MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesApril 1, 2002
ALAN KEYES, MSNBC HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Well, obviously over the course of the last several days and weekend, we have seen a tremendous intensification of the violence, of the crisis in the Middle East. Terrible loss of life in Haifa. And today again we have seen the tragic results of a suicide bombing.
In addition, in response to these episodes of violence that have claimed so many lives on the Israeli side, we have seen a strong, some say harsh, response from the Israeli government. Tanks today rolling through Ramallah, and even as we speak reports coming over the wire of Israeli tanks entering Bethlehem, the historic town from two directions. Yasser Arafat, his compound in ruins, in hiding, without electricity, without light, deprived of all contact, save what can be conjured up by a few of his closest advisers with the outside world.
Well, up front tonight, we are going to be talking to Dore Gold, the senior policy adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. He is joining us from Jerusalem to share his understanding of what the Israeli government is trying to achieve with the harsh actions that they are taking.
Obviously, a response to the intensified violence, but one that has gotten a response from various places around the world that call into question whether or not the Israeli government will enjoy understanding for what it is trying to achieve even from the U.S. government. Dore Gold, welcome to MAKING SENSE tonight. And thank you for being with us.
DORE GOLD, ADVISER TO ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER ARIEL SHARON: Thank you. Good evening.
KEYES: My first question, which can help to clarify what we're watching for a lot of folks in our audience, what does the Israeli government, what does Prime Minister Sharon hope to achieve in the actions that are now being taken?
GOLD: Right now we're speaking about the security of the people of Israel. Under the original Oslo accords that Israel signed in 1993, Yasser Arafat was expected to be a kind of Nelson Mandela of the Palestinian, a man who would reject armed struggle, set it aside, and instead assume a political path.
He was also responsible to make sure that in areas under his jurisdiction, no terrorism would emanate — or no terrorism would emanate from those areas. What has happened over the last eight years is a vast infrastructure of international terrorism. Organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, those are thee people who invented airplane hijackings, have built up a tremendous organizational base. And from that base, they have been repeatedly attacking Israel with suicide bombings.
Arafat was supposed to dismantle that base. As a former negotiator, I can tell you we put that into his agreements. He's failed to do so. He's failed to implement at least 10 separate cease-fire initiatives. We will dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism instead.
KEYES: Now, I have two questions. The first is whether or not from the point of view of the Israeli government that failure is due to the fact that Yasser Arafat will not call off these elements of terrorism or that he cannot. Which do you think it is?
GOLD: I think it's clearly he does not want to. And I'll tell you why. Some of the organizations we're facing are fundamentalist opposition groups like the Hamas or Islamic Jihad that's backed by Iran. But many of the groups, in fact now most of the attacks, are now coming from groups loyal to Yasser Arafat.
The PLO, which is what Yasser Arafat represented for many years, is an umbrella organization made up of different groups. The largest PLO group is called the Fatah organization. It has a militia called the Tanzim. The Tanzim and that militia and his personal bodyguard has been responsible for 50 percent of the attacks. He could easily make a phone call to the head of the Tanzim. He could certainly make a phone call to the head of his personal bodyguard and say stop the terrorism against Israelis. He's failed to do so. The Tanzim and 417 are on Yasser Arafat's payroll.
KEYES: See, the problem I have, though, let us take either one of those possibilities. Either he will not or he cannot. In either case, it means that the violence is not stopped, right? Whether you're dealing with somebody who won't stop it because he's trying to achieve his own objectives, which I personally think is pretty clear, or somebody who can't stop it because he's dealing with forces who will not respond to his authority. In either case, isn't it clear that Yasser Arafat is incompetent to make peace with Israel? After all, if he can't stop the violence, how can he give you peace?
GOLD: Well, I think you're absolutely correct. The prerequisite of peace is no violence, is no terrorism, because violence and terrorism contradict one another. The diplomatic record indicates it all. People hear about all these commissions and reports and Tenet plan and Mitchell commission.
The Mitchell commission was born back in the fall of 2000 when President Clinton flew to Sharm El-Sheikh in Egypt, met with President Mubarak, met with then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat and set up a quid pro quo. The quid pro quo was that we would provide — or agree to an international commission of investigation of what went on, how this violence began. And he, Yasser Arafat, would give us a cease-fire.
Well, we got the Mitchell commission report. We never got the pro quo, the cease-fire. And, therefore, we've just had a series of negotiators, mediators who have been sent here. General Zinni has been given an impossible task to try to reach a cease-fire. There is nothing to work with when you're trying to cut a deal with Yasser Arafat.
KEYES: Well, then what do you make of the response of the American administration? I mean, there are those in our country who are saying that we're getting mixed signals and so forth. What does it look like from the point of view of the Israeli government? On one day, a Security Council resolution that seems to call for a halt to Israel's activity. The other day, statements of understanding of your right to defend yourselves. What do you make of American policy at this point?
GOLD: First of all, the most important thing is to look at the top. I believe that President George W. Bush has introduced moral clarity in the war against terrorism. It is absolutely essential to win this war to distinguish between those who are the aggressor and those who are the defender.
When a Palestinian straps dynamite to himself and walks into a crowded cafe, there's no question about what you're dealing with. That's called terrorism. You don't have to be an international lawyer or an ambassador to the United Nations to figure that out.
And when Israel is moving against the nests of those terrorist organizations, that's called self-defense. The most important thing is to make that clarification and not confuse the two, which many Europeans do, by the way.
KEYES: Well, but obviously, though, and we have had some very articulate and vehement Palestinian spokesmen on the program who would make the point that from their point of view this violence is in response to the violent occupation of these territories by Israel, that folks are acting out of their resentment against this violence and their frustration that Israel will not respect the right of self-government of the Palestinian people.
Even today, we had the head of Palestinian security forces, so-called saying, that the Israeli forces that were storming his compound were using innocent civilians as a shield and practicing terrorist violence against the Palestinian people. What is your response to these charges?
GOLD: Well, you know, the charge of so-called occupation is completely baseless. Anybody who knows anything about the Oslo agreements knows what they're about. Israel dismantled its military government over the Palestinians. We created a Palestinian administration under Yasser Arafat. That's what happened in '94, in '95, and in 1996.
Before Arafat launched this violence against Israel in the fall of 2000, 98 percent of the Palestinian people were under Palestinian rule. If there was any occupation, it was an Arafat occupation over the Palestinians, not an Israeli.
It's a convenient argument for Palestinians to use to excuse terror, to try and say terrorism is justified. But one thing I think all of us, though, and the American people also, understand, especially after September 11, there is not a single cause, any possible grievance, any possible claim that can possibly justify sending young Palestinians with dynamite strapped to their bodies into crowded Israeli restaurants, into a Passover seder dinner in Netanya and murdering dozens of innocent Israeli civilians. No cause possibly justifies it.
There are many people in the world who can say that they have grievances and all kinds of claims. But no other nations are using this kind of suicide bombing to advance their interests. It is simply illegitimate.
KEYES: Given what we have witnessed and what the Israeli government, I think, perceives as the pattern of Yasser Arafat's behavior and of the leadership around him, a pattern that seems to suggest that there are negotiations, there's talk, but there's always a willingness to resort to violence in order to promote political objectives, that appears to be the understanding that your government has of the way in which he has behaved, also what we're just talking about, either an unwillingness or inability to call off the dogs of violence.
Is it possible, in fact, to go on dealing with somebody like Yasser Arafat, who at one and the same time seems both discredited and incompetent in the sense of being unable to deliver the key prerequisite of peace. Does it make any sense to go on trying to negotiate with a party like this?
GOLD: Well, I think that's the conclusion of the government of Israel. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's cabinet has designated Yasser Arafat as an enemy. Before we did that, we designated him as irrelevant because we didn't see him as delivering the kind of stability, the kind of cease-fire that we need, so that we can get back to the business of peacemaking.
So, Yasser Arafat cannot deliver the goods. And if we try and pin our hopes on negotiating with him, on building some kind of a cease-fire with him, I'm afraid that's a fruitless task. Right now, we've decided to isolate him in his compound while we go about the business of dismantling that vast infrastructure of terrorism that he was supposed to dismantle because we're in the business of protecting the people of Israel.
KEYES: Now, can I ask one last question?
GOLD: Please.
KEYES: Does that mean that Israel is basically declaring Yasser Arafat an invalid interlocker the for peace, that he really can't make a deal, and, therefore, they are demanding somebody who can actually produce the goods should be put forward on his side?
GOLD: I think there is no question about that. Prime Minister Sharon has expressed his exasperation with Yasser Arafat. Defense Minister Ben Eliezer has said Yasser Arafat is not the man we're going to make peace with.
I think that is a growing consensus in all of Israel. The former members of the former government of Prime Minister Barak like Shlomo Ben-Ami, the foreign minister at the time, have said with Arafat you can't cut any deals. So I think it's clear to the people of Israel that Arafat is not the man who will deliver a cease-fire. It will have to be somebody else who understands the mistakes he's made...
KEYES: Dore Gold...
GOLD: ... for the Palestinians and the damage he's caused for the people of Israel.
KEYES: ... Dore, thank you very much. Thank you for taking the time. I know it is very early there. And I appreciate you coming out to share this understanding with the American people. We're going to go on and talk about this more deeply. But thank you for your firsthand insights into the thinking of the Israeli government.
Next here on MAKING SENSE, we're going to get to the heart of this matter when we ask these questions. Is Yasser Arafat indispensable? Would his departure from power help or hurt the prospects for peace? And what would follow in his wake?
But first, does this make sense? Over at the INS, two border patrol agents, Mark Hall and Robert Lindenman (ph), reported security problems along the U.S.-Canada border. And they have, in fact, now been recommended by senior U.S. Immigration and Naturalization officials for a 90-day suspension and demotion.
In letters sent to them, they were told that they were an embarrassment to the border patrol and that they put national security in jeopardy. Now, get this. Two guys who are willing to look at what's going on, be honest about the difficulties that they may face so that they can be remedied and we can be stronger, they are the problem? I don't think that's true.
When you've got problems, you're not going to solve them if you're not willing to look at them. And retaliating against a whistleblower who tells you what's wrong is a sure way to make sure you never get it right. That kind of retaliation doesn't make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'd like to see Chairman Arafat denounce the terrorist activities that are taking place, the constant attacks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: That was President Bush today criticizing Palestinian terrorism. Now, recently his administration has criticized the strong Israeli response to Palestinian terrorism. Is Bush a president divided against himself? We'll debate that in our next half hour.
A reminder now that the chat room is humming right along tonight. Seminole says: “What is with the double standard we're giving Israel if we have a real war on terror?” And you can join in right now with your opinion at chat.msnbc.com.
But first here, we're talking about the future of the Middle East and whether Yasser Arafat should play a role in it. Joining us to get to the heart of the matter, Ali Abunimah, vice president of the Arab American Action Network. Also with us, Max Singer, a senior fellow and founder of the Hudson Institute, a public policy research group in Washington. And Rich Lowry, the editor of “National Review.” Welcome, gentlemen, to MAKING SENSE.
Now, in light of what we have just heard, I think a serious question, Mark, has to be put behind what Yasser Arafat's usefulness is in this process. As I heard what Dore Gold was just saying, from the point of view of the existing Israeli government, this is an invalid interlocutor, somebody you can't talk to and who can't make peace and who's not going to be able to make progress.
Max Singer, let's start with you. Do you think that that kind of a statement is helpful? Does it indicate a reality? And is, in fact, Yasser Arafat now an obstacle to achieving a positive result in efforts for peace?
MAX SINGER, SENIOR FELLOW, HUDSON INSTITUTE: I don't think it's right to personalize this. It's Arafat's policies that matter. Arafat has said very frankly that he's started a war. He doesn't want to have a cease-fire until he wins. He said no negotiation about truce. He wants negotiation about what he calls ending the occupation, which is a misnomer.
So, he's fighting to win. And in that, he's got the support right now of the Palestinian people. And perhaps just as important, he right now has the encouragement and support of Iraq and Iran, who are very eager to keep the United States tied up worrying about Israel-Palestinians so they don't turn on solving the problem of the axis of evil in the Bush war on terrorism.
So, he's following a policy. If he changes his policy, we'll talk to him. If he doesn't change his policy, we have to fight him. It's very straightforward.
KEYES: But Rich Lowry, I think that one of the problems I see with Yasser Arafat, though, and I was thinking of it in President Bush's remarks where he said that Arafat should stand up and denounce in Arabic the acts of terrorism. So, he commits the acts of terrorism. And then we say it's OK so long as he lies about what he's doing in both English and Arabic. Does this really make any sense?
(LAUGHTER)
RICH LOWRY, EDITOR, “NATIONAL REVIEW”: Well, not in that light. And this is the thing, Alan. Eventually, the administration just has to take no for an answer from Yasser Arafat. And he's been saying no more or less for the last 18 months. And eventually, it's going to seem kind of silly to keep on expecting him to say the right magic words.
Now, all that said, the Palestinians have been dealt a very tough hand by history. The conditions in those refugee camps are very appalling. But nothing justifies terror. And it seems pretty clear that Arafat has deliberately chosen terror as a tactic. And if the Israeli government considers him an enemy as they say, and they consider him a terrorist as they say, you would think eventually they have to follow that through to its logical conclusion and do something more drastic than just isolating him, perhaps expelling him.
KEYES: Ali Abunimah, what do you think of Dore Gold's suggestion that Yasser Arafat, an enemy, is, in fact, not a valid interlocker, can't be dealt with, is not able to produce a peace, and therefore, by implication, somebody else need to come forward who would be able to do so?
ALI ABUNIMAH, ARAB AMERICAN ACTION NETWORK: Well, this is not about Yasser Arafat. And Dore Gold knows that well. This is about Israel's military occupation, the same one that Dore Gold is telling us doesn't exist. He wants the viewers to believe that the tens of thousands heavily armed occupation troops who have been in outside Israel in the Palestinian territories for the past 35 years ruling millions of Palestinians through military terror and military dictatorship, taking away their land and giving it to Israeli settlers, none of that has happened. None of it exists. And that shows how extreme this Israeli government is.
And there's something missing from this conversation. Everyone is concerned about terror. I am concerned about terror. I agree with Mr. Lowry that absolutely nothing justifies suicide bombings. They're horrifying. But nobody seems to care that the vast majority of innocent civilians killed in the past 18 months are Palestinians deliberately killed and targeted by the Israeli Army. And I know that Mr. Gold and perhaps some of your other guests...
SINGER: How many of these questionable statements...
ABUNIMAH: ... All you have to do...
SINGER: ... should we listen to before we discuss them?
ABUNIMAH: ... is look at the Web sites of every human rights group, Amnesty International, Physicians for Human Rights USA, even the Israeli group Betselam (ph) will tell you that the Israeli Army shoots Palestinian civilians down like dogs. And as long as that's going on, the violence is going to continue. Now, we want peace...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Max Singer...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... Ali Abunimah, just one second. Max Singer, Max Singer, two questions very quickly. That understanding of history, and that understanding of current events, what do you say to it?
SINGER: Well, the first mistake is he talks about the Palestinian land. And the Jordan Valley is not Palestinian land. You can argue that the place where Palestinians live now, which is a very small part of the West Bank, should be Palestinian land. It never was Palestinian land. And Israel is prepared to give it to the Palestinians when there's a peace process, negotiations as provided by UN Resolution 242.
But there is no Palestinian land. There will be Palestinian land. But there has never been. And there is not now. There's disputed land. And that's what the fight is about. The Palestinians just never recognized decisions.
The first decision was by the League of Nations that provided that Palestine should become a Jewish homeland. And that is a perfectly valid decision that's never been accepted by the Arabs. What?
ABUNIMAH: What Mr. Singer is telling us is that the sky is green. That's what he's saying. The sky is green. The entire world, even the United States government, is saying Israel has to get out of the occupied territories...
SINGER: No.
(CROSSTALK)
SINGER: The United States government is not saying that.
ABUNIMAH: Oh, yes it has. The United States supports UN Resolution 242, supports its decision.
(CROSSTALK)
ABUNIMAH: That's right. And the UN Resolution 242 does not say that anything is Palestinian land. And it does not say that Israel has to get out of all the land...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Gentlemen, one second. One second. Rich Lowry, one second. Rich Lowry...
ABUNIMAH: ... in exchange for...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Rich Lowry. Ali, Ali, Ali, Ali, Rich Lowry , one question to you. I'm listening to this back and forth. And it seems to me we are at the present time suffering in part from the fact that a lot of people, including a lot of viewers, I think are acting in a vacuum of historical understanding and that in point of fact we look at this situation as if it had no antecedents. Max tried to remind us of those antecedents in a way. But what of the charges that the Israeli government is brutalizing civilians and that that is at the root of the current violence?
LOWRY: Well, Alan, I think there is an important moral distinction to be made here. Yes, Israel has killed civilians. Yes, America has killed civilians in Afghanistan. But that is collateral damage. It's not deliberately targeting civilians.
ABUNIMAH: That is absolutely false. Every human rights group in the world disagrees with you.
LOWRY: If civilians get killed in the course of legitimate — if civilians getting killed — if I could finish the thought.
ABUNIMAH: All you have to do right now...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Ali Abunimah, the great problem, Ali, Ali...
ABUNIMAH: ... everyone can see that.
KEYES: ... Ali, unfortunately, I think we have an illustration of part of the problem right here.
ABUNIMAH: Absolutely. We do. This is a total denial of the facts.
KEYES: I am quite willing, I am quite willing, and we have been willing to give you the time that's needed to express yourself. But you need to be willing to acknowledge that others are existing on this panel and give them the freedom...
ABUNIMAH: Will you give me — well, let me ask you a question.
KEYES: No. No. I ask the questions here. I ask the questions here, Ali.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: And right now I am doing my best to get an answer, a complete answer, from Mr. Lowry. Simple question. There are accusations that the Israelis have brutalized civilians. Are these accusations accurate in your view?
ABUNIMAH: Civilians have died. But, Alan, the point I was trying to make is that there's a moral distinction to be made between civilians dying and what are meant to be legitimate and targeted military strikes, that there's a difference between that and strapping explosives around the waists of young men and women and having them run into coffee shops and discos and supermarkets and deliberately blow to bits innocent civilians. That is not permitted under the laws of war. That is terrorism.
KEYES: Rich, now Ali Abunimah, simple question. Is that a false distinction?
ABUNIMAH: Well, there is no distinction in my mind. I care about Israeli and Palestinian civilians being killed. It seems your guests only care about Israeli civilians being killed. They don't care at all about Palestinians.
Mr. Lowry denies the facts that every human rights group in the world that has looked at it, including several Israeli human rights groups, all say very clearly that Israel targets Palestinian civilians, kills them, shoots them down like dogs...
SINGER: Human rights groups can speak untruths as well as other people.
ABUNIMAH: Oh, they are all speaking untruths? Yeah, I'm sure they have their own interests. But this is what even our State Department has made these points in its human rights reports.
SINGER: No, the State Department has not done that.
(CROSSTALK)
ABUNIMAH: All they need to do is go and read it on-line right now, www.state.gov...
(CROSSTALK)
ABUNIMAH: I want to say one more thing.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Ali, one second. One last word for Max Singer. Let's see what you have to say very quickly.
SINGER: I say that it's clear that Israel isn't killing as many civilians as it could. It's going in there, endangering the lives of its soldiers by operating in a way that tries to hold to a minimum the number of enemy casualties. And if you read the instructions that the chief of staff gave to all its soldiers and officers, he stressed that at the beginning of this current campaign. It's a very strong part of Israel.
And, unfortunately, war is hell. And you can't do it perfectly. They're trying very hard.
KEYES: I want to thank all three of you for joining us today. Obviously still deeply contentious issues at the heart of this matter. But one point I'd like to make before we leave, I think all of us can agree that there has to be a distinction between the conscious targeting of innocent civilians to achieve your policy ends and those kinds of awful deaths that occur in the midst of war, which are not intentional, which are not part of one's strategic policy.
And to fail to understand that distinction, I think it's one of the things that right now lies at the heart of the great difficulty the Palestinians are having getting people to accept their version of the situation. As long as those innocents are dying as a conscious result of policy, you're not just dealing with war, you're dealing with the same evil we suffered from in New York. And it's got to stop.
Next, we're going to talk about whether the Bush Middle East policy is at odds with itself, whether or not we've seen a lot of contradictions over the last several days that need resolving. A debate on that and more. You watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Does President Bush have an effective policy for Mideast peace?
There seem in the course of the last few days to have been some mixed messages and contradictory words.
On Saturday, the United States supported a U.N. Security Council resolution that called for Israel to pull its troops out of Palestinian territories.
Yet just hours later, President Bush contradicted that, or seemed to. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think that Chairman Arafat can do a lot more. I truly believe that.
I believe he needs to stand up and condemn - in Arabic - these attacks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: And these kinds of mixed messages continued, or seemed to continue today. Here's another.
BUSH: Chairman Arafat has agreed to a peace process.
KEYES: He has agreed to a peace process, but he hasn't stood up to denounce terrorism.
Now, what are we to conclude by that? That if you agree to a peace process and commit terrorism, that that's OK?
Obviously, that's not the suggestion, but it seems to be the implication.
He commits terrorism. We call on him to denounce the terrorism that he has committed - in Arabic. So if he does it in Arabic and English, lying about it in both languages, that's going to make it all right?
We seem to suggest that Israel has a right to defend itself. Then we join in Security Council resolutions that seem to reprimand Israel for doing just that.
Do we have a coherent policy?
Or are we watching a tug-of-war that goes one way, towards the State Department one day, toward the Department of Defense another day, towards something else, without the kind of coherence that usually has to be imposed on unruly, even very smart principals (ph) in an administration by the leadership of the President?
Well, tonight to talk about that challenge and those issues, we have with us Republican Congressman J.D. Hayworth of Arizona, and Marc Ginsberg, former U.S. Ambassador to Morocco.
Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
Let me start with Representative Hayworth.
Looking at the kind of articulation that we've been seeing, and we didn't go into some of the things that Secretary Powell has said. And even today, the dueling spokesmen between the State Department and the White House.
What are we looking at here? Do we have, in fact, a clear and coherent approach? Or is it a work in progress?
J.D. HAYWORTH, U.S. CONGRESSMAN, (R) ARIZONA: Well, I think a consensus is emerging, Alan. In fact, I think as you take a look at the situation that has developed, you put your finger on it.
Part and parcel of this is the differing roles of different parts of our executive branch - the State Department, who seems to be a welcome wagon to the world, always trying to understand what's going on.
The Defense Department, obviously charged with acting in the self-defense of the United States.
So part of this, indeed, is more the function of different agencies within the government rather than some sort of tension there.
In fact, I think there's another piece of this equation we need to take into account, Alan, and that is the fact - the unique coalition government in Israel, where you have Sharon as the Prime Minister. But also Peres is part of that coalition cabinet.
It's a bit akin to having a situation in the United States where Bush would be the President, and Daschle would be the Vice President countermanding that.
So I guess there is tension and there is a lack of consensus on the part of both governments, in part because of the institutional situation that is set up in both governments.
KEYES: Mark Ginsburg, do you see that kind of tension? And what do you make of it?
MARK GINSBERG, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO MOROCCO: Well, the Congressman is right in part. But let's make sense of this by putting it into context.
When the Bush administration came into office, there was a great deal of criticism over the way - and unfair criticism - over the way the Clinton administration had immersed itself in trying to develop a viable peace process in the Middle East.
Indeed, the President - President Clinton - had significant success until Chairman Arafat blew up Camp David, and then refused to agree to a negotiated settlement with the Israelis in Taba, which most Arabs and most Israelis, and most Americans, and just about anybody else would have determined is fair.
So what has happened since then?
The administration essentially focused its attention away from the Arab-Israeli conflict. And when it began blowing up after September 11th, and the Intifada began, it was left with an ideological resentment against the Clinton administration's involvement, and at the same time, it really could not come up with any viable alternative to what was presented.
So let's try to help this administration out, because we need a bipartisan policy in the Middle East.
First I recommend that the administration utilize the efforts of the Arab League to try to develop a coherent and coordinated approach with the Arab states to deny Mr. Arafat the veto authority over the outlines and contours of a final settlement.
At the same time, the administration has to support Israel's efforts to annihilate those extremist elements that are trying to destroy it.
And that's going to take some time. The administration should be very clear and coherent in that objective.
And then at the same time, the administration has to help an Israeli government, which is - again, as the Congressman pointed out - a coalition government, to develop a vision for peace that goes beyond what it has offered the Palestinian people so far.
Remember, Mr. - Prime Minister Sharon has ...
KEYES: Well, ...
GINSBERG: ... not himself been a very fair-minded individual in offering the Palestinians...
KEYES: Now ...
GINSBERG: ... a real vision.
KEYES: ... Representative Hayworth?
HAYWORTH: Well, thanks, Alan. And Marc, I think raises some interesting points.
But let's go back to one of the central foundations of ...
GINSBERG: ... Mr. - Prime Minister Sharon has ...
KEYES: Well, ...
GINSBERG: ... not himself been a very fair-minded individual in offering the Palestinians ...
KEYES: Now ...
GINSBERG: ... a real vision.
KEYES: ... Representative Hayworth?
HAYWORTH: Well, thanks, Alan. And Marc, I think raises some interesting points.
But let's go back to one of the central foundations of Marc setting out his current idea on what to do, and that is that former President Clinton and former Prime Minister Barak basically gave Arafat everything he wanted - 95 percent of what he wanted.
And I think there reaches a point when you say, what else is there to give?
You can't retreat back to the pre-1967 situation, because that did not allay attacks on Israel in 1948 or 1956 or 1967.
So the question really becomes, is there a chance to have jaw-jaw instead of war-war? Or do you by jawing in the midst of war set up an illusion that you can have peace in this situation?
I'm not sure that you really have a workable ...
KEYES: Well, ...
HAYWORTH: ... process, as desirous as it is right now.
KEYES: ... let me ask a simple question of both of you. And with the answer starting with Marc and then to Representative Hayworth.
I think a lot of what we are seeing suggests that we need to bite the bullet when it comes to some of the realities in this situation.
Reality number one, which I was talking about with Dore Gold earlier - Yasser Arafat, a discredited, incompetent interlocutor.
He cannot deliver peace, therefore there's no point talking to him about peace, whether he wants to or not.
Isn't there a responsibility on the Arab side to put forward somebody who can actually deliver the goods?
Start with Marc Ginsberg.
GINSBERG: Alan, I've spent almost 30 years in and out of the Arab world, and you point is well taken.
I do believe, having spent my own personal time with Mr. Arafat, he's a very ill man. He has a bunker mentality.
He would rather die as a martyr than to offer the Israelis a compromise that he could negotiate and sign an agreement with, because he himself has never really accepted anything less than what he has preached to the Palestinian people.
At the same time, the Arab states, which vested in him the authority years ago to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian people, that authority now is no longer well placed.
And it's going - they have a regional conflict that ...
KEYES: Well, ...
GINSBERG: ... could occur here. And it's going to take a coordinated approach by the United States and the European allies, and the Arabs, to circumvent him, make him irrelevant, ...
KEYES: Now, ...
GINSBERG: ... put him into a sanitarium.
KEYES: ... Representative, did you hear ...
GINSBERG: I don't know what you do.
KEYES: ... very quickly a response to that.
Doesn't the administration need to bite the bullet and stop playing games with this idea that Yasser Arafat is indispensable?
HAYWORTH: We all need to acknowledge this case. Charles Krauthammer wrote it last week, Alan, when he said, inside the heart of Ariel Sharon there really has the beating of an arsonist, a terrorist.
Marc made the case again. Arafat is not one with whom you can deal. I don't know if you can put together coalitions.
But we need to understand this. Israel has the military capability to take care of itself. Unbelievable restraint has been shown.
Israel has the right to self-defense, as does the United States.
And whomever succeeds Arafat needs to understand, the United States will act in its own national interest, and ...
KEYES: Well, ...
HAYWORTH: ... the Israeli-Palestinian question will be resolved ...
KEYES: ... now ...
HAYWORTH: ... one way or another.
KEYES: ... now we've got to go to the break, but we're going to have more with our guests in just a moment.
And later, all of you will hear my outrage of the day.
But first, does this make sense? Enron - you remember Enron, don't you? I mean, I know it's been off the front pages, but they apparently have actually moved up on the Fortune 500 list.
Can you believe that? They've moved up two notches to number five, despite their downward spiral into bankruptcy.
Now, there's Arthur Andersen, the company that supposedly shredded their documents - a few people. Their employees being destroyed, company going under.
But the real culprits are moving up on the Fortune 500 list. Does this make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: We're back. And we're talking about whether or not President Bush's Mideast policy represents kind of a house divided against itself, and what the consequences may be, what the remedies may be, too, in fact.
Let me get back to Congressman J.D. Hayworth for a moment with a question that has to do with the present situation, they violence there.
The kind of step we've seen in the U.N. resolution, the most recent one, and the one before that - I felt that this actually encouraged folks on the Palestinian side to believe that despite the intensification of violence, America was basically still going to keep pushing the process and putting pressure on the Israelis and so forth.
Unless we clear that up and shut the door on further progress until that violence ends, aren't we sending the kind of signal that could very well fuel a continuation of this tragedy?
Doesn't the President just have to make it clear and stop supporting resolutions that muddy the waters?
HAYWORTH: Well, Alan, before we get there, let me clarify something I said earlier.
As we say on the House floor, permission to revise and extend my remarks.
When I was speaking earlier of a column written by Charles Krauthammer, I was referring to Yasser Arafat, not Ariel Sharon.
KEYES (?): Yes.
HAYWORTH: Yasser Arafat that, I believe Krauthammer wrote, inside his chest beats the heart of an arsonist, and what I believe many to acknowledge, is in fact the heart of a terrorist.
He's incapable of taking over a proper executive position and really ...
KEYES: Yeah, well ...
HAYWORTH: ... dealing with the community of nations.
Now, aside from that fact, I would agree that it seems at times there are contradictory statements.
I think again, though, far more injurious to the situation is the proclamations coming from Arafat, saying that he asks Allah to die as a martyr.
Indeed, many observers believe that in so saying those things, he is encouraging more suicide bombings.
I believe you will see a growing consensus on the part of the United States - and certainly, I hear it from my constituents - that this type of heinous, indiscriminate suicide bombing cannot stand, and the American nation will have to come down on the side of the Israeli government ...
KEYES: Well, ...
HAYWORTH: ... to say, that must stop.
KEYES: ... now, let me go to Marc Ginsberg, because it does seem to me, though- - and I think Representative Hayworth is absolutely on the mark in terms of what we've got to say about the suicide bombing, Yasser Arafat.
So, all that being true, though, can we continually put these contradictory resolutions on the table, go along to get along at the United Nations, giving the impression, therefore, that we're still willing to play games with somebody like Yasser Arafat?
Aren't we encouraging a certain kind of irresponsibility on the Arab side, not taking responsibility for the need to put forward valid and responsible leadership to deal with this process?
GINSBERG: Alan, the Arab countries are constantly putting pressure on the United States to serve as the honest broker. That means, in effect, what they want is to put undying pressure on the Israelis.
The need to avoid contradiction here is important, because if we are dedicated to the integrity of a Jewish state in Israel, then we're going to have to be firm in our conviction against the very type of method that Arafat has tried to utilize against the Israelis.
Because, if he succeeds now, and indeed, if he is able to compel the Israelis to pull out of the West Bank under this type of carnage, then the very threats and concerns and risks that the Israelis felt they couldn't take in the first place would be justified, because the Palestinians would be encouraged to move on from what should have been a two-state solution to a two-state solution.
So why is this - I'm concerned about the administration's position.
Unlike previous administrations where there was relative quiet on the borders, right now what you have is such an outbreak of violence and carnage, instigated largely by the Palestinians, that unless the administration is prepared to make a firm stand, that it risks losing its credibility, not only on the war of terrorism, ...
KEYES: Yes.
GINSBERG: ... but with Arab states that are going to ...
KEYES: Now, ...
GINSBERG: ... lose credibility with it.
KEYES: One last word, a question I'd like to address to Representative Hayworth.
Because I think that what Marc Ginsberg has just said is, in fact, correct. And it puts an onus, a burden on the administration to stand up and be clear, and be consistent and stick with it, that we are not in fact going to tolerate a process until we see an end to this kind of violence, and not muddy the waters with resolutions that seem to take it back the next day.
Don't they have to stop this inconsistency?
HAYWORTH: I would concur. And I would also make this point. I think it is vitally important for the American nation not to feel put upon by the Arab League and the Arab world.
Quite frankly, I think this President has made it clear - and we've had a basic change in doctrine - that when we even have the suspicion that there are those who will act against us, we reserve the right to preemptively strike.
That is an important distinction in American foreign policy. And I believe the American nation must act decisively. And the hearts and minds of our allies will follow ...
GINSBERG: Hear, hear, Congressman.
HAYWORTH: ... out of necessity.
GINSBERG: I agree with you.
HAYWORTH: Thanks, Marc.
KEYES: I'd like to thank both of you for joining me tonight.
And I have to confess. I think that we see here a kind of consensus on consistency that I hope will begin to reach into the White House.
And at the end of the day - I have to say it - the responsibility for that coherence doesn't come from advisors or cabinet officers. It comes from the President.
Right back with the outrage of the day. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: And now, for my outrage of the day.
If this one doesn't have you shaking your head, I don't know what will.
Thierry Meyssan's book, “The Frightening Fraud” has topped the bestseller lists in France.
Meyssan says that American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on September 11th, killing 189 people, did not exist, and that the crash was staged by the government.
Meyssan presents no credible evidence to back his conspiracy theory, and yet French readers are lapping it up.
You thought it was horrible that the Arabs didn't believe that Arabs were involved in the World Trade Center?
Well, what of the idea that Americans blew up the Pentagon themselves? And that all those folks who are mourning the dead are mourning for nothing.
That's outrageous. That's MY SENSE of it.
Thanks for tuning in. The news with Brian Williams is up next. I'll see you tomorrow.
Well, obviously over the course of the last several days and weekend, we have seen a tremendous intensification of the violence, of the crisis in the Middle East. Terrible loss of life in Haifa. And today again we have seen the tragic results of a suicide bombing.
In addition, in response to these episodes of violence that have claimed so many lives on the Israeli side, we have seen a strong, some say harsh, response from the Israeli government. Tanks today rolling through Ramallah, and even as we speak reports coming over the wire of Israeli tanks entering Bethlehem, the historic town from two directions. Yasser Arafat, his compound in ruins, in hiding, without electricity, without light, deprived of all contact, save what can be conjured up by a few of his closest advisers with the outside world.
Well, up front tonight, we are going to be talking to Dore Gold, the senior policy adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. He is joining us from Jerusalem to share his understanding of what the Israeli government is trying to achieve with the harsh actions that they are taking.
Obviously, a response to the intensified violence, but one that has gotten a response from various places around the world that call into question whether or not the Israeli government will enjoy understanding for what it is trying to achieve even from the U.S. government. Dore Gold, welcome to MAKING SENSE tonight. And thank you for being with us.
DORE GOLD, ADVISER TO ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER ARIEL SHARON: Thank you. Good evening.
KEYES: My first question, which can help to clarify what we're watching for a lot of folks in our audience, what does the Israeli government, what does Prime Minister Sharon hope to achieve in the actions that are now being taken?
GOLD: Right now we're speaking about the security of the people of Israel. Under the original Oslo accords that Israel signed in 1993, Yasser Arafat was expected to be a kind of Nelson Mandela of the Palestinian, a man who would reject armed struggle, set it aside, and instead assume a political path.
He was also responsible to make sure that in areas under his jurisdiction, no terrorism would emanate — or no terrorism would emanate from those areas. What has happened over the last eight years is a vast infrastructure of international terrorism. Organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, those are thee people who invented airplane hijackings, have built up a tremendous organizational base. And from that base, they have been repeatedly attacking Israel with suicide bombings.
Arafat was supposed to dismantle that base. As a former negotiator, I can tell you we put that into his agreements. He's failed to do so. He's failed to implement at least 10 separate cease-fire initiatives. We will dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism instead.
KEYES: Now, I have two questions. The first is whether or not from the point of view of the Israeli government that failure is due to the fact that Yasser Arafat will not call off these elements of terrorism or that he cannot. Which do you think it is?
GOLD: I think it's clearly he does not want to. And I'll tell you why. Some of the organizations we're facing are fundamentalist opposition groups like the Hamas or Islamic Jihad that's backed by Iran. But many of the groups, in fact now most of the attacks, are now coming from groups loyal to Yasser Arafat.
The PLO, which is what Yasser Arafat represented for many years, is an umbrella organization made up of different groups. The largest PLO group is called the Fatah organization. It has a militia called the Tanzim. The Tanzim and that militia and his personal bodyguard has been responsible for 50 percent of the attacks. He could easily make a phone call to the head of the Tanzim. He could certainly make a phone call to the head of his personal bodyguard and say stop the terrorism against Israelis. He's failed to do so. The Tanzim and 417 are on Yasser Arafat's payroll.
KEYES: See, the problem I have, though, let us take either one of those possibilities. Either he will not or he cannot. In either case, it means that the violence is not stopped, right? Whether you're dealing with somebody who won't stop it because he's trying to achieve his own objectives, which I personally think is pretty clear, or somebody who can't stop it because he's dealing with forces who will not respond to his authority. In either case, isn't it clear that Yasser Arafat is incompetent to make peace with Israel? After all, if he can't stop the violence, how can he give you peace?
GOLD: Well, I think you're absolutely correct. The prerequisite of peace is no violence, is no terrorism, because violence and terrorism contradict one another. The diplomatic record indicates it all. People hear about all these commissions and reports and Tenet plan and Mitchell commission.
The Mitchell commission was born back in the fall of 2000 when President Clinton flew to Sharm El-Sheikh in Egypt, met with President Mubarak, met with then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat and set up a quid pro quo. The quid pro quo was that we would provide — or agree to an international commission of investigation of what went on, how this violence began. And he, Yasser Arafat, would give us a cease-fire.
Well, we got the Mitchell commission report. We never got the pro quo, the cease-fire. And, therefore, we've just had a series of negotiators, mediators who have been sent here. General Zinni has been given an impossible task to try to reach a cease-fire. There is nothing to work with when you're trying to cut a deal with Yasser Arafat.
KEYES: Well, then what do you make of the response of the American administration? I mean, there are those in our country who are saying that we're getting mixed signals and so forth. What does it look like from the point of view of the Israeli government? On one day, a Security Council resolution that seems to call for a halt to Israel's activity. The other day, statements of understanding of your right to defend yourselves. What do you make of American policy at this point?
GOLD: First of all, the most important thing is to look at the top. I believe that President George W. Bush has introduced moral clarity in the war against terrorism. It is absolutely essential to win this war to distinguish between those who are the aggressor and those who are the defender.
When a Palestinian straps dynamite to himself and walks into a crowded cafe, there's no question about what you're dealing with. That's called terrorism. You don't have to be an international lawyer or an ambassador to the United Nations to figure that out.
And when Israel is moving against the nests of those terrorist organizations, that's called self-defense. The most important thing is to make that clarification and not confuse the two, which many Europeans do, by the way.
KEYES: Well, but obviously, though, and we have had some very articulate and vehement Palestinian spokesmen on the program who would make the point that from their point of view this violence is in response to the violent occupation of these territories by Israel, that folks are acting out of their resentment against this violence and their frustration that Israel will not respect the right of self-government of the Palestinian people.
Even today, we had the head of Palestinian security forces, so-called saying, that the Israeli forces that were storming his compound were using innocent civilians as a shield and practicing terrorist violence against the Palestinian people. What is your response to these charges?
GOLD: Well, you know, the charge of so-called occupation is completely baseless. Anybody who knows anything about the Oslo agreements knows what they're about. Israel dismantled its military government over the Palestinians. We created a Palestinian administration under Yasser Arafat. That's what happened in '94, in '95, and in 1996.
Before Arafat launched this violence against Israel in the fall of 2000, 98 percent of the Palestinian people were under Palestinian rule. If there was any occupation, it was an Arafat occupation over the Palestinians, not an Israeli.
It's a convenient argument for Palestinians to use to excuse terror, to try and say terrorism is justified. But one thing I think all of us, though, and the American people also, understand, especially after September 11, there is not a single cause, any possible grievance, any possible claim that can possibly justify sending young Palestinians with dynamite strapped to their bodies into crowded Israeli restaurants, into a Passover seder dinner in Netanya and murdering dozens of innocent Israeli civilians. No cause possibly justifies it.
There are many people in the world who can say that they have grievances and all kinds of claims. But no other nations are using this kind of suicide bombing to advance their interests. It is simply illegitimate.
KEYES: Given what we have witnessed and what the Israeli government, I think, perceives as the pattern of Yasser Arafat's behavior and of the leadership around him, a pattern that seems to suggest that there are negotiations, there's talk, but there's always a willingness to resort to violence in order to promote political objectives, that appears to be the understanding that your government has of the way in which he has behaved, also what we're just talking about, either an unwillingness or inability to call off the dogs of violence.
Is it possible, in fact, to go on dealing with somebody like Yasser Arafat, who at one and the same time seems both discredited and incompetent in the sense of being unable to deliver the key prerequisite of peace. Does it make any sense to go on trying to negotiate with a party like this?
GOLD: Well, I think that's the conclusion of the government of Israel. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's cabinet has designated Yasser Arafat as an enemy. Before we did that, we designated him as irrelevant because we didn't see him as delivering the kind of stability, the kind of cease-fire that we need, so that we can get back to the business of peacemaking.
So, Yasser Arafat cannot deliver the goods. And if we try and pin our hopes on negotiating with him, on building some kind of a cease-fire with him, I'm afraid that's a fruitless task. Right now, we've decided to isolate him in his compound while we go about the business of dismantling that vast infrastructure of terrorism that he was supposed to dismantle because we're in the business of protecting the people of Israel.
KEYES: Now, can I ask one last question?
GOLD: Please.
KEYES: Does that mean that Israel is basically declaring Yasser Arafat an invalid interlocker the for peace, that he really can't make a deal, and, therefore, they are demanding somebody who can actually produce the goods should be put forward on his side?
GOLD: I think there is no question about that. Prime Minister Sharon has expressed his exasperation with Yasser Arafat. Defense Minister Ben Eliezer has said Yasser Arafat is not the man we're going to make peace with.
I think that is a growing consensus in all of Israel. The former members of the former government of Prime Minister Barak like Shlomo Ben-Ami, the foreign minister at the time, have said with Arafat you can't cut any deals. So I think it's clear to the people of Israel that Arafat is not the man who will deliver a cease-fire. It will have to be somebody else who understands the mistakes he's made...
KEYES: Dore Gold...
GOLD: ... for the Palestinians and the damage he's caused for the people of Israel.
KEYES: ... Dore, thank you very much. Thank you for taking the time. I know it is very early there. And I appreciate you coming out to share this understanding with the American people. We're going to go on and talk about this more deeply. But thank you for your firsthand insights into the thinking of the Israeli government.
Next here on MAKING SENSE, we're going to get to the heart of this matter when we ask these questions. Is Yasser Arafat indispensable? Would his departure from power help or hurt the prospects for peace? And what would follow in his wake?
But first, does this make sense? Over at the INS, two border patrol agents, Mark Hall and Robert Lindenman (ph), reported security problems along the U.S.-Canada border. And they have, in fact, now been recommended by senior U.S. Immigration and Naturalization officials for a 90-day suspension and demotion.
In letters sent to them, they were told that they were an embarrassment to the border patrol and that they put national security in jeopardy. Now, get this. Two guys who are willing to look at what's going on, be honest about the difficulties that they may face so that they can be remedied and we can be stronger, they are the problem? I don't think that's true.
When you've got problems, you're not going to solve them if you're not willing to look at them. And retaliating against a whistleblower who tells you what's wrong is a sure way to make sure you never get it right. That kind of retaliation doesn't make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'd like to see Chairman Arafat denounce the terrorist activities that are taking place, the constant attacks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: That was President Bush today criticizing Palestinian terrorism. Now, recently his administration has criticized the strong Israeli response to Palestinian terrorism. Is Bush a president divided against himself? We'll debate that in our next half hour.
A reminder now that the chat room is humming right along tonight. Seminole says: “What is with the double standard we're giving Israel if we have a real war on terror?” And you can join in right now with your opinion at chat.msnbc.com.
But first here, we're talking about the future of the Middle East and whether Yasser Arafat should play a role in it. Joining us to get to the heart of the matter, Ali Abunimah, vice president of the Arab American Action Network. Also with us, Max Singer, a senior fellow and founder of the Hudson Institute, a public policy research group in Washington. And Rich Lowry, the editor of “National Review.” Welcome, gentlemen, to MAKING SENSE.
Now, in light of what we have just heard, I think a serious question, Mark, has to be put behind what Yasser Arafat's usefulness is in this process. As I heard what Dore Gold was just saying, from the point of view of the existing Israeli government, this is an invalid interlocutor, somebody you can't talk to and who can't make peace and who's not going to be able to make progress.
Max Singer, let's start with you. Do you think that that kind of a statement is helpful? Does it indicate a reality? And is, in fact, Yasser Arafat now an obstacle to achieving a positive result in efforts for peace?
MAX SINGER, SENIOR FELLOW, HUDSON INSTITUTE: I don't think it's right to personalize this. It's Arafat's policies that matter. Arafat has said very frankly that he's started a war. He doesn't want to have a cease-fire until he wins. He said no negotiation about truce. He wants negotiation about what he calls ending the occupation, which is a misnomer.
So, he's fighting to win. And in that, he's got the support right now of the Palestinian people. And perhaps just as important, he right now has the encouragement and support of Iraq and Iran, who are very eager to keep the United States tied up worrying about Israel-Palestinians so they don't turn on solving the problem of the axis of evil in the Bush war on terrorism.
So, he's following a policy. If he changes his policy, we'll talk to him. If he doesn't change his policy, we have to fight him. It's very straightforward.
KEYES: But Rich Lowry, I think that one of the problems I see with Yasser Arafat, though, and I was thinking of it in President Bush's remarks where he said that Arafat should stand up and denounce in Arabic the acts of terrorism. So, he commits the acts of terrorism. And then we say it's OK so long as he lies about what he's doing in both English and Arabic. Does this really make any sense?
(LAUGHTER)
RICH LOWRY, EDITOR, “NATIONAL REVIEW”: Well, not in that light. And this is the thing, Alan. Eventually, the administration just has to take no for an answer from Yasser Arafat. And he's been saying no more or less for the last 18 months. And eventually, it's going to seem kind of silly to keep on expecting him to say the right magic words.
Now, all that said, the Palestinians have been dealt a very tough hand by history. The conditions in those refugee camps are very appalling. But nothing justifies terror. And it seems pretty clear that Arafat has deliberately chosen terror as a tactic. And if the Israeli government considers him an enemy as they say, and they consider him a terrorist as they say, you would think eventually they have to follow that through to its logical conclusion and do something more drastic than just isolating him, perhaps expelling him.
KEYES: Ali Abunimah, what do you think of Dore Gold's suggestion that Yasser Arafat, an enemy, is, in fact, not a valid interlocker, can't be dealt with, is not able to produce a peace, and therefore, by implication, somebody else need to come forward who would be able to do so?
ALI ABUNIMAH, ARAB AMERICAN ACTION NETWORK: Well, this is not about Yasser Arafat. And Dore Gold knows that well. This is about Israel's military occupation, the same one that Dore Gold is telling us doesn't exist. He wants the viewers to believe that the tens of thousands heavily armed occupation troops who have been in outside Israel in the Palestinian territories for the past 35 years ruling millions of Palestinians through military terror and military dictatorship, taking away their land and giving it to Israeli settlers, none of that has happened. None of it exists. And that shows how extreme this Israeli government is.
And there's something missing from this conversation. Everyone is concerned about terror. I am concerned about terror. I agree with Mr. Lowry that absolutely nothing justifies suicide bombings. They're horrifying. But nobody seems to care that the vast majority of innocent civilians killed in the past 18 months are Palestinians deliberately killed and targeted by the Israeli Army. And I know that Mr. Gold and perhaps some of your other guests...
SINGER: How many of these questionable statements...
ABUNIMAH: ... All you have to do...
SINGER: ... should we listen to before we discuss them?
ABUNIMAH: ... is look at the Web sites of every human rights group, Amnesty International, Physicians for Human Rights USA, even the Israeli group Betselam (ph) will tell you that the Israeli Army shoots Palestinian civilians down like dogs. And as long as that's going on, the violence is going to continue. Now, we want peace...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Max Singer...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... Ali Abunimah, just one second. Max Singer, Max Singer, two questions very quickly. That understanding of history, and that understanding of current events, what do you say to it?
SINGER: Well, the first mistake is he talks about the Palestinian land. And the Jordan Valley is not Palestinian land. You can argue that the place where Palestinians live now, which is a very small part of the West Bank, should be Palestinian land. It never was Palestinian land. And Israel is prepared to give it to the Palestinians when there's a peace process, negotiations as provided by UN Resolution 242.
But there is no Palestinian land. There will be Palestinian land. But there has never been. And there is not now. There's disputed land. And that's what the fight is about. The Palestinians just never recognized decisions.
The first decision was by the League of Nations that provided that Palestine should become a Jewish homeland. And that is a perfectly valid decision that's never been accepted by the Arabs. What?
ABUNIMAH: What Mr. Singer is telling us is that the sky is green. That's what he's saying. The sky is green. The entire world, even the United States government, is saying Israel has to get out of the occupied territories...
SINGER: No.
(CROSSTALK)
SINGER: The United States government is not saying that.
ABUNIMAH: Oh, yes it has. The United States supports UN Resolution 242, supports its decision.
(CROSSTALK)
ABUNIMAH: That's right. And the UN Resolution 242 does not say that anything is Palestinian land. And it does not say that Israel has to get out of all the land...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Gentlemen, one second. One second. Rich Lowry, one second. Rich Lowry...
ABUNIMAH: ... in exchange for...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Rich Lowry. Ali, Ali, Ali, Ali, Rich Lowry , one question to you. I'm listening to this back and forth. And it seems to me we are at the present time suffering in part from the fact that a lot of people, including a lot of viewers, I think are acting in a vacuum of historical understanding and that in point of fact we look at this situation as if it had no antecedents. Max tried to remind us of those antecedents in a way. But what of the charges that the Israeli government is brutalizing civilians and that that is at the root of the current violence?
LOWRY: Well, Alan, I think there is an important moral distinction to be made here. Yes, Israel has killed civilians. Yes, America has killed civilians in Afghanistan. But that is collateral damage. It's not deliberately targeting civilians.
ABUNIMAH: That is absolutely false. Every human rights group in the world disagrees with you.
LOWRY: If civilians get killed in the course of legitimate — if civilians getting killed — if I could finish the thought.
ABUNIMAH: All you have to do right now...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Ali Abunimah, the great problem, Ali, Ali...
ABUNIMAH: ... everyone can see that.
KEYES: ... Ali, unfortunately, I think we have an illustration of part of the problem right here.
ABUNIMAH: Absolutely. We do. This is a total denial of the facts.
KEYES: I am quite willing, I am quite willing, and we have been willing to give you the time that's needed to express yourself. But you need to be willing to acknowledge that others are existing on this panel and give them the freedom...
ABUNIMAH: Will you give me — well, let me ask you a question.
KEYES: No. No. I ask the questions here. I ask the questions here, Ali.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: And right now I am doing my best to get an answer, a complete answer, from Mr. Lowry. Simple question. There are accusations that the Israelis have brutalized civilians. Are these accusations accurate in your view?
ABUNIMAH: Civilians have died. But, Alan, the point I was trying to make is that there's a moral distinction to be made between civilians dying and what are meant to be legitimate and targeted military strikes, that there's a difference between that and strapping explosives around the waists of young men and women and having them run into coffee shops and discos and supermarkets and deliberately blow to bits innocent civilians. That is not permitted under the laws of war. That is terrorism.
KEYES: Rich, now Ali Abunimah, simple question. Is that a false distinction?
ABUNIMAH: Well, there is no distinction in my mind. I care about Israeli and Palestinian civilians being killed. It seems your guests only care about Israeli civilians being killed. They don't care at all about Palestinians.
Mr. Lowry denies the facts that every human rights group in the world that has looked at it, including several Israeli human rights groups, all say very clearly that Israel targets Palestinian civilians, kills them, shoots them down like dogs...
SINGER: Human rights groups can speak untruths as well as other people.
ABUNIMAH: Oh, they are all speaking untruths? Yeah, I'm sure they have their own interests. But this is what even our State Department has made these points in its human rights reports.
SINGER: No, the State Department has not done that.
(CROSSTALK)
ABUNIMAH: All they need to do is go and read it on-line right now, www.state.gov...
(CROSSTALK)
ABUNIMAH: I want to say one more thing.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Ali, one second. One last word for Max Singer. Let's see what you have to say very quickly.
SINGER: I say that it's clear that Israel isn't killing as many civilians as it could. It's going in there, endangering the lives of its soldiers by operating in a way that tries to hold to a minimum the number of enemy casualties. And if you read the instructions that the chief of staff gave to all its soldiers and officers, he stressed that at the beginning of this current campaign. It's a very strong part of Israel.
And, unfortunately, war is hell. And you can't do it perfectly. They're trying very hard.
KEYES: I want to thank all three of you for joining us today. Obviously still deeply contentious issues at the heart of this matter. But one point I'd like to make before we leave, I think all of us can agree that there has to be a distinction between the conscious targeting of innocent civilians to achieve your policy ends and those kinds of awful deaths that occur in the midst of war, which are not intentional, which are not part of one's strategic policy.
And to fail to understand that distinction, I think it's one of the things that right now lies at the heart of the great difficulty the Palestinians are having getting people to accept their version of the situation. As long as those innocents are dying as a conscious result of policy, you're not just dealing with war, you're dealing with the same evil we suffered from in New York. And it's got to stop.
Next, we're going to talk about whether the Bush Middle East policy is at odds with itself, whether or not we've seen a lot of contradictions over the last several days that need resolving. A debate on that and more. You watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Does President Bush have an effective policy for Mideast peace?
There seem in the course of the last few days to have been some mixed messages and contradictory words.
On Saturday, the United States supported a U.N. Security Council resolution that called for Israel to pull its troops out of Palestinian territories.
Yet just hours later, President Bush contradicted that, or seemed to. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think that Chairman Arafat can do a lot more. I truly believe that.
I believe he needs to stand up and condemn - in Arabic - these attacks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: And these kinds of mixed messages continued, or seemed to continue today. Here's another.
BUSH: Chairman Arafat has agreed to a peace process.
KEYES: He has agreed to a peace process, but he hasn't stood up to denounce terrorism.
Now, what are we to conclude by that? That if you agree to a peace process and commit terrorism, that that's OK?
Obviously, that's not the suggestion, but it seems to be the implication.
He commits terrorism. We call on him to denounce the terrorism that he has committed - in Arabic. So if he does it in Arabic and English, lying about it in both languages, that's going to make it all right?
We seem to suggest that Israel has a right to defend itself. Then we join in Security Council resolutions that seem to reprimand Israel for doing just that.
Do we have a coherent policy?
Or are we watching a tug-of-war that goes one way, towards the State Department one day, toward the Department of Defense another day, towards something else, without the kind of coherence that usually has to be imposed on unruly, even very smart principals (ph) in an administration by the leadership of the President?
Well, tonight to talk about that challenge and those issues, we have with us Republican Congressman J.D. Hayworth of Arizona, and Marc Ginsberg, former U.S. Ambassador to Morocco.
Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
Let me start with Representative Hayworth.
Looking at the kind of articulation that we've been seeing, and we didn't go into some of the things that Secretary Powell has said. And even today, the dueling spokesmen between the State Department and the White House.
What are we looking at here? Do we have, in fact, a clear and coherent approach? Or is it a work in progress?
J.D. HAYWORTH, U.S. CONGRESSMAN, (R) ARIZONA: Well, I think a consensus is emerging, Alan. In fact, I think as you take a look at the situation that has developed, you put your finger on it.
Part and parcel of this is the differing roles of different parts of our executive branch - the State Department, who seems to be a welcome wagon to the world, always trying to understand what's going on.
The Defense Department, obviously charged with acting in the self-defense of the United States.
So part of this, indeed, is more the function of different agencies within the government rather than some sort of tension there.
In fact, I think there's another piece of this equation we need to take into account, Alan, and that is the fact - the unique coalition government in Israel, where you have Sharon as the Prime Minister. But also Peres is part of that coalition cabinet.
It's a bit akin to having a situation in the United States where Bush would be the President, and Daschle would be the Vice President countermanding that.
So I guess there is tension and there is a lack of consensus on the part of both governments, in part because of the institutional situation that is set up in both governments.
KEYES: Mark Ginsburg, do you see that kind of tension? And what do you make of it?
MARK GINSBERG, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO MOROCCO: Well, the Congressman is right in part. But let's make sense of this by putting it into context.
When the Bush administration came into office, there was a great deal of criticism over the way - and unfair criticism - over the way the Clinton administration had immersed itself in trying to develop a viable peace process in the Middle East.
Indeed, the President - President Clinton - had significant success until Chairman Arafat blew up Camp David, and then refused to agree to a negotiated settlement with the Israelis in Taba, which most Arabs and most Israelis, and most Americans, and just about anybody else would have determined is fair.
So what has happened since then?
The administration essentially focused its attention away from the Arab-Israeli conflict. And when it began blowing up after September 11th, and the Intifada began, it was left with an ideological resentment against the Clinton administration's involvement, and at the same time, it really could not come up with any viable alternative to what was presented.
So let's try to help this administration out, because we need a bipartisan policy in the Middle East.
First I recommend that the administration utilize the efforts of the Arab League to try to develop a coherent and coordinated approach with the Arab states to deny Mr. Arafat the veto authority over the outlines and contours of a final settlement.
At the same time, the administration has to support Israel's efforts to annihilate those extremist elements that are trying to destroy it.
And that's going to take some time. The administration should be very clear and coherent in that objective.
And then at the same time, the administration has to help an Israeli government, which is - again, as the Congressman pointed out - a coalition government, to develop a vision for peace that goes beyond what it has offered the Palestinian people so far.
Remember, Mr. - Prime Minister Sharon has ...
KEYES: Well, ...
GINSBERG: ... not himself been a very fair-minded individual in offering the Palestinians...
KEYES: Now ...
GINSBERG: ... a real vision.
KEYES: ... Representative Hayworth?
HAYWORTH: Well, thanks, Alan. And Marc, I think raises some interesting points.
But let's go back to one of the central foundations of ...
GINSBERG: ... Mr. - Prime Minister Sharon has ...
KEYES: Well, ...
GINSBERG: ... not himself been a very fair-minded individual in offering the Palestinians ...
KEYES: Now ...
GINSBERG: ... a real vision.
KEYES: ... Representative Hayworth?
HAYWORTH: Well, thanks, Alan. And Marc, I think raises some interesting points.
But let's go back to one of the central foundations of Marc setting out his current idea on what to do, and that is that former President Clinton and former Prime Minister Barak basically gave Arafat everything he wanted - 95 percent of what he wanted.
And I think there reaches a point when you say, what else is there to give?
You can't retreat back to the pre-1967 situation, because that did not allay attacks on Israel in 1948 or 1956 or 1967.
So the question really becomes, is there a chance to have jaw-jaw instead of war-war? Or do you by jawing in the midst of war set up an illusion that you can have peace in this situation?
I'm not sure that you really have a workable ...
KEYES: Well, ...
HAYWORTH: ... process, as desirous as it is right now.
KEYES: ... let me ask a simple question of both of you. And with the answer starting with Marc and then to Representative Hayworth.
I think a lot of what we are seeing suggests that we need to bite the bullet when it comes to some of the realities in this situation.
Reality number one, which I was talking about with Dore Gold earlier - Yasser Arafat, a discredited, incompetent interlocutor.
He cannot deliver peace, therefore there's no point talking to him about peace, whether he wants to or not.
Isn't there a responsibility on the Arab side to put forward somebody who can actually deliver the goods?
Start with Marc Ginsberg.
GINSBERG: Alan, I've spent almost 30 years in and out of the Arab world, and you point is well taken.
I do believe, having spent my own personal time with Mr. Arafat, he's a very ill man. He has a bunker mentality.
He would rather die as a martyr than to offer the Israelis a compromise that he could negotiate and sign an agreement with, because he himself has never really accepted anything less than what he has preached to the Palestinian people.
At the same time, the Arab states, which vested in him the authority years ago to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian people, that authority now is no longer well placed.
And it's going - they have a regional conflict that ...
KEYES: Well, ...
GINSBERG: ... could occur here. And it's going to take a coordinated approach by the United States and the European allies, and the Arabs, to circumvent him, make him irrelevant, ...
KEYES: Now, ...
GINSBERG: ... put him into a sanitarium.
KEYES: ... Representative, did you hear ...
GINSBERG: I don't know what you do.
KEYES: ... very quickly a response to that.
Doesn't the administration need to bite the bullet and stop playing games with this idea that Yasser Arafat is indispensable?
HAYWORTH: We all need to acknowledge this case. Charles Krauthammer wrote it last week, Alan, when he said, inside the heart of Ariel Sharon there really has the beating of an arsonist, a terrorist.
Marc made the case again. Arafat is not one with whom you can deal. I don't know if you can put together coalitions.
But we need to understand this. Israel has the military capability to take care of itself. Unbelievable restraint has been shown.
Israel has the right to self-defense, as does the United States.
And whomever succeeds Arafat needs to understand, the United States will act in its own national interest, and ...
KEYES: Well, ...
HAYWORTH: ... the Israeli-Palestinian question will be resolved ...
KEYES: ... now ...
HAYWORTH: ... one way or another.
KEYES: ... now we've got to go to the break, but we're going to have more with our guests in just a moment.
And later, all of you will hear my outrage of the day.
But first, does this make sense? Enron - you remember Enron, don't you? I mean, I know it's been off the front pages, but they apparently have actually moved up on the Fortune 500 list.
Can you believe that? They've moved up two notches to number five, despite their downward spiral into bankruptcy.
Now, there's Arthur Andersen, the company that supposedly shredded their documents - a few people. Their employees being destroyed, company going under.
But the real culprits are moving up on the Fortune 500 list. Does this make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: We're back. And we're talking about whether or not President Bush's Mideast policy represents kind of a house divided against itself, and what the consequences may be, what the remedies may be, too, in fact.
Let me get back to Congressman J.D. Hayworth for a moment with a question that has to do with the present situation, they violence there.
The kind of step we've seen in the U.N. resolution, the most recent one, and the one before that - I felt that this actually encouraged folks on the Palestinian side to believe that despite the intensification of violence, America was basically still going to keep pushing the process and putting pressure on the Israelis and so forth.
Unless we clear that up and shut the door on further progress until that violence ends, aren't we sending the kind of signal that could very well fuel a continuation of this tragedy?
Doesn't the President just have to make it clear and stop supporting resolutions that muddy the waters?
HAYWORTH: Well, Alan, before we get there, let me clarify something I said earlier.
As we say on the House floor, permission to revise and extend my remarks.
When I was speaking earlier of a column written by Charles Krauthammer, I was referring to Yasser Arafat, not Ariel Sharon.
KEYES (?): Yes.
HAYWORTH: Yasser Arafat that, I believe Krauthammer wrote, inside his chest beats the heart of an arsonist, and what I believe many to acknowledge, is in fact the heart of a terrorist.
He's incapable of taking over a proper executive position and really ...
KEYES: Yeah, well ...
HAYWORTH: ... dealing with the community of nations.
Now, aside from that fact, I would agree that it seems at times there are contradictory statements.
I think again, though, far more injurious to the situation is the proclamations coming from Arafat, saying that he asks Allah to die as a martyr.
Indeed, many observers believe that in so saying those things, he is encouraging more suicide bombings.
I believe you will see a growing consensus on the part of the United States - and certainly, I hear it from my constituents - that this type of heinous, indiscriminate suicide bombing cannot stand, and the American nation will have to come down on the side of the Israeli government ...
KEYES: Well, ...
HAYWORTH: ... to say, that must stop.
KEYES: ... now, let me go to Marc Ginsberg, because it does seem to me, though- - and I think Representative Hayworth is absolutely on the mark in terms of what we've got to say about the suicide bombing, Yasser Arafat.
So, all that being true, though, can we continually put these contradictory resolutions on the table, go along to get along at the United Nations, giving the impression, therefore, that we're still willing to play games with somebody like Yasser Arafat?
Aren't we encouraging a certain kind of irresponsibility on the Arab side, not taking responsibility for the need to put forward valid and responsible leadership to deal with this process?
GINSBERG: Alan, the Arab countries are constantly putting pressure on the United States to serve as the honest broker. That means, in effect, what they want is to put undying pressure on the Israelis.
The need to avoid contradiction here is important, because if we are dedicated to the integrity of a Jewish state in Israel, then we're going to have to be firm in our conviction against the very type of method that Arafat has tried to utilize against the Israelis.
Because, if he succeeds now, and indeed, if he is able to compel the Israelis to pull out of the West Bank under this type of carnage, then the very threats and concerns and risks that the Israelis felt they couldn't take in the first place would be justified, because the Palestinians would be encouraged to move on from what should have been a two-state solution to a two-state solution.
So why is this - I'm concerned about the administration's position.
Unlike previous administrations where there was relative quiet on the borders, right now what you have is such an outbreak of violence and carnage, instigated largely by the Palestinians, that unless the administration is prepared to make a firm stand, that it risks losing its credibility, not only on the war of terrorism, ...
KEYES: Yes.
GINSBERG: ... but with Arab states that are going to ...
KEYES: Now, ...
GINSBERG: ... lose credibility with it.
KEYES: One last word, a question I'd like to address to Representative Hayworth.
Because I think that what Marc Ginsberg has just said is, in fact, correct. And it puts an onus, a burden on the administration to stand up and be clear, and be consistent and stick with it, that we are not in fact going to tolerate a process until we see an end to this kind of violence, and not muddy the waters with resolutions that seem to take it back the next day.
Don't they have to stop this inconsistency?
HAYWORTH: I would concur. And I would also make this point. I think it is vitally important for the American nation not to feel put upon by the Arab League and the Arab world.
Quite frankly, I think this President has made it clear - and we've had a basic change in doctrine - that when we even have the suspicion that there are those who will act against us, we reserve the right to preemptively strike.
That is an important distinction in American foreign policy. And I believe the American nation must act decisively. And the hearts and minds of our allies will follow ...
GINSBERG: Hear, hear, Congressman.
HAYWORTH: ... out of necessity.
GINSBERG: I agree with you.
HAYWORTH: Thanks, Marc.
KEYES: I'd like to thank both of you for joining me tonight.
And I have to confess. I think that we see here a kind of consensus on consistency that I hope will begin to reach into the White House.
And at the end of the day - I have to say it - the responsibility for that coherence doesn't come from advisors or cabinet officers. It comes from the President.
Right back with the outrage of the day. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: And now, for my outrage of the day.
If this one doesn't have you shaking your head, I don't know what will.
Thierry Meyssan's book, “The Frightening Fraud” has topped the bestseller lists in France.
Meyssan says that American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on September 11th, killing 189 people, did not exist, and that the crash was staged by the government.
Meyssan presents no credible evidence to back his conspiracy theory, and yet French readers are lapping it up.
You thought it was horrible that the Arabs didn't believe that Arabs were involved in the World Trade Center?
Well, what of the idea that Americans blew up the Pentagon themselves? And that all those folks who are mourning the dead are mourning for nothing.
That's outrageous. That's MY SENSE of it.
Thanks for tuning in. The news with Brian Williams is up next. I'll see you tomorrow.