Alan Keyes
May 13, 2002

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

Up front tonight, the struggle within Ariel Sharon's own government. You probably heard that yesterday the right wing Likud Party voted never to accept a Palestinian state.

The vote occurred at a heated convention in Tel Aviv Sunday. And it marked a victory for former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the incumbent Sharon in a looming battle for the party's leadership.

But Sharon said that he, not the party, would set peacemaking policy. Netanyahu commented after the meeting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, FORMER ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: We want peace. We want peace with the Palestinians when they abandon terror. They want to govern themselves. None of us want to govern a single Palestinian. But we want to make sure that the Palestinian self-government does not have certain sovereign powers that could threaten the Jewish state.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEYES: Obviously, this is a decision that has been greeted with great controversy in various quarters. The administration of President Bush continues to be committed to the two-state solution, we've been told. Arabs have reacted in some sense with condemnation, in another sense with a certain kind of, I think, suppressed I-told-you-so satisfaction, arguing that this shows the true intentions of Israel in dominating and holding onto the territories in the West Bank and Gaza.

Obviously, it's an issue that continues to be controversial. I myself will be talking about it with folks here in the course of the program.

But it does have this advantage, I think, that some folks aren't thinking about it for Ariel Sharon. We've been in a situation where Yasser Arafat can be set up as kind of the moderate, as opposed to Hamas and other people who are out bloodletting directly and shamelessly. Now, Mr. Sharon, who had been presented as the extremist has suddenly been put in a position of being the moderate, fighting to hold onto a position that will actually consider the possibility of a Palestinian state against the so-called extremists led by Bibi Netanyahu, in one sense, I've got tell you, not necessarily a situation that makes Israel's negotiating position weaker. I think it may make it stronger since it reminds folks that a consideration of Palestinian state has been in fact a major concession by Ariel Sharon who had during his political career taken the position the Likud just voted to take.

People have forgotten this. Just as often happens in negotiations, people take what you offer them, eat it and then act like they didn't get anything. Well, Sharon had been in the position as being treated as someone who wasn't making any concessions — tough hardliner, never gives an inch. Now we're reminded that, in point of fact, the position he has adopted has been a position of accommodation, and that there are others within his own party who would like to take a tougher position. That's not always a bad thing when one is approaching the negotiating table, to remind people they could be dealing with somebody tougher.

We're going to be talking about this in the course of the program. Up front, we have joining us Ron Dermer, a consultant for former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He is also a political analyst for the “Jerusalem Post.” Also with us, Rabbi Marvin Heir, a dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish rights organization.

Let me start, Ron, with you, if I can. Why do you think this vote and this issue has come to a head right now in the context in which Israel finds itself?

RON DERMER, POLITICAL ANALYST, “JERUSALEM POST”: Well, this was a vote that was going to be decided on many months ago. It was placed on the ballot. So, the timing is really irrelevant.

I think what is important to understand is this is not a personal battle between Prime Minister Sharon and former Prime Minister Netanyahu, even though that's the way it's perceived abroad. This is really a clear message that was being sent by the Likud Party, which is the governing party of the state of Israel and by all polls will be the governing party for many years, to come to say to the world that we simply will not allow a Palestinian state to be imposed on us.

We will not allow a Palestinian state to be created when the world is going around destroying terrorist regimes. The last thing we want to do is create a terrorist regime right in the heart of Israel. And the Likud said a very clear no to the world community.

KEYES: Why do you think — now, this was a position, as I understand it, that had reflected the views of Prime Minister Sharon. He is taking a position that seems more accommodating than the vote that was taken by his party. Why do you think he has moved on the issue?

DERMER: Well, I don't know if it's a question of Sharon moving on the issue. I think there's a lot of obfuscation on this question. Again, as former Prime Minister Netanyahu stated earlier in your program, I heard that, he said this is not a question of denying the Palestinians self-government. No one wants to rule a single Palestinian, not Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is the supposed extremist, and not Prime Minister Sharon, who is supposed to be the moderate.

What it's a question of is the powers that are vested in a state. And the state has a certain meaning. It means that you control your borders. It means that you control water. It means that you control airspace. It means that you can make foreign treaties with other states.

These are very, very dangerous things for the future of Israel. We cannot have a situation, for instance, where the Palestinian cans import weapons at their will. We cannot have a situation where the Palestinians can make a foreign treaty with the likes of Iraq. We cannot have a situation where the Palestinians are controlling Israel's water supply.

And we certainly can't have a situation — and you know, and I've seen your program before, you know about the size of Israel — this is about the size of New Jersey. At its shortest point, it's about nine miles wide. We can't have a situation where an Israeli plane coming in moves a half a mile in the wrong direction and the Palestinians, according to international law, can strike at it and shoot it down. We can't have that situation. I think that's all former Prime Minister Netanyahu wanted to say.

And I think that message is a message that the Likud agrees with. And I think at the end of the day the people of Israel agree with it.

KEYES: Rabbi Heir, in looking at this issue, obviously, we're going to get adverse reaction from the Arabs and the Palestinians and others, some of it a little bit of I-told-you-so. But I think there is a real concern among folks who are friends and supporters of Israel about the idea of future in which the Jewish majority in the state of Israel is compromised, and in which therefore one starts to have a propaganda campaign, characterizing Israel as some kind of minority government, a la South Africa, and moving against the legitimacy of Israel in that way. Can that kind of a future be avoided if Israel tries to hold onto the West Bank and Gaza?

MARVIN HEIR, RABBI, SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER: Well, first let me say that I have no problems with telling the world what Yasser Arafat really is, a supporter of terrorism, somebody that's done nothing. He's, if anything, encouraged terrorism. He knows the leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad. He could have arrested them. He could have closed their offices. He never wanted to do that.

But whether or not the state of Israel, which has one friend in the world, the United States of America and President George Bush, who has been steadfast in the support of the state Israel, ought to for domestic politics at a convention of the Likud Party make a statement that complicates the lone friend that Israel has in the world. If I were there, I would not have voted for that resolution because I don't think it's very smart to do that to President Bush and to the United States at this time.

Having said that, I will say that Bibi Netanyahu, who I've known far long time, undoubtedly, I believe, he's going to be the future prime minister of the state of Israel. I think that's unquestionable. But this was a — despite what anyone may say, this was domestic politics. American presidential candidates, as soon as they go out on the campaign, the first issue, the American embassy will be immediately as soon as I take office transmitted to Jerusalem. It's never happened. It's simply a domestic speech.

But we've given the Arabs a victory because they can turn around and say, “You see, Israel, what Barak offered, the Likud is saying basically there will never be a two-state solution even though Sharon has said he's willing to accept a Palestinian state.”

And let me add one point. I agree with the previous speaker here, who said that there is one thing that I think that this vote achieved. And you pointed this out in the beginning of the program, Alan. And that is, King Abdullah, the Saudi crown prince, they go on all American television shows. And the first thing say they is there's an Arab street that we have to pay attention to. Therefore, Israel has to do all the compromising. Israel has to go back to the pre-'67 borders because we have an Arab street.

Well, the only good I can see of the Likud vote is the Likud is saying to the world, “Israel has a street, too. And if you think Israel is going to be the only person making the compromising, there will never be peace in the Middle East,” if that's the way the Arabs approach it.

KEYES: Now, let me ask you a question, actually addressed to both of you. But let me start with Ron, if I can, because at one level, I see this as kind of a lose-lose situation for Israel. On the one hand, people asking the state of Israel to accept the possibility of a Palestinian state in the hands of what appears to me quite frankly to be a bunch of terrorist thugs who will build up their position to launch attacks on the very existence of Israel. That seems to me to be an unacceptable security situation. And frankly, given the present leadership on the Palestinian side, I don't see how one avoids it.

On the other hand, though, if one says in perpetuity we will annex or hold onto this state that has so many Palestinians in it, thereby compromising the Jewish majority in the territory controlled by Israel, if you put all these things together, that is also a danger. So it seems to me — we seem to have lost Ron coming from Israel.

I'll go to Rabbi Marvin Heir. It seems to me, Rabbi Heir, that that's lose-lose situation. How does one get past what appears to be the down side of both these positions?

HEIR: Well, I think the Likud could have said, for example, without saying the terrible words, which is “never say never.” The Likud could have said, “Look, for the foreseeable future, we don't see a Palestinian state under the current leadership. We don't see a Palestinian state unless they're prepared to close up Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and tell them you have two choices. Either leave the Palestinian territories or follow our leadership and renounce all violence if new leadership is found.”

That's what the Likud could have said. And I don't think they had to complicate President Bush's job. He's been the principal defender of Israel, by saying the words which is, “Never will we entertain this notion.”

KEYES: Rabbi, I'm afraid some of us who have watched the Bush administration policy would want to take issue with whether or not this administration has been the principal defender of Israel. I'll be quite frank about it. I think the ambiguities and confusion that have been sewn in this administration's policy have, in fact, led to some things that will perpetuate terrible difficulties for the region if they're not soon cleared up, including the legitimatization of Yasser Arafat, who is unhappily terrorist.

But let me get to Ron Dermer. We've brought him back in from Jerusalem.

I want to put the same question to you. If you heard what I had to say, I think there's a down side to both sides of this. If Israel holds onto the West Bank and Gaza, the Jewish majority is compromised. And that leads to very serious problems maintaining Israel's legitimacy in the future.

If you give it up to a Palestinian state in the hands of terroristic thugs, that's a fundamental threat to the very existence of Israel. Both of these positions seem to me to have significant downsides. How do you get past these negatives?

DERMER: Well, I think that it's — frankly, it's a mistaken way of looking at this situation. The former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not say he wants to hold onto the territories. That's not what he said.

He said that he was against a Palestinian state. Again, we have to be clear what that means. A state has certain powers attached to it. Puerto Rico, for instance, is not an independent country. It is a commonwealth of the United States. It's been that way for 50 years. And I think in votes for independence, it usually gets around five percent. No one is really going to make the argument that the Puerto Ricans do not have the right of self-determination.

What Mr. Netanyahu was very concerned about is that this rush to a Palestinian state, the train has left the station a long time ago, that we won't be able to control it, and the only way we can reach a genuine and lasting peace, a peace that will also be secure for the state of Israel, is to give the Palestinians self-government, but at the same time, to prevent them from having one power. And that is the power to destroy the state of Israel.

That he's not willing to give anytime, ever. So he's not going to do it under any circumstance with Yasser Arafat, after Yasser Arafat. It won't make a difference. They cannot have the power to destroy the Jewish state.

KEYES: That sounds to me, if I may say so, Ron, a little bit like way back when, when Israel was originally founded and declared its independence. The Arabs had a position in which they said, “We'll accept some kind of Jewish homeland, but in the context of an Arab federation in which the Jewish people would have autonomy...”

DERMER: But, Alan...

KEYES: ... let me finish — “a limited autonomy.” Is that what you're conceiving of in terms of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza?

DERMER: There's a big difference between the two. There are 22 Arab states. There's one Jewish state. And the Jews need full...

KEYES: No, no, no. Let me be clear.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: I'm not making an argument for that. All I'm saying is...

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: No, no, you're not getting the point. At the time, they thought that that would be a fair arrangement for Jewish people to live in an autonomous region...

DERMER: It's not fair...

KEYES: ... within an Arab confederation, that at the time it would have been Transjordan, the West Bank, what is Israel today proper, and Gaza. They thought that was fair. What I'm suggesting is that that historical precedent would actually mean that the Arabs don't see it as an unfair situation to have an autonomous area within a state that is comprised of a different majority. At least they didn't see it as unfair then.

DERMER: I understand what you're saying. But I would say again that because there's one Jewish state, that Jewish state needs full sovereignty.

KEYES: No, no, no. Ron, you're not getting it.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: I'm not arguing for their proposal. I am arguing that this...

DERMER: I understand. I understand that.

KEYES: ... the historical precedent was on their part a preference for this arrangement if it was Jews who would be in the minority. They thought that was fair. Well, if it was fair when Jews were going to be in the minority, why is it simply unfair if Palestinians, Arabs, are going to be in the minority? That's all I'm suggesting.

DERMER: That's right. I understand your point. But — right, I understand the point. And I understand the logic of the argument. But I think the stronger logic is that there is one Jewish state, and that Jewish state needs full sovereignty.

A different situation where the Palestinians have a right to self-government but do not have tanks, do not have an Army, doesn't seem to me to take away at all from the Palestinians' right of self-determination. To leave the Jews without an army, you can imagine what type of situation Israel would be in. And that we can never allow to happen. So, therefore, we cannot give this Palestinian future entity, that we hope will be an entity that will live in peace with Israel, and that's the only place that we can move towards full self-government. We hope that this self-government does not threaten the future of Israel.

KEYES: Ron, Ron, we have to — thank you for coming and being with us today. Ron, Rabbi Heir, appreciate you getting together with us to help elucidate this event, which actually I think has gotten a little less attention here in America than I would have thought.

Up next, we'll continue this conversation with a former U.S. ambassador in the region and a member of the Arab-American community. You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: The warnings were all over the morning papers, a possible attack on Independence Day, malls and markets at risk, nukes possibly smuggled on ships. This raises the question, can it happen here in America? Even more importantly, can we stop the attacks? We'll debate that in our next half hour.

Also, a reminder that the chat room is hot tonight. CEO says: “When Israel is gone, the whole world is next.” You can join right in with your opinion at chat.msnbc.com.

But now let's get back to our discussion on the Middle East in the face of a vote within the Likud Party. Now, this is the governing party that Ariel Sharon, the prime minister of Israel, comes from, that took a position over the weekend that is actually contrary, to a degree, to the stance the prime minister himself has taken, vis-a-vis the ultimate result of negotiations with the Palestinians, an openness to a Palestinian state on the part of Prime Minister Sharon, more in line with the kind of things that President Bush and his administration have expressed, a rejection of that idea by the Likud Party majority, basically saying no to a Palestinian state, never going to get there, never going to entertain that result.

Now, that resolution was sponsored by Bibi Netanyahu, who many see as a competitor for Ariel Sharon's position and a possible prime minister again for the state of Israel. Well, joining us to get to the heart of this matter, Mark Ginsberg, former U.S. ambassador to Morocco, and Jean Abinader, executive director of the Arab American Institute. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.

JEAN ABINADER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ARAB AMERICAN INSTITUTE: Thank you, Alan.

MARK GINSBERG, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO MOROCCO: Alan.

KEYES: Now, Jean, I could almost, I think, say I'm sure what you're going to say here. But I wouldn't have you on if I just thought it was better to give the argument myself, so I have to ask you. What do you think, Jean, of this decision? Do you think that it has a positive or negative effect on the process?

ABINADER: I think that it creates a straw man, actually, if you follow Netanyahu's arguments. But it really is, as Rabbi Heir said, an internal discussion in the Likud Party.

The real issue is, is it going to become something that becomes a question of what's the coalition government going to do with it? I think if it came out of the Likud Party into the coalition government, it would be a real problem for the government of Israel.

But Prime Minister Sharon is right. He's the one responsible at this point in time for negotiating with the Palestinians and the relationship with the United States. And so I see it really as Netanyahu trying to do to Sharon what Sharon did to Barak. And that is create a situation in which he can take the high ground and push for new elections so that he can become the next prime minister.

KEYES: Now, do you think that this plays into the hands of those in the Arab world who have argued all along that there's really not an openness to the end result that respects the Palestinian right of self-government?

ABINADER: I think people know that Benjamin Netanyahu is a political opportunist. He showed it when he was prime minister. He did some good things because he felt the wind was blowing the right way and he should do it, like the Wye Accords, for example.

But I think that you're always going to have Arabs who look for bad news coming out of Israel. What we really need to focus on is, how do we reinforce the president's position that the Palestinian state is the end game? What are the reforms necessary in the Palestinian leadership so that they can become a partner in negotiations that are meaningful and lead us to peace and stability in the region?

KEYES: Now, Mark Ginsberg, I have a question that I guess is a little bit about the negotiating process here, because there's an assumption, I think, as you just watched the situation that somehow or another this may have weakened Sharon or was an attack on Sharon. Just between you and me as folks who have been involved in diplomacy, is it always a bad thing to have a bad cop standing to your right when you are trying to negotiate a situation like this? Isn't it, in fact, the case that to a degree it helps Ariel Sharon to be put in a position where he actually now is carrying what appears to be a more moderate banner?

GINSBERG: You know, Alan, I never thought that I'd see that the day that Benjamin Netanyahu would accomplish the objective of making Sharon appear to be a moderate. And what you have here is Bibi essentially declaring every day a doomsday when it comes to the Palestinians and the Arab world. And he's essentially turning the tables on Prime Minister Sharon.

It was Sharon who was out of power when Benjamin Netanyahu was prime minister and pulled the same tactics on him, tried to undercut his negotiation posture. And may I remind you that the more that Benjamin Netanyahu is in the United States campaigning for prime minister and inciting American Jewish opinion against the Palestinian state, it was he who ran in 1996 as prime minister and said that he would support the Oslo accords.

So, this is really a game of internal political upheaval that is going on within the Likud Party, because I frankly think that Mr. Netanyahu is increasingly concerned that Mr. Sharon had regained a significant amount of popularity among the Israeli public opinion in recent weeks, particularly because of his stance against Mr. Arafat and terrorism. And, frankly, I think Bibi saw that as a danger to his own desire to reclaim the prime ministership. So, this vote was really a way of reasserting his control over the Likud Central Committee, nothing more, nothing less.

KEYES: I see that analysis, but I guess my question was slightly different because I'm looking at it from the point of view of Sharon's position, vis-a-vis the negotiations, vis-a-vis the administration in Washington. At one level, he's been in a position up until now where folks could characterize him as some kind of extremist, as obstinate, as somebody who didn't make concessions, as a hardliner who just wanted to make war and all of this kind of thing. The truth is that this vote highlights the fact that the position he has taken is actually different than the hard-line position that his party has taken and that he himself took in the past.

One, it reminds us that his position is, in fact, a concession. And, two, it puts him in a position where he can point to somebody over his shoulder worse than he as a way of indicating that maybe you should back off and not put so much pressure on him. Doesn't that actually benefit him in the present situation?

GINSBERG: Well, Alan, I think your analysis has a great deal of merit to it because the fact remains that this does at least make Sharon appear to be more moderate. But, look, given his attitudes towards the creation of a Palestinian state and his desire not to not agree to the Bush administration's approach to try to get a process underway more expeditiously that would realize a Palestinian state, and is in favor of more interim steps, this still puts him on a collision course.

And I, frankly, do not necessarily believe that when you cut right through to the chase that Mr. Sharon and Mr. Netanyahu's positions are that dissimilar from each other, that while Mr. Sharon recognizes the necessity of appearing to go along with the diplomatic movement that's at stake here, he himself has great reservations about moving along the same timetable as Arab states and as this Bush administration. And I think it puts him on a collision course rather than later with the Bush administration. And it, frankly, puts Mr. Netanyahu, who praised this president as the best friend of Israel, on a collision course as well, should he become prime minister.

KEYES: Now, Jean Abinader, one of the things that I think is clear, even what Mark said and overall in this situation, is that both of these individuals actually represent a priority that will not, I think, be given up in terms of Israel's security and in terms of not doing anything that's going to be perceived as setting up a platform from which Israel can be harmed and destroyed. Do you think that's still going to be an imperative? And will it be taken seriously by the Arab side?

ABINADER: Well, I think the precedents are already there, Alan. If you look at both the Oslo accords and the actual agreements between the Palestinian Authority and Israel that are already in place, there are restrictions on what kind of armaments the Palestinians should have, who controls access at certain points, where the security deployments on both sides are going to be, the integration of security planning. So, I think that the seeds and the outlines are already there. I think the real issue is, can we codify this into an agreement both sides can live with?

KEYES: No, no, actually, I think, Jean, I have to disagree with bit because I think the real issue that the Israelis must confront is whether or not all that stuff on paper means anything when it was systematically violated in the period up until now by Yasser Arafat and others around him. What kind of mechanisms do you think could be put in place to offer more of an assurance that one isn't going to see a repeat of the effort to arm folks for a more aggressive role, which I think clearly is what was going on up until now?

ABINADER: I think, Alan, I think your point is well made. But I think the issue here is if there's a Palestinian state, which we have not seen movement on now for two years, if there's a Palestinian state, what kind of internal mechanism, what kind of democratic form, will that government take that will guarantee that they will hold up their end of the bargain, much as they will want the Israelis to hold up their end of the bargain?

So, the real issue here is how does the United States, because it's the only one I think capable of working with both sides and getting over the kind of ego-driven leadership that they have on the Palestinian and Israeli sides, now, the United States has to be very frank and say, “OK, here are the issues. Here's the issues with regard to water resources. Here's the issues with regard to security and militarism.” And these are issues that we are making very clear that we will not tolerate abuse by either side, and the international community will back that up.

It is not in the interest of either the Palestinians or Israelis to set up a process that's going to fail. We've seen, and the Palestinians now know firsthand, what it is to let that process fail.

GINSBERG: Yes.

ABINADER: And that, I think, is the lesson not of just the last six weeks, but the last two years. And that is if you didn't like Camp David, you didn't like Taba, where's the counteroffer? Now it's time for the Palestinian leadership to make really hard decisions...

KEYES: Jean...

ABINADER: ... and for the Israelis to make the same hard decisions and say, “Listen, we don't want to have...”

KEYES: ... Jean, Jean, we've come...

ABINADER: ... “one more Palestinian or Israeli life shed in this crisis.”

KEYES: ... we've come, unfortunately, to the end of our time.

I think even from the tenor of this discussion, though, it's interesting to me that the move taken by the Likud, reminding us as it does, I think, of the fact that there are — how can I put it? — more hard positions than have been taken up to now on the Israeli side may very well contribute to a more fruitful discussion. We'll just have to see. Thank you both.

Next, can the human bombs, the suicide bombers, can they happen here? And if they do, can we stop them? What do we do about them? We're going to talk about that next.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

Each morning, every member of my hardworking staff lists off the top headlines of the day from the daily newspapers. Today was particularly disturbing because many of the headlines had a similar theme. For example, today's “Washington Times” talks about Islamic terrorists planning a possible dirty bomb attack on a nuclear power plant this July 4. Now MSNBC has learned that senior U.S. officials are shooting down this report, saying that there's really no confirmation of any such attack possibility.

But there's another report in Time.com this week which MSNBC reported a while back that the FBI issued a discrete alert to local police to keep an eye on soft targets like malls and markets. From the “New York Post,” New York Senator Chuck Schumer is proposing legislation to thwart terrorists from smuggling nukes on ships and trucks. Reuters News Service is reporting the trucking industry has announced plans to enlist 3 million of its drivers in the war on terrorism, trained to spot suspicious activity that could indicate potential terrorist attack.

And the “Washington Post” reported today that terrorism experts are also warning of the possibility of suicide bombings, like the kind that we have seen reported from Israel, humans wearing belt bombs. But that sort of thing directed at our public places, our shopping malls, things like that, that it could indeed happen here.

Now, all of this brings to mind that even though we've been in kind of a lull, I think, since September 11. We went through the terrible grief. We've passed through some months, things have gotten a little back to normal. We are still in the midst of a period of tremendous danger. And I think when you take it all in all, both these reports, the kinds of things that we have heard from our public officials from the top down, indicate that we shouldn't be breathing a sigh of relief and thinking that, somehow or another, darkness has passed. Not at all.

It is not even a question of whether. It seems to be more a question of when we will see more terrorist attacks directed right here on our home soil against Americans. And it could take a variety of forms. People talk about the weapons of mass destruction, the less likely possibilities perhaps, but obviously the more devastating ones, all the way over to the kinds of things that were talked about today, where attacks would be targeted at our public places, using human bombs and suicide bombers. Not necessarily, by the way, always politically motivated because we have seen already in this mailbox thing that you can get the copycat people, the folks who are a little bit deranged here and there, doing various things to level these attacks against folks. And we could see that in the future.

Well, joining us now, we have former police chief John Timoney. He is currently the CEO of Bo Deedle & Associates security firm. Also with us, Joseph Farah, the editor and CEO of Worldnetdaily.com. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.

JOHN TIMONEY, FORMER POLICE CHIEF: Good evening, Alan.

JOSEPH FARAH, CEO, WORLDNETDAILY.COM: Nice to be with you.

KEYES: I wanted to have you on today to talk about the range of these threats and whether or not, one, we are in fact as a people prepared for the kind of attacks that might start to chill our activities in our shopping malls and in our public areas, that cast a pall of fear over things that we pretty well take for granted.

John Timoney, do you think that most Americans appreciate the possibility that this kind of thing could be directed against us as it is being direct against folks in other parts of the world?

TIMONEY: I think in the back of their mind they probably realize that. There's been probably an overfocus on airlines, on trucks, tunnels, bridges. The article in the “Washington Post” today that you referenced was a rather lengthy article talking about these belt bombers. And that's going to be a real problem if that hits these shores because the profile — there is no real profile of belt bombers.

They have traditionally or historically have been, you know, young men in their 20's, early 30's. Now we see teenage boys and girls as young as 10 and 12 willing to go get a bomb planted on them, detonate it in a public space. The other notion that comes out really focused of the article today was the notion of these suicide bombers, how really it's almost a perfect bomb. You can guide it. You can go around corners. You can go to locations where large groups are gathered. So you can go to a supermarket, for example. And if there are more people over at the grocery counter than there are at the meat counter, you can walk over to the grocery counter before setting it off. And so, these really are, in some respects, very sophisticated bombs even though their application is pretty crude.

KEYES: Well, you might say they have the most sophisticated guidance system that we have available right now. Given that fact, John, what are the range of possibilities for trying to deal with, prevent or limit the damage from these kinds of possible assaults?

TIMONEY: In a situation like this, almost none, as far as being proactive with the exception of getting real hard intelligence underground ahead of time, finding out who may be involved, where it's starting from. Whereas you pointed out earlier, it's not just foreign terrorists. We have our own homegrown knuckleheads and whack-jobs that are out to pull off something like this. So it really is a challenge for law enforcement at all levels, not just the feds, but also the locals.

And not, by the way, not just the big cities. I think this bomber, the mailbox bomber in the Midwest, was a bit of shock and an eye opener for folks just two weeks ago, that it isn't just New York and Washington, that it can — you know, in the Bible Belt, in the grain belt of America is also susceptible.

KEYES: Now, Joseph Farah, in terms of the perception of the threat, I would ask you, do you think most Americans have a sense that this could strike pretty close to home? Now what do you think would be the effect of that on the American people, on their own will, on their own sense of what needs to be done?

FARAH: Well, I don't think the American people have a concept for what might be coming, Alan, because their government hasn't told them and their government hasn't led them. The Bush administration and, particularly Tom Ridge with the Office of Homeland Security, has not developed a plan and has not sold that plan to the American people.

I think we have to begin to discuss what the definition of defense really is. We have come to believe in this country that defense means spending billions of dollars so that we can project military force around the world in Afghanistan and Kosovo and so forth. Defense is not supposed to mean that. Defense is defending. That is offense when you project military power, and we're very good at that. We have great capabilities.

What we don't have right now is the capability of defending the American people from the worst kinds of — worst-case scenarios we can imagine: nuclear, chemical, biological warfare. That is where I think the Bush administration and the Office of Homeland Security have really fallen down. We don't have a plan and they're not mobilizing the American people to prepare for what may be an inevitability.

KEYES: Now when you say mobilizing the people, though. In the event that we were to see some kind of campaign, could be a directed campaign by foreign-based terrorists, it could be something that springs up here that would involve some of these more insidious instruments like human bombings and so forth and so on, how would you mobilize people in the community to deal with something like that or to help deal with it?

FARAH: Well, you know, the federal government has very few responsibilities under the Constitution, but one of them is defense. And one of the things that this nation needs to be doing is to be building shelters again. You know, back in the '50's and '60's, we had shelters for what we thought might have been the inevitability of nuclear war at the time.

Well, you know, we're not so concerned about an all-out attack by ICBMs these days. But what if there is this kind of a dirty nuke situation in a major city? What happens? Are we just going to give up? Are we just going to evacuate the cities? There has to be another plan. And really, the only viable plan for all three of those scenarios is to have some kinds of shelters. They have them in China. They have them in Switzerland. They have them all over the world. The one place that doesn't have them is the United States. And that's something...

KEYES: John Timoney, do you think that an idea like that is worth exploring in response to some varieties of the terrorist threat we face?

TIMONEY: Yes. But before I get to that, I have got to come to the defense of Tom Ridge. You know, he's been in that job about seven months now. He's due to report to President Bush I believe in the summer. He's been working on this report now.

It's unrealistic to expect a huge turnaround in this area, given the fact that there are about 65 separate federal law enforcement agencies reporting to five cabinet members, that Ridge is somehow miraculously supposed to pull together and come up with an overall defense plan. He is preparing a report which will be submitted to the president over the summer. And I'd rather wait and see what that looks like.

So far, we've been able to avoid anything of, you know, God forbid, September 11 so far. But as far as the bunkers, I mean, I don't think any bunkers — they may help you out in some kind of a nuclear attack. But what we're seeing in Palestine and in Israel right now, the suicide bombers, all the bunkers in the world won't help you there. Somehow, you've got to go for something better.

KEYES: Hold that thought for a second.

We're going to be back with more with our guests on the Issue of how prepared we are, in fact, to deal with the kind of threats that may come against us here at home.

And later, my “Outrage of the Day,” about a mother who just wanted to take a look at what was going on in her daughter's school and got hauled away.

But first, does this make sense? We have seen over in Israel as a result of the business in the Church of the Nativity some reports about the activities of these folks who got sent into exile and got placed in Gaza. The “Washington Times” reported that the 13 who were sent to Cyprus, as well as 26 others sent to the Gaza Strip, they had actually initiated in Bethlehem a reign of terror in the city. Palestinians who live near the church described the group as a criminal gang that preyed especially on Palestinian Christians, demanding protection money from the main businesses which make and sell religious artifacts.

According to some of them, one of the group's leaders traveled around town with an M-16 rifle terrorizing the community. They even had executions without any benefit of trial or anything of people they thought were somehow collaborating with the Israelis. Now, Yasser Arafat, when they got released, he treated them like they were princes and kings and so forth and so on. Yet, he's the guy who's supposed to represent the government that's going to exist in some future Palestinian state or entity or authority.

Now these people are thugs terrorizing the community, and they're going to be the ones who represent the government that liberates the Palestinian people? Does this make sense really?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: We're talking about whether we can stop human bombs, the kind of suicide bombs that we've seen in other parts of the world and Israel, here in America, and what might be the effects if we saw a campaign involving such bombs in America.

Still with us, John Timoney, former police chief in Philadelphia; and Joseph Farah of Worldnetdaily.com.

I want to get to another issue that's been on my mind, because on the one hand, you have something like the World Trade Center or weapons of mass destruction, which in prospect obviously is very chilling. But I have often thought that it would actually be more chilling and have a more immediate effect psychologically on the great mass of the American people if a threat like this was overhanging things that they are involved with pretty much every day in their daily lives, like the shopping malls and other places we frequent, usually in attitudes of relative relaxation.

What do you think would be the reaction of the American people to the introduction of real insecurities in places like this where we've been used to a kind of almost perfect security as we go through our lives? Joseph Farah, what do you think?

FARAH: Well, it would be devastating, Alan. And let me tell you, you won't see suicide bombers in this country. And the reason for that is a suicide bomber is a terrorist technique that was developed specifically for Israel. The terrorists years ago...

KEYES: Joseph, I have to stop you right there because that can't be a true statement and we know it. First of all, we have already been hit by suicide bombers. The suicide bombers that put — the bombers who took down the World Trade Center were suicide bombers. They died in the course of delivering the explosive power of their guided missiles.

We also know that our troops faced suicide bombers in Vietnam, for instance, and that we saw suicide bombings of that kind and variety practiced against the French and other people in the course of their activities. I think it's wrong to suggest that this was invented for Israel. We've seen it in other parts of the world before.

FARAH: Can I finish my thought, Alan?

KEYES: Yes, sure.

FARAH: What I'm talking about is the people who strap on bombs and blow themselves up in a shopping mall or in a discotheque. The reason we won't see that in this country — the reason they employed this technique in Israel is the terrorists used to go in and shoot their way into the cafes. But what they found was that there were so many armed Israelis that they didn't last very long. The terrorists couldn't even get a clip off before they were shot down by civilians.

They won't have that problem in this country. In many of our major cities, it's against the law for civilians to carry and possess a firearm. And so terrorists can do much more devastation with an automatic weapon in a crowded mall than he can with one bomb strapped around them. And that's why I say I don't think you'll see that technique employed in this country. I think you'll see old-fashioned shoot-'em-ups, if it comes to that.

KEYES: John Timoney, do you think that's a correct analysis or do we face the possibility of this kind of suicide attack?

TIMONEY: No, I think we face a real possibility. And it isn't just based op the last couple of days. The one thing I've noticed — I've watched the Mideast close over the last 10 years, as have you. But I've noticed a difference in the attitudes and the psyche of the Israelis. These suicide bombs finally have had an effect on those folks over there, making them feel vulnerable.

All you would need is one or two here. You know, you can always not fly on an airplane. You can always not do certain things. However, going into a mall, going shopping, going to a pizza store, those are just ordinary, everyday activities that people engage in. If you start to see a suicide bomber in a situation like that, that would be frightening.

KEYES: Thank you. And I actually think, Joseph and John, that that's one of the reasons they would do it, because it actually exploits the psychological vulnerability more effectively than gun attacks, where people think they have a defense. Against this, you have less of a sense that there's any way to defend yourself.

Gentlemen, thank you both for being with me today. Really appreciate it.

Next, my “Outrage of the Day.” A mother barred from an assembly at her daughter's school just because she wanted to find out what was going on. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: And now for my “Outrage of the Day.” A St. Louis, Missouri mom is suing the public high school that her daughter attends that blocked her from observing a school-sponsored assembly conducted by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Deborah Loveless (ph) had told school officials she considered the event inappropriate, but she was trying to see it for herself on October 24 when they took hold of her and escorted her out of the assembly.

Now tell me how is a responsible parent to know what's going on with their kids? Shouldn't they have the right to take a look and make sure that the education is appropriate to their values? To escort her out of the school was not only an insult to her responsibility, but to the needs of that child.

That's my sense of it. Thanks. “THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS” is up next. I'll see you tomorrow.