MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesMay 2, 2002
ALAN KEYES, MSNBC HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
No Capitol in the background tonight. No, the actual real Capitol is gone because I'm in New York City. I actually gave the first speech that I have given in New York City since September 11th and the first time I have actually been in the city since that time.
Up front tonight, I actually thought we might not start with the Middle East this evening. But then I saw the footage of Yasser Arafat as he left his lair, and he was spewing such venom in various directions that I could not resist the temptation to talk about it, I have got to tell you. Listen to what he said today about the Israeli occupation of the West Bank.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
YASSER ARAFAT, HEAD OF PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I look to this as an attempt from racists and Nazis who commit these crimes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Now, I guess you have to be pretty mad. You're going to allude to the Israelis, who represent that group of people who are most deeply and savagely destroyed by the Nazi regime. You're calling them Nazis and racists and all of this.
But the affront doesn't even stop there. Here is what he said about the siege of Bethlehem at the Church of the Nativity. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARAFAT: I am asking you to ask the whole international world. This is a holy sacred place, not only for the Christians, but for the Christians and for the Muslims.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Now, I have got to tell you, my friends, I listened to that. He is getting upset. What's he upset about? He's upset about what is happening at the Church of the Nativity.
And he is saying, “The Israelis are criminals. This is a mess at the church.” Excuse me? It was armed Palestinian forces who rushed into the Church of the Nativity and at gunpoint took the place over and are now using it as a shield for themselves because they refuse to give themselves up to the Israelis, refuse to give up their weapons so the place won't get shot up.
And yet that is supposed to be all somebody else's fault. Sure. And we should believe that it's on the up and up with Yasser Arafat.
We talked yesterday about what I think is the deeply damaged credibility of the Palestinians, especially on this issue of Jenin and massacres and whether all of this fulmination about Israeli war crimes and Nazism and all of this stuff is justified.
Today, I was looking at some footage that was shot by the Israeli Defense Forces and that came to MSNBC. It starts out — it's what looks to be a Palestinian funeral. But then you look closely, and the marchers, the people who are carrying it, stumble, and the so-called body falls. And it falls off the stretcher. And lo and behold, it gets up and walks away. That's pretty good.
So, here you had a funeral. And if you're one of the people who say, “Well, what I saw makes me think a terrible massacre took place.” Well, if that is one of the things you saw, evidence of Palestinians who died in the terrible massacre, well, it might lead you to believe somebody is lying to you, that somebody is staging the thing in order to make you believe something took place that actually hadn't taken place.
Oh, of course, Alan you don't think the Palestinians — how could you dare to suggest that folk who are willing to send their children out to blow up innocent folks and who would sacrifice every shred of conscience and decency in order to direct the lives of the young to take the lives of the innocent would think to do such a thing. That just totally defies common sense that I would even be willing to entertain the evidence before my own eyes.
As some Palestinian spokesmen who have come on the show seem to think I should do, I should rather believe them than believe the evidence of my own eyes. Well, I guess I'm a little different in that regard from the Bush administration and its even-handed approach that wants to equate the terrorists, the folks who are more than bending the truth in their war of propaganda and slander, with those who are their victims and the target of their campaign of destruction.
I find it hard to do. And guess what? So does the Congress of the United States.
Here at home, both houses of Congress took an official stand in support of Israel. The Senate voted 94-to-two for their non-binding resolution of support. Democrats Byrd of West Virginia and Hollings of South Carolina voted nay.
On the House side, the final vote was aye 352, nays 21. Seventeen Democrats voted no, four Republicans. Only four Republicans voted on. Now, remember, the administration taking an even-handed approach and Congress rejecting that approach in favor of one that affirms America's support for Israel in its fight against this terroristic regime.
Joining us now, two members of the House Committee on International Relations, Congressman Gary Ackerman of New York, who supported the House resolution to stand by Israel, and Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California, who voted against the resolution because he supports the Bush administration's role in the Middle East. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R), CALIFORNIA: Thank you.
REP. GARY ACKERMAN (D), NEW YORK: Thank you.
KEYES: Dana, I want to start with you this evening because I know you know how I feel. I have watched the evolution of the administration's policy and the adoption under pressure of the Saudis of this supposedly even-handed approach. Since we have declared war on terror and those who use the instruments of terror as policy to get what they want in the world, to influence negotiations, how can we be even-handed in a choice between a Palestinian side that has openly, shamelessly, even proudly implemented a terroristic strategy, and an Israeli side that has been victimized by that?
Why did you stand apart from your colleagues in the Congress? It seems to me that in standing apart from this even-handedness, they're just making sense.
ROHRABACHER: Most of the member of Congress that I talked to told me that that resolution would have gone down overwhelmingly had that been a secret vote. Most people understood the president wants to try to bring both sides together in the Middle East. They're trying their hardest to reach people of goodwill on both sides. And resolutions like this at this time undercut the peace process.
So, first, let me just say, obviously, our hearts go out to anyone whose family was killed, whether they're Israelis or they're Palestinians, if their family was killed by some military person on one side or the other. But we have to recognize, there are people on both sides, noncombatants on both sides, that have lost family members. And there's so many hatred there now. We have got to make sure that we reach out to those people and overcome that hatred.
KEYES: Dana, Dana, I have to stop you for a second. I have to stop you.
ROHRABACHER: Yes?
KEYES: Our war on terrorism can't possibly mean anything or be justified if we don't make a distinction between civilian casualties that occur in the course of warfare and innocent civilians who die as a result of a conscious, targeted effort to kill them...
ROHRABACHER: I agree.
KEYES: ... in order to achieve one's political goal. One is war. The other is terrorism.
Are you denying that when that gunman went into the house over the weekend and shot that 5-year-old girl consciously and in cold blood, he wasn't waging war, he was committing an act of terrorism? There's a difference, isn't there?
ROHRABACHER: There's obviously a difference, Alan. I'm just trying to tell you that there's been acts of terrorism committed against the Palestinian people as well. You have got people on both sides that have been willing to kill noncombatants in order to get their way. The United States should not be siding with one side but trying to pull the good people on both sides together. That's what President Bush is trying to do. That's what the secretary of state is trying to do.
KEYES: You're telling me that, as we have seen not only openly done but openly applauded, openly supported, openly celebrated acts in which people are consciously targeting the innocent, not stray bullets, not somebody who didn't know you were in the building and I bulldozed it, not you got caught in the crossfire, but a conscious targeting of an innocent life, you are telling me that you have got evidence to show me that the Israelis have been guilty of that conscious destruction of human life, innocent human life, as a chosen policy, not as some byproduct of a terrible and intense battle? Where is it, Dana? Show it to me.
ROHRABACHER: First of all, let me answer you by saying that I believe Sharon and Arafat are cut out of the same cloth. They're both willing to kill noncombatants and have approved it in the past in order to achieve their ends, which is terrorizing the opposition.
In terms of what evidence do I have? It's been long Israeli policy that, especially during the occupation of Lebanon, that when one of their soldiers was shot, the retaliation was swift. And that is the indiscriminate shelling of refugee camps.
Now, who are in those refugee camps? You can say, oh, there are some terrorists in there. That does not excuse the killing of women and children in those refugee camps.
KEYES: So, the bombing that we did against Yugoslavia, which our people said was aimed at breaking the will of their population so they would overthrow Milosevic, you stood against that as terrorism at the time, right?
ROHRABACHER: I just don't think there...
KEYES: Because you just described something that at the very worst it's similar to that.
ROHRABACHER: No, it's not even similar, Alan. You're wrong.
(CROSSTALK)
ROHRABACHER: Well, you're wrong.
KEYES: You want to know something, Dana? I did stand up and call that kind of bombing terrorism. I don't remember you at my side.
ROHRABACHER: Alan, Alan, Alan...
KEYES: I know terrorism when I see it.
ROHRABACHER: To the degree...
KEYES: And I think that without proof, to be bringing this kind of a charge...
(CROSSTALK)
ROHRABACHER: Alan, there's lots of proof. This was standard operating procedure of the Israeli army for years of occupation.
KEYES: Let me go to Congressman Ackerman...
ROHRABACHER: That's...
KEYES: ... Congressman Ackerman, this is what I'm afraid we're facing. I must confess, Dana, I didn't expect it because I have been listening to it from the Palestinian spokesman for the longest time. But Congressman Ackerman, I don't understand...
ACKERMAN: Alan, welcome...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... I don't see how we're justified in making this.
ACKERMAN: Welcome back to New York.
KEYES: Thank you.
ACKERMAN: First, let me say I'm shocked to hear somebody who is usually as level-headed as Dana saying that the vote in the House, according to the people with whom he spoke and after they took the vote, would have voted differently if it was a secret vote. They only voted this way because the vote was free, fair, open and democratic and in open public.
That's the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard about the Congress of the United States. And I've heard a whole bunch of tales.
The way you know how people feel is the way they vote openly. There were a number of people who abstained, who didn't want their opinion to be on the record. And they voted that way, too.
But the record is clear. The Congress of the United States has voted strongly and affirmatively to support our democratic friend in the region, Israel. When terrorism is on the march, it is the obligation of democratic countries to stick together and to support each other. And that's what the Congress did here openly and in full view of the public.
KEYES: See, what I don't understand, too, Congressman Ackerman, is I look at this situation, and the equation seems to me to be one that is ultimately going to destroy public confidence and clarity about our own war on terrorism. After all, if people who commit the kinds of acts we've been seeing in the Middle East are not terrorists but are just part of some political negotiation, how do we know a terrorist when we see one then?
ACKERMAN: Well, I think you point out something that is very accurate and appropriate. You know, the word hypocrisy sort of jumps out at you when you say that the right thing to do in response to terrorism is what we did, to come back as strong as you can, to target the people that are responsible, to limit civilian casualties to a smaller number as you can. And then to say to the Israelis, who have suffered terrorism every single day for the past 19 months during this horrible intifada, that it's OK for us to do that but they must respond differently, they must sit down, and they should discuss the legitimate grievances based on the fact that they're attacked.
When you're attacked, you fight back. If the Palestinians don't like getting hit back, they shouldn't hit. The people from al Qaeda have no right to complain. The Germans, the Japanese after attacking us in World War II, had no grievance when we attacked them back as strongly as we could. That's the difference between an aggressor and somebody who is playing defense.
KEYES: But one thing would I want to ask, Dana, I've had folks on from the Israeli side. And they have been faced with this question. And one point they made does strike me as very powerful.
They have the wherewithal to simply from the air, as we have been wanting to do in a couple of instances recently, take out their enemies without the risk to their ground forces and so forth. Instead, in this instance, they chose painstaking house-to-house battles, intense battles that were highly costly to them in Jenin, Ramallah, and so forth and so on. Why would a government that is supposedly ready in a bloodthirsty way consciously to target the innocent take such pains to avoid civilian casualties?
ROHRABACHER: Well, I will have to say that I think honest people trying to look at what has happened will have to say there's been horrendous acts of terrorism by the Palestinians on the Israelis. But we must acknowledge that the Israelis have committed some acts of slaughtering of innocent people on the other side as well.
If we don't admit that, we are never going to be able to be peacemakers in the Middle East. The president wants to try to reach out to create peace. If we just ignore those facts...
ACKERMAN: Dana, Dana...
ROHRABACHER: ... and say the Israelis can do no wrong, we're not going to be able to bring peace to that region.
ACKERMAN: It's not a matter of the Israelis can do no wrong. I haven't seen the case where an Israeli went into a Palestinian delicatessen and blew himself up. I've not seen the case of an Israeli going into a Palestinian school and blowing up innocent children and looking for them to be on targets.
ROHRABACHER: There's been atrocities on both sides. There have been atrocities on both sides.
ACKERMAN: No, no, there are tragedies on both sides. They're not atrocities. The Israelis are responding...
KEYES: We are...
ACKERMAN: ... And, unfortunately, there are tragedies that happen.
KEYES: Gentlemen, stay right here.
ACKERMAN: But that's not deliberately targeting innocent people.
KEYES: Both of you stay right there. Stay right there. We are going to continue this conversation in our next segment, obviously very interesting.
We are going to talk more with our guests about the congressional resolution passed in support of Israel, and about the criticisms of the even-handed policy that were made up on the Hill, and about whether or not such a policy actually stands the test of common sense scrutiny. We'll be right back after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: There has been an awfully high number of anti-Semitic incidents in Europe in the past few months, attacks of vandalism on Jewish buildings, attacks against the Jewish people, rallies reminiscent of Hitler's Germany, governments that have taken clearly anti-Israel stances, which begs the question, does Europe still hate the Jews? We'll debate that in our next half hour.
A reminder, too, that the chat room is sizzling tonight. And you can join in at chat.msnbc.com.
But now, let's get back to our discussion with Congressman Dana Rohrabacher and Congressman Gary Ackerman of New York. In the beginning, there were reports that the White House was not happy with the resolution passed in the Congress. But today, Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer was diplomatic with the press.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: The president also knows that Congress is cognizant of the fact that no foreign policy can have 535 different secretaries of state. So, non-binding resolutions are precisely non-binding and resolutions because they neither require the veto or the approval of the president of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Now, of course, that does beg the fact that they can be a clear expression of what appears to be an overwhelming sentiment in the Congress of the United States, with which the administration has to work if it's going to implement any policy here at home or abroad.
Let's look at some of the language of the House resolution. Originally, it said that the House would “condemn the ongoing support and coordination of terror by Yasser Arafat and other members of the Palestinian leadership.” But the White House objected to the term “coordination.” And the House agreed to strike it.
Here is some of what was said today on the House floor.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These are not men who will lead to peace, neither of them. The United States must stand tall as a powerful and honest broker of a balanced plan for peace. And I believe that President Bush and Secretary of State Powell have made a strong and credible effort to bring an end to the violence and to begin a negotiated peace.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Now, Dana Rohrabacher, I want to address my first question back to you as we proceed with this because we're watching a debate, we're talking about even-handedness. You have come forward and basically said, well, the Israelis are committing terrorism. Well, I have found and seen no credible evidence of this whatsoever.
ROHRABACHER: Both sides. I said both sides, both sides.
KEYES: Let me finish, sir.
ROHRABACHER: Not just the Israelis, both sides.
(CROSSTALK)
ROHRABACHER: The Palestinians are committing terrorism, no doubt.
KEYES: Dana, the fact that you tell the truth about one side doesn't justify you in lying about the other side, OK? Even-handedness of that kind begs the issue of integrity. So, let me ask a question.
I have looked — Yasser Arafat was sitting there in his so-called retreat with people who were accused of being involved in the assassination of an Israeli cabinet member, who had been involved in bringing weapons used in this terroristic assault into the West Bank, where he had supposedly agreed they weren't going to be. And sitting in the midst of those people who clearly were involved in the coordination of terrorism, you are then going say that the Bush administration is justified in saying that Arafat did not and that his Palestinian Authority did not coordinate these attacks?
ROHRABACHER: I'm trying to tell you that to the degree that the Palestinians have done these things, I would agree with your analysis on that the Palestinians have done terrible things. And we should condemn it. But let's not ignore that Sharon assassinated members of Yasser Arafat's team. Palestinian leaders who were more moderate ended up being shot by the Israelis. And there are...
(CROSSTALK)
ROHRABACHER: Alan, one minute. Alan, let me say one thing here. Will you let me finish, Alan? Will you let me finish my statement for one second here? Let me say one thing, Alan, please.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Yes, please, go ahead.
ROHRABACHER: Let me finish one thing, please, please.
KEYES: I'm not stopping you. Go ahead.
ROHRABACHER: There are piles of bodies in the Middle East of noncombatants. There are Israeli bodies. There are Palestinian bodies. It is horrendous crime against humanity that innocent people are being killed.
We should not just simply look and ignore the Palestinian bodies of those noncombatants. We have got to reach out to the good hearted people on both sides and forget the Sharons and the Arafats and try to find peace.
Just not acknowledging that the Israelis have ever killed any noncombatants is not going to make it any better. This resolution today did nothing but say to the Israelis, you're faultless.
KEYES: Congressman, I'm going to exercise my patience because I know Congressman Ackerman wants to speak out. Congressman, come ahead.
ACKERMAN: Yes, I think that whole notion is ridiculous. What this is, is you have one side committing atrocities against humanity, acts of terror against targeted civilian populations. When the Palestinian side was complaining about what Mr. Sharon and the Israelis were doing, they were complaining about targeted assassinations, pinpoint surgical-like activities to take out known killers who had killed civilians, and doing that with as few people who are innocent being involved. That's what we are trying to do in Afghanistan.
ROHRABACHER: Exactly.
ACKERMAN: During war, crap happens. That's the reality of it. And it's too darned bad that innocent civilians are getting killed. On the Palestinian side, their leadership has no vision, has no dream.
And we have taken on to this romanticized notion that, like Pygmalion, we could take an Arab Che Guevara and turn him into a Palestinian Nelson Mandela. It doesn't work. The man has blood dripping from his hands. And the Israelis have a right to defend themselves.
KEYES: Before we get back to that, though, really, Gary — I'm sorry, Dana — I have to think here for a minute about what you just said because I think that the implications of the argument you're making are devastating for our own conscience as we pursue the war against terror.
One of the things we are going to have to do is target terrorists before they strike the United States. We're going to have to find them. And when they're moving against us, before they kill our people, we're going have to send folks out to kill them. And that means targeted actions against terrorists before they take American lives.
ROHRABACHER: Sure. Sure.
KEYES: Now, if you're sitting here and you're going to say when the Israelis do what is necessary in that regard against terrorists, that's a terrible crime and that's some terrorist action, then you have set the stage for the application of the same concept to our own necessities. You are preparing a ground that we won't be able to stand on if we're going to defend ourselves successfully.
And that's precisely what bothers me about this muddled mess that is being created by the Bush administration's approach here. Even-handedness leads to such deep moral confusion that we won't even know how to judge other own actions when it's necessary to take them based on the criteria you're creating, which ignores the fundamental difference between terrorism and non-terrorism, which is the conscious targeting of innocent life for political purposes.
Show me the proof that the Israelis have done such a thing. Where is it?
ROHRABACHER: Alan, let me just say, if you will let me have one second to actually say something here, and that is that, yes, I believe that times, especially under the leadership of people like Sharon and others, that Israel has intentionally targeted civilians in order to achieve their ends. And I'm saying...
ACKERMAN: That borders on libel.
(CROSSTALK)
ACKERMAN: ... borders on libelous. There's not a scintilla of evidence or proof...
ROHRABACHER: ... libelous.
ACKERMAN: ... that Sharon or the Israelis have deliberately targeted one single innocent civilian life.
ROHRABACHER: All right. I don't believe the American people believe that. I don't believe that. I have looked — I have searched my heart on this. I cannot believe that all of this just happened and that they have had so many civilian casualties over here on one side...
(CROSSTALK)
ACKERMAN: ... civilians in Afghanistan, Dana.
ROHRABACHER: By the way, let me answer Alan's specific charge, which is I'm not differentiating so we can have a war on terrorism. In the Middle East, we have two groups, the Palestinians and the Israelis, who have a legitimate dispute. There are people who are on both sides of that issue in terms of who owns the land, who should be in control of what area, etcetera. You have two groups of people who are in a conflict.
This is not a situation where the al Qaeda is just attacking the United States. We're not in a land dispute with the Afghans or the al Qaeda network. But if we're going to find an end to that dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians, we have got to reach out to both sides and try to find a compromise so that the fighting can stop.
KEYES: Dana...
(CROSSTALK)
ACKERMAN: Maybe somebody should reach out to the United States.
KEYES: Congressman, one minute here, because what was just said here, I think, is outrageously objectionable, outrageously objectionable. We are now in a position where Mr. Rohrabacher, Congressman Rohrabacher, wants us to believe that depending on what your cause is we should disregard your terrorism.
ROHRABACHER: No, I think both sides have committed terrorism.
KEYES: Excuse me, sir, can I finish? You just said this minute that because there's a land dispute and because it's longstanding and all of this that somehow or another the nature of the cause, the nature of the difference between them, justifies or somehow...
ROHRABACHER: Never did I say that...
(CROSSTALK)
ROHRABACHER: Never did I say that.
KEYES: Don't you remember...
ROHRABACHER: Never did I say that.
(CROSSTALK)
ROHRABACHER: Both sides have committed terrorism.
KEYES: Don't you remember, sir, that Osama bin Laden specifically put his act of terrorism in the context of the Middle East, in the context of our support of Israelis and the killing of Arabs, in the context, therefore, of what you have just said to be some kind of legitimate dispute? If the nature of the dispute justifies terrorism, then we're not engaged in a moral crusade at all.
ROHRABACHER: I never said it justifies. You're making that up. I never said that justifies terrorism.
ACKERMAN: Alan...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: The whole audience just heard you. But go ahead.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Congressman Ackerman, go ahead.
ACKERMAN: In a civilized world, there's absolutely no justification, no matter what your grievance, for the wanton destruction of innocent civilian lives on a wholesale basis.
ROHRABACHER: Absolutely.
ACKERMAN: And that's what the Palestinians are doing. The Israelis, when people die at their hands, it's a whole different picture because they are responding to the acts of violence against them, much like we are doing, as we have a right to do.
And innocent people, unfortunately, are getting killed in Afghanistan. And we have an absolute right to find these vicious murderers before they act again to take innocent lives.
The Israelis have the same rights as do we. And to suggest otherwise is basically just changing the subject to muddy the waters, to make the victim look like the victimizer, and to equate the two.
You know, to treat a situation justly and come in as an honest broker doesn't mean that you have to treat both sides equally. There's no equality...
KEYES: Congressman, wait..
(CROSSTALK)
ACKERMAN: ... between the victim and the victimizer.
KEYES: Dana, you have about 15 seconds, one last word.
ROHRABACHER: OK, we have to be honest about this. And I have searched my heart. I know a lot of other people who have looked at this situation have come to the conclusion that there are bad people on both sides. We can't just say Israel is right no matter what it does, like this resolution did today.
We want to find a formula that will end the violence and the conflict between these two people. Violence, and especially terrorism, is never justified on either side.
KEYES: Thank you. I want to thank both of you.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: We have to go. But I want to thank both of you.
I have got to tell you, though, that my audience, I think, would have less of a difficult time accepting what Congressman Rohrabacher said if we hadn't just seen in the course of the last couple of days these outrageous lies coming from the propaganda mill of the Palestinians. There is no proof of what he has suggested about Israel. In the face of proof, we would all of us look at it, but it ain't there.
Next, does Europe hate the Jews? We'll debate that question.
You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
In the past two months, Europe has seen an alarming rise in anti-Jewish attacks.
In France alone, there were 360 crimes aimed at Jews in the first two weeks of April, including arson attacks at numerous synagogues and Jewish cemeteries. One mosque at Marseille was burned to the ground amid what French officials call the highest level of anti-Jewish violence since World War II. Swastikas and epithets were painted on graves, and bombs exploded at Jewish cemeteries throughout France, and there were violent attacks against members of a Jewish soccer team, and a Jewish sports center was also destroyed.
In England, 51 anti-Jewish attacks in the past month. Last weekend, destruction at a synagogue in London where attackers tore apart religious books and painted swastikas on the pulpit.
In Belgium, gunfire and arson attacks on synagogues and a Jewish bookstore burned.
In Germany, protesters dressed children as suicide bombers in anti-Israel rallies. Marchers shouted, “Jewish pigs,” and “Seig Heil,” and attacks against Jews, a Jewish cemetery, and a synagogue were reported.
And protests in the Netherlands and Italy and constant comparisons of Israeli tactics in the West Bank to the actions of the Nazis in World War II.
Obviously, a lot of ferment in Europe, reminding us some of the ugly sentiments that did in the course in recent history of Europe then lead to the worst episodes of inhumanity that the world has ever seen.
Europe operates now under the burden of that very fresh and recent history, and it, therefore, forces us to raise the question whether this hatred is still abroad, still influencing hearts, still influencing policies in the European sphere.
To talk about that, we have Christopher Hitchens, contributing editor to “Vanity Fair” magazine. And also joining us, Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Weisenthal Center.
Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE, and I appreciate your joining us this evening. I want to start with Rabbi Cooper.
We look at this situation. What do you make of what appears to be the rising tide of anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish actions in Europe? Does it reflect something deep in European culture, or are we seeing something that's more incidental just to the events in the Middle East?
RABBI ABRAHAM COOPER, SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER: Well, I think the primary cause of what's going on right now has to be linked to the Middle East situation. It started back in October, 2000, and we're now over 450 incidents across Europe, the majority still in France.
And who's committing these crimes? Your young Arabs, young Muslims who are generally going to small mosques led by imans that have al Qaeda views. So, although the historic backdrop, of course, takes you back to the holocaust, you have neo-Nazis and extremist parties across Europe. In terms of who's actually committing the violence right now, it comes primarily from the young immigrants who are turned on to the violence by these imans.
And, frankly, the problem that we have fundamentally is that French authorities — and, to a lesser extent, in Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands — basically don't want to deal with the fact that they have this new type of anti-Semitism in their societies, and, because of their own Middle East policies, concerns over oil — and some anti-Semitism — you have a terribly volatile combination.
KEYES: Well, one of the things that disturbs me, Rabbi, is that evils were committed in Europe in the last century, and, if you wanted to go back and look at the numbers and so forth and so on, they were probably committed by folks who were a minority of the European populations, but that they went forward and eventually reached their terrible levels of intensity — doesn't that have a lot to do with people sitting on their hands on the sidelines and not engaging in the kind of reaction of outrage that would help to protect people from this kind of violence? Isn't that part of the cultural problem in Europe?
COOPER: It is part of the cultural problem, but it's not the primary issue. European leaders are all too happy to stand for a moment of silence for dead Jews. They're not showing a heck of a lot of concern for the live ones, and I think, in that sense, it does have an impact.
But, at this point, it would be a mistake to say that the outbursts of this hate, the violence is due primarily to the classic European-Christian anti-Semitism. There are elements of that in the mix.
But the real problem is that Europeans, the European Union, the leadership, does not want to deal with the fact they have a new form of anti-Semitism, of hatred of Jews that has a direct link to their oil concerns and to their own foreign policy in the Middle East.
Do I feel they have a moral obligation to be more sensitive to this issue because the holocaust took place in this area? Of course. But to say that it's the same phenomena would be a mistake.
KEYES: Christopher Hitchens, as we look at this phenomenon, I — one has to think about its political implications in terms both of how it might influence policy, but also of how the position of Europe right now, in terms of the Middle East, in terms of oil, in terms of the demographics, may paralyze it in an ability to address the reemergence of these ugly sentiments in a new form.
Do you think that that is, in fact, going to be true? Is this complex situation going to create a kind of paralysis in understanding and dealing with this phenomena?
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, “VANITY FAIR”: Well, if I may just reel back to the question you opened with because it's a necessary preface, as we all seem to agree, the principal culprits in this outbreak of disgusting vandalism are young, uneducated, resentful Arab youths who are taking the most nasty way they cay find to express anti-Israelism, anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism.
But the classical fascist parties in Europe — just let me clarify this for anyone who might be curious — people like Mr. LePen in France or Mr. Haider in Austria, the old reich, the old Nazi times, Vichy types, would, of course, deport those Arabs if they could and, indeed, demand that this be done.
So I think you can see right there that there's an enormous difference between the two phenomena.
And I think it would also show or help to show that the insinuation made — I hope it was only a slip — by the rabbi just now is absolutely disgraceful. I mean, of course it is not true that someone like Tony Blair tells his police, “Let them burn the synagogues so we can get Arab oil.” No such calculation does exist and could exist or would make any sense. It's a hateful thing to say, and I hope that, before we're through, it will be retracted or amended.
KEYES: Well, I will give the rabbi a chance to respond, but, before we go on, I do want, Christopher, to look, though, at the policy implications of this because we're engaging in talks with the Europeans, they appear to be embarking on a road that would maybe have them more involved in some peace efforts in the Middle East.
Looking at their actual situation, is it possible, in fact, to trust that the Europeans could at this stage pursue policies that were, in effect, fair to Israel, given the pressures they're under?
HITCHENS: Well, look, if you want to know what the political class in much of Europe and the European Union thinks — and I would dare anybody to accuse any of these people of harboring or expressing or protecting any anti-Jewish prejudice — you find the following situation.
Since the Oslo accords, European money, to the sum of many millions, went to build infrastructure in the proposed Palestinian state, a port in Gaza, for example, many buildings of an administrative kind, what we would simply call the bureaucratic infrastructure of the Palestinian state.
These — all this European investment has been blown up by General Sharon. Of course, there are people who are very angry about that, but not one of them would think of going to harm a synagogue or a Jew, and it's quite wrong — entirely wrong to confuse the appalling sufferings of the Palestinians, the attempt by Europe to be a better broker than the United States because it does believe in a two-state solution, with any outbreak of fascist either from Islamic thugs or from the old reich, the old enemy, the old ghosts of European Nazism.
COOPER: Alan, let me make two points.
Number one, Archbishop of Canterbury and other prominent people in England have spoken out publicly and have actually also tried to work to bring some dialogue between the different communities. The main focus of our concerns, despite the incidents in the United Kingdom and the attack on the London synagogue yesterday, are really in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Denmark.
Now I sat with the minister of interior, Mr. Vaillant, for an hour and a half in his office a few weeks ago, and he was prepared — he had his prepared speech attacking LePen, expressing his concerns about the general hate on the Internet, but, when we wanted to focus on the facts on the ground, it was very that the elite in France, the ruling class starting from the top, had made a decision...
KEYES: Well...
COOPER: ... that they did not want to identify this as anti-Jewish or anti-Semitism attacks.
KEYES: We will — we are going to return with more from our guests in just a minute.
And later, I'll share with you my outrage of the day, obviously raised by the fact that the notorious child abuser up in Boston has been arrested.
But, first, does this make sense?
Apparently, vanity got the better of a man in Covington, Kentucky. His personalized license plate — it said, “Shegog.” It was his last name.
Well, he decides to go out and commit crime, right? He robbed the — a gas station driving the vehicle that had this license plate on it. Now license plates are easy enough to trace anyway, but, when a witness told the police that the getaway was a dark vehicle with the name Shegog on it, well, they had a lot of trouble tracking him down, I bet.
Did that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: We're talking about European anti-Semitism with Rabbi Abraham Cooper and Christopher Hitchens of “Vanity Fair.”
Christopher, if I may start with you, if we look at these incidents that have occurred in Europe, we know that there are Islamic schools, extremist religious figures funded with Saudi money and other money who have been inculcating a deep hatred of the Jewish people, of Israel.
It's not as if these incidents are just impulsive actions. They come from a deeply rooted culture of hate that is being carefully constructed and perpetuated in different parts of the world. Can you deal with the incidents if you're not willing to address the issue of that culture of hate?
HITCHENS: No, indeed, you cannot. I mean, for example, it's become very clear from watching the demonstrations of young Arab hooligans in Paris that one of the things they most object the decision taken by the French republic, a matter of two or three years ago now, to forbid the wearing of religious garb in school.
That's one of their grievances. It's one of the things they got started on. They want to Islamize their slums and their surroundings as much as they can, and they do, indeed, have help, by the way, from our gallant ally, Saudi Arabia, in building these madrasses and preaching this kind of thing.
That's also, by the way, what distinguishes it from the classical anti-Semitic form and what makes my earlier point very important, if I just may say this. The French republic — the revolutionary France at its founding made two great decisions in the 1790s: to abolish slavery in the French empire and to be the first European country to lift all civil and legal disabilities against the Jewish people.
It was also later on the site of the Dreyfus case where a country split in favor of justice for one Jew, against the church, against public opinion, against the army. The whole prestige of the Republic of France is involved in the protection of its Jewish people.
It is outrageous to suggest that, for anything so cheap as what's been suggested by the rabbi, that they would sell that out, and there's no reason to think that they are. The challenge is the same one...
COOPER: Christopher, with respect...
HITCHENS: ... that the whole world faces.
COOPER: With respect...
KEYES: Rabbi, go ahead.
COOPER: With respect, Christopher — and I do respect your views — unfortunately, right now, insofar as France is concerned, the French government, until now, you're dead wrong, and they've been very explicit about the moves they have not made in order to deal with the root causes of this unique phenomenon, and, as a result, the French jury...
HITCHENS: What are the causes?
COOPER: ... does not feel — the root causes are the — is the anger whipped up by the al Qaeda-type imans of young, angry, underemployed Muslim and Arab youths.
KEYES: But, Rabbi...
(CROSSTALK)
HITCHENS: ... disagree on that point.
COOPER: And I might add one other thing if I can.
KEYES: I have a question, though.
COOPER: With respect, if I can, I think it's important for all...
KEYES: Let me — wait a minute. Let me put this question — Rabbi, let me put this question on the table. It's very important because, in addition to what you're talking about, though, we have European policies that refuse to be outright in their approach to terrorism among the Palestinians where the inculcation of this kind of hatred is directly connected with the policies that are being pursued. Doesn't that stance of European governments actually seem to justify the culture of hatred that...
HITCHENS: Is that for me or for you?
KEYES: ... are there. That's for Rabbi Cooper.
COOPER: That point...
HITCHENS: That's a pity. It should be for me.
COOPER: That point that we have been trying to make to the European governments, to the council of Europe, is “Don't hold your native Jewish population hostage to the Middle East developments or to your policies. You have a responsibility, as Christopher just explained, a historic one that you should be proud of, of protecting minority rights and western Europe's largest Jewish community which has thrived until now since World War II.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: I would just make one other comment.
KEYES: We're at the end of our time. We're at the end of our time. We have to go. We have to go. We're at the end of our time. I'm very sorry. We're, obviously, just at the beginning of what's going to be an ongoing discussion because of the role that the Europeans are playing in the Middle East discussions among other things.
Thank you both for coming.
Next, my outrage of the day. Father Shanley arrested finally for his travesties. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Reverend Shanley, the Roman Catholic priest who was accused of numerous acts of child molestation, was arrested today.
Officials allege that Shanley raped the victim of the particular case for which he was arrested, between 1983 and 1990 in the confessional, in the bathroom, in CCD classes. It was a regular and terrible event.
I think what is clear about this is that these kinds of things and the details that come out which shock and outrage the conscious are going to do deep damage to the Catholic church, not just to the Archdiocese of Boston, as long as Bernard Law remains in place.
That's my sense of it.
Thanks. “THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS” is up next. See you Monday.
No Capitol in the background tonight. No, the actual real Capitol is gone because I'm in New York City. I actually gave the first speech that I have given in New York City since September 11th and the first time I have actually been in the city since that time.
Up front tonight, I actually thought we might not start with the Middle East this evening. But then I saw the footage of Yasser Arafat as he left his lair, and he was spewing such venom in various directions that I could not resist the temptation to talk about it, I have got to tell you. Listen to what he said today about the Israeli occupation of the West Bank.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
YASSER ARAFAT, HEAD OF PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I look to this as an attempt from racists and Nazis who commit these crimes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Now, I guess you have to be pretty mad. You're going to allude to the Israelis, who represent that group of people who are most deeply and savagely destroyed by the Nazi regime. You're calling them Nazis and racists and all of this.
But the affront doesn't even stop there. Here is what he said about the siege of Bethlehem at the Church of the Nativity. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARAFAT: I am asking you to ask the whole international world. This is a holy sacred place, not only for the Christians, but for the Christians and for the Muslims.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Now, I have got to tell you, my friends, I listened to that. He is getting upset. What's he upset about? He's upset about what is happening at the Church of the Nativity.
And he is saying, “The Israelis are criminals. This is a mess at the church.” Excuse me? It was armed Palestinian forces who rushed into the Church of the Nativity and at gunpoint took the place over and are now using it as a shield for themselves because they refuse to give themselves up to the Israelis, refuse to give up their weapons so the place won't get shot up.
And yet that is supposed to be all somebody else's fault. Sure. And we should believe that it's on the up and up with Yasser Arafat.
We talked yesterday about what I think is the deeply damaged credibility of the Palestinians, especially on this issue of Jenin and massacres and whether all of this fulmination about Israeli war crimes and Nazism and all of this stuff is justified.
Today, I was looking at some footage that was shot by the Israeli Defense Forces and that came to MSNBC. It starts out — it's what looks to be a Palestinian funeral. But then you look closely, and the marchers, the people who are carrying it, stumble, and the so-called body falls. And it falls off the stretcher. And lo and behold, it gets up and walks away. That's pretty good.
So, here you had a funeral. And if you're one of the people who say, “Well, what I saw makes me think a terrible massacre took place.” Well, if that is one of the things you saw, evidence of Palestinians who died in the terrible massacre, well, it might lead you to believe somebody is lying to you, that somebody is staging the thing in order to make you believe something took place that actually hadn't taken place.
Oh, of course, Alan you don't think the Palestinians — how could you dare to suggest that folk who are willing to send their children out to blow up innocent folks and who would sacrifice every shred of conscience and decency in order to direct the lives of the young to take the lives of the innocent would think to do such a thing. That just totally defies common sense that I would even be willing to entertain the evidence before my own eyes.
As some Palestinian spokesmen who have come on the show seem to think I should do, I should rather believe them than believe the evidence of my own eyes. Well, I guess I'm a little different in that regard from the Bush administration and its even-handed approach that wants to equate the terrorists, the folks who are more than bending the truth in their war of propaganda and slander, with those who are their victims and the target of their campaign of destruction.
I find it hard to do. And guess what? So does the Congress of the United States.
Here at home, both houses of Congress took an official stand in support of Israel. The Senate voted 94-to-two for their non-binding resolution of support. Democrats Byrd of West Virginia and Hollings of South Carolina voted nay.
On the House side, the final vote was aye 352, nays 21. Seventeen Democrats voted no, four Republicans. Only four Republicans voted on. Now, remember, the administration taking an even-handed approach and Congress rejecting that approach in favor of one that affirms America's support for Israel in its fight against this terroristic regime.
Joining us now, two members of the House Committee on International Relations, Congressman Gary Ackerman of New York, who supported the House resolution to stand by Israel, and Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California, who voted against the resolution because he supports the Bush administration's role in the Middle East. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R), CALIFORNIA: Thank you.
REP. GARY ACKERMAN (D), NEW YORK: Thank you.
KEYES: Dana, I want to start with you this evening because I know you know how I feel. I have watched the evolution of the administration's policy and the adoption under pressure of the Saudis of this supposedly even-handed approach. Since we have declared war on terror and those who use the instruments of terror as policy to get what they want in the world, to influence negotiations, how can we be even-handed in a choice between a Palestinian side that has openly, shamelessly, even proudly implemented a terroristic strategy, and an Israeli side that has been victimized by that?
Why did you stand apart from your colleagues in the Congress? It seems to me that in standing apart from this even-handedness, they're just making sense.
ROHRABACHER: Most of the member of Congress that I talked to told me that that resolution would have gone down overwhelmingly had that been a secret vote. Most people understood the president wants to try to bring both sides together in the Middle East. They're trying their hardest to reach people of goodwill on both sides. And resolutions like this at this time undercut the peace process.
So, first, let me just say, obviously, our hearts go out to anyone whose family was killed, whether they're Israelis or they're Palestinians, if their family was killed by some military person on one side or the other. But we have to recognize, there are people on both sides, noncombatants on both sides, that have lost family members. And there's so many hatred there now. We have got to make sure that we reach out to those people and overcome that hatred.
KEYES: Dana, Dana, I have to stop you for a second. I have to stop you.
ROHRABACHER: Yes?
KEYES: Our war on terrorism can't possibly mean anything or be justified if we don't make a distinction between civilian casualties that occur in the course of warfare and innocent civilians who die as a result of a conscious, targeted effort to kill them...
ROHRABACHER: I agree.
KEYES: ... in order to achieve one's political goal. One is war. The other is terrorism.
Are you denying that when that gunman went into the house over the weekend and shot that 5-year-old girl consciously and in cold blood, he wasn't waging war, he was committing an act of terrorism? There's a difference, isn't there?
ROHRABACHER: There's obviously a difference, Alan. I'm just trying to tell you that there's been acts of terrorism committed against the Palestinian people as well. You have got people on both sides that have been willing to kill noncombatants in order to get their way. The United States should not be siding with one side but trying to pull the good people on both sides together. That's what President Bush is trying to do. That's what the secretary of state is trying to do.
KEYES: You're telling me that, as we have seen not only openly done but openly applauded, openly supported, openly celebrated acts in which people are consciously targeting the innocent, not stray bullets, not somebody who didn't know you were in the building and I bulldozed it, not you got caught in the crossfire, but a conscious targeting of an innocent life, you are telling me that you have got evidence to show me that the Israelis have been guilty of that conscious destruction of human life, innocent human life, as a chosen policy, not as some byproduct of a terrible and intense battle? Where is it, Dana? Show it to me.
ROHRABACHER: First of all, let me answer you by saying that I believe Sharon and Arafat are cut out of the same cloth. They're both willing to kill noncombatants and have approved it in the past in order to achieve their ends, which is terrorizing the opposition.
In terms of what evidence do I have? It's been long Israeli policy that, especially during the occupation of Lebanon, that when one of their soldiers was shot, the retaliation was swift. And that is the indiscriminate shelling of refugee camps.
Now, who are in those refugee camps? You can say, oh, there are some terrorists in there. That does not excuse the killing of women and children in those refugee camps.
KEYES: So, the bombing that we did against Yugoslavia, which our people said was aimed at breaking the will of their population so they would overthrow Milosevic, you stood against that as terrorism at the time, right?
ROHRABACHER: I just don't think there...
KEYES: Because you just described something that at the very worst it's similar to that.
ROHRABACHER: No, it's not even similar, Alan. You're wrong.
(CROSSTALK)
ROHRABACHER: Well, you're wrong.
KEYES: You want to know something, Dana? I did stand up and call that kind of bombing terrorism. I don't remember you at my side.
ROHRABACHER: Alan, Alan, Alan...
KEYES: I know terrorism when I see it.
ROHRABACHER: To the degree...
KEYES: And I think that without proof, to be bringing this kind of a charge...
(CROSSTALK)
ROHRABACHER: Alan, there's lots of proof. This was standard operating procedure of the Israeli army for years of occupation.
KEYES: Let me go to Congressman Ackerman...
ROHRABACHER: That's...
KEYES: ... Congressman Ackerman, this is what I'm afraid we're facing. I must confess, Dana, I didn't expect it because I have been listening to it from the Palestinian spokesman for the longest time. But Congressman Ackerman, I don't understand...
ACKERMAN: Alan, welcome...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... I don't see how we're justified in making this.
ACKERMAN: Welcome back to New York.
KEYES: Thank you.
ACKERMAN: First, let me say I'm shocked to hear somebody who is usually as level-headed as Dana saying that the vote in the House, according to the people with whom he spoke and after they took the vote, would have voted differently if it was a secret vote. They only voted this way because the vote was free, fair, open and democratic and in open public.
That's the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard about the Congress of the United States. And I've heard a whole bunch of tales.
The way you know how people feel is the way they vote openly. There were a number of people who abstained, who didn't want their opinion to be on the record. And they voted that way, too.
But the record is clear. The Congress of the United States has voted strongly and affirmatively to support our democratic friend in the region, Israel. When terrorism is on the march, it is the obligation of democratic countries to stick together and to support each other. And that's what the Congress did here openly and in full view of the public.
KEYES: See, what I don't understand, too, Congressman Ackerman, is I look at this situation, and the equation seems to me to be one that is ultimately going to destroy public confidence and clarity about our own war on terrorism. After all, if people who commit the kinds of acts we've been seeing in the Middle East are not terrorists but are just part of some political negotiation, how do we know a terrorist when we see one then?
ACKERMAN: Well, I think you point out something that is very accurate and appropriate. You know, the word hypocrisy sort of jumps out at you when you say that the right thing to do in response to terrorism is what we did, to come back as strong as you can, to target the people that are responsible, to limit civilian casualties to a smaller number as you can. And then to say to the Israelis, who have suffered terrorism every single day for the past 19 months during this horrible intifada, that it's OK for us to do that but they must respond differently, they must sit down, and they should discuss the legitimate grievances based on the fact that they're attacked.
When you're attacked, you fight back. If the Palestinians don't like getting hit back, they shouldn't hit. The people from al Qaeda have no right to complain. The Germans, the Japanese after attacking us in World War II, had no grievance when we attacked them back as strongly as we could. That's the difference between an aggressor and somebody who is playing defense.
KEYES: But one thing would I want to ask, Dana, I've had folks on from the Israeli side. And they have been faced with this question. And one point they made does strike me as very powerful.
They have the wherewithal to simply from the air, as we have been wanting to do in a couple of instances recently, take out their enemies without the risk to their ground forces and so forth. Instead, in this instance, they chose painstaking house-to-house battles, intense battles that were highly costly to them in Jenin, Ramallah, and so forth and so on. Why would a government that is supposedly ready in a bloodthirsty way consciously to target the innocent take such pains to avoid civilian casualties?
ROHRABACHER: Well, I will have to say that I think honest people trying to look at what has happened will have to say there's been horrendous acts of terrorism by the Palestinians on the Israelis. But we must acknowledge that the Israelis have committed some acts of slaughtering of innocent people on the other side as well.
If we don't admit that, we are never going to be able to be peacemakers in the Middle East. The president wants to try to reach out to create peace. If we just ignore those facts...
ACKERMAN: Dana, Dana...
ROHRABACHER: ... and say the Israelis can do no wrong, we're not going to be able to bring peace to that region.
ACKERMAN: It's not a matter of the Israelis can do no wrong. I haven't seen the case where an Israeli went into a Palestinian delicatessen and blew himself up. I've not seen the case of an Israeli going into a Palestinian school and blowing up innocent children and looking for them to be on targets.
ROHRABACHER: There's been atrocities on both sides. There have been atrocities on both sides.
ACKERMAN: No, no, there are tragedies on both sides. They're not atrocities. The Israelis are responding...
KEYES: We are...
ACKERMAN: ... And, unfortunately, there are tragedies that happen.
KEYES: Gentlemen, stay right here.
ACKERMAN: But that's not deliberately targeting innocent people.
KEYES: Both of you stay right there. Stay right there. We are going to continue this conversation in our next segment, obviously very interesting.
We are going to talk more with our guests about the congressional resolution passed in support of Israel, and about the criticisms of the even-handed policy that were made up on the Hill, and about whether or not such a policy actually stands the test of common sense scrutiny. We'll be right back after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: There has been an awfully high number of anti-Semitic incidents in Europe in the past few months, attacks of vandalism on Jewish buildings, attacks against the Jewish people, rallies reminiscent of Hitler's Germany, governments that have taken clearly anti-Israel stances, which begs the question, does Europe still hate the Jews? We'll debate that in our next half hour.
A reminder, too, that the chat room is sizzling tonight. And you can join in at chat.msnbc.com.
But now, let's get back to our discussion with Congressman Dana Rohrabacher and Congressman Gary Ackerman of New York. In the beginning, there were reports that the White House was not happy with the resolution passed in the Congress. But today, Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer was diplomatic with the press.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: The president also knows that Congress is cognizant of the fact that no foreign policy can have 535 different secretaries of state. So, non-binding resolutions are precisely non-binding and resolutions because they neither require the veto or the approval of the president of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Now, of course, that does beg the fact that they can be a clear expression of what appears to be an overwhelming sentiment in the Congress of the United States, with which the administration has to work if it's going to implement any policy here at home or abroad.
Let's look at some of the language of the House resolution. Originally, it said that the House would “condemn the ongoing support and coordination of terror by Yasser Arafat and other members of the Palestinian leadership.” But the White House objected to the term “coordination.” And the House agreed to strike it.
Here is some of what was said today on the House floor.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These are not men who will lead to peace, neither of them. The United States must stand tall as a powerful and honest broker of a balanced plan for peace. And I believe that President Bush and Secretary of State Powell have made a strong and credible effort to bring an end to the violence and to begin a negotiated peace.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Now, Dana Rohrabacher, I want to address my first question back to you as we proceed with this because we're watching a debate, we're talking about even-handedness. You have come forward and basically said, well, the Israelis are committing terrorism. Well, I have found and seen no credible evidence of this whatsoever.
ROHRABACHER: Both sides. I said both sides, both sides.
KEYES: Let me finish, sir.
ROHRABACHER: Not just the Israelis, both sides.
(CROSSTALK)
ROHRABACHER: The Palestinians are committing terrorism, no doubt.
KEYES: Dana, the fact that you tell the truth about one side doesn't justify you in lying about the other side, OK? Even-handedness of that kind begs the issue of integrity. So, let me ask a question.
I have looked — Yasser Arafat was sitting there in his so-called retreat with people who were accused of being involved in the assassination of an Israeli cabinet member, who had been involved in bringing weapons used in this terroristic assault into the West Bank, where he had supposedly agreed they weren't going to be. And sitting in the midst of those people who clearly were involved in the coordination of terrorism, you are then going say that the Bush administration is justified in saying that Arafat did not and that his Palestinian Authority did not coordinate these attacks?
ROHRABACHER: I'm trying to tell you that to the degree that the Palestinians have done these things, I would agree with your analysis on that the Palestinians have done terrible things. And we should condemn it. But let's not ignore that Sharon assassinated members of Yasser Arafat's team. Palestinian leaders who were more moderate ended up being shot by the Israelis. And there are...
(CROSSTALK)
ROHRABACHER: Alan, one minute. Alan, let me say one thing here. Will you let me finish, Alan? Will you let me finish my statement for one second here? Let me say one thing, Alan, please.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Yes, please, go ahead.
ROHRABACHER: Let me finish one thing, please, please.
KEYES: I'm not stopping you. Go ahead.
ROHRABACHER: There are piles of bodies in the Middle East of noncombatants. There are Israeli bodies. There are Palestinian bodies. It is horrendous crime against humanity that innocent people are being killed.
We should not just simply look and ignore the Palestinian bodies of those noncombatants. We have got to reach out to the good hearted people on both sides and forget the Sharons and the Arafats and try to find peace.
Just not acknowledging that the Israelis have ever killed any noncombatants is not going to make it any better. This resolution today did nothing but say to the Israelis, you're faultless.
KEYES: Congressman, I'm going to exercise my patience because I know Congressman Ackerman wants to speak out. Congressman, come ahead.
ACKERMAN: Yes, I think that whole notion is ridiculous. What this is, is you have one side committing atrocities against humanity, acts of terror against targeted civilian populations. When the Palestinian side was complaining about what Mr. Sharon and the Israelis were doing, they were complaining about targeted assassinations, pinpoint surgical-like activities to take out known killers who had killed civilians, and doing that with as few people who are innocent being involved. That's what we are trying to do in Afghanistan.
ROHRABACHER: Exactly.
ACKERMAN: During war, crap happens. That's the reality of it. And it's too darned bad that innocent civilians are getting killed. On the Palestinian side, their leadership has no vision, has no dream.
And we have taken on to this romanticized notion that, like Pygmalion, we could take an Arab Che Guevara and turn him into a Palestinian Nelson Mandela. It doesn't work. The man has blood dripping from his hands. And the Israelis have a right to defend themselves.
KEYES: Before we get back to that, though, really, Gary — I'm sorry, Dana — I have to think here for a minute about what you just said because I think that the implications of the argument you're making are devastating for our own conscience as we pursue the war against terror.
One of the things we are going to have to do is target terrorists before they strike the United States. We're going to have to find them. And when they're moving against us, before they kill our people, we're going have to send folks out to kill them. And that means targeted actions against terrorists before they take American lives.
ROHRABACHER: Sure. Sure.
KEYES: Now, if you're sitting here and you're going to say when the Israelis do what is necessary in that regard against terrorists, that's a terrible crime and that's some terrorist action, then you have set the stage for the application of the same concept to our own necessities. You are preparing a ground that we won't be able to stand on if we're going to defend ourselves successfully.
And that's precisely what bothers me about this muddled mess that is being created by the Bush administration's approach here. Even-handedness leads to such deep moral confusion that we won't even know how to judge other own actions when it's necessary to take them based on the criteria you're creating, which ignores the fundamental difference between terrorism and non-terrorism, which is the conscious targeting of innocent life for political purposes.
Show me the proof that the Israelis have done such a thing. Where is it?
ROHRABACHER: Alan, let me just say, if you will let me have one second to actually say something here, and that is that, yes, I believe that times, especially under the leadership of people like Sharon and others, that Israel has intentionally targeted civilians in order to achieve their ends. And I'm saying...
ACKERMAN: That borders on libel.
(CROSSTALK)
ACKERMAN: ... borders on libelous. There's not a scintilla of evidence or proof...
ROHRABACHER: ... libelous.
ACKERMAN: ... that Sharon or the Israelis have deliberately targeted one single innocent civilian life.
ROHRABACHER: All right. I don't believe the American people believe that. I don't believe that. I have looked — I have searched my heart on this. I cannot believe that all of this just happened and that they have had so many civilian casualties over here on one side...
(CROSSTALK)
ACKERMAN: ... civilians in Afghanistan, Dana.
ROHRABACHER: By the way, let me answer Alan's specific charge, which is I'm not differentiating so we can have a war on terrorism. In the Middle East, we have two groups, the Palestinians and the Israelis, who have a legitimate dispute. There are people who are on both sides of that issue in terms of who owns the land, who should be in control of what area, etcetera. You have two groups of people who are in a conflict.
This is not a situation where the al Qaeda is just attacking the United States. We're not in a land dispute with the Afghans or the al Qaeda network. But if we're going to find an end to that dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians, we have got to reach out to both sides and try to find a compromise so that the fighting can stop.
KEYES: Dana...
(CROSSTALK)
ACKERMAN: Maybe somebody should reach out to the United States.
KEYES: Congressman, one minute here, because what was just said here, I think, is outrageously objectionable, outrageously objectionable. We are now in a position where Mr. Rohrabacher, Congressman Rohrabacher, wants us to believe that depending on what your cause is we should disregard your terrorism.
ROHRABACHER: No, I think both sides have committed terrorism.
KEYES: Excuse me, sir, can I finish? You just said this minute that because there's a land dispute and because it's longstanding and all of this that somehow or another the nature of the cause, the nature of the difference between them, justifies or somehow...
ROHRABACHER: Never did I say that...
(CROSSTALK)
ROHRABACHER: Never did I say that.
KEYES: Don't you remember...
ROHRABACHER: Never did I say that.
(CROSSTALK)
ROHRABACHER: Both sides have committed terrorism.
KEYES: Don't you remember, sir, that Osama bin Laden specifically put his act of terrorism in the context of the Middle East, in the context of our support of Israelis and the killing of Arabs, in the context, therefore, of what you have just said to be some kind of legitimate dispute? If the nature of the dispute justifies terrorism, then we're not engaged in a moral crusade at all.
ROHRABACHER: I never said it justifies. You're making that up. I never said that justifies terrorism.
ACKERMAN: Alan...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: The whole audience just heard you. But go ahead.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Congressman Ackerman, go ahead.
ACKERMAN: In a civilized world, there's absolutely no justification, no matter what your grievance, for the wanton destruction of innocent civilian lives on a wholesale basis.
ROHRABACHER: Absolutely.
ACKERMAN: And that's what the Palestinians are doing. The Israelis, when people die at their hands, it's a whole different picture because they are responding to the acts of violence against them, much like we are doing, as we have a right to do.
And innocent people, unfortunately, are getting killed in Afghanistan. And we have an absolute right to find these vicious murderers before they act again to take innocent lives.
The Israelis have the same rights as do we. And to suggest otherwise is basically just changing the subject to muddy the waters, to make the victim look like the victimizer, and to equate the two.
You know, to treat a situation justly and come in as an honest broker doesn't mean that you have to treat both sides equally. There's no equality...
KEYES: Congressman, wait..
(CROSSTALK)
ACKERMAN: ... between the victim and the victimizer.
KEYES: Dana, you have about 15 seconds, one last word.
ROHRABACHER: OK, we have to be honest about this. And I have searched my heart. I know a lot of other people who have looked at this situation have come to the conclusion that there are bad people on both sides. We can't just say Israel is right no matter what it does, like this resolution did today.
We want to find a formula that will end the violence and the conflict between these two people. Violence, and especially terrorism, is never justified on either side.
KEYES: Thank you. I want to thank both of you.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: We have to go. But I want to thank both of you.
I have got to tell you, though, that my audience, I think, would have less of a difficult time accepting what Congressman Rohrabacher said if we hadn't just seen in the course of the last couple of days these outrageous lies coming from the propaganda mill of the Palestinians. There is no proof of what he has suggested about Israel. In the face of proof, we would all of us look at it, but it ain't there.
Next, does Europe hate the Jews? We'll debate that question.
You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
In the past two months, Europe has seen an alarming rise in anti-Jewish attacks.
In France alone, there were 360 crimes aimed at Jews in the first two weeks of April, including arson attacks at numerous synagogues and Jewish cemeteries. One mosque at Marseille was burned to the ground amid what French officials call the highest level of anti-Jewish violence since World War II. Swastikas and epithets were painted on graves, and bombs exploded at Jewish cemeteries throughout France, and there were violent attacks against members of a Jewish soccer team, and a Jewish sports center was also destroyed.
In England, 51 anti-Jewish attacks in the past month. Last weekend, destruction at a synagogue in London where attackers tore apart religious books and painted swastikas on the pulpit.
In Belgium, gunfire and arson attacks on synagogues and a Jewish bookstore burned.
In Germany, protesters dressed children as suicide bombers in anti-Israel rallies. Marchers shouted, “Jewish pigs,” and “Seig Heil,” and attacks against Jews, a Jewish cemetery, and a synagogue were reported.
And protests in the Netherlands and Italy and constant comparisons of Israeli tactics in the West Bank to the actions of the Nazis in World War II.
Obviously, a lot of ferment in Europe, reminding us some of the ugly sentiments that did in the course in recent history of Europe then lead to the worst episodes of inhumanity that the world has ever seen.
Europe operates now under the burden of that very fresh and recent history, and it, therefore, forces us to raise the question whether this hatred is still abroad, still influencing hearts, still influencing policies in the European sphere.
To talk about that, we have Christopher Hitchens, contributing editor to “Vanity Fair” magazine. And also joining us, Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Weisenthal Center.
Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE, and I appreciate your joining us this evening. I want to start with Rabbi Cooper.
We look at this situation. What do you make of what appears to be the rising tide of anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish actions in Europe? Does it reflect something deep in European culture, or are we seeing something that's more incidental just to the events in the Middle East?
RABBI ABRAHAM COOPER, SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER: Well, I think the primary cause of what's going on right now has to be linked to the Middle East situation. It started back in October, 2000, and we're now over 450 incidents across Europe, the majority still in France.
And who's committing these crimes? Your young Arabs, young Muslims who are generally going to small mosques led by imans that have al Qaeda views. So, although the historic backdrop, of course, takes you back to the holocaust, you have neo-Nazis and extremist parties across Europe. In terms of who's actually committing the violence right now, it comes primarily from the young immigrants who are turned on to the violence by these imans.
And, frankly, the problem that we have fundamentally is that French authorities — and, to a lesser extent, in Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands — basically don't want to deal with the fact that they have this new type of anti-Semitism in their societies, and, because of their own Middle East policies, concerns over oil — and some anti-Semitism — you have a terribly volatile combination.
KEYES: Well, one of the things that disturbs me, Rabbi, is that evils were committed in Europe in the last century, and, if you wanted to go back and look at the numbers and so forth and so on, they were probably committed by folks who were a minority of the European populations, but that they went forward and eventually reached their terrible levels of intensity — doesn't that have a lot to do with people sitting on their hands on the sidelines and not engaging in the kind of reaction of outrage that would help to protect people from this kind of violence? Isn't that part of the cultural problem in Europe?
COOPER: It is part of the cultural problem, but it's not the primary issue. European leaders are all too happy to stand for a moment of silence for dead Jews. They're not showing a heck of a lot of concern for the live ones, and I think, in that sense, it does have an impact.
But, at this point, it would be a mistake to say that the outbursts of this hate, the violence is due primarily to the classic European-Christian anti-Semitism. There are elements of that in the mix.
But the real problem is that Europeans, the European Union, the leadership, does not want to deal with the fact they have a new form of anti-Semitism, of hatred of Jews that has a direct link to their oil concerns and to their own foreign policy in the Middle East.
Do I feel they have a moral obligation to be more sensitive to this issue because the holocaust took place in this area? Of course. But to say that it's the same phenomena would be a mistake.
KEYES: Christopher Hitchens, as we look at this phenomenon, I — one has to think about its political implications in terms both of how it might influence policy, but also of how the position of Europe right now, in terms of the Middle East, in terms of oil, in terms of the demographics, may paralyze it in an ability to address the reemergence of these ugly sentiments in a new form.
Do you think that that is, in fact, going to be true? Is this complex situation going to create a kind of paralysis in understanding and dealing with this phenomena?
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, “VANITY FAIR”: Well, if I may just reel back to the question you opened with because it's a necessary preface, as we all seem to agree, the principal culprits in this outbreak of disgusting vandalism are young, uneducated, resentful Arab youths who are taking the most nasty way they cay find to express anti-Israelism, anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism.
But the classical fascist parties in Europe — just let me clarify this for anyone who might be curious — people like Mr. LePen in France or Mr. Haider in Austria, the old reich, the old Nazi times, Vichy types, would, of course, deport those Arabs if they could and, indeed, demand that this be done.
So I think you can see right there that there's an enormous difference between the two phenomena.
And I think it would also show or help to show that the insinuation made — I hope it was only a slip — by the rabbi just now is absolutely disgraceful. I mean, of course it is not true that someone like Tony Blair tells his police, “Let them burn the synagogues so we can get Arab oil.” No such calculation does exist and could exist or would make any sense. It's a hateful thing to say, and I hope that, before we're through, it will be retracted or amended.
KEYES: Well, I will give the rabbi a chance to respond, but, before we go on, I do want, Christopher, to look, though, at the policy implications of this because we're engaging in talks with the Europeans, they appear to be embarking on a road that would maybe have them more involved in some peace efforts in the Middle East.
Looking at their actual situation, is it possible, in fact, to trust that the Europeans could at this stage pursue policies that were, in effect, fair to Israel, given the pressures they're under?
HITCHENS: Well, look, if you want to know what the political class in much of Europe and the European Union thinks — and I would dare anybody to accuse any of these people of harboring or expressing or protecting any anti-Jewish prejudice — you find the following situation.
Since the Oslo accords, European money, to the sum of many millions, went to build infrastructure in the proposed Palestinian state, a port in Gaza, for example, many buildings of an administrative kind, what we would simply call the bureaucratic infrastructure of the Palestinian state.
These — all this European investment has been blown up by General Sharon. Of course, there are people who are very angry about that, but not one of them would think of going to harm a synagogue or a Jew, and it's quite wrong — entirely wrong to confuse the appalling sufferings of the Palestinians, the attempt by Europe to be a better broker than the United States because it does believe in a two-state solution, with any outbreak of fascist either from Islamic thugs or from the old reich, the old enemy, the old ghosts of European Nazism.
COOPER: Alan, let me make two points.
Number one, Archbishop of Canterbury and other prominent people in England have spoken out publicly and have actually also tried to work to bring some dialogue between the different communities. The main focus of our concerns, despite the incidents in the United Kingdom and the attack on the London synagogue yesterday, are really in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Denmark.
Now I sat with the minister of interior, Mr. Vaillant, for an hour and a half in his office a few weeks ago, and he was prepared — he had his prepared speech attacking LePen, expressing his concerns about the general hate on the Internet, but, when we wanted to focus on the facts on the ground, it was very that the elite in France, the ruling class starting from the top, had made a decision...
KEYES: Well...
COOPER: ... that they did not want to identify this as anti-Jewish or anti-Semitism attacks.
KEYES: We will — we are going to return with more from our guests in just a minute.
And later, I'll share with you my outrage of the day, obviously raised by the fact that the notorious child abuser up in Boston has been arrested.
But, first, does this make sense?
Apparently, vanity got the better of a man in Covington, Kentucky. His personalized license plate — it said, “Shegog.” It was his last name.
Well, he decides to go out and commit crime, right? He robbed the — a gas station driving the vehicle that had this license plate on it. Now license plates are easy enough to trace anyway, but, when a witness told the police that the getaway was a dark vehicle with the name Shegog on it, well, they had a lot of trouble tracking him down, I bet.
Did that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: We're talking about European anti-Semitism with Rabbi Abraham Cooper and Christopher Hitchens of “Vanity Fair.”
Christopher, if I may start with you, if we look at these incidents that have occurred in Europe, we know that there are Islamic schools, extremist religious figures funded with Saudi money and other money who have been inculcating a deep hatred of the Jewish people, of Israel.
It's not as if these incidents are just impulsive actions. They come from a deeply rooted culture of hate that is being carefully constructed and perpetuated in different parts of the world. Can you deal with the incidents if you're not willing to address the issue of that culture of hate?
HITCHENS: No, indeed, you cannot. I mean, for example, it's become very clear from watching the demonstrations of young Arab hooligans in Paris that one of the things they most object the decision taken by the French republic, a matter of two or three years ago now, to forbid the wearing of religious garb in school.
That's one of their grievances. It's one of the things they got started on. They want to Islamize their slums and their surroundings as much as they can, and they do, indeed, have help, by the way, from our gallant ally, Saudi Arabia, in building these madrasses and preaching this kind of thing.
That's also, by the way, what distinguishes it from the classical anti-Semitic form and what makes my earlier point very important, if I just may say this. The French republic — the revolutionary France at its founding made two great decisions in the 1790s: to abolish slavery in the French empire and to be the first European country to lift all civil and legal disabilities against the Jewish people.
It was also later on the site of the Dreyfus case where a country split in favor of justice for one Jew, against the church, against public opinion, against the army. The whole prestige of the Republic of France is involved in the protection of its Jewish people.
It is outrageous to suggest that, for anything so cheap as what's been suggested by the rabbi, that they would sell that out, and there's no reason to think that they are. The challenge is the same one...
COOPER: Christopher, with respect...
HITCHENS: ... that the whole world faces.
COOPER: With respect...
KEYES: Rabbi, go ahead.
COOPER: With respect, Christopher — and I do respect your views — unfortunately, right now, insofar as France is concerned, the French government, until now, you're dead wrong, and they've been very explicit about the moves they have not made in order to deal with the root causes of this unique phenomenon, and, as a result, the French jury...
HITCHENS: What are the causes?
COOPER: ... does not feel — the root causes are the — is the anger whipped up by the al Qaeda-type imans of young, angry, underemployed Muslim and Arab youths.
KEYES: But, Rabbi...
(CROSSTALK)
HITCHENS: ... disagree on that point.
COOPER: And I might add one other thing if I can.
KEYES: I have a question, though.
COOPER: With respect, if I can, I think it's important for all...
KEYES: Let me — wait a minute. Let me put this question — Rabbi, let me put this question on the table. It's very important because, in addition to what you're talking about, though, we have European policies that refuse to be outright in their approach to terrorism among the Palestinians where the inculcation of this kind of hatred is directly connected with the policies that are being pursued. Doesn't that stance of European governments actually seem to justify the culture of hatred that...
HITCHENS: Is that for me or for you?
KEYES: ... are there. That's for Rabbi Cooper.
COOPER: That point...
HITCHENS: That's a pity. It should be for me.
COOPER: That point that we have been trying to make to the European governments, to the council of Europe, is “Don't hold your native Jewish population hostage to the Middle East developments or to your policies. You have a responsibility, as Christopher just explained, a historic one that you should be proud of, of protecting minority rights and western Europe's largest Jewish community which has thrived until now since World War II.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: I would just make one other comment.
KEYES: We're at the end of our time. We're at the end of our time. We have to go. We have to go. We're at the end of our time. I'm very sorry. We're, obviously, just at the beginning of what's going to be an ongoing discussion because of the role that the Europeans are playing in the Middle East discussions among other things.
Thank you both for coming.
Next, my outrage of the day. Father Shanley arrested finally for his travesties. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Reverend Shanley, the Roman Catholic priest who was accused of numerous acts of child molestation, was arrested today.
Officials allege that Shanley raped the victim of the particular case for which he was arrested, between 1983 and 1990 in the confessional, in the bathroom, in CCD classes. It was a regular and terrible event.
I think what is clear about this is that these kinds of things and the details that come out which shock and outrage the conscious are going to do deep damage to the Catholic church, not just to the Archdiocese of Boston, as long as Bernard Law remains in place.
That's my sense of it.
Thanks. “THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS” is up next. See you Monday.