Alan Keyes
April 22, 2002

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

Up front tonight, we're going to be talking about what really happened in Jenin. Obviously, it's becoming an increasing controversy.

On the one side, claims of massacre — hundreds dead, atrocities of all kinds. An outrage, the U.N. shouts, resolutions passed.

On the other, the Israelis saying that it was an intense battle but that they did not go beyond the boundaries of war.

Well, was it just war? Or massacre?

Israel believed the northern West Bank town was a center of terrorist activity. Now it is the scene of massive devastation as a result of the intensive battle. How bad that devastation is remains to be seen.

Before we get to our guests tonight, we'll get the latest from MSNBC's Jim Bunn.

JIM BUNN, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: What remains of Jenin? Questions that may never be answered. Contrasts that numb the senses.

Israeli troops are gone, confident they neutralized a base of terror. Twenty-three Palestinian bombers came from here. A slaughter of innocents, say Palestinians, with hundreds dead.

U.N. investigators hope to find the truth. Regardless of which account proves true, faint hopes fade that anyone else may yet be found alive.

A few years ago, a very different time. Scenes from Jenin's children's theater — its founder a well-known Israeli actor, certain that five of his students are dead.

JULIANO MAIER (ph), ISRAELI ACTOR: When I reached the theater, I already knew about Ashraf, Yousef, Majdi — sorry.

BUNN: On this day, he returns to his bombed-out theater followed by a pro-Palestinian camera crew, whose cause he supports, and who provided MSNBC with these pictures.

U.S. envoy Williams Burns also sees the grief first hand, and voices support for the upcoming U.N. investigation - a probe that itself is a firestorm over comments by a U.N. observer that have outraged Israeli officials.

TERJE ROED-LARSEN, U.N. MIDDLE EAST ENVOY: I described what I saw. I saw people with their bare hands digging deformed bodies out of that rubble.

And I stand by what I said. I was simply reporting what I saw on the ground.

BUNN: While U.N. investigators will try as best they can to determine exactly what happened during the battle of Jenin, another open question remains — what's been happening there since?

Since late last week, this checkpoint, which had been opened, has been closed. We've been told Jenin is now a restricted area again.

Still, Israeli government officials insist they have nothing to hide.

M: We have no problem with the representative of the Secretary-General. There was no massacre. We know exactly what happened.

DUNN: However many civilians or terrorists died, Juliano Maier (ph) now carries with him the memories of those close to him who perished, as do so many on both sides of the horror of the Middle East who have suffered so long and suffer still.

Jim Bunn, MSNBC, Jenin, the West Bank.

KEYES: Given the realities of the world has seen in the course of the 20th century, and now the opening of the 21st, I don't think we need any reminders that war is terrible, and that it leads to terrible devastation and grief and death.

The question, though, that is posed by the accusations that the air is filled with right now are what - how does one distinguish between an atrocity, a massacre, something that goes beyond the boundaries of the usual devastation, horrible though it is, of warfare, and something that constitutes massacre - a criminal act, as it were, with respect to the rules of war?

We're going to be discussing that very question in the course of this program.

We're going to start out - as we try to do quite often with these complex questions - by giving you a sense of the background with which to look at this.

And we've invited, to start off with, a couple of folks who are experts in terms of looking at the evidence and trying to determine whether one is looking at the devastation of war or evidence of atrocity.

We have with us Stefan Schmitt. He's a forensic consultant to Physicians for Human Rights, and has been involved in forensic pathology for the past 10 years in Rwanda, Bosnia, Croatia - and most recently Afghanistan.

Also with us, Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of America's best-know forensic pathologists.

Both of you, welcome to MAKING SENSE.

CYRIL WECHT, FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST: Thank you, Mr. Keyes.

KEYES: I want to start off with that very question that I was raising, in terms of the fact that war is a terrible business.

How does one go about determining whether the devastation that one is looking at is the result of an intense battle, or a conscious act of atrocity?

Stefan Schmitt, how does one do that?

STEFAN SCHMITT, PHYSICIANS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS: Well, first of all, you look at — when you talk about a mass grave, you have to kind of define in your mind what a mass grave is.

And in a criminal sense, when we're looking at it, you would say that it is — a mass grave would contain the remains of a group of individuals that shared some kind of characteristics in the eyes of their assassinators, that justified killing them and putting them together in a mass grave, and then burying them.

So you have some kind of intent there.

You have, on the other hand, a group of victims that share some kind of characteristic, be it political, religious, ethnic, you have it.

KEYES: Now, so one of the things that you're assuming, though, here, is that one of the signs that something is amiss is going to be the presence of mass graves.

SCHMITT: That's correct.

KEYES: I mean it ...

SCHMITT: That's correct. I mean, you would need mass graves. And I mean the cornerstone of the mass graves that we have all worked in over the last 10 years — at least the ones that I have worked - are witness testimony.

I mean, you have some kind of a witness, somewhere. Always, somebody survives and says, I saw how they, you know, carted off so-and-so many individuals in trucks. And then, you know, shot them and buried them all in a grave, so ...

KEYES: Now, are mass graves easy to hide?

SCHMITT: Well, generally speaking, mass graves are not easy to hide, just simply because it involves a lot of logistical things, such as, you know, moving the victims. Killing them, then moving a lot of earth, of course, and burying them.

So, it's not something that is necessarily hidden.

And another thing, of course, is that mass graves generally around the world are not necessarily, at the time when they happen, something that you would want to hide.

Because the people who do it, they, in their mind believe that they're doing the right thing, so why hide it?

Now, of course, in many cases, such as in Bosnia, you know, there are indications of, you know, that they went back and cleared the - or tried to clear out the mass graves, and remove some of the evidence, which, of course, is impossible.

You cannot remove all the evidence of such a crime.

KEYES: So if a conscientious effort is made in this investigation, they should be able to determine one way or another whether the charges of massacre and atrocity are true, shouldn't they?

SCHMITT: Yes. I would certainly believe so, that, you know, you would base yourself on witness statements and on witness testimony.

And then you would go out and scientifically, with scientific method, go and determine, if there is a mass grave, how big it is, I mean, you know, what individuals are contained in it?

Which individuals are contained in it? Identification is a very big issue, of course.

And, what cause and manner of death is applicable in each case?

KEYES: Now, let me turn to Dr. Cyril Wecht, because I think that once - assuming that one has found evidence of graves of this variety - is it possible to determine whether we're talking about death that occurred in the course of battle? Or people who were killed in execution and dumped into mass graves?

WECHT: Yes, Mr. Keyes, I believe, in a situation such as this, it would be possible.

I would disagree with one point that my colleague Dr. Schmitt has made. I think he used the word, that one would base some findings or arrive even at some tentative conclusions based upon some eye witnesses and so on.

If the world has not yet come to learn, including those people who are very ardently pro-Palestinian, that the eye witness accounts given by many Palestinians is to be taken with the proverbial grain of salt, then that's a big score for naivete.

The forensic, scientific aspects of this kind of investigation could prove to be correct.

I would say to you right now at the opening of my comments, that in two days I'm sure that I could get colleagues in forensic pathology, anthropology, odontology (ph), to provide their services free.

Just take care of the transportation into Jenin from the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, all people with the status of fellow, meaning that they've been around for a while, and in a matter of less than one week, one would be able to ascertain whether this has been a massacre or whether this has been a situation in which some people have met their deaths as a matter of fighting battles.

Some things have to be kept in mind. It was Yasser Arafat and his people, and the strong, Palestinian individuals in charge of the terrorist bombings in Israel, who proclaimed Jenin as their capital of the suicide-homicide bombers.

They boasted of this. Your commentator I heard say 23. I heard a figure in excess of two dozen of the suicide bombers came from that area.

Israeli troops moved in. They didn't move in with tanks. They didn't move in with fighter planes, all of which they had.

They moved in with their infantry. Two dozen Israeli soldiers died.

Now, the estimates, the witnesses on the Israeli side say that maybe one to 200 civilians - civilians ...

SCHMITT: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) ...

WECHT: ... how do you define them - died. And the Palestinians, their numbers go anywhere from 200 to 500 depending on whom you talk to.

And so far ...

KEYES: Now, ...

WECHT: ... as the investigation itself is concerned, you go in there, if you see, as Dr. Schmitt pointed out, the bodies piled up on top of each other, you see bullet holes in the cranium, because that's where they would have been executed for the most part, or you see bullets through the chest, lined up, let's say in execution, and they're piled up on top of each other - then, you would have some pause, and you would have a basis for maybe even coming to the conclusion that there's been a massacre.

If you find people who are dead here and there, scattered hither and yon, with wounds of one kind and wounds of another kind, and if you find weapons ...

KEYES: Now, ...

WECHT: ... in those areas, too, keep that in mind, ...

KEYES: Now that ...

WECHT: ... then you're dealing with a battle like we had in Antietam, like we had ...

KEYES: Now, Doctor ...

WECHT: ... in Gettysburg, ...

KEYES: ... right ...

WECHT: ... like we had in the Argonne.

KEYES: Dr. Schmitt, that raises a question that I'd want to put back to you, because I have to confess.

It seemed to me that there was something unprofessional about the reaction of the U.N. representative who went in there, and looking at the scenes of devastation, then expressed a lot of emotional stuff.

Shouldn't one wait for a careful examination of the evidence before you start feeding the impression that this somehow goes beyond the devastation that would be incident to an intense battle?

SCHMITT: Yes, definitely. I mean - and I agree with you on this one.

First of all, let me correct one statement. Is that, when I say we go from witness statements, you obviously have, in a criminal investigation, you go from any kind of witness and you take their statements.

And if somebody points at the ground and says, here is a mass grave, then you either have to prove or disprove that allegation. And you do that by using the scientific method.

And, of course, when you have such a complex issue as we've had over the past weeks in Jenin, the most important thing - and this is something that really has to be kept in mind - is that what you want is an international group of people, and an international team that is independent, that conducts a scientific investigation, not based on some kind of emotional bias, if you want to call it that.

KEYES: But wouldn't it be wiser, though ...

SCHMITT: And of course, you can't just look at the ground - you can't just look at the ground and say, oh, you know, we - this is, you know, obviously evidence of a ...

KEYES: Yeah.

SCHMITT: ... mass grave. You do have to collect evidence that is collectible.

KEYES: Wouldn't it be wiser - and this question I address to both of you, starting with Stefan Schmitt - wouldn't it be wiser to sort of look away from some of these more politicized entities, including the U.N.? And go, for instance, to a professional association that has involved in it, in its membership, people who have this kind of expertise and might be objective in their approach?

Wouldn't that be a wiser approach if you really want to get at the truth? Stefan Schmitt?

SCHMITT: Well, I mean, this is something that Physicians for Human Rights has always promoted.

And over the last 10 years that I've been working with Physicians for Human Rights, you know, from Guatemala to Rwanda and you name it - many, many different countries - the idea is that you have a non-governmental, independent organization and team of experts that will go in and use objective science as to determining, you know, if you have a mass grave, if allegations of, you know, XYZ witnesses are true.

You either corroborate them or you don't. I mean, that is ...

WECHT: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

SCHMITT: ... something, I mean - it's very simple. I'll give you an example.

An example would be, if somebody says, OK. Here you have a mass grave. And he points at a certain location and says, it's right there, and it contains Mr. X and Mrs. Y and their children A, B and C, OK.

So you have to first determine if there is a grave. Now, there is different methods of doing that. They range from probing, you know, with a probe, and use cadaver dogs and ground-penetrating radar.

The thing is that with all these methods, of course, you can determine that there might be something. But in order to determine if there really is something, or to disprove that there is something, you actually have to dig it. So you ...

WECHT: That's right.

SCHMITT: ... end up having to dig trenches. And ...

KEYES: Now doctor - Dr. Wecht, again, the same question to you.

It seems to me that we have a lot of sort of politicized entities. And the U.N., unfortunately turns out to be one of those, especially with resolutions condemning in advance of the fact.

Wouldn't an objective investigation based on a non-government, professional group of people be better than all of this?

WECHT: Yes, absolutely. And one has to be very careful, too, in ascertaining whether or not a particular group has been politicized.

You know, my wife, who was born and raised in Norway and lived through the German occupation, she and I talk, as we did a few days ago, with the Norwegian commentator there with the United Nations - a very emotional, very impassioned presentation.

One has to be careful, too, about this kind of bias which begins automatically, whether it is ...

KEYES: Yeah.

WECHT: ... cerebrally thought out, or whether it is at the subconscious level, ...

KEYES: Well, ...

WECHT: ... of being for the underdog. To ...

KEYES: Dr. Wecht, we've come to the end of our time. One last comment.

I spent enough time at the U.N. to know that one has to be a little bit careful about things coming out of that institution.

We're going to come right back. We're going to continue our discussion about Jenin, when we're joined by the spokesman for the Israeli embassy here in Washington, and the PLO chief representative to the United States.

You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Coming up in our next half hour - should Israel annex half of the West Bank?

Sharon has such a plan, but it's still unofficial.

We'll be debating the merits and demerits, and the consequences of that idea, in the next half hour, so stay tuned after this discussion.

A reminder, too, that the chat room is buzzing tonight. Wolfcamp says 9/11 was massacre. Jenin was war.

And you can join in right now at chat.msnbc.com.

But first, let's continue our discussion about what really happened in Jenin.

Joining us to get to the heart of the matter, Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israeli embassy in the United States.

And Hasan Abdul Rahman, Chief Representative to the United States from the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

Also, still with us, the noted forensic pathologist, Dr. Cyril Wecht.

Welcome, everyone, to MAKING SENSE.

I want to start with Hasan Rahman. Welcome back to the show.

HASAN ABDUL RAHMAN, PALESTINIAN LIBERATION ORGANIZATION, CHIEF REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED STATES: Thank you.

KEYES: And, a simple question. We have watched, and we are hearing. We've seen the Security Council resolutions, things of that kind.

What is your answer to the question, what happened in Jenin?

RAHMAN: What happened in Jenin is obviously, is a war crime.

You have an Israeli army using tanks, helicopters, missiles, to destroy a civilian quarter, where they killed people, demolished homes over its inhabitants.

The methods that were used by Israel are vulgar methods, not civilized, inhuman, and they are, under international law, war crimes.

KEYES: Now, one of the things that happened early on and actually led to an intensification of this conflict was the killing of 13 Israeli soldiers.

And apparently involved in that was a tactic where booby trap and suicide bomb approach was used.

I also found in an Egyptian newspaper where folks who referred to them as — themselves as engineers, are quoted as saying that they had actually — and I quote the article.

“We had made more than 50 booby-trapped around the camp.

We chose old and empty buildings, and the houses of men who were wanted by Israel, because we knew the soldiers would search for them.

We cut off lengths of main water pipes and packed them with explosives and nails. Then we placed them about four meters apart throughout the houses in cupboards, under sinks, in sofas.”

It would seem to me that if the Palestinian fighters were using this kind of tactic, wouldn't that also result in a lot of devastation to the buildings?

RAHMAN: That's Israel's propaganda. No one will do that to his own family, Mr. Keyes. You know that.

Those people were in the camp. Most of them are police officers. They are with their families.

The Israelis attacked with hundreds of tanks, with Apache helicopters, and bombarded the refugee camp.

You have to be blind not to see those atrocities in the camp.

I have seen footages on American television, on French television, on Arab television. And what I saw is reminiscent of what the Nazis did in Europe in the Second World War.

KEYES: Well, actually, Mr. Rahman, you say that I shouldn't be able to believe that anybody would do this to their own family and all.

But the problem, I think, that exists right now for a lot of us is that, I wouldn't believe it if you told me folks were sending, 13-, 15- and 18-year-olds out with bombs strapped to themselves to blow up people in civilian areas and so forth.

I wouldn't believe any parent could send their child out to do that, but not only ...

RAHMAN: No one is sending their own children.

KEYES: ... not only - let me - I - Mr. Rahman, ...

RAHMAN: Mr. Keyes, ...

KEYES: ... I didn't interrupt you. Now just hold on.

RAHMAN: Yeah.

KEYES: Step number two. Not only have, has this happened, but we have seen Palestinian families celebrating the fact their children have been sacrificed in this way.

So, no. It is not beyond plausibility that this tactic would be used, because it was used.

Let me go to Mark Regev for a minute.

RAHMAN: No, but let me make ...

KEYES: Mark - no, hold on.

RAHMAN: ... a comment on ...

KEYES: Let me go to ...

RAHMAN: ... my (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

KEYES: ... Mr. Regev. You have placed your accusations on the table.

Mark, what is your response ...

RAHMAN: But you made the remark that is inaccurate (UNINTELLIGIBLE) ...

KEYES: What is your response - we'll get back to you.

RAHMAN: OK.

KEYES: What is your response, Mark Regev, to Mr. Rahman's charge - this is Nazi-like atrocity?

MARK REGEV, ISRAELI EMBASSY SPOKESMAN: It's the comparison with the Nazis I find offensive, and even obscene.

Alan, we had very, very difficult fighting in Jenin.

I can tell you as a former infantryman that the most dangerous sort of fighting is fighting in a built-up urban area where you go house to house.

It would be much easier if we had bombed from the air with, I don't know, B-52s, or ...

RAHMAN: But, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) ...

REGEV: ... or we would have shelled from afar. We went house to house in a surgical attack to get out the terrorists.

There was no massacre. We've accepted the fact-finding commission because we are confident. We are confident in the truth of our arguments. We are confident that the Israeli soldiers performed their duties in a moral way and a professional way.

And let's talk about a massacre - I'm sorry, it's just cheap propaganda. It doesn't stand up to logical criticism.

And I welcome the international fact-finding commission, and I ask them to do an objective, scientific study. I'm sure they'll find there was no massacre.

KEYES: Now, let me go for a minute to Cyril Wecht. Because one of the things that I think does occur - and Mr. Rahman was referring to it. Others in media and other reports talk about it.

They show pictures of the devastation, and they say, this is somehow evidence of atrocity.

Can you, in fact, by looking at these pictures of houses blown up and things of this kind, tell whether or not we're looking at the incidents of war, or a massacre?

WECHT: No, of course not. What do you think a picture would look like, Dr. Keyes, if we showed the four Canadian soldiers who were murdered - who were killed - forgive me for using that word - who were inadvertently killed.

A true tragedy by an American pilot several days ago in Afghanistan. You could call that a massacre.

Looking at bodies in a house that has been bombed in a military conflict such as Mr. Regev has described, is far different from looking at bodies that have been piled up, where people have been brought together and have been executed.

And I must say, too, that Mr. Rahman's reference, which is a statement that Palestinians love to make, comparing what has been going in Israel, Palestine, to what happened in the Holocaust, is the most offensive, the most insulting, obscene kind of commentary.

And by the way, I'd like to ask Mr. Rahman, too, if you want to go back into history, perhaps Dr. Keyes will invite us back a little bit for another time, as to where all the Arabs stood in World War I and World War II, on the allies, if you want to start talking about the Nazi Holocaust.

You shed tears for those things now. Where were you and your people, sir, from 1941 to '45 when six million Jews were being killed in Europe?

KEYES: Now, see, one of the things that we are ...

RAHMAN: You want me to answer you?

KEYES: ... one second now, because I want to just tell the audience, explain what they're seeing on the screen here was, in fact, some footage from the World War II period, where you had devastated houses and bombed out things and bodies.

Mr. Rahman, just looking at pictures like that doesn't tell you whether or not that devastation resulted from an intense battle or a conscious, lawless act that goes beyond the rules of war.

How do you know the difference until you've looked at it through a scientific investigation?

RAHMAN: By the way, I heard the three lies tonight. One, that we send our 13-years-old children to be killed and we celebrate their death. This is an absolute inaccuracy.

The second is Mr. Regev saying that they fought from house to house. Are you telling me, Mr. Regev, that Israel did not use Apache helicopters and missiles against civilian homes?

REGEV: Yes.

RAHMAN: They did.

REGEV: We did not.

RAHMAN: You are absolutely wrong. And it is in the “New York Times” and it is in “Mirror” (ph). And you ...

REGEV: It's not true - not against civilian targets, never.

RAHMAN: Listen. Listen. Don't tell me, against Jenin you did send Apache helicopters. They were on the skies.

Look. You are in something (UNINTELLIGIBLE) ...

REGEV: Of course, they were on the sky, but we don't use them against civilians, sir.

RAHMAN: ... and then to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) ...

REGEV: It's not true. We don't.

RAHMAN: ... professional forums, they, who is here as an expert, and he is giving a political opinion, and not an expert opinion. Because absolutely, I have three people now taking the side of Israel here.

I must tell you, listen. Killing is killing.

And when you attack other people in their own country, when you are an occupier force, when you invade other people homes, you - there is no difference between a German and an Israeli.

If you kill civilians, civilians are civilians. When a state uses its army to kill people - innocent people, ...

KEYES: Well, excuse me ...

RAHMAN: ... that's a crime.

KEYES: ... Mr. Rahman, I ...

RAHMAN: That's a war crime.

KEYES: ... one second, no. No, it's not, actually. And ...

RAHMAN: You - that's your opinion, but ...

KEYES: ... what you have just - no, let, now you were let ...

RAHMAN: ... your opinion ...

KEYES: Excuse me. Let me finish.

RAHMAN: You are alone in this decision (ph).

KEYES: I let you express your view. Would you let me express mine.

RAHMAN: OK.

KEYES: Because what you have just said is inaccurate.

If you, in the course of going about the terrible business of war, and trying to target ...

RAHMAN: This is not war. This is (UNINTELLIGIBLE) ...

KEYES: ... let me finish - trying to target the military capabilities that are threatening your forces ...

RAHMAN: This is not war. It is against the ...

KEYES: ... in the - would you let me speak, sir?

RAHMAN: Go ahead.

KEYES: If in the course of that, civilian casualties occur, that is the terrible tragedy of war.

If you decide, as an element ...

RAHMAN: The target was civilians (UNINTELLIGIBLE) ...

KEYES: ... let me finish, sir.

If you decide, as the Palestinian Authority and Hamas and others have decided, to take young people or others, strap bombs to them and consciously go after civilians as the target for your activity, that is not legitimate war. That is atrocious terrorism.

RAHMAN: Mr. Keyes, ...

KEYES: That is a distinction that has been understood, sir, from time immemorial.

RAHMAN: ... but let me answer you. Mr. Keyes, when an individual goes and commits an act of terrorism, we condemn him.

But when the State of Israel commits acts of terrorism, I don't see you condemning them.

You remind of the saying that you have your mind made. And you do not ...

KEYES: Not at all.

RAHMAN: ... you do not want to be confused with the facts. You keep ...

KEYES: Mr. Rahman, the great problem is ...

RAHMAN: ... repeating the propaganda of Israel.

KEYES: ... you want to call the incidents of war, all of them, ...

RAHMAN: This is not incidents of war (UNINTELLIGIBLE) ...

KEYES: ... terrorism. Whenever ...

RAHMAN: This is Israeli invasion.

KEYES: ... let me finish, sir. Whenever an innocent person dies, you want to call it terrorism. Unhappily, ...

RAHMAN: There is an invasion. These are crimes.

KEYES: ... unhappily, for the argument you make, that is not ...

RAHMAN: Oh, no. You are alone ...

KEYES: ... the truth, OK?

RAHMAN: ... in this opinion, Mr. Keyes.

KEYES: And that is not the truth.

RAHMAN: The whole world is against you.

KEYES: In the course of every war, ...

RAHMAN: The whole world thinks otherwise. You think that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) ...

KEYES: ... civilian casualties occur.

RAHMAN: You think (UNINTELLIGIBLE) ...

KEYES: If those civilian casualties are not the conscious aim ...

RAHMAN: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE). You think that Palestinian lives ...

KEYES: ... of policy, it does not constitute terrorism. It's very simple.

RAHMAN: ... does not equal other people's lives.

KEYES: And Mark Regev. One last point from you.

REGEV: May I ask - can I say ...

KEYES: Did the Israelis consciously target civilians for death.

RAHMAN: They did.

REGEV: Of course we don't, but I'd like to stress ...

RAHMAN: They did.

REGEV: ... a few points, which I think haven't been said so far.

KEYES: No, no. I just wanted to answer that question, because we've come up against the wire ...

REGEV: Of course we don't. We —

KEYES: That's the key question, and if you could answer that one honestly that the Palestinians don't do so, Mr. Rahman, the world would be entitled to a different opinion of your activities.

I want to thank you all for coming. I really appreciate it.

Next, we are going to talk about an idea that Ariel Sharon has floated, not officially, but an idea that half the West Bank should be annexed to Israel. Is that a solution, or does it represent possible future suicide for the Jewish state of Israel?

You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.

Should Israel annex half of the West Bank? Reports over the weekend suggested that Ariel Sharon is considering this idea.

Foreign Minister Shimon Peres was asked about it yesterday on “Meet the Press.”

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHIMON PERES, ISRAELI FOREIGN MINISTER: I mean, it's accurate for a while because that's what Sharon suggests as an interim.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEYES: Would something like this be a solution, or, as I said, would it represent ultimately the suicide of the Jewish state of Israel, the loss, in other words over time, of the Jewish character of Israel?

Joining us now, Sarah Eltantawi, the communications director for the Muslim Public Affairs Council, an organization that works for American Muslim civil rights.

Welcome to MAKING SENSE.

SARAH ELTANTAWI, MUSLIM PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL: Thank you.

KEYES: First question that I would like to put to you, very simply, what do you think of this idea.

ELTANTAWI: It's completely morally repugnant, and I don't believe that the question should be whether or not this is going to change the character of the state, but the question should be whether or not the state of Israel has the right to parade around annexing any territory it wants to annex.

That's Palestinian land, Palestinian people live there, the entire world recognizes the West Bank as Palestinian land, and the question of whether or not Ariel Sharon wants to annex half of land that is not his is as ridiculous as saying, “Well, you know, Canada has plans to come here and annex Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia. What do you think?” It's morally repugnant, it's absolutely ridiculous, and it's...

KEYES: Well...

ELTANTAWI: ... quite frightening, to be honest.

KEYES: There is the small sort of fact, though, that this was land that came under Israeli control as the result of a war in which the mobilization against Israel was aimed at its destruction.

They fought the war. As a result of their success, they came into control of this territory. And, in that sense, one is not required to surrender control, until one achieves, as they did with Egypt, a peace agreement...

ELTANTAWI: Well, that's...

KEYES: ... by the terms of which that territory is then going to be relinquished on terms that provide peace and security. So it seems to me...

ELTANTAWI: Well...

KEYES: ... that it's in that context that it has to be discussed because they are, in one sense, as a result of that war, legitimately in control of the territory.

ELTANTAWI: Well, Alan, I'm sorry, that's — there's three problems with what you just said.

The first is that — first of all, the 1967 war was not brought upon the State of Israel to — for its destruction. That's highly debatable, and, in fact, the 1967 war was started by a preemptive strike that the Israelis made after a faulty...

KEYES: Well, Sarah, don't try that on this program.

ELTANTAWI: Well, OK. Number two...

KEYES: No, no, no. I don't like having to use the “L” word with my guests.

ELTANTAWI: All right.

KEYES: Everyone who lived through that period, as I did, and knows the history knows that what you just said does not correspond...

ELTANTAWI: All right. Well, the point is...

KEYES: ... to the facts...

ELTANTAWI: Alan, the point is...

KEYES: ... and I can go through them chapter and verse, if you like.

ELTANTAWI: Well...

KEYES: So don't try that here.

ELTANTAWI: All right. Well, can we try...

KEYES: Egypt and the their buddies made the decision to attack.

ELTANTAWI: Well, can we try international on this show?

KEYES: We have the historic records where they planned it. We have...

ELTANTAWI: Does this show accept international law?

KEYES: Ramal Abdel Nasar ordered the U.N. troops out of the way.

ELTANTAWI: That fact of the matter...

KEYES: We have the mobilization of Syrian forces...

ELTANTAWI: All right. The fact of the matter is...

KEYES: ... moving toward Israel. All of that's the truth...

ELTANTAWI: ... regardless of...

KEYES: ... and you're trying to ignore that.

ELTANTAWI: Alan...

KEYES: Go ahead.

ELTANTAWI: Alan, regardless of how '67 — the '67 war started, the — Israel is under mandate by the United Nations, Resolution 242, to pull out of all the occupied territories...

KEYES: That's not true.

ELTANTAWI: ... and that was just reaffirmed...

KEYES: Again, you're not...

ELTANTAWI: It was just reaffirmed last week.

KEYES: Again, you're not telling the truth.

ELTANTAWI: I am telling the truth.

KEYES: I am sorry. That is not true.

ELTANTAWI: It — I am telling the truth.

KEYES: No, you're not.

ELTANTAWI: What was...

KEYES: Sarah...

ELTANTAWI: . .. Resolution 1402...

KEYES: Sarah...

ELTANTAWI: ... last week, Alan?

KEYES: Sarah...

ELTANTAWI: What was Resolution 1402?

KEYES: Sarah, I am sorry. Sarah, Resolution 242 is quite explicit in linking withdrawal from the territories to a peace that provides security for Israel. The two things are given equal status...

ELTANTAWI: And land for the Palestinians.

KEYES: ... and they go hand in hand. Israel does not have to relinquish territory until peace is achieved.

ELTANTAWI: No, Israel...

KEYES: OK?

ELTANTAWI: No. No, the resolution says that Israel...

KEYES: It's very simple.

ELTANTAWI: ... must withdraw from the occupied territories...

KEYES: No, it doesn't.

ELTANTAWI: ... the West Bank, Gaza...

KEYES: No, it doesn't. That is...

ELTANTAWI: ... the Golan Heights, all Arab territories...

KEYES: ... not true. I'm sorry, Sarah.

ELTANTAWI: ... and it...

KEYES: That is not a true statement.

ELTANTAWI: It is, of course, true, and it was...

KEYES: No, it's not.

ELTANTAWI: ... just reaffirmed two weeks ago by our very government in the United Nations that Israel needs to immediately...

KEYES: No, it was not.

ELTANTAWI: ... pull out...

KEYES: No, it was not.

ELTANTAWI: ... of all Palestinian cities.

KEYES: No, it was not, you know, because one of the things that I find interesting...

ELTANTAWI: Well, what is your point?

KEYES: ... is that...

ELTANTAWI: What is your point, Alan? What is your point, that the...

KEYES: Well, I...

ELTANTAWI: ... Israelis should simply annex it. Is that your point?

KEYES: No, no, no. Not at all.

ELTANTAWI: Well, what is it?

KEYES: My point is...

ELTANTAWI: That the Palestinians don't live there?

KEYES: ... that I do find it interesting...

ELTANTAWI: That the Palestinian people have no self-determination over themselves?

KEYES: I do find it interesting — let me explain — that, in the course of a lot of these discussions now, I hear representatives of the Palestinians, the PLO refer to Palestine...

ELTANTAWI: I am not a representative of the PLO.

KEYES: Excuse me. Let me finish, though.

ELTANTAWI: Please don't mischaracterize me.

KEYES: You asked me what I was talking about. Would you let me explain to you?

ELTANTAWI: Well, OK.

KEYES: And they refer to the territories — occupied territories, historic...

ELTANTAWI: They are...

KEYES: ... Palestine...

ELTANTAWI: They are occupied territories in historic Palestine...

KEYES: There are not.

ELTANTAWI: ... and you will never get me to stop saying that.

KEYES: There is not. There is no such thing. Let me...

ELTANTAWI: Well...

KEYES: Let me point out to you...

ELTANTAWI: ... that's only the most right-wing...

KEYES: Let me point out to you...

ELTANTAWI: Why do you...

KEYES: Let me point out the facts.

ELTANTAWI: Why do you blindly parrot the right-wing Israeli line?

KEYES: Sarah, no. What...

ELTANTAWI: Why aren't you willing to listen?

KEYES: I am simply trying to reflect the truth. Let's take a look...

ELTANTAWI: No, that is not the truth.

KEYES: Let's take a look, if we can, at this whole issue of historic Palestine, because it's a phrase that's been thrown around a lot. What did historic Palestine consist in?

Well, let's start out with this. The blue line outlines the British mandate for Palestine, all right? It included what the British later, after they had gotten the mandate, called Transjordan and what they called Palestine.

But the mandate itself referred to the whole area surrounded by that blue line as Palestine, and that whole area, which included Amman and Jerusalem and that whole area — that was what was referred to as Palestine by the Arabs from time immemorial, and so we're looking at a map here of...

ELTANTAWI: That's absolutely untrue.

KEYES: ... Jordan. No, it's not absolutely untrue. It's absolutely true.

ELTANTAWI: That's absolutely untrue.

KEYES: Let me tell you. First...

ELTANTAWI: Why don't you ask the...

KEYES: Sarah...

ELTANTAWI: Why don't you ask the Palestinians what they think of as their home?

KEYES: Sarah, I will. Let's look at what the Palestinians said.

In the charter for the PLO, Article 2 says — quote — “Palestine with the boundaries it had during the British mandate is an indivisible territorial unit.”

Step number one. OK. The British mandate boundaries outlined in blue there — that's what the PLO charter says is Palestine. So I asked the Palestinians.

Here's what the late King Hussein of Jordan wrote in his memoirs.

ELTANTAWI: Alan, I don't know where you're going with this...

KEYES: Let me finish, please.

ELTANTAWI: ... but it's irrelevant.

KEYES: “Palestine and Jordan were both by then under British mandate, but, as my grandfather pointed out in his memoirs,” they were hardly separate countries. Transjordan being to the east of the River Jordan, it formed, in a sense, the interior of Palestine.”

Here is what a Palestinian official said — you asked the question — in 1977, “There should be a kind of linkage because Jordanians and Palestinians are considered by the PLO as one people.” That — now that was the...

ELTANTAWI: This is an — this is absurd. What are you suggesting, Alan? Are you suggesting that Jordan is Palestine? I mean, what — where exactly are you going with this? I mean, there are so many things — first of all...

KEYES: Well, I...

ELTANTAWI: ... as we know, what the PLO charter — the PLO entered into negotiations with the State of Israel in 1993 in Oslo and forfeited 78 percent of their original homeland to the Israelis and recognized the two-state solution with the State of Palestine being on the West Bank and Gaza. Anything before — and East Jerusalem. Anything before that actually is a moot point. So let's start at a point in history that makes sense.

KEYES: This is exactly what I find fascinating.

ELTANTAWI: Number two, Palestine is not Jordan. Because Canada comes and tells me that, you know, Washington, D.C., is actually Virginia, that does not make it so.

KEYES: Sarah...

ELTANTAWI: Ask the Palestinian people where they were born...

KEYES: Sarah...

ELTANTAWI: ... where are the deeds to their house...

KEYES: ... that's exactly what I just did.

ELTANTAWI: ... where are the keys, and I guarantee you...

KEYES: Sarah...

ELTANTAWI: ... it's going to be within...

KEYES: I'm sorry, Sarah. Hold on.

ELTANTAWI: ... Israel proper and the West Bank and Gaza.

KEYES: That's exactly what I just did, and we'll do some more of it because — right now, sad to say...

ELTANTAWI: What you're doing is you are simply...

KEYES: Sad to say...

ELTANTAWI: ... parroting political rhetoric.

KEYES: ... what you are doing...

ELTANTAWI: You are parroting political rhetoric...

KEYES: What you are doing, Sarah — Sarah...

ELTANTAWI: ... of the leadership of Jordan...

KEYES: Sarah...

ELTANTAWI: ... under the British mandate.

KEYES: What you are doing — excuse me, Sarah. What you are doing right now is you are trying to manipulate the ignorance of the new generation of people in the world...

ELTANTAWI: Oh, no. That's your job.

KEYES: ... who aren't familiar with the...

ELTANTAWI: Oh, no, Alan.

KEYES: ... historic facts...

ELTANTAWI: That is absolutely untrue.

KEYES: ... and we're going to — stay right there, though, Sarah.

ELTANTAWI: Absolutely untrue.

KEYES: Stay right there because —

We're going to have more with our guest after this, and I'm going to be walking through a little bit more of that history with some interesting quotes from more Arabs and others talking about just what history shows us to be the real nature of Palestine, and it does have implications for this discussion.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: We're back with Sarah Eltantawi of the Muslim Public Affairs Council.

And before we start again, I want to make a point because Sarah ended by saying that anything that occurred before the recent past is a moot point.

Why use the phrase historic if you I don't mean to refer to historic? I mean, the definition of historic is “known or established in the past.” To know whether something is historic Palestine, you've got to look at the past.

Now here is what the president of Tunisia said in 1973 about historic Palestine, what Palestine really was. “With all respect to King Hussein,” he said, “I suggest that the emirate of Transjordan was created from oilcloth by Great Britain, which, for this purpose, cut up ancient Palestine. To this desert territory to the east of the Jordan River, it gave the name Transjordan, but there is nothing in history that carries this name, while, since our earliest time, there was Palestine and Palestinians.”

I think it is very clear that the whole thing was considered by Arabs to be Palestine, that the British came in with their colonial mentality and chopped it all up. That's what the PLO was referring to in their very own charter.

That's what they acted on in 1970 when they sought to take over the government of Jordan, which was legitimately, they thought, theirs because more than half the Jordanian population is Palestinian.

That's what the king thought when for all those years before 1988 he claimed the West Bank as part...

ELTANTAWI: Alan...

KEYES: ... of Jordan and an integral part of Palestine.

ELTANTAWI: What is your point?

KEYES: One people, one...

ELTANTAWI: What in the world is your point?

KEYES: Let me finish. Let me finish, ma'am. I'm not done. Because the point is very simple. If you look at the map we showed a few minutes ago — let's put it back up on the screen.

If you look at Transjordan, the red part there is what the Jewish folks who were looking for a homeland for Israel originally wanted. Obviously, they didn't get anything like their desires.

If you look within the boundaries in blue there and you consider as Bordiba (ph) and everybody else that considered — all the Arabs, all the Palestinians, the PLO, everybody — that's Palestine, 75 percent of it went to the Arabs. Twenty percent of it...

ELTANTAWI: Oh, my.

KEYES: Twenty percent of it...

ELTANTAWI: Oh, my goodness.

KEYES: ... went to the Jews.

ELTANTAWI: Alan...

KEYES: Five percent of it sitting there in the West Bank territories was disputed and kind of left in limbo and so forth and so on. Setting up the situation with this lie that truncates the actual meaning of Palestine so as to make the Israelis look like they're land hogs and the Arabs didn't get anything...

ELTANTAWI: Do you deny...

KEYES: This is vicious — this is vicious...

ELTANTAWI: ... basic — basic facts in history?

KEYES: Sarah...

ELTANTAWI: You are the vicious one. You are...

KEYES: Sarah, this is vicious propaganda.

ELTANTAWI: ... the vicious one. No, you are the vicious one. No, you are vicious propagandist.

First of all, I have not heard this brand of right-wing pro-Israel screed in about 30 years. I mean, this is — these are the most discredited Jordan-is-Palestine claims. This is totally out of vogue, out of fashion. We've decided already that we know that Palestine is not Jordan.

But let's take your argument for a second, Alan. Do you think that there were Palestinians in the land that was west of the Jordan River when the Eastern European Jews — not the natives of the area, the Eastern European Jews came and colonized the land around the turn of the century?

Do you or do you not deny that there were actually Palestinians living in that land and that they were expelled to the tune of 850,000 people with — when the Zionists came in and immigrated? Do you or do you not agree with that?

KEYES: There were Palestinians. There were Jews.

ELTANTAWI: There were Palestinians there.

KEYES: Let me finish. Let me finish. There were Jewish and Arab Palestinians.

ELTANTAWI: Yes.

KEYES: There were folks who came over...

ELTANTAWI: That's correct.

KEYES: ... and immigrated under the...

ELTANTAWI: The folks who came over...

KEYES: Let me finish. You asked me a question. You won't let me answer it. There were folks who came over. They immigrated there under the auspices of the British, and, with international sanction, they came over, and, also, by the way, the notion that they were expelled is not true.

ELTANTAWI: It's absolutely true.

KEYES: Historically speaking...

ELTANTAWI: Absolutely true.

KEYES: ... when the war occurred in 1948...

ELTANTAWI: Wrong.

KEYES: ... a lot of these people left their homes, very few of them under encouragement...

ELTANTAWI: You...

KEYES: ... of any kind from the Israelis.

ELTANTAWI: Alan, not only do you have one side of the story, but you have the most extreme side of the story.

You have a new movement in the State of Israel called the New Historians with historians, such as Avi Shlaim, Benny Morris, who acknowledge that large amounts of Palestinians were expelled from over 400 villages in 1947 and 1948, especially Village Deir Yassin, which was used as an example in which 150 Palestinians were lined up and shot, and it was used as an example for the rest of...

KEYES: Sarah — Sarah, first of all...

ELTANTAWI: They were expelled, and it's a matter...

KEYES: I was...

ELTANTAWI: ... of historical fact that Palestinians were expelled...

KEYES: I do not — I do not deny...

ELTANTAWI: ... and you are denying that.

KEYES: I deny, first of all, only that there was some general expulsion. There were elements under...

ELTANTAWI: Well, Alan, you're wrong. There was general expulsion.

KEYES: Let me finish. There were elements on the Israeli side that did practice that, but there were also muftis and newspapers and leaders on the Arab side who encouraged the Palestinians to leave.

ELTANTAWI: Absolute — that's an absolute propaganda, a lie.

KEYES: That's not propaganda, Sarah.

ELTANTAWI: Absolute lie.

KEYES: But you know what I find most fascinating, Sarah.

ELTANTAWI: Actually...

KEYES: Why you want to refer to historic Palestine. Then when I go into the history and show the boundaries of actual Palestine, you say, no, that's irrelevant. You want to define...

ELTANTAWI: Alan, are you...

KEYES: Let me finish. You want to define history by your fashion, by your opinion.

ELTANTAWI: No, you want to define history by your opinion.

KEYES: History, Sarah, doesn't consist of what's in fashion.

ELTANTAWI: Are you aware of what's — are you aware of the colonial history of Africa, for example?

KEYES: History doesn't consist of what's in fashion, Sarah.

ELTANTAWI: Do you know — are you aware...

KEYES: History consists of the facts. I present facts...

ELTANTAWI: Oh, Alan, there was no...

KEYES: ... facts that were acknowledges by Arab leaders, the king of Jordan, the Palestinians themselves, the charter, George Habas...

ELTANTAWI: This is absolutely ridiculous.

KEYES: All referred to these facts, and you now want to dismiss them because they don't serve your propaganda purposes.

ELTANTAWI: Absolutely — absolutely outer space.

KEYES: Sarah, thank you. Thank you. I really appreciate it, Sarah. Thanks for being on. Thanks for being on. I think it's a wonderful illustration, though, y'all, I have to say, of the fact that some people want to ignore the facts, if it doesn't serve their propaganda. Anyway, thank you.

We'll be back next with my outrage of the day. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: I really thought my outrage of the day is folks who use the phrase “historic Palestine” to talk about the partition and then don't want you to refer to history. If it's out of fashion, then I'll be unfashionable.

That's my sense of it. Join me tomorrow, thank you.