they could remove Yasser Arafat as an obstacle and maybe get some leadership that doesn't have the same track record. You don't think that's needed?

SODERBERG: I think you can't prescribe a new Palestinian leader. As frustrating as Arafat is to deal with, he is the leader that's there. And you know, we can say he's been elected twice or whatever, but the fact is he's failed as a leader there. And rather than talk about trying to remove him, which may or may not turn out with a better leader, may or may not be possible, I think what you have to do is push Arafat every chance we get, including with the Arabs to stop the violence, which is...

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: We're up against — hold on.

SODERBERG: And then you have to build on to the Saudi proposal, where you have a chance for the first time to have an united Arab front to make peace with Israel. And that's not happening.

KEYES: Now, Cliff, we don't have time. I'm sorry. I appreciate what you all said. One last word, privilege of the chair here, Nancy. I've got to tell you, it seems to me, you say, oh, well, what do we do about Yasser Arafat. Yasser Arafat knows what to do, he and his cronies, about a lot of innocent Israelis who were here yesterday and are dead now, and others on the Palestinian side here yesterday and dead now. So, he's figured out a way to get rid of the obstacles that are in his way.

SODERBERG: It's not working, though.

KEYES: He better hope that the Israelis don't take a lesson from his book.

Anyway, thanks all of you. We really appreciate your coming on tonight.

Next, when it comes to reparations for slavery, we've seen the terrible price that was paid in blood during the Civil War. Others are coming forward now, saying money is needed to somehow repair the damage. Does it make sense for people generations later to be paying for the sins? Some of those people weren't even in this country at the time. We're going to be examining that question next. You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes. Now we're on to another very emotional issue. One that divides people in this country, pretty much along racial lines; reparations for slavery. There are several companies now, Fleet, the rail company C.S.X., and Aetna that are being sued by — in a lawsuit that says you were responsible for and took actions during the time of slavery for which you must now pay damages to the descendants of slaves.

Now, in a recent survey, only 20 percent of those polled thought that corporations that profited from slavery should make cash payments to descendants of slaves, compared to 74 percent who disagreed. But those numbers fall strictly along racial lines it looks like, pretty clearly. We are now joined from Washington by Reverend Walter Fauntroy. Reverend Fauntroy served as lieutenant to Martin Luther King and coordinated Dr. King's March on Washington in 1963 and the Selma to Montgomery voting rights march of 1965. He's a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus and served as chairman during his 20-year tenure as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Also, with us, David Horowitz, author of the book entitled “Uncivil Wars: The Controversy Over Reparations for Slavery.” He is a nationally author and life-long civil rights activist. I want to start with Reverend Fauntroy, with a question that frankly bothers me a lot about this whole idea of money reparations. Now, we are the products of a long history and the idea that somehow or another this late in the day in this generation, we're going to be doing things to repair and pay for something that was done decades and decades ago with an intervening war that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, that cost enormous treasure that set the country back many years in its own development and progress in various ways. Now, Lincoln said if every drop of blood drawn with the lash must be requited by another drawn with the sword, so as it was said, thousands of years ago, so still it must be said the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. Wasn't that blood enough?

I mean, sure, we need to address the real question of damage done and the heritage of that damage. But what's that got to do with paying the price for slavery? Wasn't that done by the generations that died in the bloodiest war in our history? A war that claimed more lives than all our other wars put together?

REV. WALTER FAUNTROY, CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST: Well, the fact is that the blood shed in World War II was not enough for the Japanese who were incarcerated, robbed of their income, education, health care, housing and justice. It was not enough for the Jewish — Jews of Europe who were robbed of their lives, and governments came together to conclude that every wrong deserves a remedy, and through a long process for the Japanese and a long process for the Jews of Europe, we arrived at a formula for reparations. And we certainly feel in light of the long history of the use of race and religion, to deny people of African descent five things: income, education, health care, housing and justice, that there needs to be a comprehensive governmental addressing of this problem.

KEYES: But see one of the problems with that analogy, though, reverend is that the cause of World War II had nothing to do with those Japanese people. Quite the contrary, as a matter of fact. The idea that they were owed reparations was something that wasn't on the minds of the people who died on the battlefields of World War II. The issue of slavery was very prominent in the minds of the young men who went into the cannon's mouth during the Civil War. You see it in their letters, you see it in their diaries, you see it everywhere written there, that a lot of folks went consciously believing that God called them to give their lives to repair the moral wrong of slavery. Something money could not do. So, they gave their blood.

Now, it seems to me that by the very comparison you're suggesting, almost I feel an insult to our slave ancestors. You want to tell me that what they suffered can actually be repaired with money? You're going to do the same thing those slaveholders did, put a money price on something that can't possibly be quanitified in that way.

FAUNTROY: Well, let's come to some agreement in what the government's function is. The function of government is to facilitate for its citizens access to five things, think about it, income, education, health care, housing and justice. Slavery as an institution systematically denied what we estimate to be four million people who were removed from their villages in Africa, and brought here...

(CROSSTALK)

... work for free, and that's a wrong that deserves a remedy just as the wrong done, European Jews deserved a remedy. And just as a wrong done, Japanese deserved a remedy in this country. And we're not saying that we want to compensate the families who lost loved ones in the war. We're saying let's get specific with respect to the people who were victims of an institution.

KEYES: Let me go now to David Horowitz. Listening to this exchange that I've had with the Reverend, you have a book on this very subject in all of its ramifications, very much opposed to the idea of reparations. Why do you think that this is a bad idea, David?

DAVID HOROWITZ, AUTHOR: Well, Alan, you put it very eloquently, yourself. This is a shakedown operation, the United States government liberated the slaves. Four million Africans were not taken from Africa. The figure is something like 700,000. The United States inheritted from Britain a slave system, and within 80 years ended slavery at the cost of the equivalent of five million lives. We have dealt with slavery in this country — another thing, black Americans are the richest and freest and most privileged blacks on the face of the earth.

FAUNTROY: Oh.

HOROWITZ: And that is something — you know, this whole movement is designed to deny that, to attack this country, it's not an accident. I don't know if Reverend Fauntroy was with the group that went to South Africa, and 10 days before 9/11, were joining hands with the Islamic radicals, with Iran, and the other Arab governments to condemn the United States for slavery while slavery persists in the Sudan and Mauritania.

The United States is a country that Americans should be proud of for ending slavery. And this whole, you know — you started with the suits against companies, completely frivolous suits. The companies that exist today have nothing to do with the companies of 150 years ago. Some of them don't even have the same names. But even if they did, they wouldn't be the same companies. What this is is just — it's a shakedown. It's an attempt to create a whole public...

KEYES: Let me ask...

HOROWITZ: ... a public relations attack...

KEYES: Let me ask you...

HOROWITZ: ... on the companies so they have to, you know, they can be extorted.

KEYES: Let me ask a question first of you and then I want to get back to Reverend Fauntroy. Because it seems to me also that if you're going to do this, slavery wasn't just about people in America. It was about Arab traders who sold people as slaves. It was about black African tribesmen, for their own political reasons and economic reasons, selling their brethren into slavery. I mean, it seems to me we're going to start down this road. Why are we just picking on the folks who had this brutal institution at heart and were greedy after money on this side? Why not look at it on the other side and go after all these other folks as well? If you're not going to do that, it seems to me that's a confession that it's really just a tactic. But we'll see. David, what do you think?

HOROWITZ: Well, I agree. Slavery existed in Africa for a thousand years before a white person ever set foot there. The Muslim slave trade was larger — to the east was larger by several million than the Atlantic slave trade. In fact, the United States participated in about 1.5 percent of the entire slave trade. Black African countries are much more guilty of slaving. But why...

KEYES: Wait, wait. David, let me quickly get to Reverend Fauntroy. Go ahead, Reverend Fauntroy. I know that got your goat.

FAUNTROY: I say two things to you. First of all, obviously this is not just a national problem. It is an international problem and it is one which has to be addressed by governments to remedy the wrong done. I would be the first to agree that in terms of modern slavery in the Sudan, we have the same problem here that we had 400 years ago, namely Arabs going south to enslave people for the benefit of foreign investors. That is what happened when Europe came south into Africa, often with the bible and with racism in exchange for that the immeasurable resources there.

What is required is, I think, what we in African-American leadership have agreed upon over a 30-year period in what is called HR-40, a bill introduced first by John Conyers in 1989, the result of years of study of this. And we concluded that what we needed is a commission to study slavery in the United States and its affect upon the descendants of the slaves in the United States with a view to recommending to the government a process. That's the kind of process we have got to go through and we have got to eliminate the kind of rhetoric and acute but not correct solutions that are being offered...

KEYES: Gentlemen, we've got to take a break here. So, stay with me because we're going to be coming right back. I have got to confess, Reverend Fauntroy, I wish you'd spend as much time thinking about how we end slavery in Sudan as you are thinking right now about how we pay a bill that couldn't possibly be paid in money. But we'll talk about that when we get back.

FAUNTROY: We'll talk about that.

KEYES: And after that, my “Outrage of the Day.” So you all stay tuned. We're coming right back at you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: In the wake of a suit filed today seeking reparations from several American companies, supposedly for things that their predecessors in the corporate incarnation had done with respect to slavery, we're talking about this issue of reparations for slavery. Our special guests today, author and civil rights activist David Horowitz and former Congressman and chairman of the Black Caucus, representative — I'm sorry — former representative and Reverend Walter Fauntroy.

I'd like to go first to David Horowitz. Why not, David, in terms of looking at the Japanese and Jewish folks in the context of the terrible things happened in the 20th century, why aren't these parallel situations? Isn't that, in fact, a valid argument?

HOROWITZ: Absolutely not. First of all, the Japanese-Americans weren't paid. People who were put in relocation centers and had their property taken away were paid. We're not — of course, who is against paying reparations to slaves and former slaves? Nobody. This is reparations for very well-off black people in this country. Fifty percent of the black Americans in the middle class, something that the Black Caucus doesn't want to talk about.

It is completely — and the Jews — I mean, I am a Jew. I didn't get paid reparations. The Jews who got paid — the Jews were actually in the amps or the children of Jews who were exterminated and who had their property taken away. You know, this is what — and Reverend Fauntroy is completely disingenuous when he says, you know, we should take on lots of governments. There's not one word out of Randall Robinson's mouth or any reparation. I read all of the reparations literature. It only attacked the United States and Great Britain.

In South Africa, the Black Caucus went and to its — this is shameful what it did. It singled out the two countries most responsible for freeing slaves and condemned them and ignored the Sudan and ignored all the African countries that had to be forced to free their slaves by Great Britain and the United States.

KEYES: Reverend Fauntroy?

FAUNTROY: Well, that's precisely why we need what John Conyers has called for, a commission to study this and to get beyond the emotional kinds of barbs that are generally put out around this issue. The fact is that the gentleman knows that we've made an attempt at reparations after the Civil War. We had, in 1862, passed a Homestead Act, which gave to Europeans 160 acres of land free if they would work it for five years. Where do you get the land? By public policy. We drove the Native Americans off of the valuable land, onto reservations, and made it available to them.

When the Civil War was over, we said we ought to do something like that for the slaves. And they promised 40 acres and a mule. And that was never implemented. All I'm saying is...

KEYES: Reverend, I have to stop you there. Excuse me. Excuse me. I just have a factual correction. To say that was never implemented is not a true statement. As a matter of fact, a lot of folks did get land and 40 acres and a mule.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Let me finish, please. There were a lot of problems with the implementation. There was a lot of difficulty because you didn't prepare people and you didn't have the background. A lot of folks lost that land. It was stolen from them. They were exploited in various ways. But I know for a fact that some of it stayed in the hands of black folks through several generations, because there was some of it in Maryland in the hands of folks related to me.

So we can't just say in some blanket way that was never implemented. The effort was made, and part of what botched it up was that it was about not looking at the real problems, but pretending that some little gesture would solve them. If you just hand money to people who aren't prepared to use it properly, all they're going to do is mess it up. That seems to be a criticism of the proposal you're coming up with.

FAUNTROY: No, not at all. The fact is that it was a public policy not to allow blacks to be educated in slavery. And, of course, there were those who got land and lost it, and the fact is the system did not work as reparations and you'd have to agree with that, for the reasons that you gave. All I'm saying is that at this point, and I'm glad you mentioned the Sudan because I do have some very specific thoughts about how we resolved that, just as I have some specific thoughts about how we can resolve the question of reparations for Africans on the continent and in the Diaspora that ought to be examined by a commission and not 10 minutes on a TV show.

KEYES: Reverend, unhappily, 10 minutes — well, more than 10 minutes today is what we get. But I would like to invite you both at some point, I'm sure that this issue is going to continue to percolate, to come back, and we'll get further into it, because I believe that it is important to try to achieve a real understanding here, and one that I have to say myself, I feel strongly about this.

We have to act in such a way we don't insult the sacrifices of Americans who lost their lives in the Civil War, paid in blood. And we also have to act in such a way we're not seeming to be exploiting the suffering of our ancestors for our own gain.

We'll be right back with my “Outrage of the Day.” Stay right there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Now time for my “Outrage of the Day.” The Chinese have barred a U.S. warship from a planned and scheduled visit into Hong Kong Harbor. Why? Because we were willing to entertain a high official of the Taiwanese government in Florida. They are angry and upset because we dared to let somebody from Taiwan come and visit this country. So they blocked the port call by a U.S. warship, and they refused to say Tuesday whether Vice President Hu Jintao would go ahead with a plans for a U.S. visit.

To which I say, Hu Jintao, who are you when you're at home? And who are you to dictate American policy on Taiwan? What kind of a relationship is it we have with the Chinese, that they are going to dictate what we're going to do with respect to Florida and who visits our country? All in order to maintain what, a relationship where apparently they have very little respect for their prerogatives of our sovereignty.

That's a relationship, it seems to me, for which we're paying too high a price, both in terms of our dignity and, at the end of the day, in terms of our international policies. That's my sense of it.

Thanks for being with me tonight. “THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS” is up next. Have a pleasant night.