Alan Keyes
May 2, 2002
New York City

EMCEE: Rabbis, honorees, guests, I have the great pleasure and honor of introducing to you one of the foremost, keen intellects of the modern era. He is the antidote to Ted Koppel and Mike Wallace.

Antidote is a good word, because they've been poisoning the media for a long time, and it's only because of Alan Keyes that we are finally making some inroads. He is truly one of the best friends the state of Israel has in America today.

He received his PhD from Harvard University in 1979. In 1983, he was appointed as Assistant Secretary of State by then President Ronald Reagan. Over the past ten years, he has reached a nationwide daily audience through the "Alan Keyes Show, America's Wake-up Call."

He ran for the GOP presidential nomination in 1996 and 2000. He performed dynamically, as you may recall, in the 2000 presidential debates. He currently can be seen during weeknights on his tremendously successful "Alan Keyes is Making Sense Show," on MSNBC at 10 p.m. He's going to be on tonight, too, so when you get home tonight turn on your television set, if you have a television set. Don't worry, most do, Alan. The question is whether they have cable or not, that's another question.

If you really want to have hope in the future, it behooves each of you to watch his show. You will not be disappointed. I now present to you the one and only Ambassador Alan Keyes.

ALAN KEYES: Thank you very much! I have to say, for those of you who don't have televisions, I can't say as how I blame you. Except that my show is on, I might not watch it myself.

In these days, I find it sometimes very difficult to know where to begin, especially when addressing the situation today in the Middle East and the challenge that it poses--especially to Americans and to American policy. And yet, at one level, it should be a fairly easy challenge for Americans. It should be a fairly easy challenge precisely because we have had, in a tragic kind of way, the benefit of a very painful, a very terrible, a very costly, but nonetheless, a very important, lesson of experience.

I have to tell you that though I have passed by on the way to Long Island, today represents the first time, since September 11th, that I have actually been in New York City. And that I come to address you in the context of our common interest in the conflict and events in the Middle East, is, for me, no coincidence.

It was reported in the media that President Bush has said that on September 11th we Americans learned that there was evil in the world. And in a very charitable way, I think we can all agree that he misspoke, since no nation that had passed through the horrors of the 20th Century, no nation that had, as we have done, stood with others against the darkness and the evil that threaten to overshadow humanity in that century, could have failed to be acquainted with the nature of that evil.

But in another way, I think, from an American point of view, he spoke a certain amount of truth, because we have been a powerful, a successful nation. We came to the end of the 20th Century and it seemed as if, in all of these battles that we have fought against Communism, and Fascism, and Nazism, and all the "isms" that threaten to oppress and destroy and de-humanize our species, we have stood in the forefront. We have triumphed in the battle, and I think we were just as tempted as a nation can be to strut about thinking we were done.

And then on September 11th, past all the defenses, past all the sophisticated satellites, past all the wonderful military expenditures, past the most costly, the largest, the most effective and impressive military establishment probably known to the history of humankind--past all of it crept that same shadow of evil, and it brought the Towers down. But we can hope, can't we, that it woke this nation up.

But the real challenge of that wakefulness isn't in the event itself. We reacted to that event, and our leaders reacted to it, in a way that I think made sense of it, that captured, in that terrible and awful moment of tragedy and crime, also an element of truth.

Our President stood before the world and he spoke words that I think were resounding in their simple truth. He looked the world in the eye and he said, "You're either with us or against us," that in the fight against terrorism there can be, he said, "no neutrality." Those who encourage it, those who facilitate it, those who support it, those who manipulate it, those who benefit from it, we told them all that we were coming to get them. And it made sense.

It made sense, because we understood at that moment, faced as we were faced with the massive act of suicidal murder, that the whole mentality that thought of terrorism as, "Well, lets go get these perpetrators"--well, getting the perpetrators has been accomplished for you by the perpetrators when they engage in this kind of suicidal murder.

What are you going to do then? Well, what I think you do is exactly what we did. You look past the perpetrators, and you look to the mind and heart that sent them on their way. You look to those who shaped their consciousness. You look to those who inspired their evil, and you look into the very depth and the heart of it, and what you find is a chilling and cold-blooded willingness to use deadly force against the innocent in order to manipulate for the sake of one's political advantage and gain.

It was not against an individual, Osama bin Laden, that we declared war in September of last year. It was not against a group. It was not against an organization. It was against a principle of evil! And wherever that principle of evil animates the human will, we find our enemies.

I think that that was clear, and it was right, and it was true, and it was a challenge, not just to us, but to the whole world. I think we were especially fine in those days, precisely because we understood, somehow, that what had struck against us had in fact struck a blow against all humanity.

And we didn't know it only because of all the nations that were represented at the World Trade Center--because, in point of fact, when you strike a blow against America, we don't need to gather nations from all the rest of the world. In the course of our history, we have already gathered them here.

We have already gathered Jews, and Christians, and Poles, and Africans, and Chinese, and Asians, and every folk of every background. They were all working that day in the World Trade Center, not just because they came from all different parts of the globe, but especially because they were Americans--and we, in fact, represent the whole of humanity.

We were fine in our understanding of that truth. We were fine in our response that we were not going to stand up and challenge the world to stand with us just because Americans died, we were going to challenge them to stand with us because the triumph of terrorism represents a death of the human spirit, a death of the human conscience.

We were fine then in that understanding and we, I think, saw a lot of truth in that moment of our grief and pain. But you know what we have to understand? The real test of our understanding of truth isn't in that in that moment of perception. No. The real test of our understanding of the truth we so idly grasped, and that our leaders articulated so clearly into that moment, the real truth of it lies, I think, in the application--the application of that truth in the circumstances when, whatever interests are at stake, whatever calculations are to be made, whatever manipulation is brought against us, we, nonetheless, are willing and able to hold on to that clear understanding which was purchased for us that day, by the deaths of so many thousands.

That's why, you see, I don't think it's a coincidence that I stand here in New York, the first time I've had a chance to speak in New York about the horror that occurred here, but I do so in the context of the horrors that are occurring in the Middle East. Because this is the challenge now for us, and what I have to say in the next few minutes--and I don't want to say it too harshly, but I do want to say it clearly--is that I don't really think that, as yet, we are understanding fully and measuring up to that challenge.

Because it was true on that day in September--see, on September 12th did anybody stand up in response saying, "Mr. President, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"? I can remember when a lot of people thought that. They didn't think it on September the 11th.

Somehow or another, the clear understanding that there are ways and ways to fight for justice--as a black American, I'd be the last person in the world to want to recommend against those who struggle for justice, who struggle against oppression, who struggle for the sake of aspirations which they believe are true and good, and for the sake of which they are willing to sacrifice their lives.

I grew up in the context of a movement in which people were very willing to lay their lives on the line. All kinds of people, Black folks and Jewish folks and all folks of every background, who stood in the civil rights movement in America in order to strike a blow for justice, but they understood that if you want to triumph, best that you stand under a banner that knows that as you will give your life for justice, you should do it in a way that does not take the lives of others unjustly.

The fight for justice can require struggle, and it can require courage, and it can require persistence, and it can require a willingness to risk life and limb and give up property. It can require that one struggle sometimes peacefully and sometimes not. It may even require war, but I'll tell you something: there is a difference between that war which is willing to stand against those who come armed against you in order to kill and maim and commit injustice.

There is a difference between that war and a struggle that is conducted by those who will creep into the house by night and, confronted with the life of an innocent five-year-old child, will cold-bloodedly pull the trigger.

That is not war. That is not struggle. That is not liberation. That is a departure from every shred of decent human conscience that keeps us from the beasts, that keeps us from depravity.

And as we look at the world today, the one thing that we Americans ought to appreciate is that on September 11th, we drew a line, and we said that wherever you are on the face of this globe you have no right to step across that line. We drew that line in New York. We drew that line in Washington. We drew that line in Europe. We drew that line in Asia. How dare we now confess confusion as to whether we draw that line in the Middle East!

If there were some doubt, if there were some way in which we could argue that, in fact, there was some confusion about this, I think there would perhaps be a justification for certain aspects of the policy that we have seen.

But, my friends, if we are going to tell the world that there can be no neutrality in the fight against terrorism, that there can be none who stand on the sidelines and reap the fruits of terror, while failing to bear the responsibility for their complicity in terror--if that is, in fact, the stand that we take, as we have taken it since September 11th, then how can we, in any sense at all, in any sense whatsoever, succumb to the feckless demand that we should be even-handed in our policies in the Middle East?

When, on the one hand, one has those who are willing in disregard of conscience, in disregard of even the most basic sense of norms now painfully developed in our common realm of international humanity--if on the one hand stands those who are willing to move for the sake of their ruthless agenda and even in the midst of all their talk of peace, to practice a ruthless form of violence that knows no distinction in strategy or in effect between those who are innocent and those who are armed for war.

If on the one hand stands such as those openly, brazenly, proudly proclaiming their commitment to this ruthless and conscienceless infliction of death, and on the other stands those who are their targets and their victims, how can we pretend to fight a war against terror, if we are even-handed between those who practice it in the Middle East and those who suffer its deadly consequences? We can't.

And the difficulty here is, I know folks think that it's possible to have it both ways, but if you look back at the history of America's successful wars, you'd find that we are a people unable to prosecute war successfully when we are subject to moral confusion. When we have lost our moral clarity, little by little, there creeps up upon us the effects of our decent consciences.

This may be a weakness in us, I don't know, but from my point of view it's also one of those things that, in spite of everything I know about American history--in spite of all the injustices, and the difficulties, and the slavery, and the oppression, and all these sorts of things--it is because, at the end of the day, Americans have been more likely susceptible to the pangs of conscience than not, that I can still proclaim with shameless pride that I love this country and I love its people.

When we think we're right, we will fight on in spite of every difficulty. But when we think we're wrong, the burden of the fight becomes more difficult and more complex for us every day. And that means, my friends, that the things we do, the things we say, the policies we implement that introduce into the bosom of our thinking and our hearts that element of moral confusion about the objectives of our conflict, anything that does so, weakens our effort, undermines our strategy, and destroys the strong foundation that is required for our security in war.

Now, I know that there are some people who may be trying to pretend, in the midst of what seems like a return to normalcy, that we are not a people at war, but we are. We are a people at war, and we are at war with an adversary unlike any other that we have faced before in our history: an adversary that can wear many faces, that can come in many guises, that can hide in many places and in many countries, and the only way that we will know how to recognize that adversary is when we see the bitter and ugly fruit of their conscienceless disregard for innocent humanity.

My friends, if once we fail to call it by its right name, then the whole principle of our struggle is undone. I've been thinking this as I watched the President talking to the Saudi Crown Prince the other day, and when he was asked a question by the media as to whether or not Crown Prince Abdullah had come forward and condemned terrorism, President Bush responded that the Saudi Prince had condemned the murder of Americans, and stood with us against those who would murder Americans.

I would like to ask the President of the United States whether he has forgotten his own words, his own conscience, his own commitment. We did not stand on September 12th and rally the world against those who murdered Americans. We rallied the world against those who, by their practice of terrorist evil, would murder conscience and murder decency and murder humanity everywhere in the world.

And that means that we cannot differentiate between the terrorists who have this motive and that motive, and this adversary and that adversary. I will say it unequivocally, if we are to prevail in the struggle against terrorism then we must stand before the face of the world and we must declare, without exception, that we don't care what your cause is, we don't care what your claim is, we don't care what your struggle is, if you use the instrument of terrorism in pursuit of that struggle, we will stand against you until you are in the dust.

And here's the rub, I think that we would get applause from many audiences in this country to say that. I think the President would get applause for it today. I think everybody should want to stand up and cheer. No. The hard part isn't when you have declared the principle. The hard part isn't when you have made the rhetoric perfectly clear.

The hard part is when you face a ruthless and bloody terrorist practicing the arts of dissimulation with all skill that he has learned in thirty-five and forty years of terror. The challenge comes when he stands before you, and he bears a name, and he has a face, and he pursues a policy. That is when the challenge comes. And I challenge Mr. Bush to base his policy from henceforward on this truth, that there should be no negotiation with terrorists. There should be no compromise with terrorists. And that, above all, America's policy in the Middle East will not depart from the truth that is written on every bloody page of its history: that Yasser Arafat is such a terrorist. It's time for him to go.

See, I know that there are those that are now going to say that the statement I have just made is extreme rhetoric, and it doesn't take account of the complexities of the peace process of the Middle East, and "who have we got to deal with other than Yasser Arafat?" My friends, let's pause for a minute and back away, just take a little look at that reasoning, shall we?

Because in a certain sense, telling the world that the only person you have to deal with is Yasser Arafat is precisely like telling everybody that you can punish the orphans for the murder of their parents. I'm serious.

People act as if someone like myself, standing as I stand now, and I stand there and have stood there unequivocally, for the view that we have committed a grave error, that we have done a great injustice, not just to Israel, but to peace and to the peace of the world, by once again allowing events to revive and allowing our policies to resuscitate the brutal and blood-thirsty leadership that Yasser Arafat represents. I believe it deeply.

And I know that there are those who'll come against me and they'll say, "Well, you're going to do this to the peace process, and that to the peace process, and you're against Palestinians." That's a lie!

I was one of the first people many years ago and I went everywhere. I went before Jewish audiences, some of whom didn't want to hear it, and I declared my beliefs that, yes, there ought to be justice for the Palestinians, and there ought to be a Palestinian state, and there ought to be a sense of responsibility to our Palestinian aspirations for self-government.

I will yield to no one in my belief that every people deserves the right to self-government, and to justice, and to dignity, but I'll tell you something, I don't think anybody serves justice for the Palestinians by continuing to impose upon them a ruthless leadership that is just as willing to kill the Palestinians who disagree with them as they are to take the lives of Israelis, and Americans, and anyone else who stands in their way.

When are we going to realize that the inevitability of this leadership becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, when in every cycle, and to every time we allow them once again to rise up, give them that opportunity with brutality and impunity, to eliminate every voice from the ranks of their people that does not agree with their bloody and ruthless strategy of terror and intimidation?

And there are such voices, because there are such voices in every people and in every group. The voices of peace that are sincere. The voices of justice that understand that the just end must be pursued by just means, as well.

You know what I think bothers me most deeply about the Middle East? I have my own views, as I'm sure all of you do, about the details of the right settlement, or the wrong settlement. I'm sure you do. At the end of the day the folks there will have to work that out somehow, but the question is, in what spirit and by what methods? That's the question.

It is the question that I think that our policymakers ought to be reflecting on, before they accept the inevitability of a leadership that has, through its whole course of action, never acknowledged the possibility of any means of influence, except force and violence and terror.

And yet, who are they dealing with? I'll be frank. Who are they dealing with? Well, they're dealing with Israelis. And who are Israelis? Well, more or less, I guess, the Israelis are Jews. And who are the Jews of the 21st Century? Well, they are obviously those who survived the awesome, murderous holocaust of the 20th Century.

Some people marvel that I can be on the air, and that I have such confidence that the charges of massacre in Jenin will be proven false. That I have such confidence that, however individuals--and a few here and there will stray over the line, just as Americans do, in the midst of war. I have great moral certainty that we will not find a time or place in which the state of Israel, the government of Israel, the people of Israel have dedicated heart, and will, and mind, and conscience to the wicked abuse of life and innocence.

I am morally certain, and I would stake my life upon the truth, that the people who came through the horrors of the holocaust, who the learned lesson of its truth, would never be willing to bring such horrors on others.

I'll tell you something, if you are dealing with such a people, and in the face of such a history, what would you do? Well, I'll tell you what I'd do, I would quickly go and read all the works of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi.

Do you know why the Palestinians are failing? Do you know why they are failing in effect to achieve the great vision that they claim is the vision of their future? Because they are under a leadership that renounces in principle the one strategy that could most successfully win their way to that future. And that is a strategy that will achieve justice by the means of justice. That will achieve peace by the means of peace. That will deal with a people who have known the very depth of violence, from a strategy that offers them a challenge from the very depths of peace and non-violence.

Yasser Arafat is incapable of such a strategy. He is incapable of such an approach. Those who perpetuate his leadership do not only betray peace, they do not only make life harder for the Israelis, they've betrayed every hope for the Palestinian future.

And that's why I can't understand why we would be willing, as Americans, to adopt a policy that disregards this truth, that puts pressure on Israel to do what is bad for its security--and what we know, by the way, is bad.

The one thing that I think has been the biggest problem with the credibility of the President's demands that Israel must pull out of the West Bank before it gets the job done on terrorism, is that he repeatedly says that we're not going to pull out of Afghanistan until we get the job done against terrorism.

Tell me, who has the greater incentive to make sure they continue the work till it's done, the folks who are fighting against its strongholds half a world away, or the folks who are fighting against its strongholds right down the street? This is, if I may use a word that is much abused in the title of my show, just common sense.

And I think that at the end of this, we're not going to sustain a policy that defies common sense, that imposes one set of standards on our actions and yet demands that others, whose very survival right now, here, as a people and as a country is at stake, can afford to act according to other standards when we know they can't.

Instead of building our policy upon lies, let us build our policy upon the truth: the truth that those who stand against terror must stand, as we do, with resolution, with perseverance, with persistence, until they have found and rooted out the infrastructure, the facilitators, the masterminds of those terrorist plots that come against the lives of their innocent people.

It is what we must do. It is what Israel must do. It is what every civilized and decent nation in the world must do in this war against terror, because if we do not, if we do not, then for all the talk of people who say, "we want peace in the Middle East". No. You can't purchase peace in the Middle East by imposing a reign of terror on the world.

And don't believe that it won't happen. Do you think others are not watching, that they are not understanding what Arafat has achieved? The blow that was struck here in New York against America was struck in the name of Arab ambitions in the Middle East. You do remember that, don't you?

Why do we pretend that somehow or another there's a big world of difference? I have people come on my show, they're doing it all the time, trying to say, "Well, that's Middle East terrorism, and we want [to talk about] terrorism with a global reach." Excuse me?

Given what Osama bin Laden said about his goals, about his purposes, about what message he was trying to bring against us, when the Towers fell that was the global reach of Arab Middle Eastern terrorism. That was the global reach of that policy which today takes the lives of Israelis.

And to fool ourselves into believing that there's some difference here--what are we going to end up doing? Well, I'll tell you what we end up doing. We end up making concessions to terror and deluding ourselves with the belief that we have served peace. This can't be.

They came against us in September 11th, and since that time we have formalized our commitment to a Palestinian state. We have pressured Israel into ending its offensive. We have pressured them into the release of Yasser Arafat. We have paid lip service to a war against terrorism, while day after day after day, we press one of our closest friends with the belief that no matter how much blood runs in the street, no matter how many innocent lives are lost, they must nonetheless continue to negotiate with terror.

Every one of these steps, every one of these policies, every one of them represents a concession and surrender to terror. Every one of them sends the message that that terror has been successful in culling the will, in intimidating the spirit, in undermining the commitment of the American people.

We do ourselves a disservice here that will visit us again in the days and weeks and months to come. For, every jackal, every thug, every bloody-minded intimidator watches the lessons that can be drawn from this policy, and prepares for deadly strokes against the people that have proven themselves so feckless in their response to that which has been brought against them.